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 - 08/21/2001
■ City of K C 'Ity Councl" I Agenda KENT R WAS H I N GTO N , "` ,y Mayor Jim White " Councilmembers Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woodsj Tim Clark Rico Yingling August 21 , 2001 Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KEN TT August 21, 2001 WASHINGTON Council Chambers 7 :00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Leona Orr, President Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA a. A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF '' X B. FROM THE PUBLIC ruovi". 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ✓ None 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS v,"A. Capital Improvement Plan B. DeMarco Annexation Zoning, Second Hearing 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval v C. 2002 Community Development Block Grant Program - Accept ,/ D. Kiwanis Golden K Donation - Accept and Amend Service Club Ballfield Budget ✓ E. Interagency Committee Grants for Park Projects - Accept and Amend Budgets F. Election Information video - Resolution /600 G. Diversity Advisory Board Membership Amendment - Ordinance 3 510 v H. Commute Trip Reduction Contract - Authorize I . Second Supply Project Agreement - Authorize J. Latecomer Agreement, Lake Fenwick Estates - Authorize K. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan - Set Hearing Date L. Erin Glade Bill of Sale - Accept M. Green River Trail Easement to Puget Sound Energy - Accept and Amend Budget N. Emerald Ridge Division One Bill of Sale - Accept 0. Council Absences, Councilmembers Woods and Yingling - Approve f P. Pacific Gateway Monument Signage - Accept (continued next page) 4J SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Presentations from Interim Council Candidates B. Condemnation Ordinance No. 3394 Repeal - Ordinance 3511 8 . BIDS v/A. Ramstead Water and Sanitary Sewer Extension and Seven Oaks Pump Station Sanitary Sewer Connection ✓B. Wiesner Drainage Improvements 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 . EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Interim Council Candidates B. Property Acquisition 13 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at www.ci.kent.wa.us. 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 . {- ''i - n ��'r,� t5�at '�. � '�j.�, i I" ;' K'�_•frL�= Vd 7ye � k ' I 4 ' 0�13 ail t.a ih• ins 3°s}aY r �. alg known 'the s i, e ,,. >,I kr��,��^;� k', ����u• r }� fix, i; n �r I.. .AT CqUIC ��a i S � r ��s,�,rJJsk ,r_r ��, .�i � p .�_;�'� �'{+"t;,� 'i� - 1 4_ lk - •i' $) FRE3 ii "1'H Ft;� ti ; ;"; > f n 51 Till 41 it, WIN Aff All t {r � ;�" I Y i r :f �r � '� 'L, ,"��.�"f1 •m i'"�-;��,. ?te�,� ; skt'^A�`�j�rt�"r a' ` d' � , tin i s _ � it k�,' � j' " lark i. Cf� :, k' - ��'� th• I k'��f��; 'r' £ i�I e��;s`- r�,' y - � �'s WHO +T'$i�l - ii 9'u,Y '� . r } �^ � " `' f 6 v9,: " ri4� k.l 'NR', fi�L k ,'d�,� a•' �}3.. i '��'� ;d ,f I+rj�r � t, '+�i :i � �� ��i' `fir !,„ FM' n,. »Y}�d� ��'� �`}� -i ��- � ? � '•�� -If "l C I p ost '%,i I � � �' .���,';,i •'� _ '"��_�!�:,�, 't r� � a""' �rr���g��.{3.�' °; t' � °`_" � ,r; 12 i {!a l i� .,i • � �r`i. r fit. 1 '� nln` '� '�', �r' �i; dk ��I 'S�,�x��a�'�''`•` � r I�, �� ,j „ �,�,� ��i _ �, '7 ! - a ,j�17;_ ,�� � '}'�'^ �,� ` ;; •J�r.� _.�, �I * �;��,"u:�hi r ,,t�,'r�" „ .I ti� r • , ,� f?' �,+�1�' '}w,qd .,�•` i,;�'�t i�S� �;1 f ��i� �,a'k'I�i '�hi�. pg .I .,,i�, 'ia �,r '.� r - +j,:.d a�, r?hn T 'ul' ?�"i�.S�'�'"� ,n�- L•, 4F�y� •bF ` �� •q y �7. ' t+IklJi. S '.F'i• F4 W ,� _• a S I r t•'.s , id' '�Y '"""� "q ? 1 , a # . '\,' - i, �jr r iyy � u m `f> ,�,�y � o' -� t��i,�M I1" •�' � , -� I �•i , ',' rc��� -� 'I � ;�`,y��,,a':!,�s.¢�"�+�,a� �°`,'��aq �� 'S ,'€r� ���� ,ar'' �aa �I � I i 1 ,r ' ,�'•��9s � � �� .�� ,.G P. �,"R4'9py1�� I 6r,�?��_ ;- {�' "r�F �' *p ' i ' , i "rig-� � I l 4 xd ,E�,"+�� L 'p {IjW�� i +�f+M1 v� f« � ' `•�+1 s +� J' � �• " IA, � ' t� .� .�q�€ "n a, 'i�klr a p,,�.�Y"t: •. i r "Is „ , �, I' f' ; rc �` �� I �y, �1;'� '�t' m' ,. ��rl� +#r,' �S-. a'�� ,�• � yyyd{ • 7,q' ? � � ` ' t�, " I � f I'i � ,�i ' 1 gJ t +�s l�'���'�I hsS� � � �� r � y�# F 1 to ^ I ' ,5:. - d� •=`g �^ �I, 'd.�, a•; 'u ,�,;,,.da ',e 'i �p ;3;'i? 2 ., ' tC `R n, il a �'{,•,� ` r' , 'sy j d [ ,'p ' E .� •'d 4� ?��' ?I •, f 4�, i �I ''^� i a�`� r, MMy� I 4t�. ,i '.s,�ie 1��hl •��Y� IitS i•�. "• � �? '�+` .$ �� � •� ilr"�; " ,�'t �,it"'I' r�l t,�l���'lp"�$ ,d ��� - � ��.. -_ _� ".i� i 14 � .K. �j, .. : �'* ;y r}` i p'• �4i Y' }5 C�'�y'.F p•F�-��«- � . _�.� ; ?I ;,I - rf I ,� �� :��� -jr R ,q `�f �I I, '*dn•.i s�� `t� ,F d�3�1 ,��{� � r 1 � , 34l ,i �!� � i li ,. :i �tpQ��Y I ;s I• ,��-6 i '� � r ,{? I�. :t I� � ,l�.r� II i�,i�; i��� -, _I , �'n� ?; - ,'j�.�'+'�� fm ' �'��,i •� - ,i�r� :s ,"J;i,5�q 61 '�^" rGU �o, �:,��,±-�,-- ? ?7 `�'•���+y• � �, ��� si to '� d x,i` i,��,�,fn�,�4,i, y r �y����' t ;� �'� , 'Kj= �1,. ii* t�E , 'sa�, m ' r i'�':i' �, •�� •a•alm� l`�I, +"• 1,•,:z, §';°-' { 1 4�1+ V, P, f � _ ij v :i i''' ` �t I .'{ I t ' J4[YI. �'�E ' k t •.� '�,�i�; � 2 s � u�� , F I i � SCI .� �� •�� 1 �' ',t,. 'rye, �` � ��-�`�� �,�i i. } Y',, ° , f., iS � ' I� { I �'�` m''J„ � , �y',_4!�.',��n�' I}' y�apY �""�+��•�o�, I - - , i a, e �,u �•, 4 d w � � c,;,y�G^, ,i - W, � ,�^ ��'a� � I�1� S+ p� ' : 'tip'" '�.�•i��;;°t � i„,' I-� .: 1 r at,is •t a�" ;,� C "i° � „i£ Y' •f i7 f ^t./it ,y,.,' � I 'Y, 1 ��r� _ " �% t Ir wf'$ ��}I��''rIF'I F�r i/N•F�' - _ t „p j}" , 1�. i�_ ti��'� i. }�{., _ , .,� ? hu,'� ?r„4 il��I fs" •s .'; r 1 �`' I! �;' �t,, is � " � ,, i.'�° � $ r �,,fu" i a i�;�\r ..•:I� f .{�'� y+•s I�';' ,9�i''rc': ,"' ' _ ;f, � j y7; t " •yn't �z H,IT �r-5 `t_ �� �',�,{ Sa • f�� 4 - ;- I '. ��. . ° g S i� fir`. •�i '��i�l � � „ :. 1" ".; T'��' � I:� t� � r !I:'i �1 . i f.{ ' jU�` of I � A, � •i= - p i g• ^4.+�I1 1-�.1 -ill;�"4"'� ,�'w 3° { i ":'� .Ili; .._ _ _ _ �i -E ..._. .;`• eak ..�' i - , .7�`.•tl':?�;k�; '*I� �€. _,f:Y 'l N• `�!1'3-ad� ,-_ _ °:a Ala, '�� - ' t,"�� P' 4i '���� � }�: � ,. "� �z fi� � ;'' '_�. ,•� �'�n,y���} �` ,5��`��� �' � ,i�e,� '�" �:�F!'�k� 7 t � s ,, A 1 IM e : i� 4,0 tail.•. ;' If 4 . �' .,�,e " ' 7.'y~ ![' `�" ' — i:,y• � ,P�, �#'.,,�; y0# T ,2002 2��',Yr ahio pi aq tv {s for fax- ' p nfi,s,�: 'I ?� 14,E ,• - � .t , I � - _ �s�e 4 1�one, .t '�. •i y 4,'- ' „ _.n' .I ��� �' - ��"'�i �,'� ,.tom } t �Staff ryJ4. ,',,` .F,"_, i �,� tit {`.�' rj N� R' f d 0� I "i " ,�, y �R"r �5��`r' •�a` �M ��ii� _y a �, S ef&i ^M�� a .Yr i ;� �C�+4as�r�+. -i }' 4n serC.dlp' to, e e''y�y� 1 . h } +' e , '' Cot c €' 4 ' �_ r I ' f` 8', '; tip► ( "' g a { -DISCUSS��� .ke; °$ r -G�is� :ta, �y' � }�-}$,�W�'LL��'✓�� ,` „ � �� � F,a�.,' ,,a,`� �;F.'�i F-1'� lf��`f. J#�i� :,{ , ' "�n..� p `(' .• b` TT1pY1±pp;;+ 'fi ;� ` �i.>_7 � �� ,� ';��� I �I 4 r5� � `'r „ 1�Q y ' 1 Aga 1{,� � _ J �f �� 'f ' I���z� �' ......n �.�r q�r ��r ! ..,"*���1 rt �•� - � a .f � �u � ''( 3�' o,. .x# ��, f F•I ,i �, � i ��, fad- �k�1�- k fi i• '�'.,`k���f�az"• ;t• " , ,� { p `e �. ,{.+ail 'A:, .r ,d � '�n', , _ `' ,#� „�„,y•, d � � tq!•-�r-� �-�r9�.F.:�._�7�' ;#:�4, _ ,�r ��� � , I f i ��u,d, ,� . .;N ' a ,i�� "b .r z .1'" '��'i��r,f I� `r ��• � ��^,��r�to-`�' �'{t-' .�. y '"', ?'•�'F i `t `I rl - ' ,,,Ri' r .a 2 At ,'�-1 -' I',jf�'..c7i'yiJ �, �rif i ,I ' �MF y '� ✓Pl + �r� r -ra e , ,�''*�" P �1 I' � .P' 4 I , - ';i't s ��f(•92 c P �F ' w ,� t inn o?T ' •�S}�fYM1� �ynwy '�R�Oi ry 17 9 r'06 t the K'MDs-atr•i�I,MRa�t'1 ^� �y, ' • '+ 'Y \M( ,{F i 'y � I� �Jy ,�I .Tp lnclu ed in, the 44 C'�l �®� �� ��,: + e�iria�, �.O 4 y,ppp t •` M is ^, t4+ �econ f t ? r ,,, coT und p q'�ant '. # ta1Nl,�;'°'�t e, e on V uly, 'i7! 20,01,• At gel And panni.r � epoxt d46 20101, }} '�G 0iI t on ' `id - i{a ? ct'J{�,r ra q s �h ; •''�, s { rr J iF' d 4, §. :�j yE,`1at� n ;le a,•'�,Fa}"N' _ ,j+.: .. �' �= ., IN nil x4� "•PP f, gQ �y,� �°y, ��• s d Ei, ��,'���-'1"�C'�is-'� „I � �+ T+°r ,i � �4 „ - dg ri` '1r',� �_ {. r • Im.'{.' it �{�,, ��':]i ', '�a�E' f•�k' ' i �, �ji,� ' I sti ran .! �f r �►`,';�•{��+ i' �' ��r' ' `k..,t�e, - 'I ' 4� •; 3 � aka�{ � ,1.F1'ri! �1�" IJ.F} r7. I�''', sea ,. to clime the public;', +,°�;, �'k ., • ! counc,*-L1 Alt i , �' X I�; tope " / �. t E', _ _Board?' ' ,i Z . t� a � ¢� , j 1 �n t0,, to y` ppa, inwnc! . , -r`�.-x�l ;`f,`�4 a� ��� s `,)o+' � �fj� � ,j '`'`�,•� r�r T,,e!����g � •�_„� r, � ��� i Lam,:, fit©'• 54 t LP _ � sk ,si_' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Community Dev. Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 August 14, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: HARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER RE: DEMARCO ANNEXATION#AZ-2001-1/#CPA-2001-1 (KIVA#2011034) INITIAL ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION DATE OF SECOND CITY COUNCIL HEARING: AUGUST 21, 2001 Attached is the Land Use & Planning Board's recommendation on initial zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment for the DeMarco Annexation area. The Land Use & Planning Board conducted a public hearing on these matters on May 21, 2001. At the May 21 st public hearing, the Board received public testimony and was asked to consider four alternatives for the annexation area. These alternatives are mapped and described in the staff report to the Board dated May 14, 2001. After considering the public testimony and staff report, the Board is recommending zoning and land use plan map Alternative One. By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The first hearing was held on July 17, 2001, and the second hearing is scheduled for August 21, 2001. By State law, the hearings must be held at least 30 days apart. Planning Services staff will be available at both hearings to further explain the recommended zoning and land use plan designations for the DeMarco Annexation area. CA\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\ANNEXATIONS\2001\2011034-2001-1cc3.DOC Attachments: Minutes of 5/21/01 Board meeting Staff report dated 5/14/01 Minutes of 7/17/01 Council meeting • • lot- EMU om c-- j' ♦ rmj+ fe• Ca CID SOME �t eta. ep^��® � � � - • . - �5i®7 =. glonaAin t�--- up f■ [vLo ra �. f"7Nr . �aca�P . .7t v C�c�GL�dv n�fi7Do D�a u 4 npo • • • �dN a ■i r Ulu Em ro C�— � �3 ® OEM � MIMIMa �� s Vs -90 IME a.glip I�1■ r _ �� LidC t 3 1 :-.✓� C 7 nt OQ s •��, ri .tom' .,Ivu ����, `gipC��D�a 19 p7��e�` �� apGQj. ,c■ ir Kent City Council Minutes July 17, 2001 ANNEXATION ZONING (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) DeMarco Annexation Zoning, First Hearing. On May 21, 2001, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on both the annexation zoning map amendments and the comprehensive plan amendments for the DeMarco Annexation area. This is the first of two public hearings to be held; the second is scheduled for August 21 . Acting Community Development Director Satterstrom dis- played a map of the area and noted that most of it is residential , with the exception of the corner of 116th and 240th which the Board recommended NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) , and the area east of that running down to 120th which was recommended MRT16 . He explained that MRT zoning only allows condominiums, and that 16 would be the maximum density. He noted receipt of letters from Dan and Kathy Withem and from Brad and Gina Martin on this issue. ORR MOVED to make those letters part of the record. Clark seconded and the motion carried. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Greg Nick, 11660 SE 234th, questioned whether the R6 zoning would be changed. Kevin Joyce, 11858 SE 236th Street, submitted a stack of letters and some photos, and said the home- owners within or adjacent to the DeMarco Annexation are adamantly opposed to the four proposed alternatives pertaining to zoning. He said their concerns are school overcrowding, traffic congestion, wetlands, and adverse affect to surrounding land values . He said the Lotto, Toppano and Teters properties seem to be given maximum financial benefit without regard to the adverse affect to the other properties and issues . He proposed that the East Hill Nursery zoning be maintained and that all other properties maintain SR6 or less zoning. Fred Mendoza, 555 West Smith St . , representing the owners of East Hill Nursery, explained that the owners had petitioned King County to change the zoning designation to a commercial designation to be consistent with its current use, which was accomplished in 2000 . He noted that the City has a close equivalent which is NCC and requested that the zoning be retained as commercial . He stated that placing neighborhood-oriented small businesses in this area would 4 Kent City Council Minutes July 17; 2001 ANNEXATION ZONING be beneficial to the neighborhood and would likely decrease traffic . Mendoza added that he will present a letter to the City Clerk' s Office before the next Council meeting. Julie DeMarco, 13004 SE 234th, stated that residents have seen commercial buildings in the area sit vacant for years and seen drivers speed through the neighborhood to avoid traffic. She said the decision of the Land Use and Planning Board does not reflect the feelings of the community and asked that the Council either give the area a single family density or give it the least density townhome designation. Jean Lambert, 12451 SE 235th Street, said their concerns about increased density, increased traffic and increased vandalism have not changed. She urged the Council to consider keeping owner-occupied townhomes, and keeping the density as low as possible . Bob Fuchs, 12125 SE 236th, voiced concern about traffic near the school and said speed bumps may be needed. He also said density would mean more children attending the school and that it is already saturated. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, said traffic on Military Road is so slow that people are using side roads to avoid it, which is dangerous for the residents . Diana Banksend, 12401 SE 235th, submitted traffic reports from King County regarding traffic volumes and speeds . Don Hulina, 12320 SE 235th, reiterated that residents want low density. There were no further comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Clark seconded and the motion carried. Satterstrom explained that the density which the Land Use and Planning Board is proposing is very similar to what the County zoning was, and pointed out that the major difference is that in the City single family houses must be detached and that the County allows units to be attached in a townhouse configuration. In regard to multifamily, Satterstrom said the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation is 16 units per acre density with condominiums only and the County' s was 18 units per acre density with no stipulation as to condominium or apartment . 5 Kent City Council Minutes July 17, 2001 ANNEXATION ZONING ORR MOVED to make all of the documents received a part of the public record. Clark seconded and the motion carried. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Hillside Manor Final Plat (FSU-96-26/KIVA #2010868) . APPROVAL of the Hillside Manor Final Plat with condi- tions and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This final application was submitted by Baima & Holmberg Inc. The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions on the preliminary plat on April 2 , 1997 . Based upon a Plat Alteration filed by the applicant, new Findings with conditions were issued by the Hearing Examiner on November 22, 2000 . AGRICULTURAL LAND MORATORIUM (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Agricultural Land Moratorium. The Land Use and Planning Board is reviewing land use policies related to agricul- tural lands with the zoning designations of Agricultural (Al) and Agricultural General (AG) . During this review period, it is possible that the City could receive applications for subdivisions or short plats or other similar applications, including rezones, which would significantly increase the 'number of lots and/or the density of the current agricultural lands, defeating the purpose of the agricultural land policies . Therefore, a moratorium is recommended for such land use applications on agricultural lands designated Agricultural (A-1) and Agricultural General (AG) until additional review and analysis has been completed by the Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council . Satterstrom predicted that the Land Use and Planning Board would have a proposal in about four months . Lubovich noted that if passed tonight, the moratorium goes into effect immediately and a hearing would have to be held within 60 days . He also explained which lots would be affected. BROTHERTON MOVED to pass Resolution No. 1599 which establishes a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for subdivisions or short plats or other 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting Community Dev: Director 4 PLANNING SERVICES ^0�' : Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager KEN T Phone:253-856-5454 w A S H I N G T O N Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING May 21, 2001 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair,Terry Zimmerman at 7:30 p.m. on Monday,May 21, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Terry Zimmerman, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Acting Comm Dev.Dir. Brad Bell Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Planning Mgr. Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst. City Attorney Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary David Malik LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair(Excused) Ron Harmon(Excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to approve the minutes of April 23, 2001. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA Acting staff role changes will be discussed. COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #AZ-2001-1 DEMARCO ANNEXATION Acting Planning Manager, Charlene Anderson stated that the DeMarco Annexation area is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of 116th and 240th. She stated that the annexation area consists of approximately 267 acres on .42 square miles with an estimated population of 770 people. Ms. Anderson stated that staff has reviewed the comprehensive plan and zoning designations by King County. She stated that King County recently rezoned an 8-acre parcel on the comer of 116th and 240th, from Multifamily (R18) to Neighborhood Business with a Commercial comp plan designation. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 2 .4 Ms. Anderson stated that some of the proposed zoning alternatives include adopting the current King County zoning designations. She stated that King County has a eider range of comp plan designations compared to the City of Kent's comp plan designations. Ms. Anderson cited that King County has designations ranging from 4 to 12+imits per acre and the City of Kent does not have those comp plan designations in that we go up to 8 units per acre or multifamily.. Ms. Anderson stated that her preliminary report of sensitive areas in the proposed DeMarco Annexation area include Upper Garrison Creek, Clark Lake outlet,North Meridian Valley Creek, as well as wetlands defined with the creek designations. Ms. Anderson stated that staff considered these sensitive areas when they defined zoning and comp plan options for this annexation area. Ms. Anderson defined the difference between zoning and comp plan designations in that the comp plan is a twenty-year vision of the community for what zoning or land use applications might be applied throughout Kent and our potential annexation area. She stated that the implementation of that vision is zoning. Ms. Anderson stated that if building were to occur at a particular site, the zoning is what governs the use on the property. Ms. Anderson cited the following proposed zoning alternatives by planning staff. Alternative One zoning proposal retains King County's commercial designation. Kent's closest commercial designation is Neighborhood Convenience Commercial with a Townhouse zoning (MRT-16) for the two parcels adjacent to that. Ms. Anderson stated that the remainder of the property is zoned single family residential. She stated that the single family designated property f is all detached single family residential in Kent whereas King County allows attached single family residential. Alternative Two zoning proposal changes the commercial designation at the Kent East Hill Nursery site to MRT-16 as shown in the City of Kent's 1994 comprehensive plan. Ms. Anderson stated that Kent's comprehensive plan land use map designation mimics King County's comp plan designation in effect at the time of the adoption of Kent's Comprehensive Plan in 1994. This alternative indicates Multifamily Townhome designations at the corner and either 4.5 or 6 units per acre single family for the remaining area. Alternative Three zoning proposal places multifamily townhomes next to commercial at the corner, with the entire remaining area designated six dwellings units per acre. Ms. Anderson stated that Neighborhood Services replicates the closest comprehensive plan land use designation to King County's at the corner, with Low-Density Multifamily where the MRT- 16 is proposed. She stated that Kent would apply a comp plan designation of single family, six units per acre for the remainder of the area. Alternative Four zoning proposal designates the three properties.at the northeastern corner of the SE 240th/116th Avenue intersection as MRT-16, with the remainder of the annexation area as Single Family Residential, six dwelling units per acre. I Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried. Tony Arnoni, 15861 132nd Place SE, Renton, WA 98058 stated that he supports staffs recommendation for Alternative One,which supports townhouse development. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 3 ichael Lotto, 11644 SE 240th St., Kent, WA stated that he owns four parcels within the' annexation area including 7.92 acres on the northeast corner of 116th and 240th, currently zoned commercial. Mr. Lotto stated that 2.9 acres located adjacent to the north, currently is zoned R-6, and he would like this property upzoned to R-16. Mr. Lotto further stated that he owns 8 acres east of the comer lot and 4.76 acres northeast of the corner lot. He stated that he has owned a commercial nursery in this area for 15 years. Mr. Lotto stated that he is negotiating with a buyer for the commercial portion of his property to develop a Neighborhood Commercial project. Mr. Lotto stated that he is negotiating with Gary Young of Polygon Homes on 15.5 acres of his property for a condominium project. Mr.Lotto urged the Board to consider Alternative One. Lena Teter, 23607 120th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that she owns 4.76 acres within the DeMarco Annexation area. She stated that her southern property line adjoins the Lotto property and her northern property line stops at the private road,which would be 236th if it were extended. Ms. Teter stated that her western property line coincides with the western property line of the proposed MRT-16 zoning of the Lotto property. She stated that the eastern line of her property fronts on 120th Avenue Southeast. Ms.Teter urged the Board to consider rezoning her property to MRT-12 as it would be a suitable transition between the MRT-16 zoning and•the zoning in the neighboring residential area. She stated that MRT-12 zoning would allow a developer to create a nicer project with more flexibility • working with wetlands, open space, greenbelts, ingress and egress especially for emergency vehicular access. Ms. Teter stated that she has made initial contact with a well-known builder and reputable developer in considering a townhome project for her property. Karen Ramus, 12322 SE 238th PL,Kent,WA 98031 stated that she owns a home on one acre. She voiced concern that existing neighborhoods need protection from traffic flow through the existing residential areas if condominium home sites are developed near existing residential areas. Gary Young, 11624 SE 5th, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 stated that he is employed as a builder with Polygon. Mr. Young spoke in favor of transitional zoning reiterating his concurrence with the testimonies of property owners Mr.Lotto and Mrs.Teter. Mr. Young stated that a stream runs diagonally through both Mr. Lotto and Mrs. Teters' properties. He stated that the ideal design for development of this land would be to combine the properties in order to provide adequate emergency vehicular access and efficient flow of traffic flow through the neighborhood. Mr. Young stated that Mr. Lotto is requesting retention of his commercial property use. He stated that it would be beneficial to include transitional zoning such as MRT-12, which would provide the flexibility to develop lower density condominium projects on the Lotto and Teter properties. Mr. Young stated that property constraints consist of sensitive areas,wetlands, slopes and grades. He stated that in zoning these properties MRT-12, it would allow flexibility for density Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 4 transitioning as well as provide an opportunity for a more efficiently designed, lower density townhome project. Mr. Young stated that MRT-12 zoning would provide acceptable buffering along the areas adjacent to existing single family residential areas and create acceptable separation between uses. Jean Lambert, 12451 SE 235th, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she lives in Meridian Villa located within the proposed annexation area. Ms.Anderson in response to Ms. Lambert, clarified that Alternative#4 proposes MRT-16 zoning. Ms. Lambert voiced concern with increasing vehicular traffic in the annexation area and the safety issues that accompany the increase in traffic flow. Ms. Lambert stated that the annexation area consists primarily of single family homes with the exception of the Single Creek townhomes. She encouraged staff to consider developing this land as single family residential in view of the fact that school facilities are at maximum capacity with current student populations. Ms. Lambert voiced support of Alternative#4 as she felt this option would minimize density and maximize a single-family residential environment. Mr. Dowell questioned if Ms. Lambert actually desired to see the corner property zoned R-16 as he felt this zoning would intensify not minimize density, stating that Commercial pre-exists on that corner and is best suited for that property. Ms. Lambert said that even thought R-16 is not her first choice it is a realistic zoning for development of that area. She stated that higher density development should be placed along the main thoroughfare of 240th and not within existing residential areas. Mr. Dowell debated the validity of Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) vetsmMRT 16 zoning at the corner section of the proposed annexation property. He stated that implementing MRT-16 zoning would create greater densities than NCC as only forty percent of NCC property can be developed. j Ms.Lambert stated that although she would prefer a lower density zoning in the area,the addition of commercial development would detract from the residential atmosphere of the area. She stated that adequate commercial business exists towards Benson Highway and 132nd Avenue. Rodney Bishop, 13717 SE 259th, Kent, WA stated that he supports Alternative #1. He stated that the existing Commercial zoning should be retained for the comer property. Mr. Bishop stated that this property sits on 240th, which serves as a main east/west viaduct for vehicular traffic. He stated that this location would provide good accessibility to commercial services for the residents in the surrounding area. Dan Eymann, 12520 SE 240th, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he pastors Eastridge Baptist Church. He questioned if the City of Kent's R-6 zoning was the same as King County's definition; and if this zoning would affect the expansion plans of the church. Mr. Eymann stated that the church is negotiating with the County through a conditional-use application process. Mr. Eymann stated that the County is negotiating a moratorium on church and private school facilities and questioned if they would be under the constraints of this moratorium if Kent annexes the property. Ms. Anderson stated that the moratorium applies to churches in rural zones only and would not apply to Eastridge Baptist Church, as it is located within the urban growth area. . II . 1 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 5 Ms. Anderson stated that although conditional uses require public hearings, •churches -are considered special permit uses in most of Kent's zoning areas; therefore, it does not require a public hearing. Ms. Anderson entered a letter from Mr. Charles Everhardy, 23400 126th Avenue SE, into the record as Exhibit#1 favoring annexation and requesting that the city consider buffering between zoning parcels and discourage spot zoning. Vicki Johnson, 18602 Marine View Dr SW, Seattle, WA 98166 spoke for her mother who resides at 11518 SE 240th west of Mr. Lotto's property. Ms. Johnson stated that her mother's property is zoned R-6 and yet the volume of traffic along the 240th Street intersection is heavy. She stated that property along 240th has eroded in terms of supporting residential development. Ms.Johnson concurred with Mr. Lotto and Mr.Bishop in supporting Alternative#1. Ms. Johnson concurred with Board member Dowell in that retaining commercial would decrease density on the corner property. Brad Bell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends Alternative#4. She stated that staff does not support expanding the MRT zone into Mrs. Teter's property. Ms. Anderson stated that predominately large single-family subdivision lots exist in the annexation area. Ms. Anderson stated that there are three vested subdivisions in King County within the annexation area consisting of approximately 91 lots, one subdivision of which is related to South 236th Street which could preclude extending South 236th over to 116th. Ms. Anderson stated that one reason staff does not support a commercial designation is that it places tremendous land use pressure on the SE 240th/116th Avenue intersection for additional commercial. She stated that for the City to accommodate the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, commercial designations must be limited. Mr.Malik questioned the feasibility of allowing commercial on the comer of SE 240th and 116th, stating that there are approximately 700 to 800 vehicular trips through that area daily. He stated that with a school in this area, safety would be an issue. Ms. Anderson stated that a preliminary estimate from the City's Transportation section of the Public Works Department indicates traffic impacts from commercial are approximately 7 to 10 times greater than multifamily during the p.m.peak hour. Mr. Dowell stated that Kent Nursery exists as a commercial business on 240th within existing commercial zoning. He stated that if the zoning were to change to MRT-16 as proposed by staff s Alternative#4 proposal,the City is, in effect,downzoning the property. Mr. Dowell stated that downzoning this property could create a problem for the owner if he were to attempt to obtain a bank loan for expansion of his commercial facility. He stated that bank institutions do not like to lend money for legal nonconforming uses on property. Mr. Dowell stated that commercial designations can only develop 40 % of the land and development of townhomes would create higher density in the area then commercial. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 6 Mr.Dowell recommended the following option defined as Alternative #S: • Neighborhood Convenience Commercial(NCC)zoning on the corner of 240th and I I6th, • MRT-16 to the east, and • MRT-12 to the north up to 236th with a buffer zone from 236th to 238th. Mr. Dowell stated that MRT-12-zoning would provide an acceptable buffer zone for the SR-6 zoning located north of the MRT-12 zoning area. Mr.Malik recommended an additional new option as Alternative #6. • MRT-12 zoning for the property along 236th(Mrs.Teter's property) • MRT-16 zoning for the property fronting 240th • Eliminate the commercial designation Mr. Bell voiced his support of Alternative #1 as it most closely ties King County's existing zoning designation with the City of Kent's zoning designations. Mr. Johnson voiced support of Mr. Dowell's recommendation of Alternative#5. He stated that it merits consideration due to: the lay of the land, current zoning, future of potential growth in that area, Growth Management Act requirements and protection of existing single family neighborhoods in the area. Ms. Zimmerman voiced support of Alternative #1 as she favors retaining the County's current zoning designations. Mr. Dowell asked for clarification on Alternative #1, as it was his understanding that the corner of 240th would remain zoned NCC with MRT-16 zoning for the remainder of the property. Ms. Zimmerman explained for the benefit of the Board and audience, that Kent landowners are given annual opportunity to request changes in comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning. She stated that the Board's decision is solely a recommendation and does not preclude any future development changes for the area. Mr. Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to recommend adoption of Alternative #5 as follows: • Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zoning on the corner of 240th and 116th with a comp plan designation of Neighborhood Services • MRT-16 zoning for the two parcels adjacent to the NCC zoned property with a comp plan designation of Low Density Multifamily. • MRT-12 zoning from 120th westward to 116th, via 236th with a buffer from 236th to 238th with a comp plan designation of Low Density Multifamily. Motion died with a 3 to 2 split vote In response to Mr. Dowell, Ms. Anderson stated that the Low-Density Multifamily comp plan designation is designed to accommodate multifamily zoning or townhouse zoning. She stated that this zoning allows for up to 16 dwelling units per acre; giving owners opportunity to request a zone change to Garden Density Multifamily (MRG) to accommodate apartments instead of townhouses. Ms. Anderson stated that rezone requests are heard before the Hearing Examiner and evaluated by the City Council,not the Land Use and Planning Board. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 21,2001 Page 7 Anderson questioned if she understood Mr. Malik's Alternative #6 proposal, in that the erty fronting 240th would be zoned MRT-16 zoning,with Mrs.Teter's property zoned MRT- and the remainder of the property retained as SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre. Mr.Bell stated that he now favors Alternative#5. Mr. Malik stated that he does not support Alternative #1, as he strongly opposes commercial development at the 240th St. intersection due to the traffic congestion generated. Jon Johnson MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to recommend adoption of Alternative#1 and send this on to City Council for their consideration as follows: • This alternative would establish a land use designation of Neighborhood Services and zoning of NCC,Neighborhood Convenience Commercial for the 8—acre site located at the northeast corner of SE 240th Street and 116th Avenue SE,and • Multifamily Residential Townhouse(MRT-16), 16 dwelling units per acre on the 8.8 acre and 4.76 acre parcels just east and northeast of this property, with a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily, and • The areas north and east given a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre and zoning designations of SR-6 and SR-4.5. Motion CARRIED with a 4 to 1 vote,David Malik opposed. itortunity Zimmerman informed the audience that City Council mares the final determination on this ter. She stated that citizens would be notified of the hearing where they would be given to testify. ADDED ITEM Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff role changes have been implemented on a temporary basis and could be in affect through December 2001. Mr. Satterstrom stated that he has been designated Acting Community Development Director with Charlene Anderson appointed as Acting Planning Manager who according to Ordinance and Bylaws serves as Secretary of the Board. ADJOURNMENT Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 pm. Respectfully Submitted, &0_�.AA Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Planning Manager Secretary SAPermit\Plan\LUPB\2001\minutes\010521 mn.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev. Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager . WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 May 14, 2001 TO: TERRY ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR AND LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER RE: DEMARCO ANNEXATION#AZ-2001-1 (KIVA#2011034) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING ON MAY 21, 2001 Introduction On April 3, 2001, the Kent City Council accepted petitions signed by owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the assessed valuation of the area proposed for the DeMarco annexation. Staff filed a Notice of Intention with the King County Boundary Review Board on April 19, 2001. The decision of the Boundary Review Board is expected within 45 days of filing. The DeMarco annexation area encompasses approximately 266.6 acres (.42 square miles) and is home to an estimated 770 people. The area is located on the East Hill of Kent, from 1161h Avenue SE to SE 132°d Street and from SE 240`h Street north to approximately SE 231"Place on the west and SE 233rd Street, if extended, on the east. The annexation area is within the Urban Growth Area and Potential Annexation Area boundaries that were defined and established by the City of Kent according to the Washington State Growth Management Act. When the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, land uses for the Potential Annexation Area generally were based on King County's adopted land use plan in order to ensure consistency between the City's and County's Comprehensive Plans. However, in late 2000, King County amended their Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to adopt land use map and zoning designations of Commercial Outside of Centers and Neighborhood Business, respectively, for an eight-acre parcel at the northeastern corner of the intersection of 116`, Avenue SE and SE 2401h Street. Furthermore, as each annexation is approved by the City of Kent, the annexation area is analyzed in greater detail through a public process in order to refine land use designations, zoning, and policies under the context of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land use and capital improvement decisions. Establishing City of Kent zoning districts for the annexation area is a Comprehensive Plan implementation action. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and initial zoning designation will be reviewed concurrently because they must be consistent with one another, according to RCW 36.70A.120. f Background The King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map generally designates the area as Urban Residential 4-12 units per acre, with the property at the northeastern comer of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE recently designated Commercial Outside of Centers, and the two properties just adjacent to the east and northeast of that property designated Urban Residential 12+ units per acre. The corresponding King County zoning designations are R-6 Residential (6 dwelling units per acre) along 116`h Avenue SE and along SE 240`h Street, with Neighborhood Business and R-18 Residential (18 dwelling units per acre) at the northeast corner of the intersection of 116'' Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street. The zoning designation changes to R-4 Residential (4 dwelling units per acre), in an irregular pattern generally east of 120`h Avenue SE and north of SE 237`h Place, if extended, excluding approximately 3 unplatted parcels at that southern boundary. There also is R-4 zoning west of and abutting 120`h Avenue SE from about SE 236`h Street north to approximately SE 232°d Street, if extended. Residential districts in the City of Kent are designated separately as single family or multifamily. However, King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family, attached and "stacked"multifamily dwelling units. The P and SO suffixes attached to designations such as R- 4-P-SO on the King County Zoning Maps provide for property-specific (P) development standards and special district overlays (SO). There is a special district overlay that covers all of the properties within the DeMarco annexation area. This overlay, Condition SO-220, relates to retention of significant trees. The three larger parcels. at the northeastern comer of the intersection of 116`h Avenue SE and SE 240'' Street also have had property-specific development standards attached to them by King County (hither explained in the Environmental Characteristics section,below). The existing land use pattern in the DeMarco annexation area is primarily single family residential with densities ranging from townhomes to one-acre lots and larger unplatted parcels. Meridian Junior High School is located within the area. Kent East Hill Nursery is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE. There are two large churches and a church hall also located in the area. Notice of a proposed subdivision called Birdsong Meadows is posted in the area, and staff has been notified of preliminary approval of a 32-lot subdivision and an application for a 27-lot subdivision along SE 234`h Street. The land use pattern has been developed and supported through King County's Soos Creek Community Plan and the King County Comprehensive Plan. Using King County zoning designations; looking at vacant vs. underdeveloped properties; discounting for sensitive areas, public rights of way, and market availability; and estimating likelihood of development considering date of most recent platting activity, age of existing residence, and surrounding plat activity, staff projects 471 additional dwelling units in the proposed annexation area within the next 10 years. Environmental Characteristics The DeMarco annexation area is located on Kent's East Hill (aka, Soos Creek) plateau and can be characterized generally as rolling terrain. The Middle Fork of Garrison Creek, North Meridian Valley Creek, and a Clark Lake Outlet all run through the area. The 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update identifies wetlands near the Middle Fork of Garrison Creek at the northeastern corner of the intersection of 110h Avenue SE and SE 240`h Street. King County attached the following P-suffix condition to the three parcels at this location: "The natural Land Use and Planning Board Hearing May 21,2001 Page 2 of 4 drainage area on the Lotto/Toppano property shall be designated as permanent open space. This area shall not comprise less than 30% of the total sites." Upon annexation, the City of Kent regulations for the protection of sensitive areas, preservation of agricultural or other resource lands, preservation of landmarks or landmark districts and surface water control will become effective for the proposed annexation area. The City of Kent environmental regulations will equal or exceed King County regulations. Kent has adopted the Soos Creek Basin overlay restrictions for stream buffers and is dedicated to protecting wetlands, associated buffers, and geologically unstable areas. The City currently is reviewing critical area regulations as required by GMA to ensure best available science is used, and the City is expected to adopt the King County Stormwater Manual in the near future. Public Participation —Community Meeting There were two meetings held in June and August, 2000 in the DeMarco annexation area prior to the submission of a 10 percent petition to the City of Kent. Citizens expressed concerns about a proposed condominium development and concerns regarding safety and traffic. The annexation proponents also held a community meeting on January 24, 2001. City staff members were present at the January 24`h meeting to address fire and police protection, traffic and stormwater issues, zoning and land use, and general City administration, including financing. The citizen attendees generally expressed support of single family detached dwelling units within the annexation area. 1 Land Use Alternatives Staff is bringing forward three zoning and land use alternatives for the annexation area. Analysis of the alternatives includes the following factors: i 1. Relevant Kent Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and land use recommendations for land within and adjacent to the DeMarco area. 2. Preliminary housing target analysis. 3. Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations and policies. i 4. Information received from the public at the community meeting. 5. Available data regarding natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. The Land Use and Planning Board and Kent City Council will hold public hearings to establish initial zoning and to amend the Kent Comprehensive Plan, if required. • Alternative One would match the existing King County zoning designations with the closest equivalent City of Kent zoning designations. In the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update (Map Amendment #19), King County changed the land use and zoning designations for the 8-acre site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 240`h Street and 116`h Avenue SE. The Land Use designation went from Urban Residential High to Commercial Outside of Centers, with a zoning change from R-18 (18 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Business. Alternative One proposes a land use designation of Neighborhood Services and zoning of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial for this property, with f a Low Density Multifamily land use designation and MRT-16 zoning designation (Multifamily Residential Townhouse District) on the 8.8 acre and 4.76 acre parcels just east and northeast of this property. To the north and east would be areas designated Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre, on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map with zoning designations of SR-6 and SR-4.5. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing May 21,2001 3 • Alternative Two differs from Alternative One in that it would remove the corner commercial designation and designate it MRT-16 along with the adjacent parcels just east and northeast of the corner parcel. The remainder of the annexation area would be designated Single Family Residential, either 4.5 or 6 dwelling units per acre. • Alternative Three maintains the commercial and townhouse designations at the northeastern corner of 11 a Avenue SE and SE 2401h Street but designates the remainder of the annexation area as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre. • Alternative Four designates the three properties at the northeastern corner of the SE 240th/116th Avenue intersection as MRT-16, with the remainder of the annexation area. as Single Family Residential, 6 dwelling units per acre. Recommendation Planning staff is recommending approval of Alternative Four. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-13.5 supports "..."comer store", small-scale,neighborhood-oriented shops adjacent to selected rights-of-way in higher-density neighborhoods..." and further states, "Ensure that projects are pedestrian-oriented and developed with minimum parking provisions." However, designating additional commercial parcels other than the existing commercial property at the southeastern corner of this intersection would create additional land use pressure to further erode the residential character of this area, and could jeopardize the policy for "corner store" retail. The surrounding neighborhood generally is single family residential, including low densities of one or three dwelling units per acre to the southeast and southwest of the annexation. A zoning designation of MRT-16 at the northeastern corner would bolster the viability of the eighborhood business designation at the southeastern comer, would promote additional homeownership opportunities, would promote a land use pattern that supports public transportation, and also would create a buffer from the impacts of the intersection on the lower density neighborhoods to the north and east. It also encourages developing the three parcels designated MRT-16 as a unified development proposal with better management of the sensitive areas on the sites. Allowing an overall single family residential density of six (6) units per acre recognizes the area lies within an Urban Growth-Area and provides a means for developing at a somewhat higher level than currently is allowed. At the same time, staff recognizes that much of the area currently is designed as larger lot subdivisions, and it is unlikely they will be further subdivided within a 10-year time-frame. Providing for a slightly increased density facilitates and anticipates growth in a shorter time frame on those parcels not currently subdivided but that lie within Kent's designated Urban Growth Area. Not creating another commercial designation at this intersection recognizes and supports the existing major commercial operations at the intersection of SE 240 Street with 104th and 132°d Avenues SE. CA/pm S\Permit\Plan\ANNEXATIONS12001\2011034-2001-lb.DOC Enclosures: 8 Maps cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting Comm.Dev.Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Planning Mgr File AZ-2001-1/KIVA#2011034 Land Use and Planning Board Hearing May 21,2001 Paee I of,' �an'n ► sitri c�t��►Cfcw � a® , IS 'Ile rk ,- FEW �19'19,2720 ®� Mf Ealmv=-I = ■ [1 �� VIA 151 C? l E&Oits LE MEMO nDo� ,i Fob 'i pill rM VM �+ �� ICI .+� . � Q� � =• 9 � h7`o, ® ��OG riD F. CAP,.., L.n dp ,a VTl f; 0 Lc occov�t �E� Irmo � I t rn 93 me Efl Es rig E UN - RLA pro MTA NINE a lei. 1■! !ems ,� ■:z r - I _. ,,_,° r�^.� i.d �t mar'.' �� a: F■ r �'� =�r-- --_ -- ���`7 r■ - sL� rap 172 . P7�,�,e/`' ,ate `QppQ►7� tc�MUMo • 4w M,Oki WA d ILI Em LIU rri El ju Pi O " ® � IF I Liam, IBM wl upl'v 4 nrl , Mimi IM Um -- - rim NCR �_:a IRISHOHM ru �o� c�i_\ all LOU ru arm son !gym© ME Elf �'�� �� ��F•"_' ��► 9 am � =3 ..`"vim, 2 In rigm Lamm rase��� �� �-� �■ i �`�:� •O-, � JIN A C�c'7Ghdo . to � U N O 'O 1 E �' o can' r J F V (� p » o rn I c N c c 3 cu 4D ci. Q Q ti� ❑ Q Q k CDZile 46 • ; by v I i ■��;1 � ul r w� , Cl) •tip L i . rr a • ON / ■ v, ■ I � * him ■� ` IN ■ Ed iS A p / IN p Al 16 asp 416 •♦* ll�� s!/■�` t i/ iB.r H *. . 1z ; 7.ar ■ i, �� . O■�■■!S\\ i�\/�1■rl *.�y"'s ■ 1 •r 46 r_ p♦ ! 7 N�7 +/�ir 1 - *o rr7.r rr tIN 4 ! r a ■ r i■■ �, �+ i\• *ate +� j 4 o•.'1 jti• �; _ �4 7if? w7tiIN lb a Uji �+♦fit•• ••IN p■ 1 i .'�i~? I r4 � r •�•. �a • �r SS AM OZL c- - 1 1' •� - iY ;� 3SAVOZL 1 �R✓y,'r�•�i', �. '■. � �1 � ■p ■ a■I • all l am W� 1 Ltl j.INim Ftis Kiai�� La lr 19♦.i1■r■J■♦■■� • 51Ia • ■ 3SAV9LL •`tr- �.�. a •s �, ■ •■•♦ (!■■�■F1.�►�(�u '/fit/!♦'' ■..■■ . '` I�I� frr/ •• �•y•�■■rr•■ ••� S q■■,► \ ^ t� MUM sr man Mill . wM� IA .w �� �c.,c ; � ��� �,� c►pan n;��w� SOME ts tw .� `gee cc��,■ v ��� ���.._ � z __,:t Z � �t � n � �� ter., _�.• �- �=� �t 1 �/ F■ mac.. - :.r -�____ •�... WE ..L I% 01rol �1-ups in np c40.9 t i l/ln' OLiL i� w�.+ U_ .0 r •� w O c Cn CN t� p U_ N cN d cc cu a ( . (1) Nam " c •~ vo M Lv- Uj co ll a Is IL .. Vo- «aelwppSsas ism I&aAFr I. �'�1♦ p * q ♦♦L��` �4' -, i a r.7..' • �_ ♦ \ i \ R drew (\� Woo 0 up i ii4p vkgrrr Pali Ap 11h, t� • ♦1 t♦ ♦ ! �I-' - ;.`�=: �: = I _ is �► ;f :�fiT mil'�.1 }■� J� SS Ab OZ gap i,a- ��.�-`:'lib=. _[ ��i� w 7 ■"' i'r : :: . . i • ��i- r - `+* usage Aso INS . Lll p Asa, =ak''•+''�S(l�v = w �gaVg •r ■ f ■ a • !; ♦_p s�.a♦♦♦ 1 !! i e ••!, Iw ! IN 3SAV9L� a 1.�■ Lei • It f r •'�� ♦rar�Mr.rr♦ Mkt■ ~ IM.aPr ■■• � 1 ♦ ♦ sue♦ j ♦ •Joe;16 .• �aM�aG IN B M�: IBMo� C LM ra r- � us rE RE EM no MR ILM ruin AMH rtEgo ra a ► `" rr� N * 7M.Lim r,2 LE o �•; . TV A(( 'tA 11 'I- 1 u Counolmeer move�6i,: 'CC9i seconds to lipprove ;Coj Cal `` tLx �}� Ip • F}R I {�� Die 1 t ,cu&sion ri 1 Action' r 1 1✓a EN gpij PP t C x� ^� Appx'oiu�al of the mina the{,,tegul4r°i00 ;`�; =m ,ting of August 7, 2001. 45 itir.kh pjE Approval of- .=p�yme t;r, r >'bill , a eke , s July 3,1 and paid on July 31 aft+ r , i Eixtg '; y,.t p 4atmnittee o#. k '; August 7, 2001. ka 4 J #'4 i 7/31/01 , ],6 '�,; $6 7/31/02 through July 31 awl iid On;"A1� 5��; s 8/31/01' Checks -2 09- ;j �.• 8/3/01 i4vice�a 4 , Z y4m - 1 � E� �' �,;F' •p�i ' � � a 't5i `1,�'-E4 n� t•7i�; � ^, � a< , k'i" ��t. d Ci l Ag ' l m„,pp. 6 ', ,k,� j Kent, Washington August 7, 2001 A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 5 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Councilmembers present : Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods, and Yingling. Others present : Interim Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Public Works Director Wickstrom, and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 35 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda from the Council, Administration, staff or public . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of Yangzhou, China Exchange Students. Finance Director Miller introduced Kent ' s exchange students to Yangzhou, China, Blaine Bozoti and Bo Yingling. The students told of their experiences in China and thanked the City and the Sister City Association for the opportunity. Fire Chief Norm Anctelo. Chief Angelo thanked the Mayor and Fire Commissioners and noted that he has always accepted his responsibility to lead. He commended the Fire Department for their service to the citizens of Kent and said he will remain committed to the citizens of Kent forever. Chief Angelo then introduced Steve Hamilton who will be the Acting Fire Chief . Greg Markley, President of Firefighters Local 1747, said Kent has the best Fire Department in the state and commended Angelo for his efforts . He presented Chief Angelo with a plaque which recognizes him for his twenty years of distinguished service to the community, the region and the fire service . Mayor White read a proclamation outlining Chief Angelo ' s accomplishments and recognizing his dedication, profes- sionalism and experience . The Chief accepted the proclamation and expressed his thanks . Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner, has been chosen as Employee of the Month for August . He noted that she has great organizational skills as well as project 1 Kent City Council Minutes August 7, 2001 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS management skills, natural customer service skills, knowledge of codes and a flexible approach to problem solving. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Martin added that Anderson coordinated the completion of the Urban Separators project and voiced appreciation for her efforts . The Mayor presented Ms . Anderson with the Employee of the Month plaque . CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through I . Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 17, 2001 . PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) Agricultural Lands Moratorium. SET the public hearing on the Agricultural Lands Moratorium for September 4 , 2001, pursuant to Resolution No. 1599 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) So. 196th Street Bridge. ACCEPT the South 196th Street Bridge contract as complete and release retainage to Frontier-Kemper Constructors upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $13 , 644 , 339 . 00 . Final construction cost was $13 , 758, 775 . 38 . POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) Neglect of A Child or Dependent Person. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3566 amending KCC 9 . 02 . 25 pertaining to negligent behavior. The revisions in the ordinance are necessary in order to criminalize neglectful supervision and lack of supervision. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) Hobby Canon Fuse Material. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3567 which requires a gun store, dealer, or show doing business in the City of Kent to maintain a written 2 Kent City Council Minutes August 7, 2001 POLICE record of any sale or exchange of fuse material for the purpose of setting off hobby cannons . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Firearms, Dangerous Weapons And Explosives. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3568 amending Title 9 of the Kent City Code relating to firearms, dangerous weapons, and explo- sives . The ordinance makes it a gross misdemeanor for any person to either possess, leave, or to assist some- one else in depositing any non-incendiary device in any building or any place. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Towing/Impoundment. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3569 which corrects KCC 9 . 39 . 030 to cite to the re-codified RCW and removes the mandatory impound period. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . The Operations Committee was can- celled, and approval of payment of bills received through July 15 and paid on July 16, were approved prior to the Council meeting of July 17, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/1/01 New series of checks - New system in effect for this run 7/16/01 520001-520360 $2 , 913 , 924 . 37 $2 , 913 , 924 . 37 Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 31 and paid on July 5, 2001; as well as checks issued for payroll of July 15 and paid on July 20, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/5/01 Checks 253047-253435 $ 314 , 103 . 11 7/5/01 Advices 113601-114329 994 , 958 . 07 $1, 309, 061 . 18 7/20/01 Checks 253436-253811 $ 326, 168 . 73 7/20/01 Advices 114330-114992 1, 082 , 910 .49 $1, 409, 079 . 22 3 Kent City Council Minutes August 7, 2001 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Capital Improvement Plan. SET the public hearing on the annual Capital Improvement Plan for August 21, 2001 . COUNCIL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Acceptance of Applications and Establishment of Process for Evaluation and Appointment to Vacant Council Position. Council President Orr noted receipt of eight resumes from individuals interested in serving the interim term for the vacant Council position. She recommended that an appointment be made from those applicants who have not filed for election to the position, and asked Mary Lou Becvar, Ron Harmon, Jon Johnson, Susie Shields, Esther Smith, Pauline Thomas and Gregory Worthing to make a three-minute presentation before the Council on August 21st . She said the Council will adjourn to executive session to consider the candidates and will then make a decision. The Council agreed to the process and requested that letters out- lining the process be sent to the applicants . REPORTS Council President. Orr thanked Chief Angelo for his years of service . Public Safety Committee. Epperly thanked Chief Angelo for his service and noted that the next committee meet- ing will be on August 14th at 5 : 00 p.m. She added that the committee will discuss the possibility of banning fireworks . Public Works Committee. Clark also expressed thanks to Chief Angelo. He noted that the next committee meeting will be on Monday, August 20, and that due to the up- coming holiday, the first meeting in September will be on the loth. Planning Committee. Brotherton noted that the next meeting will be on September loth, due to the Labor Day holiday. He then thanked Chief Angelo for his service . p Administrative Reports. Martin noted that there are two items for discussion in executive session and that 4 • Kent City Council Minutes August 7, 2001 REPORTS action on one or both is expected. He estimated the time as ten to fifteen minutes . EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5 : 38 p.m. the meeting recessed into executive session. The meeting reconvened at 5 :48 . Purchase and Sale Agreements. WOODS MOVED to authorize the Mayor to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for an amount not less than $40 , 000 cash from a qualified buyer for the Jean Austin property; to authorize the Mayor to execute any and all documents necessary to close the sale; and amend the Canterbury Park budget with the proceeds resulting from the sale . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. WOODS MOVED to authorize the Mayor to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for an amount not to exceed $175, 000 for the Geroy Property adjacent to Turnkey Park, and to authorize the Mayor to execute any and all documents necessary to close the purchase upon review by the City Attorney, and to appropriate $175, 000 plus closing costs from the Park Land Acquisition account, Fee-in-Lieu funds, and grant matching funds . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT At 5 : 50 p.m. , ORR MOVED to adjourn. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacobe CMC City Clerk 5 I Zr,j,,, �,' � �'��'�' � � � ju � ix s a��1. f�� }s� %+FF 41•�b e �? _ a „� � 1. N��� l. ! :2 0 0 ;t,3 DpPH ' .. ACCEOY gd ,. 2. s t •�i G d � �y/�} � � 1�'• Y1` I �`Y.,Z 'EF' �er�Mt� pp �•�'i mtt a' approve the proposgd: its; estimated 'at $582,2 i« yrtiqent oj Y. Hou$i,34g and. Urban Dew psnt '_, t. Thiii may increase or dear '�' � Yid e �' ? eo,�i : me t. ' p�'6g ram i ��ae and ,r � ' 'ed r " +d S id:' for . 2002 P % Pro p $3 l t 'l 15 pp . (Gorpmittee, Staf, i ,. oit#a;s�ri �.0 Dio I' r x, fPF`;F 4�•„�y. r; '� Ydfj k ,,..,��Qy��:Y$�}r '.� Y + s4 or. s: m.,gcotancilme mbw "es, F i .,. ,.DISCU F S aY .�, Q *}y� f N • Agtdr, PUBLIC NOTICE KENT PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING YEAR 2002 C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Kent Parks Committee of the City Council will hold a public hearing on the City of Kent's 2002 Community Development Block Grant Program on Tuesday, August 1 11th at 4:00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Ave South, Kent, Washington. Citizens are encouraged to attend and comment on the proposed program. This location is handicapped accessible. If you are unable to attend, you may submit written comments to City of Kent Housing & Human Services, 220 4" Ave. S., Kent, WA 98032. All projects are designed to benefit low and moderate-income persons. Under consideration are the City of Kent Horne Repair Program - $301,981 - Lutheran Social Services Family Resource Cent&Construction - $10,000 - K.C. Housing Authority Southwood Square Acquisition - S1*0,000 - Kent One Stop Human Service Center Acquisition - $90,000 - Planning and Administration $75,813 - Kent Community Health & Natural Medicine Services - $36,472 - Kent Emergency Feeding Program - $21,290 - YWCA Domestic Violence Transitional Housing - $36,675. For more information contact the City of Kent Housing & Human Services Division, 220 4t' Avenue South, Kent. WA 98032. Phone (253) 856-5070. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance. For TDD relay service for Braille call 1-800-833-6385. For TDD relay service for the hearing impaired call 1-800-8?3-6388 or call the City of Kent Office of Housing & Human Service directly at (253) 856-5070. John M. o son, Parks, Rene;ea::on & Community Services Director Date MEMORANDUM August 1, 2001 PARKS MEMO TO: JUDY WOODS AND PARKS COMMITTEE MEMBERS John Hodgson Director FROM: KATHERIN JOHNSON, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER Phone: 253-856-5100 Fax:253-856-6050 SUBJECT: 2002 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 220 Fourth Ave.S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Attached is the proposed 2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the City of Kent. The estimate of$582,231 is approximately SB3,.151 less than the City received for the 2001 program. The estimate is based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developme-it (HUD) prbposed 2002 budget. This may increase or decrease due to charges in the entitlement, program income and recaptured funds. On May 17. 20C1, the Human Services Commission reviewed and approved the funding leve's for all of the programs. A description of each program and the rationale for the recommended funding is attached for your review. As in past years, a major portion of the CDBG funds is recommended to support the City's Home Repair Program. This program continues to serve many low-income. disabled and senior homeowners in Kent by providing needed repairs. The program also guarantees that some of Kent's low and moderate ircorr.e housing stock is maintained and preserved. The amour: of money Kent may receive could change depending upon the final federa' appropriations bill Congress passes in the Fall. Therefore, the recommenced finding includes a contingency plan to address any potential fund changes tl-at may occur when Congress adopts the 2002 budget. Kent's adopted 2002 CDBG Program must include such a contingency plan and be forti,.