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 - 09/03/2002
4 Cloty of Ken' 't" aty ounce ing Agenda , i KENO , W A S H I N G T O N Mayor Jim White r s Councilmembers Judy- Woods, Council President Tim Clark Julie Peterson f Connie Epperly Bruce White Leona Orr RicoYingl;ing September 3, 2002' : s Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KENT September 3, 2002 WASHINGTON Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Tim Clark Connie Epperly Leona Orr Julie Peterson Bruce White Rico Yingling ********************************************************************************* 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Introduction of Exchange Students to China B. Employee of the Month C. Introduction of Appointee 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Vacation, Portion of Smith and Thompson Streets—Continued Hearing 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills—Approval C. Washington State Liquor Control Board "Reduce Under Age Drinking" Grant Revision—Accept and Amend Budget D. King County Countywide Planning Policy Amendments Resolution—Ratify E. 2002 First Half Budget Adjustments Ordinance—Adopt F. Washington State Department of Transportation Agreement, SR 167/S. 277th Northbound On and Off Ramps—Authorize G. Local Improvement District 352, S. Kent Storm Sewers (1st, 3rd and 5th Avenues South,North of S. 259th Street), Set Public Hearing Date for Confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll for October 15, 2002—Approve H. Local Improvement District 354, Washington Avenue High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements (Hawley Road to James Street and 64th Avenue to Washington Avenue), Set Public Hearing Date for Confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll for October 1,2002 —Approve 1. Mill Creek Relief System Agreement Amendment—Authorize J. Department of Ecology Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Grant Agreement—Authorize, Accept and Establish Budget K. Drinking Driver Task Force Appointee—Confirm 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Circle K Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repairs (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 8. BIDS A. Riverbend Driving Range Pole Replacement 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Pending Litigation 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library. 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. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) INTRODUCTION OF EXCHANGE STUDENTS TO CHINA B) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEE v d"CL' Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION, PORTION OF SMITH AND THOMPSON STREETS—CONTINUATION (STV-2002-3) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution No. 1622 established August 20, 2002, as the public hearing date for the application by Still Manor Kent, LLC, to vacate a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Avenue. The hearing was continued to this date. A staff report recommending approval is included in the Council's packet. 3. EXHIBITS: Revised Staff report dated 8/27/02 and map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember W16 moves, Councilmember &W seconds to close the public hearing. �f YI(2-- B. Councilmember &,vv moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/ ' the staff s recommendation of approval of the applica- tion to vacate a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Avenue, as referenced in Resolution No. 1622, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon timely compliance with the conditions of approval, 60 � Gd-n&-t�� Wiq a v ,,M&,d +kA,3 to iPj-V lk-f 4A1,0'✓l a&,Lr- DISCUSSION: ACTION: 7y) c W/L'Q,a j q+bae- Council Agenda Item No. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 27, 2002 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF SMITH STREET AND THOMPSON STREET #STV-2002-3 (KIVA#2021891) Hearing Date: August 20, 2002, Continued to September 3, 2002 Recommendation: APPROVAL,WITH CONDITIONS (Revised 8/27/02) I. Name of&12licant Mr. John Still Still Manor Kent, LLC 320 Washington Avenue North Kent, WA 98032 II. Reason for Requesting Street Vacation The applicant requests the vacation in order to facilitate development of his site. III. Back rg ound The applicant proposes to vacate a portion of Smith Street and a portion of Thompson Avenue, both of which are open for public use and maintained by the City. An 8-inch diameter City sewer main exists within that portion of Smith Street that is proposed to be vacated. The sewer main provides service to the properties requesting this vacation. A 6-inch diameter water line exists within both Smith Street and Thompson Avenue. Like the sewer main, the water main provides service to the properties requesting this vacation. More importantly, however, said mains are part of the City's looped network system for the area, ensuring that fire flow capacity is there and available when needed. Because Smith Street and Thompson Avenue are open public streets, properties along their frontages presently enjoy access from either Washington Avenue or Meeker Street. Were this proposed vacation approved, access to properties fronting on Smith Street would be restricted to only Washington Avenue. Washington Avenue is a principal #STV-2002-3 (KIVA#2021891) Staff Report Page 2 arterial and has an average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles. The intersection of Smith Street and Washington Avenue is not signalized. During the evening peak hour it is not unusual for traffic on Washington Avenue to be backed up beyond James Street. To force the properties fronting on Smith Street to only access off Washington Avenue increases the congestion on Washington Avenue and increases the risks to motorists. Furthermore, Washington Avenue between Meeker and James Streets, and Meeker Street between Lincoln and Washington Avenues, have limited detour routes available to them. Should an accident, incident or natural event (e.g., earthquake or storm-caused power outage) occur that impairs the usability of the Washington Avenue and Meeker Street intersection, or the Washington Avenue approach from Smith Street, or the Meeker Street approach from Lincoln Ave without the Smith Street/Thompson Avenue connection, there isn't a viable by-pass route. This area is limited with respect to connecting streets. Connectivity has been and is a significant issue with the City Council. As a result, staff now specifically reviews new developments and redevelopments with respect to connectivity. Were this proposed street vacation approved as presented, it runs counter to that direction. The proposed street vacation, as presented, provides no cul-de-sac turnarounds for the ends of what would become dead-end streets. Were the City in support of this vacation and because the petitioner is requesting vacation of existing streets, the City would normally require the petitioner to deed to the City the necessary off-site right of way for said cul-de-sac turnaround and to construct same. It should be noted that the additional property associated therewith, plus the construction thereof, probably would be no more expensive than moving Thompson Avenue to the westerly side of the petitioner's property and extending it through to Harrison Street from Smith Street, which is the staff s preference for approving this vacation. Were that to occur, staff could support this proposed street vacation as the issues of access, safety and connectivity would be addressed. Qwest Corporation has telecommunication facilities on those portions of Smith Street and Thompson Avenue within the proposed vacation area. Were the request for vacation approved, Qwest will require an easement to cover these facilities. IV. Staff Recommendation Staff notified the following departments and agencies of this proposed street vacation. ■ Public Works Department ■ Police ■ Parks, Recreation and Community Services ■ Fire and Life Safety ■ Puget Sound Energy ■ Qwest ■ Department of Transportation #STV-2002-3 (KIVA#2021891) Staff Report Page 3 ■ METRO Transit Division After a review of the comments received, the Planning Services Office recommends that the request to vacate portions of Smith Street and Thompson Avenue, as described in Resolution #1622 and as shown on the accompanying map, be APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) The Applicant/Owner shall compensate the City in US currency for the full value of the right of way being vacated. Monies received therefrom shall go into the school pedestrian walkway fund (R20036) 2) The City retains easement rights over, under and upon said property to be vacated for its public utilities (storm drainage, sewer, and water) that therein either presently exist or may exist in the future, or the Applicant/Owner shall relocate the public utilities as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 3) The City retains easement rights along with the rights to assign same to any private or quasi private company such as power, gas, cable, telephone and so forth that has existing utilities/facilities over, under and upon said property to be vacated, or the Applicant/Owner shall relocate the utilities/facilities as otherwise approved by the respective utility/facility provider. 4) The Applicant/Owner shall move Thompson Avenue to the westerly side of the petitioner's property, acquire, if necessary, the additional property to extend it through to Harrison Street from Smith Street, and deed all required properties to the City. This shall include any right of way needed to construct curb returns with abutting sidewalks to City standards at all street intersections. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of any building permits on the subject property, the petitioner shall construct the relocated Thompson Avenue to modified City standards to include a minimum 24 feet of asphalt pavement from face of curb to face of curb, curb and gutter on both sides of the street, five-foot-wide sidewalks on one side, storm drainage facilities, street lighting, underground utilities, and related appurtenances. The square footage of property deeded to the City for this relocated Thompson Avenue shall be deducted from the amount of City right of way being vacated with the petitioner just compensating the City for the difference. Should the new right of way exceed that being vacated, then no compensation for the vacated right of way would be required. CA:S:\Permit\Plan\vacations\2002\2 021891-2002-3b.doc Enclosure—Map CC. John Still Jerry McCaughan,Property Manager 6. City Council Action: CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember P"� moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through K. Discussion l Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 20, 2002. 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through August 15 and paid on August 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 21, 2002. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/15/02 Wire Transfers 1236-1244 $ 999,664.33 8/15/02 Prepays & 537212 348,266.90 8/15/02 Regular 537864 $2,214,114.30 $3,562,045.53 Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 1 through August 15 and paid on August 20, 2002: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/20/02 Checks 262572-262922 $ 327,944.10 8/20/02 Advices 133188-13408 $1,324,018.26 $1,651,962.36 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B • WA EN ON W A S H I N G T O N Kent, Washington August 20, 2002 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Councilmembers present: Clark, Epperly, Orr, Peterson, White, and Yingling. Others present: Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Brubaker, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Community Development Director Satterstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Schneider, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Hodgson, and Finance Director Miller. Councilmember Woods was excused. Approximately 30 people were in attendance. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Clark added Item 8B, and Martin noted an executive session regarding pending litigation. Continued Communications Item 11A was added at the request of Ted Kogita. (CFN-198) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of Appointees. Mayor White welcomed new Drinking Driver Task Force appointees Ron Harmon and Becky Hanks and introduced those in attendance. (CFN-122) Introduction of Chinese Exchange Students . Jane Qualman introduced students Rachael and Rick, who have been visiting Kent as part of the Kent Yangzhou Sister City Student Exchange Program. The students spoke about their experiences here, and Mayor White noted that this type of experience helps in world understanding. (CFN-198) Kent Crusaders Rugby Club. Mayor White read a pro- clamation noting that the Kent Crusaders Rugby Football Club fields two boys teams and two girls teams, almost 100 players from junior and senior high schools in the Kent and Tahoma School Districts, and that the 2002 season was a banner year with undefeated regular seasons, Pacific Northwest championships, and successful performances at their respective National Championships . He presented the proclamation to Club President Brian Newell, who introduced representatives from the club, and thanked the Mayor for this recognition. (CFN-155) ICMA Center for Performance Measurement Certificate of Distinction. Mayor White noted that for more than three years, the City of Kent has been working diligently to • implement a system of performance measures that provide valuable management information and demonstrate accounta- bility to its citizens . Dave Childs, ICMA West Coast 1 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Regional Director, explained a program called Resource Cities which involves a team of 6-8 senior management officials and local elected officials connecting with communities in a Third World country by means of an 18- month exchange, and urged the City of Kent to consider participating. He then explained the function of the Center for Performance Measurement and presented the City with a Certificate of Distinction, noting that it demonstrates extra proficiency in putting together the performance measures . (CFN-198) Kent Fire Department 2001 Annual Report. Fire Chief Jim Schneider distributed copies of the Annual Report for 2001 and went through the document explaining data on the number of emergency responses, when most incidents occur, new construction plans reviews and inspections, public education, training, and equipment. (CFN-122) CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through M. Peterson seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) (CFN-198) Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 6, 2002 . BILLS OF SALE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) (CFN-484) South County Journal Bill of Sale. Accept the Bill of Sale submitted by Northwest Media (Washington) L. P. for continuous operation and maintenance of 8 feet of watermain and 225 feet of street improvements on South County Journal property, as recommended by the Public Works Director . Bonds are to be released after the maintenance period. This project is located at 600 Washington Avenue . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) (CFN-484) Bayview Townhomes Bill of Sale. Accept the Bill of Sale submitted by Bayview, L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 2, 621 feet of watermain and 2, 002 feet of sanitary sewers on the Bayview Townhomes site, as recom- mended by the Public Works Director. Bonds are to be 2 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 BILLS OF SALE released after the maintenance period. This project is located at S . 228th Street and Lakeside Boulevard East. STREET VACATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) (CFN-102) Street Vacation, Portion of Smith and Thompson Streets. Resolution No. 1622 established today as the date for the public hearing on the application by Still Manor Kent, LLC, to vacate a portion of Smith Street and Thompson Avenue . Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, explained that the applicant has requested that the hearing be continued to September 3, 2002 . Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience. ORR MOVED to continue the public hearing to the regular Council meeting of September 3, 2002 . Clark seconded, and the motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (CFN-1038) Joint Trench Agreements, AT&T Broadband and Qwest. Authorization for the Mayor to sign two joint trench agreements, one with AT&T Broadband and the other with Qwest, for the purposes of constructing a joint trench to include the City, Qwest, AT&T and PSE facilities on 4th Avenue from north of Smith Street to James Street, (boring under James St. for PSE and AT&T facilities) and on 1st Ave . from Temperance St. to James St. , as recommended by the Public Works Committee . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) (CFN-171) S. 196th/200th Street West Leg King County Agreement, Supplement No. 5. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Agreement - Supplement No . 5 in the amount of $20, 000 . 00 for minor modifications to the wetland mitigation site, subject to the City Attorney and Public Works Director concurrence of the language therein, and to amend the budget, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . (BIDS - ITEM 8A) (CFN-1038) 104th Avenue SE Schedules I, II and III . The bid open- ing for this project was held on August 7th with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by Rodarte 3 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 PUBLIC WORKS Construction Inc. in the amount of $655, 824 . 00 . The Engineer' s estimate was $584, 784 . 50 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding Schedules I, II, and III of this contract to Rodarte Construction Inc. CLARK MOVED that the 104th Avenue SE Schedules I, II, and III of this contract be awarded to Rodarte Construction Inc. Yingling seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 8B) (CFN-1038) (ADDED ITEM) Sewer Project Bid Award. Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that the sewer line servicing the Circle K Mobile Home Park is failing and that it had been incorporated into a bid for other minor sewer improvements which opens on August 23. He recommended that the Mayor be authorized to award the bid subject to the Public Works Director' s concurrence with the bid. CLARK MOVED to authorize the Mayor to award the construction contract for any or all schedules or combination thereof to the lowest responsible bidder upon concurrence by the Public Works Director for the sewer project titled "Schedule I S. 212th Street sanitary sewer, Schedule II Del Webb sanitary sewer project number 97-3005, Schedule III Steiner sanitary sewer project number 01-3017, and Schedule IV Circle K mobile home park sanitary sewer. Yingling seconded and the motion carried. LID (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) (CFN-1269) LID 353, S. 228th Street Extension. Passage of Resolution No. 1626 setting a public hearing date of September 17, 2002 for the LID formation, as recommended by Public Works Committee . KENT STATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) (CFN-171) Kent Station Infrastructure Grant. As recommended by the Public Works Committee, accept, authorize the Mayor to sign the Kent Station Infrastructure Grant for the purpose of providing the City with funds appropriated under the Job Creation and Infrastructure Program solely and specifically for the Kent Station infrastructure improvements project, and amend the budget . 4 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) (CFN-122) U.S. Department of Justice Grant Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Accept the equipment received from the King County Office of Emergency Management, as provided by the Local Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program Project, and authorize the Mayor to sign both the Certification and Assurances Document and the Distribution Agreement. The purpose of the grant is to purchase equipment to ensure that the nation' s state and local emergency responders are able to properly respond to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. The equipment is considered part of the mutual aid resources available under the mutual aid agreements already in place among fire, EMS, hazardous materials service providers and law enforcement. DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) (CFN-122) Drinking Driver Task Force Appointments. Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Ron Harmon to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Mr. Harmon will replace Kevin Ruoff, who resigned. He will serve until 1/l/2006. Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Becky Hanks as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force . She will replace Gwen Dupree and will serve until 1/1/2006. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) (CFN-104) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through July 31 and paid on July 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on August 6, 2002 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/31/02 Wire Transfers 1226-1235 $ 943, 217 . 95 7/31/02 Prepays 536330 2, 051, 507 . 11 W31/02 Regular 537211 3, 669, 542 . 12 $6, 664, 267 . 18 5 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll for July 1 through July 15 and paid on July 19, 2002 : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/19/02 Checks 261819-262197 $ 311, 177 . 44 7/19/02 Advices 131756-132448 1, 194, 498 .25 $1, 505, 675. 69 Approval of checks issued for payroll for July 16 through July 31 and paid on August 5, 2002 : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/5/02 Checks 262198-262571 $ 299, 224 . 71 8/5/02 Advices 132449-133187 1, 115, 680 . 64 $1, 414, 905. 35 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) (CFN-186) 2003 Budget. Set September 17, 2002 as the first public hearing on the 2003 Budget. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) (CFN-775) Capital Improvement Plan 2003-2008 . Set September 17, 2002 as the public hearing for the Capital Improvement Plan 2003-2008 . COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) (CFN-198) Excused Absence For Council President Woods . Approval of Council President Judy Woods ' request for an excused absence from the August 20, 2002, City Council meeting, as she will be unable to attend. REPORTS Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the first meeting of the month has been cancelled due to the holiday. (CFN-198) Planning Committee. Orr noted that the next meeting will be held at 3 : 00 p.m. on September 17 . (CFN-198) Administrative Reports. Martin reminded Council members of a ten minute executive session relating to pending litigation, and noted that no action is anticipated. (CFN-198) 6 Kent City Council Minutes August 20, 2002 MOBILE HOME PARK (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A) (CFN-198) Mobile Home Park. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, asked when the City would help the people being evicted from their mobile home park. Mayor White explained that the City cannot provide funding, but has worked with each of the individuals to help them find other places to live. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 7 : 37 p.m. At 8 : 06 p.m. , the regular meeting reconvened and no action was taken on the pending litigation item. (CFN-198) ADJOURNMENT At 8 : 06 p.m. , ORR MOVED to adjourn. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober CMC City Clerk 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD "REDUCE UNDER AGE DRINKING" GRANT REVISION—ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of an additional $8,300.00 per Contract Amendment No. 1 to the WSLCB Agency Contract No. 03-060-0025, and authorization to amend the budget. The additional funds have been authorized for use in the current RUAD (Reduce Underage Drinking) grant. The funds will be used to buy RUAD advertising messages in local movie theaters. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo dated 8/2/02 from Nancy Mathews; copy of contract amendment and copy of Cinema Screen Media documents 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 8/13/02 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C MEMORANDUM TO: Captain Rufener cc: Lt Weissich Jo Thompson Mary Ann Kern Sara Grant Stacy Judd FROM: Nancy Mathews SUBJECT: Additional RUAD Funds DATE: August 2, 2002 The Washington Liquor Control Board has authorized additional funds for the current RUAD (underage drinking grant) in the amount of$8,300 for the Police Department to buy RUAD advertising messages in local movie theaters. Final payment must be made by September 30, 2002. A Kent youth message, developed by city graphics, will appear in the Kent 6, Auburn 17 and East Valley 13 theaters for 18 weeks, beginning early in September. Requested Public Safety/Council Action Accept a RUAD grant revision in the additional amount of$8,300 for approved activity; authorize the Chief to sign the revised contract and to adjust the budget. Public Safety Action STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD 3000 Pacift Avenue SE •PO Box 43076 •Olympia WA 98504-3076 •(360) 664-1717 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGENCY CONTRACT NO. 03-060-0025 PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. F2150 F000 5999 03 The contract between the Washington State Liquor Control Board and the Kent Police Department's Drinking Driver Task Force is amended as follows: 1. Section 3, Budget Summary The Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse and the Washington State Liquor Control Board awards an additional$8,300 to be used toward reducing underage drinking in the State of Washington. The attached budget summary will provide detail. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the AGENCY and the CONTRACTOR have signed this contract. e=::Z Z4 - Kent Police Department Washington State Liquor Control Board Nancy Lin, Accounting Manager Date Date 214- 474 � I • Washi gto to Liquor Con of Board Was ngton atqLUiq Control Bo —cl)- Rex Prout,Assistant Chief Enforcement Letty gendez, RUAD Coordinator :z/a Date Date Form approved by Kim O'Neal,Asst.Attorney General AMENDMENT#2 1 Washington State Liquor Control Board Division of Enforcement and Education -Project Agreement Section 3 Budget Summary Budget: Kent Police Department (If applicable) WSLCB Costs Applicant Matching or Contributing Cost 1. Salaries and Wages: $ 5,832 $ 70,129 2. Employee Benefits: $ 874 $ 15,798 3. Travel and Subsistence: $ 3,200 $ 400 4. Contractual Services: $ 27,800 $ 20,512 5. Equipment: $ 800 $ 948 6. Goods and Services: $ 6,862 $ 28,813 7. Total lines1-6 (Amount Requested from WSLCB) $45,368 WSLCB Agent $ 8,274 Total = $ 53,642 8. Total lines 1-6 (Amount provided by applicant) $ 136,600 Total Project Cost (Add lines 7 & 8): $ 190.242 WSLCB Use Only Cost Sharing Matching Share:E-Yes :]No (Washington State Liquor Control Board use only) Share Amount Percent Applies To: Federal: $ State: State: $ Local: Political Subdivision: $ Total Estimated Cost: $ 7/29/2002 Kent Police Dcpartmcnt • 220 4"Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 flacmuletktal Toc Gary Thacket&O Fain: 360-W-0501 From: Saga Gmnt/Kent Police Mum- 253.856.5951 Re: RUAD Activity Application Pages 4 Date: July 22,2002 . . . . . . . . . . Gary, Here is the request for our use of the addf8onal ROAD grant funds.We would use the money(appm h►$8300 or up tO$8000)for a media campaign In movie theabera around South King County.As you can we on the proposal attached,the Mal audience reached is estimated at 54,000(per week).The funds would be used for tie advdttsanerlts in three different movie theaters and would run V I8- weda in each theater.The RUAD messages►ads wit be provided to us by RASA. In order to meet the timeline to begin airing the ads at the end of August,a down payment must be to Cinema Screen Media by August 1,2002.If our request is approved,we would appteaate a written approval and permission th use the Ponds for this project prior to that date to process a purchase order for down payrnerd.If you have any questions regarding this i lmnabon,please do no hesitate to oortad me. ' Thanks Gary, Sara Grant Kent Police 100 'd i089 40 �97: la,l. ►M WIN 101 ACM lunial;n 7;- '91P Additional RUAD Activity Application IM Discretionary Gr gat Indicate the activity with a check madx and provide dollars need and a timeiaoe. The timeline must have a completion date of September 30,2002 or the request will not be accepted. Corn:nualty: Kent Police department Ac" T e Dollwx Needed Timeline Enforcement Activity Cornpliana Chaab Keg Busters Party Pattvls Media r amnaium RUAD Messages/Ad RAdio Ads in movie theater on cinema screen Will use slides NewspaperAds provided by DASA (See attached Movie Screens Education abo t ds wi11 run cost proposal) Billboard Ads RUAD through $8300 or 18-weeks .23 City Bus Ads For contract execution purposes this form require tyre Mpawre of the RUAD coamruttity coordinaWr. If law eaibrcem ant is involved a sipat:rre from,the law enforeeatent partner is required. Media carnpaipts do not require additional sigiaantres. After the request has been reviewed and approved by the State RUAD Management Team on official revision to the community's congest will be completed.- - - ----- - S RUAD Coommity Coordinator Law Enforcement Partner Date: •7-a.2•0 Z- Date: ❑Our community does not wish to request additional funds for the special emphasis activity. Reason: ee to have fuhds paid in full by August 31, 2002..Deposit will be a •purchase order-to hoU prir-p-quotes and reservation. This is needed by August 1, 2002. If approved, a written permission is requested to pay deposit ($2430). Although ads will run for 18-weeks, payment will be process prior to the September 30th completion date. FP011 COLLEEN LANCE ER FAx NO. : 2539758556 :ul. :�+ M2 11:33PM P1 + CINEMA tic SCHiN MEDIAlow- PrOPOSal for On-Screen Advertising Kent Police Department J 03, 16,2001 �1C8�TE Nurabes pf Scr�9 Auburn Cinemas 17 Post-n•Fax Note 7071 °ne r1.11A.-VIL 0avo1s a_ East Valley 13 To Poem Col". co, G.S.m . Kent Cinemas 06 ; p�«�� ROM"PS3B�S$SW 18 week flight Total Screens 36 Gross Impressions 2049120 Av. Wkly Attendance 54,000 S450/week x 18 weeks= 8,100.00 Production = 223.00 Below-non•pro#lt rates granted (to fit within $8k budget) _ S 12:50/screen/week valid for July close only. After July, weekly rates resume to initial quote of$18/screen/week- (For-profit rates are $25/screen/wcck) FYI: By closing in August and forfeiting a theatre, i.e. East Valley 13, the cost savings compared to the exposure/market loss is not at all favorable. *You'll be saving only $648, yct losing 18 weeks in the Renton market and 73,710 impressions. t00 A 1089 9S8 £Si131 1430 MIDd IN31 00*.60 10170 ,ZZ- Ile r?OM COLLEEN LANCASTER FAX NO. 2538758556 ...1_ i6 2002 11:3dPM P2 So, if there is anything I can do to help expedite things, please let me know. As 1 mentioned, we will accept a purchase order for the down payment, so that is easily taken care of. That; then, leaves the production, but you've indicated that there is already a slide prepared that you'll be utilizing—but t still have to make sure our spec sheet was givenY- I can come pick things up or eve can transit them through FedEx- whichever is more expeditious once the time comes. If only t weren't leaving at the end of the month! If you like, I will prepare the contract and send it off to you tomorrow. please give me a call with any questions or concerns. Thanks muchl Sin Iy, a 06 � Col Lan ter Cinema Screen Media, Inc. 253 8753554 i,nn 7noo 000 ce7•n1l ljon II)MAJ luau nn:An IMAW17n »_ Inr Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY AMENDMENTS —RATIFY 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Planning Committee of August 20, 2002, passage of Resolution No. which ratifies the King County Countywide Planning Policy Amendments. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo dated 8/27/02; resolution; and King County Ordinances Nos. 2002-0131, 2002-0132, and 2002-0133 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINOTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 263-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 August 27, 2002 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS,AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE: KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY AMENDMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Planning Committee Recommendation At their August 20, 2002 meeting, the Planning Committee recommended ratification of the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies. A resolution to that effect is attached. Background On June 17, 2002, the King County Council approved and ratified amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), as developed by the Growth Management Planning Council, on behalf of unincorporated King County. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on September 15, 1992, with Resolution No. 1326 and ratified Phase II amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on November 16, 1994. Amendments King County Ordinances No. 2002-0131, 2002-0132, and 2002-0133 (see attached) ratified three motions as proposed by the Growth Management Planning Council: • Substitute Motion 00-3: recommends amending the Urban Growth Boundary map to reflect land use map amendments adopted during the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting 9/3/02 Page 2 of 2 Update. None of the map amendments affect areas within the City of Kent or its Potential Annexation Area. According to Substitute Motion No. 00-3, the proposed amendments appear to have the concurrence of the affected jurisdictions. • Motion 01-3: recommends amending the CPPs and the Urban Growth Area to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning area in support of the Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative. According to Motion No. 01-3, the proposed amendment resulted from a joint planning effort between King County and the City of Snoqualmie. • Substitute Motion 00-1: recommends adding maps of existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. The maps reflect the Urban Separator designations approved by the City in March, 2001. Staff first presented the County's proposal for a map at the July 2, 2001 Planning Committee meeting. The proposed maps recognize the areas where there will be additional discussion and negotiation with the Cities of Auburn and Renton. Approval process The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution of at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County. Based upon the King County Council approval date of June 17, 2002, the 90-day deadline for action will be September 16,2002. CA:\\MS\SDATA\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2002\cpp-cc.doc Enc: Resolution and King