•arded to King County by September 30, 2001. Recommended Action 1. App-,ove the Proposed 2002 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), including the contingency plan. 2. For,vard to the full City Council for adoption and authorization for the Mayor to execute the appropriate contracts. cc: John M. Hodgson, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director Judy Bennett, Human Services Planner 2002 CDBG Program Development File PROPOSED CITY OF KENT ESTIMATED 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM RECOMMENDED Estimated 2002 Capital Funds: $411,981 Estimated 2002 Planning &Administration Funds 75,813 Estimated 2002 Public (Human) Service Funds 94,437 Total CDBG Funds: $582,231 Capital Projects Recommend City of Kent Home Repair Program $301,981 Lutheran Social Services Family Resource Center Construction $10,000 King County Housing Authority Southwood Square Acquisition $10,000 Kent One Stop Human Service Center Acquisition $90,000 Total Capital $411,981 Public Human Service Programs Recommend Kent Community Health &Natural Medicine Services $36,472 Kent Emergency Feeding Program $21,290 YWCA Domestic Violence Transitional Housing $36,675 Total Public Human Services $94,437 FP-lanning & Administration $75,813 2002 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. (Community Health Centers, Emergency Feeding Program, and YWCA) If the City of Kent receives a decrease in public service estimate, the decrease will be split proportionately between funded agencies. (Community Health Centers, Emergency Feeding Program, and YWCA) CAPITAL REQUESTS If the City of Kent receives an increase in the Capital estimate, the increase will be allocated to Kent's Human Service One Stop Project. If the City of Kent receives a decrease in the Capital estimate, the decrease will be to the Lutheran Social Service Family Resource Center Project (to an amount no less than $5,000), then to the Southwood Square Project(to an amount no less than $5,000. Should the decrease be greater than $10,000, the additional decrease would be absorbed by the One Stop Project and then the Home Repair program. Is INNING&ADMINISTRATION If there is an increase in the amount available for Planning and Administration the City of Kent will allocate the additional funds for Planning and Administration. Estimated 2002 fundina levels.doc ____ ___ /_7 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM STAFF ANALYSIS - PROJECTS CITY OF KENT HOME REPAIR PROGRAM Amount: $301,981 Program Summary: The City's Home Repair Program provides repairs to income eligible owner- occupied housing located within the City of Kent. CDBG funds will pay the salaries of the home repair staff , who provide actual repairs and coordination of the program, a summer yard clean up program for elderly and/or disabled persons, supplies and materials, vehicle rental, and miscellaneous administrative costs. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives a decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Capital Contingency Plan for details. Rationale: The City should continue its commitment to the Home Repair Program, which has operated in the City since 1975 when the Federal CDBG program began. The program serves 100% low and moderate income Kent residents. Many of the clients are seniors or disabled persons; the program helps these people remain in their homes and helps to maintain and preserve Kent's housing stock. KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SOUTHWOOD SQUARE APARTMENTS ACQUISITION Amount: $10,000 Program Summary KCHA plans to acquire Southwood Square Apartments to maintain the project- based Section 8 rental assistance for 104 households. Additionally, the overall plan includes needed repairs and improvements. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives a decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Capital Contingency Plan for details. Rationale HUD currently provides project-based Section 8 rental assistance for all 104 units. The tenants are all very low income and many are recent immigrants. The owner has stated that in the event KCHA cannot purchase the complex, he will need to consider other options including selling to a profit-motivated investor or termination of the Section 8 contract with HUD. This will allow KCHA to show local support to leverage up to $1,000,000 in other funds for acquisition It will also maintain 104 units of site-based Section 8 housing in the Kent community. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES FACILITY Amount: $10,000 Program Summary This project is for new construction of a multi-service facility that will include a family support center, immigrant and refugee mental health counseling services, chore services for the elderly/disabled, adoption/foster care support services, and an extended-hour child care center (70-80 slots). The facility is to be located in SeaTac and the agency owns the site. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives a decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change, Refer to the Capital Contingency Plan for details. Rationale This facility will increase access to a wide range of services to low and moderate income residents of South King County. A diverse population will be served including senior citizens, refugees and immigrants, the working poor needing after hours child care. There is potential for increasing foster care slots in the South County Community. Kent funds will demonstrate regional support for the project and allow the organization to leverage other public funds. KENT ONE STOP HUMAN SERVICES FACILITY ACQUISITION Amount: $90,000 Program Summary The One Stop Human Services Facility will bring together a variety of service providers to ensure a full range of emergency services, provision of employment and related educational services, and health services at a central location, greatly increasing access for low and moderate income individuals and families. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Capital Contingency Plan for details. Rationale Programs located in the One Stop will provide primarily emergency and basic needs services for our most vulnerable residents. Census data shows rapid growth in Kent. The social service infrastructure has not kept up with the growing and changing needs of the local community. A One-Stop Human Services Center within the City of Kent can strengthen accessibility and foster successful outcomes for low income residents in Kent. PLANNING &ADMINISTRATION CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION (for the CDBG program) Amount: $75,813 Program Summary: The planning and administration of the CDBG program involves a number of tasks such as contact development and monitoring, regional cooperation, and fulfilling the various federal reporting requirements. These dollars will continue to fund an existing, permanent full-time planner position . Funds will also be used for general program administration costs that support Kent's CDBG program. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. Rationale: The current estimate is $75;813. We need this amount to be set aside for planning and administration, because Kent's general fund does not fully cover the staff time needed to administer and plan for the CDBG program. PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS OF KING COUNTY Primary Health and Natural Medicine Services Amount: $36,472 Program Summary: This project directly addresses the health care needs of low income and uninsured Kent residents by providing integrated conventional family practice services and natural medicine services. Funds would pay a portion of the salary of a Naturopath and to help support the compensation of one physician, who will provide primary medical care to low and moderate income people at the Kent Clinic. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The project meets all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details. Rationale: Health care is a critical need in Kent. The Kent Clinic is the major point of access to medical services for Kent's low-income population. Access to basic medical services is limited for low and moderate-income residents because of lack of insurance and the lack of medical providers who accept Medicaid or Medicare clients. Also, many insurers do not cover natural medicine services, making them unaffordable to most low income and moderate-income patients. KENT EMERGENCY FEEDING PROGRAM Amount: $21,290 Program Summary: The Emergency Feeding Program provides emergency boxed meals for distribution at a number of sites in Kent. This program differs from a food bank in that it provides nutritionally balanced meals for three days. Special meals are available for specific health concerns such as high blood pressure, low sodium diets, low sugar, and liquid diets. They also provide infant meal packs and food for the homeless that doesn't need cooking. Funds will be used to fund staff positions and purchase food for clients. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for det-ails. Rationale: The agency provides nutritionally balanced and special diet meals to individuals and families in crisis. The agency has demonstrated to the City that it is providing a vital service in a competent and efficient manner. YWCA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING Amount: $36,675 Program Summary: This program provides emergency and transitional shelter along with support services for victims of Domestic Violence and their children. In 2002, the YWCA will continue to provide Kent victims of Domestic Violence with shelter. Funds will be used to partially support the salary of the direct service staff, rent and utilities. Local and Consortium Policies and Priorities: The proposed project complies with all local and consortium policies. If the City of Kent receives an increase or decrease from the current estimate, then funding for this program may change. Refer to the Human Service Contingency Plan for details. Rationale: The YWCA's program is the only transitional housing for domestic violence victims in South King County and is a vital service for Kent residents. This is one major component in the continuum of housing services needed to help victims move out of the cycle of violence. Kent ;City Council Meeting Date , ,AWujjt 21. 2001 Category Consent Ca]endar 1 . SUBJECT: KIWANIS GOLDEN K DONATION - ACCEPT AND AMEND SERVICE CLUE BALLFIELD BUDGET 2 . SUM ARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the $2, 087 .85 donation from Kiwanis Golden 'K' and amend the Service Club Ballfield budget. 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of Revenue Report r 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, 'etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETTD FISCAL/PERS IMPACT: NO_ ._____,_ YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2 , 087 .85 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kiwanis Golden 'K' , 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D 4L AUG 7, 2001, 11:17 AM PAGE 1 R ID: PK1PL 01 CITY OF KENT REPORT GAC110B GENERAL LEDGER ARCHIVAL REPORT VER004 DETAIL E CRITERIA - GL: 3000 APPR INDX: P73 BEGIN PERIOD: 01/01 ORG INDX: 6110 END PERIOD: 01/07 iST BANK DUE REIM DOCUMENT REFERENCE TRANSACTION :IOD ACCOUNT STRUCTURE ACCT TO/FROM CD NUMBER DOCUMENT TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01 175 P73 000 6110 670000 TR74701 PARKS P&D #02 12-01/CONT 8,750.00- *** BALANCE 8,750.00- '02 175 P73 000 6110 670000 TR75086 PARKS PLAN&DEV/KIWANIS 5,000.00- *** BALANCE 13,750.00- '04 175 P73 000 6110 670000 TR76036 PARKS PLANNING 04-06/CNT 2 087.85- *** BALANCE 15,837.85- 105 175 P73 000 6110 670000 TR76521 PARKS/CONTRIBUTIONS 4,500.00- /05 175 P73 000 6110 970151 JE05-299 TRANSFERS-5/31/2001 16,316.54- f05 175 P73 000 6110 970P13 JE05-299 TRANSFERS/BUD CHNG#1-041 11,700.00- *** BALANCE 48,354.39- 106 175 P73 000 6110 970151 JE06-299 TRANSFERS-06/30/2001 4,911.87- .. , LADING BALANCE 53,266.26- 4 Dent :City igouncil Meeting Date ! '&W- Ust. zi, 200'i Category,Cg=aL CIlendar 1 . SUBJECT: INTERAGEN ; COMMITTEE GRANTS FOR PARK PROJECTS - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGETS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, accept the Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) grant contracts and amend the following budgets: 1 . Canterbury Park Acquisition - $170, 000.00 2 . Service Club Ballfields - :$3,00,000.00 3 . Green River Disabled Fishing Access $300,'000.00 4 . Clark Lake Acquisition - ;S,00,Q0 Total $1,270,000 .00 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of IAC Rankings 4 . RECOMMENDED Ms--Staff and Parks. Committee y (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNB,UDD! ETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMP=: NQ_____^'�,,,,,, YES X 6. EXPMMITURE REQUIRED: $,1,270, 00D.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Intp,=ency for Outdoor EWcraation Grants , 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Councilmember moves, Councilmembe'r seconds M , i DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E OON �r- tnOtpCOC� COCCCOC7 NNO O �7 O O ` r C) I r r T r to CO I'- CO U.) r E OOMMMCO 'vLoLoLoLnN04Oz0 rcomNf` f\ COCOgg0hI,- MOrr, 1` NNNNNL7COt7M Lo 00 r et h 1 O M CO CA N Lo Co r r C LO CD 0) V V f` O r N I~ O CO 0 h C7 Ch C� O O M CA O to C7 COO N V 6969 r r r r N N N N M M MC 4 'LT 4 V V M Ln In CO 0 0 tO 1` 1` t+ f` 1, q q CJ O O O 66 6 O 69 69 69 69, 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 " 69 69 lA 69 b0 to 6,% " 69 69 69 69 69 b4 E9 64 " 69 69 69 69 r r r r r T C C +' OMv - LON OOOOC7L7q COgOtnOOOOCO00CDg0000C. OOOt` q � 000 � q E O to O r N to M O O O Co O r N O M O r 0 fO O O M O O h r 0 n O NM O O O N M V O Lo N I` 1` < O CO Ln V N C:) 0) r Lo O 'C q 'T C O N V) O O N O O O O Lo 0000 t U O CTO O LD O 1` Ln CO LI) I`o C')l� f` tlJqIn �TV t` N o O N O Oq000OtnOO )O - t ) O L) O M O O OCq f` r r MM T CO O q CD <t' M r M r M CD (7 M L7 M O Lo I` LOO 1- OM rto L) L..) ) N O Vr0 M O O M N LO p O r1 NNCOLoCD69tnCOCo V MtoM = - h69M0MO 0LONN (D `C1` hr 'Cr OLONrhr vO N V M q. O ,4 N 6-, 69 64 6}69 N r 69 6-,6:69 69 tH 69 69 69 fA 69 60%69, r 65.69 69 63 69 nj CJ 69 69 tFi CV 69 r 69 6,69 6g F' 60).•vj, ' 69 613 69 b9 b9 63 69 O M N CD Lo r Lo O O O CD Cl M q, O of 0 Ln O O O O t7 O O to L7 O C O J r 0 0 0 t` q V O Cn O q E O CD Lo O N M O Lo O CA M O r N O CO 47 r O M 0 0 T O Lo t- co O h O cN C7 O O O N co 1` O r- O co co < O CD ti N N O '�t Lo Lo O 'C C) IT GQ Lo N N O Or- 0 0 0 0 N CO Lo O L,) O CD r 0 Lo Le) O h N CD ti O to to t_ Lo CO N M I` V f` V V C7i CO. V, N h C7 t0 O Lo a; O O c6 O rZ Lo CD Ln O L7 M t` O N CD O 6 V I` O CO tD CO O M r M O) CO Co 1` r r CO r C7 cD (-- CO Lo r Lo I- COO O CO O r r N h CV) N t- CD N to O C) 00 M r [\ f` M CM N M 69 N M M r O N to L; 69 c 69 r N v r M N T r r N M N7 69 -) LO O r 69 'C = N L7 r N r N M r 6.) v� r 69 69 to CV r 69 t9 b9 to Vf " b9 69 tf3 69 69 69 69 69 69 H T C,.) 69 b4 r 69 69 tf3 to 69 to C 69 69 69 b9 69 to 64 69 69 O a U) O O N Lo O r Lo O O O O N Q C p O C:) O O O O O V O O O M O C O C) C O C:) O O C:) M C:) U") O I-_ q E 00 Lo O O M 0 00 0 0 0• .C O O Lo O O M O O `7 O Lo O o O O O O t` O coca h O t-- N = M < 00t,- NOOvtnOOO MCD L7ONOOr000ONOMCCOOf7OLnOOO NO1-- nLOLn OONCTO -�, 4r,: 666 W O,61` 000OU) D) 6O06Ot, ,6 < L666 �- f` ONOOO4C; 6 (6 (6 U OOMOO CO hr a000- OC M0 Lor- COto0000rONr� OL) CD c0NLn000OM 'C < Ln Cl CO N CM 69 N M M M CO N co M 69 M 69 r N 'cY 69 CO N r r to N M M to r- 'C U) r 69 CO to N Lo r N r CN 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 b9 69 69 69 69 69 b9 69 t9 to 63 b9 609 69 69 69 E4 b9 69 69 169 69 69 b9 b9 69 69 b9 4 y N n n c C n n n C] n C o0 nom0 � n c a°i ani a°i ° c C u� tj m 0. L) n n C m _ 0. ° m n N CD CCCCC ani � cni C _ C a°i � uY0. 0 pCC m o0 � .Y a. O 0 N °6 U ° O l0 �d °� U ed C U Y ad U y .J y C) Y tY Y w O O 6) U t LYS d y �- �. y ob O °� c' y U W' 0 `O CJ ° y t p CC - - CC � CC 0Y UYY (n y Q m0. r 0. rY o ' , -a � ° 023 C > 0. `n, 0. n- n � 0. Y0. o V UUxSYas > t, s @Y L`a '� -00. _> ° >CL � 0. 0 nYa OY ° U oUn Y y �c y y 0. 0. t) 0. m Y G c a C. 0C � Y = F- c Q C CU c`a 3 a � U c °o a`) 0. n > 3 0 C0 a >t>^ ° o V 2 0 L L C C_ ° a m _ E LCL o '+� Q a E C °U U m CU y L a a O CC.' > 8 •Q y G Y G Y C Q C E C 'Q C G Q r Y •0 a) n W C9 m O C9 C9 Q Q U D C n O G m .C•• m 7 C > ° 2 = W = U > '0 'a C G n C U 0 , C U � U O O O Q n O Q - O •- _ U y C r - 0 0 0 Q Q - ° G L - CL `.LWY0. > UnZJUYtnY0. > .j < -i () LL nYU020M f° CF- O0. cnYCLw W � cn � tnU W C N N N O L O y E _, CL y N C O n C7 C C L O O - > N N U CL C CC1 N U C N ' U O > E X- C N > O n, y Q U Q r n X Q a _. 7 Q ° C U > C9 C > Q ° Y a E 1 Q O y Y H t O y Q O -C Q L O CL) Q CC", n O Q O j .0 Cu O H E 'v) 7 O` C C= W y 0 X U V 0 Q O YU QQ G WY Z7 .� CY C < > y C. � y 0 U c o Q < n Y o @ D U X o U O o . o a c ° < m r Q c E C4 CL Cp n = Q /9 ` EL C q) C- p N L U C ,r CS 3 0. - Y Q t0 x ? �- E a) � c_ 0. ° �Q mL `m ° n >Ln > ai0. Q o < > ? � 0. aGi ? � � Q XU W 'c Q o y@ y E l_ L ° 0. E Q ` Q •C Q Y 1] Y C 7 a E E 7 3 Q > W y Q Y 7 C U O a L E U O G Y < y E ° U CO < Q C Cad L G C`9 O > 7 C.7 O O Y E m � a 3U Z a� v) o Q ° UQ0. m E0. 0. 'c� a Lr E n U -� 3 Q ` O cs 0. E C� '� - Q cn Q 4) Z m C L > y Q °) li E Q Q Z > E 5 o Q Y m On (n Y CC Z Q ° y = ca U Y Q `-' Q i' m 0 0. cyo ° Lo Y 0. c 3 m E o Y ° _ E > _ ° Z a m � U) CL C J CD M jp yJ o � acAa aQi � cYnU a > 0. E 0 m '� 0. m y Md G Q i o tti m t>a yQ s o °) m `o 0 m ad ` o c CC � �' > Y ° ' ° n U U c 3 E 3 LL c c C o L Q y _ n n y c °13) w - La ov Q y ? Q ? O_ E c ° o c U C o c� a Q u U L 0 > y c m a G La ` n ` _ E m Y L Q G ta ? 0 3 � o > o - E omoom co °a U W 20. tLOZ � U J LJUJ h- YcnU W U Ucncn ZG2, ig (L � � W E--• JU J < 0 0 0 0 0 U U D O D U D C 0 0 0 0 0 < 0 0 < 0 0 < U < 0 0 << 0 0 0 < < U 0 0 U Q t` OeTCO W CD ctlt) rNCOM `CrC) CNt` COCOggLOa Lt < C'f. C ONL^ l:7lnrq O hrCDCDe] N ,Q Q7 r 0 t` O M f` CO N O T O N C CO t� O O T QI M CD q M 0 l<7 1- l: L') r N 0 0 q 0 CD N CO CD In C M V MM 'IT LOLONLnMMMUl, V VCl0V VMN 'c VMLo V M41VLr MMCMtC) MU7LntneV r T r r r r r r r r r T r r r T T T r T T r r T T T T T T T T r r T T T r T r r T T r 1 1 1 O 1 O 1 O I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 O O 0 O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 C O C CO O O O O O O O O O O Z cocoa cacao o pro tip o00 opp opp p Cocco c cocoa p p p to c o o L 0 0 0 0 0 on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC 0 0 0 0 no 0 C 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rC,7CO vNrCOCCLOMCMrM =QGOCOLO V CN M M v - M = C) CD000NNOt` ctoCC OOCON = 0 O CA Cd C6 q as 1` I` t` t` 1l (O CO CO CD Lo Ln Ln Ln Ui to V* et V, 't V• M M N N N N N N N T r O O O O O O O (n CO Lo Lo Ln Lo Lo Ln to to to to in Lo LO Ln U) Ln to U) Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 to Ln U) to Ln U) Ln to to to in Ln to Ln to c 'IT 0 0 C -LLJ ' LA.. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNN I*- I,- Il- I- el- Il- Il� I� f� l� t� l� l� � t� l� nl� nn O OCOOOOOO O O OO O O O O O O O O G L9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T N M c7 Ln O T N N 'C to Ln t� a = N n <n LO CO r- g O O O N co - - _. - - - i i i CD Ib V O 0 N O O O O 0 0 0 0, 0 O O O O � to N N N N N N N N toN to :'4Cb CC W -40 Ut cn cm Ln O W A p o CD -+ A. V_ COD p i O O N V N V .a CA C V Co m N O N N i V CD O O O O O O O O O CJ1 Cn CJ1 CJl A CJI W W W W N A ' CT O A O N Cn CC! N V O Co CD 3t CJ1 CD O C7� CJl N A A i co 0 O vvvnvnvvDvc� v O CD O- = CD O:3 0 7 0 0 J CID C C - 4 C m O(av ° nTi 0 0) w Cr T @ CDID Cr Cl Q 7 CC i '1• C CD CD CD CD CU Cn < -,3 O N CD N •�= CD N f Cv_ :3 -0 7C' 1 D ° 1 CO 3 m M (7 7 N 0 <a CDd _CD CO 0) N CD CD O m Q° m C/) 'U y 3 to m 3 -� = CD ao m D to w n c°n Cn jCDn p fO—D y O O 7 7 Q N• CD :3 CD 7C' CD _. m o 0 CD C1 < .+ :33 `` �, 3 ° v cn `�° cn tv [U C] - - 7C' w 0Q y X y En y Cn y ZJ N r W S?� O H 'CD CD CD -CZ 0 CD CD CD CD A CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CD 0 CD 7 'D O CD n rt cn A V N U1 A W C1] A A W i i CD O O N O ,O• A p C WO j D W O O O M O 'O V W CA CA O co 4 0 0 W O O CD V O O CD M CD j 0 Cn -4o 0 �i o cn o rn D C) Cl C) to CD CD •V O W C) m 3 .46 O N ° V C) W -4 (C O w CD 4 Cn CiDTNw i CA A V N O M CD Co i o 0 o co-4 w Cn °i° W— o w w a D 3 J W i i i N N co 00 w V + CD N W O A V O O W V W CD Cn -4i Co W M V W A Ln O W N CD Co OO O O CA w w N W CD W Cn W D C N o 0 0 CD W W Cn CWD o o W NO CD O C O a ra A A W W n N '^ CVD CWD COD CA CJ -Co A O V Cn CT N) C O (D (D Cn V i i O L1 CD W N N ? C) N O CD CD 3 O CD CD co O N W �1 CD M Cn D Co v V A A 3 N � co Kent -City Council Meeting Date ,,august 21. 2Q01 Categoar Ctent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ELECTION INFORMATION VIDEO - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Passage of Resolution No. , which establishes policies and procedures for taping and broadcasting video presentations of all individuals seeking any City of Kent elected office. Resolution No. 1544 established policies and procedures relating to election video broadcasts; however the resolution only included the elected positions of Mayor and City Councilmember. Effective the 2001 election;, the position of Municipal Court Judge is now an elected position and, therefore, it was necessary to include this position in the election video broadcasting. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDaETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT? NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a policy for the use of the City's government access cable television channel for election information for all elected positions, and for certain ballot measures placed before the voters and further repealing Resolution No. 1544. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 1544, established policies and procedures for taping and broadcasting video presentations for the positions of Mayor and City Councilmember; and WHEREAS, Municipal Court Judge(s) was not an elected office at the time Resolution No. 1544 was originally enacted; and WHEREAS, Municipal Court Judge(s) are now elected by the electorate every four years; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow all individuals seeking any City of Kent elected office an opportunity to broadcast a presentation; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Policy Statement. It is the policy of the City of Kent that the City's government access cable television channel shall be utilized to inform the voters on City of Kent ballot measures including any City of Kent elected positions, 1 Election Information Video and ballot measures placed on the ballot by action of the Kent City Council or by initiative or referendum of the voters. SECTION 2. Information on City Elections. At each regular or special election of the City of Kent, the city shall prepare an election information videotape to be telecast on the city's government access cable television channel. The program shall be video taped by City of Kent video technicians utilizing city equipment and facilities as follows: A. The video shall consist of four (4) minute presentations by each candidate for any elected position other than for the Mayor. Each candidate for Mayor shall have the opportunity to prepare a six (6) minute presentation. Candidates may use this time to introduce themselves and present their qualifications to the voters. B. Candidate presentations shall be video taped in the two week period following the official filing deadline for office. For those candidates who are not subject to a primary election, a separate two week taping period may be provided so long as this second taping period commences no later than four (4) weeks after the official filing deadline for office. Each candidate will be contacted by Kent staff to arrange a convenient time for video taping. Candidates will be permitted no more than three takes, selecting one for presentation. C. Taped presentations of all candidates whose names will appear on the printed primary ballot will be assembled into one program grouped by position sought. This program will then be shown on the city's government access television channel beginning one month prior to the primary election, and shall run at least once each day at varying times of the day until the day before the primary election. Upon certification of candidates winning the primary election and moving on to the general election, those candidates not proceeding to the general election shall have their taped presentations removed from the program. The tapes of all remaining candidates whose names will appear on the printed general election ballot shall be shown on the dt j cas'F mce- e-J- day city's government access television channel,atrvarying times of the day beginning one month before the general election until the day before the election at which time the presentations shall be removed from the city's television programming. 2 Election Information Video 5 �MAP' d , D. Ballot measures may have a "vote yes" committee, and a "vote no" committee prepare three minute presentations representing their respective positions on the measure. Each side will then have the opportunity to present a two minute rebuttal to the other side's statement. The order of presentation and rebuttal shall be determined by lot. Video taping shall be conducted as outlined above. The presentations of each side shall be shown at least once each day at varying times of the day beginning one month before the election in which the measure will be voted upon, and shall terminate one day before the election. SECTION 3. Information on Ballot Measures. The City of Kent may prepare an informational video tape on a ballot measure to be shown on the city's government access television channel. The presentation must be informational only, and shall not advocate for or against any ballot measure. SECTION 4. Encourazement to Vote. The City of Kent may prepare for broadcast on the city's government access television channel video tapes encouraging individuals to register to vote, and to vote in primary, general or special elections. SECTION S. Candidate Forums. Candidate forums conducted by citizen groups, associations, or organizations may be video taped for presentation on the city's government access television channel under certain conditions. Any group wishing to have its candidates forum video taped for presentation must submit a request to the city's Director of Information Services on a form to be supplied by the director not later than thirty(30) days prior to the scheduled forum of its desire to have the forum taped. The director shall then determine if appropriate technical staff is available at the time requested, and the suitability of the location selected for video taping considering both audio and video production requirements. The director shall notify the applicant within one week of making application whether or not the city will be able to accommodate the request. 3 Election Information Video Should a candidate forum be video taped for later presentation, the director shall schedule the forum to be shown at varying times of the day prior to the election for a period not to exceed two (2)weeks. SECTION 6. Format and Schedule Modi acations. The format and schedules of taped presentations may be modified by City staff as necessary, consistent with the intent of this resolution, to meet staffing and other scheduling demands. SECTION 7. Recitals Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 9. Ratification. The City Council hereby ratifies and confirms all acts previously taken that are not inconsistent with the findings of this resolution. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. 4 Election Information Video SECTION 11. Repealed. City Council Resolution 1544 is hereby repealed in its entirety. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this day of August, 2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of August, 2001. JIM WHITE,MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of August, 2001. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CIviMcsolu[lon\ElectlonlnfoVldeo2 doc 5 Election Information Video Kent City Council Meeting Date , ,uqU@t 21. 2001 Category Gent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERSHIP AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. , which increases the membership of the board from iseven (7) to nine (9) members. On or about August 4, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3414, which established the Diversity Advisory Board to promote and facilitate active involvement and participation by diverse cultures within the Kent Community. . The City desires to increase the membership of the board from 'seven (7) to nine (9) members in order to broaden the perspective and increase the input on issues relating to diverse cultures being considered by the board. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Oneratigns Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBW=TED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO�� YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 2.56 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Diversity Advisory Board," to increase the number of members from seven (7) to nine (9). WHEREAS, on or about August 4, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3414, which established the Diversity Advisory Board to promote and facilitate active involvement and participation by diverse cultures within the Kent Community; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase the membership of the board from seven (7) to nine (9) members in order to broaden the perspective and increase the input on issues relating to diverse cultures being considered by the board; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Diversity Advisory Board —Increase to Nine Members SECTION 1. - Amendment. Amending Section 2.56.050 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Terms of Appointment,"to read as follows: Sec. 2.56.050. Terms of appointment. Members shall serve three (3) year terms. The dal-terms shall be staggered so that the terms of with twethree (23) members expire in any given year. Initial appointments of less than three (3) years may be made to provide the desired staggering of terms as set forth herein.appeinted4e sef-ve ene (1) year-ten:as, twejbf22 (2-2) members appeinted to seFve twe (2) year-tenns ' (3` embe „te to serve 4ffee (3` ' to . The board chair shall iandth 1,111 V V be appointed annually by the board's members. SECTION 2. -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 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JI1V1 WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Diversity Advisory Board -Increase to Nine Members APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 22001. APPROVED: day of 72001. PUBLISHED: day of 22001. 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`Cml'ONueuAwrntyAdxoryBevd-IonevMemba.dec 3 Diversity Advisory Board —Increase to Nine Members Kent ; City " ncil Meeting Date _ „sr, 21, 2001 Cate!#o --0cgs nt Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION CONTRACT, - AUTHORIZE 2 . SLIMY STATEMENT: As recommended by th'e Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Agreement, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney. 3 . EXHIBITS: CTR Implementation Agreement and Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public unorks Committee (Committee, Staff,Staff, Examiner, Commission; etc,.) 5 . UNBUDQETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL_ IVACTs NO _ YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FPS_: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember , seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• . Council Agenda Item No. 6H COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 W A$H I N Q T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 6, 2001 To: Public Works Committee From: Don Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Subject: CTR Implementation Agreement Attached is a copy of the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Agreement between the City and Washington State Dept of Transportation. This is the vehicle which allows the City to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in running the CTR Program for the Kent Jurisdiction. This is a new way of contracting for the CTR program. In the past, all money was disbursed through the counties and we signed an interlocal agreement with King County to perform the CTR duties for the Kent jurisdiction. Through a WSDOT initiative recently passed by the state legislature, the law was changed to allow jurisdictions to contract directly with the state. The attached contract is sent by DOT to all jurisdictions who operate their own CTR programs. The term of this agreement is July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003. MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Agreement, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney. ctr Washington State City of Kent Department of Transportation 220 Fourth Ave S 310 Maple Park Avenue Kent, WA 98032 PO Box 47387 Olympia, WA 98504-7387 Federal ID Number: Key Contact: T.J. Johnson Key Contact: Cathy Mooney Agreement Start Date Completion Project Project Title Number Date Amount Commute Trip Reduction GCA-2911 July 1, 2001 June 30, 2003 $67,698.59 Implementation This Agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2001, between the Washington State Department of Transportation, acting by and through its Secretary of Transportation, (hereinafter called "WSDOT") and City of Kent (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor") and said parties WITNESS THAT: WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.551 requires cities, counties and towns containing "major employers," in counties with populations over 150,000, to develop ordinances, plans and programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) commute trips, and thereby reduce vehicle-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use; WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.541 (2) provides for technical assistance to counties, cities, and towns in developing and implementing Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) plans and programs; WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.544 provides for distribution-of funds for local CTR implementation efforts; WHEREAS, WSDOT desires to achieve trip reduction in order to improve the efficiency of the state transportation system and the quality of life for citizens of the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, WSDOT hereby desires to engage and the Contractor so agrees to perform all tasks as hereinafter agreed upon by both parties, and referred to as Exhibit II, Scope of Work attached hereto and made part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1 Purpose of Agreement The purpose of this agreement is for WSDOT to provide funding to the Contractor to be used solely for activities undertaken to fulfill the requirements of RCW 70.94.521, et. seq, and to implement all tasks as described in the Exhibit II, Scope of Work. 1 Section 2 Scope of Work The Contractor and WSDOT will perform all their designated tasks under this agreement as described in the Exhibit II, Scope of Work. Section 3 Time for Beginning and Completion The work to be performed under this Agreement shall commence July 1, 2001, and terminate on June 30, 2003, unless terminated sooner as provided herein. Section 4 Reimbursement and Payment WSDOT shall reimburse the Contractor for eligible expenditures not to exceed $67,698.59. The maximum amount of funding for the Contractor was determined using the methodology contained in Exhibit I, Funding Allocation Methodology. WSDOT will reimburse the Contractor only for eligible and actual direct and indirect Project costs. Payment will be made on a reimbursable basis. Payment is subject to the submission to and approval of WSDOT of properly prepared invoices accompanied by progress reports and financial summaries. The Contractor shall submit an invoice (state form A-19) or WSDOT approved invoice format to WSDOT in order to receive reimbursement. The Contractor shall submit invoices up to 4 times per fiscal year, or up to eight times during the course of this contract. The Contractor shall submit a final invoice to WSDOT no later than July 15, 2003. Any payment request received after July 15, 2003 or fifteen (15) days of the termination date, whichever is applicable, will not be eligible for reimbursement. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the invoice and upon approval, WSDOT shall remit to the Contractor a warrant for payment. All invoices and warrants shall be based on and paid on actual work performed and actual costs incurred up to the maximum amount identified in this contract. Section 5 Project Records The Contractor agrees to establish and maintain for the project either a separate set of accounts or accounts within the framework of an established accounting system, in order to sufficiently and properly reflect all eligible direct and indirect Project costs claimed to have been incurred in the performance of this Agreement. Such accounts are referred to herein collectively as the "Project Account". All costs claimed against the Project Account must be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, and payment vouchers evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. Section 6 Progress Reports The Contractor shall remit to WSDOT progress reports as described in Exhibit II, Scope of Work, so that WSDOT may adequately and accurately assess the progress made by the Contractor and third parties to this Agreement in implementing RCW 70.94.521 et. seq. These reports shall be submitted to WSDOT along with any request for reimbursement submitted pursuant to Section 4, Reimbursement and Payment. Section 7 2 Audits, Inspections, and Records Retention WSDOT, the State Auditor, and any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine, during normal business hours and as often as they deem necessary, all of the Contractor's records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and other matters covered by this Agreement. In order to facilitate any audits and inspections, the Contractor shall retain all documents, papers, accounting records, and other materials pertaining to this Agreement for three years from the date of completion of the project or the project final payment date. However, in case of audit or litigation extending past that three years period, then the Contractor must retain all records until the audit or litigation is completed. The Contractor shall be responsible to assure that it, WSDOT, the State Auditor, and any of their representatives, retain comparable audit rights with respect to subcontractors to the Contractor within the scope of this Agreement. Section 8 Agreement Modifications 1. Either party may request changes to this agreement, including changes in the Scope of Work. Such changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated as written amendments to the Agreement. No variation or alteration of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. 2. Any additional funding secured by WSDOT beyond the amount identified in Section IV, Reimbursement and Payment will be allocated to the Contractor for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 in accordance with the methodology described in Sections 1 and 2 of Exhibit I, Funding Allocation Methodology If an increase in funding by the funding source augments the Contractor's allocation of funding under this Agreement, the Contractor and WSDOT agree to enter into an amendment to this Agreement providing for an appropriate change in the Scope of Work and/or the project amount in order to reflect any such increase in funding. 3. If a reduction of funding by the funding source reduces the Contractor's allocation of funding under this Agreement, the Contractor and WSDOT agree to enter into an amendment to this Agreement providing for an appropriate change in the Scope of Work and/or the project amount in order to reflect any such reduction of funding. Section 9 Recapture Provision In the event that the Contractor fails to expend state funds in accordance with state law and/or the provisions of this Agreement, WSDOT reserves the right to recapture state funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of noncompliance. Such right of recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed three (3) years following termination of the Agreement. Repayment by the Contractor of state funds under this recapture provision shall occur within thirty (30) days of demand. Section 10 3 Disputes Any disputes between WSDOT and the Contractor with regard to this Agreement that are not disposed of by the project administrators assigned to supervise this Agreement shall be referred for determination to the Secretary of WSDOT, or his/her designee, as a condition precedent to the commencement of any legal action, accept as necessary to avoid the preclusive effects of any applicable contractual deadlines or statutes of limitation. Section 11 Termination WSDOT, at its sole discretion, may suspend or terminate this Agreement in whole, or in part, for the following reasons: 1. The Contractor materially breaches, or fails to perform any of the requirements of, this Agreement, and after fourteen (14) days written notice, has failed to cure the condition(s) causing that breach; The Contractor materially breaches and, fails to remedy after fourteen (14) days written notice. Conditions of breach may include, but not be limited to: • Any action of the Contractor, which under the procedures of this Agreement would have required the approval of WSDOT, taken without such WSDOT approval; • Failure to perform in the manner called for in this Agreement; and • Failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement. 2. The Contractor is prevented from proceeding with the Project by reason of a temporary preliminary, special, or permanent restraining order or injunction of a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such order or injunction is primarily caused by the acts or omissions of persons or agencies other than the Contractor; 3. The requisite state funding is reduced or becomes unavailable through failure of appropriation or otherwise; 4. WSDOT determines that the continuation of the project would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds; 5. WSDOT, at its sole discretion, determines to accept a request made in writing by the Contractor to terminate the Agreement in whole or in part; or 6. WSDOT determines that suspension or termination is in the best interests of the state. If this Agreement is terminated under subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 of this Section, then the Contractor may be reimbursed only for actual and eligible direct expenses under this Agreement incurred prior to the date of termination, and then only to the extent of appropriated funds. If this Agreement is terminated under subsection 1 of this Section, then WSDOT shall not be obligated to provide any additional reimbursement past the effective date of that termination and WSDOT shall also retain all rights to seek recapture, or damages, from the Contractor. If an appropriate judicial authority determines that the Agreement was improperly terminated under subsection 1 of this Section, then the termination shall be deemed a termination under subsection 6 of this Section with all attendant rights and limitations. Section 12 Forbearance by WSDOT Not a Waiver 4 Any forbearance by WSDOT in exercising any right or remedy hereunder, or otherwise afforded by applicable law, shall not be a waiver of or preclude the exercise of any such right or remedy. Section 13 Waiver In no event shall any WSDOT payment of grant funds to the Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by WSDOT of any Contractor breach, or default which and shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to WSDOT with respect to any breach or default. Section 14 Independent Contractor The Contractor shall be deemed an independent Contractor for all purposes, and the employees of the Contractor or any of its subcontractors and the employees thereof, shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees of WSDOT. Section 15 WSDOT Advice The Contractor bears complete responsibility for the administration and success of the Project as it is defined by this Agreement and any amendments thereto. Although the Contractor is allowed to seek the advice of WSDOT on problems that may arise, the offering of WSDOT advice shall not shift the responsibility of the Contractor for the correct administration and success of the Project, and WSDOT shall not be held liable for offering advise to the Contractor. Section 16 Limitation of Liability and Indemnification No liability shall be attached to WSDOT or the Contractor by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any third party. The Contractor shall indemnify and hold WSDOT, its agents, employees, and/or officers harmless from, and shall process and defend at its own expense, any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, or costs of whatsoever kind or nature (hereafter "claims") brought against WSDOT arising out of or incident to the execution, performance or failure to perform of or under this Agreement; provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of(a) the Contractor, its agents, employees, and/or officers and (b) WSDOT, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Contractor, its agents, employees, and/or officers; and provided further that nothing herein shall require the Contractor to hold harmless or defend WSDOT, its agents, employees, and/or officers from any claims arising from the sole negligence of WSDOT, its agents, employees, and/or officers. Section 17 Hold Harmless 5 It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes liability for its own negligent acts or omissions, or those of its officers, agents or employees, and agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party from such liability. Each contract for service or activities utilizing funds provided in whole or part by this Agreement shall include a provision that WSDOT and the State of Washington are not liable for damage or claims for damages arising from any city, town, designee or subcontractor's performance or activities under the terms of those contracts. Section 18 Governing Law, Venue, and Process This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance thereof shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington situated in Thurston County. The Contractor hereby accepts service of process by registered mail consistent with RCW 4.28.080(1). Each party shall bear its own legal costs and expenses, including attorney fees, in any such litigation. The parties may bilaterally elect to submit their dispute to mediation or arbitration on such terms as are agreed upon by the parties. Section 19 Compliance with Laws and Regulations The Contractor agrees to abide by all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, those concerning employment, equal opportunity employment, nondiscrimination assurances, project record keeping necessary to evidence agreement compliance, and retention of all such records. The Contractor will adhere to all of the nondiscrimination provisions in Chapter 49.60 RCW. The Contractor will also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Law 101-336, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment public accommodations, state and local government services and telecommunication. Section 20 Section Headings All section headings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. Section 21 Severability If any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be adjudged void, such adjudication shall not affect the validity or obligation of performance of any other covenant or provision, or part thereof, that in itself is valid if such remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this Agreement. No controversy concerning any covenant or provision shall delay the performance of any other covenant or provision except as herein allowed. 6 Section 22 Execution and Acceptance This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The Contractor does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements and their supporting materials contained and/or mentioned herein, and does hereby accept State funds and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. Section 23 Execution This Agreement is executed by the Director of the Public Transportation and Rail Division, State of Washington, Department of Transportation or the Director's designee, not as an individual incurring personal obligation and liability, but solely by, for, and on behalf of the State of Washington, Department of Transportation, in his/her capacity as Director of the Public Transportation and Rail Division. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. STATE OF WASHINGTON CONTRACTOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: JAMES H. SLAKEY, Director Public Transportation and Rail Division Date: Date: Approved as to form by: By: Assistant Attorney General Counsel to WSDOT June 29th, 2001 7 Exhibit I Funding Allocation Methodology Funding allocated by WSDOT for local implementation of CTR activities is based on the following formula: 1. 80% of total available state funding for local CTR implementation will be allocated based on the number of affected worksites in each county, provided that each county receives a minimum of$80,000 per year. The number of affected worksites in each county shall be based on information contained in WSDOT database as of May 1 of each year. 2. 20% of total available state funding for local CTR implementation will be allocated based on the number of commute trips reduced by worksites in each county between each worksite's base year survey and its most recent survey. For the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, the most recent survey period will be 1999. For the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, the most recent survey period will be 2001. Julyl, 2001 -June 30, 2002 Allocation 80% 20% Number of Trips Worksite Performance Total County Worksites Reduced/Day Allocation Allocation Allocation Clark 47 578 $80,000.00 $13,493.27 $93,493.27 King 612 8,238 $749.311.68 $192,314.10 $941,625.78 Kitsap 34 0 $80,000.00 $0 $80,000.00 Pierce 81 2,968 $99,173.60 $69,287.24 $186,460.8 Snohomish 95 1,158 $116,314.72 $27,033.23 $143,347.95 Spokane 98 2,238 $119,987.81 $52,245.56 $172,233.37 Thurston 99 796 $121,212.19 $18,582.42 $139,794.61 atcom 33 183 $80,000.00 $4,272.09 $84,272.09 Yakima 20 183 1 $80,000.001 $4,272.091 $84,272.09 TOTAL 1119 16,342 IS1,526,000.001 $381,500.00 $1,907,500.00 8 EXHIBIT II SCOPE OF WORK Implementation of Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plans and Program CONTRACTOR TASKS Implementation plans The Contractor, or its designee, shall implement all of the provisions listed below. 1. General Program Administration Maintain and administer a CTR ordinance and plan for affected employers in the jurisdiction(s). 2. Public Hearing Notice Provide WSDOT with a public hearing notice and copies of any proposed amendments to the CTR ordinance, plan, and/or administrative guidelines within the first week of the public review period and final copies of all actions within one (1) month of adoption. 3. Annual Expenditure Report Within thirty (30) days after June 30, 2002, and thirty (30) days after June 30, 2003, submit to WSDOT a report summarizing overall costs incurred in implementing the CTR ordinance and plan. Costs shall be reported in a format provided by WSDOT. 4. Appeals, Exemptions and Modifications Maintain an appeals process. This process must be consistent with RCW 70.94.534(6) and procedures contained in the Commute Trip Reduction Task Force Guidelines. The Contractor, or their designees, will submit requests for exemptions or modifications, including requests for goal modifications, to WSDOT for review and comment within five (5) days of receiving such requests, and shall allow WSDOT five (5) working days to provide comments prior to approving or denying the request. 5. Technical Guidance and Support Work collaboratively with and provide technical guidance and support to affected employers. The Contractor, or their designees, will provide the basic services identified in the Commute Trip Reduction Task Force Guidelines in order to achieve trip reduction goals. 6. Survey Processing Notify WSDOT prior to sending any surveys to the University of Washington, Office of Educational Assessment for processing. The notification must include the name of the worksite, employer identification code, and type of survey for each survey being submitted for processing. The notification shall be submitted as an electronic spreadsheet via electronic 9 mail. The Contractor agrees to wait for confirmation from WSDOT prior to sending or delivering the surveys for processing. 7. Database Updates Provide WSDOT with updated lists of affected worksites and jurisdiction contacts on a quarterly basis. These updates will be submitted electronically in a format specified by WSDOT. 8. Employer Annual Reports Within 30 days from the date of approval, submit to WSDOT one electronic or hard copy of any approved employer annual reports. 9. Employer Exemptions and Goal Modifications Within 30 days from the date of approval, submit to WSDOT the name and employer identification code for any worksite that has been granted an exemption or goal modification. Include information about the duration of all exemptions and information on the type of goal modification granted. 10. Progress Report and Invoice Submit to WSDOT periodic progress reports, as detailed in Exhibit III, along with any invoice or request for reimbursement. 10 WSDOT TASKS: 1. General Technical Assistance WSDOT will provide support to the Contractor, or their designees, in developing and implementing CTR plans and programs, including providing training, informational materials, and assistance in CTR evaluation. WSDOT will also assist with overall CTR outreach on a statewide basis. 2. Exemptions and Modifications WSDOT will review and comment on employer requests for waivers and modifications, including requests for goal modifications, within five (5) working days. Failure to review and comment on such requests within five (5) working days shall be considered a forfeiture of the right to comment on the request. 3. Database Management WSDOT will maintain a current database of all affected worksites in Washington State. WSDOT will input new and/or updated worksite information within fifteen (15) working days of receipt from local jurisdictions. WSDOT will employ an internal verification process to ensure all new and/or updated information is input in a timely and accurate manner. WSDOT will submit quarterly to the Contractor an updated list of affected worksites. Information from WSDOT database will be used to determine funding allocation consistent with the methodology contained in Exhibit I, Funding Allocation Methodology 4. Training Program WSDOT will develop and maintain employer and jurisdictions training materials to support local implementation of the CTR program. 5. CTR Public Awareness WSDOT will develop and implement statewide CTR public awareness and recognition programs to support local implementation of the CTR program in affected jurisdictions. 6. Annual Reporting Assistance WSDOT will distribute in sufficient quantities the State "Program Description & Employer Annual Report" form to the Contractor, affected jurisdiction, or its designee, as requested. 7. Survey Assistance WSDOT will: 7.1 Provide the Contractor, or their designees, with summary survey information as requested. 7.2 Distribute the Employee Questionnaires in sufficient numbers to the Contractor, or its designees, as requested. 11 7.3 Provide survey processing at no cost to the Contractor, or their designees, and affected employers, for the Employee Questionnaire during the base year and all subsequent surveys fA required by the Contractor. 7.4 Provide technical assistance to the Contractor, or their designees, and employers, on surveying, as requested. 7.5 Work with the Contractor, or their designees, to calculate goal measurement information and track measurement survey history for all CTR affected worksites. 7.6 Return the processed Employee Questionnaires and survey reports to the Contractor, or their designees, within thirty (30) days of the date the forms are delivered for processing. 7.7 Provide the "CTR Guide for Employer Surveys" in sufficient quantities as requested by the Contractor, or their designees. WSDOT will review survey guide/instructional materials developed by the Contractor or its designees for consistency with the state-developed "CTR Guide for Employer Surveys". 7.8 Review all electronically submitted survey notifications and respond to the Contractor within five (5) working days. 12 Exhibit III Progress Report Format • Name of the Organization Submitting Report • Submitted on behalf of following Jurisdiction(s) Contact Person Name • Contact Person Phone and Fax Number • Contact Person e-mail 1. CTR activities: A brief summary of activities undertaken. 2. CTR Funds Disbursed Jurisdiction Disbursed Total Disbursed Since Last Report Fiscal Year to Date Jurisdiction A $ $ Jurisdiction B $ $ etc Total Disbursement $ $ 3. Expenditures This Quarter List actual total expenditures on the last line of the following table. Estimate expenditures by category as indicated. CTR Fund CTR Fund Categories Expenditures Expenditures Since Last Report Year To Date Program administration $ $ Training $ $ Employer support and services $ $ Other (Specify) $ $ Total $ $ 13 r I Kent ' City Council Meeting Date AUSUpt 21, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBTECT: SECOND SUPPLY PROJECT AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to execute the Tacoma Second Supply Project Agreement subject to the concurrence with the terms, conditions and language therewith by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. 3 . EXHIBITS: Second Supply Project agreement and Public works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee ; (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDOETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NOS` YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY CQUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 61 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director �• ,K N T Phone:253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 6, 2001 To: Public Works Co m ittee From: Don Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Subject: Second Supply Project Agreement The referenced agreement was presented to Committee at the July 2nd meeting. At this time, the Public Works Department is requesting Committee's recommendation that the Mayor be authorized to execute said agreement. MOTION: Recommend to full Council that the Mayor be authorized to execute the Tacoma Second Supply Project Agreement subject to the concurrence with the terms, conditions and language therewith by the Public Works Director and City Attorney. PWCSecondSupplyAgreement COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom,P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: July 2, 2001 To: PublicIkorks Committee ii From: Don ckstrom, Public Works Director Subject: Second Supply Project Agreement As you know we have been working on implementing the Second Supply project for more than 20 years. In 1985 along with three other South County water purveyors, Kent executed an agreement with Tacoma which anticipated that this project would be on line by 1990. Those agreements have long expired and the project has changed substantially from what it was. At any rate I believe we are now at a point where I think this will indeed happen. In fact as you're aware we along with Covington Water District are proceeding ahead with the construction of an easterly segment of the pipeline associated with this project. We did so because the last two major hurdles, mainly the approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) along with their issuance of the Incidental Take permit (ITP) and the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by the Department of Ecology, are done or will be shortly. Further Seattle, Covington Water District, and Lakehaven Utility District all have formal authorization to execute this project agreement with only ourselves and Tacoma still outstanding. Tacoma anticipates their approval by mid-July with the deferral until then attributed to more pressing issues associated with their electrical utility. The following is a synopsis of some of the key elements of the contract. Participants: City of Seattle (SPU), City of Tacoma (TPU), City of Icent, Covington Water District (CWD) and Lakehaven Utility District (LUD) TacomaSecondSuppl yMemo-Agreement Page I of 4 Ownership Share: SPU, one third; TPU, one third; Kent, one ninth; CWD, one ninth 16 and LUD, one ninth. Tacoma will own and operate the facilities with all other parties owning capacity and use rights thereto. Project Description: The water from the water right (up to 100cfs), the Second Supply Pipeline (approximately 34 miles of 72mgd pipe from Headworks to Tacoma and approximately 8 miles of 40mgd pipe from Mainline to Lake Youngs), a portion of the Headworks diversion dam and intake structure, a portion of fisheries and environmental enhancements, 20,000 acre-feet of storage rights behind Howard Hanson Dam, an option to participate in a phase II Howard Hanson Dam project and the expansion or construction of additional Treatment Facilities. Estimated Project Cost: $267,830,613, Dent share is $27,499,778 (1999 estimates projected to mid-year construction which was 2002). Estimated Fully Operational: 2006 Estimated Annual Operating Costs: $3,525,037 (2006 dollars), Kent share $391,670. Project Life: Approximately 100 years or more (Affirmative vote of all parties is required to terminate project). Project Committee: A project committee composed of one representative from each participant will over-see Tacoma's implementation of the project along with the operation thereof. Each participant will have voting rights roughly equal to their share of the project. As noted, the City's share of this project is roughly $27,500,000. For that money we will get at a 98% reliability factor about 2,220 acre feet of summer water at a maximum flow rate of 7.48 million gallons per day (MGD). In addition between Oct 15C and Feb 15' when available we will also get run of the river water at a flow rate up to said 7.48 MGD. To finance our share, the agreement has us paying down said share by $10,000,000 from cash we supposedly have on hand in the project fund. Tacoma would then sell bonds for the balance and we would pay the debt service thereon. By financing the project through Tacoma we receive two potential benefits. The first is that Tacoma could hopefully get a lower interest rate and the second being that our debt payment shows up as a loan obligation on our books. This is important because it eliminates the usual debt service coverage requirement that we would normally incur had we sold the bonds. Said debt service coverage is the ratio of revenues to outstanding TacomaSecondSupplyMemo-Agreement Page 2 of 4 debt payments and typically runs 1.85 or more to 1. By eliminating same our revenues to debt coverage could be as low as 1 to 1 which means any water rate increase needed to cover this new debt could be kept to a minimum. With respect to the available cash we did have about $10,000,000; however, $7,000,000 thereof has been temporarily obligated for up to 36 months for the Borden and Clark Lake acquisitions. To off set same we did recently receive a $10,000,000 Public Works Trust Fund loan at a half percent interest rate. Thus we have approximately $13,000,000 immediately available. As you are also aware, however, we recently authorized the construction of an easterly segment of the pipe line work associated with this project and plan to pay for same from said $13,000,000. The expenses we incur here (about $13,000,000) will be credited towards our share of the total project costs so we will more then meet that $10,000,000 down payment. Further it is our intent to secure another $10,000,000 Public Works Trust Fund loan and presently have applied to the State for same. We have pursued the loans because they, like the Tacoma financing plan, don't require debt service coverage on our part and the interest rate is so much better (1/2% vs 5.5%). The outcome .of our application on this second loan will not be known until after the start of the 2002 State legislative session. We feel that based on the cash flow needs of this project that the temporary loan of the project funds per the Borden and Clark Lake acquisitions will not present a problem and between the existing Trust Fund loan and hopefully the second Trust Fund loan our costs for this project are covered. Should the second Trust Fund loan not come through then we will fall back on the Tacoma financing plan to make up the difference. With respect to a water rate increase necessary to cover this new debt along with its associated additional operating costs we are presently evaluating same. As you are aware a new water rate was instituted in January of 2000 based on implementing this project. As you are also aware, to offset the increase needed in the water rate the water utility's system development charges were increased substantially. Unfortunately the revenues therefrom have not met the expectations. As such it is obvious that some sort of rate adjustment may very well be necessary. How much of an increase, if any, is not known at this time and it will probably be towards the end of the year before we do. The magnitude of the increase if there is one will also be a function of our success per securing the second Public Works Trust Fund loan. A negative factor however is because of our now known need to supplement Rock Creek flows we will be buying more water from Tacoma over a longer period of time than we had ever even thought of. Further, because the full project is now anticipated to be on line in 2006 versus 2004 that just adds to our water purchasing needs. It should be noted that by 2006 our projected water demand will be somewhere between 16.41 to 21.53MGD. With this new supply our total available supply could be anywhere from 22.20 to 24.98MGD with the low end predicated on what we TacomaSecondSupplyMemo-Agreement Page 3 of 4 perceive is available today from our existing supplies based on drought conditions. What this denotes is that we need to move ahead with development of our next source which is the Impoundment Storage project. One added plus of the Second Supply project, however, is that once in place it opens up other avenues for us to pursue water through as it is the backbone of a regional transmission system. The Public Works Department recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute this agreement subject to the concurrence with the terms, conditions and language therein by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. MOTION: Recommend to full Council that the Mayor be authorized to execute the Tacoma Second Supply agreement subject to the concurrence with the terms, conditions and language therewith by the Public Works Director and City Attorney. TacomaSecondSupplyMemo-Agreement Page 4 of 4 February 11, 2000 SECOND SUPPLY PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TACOMA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER DIVISION, THE CITY OF KENT, COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT, LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS S ubj ect Page 1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Exhibits to the Project Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 The Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Rights and Obligations of the Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6 Rights and Obligations of Tacoma as Project Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Term of the Project Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 Project Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 Initial Project Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10 Initial Project Construction Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 Project Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 Treatment of Certain Cost Overruns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13 Treatment of Reimbursable Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14 Rights upon Delay or Termination of Project Construction . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15 Use of Project for First Diversion Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16 Use of Project Capacity During Certain Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 17 Discharge of Project Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 18 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 19 Availability of Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 20 Management of Project Water and Storage Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 21 Delivery of Additional Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 22 Metering of Water Deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 23 Provisions for Certain Points of Delivery and Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . 34 24 Deliveries of Water in Excess of Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 25 Project Annual Budgets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 26 Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 27 True-Ups of Variable O&M Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 28 Audits and Access to Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 29 Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 30 Uncontrollable Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 31 Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 32 Default of Obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 33 Representations and Warranties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 34 Assignment and Other Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 35 Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 36 Disposition of Funds upon Termination of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 37 Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 38 Entire Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 39 Interpretation of Project Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 40 Governing Law and Venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 41 Duty of Good Faith. . . . . . . * , , . . . . . . * * * , , 44 42 Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2 This Second Supply Project Agreement (Project Agreement)between the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Water Division (Tacoma); the City of Kent (Kent); Covington Water District (CWD), Lakehaven Utility District (Lakehaven) and the City of Seattle, Department of Public Utilities (Seattle), is made and entered into effective this day of , 2000 (Effective Date); and WHEREAS, irl order to satisfy long term water needs in Tacoma's service area, and in south King County, Tacoma's 1980 Water Supply Plan envisioned the application for a permit for the right to divert water from the Green River (Second Diversion Water Right); and WHEREAS, Tacoma's 1980 Water Supply Plan proposed that approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd) of the Second Diversion Water Right would be made available to water purveyors in south King County; and WHEREAS, since that time Tacoma has worked with various south King County water purveyors to procure the Second Diversion Water Right, and Tacoma has obtained rights of way, regulatory permits and taken other actions in order to facilitate the delivery and use of the Second Diversion Water Right by Tacoma and its Project partners; and WHEREAS, in 1985 Tacoma entered into a contract with the Regional Water Association of South King County, and certain members thereof, in order to participate in the funding, development and use of the Second Supply Project to facilitate the delivery and use of water to be diverted from the Green River under the Second Diversion Water Right, among other matters; and WHEREAS, the Second Supply Project evolved to include additional water storage at the Howard Hanson Dam; and WHEREAS, in 1992 Tacoma and Seattle initiated discussions that resulted in Seattle becoming a Project partner and the inclusion of a branch pipeline to connect the Second Supply Pipeline to the Seattle water system; and WHEREAS, a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Second Green River Diversion & Transmission Project was prepared in 1980, a project specific Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in 1987 and updated in 1994, all in accordance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C; and WHEREAS, Seattle completed a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on its water supply alternatives in which participation in the Second Supply Project was the preferred alternative; and WHEREAS, Tacoma is undertaking a project specific environmental impact statement for the branch pipeline to connect the Second Supply Pipeline to the Seattle water system; and 3 WHEREAS, the delivery and use of water from the Second Diversion Water Right and the construction of the facilities, as set forth in this Project Agreement, are consistent Is with state and local planning requiremepts, including the plans and programs of the Participants; and WHEREAS, gravity fed surface water sources, such as the Second Diversion Water Right, provide a desirable and complimentary source of water supply to augment groundwater sources, and will maximize the benefits to residents of the State; and WHEREAS, development of the Project as set forth in this Project Agreement will provide increased flows in the Green River to benefit the migration and spawning of anadromous fish as specified in the agreement between Tacoma and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, as well as offering additional recreational opportunities to residents of the region; and WHEREAS, the health of the chinook salmon in the Green River compares favorably to runs in other Puget Sound rivers, the environmental benefits associated with the Project will maintain and improve the health of the Green River salmon runs by providing downstream fish passage at the Howard Hanson Dam, fish screening and fish handling facilities at Tacoma's diversion dam and numerous environmental enhancement activities along the Green River, thereby providing a major contribution to recovery of salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, the connection of the Tacoma and Seattle supply systems will provide opportunities for the development of regional conservation, and provide Tacoma, Seattle and the region with a more reliable water supply system for day-to-day operations, weather related events and for dealing with force majeure events; and WHEREAS, the increasing urbanization of south King County, growth in the region, compliance with Growth Management Act objectives and listings of salmon stocks pursuant to the Endangered Species Act have caused a critical need to utilize existing water supply sources in the most efficient and effective manner, which is made possible by the Second Supply Project; and WHEREAS, developing a Green River water source using the Second Diversion Water Right in the manner envisioned by this Project Agreement offers to all the Participants a source of water with the benefits of joint development, tax exempt financing and economies of scale; and WHEREAS, the lack of a source of water supply has become critical to certain south King County water purveyors, who have been forced to impose new hook-up moratoria, making the expeditious completion of the Project as set forth in this Project Agreement imperative; and 4 WHEREAS, in July, 1997, Seattle and Tacoma executed a conceptual agreement, and in February, 1998, Tacoma, CWD, Kent and Lakehaven executed a separate Conceptual Agreement,both of which set forth the principles to be used in the development of this Project Agreement. And WHEREAS, each of the parties to this Project Agreement recognizes and is committed to meeting their Joint responsibilities to fulfilling the needs of both fish and people for water, and each of the parties believes that the timely completion and operation of the Second Supply Project are critical to meeting such joint responsibilities. And WHEREAS, each of the parties to this Project Agreement has the statutory authority to execute and implement this Project Agreement under the applicable provisions of Washington law. NOW, THEREFORE, the Participants agree as follows. 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 When used with initial capitalization in this Project Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. 1.1.1 "Additional Water"means water from any source, other than the First Diversion and Second Diversion Water, that is proposed by any Participant for introduction into the Project, and such introduction is approved by the Project Committee, pursuant to sections 8 and 21. 1.1.2 "Annual Operating Plan" means the plan for the operation of the Project during any Operating Year that is prepared in accordance with section 20. 1.1.3 "Capital Expenditures"means expenditures of funds subsequent to Initial Project Construction, which are in excess of five hundred dollars ($500.00), or such other amount as may be established by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8, are made to enhance the value or extend the life of the Project, and are contained in the Capital Expenditures element of any Project Annual Budget. This definition is to be used after Initial Project Construction for the purpose of categorizing costs for preparing the Project Annual Budget. This definition has no application to the treatment of costs incurred during Initial Project Construction, or to costs incurred pursuant to agreements entered into prior to the Project being placed in operation, and does not in any way limit or require the Participants to utilize a similar definition in accounting for the costs of the Project on such Participant's books of account. 5 1.1.4 "Cascade Water Alliance"means the not for profit corporation formed on or about April 1, 1999, by certain retail water purveyors, some of which were wholesale customers of Seattle on the Effective Date of this Project Agreement. 1.1.5 "Delivery Meter"means each of the meters which is located at or in the vicinity of the Points of Delivery bf each of the Participants, and which measures the amount,of Project Water delivered to each Participant from the Project. The approximate locations of the Delivery Meters are set forth on Exhibit A. 1.1.6 "Due Date"means the date by which payment of any invoice issued pursuant to section 26 is due to Tacoma, which date shall be the close of business on the thirtieth (30th)day after an invoice is issued pursuant to this Project Agreement, provided, however, that if such thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed by Tacoma, the Due Date shall be extended until the close of business of the next regular business day of Tacoma. 1.1.7 "Excess Project Capacity"means any capacity of the Project that is available during any Operating Year, or any portion thereof, as a result of one or more Participants not making full use of their Project Capacity Share. 1.1.8 "Financing Plan"means a plan for the funding of Project Costs which includes the issuance (or multiple issuances) of Project Bonds as approved by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8, and shall generally be in the form of Exhibit H. 1.1.9 "First Diversion Water" means water obtained under Tacoma's First Diversion Water Right Claim. 1.1.10 "Fixed 0&M Costs" means the costs incurred by Tacoma to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with this Project Agreement, which are neither Capital Expenditures nor Variable O&M Costs, and that do not vary based on the quantity of Project Water delivered to the Participants. Exhibit B sets forth examples of costs that comprise Fixed O&M Costs. 1.1.11 "Flow Control Valve" means the valve located in the vicinity of the Point(s) of Delivery for each Participant that controls the volume of Project Water which is delivered to each Participant, as set forth on Exhibit E. Flow Control Valves are not part of the Project. 1.1.12 "Headworks"means those Tacoma water system facilities located along a certain one-half mile section of the Green River near Palmer, Washington, that generally include the river diversion structures and the water control building/employee residence area. 1.1.13 "Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project" means, under Phase I, the construction of certain environmental enhancement features and raising the 6 summer storage pool to elevation 1,167 which will make available additional storage for water for municipal water supply purposes, and under Phase II, the construction of additional environmental enhancement features and raising the summer storage pool to elevation 1,177, which will make available additional water for fishery and municipal water supply purposes. 1.1.14 "Initial Project Construction"means the design, construction and placing in commercial operation those Project elements set forth in the Initial Project Construction Schedule and the Initial Project Construction Budget, attached hereto as Exhibits C and D. 1.1.15 "Initial Project Construction Budget"means the budget for Initial Project Construction, as set forth in Exhibit C. 1.1.16 "Initial Project Construction Schedule" means the schedule for Initial Project Construction, as set forth in Exhibit D. 1.1.17 "Interest Rate" means for each day that it is applied a rate equal to one-three hundred and sixty-fifth of the prime interest rate for preferred customers established from time to time by the Bank of America, or such other bank as may be designated by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8. When used to calculate the late payment charge pursuant to section 26, three (3) percentage points shall be added to such prime interest rate for each thirty (30) days that the payment of any invoice remains past due. 1.1.18 "Master Meter"means the meter located at or near the Headworks that measures the flow of Project Water into the Second Supply Pipeline through the Headworks. The approximate location of the Master Meter is set forth on Exhibit A. 1.1.19 "Operating Life"means the period of time during which the Project is operational and capable of fulfilling its delivery function in a reasonably efficient and economical manner. Section 7 sets forth the expectations of the Participants regarding the Operating Life. 1.1.20 "Operating Year" means any consecutive twelve (12) month period commencing on each July I", and ending on the following June 30th. 1.1.21 "Participants"means the parties to this Project Agreement set forth in section 3. 1.1.22 "Participant Share" means that fraction of the Project and Project Costs which, as provided in this Project Agreement, each Participant is entitled to use and each Participant is obligated to pay. Each Participant's Share is as follows: Tacoma- 1/3; Kent- 1/9; CWD- 1/9; Lakehaven- 1/9; and Seattle- 1/3. 7 1.1.23 "Point of Delivery"means the point where facilities have been constructed that permit a Participant or Participants to divert and take delivery of Project Water from the Project, and which serve to interconnect the Project and the water supply It system of such Participant or Participants. An example of the line of demarcation between the Project and the Point of Delivery facilities is set forth on Exhibit A. 1.1.24 "Project" shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in section 4. 1.1.25 "Project Annual Budget"means the budget for all of the costs of the Project for each Operating Year, including without limitation the costs of operation, maintenance, insurance, renewal, replacement, additions and improvements to the Project, that is approved by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8. 1.1.26 "Project Bonds"means those bonds issued by Tacoma's separate system pursuant to section 11 for the purpose of providing funds for the payment of Project Costs. 1.1.27 "Project Capacity Share"means the right of each Participant to use its Participant Share of the Project available under varying operating conditions to move Second Diversion Water from the Headworks to their respective Point(s) of Delivery, and for such other uses as set forth in this Project Agreement. Examples of the ability of the Project to do so under specific operating conditions is set forth on Exhibit N. 1.1.28 "Project Committee"means the committee constituted pursuant to section 8 of this Project Agreement. 1.1.29 "Project Costs"means costs,including but not limited to Fixed O&M Costs, Variable O&M Costs,Initial Project Construction Costs and Capital Expenditures, which Tacoma incurs to permit, design,construct, operate,maintain,insure, improve,renew, add to or replace Project pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and the costs incurred by Tacoma or any other Participant which qualify as Reimbursable Costs pursuant to section 13. 1 1.30 "Project Cost Estimate"means the estimate of the costs of Initial Project Construction, as set forth in Exhibit G. 1.1.31 "Project Map"means the map of the Project set forth on Exhibit I. 1.1.32 "Project Operator" means the Participant that is designated pursuant to this Project Agreement to operate and maintain the Project, which Participant shall be Tacoma. 1.1.33 "Project Quality Assurance Procedures"means the quality assurance procedures that will be followed during Initial Project Construction, as set forth on Exhibit J. 8 1.1.34 "Project Specifications" means the specifications which will govern Initial Project Construction, as set forth in Exhibit K. 1.1.35 "Project Water" means any and all water, including without limitation First Diversion Water, Second Diversion Water and Additional Water, that is introduced into and that uses some portion of the Project, regardless of its source. 1.1.36 "Prudent Utility Practice"means at a particular time any of the practices, methods or acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time a decision is made (including but not limited to the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the water utility industry in the Puget Sound region), would be expected to accomplish the desired result at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with Project longevity, reliability, safety and expedition. 1.1.37 "Reasonable Costs" means the costs that are consistent with, and not in excess of, the level of costs that a water utility operating water facilities in the Puget Sound region and acting consistent with Prudent Utility Practice and in a manner expected to produce the lowest total project cost would incur to design, construct and operate such facilities, taking into account any circumstances particular to the facility or facilities. 1.1.38 "Reimbursable Costs" mean costs incurred by a Participant, other than costs incurred pursuant to this Project Agreement, to plan, design and construct facilities that are subsequently incorporated into the Project, and which are reviewed and approved pursuant to section 13, and may include to the extent incurred the costs of project specific environmental documents, rights of way, real property acquisition, engineering and design, permitting and regulatory approvals, surveying, field investigations, inspections, material, labor expenses, financing costs, state and local taxes, project administration up to and including the project manager, special legal counsel, consulting services related to the project, and indirect costs of up to ten percent (10%) of the direct labor costs of the project, but shall not include the costs of programmatic environmental documents, project administration costs for personnel above project manager, costs of in-house legal counsel, accounting or purchasing personnel, or gross earnings taxes. 1.1.39 "Second Diversion Water"means water that is obtained under the provisions of the Second Diversion Water Right, attached hereto as Exhibit L. 1.1.40 "Storage"means the retention of water at the Howard Hanson Dam until withdrawn therefrom, all pursuant to this Project Agreement. 1.1.41 "Surcharge Rate" means a rate equal to four times the highest wholesale water rate for sales to retail water utilities that Tacoma then has in effect. 9 1.1.42 "Treatment Facilities"means facilities that are necessary, now and in the future, to ensure that the quality of Project Water is in compliance with all applicable federal and state drinking water regulations, laws and standards, including without limitation chlorination, fluoridation, corrosion control and filtration facilities. 1.1.43 "Uncontrollable Force"means any event or occurrence that is beyond the reasonable control of a Participant and which by the exercise of due diligence and reasonable foresight such Participant could not have reasonably been expected to avoid or remove, and includes but is not limited to flood, earthquake, storm, accident, fire, lightning and other natural catastrophes, epidemic, war, labor or material shortage, strike or labor dispute, or sabotage, and also includes restraint by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by regulatory authorities against any action taken or not taken by a Participant, after a good faith effort by such Participant to obtain: (a) relief from such order; or(b) any necessary authorizations or approvals from any governmental agency or regulatory authority. In no event shall the duty of a Participant to make any payment hereunder be excused by reason of an Uncontrollable Force. 1.1.44 " Variable O&M Costs"means the costs incurred by Tacoma to operate and maintain the Project in accordance with the Project Agreement, and which are neither Capital Expenditures nor Fixed O&M Costs, and which costs vary based on the quantity of Project Water delivered to a Participant during an Operating Year. Exhibit B sets forth examples of the type of costs that comprise Variable O&M Costs. 1.2 Other Terms Defined in the Project Agreement 1.2.1 The following terms are defined in the context of this Project Agreement: 1.2.1.1 "Effective Date" as defined in the Introductory section. 1.2.1.2 "Main Branch" as defined in subsection 4.1.2. 1.2.1.3 "North Branch" as defined in subsection 4.1.2. 1.2.1.4 "Pre-Construction Activities" as defined in subsection 8.9.1. 2. EXHIBITS TO THE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2.1 The following exhibits, which are attached to this Project Agreement, are hereby made a part of and incorporated into this Project Agreement as if fully set forth herein: Exhibit A-Approximate Location of Master Meter and Delivery Meters Exhibit B-Fixed and Variable O&M Costs Examples Exhibit C-Initial Project Construction Budget Exhibit D-Initial Project Construction Schedule Exhibit E-Typical Point of Delivery Exhibit F-Project Annual Budget 10 Exhibit G-Project Cost Estimate Exhibit H-Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction Exhibit I-Prof ect Map Exhibit J-Project Quality Assurance Procedures Exhibit K-Project Specifications Exhibit L-Second Diversion Water Right Permit Exhibit;M-Environmental Enhancement Agreements and Estimated Costs Exhibit N-Allocation of Project Capacity Exhibit O-Allocation of Headworks Costs Exhibit P-Prepayment of Project Costs Exhibit Q-Special Provisions for CWD and Kent Exhibit R-Special Provisions for Lakehaven Exhibit S-Special Provisions for Seattle Exhibit T-Sample Calculation of Tacoma Treatment Payment and Credit Exhibit U-Seattle/Tacoma Storage Agreement Exhibit V-Sample Calculation of Monthly Accounting of Water Deliveries Exhibit W-Sample Calculation of Variable 0&M Costs Exhibit X-Howard Hanson Dam Operating Agreement Exhibit Y-Sample Allocation of Howard Hanson Phase II Exhibit Z-Sample Weekly Operations Report Exhibit AA-Agreement of Tacoma, CWD and Seattle for Mutual Aid Exhibit BB-Principles in Agreement Between Tacoma and Seattle for Conservation Implementations 2.2 If and to the extent that there is a conflict between the terms set forth in any Exhibit and those set forth in the body of this Project Agreement, the terms set forth in the body of this Project Agreement shall prevail for purposes of construing this Project Agreement. 3. PARTICIPANTS. The Participants in this Project Agreement are: (1) The City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Water Division (2) the City of Kent; (3) the Covington Water District; (4) the Lakehaven Utility District; and (5) the City of Seattle, Department of Public Utilities. 4. THE PROJECT 4.1 The Participants have entered into this Project Agreement to permit, design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain the Project and to receive deliveries of Project Water. For purposes of this Project Agreement, the Project consists of the following: 4.1.1 The water from the exercise of the Second Diversion Water Right (up to 100 cfs) as set forth on Exhibit L; 11 4.1.2 The Second Supply Pipeline, consisting of the Main Branch, commencing at the Headworks and continuing to Tacoma's Pipeline No. 4 near the Portland Avenue Reservoir(approximately thirty-four miles with a nominal capacity of seventy- two mgd), and the North Branch, running from the Main Branch to the Seattle distribution facilities located near Lake Youngs (approximately eight miles with a nominal capacity of 40 mgd); 4.1.3 A portion of the improvements at the Headworks diversion dam and intake (associated with the Second Diversion Water Right), a set forth in Exhibit C; 4.1.4 A portion of the Project fisheries and environmental enhancements, as set forth on Exhibit M; 4.1.5 The right to store water as a result of the Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project (up to 20,000 acre-feet per year of municipal water supply storage available for withdrawal during each Operating Year in Phase I and options to participate in Phase II); 4.1.6 The expansion of existing or the construction of additional Treatment Facilities. 4.2 The Project has been designed to permit all Participants to receive at their point(s) of Delivery their respective Participant Share of Second Diversion Water simultaneously. The Participants understand and acknowledge that the capability of Project facilities at any point in time is dependent upon the use being made of the Project by the Participants, and external factors as well. Exhibit N demonstrates the amount of Project capability available to the Participants under various circumstances, and demonstrates that the Project is capable of delivering to all Participants at their Point(s) of Delivery their respective Participant Share of Second Diversion Water at the same time. 4.3 Tacoma shall own the Project, and all facilities related thereto. 5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS 5.1 Pursuant to the terms of this Project Agreement, each Participant shall have the following contractual rights and obligations. 5.1.1 The contractual right to use an undivided share of the Project equal to its Project Capacity Share, and the contractual right to use available Excess Project Capacity. 5.1.2 The contractual right to schedule for delivery and receive at its Point(s) of Delivery its Participant Share of Second Diversion Water, and the contractual obligation to take delivery of the Second Diversion Water so delivered. The 12 ability of the Project to do so under various operating scenarios is illustrated on Exhibit N. 5.1.3 The contractual right to schedulf, for delivery and receive at its Point(s) of Delivery Additional Water, and the contractual obligation to take delivery of the Additional Water so delivered. 5.1.4 The contractual right to its Participant Share of Storage; and 5.1.5 The contractual obligation to pay its Participant Share of Project Costs. 6 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF TACOMA AS PROJECT OPERATOR 6.1 Tacoma shall be the Project Operator, and except as otherwise provided in section 23, shall be responsible for the day to day operation of the Project, including without limitation, coordination of Storage with the Army Corps of Engineers, delivery of Project Water to the Participants at their Points of Delivery, performance of maintenance, renewals, replacements, improvements and additions to the Project, reading and testing of the Master Meter and all Delivery Meters, obtaining and maintaining required permits, approvals and regulatory authorizations needed to operate the Project, all as set forth in this Project Agreement. As Project Operator, Tacoma shall, consistent with the terms of this Project Agreement and the approved Project Budget then in effect, operate and maintain the Project in a manner that is consistent with Prudent Utility Practice. 6.2 As Project Operator, consistent with Prudent Utility Practice and this Project Agreement, Tacoma shall: 6.2.1 Deliver to each Participant at its Point(s) of Delivery Project Water as scheduled by each Participant pursuant to this Project Agreement. 6.2.2 Ensure that all Project Water delivered to Participants at their Point(s) of Delivery is in compliance with all applicable state and federal drinking water laws, regulations and standards. 6.2.3 Ensure that Project Water is delivered to Participants at their Point(s) of Delivery, and that such deliveries are made at the pressures specified in Exhibit A measured at the locations set forth therein. 6.3 Tacoma shall report to the other Participants its activities as Project Operator, as such reports are required pursuant to this Project Agreement. Notwithstanding Tacoma's duty to report to the other Participants, Tacoma may without consulting the other Participants take such actions as it determines to be appropriate under the circumstances as Tacoma understands them to fulfill its duties under this Project Agreement as Project Operator, consistent with Prudent Utility Practice. 13 6.4 In the event that circumstances require Tacoma to take actions not contemplated Is by the Project Annual Budget then in effect, Tacoma shall make a reasonable effort to consult with the other Participants if circumstances permit. However, Tacoma may take such actions as it judges to be appropriate under the circumstances as Tacoma understands them without prior consultation with the other P4rticipants. If Tacoma takes such actions without prior consultation with the other Participants, it shall promptly notify the other Participants of the action taken and consult with them as soon as practicable. 6.5 The timely environmental review and construction of the North Branch of the Project, which serves to connect the Seattle distribution system with the Project, is crucial to the viability of the Project. Tacoma will act as lead agency and will be responsible for completing the project specific environmental impact statement for the North Branch, and determining the scope of such environmental impact statement. Seattle will pay the costs incurred by Tacoma in discharging the foregoing responsibilities, and such costs are hereby deemed to qualify as Reimbursable Costs and to satisfy the requirements of section 13. Seattle shall provide such assistance in completing such project specific environmental impact statement as may be reasonably requested by Tacoma, such as working with individuals and groups participating in such process, and assigning Seattle staff to assist Tacoma. 7. TERM OF THE PROJECT AGREEMENT. 7.1 This Project Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the Operating Life of the Project, including any and all renewals, replacements and additions thereto. Except for those sections and subsections that expressly survive the termination of this Project Agreement, this Project Agreement shall terminate for all Participants on the date that the Participants determine, pursuant to section 8, that the Operating Life of the Project has ended,provided however, that for those Participants that elect to terminate this Project Agreement pursuant to subsection 19.5, the date of termination shall be the date established pursuant to that subsection. 7.2 It is the expectation of the Participants that the Project will have an Operating Life of not less than one hundred (100) years. This is only the expectation of the Participants, and does not impose any duty, obligation, liability or responsibility on Tacoma regarding the Project other than as set forth in other sections of this Project Agreement. 7.3 Tacoma is the holder of the Second Diversion Water Right Permit. The rights of the other Participants to a share of the water available under the Second Diversion Water Right arise under the terms of this Project Agreement. Upon the termination of this Project Agreement pursuant to this section 7 (except for 14 termination pursuant to subsection 19.5), each Participant shall have the right to participate in any subsequent project that is constructed, in whole or in part, to make available to one or more of the Participants Second Diversion Water, and shall include the right to obtain and use a share of Second Diversion Water and Storage then available on a basis and in amounts comparable to such Participant's right under this Project Agreement. The rights and obligations of the Participants set forth in this subsection 7.3 shall survive the termination of this Project Agreement, and shall be fully enforceable subsequent thereto. 7.4 All obligations incurred during the term of this Project Agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Project Agreement, and shall survive until satisfied. 8. PROJECT COMMITTEE 8.1 There shall be a Project Committee composed of one (1) representative of each Participant. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Project Agreement, each Participant shall designate its representative and any alternates in writing delivered to all Participants. Within sixty (60) days of the execution of this Project Agreement, Tacoma shall by written notice to all Participants convene the initial meeting of the Project Committee. Each Participant may change its representative and/or its alternate representative at any time by providing written notification to all other Participants. 8.2 The representatives of the Participants shall have the following votes at the Project Committee meetings: Tacoma- Three (3) votes C WD- One (1) vote Kent- One (1) vote Lakehaven- One (1) vote Seattle-Three (3) votes 8.3 For the Project Committee to take action, there must be present a quorum of not less than three (3) Participants, one of which must be the Project Operator. Tacoma shall be obligated to attend any Project Committee meeting convened pursuant to this Project Agreement. All decisions and actions of the Project Committee shall be taken by a vote of the Participants present. All matters decided by the Project Committee, other than those items specified in subsections 8.4 and 8.5, shall be by a simple majority of the votes cast by the Participants present. 8.4 The following matters shall require for approval the affirmative vote of six-ninths (6/9) of the Project Committee votes and a simple majority of the Participants: (i) any amendment or modification to the Project Specifications; (ii) approval of 15 Treatment Facilities inconsistent with subsection 18.3; (iii) any amendment or modification to the Initial Project Construction Budget; (iv) any amendment or modification to the Initial Project Construction Schedule; (v) approval of any change order that exceeds one-half of the original contingency for the contract for which the change order is requested, or which exceeds the sum of$500,000.00; (vi) approval of the Capital Expenditures contained in any Project Annual Budget; and (vii;)approval or revision of any Financing Plan. In addition to the foregoing, in order for a representative to vote on any Financing Plan or revision thereto, the representative must present to the Project Committee a resolution (or ordinance, as appropriate) passed in the sixty (60) days prior to the Project Committee vote by the governing body of the Participant on whose behalf the representative will vote, and indicating the nature of the vote to be cast by such representative. 8.5 Any determination of the Operating Life shall require the affirmative vote of all Participants. In order for a representative to vote on the determination of the Operating Life, the representative must present to the Project Committee a resolution (or ordinance, as appropriate)passed in the sixty (60) days prior to the Project Committee vote by the governing body of the Participant on whose behalf the representative will vote, and indicating the nature of the vote to be cast by such representative. 8.6 The Project Committee shall adopt such rules as it determines to be convenient and appropriate for the conduct of its business, including without limitation rules of procedure for meetings. Persons who are not designated representatives of any Participant but who are elected officials, directors, officers, employees, consultants or agents of a Participant may attend meetings of the Project Committee. 8.7 After the completion of Initial Project Construction, the Project Committee shall meet no less frequently than once each quarter. The Project Committee may meet more frequently should circumstances warrant. The dates for all regularly scheduled Project Committee meetings shall be established at the last Project committee meeting prior to the year in which such meetings shall take place. 8.8 Any Participant may convene a Project Committee meeting after the completion of Initial Project Construction by giving written notice to all other Participants no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the proposed date of the Project Committee meeting. The written notice shall indicate the time, location and agenda items to be discussed. 8.9 Activities Prior to Issuance of Project Bonds for Initial Project Construction 16 8.9.1 Prior to the issuance of Project Bonds for Initial Project Construction, Tacoma shall engage in activities necessary to obtain regulatory consents, finalize agreements and otherwise take the actions preliminary to the commencement of Initial Project Construction (Pre-Construction Activities). 01 8.9.2 Not less frequently than once each calendar year, Tacoma shall present to the Project,Committee a proposed budget setting forth the anticipated Pre- Construction Activities that Tacoma will undertake in the next twelve (12) months, or any portion thereof, the expected costs of such activities, a brief explanation of the need for such activities and a schedule for the payment of the proposed budget by the Participants. 8.9.3 The Project Committee shall review each proposed budget for Pre-Construction Activities submitted pursuant to subsection 8.9.2, and shall vote on such budget as submitted by Tacoma or as revised by the Project Committee. 8.9.4 The Participants shall pay the costs in any budget for Pre-Construction Activities approved pursuant to this subsection 8.9 in proportion to their Participant Shares. 8.9.5 At any time when a Pre-Construction Activities budget is in effect, Tacoma may propose to the Project Committee a revision to such budget, which proposed revision shall be considered by the Project Committee. Any revision to a budget for Pre-Construction Activities shall take effect if and when approved by the Project Committee. 8.9.6 Prior to the issuance of Project Bonds for Initial Project Construction, the Project Committee shall meet no less frequently than once each quarter. 8.10 Activities During Initial Project Construction 8.10.1 The Project Committee shall meet no less frequently than once each month. Any Participant may convene a meeting of the Project Committee, other than a regularly scheduled meeting, by giving written notice to all Participants at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting date, and such notice shall indicate the Time, location and agenda items the Participant convening the meeting wishes to be discussed. 8.10.2 The Project Committee shall monitor the construction of the Project. To aid in this effort, Tacoma shall report at the Project Committee meetings information relevant to the construction of the Project, including without limitation construction activity since the last Project Committee meeting, construction activity expected to be accomplished by the next Project Committee meeting, the percentage of Initial Project Construction Budget expended, and any developments in the construction of the Project which should be brought to the attention of the Project Committee. Participants shall have access during normal 17 business hours to all documents, plans, records and correspondence relating to the construction of the Project. 8.10.3 Tacoma shall seek the advice of,the Project Committee on matters relating to Initial Project Construction, and the Project Committee shall advise Tacoma on such matters in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this Project Agreement, and with the objective of constructing the Project within the Initial Project Construction Budget and consistent with the Initial Project Construction Schedule. Tacoma shall give due consideration to the advice of the Project 'Committee on such matters, and shall incorporate such advice to the extent that Tacoma determines that it is appropriate to do so. 8.10.4 The Project Committee will take such actions as are necessary to discharge its duties pursuant to subsection 8.10, including, among other matters, revising the Project Specifications or the Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction, attached hereto as Exhibit H. 8.11 Activities Subsequent to Initial Project Construction 8.11.1 Subsequent to the completion of Initial Project Construction, the Project Committee shall be responsible for the activities set forth below, and for such other activities as the Project Committee agrees to undertake. The Project Committee shall be responsible for, among other matters, the following: Approving new Points of Delivery Approving and revising the Project Annual Budget Approving Additional Water deliveries Approving and revising Financing Plans Approving imposition of the Surcharge Rate Determining actions needed to maintain water quality Determining amounts and types of insurance Determining Project Operating Life Disposition of unexpended funds from Initial Project Construction Budget Establishing operating ranges for the Master and Delivery Meters Establishing ramp rates for changes to scheduled flows Establishing scheduling procedures Establishing metering testing standards Establishing procedures for scheduling run of river Second Diversion Water Establishing procedures for excess deliveries of run of river Second Diversion Water Receiving the annual operator's report Resolving hydraulic issues Revising the commencement date of any Operating Year Revising deadlines set forth in sections 20, 21 and 22 Revising dates for storage periods under section 19.2 18 Revising the dollar limit for Capital Expenditures Revising reporting requirements by Project Operator Review and approval of the Capital Element of the Annual Budget Review and approval of the.Annual Operating Plan Selecting a substitute bank for computing Interest Rate Selecting a third party auditor pursuant to section 13 8.12 Decisions of the Project Committee taken pursuant to this section 8, and any impasse or inability of the Project Committee to reach a decision on any topic, shall not be subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in section 29. By unanimous agreement, the Participants may voluntarily elect to submit to mediation or arbitration any topic that is subject to disposition by the Project Committee. 9. INITIAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 9.1 Tacoma shall, in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions of this Project Agreement, and consistent with the Project Specifications and Project Quality Assurance Procedures, design, construct, test and place in operation the Project. Tacoma shall undertake its duties and responsibilities for Initial Project Construction under this Project Agreement professionally and with all appropriate skill, care and diligence in accordance with generally accepted water industry standards in effect in the Puget Sound region at the time of performance of the work, and shall hire and manage all necessary and appropriate contractors in connection therewith. No Participant other than Tacoma shall engage in any communication with any contractors, subcontractor or sub-subcontractor performing Initial Project Construction without giving Tacoma prior notice of and an opportunity to participate in such communication. Initial Project Construction shall commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Project Agreement. 9.2 Tacoma shall maintain and provide to all Participants upon request complete and up-to-date plans, drawings and specifications and other documentation relating to the design, engineering, construction and operation of the Project. 9.3 Tacoma shall maintain and provide to all Participants copies of design decision reports, control decision reports and similar documents prepared by Tacoma with respect to the Project whenever Tacoma circulates any such document for review and signature. Whenever requested by a Participant, Tacoma shall make available for inspection wherever such records are maintained, copies of correspondence and other notices or written communications between Tacoma and any contractors, subcontractors and other third Participants relating to Initial Project Construction. 19 10. INITIAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 10.1 The Project shall be permitted, designed and constructed in accordance with the Initial Project Construction Schedule, as may be revised from time to time by the Project Committee. 10.2 The Initial Project Construction Schedule shall be composed of schedules for the following Project elements: Project Permitting and Regulatory Approval Element Project Design Element Initial Project Construction Element Project Testing Element 10.3 The Initial Project Construction Schedule, including schedules for all Project elements, is set forth in Exhibit D. 11. PROJECT FINANCING 11.1 Prior to the issuance of Project Bonds for Initial Project Construction, any Pre- Construction Activities shall be budgeted and approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsection 8.9. 11.2 Financing Initial Project Construction 11.2.1 The estimated costs of Initial Project Construction are set forth in the Initial Project Construction Budget and the Project Cost Estimate, attached hereto as Exhibits C and G. The Participants acknowledge that the actual costs incurred for the Initial Project Construction may vary from the estimates set forth on Exhibits C and G. 11.2.2 Project Bonds to be issued by Tacoma's separate system to fund the costs of Initial Project Construction shall generally be in accordance with the Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction set forth in Exhibit H. However, the Participants acknowledge that the Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction represents the best estimate of the Participants based on information available when this Project Agreement was executed, and that circumstances in the future may require financing activities and Project Bond issuances which vary from those set forth in the Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction. If the funding provided by the Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction proves to be inadequate or untimely, Tacoma may propose a revised Financing Plan to the Project Committee to take into account such change in circumstances, including without limitation, additional issuances of Project Bonds to fund the costs of Initial Project Construction. If the sixty (60) day period set forth in section 19.5 is 20 triggered, then the Project Bonds to fund the costs of Initial Project Construction will not be issued until after the expiration of such sixty (60) day period. 11.2.3 The Headworks modifications will provide benefits to both the Project and Tacoma's existing Pipeline No. 1. The costs of these modifications have been allocated between the Project and the Pipeline No. 1 to reflect the benefits derived by each of those facilities. Only those Headworks modifications costs allocated to the Project are contained in the Initial Project Construction Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11.3 Financing After Initial Project Construction 11.3.1 After the completion of Initial Project Construction, from time to time the Participants will be required to fund the replacement, renewal, repair, improvement or make capital additions to the Project pursuant to this Project Agreement. If all or any portion of the funding for the costs of such replacements, renewals, repairs, improvements and capital additions is to be provided by the issuance of Project Bonds, Tacoma shall submit to the Project Committee a Financing Plan setting forth the purpose, amount, repayment schedule and timing of the proposed issuance (or issuances). Upon approval by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8, Tacoma may cause to be issued by such separate system in accordance with the approved Financing Plan Project Bonds for such purposes, the repayment of which shall be secured by the payments to be made by the Participants to this Project Agreement. 11.3.2 The costs of operating and maintaining the Project shall be established in accordance with section 25, and other applicable sections of this Project Agreement. 11.4 Provisions Applicable to All Project Financing 11.4.1 Tacoma shall establish a separate system for accounting and bond issuance purposes for the Project. All Project Bond shall be issued in accordance with a Financing Plan approved by the Project Committee pursuant to section 8, shall be for the purpose of financing Project Costs, and shall be issued by Tacoma's separate system. If and to the extent permitted by the then current law, such Project Bonds shall be issued as non-recourse, tax-exempt municipal bonds, the repayment of which shall be secured by the payments to be made by the Participants pursuant to this Project Agreement. 11.4.2 The Participants shall be given the opportunity to review and comment upon any preliminary and final official statements prepared in conjunction with the issuance of all Project Bonds. 11.4.3 In causing the issuance of Project Bonds from time to time for the Project, 21 Tacoma shall take all commercially reasonable actions necessary to ensure that the proceeds from such issuances are available in a timely manner to fund the construction, replacement, renewal, repair, improvement of or capital additions to the Project, while seeking to minimize the interest rates of such Project Bonds. Tacoma is hereby authorized to purchase bond insurance and other credit enhancement devices, issue bonds in series, and take all such other actions as may be commercially reasonable to reduce the costs to the Participants of Project Bonds issued in accordance with this section 11. 11.4.4 The costs incurred by Tacoma from time to time to cause the issuance of Project Bonds, including without limitation the costs of Tacoma staff and associated overheads, shall be treated as Project Costs. Exhibit H sets forth an example of such costs. 11.4.5 Except to the extent Participants elect to make payments pursuant to subsection 11.4.6, each of the Participants hereby agrees to pay its Participant Share of any and all amounts necessary to repay Project Bonds, including without limitation the costs of issuing such Project Bonds in accordance with this section 11, and such payments shall be made in such amounts and at such times as required by the covenants of such Project Bonds. Except as otherwise provided in this section 11, and sections 13 and 32, the obligation of the Participants to make all such payments shall be apportioned among the Participants based upon their Participant Shares. 11.4.6 In lieu of paying its Participant Share of amounts necessary to repay Project Bonds, any Participant may elect to fund all or any part of its Participant Share of a Project Cost, which is to be funded by the issuance of Project Bonds, by the payment of cash. Any Participant electing to pay cash for its Participant Share of any such Project Cost shall inform all other Participants of such election in writing not less than ninety (90) days prior to the proposed date of issuance of the Project Bonds, as set forth in the approved Financing Plan for such Project Bonds. Upon receipt of such written notice from any Participant, the timing and amounts of the payments any Participant electing to pay cash shall be obligated to make shall be established by the Project Committee, and shall be included in the Project Annual Budget and in the Financing Plan containing the Project Cost to be so paid. The Participant so electing shall make the payments in the amounts and at the times specified by the Project Committee in the relevant Financing Plan and Project Annual Budgets. 11.4.7 Nothing in this section 11 shall prohibit two or more Participants from entering into an agreement under which one Participant funds the Participant Share of a Project Cost of the other Participant,provided however, that such agreement shall not serve to relieve any Participant of its obligation to pay its Participant Share of a Project Cost under this Project Agreement. 22 11.4.8 If and to the extent there is funding available from sources other than Project Bonds and cash payments made pursuant to subsection 11.4.6, including without limitation grants, cost sharing, federal, state or local government funding, such funding shall be applied to the costs of constructing, operating or enhancing the Project, as determined by the Project Committee, such that all Participants share the financial benefits of such funding in proportion to their Participant's Share. 11.4.9 If and to the extent there are funds remaining in any bond fund established in conjunction with Project Bonds after the repayment in full of all outstanding Project Bonds, such funds shall be used in accordance with the applicable covenants and bond resolutions, or if no such direction is provided by the applicable covenants or bond resolutions, at the discretion of the Project Committee for the benefit of the Project. 11.4.1 ONotwithstanding any other provision of this Project Agreement, the obligation of the Participants to make payments to pay any and all amounts necessary to repay Project Bonds issued by Tacoma's separate system, including without limitation the costs of issuing Project Bonds, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Project Agreement, and shall be fully enforceable subsequent thereto. 12. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN COST OVERRUNS 12.1 Modifications to the Headworks as set forth in the Project Specifications will benefit both the Project and Pipeline No. 1. In the event that the modifications to the Headworks either exceed or fall short of the amounts budgeted for such work in the Initial Project Construction Budget, then any such overrun or surplus shall be apportioned between the Project and Pipeline No. 1 using the allocator that was applied to the costs of the constructing the Headworks modifications, as set forth on Exhibit O. The portion of any such overrun or surplus allocated to Pipeline No. 1 shall not be treated as a Project Cost. 12.2 In the event that the cost of constructing a Point of Delivery either exceeds or falls short of the amounts budgeted for such work, the Participant that will receive Project Water through such Point of Delivery shall pay for any cost overrun, or receive a credit in the amount of any surplus attributable to the construction of the Point of Delivery. The cost of constructing Points of Delivery shall not be treated as a Project Cost. 12.3 Except as provided in subsections 12.1 and 12.2, in the event that the cost of constructing any portion of the Project exceeds or falls short of the amounts budgeted therefore in the Initial Project Construction Budget, then any such amount shall be treated as a Project Cost or as surplus funds of the Project. 23 13. TREATMENT OF REIMBURSABLE COSTS 13.1 Prior to the execution of this Project Agreement, Participants have incurred certain Reimbursable Costs. The amount of such Reimbursable Costs and the Participant by whom they were made are set forth on Exhibit P. Any such Reimbursable Costs which are designated as final on Exhibit P, shall entitle the Participant that made such Reimbursable Costs to a credit in an amount equal to the Reimbursable Costs as set forth on Exhibit P, which credit shall be applied against each such Participant's Share of the Project Costs attributable to Initial Project Construction. 13.2 Any Participant that incurs any costs which are not listed on Exhibit P, may seek a credit for such costs as Reimbursable Costs as follows: 13.2.1 The Participant seeking a credit shall submit to the Project Committee complete documentation detailing the facilities for which such costs were incurred, and demonstrating that the facilities constructed for such costs have been incorporated into the Project. 13.2.2 The Project Committee may approve as Reimbursable Costs the costs submitted by a Participant by unanimous, affirmative vote of the Project Committee. 13.3 In the event that the Project Committee does not approve as Reimbursable Costs the costs submitted pursuant to subsection 13.2, the Project Committee shall designate a neutral third party to review and audit the cost information submitted by the Participant requesting the credit. Such third party shall employ standard accounting and auditing procedures in reviewing the cost information submitted. 13.3.1 The Participant seeking the credit shall cooperate with the third party, and shall promptly provide any information reasonably requested by the third party. 13.3.2 The third party shall make a written finding setting forth the amount of the costs, or any portion thereof, which are Reasonable Costs. 13.4 Costs found to be Reasonable Costs by the third party shall be added to Exhibit P as Reimbursable Costs, and the Participant shall be entitled to a credit therefor. Costs disallowed by the third party shall not be included on Exhibit P, and no credit shall be granted therefor. 13.5 Any decision regarding the Reimbursable Costs made pursuant to this section 13 shall be final, and shall not be subject to dispute resolution pursuant to section 29 by any Participant. 24 14. RIGHTS UPON DELAY OR TERMINATION OF INITIAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 14.1 If Initial Project Construction is delayed such that it cannot be completed in accordance with the Initial Project Construction Schedule, some of the Participants have made provision for taking certain actions to secure a supply of water during any such delay. The actions that may be taken by such Participants, and the circumstances under which they may be taken, are set forth on Exhibits Q, R and S. As used in Exhibits Q and R, the term "Project Agreement" refers to the agreement between Tacoma and the other Participants under which facilities are designed and installed to provide water during the delay, and does not refer to this Project Agreement. 14.2 In the event that construction of the Project is terminated prior to the completion of Initial Project Construction (except for termination pursuant to subsection 19.5), and the Participants having unanimously agreed in writing that there is no reasonable set of circumstances under which the Project can be expected to be completed, then in that event each Participant may take such actions as it may deem necessary to take delivery of its Participant Share of the Second Diversion Water as available during any calendar year. Prior to taking any such actions, each such Participant shall negotiate in good faith and reach agreement with Tacoma to establish a payment to compensate Tacoma for the costs associated with the delivery and use of Second Diversion Water, including without limitation the costs of the fisheries and environmental enhancement agreements that were entered into to permit the Project to proceed, the costs of using Project rights of way and compensation for costs of the Project incurred by Tacoma. The rights and obligations of the Participants set forth in this subsection 14.2 shall survive the termination of this Project Agreement, and shall be fully enforceable subsequent thereto. 15. USE OF PROJECT FOR FIRST DIVERSION WATER 15.1 Tacoma shall have the right to use its Project Capacity Share to move First Diversion Water when Tacoma deems it appropriate to do so. 15.2 Tacoma shall have the right to use any Excess Project Capacity available to it under this Project Agreement to move First Diversion Water. In such event, the First Diversion Water shall have the same priority to Excess Project Capacity as Second Diversion Water. 15.3 First Diversion Water that is moved through the Project pursuant to this section 15 shall not be subject to the requirements-of Section 21,but shall be subject to all other provisions of this Project Agreement. 25 16. USE OF PROJECT CAPACITY DURING CERTAIN EVENTS 16.1 Certain Participants have entered into an agreement pursuant to which they will provide aid and assistance upon the occurrence of specified events on their respective systems, which agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit BB. Nothing in the agreement between such Participants set forth in Exhibit BB shall entitle them to take any action or refrain from any action that would be inconsistent with the rights under this Project Agreement, or that would result in any other Participant being unable to fully exercise its rights hereunder. 16.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Project Agreement, the signatories to the agreement set forth on Exhibit BB retain the right to revise or modify the terms of their agreement set forth in Exhibit BB without the approval or consent of any Participant that is not a signatory thereto. 16.3 Should Tacoma receive from any Participant a request for deliveries of Project Water that exceeds the rights of such Participant under this Project Agreement, and such request is due to the occurrence of an Uncontrollable Force event on the requesting Participant's system that renders such Participant incapable of meeting the water supply needs of its retail customers, Tacoma shall promptly notify all other Participants of such request. Tacoma may, but shall not be obligated to, query the other Participants or convene a Project Committee meeting to determine if there are voluntary actions that could be taken by some or all of the Participants to alleviate the situation on the system of the Participant making such request. Tacoma shall not take any action to comply with the request of any Participant subject to an Uncontrollable Force event without the consent of each and every Participant that will be affected by such action. 16.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Project Agreement, should Tacoma lose the use, in part or in whole, of Tacoma's Pipelines Nos. 1, 2 or 4 due to an Uncontrollable Force event, and as a consequence thereof experience a water supply shortage on the Tacoma water system, then in that event Tacoma may use the Project to move First Diversion Water if so doing will alleviate such water supply shortage. In order to make such use of the Project, Tacoma may curtail or interrupt deliveries of Project Water to other Participants, so long as the reductions to the deliveries of Project Water to other Participants are: (i) made to all other Participants as nearly as practicable in proportion to the Participant Share of each Participant; (ii) do not exceed the reductions in deliveries of Project Water being experienced by Tacoma; and (iii) do not cause a water shortage on the water system of the other Participants that exceeds the water supply shortage being experienced by Tacoma. 17. DISCHARGE OF PROJECT WATER 17.1 From time to time as Project Operator, Tacoma may judge it necessary to 26 discharge Project Water into the system of one or more Participants for purposes of maintaining water quality, performance of maintenance or for other purposes. 17.2 When Tacoma determines that it is necessary to discharge Project Water as described in subsection 17.1, and the Project Water so discharged will enter the system of any other Participant, Tacoma shall promptly notify the Participant or Participants into whose distribution systems the discharge will occur of the timing of such discharge, the volume of water involved, and the reason for such discharge. Tacoma shall not implement a proposed discharge unless and until it has received the permission therefore from the Participant or Participants into whose distribution systems the discharge will occur. Such Participant or Participants shall not unreasonably withhold permission for a discharge as proposed by Tacoma. 17.3 Project Water received by a Participant due to a discharge implemented by Tacoma pursuant to this section 17 in amounts equal to or less than the Project Water the Participant scheduled for delivery during the time period when the discharged Project water is received shall be considered as the delivery of Project Water for all purposes under this Project Agreement. If and to the extent the Project Water received by a Participant due to a discharge pursuant to subsection 17.1 exceeds the Project Water the Participant scheduled for delivery during the time period when the Discharged Project Water is received, such amount of Project Water in excess of the scheduled amounts shall not be considered as the delivery of Project Water for any purpose under this Project Agreement, and shall be deducted from the amounts of Project Water metered pursuant to section 22. 17.4 Project Water discharged by Tacoma pursuant to this section 17 which is not considered as the delivery of Project Water pursuant to subsection 17.3, shall be deducted from the amount of Project Water available to all Participants in proportion to their respective Participant Share. 18. WATER QUALITY 18.1 Project Water available to the Participants pursuant to this Project Agreement shall be in compliance with all applicable state and federal drinking water laws, regulations and standards. 18.2 The Participants agree that if applicable state or federal drinking water laws, regulations or standards require additional or different Treatment Facilities in order for Project Water to remain in compliance therewith, the Participants will take the steps necessary to add such Treatment Facilities to the Project. The costs of so doing shall be treated as Project Cosfs, and shall be apportioned to each of the Participants on the basis of their Participant Share. 18.3 The Project Committee shall make all necessary determinations regarding what 27 Treatment Facilities should be added to the Project in order to comply with this section 18. For purposes of making all such determinations, any Treatment Facility shall be located at or near the Headworks, shall be capable of treating water in amounts equal to the maximum capacity of the Project as set forth in Exhibit N, and shall use the technology which is expected to have the lowest life cycle costs. Any decision by the Project Committee to take actions inconsistent with this subsection 18.3 must be approved in accordance with subsection 8.4. 18.4 Tacoma may elect to increase the capacity of the Treatment Facilities used for the chlorination of Project Water to enable such facilities to chlorinate First Diversion Water. To exercise this option, Tacoma must give written notice of its election to all Participants prior to the initiation of final Project design for Initial Project Construction. If Tacoma exercises this option to increase the capacity of such Treatment Facilities to chlorinate First Diversion Water, Tacoma shall be responsible for paying the incremental costs for such increased treatment capacity. The estimated incremental cost of adding such additional chlorination treatment capacity is set forth on Exhibit T. 18.5 Should Tacoma elect to increase the chlorination capacity of the Treatment Facilities to accommodate First Diversion Water, and it is subsequently required that First Diversion Water and Second Diversion Water must be given filtration treatment, then Tacoma shall pay to the Project, upon the commencement of construction of such filtration facility, a credit calculated pursuant to the formula set out on Exhibit T. 19. AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE 19.1 Storage of Second Diversion Water shall be provided by Phase I of the Howard Hanson Additional Storage Project. 19.2 When Phase I is completed, each Participant shall have the right to store Second Diversion Water in proportion to their Participant Share of Second Diversion Water between February 15 and June 30. In most years, the total amount of stored water will equal 20,000 acre-feet if all Participants commit the full amount of their allocation of Second Diversion Water to Storage. Second Diversion Water used by any Participant during the February 15 through June 30 period for purposes other than Storage will be accounted for as a use of that Participant's share of Storage, unless full Storage has been achieved prior to June 30 and Second Diversion Water is available as run of the river water. 19.3 If the Howard Hanson Additional Storage Project proceeds to Phase II, then in that event the Participants shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in such Phase II in proportion to their respective Participant Share. Should any Participant decline to participate, in whole or in part, in Phase II, each Participant participating in Phase II shall have a right of first refusal to any portion of Phase II 2S in which any other Participant declines participation. The share of Phase II which is declined by a Participant shall be made available to the Participants participating in Phase II based on their Participant Share, assuming that the sum of the Participant Shares of those Participants that will participate in Phase II equals one hundred percent of the Project. A sample of the allocation set forth in this subsection 19.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit Y. 19.4 The timing and amount of Storage available to the Participants under this Project Agreement will be governed by the agreement for the operation of the Howard Hanson Dam, to be executed by Tacoma and the Army Corps of Engineers. Upon execution by Tacoma and the Army Corps of Engineers, such agreement will be attached to this Project Agreement as Exhibit X. 19.5 The viability of the Project depends upon the ability of the Participants to store at the Howard Hanson Additional Storage Project not less than 20,000 acre-feet of Second Diversion Water when such water is available. Should the Army Corps of Engineers offer to Tacoma for execution a proposed operating agreement for the Howard Hanson Additional Storage Project that provides to the Participants less than 20,000 acre-feet of storage, Tacoma shall promptly deliver to each Participant a copy of the proposed agreement. In such event, each Participant shall have the right to terminate its participation in this Project Agreement by presenting to Tacoma, within sixty(60) days of the date such operating agreement was delivered by Tacoma, an ordinance or resolution of the Participant's governing body approving such termination. The Participant Share of any Participant that terminates its participation in this Project Agreement pursuant to this subsection 19.5 shall be disposed of in accordance with subsection 32.4, and the Participant shall not be entitled to reimbursement or payment in any form from any other Participant that accepts all or any portion of the Participant Share of the terminating Participant. 19.6 Seattle and Tacoma have made bilateral arrangements for the use of Storage under certain circumstances. These arrangements are set forth on Exhibit U. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Project Agreement, Seattle and Tacoma retain the right to revise or modify the terms of this bilateral agreement without the approval or consent of any other Participant. 20. MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT WATER AND STORAGE USE 20.1 Each Participant shall be entitled to schedule, pursuant to this section 20, the use of its Project Capacity Share to deliver Project Water to its Point(s) of Delivery, notwithstanding the use of such Project capacity as Excess Project Capacity by any other Participant. Excess Project Capacity shall be first made available to Participants for the delivery of Second Diversion Water to Participants Point(s) of Delivery, and in the case of Tacoma for the delivery of First and Second 29 Diversion Water, and then any Excess Project Capacity remaining thereafter shall be made available to Participants for the delivery of Additional Water. The Is foregoing rights and priorities shall apply to all aspects of section 20, including the review and revision of Participants' operating plans, review and approval of Annual Operating Plans, and the scheduling of Project Water within an Operating Year. 20.2 Participants' Operating Plans and Annual Operating Plan 20.2.1 On or before April I" of each year during the term hereof, Tacoma shall provide to each Participant a written estimate of the expected availability of the Project for the next Operating Year, and the expected availability of Second Diversion Water. This will include, but will not be limited to, information regarding expected operating constraints and any additional information available to Tacoma that may be useful to Participants in planning their use of the Project in the next Operating Year. 20.2.2 Not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the information from Tacoma pursuant to subsection 20.2.1, each Participant shall submit to Tacoma and to all, other Participants a written draft operating plan for the next Operating Year. Each Participant's draft operating plan shall include, but not be limited to, the amount of Additional Water and Second Diversion Water that each such Participant expects to receive from the Project in each week during the next Operating Year, the amount of Second Diversion Water each Participant expects to place in Storage, and the timing and amount of expected withdrawals from Storage. If any Participant expects to make use of Excess Project Capacity during the next Operating Year, such Participant's draft operating plan shall identify the quantity, duration, timing and the specific facilities that are intended to be so used. Consistent with the agreement between Seattle and Tacoma attached hereto as Exhibit U, Seattle will not be obligated to include in its draft operating plan an election regarding the use of variable Storage. 20.2.3 In making Excess Project Capacity available to the Participants as may be requested in their draft operating plans submitted pursuant to subsection 20.2.2, all requests for the use of Excess Project Capacity to move Second Diversion Water(and, in the case of Tacoma, to move First and Second Diversion Water) shall be satisfied first , and then any Excess Project Capacity remaining thereafter shall be made available to fulfill requests to move Additional Water. 20.2.4 Not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the Participants operating plans, Tacoma shall prepare and submit to the Project Committee a draft Annual Operating Plan that incorporates the draft operating plans submitted to Tacoma pursuant to subsection 20.2.2. The Project'Committee shall convene one or more meetings to consider the draft Annual Operating Plan prepared by Tacoma, and to approve the Annual Operating Plan as submitted or as may be revised by the 30 Project Committee, for the next Operating Year. The Annual Operating Plan so approved shall include, at a minimum, the Participants' operating plans and any revisions thereto, allocation of Excess Project Capacity among the Participants, scheduled maintenance outages,,their timing and duration, and any constraints on the availability of Second Diversion Water or Storage. If and to the extent that the Annual Operating Plan reflects a constraint or diminution in the capability of the Project to deliver Project Water to the Participants, or in the amount or availability of Second Diversion Water or Storage, the Annual Operating Plan for the Operating Year in which such constraint or diminution occurs shall apportion to all Participants in proportion to their Participant Share the consequences of such constraint or diminution;provided however, that a constraint or diminution that affects facilities that serve some but not all of the Participants shall be borne only by those Participants served thereby. 20.2.5 If any operating plan submitted by a Participant includes the introduction by that Participant of Additional Water into the Project during the Operating Year, then as part of the consideration and approval process set forth in subsection 20.2.4, in addition to this section 20, all of the conditions set forth in section 21 shall apply thereto. 20.2.6 The Project Committee may elect to advance or delay the commencement of any Operating Year if it determines that it is necessary and appropriate to do so. 20.3 Scheduling Delivery of Project Water During an Operating Year 20.3.1 Prior to 10:00 A.M. on any Thursday during each Operating Year, any Participant may submit to Tacoma, in the manner and in the form established by the Project Committee, a schedule for Project Water deliveries for the following seven (7) days. Such schedule shall contain at a minimum a uniform rate of water deliveries for each day of the schedule, and shall take effect on the day following the Thursday the schedule is submitted. Schedules so submitted shall remain in effect until replaced by a subsequent schedule submitted in accordance with this subsection 20.3.1. As Project Operator, Tacoma shall, consistent with the priorities for the use of Project capacity as set forth in subsection 20.1, take all reasonable actions required to ensure that the amount of Project Water scheduled by each Participant is available to the scheduling Participant at its Point(s) of Delivery. Tacoma shall not be responsible for the operation of Flow Control Valves by which Participants withdraw water from the Project. 20.3.2 Tacoma may revise schedules submitted pursuant to subsection 20.3.1 if and to the extent any such schedule calls for deliveries that are in excess of the submitting Participant's rights under this Project Agreement, cannot be accommodated within Excess Project Capacity available, or is inconsistent with Project operating constraints. Tacoma shall notify any Participant whose schedule is revised pursuant to this subsection 20.3.2. In the event that a change in 31 circumstances necessitates a change to a schedule then in effect, the submitting Participant may request a change to such schedule, and Tacoma shall take all reasonable actions which are consistent with this Project Agreement to accommodate such schedule change. 20.3.3 If Tacoma receives a schedule pursuant to subsection 20.3.1 which exceeds the rights of the submitting Participant under this Project Agreement,Tacoma shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such schedule by using any available Excess Project Capacity. To the extent that Tacoma receives more than one schedule that calls for deliveries in excess of the rights of the submitting Participants under this Project Agreement,Tacoma shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such schedules by using Excess Project Capacity.If such schedules so submitted exceed the amount of Excess Project Capacity available,Tacoma shall,consistent with the priorities for the use of Project capacity set forth in subsection 20.1,prorate the available Excess Project Capacity to the schedules which require such Excess Project Capacity on the basis of the Participant Shares of the submitting Participants, and shall promptly notify each such Participant of the amount of the schedule that cannot be accommodated. Each Participant so notified shall have until 3:00 P.M. to notify Tacoma if, and the extent to which, it has been able to accommodate its schedule 20.4 Scheduling of Run of River Second Diversion Water The foregoing scheduling provisions are designed primarily to apply to the withdrawal and use of Second Diversion Water from Storage, and are not meant to apply to the scheduling of Second Diversion Water available as run of river water. The Project Committee shall formulate, and revise from time to time as appropriate, procedures under which Tacoma shall provide Participants with information regarding the availability of, and Participants shall schedule delivery of Second Diversion Water available as run of river water. 20.5 Operating Reports Each week during every Operating Year, Tacoma shall transmit to each of the Participants a report regarding the status of operations related to the Project. A sample weekly report is set forth in Exhibit Z. The report will be transmitted to the Participants by means determined by the Project Committee. The Project Committee may from time to time revise the information to be included in the weekly report by Tacoma. 20.6 The Project Committee may modify the deadlines for the submission of information required by this section 20. 21. DELIVERY OF ADDITIONAL WATER 21.1 Subject to the requirements set forth in section 20 and this section 21, each 32 Participant shall have the right to use its Project Capacity Share to move Project Water in accordance with this Project Agreement. 21.2 Any Participant wishing to use Project facilities to move Additional Water that was not included in the Annual Operating Plan then in effect shall make all reasonable efforts to notify all other Participants at the earliest practicable date of its intention to move such Additional Water. Such notification shall include, but shall not be limited to information regarding the quantity, source, duration, destination and water quality of any Additional Water proposed to be so moved. 21.3 A Participant wishing to move Additional Water shall submit to the Project Committee in writing the information required pursuant to subsection 21.2 not later than sixty (60) days prior to the date the Additional Water is proposed to be first introduced into the Project. 21.4 The Project Committee shall determine whether the proposed introduction of Additional Water is; (a) consistent with the proposing Participant's rights under this Project Agreement; (b) conforms with all applicable state and federal drinking water laws, regulations and standards; and (c) is compatible with the water quality of Project Water at the point of introduction into the Project. If the Project Committee makes a determination that such Additional Water does not meet all of the foregoing conditions, it shall disapprove the proposed introduction of the Additional Water. 21.5 The determination of the Project Committee set forth in subsection 21.4 shall be made within sixty (60) days of the date of receipt of the written notice required pursuant to subsection 21.3. 21.6 The testing and monitoring of the quality and quantity of any Additional Water introduced into the Project shall be the responsibility of Tacoma. 21.7 The Participant that proposes to introduce Additional Water into the Project shall pay the costs of acquiring and installing a separate meter that complies with Project meter standards, to measure the flow of Additional Water. Tacoma shall acquire, install and maintain such meter, and the meter shall be part of the Project. 21.8 The Participant which introduces Additional Water into the Project shall be responsible for paying any and all costs associated with the introduction of Additional Water as determined by the Project Committee, including without limitation, the costs of any testing and monitoring water quality, increased Variable O&M Costs attributable to such Additional Water, and the costs of additional metering. 33 22. METERING OF WATER DELIVERIES. 22.1 The Master Meter will be located at the Headworks to measure the flow of Project Water. Except as otherwise provided in section 23, each Participant's Delivery Meter shall be located at the Point of Delivery for each such Participant. All Point of Delivery facilities will be designed and constructed as part of the Project, but the Posts of designing and constructing such facilities will be billed separately to the Participant that will receive deliveries of Project Water at such Point (or Points) of Delivery, and will not be treated as Project Costs. Exhibit E sets forth the Point of Delivery facilities that are part of the Project and will be included in Project Costs, and those Point of Delivery facilities that will be billed to each Participant. Each Participant shall be responsible, at its own expense, for operating and maintaining those Point of Delivery facilities for which it is separately billed pursuant to this subsection 22.1.The approximate location of each Participant's Point (or Points) of Delivery and Delivery Meter, and of the Master Meter, are set forth on Exhibit A. 22.2 Unless alternative provision is made in the Project Annual Budget, the cost of installing the initial and any replacement Delivery Meter(s) for each Participant shall be borne of each such Participant. The cost of installing the Master Meter shall be a Project Cost. All such meters shall be considered a part of the Project. 22.3 As Project operator, Tacoma shall be responsible for the calibration and testing of the Master Meter and all Delivery Meters. No less frequently than once each year each meter, including the Master Meter, shall be tested for accuracy, and the results of such testing shall be made available to all Participants at no charge. The costs of the annual Delivery Meter tests, and the costs of the annual test of the Master Meter, shall be Project Costs. In addition to the annual meter test, any Participant may test any meter that measures Project Water at any reasonable time and at such Participant's expense. The results of any additional meter test shall be made available to all other Participants at no charge. 22.4 Any and all maintenance, repairs, and replacements to the Master Meter and to Delivery Meters shall be the sole responsibility of Tacoma as Project Operator, and the costs of any and all maintenance and repairs shall be Project Costs. 22.5 In the event there is a difference between the quantity of Project Water as measured at the Master Meter and the quantity of Project Water as measured by summing the readings on each of the Delivery Meters, such difference will be apportioned among the Participants based on the volumes as recorded on each of the Participants meters, unless the Project Committee determines that a different adjustment is appropriate under the circumstances. A sample calculation of such an adjustment is set forth on Exhibit V. 22.6 Pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 8, the Project Committee shall 34 establish the size and the flow range within which each Delivery Meter must operate. Should Tacoma determine that any Delivery Meter is operating outside the flow range so established, it shall notify in writing the Participant whose Project Water deliveries are me4sured by such Delivery Meter, and the size of the replacement meter needed to operate within the flow range. Tacoma shall provide the Participant an opportunity to discuss the problem with the existing Delivery Meter, and the need for the proposed replacement Delivery Meter. After providing such written notice, Tacoma may replace the faulty Delivery Meter and bill the Participant for the costs of procuring and installing such meter, and such Participant shall be obligated to pay such bill. 22.7 The Flow Control Valve for each Participant shall be owned by and shall be under the control of each Participant. Flow Control Valves shall not be a part of the Project. Each Participant shall be responsible for the operation and control of its own Flow Control Valve. Upon reasonable notice and subject to scheduling with the other Participant, each Participant shall have the right to enter the meter and/or valve vault or vaults of any other Participant for any reason related to the Project. 22.8 As Project Operator, Tacoma shall have access to the control signals from each meter station, and access to each vault in which a Delivery Meter is located. Each Participant shall have the right to receive the control signal for its Delivery Meter(s), and the control signal from any other meters operated in conjunction with the Project. The costs of equipment necessary to receive any such control signals shall be borne by the Participant receiving such signals. 23. PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN POINTS OF DELIVERY AND OTHER MATTERS 23.1 Seattle's Points of Delivery and Related Responsibilities 23.1.1 Seattle shall have three (3) Points of Delivery, located on the Lake Youngs Reservation in the approximate locations listed on Exhibit E. The Delivery Meter shall be located at or near the point where the North Branch crosses the southern boundary line of the Lake Youngs Reservation. 23.1.2 Seattle shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities located within the boundaries of the Lake Youngs Reservation. Seattle shall discharge such operation and maintenance duties in a manner consistent with the standards set forth in section 6 for the maintenance of the Project. Seattle shall be responsible for paying all of the costs related thereto, and such costs shall not qualify as Project Costs or Reimbursable Costs. 23.1.3 Seattle hereby grants to Tacoma an easement, for the term of this Project Agreement, to locate within the confines of the Lake Youngs Reservation, the Project facilities depicted on Exhibit E at the approximate locations shown thereon. Such easement includes access to the Lake Youngs Reservation by 35 Tacoma and its contractors for the purposes of constructing, testing and inspecting such Project facilities. Seattle shall execute such documents as may be necessary to perfect the easement granted in this subsection 23.1.3. 23.1.4 Tacoma shall convey to Seattle all right, title and interest it may have in the Project facilities located within the confines of the Lake Youngs Reservation and the easement granted to it pursuant to subsection 23.1.3 upon the later of. i) the termination of this Project Agreement; or ii) the termination of any subsequent agreement pursuant to which Seattle has the use of any Second Diversion Water as described in subsection 7.5. Tacoma shall execute such documents as may be necessary to perfect the conveyance of such facilities and the reconveyance of such easement to Seattle. 23.1.5 Except as otherwise provided in this section 23, all other provisions of this Project Agreement shall apply to the Project facilities located within the confines of the Lake Youngs Reservation. 23.2 Tacoma's Points of Delivery Tacoma shall have four (4) Points of Delivery, located in the approximate locations depicted on Exhibit E. The Delivery Meter shall be located in the approximate locations shown on Exhibit E 23.3 Tacoma/Seattle Water Conservation Agreement Tacoma and Seattle have entered into a bilateral agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit BB, for the mutual development of water conservation opportunities on their respective water systems. The purpose of this bilateral agreement is to make use of the increased potential for achieving cost-effective water conservation provided by the Project. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Project Agreement, Tacoma and Seattle retain the right to revise or modify the terms of this bilateral agreement without the approval or consent of any other Participant. 24. DELIVERIES OF PROJECT WATER IN EXCESS OF SCHEDULES 24.1 As Project Operator, Tacoma shall monitor the delivery of Project Water to each Participant to ensure that the withdrawals and deliveries of Project Water comport with the schedules submitted by each Participant pursuant to section 20. 24.2 Should Tacoma determine that a Participant is receiving deliveries of Project Water at their Point(s) of Delivery in excess of their scheduled amounts, Tacoma shall notify such Participant of the excess deliveries, and the Participant shall promptly take the steps necessary to reduce its deliveries to amounts equal to its scheduled amounts, or to revise its schedules to reflect the level of deliveries it is receiving.. 24.3 If the Participant receiving deliveries in excess of its scheduled amounts has not 36 taken action to revise its schedules or to reduce its deliveries to a level equal to its scheduled amounts within twenty-four hours of receiving notice from Tacoma pursuant to subsection 24.2, Tacoma may take any action it deems necessary to reduce the deliveries to a level equal to the Participant's scheduled amounts. 24.4 For any Participant that has received deliveries of Project Water in excess of its scheduled amount, Tacoma shall deduct from such Participant's balance of water remaining in Storage an amount equal to such excess delivery. If such excess deliveries exceed the water remaining in Storage for such Participant, Tacoma shall charge such Participant the Surcharge Rate for such excess deliveries that cannot be deducted from the Participant's Storage balance. 24.5 For any Participant that takes delivery of Project Water in excess of scheduled amounts, and does so in a manner that deprives any other Participant of their right to receive delivery of their Participant Share of Project Water without the agreement of such Participant, Tacoma may propose to the Project Committee that such excess deliveries be subject to the Surcharge Rate. If approved by the Project Committee, Tacoma shall charge such Participant the Surcharge Rate for such deliveries in excess of scheduled amounts. 25. PROJECT ANNUAL BUDGETS 25.1 At each quarterly meeting of the Project Committee after the completion of Initial Project Construction, Tacoma shall present to the Participants a comparison of actual expenditures to expenditures projected in the Project Annual Budget for the then current calendar year, with an explanation of any material variations between budget and actual amounts. 25.2 Not later than each July 1", Tacoma shall prepare and submit to the Project Committee a proposed Project Annual Budget for the next calendar year, the work papers supporting each of the elements set forth in such proposed Project Annual Budget and a comparison of actual expenditures to the expenditures projected Project Annual Budget for the then current calendar year. Each such proposed Project Annual Budget shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements: Amounts necessary to operate and maintain the Project; For Variable O&M Costs, the cost per million gallons (MG); Proposed Capital Expenditures including proposed Capital Expenditures for any renewals, replacements, additions or improvements to the Project; Amounts necessary to replenish any Project contingency fund; Amounts and timing of any payments due on outstanding Project Bonds; 37 Amounts and timing of any proposed Project Bond issuances; and Payment schedules for all elements in the Project Annual Budget. 25.3 Each proposed Project Annual Budget shall be prepared generally in the form set forth in,Exhibit F. In preparing each proposed Project Annual Budget, Tacoma shall take into account any funds expected to remain, or liabilities left unfunded, which are expected to remain at the end of the then current calendar year. 25.4 The Project Committee shall have until October 15t' to approve the Project Annual Budget as submitted by Tacoma, or to approve a Project Annual Budget as revised by the Project Committee. If the Project Committee has not approved a Project Annual Budget by the first day of any calendar year, then Tacoma may operate the Project and expend funds in accordance with the Project Annual Budget from the immediately prior calendar year, and the Participants shall be obligated to pay invoices issued by Tacoma in accordance with such Project Annual Budget unless and until the Project Committee approves a Project Annual Budget for the then current calendar year. 25.5 At any time during any calendar year, Tacoma may submit to the Project Committee a proposed revision to any Project Annual Budget then in effect if, in Tacoma's judgment, the Project Annual Budget then in effect will not be adequate to fund the operation of the Project. The proposed revision, as proposed by Tacoma or as revised by the Project Committee, shall take effect upon approval by the Project Committee. 25.6 The Project Committee may modify the deadlines for the submission of the proposed Project Annual Budget, and any action relating thereto, pursuant to this section 25. 26. PAYMENTS 26.1 Tacoma shall prepare and forward to each Participant invoices for the payment of costs as set forth in the Project Annual Budget then in effect. Each such invoice shall also set forth the operations and maintenance costs that vary with use based on the use of the Project by the Participant in the preceding month or months calculated using the rate for such use contained in the Project Annual Budget then in effect. Such invoices shall be prepared and forwarded to the Participants no more frequently than once each calendar month. 26.2 Any Participant may request from Tacoma, and Tacoma shall promptly provide to the requesting Participant, any documentation or other information that the requesting Participant may reasonably require to understand the nature of the costs contained in any invoice issued pursuant to this section 26. 38 26.3 Payment of any and all invoices forwarded to each Participant by Tacoma pursuant to this section 26 shall be due and payable by the Participant receiving such invoice on or before the Due Date, with payment to be made by wire transfer or such other means as agreed to by Tacoma and the Participant, subject to the following: 26.3.1 For any and all amounts set forth in any such invoice that are required to be paid to satisfy principal and interest obligations set forth in Project Bonds and related covenants, payment shall be made to the Project Bond escrow agent specified in the Project Annual Budget for such Operating Year. 26.3.2 For any and all amounts set forth in such invoice, other than those amounts described in subsection 26.3.1, payment shall be made to the bank and-account designated by Tacoma. 26.4 If full payment of any invoice is not received by Tacoma on or before the Due Date, such payment shall be considered past due, and the unpaid amount of such invoice shall accrue a late payment charge for each day that the invoice remains unpaid in an amount equal to the product of the unpaid amount of the invoice and the Interest Rate. Such charge shall continue to accumulate until the unpaid amount of the invoice and all late payment charges are paid in full to Tacoma. Further, if an invoice or any portion thereof remains unpaid for a period of thirty (30) days after the Due Date, Tacoma may elect to suspend deliveries of Project Water scheduled pursuant to section 20 by any Participant who has failed to make full payment until such Participant has paid all amounts due and owing, and any late payment charges due thereon. 26.5 If any Participant disputes all or any portion of an invoice issued by Tacoma pursuant to this section 26, the Participant shall pay such invoice in full, and shall indicate in writing to Tacoma the portions of the invoice that the Participant disputes and the reasons therefor. The Participants shall make a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. If such efforts are unsuccessful, either Participant to the dispute may seek resolution of the dispute pursuant to section 29. 26.6 If the resolution of any dispute over an invoice, whether by agreement of the Participants or by dispute resolution pursuant to section 29, results in the payment of money from Tacoma to the Participant disputing a bill, such payment shall include an interest payment for the period commencing with the date the disputed invoice was paid, and ending on the date the payment resolving the dispute is made to the Participant, calculated using the Interest Rate. 26.7 Each Participant hereby covenants and agrees that it shall establish, maintain and collect rates or charges for water and other services, facilities and commodities sold, furnished or supplied by it which shall be adequate to provide revenues 39 sufficient to enable the Participant to make the payments required to be made pursuant to the terms of this Project Agreement, and to pay all other charges and obligations payable from or constituting a charge or lien upon such revenues. 26.8 Each Participant shall make the payments required under this Project Agreement whether or not the Project is completed, operable or operating and notwithstanding the suspension, interruption, interference, reduction or curtailment in the operation of the Project for any reason whatsoever, in whole or in part. Such payments shall not be subject to any reduction, whether by offset or otherwise, and shall not be conditioned upon the performance or nonperformance of any Participant to this Project Agreement, including without limitation the Project Operator, or of any entity under this or any other agreement or instrument. 27. TRUE-UP OF VARIABLE O&M COSTS 27.1 Not later than sixty (60) days after the first day of each calendar year, Tacoma shall, using the actual costs incurred in the prior calendar year, calculate the cost per MG of all costs which vary with the usage of Project Water. 27.2 If the cost or costs per MG as calculated pursuant to subsection 27.1 vary from the cost per MG set forth in the Project Annual Budget for the immediately prior calendar year for such Project uses, Tacoma shall calculate for each Participant either the additional payment required or the credit due based on the actual usage of Project Water by each Participant during the prior calendar year. If any additional payment is due from a Participant, Tacoma shall issue an invoice for such payment pursuant to section 26. If a credit is due to a Participant, Tacoma shall deduct the amount of such credit from the next payment or payments due from such Participant. No interest shall be paid on any adjustment calculated pursuant to this section 27. 27.3 A sample calculation pursuant to this section 27 is set forth on Exhibit W. 28. AUDITS AND ACCESS TO RECORDS Upon reasonable prior notice to Tacoma, any Participant, or any consultant of any Participant, shall be given access during normal business hours to the books, records and accounts related to the Project and this Project Agreement in the possession of Tacoma at the location where such books, records and accounts are located. Tacoma shall not be obligated to collate, organize or analyze the information sought by the Participant or by the Participant's consultant. The Participant shall pay Tacoma its established rate for any documents reproduced for the Participant or its consultant. 29. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 40 29.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Project Agreement, any and all disputes arising under this Project Agreement shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to this section 29. 29.2 The Participants shall make good faith efforts to resolve by informal discussion any dispute arising under-or in connection with this Agreement. If at any time a Participant to a dispute determines that such informal discussions will not result in a resolution, such Participant may initiate binding arbitration of any dispute arising under or in connection with this Agreement. Any such arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to the rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association or the rules of such other non judicial dispute resolution service as agreed to by the Participants to the dispute. In any such arbitration proceeding, the Participants to such dispute shall have the rights of discovery available to parties in civil litigation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 29.3 The award of the arbitrators shall be final, and may be enforced in any court having jurisdiction. In making any such award, the arbitrators shall have the authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate, including without limitation the award of damages and the granting of specific performance. 29.4 Pending the decision in any binding arbitration process pursuant to this section 29, the Participants to such process shall continue to fulfill their respective duties under this Project Agreement. 30. UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES 30.1 A Participant shall not be in breach of this Project Agreement as a result of such Participant's failure to perform its obligations under this Project Agreement when such failure is due to an Uncontrollable Force, to the extent that such Participant, despite the exercise of due diligence, is unable to remove such Uncontrollable Force. Nothing in this Project Agreement shall be construed to require any Participant to prevent or settle any strike or labor dispute in order to obtain relief under this section 30. 30.2 Any Participant subject to an Uncontrollable Force that may impair its performance under this Project Agreement shall notify all other Participants as soon as practicable. Any Participant subject to an Uncontrollable Force shall be excused from performance under this Project Agreement only for the duration of and to the extent of the Uncontrollable Force. Any Participant subject to an Uncontrollable Force shall take all reasonable actions to remove the Uncontrollable Force. Neither the occurrence of an Uncontrollable Force nor the provisions of this section 30 shall relieve any Participant of its obligation to pay money when due under the terms of this Project Agreement. 41 31. NOTICES 31.1 All notices, requests, demands,waivers, consents and other communications required hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be delivered by one or more of the following means: (i) in person, (ii)by overnight delivery service, (iii) by first class mail with postage piepaid, (iv) by facsimile providing confirmation of completed transmission, or(v)by such other means as may be approved by the Project Committee. Service of any such notice, request, demand, waiver, consent or other communication shall be deemed to have been duly given and to have become effective upon receipt. 31.2 Any and all notices, demands, waivers, consents and other communications shall be forwarded to each of the Participants at the following addresses: To Tacoma: Water Superintendent Tacoma Water P. O. Box 11007 Tacoma, WA 98411 To CWD: General Manager Covington Water District 18631 SE 300'Place Kent, WA 98042 To Kent: Public Works Director City of Kent 220 - 4"Ave. South Kent, WA 98032-5895 To Lakehaven: General Manager Lakehaven Utility District P. O. Box 4249 Federal Way, WA 98063 To Seattle: City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 31.3 Any Participant may change the address to which notices shall by giving notice of such change in accordance with subsection 31.1. 32. DEFAULT OF OBLIGATION 32.1 If any Participant fails to make any payment in full when due under this Project 42 Agreement for a period of forty-five (45) days or more, Tacoma shall make written demand upon such Participant to make payment in full within ten (10) days of the date of such written demand. If the failure to pay is not cured with the ten (10) day time period, the Participant shall be deemed to be in default. 32.2 In addition to the remedies provided in section 26, if the Participant has been in default of payment for a period of sixty (60) days or more, and the payment in default includes any amounts necessary to make payment on any Project Bonds, then the Project Committee shall offer for assignment to the non-defaulting Participants a pro rata share of the Participant Share of the defaulting Participant. The assignment of the defaulting Participant's Participant Share shall vest in the assignee all of the rights and obligations under this Project Agreement that the defaulting Participant could have exercised by virtue of such Participant Share, including without limitation, the right to use a pro rata share of the Second Diversion Water. If any non-defaulting Participant declines to accept all or any portion of the defaulting Participant's Participant Share under this Project Agreement, such Participant Share (or the remaining portion thereof) shall be re- offered to the remaining non-defaulting Participants until there is no unassigned Participant Shares of the defaulting Participant remaining, or no Participant wishes to accept any additional assignment. Any Participant accepting the assignment of all or any portion of the defaulting Participant's Participant Shares shall upon acceptance of such assignment cure a proportionate share of any existing default in payment, and shall be responsible for the payment of any and all obligations associated with the Participant Share so assigned under the Project Agreement. 32.3 If after following the process set forth in subsection 32.2 there remains unassigned all or a portion of the Participant Share of the defaulting Participant, then Tacoma shall have its Participant Share increased in an amount equal to the defaulting Participant's Participant Share remaining after any reassignment pursuant to subsection 32.2. 32.4 The fact that other Participants have assumed the obligation to make payments which were due and owing from the defaulting Participant shall not relieve the defaulting Participant of its liability for such payments, and the Participants assuming such obligations, whether individually or as a member of a group, shall have a right of recovery from the defaulting Participant. Any Participant, as its interests may appear, whether jointly or severally, may commence such suits, actions or proceedings, at law or in equity, including suits for specific performance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce the obligations of this Project Agreement against any defaulting Participant. 32.5 The procedures set forth in subsections 32.3 and 32.3 shall be used to dispose of the Participant Share of any Participant that terminates its participation in this Project Agreement pursuant to subsection 19.5. 43 32.6 The actions taken pursuant to this section 32, including without limitation a determination of default, shall not be subject to dispute resolution pursuant to section 29. 33. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 33.1 The Participants hereby represent and warrant to one another the following: 33.1.1 Each Participant is duly authorized and validly existing under the laws of, and is authorized to exercise it powers, rights and privileges and is in good standing in, the State of Washington, and has full power and authority to carry on its business as presently conducted and execute this Project Agreement and perform the transactions on its part contemplated by this Project Agreement. 33.1.2 The execution, delivery and performance of this Project Agreement, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by the appropriate board or council, and no other act or proceeding on the part of any Participant is necessary to authorize this Project Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby. 33.1.3 The execution, delivery and performance by each of the participants of this Project Agreement does not: (a) contravene any law; or(b) conflict with or result in a breach of or default under any material agreement or instrument to which any Participant is a party or by which it is bound. 33.1.4 There are no actions, suits, claims or proceedings pending or, to the best of each Participant's knowledge, threatened against any Participant that is likely to impair the consummation or the transactions contemplated hereby. 33.1.5 This Project Agreement, when executed and delivered, will constitute a valid and binding obligation of each Participant, and will be enforceable against each such Participant in accordance with its terms. 34. ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS 34.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Project Agreement, the rights and obligations of this Project Agreement may not be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred in whole or in part by a Participant to a party that is not a Participant without the prior written consent of all other Participants, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 34.2 Seattle is hereby authorized to assign to the Cascade Water Alliance its rights, duties and obligations under this Project Agreement without the prior written consent of any other Participant. Seattle will provide to all Participants notice of 44 any assignment made pursuant to this subsection 34.2, and a copy of the assignment agreement. 34.3 The assignment by Seattle of its,rights, duties and obligations under this Project Agreement to the Cascade Water Alliance pursuant to subsection 34.2 shall not relieve Seattle of such rights, duties and obligations in the event that subsequent to such assignment the Cascade Water Alliance should be in default of any of its duties or obligations hereunder. In the event of such default, the rights, duties and obligations assigned to the Cascade Water Alliance pursuant to subsection 34.2 shall revert to Seattle as if such assignment had not occurred. 34.4 Nothing in the Project Agreement shall prohibit a Participant from transferring to any other Participant for a period longer than an Operating Year any right or privilege of such Participant under this Project Agreement. Prior to - consummating any such transfer, the Participant transferring the right or privilege shall provide to all other Participants the contract under which the transfer will occur, and permit the other Participants a reasonable period of time to comment on the proposed transfer. Any such agreement between two or more Participants shall not change the rights and duties of such Participants under this Project Agreement. 35. WAIVERS Except as otherwise provided herein or as agreed to by the Participants, no provision of this Project Agreement may be waived except as documented or confirmed in writing. Any waiver at any time by a Participant of its rights with respect to a default under this Project Agreement or with any other matter arising in connection therewith, shall not be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent default or matter. Any Participant may waive any notice or agree to accept a shorter notice than specified in this Project Agreement. Such waiver of notice or acceptance of shorter notice by a Participant at any time regarding a notice shall not be considered a waiver with respect to any subsequent notice required by this Project Agreement. 36. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS UPON TERMINATION OF THE PROJECT 36.1 When the Project is terminated pursuant to section 7, the Participants shall use any proceeds that are obtained by selling all or any portion of the Project for salvage to satisfy any obligation then outstanding on any Project Bonds issued pursuant to section 11. If after satisfying all such obligations, the remaining proceeds shall be used to satisfy any other cost of the Project that remains unpaid. 36.2 Any proceeds from the salvage of the Project that remain after satisfying the obligations set forth in subsection 36.1 shall be divided among the Participants in accordance with their Participant Shares. 45 37. AMENDMENTS Except as provided in subsections 19.4 and 19.5, no change, amendment or modification of any provision of this Project Agreement shall be valid unless set forth in a written amendment to this Project Agreement signed by all Participants. 38. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Project Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the Participants, and supersedes any and all prior agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Project Agreement, including without limitation any rights and duties which may exist by and between the Participants pursuant to the Contract Between the Regional Water Association of South King County, Its Member Utilities and the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities dated April 16, 1985, and any and all amendments thereto. The rights and obligations of the Participants hereunder shall be subject and shall be governed by this Project Agreement. 39. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROJECT AGREEMENT All of the Participants participated in the drafting of this Project Agreement. In interpreting this Project Agreement, no inference shall be drawn against any Participant as the drafter of this Project Agreement. The headings used herein are for convenience of reference only, and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Project Agreement. 40. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Project Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington (regardless of the laws that might otherwise govern under applicable principles of conflicts of law of such state). Except in respect of a lawsuit or judicial action or proceeding commenced by a third Participant in another jurisdiction, the Participants (i) agree that any lawsuit, judicial action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Project Agreement must be heard in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of Snohomish, or the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, (ii) waive any objection to the laying of venue of any such suit, action or proceeding, (iii) irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of any such court in any such lawsuit or judicial action or proceeding. And (iv) consent to service of process by mail in respect to any such lawsuit or judicial action or proceeding. 46 41. DUTY OF GOOD FAITH The Participants agree that in taking actions or making determinations required or provided for under this Project Agreement, each and every Participant shall act in fairness and in good faith. 42. COUNTERPARTS This Project Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Participants have duly executed this Project Agreement on the date first above written. City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities, Water Division By: Name Title Authorized by Ordinance No. City of Kent By: Name Title Authorized by Ordinance No. Covington Water District By: Name Title Authorized by Resolution No. Lakehaven Utility District 47 By: Name Title Authorized by Resolution No. City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities By: Name Title Authorized by Ordinance No. 48 Exhibits to Second Supply Project Agreement Exhibit A-Approximate Location of Master Meter and Delivery Meters Exhibit B-Fixed,and Variable O&M Costs Examples Exhibit C-Initial Project Construction Budget Exhibit D-Initial Project Construction Schedule Exhibit E-Typical Point of Delivery Exhibit F-Project Annual Budget Exhibit G-Project Cost Estimate Exhibit H-Financing Plan for Initial Project Construction Exhibit I-Project Map Exhibit J-Project Quality Assurance Procedures Exhibit K-Project Specifications Exhibit L-Second Diversion Water Right Permit Exhibit M-Environmental Enhancement Agreements and Estimated Costs Exhibit N-Allocation of Project Capacity Exhibit O-Allocation of Headworks Costs Exhibit P-Reimbursable Costs Exhibit Q-Special Provisions for CWD and Kent Exhibit R-Special Provisions for Lakehaven Exhibit S-Special Provisions for Seattle Exhibit T-Sample Calculation of Tacoma Treatment Payment and Credit Exhibit U-Seattle/Tacoma Storage Agreement Exhibit V-Sample Calculation for Accounting of Water Deliveries Exhibit W-Sample Calculation of Variable O&M Exhibit X-Howard Hanson Dam Operating Agreement Exhibit Y-Sample Allocation of Howard Hanson Phase II Exhibit Z-Sample Weekly Operations Report Exhibit AA-Agreement of Tacoma, Seattle and CWD for Mutual Aid Exhibit BB-Principles in Agreement Between Tacoma and Seattle for Conservation Implementation Note: Exhibit X still to be developed. February 7, 2000 Approximate Location of the Master Meter and Delivery Meters Pipeline Min. Pipeline Min. Delivery Hydraulic Meters Location Pressure Grade Elev. (p.s.i.) (feet-USGS) • Project Master Meter: 1/2 mile downstream of the Headworks Control Building N.A. N.A. adjacent to Pipeline No. 1 • Covington Water District: 1. 228th Ave. SE& SE 312th St. 90 763 2. 188th Ave. SE&SE 304th St. 74 715 3. SE 240th St.&North Branch 58 674 4. 148th Ave. SE&SE 296th St. 130 677 • City of Kent: 1. 124th Ave SE&SE 296th St. 101 669 2. 118th Ave SE&SE 296th St. 120 667 3. SE 272nd St. &North Branch 88 705 • Lakehaven Utility District 1. Military Rd. S. &S. 316th St. 24 561 2. 1st Way S. &S. 332nd St. 63 556 *3. SW 356th St& 15th Ave. SW 71 555 • City of Seattle: **1. At Lake Youngs Inlet 32 573 • City of Tacoma: 1. SW 356th St& 15th Ave. SW 71 555 * Existing connection ** Maintains minimum of 5 p.s.i. at high point in the North Branch Note: 1. Minimum pipeline pressures would be lower for Tacoma and Lakehaven if backfeeding from Pipeline No. 4. The above minimum pressures are with water flowing down the Second Supply Pipeline from the Headworks under normal operations. 2. The cost of the Project Master Meter will be charged to the Project. The cost of individual connections and meters, vaults and associated equipment will be charged to the applicable project participant. November 10, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Fixed and Variable Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Costs Examples Fixed Costs: (Labor, Materials & Equipment) • Routine right of way maintenance such as vegetation control, sign replacement or painting, fencing and barricade repair, property owner issues, access road repair and erosion/drainage control. • Routine pipeline and appurtenance maintenance such as painting or coating, valve operation, replacing/repairing worn parts, cleaning and repairing structures, checking & repairing cathodic protection/grounding systems, lubricating equipment and checking&repairing meters. • Routine operation of the Green River supply system such as operating the Headworks Water Control Center, maintaining watershed access and activity control, watershed patrol, checking and maintaining fluoride, chlorine, corrosion control and pumping equipment, performing water quality tests, completing reports, and handling issues with the public and watershed owners. • Routine operation and maintenance of related project facilities such as the Howard Hanson Dam additional storage facilities, the Muckleshoot fish rearing facilities and off-site environmental enhancement facilities. Variable Costs: (Materials) • Variable material costs based on the quantity of water produced such as chlorine, fluoride and corrosion control chemicals. • Electricity Mar. 17, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B Initial Project Construction Budget Estimated future project design and construction costs are itemized below. Construction costs are estimated to mid point of anticipated construction for each project element (date shown). Where appropriate, the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) cost index (See note) was used for past and future cost escalation unless costs were already estimated to mid-point of construction or unless noted otherwise below. • Headworks Modifications (August 2002): Design (completed except for minor changes) $ 50,000 Construction (2001-2003) $12,245,000 Construction Management, Inspection, & Monitoring $ 2,164,000 Project Allowance (5%) $ 720,000 Sales Tax (8.2%) $ 1,241,000 Sub-total $16,370,000* • Main Branch SSP (1st Way S. to Headworks) (August 2002): Design (2001-2002) $ 7,325,000 Construction (2002-2003) $66,278,000 Construction Allowance (5%) $ 3,293,000 Construction Management, Inspection, & Monitoring $ 5,679,000 Project Allowance (5%) $ 3,763,000 Sales Tax (8.4%) $ 6,632,000 Sub-total $92,970,000 • North Branch SSP (June 2003): (Final route not selected as yet; use past estimate & escalate.) $24.5 million x 1.309 USBR (1996 estimate to June 2003) $32,078,000 April 19, 2001 Pagel of 3 Exhibit C • Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage, Phase I (current local share (a� January 2003): Planning, Engineering &Design (1999-2002) $ 2,178,000 Outlet Works Construction (2002-2005) $12,568,000 Fish & Wildlife Facilities Construction (2001-2004) $ 1,855,000 Lands and Damages $ 1,115,000 Construction Management $ 1,241,000 Monitoring $ 1,507,000 Contingency (20%) $ 4,094,000 Sub-total $24,558,000 Note: Currently Phase II storage will be approximately $6 million total with local share (27%) about $1.6 million. • Water Treatment Facilities: (Escalated at 4%/year from Jul 1998 to Aug. 2002) Chlorination (100% of 80 mgd cost to Project): Design and management (2001-2002) $ 1,030,000 Construction (2002-2003) $ 21776,000 Contingency, 30%) $ 8331,000 Sales Tax (8.2%) $ 296,000 Sub-total $ 4,935,000^ Corrosion Control (100% cost to Project): Design and management (2001-2002) $ 4831000 Construction (2002-2003) $ 1,078,000 Contingency (30%) $ 323,000 Sales Tax (8.2%) $ 115,000 Sub-total $ 11999,000 Fluoridation (100% cost to Project): Design and management (2001-2002) $ 118,000 Construction (2002-2003) $ 291,000 Contingency (30%) $ 87,000 Sales Tax (8.2%) $ 31,000 Sub-total $ 527,000 Water Treatment Sub-total $ 7,461,000 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit C • MIT Fish Restoration Facility: (Escalated at approx. 3% per year from June 1995 to January 2003) Design & Permitting (2001-2002) $ 1,2912000 Construction (2002-2003) $ 8,065,000 Construct Surface and Groundwater Systems $ 1,106,000 Construction Management $ 418,000 Contingency (15%) $ 123765000 Sales Tax (8.2%) $ 1,005,000 Sub-total $13,261,000 TOTAL (all elements) $186,698,000 * Tacoma' existing diversion obligation is $4,725,000 of this sub-total. ^ Tacoma' existing diversion obligation is $426,000 of this sub-total. Note: The Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Trends indexes were used to escalate past pipeline & headworks construction estimates. The average value for the last 5 years (1996-2000) of historical construction indexes were applied and used to extend to mid point of construction. The specific construction indexes used were: Headworks Modifications: Average of three indexes which include-- Earth dams-outlet works Concrete dams Pumping Plants-structures & improvements Pipelines: Steel Pipelines Page 3 of 3 Exhibit C Lf) C) ------- co C) 04 co 0 co C) cu cu co to S .9 a) N cn CD 0 — 0 cn L 15� co '0 od .5; C c a. cu co ID cu W CD U_ cn m cn c cm CD E M CD in in L_ CD .6 0*a A lia cn w CD r_ cn 0 a) 7-IF i cc cn cn co i o- a) =0 C 1 1, E C: I cm C 0 cn ch liz 100 c 0 CN 0, --Fill r C r a 0 0 0 0 tm 0 CL 0 it >4 &_ IV 46 4) U .0 U) > M C cm s w CL .2 > wJ 0 m E 2 U) 0 o 4= CL 0 0 0 CL M od cn < t; E 60 = D a -j m tam cn L) E o U_ cn r- Z CD 0 CL g4 -; 3: 'm a U- w a L) 0 a 0 C in LO E cn Cc 4) '0 a 3: CD Na U_ cn = a) a '05 U) c 'Fa m L_ m CL t._ c > CD < 0 a C6 a) _j 0 m 0 0 — u od m z o I IU) LL T 0- Points of Delivery for Tacoma The Points of Delivery for Tacoma shall be at the following locations: 1. SW 356th Street and 15th Ave. SW (NE Tacoma) 2. SR509 & Alexander Avenue (emergency connection) 3. SR509 & Milwaukee Way (emergency connection) 4. Pipeline No. 4 @ East 40th and East K Streets Pipeline No. 4 4. Pipeline No.4 connection Project 3. Emergency PRV connection at Milwaukee Way 2. Emergency PRV connection at Alexander Ave. 1. 356th St. SW Connection fh Delivery Meter Main Branch of the Second Supply Pipeline Schematic of the Points of Delivery for Tacoma Tacoma's meter, delivery connections including valves (except Pipeline #4 connection), associated vaults and associated equipment will be installed at their expense by the project contractor, City crews or an independent contractor. September 14, 1999 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit E Points of Delivery for Seattle The Point of Delivery for Seattle shall be at the following locations: 1. To Lake Youngs at the abandoned headwall (old Cascade Dam) at the east side of the lake, or other discharge location to Lake Youngs. 2. To the headworks of the Cedar Water Treatment Facility (new ozone treatment plant). 3. To Seattle's finished water transmission system downstream of the Cedar Water Treatment Facility (new ozone treatment plant). Point of"Ivery Point f"tvery)(Point o Delivery) Project Flow control Valve Seattle Pressure Reducing Station Operates and Pressure Sensor Maintains Lake Youngs Reservation Property Boundary Delivery Meter Valve North Branch of the Second Supply Pipeline Schematic of the Points of Delivery for Seattle Seattle meters, PRVs, flow control valves, associated vaults and associated equipment will be installed at their expense by the project contractor, City crews or an independent contractor. September 14, 1999 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit E CONCEPTUAL TYPICAL POINT OF DELIVERY lb (FOR SOUTH KING COUNTY UTILITIES) PROJECT CONTRACTOR TACOMA CREW OR INSTALLED BY PARTICIPANT TO INSTALL CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ISOLATION VALVE I (OPTIONAL) 36" 60" i VAULT VAULT I �I J WI al ZVALVE aI FLOW CONTROL a) VALVE Lo SINGLE OR MULTIPLE PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE ZI MAG OR TURBO METERS (AND/OR BOOSTER PUMP) of AS REQUESTED U W NI DELIVERY FACILITIES PART OF THE PROJECT AT INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT EXPENSE I NOTES: • METERS TESTED ANNUALLY FOR ACCURACY • LAYOUT MAY VARY DEPENDING ON PARTICIPANT NEEDS SEPT 14, 19W 1 OF 3 Exhibit E Project Annual Budget This estimated year 2000 budget assumes the Headworks Modifications and the Second Supply Pipeline, including the North Branch, are in service and the average daily water produced by the project is 40 MGD. The estimated Hanson Dam Additional Storage and the Fish Facility O & M are as stated in the preliminary reports and a budget will be provided to the Operations Committee by the Corps and the Tribe in accordance with the agreements. Assume actual Ave. q(SSP) = 40 MGD Ave. q(PL1) = 64 MGD Q = max. water right: PL1 = 73.0, SSP = 64.6 Account 2000 Allocation SSP 1/3 of SSP Number Description Budget Factor Budget Budget OPERATIONS Note: f (fixed) = Q(SSP)/[Q(PL1)+Q(SSP)] = 64.6/137.6 = 0.4695 f (variable) = q(SSP)/[q(PL1) + q(SSP)] = 40/104 = 0.3846 Source of Supply 600.1 Supr. & Engr. Watershed $67,000 0.4695 $31,455 $10,485 600.2 Supr. & Engr. Headworks $85,000 0.4695 $39,906 $13,302 601.1 Operation Watershed $402,000 0.4695 $188,730 $62,909 601.2 Operation Headworks $103,000 0.4695 $48,356 $16,119 601.5 Forestry Operations $58,000 0.4695 $27,230 $9,076 Water Treatment 640.1 Supr. & Engr. Green River $69,000 0.4695 $32,394 $10,798. 