County Ordinances No.2002-0131,0132&0133 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent, Washington,ratifying the King County Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to the Growth Management Act. WHEREAS,the Growth Management Act(RCW 36.70A.210)requires the adoption of Countywide Planning Policies by the legislative authority of King County, and that said policies are to provide a countywide framework from which local comprehensive plans are to be developed; and WHEREAS,Kin County,the City of Seattle,and the incorporated suburban g ty IP cities and towns in King County established a process for the development, adoption, and ratification of Countywide Planning Policies by an interlocal agreement, which was approved by the City of Kent, and that said interlocal agreement established the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a group consisting of elected officials from King County, suburban cities, and the City of Seattle, who were authorized to develop a set of recommended countywide planning policies for consideration by the King County Council; and WHEREAS,the GMPC recommended a set of Countywide Planning Polices to the King County Council that were adopted pursuant to its Ordinance No. 10450 on July 6, 1992, as required by RCW 36.70A.210; and which furthermore were ratified by the Kent City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 1326 on September 15, 1992; and 1 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments-Radfy WHEREAS, King County has adopted and the City of Kent has ratified Phase I and Phase II of the Countywide Planning Policies, including amendments ratified pursuant to City of Kent Resolution Nos. 1413, 1459, 1484, and 1573; and WHEREAS, the GMPC met on the dates specified below and voted to pass additional amendments to accomplish the following: 1. On September 27, 2000,to amend the Urban Growth Boundary map to reflect land use map amendments adopted during the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan update; 2. On October 24, 2001, to amend the Countywide Planning Policies and the Urban Growth Area to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning area in support of the Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative; 3. On December 11, 2001,to add maps of existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies; and WHEREAS, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf of King County on June 17, 2002, pursuant to King County Ordinances 2002-0131, 2002-0132, and 2002-0133; and WHEREAS,the Kent Planning Committee reviewed these amendments at its meeting on August 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Committee recommended that the City Council ratify the County's amendments to the Countywide Planning Polices, the Urban Growth Boundary map, and the Urban Growth Area; NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 2 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments-Ratify SECTION L The City of Kent,acting pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement among King County,the City of Seattle,and incorporated suburban cities,hereby ratifies the proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Polices, the Urban Growth Boundary map, and the Urban Growth Area as adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council pursuant to King County Ordinances 2002-0131, 2002-0132, and 2002-0133, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, the Urban Growth Boundary map,and the Urban Growth Area adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the Planning Services office and made available for public inspection. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington this day of , 2002. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 2002. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 3 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments-Ratify 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 12002. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER,CITY CLERK P CtvtlUtaolution\CountywtdePlamtmgPohcy-Ratify doc 4 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments-Ratify • EXHIBIT "A" • • KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Signature Report June 18, 2002 Ordinance 14390 dent C1t u,horn v Proposed No. 2002-0131.1 Sponsors Hague '�•-_.•-- 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies amending the urban growth 3 area of King County to reflect site specific land use map 4 amendments adopted during the 2000 comprehensive plan 5 update;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning 6 Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending 7 Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 8 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, 9 and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 10 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings. 14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 16 Policies(Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. 1 Ordinance 14390 17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15 1994 under Ordinance yam' g g , 19 11446. 20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 27, 2000, and 21 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 22 Policies [5/25/94], amending the urban growth area boundary to reflect site specific land 23 use map amendments initiated by King County during the 2000 King County 24 comprehensive plan update. 25 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3,as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 26 each hereby amended to read as follows: 27 Phase H. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide 28 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. W29 B. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 30 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 31 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 32 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. 33 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 34 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 35 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 36 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 37 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 38 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 2 Ordinance 14390 39 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 40 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance. 41 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 42 each hereby amended to read as follows: 43 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning 44 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on 45 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 46 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 47 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 48 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 49 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 50 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 51 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 52 unincorporated King County. 53 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 54 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 55 population of unincorporated King County. 56 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 57 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 58 population of unincorporated King County. 59 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 60 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 61 population of unincorporated King County. 3 Ordinance 14390 62 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 63 shown b Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415 are hereby ratified on behalf of Y l� Y 64 the population of unincorporated King County. 65 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 66 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 67 the population of unincorporated King County. 68 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 4 Ordinance 14390 69 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population is 70 of unincorporated King County. 71 Ordinance 14390 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 6/17/2002,by the following vote: Yes: 11 - Ms. Sullivan,Ms. Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms. Lambert, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Pullen, Mr. Gossett,Ms. Hague,Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 2 -Mr. Phillips and Mr. Pelz KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON .eQe&� ynthia Sullivan,Chair ATTEST: Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council APPROVED this �:,n day of ,jCyo-9 . 12002. Ron Sims,Co xecutive o Attachments 1.GMPC Substitute Motion No.003 rn Cn N �i co (n X C3 O 5 09/27/00 2002 131 1 Sponsored By: Executive Committee /be l Substitute MOTION NO. 00-3 2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Growth Area of King 3 County. 4 5 6 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.I 10 requires 7 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be 8 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature;and 9 10 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 recognizes that King County may 11 initiate amendments to the Urban Growth Area;and 12 13 WHEREAS,the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Council 14 requests the Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to 15 the Urban Growth Area for eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council 16 and ratification by the cities; and 17 18 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policies LU-31 and LU-32 anticipate the collaborative 19 designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by 20 cities. The attached amendments are supported by the affected city. 21 22 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL 23 OF KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 24 25 1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urban Growth Areas Map in the 26 Countywide Planning Policies as described by the following attachments: 27 28 Attachment A: Issaquah Highlands/Issaquah(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 1) 29 Attachment B: Maple Valley Library/Maple Valley UGA (KCCP 2000 Map 30 Amendment 3) 31 Attachment C: Jenkins Creek Park/Covington UGA(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 4) 32 Attachment D: Mahler Park/Enumclaw UGA(KCCP 2000 Amendment 6) 33 Attachment E: Split ParceWEnumclaw UGA(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 7) 34 Attachment F: Carnation UGA(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 8) 35 Attachment G: Maple Valley(KCCP 20W Map Amcndment 11) 14390 1 2 2. Amend the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional 3 unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential 4 Annexation Area of the adjoining city. 5 6 3. Per the Countywide Planning Policy FW-1,Attachment A: Issaquah 7 Highlands/Issaquah(KCCP 2000 Map Amendment 1)is not subject to ratification. 8 Attachments B,C,D,E,F and G are recommended to the Metropolitan King County 9 Council and the Cities of King County for adoption and ratification. 10 11 12 13 14 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County the 15 22'f o f Seg a dm 2000 and signed by the chair of the GMPC in open session in 16 authentication of its adoption this c9edallo 7� 17 18 19 20 Ron Sims,Ithair,Growth Management Planning Council 21 22 23 Attachments: September 19,2000 Background Report describing each proposed UGA 24 change and its rationale 25 Map of each recommended UGA Change 2 14390 September 19,2000 Proposed UGA Changes Under Review by King County Background: As part of the first major update to the King County Comprehensive Plan(KCCP),a number of proposed UGA changes are under review by King County. In the Executive Recommended KCCP 2000 Plan(March 1,2000),there are 7 recommended changes proposed. Of these,five are requests made by the cities of Carnation,Covington,Enumclaw and Maple Valley. The other two include UGA adjustments to recognize the Grand Ridge Joint Agreement(Issaquah Highland)and to reconcile two properties that have been split by the UGA just outside of the City of Enumclaw. The proposed UGA amendments are noted on the attached Locator Map. The proposed amendments are currently under review by the King County Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee. The amendments are subject to change and may be amended by the Committee and by the full Council in September 2000. The purpose of presenting the proposed UGA changes to the GMPC is to highlight those that will require further action by the GMPC to amend the Countywide Urban Growth Area boundary. Below is a matrix that describes the property, the acreage affected and the rationale and policy basis for the proposed UGA change. Amendment# 1,Issaquah Highlands/Issaquah is consistent with FW-1 and does not require ratification by GMPC as stated in the policy. The remaining amendments are being presented to the GMPC for consideration and approval as amendments to the Countywide Urban Growth Boundary. The rationale statements includes an analysis of the Proposed I JGA amendments with the Countywide Planning Policies. MAP LOCATOR APPROXII ACRE SS RATIONALE NUMBER/PROPERTY REDESIGNATED TO URBAN #1 Issaquah Highlands/ 40 The parcel is a rural island surrounded by the Issaquah UGA. Approximately 33 acres of the parcel are identified in the Grand Ridge Joint Agreement as an expansion area for the Issaquah Highlands development. The remaining 7 acres will be protected as an urban separator. The proposed amendment complies with CPP policy FW-1 step 8(b)which recognized the Issaquah Joint Planning Agreement process. This is an information item only and no further action is needed by GMPC on this amendment per CPP FW-1. #3 Maple Valley 0.5 This is a technical adjustment to reconcile the Library/Maple Valley UGA line with the corporate city boundary. UGA The entire property has been annexed by the City of Maple Valley, although a portion of the property falls within the designated Rural Area_ 1`,,errpcbrK)uons\mouonoo-3-auachnxnt I tim Page 1 4390 MAP LOCATOR APPRAOXII SATE RATIONALE NUMBER/PROPERTY REDESIGNATED TO URBAN #4 Jenkins Creek Park/ 65 The City of Covington has requested amending Covington UGA the UGA in order to provide urban services to Jenkins Creek park(20.34 acres) after it is transferred to the city. The proposed UGA change includes redesignating the properties directly north(6.48 acres)and south(38.18 acres)of the park land as Urban. Redesignation of these properties to Urban would eliminate the creation of Rural islands after the transfer of the park. The City has also expressed an interest in annexing the Urban island south of the City boundary(SR 516)but is prevented from doing so because these lands are not connected to the UGA. The proposed UGA change for this portion of the UGA will respond to the request by the City and will better connect an existing urban island with the UGA. The proposed UGA amendments in this subarea comply with CPPs LU-26(d)and LU-32. #6 Mahler Park/ 28 The State of Washington has transferred Enumclaw UGA ownership of Mahler Park to the City of Enumclaw. The City has requested an amendment to the UGA in order to provide urban services,such as police and maintenance, to the park. This amendment complies with CPP LU-32. #7 Split Parcels/ 7.9 This amendment resolves two parcels currently Enumclaw UGA split by the UGA line. A middle school campus is being constructed nearby and sewer lines can be made available to the subject properties. The urban portion of the two properties are in the City of Enumclaw's Potential Annexation Area. This amendment complies with CPPs LU-26(a) and(d)and LU-38(d)and(g). I\gmpc\moaons\rtwdonW-3-atlaehment I doe Page 2 14390 MAP LOCATOR APPROXIMATEACRES RATIONALE NUMBER/PROPERTY REDESIGNATED TO URBAN #8 Carnation UGA 2.5 This is a technical adjustment to the UGA requested by the City of Carnation to recognize the 1993 annexation of the subjmt parcel by tie City. State law allows cities to annex city owned land that is contiguous to the city's boundary. #11 Maple Valley 26.5 The County is negotiating with the City of Maple Valley to sell a parcel of County owned land,adjacent to the city for use as a park(19.8 acres). The City has requested amending the UGA boundary in order to provide urban services to the park. The UGA boundary is also proposed to be changed for the privately owned parcel (6.7 acres)north of the park land. This property is split by the current UGA boundary and with the sale of the land to the south to Maple Valley, this property would be entirely surrounded by the City of Maple Valley. It is proposed to be redesignated Urban to elimate creation of a rural island. The proposed UGA boundary amendment in this subarea complies with CPP LU-32. 1\gmpc\mouons\..ImnM-1-2uachmmI I doc Page 3 14390 Recommended 2V-I UGA Changes Locator Map 2002 1 3 1 King County 1 bsaquAW#iadsIhsaquah 1 SppPaak/ErendmUGA D.pw 0 d D vM EnwomwalY S�weq A Teb map b Ywnaee for pbr-—PvPoeee o+Y eo0 3 Maple v4 ft Icy I Maple Valley UGA S UrefiDn UGA / \ nod goaaeeed b eATe aooureb meaaeemnes. 5 0 5 Miles 4 Mn Credo Pak I Cm*om UGA 11 Maple V2kV N sarlr 4 2M rr _+r_�a�.�a� 6 MaNs Pnk I Emmdaw UCA r � t y} 1 ' l� •�. . sE r' r r " /`yam -- . - .- 3<,a\r-� _� �`�_�-�--� � • - • C --- 6 7 - 14390 r lot 11 A • :+� i y — 1 ,! Y, Jk lal- I� -t l �( .lj Z,7 i e C,i�j'�ryi �R� /�f- �.• �al.f �'.a9. � _,�d_� -- }., [. +' r T}` yv rNy M .w �l *a'CT #R a �✓ I���-1�11a-1 K" f := 777777ism 77, j�I . • . • . . • 111 r- 0 a Ilk r � c - ti r y �7 ti rY S J • • 11 r - z r �� �>•'"' r3 �� P �ar ma's �T �. �+`S' �\. �_ > '. �_.� ,.r i•,r' � 'J �� c�� fi -r. �- ! � _ I k',�Cit E j i .r, A.7 �* i,+i- ; s0 ..'► lip y: !i .fib{A x a ti .f7 Y' . +4 � ✓ Gf V k, i h Y Jenkins Creek PF / Covington UGA �- Executive Recommended Land Use Attachment C to Motion 00-3 March 2000 ucA 9 n .� ��' eas B«.>dary � King County � t DDE$ �"" �..'"° N 2000 UGA Bmmdary Rural Residential Me men is kftnftd br WigMWI wveeee oNy end pwrnee0 b arow�a0D eemmina� ® inmgxnied Mm CisW Krug`^^""7 ONE! 500 0 500 Feel Open SpamReaeabw N u os w " ug AT I ug :� SOMill rrrr ' w N " 14 �� i Mahler Park / Enumclaw UGA b Executive RecoUrppnded Land Use Attachment D to Motion 00-3 . . IMUGAB01 dwy rX RuaiOtyUGA R ra,►ai PaskWM King County Z000 UGA ftmdary Tom. mp".e a o... ,".+�,.re..«w a.ws a g Aommn Li✓�7�+�vM+e rr.ra arw.. 500 0 500 Feet F—� i 1 p 17, T I L Fr-' Ems JT r X ! far 14390 Split Parcels ' Enumclaw UGA �- Executive Recommended Land Use Attachment E to Motion 00-3 March= 2002 131 1999 UGA eamdary rx f "Cdy UGA King County . . wd Ewhor err s..w.. 2000 UGA I)wWwy R PAW ResWwW /� rnr mw r rnwa.a a vr•+a wv—wr.na Irx7orpordted Afeas a 500 0 500 Feet s i I } t f rx I _- I { _ rx 1 - - - --, i rr -- -�— - --- I �' -- -- — I - -- - -- — --T-- -- - --=-,---- -- rr a > > L rX ---- --------C -- - -- - -•- - - ;r --, ; ag �a - - -- - - 14390 O 4k f.� t t / y _ �yt - '�:4 R r 4 c � - � �.•Y Mom.£ �'� r r OA jt .. r 111 ' f1• • . 11 i I ' F _ A l{ y{ 4 L � t 1 yy t r 1� -_� mP�� ti v r Y3 x•A `7` i �� � :- tt - it-i.. Om KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Signature Report June 18, 2002 --� CORM RE-CEiVc�-�� i Ordinance 14391 AUf, 9 E, 2002 ` Kent Clty tir?c,roc Proposed No. 2002-0132.1 Sponsors Hague and Phi ips �-- ---.1 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies in support of the Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative;ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 8 9 1` BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 1 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings. 1 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 14 Policies(Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. 15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance 17 11446. 1 Ordinance 14391 41 18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 24, 2001, and 19 voted to recommend amendments to the Kin Count 2012-Countywide Planning g Y Yw g 20 Policies [5/25/94], to reflect the resolution of the City of Snoqualmie's joint planning 21 area and amending the urban growth area boundary accordingly. 22 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 23 each hereby amended to read as follows: 24 Phase H. A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide 25 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 26 B. The Phase I1 Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 27 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 28 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421. W 30 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 32 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment l through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 34 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 36 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance. 38 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 39 each hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Ordinance 14391 40 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning 41 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on 42 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 43 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 44 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 45 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 46 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 47 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 48 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 49 unincorporated King County. 50 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 51 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 52 population of unincorporated King County. 53 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 54 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 55 population of unincorporated King County. 56 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 57 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 58 population of unincorporated King County. 59 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 60 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 61 the population of unincorporated King County. 3 Ordinance 14391 62 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 63 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 64 the population of unincorporated King County. 65 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 66 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 67 of unincorporated King County. 68 Ordinance 14391 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 6/17/2002,by the following vote: Yes: 12 -Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms. Lambert,Mr. Phillips,Mr. McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr. Pullen,Mr. Gossett,Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 0 Excused: 1 -Mr. Pelz KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON C thia Sullivan,Chair ATTEST: Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council ry 0 Y o --��"" " c APPROVED this��day of Jc�� ,2002. M r Ron Sims, oun x utive a C c -- M Z Q O Attachments 1.GMPC Motion No.01-3 4 2 I0/24/01 002 132 Sponsored By: GMPC lg 1 MOTION NO. 01-3 2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council 3 of King County amending the Countywide Planning Policies 4 and the Urban Growth Area to reflect the resolution of the 5 City of Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area in support of the 6 Snoqualmie Preservation Initiative. 