640.4 Supr. & Engr. Laboratory $4,000 0.4695 $1,878 $626 641.11 Chlorine, Green River $161,000 0.3846 $61,923 $20,641 641.21 Fluoride, Green River $182,000 0.3846 $70,000 $23,333 641.51 Caustic, Green River $247,000 0.3846 $95,000 $31,666 642.1 Operation, Green River- $295,000 0.4695 $138,496 $46,165 642.4 Laboratory Testing $120,000 0.25 $30,000 $10,000 642.7 Fluoride Plt, Green River $10,000 0.4695 $4,695 $1,565 642.9 Corrosion Control Plt, SSP $30,000 1.00 $30,000 $10,000 Transmission & Storage 660.3 Supr. & Engr. SSP $130,000 1.00 $130,000 $43,333 662.5 SSP Operation $50,000 1.00 $50,000 $16,667 662.4 Corrosion Control-External $35,000 0.25 $8,750 $2,917 665 Misc. Operation $30,000 0.25 $7,500 $2,500 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit F Account 2000 Allocation SSP 1/3 of SSP Number Description Budget Factor Budget Budget MAINTENANCE Source of Supply 610.1 Supr. & Engr. Watershed $5,000 0.4695 $2,347 $782 610.2 Supr. & Engr. Headworks $25,000 0.4695 $11,737 $3,912 611.1 Maintenance Watershed $60,000 0.4695 $28,169 $9,389 611.2 Maintenance Headworks $100,000 0.4695 $46,948 $15,649 612 Misc. Plant $5,000 0.4695 $2,347 $782 Water Treatment 650.1 Supr. & Engr. Green R. $25,000 0.4695 $11,737 $3,912 652.11 Headworks Equipment- $80,000 0.4695 $37,558 $12,519 652.14 Fluoride Plant $8,000 0.4695 $3,756 $1,252 652.15 Corrosion Control Plt. SSP $50,000 0.4695 $23,474 $7,825 652.4 Laboratory Equipment $1,000 0.4695 $469 $156 Transmission & Storage 670.1 Supr. & Engr. Green R. $7,000 0.4695 $3,286 $1,095 10`71.11 Hdwks. Transmission $20,000 0.4695 $9,390 $3,130 671.15 Maintenance SSP $180,000 1.00 $180,000 $59,999 673 Misc. Plant $30,000 0.20 $6,000 $2,000 TOTALS J$2,676,000 1 $11363,529 $454,505 Due Date Xxx Project Contingency Fund (PCF) Balance @ I Est. $ for I Allocate @ Due Year End Yr. 2000 1/3 of Est. Date For Year 2000 XXX xxx XXX XXX Comments: Page 2 of 3 Exhibit F Project Bond Payments Amount Due Date Total For Year 2000 xxx XXX Tacoma xxx xx Covington xxx xx Kent xxx xx Lakehaven xxx xx Seattle xxx xx Comments: Proposed Capital Expenditures Location Timing Est. Cost Finance (Element 1) roc roc xxx Bonds (Element 2) xx roc XXX PCF Comments: Proposed Issuance of New Project Bonds jAmount Issue Date (Purpose) xxx xx Comments: September 2, 1999 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit F Project Cost Estimate These capital costs are escalated to mid-point of construction or payment obligation (date shown) except as noted below. • Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage (Corps Est. to January 2003): Construction cost $ 6,568,000 Pre-Eng. & Design (PED) (reduced by portion of payment below) 1,122,000 Reconnaissance & Feasibility Studies (covered by payments made below) Reimbursable payment through March 2001: Reimbursable payments by Tacoma 2,107,134 Reimbursable payments by Lakehaven 361,466 Reimbursable payments by Kent 361,466 Reimbursable payments by Covington 828,133 Reimbursable payments by Seattle 1,102,000 TOTAL Hanson Dam $12,450,199 • Headworks Modifications and Second Supply Pipeline Main Branch: (1999 consultant cost estimate using the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) index for escalation (Refer to Exhibit C) to approx. August 2002 except Lakehaven section is shown as recently estimated). Headworks (diversion) Construction $10,524,000 x 89.6/162.6 = $5,79900 Pipeline section 1 St Way So. to Headworks 92,970,000 Subtotal $98,769,000 Est. payments by Lakehaven (Construct PL 4 to 1 st Way So.) $17,000,000 Est. payments by Tacoma (1966 thru Feb. 2001) 23,722,471 Payments by Lakehaven (design-1995 thru. Feb. 1999) 168,411 Payments by Kent (design-1995 thru Feb. 1999) 168,411 Payments by Covington (design-1995 thru Feb. 1999) 268,323 Payments by Seattle (design-1995 thru Feb. 1999) 569,475 Subtotal $41,897,091 TOTAL Headworks & Pipeline $140,666,091 April 18, 2001 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit G • Second Supply Pipeline North Branch: $24.5M x 1.309 USBR (1996 estimate to June 2003) _ $32,078,000 Est. reimbursable payment by Seattle 500,000 TOTAL North Branch $32,578,000 • Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Enhancement Costs (primarily fisheries): (Refer to Exhibit M --dollars in various years--capital costs only) TOTAL Ecosystem Costs $42,589,000 • Water Treatment Facilities: (1998 consultant $ estimate escalated @ 4%/year to Aug. 2002) Chlorination Facilities $4,280,000 x 1.153 minus $426,000 $4,509,000 Corrosion Control Facilities $1,733,000 x 1.153 $1,999,000 Fluoridation Facilities $457,000 x 1.153 $ 527,000 TOTAL Water Treatment $7,035,000 TOTAL PROJECT (Mid-Point Construction) $235,318,290 1/3 of TOTAL PROJECT $78,439,000 TOTAL PROJECT (in 1996 $) $19413001000 Future project financing costs unknown and not shown. Page 2 of 2 Exhibit G Project Financing Plan fAThis plan contains an outline of the Project financing mechanism agreed to by the Participants. It includes an example, in Schedules H-1 through H-4, of the method of fairly allocating Project debt costs based on agreed Project shares, less the amounts prepaid by each Participant. The elements of this plan are: (1) The City of Tacoma, Tacoma Public Utilities, will issue revenue bonds for its "Regional Water Supply System", a new utility which it will form as the financing entity for the Project. The customers of this utility will be the Participants: Tacoma Public Utilities "Water System", City of Kent, Lakehaven Utility District, Covington Water District and Seattle Public Utilities, (2) The bonds will be issued in one or more series to finance Project costs not paid from: (a) direct cash payments of a Participant(s); or, (b)prepayment of Project construction or acquisition costs by a Participant. (3) The bonds will be secured by and paid from the gross revenues of the Regional Water Supply System, and determined in accordance with Section 11,Project Financing. The Project Budget payments made by the Participants shall constitute an operating expense for water purchased by their respective water utilities. (4) The share of debt service of the Participants will be determined in accordance with the example outlined in Schedule H-1. (5) Bonds will mature in not more than thirty(30) years from their date of issuance, generally as shown in Schedule H-2, with approximately equal annual debt service, except as adjusted for reimbursement credits to the Participants to reimburse for prepayment of capital costs as provided herein. (6) A Participant wishing to pay all or part of its share in cash will give notice at least 90 days prior to the proposed issuance date of a series of bonds for the Project, and upon bond closing will deposit funds in an Escrow Account of the Project Operators choosing, and will be drawn upon in the same proportion as the bond_proceeds for Project expenses. The Escrow Account will be invested as provided by state law and interest earned will be paid periodically to the Participant depositing the funds. (7) It is anticipated that additional "Parity" bonds may be issued from time-to-time, as the Participants decide, to finance improvements and additional facilities that may be needed or required in the future. November 17, 1999 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit H The Participants may decide that the initial bond issue will not include funds for construction of the North Branch, Muckleshoot Tribe payments or Howard Hanson Dam Storage work, or some other segment of the project. These project items would then be financed with the issuance of"Parity"bonds at a latter date, depending on construction timing,bond market conditions or other factors. The splitting of project financing into two or more bond issues will no change the overall stricture of planned financing outlined in the Exhibit H but will result in the amounts estimated in Schedule H-2, Columns [7] through [12] to be divided into parts reflecting the respective elements of several smaller bond issues. (8) The Schedule assumes capitalizing a Bond Reserve Fund equal approximately to average annual debt service on all bonds. A surety instrument may be substituted for the bond reserve as decided by the Participants. The Bond Reserve Fund will belong to the Participants in the same proportion as their respective debt service shares. FOOTNOTES to SCHEDULE H-1. This Schedule includes estimates only of the costs of various Project elements. Numbered lines are derived as follows: Line [1] Estimates of Project cost by TPU Water Division as of 01/25/99. [2] Financing costs estimated by Financial Advisor. [3] No capitalized interest is included,however the amount by which bond interest during first three years is offset by interest earnings, is technically capitalized interest. [4] Agreed percentages of Project costs shared by Participants. [5] Multiply Total Project Cost(Not including financing)by share percentage. [6] Amount prepaid by Participants as of 01/25/99 [7] Subtract line [6] from line [5]. [8] Multiply total of line [2] items by line [10]. [9] Add line [7] and line [8]. [10] Divide Shares on line [9] by total of line [9]. [11] Add line [5] and line [8]. FOOTNOTES to SCHEDULE H-2. Schedule H-2 is the key schedule in this Exhibit H. Schedules H-3 and H-4 contain detail breakdown of prepayment credits and debt service payments, respectively, between the Participants. Col. # [1] Years from start of financing. [2] Calendar years assuming that bonds are first issued in early 2000. November 17, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit H [3) Columns [3], [4], and [5] show the debt payments for total project financing assuming no prepayments financed by the Participants. [4] Cumulative interest obtained by multiplying Column [3] by interest rate in column [8]. [5] Total of columns [3] and [4]. [6] Total credits for prepayments, plus interest from date of bond issuance, paid by Participants. (Breakdown on Schedule H-3). [7] Columns [7], [8], [9] and [10] represent an estimate of debt service on bonds actually issued. It assumes one issue, but financing may consist of a combination of several bond issues. Column results from subtracting column [6] from column [5]. [8] Estimated rate of interest on bonds. Actual rate will be different. [9] Cumulative interest obtained by multiplying Column [7] by interest rate in column [8]. [10] Total of columns [7] and [9]. [11] Estimated interest earnings on bond proceeds until expended. Plan assumes this income will be used to reduce the Participants'pro -rata share of debt service payments. [12] Interest earnings on capitalized Bond Reserve Fund. Earnings will be used to reduce Participants annual debt payments. FOOTNOTES to SCHEDULE H-3. This Schedule provides a tabulation of the prepayments of Project costs by the Participants and shows the projected credits to be received by the Participants. The principal amounts are credits against the"potential" bond amount shown on Schedule H-2, and the interest credits against the "potential" interest. The term of years over which credits are spread varies with the Participants depending on particular circumstances. Interest on the credits is the interest rate assumed for the bond issue on Schedule H-2. FOOTNOTES to SCHEDULE H4. This schedule is derived by multiplying the amount on Schedule H-2, Column [5], less Column [11] and [12],by the Participant's percentage project share, and deducting there from the Participant's credit amounts shown on Schedule H-3, for each year. The amount remaining is the Participant's net payment each year for debt service on Project bonds. November 17, 1999 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit H cn � 0000 4 b� �o M �D O O O � cd 06, [�N O O O O r.4 O\ O M O d cq CN M � M-i N �4 69 69 69 69 00Mtn � -4O O M qq A t-- Cf) d �D N m 0�0 N �O t— Cf) d 00 Q t— 00 A � CT CN -4t t� o� cn ~ N N N 5 69 64 „ 69 69 LL a� 000000 00 MOOMM q 00 en NNOt- 000 y t� � O � � O 000000 OO � O � � OHO M O O O O O O O O O f� MONO� - 06' M � MOM ,� � MON � %D N OION �t00 r-+ O 000N MO M00 y� � 4- O0 "DN000 O N Q\ M rz tr r j c� 00 co .-i.--+N O C�r-+ t- M ON 1.0 N e-4 N 'U 0 NM cn0000W) N N 45 69 6.4 V O O O 00 •- '� 00 pp 00 00 •-i S N aCOS 00O0t- Nt- 00 t- Ot- t4- t% N Oi O O�(-T N � � � cn � M MO\ O\ O .D Z O -4' N o N O O 69 6R 69 69 6'3 O O [� C� N N cM N 00 O\ 00 S a O O O O r-+ M M O D 00 N W COCf 0O0 MetO� t� MO N p .p O Map 0 0 0 A U .--1 M O\ 01 M N •�f O r � � E••� � 00NL � 06-� 00 VO bA to r-+ 69 69 b9 69S. O b9 _ ►-� �' O 'b 0 D co M tn 00 r- � G N co E"� D cn W o q ." M '1* 00 I-cr N 00 M •a.) 6 ... O a. � en .-� M M C) � '�Y O\ co cd p•+ w• IL) c� a Q )a a� Cti u � rf'C4 e - t-Z 00 v o V a a C c0 N .� 0 00 00 00 O. , O A A ►., oan 0 cd .. -- o '*' a a. a. o a 69 69 69 "o 69 as ,o Cc Ham, G O D N . oU4� Zg0 vaa, w, U C7O U CO x cOa .CZ s4 a �, � " � •" c0 = UN .... F , .., o co -v o 'g o ppA a 0 � � •.-,� a `•' a 'O 3 AO � ' ~ (O E ' E ' Cn wa Gw 0 F, xz fs, 3 w M 8 u o ° u 0 � Ocx o � CtS �'o � QoU o ca c'an ¢ Z �• to F- to H �T N t j co N u a uuuu u u PAGE 4 OF 7 o 0 0 0 g 8 Q o r• QQp QQQ 8 N N u N Q W r.1 'n en O • o o, M crri . . o7 00 Cr oo,0 00 0N�0 -. c- tV 'Tt 00 I� Q. �N N M O) O� c ON MMMrSMvvvvr` hr00000ov\C7, a, aNrnvNrno� rn o�o� q 0 � popp pp OOoo oop po 60p9 .-- _ „ 00 00 ff 00 0�OO O�0� 00 00 0�N I� � � q q :+ 0 0-0 cc-, "r- P MOkOMPv1ON N v7 OCV NM N •-4 •� 0 � OaN N � �.� �.-� � C� -4•- i0000% 0000 h �0 �Dh�MNr+ tK CN w a 'fl 00 pV� OOv1 Npp ppvv��VN ^ Q " NQ �QQQQQQQvQ� O5� Oh5� OQ h5� vQ'1hQQp5� hO5� 8Q8 QQ8 QQ 8 S2 OQpQQ pQNQ NN NN a) 't --:I- e cr vi vi vi vi N Vi N ,6 vi D D �o ,,D D %O �O �O �o %6 O � Lij 4a000 QQRS� Q 03Z5 �5 Z5 Z5 Z5 Z5 25 ZS ZS ZS 25 �5 Z5 Z5 �5 Z5 Z5 Z5 r5 Z5 ZS Z5 Z5 LLJ cc gg ggg000 o�ogggooggoc5ee V) � � .'. •Q � '�t h 00 •--� �'0l0� l � rll 0 0 M •--� O� t^��D �D 00 M •--��NMMtt h \O h06M N 0 W .y M q 69 MM NN %nN tnpNtNthe -pvn h ppgg OO oOOO Oo OO a �►ri � ��� M � bpO � � Cj � � � � � NO�O �V 00 `N'• d to ON 4; ONa7 ggggpprppa- eno �� oOCC4n OWN N ~ ccy 4�„ 00000 �Df � N � N -� 0 � � � � O e~p a .a N N t��D�D �D �O NO v�v1 h W) N Cr N•�•'-i.--i •--� 00 I MM �p hh 4nv1NNNv ininI %n 0000OO ooOO ppoo oo v) o h -4 h v7 v1 V7 v1 v� v� V1 V� h v7 N O� h NNO �0NhM � chMC0ho0- N \NO4 hL hhhh o0r- -4� eq10 ,O- p , O Cr w ON O\ O� C\ O\ C\ O\ C\ C\ C\ O� C\ C\ O\ O\ C\ O%O\ O\O\ C\ C� D\ C� C� � -4 -4 � � � -4 " � � � � -4 � � � -4 -4 � � � � � � � � " �4v-4C a w � a g p o o pp .0 Rf J Nhh Nh � M � 00 � � � M MEv�NNt- t, t- t- t- r- hl - P �Q� q NNN �DM Q a Cc o\ & o �o�o M rt�f M 00 -�h c3 g c r 00 03 oC od 0d 00 06 W) -4 CV N cM C �v1 NM � � � �p v, \0 Mh hM V7 .--� }- • v �> .J �O �D 'q N C� �D N v) •-+ -� �O .--1 v� p w N v�OO O N N M N •> .y v1 v 1 N vi v 1 v7`ct et �t M M M O O O\ 00 00 h \.O c v'1'ct M N•-+ rr O N VJ CC CL � q � � 92 N c .a w vv � vvivi�n �o \o\othhcece cp 6C c�MvWnNoh0oh = a. f^ N w � - � h00 �M ctvh000� 1-41-4 -4 -4r � �V r4N N N NN Nrl PAGE 5 OF 7 in, to to V) V1 In %n to to to p h O O O O O v 1 S g N O 8 O S o�0 � N N v1 O� 4 & or-o hV O 141 N cR 4 (7t:rl 'r'-' M � w00000 �o t� t�tr"It NogI-io0' wr, o\0 S \D \O -.O . . V1 h N N00 N •r •� •� '� 6*f .� O et �+ w M M rn O C .�. d • i .-ti . v , A �=i 69 � ^ Gr N O O Mo M M ' O4 N N v Cos .. \0 %0 %o0000o rn \�O %O N 00 N 00 --4 N N ., O O O O O\ w T w 4: f/4 EA O _ O g Sg^S S tn O et8 0000 `? O o O O Q .�.. eq M O v000 •r a v � y � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �-' oOSoop000000000000 0 �+ O O O 00 N V7 %O %0 \O V) K1 O h v O N -4 " N 'O 00 O\ \O M O t- � h .--+ 4 t- � O t- m V1 st et d fs4 69 �r ^ ^/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O C O C O O Q,O O O Q.O O Q, O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b u 00 %O %0 000000000000000 O \D \O %O \O \O \O \D %O %O \O \0 \D \O \D t., t� t- t- h WI) OhN %nC) %nW) in0v1000000 O O O G N t- V7 N N N " t- N t- N O h 4n An h ..+ h V7 h O\ -Kr t- O --4 —+ Q t- M O\ -' h O M v of tJ w M M m 00 "t O\ h O N v\ Itt O\ M 00 N h ---� W) 0 W V 00wwr- t- \0 \O %OhItt � MMNN --� O� O O M O O pppp O O p Op O O O O O O O LZ11 a M O O O O O O S O O O O O O O O M C6 t 00000000 I- a000C) 0W Ra. o\\ rno�\\ o\ ON CL W O � a Q� ¢ o^0 a oCp\ ogW)000tn ^o wVj V1 v1 h O \D N -4 --4t� M O O O h t� 'qt N O\ �O N 00 et U. Q CL w ff! g S g g g S g S S ^ (� Q to-% � 00en OOOOOOOOO M st = U E-� r, .-, -, r. .-4 -4 -, , O O \CL\o\c \o\o\cNo\O \oI J ~ N N N N N N N N N N �D g p y p $ ir4 W o � b O en 00 -� N M '�t v 1 \D t- 00 O\ Cl •r N V N C-4 N O� ...i -r ." .-r r+ 0 0 C. 8 Z; N N NN N N N N N S W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NV >t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N PAGE 6 OF 7 pp0pppp0000000000 0000LnC) o0 Q Q O O o 0 Q O O " Wn " O N t- N O O W) v) N N to " t� Wn N O v1 ww W w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O Vn O cl"k rw %O t^ Oi M N N N N N N N N M N %O v1 N O O O O N M 'tT 1 t ul t` N t� N IT O O ItT kn .-. ON - .-. N '-+ v) r-+ C� .-4 O t- N .-� " " M 1--4 c7N h V 1 t` 00 .- IRT 'IT 1.0 N .-. M O eT �.D kn " %C t- C% 1,0 O\ " C\ .-4 M C\ N N N N 't7 %O C\ t- 00 CN O - N M M CN aN CN C\ C\ C\ C\ C\ C\ O, ON �n o0 o c r c f c-f• c-f cf Ki cf M ri � % %6 r-z' t� r-:' o0 00 00 a o0 00 o0 00 00 00 00 oo M 'v I 4roq x p C� O� M cf N 00 C\ t- C\ t- C\ N \D "CT %0 %0 •14 O� 00 CN kn M V 1 No 4., pppp --� V) t- to C\ 00 M pp�� .-. �p M �-+ cn t— CDO� O pp %0 M CD M N cry M , N N 00 O C^00 O M � t— —4 1t O 00 � 00 M � r- N 64-r,J -.7 N • %D cc N " 00 00 �- t` tri t- O� C� ,D C� 00 O� ,D vi NO 00 O t� O h C N p %Ccy CN0000000000000000000000 O r-+ C:) V, ,17 •9 -- NNNCVNNNNCVNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNC, C4 � U a 'o ONOlk %CsTN00inNWn00N --� t- C\ t- C\ t- C\ N �OIT \0110 - 0% w \ �nM00 V ^ M M S -4 W) t� " CN pp M C\ •-4 %0 G --+ M r- o z p o \O M O M N M O e0 t w t w �D r- C\ M 0�t N �O O� %n 00 �D 'cT "4 'T 00 �D 00 00 M •4 t- .-• MMMNNet00C� 00 .. Mc'M \Dt` C, \0 a W) -q ,, C, \0W) tn \000O NO �"iO r+ O .+ O M O� 00 -. Mc� p M ��pp O M 1.0 C\ (c�� \O C\ M 1.0 O M t-- O O O O O - 0 — O �-+ to $+ Ir �Q �"� N N O O N CV M M 'CT '[t' 'IT .. -4 -4 " 1" 4 4 -q -4 M .0 hco w �- �-' �"' .� �"' -' .-' �-' �-' .-+ -� �-' .-+ .-: �-- •-i �--� N N N N N N N NNN qq 'cc 69 69 a p NN \OCNt-- 000t- 000t- 11O \ONC\ NQ\ t- C\ N \oo0V \po0 \000 " C\ 000\ hM �"� 00 v) `+t N M M �D O / --4 v1� . O to v) N r-+ O� 00 M N 00 W 00 M .Mi M C\ "T N CD C\ 1,0 '�T %n 00 �O M �7 � 00 I� � �t t` y '� O�p� o r '"� �D �T M_ ��pp 00 pppp C\ \D W) W) \O 00 O t- O to CDt- O � � � � M-+ M cn r,- � 'IT W) � � P00000000C\ C) 00000 � O � OV--4 �O y ..+ ..y 'w + -+ NNNNNNNNNNNN %O cc a M y 0000t- NknOtotoonO4nNNNWOt- Ot- t-- t- pMpt- t- C-, t-- l4nt- toOM a Gd •• •~ N C\ N to t� t� t� 4n r- O� C\ Wn 8 - vl -4 •-• •~ O 'fit � O `7_�_ 1-4'7 � � N ., C p t� t- .-w-T %n t- "t �C^N N O� N N -t v C\ N 'Q, "t "T .a �, 00 CO AnC� tnAnenen Mt- �O � O� O� O� DDv000nl� Ov� Ot+) o \CNvi Z taU 6 0 -40\ p� oMtn8p8p --� " NZ�Rp --� NNN " NNNN �--� �--� NNMNM � Mt- 0 Qn \O M O �D N 00 O *-� N "to M M M M cn M m M cn en M M M M M M M M .--+ A � o H �N N N N N N M M M M M \O \-O \.D\6 \D \6\D\6\ \O \G\O V \O \6 �6 -D\O � W W o V .� LLI x �, Q h O h t- NtnW) 4n V) ) Wl W) NNN000t� Ot- r- C� elt- teen t- %nr- W) O\ O p O •'�-� pp�� N .Nr .N-� .N. .N-� f� t, C, C� In p .-. vV�� .-. 1" 1-4 pppp .r .-4 pppp .-4 N -4 Nr N N '�T -TO �T �T O 'IT .-. 'T O �, I-t- MOOC\ C\V'hh0 r+ \0 -cr, \ C� 00 �T000t-tZOh O MCT ,DNw N O ''' �4 C\ t� - 00 N O\ N N N N N �-+ N N N �-+ N N N N � " N N M N M -4 M 'ct 00 N 00 00 C� \O `V M M M M M M M M M M M M M_M M M M M c,-, M M M IT'W7m V) C'criN \O%ntnW W \D\D� \,D \D\O \O \.DND \.D % \.DND %.\D \D �. % D-,D \ \D % Q a: 0 v N N n' LL v I Oo000000000000v) v) oo0000000 OWnOVN00 ... c� p OOOOOC) C) " " v1 O �nt- NOC) " V) %ntn " tn4n " t- tn NOVn oO Z '� � ►�+ + 00a00000000 wwC) " C) mr- \1CN (7^ MNNNNNNNNMN \.OW) N �. G OOONc'M -,Fvtit` Nt-Z' cVv OO ":IW .-iC� N • Wn .-+ C� Ot` C-F W v 'L7 1- M —4to W) + C\ In W) r- 00 -. 'tT IT %0 O g)%O -4 Itt %C Ln %C t- C\ \O C\ vl ON .� a: N .� M ON N N N -4 .-. CV 14T \O C\ t- 00 ON O •-+ N M en O\ C\ C\ CN C\ Q\ C\ C\ C\ ON C\ Q w oo e c F c4 cif• cJ c3 , c,i cYi \o \D d r-� r-:' t- o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 00 00 00 0� W A o -i v9 0 W_ W N en v v1 %C t- 00 ON O N cn � W) \D t- 00 O\ O -4 N M 11, vl %o t- 00 O% ggggggggg00oo4= 4= 0o00 � s' � S' S' � S' �' � S' _ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N so PAGE 7 OF 7 > v D y 0 O C "SHOW ISLft D � c m " '� Z •ram / > t r C7C _ CO m • r mCD m ti > >—� >m m A ( ■ ` mZ o • ■ , mc� a m a L 1 t z< t i ■ 1 O L tr, r co :5 m x ■ M n ■ rn s < too m m r vt > Z.40 Z m m x z - m m O M m <rn m C0 z co ■ a v_ M> o 2 zz ■ _ sa'' +� O Z C r m m z m m ■ "' a+_ co CA t=J w yoo i cl lc >• i On ; O v ■ 0 0 �• > ri � am � ,� � 000m m !T! 0mmm � « < « < OA C^ -- :o z z i� 77 O > < < < m O O O -4 y P O m z 0 = X zzz mmmzzzc C17 0Dx z= E:, "�'� c C. r> T— m -c-4 -ci -c4C = � n(qZ O� m�Om M M � F � A 4 -ai -4 ~ _4�N X> A 9 m 9 � �./ O Z O v W ovo � vv_ om yO:r Cox � rn a'i m C* CA 1 C 'n> om'o OD S 9 9 to D y p m m -no ml —1 m O A m Oo < � a - x(A i— �Z v A - m 09 (r71 G) Prolect Quality Assurance Procedures Conceptual design developed by Tacoma, other Project participants, and consultant design leads/experts. 20% Design,Level CH2M Deslgn/Tech Memos HDR Design/Tech IMW Design/Tech Memos CH2M QA/QC F HDR QA/QC MW QA/QC CH2M Proj Mgr Review T.R.C.Review TRC=Technical Review Committee *Sr.CH2M, HDR,MW&Tupac experts(4) SSP Partner Workshop -Review @ concept&20% 65%Design Level CH2M Design I HDR Design Imontwatson Design CH2M QA/QC HDR QA/QC MW QAIQC CH2M Proj Mgr Review Tacoma/Partner Review Contractor Review 95% Design.Level CH2M Design I HDR Design IMont.Watson Design CH2M QA/QC HDR QA/QC MW QAIQC CH2M Proj Mgr Review Tacoma/Partner Review 100%_Design Level CH2M Design I HDR Design IMontWatson Design CH2M QAIQC HDR QA/QC MW QA/QC CH2M/Tac Proj Mgr Reviews 3123/99 Page 1 of 1 Final DwgsJSpecs. Exhibit J Project Specifications • PIPELINES: Description: The Second Supply Pipeline - Main and North Branches and appurtenances are included. Location: Refer to Exhibit I, "Project Map." The Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) Main Branch extends approximately 34 miles from Tacoma's existing Headworks Control Building near the Green River diversion to Tacoma's Pipeline No. 4 near Portland Avenue Reservoir. Approximately 3 miles of the pipeline has already been installed, primarily in the Tacoma Tideflats, under previous contracts. The Second Supply Pipeline North Branch extends approximately 8 miles from the Main Branch at SE 296`h St. to Seattle's Cedar River supply pipeline on the east side of Lake Youngs. The final route is not yet determined but most likely will be generally along 164`h Ave. SE. Materials and Design: The specific specifications for the pipelines and appurtenances are given in the Project Design Criteria and Standards memo. The pipe will be of spirally welded steel with coal tar enamel coating on the exterior and polyurethane lining in the interior. Heat shrink sleeves will be used to coat the exterior of the field joints and polyurethane kits will be used to coat the interior. The pipe and appurtenances will be provided in accordance with AWWA Standards and Tacoma's standard technical specifications except as modified by the Technical Review Committee in the memo mentioned above. The design life of the pipelines is expected to be over 100 years. The Main Branch size will vary from 48" to 72" diameter to provide a nominal capacity of 72 MGD from the Headworks to Pipeline No. 4 when there are no intermediate withdrawals. The North Branch size is anticipated to be approximately 36"to 42" diameter to provide about 40 MGD at Lake Youngs when there are no intermediate connections. The North Branch sizing is currently under review. Grounding and cathodic protection features will be added to the pipelines as recommended by the consultant team. • HEADWORKS MODIFICATIONS: Description: Upgrading Tacoma's Green River diversion facilities by raising the diversion dam and settling basin, constructing a new, larger intake, installing fish ladder, trap, sorting and screening structures, September 7, 1999 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit K constructing a new supply pipeline, building a new intake building ,and installing associated structures and environmental enhancements. Materials and Design: The final specifications and drawings have been completed by consultants and will require only very minor revisions before bidding. Most facilities have been designed for a 100 year life. However, even though the mechanical and electrical systems are specified for long- term, heavy duty service some will probably not last 100 years. Some provisions have been already made to the local telemetry and control system at the Headworks Control Station to accept these new facilities. • HOWARD HANSON DAM-ADDITIONAL STORAGE PROJECT: Description: Under Phase I storage, Tacoma's Second Diversion water right would be placed in storage behind the dam during the months of February to June for municipal use during the summer months. The Corps of Engineers (COE) dam does not need to be raised; only the pool level behind the dam would be raised. The dam intake and outlet structures will require significant changes to allow downstream fish passage. Additionally, other upstream and downstream fish and wildlife enhancements are required to gain approval for the additional storage. Location: Hanson Dam is located in Eagle Gorge about 3 miles upstream of Tacoma's Green River diversion. Materials and Design: The COE will be responsible for the design and construction of the new features at the dam and at the other environmental enhancement sites. The conceptual designs have been developed by the COE and a highly regarded fisheries technical review committee. • MUCKLESHOOT FISHERIES RESTORATION FACILITY: Description: The facility would allow incubation and rearing of native salmon for planting in the upper Green River watershed. Additionally, development of on-site rearing and planting of coho may occur. The facility construction, operation and maintenance will be financed by the Project and it will be owned and operated by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Three residences for the Tribe are to be constructed on-site. Location: Tacoma Water purchased a site along the Green River and immediately downstream of the Headworks Control Building for the facility. Materials and Design: The conceptual design for the facility was developed by FISHPRO Inc. during the Muckleshoot settlement September 7, 1999 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit K negotiations. The modern final design will incorporate natural fish rearing features and will have a design life of 40 to 50 years. • WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES: Description: The chlorination, fluoridation and corrosion control facilities are required to meet water quality requirements. The existing chlorine plant at Tacoma's Headworks is not large enough to provide for the SSP because of the recent contact time regulations. Therefore, a new plant capable of serving the SSP and Pipeline No. 1 has been recommended by a consultant study. The existing fluoride facility at the Headworks needs minor expansion to accommodate the SSP. A new corrosion control plant is planned to meet the lead and copper requirements. Location: The new chlorination facility would be constructed on the future filtration plant site immediately downstream of the Headworks Control Building. The existing Headworks fluoridation plant would be expanded to meet the SSP needs. The corrosion control plant is planned for the SSP at Lake Sawyer Road (about Pipeline Mile 10). Materials and Design: The facilities would be constructed for long, heavy duty service as exists with Tacoma Water's similar facilities. A preliminary conceptual report including cost estimate has been completed by a consultant. The design life for the structures is anticipated to be 100 years while some mechanical and electrical systems may last only half of that. September 7, 1999 Page 3-of 3 Exhibit K .DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Surface Water IIsswd in aocordance with the provhiont of Chapter 117,Laws of Washington-for 1917.and amnldnsents thereto,and the.ru(n and regulations of the Department of Ecology.) ❑ Ground Water 11—ed in sKcordsncs with the provisions of Chapter 20.Laws of Wnhiryton for 1945.and amendments thereto,and the rults and revisions of the Department of Ecology.) PRIORITY DATE APPLICATION NUMBER PERMIT NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER Egkt'Vl.nry 7 1931 3787 — AME rrW OF TACrttA NA= DTVTSTCN, DEPARMM OF PUEILSC iTP 1Z ESS ADDRESS•ISTREET) KIM (STATEI tZIP CODE) r n line 11nn7 rParrma W?shiTxrtnn 98411 The applicant is, purst tan I to the Report of Examination which has been accepted)by tlfe applicant,hereby gran red a permit to appropriate the following described public waters of the State of Washington,subject to existing rights and to the limitations and provisions set out herein. PUBLIC WATER TO BE APPROPRIATED SOURCE - Green River TRIBUTARY OF(IF SURFACE WA-TERSI Duwamish River MAXIMUM CUSIC FEET PER IACONO MAXIMUM GALLONS PER MINUTE MAXIMUM ACRE-FEET PER YEAR 104. .... _. 72397 IANTITY.TYPE OF USE.PERIOD OF USE ._ in ciRal and Industrial Surply - throughout the year when available (interruptible supply) LOCATION OF DIVERSION/WITHDRAWAL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DIVERSION—WITHDRAWAL 1100 f Ft west and 400 feet north of the sk corner of Sec. 18 LOCATED WITHIN(SMALLEST LEGAL SLIBDIViS1ON1 SECTION TOWNSHIP N.I MANGE.IE.OR W.1 W.Y. W.R.I.A. COUNTY cr 18 21 BE 9 Kira RECORDED PLATTED PROPERTY LOT LOCK OF(GIVE NAME OF PLAT OR ADDITION) - LEGALVESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ON WHICH WATER IS TO BE USED Area served by City of Tacana (by direct service or interlocal agreetlent). Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT L 0e01•ro lRt. 4771 t?. . PERMIT Division dam, intake structure, 10 mg tank, transmission line, treatment facilities and on-line storage reservoirs. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE N PROJECT BY THIS DAM COMPLETE PROJECT BY THIS DATE. WATER PUT TO FULL USE BY THIS DATE. er Sf7arted Decemb 8, 1991 December 8, 2006 PROVISIONS 'This authorization -is subject to the provisions of Chapter 173-509 WAC as adopted in Olympia, Washisx3ton, June 5, 1980, and the general rules of the Department of Ecology as specified under Chapter 173-500 WPC, and others. Recognitions* of instreatn flows as established at monitoring station 12.1067.00 at rives mile 60.4, Sec. 13, T.21N., R.7EW and as presented in the table below shall be a tid'tion of this diversion as set forth in said MC 173-509-030. Instream flow hydrographs, page 5, in the document entitled "Water Resources Management program in the Green-Duwamish River Basin-, dated June 1980, shall be used for definition of instream flows on those days not specifically identified in MC 173-509-030. No diversion of water, under this permit or certificate, shall take place when the flow of the river falls below the normal year flaws listed below. Except, however, when a critical year is declared by the Director under the provision of MC 173-509-030, Aiversion shall cease when flow in the river falls below the following critical year ..oats. NORMAL YEAR Month Day Instream Flow (cfs) Month Day Instream Flow (cfs) April 15 300 August 1 150 May 1 300 August 15 150 May 15 300 September 1 150 June 1 300 September 15 150 Jame 15 300 October 1 190 July 1 300 October 15 240 July 15 150 November 1 300 April 1 300 CRITICAL YEAR Month Day Instream Flow (cfs) Month Day Instream Flow (cfs) April 15 300 August 15 l50 Mav 1 300 September 1 150 May 15 300 September 15 150 June 1 300 October 1 150 June 15 210 October 15 150 July 1 150 November' 1 190 November 15 240 July 15 150 August 1 150 December 1 300 April 1 300 This permit shall be subject to cancellation should the permittee fail to comply with the above development schedule and/or fail to give notice to the Department of Ecology on forms provided by that Department documenting -,ch compliance. Given under my hand and the seal of this office at Reclmnd, Washington.this....8.............day December 86 Of...................................................19................ Department of Ecology 1 .0114CCRIN6 DATA ' n by...� . . ............................... o K... ................... � 73son, Regional Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT L AAM N.11.7 Vi Aau.ua, a.. .. .r.t..vr..., --. — — —. -7���.�_� ..-- — -.-. Geological Survey for installation and maintenance of a suitable and accurate stream •-ging station on the Green Rives in the vicinity of River Mile 61. The purpose of this ling station will be to accurately measure and record the flows passing the City of Taoomna diversion dam. She gage shall be telerretered with stage and discharge data reported to and accessible from the Columbia River Hydroneteorological Monitoring System (CFHAS). Discharge data recorded at this station will be used to determine City of Tacamma oomplianoe with WAC 173-509-030. Therefore, if the final gaging station selected by the USGS and Tacoma is sufficiently removed from existing station 12.1067 to result (in the opinion of WDOE) in the need for a correlation between the existing and new station, both stations shall be supported by the City of Tacoma for a sufficient period time to accomplish this correlation.. Should a correlation take place which alters the unstream flaw values at the new station, the City of Tacoma diversion authorized through this application will,be subject to the new values (this condition is intended only to correct any errors of,measurement that may now be occurring at station 12.1067). The final measuring system proposed by the City of Tacoma shall be approved by the WDOE and installed prior to any diversion under this authorization. The City of Tacoma shall notify the Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office when the flows of the Green River approach the instream flow as established by WAC 173-500, and advise the Department of Ecology of actions taken to modify their diversion to comply with conditions of the regulations. A suitable measuring method shall be in place on pipeline (5) to measure the rate of diversion. in compliance with the order correcting judgment nunc pro tunc pursuant to CR60(a) and `horizing filing of stipulation nu nc pro tunc entered on June 25, 1986, under Thurston ahty Cause No. 83-2-01104-1, this authorization is also subject to the following items and conditions: 1. Water in the Green-Du;.mmish River Basin placed there for fish conservation purposes fray storage behind Howard Ranson Darn, as operated now or in the future, shall not be subject to appro- priation under this permit. 2. Continuous stream gaging, through instrumentation and a program approved by DOE, shall be conducted by the City of Tacoma. An instantaneous monitoring system shall be installed in order that both the City of Tacoma and DOE shall be apprised at all times of stream flows. 3. A suitable measuring method shall be in plaice on Pipeline Nos. 1 and 5 to measure the rate of diversion. Both Pipelines Nos. 1 and 5 shall have equipment to "throttle-back" the quantity of water diverted. 4. No declaration of a critical period or of aver-riding considerations of public interest shall be made by the Director of DOE with respect to diversions under this permit until, in addition to satisfying the conditions of WC 173-509-030(2), the City of Tacoma demonstrates that it has carried out all provisions of a pre-established drought contingency plan submitted to and approved by DOE. The Department of Ecology will consult with the Departments of Fisheries and Game before approving any drought contingency plan submitted by the City of Tacoma. 5. Insufficiency of ground water supplies shall not be grounds for a declaration of a critical period or of over-riding considerations of public interest by the Director of DOE with respect to diversions under this permit until, in addition to satisfying the conditions of MC 173-509-030(2), the Cit-J of Ta.:.cim demonstrates that it has made a plan and actively pursued . development of alternative and supplemental water sources- 6. The perfection period for development of a right under this permit shall be 20 years, subject to extensions. 7. This permit is subject to Chapter 173-509 V= and that stipulation and judgment as filed in Thurston Canty Cause No. 83-2-01104-1. there is any redundancy or contradiction between the unmmbered provision (taken from 'he Report of Em&ztion dated August 19, 1981) and the provisions numbered 1. through 7. (additional stipulated provisions) , the provisions numbered 1. through 7. shall Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT L ti , Allocation of Project Capacity This Exhibit sets forth the capacity of the Project under a variety of circumstances. It demonstrates that the Project is capable of delivering to each Participant its respective Participant Share of Second Diversion Water at the same time. It also demonstrates that the capacity of the Project to deliver Project Water varies depending on upon the amount of Project Water being delivered to each Participant, among other matters. September 2, 1999 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit N Environmental Enhancement Agreements and Estimated Costs The capital cost of implementing ecosystem enhancement elements of the Second Supply Project will occur over manyyears. Therefore, the amounts shown are at mid-point of construction or agreement obligation (date shown), except Muckleshoot costs are shown as present worth value in August 2002. Most costs are estimated; actual costs may vary. The estimate of ongoing costs to the project is shown after the total of capital costs. • Headworks Modifications (enhancements negotiated during design): Fisheries structures (Aug. 2002) $4,703,000 (1996) x 1.243 USBR = $59846,000 • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Agreement, August 24, 1995: Fisheries structures & enhancements (Aug. 2002) _ $1898869000 • King County Agreement, March 22, 1993: Fisheries and environmental fund (no escalation) _ $2,725,000 • Army Corps of Engineers Permit, Jan. 24, 1997: Wetland restoration & fish refuge @ Auburn Narrows (Aug.2002) $403,000 (1996) x 1.243 USBR= $501,000 • Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), November, 1999: Fisheries structures & enhancements (Jan. 2001) _ $833,000 (90mgd/162mgd x $ 1.5M) • Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage: Fisheries and wildlife enhancement (January 2003) _ $129480,000 MIT 2001 Storage Agreement (June 2003) _ $ 191189000 • Friends of the Green River agreement, Dec.6, 1995: Green River basin and in-stream flow studies (no escalation) $200,000 Total Estimated Ecosystem Capital Costs : $42,589,000 Ongoing Ecosystem Costs (Present Worth in June 2002): $ TOTAL COSTS April 6, 2001 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit M N hi1�t1�"O7"O �r-�e- tcV �N CO `T O) 3 Q, J v m to v 1 CD O E a 0 E m ` O) p 1 O i O 1 O 1 M CO i C0 I LO to to CO co O E O O y O E •-ir-i�iOiO �ln�ln 1 Ice) v M M co w cnr' CO t- 3 y GNl n 3 i i i i i i i i p O 30 a 0 :9 U- M >CD y m 6, 1(0 o m O I O!O) to 0 0 C) O ND O O I CO O O O O p C H ^ O i l Co l 0 l co O:CO l O) 1-- Q) N V' tc•)1" to 010 O O O � _ co �` O i14 T- cD CO M N N to M M O lt7 CO M e- NWE p m O w a) z �11(01O1O1M 11N.1(D r- �O tv O O co E C7C L �MiMi—i— i iM i iM �- NcnO p NN C w :2 C a) C a) C N i N i O i O O CO i O O CO CO CO W w O Co ao w O O m C — f� t�i cD i cD i tD 't7 O i cD sr `7 V �t cD ct ct �f co co co 0 ; 0 i Z 19 O_ E p d C O a a) ° > C- 6 a) > a� E E - m > `° c a) c t cm a) W a. O C i i i i i i i i C p inp i O Y lU CL L C N C N ~ p cciQ i 0 Q O �' i i i i i i i E �-' e i C O C O. O i iy > w, co miV Oi O U Q O O O_ c TA i 1 7 1 cp C st Y Q i N� � l0 Q. a) 3 CIF— C� Z t9 O_ i i i i Oi>i� O 4) U O� U m N M i i i i �icUiC d � lLQ;ZL C�V cc O a) VaNp t= d`' OC i LC ii' �"ii>�ii>cQ l� . � �m2U) is COZ7 .O!� f C Nt 'I�O p p N O C U O NQ C) m iJ0 i ..I iN N C)i> ZiO i _Ci0 i0 i0 U) N N C OiL i—i> i0 i� � p G �icCpi�iOim i�i> ij ip U U Z7 C d O�—iO���m i0i� � C] iU C C O O E V 1� N co 1, i�iji i"'i0 I_—� O �� [Q m m Cca 1 i i C �Y U in C d a)�_i=i0� 0 � p�L 1 �W C Cb m cn 0 MI LF-5: Z iYiH iJ iZ Z Z Z > 0 m 0 N (Zv.�1 C i i Is i C m CA C N d V N L i fA co d •� r �N�C?���N �C?�� 1.� �`' N C? m d = a' QiQ�Q�Cn�co Ica ch NCO �U 0 Z � Fe N C Y C C O m E y Q) O Cn f— 1-- M d "T > O L d a O m O O O a) U N = a) N to N N cD cD N O) m C) m � LN Wei E _ cm L � _ M � � t�nt°0nt00n2 vi « N C to a) E U (9 > O a o = r` E o) c Q v I m to _ E to D ca 0 c c w ea M Y u '~ O a] a) co m m 0 L �- ' (A cI.E: Q� O Z C N O 0 C) 7((IRD > FL C f0 a) O N O O L c m = = o a) F 6 '� c c v ti cD Y CL "- J0 N O CD cD tc� lc� Z a E � mL 0 CM o ccN O y C N cD O) O F- M in O ) 3 8 CO CO a) Z � � :� N W co et tc) to t1 p N H E °) E E rn a) C m O N O f0 "D -J 0 0 U) O ., ' E c,4 0 c E E E co Ccd ° h m m o m m $ c N 1 E ca 8O � N $ Q) °? O O CL .. y � ca N H O F- N O c9 N O p L C .O O O O Ycp N W = Z = U � co D , UZY JOZ • Z of S r L W OIO IOIW IW 1�1� IQ� 1Ci Gi t O m p O @ m � ccico1co1(O1 ir-ir i0 i0 O M N E O. E E O X F c� am,amp co p c( In In et C) v 0 M C �- N o O N N 0 `� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o N 3 o y ai ai a 3 u co CL co > � cnlsticololMololcn (n0000lc000lco, Ooo cn 0 O C y 'C '� O 1 "o"010 O 1,co�O 1` O N v In 1N to 010 O O O _ O l�t l r-I O I DO M I N 104 '�7 In CO .- r I M .- IT 10 cn co M cn E p M O B y �cO:O"OIM �N10 1O r-�� O O CO E • +C-. N c- C IMIMIr IT 1 10 1 /M y.. N � (0 cl 0 W L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m N t r O p N W co cn O i i i i i i i i it 3 cc V L- , E O C N U N H Jc V C C C @ C N�N�O,-O,-O co�o:O co co of co N:O co colCO O O O Q '> _� C �' f`1f`1COI(DIco �1CDI( •q, •� �'1 1•� M M M O@ m •W L.- i m d n• E@ I a) W a Z i; N W @ E 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I i - j > r- y W LL M @ C r C @ �' y W " O cc Q ` W G 1 1 1 1 t 1 LL 1 1 m N O E y = i i i i 1. lowi W ItC H = 1 1 1 1 1 IQ 1 1 y > L Q > @ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I E 1 C o C d _ @ .� O W i i 11 i i i N >� @ i 0 @ ap i d U O O a n y i i i i > W OiW m i O I�r 1 1 I I MI 1 Co @ CI �I r } a Z I O W a i Oi @10 ( m mid cn 0 cn @ e"7 r 1 1 1 1 0. 1 v c H � f �7w� C 0cn � � Q;Zw �Iv � � m V LZ Ci i iai mi@iW U i� cn �i� miC N N O m (a / I ca Ii 1L 1� I - 1� 1@ 1 1 1 1+�I m 1 10 N 0 N a i C i im' i@ i O i CoY i Q i U o :2"CDi=4) i-I-••� � cn IJ d c ai jL'_4-3 11 o o @ 0 0'v) ��- cn ti C C 0101V� o�V ���> �� !n N N o O- ca �i(CpiOi01 idiom i > ip 0 0 U aIm 1 1@ IW � 0 C C C > QI L V it iFW l`0 W O EE C f` Vl W�@� >i� ir- iY i m co m U Iri m t� @ )=�=�O� O �@/�1L � W �w C140 =ILL 1 1U IZ 1i 11- IJ IZ Z Z Z i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q E N Z E O O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 @ N 4m CL V 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I cn M 7 d 0) �iNiMiriN �M�� �ln �� I N (7 L Q = Q'Q�Q�m�m Im ICD Im IU 0oo Z Fe N O .r Y Ud c a c c m _ o ai rn o cn r� y mo T Ev m W � c�a0 � o, cl co cc C) n ac m o or- 0 CD to @ _ @ W cncn co cocoNL o m m w 2 E � rn � � = =� ti (n •-- rl-0 W) LO o� Ch @ co Q 0 N ° U cn o CO" ? m af°i m P L +� L 0 � @ CM Q� � O � � C A W C O O O o > E ti �,i� @ @ moo 0 000L m � zti m L c c`a = � o � a co co o cca Yo m c W H � � co co ln (ncoZa`p J O 6 -1 V E@ W L a o � m o to E ocoy � mcornrn � r00ic' -0 m Z � � In (n (`�i � � I y E cm c '0E W o E E @c rn E E c co L WEca omo ucO E o o o 8E m m W E m oo � W o � cw wIoT Z U . cc UZY ccrn .j0Z . 3 OF5 O�O�O�O�O �O�O c) C!I q Lc)',to ���cn 1 0) I Q) tT to 0 LO � O O) a O CD f`i r`i r`i 616 i f`i r� 1106 i CO Co ,- O W rl-� 0) E `- p X E CO�CO CO�h�co �M�t'7 �N �� V V V c coo coo �° t°)n 3 N N m a 3 N a) CL M O �- lip � ~ 30 d tv9 i i i i i i i i U d c) > t!)M(D 1 O 1 c'� O i a l m to o o C o ll co O O 11 cD C 0 0 L �O C C O�V�O"OIO OIO O r` O N to 0,10 O O O , _ T7 u) O l V i—O cD O'CD M:N N V tc) M .- •-i CO V 1 O to co M v !A Ol p ca O cU y e- CD O O c 7 N,-(D r- O r-4 V O O co E O E C ca9 C p L iMi�iri� i i� i iM N ( O f` cO N m p co U E O N V Z LL• W �O N y e J i i i i i i i i j .- N C a) a) C N I N:O 1 O 1 O O i O 1 O CO CO CO CO Co i O CO co'co O (M C) Q j C O C C - r•It-l cD i o i cD V i cD i cD V V 'IT 'IT i V (D V V i V co m m II C O` 0 0 •O n, i i i o• E a) c a? > m N a) E E F — > c > -p () �' p a) c - � m c o 7 ! o ° Y O Z ! rn a v N o m 2 I �U) !c ! c N .. ¢ cm 3 m 1 I c o c _ _ a) � += ° O i i i i i i N ` >� i p a) ° i O O O d n y i i i i i i N > m :3 V i Y V p O NI IN O N Cif 1C ": } p� mi _ C y Cn i i i i ����OI Cc, C a) !!� co E QiW L C�� L co �i�i > d s U-) .. 1 CO �,0) C p J icQ U Q' to 0110 cc) m"C N V p d ca i ica mi�iL U = �i� miC N CD 4) iLi C3 iQ iV L = Wiwi>i °i� ipi"' � N (n N N 0i0iUiO10 i�i> i� im i i i C lCO C i Q) ^ 0- -6:mciOiC.W i�i� i > ip U U U C d 0�a�C,.CA � pIS ica 3 t 1_i i w. L W cG C7 c9 2 > L V 'OI ZI CAL �� i CD m m l0 O C e- N C3j�j�j>I jciE i�C i~ L.o U h r C (� a) a)��'=i01,0 pis � O �W ao E -4 0 2icLinK.)OZ IYIF- �J �Z Z Z Z a �, I I I a i Ul z •• i i i i i i i i Ccm 0 !�1 -so O E O E a) O r> i0 v. y L CO i i i i r- r N co i i m �U 0 d = Q' Q Q Q m CO �m�m 11 O t pn N cV m > C V Y @ c a c o to m = E is o y w N 0 tU '° O U LO O (DD• (DD• n' p O cD O p O E y a) _ 0 co to O r` CD co cn L N v O W O � L -� _ CO r-_ to to to to aCn 0i c m cLN ctpM E a) E Co ° coif` f` tntntn2 m F- o c m > L o o co r 2 — c~n oo co ° � � Q c E Co - m c c m CA m V 3 W L 'p o � $ Qv p � ZcN c � 000000mr Eo > � ti >,� (a (D a) o00 0000L U O T- O O a� L -- C N = = O N O Co co cn a 4 m v o •c EL E N C c c~D co cOD tOn LO ui Z m o a cL) L o °•' � � cu 1= c o �,; 0) — o 0 m < v 0 co zo > oo oacm - ~ �L ' rn Z � N vtntn ca Nco �J N y o c J 0 E E rn c a) o cc cr3 L V co E 0) E rna c o ri o o f " c ° o �° > $ o N m E $ E c 7 E 04 8 Co H !� m O 0 ao c' m t N c m ai E ' W O H o p O W p O O t C 0) (aO '0 4) cY0 ccu W = Z = ~ U � � co . D � UZY JOZ . -- ¢ of ✓` Allocation of Headworks Costs The Headworks Modifications includes raising the existing diversion dam, constructing a new river intake, raising the existing settling basin, installing new fish structures including a ladder, trap, sorting, bypass, screen, and transfer facilities, and a new Headworks Intake Building for electrical, mechanical, storage and office needs. A portion of the Headworks Modifications will be allocated to Tacoma for the existing Green River Diversion as shown below. Estimate of total Headworks Modifications cost (Aug. 2002) _ $1611370,000 Estimate of fisheries enhancement cost at Headworks = $ 5,846,000 Difference = $10,524,000 Project commitment to the Headworks Modifications excluding fisheries _ $10,524,000 x (89.6 mgd/162.6 mgd)* _ $5,799,203 • Total cost to Project = $55846,000 + $5,799,203 = $11,645,203 Tacoma's cost for benefits to the existing diversion from the improvements _ $16,370,000 - $11,645,203 = $4,724,797 • Total cost to Tacoma = 1/3 x $11,645,203 + $4,724,797 = $ 81606,531 *Note: 89.6 mgd = 64.6 (2nd diversion water right) + 25 mgd (fish rearing facility) 162.6 mgd = 89.6 (shown above) + 73.0 mgd (lst diversion water right) April 6, 2001 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 0 a Z M ari 0 0 0 M CD • : 0 0 -1 CCDD Z CD CD iil H < ? z. n a 7 tS� Cl t� tv W N -� m ` a °' N = cn °° fD O �, CO g c" 3 3 °' N o g m > > c O H 3 H 3 0 v n 03i cL 3 mO v' c iU 0 ? v O (a 3 3 o y CD ? c a n Ccn 3 �' ma Cn tJ� CT� Ut A Of m 0 y d l< z (CD_ n d O A w -I (O cD rn �p :3O vi d n�, Z co ao 00 0 (D o < m Cr o 3 m to 0 CD C o n ti ° a i 0 CD � d A CD CD 3 j A '. O 7c O ' 0 (D OD co O N O � _ -, — ? 3 d - e0 n � O O O O p G (D (D CD C) `< 'n < o Q = � 0OO o ponm (n n o na a ? � � � n CU cn m 3 a) 0 Q1 � �' g a m p C11 0 n 0 0 3 0 cn y 2 �rnm <CD -4 rn -40) 2 ` 3 m 3 �+ - N � a CD 3 c to a � N N CA v 2 m n m o 0 - O � 0 CD m v m l 3 < C) (, d O W E A o v (D n d c O (p N m D eC�SD m N A v T m CD 1p o N a CD 000 n; m; a��m; m�oo;D;D;D 2 3 W N _+ LipOj co CDQ Q NCD i i i i i i i i CD 0 UsCo 0 C31 p 1 1 _ `^ p Cc - i i i i i i i i z N d O '� 1 1 C co i i i i i i i i •� � Z Z Z Zi r Zinici-n, A Q 3 nl� �� 3�CD � 01O�2i^'iO lD �' O1 n to co W co CD I O 1� 1 �.�<I�IID ICE y _' n 3 O 3 3 3 N i Si ':i..i ?ice i i� in �, O O' $ < O 7so O nl CDi CDiOi �i�i0i�i� O ? OI co < 1 ��� � IQI�ICy1� •O i i i CUi �i CICDi C) i�i0i.+iT = O m p1 0 10 I � N N (n p 1 m 1:i IZi0ILi0 a y i O i 0 i O i 0 i=1_�T .► "0 w 1 O a o � CD , o� �m D (n 01 (n1, CIO I :3 � m O N 0 1 CD 1 1 1 RD CD 1� Y N N �iW W ��-� i fn ' +� tvimico is i i� 0 CD r O O CD i(D rn O CA 1 CD < i<it0 :0 i i i" D o u tv C1 n 1� .. Z -n CD CD 1 p) 1 1 A Cl) 7C' S (� CO O'7 Ml D y 4 0 �1< i0 i i i i N CD m (n O (n (D 1 CD 1 O = Z �j (� d C 'C .< . ^ i� -I mi= CD di i0 i i i i C%) - -0 CD O N L O (D 0 CD m < .= 1 1 CD 3 i D 1 i i i i i i L 0 O N m to 3 to j 1 �� 1 1 = y 3 i i i i Is 1 1 1 O O_ H O Cn i i i i CD = S m CD i 1 t t to m n < T _ < N Cv = ? < 01 CD i -t CD 3 -0 d m CD D O W W W AAA A CA:A A A A A CA�CA�A CA�O�CA��I��l j � 7 (D 7 < D .` ? CD CD CD OD 1 Co OD O CA Cp CO CO CO o 1 O 1 CO O 1 0 1 0 1 N N CD CD y n n Cn (D 0 i i i i i i i i m p fn p� 4f co 0 a A 0 3 CD to N 1 t0 N p 1 1 ,_„ N N d C 7 C?I 0 O CA co N WI Wi i �� �1W1Wl ? �. 0 -0 O CA O (D O1N� W�O�O� �s CD nl� 0 CD co cn 3 m O c-D OVA W�� W CT A N�N�W DD�CA0�� �O `� — O O n .cn n 0 0 Cl 0 01 0 (Tn N I Cn A N (D V (O 1 01 0 CD 1 01 CO, 1 0 .� fD � �, ; O O O Cn 1 0 O Cn 1 0 O O O cn CD 1 01 0 Co.o 1 CD 1 A 1 cn n <Ca 0 .-. T1 .. 1 i i 'Tl N 'Ounp A 0 pp i i i i i i i •D CD N N FO CD CD Cy p N N 0 '� N N N W i A, C11 C)1 CA i co i CD tD i CO CA O C O O T CJ1 O J (� (� (�1 (D 1(D N 1 N 1 J 1�►1�i (() X CD (D 3 3 1 1 1• 1 1 1. 1 �• n Ln r c ►� < O 'cn tD (DI (DI �I AI V,1(J,1(nlCnlcn n 0 0 0 0; 01 O;O; O;O;o;O;O �' CD a ' Reimbursable Costs Many activities associated with the Second Supply Project have occurred since 1966. Each of the Parties to the Project have contributed funding for a share of these past and present activity costs as shown below: • Tacoma Water: Land & Right of Way $ 2,929,431 Pipeline No. 1 Flow Control $ 1,327673 Water Rights $ 788,259 Headworks Control Station $ 1,459,488 Steel Mains (constr., engr. ,etc) $12,410,800 Headworks & Fish Facilities $ 1,395,189 Intangible Plant & Misc. $ 356,869 Hanson Dam Additional Storage $ 2,107,134 1993 Bond Issuance $ & Interest $ 3,054,762 (thru 6/99) Sub-Total $25,829,605 • Covington Water District: PL & Hdwks. Design & Permits $ 268,323 Hanson Dam Storage Project $ 828,133 • City of Kent: PL & Hdwks. Design & Permits $ 168,411 Hanson Dam Storage Project $ 361,466 • Lakehaven Utility District: PL & Hdwks. Design & Permits $ 168,411 Hanson Dam Storage Project $ 3611466 Est. for PL #4 to 1 st Way S. $17,000,000 • Seattle Public Utilities: Pipeline Design & Permits $ 569,475 Hanson Dam Storage Project $ 1,102,000 Est. for North Branch $ 500,000 TOTAL $47,157,290 Note: Actual contributions to the Project through March 2001 are shown except the Lakehaven cost of Pipeline No. 4 to 1 st Way S. and Seattle cost of the North Branch are estimated. April 19, 2001 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit P Special Provisions for CWD and Kent The Covington Water District (Covington) and the City of Kent (Kent) have identified a need for water deliveries in the event that the Project, or certain portions of it, are delayed. This section sets forth the circumstances under which such water supply would be needed, and how the parties intend to supply it. The contingencies set forth below permit the construction of facilities in Project right-of-way. If Kent/Covington should exercise any such Contingencies, any facilities constructed pursuant thereto can be constructed in the Project right-of-way. First Contingency—In the event that Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorization and appropriation for initiating Storage Project design has not been passed into law on or before October 1, 2000, and completion of the Project is delayed thereby, Covington and/or Kent may require the commencement of design of that portion of the Project stretching from a point approximately 9,000 feet west of the Headworks Control Building to S.E. 3041h Street (Kent/Covington Intertie) by providing Tacoma written notice of their desire to commence such design activity. Such design work shall be for the full Project capacity, and may be undertaken by either Tacoma or Kent/Covington, as specified in the Project Agreement, and such work shall be paid for by the party or parties which sent notice to Tacoma pursuant to this Conceptual Agreement. The right of Kent and Covington to send notice to Tacoma pursuant to this First Contingency shall expire on the last day of 2001. Second Contingency—In,the event that Kent and/or Covington have given Tacoma notice pursuant to the First Contingency and WRDA authorization and appropriation for initiating Storage Project design has not been passed into law on or before October 1, 2002, and completion of the Project is delayed thereby, Kent and/or Covington may require the commencement of construction of the Kent/Covington Intertie by providing Tacoma written notice of their desire to begin such construction. Such construction work may be undertaken by either Tacoma or Kent/Covington, as specified in the Project Agreement. The Kent/Covington Intertie will be sized to provide capacity adequate to serve the needs of the parties participating in the construction of this Kent/Covington Intertie. The costs of constructing the Kent/Covington Intertie will be apportioned among participating parties based upon the proportionate share of capacity in the Kent/Covington Intertie that will be available to each participating party. The right of Kent and Covington to send notice to Tacoma pursuant to this Second Contingency shall expire on the last day of 2003. Third Contingency—In the event that Kent and/or Covington have given notice to Tacoma pursuant to the First and Second Contingencies, Kent and/or Covington may elect to extend the Kent/Covington Intertie to the Project headworks by providing written notice to Tacoma of such intention. Such construction work may be undertaken by either Tacoma or Kent/Covington as specified in the Project Agreement. This extension will be sized to provide capacity adequate to serve the needs of the parties participating in the construction of this extension. The costs of construction the extension will be apportioned among participating parties based upon the proportionate share of capacity in the extension that will be available to each participating party. The right of Kent and Covington to send notice to Tacoma pursuant to this Third Contingency shall expire on the last day of 2011. March 17, 2000 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit Q Fourth Contingency—In the event that Kent and/or Covington have given notice to Tacoma pursuant to the First and Second Contingencies, Kent and/or Covington may elect to extend the Kent/Covington Intertie to the vicinity of 1241h Avenue S.E. by providing written notice to Tacoma of such intention. Such construction work may be undertaken by either Tacoma or Kent/Covington as specified in the Project Agreement. This extension will be sized to provide capacity adequate to serve the needs of the parties participating in the construction of this extension. The costs of construction the extension will be apportioned among participating parties based upon the proportionate share of capacity in the extension that will be available to each participating party. The right of Kent and Covington to send notice to Tacoma pursuant to this Fourth Contingency shall expire on the last day of 2016. Contingency Participation In the event that Kent and/or Covington exercise the First, Second, Third or Fourth Contingencies, upon such exercise Kent and/or Covington shall make a written offer of participation in the activities to be undertaken pursuant to any such Contingencies to Lakehaven and Tacoma. Upon receipt of such written notice, Lakehaven and Tacoma shall notify Kent and/or Covington whether they wish to so participate. Should Tacoma and/or Lakehaven elect to participate in any of the Contingencies, the party so electing shall pay their proportionate share of the costs of implementing any such Contingency. Tacoma Option Another party or parties may elect to construct facilities pursuant to the Second, Third or Fourth Contingencies with a capacity of less than the full Project capacity. In that event, and in addition to the right to participate in such activities, Tacoma may elect to require that the facilities to be constructed be sized to full Project capacity, and Tacoma shall be responsible for paying the additional costs associated with increasing the capacity from that planned by the participating parties to full Project capacity. Water Supply If Kent/Covington exercise their rights under the First and Second Contingency, Tacoma agrees to provide to Kent/Covington for the period commencing with the completion of the Kent/Covington Intertie up to 10 MGD and up to a maximum of 3300 acre-feet per year of water from Tacoma's First Diversion Water Right. Any water committed to Kent/Covington may be recalled by Tacoma at any time after the year 2011, by Tacoma providing Kent/Covington written notice of such recall not less than three years prior to the effective date of such recall. In payment for such water supply, Kent/Covington agree to pay to Tacoma an amount equal to the O&M costs and the capital costs of wells operated and developed to support this water supply to Kent/Covington, as set forth in Figure 2 (attached). If Kent/Covington exercise their rights under the First, Second and Third Contingencies, and if the extension of the Kent/Covington Intertie is built to the Project headworks, then in that event on and after the last day of 2011, Kent/Covington may elect to take their proportionate March 17, 2000 Page 2 of 6 Exhibit Q share (2/9) of the water available under the Second Diversion Water Right. In payment for such water supply, Kent/Covington agree to pay the costs of exercising the right to receive such water, including without limitation the costs of the MIT Agreement, if any. Credit for Expenditures In the event that Kent/Covington exercise their rights under the First, Second, Third or Fourth Contingencies, and the Project is completed, Kent/Covington and any other party participating in any such Contingency shall receive as a credit against their share of Project costs an amount equal to the monies paid by each participant to implement those portions of the Contingencies which are incorporated into the Project. In the event that Tacoma exercises the Tacoma Option to increase the capacity of the Kent/Covington Intertie and/or the extension to the headworks, and the Project is completed, Tacoma shall receive as a credit against its share of Project costs an amount equal to the monies paid by Tacoma to exercise the Tacoma Option. O&M and Sunk Costs If the Kent/Covington Intertie and/or the extension to the headworks are constructed pursuant to the Second and Third Contingencies, fixed O&M costs for operating such facilities will be apportioned among the participating parties on a basis proportionate to the capacity of such facilities which is available to each participating party, without regard to the amount of water taken or not taken. Variable O&M costs will be apportioned based on the amount of water used by each participating party. If Kent/Covington, and other participating parties, construct facilities pursuant to any of the foregoing Contingencies, and such facilities are not incorporated into the completed Project, Kent/Covington and the participating parties shall make a payment to Tacoma to compensate for a share of the costs incurred by Tacoma to procure permits, rights of way, easements and the Second Diversion Water Right. Tacoma, Kent/Covington and other participating parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to determine the amount of such payment. March 17, 2000 Page 3 of 6 Exhibit Q Figure 2 Examples of Groundwater Cost Calculation (1996 Dollars) Capital Cost to Produce 3300 Acre Feet From Groundwater in South Tacoma Aquifer Assumptions: 1) For estimating purposes each well produces 1500 gpm 2). Pumping period is 120 days 3) Drilled well casing and screen has a 40 year economic life 4) Pumps, motors, electrical equipment and telemetry equipment has 25 year economic life 5) Well building has 50 year economic life 6) Inflation is 3%per year 7) discount rate is 6%per year Typical well construction costs (plant costs) 8B drilled in 1989 cost$93,020 3% inflation 1990-1996(7 years) (1.03)7 (93,020)=$114,403 Annual cost 40 year life @ 6% 0.06646 (114,403)= $ 7,603 Pump,motor, electrical &telemetry equip. in 1990 cost$102,626 3% inflation 1991-1996(6 years) . (1.03)6 (102,626)=$122,541 Annual cost 25 year life @ 6% 0.07823 (122,541)= $ 9,586 Well building(U.P.)in 1987 cost$91,114 3% inflation 1988-1996 (9 years) (1.03)9(91,114)=$118,883 Annual cost 50 year life @ 6% 0.06344 (118,883)_ $ 7,542 * Total estimated annual capital cost per well $24,731 (does not include land or land rights, engineering costs, environmental and permitting costs or transmission piping from well to distribution system) Production= 1500 gpm (60 min/hr) 24 hr/day(120 days) 325,851 gal/acre feet = 795.5 acre feet/well Number of wells needed= 3300 acre feet 795.5 acre feet/well =4.15 say 4 wells * Total estimated annual capital cost to produce 3300 acre feet/year=4 ($24,731) _ $98,924 March 17, 2000 Page 4 of 6 Exhibit Q O&M Cost to Produce 3,000 acre feet from Groundwater in South Tacoma Aquifer Include only costs directly related to groundwater supply. Taxes 0.0182 (7,573,029)/2=$409,701/yr Source of Supply 600. Source of Supply General 0.1082 (237,339)/2= $12,840/yr 601.31 Source of Supply Wells 601.33 (59,589+ 137,813)/2 =$98,701 601.4 Water Supply Control 0.1082 (451,626)/2 = $24,433/yr 601.7 Fleet Services 0.1082 (489,914)/2=$26,504/yr 603. Miscellaneous 0.1082 (139,292)/2=$7,049/yr 610. Maintenance Supervision&Engineering 0.1082 (22,459)/2=$1,215/yr 611.4 Maintenance Wells & Springs 185,213/2=$92,607/yr 612.0 Misc. Maintenance Water Supply Plan 0.1082 (2,311)/2=$125/yr $263,474 Water Treatment 640. Supervision&Engineering Operation 0.1082(182,924)/2=$9,896/yr 641. Chemicals 0.1082 (600,019)/2= $32,461/yr 642. Operating Expense Treatment 0.1082 (524,403)/2=$28,370/yr 642.5 Fleet(Treatment) 0.1082 (36,368)/2=$1,968/hr 642.7 Fluoride Application Plant 0.1082 (19,488)/2= $1,054/yr 643. Miscellaneous 0.1082 (60,890)/2=$3,294/yr 650 Supervision&Engineering Maintenance 0.1082 (46,088)/2=$2,493/hr 652 Water Treatment Equipment Maintenance 0.1082 (251,961)/2=$13,631/yr 652.14 Fluoride Plant Maintenance 0.1082 (5,388)/2=$291/yr 653. Miscellaneous Maintenance 0.1082 (16,477)/2= $891/yr $94,679/yr March 17, 2000 Page 5 of 6 Exhibit Q Water Transmission & Storage 660. Supervision & Engineering Operation 0.1082 (320,664)/2= $17,348/yr 661. Operations 0.1082 (235,034)/2= $12,716/yr 665. Miscellaneous Operations 0.1082 (40,628)/2=$2,198/yr 670. Maintenance Supervision & Engineering 0.1082 (10,039)/2 = $543/yr 671. Maintenance Transmission 0.1082 (345,276)/2 =$18,679/hr 672. Maintenance Storage 0.1082 (20,519)/2 = $1,110/yr 673. Miscellaneous Maintenance 0.1082 (37,967)/2=$2,054/yr 681.3 Care of Grounds 0.1082 (95,781)/2 =$5,182/yr 685.12 Building Services 011082 (1,391,338)/2 = $75,271/yr $135,101/yr Source of Supply $263,474 Water Treatment 94,679 Trans. & Storage 135,101 $493,272 Taxes 493,472 1,034,131 (409,701)_ $195,424 Total Estimated O&M Demand Costs for 17 Wells $688,696/yr Annual O & M Total for 4 wells 4 (688,696)_ $162,046/yr 17 Total Estimated Annual O&M + Capital Costs for 4 Nvells to produce 3300 acre feet = $162,046 + $98,924 = $260,970/yr* * Note that this is an annual cost since capital costs and the majority of O&M costs are annual whether or not wells are actually pumped in a given year. lb March 17, 2000 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit Q Special Provisions For Lakehaven Lakehaven Utility District may need water delivery prior to completion of the pipeline portion of the Project in 2001, and prior to completion of the Project in 2004. The section sets forth, among other matters,how the parties intend to supply it. The Options set forth below permit construction of facilities in the-Project right-of-way. If Lakehaven should exercise such Options, any facilities constructed pursuant thereto can be constructed in the Project right-of- way. ' Tacoma will provide written notification to Lakehaven as soon as practicable after determining: (1) that the pipeline portion of the Project will be completed after 2001; (2) that the entire Project will be completed after 2004. Option 1 Upon receipt of the written notice or notices from Tacoma described in the proceeding paragraph, Lakehaven shall have the right to: 1. By written notification to Tacoma,have Tacoma initiate and complete engineering and design work necessary to construct the mutually agreed upon facilities required to provide early water deliver to Lakehaven. 