7 8 WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act,RCW 36.70A.I 10 requires 9 counties to designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be 10 encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature•, and 11 12 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 8b,adopted in 1994 and amended in 13 1999,recognizes the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area as the last outstanding Joint Planning 14 Area in King County,and directs King County and the City of Snoqualmie to conduct a 15 joint planning process consistent with the 1990 Interlocal Agreement between King County 16 and the City of Snoqualmie to determine the Urban Growth Area for the City of 17 Snoqualmie;and 18 19 WHEREAS,Countywide Planning Policy FW-1, Step 8b further states that within the Joint 20 Planning Area,the agreed upon Urban Growth Area is not subject to ratification by the 21 Growth Management Planning Council;and 22 23 WHEREAS,King County and the City of Snoqualmie completed a joint planning process 24 in May,2001,and the resulting Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan recommends 25 additions to the City of Snoqualmie's Urban Growth Area within the designated Joint 26 Planning Area,refinements to the City of Snoqualmie's existing Urban Growth Area,and 27 policies to guide annexation within the areas recommended to be added to the City of 28 Snoqualmie's Urban Growth Area;and 29 30 WHEREAS,consistent with Countywide Planning Policy FW-1,Step 8b and the 31 recommendations of the Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan,King County 32 adopted Ordinance 14117 on June 4,2001,adding 525 acres to the City of Snoqualmie's 33 l lrhan Growth Area within the designated Joint Planning Area; and 34 4391 1/gm�+r/mnt�nns/mnfQl--i Arc } 1 WHEREAS,the Kin County Executive,the Metropolitan Kin Count Council,the g ty P g Y 2 Mayor of Snoqualmie and the Snoqualmie City Council requests that the Growth 3 Management Planning Council consider additional refinements to the City of Snoqualmie's 4 Urban Growth Area as recommended by the City of Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area 5 Subarea Plan,resulting in a net reduction in the Urban Growth Area of 5 acres, for 6 eventual adoption by the Metropolitan King County Council and ratification by the cities. 7 8 9 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY 10 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS: Il 12 1) Delete Countywide Planning Policy FW-1 Step 8 to reflect the resolution of the 13 Snuqualruic Joint Plaiming A1ca. 14 15 By 1_998 all of the joint..1.,.,..;ng afeas ide..ti fied in the 1994 GPPs have been r „lye.1 16 17 18 19 20 Snequalmie joint plaFming e eensistent with the 1990 All ..t aFe o! 21 . 22 23 2) Amend the Growth Management Planning Council Proposed Urban Growth 24 Boundary Map in the Countywide Planning Policies as shown on Attachment 1 to: 25 26 a. Delete the Snoqualmie Joint Planning Area; 27 28 b. Amend the Urban Growth Area by adding 209 acres north and west of the City 29 of Snoqualmie;and 30 31 c. Amend the Urban Growth Area by removing 214 acres south of the City of 32 Snoqualmie. 4 � 91i r - r Ugmp0mo1.on3/mot01-3 dm - 2 - I ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County the 24th day of 2 October,2001. 3 4 5 Ron Sims,dhair,Growth Management Planning Council 6 7 8 9 Attachments:Urban Growth Boundary Map with boundary changes and Joint Planning 10 Area eliminated 11 4391 LJVmTclm toonrJm W 1.3 do 3 - i 14391 pe _ -�"mom-�.V K����.,,,�'�" `�.����� _—,<��t��- �..,1,:± ,.f,�'L , `',�_•<, �F. e� s� y R �tI P,I 1 0 K Y O rp r P r 7� a X R N �Im Na KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98104 Signature Report June 18, 2002 Ordinance 14392 '` D rlKent C1t Proposed No. 2002-0133.1 Sponsors Hague `y Attorney N 1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the 2 Countywide Planning Policies, adding maps of existing 3 urban separators; ratifying the amended Countywide 4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and 5 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and 6 K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as 7 amended,and K.C.C. 20.10.040. 8 9 10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 11 SECTIO!w_- Findings. The council makes the following findings. 12 A. The v -,lpolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth 13 Management Plar,Unmg Council recommended King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 14 Policies(Phase I; a.i July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. 15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II 16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994,under Ordinance 17 11446. 1 Ordinance 14392 18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on December 11,2001,and 1019 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning 20 Policies [5/25/94], adding maps of existing urban separators. 21 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are 22 each hereby amended to read as follows: 23 Phase II. A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide 24 Planning Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. 25 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012-Countywide Planning 26 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027. 27 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 28 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421. 29 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 1030 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260. 31 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 32 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415. 33 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning 34 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858. 35 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012—Countywide Planning 36 Policies are amended,as shown by Attachment I to this ordinance. 37 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4,as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are 38 each hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Ordinance 14392 39 Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning 40 Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on 41 behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 42 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 43 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 44 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 45 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County. 46 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning 47 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of 48 unincorporated King County. 49 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 50 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the 51 population of unincorporated King County. 52 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 53 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 54 population of unincorporated King County. 55 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 56 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the 57 population of unincorporated King County. 58 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 59 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of 60 the population of unincorporated King County. 3 Ordinance 14392 61 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as 062 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of 63 the population of unincorporated King County. 64 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 -Countywide Planning Policies, as 65 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population 66 of unincorporated King County. 67 Ordinance 14392 was introduced on 3/18/2002 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 6/17/2002,by the following vote: Yes: 13 -Ms. Sullivan,Ms. Edmonds,Mr. von Reichbauer,Ms. Lambert, Mr. Phillips,Mr. Pe1z,Mr. McKenna,Mr. Constantine,Mr.Pullen,Mr. Gossett, Ms.Hague,Mr. Irons and Ms.Patterson No: 0 Excused: 0 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON fynthia Sullivan,ehair ATTEST: -X o CD L �'J c n a C-' co M Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council c-1 x ca _ M i 00 o APPROVED this 6 day of Ly,,e, ,2002. Ron SACoVutive4 Attachments 1.GMPC Substitute Motion 01-1 4 V141klumGt�- .• ri 2Qo 2 � November 15,2001 Sponsored By- Executive Committee /staff draft v2 1 SUBSTITUTE MOTION NO. 01-1 2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by adding maps of 3 existing Urban Separators to the Countywide Planning Policies. 4 5 WHEREAS,The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall permit urban 6 densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas; 7 8 WHEREAS,Policy LU-27 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County states that Urban 9 Separators shall not be redesignated in the future, and that maintenance of Urban Separators is a 10 regional as well as local concern; 11 12 WHEREAS,Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy serving multiple functions 13 and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and 14 communitics of King County; 15 16 WHEREAS,Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the King County Comprehensive 17 Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to 18 continuous development,and reinforce the unique identities of communities; 19 20 WHEREAS,King County has designated Urban Separators on the Land Use 2000 map in the King 21 County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of Urban Separator 22 maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their Potential Annexation 23 Areas; 24 25 WHEREAS, affected jurisdictions agree with most of the county Urban Separator designations, 26 but disagree with some of the designations that require further analysis and discussion; 27 28 WHEREAS, King County residents have supported efforts to designate and preserve Urban 29 Separators,including preservation of Urban Separators that have been annexed by cities; 30 31 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY 32 MOVES AS FOLLOWS: 33 34 1. The attached maps of Urban Separators will be included within the Countywide 35 Planning Policies document. These maps show the locations of adopted Urban 36 Separators and graphically illustrate regional land use strategy and will serve as an 37 implementation tool for the Countywide Planning Policies. 1/GMPC/2001GMPC/Motim01-1 doc 14392 1 1 2 2. The attached maps of Urban Separators also identify certain potential Urban Separator 3 areas within Auburn and Renton's Potential Annexation Areas that do not reflect a 4 consensus of affected jurisdictions, and are in need of further analysis and possible 5 refinement. The Interjurisdictionat Staff Team shall convene a subcommittee 6 comprised of representatives of all affected jurisdictions, and shall report back to the 7 GMPC no later than September 30, 2002 with a recommendation to resolve these 8 potential Urban Separator areas. The subcommittee shall consider refinements to 9 Urban Separator designations in the Potential Annexation Areas for Auburn and 10 Renton. Staff will attempt to generate a consensus recommendation for the areas 11 within Auburn and Renton's PAA. If no consensus is reached,a majority and minority 12 or alternative recommendation will be made to GMPC by September 30,2002. 