2. Upon the completion of the design and engineering work described in subparagraph 1,by written notification to Tacoma,have Tacoma initiate and complete construction of the facilities required to provide early water delivery to Lakehaven, and supply water in amounts up to 1,650 acre-feet per year, and at a rate of up to 5 MGD. The activities described in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above shall be paid for by Lakehaven. Tacoma will utilize reasonable efforts to expedite activities described in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above. In the event that Tacoma and Lakehaven agree that the development of groundwater supply from Tacoma sources is necessary to meet the early delivery water requirements of Lakehaven, the following conditions will apply: 1. In payment for such groundwater supply from Tacoma sources, Lakehaven agrees to pay Tacoma an amount equal to the O&M costs and capital costs of wells operated and developed to support this groundwater supply to Lakehaven, as set forth in Figure 2 (Refer to Exhibit Q). 2. When Phase I of the Storage Project begins operation and Project water is available to Lakehaven,this supplemental groundwater supply will no longer be available to Lakehaven except on an as available basis. Page 1 of 3 Exhibit R 3. Alternatively, a groundwater recharge project, such as Lakehaven's Oasis Project, could serve in place of the Storage Project. Implementation of such a groundwater recharge project coupled with the availability of Project water, Is would remove Tacoma's groundwater obligation except on an as available basis. 4. In any event, any groundwater committed to Lakehaven may be recalled by Tacoma at any time after the yea 2011, by Tacoma providing Lakehaven written notice of such recall not less than three years prior to the effective date of such recall. Option 2 If the Project has not been completed by the last day of 2010, on and after such date Lakehaven may elect to take its proportionate share (1/9) of the water available under the Second Diversion Water Right by way of diverting water from the Green River in the vicinity of Auburn. Lakehaven shall make such election by providing written notice of such election to Tacoma. In payment for such water supply, Lakehaven agrees to pay the costs of exercising the right to receive such water, including without limitation the costs of the MIT Agreement, if any. Lakehaven shall make a written offer of participation in the activities to be undertaken by Lakehaven pursuant to this Option 2 to Tacoma, Kent and Covington. Upon receipt of such written notice, Tacoma, Kent and Covington shall notify Lakehaven whether they wish to so participate. Should Tacoma and/or Lakehaven elect to participate in any of the Contingencies, the party so electing shall pay their proportionate share of the costs of implementing-any such Contingency. In the event that Lakehaven exercises its rights under this Option 2, and the Project is completed, Lakehaven and any other party participating in any such Option 2 activities shall receive as a credit against its share of Project costs an amount equal to the monies paid by each participant to implement those portions of Option 2 which are incorporated into the Project. If facilities are constructed pursuant to this Option 2, fixed O&M costs for operating such facilities will be apportioned among the participating parties on a basis proportionate to the capacity of such facilities which is available to each participating party,without regard to the amount of water taken or not taken. Variable O&M costs will be apportioned based on the amount of water used by each participating party. If Lakehaven, and other participating parties, construct facilities pursuant to this Option 2, and such facilities are not incorporated into the completed Project, Lakehaven and the participating parties shall make a payment to Tacoma to compensate for a share of the costs incurred by Tacoma to procure permits,rights of way, easements and the Second Diversion Water Right. Tacoma, Lakehaven and other participating parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to determine the amount of such payment. Page 2 of 3 Exhibit R ' Tacoma Option Another party or parties may elect to construct facilities pursuant to Option 1 or Option 2 with capacity less than the full Project capacity. In that event, and in addition to the right to participate in such activities, Tacoma may elect to require the facilities to be constructed be sized to full Project capacity, and Tacoma shall be responsible for paying the additional costs associated with increasing the capacity from that planned by the participating parties to full Project capacity. Other Matters In the event that Lakehaven pursues piloting of artificial recharge in the Mirror Lake or Redondo-Milton Channel aquifers, Tacoma agrees to extend the Interim Water Supply Agreement, dated June 8, 1995, for an additional four years (from June 8, 1999 until June 8, 2003), on the condition that Lakehaven pays any additional costs of water transmission or installation or operating costs of any pumping facilities which may be required. March 26, 1999 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit R Special Provisions for Seattle 1. If "substantial completion", as defined in subsection 4 of this Exhibit S, of the North Branch is not achieved by October 1, 2006, Seattle shall have the right at any time thereafter to terminate its participation in this Project Agreement, provided that i) Seattle is not in material default of any-of its obligations under this Project Agreement, and ii) Seattle has given written notice to the all other Participants of its intent to exercise such right of termination not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. The achievement of substantial completion of the North Branch after October 1, 2006 but prior to the date that Seattle has issued written notice of termination under this section shall extinguish Seattle's right of termination pursuant to this Exhibit S. 2. In the event that Seattle exercises its right of termination in accordance with subsection 1 of this Exhibit S, then; i) Tacoma and the other Participants shall be relieved of any further obligation to complete all or any portion of the North Branch; ii) Seattle shall have no obligation to make any further payments of any kind under any of the other provisions of this Project Agreement, and Seattle shall have no rights, claims or causes of action of any kind arising under any other provision of the Project Agreement; and iii) Seattle shall be entitled to reimbursement from the other Participants as set forth in subsection 3 below. 3. Upon termination of participation in the Project Agreement pursuant to this Exhibit S, Seattle shall be reimbursed by the other Participants in an amount equal to Project Payments as defined in section 7 below, together with interest thereon. Interest on such reimbursement amount shall be calculated at the end of each year on the reimbursement amount outstanding at the mid point of such year, using the interest rate on Project Bonds issued to fund Initial Project Construction, or the average of such interest rates if there has been multiple issuances, weighted by the amount of money borrowed with each issuance. Payments of the reimbursement amount made to Seattle pursuant to this subsection 3 shall be made in equal monthly payments, such that the entire reimbursement amount, and interest thereon, shall be made to Seattle by the end of a time period equal to the time that elapsed between the date of Seattle's first payment under the Project Agreement and the date of termination established pursuant to subsection 1, provided, however, that the other Participants may elect in their sole discretion to accelerate part or all of the reimbursement payments required hereunder. Payment of interest on outstanding reimbursement amounts for each year shall be made in lump sum in the last month of each year. 4. For the purposes of this Exhibit S, "substantial completion"means the completion of all of the components of the North Branch that are essential to Seattle's ability to receive at its Point of Delivery the regular and timely delivery of its Participant Share of Project Water pursuant to the terms of this Project Agreement, except for "punchlist" items and other minor items which do not materially limit, restrict, interfere with or diminish Seattle's intended use of the Project. November 16, 1999 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit S 5. This Exhibit S is not intended by the Participants to take effect when the Project is terminated pursuant to section 14 of the Project Agreement, and Seattle shall have no right to reimbursement pursuant to this Exhibit S if the Project is terminated pursuant to section 14 of the Project Agreement. 6. If substantial completion of the North Branch is delayed due to the issuance of a temporary injunction, a temporary restraining order, stay or by other action by a court that temporarily prohibits, in whole or in part, construction activities on the North Branch, the time period for achieving substantial completion of the North Branch set forth in subsection 1 above shall be extended for a period of time equal to the period that any such temporary injunction, temporary stay or other temporary court action was in effect. 7. For purposes of this Exhibit S, "Project Payment" means moneys paid by Seattle to fund its Participant Share of costs incurred pursuant to this Project Agreement, prior to the date of termination under this Exhibit S, for final design and construction (including associated mitigation construction costs) for any portion of the Project; provided, however, that such Project Payments shall not include the costs of preliminary design, environmental impact statements, permitting, regulatory compliance and such other costs of a similar nature incurred pursuant to this Project Agreement, prior to the date of termination under this Exhibit S, for any portion of the Project. November 16, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit S Sample Calculation of Tacoma ChlorinationTreatment Payment and Credit New Facility Costs Allocation Cost to SSP Comments louridation $527,000 , 100% $527,000 Expand existing facility Corrosion Control $1,999,000 100% $1,999,000 New facility near Lake Sawyer Chlorination $4,935,000 See below $4,509,000 New PL1 &SSP facility near Hdwks. (Future filtration plant site) TOTALS $7,461,000 $7,035,000 The consultant's estimated new facility costs shown above are escalated to mid-point of construction The existing CL2 facilities are adequate for serving Pipeline No. 1. Therefore,the cost for a new chlorination facility serving SSP&PL1 would be allocated to Tacoma as follows: With PL1 &SSP $4,935,000 163 mgd With SSP only $4,509,000 90 mgd Difference $426,000 73 mgd (Pipeline No. 1 allocation) Tacoma=$426,000+ ($4,509,000 x 1/3) = $1,929,000 W-reditowever, if filtration treatment is required later for the Green River supply,Tacoma will the SSP an additional amount. This action would be justified then because Tacoma would . ve moved the existing CL2 facilities to the new filtration plant site to serve Pipeline No. 1 independent of the SSP. The amount of credit would be: $4,935,000 x (73.0+90/3) = $3,118,500 163 minus$1,929,000 (paid earlier)= $1,189,500- Credit later Note: costs shown above would be based on actual costs; those shown are estimates. April 6, 2001 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit T SEATTLE/TACOMA STORAGE AGREEMENT 1. Purpose and Definitions a) The purpose of this Agreement is to reallocate the shares of water held in Storage by Seattle and Tacoma pursuant to the terms of the Second Supply Project Agreement between Seattle, Tacoma and the City of Kent, Covington Water District and Lakehaven Utility District (hereafter the"Second Supply Project Agreement"). The allocation of stored water provided for by this Agreement is a bilateral arrangement between Tacoma and Seattle (hereafter referred to as the "Parties") which does not involve or impact other Participants in the Second Supply Project or Howard Hanson Storage project. Capitalized terms contained in this Agreement shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Second Supply Project Agreement. 2. Establishment and Allocation of Fixed and Variable Storage a) In every year after the commencement of Phase I operation of the Howard Hanson Dam Additional Storage Project, both Seattle and Tacoma will retain not more than 3,333 acre-feet ("AF) of their 1/3 Participant Share of total Project Storage as their respective "fixed storage." Seattle and Tacoma will pool the remainder of their 1/3 Participant Share of Project Storage as "variable storage." b) Subject to the limitations set forth in section 3 of this Agreement, Seattle shall have the first right to schedule for delivery'at its Points of Delivery ("call") in accordance with the terms of the Second Supply Project Agreement as supplemented by this Agreement, up to 10,000 AF of Project Water stored at Howard Hanson Dam. This amount includes the full amount of the water stored as variable storage (subject to the limitations set forth in section 3 of this Agreement)plus the water held as Seattle's fixed storage. c) In all years, Seattle shall have the right to call the amount of water held in its fixed storage without limitation. d) In all years, Tacoma shall have the right to call the combined amount of waxer held as its fixed storage plus any amount of water held as variable storage that is not called by Seattle. 3. Variable Storage Operating Rules a) Water consumed by either Seattle or Tacoma during the spring refill period which prevents 20,000 AF of water from being placed in storage will be accounted for as a use of that parry's fixed or variable storage. b) Water withdrawn from storage or consumed during the spring refill period shall be first apportioned to and counted against fixed storage until the full amount of allotted annual fixed storage has been used, unless otherwise specified by the schedule for Project Water deliveries. c) A maximum of 15,333 AF of water held as variable storage may be called by Seattle in any three consecutive year period. January 3, 2000 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit U d) In any 10-year period prior to 2020, Seattle shall be entitled, through any combination of full calls and partial calls, to call for 40%of the total amount of water held as variable storage (up to a maximum of 26,666 AF). In any 10-year period subsequent to 2020, Seattle shall be entitled, through any combination of full calls and partial calls, to call for 30% of the total amount of water held as variable storage (up to maximum of 20,000 AF). In 2010 and 2015, either Seattle or Tacoma may request an extension of the 2020 date established in this section. The terms, conditions and cost of such extension,if any,will be the subject of a separate agreement. e) Seattle shall give notice to Tacoma of its decision regarding its intent to call for water held as variable storage within a timeframe that will allow Tacoma a reasonably adequate amount of time to plan for the use of such water in the event that Seattle does not call for it. Seattle shall have the right to schedule an increase or decrease in the amount of water to be called from variable storage at any time, so long as notice of any increase or decrease is provided within a timeframe that will allow Tacoma a reasonably adequate amount of time to adjust its water use plans accordingly. Within 2 years after execution of the Howard Hanson Dam Operating Agreement between Tacoma and the Army Corps of Engineers (Exhibit X to the Second Supply Project Agreement), Tacoma and Seattle will work to establish guidelines for determining the timing of full and partial calls, taldng into account such items as the Howard Hanson Dam Operating Agreement, water supply availability in the Seattle and Tacoma systems, current and forecasted demands in the Seattle and Tacoma systems, weather and streamflow forecasts, and transmission capacity. Thereafter, if an initial call is not received by the timing agreed upon, Tacoma may begin use of variable storage resulting in a reduction of the total variable storage available to Seattle, and a request by Seattle to reduce a previously made call will be reflected in a reduction of the call volume, unless operational modifications made by Tacoma in response to Seattle's initial call has reduced Tacoma's ability to effectively utilize the remaining variable storage. f) At times when Seattle calls for water held as variable storage in accordance with these operating rules, Seattle shall have access to and may schedule for delivery up to 40 MGD of Project Water to its Points of Delivery on the North Branch of the Second Supply Pipeline. When Seattle does not call for water held in variable storage and Tacoma uses the combined amount of its fixed storage plus the full amount of variable storage, Tacoma shall have access to and may schedule up to 40 MGD of Project Water to its Points of Delivery on the Main Branch of the Second Supply Pipeline, and Seattle shall have access to and may schedule up to 20 MGD of Project Water to its Points of Delivery on the North Branch of the Second Supply Pipeline. 4. Interruption of Delivery to Seattle a) Tacoma shall have the right to interrupt its delivery of Project Water to Seattle under the Second Supply Project Agreement on one occasion per summer for up to seven days; provided that such interruption shall not cause a reduction in the total amount of Project Water to be delivered to Seattle in any year. January 3, 2000 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit U 5. Reimbursement to Tacoma For Development of Replacement Groundwater Supply a) In order to provide up to 3,333 AF of its allocated-portion of Project Water stored at Howard Hanson Dam to Seattle on an intermittent basis pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Tacoma will need to replace such stored water with an additional groundwater supply on the Tacoma supply system. Seattle_ acknowledges this need and agrees to pay the cost of developing and providing this additional groundwater supply in accordance with the provisions of this section and the costing example set forth as Appendix 1 to this Agreement. Although the need for the full replacement supply of 3,333 AF will be intermittent, Seattle agrees to pay such costs on an annual basis since the majority of the costs will be incurred whether or not the replacement supply is needed in any given year. b) Seattle will be charged on an annual basis the reasonable annualized capital costs and the reasonable annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs incurred by Tacoma in providing additional groundwater capacity (up to a maximum of 10 MGD) needed to replace the amount of water from variable storage allocated to Seattle under this Agreement. No capital costs for wells existing prior to the start of Second Supply Project construction that may be used to supply such additional water shall be included in such charges, but the capital costs of wells developed thereafter may be included. Annual operation and maintenance costs will include all reasonable source of supply costs,water treatment costs and transmission and storage costs with associated taxes necessary to supply the required amount of water. The general administration, overhead and resource planning costs will not be included in the O&M charges to Seattle. c) Tacoma will provide notice adequate for budgeting purposes to Seattle prior to the development of any new wells pursuant to this subsection. Tacoma shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, minimize the required well capacity and number of wells necessary for this purpose by delivering the required 3,333 AF to Seattle at a steady rate over the whole summer season. It is anticipated that the required capacity could be achieved from four or five wells. d) Annual charges pursuant to this section shall commence after Seattle first takes delivery of project water pursuant to the Second Supply Project Agreement. 6. Term of Agreement and Termination a) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of this section, this Agreement shall remain in effect during the term of the Second Supply Project Agreement. Seattle may notify Tacoma at any time of its intent to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Tacoma at the following address: City of Tacoma, Water Division P.O.Box 11007 Tacoma, WA 98411 b) In the event of such notification, the terms of this Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of two calendar years from the date that such notification is given, and thereafter each parry's rights and responsibilities under this Agreement shall cease and both Seattle and Tacoma revert January 3, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit U to their rights to a 1/3 share, respectively, of Project Water and Storage pursuant to the terms of the Second Supply Project Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement on this day of , 2000. City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities Water Department By: Name Title City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities By: Name Title January 3,2000 Page 4 of 7 Exhibit U APPENDIX 1 Examples of Groundwater Cost Calculation(1996 Dollars) Capital Cost to Produce 3300 Acre Feet From Groundwater in South Tacoma Aquifer Assumptions: 1) For estimating purposes each well produces 1500 gpm 2) Pumping period is_120 days 3) Drilled well casing and screen has a 40 year economic life 4), Pumps,motors,electrical equipment and telemetry equipment has 25 year economic life 5) Well building has 50 year economic life 6) Inflation is 3%per year 7) discount rate is 6%per year Typical well construction costs(plant costs) 8B drilled in 1989 cost$93,020 3%inflation 1990-1996(7 years) (1.03)'(93,020)=$114,403 Annual cost 40 year life @ 6% 0.06646(114,403)= $ 7,603 Pump,motor,electrical&telemetry equip. in 1990 cost$102,626 3%inflation 1991-1996(6 years) (1.03)6(102,626)=$122,541 Annual cost 25 year life @ 6% 0.07823 (122,541)= $ 9,586 Well building(U.P.)in 1987 cost$91,114 3%inflation 1988-1996(9 years) (1.03)9(91,114)=$118,883 Annual cost 50 year life @ 6% 0.06344(118,883)= $ 7,542 *Total estimated annual capital cost per well $24,731 (does not include land or land rights,engineering costs, envu onmental and permitting costs or transmission piping from well to distribution system) Production=1500 gpm(60 min/hr)24 hr/day(120 days) 325,851 gal/acre feet =795.5 acre feet/well Number of wells needed= 3300 acre feet 795.5 acre feet/well =4.15 say 4 wells * Total estimated annual capital cost to produce 3300 acre feet/year=4($24,731)_$98,924 January 3,2000 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit U O&M Cost Calculation O&M Cost to Produce 3300 Acre Feet From Groundwater in South Tacoma Aquifer Include only costs directly related to groundwater supply. Taxes 0.0182(7,573,029)/2= $409,701/yr Source of Supply 600. Source of Supply General 0.1082(237,339)/2=$12,840/yr 601.31 Source of Supply Wells 601.33 (59,589+ 137,813)/2=$98,701 601.4 Water Supply Control 0.1082(451,626)/2=$24,433/yr 601.7 Fleet Services 0.1082(489,914)/2=$26,504/yr 603. Miscellaneous 0.1082(139,292)/2=$7,049/yr 610. Maintenance Supervision&Engineering 0.1082(22,459)/2=$1,215/yr 611.4 Maintenance Wells&Springs 185,213/2=$92,607/yr 612.0 Misc.Maintenance Water'Supply Plan 0.1082(2,311)/2=$125/yr Subtotal $263,474 Water Treatment 640. Supervision&Engineering Operation 0.1082(182,924)/2=$9,896/yr 641. Chemicals 0.1082(600,019)/2=$32,461/yr 642. Operating Expense Treatment 0.1082(524,403)/2=$28,370/yr 642.5 Fleet(Treatment) 0.1082(36,368)/2=$1,968/hr 642.7 Fluoride Application Plant 0.1082(19,488)/2=$1,054/yr 643. Miscellaneous 0.1082(60,890)/2=$3,294/yr 650 Supervision&Engineering Maintenance 0.1082(46,088)/2=$2,493/hr 652 Water Treatment Equipment Maintenance 0.1082(251,961)/2=$13,631/yr 652.14 Fluoride Plant Maintenance 0.1082(5,388)/2=$291/yr 653. Miscellaneous Maintenance 0.1082(16,477)/2=$891/yr Subtotal $94,679/yr January 3,2000 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit U Water Transmission&Storage 660. Supervision&Engineering Operation 0.1082(320,664)/2=$17,348/yr 661. Operations 0.1082(235,034)/2=$12,716/yr 665. Miscellaneous Operations 0.1082(40,628)/2=$2,198/yr 670. Maintenance Supervision&Engineering 0.1082(10,039)/2=$543/yr 671. Maintenance Transmission 0.1082(345,276)/2=$18,679/hr 672. Maintenance Storage 0.1082 (20,519)/2=$1,110/yr 673. Miscellaneous Maintenance 0.1082(37,967)/2=$2,054/yr 681.3 Care of Grounds 0.1082(95,781)/2=$5,182/yr 685.12 Building Services 011082(1,391,338)/2=$75,271/yr Subtotal $135,101/yr Source of Supply $263,474 Water Treatment 94,679 Trans. &Storage 135,101 $493,272 Taxes 493,472 x_(409,701)_ $195,424 1,034,131 Total Estimated O&M Demand Costs for 17 Wells $688,696/yr O &M total for 4 wells= 4 (688,696)_ $162,046/yr 17 Total Estimated Annual O&M+Capital Costs for 4 wells to produce 3300 acre feet-$162,046+$98,924=$260,970/yr* * Note that this is an annual cost since capital costs and the majority of O&M costs are annual whether or not wells are actually pumped in a given year. January 3,2000 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit U Sample Calculation for Accounting of Water Deliveries Example of Project Master Meter (at Green River Headworks) vs the sum of individual participant meters: Assume Project Master Meter= 1,500,000,000 gallons for the month (Ave 50 MGD for a 30 day month) Assume individual participant meters: Tacoma Meter = 495,500,000 gallons Lakehaven Meters = 174,100,000 Kent Meters = 147,300,000 Covington Meters = 156,600,000 Seattle Meter = 510,500,000 TOTAL = 11,484,000,000 gallons Difference = 1,500,000,000 minus 1,484,000,000 = 16,000,000 gallons = 1.0782% Because the Project Master Meter controls, add 1.0782% to the meter readings of each participant for final accounting of water delivered. Tacoma Meter = 500,842,000 gallons Lakehaven Meters = 175,977,000 Kent Meters = 148,888,000 Covington Meters = 158,289,000 Seattle Meter = 516,004,000 TOTAL = 1,500,000,000 gallons November 16, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit V Sample Calculation of Variable O&M Expected variable costs for Tacoma Water's operations associated with the Second Supply Pipeline (Main and North Branch), Headworks and Watershed are listed in Exhibit B. Allocation of those costs to project participants will depend on the amount of water they use. Refer to Exhibit F, "Project Annual Budget" for further example of how the allocation factors for variable and fixed costs would be applied. Assume that the daily average amount of water produced for Pipeline No. 1 is 64 MGD for the year and the Second Supply Pipeline (SSP) carried an average of 40 MGD for a total of 104 MGD. Variable costs would be allocated as follows: • Variable cost allocation to SSP = Annual Cost for the Item x 40/104 If an individual partner in the project averaged 6 MGD for the year: • Variable cost allocation to the partner= Annual Cost for the Item x 6/104 November 16, 1999 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit W Sample Allocation of Howard Hanson Phase II • What are the benefits of HHD Additional Storage Phase II? - An additional 2,400 ac. ft. of storage - A significant increase in run of the river water between February 15 and June 30; as much as 20,000 ac. ft. • What are the project costs associated with HHD Additional Storage Phase II? - Costs involve environmental restoration for the higher pool level; $6,712,000 • Examples of Phase H allocation if not all Phase I partners participate. If Tacoma chose not to exercise its Phase II option, then other partners would have the first option to Tacoma's share. Tacoma's share would be divided at the ratio of a particular partners' share to the sum of shares held by all partners participating in Phase.II. If Tacoma waives its 1/3 ($6,712,000/3), then Seattle share, if all other partners continue to participate, would be: Seattle's 1/3 becomes 1/2 [1/3 +(1/2 x 1/3)] Seattle's share= 1/2 x $6,712,000 = $3,356,000 It follows that: Covington, Kent and Lakehaven individual shares = 1/3 x 1/2 x $6,712,000 = $1,118,666.67 November 16, 1119 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit Y Sample Weekly Operations Report Date Cinstantarwxxis readings taken at xx a.m.;totals n for dale shown 8/13J1999 8/14J1999 8/15/1999 8/1811999 8/17/1999 8/18/1999 8/19/1999 Location Unit Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Source Data Howard A.Hanson Reservoir near Palmer FEET 1135.691 1135.57 1135.46 1135.38 1135.30 1135.06 1134.81 Green River at Palmer CFS x x x x x x x Green River at Aubum CFS x x x x x x x First Water Right Diversion CFS 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 MGD 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 Second Water Right Diversion CFS 100 1001 81 79 59 72 67 MGD 64.6 64.6 52-31 51.0 38.1 46.5 43.3 Release from Storage CFS 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 MGD 48.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 Total Diversion at Headworks MG 211.1 211.1 198.8 197.5 184.6 193.0 189.8 Flow to Fish Rearing Facility MG 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Flow in P1 at Headworks Master Meter MG 70.01 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.131 70.0 Flow in SSP at Headworks Master Meter MG 1 116.11 116.11 1038 102.51 896 98.01 94.8 Water Quathy Data T NTU xx x.x x.x xx xx x.x xx TerripenaWre deg C xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Total Orgaric Carbon mg& xx xx xx xx xx xx z.x ConlActrwity urnhos xx xx xx x.x xx xx x.x Fkioride MO& xx xx x.x xx xx xx xx Chkxme Dose mQ& xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Chlorine Residual xx xx x x x.x X x x.x x.x xx xx X lei X.Xj X.Xj X.Xj xx Partielpant Data Meter Data Tacoma Meter SW 356th St&15th Ave S MG 64.8 64.8 52.7 55.5 45.8 59.0 55.9 Seattle Meter at Lake Y MG 25.0 250 25.0 21.0 18.0 13.0 13.0 Kern Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 80 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 124th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 118th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 164th Ave SE&North Branch MG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cowngton W.D.Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.01 8.0 8.0 228th Ave SE&SE 312th St MG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.01 4.0 4.0 188th Ave SE&SE 304th St MG 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 SE 240th St&North Branch MG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lakehaven Utility District Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Mary Rd S&S 316th St MG 4.0 4.0 4.01 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1st Way S&S 332nd St MG 3.01 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 SW 35M St&151h Ave SW MG 1 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total of kidrvidual DeINwy Makers MG 113.8 113.8 101.7 100.5 8 .81 96.0 92.9 Mwence with SSP Headworks Master MOW MG 2.31 2.3 21 2.0 1.81 20 1.9 %of Total I Z02111 2.0211 2.0649 1.9900 Z05011 20833 2.0452 Hanson Dam Storage Additions or Withdrawals Tecoma MG 40.3 40.3 32.3 35.5 30.1 40.5 38.5 Seattle MG 3.5 3.5 .8 4.0 5.3 2.5 1.4 Kent MG 0.8 0.8 2.2 2.3 3.8 2.8 .2 W.D.CoAngton MG 0.8 0.8 22 n 3.8 .8 2 Lakehaven Utility District MG 0.8 0.8 22 2.3 3.8 2.8 3.2 Total MG 46.2 46.2 46.5 46.4 46.8 46.4 46.7 Ending Hanson Dam Storage Accounts Balance Tacoma AF 9,185 9,061 8,937 8,838 8,729 8,637 8.513 8,395 Seattle AF 75 64 53 30 18 2 10 14 Kent AF 1,609 1,607 1,605 115" 1,591 1,579 1.570 1,560 W.D. AF 1.609 1,607 1,605 1,508 1,591 1,579 1,570 1.560 Lakehaven Lrdirty District AF 2.000 1.998 1,996 1,989 1,982 1,970 1,961 1.951 Total AF 1 14,478 14,337 14.196 14.053 13,911 1 13.767 13,624 13,480 November 16, 1999 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit Z Sample Weekly Operations Report(continued) Participant Schedules Tacoma Meter SW 356th St&15th Ave S MG 65.0 65.0 53.0 54.5 41.8 59.0 56.0 Seattle Meter at Lake You s MG 25.0 25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Kent Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 80 124th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 118th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 164th Ave SE&North Branch MG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Covington W.D.Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.01 8.0 80 228th Ave SE&SE 312th St MG 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 188th Ave SE&SE 304th St MG 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 SE 240th St&North Branch MG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lakehaven Utility District Meters(total) MG 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Military Rd S&S 316th St MG 4.01 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 st Way S&S 332nd St MG 3.0 3.0 3 0 3 0 3.0 3.0 TO SW 356th St&15th Ave SW MG 101 1.01 1.01 101 1.0 1.01 10 Deviations from Participant Schedules Tacoma Meter SW 356th St&15th Ave S MG 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 4 0 0.0 0.1 Seattle Meter at Lake You MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 7.0 Kent Meters(fatal) MG 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 124th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 118th Ave SE&SE 296th St MG 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 164th Ave SE&North Branch MG 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CowVton W.D.Meters(total) MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 228th Ave SE&SE 312th St MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188fh Ave SE&SE 304th St MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SE 240th St&North Branch MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lakehww Utility Drslrid Meters(total) MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Rd S&S 316th St MG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 st Way S&S 332nd St MG 001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 SW 356th St&15th Ave SW MG 0.01 0.0 1 001 0.01 0.0 1 0.0100 November 16, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit Z AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID BY AND BETWEEN COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT, THE CITY OF TACOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER DIVISION AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES In consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein, Covington Water District (CWD), the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Water Department (Tacoma) and the City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities (Seattle), agree as follows: 1. Certain Defined Terms 1.1 Any other terms used herein with initial capitalization that are not defined in this section 1 shall have the meaning given such terms in the Project Agreement. The following terms when used herein with initial capitalization shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1.1 "Force Majeure" means any event or occurrence that is beyond the reasonable control of a Party and which by the exercise of due diligence and reasonable foresight such Party could not have been expected to avoid or remove, and includes but is not limited to flood, earthquake, storm, accident, fire, lightning, and other natural catastrophes, epidemics, war, material shortage, sabotage or like events. 1.1.2 "Major Supply Facility" or "Major Supply Facilities" means major water sources, water source delivery facilities or major water transmission pipelines of any Party, such as Tacoma's Pipelines Nos. 1, 2, 4; Seattle's Cedar and Tolt Eastside Supply Lines, Tolt Pipeline Nos. 1 and 2, Cedar River Pipelines Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; Lake Youngs Tunnel, Lake Youngs Bypass Nos. 4 and 5. 1.1.3 "Party" or "Parties" means in the singular CWD, Tacoma or Seattle individually, and in the plural CWD, Tacoma and Seattle collectively. Dcccmbcr 13, 1999 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit AA 1.1.4 "Project Agreement" means that certain agreement, dated , 2000, for the design, construction and operation of the Second Supply Project. 1.1.5 "Short Term Force Majeure"means a Force Majeure event with a duration of seventy-two (72) hours or less. 1.1.6 "Water Shortage" means the inability of a Party to fulfill the demand for water by its customers (retail and wholesale) from sources of supply normally used for such purposes due to a Force Majeure event, or from the response to a request for assistance under this Agreement. 2. Use of Parties Participant Share of Project Capacity During Force Majeure Events 2.1 In the event that a Party loses the use, in part or in whole, of a Major Supply Facility due to a Force Majeure event, the Party suffering such Force Majeure event may request of the other Parties that they permit the delivery of some or all of its Project Water to the Party subject to the Force Majeure event, if such action would be reasonably expected to alleviate any water supply shortage caused by such Force Majeure event. The request shall state the expected duration of the Force Majeure event, and the amount of water deliveries needed by the requesting Party to alleviate any Water Shortage caused thereby. Prior to making any such request, the requesting Party shall take all actions reasonable under the circumstances to alleviate any Water Shortage caused by the Force Majeure event. 2.2 The Parties receiving a request pursuant to subsection 2.1 shall take the necessary actions under the Project Agreement to reduce deliveries of Project Water to it, and to increase the deliveries of Project Water to the requesting Party, but only to the extent that such actions: a) either do not result in a Water Shortage on the water systems of the Parties that received the request; or b) if the reduction in deliveries of Project Water does result in a Water Shortage on the water systems of the Parties receiving the request, that such the Water Shortage is no greater than the Water Shortage being experienced by the Party making the request. 2.3 The Party making a request pursuant to subsection 2.1 shall take all reasonable actions to remove the Force Majeure event, and to make alternative water supply arrangements in order to remove or reduce any reductions in Project Water deliveries imposed on the other Parties pursuant to this Agreement. The requesting Party shall promptly notify the other Parties when the Force Majeure event that caused the request has been removed. 2.4 In the event that a request made pursuant to subsection 2.1 was the result of a Short Term Force Majeure event, the requesting Party shall, during the Operating Year in which such Short Term Force Majeure event occurred, deliver to the other Parties, to the extent reasonably practicable, an amount of water equal to any reductions in Project Water deliveries experienced by such other Parties as a December 13, 1999 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit AA result of complying with such request. The Parties shall agree on the timing of such water deliveries. If any water is provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and is not returned to the providing Parties in accordance with this subsection 2.4, then the Party receiving such water shall pay the costs incurred to provide such water by the other Parties. 2.5 This Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of a) the date the Project Agreement expires or is terminated, or b) the date the Parties agree to terminate this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement on this day of , 2000. City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities Water Department By: Name Title City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities By: Name Title Covington Water District By: Name Title December 13, 1999 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit AA Principles in Agreement Between Tacoma and Seattle Isfor Conservation Implementation 1. The City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities-, Water Division (Tacoma) has the opportunity, in conjunction with its retail water customer Simpson Tacoma Kraft Mill (Simpson), to install water conservation measures, including reuse, that will reduce fresh water usage at Simpson. Due to other cost-effective conservation and water supply options currently available to Tacoma, a portion of the Simpson water conservation would not be developed by Tacoma as a water resource for a number of years. 2. The City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities (Seattle) desires to make use of water that could be conserved at Simpson (whether operated by .Simpson or any successor) for purposes of partial or full substitution of municipal water supply sources in nearby cities and districts that have been demonstrated by reasonable scientific analysis to be in continuity with surface waters used by anadromous fish. As a consequence, Seattle is willing to advance the timing of the installation of the water conservation or reuse measures at Simpson in order to have at least 2 to 3 million gallons per day (mgd) of conserved water available for such use on a year-round basis. The availability of the conserved water for such use is only possible due to the construction and operation of the Second Supply Project. 3. Seattle agrees to reimburse Tacoma for any reasonable costs that it incurs for the installation of the additional water conservation and reuse measures at Simpson for purposes of this agreement. 4. To the extent practicable, Seattle will make available the water conserved under this agreement to any city or water district to partially or fully substitute for municipal water supply sources that have been demonstrated by reasonable scientific analysis to be in continuity with surface waters used by anadromous fish. Seattle will enter into such agreements with third parties as Seattle deems appropriate to effectuate the foregoing purpose, and shall seek payment for such water as reasonably reflects its value to the recipient thereof. 5. Seattle will return to Tacoma an amount of water equivalent to that conserved at Simpson under this agreement, if requested by Tacoma in the future. January 13, 2000 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit BB Kept. -, it Council Meeting Date A___ . August ugus 2.1, 2 Q Q 1 Caterynsent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LATECOMER AGREEMENT, LAKE FENWICK ESTATES AUTHORIZE 2 . -SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Public Worts Director to execute a Water Latecomer Agreement with Half, ; L.L.C. for Lake Fenwick Estates. 3 . E I3 B S: Public Works Director memorandum and,vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works C2=ittee 11 . 1 b (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, ' 6tc.) S. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSO IMP CT: NO,�,I YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: � SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmembet_, seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Is Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director 4^4�� Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: August 6, 2001 To: Public Works Committee From: Don ickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: Water Latecomer Agreement Lake Fenwick Estates The developer, Half, L.L.C., has requested a water latecomer agreement for the development of Lake Fenwick Estates. The watermain extension serves 15 lots within the plat of Lake Fenwick Estates. The total cost is $181,002.09. The Public Works Director requests authorization to enter into a latecomer agreement with this developer. MOTION: Recommend Council authorization for the Public Works Director to execute a Water Latecomer Agreement with Half, L.L.C. for Lake Fenwick Estates. Femvicklatecomer r6 "1 412 p( ppp l e __—_— 77AANSFII99ION MAIN PuHp 9 TATION D 1 0 ]7 7 e 117 e l e e l o e 1 2 11 2 (DOMESTIC HOORUp9 NOT PERMITTED) O WATER TANK 0p2 271 12p 121 e22 623 0 e ppp GATE VALVE 364 3 1 2/ �P.R V e 2 6 p E e p p 7 pAE89URfi REDUCER VALVE 0 CITY HYDRANT p I epp pee A V a pAIVATE HYDRANT 1 2 1 a 21 e 1 0 AIR VAC e21 1 0 eel pet AI/I YXI[AIAI D I DI C I 112(il ■N[A( X01I0 ' SLOW OFF llll Ilr LIYI Il11(IIr 1[Iill Ixl ll(Illxl IIorY 1 111 Y I11111 IYIIIY111Y1 AXItll1 I(fNl1 11111 NI r'1 ' V - PUMP BTA M1 VALVE /• JS.r� '• ♦ O j -�'-1 I. 'y JI. �'.\1 I.' E365 ` l' ' (REP.C27I) (REP E... i /_ O `l B40P '4 — 0 F j Cf' 2S61PL-) cla-I #I Q 13 C213 '• �-Lr--1 P I, I .�r _Lfi �..)A V Jr' 1 - 30• _ I I (-_I tl..C ,I (• 10• ^ - ram• 71 I p• 1 ,9251� �9L)I�_���ILJI t'• (�' I r CI �I-1 I l NOTE C711'PIP g TYPE fRfKNp1•IN 2 i PA Bor/E/Q,4Ye�/ LAKE I'La/ ids r 2 I CNWICK� \ PARK p �jm -I 1n�., I ' _, •V ^�� ;♦ `, LAKE 1•.\ \ ~ `AJ 9261 ' �`�♦ \ FENWICK Y 1 (REF eslA, - ,")�• � f1\-��� ' / L=lr_)A� PARK 1 1 `ATE 1 r Fj pl I� U'a .I L_)_I (\ L lill ',i• 1 `I I� f l.� �'LA -_ P` ` E6e 1— " V �> �Jrti ( : 1 I • I0 �..1. LAKE rJ 'I I� (JL-) ♦ E60 /4,J' L I- f_ FENr1ICK 1 NOSE E60 PIPE TYPEUNKI I l�-..,�,•`-y- y.) — ^r S I ' L— •' I Ir, ��11�' ! INOTB E6BPIP8]YPBUN I NN i .. __ `• 1/ ��I -I Ilz6�T1,L7� IiIrIJLIf-1�1,��'I lu LI " Ed �CJI�1�L�• !�ttlll�,���ll( 717 IC] C _ - _ r•_ I � ri e � �J �.�� ((l�%�,•,•r ♦C.♦..1 - -NEI _1 , -�j IG,I�J �.LJ1� (C�!�.Jt-1 -C)� —• - — - ..-` -. r-n-son{e�R9ET tN- ��•�•� ,o a6e KSNr cr •/'_ �-�-•' •�`;�:-� '->J------� - � •{li•;^� ♦�• (-(��•\ ICI�';�`�IC'I;`�% I _ t I C- n � I -' - I ;v.i; I �)�]I_z•!I��I 'I�L^l,��11�,]�\•• cti°6. �`�. -�eL"�4�`/,� t / I � 1_Ij t_' /\ 6• _ �- _—J`J l/"'L�1.#r IIJ.\� ♦ �\`�� V I �J ESB NW6•J- _ _ - l_dT •,.♦ ea� 'SOMBR96T '' '- Jti:71�1�]�'o r��'C7��'I i U'1 --` `•`�;,�,;:��...� ���Y3,1J I a I1 I 0❑ V EI.'AICK i I (-1 ���•�\J F eii61����:�_���-Le '�r # ri II y� 1. 14 77SC00 I��' J IC-�'C�.(� \L•.;:1 - '- �Ep;? (--;----T--------- I I•-/JJ, A V--' t _ I I I "� I`-LL V,tJ•..,%)�l. A-V I w... F_sTA .5 r- Kent-:: Council Meeting Date , ; , , crust 21, 2 U01 -Categ x- ;Ce Caerdar, 1 . SUBJECT: SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVffi ' PLAN - SET HEARING DATE 2 . S'tWMY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, set September 4th as the public, hearing date for the Six Year Transportation ,,Improvement Program., 3'. EXH:C9ITS: Public Works Director memorandum and 'Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public forks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc'. ) 5. UNBUD© TED ISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES_„ 6. EXPENDIUJRE REQUIRED: sopagg of FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilme" seconds DISCUSSION: SO ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K - ,1 T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Is Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director 40 � Phone:253-856-5500 111� K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 6, 2001 To: Public orks Committee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Subject: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Attached for your review is the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) along with the map indicating the project numbers associated therewith. Upon the .ommittee's concurrence, we are requesting that a public hearing be set for adoption of the Six Year TIP. MOTION: Recommend setting a Public Hearing for the adoption of the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. transportationplan 7 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2002 - 2007 • KENT W A S H I N G T O N Mayor Jim White Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Project Name Number Project Location and Extent Page 1. 132"d Avenue Southeast Widening 1 Southeast 245'h Street to Southeast 252"`a Street 2. Washington Avenue (SR 181) HOV Lanes 2 James Street to Green Raver Bridge 3. Pacific Highway South (SR 99) HOV Lanes - North Phase 3 Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to South 252"`a Street 4. Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 4 Alvord Avenue to 97`h Place South 5. West Meeker Street Widening- Phase I 5 Washington Avenue (SR 181) to 64th Avenue South 6. Southeast 2561h Street Widening- Phase I 6 116'h Avenue Southeast to 136'h Avenue Southeast 7. 94`h Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516) 7 Traffic Signal System Improvement 8. James Street at Central Avenue 8 Intersection Improvement 9 Pacific Highway South (SR 99) HOV Lanes— South Phase 9 South 252"d Street to South 272"`a Street 10. 132"d Avenue Southeast at Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) 10 Intersection Improvement 11. South 212"' Street Pavement Rehabilitation 11 Green River Bridge to West Valley Highway (SR 181) 12. 72"d Avenue South Extension 12 South 1961h Street to South 200'h Street i CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Project Name Number Proiect Location & Extent Page 13. South 277"' Street Corridor - Phase II 13 SR 167 to Auburn Way North 14. Interurban Trail Crossings Signal Interconnect 14 West Meeker Street and West Smith Street 15. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 15 Ongoing Citywide Program 16. Guardrail and Safety Improvements 16 Ongoing Citywide Program 17. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad/Union Pacific 17 Railroad Grade Separation South 2121" Street, James Street and/or Willis Street/SR 516, and South 228`h Street is. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Sidewalk Repair 18 And Rehabilitation Ongoing Citywide Program 19. Commuter/Shopper Shuttle Bus 19 Ongoing Citywide Program 20. Willis Street (SR 516) at 41h Avenue Roundabout Construction 20 Replace Signal at Intersection with Roundabout 21. 841h Avenue South Pavement Rehabilitation 21 South 2121h Street to SR 167 22. West Valley Highway at South 277`' Street 22 Intersection Improvement 23. South 228th Street Corridor - Phase I 23 Military Road to 54'h Avenue South ii CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Project Name Number Project Location & Extent Page 24. 116`h Avenue Southeast Widening 24 Southeast 256`h Street to Kent-Kangley Road(SR 516) 25. Military Road at Reith Road 25 Intersection Improvement 26. Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation 26 Willis Street (SR 516) to the Green River Bridge 27. South 272"d Street Widening- Phase I 27 Military Road to 26`h Avenue South 28. Military Road Widening- Phase I 28 Reith Road to Kent-Des Moines Road(SR 516) 29. South 228th Street Corridor- Phase III 29 841h Avenue South to Benson Road(SR 515) 30. 80th Avenue South Widening 30 South 196th Street to South 188th Street 31. South 272"d Street Widening- Phase II 31 261h Avenue South to Pacific Highway South (SR 99) 32. South 272"d Street Widening - Phase III 32 Military Road to Pacific Highway and I-5 HOV Loop-Ramp 33 41h Avenue & Smith Street Intersection Improvements 33 Intersection Improvement 34 Kent Station Infrastructure Improvements 34 Vicinity of 1" Avenue North and Temperance Street MAP OF THE PROJECTS 35 111 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: 132"d Avenue Southeast Widening Southeast 245`}' Street to Southeast 252nd Street DESCRIPTION: Widen 132"d Avenue Southeast to provide a three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, paved shoulders, storm drainage and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$250,000 Right of Way Acquisition............................0 Construction ................................$1,000,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,250,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent, AIP, STP (U) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of 132"d Avenue Southeast has reached the,point where a consistent three-lane roadway section is required to provide safe left-turn access into the adjoining properties. Roadway improvements are also required to provide safe access for increased traffic and school age pedestrians to and from the East Hill Youth Sports Complex, and the Martin Sortun Elementary School. Shoulder improvements will also provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urbair, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 1 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Washington Avenue (SR 181) HOV Lanes James Street to Green River Bridge DESCRIPTION: Widen Washington Avenue (SR 181) to provide two general purpose lanes in each direction, one HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane northbound between SR 516 and West Meeker Street, and southbound between West Smith Street and Willis Street. This project will also include four general purpose lanes and a two way left turn lane between Smith Street and James Street and a new right turn only lane from northbound Washington Avenue to eastbound SR 516. The existing traffic signal systems at the intersections of Washington Avenue at West Meeker Street and Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) will be modified. The project will include construction of full-width paving, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, concrete curbs, gutters, utilities, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$300,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$630,000 Construction ................................$3,100,000 TOTAL ......................................$4,030, 000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, TIB, City of Kent, LID, WSDOT overlay, Funded, LID Formed PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is required for compliance with the City's concurrency ordinance. It will reduce peak hour single occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle usage. Washington Avenue is a regionally significant north-south arterial used by commuters for access from SR 516 and SR 167, and to the industrial/commercial land uses in the Green River Valley. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 2 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Pacific Highway South (SR 99) HOV Lanes—North Phase Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to South 252"d Street DESCRIPTION: Widen Pacific Highway South to provide a pair of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes from the Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to South 252"d Street. The project will also provide a seven foot wide concrete sidewalk and modify existing traffic signal systems at the Kent-Des Moines Road, South 240th Street, and at South 252"d Street. The project includes landscaping, paving, concrete curbs, gutters, storm drainage systems, utilities, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering..............$1,200,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$530,000 Construction ................................$6,720,000 TOTAL .......................................$8,450,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (U), TPP, AIP, City of Kent, WSDOT Funds Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is required for compliance with the City's concurrency ordinance. It will reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle usage. Pacific Highway South (SR 99) is a regionally significant north-south arterial heavily used by commuters for access from South King county to the employment centers in South Seattle, and provides alternative access to I-5 and Sea-Tac airport. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 3 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Alvord Avenue to 97`h Place South DESCRIPTION: Improve Canyon Drive (SR 516) by extending the existing sidewalks along the southerly side of Canyon Drive, between Alvord Avenue and 97`h Avenue South, and widen the pavement along the southerly side of the roadway to provide a bicycle facility. The project will include construction of paving, sidewalks, street lighting, minor storm drainage, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$120,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$30,000 Construction ...................................$850,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Canyon Drive is a city designated bicycle route and is the key route to the east hill area. It will reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips by encouraging the use of non-motorized transportation modes. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES— Hazard Elimination, FMSIB —Freight Mobility Strategic investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 4 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: West Meeker Street Widening- Phase I Washington Avenue (SR 181) to 64th Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Widen West Meeker Street to provide a five-lane roadway-including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center turn lane, and a bicycle facility. The traffic signal system at the intersection of 64th Avenue South will also be modified. The project will include construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$110,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$330,000 Construction ................................$1,800,000 TOTAL .......................................$2,240,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, City of Kent, LID Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Meeker Street has reached the point where a consistent five-lane roadway section is required to accommodate through traffic. Traffic volumes exceeding 25,000 ADT, west of the intersection of Washington Avenue, mandate a five-lane road to accommodate additional development. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 5 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Southeast 256`h Street Widening- Phase I 1161h Avenue Southeast to 136`h Avenue Southeast DESCRIPTION: Widen Southeast 2561h Street to provide a three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane, plus additional turn lanes at key intersections, and a bicycle facility. Modify the existing traffic signal systems at the intersections of 110h Avenue Southeast, 124' Avenue Southeast and 132nd Avenue Southeast. The cross-streets will also be widened to construct curb returns at the same intersections. The project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle paths, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$555,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$360,000 Construction ................................$5,165,000 TOTAL .......................................$6,080,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): TPP, City of Kent, Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development in the Lake Meridian and Meridian Country Club areas of the City of Kent, the City of Covington, and nearby areas within King County has reached the point where a consistent three-lane roadway section is required to provide safe left-turn access into the adjoining properties, and accommodate this past development. Further, shoulder improvements such as concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle paths are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for school-age pedestrians and cyclists, and general access needs to the area surrounding the Meridian Elementary School. STP—Surface Transportation Program Federal U Urban E Enhancements HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 6 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: 941h Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516) Traffic Signal System Improvement DESCRIPTION: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of 941h Avenue South at Canyon Drive (SR 516). The project also includes the reconstruction & realignment of the 248th Street SE & 94th Avenue intersection along with pavement widening of 94th Avenue South from South 2481h Street to Canyon Drive (SR 516). It also includes construction of a turn island at the intersection of Canyon Drive, and construction of retaining walls/rockeries and bicycle paths. Along the northerly side of Canyon Drive, existing curbs and walkways will be reconstructed to meet City Standards. The project will also include construction of curbs, gutters sidewalks and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$55,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$70,000 Construction ...................................$555,000 TOTAL ..........................................$680,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, City of Kent, Mitigation Agreements, LID Partially Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: A traffic signal is appropriate because of the level of development in this area and the combination of travel speeds and traffic volumes along Canyon Drive. The signal will provide safe access into the local residential areas bounded by 94th Avenue South, 1041h Avenue South, and Southeast 2401h Street/James Street. This signal improvement will also help provide safe access for pedestrians to/from the METRO bus routes along Canyon Drive. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 7 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: James Street at Central Avenue Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Widen the easterly leg of James Street at Central Avenue intersection to provide an exclusive right-turn lane for westbound traffic on James Street, and construct a second south-bound to east-bound left turn pocket. The project will also modify the existing traffic signal. The project will include the construction of paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; street lighting; storm drainage facilities; utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$270,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$170,000 Construction ...................................$760,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,200,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, City of Kent Partially Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This intersection is heavily impacted by traffic coming off and headed to the Kent East Hill. The project will support improved access into the downtown area and the increased traffic generated by the changes in land use in the downtown area. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TI.A —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 8 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Pacific Highway South (SR 99) HOV Lanes— South Phase South 252nd Street to South 272nd Street DESCRIPTION: Widen Pacific Highway South to provide a pair of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes from South 252nd Street to South 272nd Street. The project will also provide a seven foot wide concrete sidewalk, and modify existing traffic signal systems at the Fred Meyer Shopping Center, South 260`" Street, and South 272nd Street. The project will include construction of paving, landscaping, storm drainage systems, concrete curbs, gutters, utilities, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$900,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$1,600,000 Construction ................................$6,100,000 TOTAL .......................................$8,600,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (U), TPP, AIP, City of Kent, WSDOT Funds Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is required for compliance with the City's Concurrency Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan. The project will reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips by encouraging high occupancy vehicle usage. Pacific Highway South (SR 99) is a regionally significant north-south arterial heavily used by commuters for access from South King County to the employment centers in South Seattle, and provides alternative access to Interstate 5 from airport. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 9 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: 132°d Avenue Southeast at Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Widen the north leg of 132"d Avenue Southeast at South 272"d Street (Kent—Kangley) intersection to provide an exclusive right-turn lane for southbound traffic on 132"d Avenue Southeast. The project includes modifying the existing traffic signal system and reconstruction of paving, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalksibicycle paths, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................120,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$30,000 Construction ...................................$200,000 TOTAL ..........................................$250,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent, AIP, STP (U) Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This intersection is heavily impacted by traffic coming down 132"d Avenue Southeast and supports throughput to the Southeast 272"d Street Corridor. The corner turning improvement will tie into the curb and gutter improvements at the nearby shopping center. The project will support improved access onto the cross-valley corridor and Kent East Hill. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, ,41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 10 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: South 212"' Street Pavement Rehabilitation Green River Bridge to West Valley Highway (SR 181) DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional service life to the asphalt roadway between the Green River bridge and West Valley Highway (SR 181). This project will include the removal and replacement of the upper two inches of the existing asphalt pavement in the curb lanes in both directions; and a full-width asphalt pavement overlay of the entire roadway. This project will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets and driveway approach aprons, and sections of concrete curbs and gutters. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$45,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$635,000 TOTAL ..........................................