13 14 3. On an ongoing basis, the Inter urisdictional Staff Team shall also review proposed 15 additional Urban Separator designations identified by cities or the County,and present 16 these proposed Urban Separators for GMPC consideration. As part of this review 17 process, the Intetjurisdictional Staff Team may also consider refinements to adopted 18 Urban Separator policy to facilitate designations, provided that the new policies are 19 substantively consistent with CPP LU-27 and County Comprehensive Plan policies P- 20 118 through P-120. 21 22 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on 23 in open session. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ron Sims,Chair,Growth Management Planning Council J2 UGM PC/2001 GMPC/Monon01-I.doc 40 u P r \ r Sam*Sar 11 / Nr --fs ; VOW I � . o - T Awrr l.rfArrrartMA j br~. r1es"C" ftme / .. Urban Separators:North Overview - w.rrrr.....rr.rrr�r r ors rw.w.r.wrr.�r..r,.. N VW M.rwr O N r rw rrr.•r q on..r. ue.eMpr.Y. M um-"d"mY>u6m- ►m O rrr rrra arorq rrer rr ®uft-%Pr i-A--m w 0 CD row.r-.rr rrq.rar�A Y..W r Y =A N .+.+..r..rr...r *—I.a.en.dl.n CML I�Ar111..�armr tOWiiM.c ]aYe.a.w.r.o►rb rrr r.rrrrr�rrrr rrr_rrw.rrrrrrr rr.w.e '_:rrnrrrb/Nr r MMOlr.riwa+kr.r c.- 14392 L. � o 0 It r ! C"k �a.n.w..w•rur cr I � o j •� 1 1 QUrhan Separators:South Overview b rr..r•rW�Y��•��r N uoA ww.v O U*—f..r.er a.,sw, uw.1 rr,o.a..... rrrrr r.a.rr�r..r ILr.n1lrY.rtl.l Wre "3:' `,+.r."'.•��,r n�.rn.u..or..r.e p w.r�..u..w frn tea.. O Y�.rrrwrY�..rrrr.r r i YerVn..r Nrr �Nryir.M.A Mr-6iv =ON.hArIMYr1r C.wr/MM.W— tv.M.r01-MYr A.lu..t Ww.r. ]001 14392 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 2002 FIRST HALF BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ORDINANCE— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their August 20, 2002 meeting, adoption of the gross budget adjustment Ordinance No. totaling $29,901,093 for budget adjustments made between January 1, 2002 and July 31, 2002. This ordinance is primarily a housekeeping adjustment, consolidating individual budget items into one adjusting ordinance. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller and ordinance • 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E Date: August 13, 2002 To: Operations Committee From: Mayene Miller, Finance Division Director Subject: Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002 Authorization is requested to approve the gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling $29,901,093 for budget adjustments made between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002. After elimination of double counting of transfers and Internal Service Funds, the net adjustment is $19,254,744. This ordinance is primarily a housekeeping adjustment, consolidating individual budget items into one adjusting ordinance. With the pending implementation of GASB 34, and to make more efficient use of our new accounting system, many of our projects have been reclassified into different funds. For the most part these have been done at the beginning of the year and are disclosed in the top section of the detail pages. A few reclassifications are included in the budget changes as we are continuing to refine the accounting. Please note that$30,131,972 has been previously approved by Council. This amount is primarily for carryover and other changes related to capital projects or grants, offset in part by the budget reduction ordinance passed in February. $2,412,647 was previously approved by Council in prior years or other funds. The balance of $27,719,325 was approved by Council in the current year as reflected in the Council minutes. This is primarily due to the budgeting of the 2002 bond issue and the budgeting of the Kent Station project approved by Council in June. The net decrease of $230,879 that was not previously approved by Council needs to be approved to be in compliance with the State Auditor's requirements. These amounts not previously approved are primarily related to technical adjustments to the budget reduction ordinance; reductions or cancellations of capital projects; or other changes to capital projects including recognition of and authorizing expenditure of project revenues that have been received, but were not previously budgeted. Highlights of the miscellaneous adjustments are below: Capital Project Adjustments • Allocation and authorization the spending of additional project revenues received or removed from the respective projects • $221,940 interest allocated to Street Capital projects, including $29,672 for Corridor Improvements and $192,268 for RTA Access Improvements. • $31,006 rental revenue allocated to Parks Lightpole replacement project • $7,071 interest allocated to East Hill Facility Land project • $522,466 in Water Projects including $491,872 interest to Tacoma Intertie, $5,865 contributions to Miscellaneous Water Mains, $24,729 Charges in Lieu of Assessments to Kent Springs • $985,000 in Sewerage projects reduced or cancelled, including James& Central Intersection, 4th and Willis Roundabout and Valley Detention Basin. -1- Operating_Adjustments • $23,640 to adjust Valley Comm contract to actual amount • $20,604 additional grant revenue allocated to Commute Trip Reduction • $18,652 technical adjustment for carryover Tourism Projects as recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Board Minor Technical Adjustments • $91,062 net reductions in technical adjustments related to the budget reduction ordinance • $196 net reduction in transfers related to other adjustments The attached summary shows the 2002 adjustments through June 30, 2002 being requested for the total operating and capital budgets. The following pages show a detailed listing of these adjustments by fund, including Council authorization dates for the amounts previously approved. Council Action: Approve the budget adjustment ordinance for adjustments made between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002 totaling $29,901,093. -2- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 2002 Budget for adjustments made from January 1, 2002, to July 31, 2002. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Budget Adjustment. The 2002 City budget is hereby amended to include budget fund adjustments as summarized and set forth in Exhibit"A," which is incorporated in this ordinance by reference as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 3. ff ective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five(5)days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 1 2002 First Half Budget Adjustment ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 12002. APPROVED: day of , 2002. PUBLISHED: day of 52002. 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\CtvihOrdmance\BudgetAdjustment-2002-1st doc 2 2002 First Half Budget Adjustment City of Kent Budget Adjustment Ordinance Adjustments January 31,2002 to July 31,2002 Exhibit A Fund Adjustment Title Ordinance 001 General Fund (981,067) 110 Street Fund (806,396) 130 Lodging Tax Fund 18,652 140 Youth/Teen Programs (22,050) 150 Capital Improvement Fund 265,031 160 Criminal Justice Fund 33,168 170 Environmental Fund 117,351 180 Community Development Block Grants 125,000 190 Other Operating Projects Fund 0 211 Voted Debt Service Fund 0 212 Councilmanic Debt Service Fund 0 250 Spec Assmnt Debt Service Fund 0 310 Street Capital Projects Fund 3,116,274 320 Park Capital Projects Fund 2,255,739 330 Other Capital Projects Fund 22,565,691 340 Technology Capital Projects 0 350 Facilities Capital Projects 209,408 410 Water Fund 504,951 440 Sewerage Fund 2,671,238 480 Golf Complex Fund (1,877) 510 Fleet Service Fund (32,255) 520 Central Services Fund (127,300) 530 Fire Equipment Fund 0 540 Facilities Fund (10,465) 560 Insurance Fund 0 620 Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund 0 680 Economic Development Corporation 0 Total Gross Budget Change 29,901,093 Less: Internal Service Funds 213,156 Other Transfers (5,623,468) Internal Transfers (5,236,037) Subtotal (10,646,349) Total Net Budget Change 19,254,744 -3- City of Kent General Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 64,678,862 Total Original 2002 Budget 64,678,862 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council 4/16/02 WA Arts Commission Grant 7,822 1/15/02 Western States Arts Federation -Hula Hula Ka No'eau 2,500 3/19/02 KC Perf Network 3/19/02 4,500 2/19/02 Puget Sound Senior Baseball League-Recreational Development 700 #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (1,037,493) Not Previously Approved by Council Adjust Valley Comm contract to actual 23,640 Technical adjustment to Budget Reduction Ordinance 17,264 Total Adjustments to Expenditures (981,067) Total Adjusted Expenditures 63,697,795 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 62,008,442 Beginning Fund Balance 8,091,435 Ending Fund Balance (5,421,015) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources of Revenue 64,678,862 Adjustments to Sources #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance-Revenue 143,715 Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (595,480) Contributions 7,700 WA Arts Commission Grant 7,822 Ending Fund Balance (544,824) Total Adjustments to Sources (981,067) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 63,697,795 -4- City of Kent Street Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 4,930,974 Carryover budget reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund 323,697 From Street Capital Projects Fund 1,148,221 2002 budgets reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund 285,000 From Street Capital Projects Fund 158,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 6,845,892 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund Projects reduced or cancelled (709,000) Internal Transfers (118.000) Not Previously Approved by Council Allocate additional project revenue-Commute Trip Reduction 20,604 Total Adjustments to Expenditures (806,396) Total Adjusted Expenditures 6,039,496 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 4,993,734 Beginning Fund Balance 637,447 Ending Fund Balance (700,207) Carryover budget-revenue Reclassification of carryover budgets from Other Operating Projects Fund 290.000 Reclassification of carryover budgets from Street Capital Projects Fund 1,125,763 Beginning Fund Balance 56,155 2002 budgets reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund 285,000 From Street Capital Projects Fund 158,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 6,845,892 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (345,447) Ending Fund Balance (363,553) King County Grant-Commute Trip Reduction 20,604 Internal Transfers (118,000) Total Adjustments to Sources (806,396) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 6,039,496 -5- City of Kent Lodging Tax Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 145,000 Carryover budget reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund 119,000 2002 budget reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund 60,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 324,000 Not Previously Approved by Council Tourism projects 18,652 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 18,652 Total Adjusted Expenditures 342,652 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 108,774 Beginning Fund Balance 43,592 Ending Fund Balance (7,366) Carryover budget-Revenue Reclassified : From Other Operating Projects Fund 55,000 2002 budget reclassified: From Other Operating Projects Fund-beginning fund balance 103,143 From Other Operating Projects Fund-ending fund balance (39,14 From Other Operating Projects Fund-revenue 60, Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 324,dW Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (387) Ending Fund Balance 19,039 Total Adjustments to Sources 18,652 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 342,652 -6- City of Kent