$680,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing asphalt pavement along this section of South 212`h Street is exhibiting signs of distress, as demonstrated by "alligatoring", longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the concrete curbs and gutters. The end of the service life of this roadway has been reached. Reconstruction of the pavement to extend the service life of the roadway and prevent further degradation is required. STP- Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES-Hazard Elimination,FMSIB-Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA -Transportation Improvement Account, TIB-Transportation Improvement Board, .4IP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID-Local Improvement District. 11 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: 72"d Avenue South Extension South 196th Street to South 200th Street DESCRIPTION: Construct a new four-lane roadway from South 1961h Street to South 200th Street. The project will include the crossing of Mill Creek and construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$160,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$680,000 Construction ...................................$580,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,420,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Continued development in the northern Kent industrial area, and high levels of congestion along West Valley Highway between the South 1801h Street and South 1961h Street corridors, mandate additional north-south arterial capacity. This project provides some relief for South 180th Street, South 1961h Street, and South 212th Street intersections along West Valley Highway. It also provides improved access to the South 196th Street corridor from industrial development along 72"d Avenue South. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .4IP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 12 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1 0 YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: South 277th Street Corridor- Phase II SR 167 to Auburn Way North DESCRIPTION: Study, design and construct the widening of South 277th Street from three lanes to five lanes, including grade separation at the UPRR and BNSF rail crossings, utility improvements (water, sewer, and storm), two-way left- turn lane, and accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian facilities from SR 167 to Auburn Way. This includes modifications to the traffic signals at the intersections of South 2771h Street and Auburn Way North/East Valley Highway. The project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering..............$5,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$5,100,000 Construction ..............................$24,800,000 TOTAL .....................................$35,400,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): TPP, LID, City of Auburn, King County, WSDOT, ISTEA, TEA21, TIB, FMSIB, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, BNSF, and UPRR. Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will improve safety and mobility on an existing east-west corridor, provide multi-modal facilities, and ensure that the link will satisfy concurrency in the near future. The project involves and benefits the Cities of Auburn and Kent, as well as King County and WSDOT. It is not feasible to widen alternate routes to accommodate either existing or forecast traffic volumes to the Kent East Hill. This project provides a continuous arterial from Kent East Hill to SR 167 to Interstate 5. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 13 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Interurban Trail Crossings Signal Interconnect West Meeker Street and West Smith Street DESCRIPTION: Interconnect the existing traffic signals at the Interurban Trail crossings at Meeker Street and Smith Street to the UP crossing signals at said streets. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$30,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$220,000 TOTAL ..........................................$250,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is required in order to interconnect the existing street signals with the railroad crossing signals. It will eliminate potential conflict where traffic could backup across the railroad tracks. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TM—Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .4IP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 14 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 - 2007 PROJECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous improvements to the City's Bicycle Route and Pedestrian system. Potential projects include improvements to 100th Avenue Southeast north of James Street, Southeast 248th Street east of 94th Avenue South, and 152nd Way Southeast north of Southeast 272nd Street. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$60,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$550,000 TOTAL ..........................................$610,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project complies with the City's CTR (Commute Trip Reduction) Ordinance and the City Comprehensive Plan. This project helps to reduce peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips, encourage the use of non- motorized transportation modes, and provide safe routes for school-age pedestrians and cyclists. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP-Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 15 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 - 2007 PROJECT: Guardrail and Safety Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous guardrail improvements each year to enhance motorist safety. Candidate projects include the westerly shoulder at Frager Road, 100`h Avenue Southeast (near the 22600 block), and West Valley Road (north of the 27200 block). Upgrade existing guardrail end- treatments as mandated by State and Federal regulations. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$20,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$170,000 TOTAL ..........................................$1909000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), HES, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by compliance with Federal and State regulations, and the requirement to eliminate potentially hazardous roadway conditions. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination,FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA—Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 16 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1 0 YEAR: 2003 - 2007 PROJECT: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation South 212"' Street, South 228`h Street, James Street and/or Willis Street/SR 516. DESCRIPTION: Construct grade separations of both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad's and Union Pacific Railroad's mainline tracks at South 212`h Street, and at either James Street or Willis Street/SR 516, and at South 228`h Street. The project will support the increased number of trains through the City resulting from the re-opening of the BNSF Railroad's Stampede Pass line and increased activity through the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, as well as the commuter rail operations of the RTA. The project will ultimately include the construction of bridge structures, full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering............$15,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$9,000,000 0 Construction ..............................$60,000,000 TOTAL .....................................$84,000,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): P.E.: City of Kent, State, FMSIB Construction: STP (U), State, City of Kent, FMSIB Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad and Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of freight and passenger rail traffic on both the UP and BNSF Railroad mainlines is dramatically increasing as a consequence of positive economic conditions in the Puget Sound area and the approved RTA plan. East-west freight and commuter mobility in the Green River Valley will soon reach a point of being significantly impacted by continued private development competing with the increased rail traffic — also created by private development activities and regional trade. Grade- separations are required to mitigate past and future development and increased rail traffic to maintain east-west mobility. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State], LID—Local Improvement District. 17 r CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 - 2007 PROJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Sidewalk Repair and Rehabilitation Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Reconstruct and repair existing sidewalks and pedestrian ramps, and install new hard-surfaced sidewalks to implement the requirements of the Federal Government's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This project will include an inventory of the City's sidewalk/walkway facilities, and identification and correction of existing deficiencies. This project will also include the construction of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; minor storm drainage, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$195,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ................................S1,705,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,900,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It repairs existing sidewalks, replaces deficient/substandard and/or missing wheelchair/pedestrian ramps, and brings same into compliance with the adopted Federal standards. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban,(E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .4IP-Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 18 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 - 2007 PROJECT: Commuter/Shopper Shuttle Bus Ongoing Citywide Program DESCRIPTION: Continue to provide enhanced transit service in the Downtown Kent business area through the use of a fixed-route shuttle service, with demand-responsive routing capabilities. Service route points will include King County Metro Park Ride, South King County Regional Justice Center, and Kent City Hall, as well as local shopping and medical facilities. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.........................$-0- Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Operations ......................................$140,000 TOTAL ..........................................$140,000 *City share, which is equivalent to the lost fare box revenue that the county could have collected were not the city wanting a free service, (based on 6 years operating cost with 3% inflation). FUNDING SOURCE (S): King County, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The Shopper Shuttle provides mobility and independence to many of the city's seniors as well as school children and other citizens with limited mobility options. The service addresses a significant transit market that may not be able to use the county's more traditional routes, and helps the city meet its road safety and transportation demand management goals. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 19 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: Willis Street (SR 516) at 4th Avenue Roundabout Construction Replace Signal at Intersection with Roundabout DESCRIPTION: Rechannel all four legs of the Willis Street and 4th Avenue intersection and replace the signal with a 150-foot diameter roundabout, including 14- foot center medians in each leg. The project will also include the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$130,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$570,000 TOTAL ..........................................$700,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of congestion, traffic volumes, and number of intersections along this section of Willis Street (SR 516) require a roundabout to accommodate through traffic, and provide safe access into 4`h Avenue, and the abutting residential and downtown areas. Roundabout design will also fully accommodate proposed changes in access to 741h Avenue South without requiring an additional signal at 74`h Avenue and Willis Street. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 20 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2004 PROJECT: 841h Avenue South Pavement Rehabilitation South 2121h Street to SR 167 DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional service life to the roadway between South 2121h Street and SR 167. This project will include the removal and replacement of the existing pavement in the curb lanes in both directions, and a full-width asphalt concrete overlay of the entire roadway, and will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets and driveway approach aprons, and curbs and gutters. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$145,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$585,000 TOTAL ..........................................$730,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing pavement along this section of 84`h Avenue South is showing signs of structural distress, as demonstrated by "alligatoring", longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and gutters. An inverted crown section also occurs at the former curb line along many of the sections of this street. This inverted crown section results in the ponding of storniwater in the street along the seam line, which increases the failure rate of the roadway pavement. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 21 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2004 PROJECT: West Valley Highway at South 2771h Street Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Widen West Valley Highway to extend the existing southbound left turn and right-turn lanes at the intersection of South 277`h Street. The project will include the construction of paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$50,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$50,000 Construction ....................................$235000 TOTAL ..........................................$335,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), HES, AIP, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The traffic volumes at this intersection have reached the point where extension of the existing right-turn and left-turn lanes are required to mitigate the congestion at the intersection and to accommodate additional development in the Green River Valley. Shoulder improvements are required to provide control of roadway drainage and prevent impacts to adjacent properties. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Artenal Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 22 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2004 PROJECT: South 228th Street Corridor- Phase I Military Road to 541h Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Preliminary engineering and construction of a new five-lane roadway from SR-516 along Military Road to approximately Bolger Road, then from Military Road to 54th Avenue South, including a new bridge over the Green River. The project will include the construction of full-width paving, a bridge, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. The project may include the installation of traffic signal systems at the Corridor's intersections with Military Road and Lakeside Boulevard. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineerin................$1,500,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$1,100,000 Construction ..............................$19,000,000 TOTAL .....................................$21,600,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): TPP, City of Kent, LID, TIB, FMSIB PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The James Street and Meeker Street `corridors' are infeasible to widen sufficiently to accommodate forecast traffic volumes and future development without additional east-west capacity. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing development in the northern industrial area of the City. South 212th Street has at-grade crossings for both the UP and BNSF railroads, which also hampers east-west freight mobility. Meeker Street currently represents the only east-west arterial that crosses the Green River between the SR 516 and South 212th Street. This project provides the first phase of a continuous arterial from Benson Highway to Interstate 5, though the industrial center of Kent. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 23 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2005 PROJECT: 1161h Avenue Southeast Widening Southeast 2561h Street to Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen 1161h Avenue Southeast to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a center left-turn lane and a bicycle facility. The project will include the construction of paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes; paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$275,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$370,000 Construction ................................$1,770,000 TOTAL .......................................$2,415,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Traffic studies have indicated that traffic demand will continue to increase on this section of 116`h Avenue. This roadwy funnels east/west movement on Southeast 256`" Street to the 272"d/277` Street Corridor. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board. AIP-Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 24 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Military Road at Reith Road Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Widen the east and west legs of the Military Road at Reith Road intersection to provide exclusive left-turn lanes for traffic on Reith Road, and an exclusive right-turn lane for northbound traffic on Military Road. Modify the existing traffic signal. The project will include the construction of paving, paved shoulders, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$70,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$510,000 TOTAL ..........................................$580,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): AIP, City of Kent, STP (U) Funded PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development on the Kent West Hill, coupled with the growth in the Puget Sound area and the regularly occurring congestion along both Pacific Highway South and Interstate 5, results in significant congestion at this intersection in the morning and evening peak hours. Forecast v/c ratios will exceed the adopted standard unless interim improvements are made to provide additional capacity. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP - Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 25 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2005 PROJECT: Central Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Willis Street (SR 516) to the Green River Bridge DESCRIPTION: Remove and rehabilitate the existing roadway pavement to add additional service life to the roadway, between Willis Street (SR 516) and the Green River Bridge. This project will include the removal and replacement of the upper two inches of the existing pavement in the curb lanes in both directions, and a full-width asphalt concrete overlay of the entire roadway, and will also include the selective replacement of catch basin inlets, and driveway approach aprons, and curbs and gutters. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$20,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$366,000 TOTAL ..........................................$386,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (U), City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing paving along this section of Central Avenue is exhibiting signs of distress, as demonstrated by "alligatoring", longitudinal cracking, and cracking of the curbs and gutters. The service life of this roadway has been reached, necessitating reconstruction of the pavement to extend the service life of the roadway, and prevent further pavement degradation. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA—Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 26 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: EAR: 2005 PROJECT: South 272"d Street Widening - Phase I Military Road to 261" Avenue South DESCRIPTION: Widen the intersection of South 272"d Street and Military Road to extend the existing left-turn pockets on the west and north legs and also add an 1100 foot right-turn lane on the north leg. The South 272nd Street I-5 undercrossing will be excavated and the existing four lanes under the bridge widened to seven lanes. These lanes will include four general purpose lanes, a center turn lane, and two lanes held in reserve for Phase III of this project. This project will also include the construction of paved shoulders, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering..............S1,100,000 Right of Way Acquisition.............$900,000- Construction ................................$5,700,000 TOTAL .......................................S7,700,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), City of Kent, Federal Way, King County, Sound Transit, TPP PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The traffic volumes along this section of South 272"d Street have reached the point where additional lanes are required to reduce congestion. Additional lanes are also required under I-5 to reduce congestion. The additional length of the right turn lane from Military Road will help prevent extensive backups in the southbound lane. The project will also relieve congestion near the northside Park and Ride lot. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .41P- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 27 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2005 PROJECT: Military Road Widening- Phase I Reith Road to Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) DESCRIPTION: Widen and re-channelize Military Road to provide an interim three-lane roadway, including two general-purpose travel lanes, and a center left-turn lane. The project will include the construction of paving, street channelization, street lighting, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering...................$45,000 Right of Way Acquisition.......................$-0- Construction ...................................$115,000 TOTAL ..........................................$160,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The level of development along this section of Military Road has reached the point where a three-lane roadway section is required to acconunodate through traffic and provide safe left-turn access into the commercial center southwest of the National Guard facility. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 28 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2007 PROJECT: South 228th Street Corridor - Phase III 84`h Avenue South to Benson Road (SR 515) DESCRIPTION: Construct a new three to five-lane roadway from 84`h Avenue to Benson Highway (SR 515), including a new bridge over SR 167, and modification to the traffic signal at the intersection of South 224`h Street and 841h Avenue South. The project will include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, bicycle lanes, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$800,000 Right of Way Acquisition............$2,500,000 Construction ................................$9,575,000 TOTAL .....................................$12,875,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): TPP, King County, City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The James Street and South 2081h/212th Street `corridors' are infeasible to widen to accommodate forecast traffic volumes without additional east- west capacity, based upon existing development and topographic constraints. Additional capacity is required to accommodate existing development in the East Hill area of the City. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, .AIP-Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 29 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2007 PROJECT: 801h Avenue South Widening South 196th Street to South 188th Street DESCRIPTION: Widen 801h Avenue South 196th Street to South 188th Street from four lanes to five lanes and add general improvements. This will include four general-purpose lanes and a center left-turn lane. The project will also include the construction of full-width paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$130,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$285,000 Construction ...................................$515,000 TOTAL ..........................................$930,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): City of Kent, LID PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The opening of 1961h Street Corridor on the south end of the project and Renton's completion of Oaksdale Avenue will result in 80`h Avenue being a significant north/south corridor serving the industrial area. As a result, the increased traffic volumes along this section of 80`h Avenue South could reach the point where a consistent five-lane roadway section is required to provide safe left-turn access into the adjoining properties. Further, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting are required to provide control of roadway drainage, to prevent impacts to adjacent property owners, and to provide safe access for pedestrians. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 30 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2007 PROJECT: South 272nd Street Widening- Phase II 261h Avenue South to Pacific Highway South (SR 99) DESCRIPTION: Widen South 272nd Street to add one westbound left turn lane at the intersection of South 272nd Street and Pacific Highway South and left turn lanes at the Star Lake Road intersection. If feasible, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, utilities and appurtenances will be deferred until Phase III of the South 272nd Street Widening Project. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$100,000 Right of Way Acquisition.................$50,000 Construction ...................................$650,000 TOTAL ..........................................$800,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), City of Kent, TIB PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Traffic volumes along this section of South 272nd Street have reached the point where widening and additional turn lanes are required to reduce congestion at the intersections and prevent backups between Pacific Highway and I-5. This project will coordinate with access to the site of the proposed southside Park and Ride lot and with City of Federal Way improvements west of Pacific Highway. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination,FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 31 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2007 PROJECT: South 272nd Street Widening - Phase III Military Road to Pacific Highway South and I-5 HOV Loop Ramp DESCRIPTION: Add two HOV Lanes from Military Road to Pacific Highway South (SR 99). An HOV loop-ramp from eastbound South 272nd Street to northbound I-5 will also be constructed. Construction will include curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, utilities and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$800,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$500,000 Construction ................................$6,200,000 TOTAL .......................................S7,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): STP (E), City of Kent, TIB PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Traffic volumes between Pacific Highway South and Military Road have reached the point where improvements supporting HOV-added capacity are required to reduce congestion at the intersections and reduce backups approaching I-5. The HOV lanes will provide access to the northside Park and Ride lot and the site of the proposed southside Park and Ride lot. Adding HOV lanes and HOV access to I-5 supports various County and City of Federal Way transportation and transit improvement projects. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E)Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination,FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 32 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2003 PROJECT: 41h Avenue & Smith Street Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvement DESCRIPTION: Reconstruct the 4th Ave & Smith St intersection by widening each approach to add left turn pocket with appropriate left turn storage on each of the four legs, and upgrade the traffic signal accordingly. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$200,000 Right of Way Acquisition...............$270,000 Construction ...................................$750,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,220,000 FUNDING SOURCE(S): FTA, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The intersection currently has four lanes on each approach. Volumes are such that it is necessary to operate the signal to serve only one approach at a time. This project would widen each approach to provide for a separate left turn leg, with appropriate left turn storage, which would allow a much more efficient operation of the signal at this intersection, and significantly enhance the traffic signal progression along both of these heavily traveled arterial corridors. This project also provides necessary transportation capacity for the redevelopment of the Borden site and adjacent properties recently purchased by the City as an urban revitalization measure. STP—Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP- Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 33 CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAR: 2002 PROJECT: Kent Station Infrastructure Improvements Vicinity of 1" Avenue North and Temperance Street DESCRIPTION: Improve the west half of I't Ave S to the city street standard, construct a new city street (2nd Ave/Borden Way) from Smith Street to 4`h Avenue South to city street standards. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Borden Way and 4th Avenue South, improve the north half of Temperance Street to city street standards, construct other transit and/or commuter rail improvements in, around and in the vicinity of the Kent Station and Commuter Rail Station sites. The project includes landscaping, paving, concrete curbs, gutters, storm drainage systems, utilities, and appurtenances. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering.................$325,000 Right of Way Acquisition............................0 Construction ................................$1,450,000 TOTAL .......................................$1,775,000 FUNDING SOURCE (S): FTA, City of Kent PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project provides the necessary Transportation infrastructure for the redevelopment of the Borden and adjacent properties that the city recently purchased. The project includes street improvements required by the development of the site, as well as mitigation measures (traffic signal), to accommodate access to the City arterial street system. STP— Surface Transportation Program [Federal]; (U) Urban, (E) Enhancements, HES—Hazard Elimination, FMSIB—Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [State], TIA —Transportation Improvement Account, TIB—Transportation Improvement Board, AIP-Arterial Improvement Program [State],LID—Local Improvement District. 34 0 e 'g W W= V v! IL y �/� � I a `� 0 3 a 3 L� I N = N S U }L^. co K H � fA = W w W Iw Y Q Y Q — --- ------ — ---- — --- - --- --- -- - - - --- -- - L fAV 35 JAV YII 1 - 061 - a5 3AV Olt L I J 1' 1.1nV✓j ' � I i � � ! I r t j1 3d aAV I21 VY' '3S JAI All as LII 3S SAY 901 _ as 3AY YO ty _ las an' I IS AAVI WI s JAY �y i K �I s anY ze N ptii I S 3AY S dAV an eN I �' t - 1' I S 3Ab p-11v1 d'N s 3AV A+7 a1I A ' j -11 a11eA Y - SJAI YO flw i AV 10 i e 8 w i I fasatt ;5 I «1 3nV�_ s "H aw3e - d "� 1_j - j N I I n'! + # "F "nt ;i�it ' Council Meetinq, Date.';; , : �:;.& st 1. Cataorii-- 4uent' Cale, , 1. SUBJECT: ERIN GLADE $ILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMWY STATEMENT: A'�s recommended by tle kiblic Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Erin,,Qladi'-submitted by Shamrock Development for continuous operati;6 'and maintenance of 1,3�5 feet of waterma,in, 1, 635 feet of danitary sewer, 2,065 feet of storm sewer and 1,305 feet of streor improvements. Bonds are to be release, after the one-yeaile.-4iration period. This project is 'located ,at Southeast 273rd -�trset and 112th Avenue Southeast. 3 EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECb-?Q=ED BY: P tgbli� for s Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, ,;,*tc.,) j 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PER§DEL XMR& T: YES 6. EXPE=TURE REQUIRED: $ SLICE OF FMMS: 7 . CITY C,Q-WIL ACTIONS Councilmember : moves, Councilmeaber seconds s , DISCUSSION• ACTION: N Council Agenda Item No. 6L i I S ST I SE 240TH ST ,/11171 70r�// ui �r¢ SE �44 ST CLARK ! i 0) Irn SE 248TH ST \S �2NP' ST �; I-� jLL WALNUT ST 1 SE 2 TH S W \` CN 'yam I I rc< ID .r �2I � 264TH ST cn w fn 0 00 o ) R\ 27 TH WAY ,\ 1 I / i a j P i o ; CD r ' - --�-- ti N CID ERIN GLADE 0 a 0 N E cunci1 Meeting � g�t 2 1_2 0 0 I Calendar 1 . SUB"CT: GREEN RIVEWF TRAIL S,B PlT-T � 7 W- SOUND ENERGY ACCEPT AND AMEND B=- GET 2 . SAY STATEMENT: AS recommended by t r°#arka Committee, accept $500.00 from PU,g0t Sound- Energy ( t*, panel an existing easement on the Green River Trail} or-a new 6" natural. gas line, and amend the-,Land Acquisition;_bt�lg+�t'. 3 . EXHIB TSS: Copy of Green River Trail ea.s nt retail map 4 . RBCOI F,D BY: Staffs a Parks Commit (Committee, Staff, Ex�ininer, , Commies on, etc N-. ) " 5 . UNEUDGETED ZISgM/FZRS IN[P$6Sr 3 NO YES X_ 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $jU..00 SOURCE OF VMS: Puctet,joWnd gagrgyi 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � Councilmember moves, CouncilmemR „seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION 14 Council Agenda -i°" ' 'Item No. 6M i (136VHd) Gs D/l 1HB WOUd VV 3NI7 HOlVW u!t I 3WgjCARR-- a O 4r+ —ae--- ���♦♦♦ --_ t,lo, Twee ' - �,.�. •.� � ' � J 'N��71'^-e, I 14�I�r ?M;h 4..�-,`I•`-•,1 �'T 3J - '�• `-s tea,':�'�`=.�_�� W �' ` �- $ : � � a i 7�J Vie. .�x -� _.=_'�____�� • Y ' QI III ` / Iji�I� ���•1'� E—W-- _ � yy r I r 9 1 00 w We 1HB WOUd Be 3Nn H01 VW (11 36VHd) � t9� t� + ov xW, ('.�1 rwt,e Kent City Council Meeting Date Aucrust 21 , 20QI CategoryQnsent Calenca:� 1 . SUBJECT: EMERALD RIDGE DIVISION ONE BILL OFF SALE - ACCEPT , 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Emerald Ridge Division I submitted by Dreamcraft Homes for continuous operation and maintenance of 660 feet; of watermain, 593 feet of sanitary sewer, 901 feet of storm sewer and 550 feet of street improvements. Bonds are to be released after the one-year expiration period. This project is located at 102nd Place SE & SE 248th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECObMUMED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) S. UNBM)GETED FISCAL/PEHgg=L IMPACT: NO__.�_ YES 6. EP b ITURE REQUIRED: w� SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N F KeAtj Ci:tY' Council Meeting Date � ugus 21, 001 C�.tory�onsent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCES FROM COUNCIL `1*$LPTING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: approval of excused Fabsences from the August 21, 2001, City Council meeting for goMcilmember Judy Woods and Councilmember-' Rico Yingling. Nether are able to attend. ; , 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos 4. RECO ' NDED BY:— (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSOL IACTs NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE_REQ_UIRED: SOURCj OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Councilmember moves, Councilmembe _---_ seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 60 MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: AUGUST 21, 2001 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the August 21, 2001 City Council meeting. I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. JW:jb MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: RICO YINGLING, COUNCIL MEMBER DATE: AUGUST 21, 2001 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the August 211 2001 City Council meeting. I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. RY:jb k j J Kent: Citir 4,Council Meeting DatE f. r ni"gust 21, 2QQJ -t Catt ,ai�t19E'snt CaJen '- f 1. STEMJ PACIFIC GATOWAY MONUMENT 0-1ACCEPT ' 2 . SMQM STMEM NT: As recommended' day;,t*, P�lic� Works Committee, authorizatiop for Boeingre, '�bf,: r�igh-t-of-way for their monument signage Subject to the teretrictions and conditions approved by the Public Works De r -and the City Attorney. Further, Boeing proposes to inav"OWat-e the City's logo into the monument signage for which t ; b1-ic Works Committee has also recommended concurrence-, k St4jet to City approval of the monument design. ; ! Pacific Gateway Business Park is a develo " b the Boeing Company that surrounds their Space Centerl ,T'e along West Valley Highway. Boeing has requested the the City's right of way at the southwest corner of Weft. t11-ey Highway ,and South 196th Street as-p&rt of their entry ,,' ' ation for their development. 3 . EXHTBITB: Public Work$ Director memorand rt aodl, Declaration of Monument Signage Covenant J. 4 . RECg ED BY: Publ i q .WorJSs Cq t t ee i (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission; 6t �3; x _ S. UNBUDGETE FISCAL/PERSO ACT N�t `4 YES - 1� I�i �'�'.y1T 6. EXPMITMM RZOUIRED: SOURCE OF F' 1 S: = 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilme seconds I ; - DISCUSSION`: ACTION: z , Council Agenda Item No. 6P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • K E N T Phone:253-856-5500 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 6, 2001 To: Put%Works Committee From: Don Wickstrom, P.E., Public Works Director Subject: Pacific Gateway-Monument Signage As you are aware, Boeing is developing their vacant property surrounding their Space Center complex off West Valley Highway. They have called their development "Pacific Gateway Business Park". At the southwest corner of West Valley Highway and South 196`' Street, the City has a triangular piece of right-of-way which, when we widened West Valley Highway, we landscaped and installed an architectural monument therein. A photo of what we have there will be provided at the committee meeting. In all, we spent about $50,000 to build same. Boeing has approached us and has asked to use that site as part of their entry demarcations for their development. As such they propose to reconstruct the site with extensive landscaping and replace our monument with one reflecting the parks name along with the City's logo (drawings will be presented at the committee meeting). They estimate their total cost to do so will be about $150,000. Further as part of the deal they will be responsible in perpetuity for all operation and maintenance costs associated therewith. This proposal is very similar to what we did when Uplands developed Van Doren's Landing Industrial Park at the southwest corner of West Valley Highway and South 228th Street. Uplands wanted to place a gateway monument to their park on a similar piece of City right-of-way. We concurred, subject to our approval of the design for which the name had to be generic (no individual business names) and they took sole responsibility of all costs including all future operation and maintenance costs thereof. The only real distinct differences between the two requests are 1) the right-of-way per the Uplands signage had no improvements of value on it while the Boeing site does and 2) the Boeing proposal incorporates the use of the City logo. With respect to use of the right-of-way for Boeing's gateway signage, we concur subject to the same conditions we imposed on Uplands. We support it because we believe the savings alone associated with the relinquishment'of our long term operation and maintenance responsibility outweigh any capital expenditure we presently have in the site. Further because vegetation maintenance is a significant Public Works budget expenditure and as budgets get stretched, we foresee our ability to continue to perform at appropriate levels shrinking. As such we see the operation and maintenance afforded by Boeing to be of high caliber and we perceive it to remain so as that obligation transfers to the business park association. With respect to the use of the City logo, while staff supports same it's a Council discretionary decision. MOTION: Concur with Boeing's use of the right-of-way for their monument signage subject to the terms, restrictions and conditions approved by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. or, MOTION: Concur with the use of the City logo subject to City approval of the monument design. monument When Recording Return To: .. Property Manager l! Public Works Department City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Grantor/Declarant: The Boeing Company, a Delaware corporation Grantee: City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation Reference No.: N/A Abbreviated Legal Description: Portion of right-of-way of South 196th Street and West Valley Highway being a portion of Government Lot 1, Section 2, Township 22 North, Range 4 East. Full Legal Description Contained in Exhibit A Assessor's Tax Parcel No.: City of Kent roadway right-of-way DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANTS FOR THE PLAT OF PACIFIC GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, ("Declarant"), is the owner of the real property situated in the City of Kent, King County, Washington which is known as the plat of Pacific Gateway Business Park, which is recorded in the records of King County, Washington, (Rec. No. 20010117000904) and which is also described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. The Declarant and the City of Kent ("City") desire to establish the Declarant's responsibility for the installation and perpetual maintenance of the monument signage area at the southwest quadrant of South 196th Street and West Valley Highway in Kent, which area is more particularly described in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by this reference. DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT- 1 (between City of Kent and The Boeing Company) L NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant, its successors and assigns, hereby covenants with the City to establish the following obligations in order to provide for the installation and perpetual maintenance of the monument signage and appurtenances described in Exhibit B. Section 1. Property Subject to Covenants. The real property which is-now subject to the provisions of these covenants is the real property encompassed by the plat of Pacific Gateway Business Park, as described in Exhibit A. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this instrument: (a) The word "Plat" refers to the Plat of Pacific Gateway Business Park and any other plat or plats, including short plats, covering all real property that may subsequently be made subject to the provisions of this instrument by a written instrument signed by the Declarant, its successors or assigns, in accordance with Section 4 and 5 below. (b) The word "Lot" refers to any lot shown on the Plat, but shall not include any parcel designated as a "Tract" on the Plat. "Lot" shall include any parcel of land which is separately subject to this instrument without having been subdivided into two or r more parcels by a plat recorded subsequent to the recording of this instrument. (c) The word "Owner" or "Owners" refers to the entity, whether an individual, corporation, joint venture or partnership which is an owner in fee simple or of d substantial beneficial i,.�,�rest (except for several mineral estate) in all or any portion of the property in the Plat. A "substantial beneficial interest" shall include both legal or equitable interests in the property. (d) The words "Owners' Association" refer to a nonprofit corporation which may be formed for the purpose of operating and maintaining the properties owned by the City of Kent described in Exhibit B, or other properties within the Plat that may be independently conveyed by the Declarant or its successors and assigns to the Owners' Association and to which the Owners' Association may provide other services in order to benefit the owners of property within the Plat. Section 3. Maintenance Obligations. The Declarant, its successors, assigns and/or Owners of an after-acquired interest in the property, do covenant and agree that they are jointly and severally responsible for the installation, perpetual maintenance, and replacement of the monument signage, including the irrigation system, the lighting and electrical system, and landscaping of the ("monument signage") located within the property described in Exhibit B, in accordance with the landscape plan dated April 30, 2001, approved by the City. This provision is subject to the rights of the City of Kent as DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT-2 (between City of Kent and The Boeing Company) set forth in Section 6 below. Declarant shall be responsible only for monument signage maintenance located within the Property described in Exhibit B. Section 4. Assignment of Owners' Association. In the event that an Owners' Association is formed that includes all of the lots and tracts within the Plat, the Declarant and/or Owners may assign responsibility for installation and perpetual maintenance of the monument signage and appurtenant systems to that Owners' Association on the condition that Declarant remain ultimately responsible to fulfill all terms and obligations under this Covenant, in the event the Owners' Association fails so to do. Section 5. Conveyances. In the event the Declarant and/or Owner conveys its fee title or a substantial beneficial interest in any property contained in the Plat, the conveying Owner shall be free from all liabilities respecting the performance of the restrictions, covenants or conditions in this Declaration from that date forward; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the conveying Declarant and/or Owner shall remain liable for any acts or omissions during such Declarant or Owner's period of ownership of any property in the Plat. Section 6. Rights of the City of Kent. A. Execution of this Declaration shall not affect the City of Kent's present or future interest and use of any public right-of-way. If the City should at any time reasonably determine to remove, replace or modify a portion, segment or all of the improvements on the property described in Exhibit B, in order to permit either the realignment of a public street or widening of either wonting street for puoiik, purposes, then Declarant rl ner or Owners' Association shall constrict those improvements at no cost to the City. In the alternative, the City may employ a contractor to take this action, and the Declarant, Owner and/or Owners' Association shall reimburse the City on demand for all reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred to construct those improvements. The liability of Declarant, Owner and/or Owners' Association hereunder shall extend only to the costs of modification to the improvements, and not to such other expenses as may be involved in the associated street project. B. In order to assure the proper maintenance of the monument signage and its appurtenances on the property described in Exhibit B, the City shall have the right as provided below, but not the obligation, to maintain and irrigate the monument signage if the Declarant, Owners and/or Owners' Association shall fail to do so, and if that failure continues for more than ten (10) days after written notice of the failure is mailed to or served upon the responsible parties. However, no notice shall be required in the event that the City of Kent determines that an emergency exists that may cause damage to persons or property if the situation is not remedied prior to the time required for notice. DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT-3 (between City of Kent and The Boeing Company) If the City provides notice in writing, but the Declarant, Owners or Owners' Association fails or refuses to perform any maintenance or operational duties as requested by the City, the City may enter the property and undertake the necessary maintenance or operational duties to the City's satisfaction. If the City of Kent exercises its rights under this Section 6(B), then the Declarant, Owners, and/or Owners' Association shall reimburse the City of Kent on demand for all reasonable and necessary related expenses, including all legal costs, attorneys' fees and reasonable administrative costs. In addition, the City of Kent is hereby given the right, power and authority to exercise and enforce on behalf of the Association and at the Association's cost, to assess dues and charges for these costs and to enforce a lien right for any assessments, dues and charges herein specified. The City shall also be permitted to collect the costs of administration and enforcement through the foregoing lien by an attachment and collection process as permitted under RCW Chapter 35.67. C. In addition to or in lieu of the remedies listed in this Section 6, if the Declarant, Owners or Owners' Association, (after written notice described in Section 6 above), fails or refuses to perform the necessary maintenance, repair, replacement or modifications, the City may enjoin, abate or remedy that breach or continuation of breach by appropriate proceedings, and may bring an action against the violator(s) for penalties under applicable law. Section 7. Covenants to Run with the Land. The promises, conditions and restrictions contained herein shall constitute a covenant or equitable servitude, the burden and benefit of which shall run with the land and bind successive owners with equitable or legal interests in the property. Accordingly, by its acceptance of a deed or other instrument vesting a substantial beneficial interest in all or any portion of the property of the Plat in such Owner, each Owner shall covenant to be bound by the obligations incumbent upon an Owner as set forth herein, and shall be entitled to all rights and benefits accruing to an Owner hereunder. Section 8. Indemnification. The Declarant and/or Owners agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Kent for any and all third-party claims, demands, actions, injuries, losses, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, fixed or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, arising from or connected to any action relating to an alleged defect in design of the landscaping or irrigation system as installed by Declarant or arising by reason of the negligent performance of this Agreement by the Declarant, its successors and assigns, and/or Owners' of any of the obligations hereunder. Section 9. Recordation, Modification and Termination. This Declaration of Monument Signage Covenants shall be recorded in this Office of Records and Elections in King County, Washington, and shall serve as notice to holders of after-acquired DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT-4 (benveen City of Kent and The Boeing Company) interests in the Plat. This Declaration may not be modified or terminated except by a written agreement signed and approved by the City. Section 10. Notices. For so long as Declarant is the Owner of any portion of property in the Plat, notice to the Declarant shall be given in writing by personal delivery or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at the address set forth below. Following conveyance by Declarant of any portion of the property in the Plat, any notice to be given to any subsequent Owner hereunder must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Owner at such address as each Owner shall designate in a writing delivered to the City. Notice to the City shall be given in --rating by personal delivery or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at the address set forth below. DECLARANT: CITY: The Boeing Company City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT-5 (between City of Kent and The Boeing Company) Section 11. Severability. It is further expressly agreed that in the event of any covenant, condition or restriction hereinabove contained or any portion thereof is invalid or void, such invalidity or voidness shall in no way affect any other covenant, condition or restriction hereinabove contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration of Monument Signage Covenant on the day of 12001. THE BOEING COMPANY By Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) On this day of Notary Pull li- in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC,in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires P\Crvil\FILFSOpenFJa\0418\Covenant-Monun=tSigmge doc DECLARATION OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE COVENANT-6 (between City of Kent and The Boeing Company) fi F _ Kent City Council Meeting DateAugust- 21. 2 p'p l Categary ' Other BusingMg 1 . SUBJECT: PRESENTATIONS FROM INTERIM COUNCIL CANDIDATES 2 . SUMMARY STATEN33NT: Candidates for the Interim Council position will each give , a three-minute presentation regarding their interest in serving the position. During its Executive Session, the Council will consider the candidates, and at the conclusion of the Session, will announce it4i selection. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Ex;.miner, Commission, etc-) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSQ=TA IMPACT: NQ,_,„�� YES_ _ 6 . TXPMWTURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember -moves, Councilmembeir. seconds to appoint , as Interim City Councilmember to fill the position vacated by Sandy Amodtlun'til that position is filled by general election as provided by law. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A lip Kent CiY council Meetirt Catelo r 'Other Busi 1 . strBa=: CONDEMNATI ORDINANCE NO. 33.94; R EAL - ORDINANCE 2 . SM2MRY STATE: The proposed ord.i�e would repeal Ordinance No. 3394 which provided for the ,a4,q isition of certain property and/or- property rights forifpatka, recreation ' and any other public purpose; and which provided for the condemnation, appropriation, and taking of, auoh property rights as are necessary for those purposes. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMMMED - Staff (Committee, Staff, E miner, Commissioh,. otc 5 . Ui BN' MG-BTED FISCAL/PERRM= XMPACi NO� YES i 6 . EXPENDITURE. RE UIRED: ; SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmembo seconds adoption of Ordinance NO. repealing, prdinance No. 3394, relating to the condemnation of certain property for parks, recreation, and other public purpose. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Ordinance 3394 which provided for the acquisition of certain property and/or property rights for parks, recreation and any other public purpose; and which provided for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of such property rights as are necessary for those purposes. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3394 was adopted in 1998 and provided for the acquisition of property and/or property rights described in Exhibit A for parks, recreation, and any other public purpose; and which provided for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of such property and/or property rights as was necessary for those purposes; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the acquisition of the property is not currently necessary for a public purpose, including parks and recreation. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 3394 is hereby repealed in its entirety. 1 Repeal Ordinance 3394 SECTION 2. —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 3. —Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of August, 2001. APPROVED: day of August, 2001. PUBLISHED: day of August., 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\Civil\Ordinance\RcpealOrdmance3394 doc 2 Repeal Ordinance 3394 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. 349925-3 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10 , TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2 RIGHT OF WAY, AS CONDEMNED IN PROCEEDINGS IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO . 47302 ON OCTOBER 9 , 1905 ; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN 42ND AVENUE SOUTH, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WILLIAM A. • JOHNSON COUNTY ROAD NO . 1423 ; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN SOUTH 212TH STREET 84 FEET IN WIDTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ORILLIA ROAD, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5954743 ; TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 2 , 3 , 10 AND 11 OF TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, SAID RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING ON THE SECTION LINE BE79EEN SAID SECTIONS 2 AND 3 AT A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 2002 ' 29 " WEST 216 FEET FROM THE CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 2 , 3 , 10 AND 11; THENCE SOUTH 89002' 13 " WEST 826 . 85 FEET TO AN OLD FENCE; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID FENCE LINE 320 FEET, MORE OR LESS , TO THE SOUTH LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY MORGAN O' BRIEN AND WIFE TO RICHARD O' CONNELL BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF DEEDS , PAGE 654 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID O' CONNELL TRACT 500 FEET, MORE OR LESS , TO THE WEST LINE OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 ; THENCE SOUTH 1042 ' 36" EAST 537 . 90 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 0012 ' 04" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10 , A DISTANCE OF 290 . 72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89056' 07" EAST 2187 .98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40056' EAST 147 . 30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82058 ' EAST 342 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST BANK OF WHITE RIVER; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST BANK TO A POINT NORTH 89002' 13 " EAST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89002' 13 " WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT' THAT PORTION CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TRACT: (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2 DESCRIPTION CONT. ORDER NO . 349925-3 BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 77058 ' EAST 311 . 85 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2 ; THENCE NORTH 88055 ' EAST 365 . 59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39050 ' WEST 88 . 30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29055 ' WEST 65 . 10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70027' WEST 40 . 80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89020 ' WEST 229 . 70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3013 ' WEST 143 . 90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND EXCEPT PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN FRAGER ROAD SOUTH kCOUNTY ROAD NO . 76) . SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. THE DESCRIPTION CAN BE ABBREVIATED AS SUGGESTED BELOW IF NECESSARY TO MEET STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS . THE FULL TEXT OF THE DESCRIPTION MUST APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT (S) TO BE INSURED. SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 22 RANGE 4 NORTH HALF OF THE NE QUARTER. AND SECTION 11 TOTKNISHIP 22 RANCE 4 NW QUARTER NW QUARTER. AND SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 22 RANGE 4 SE QUARTER SE QUARTER. A iD SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP 22 RANGE 4 SW QUARTER SW QUARTER. Kent ,City Council Meeting Date ; August 21 2001 Cate'gary Bids 1 . SUBJECT: RAMSTEAD WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION AND SEVEN OAKS PUMP STATION SANITARY 9R CONNECTION 2 . SUMMARY STATE14=: The bid opening for- this project was held on August 8th with- five bids received. , The low bid was submitted by Pivetta Brothers in the amount; o£, $180,893 . 60 including sales tax. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Pivetta Brothers. ; 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMNDED BY: Public, Works Director (Committee, Staff, -Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSO L IMPACT: NO_, � YES 6. EXPENDITURE RZOUIRED: $18Q. 893 .60 SOURCE OF FUNDS: D40. - J&87 - W40 - D20 , 7 . , CITY CO MIL ACTION: Councilmember__UAAL.moves, Councilmember seconds that the Ramstead Water & Sanitary Sewer erasion & Seven Oaks Pump Station Sanitary Sewer Connection contract be awarded to Pivetta Brothers for the bid amount of $180,803 .60 including sales tax. DISCUSSION: ACTI ON: C" Council Agenda Item No. 8A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 10, 2001 To: Mayo &City Council From: Don ickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: Ramstead Water & Sanitary Sewer Extension and, Seven Oaks Pump Station Sanitary Sewer Connection Bid opening for this project was held on August 8`' with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Pivetta Brothers in the amount of $180,893.60, including sales tax. The Engineer's estimate was $207,476.16, including sales tax. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Pivetta Brothers. Bid Summary Pivetta Brothers $180,893.60 Shoreline Construction $195,814.98 CA Goodman Construction $196,307.84 TAS Enterprises $196,677.76 Saybr Contractors $219,830.12 Engineer's Estimate $207,476.16 MOTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds that the Ramstead Water & Sanitary Sewer Extension and Seven Oaks Pump Station Sanitary Sewer Connection contract be awarded to Pivetta Brothers. Bi dletterRamstead&SevenOaks cc-Moshitake �a Kent--,ity Council Meeftin DatO ; AUg ust 21, 2(,gg J' 1 . SUBJECT: WIESNER DWNAGE IMPROVMVMTS t 2 . SMU= STATEMM: 'The bid opening for_,tthLs project was held on August 16th. Due to time constra4ats,- the Council packets do not include the bid information. ` The Public Works Director will make his recommendation at t4� Cecil meeting. i 3 . E78ZTS: None v 4 . RECO LADED, BY:Public Works DirecJ;or ,y , (Committee, Staff, Exsminer, Commission, etd. ) ' 5 . UNB QED FISCAL/PERK L lap=: NO � � YES r 6. EXPI=TURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FONDS 7. CITY COIL ACTIONS Councilmember moves, Councilmem*—,,, seconds that the Wiesner Drainage Improvements contrao;t' be awarded to MAX for the bid amount of JZ, '7 Lkd 914--hkA DISCUSSION- ACTION: `i a ' ' Council Agenda Item- No. 8B • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEP.kRTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • K E N T Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 W A 5 H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: August 21, 2001 To: Mayor &-City Council From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: Wiesner Drainage Improvements Bid opening for this project was held on August 16" with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Pivetta Brothers in the amount of $117,415.87, including sales • tax. The Engineer's estimate was $123,605.50 including sales tax. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Pivetta Brothers. Bid Summary Pivetta Brothers $117,415.87 Scotty's General $124,416.61 Talmo, Inc. $135,665.22 CA Goodman Construction $143,773.76 Gary Harper Construction $168,214.59 Engineer's Estimate $123,605.50 MOTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds that the Wiesner Drainage Improvements contract be awarded to Pivetta Brothers. BidletterWiesner Source of Fund D43 • Protect#11,3002 cc NYoshita�takelce REPORTS FROX,, 40A. M. Q CO�BIT"`R# Y 3 A. COUNCIL PRESIDE" I � w B. OPERATIONS COMMI, E C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS o � ��� ` � �' t E. PLANNING COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS b�a,�, REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COH=TV :; E Operations Committee 7/3/01 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton (filling in for Judy Woods) STAFF PRESENT: Roger Lubovich, May Miller, Cliff Craig, Mike Martin, Dea Drake PUBLIC PRESENT: Ella Mae Pruitt, Ted Kogita, Joe Rubio, Robert O'Brien, Julie Peterson, Jeff Barker The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:07 PM. One item was added to the agenda: May Financial Report. Approval of Minutes of June 19, 2001 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of June 19, 2001. The motion was seconded by substitute Committee Member Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Approval ofVouchers Dated June 30, 2001 Tom Brotherton moved to approve the vouchers dated June 30, 2001. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. City Council Rules and Procedures Tom Brotherton related that there were three problems with the way Council meetings were handled. People sometimes make accusations or attacks against others over open mike that shouldn't be broadcast because it isn't City business and has nothing to do with the Council; there should be a way when that happens to pull it off the televised portion. Another concern is that some people are hesitant on bringing issues to Council because they don't want to be on television, and there should be a way to add a session to the public Council meeting where people could address Council with the television turned off. A third problem is that sometimes questions are posed which Council can't respond to without research or the right people there to answer the question. There should be a way for questions to be asked of Council ahead of time so answers could be researched. The issue could then be scheduled as an agenda item for the next meeting. City Attorney Roger Lubovich said the resolution establishes parameters for Council action on certain items such as televising meetings. It does a lot of clean up, separating the Public Works and Planning Committees and relocating some items. Also, the order of the Council agenda items was changed so that additions to the agenda from the public would be made at the end of the meeting during the public communications segment rather than at the beginning of the Council meeting. The resolution clarifies that if the Mayor should add something to the agenda and a Councilmember didn't want to hear it or wanted to hear something the Mayor had denied, that Councilmember could object and it would be voted on. Housing and Human Services policies were made part of the Parks Committee since that Office is now part of the Parks Department. Under Section 28,page 10, language was added to state Operations Committee,7/3/01 2 that the resolution contains policies, and failure to comply with the policies would not invalidate actions. If nobody objected to deviation from the policies, the policies would be waived. Mr. Lubovich stressed that the resolution was only a policy directive, not a City Code ordinance. Section 29 talks about the issue of televising and refers to Resolution 1471 which says all Council meetings, Committees, and Workshops should be televised on the public access channel. The resolution doesn't say the meetings have to be televised and, right now, the workshops aren't. It clarifies that the Council may televise all or part of a meeting if it so chooses. The Council would not be able to edit a tape or decide what they wanted or didn't want to be televised. Policy changes could be made without changing the resolution. Tom Brotherton questioned whether, in the case of someone making a personal attack on someone else, the meeting could be stopped and a motion made to expunge that particular part of the tape. Mr. Lubovich said he would have a problem with that type of editing. It should be made clear to the person speaking that Council would not accept that kind of behavior,but the issue would need to be looked at more closely. The problem is that a determination of what should or shouldn't be allowed would be made, and that determination might be different from someone else's. Rico Yingling asked for comment about people who wouldn't want to address the Council if they were on TV. Mr. Lubovich responded that some people are intimidated by the formality of the Council meeting, and televising the Committees has made them more formal in structure and has inhibited the interaction that used to take place between staff and the public before the Committees were televised. Tim Clark mentioned that there were times when, for safety reasons, a tape must be edited, such as deleting an address or phone number that was given out inadvertently, protecting people's identities in domestic violence issues, and keeping certain employees (such as domestic violence advocates) off camera because of the type of jobs they have. Rico Yingling suggested adding the safety issue as a fourth concern. He proposed that staff should work on a response dealing with the four concerns, and then, after cleaning up the ordinance,bring it back with the document that discusses the four concerns. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin advised that staff should be able to find ways to accommodate the legitimate issues that had been brought up. The item could then be brought back to Committee. Rico Yingling asked what recourse there might be to eliminate the kind of attack where names are brought up but the people aren't there to defend themselves and Council doesn't know if the information is factual,made up, or half truths. Roger Lubovich said the City was not liable for libelous attacks,but did want to provide public safety and protection for anyone that might be harmed. He said some research had already been done on libel and slander and how far the City could go in editing and censorship. Mr. Yingling asked for legitimate ways to immediately handle that kind of situation as it would occur. Council Meeting Time Change for August 7, 2001 —Ordinance Roger Lubovich said this ordinance would change the Council meeting time from 7:00 PM to 5:00 PM on August 7, 2001 so Councilmembers can participate in National Night Out. The ordinance amends the City Code (which establishes the time for Council meetings)just for that Operations Committee,7/3/01 3 one night. The item is scheduled to go under Other Business at tonight's Council meeting so it can go into effect before August 7, 2001. Tim Clark moved to recommend that Council adopt the ordinance changing the time for its August 7, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. May Financial Report Finance Director May Miller handed out copies of the May Financial Report. On Page 3, all the cash and investment positions were listed by fund type to show the cash in all the operating funds up to May 31, 2001, as compared to a year ago. Approximately the same amount of money(about $18,000,000 in operating cash)was available. The internal service funds improved to $11,000,000 as compared to $8,800,000 last year. The debt service was down a bit, but still had more money than needed (the water and sewer were higher than they needed to be), so the amount was brought back down and the money put back into the operating funds. (Only enough money has to be kept to make the payments in June and to keep the reserve at the required level. Two principal debt payments are made each year in June and December, so quite a bit of cash builds up through the end of May, but next month, after the payment, it will reduce down again.) There are still a lot of capital projects going on in the City; those have been around $50 million at the end of the year. The overall cash position at the end of May was $94,000,000 —money which is all kept heavily invested. Page 8, shows that revenues through the end of May were almost right on budget at V2% or $131,000 under. Last year revenue was 8.5% over budget. If the year is good,more revenue is brought up than expected because of conservative budgeting. This year, the economy isn't doing as well, and the budget is right on target after budgeting conservatively. The downturn is offset by lagging in the filling of staff positions (Page 9). Expenditures were 2.9% or$704,000 under budget, primarily from staff savings. There were 27.9 positions in the General Fund vacant at the end of May, which compares pretty evenly to last year. The Property Tax was down in both April and May,because of an ad valorem adjustment from a Kent business that appealed its Property Tax and won. Next year the money will be put back into a refund levy. Normally, 99% of Property Taxes are collected and that should still be very close because some past due taxes were collected that hadn't been budgeted. Page 11 shows that Sales Tax in June was under budget by 11.9% or$154,000, but the cumulative tax was only under 0.2% or$14,000. Last year, Sales Tax was 10.2% over budget. The Utility Taxes have been above budget all year, and in June was 32% or$185,229 above. Rates are about 30% higher than last year. Overall, the cumulative taxes, with all the months combined, shows 18% or$619,000 over budget. The overage helps make up some of the shortfalls in the Sales Tax area. Building Permits,Page 13, were under budget every month until May when they exceeded the budget, and they are still 31%under what was expected. Page 14 shows that the value of permits was running 19% under last year. Plan Check Fees, page 15, was closer to the budget line in April and May and is only 20%under budget now. Recreation Fees were 13%or$62,000 over fhbudget,which could be due to timing or automated payments and new ways to receive money, Operations Committee,7/3/01 4 and money may be coming in faster than it did last year. Also the cut off on weekends can change the month-to-month picture, so it must all be looked at in the longer term. Fines and Forfeits revenue, Page 17,which comes primarily from traffic fines or the Kent Court, were 2% over budget. Water,Page 18, was $4,000 under budget in revenue. The Sewer and Drainage Fund was only 1%under budget because of a refund in April that brought the under amount down. The Golf Course, Page 20,was still 6.8% over budget for the City's percentage of revenues, even though May was a wet month. The 18 Hole was 4.7% over, the 9 Hole12.2% over,the Driving Range 5% over, the Mini Putt 34.7% over, and Golf Carts 10% over. The adjustment column, Page 21, shows $681,000 over budget in revenue, and savings of $1,700,000 in expenditures. The State legislature gave a retirement reduction rate for LEOFF and Pers accounts which became effective July 1st. That resulted in the new Retirement Rate Change line in expenditures showing $400,000 in savings for half of this year. Next year the savings will be$800,000. The Estimated Actual column, which is the designation for contingency, is at $6,000,000 and should end the year at $8,200,000, 2.2% over budget. Last year, it ended at$9,500,000 million. The 2002 Forecast Column takes preliminary views of what the revenue is likely to be next year. It shows that Sales Tax should recover and go back to what it was in the budget of 2000, and all the COLAs and contracts on the Expenditure side have been added, along with the Retirement Savings and other transfers. If everything were exactly perfect, $594,000 of the fund balance would have to be used that was put in to offset economic downturns. But it's early in the process and there is still a lot of analysis to do and several months of revenue to receive before the bottom line will be known. Tim Clark expressed concern about Water costs over a prolonged span of time, saying that the City should not be caught by surprise. Ms. Miller said a rate study, as part of the Strategic Plan, would look at future water revenues, future water costs, and future water capital. Rico Yingling asked if there could be a way to indicate which of the projects in the Capital Improvement Fund listed on Pages 23-24 were related to Council goals and action items. Mike Martin said some of those projects did come from Council targets and goals and they could be identified. The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary Planning Committee July 2, 2001 Committee Members Present: Chair Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Rico Yingling (sitting in for Judy Woods) Staff Present: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson,Brian Swanberg, Kim Marousek, Roger Lubovich, Brett Vinson, Bob Hutchinson, Kim Pratt, Bill Wolinski, Chad Bieren,Don Wickstrom, Jackie Bicknell Public Present: Jeff Barker, Kurt Wilson The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:05 PM. Approval of the Minutes of June 4. 2001 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2001. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling. Mr. Yingling made a correction to the minutes,page 5, first full paragraph, changing "Rico Yingling questioned whether it would be possible...",to "Tom Brotherton questioned whether it would be possible....". The motion then passed 3-0. Code Enforcement Update—Discussion #2 Code Enforcement Officer Brian Swanberg explained that the code enforcement program started in 1994. It was the first of its kind for the City and in the last six years, approximately 1200 cases have been closed. There were 57 complaints opened in the I"quarter of this year compared to 140 in the 2nd quarter, which is a 245% increase in complaints the City is now receiving. That's largely due to awareness and the word getting out more through newspaper publications or Channel 28, and also to implementing a program that allows five different personnel in the Planning Department to accept in-coming phone calls and do the data entry, thus increasing the code enforcement officer's time to handle field situations. Comparing year to date over last year, there has been about a 51% increase in cases closed. Code enforcement generally deals with dangerous building and housing code issues. About 78 structures have been torn down in the last seven years that were in violation of the codes. A lot of cases have to do with inoperable and junk vehicles,public nuisance(such as garbage and debris in yards), failure to obtain a business license, land use violations, home occupation violations,public works grade and fill, and wetland issues. Land use violations may be home occupation related such as doing auto repair in a residential home, or a business expanding into the next lot and grading it without a permit. The notification process has been streamlined and refined over the years, and staff attempts to obtain voluntary compliance and to educate individuals rather than fining them. A notice of violation usually makes people decide to comply before they have to go in front of the Hearing Examiner, and most cases are resolved before getting to that point. Generally, if a case goes to the Hearing Examiner, it's because somebody has dug in their heels and flat out refused to comply. A lot of cases are not real cut and dried and sometimes there has to be a bit of nudging and a constant going back and stating what the next step is. 4bSome cases are resolved quickly and others may take a few months to get through the full process. Planning Committee,7/2/01 2 The majority of enforcement problems come in as citizen complaints; City departments also may call if they run across something or are having trouble dealing with an individual. Mr. Swanberg said that on occasion he will see something when he's out driving that needs immediate attention,but his workload is enough that most of the time he can't follow up. Tom Brotherton asked if the brochure that helps explain tenant rights, and names government agencies involved in various facets (Public Health,King County, State, or City) has been effective. Mr. Swanberg said the brochure was an effective tool to help educate people. He added that a copy could be received from the Planning Department front desk or by calling Housing Resources. Code Enforcement Ordinance City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that the proposed code change ordinance would make further refinements in the steps to process violations for those holdouts that refuse to comply with the code, and would make it easier to take cases to Superior Court if necessary. Another ordinance will follow up this one and refer all different chapters of the City Code to this particular Chapter 104 enforcement tool. That will give a more centralized, comprehensive enforcement system so that when somebody has a violation they will know exactly how it's processed. This ordinance defines what a Code Enforcement Officer is and allows others with expertise to assist the Code Enforcement Officer so that he can go ahead and process the complaint. Other changes are that fines can be doubled if there is a repeat violation within two years, and the penalty has been modified to allow up to $500 a day in fines because some violations warrant a higher assessment than others. The Hearing Examiner will be given some discretion to set the fine. The voluntary correction agreement in the code will be maintained which allows the violator to come in and reach an actual written agreement as to compliance. That's not often used,but there are instances when something in writing is needed to obtain compliance. Brian Swanberg said that for about 98% of the cases he goes out to the location and investigates whether there actually is a violation before doing any serious paperwork. An awareness letter stating the violation is generated and goes out immediately, asking for the person to check their residence or business to see whether the condition exists and, if it does, to please make any necessary corrections. Sometimes they have taken care of the problem before a field visit and sometimes not. Tim Clark expressed concern in the possible breakdown of notification where the property owner rents the space out to tenants who are non-conforming. The property may be posted and a backup mailed out, but it may go to the owner who may not forward the notice. Mr. Clark asked if there was a backup process that would verify that the person who really needed to receive the notice would get it. Roger Lubovich said that under the new code, staff would attempt through personal service to obtain compliance from anybody that had any kind of interest in the property. Notice could be mailed with both regular and certified or registered mail, and publication posted. Compliance may be received from an absent landlord better than from a tenant doing the violating, or visa versa. The goal is not to penalize anyone,but to have the violation corrected. Stop work orders and stop use orders are also in the code. A violation of a stop work order would be a misdemeanor for failure to comply and the case would then go to the Hearing Examiner. Removing the posting of a stop work or stop use order is also a violation. If someone received adequate notice but failed to appear, the hearing examiner could be asked for a default order. That hasn't been available in the past. Another thing that's being added to the ordinance is the ability to allow modifications to a fine ordered by the Hearing Examiner in order to negotiate a resolution which is another tool to get compliance. Planning Committee,7/2/01 3 Mr. Lubovich asked for some added language on page 10, second line to the bottom, changing it from ".... may relieve the person responsible for the violation of the duty to pay the monetary penalty." to ,...may relieve the person responsible for the violation of the duty to pay all or a portion of the monetary penalty.", so there would be room for negotiation. Committee Member Tim Clark moved to amend Section 1.04.090 in the fashion designated by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Roger Lubovich continued that a provision had also been added that makes mention of a third or subsequent violation, or failure to abate, in Section 1.04.100 as a misdemeanor. He requested that the words "...third or ..."be taken out and to leave just"...commission of subsequent violation... "which would be filed as a misdemeanor. The next ordinance that comes through will have the option of filing a violation as a misdemeanor or of processing it through this chapter, so the "..third or subsequent... "is not needed. Staff wants to make it clear that if a person has been cited under Chapter 1.04,the City may still file a misdemeanor; even a commission of a subsequent violation or failure to abate could be filed as a misdemeanor. Just because someone got cited as a civil penalty in the enforcement process, doesn't prevent them from being cited for a misdemeanor subsequently. Tim Clark moved to amend as indicated by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Roger Lubovich said that if there is a penalty for violations that hasn't been paid, and the people aren't complying, then the case may be sent to a collection agency. Or, it may go right to Superior Court with a new record established through the Hearing Examiner process. The ordinance gives staff a lot of options. ,,Rico Yingling moved to recommend adoption by the full Council of the proposed ordinance relating to Code Enforcement. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark, as amended, and passed 3-0. SEPA Strategy to Address ESA Acting Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom related that Best Management Practices for road and park maintenance and other-operations of the City were highlighted in a PowerPoint presentation at the Council Workshop a couple of weeks ago on the City's response under the Endangered Species Act. He said the Public Works Department will be bringing forward changes in construction standards (primarily storm water) in response to the ESA, and there are standards for development on or near stream environments that could be potentially harmful for Chinook salmon. However, those development standards won't be changed for at least another year, and in the interim there will be developments that will come into the City that could potentially harm the stream environment for listed species of salmon. Staff is proposing to implement new standards in an interim process until the SEPA standards in effect are modified. If potential impacts are identified prior to or during environmental review, the applicant would have to submit to the City for review and approval of a study by a qualified scientist. If the study revealed problems, there might be conditions that would be applied to the project. The process would be applied in the Valley environment. The word will be gotten out to the development community and their input sought in a public relations/public participation process. After conducting forums or workshops with the public and the development community, an ordinance will be brought forward that would implement the interim SEPA procedure. Planning Committee,7/2/01 4 Tim Clark asked about redevelopment issues. Fred Satterstrom said that redevelopment is more likely to occur than a great deal of new development. In redevelopment of the site,the developer would need to take a more sensitive approach to the stream environment, and any development standards that apply in the Valley would have to be sensitive to redevelopment as well. Mr. Clark expressed concern about the notification process to property owners of how the changes could affect their properties. Fred Satterstrom the word would be gotten out to the development community that this is being done on an interim basis. There aren't many development proposals received that require SEPA in the Valley and this interim process may only apply to half a dozen to a dozen developments within the next 12 to 14 months before the actual standard is proposed. In response to Rico Yingling's request for clarification, Fred Satterstrom explained that the modifications would not be interim standards,but an interim process which entails a study with some recommendations on how to mitigate as opposed to taking the Soos Creek Basin standards adopted six years ago and applying them in the Valley. Mr. Yingling questioned why the City needed an interim process if the state or the federal government wasn't requiring standards for 18 months. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it would help protect the City from a lawsuit on the matter from any private party or environmental group, and it also suggests that the City is taking a proactive approach towards preserving salmon habitat. Tim Clark moved to direct staff to develop interim SEPA strategy in response to the ESA listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Auto Repair and Manufacturing Uses as Home Occupations Acting Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said the issue had come to the Council's attention two Council meetings ago when a citizen asked to speak regarding a neighboring auto repair operation. That particular complaint was checked out and it was found that the neighbor was in compliance. However, the situation prompted staff to do some research on auto repair and manufacturing uses as home occupations and whether or not they should be allowed under a home occupation ordinance. Auto repair in single family zone complaints are received by the City about once a month, and it's very difficult to monitor those home occupation violations. The City depends on citizens to take pictures and record the violation in progress. The manufacturing complaint would be for such things as machine shops working out of the home. Regulation would typically be related to noise or use of excess power,but those types of complaints are rarely received. The recommendation is that the Committee direct staff to look at those types of uses and possibly do a code amendment. Rico Yingling moved to direct staff to review automobile repair and manufacturing land uses relative to the purpose and performance standards of the Home Occupation requirements, and forward a zoning code amendment to the Land Use and Planning Board if warranted. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Noise Exemptions for Roads Charlene Anderson reported that Chair Tom Brotherton had requested that staff look at neighboring jurisdictions to see what regulations they may have regarding roadway noise. SeaTac, Renton, Auburn, and Federal Way regulations were checked, and it was found they pretty much don't regulate roadway noise but refer to the state regulations. The Federal Highway Administration has regulations for roadway noise impacts and studies, and the state policy says that if state funds are used, the Federal Highway Planning Committee,7/2/01 5 Administration regulations apply. Tim Clark suggested looking to the City of Everett for noise issues concerning major roadways such as corridors. Rico Yingling asked if the state codes had any suggestion as to what was okay and not okay for neighborhoods versus industrial areas or schools. Charlene Anderson replied that there are decibel levels for new roads, and a noise study is required for any proposed roadway. The study then suggests mitigation of the noise. Mr. Yingling inquired if there were different decibel levels for different areas. Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the issue was how to prevent noise,which was extremely difficult where there were a lot of accesses to properties. Noise studies were done on 277th before it was built and the County Council concluded that it would be impossible to mitigate noise on that road because of the access requirements. The only way to get rid of noise is to not to have any access (which is easy to do on freeways because they are limited access roads),but for arterials where adjacent properties all typically have access to the road, effective noise barriers can't be built. Mr. Wickstrom said that for the 228th Corridor project there is an opportunity to mitigate the noise because there's no access other than Lakeside Boulevard and the area is already fenced. But it depends on a case by case analysis and access control. Tom Brotherton asked if there were other noise mitigation methods like controlling speeds. Don Wickstrom said that,based on studies done for the 272°a project, the only real noise mitigation means is a hard barrier which has to be above the rooftops so the noise goes above the adjacent structure that's being protected. On the 2280' Corridor, the first floor only of homes could be protected because the barrier couldn't be built high enough to protect a second floor. King County Growth Management Planning Council: Urban Separators and Agricultural Lands Charlene Anderson said that the GMPC is going to meet on July 25th regarding the Urban Separator issue and the Agricultural Lands issue. A proposal for the Urban Separator issue is to create a King County map that shows where the Urban Separators are that Kent recently adopted. The intent is to let everyone know, including the future and potential annexation areas as well as those inside the cities, where the Urban Separators are located. On the second issue of Agricultural Lands, the City wrote letters as early as 1996 saying that it did not want King County to take out of Kent's potential annexation area the Agricultural lands south of the river. The County is attempting to do that again, and in 1999 the GMPC voted to take those lands out despite the City's objections. The GMPC sent the issue to King County after making a recommendation. In 1999, King County did not address that particular countywide planning policy but instead said they would look at it with the 2000 update of their Comprehensive Plan. Now King County is actually looking at it again and King County Councilmember Les Thomas has requested that GMPC take a new look at the policy and get public input on whether the policy should go forward because the GMPC didn't have a full quorum on their original 1999 motion. The issue is whether Kent wants the Agricultural Lands south of the river to be taken out of any potential annexation area or urban growth area, or whether Kent wants to continue to notify King County of its disagreement with their policy. Tim Clark urged that the City send a strong message to King County opposing their policy. Mr. Clark stated that the last thing the City wants is to have the County determining what City policy will be and changing what is already in place. And, it is a violation of the heart and spirit of the Growth Management Act to make changes without all the parties being in agreement. Planning Committee,7/2/01 6 Charlene Anderson said that it is the Countywide Planning Policies themselves which govern how jurisdictions look at the Growth Management Act that are in debate right now. The Countywide Planning Policies are forwarded to King County for adoption and then the cities get an opportunity to ratify or not ratify the policies. Tim Clark stated he wanted to be at that meeting and wanted a staff briefing beforehand. ' Tim Clark moved that the Administration take a firm position on maintaining control of its own Ag lands and specifically to make a strong effort to avoid any loss of control of those in the current GMPC Plan in Kent's potential annexation area. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary Public Works Committee July 2, 2001 Committee Members Present: Chair Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Rico Yingling Staff Present: Don Wickstrom, Tom Brubaker, Brett Vinson, Steve Mullen, Gary Gill, Cyndi Wilbur, Bill Wolinski, Chad Bieren, Tom Brotherton, Brad Lake, Jackie Bicknell Public Present: Sherwood Gordon, Dennis Moyers, Jeff Barker The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 5:12 PM. One item was added to the agenda: Water Use Averaging in Multi Family Housing. Approval of the Minutes of June 4. 2001 Committee Member Connie Epperly moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (94`h Ave. Signal Installation) Don Wickstrom said the facilities improvement project at Canyon Drive and 94` Avenue was awarded at the last Council meeting, but Councilmember Tom Brotherton had a concern about the signal installation so the item was brought to Committee for discussion. Options would be to delete the signal pole but not the base (in case there would ultimately be a need for a signal at the location), or build it as already authorized in the contract. Steve Mullen, Transportation Engineer, said the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices establishes 11 warrants or guidelines for when a signal should be installed. A single warrant could justify a signal, and if two or more warrants are met, it is a good indication that a signal ought to go in. Canyon Drive and 94`h Avenue was assessed and analyzed using volume data for seven of the warrants, all of which were met. The location would also likely meet two more warrants, but all the data to reach that conclusion wasn't currently available. Canyon Drive is a significant non- motorized corridor for pedestrians, and the combination of volume and high-speed uphill and downhill traffic make it treacherous for pedestrians to cross safely. The combination of pedestrian safety and the fact the intersection met a lot of the warrants (one of which was accident history), made it apparent that the intersection did justify the need for a traffic signal. Mr. Mullen went on to say that adding a signal can sometimes significantly degrade traffic progression and cause difficulties that didn't previously exist. In this case, the signal would be far enough from both of the adjacent signals in either the uphill or downhill direction that it would not significantly degrade progression. A signal can also increase delay through the intersection,but in this case would only add some delay to those vehicles on Canyon Drive that have to stop, and would significantly reduce the delay for people on 94`h trying to turn onto Canyon Drive or people from Canyon Drive trying to turn left onto 90. In response to a question from Rico Yingling, Mr. Mullen said the signals could be operated in a traffic responsive mode if there was traffic on 90 Avenue that wanted to enter the intersection, and the progression along Canyon Drive would not be degraded. Public Works Committee,7/2/01 2 Adding a signal also could actually increase the number of collisions. Frequently there are more rear end accidents at freshly installed signals,but the severity of those collisions would be much less than the approach turn or the right angle access that is now experienced. Staff analyzed a three year accident history time frame that showed 20 collisions, eight of which were in a 12 month period, and the conclusion was that a signal was definitely a good choice, as five or more correctable accidents in a 12 month period is one of the warrants for a signal. Tom Brotherton said his major concern was traffic congestion and the plan to address it. The signal corrects many problems,but once a signal is put in, it can never be taken out. Until the traffic congestion plan is finished and it's known exactly what needs to be done, it would be hard to predict whether a signal at 94th and Canyon Drive would be a facility that the City would like to keep. Some of the warrants are correctable with other methods than a signal. The project has many facets like a bicycle lane and sidewalk improvements that could go ahead,but the traffic signal may not be warranted in the future plan. Mr. Brotherton suggested putting all the infrastructure in the ground when the pavement work is done,but delay the actual installation of above ground materials until there is certainty that it's the right thing to do and in the best interests of the City in terms of reducing traffic congestion and safety. Connie Epperly said she would like to see the left turn access blocked onto Canyon Drive because 248th is just a block before, and the majority of the people on 94th have always used 248th. She asked if the bus stop a block down by the apartments where all the crossings take place would be eliminated. Steve Mullen said that particular bus stop would be eliminated because a safe crossing would be provided at 94th. Rico Yingling asked if there was room for a buss pullout on Canyon Drive. Don Wickstrom said there wasn't because the guardrail was right up against the edge. Tom Brotherton suggested that Metro turn left on 94th to let people off, then go up to 248th to get back onto Kent Kangley. Tim Clark opposed that suggestion, saying that going up Canyon,the bus would have to make a left hand turn into what is already a congestion problem. If it was coming down Canyon, it would have to exit and then reenter. Tom Brotherton argued that going uphill would not be a problem because the only access to that section of the road is a full light at the top of the hill and there are regular, frequent,periodic breaks in traffic and never a long line in that left turn lane. He said he would like to see a traffic study of the car lengths accrued in the left turn lane to see how much delay there was. Tim Clark commented that he would like to see no left turn off of 94th onto Canyon Drive. Rico Yingling disagreed, saying it wasn't convenient to go to 248th,but his biggest concern was pedestrians. People have to cross the road to get to the bus stop on the other side. He related that he didn't want another stoplight,but this was a good example of where one was needed. Mr. Brotherton asked how many pedestrian accidents had occurred on Canyon Drive, and questioned whether a crossing would be used if people were used to crossing farther down the street. Mr. Yingling reminded him that the bus stop would be moved to the intersection, and added that the combination of the light and changing the bus stop would eliminate the pedestrian hazard. He said a light makes important traffic changes that are good and would not cause congestion in that area, adding that congestion occurs at bottlenecks such as Benson Road and Central Avenue. Tom Brotherton postulated that congestion was every unneeded stop a car had to make. Rico Yingling disagreed, saying that although a car may have to stop at 94th and Canyon Drive, it may not take longer to get through the City because the congestion and bottlenecks which are caused by the Public Works Committee,7/2/01 3 constraints in the system are at Benson and Central. Tom Brotherton affirmed that he would agree if a model showed that to be true. Don Wickstrom commented that 90, 249`h, and 100`h are adopted bicycle corridors;bicyclists go up Canyon Drive and across to 94`h. He added that there are three major items to the project: pedestrians, bicycles, and traffic safety. The whole plan is based on maximizing every mode of transportation(not just vehicles) and providing pedestrians a means for walking to work and getting people out of their cars. Connie Epperly commented that she would like a newspaper story on the proposal, and to see what the neighborhood had to say about the project because they would be the ones impacted. Connie Epperly moved to bid award for the infrastructure and preparation for-installation of the intersection signalization. The motion died for lack of a second. Rico Yingling declared he didn't want to postpone an important safety project waiting for a large traffic study. Tom Brotherton said he would like to hear from the people on whether they would use the signal crossing and whether they liked the idea. He would also like to hear any alternatives to a signal. Steve Mullen stressed that the transportation model had already been done and calibrated and volumes on either road would not change appreciatively if the signal was put in because there weren't a lot of other viable routes that were faster and better. The signal would not increase enough delay to that route to change the traffic patterns at all. Mr. Brotherton asked if the alternative had been looked at of making Canyon Drive a one way road. Don Wickstrom responded that Canyon Drive was a State route. Tim Clark questioned which of all the accidents were rear-end accidents caused by people going east uphill and coming west downhill (which would take out of the accident picture the left turn off of 94` ). Steve Mullen replied that of the 20 reported accidents, five were rear-end accidents that could have been caused by the car in front slowing down to turn and there not being a gap. At least four accidents were approach accidents,but the figures didn't detail how many were turning left off of 94`h or how many turning right off of 94`h. A car could make a right hand turn and get rear- ended, not because traffic was stopped at the signal, but because they didn't have an adequate gap. He offered that more assessment could be done as to the nature of the accidents. In answer to Tom Brotherton's question of how many pedestrian accidents there had been, Mr. Mullen said there had been one pedestrian/cyclist accident recorded over the three years of the study. Mr. Brotherton suggested a community meeting to see what people thought of the change, but Tim Clark contended he would rather go forward with the motion. Rico Yingling moved to recommend to full Council no change to the awarded contract with respect to the signal system. Tim Clark seconded the motion which passed 2-1. Connie Epperly voted no. Second Supply Agreement- Authorization Don Wickstrom said the Second Supply Project development of Tacoma's water right on the Green River is the only new water right in the Puget Sound Basin. The City of Kent has been working on the project for 20 years and in 1985 actually executed an agreement with Tacoma and the same Public Works Committee,7/2/01 4 other parties except Seattle. Over 20 years the project has evolved into a different project from what was originally conceived and right now is worth almost $270,000,000. About$70,000,000 is related to fish and wildlife enhancement and mitigation, and involves a pipeline that will carry 72,000,000 gallons a day from the Green River headworks by the Howard Hansen Dam for 34 miles into Tacoma. Another pipeline will go north about 8 miles along 164th all the way to Lake Youngs Reservoir,which is a Seattle connection. Modifications to the Howard Hansen Dam would create a state of the art fish passage. Right now the dam doesn't have a fish passage other than going through the outwater at the bottom of the dam. The new fish passage would be a very unique floatable structure that picks up the fish and takes them into a separate outlet and down to the lower part. The system has a very high survival rate. There is storage now for 25,000 acre feet of water at the dam which is enough water to supply Tacoma's first diversion water right. This project would raise that capacity another 20,000 acre feet during the summer by raising the storage behind the dam. Filling would start in April and be finished by June 15th for a total of 45,000 acre feet of water in storage. Kent's share for building the facilities is $28,000,000 and will result in 7,480,000 gallons of water a day from 2,200 acre feet of storage for peak summer water flow. There will also be the run of the river water as it's available when the river is above minimum stream flows. Any excess above minimum flows can be taken in an allotment up to 100 cubic feet per second, which is the water right for the second diversion. Because of the size of the project there will be large maintenance and operation costs of about $3,500,000 a year. Kent's share of the maintenance would be about $392,000 a year. The project life is 100 years and Kent will sit on a committee that will oversee future operation, any future construction, and the project's termination. Once the pipeline is built, it would take a unanimous vote of all the parties involved to terminate. One major piece of the pipeline, about 10 miles long, is now being built two miles downstream of the Green River headworks, and ends at Lake Sawyer. There will be a feed from there through the Covington Water District to Kent's system with the intent of buying water from Tacoma by 2002. Kent and Covington are building that segment of the main pipeline. An official ceremony will take place July 9th for Tacoma to sign the Habitat Conservation Plan for the project. The DOE Memo of Understanding on the water right issue has been signed (hopefully) and is circulating among all of the parties involved. The plan shows that Kent will have $10,000,000 to put down on its share of$28,000,000. $7,000,000 of the cash on hand was diverted to acquire Clark Lake and the Kent Station property with a three year loan,but a Public Works Trust Fund loan was acquired for$10,000,000, so there will be more than enough money for the down payment. Staff will apply for another$10,000,000 at the next legislative session. If that's received,there would be enough to potentially finance Kent's share of the project by adding the money already available and the existing loan. If Kent doesn't get the additional $10,000,000 loan, Tacoma would finance the project and Kent would pay the debt through Tacoma. In response to Rico Yingling's question of whether there was any money to help pay for the project that wasn't a loan or water grant,Don Wickstrom said that rates were increased at the end of 1999 to cover the project,but a lot of that money was put in system development costs and the revenues Public Works Committee,7/2/01 5 haven't been coming in like anticipated. So it's not known yet if there will be a rate increase necessary to help finance the project. The two loans together will come to about$1,000,000 in debt service,but in 2004 about$1,400,000 in debt service from fire bond issues will be taken off the books, so there may not be a need for more financing on this particular project. The project doesn't come on line until 2006, and until then the City will buy water(an additional charge that will be carried for the five year period). After that, the water from the facility is free and only the capital, operation, and maintenance costs will have to be paid. The Second Supply Agreement has been signed by Seattle and Covington Water Districts. Lakehaven has authorized the signing,but the Tacoma council hasn't approved the agreement yet as they have been dealing with the power issue. It's hoped Tacoma will have it signed in August. There have been a lot of hurdles to overcome and there are still some changes in the agreement in respect to the financing. Mr. Wickstrom said there would be no motion at this time so the Committee could read and refer to the document and then vote at the next meeting. Rico Yingling said he would like to get more information on the proposal for paying (once the financial information had been put together)to see whether it would look like there would be a need for higher rates. Don Wickstrom said it would be the first of next year before that information would be known. ESA—Best Management Practices Don Wickstrom said the ESA Best Management Practices affect only the Public Works Operations and most of them are being done now so there wasn't really any significant change in cost,but the practices needed to be formulized to show the policies. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained that various utility districts in Western Washington have been developing the Best Management Practices so there would be fewer impacts to the Endangered Species Chinook salmon and bull trout fish. Appendix A deals with ESA maintenance guidelines developed for street systems' maintenance and operation, and Exhibit B deals with water and sewer utility systems. The resolution also addresses the use of adapted management which recognizes that as the science develops in this part of the country to deal with fish, the practices will change in order to better serve the communities and better protect the threatened species. Mr. Brubaker explained that the resolution addressed the operation and maintenance procedures used by City staff on City operations, specifically streets, water, and sewer or wastewater systems. In response to Rico Yingling's question about the financial impact of applying the Best Management Practices, Public Works Environmental Engineering Manager Bill Wolinski said that, for the most part, the City was already doing the work and following the practices, so there shouldn't be any change in expense. The Best Management Practices mainly deal with aspects of operation and maintenance that might result in a discharge of material or polluted water to streams or the storm water system, and preventative measures of good housekeeping and erosion and sediment control and making sure there is no harm to the environment. Tom Brubaker said the practice of protecting the Chinook and bull trout is not the only additional measure the City has undertaken. It will also be developing BMP's for storm water systems, changes to the zoning code to deal with land use development impacts, and the way weed control is done through the Parks Department. Public Works Committee,7/2/01 6 Rico Yingling moved to recommend adoption by the full Council of the proposed resolution adopting Best Management Practices relating to maintenance of the City street and utility systems. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0 (with Councilmember Epperly's concurrence). Seattle 2001 Water Supply Agreement Don Wickstrom said the City was in a drought emergency. The flow into the 212th Street well has dropped substantially because of the constriction of the packing around the intake,but hopefully, that will be back online at the end of July. A deeper pocket has been located at Kent Springs and a new well is being drilled to give the City a longer production capability during the summer demand. The DOH is finalizing approval of that site so the new well will be in and operating by the middle of July. Interties will be used at Rock Creek and that,plus the conservation of restricting watering to odd/even days,will help meet the demand. Mr. Wickstrom said Lakehaven was the only place through which water was available. Auburn didn't have any available water as they had commitments to other communities. Kent previously had gotten water from Renton,who made a commitment for 2%2 million gallons a day through the 1 Oth of August(after that, the amount reduces to 1%2 million gallons). Staff has pursued other interties with Soos Creek Water District, Highline, and Tukwila, which are Seattle purveyors. In order to get water from one of Seattle's purveyors,there has to be an agreement with Seattle. They have 5 million gallons of water a day available,bringing water from Everett through various interties. Kent will take 2%Z million of that, 1'/2 million of which can flow through the existing Highline intertie and 1 million through the Soos Creek intertie. It will take $60,000-$85,000 to make all of the intertie changes from Everett to Kent. Paid upfront, the 21/2 million gallons per day is guaranteed; the City would pay the regular rates and then get a credit for everything bought against the upfront cash. Rico Yingling moved to recommend to full Council that the Mayor be authorized to execute a Water Purchase Agreement with Seattle subject to the concurrence with language,terms, and conditions thereof by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0 (with Councilmember Epperly's concurrence). Water Use Averaging in Multi Family Housing Sherwood Gordon, 6202 S 238th Place, Kent,recalled that on his last visit to the Committee he had identified the increasing practices of reselling public utility products and services to a select group of Kent residents,which was taking a publicly produced product and,without any additional investment of any kind, charging a different price for that product or service to a captured customer base. Mr. Gordon contended that that practice was scalping, and stated the Council was the appropriate group to consider fair and just treatment for all Kent residents relative to public works (although reselling may be legal since the Council had not declared it illegal). By maintaining silence and inaction,the Council accepts as fair and just that the City and its residents underwrite the use of Kent Public Utility assets and products to be scalped by a small group for personal profit, while the City must still maintain responsibility for the health and safety of the product. The City accepts as fair and just the legal discrimination of a select group of residents by accepting dual and different utility regulatory standards for the same class of residents Public Works Committee,7/2/01 7 (different ways to measure usage and different prices for the same product), and dual and different conservation practices for City residents (controlled usage for one group and unbridled usage by another group), and accepts the City's exposure to real, legal, and political challenges for splitting and authorizing two classes of Kent residents that are, in fact,the same. Mr. Gordon urged the Committee to set up a group to study the details behind the reselling of Kent utilities and to provide a recommended course of action that is fair to all parties. He volunteered his time for the study, saying that the issues that needed to be examined were whether anyone should profit from reselling public utilities where they have no investment, and use the residents and City investments to generate personal profit; whether legal discrimination was good for the City; and whether there should be different standards for equal and similar residents in the calculation of water usage, cost, or conservation techniques. Assistant City Attorney Brett Vinson said his research had discovered one city, the City of Grandview, that had an ordinance that required all residents to be separately metered: Chapter 1324 of the Water Service Regulations of the City of Grandview. However, the Grandview City Attorney wasn't aware of that particular chapter and the Grandview City Clerk said the chapter wasn't enforced. The definitions were unclear on whether or not it covered apartment complexes and condominiums, or if it was just referencing individual residential homes (which is the same as Kent's ordinance). Mr. Vinson said two acts from the state legislature have delved into the problem. The Mobile Home Tenant Act, RCW 59.20.07(6) specifically states that the landlord is prohibited from charging more than the exact cost of the utility plus necessary billing procedures or fees that may exist. The Landlord Tenant Act doesn't say anything to that effect,which makes it appear that the state legislature didn't feel they should place a prohibition on landlords for charging anything other than the exact cost. The City of Kent is a non-chartered code city and there are specific RCW's that the state legislature has enacted that govern the authority of the non-chartered cities,but that area hasn't been fully researched for all the possible legalities involved. Mr. Vinson shared that he had consulted with the permitting office to see if existing apartment complexes could be required to do a retrofitting of all units to have a separate City meter. A landlord would have to buy a separate water service permit for each unit at a cost of$1000 plus a meter of$100 (which cost the landlord probably would pass on to the tenants in their lease or rent). An option that Mr. Gordon had suggested would be a simple flow meter that is telephonic in nature where the billing agency could connect through a phone line to know the exact amount of water a particular tenant had used. The legal research has not been completed and those may be private property issues; the City may not legally be able to require all existing complexes to put in a separate meter. However, as a condition of a permit, the City may be able to require all new or future construction to be separately metered. Landlords could then look at that as a cost of construction. Rico Yingling stated that he did not see the issue to be that of a landlord making a gain on a certain utility. He claimed that when a person chooses to purchase into that kind of living arrangement, it is a contract for a certain life style and arrangement(which they know ahead of time) to accept things such as noise and the sharing of walls and utilities. Arrangement is made for a payment Public Works Committee,7/2/01 8 scheme,part of which is for the utilities, and it should not be suggested, after the fact, that it needs to change to make charges for water perfectly fair and not also include electricity,noise, shared walls, maintenance, or other costs. Some apartment people are higher maintenance than others but they all share in the cost of the maintenance of their building in the monthly payments they make. Water is not significantly different from all the other costs that people contract to pay when they choose that kind of living situation, and part of the cost of living in an apartment is that people pay for utilities that they may or may not use at any particular month. To try and separate all those issues in the payment scheme would be unrealistic. Mr. Gordon contended that there were lots of people who reside in the City of Kent who have to pay for utilities separately from their rental charges and there's no control of the cost of those utilities. They're billed by the owners at whatever rate and usage the owners choose. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker commented that the relationship between a landlord and a tenant is a lease, and a lease is a private contract. The contract establishes certain rights and obligations from the landlord to the tenant, and from the tenant to the landlord. One of those may be how utilities (power,water, and sewer) are paid. If the landlord chooses to change the terms of the lease, then the tenant can either agree to the amended terms or find another place to live, and may have an actual suit for breach of contract if the landlord summarily changes the terms before the agreement has expired. If a landlord were to charge $700 a month for the rental of an apartment and $300 a month for water, the market would control whether or not it was an appropriate charge. Mr. Gordon responded that he didn't believe the issue to be a landlord/tenant issue,but a Kent Public Works issue. There are people now paying for water they don't use, and there are people getting discounts for water they do use (which makes conservation a moot issue). The more water the people use,the less they pay, and they aren't told what the cost of the water will be when they sign the rental agreement; how much water is used is not put on the bill. The bills are for a set amount, and they come from out of state so there's nothing a person can do about them. Rico Yingling stated that it sounded like a business practices issue, not a water issue. Tom Brubaker said that if a landlord decided in the middle of a lease to start charging additional money for water, that may be an issue of breach of the lease agreement,but the City of Kent could not involve itself in a private dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Nor could that be regulated after the fact by telling landlords to retrofit their buildings. Mr. Yingling questioned whether the City could tell landlords to be fair in their utility billing practices, to which Mr. Brubaker responded that that would get into an issue of fairness. For example, if a landlord should install a metering system out of Colorado in all the apartments, he could then charge the tenant the exact same rate the City charges plus his"actual costs"to provide the metering, which could be in excess of the water used. But there may be a disagreement of what really constitutes the actual cost of metering the equipment because of the installation of the meter and the telemetry to get back to Colorado,plus staff time and the markup of office space. If the Council wanted to encourage fair and equal treatment, a policy recommendation could be made to require some sort of individual metering system for new development. Rico Yingling stated that all the systems in the apartment complex are owned by the landlord,not by the City, and when the water hits the meter, that was where the City's responsibility ended. Tom Brubaker confirmed that the City's rights stop at the water connection to the property. Mr. Gordon contended that the City was still responsible for the health and safety of the water,to which Mr. Public Works Committee,7/2/01 9 Brubaker responded that the City has a policy to provide a safe and adequate water supply and takes special care to make sure the system has complete integrity up to the meter. At that point, it's left to the real property owner to address how the water is conducted from the meter on and how the bills are paid. The King County Health Department ultimately has the responsibility for the health and safety of the water. Mr. Brubaker continued that landlords work at a competitive market and try to rent property at the lowest price they can. One of the ways they do that is to shift the price of water outside the monthly rent so they can advertise a lower rental rate. When a person signs the lease, it should say in the fine print that there is a separate charge for water use. The City of Kent has no regulatory authority over that. The City does control its water up to the meter where it feeds into the apartment building. Once the water hits the meter, it becomes the owner's responsibility from the meter on back into the structure,whether its an industrial building, a single family residence, or a multi family development. As to conservation, the landlord should want to encourage his tenants to conserve as he is the one responsible to make sure conservation occurs. If there should be a penalty or a surcharge for using water above a certain volume during a certain month of the year, that charge would go to the property owner who had the meter installed and he would have to pay the additional charge. Rico Yingling affirmed that it was the City's responsibility to make sure that quality water gets delivered to the meter, then it's up to the landowner to make sure that quality water gets delivered to the tenant and that they pay the City for the water that gets delivered to their meter. How they recover those costs is a contractual issue. There may be a way for the City to require by policy that the way the utilities are paid have to be spelled out in apartment rental agreements in large font and prominent enough that people understand, and that they have to include average costs. Tom Brubaker commented that the Federal Government had passed laws to make state disclaimers conspicuous but he wasn't sure whether the City of Kent would have the authority to control the size of the font on a contract. The City may want to consider reviewing its water billing practices as they affect multi family housing and whether there may be some equity constraints that could be placed there. Tim Clark related that water issues would continue to be a problem in the urbanized areas. He agreed to put the issue on the City's Legislative Program to have the state take a look at it. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary SPECIAL PARKS COMMITTEE June 18, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Tom Brotherton, Connie Epperly STAFF PRESENT: John Hodgson, Lori Flemm, Lori Hogan, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeff Barker The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 4:09 PM. Approval of Minutes of May 8. 2001 Committee Member Connie Epperly moved to approve the minutes of May 8, 2001. The motion was seconded by Chair Judy Woods and passed 2-0. Service Club Ballfield Donations—Accept and Amend Budget Parks Planning and Development Superintendent Lori Flemm reported that the Kent Lions Club donated$11,000 and Soroptimist International of Kent donated $3,500 toward the Service Club Ballfield Projects. Eight service clubs are raising $140,000 for the project. Connie Epperly moved to accept the $11,000 donation from the Kent Lions Club and the $3,500 donation from the Soroptimist Club and amend the Service Club Ballfield budget. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Fee-in-Lieu Budget Transfers—Approve Lori Flemm relayed that from January through March the City received$35,098.27 from three subdivisions who paid a fee-in-lieu of dedicating parkland. The money will be dedicated to three accounts: ♦ Emerald Ridge Subdivision $15,150.00 (Clark Lake Park Acquisition) ♦ Pacific Parks Subdivision $ 5,500.31 (Service Club Ballfield Acquisition/Development) ♦ Burkhardt Heights Subdivision $14,447.96 The funds are to be used at a park close to the subdivision. The City has five years to spend the funds that are collected. Tom Brotherton moved to accept the fee-in-lieu funds totaling$35,098.27 and amend the Clark Lake and Service Club Ballfield budgets. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Surplus Haak House—Approve is Lori Flemm said that the 1.82 acre property located at the southwest corner of 240th and 116'h was acquired in May from former owner Mr. Haak. The older single family house on the site would be Parks Committee,6/18/01 2 put out to bid and then moved off site. Ms. Flemm said there had been some interest expressed in the home by citizens in the area. In response to Connie Epperly's question about salvaging wood from a shed on the property, Ms. Flemm said the wood may be salvaged to use for bird house construction in the "Homes for Birds" project which is held every February with elementary school kids. Connie Epperly moved to approve designating the City-owned house at 11525 SE 2401h Street as surplus. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. King County Work Training Program Grant—Accept and Amend Budget Recreation and Cultural Services Superintendent Lori Hogan said that King County Community Services had once again awarded the City of Kent a Work Training Program Grant in the amount of$20,020 to fund the Youth/Teen Work Training Program. This year, 38 students ages 14-16 will be incorporated into the program and will do a variety of projects such as trail restoration, general park clean up, working at the pea patch, etc. The program is in conjunction with the Kent School District to lend an educational element to the actual activities. There will be a half day of education and a half day working on programs in the field. Tom Brotherton suggested having a program for after school hours instead of weekends in order to take care of Latch Key kids. Lori Hogan said that some after school programming is done now, primarily with the younger age kids, and the Lighthouse project does later evening programs. Currently, there is also a work training, after school Internship Program that's coordinated through Youth and Teen Programming where many of the students are put to work in various departments across the City and other private agencies to learn various skills and receive a jump start to their work careers. Parks Director John Hodgson commented that the program had been very successful and two or three former students that were interns with the City are now fulltime employees. Mr. Brotherton advised that a report would be worth sharing with the citizens on how the programs work and their successes. Tom Brotherton moved to accept the King County Work Training Program Grant in the amount of$20,020 and amend the Youth/Teen Year Round In-School Project. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Judy Woods brought up the subject of the Pea Patch, commenting it had been prohibitively fenced with wire, and questioned if there had been a lot of vandalism on the site. Lori Hogan said the Pea Patch was started with a very open concept, but did experience vandalism. Fencing seemed to be a last resort, but the positive thing is that the site has been very well preserved and the gardeners are now happily gardening without incident. The meeting was adjourned at 4:22 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTIBMD COMM=ChT,;,4Mi IS r,! a; i r b 3 � . 1 � f {i r ' _ t r ,g• is y!��.;5, 44 iF tPPIVE SFsS$I0]4 �� �;• !� A) Interim Cou cil !C; didates h B) Property Acquisit,�-,on t r , Z i ,i t I, ` t } • Fy r � C ar [ t al J