Youth/Teen Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 790,886 Not Previously Approved by Council #3593 Technical adjustment to Budget Reduction Ordinance (22,050) Total Adjustments to Expenditures (22,050) Total Adjusted Expenditures 768,836 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 744,162 Beginning Fund Balance 243,918 Ending Fund Balance (197,194) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 790,886 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (77,566) Ending Fund Balance 55,516 Total Adjustments to Sources (22,050) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 768,836 -7- City of Kent Capital Improvements Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 10,488,668 Carryover budget Reclassified from other funds: From Other Operating Projects Fund 1,699,629 From Other Capital Projects Fund 57,500 2002 budget reclassified : From Other Operating Projects Fund 240,376 From Other Capital Projects Fund 215,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 12,701,173 Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance 7,139 6/18/02 Transfer out-Kent Station 257,892 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 265,031 Total Adjusted Expenditures 12,966,204 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 8,544,088 Beginning Fund Balance 2,615,739 Ending Fund Balance (671,159) Carryover budget reclassified From Other Operating Projects Fund 1,656,865 From Other Capital Projects Fund 57,500 From Other Operating Projects Fund-beginning fund balance 42,* 2002 budget reclassified : From Other Operating Projects Fund 240,376 From Other Capital Projects Fund 215,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 12,701,173 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (90.367) Ending Fund Balance 355,398 Total Adjustments to Sources 265,031 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 12,966,204 -B- City of Kent Criminal Justice Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 2,711,942 Internal Transfers 234,257 Carryover budget 6,016,335 Reclassified from Other Capital Projects Fund 25,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 8,987,534 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council 2/19/2002 Safety Ed Officer Scooterville Program 5,000 Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund Police Communication Equipment-moved from other Capital Projects Fund 75,000 7/5/00 Underage Drinking Prevention Grant Received-2nd year budget 37,068 Not Previously Approved by Council Technical adjustment to Budget Reduction Ordinance (81,367) Internal Transfer (2,533) Total Adjustments to Expenditures 33,168 Total Adjusted Expenditures 9,020,702 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 2,307,865 Beginning Fund Balance 1,258.171 Ending Fund Balance (854,094) Internal transfers 234,257 Carryover budget 6,361,902 Beginning Fund Balance 556,947 Ending Fund Balance (902,514) Reclassified from Other Capital Projects Fund 25,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 8,987,534 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (394,839) UAD Grant Received 37,068 Working Together Grant 2,533 Safeco Grant Award 5,000 Transfers In (8,533) Ending Fund Balance 391,939 Total Adjustments to Sources 33,168 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 9,020,702 -9- City of Kent Environmental Fund Budget Adjustments January 1, 2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 147,729 Carryover budget 5,693 Total Original 2002 Budget 153,422 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council 5/7/02 Hazardous Waste Management Program 17,351 6/18102 Transfer out- Kent Station 100,000 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 117,351 Total Adjusted Expenditures 270,773 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 185,006 Beginning Fund Balance 262,734 Ending Fund Balance (300,011) Carryover budget-beginning fund balance 5,693 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 153,422 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (77,287) Hazardous Waste Management Grant 17,351 Ending Fund Balance 177,287 Total Adjustments to Sources 117,351 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 270,773 -to- City of Kent Community Development Block Grant Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 615,671 Carryover budget 2,683,268 Reclassified from other funds From Other Operating Projects Fund 361,280 From Parks Capital Projects Fund 125,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 3,785,219 Previously Approved by Council 3/19/02 Auburn Home Repair Program-yr 2 125,000 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 125,000 Total Adjusted Expenditures 3,910,219 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 615,671 Carryover budget-revenue 2,683,268 Reclassified from other funds: From Other Operating Projects Fund 361,280 From Parks Capital Projects Fund 125,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 3,785,219 Adjustments to Sources Intergovernmental Revenue-Interlocal agreement with Auburn 125,000 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 3,910,219 -11- City of Kent Other Operating Projects Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 601,376 Carryover Budget: 3,260,689 Reclassified to other funds To Street Fund (323,697) To Lodging Tax Fund (119,000) To Capital Improvements Fund (1,699,629) To Community Development Block Grant Fund (361,280) To Street Capital Projects Fund (28,790) To Other Capital Projects Fund (25,000) To Golf Fund (22.000) To Fire Equipment Fund (161,817) 2002 Budget reclassified To Street Fund (285,000) To Lodging Tax Fund (60,000) To Capital Improvements Fund (240,376) To Street Capital Projects Fund (10,000) Total Original 2002 Budget 525,476 Total Adjusted Expenditures 525,476 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 601,376 Carryover Budget 3,117,370 Carryover Budget Reclassified To Street Fund (290,0 0 To Lodging Tax Fund (55,000) To Capital Improvements Fund (1,656,865) To Community Development Block Grant Fund (361,280) To Street Capital Projects Fund (28,790) To Other Capital Projects Fund (25,000) To Golf Fund (22,000) To Fire Equipment Fund (161,817) Carryover Budget-Beginning Fund Balance 193,096 Reclassified to other funds: To Street Fund (33,697) To Capital Improvements Fund-beginning fund balance (42,764) To Lodging Tax Fund-beginning fund balance (103,143) Ending Fund Balance (10,634) 2002 budget reclassified To Street Fund (285,000) To Lodging Tax Fund-revenue (60,000) To Capital Improvements Fund (240,376) To Street Capital Projects Fund (10,000) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 525,476 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 525,476 -12- City of Kent Voted Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 1,786,503 Total Original 2002 Budget 1,786,503 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 1,790,000 Beginning Fund Balance 57,028 Ending Fund Balance (60,525) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 1,786,503 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (38,469) Ending Fund Balance 38,469 Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 1,786,603 -13- City of Kent Councilmanic Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 7,297,236 Total Adjusted Expenditures 7,297,236 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 7,297,236 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 7,297,236 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 7,297,236 -14- City of Kent Special Assessment Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 2,819,169 Total Original 2002 Budget 2,819,169 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 2,625,089 Beginning Fund Balance 3,222,952 Ending Fund Balance (3,028,872) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 2,819,169 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (599,100) Ending Fund Balance 599,100 Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 2,819,169 -15- City of Kent Street Capital Projects Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 7,526,000 Carryover budget 128,851,311 Reclassified to or from other funds: To Street Fund (1,148,221) From Other Operating Projects Fund 28,790 2002 Budget reclassified: To Street Fund (158,000) From Other Operating Projects Fund 10,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 136,109,88N Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #2494 Mitigation budget 200,245 3/19102 James&Central Avenue TIB grant received 192,000 3/19/02 Traffic Signalization grant received 70,000 6118/02&712/02 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes 633,808 6/1802 132nd Ave Improvements 394,000 6/1802 224th/228th Street Corridor 1,000,000 Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund LID 354 Washington Ave/Meeker Street 480,400 Washington Avenue Widening 528,800 Projects reduced or cancelled (606,000) Not Previously Approved by Council Interest Received allocated to various projects for expenditure 221,940 Minor technical adjustments 1,081 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 3,116,274 Total Adjusted Expenditures 138,226,164 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 7,526,000 Carryover budget-revenue 126,895,461 Reclassified: To Street Fund (1,125.763) From Other Operating Projects Fund 28,790 Beginning Fund Balance 1,936,139 Ending Fund Balance (2,747) 2002 Budget Reclassified: To Street Fund (158,000) From Other Operating Projects Fund 10,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 135,109,880 Adjustments to Sources Dept of Transportation Grant-Washington Ave Widening 528,800 TIB Grant-James&Central Intersection 192,000 King County Grants 610,308 Interlocal Agreement 86,000 Contributions&charges for services 193,826 Transfers in from Street Operating Fund (591,000) LID 354 Wash/Meeker 480,400 Interest Income 221,940 Bond Proceeds 1,394,000 Total Adjustments to Sources 3,116,274 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 138,226,164 —16— City of Kent Parks Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 5,263.640 Carryover budget 24,222,139 Reclassified To Community Development Block Grant Fund (125,000) Total Original 2002 Budget 29,360,779 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (12,400) 12/11/01 WA State Community Development grant -Clark Lake 246,875 1/15/02 Parks Open Space-East Hill-allocate additional Fee-in-lieu revenue received 39,990 6/18/02 Future Kent Station Park 1,000,000 6/18102 East Hill Youth Sports Facility 800,000 1115/02 KC Water&Land Resources grant-Clark Lake Restoration 23,000 2/19/02 Sale of easement at Kherson Park 3,698 Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund Internal transfers-moving budgets between projects with no net increase 123,570 Not Previously Approved by Council Light Pole Replacements-allocate additional project revenues 31,006 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 2,256,739 Total Adjusted Expenditures 31,616,518 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 5,263,640 Carryover Budget-revenue 22,556,D41 To Community Development Block Grant Fund (125,0D0) Beginning Fund Balance 1,661,839 Ending Fund Balance 4,259 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 29,360,779 Adjustments to Sources #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance-City Art Program (12,400) King County Grant-Clark Lake 23,0D0 Fee in lieu 39,990 Proceeds-sale of easement 3,698 Washington State Grant-Clark Lake 246.875 Transfers in-Bond Proceeds 1,800,000 Rental Revenue 31,006 Internal transfers-moving budgets between protects with no net increase 123,570 Total Adjustments to Sources 2,255,739 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 31,M.518 —17— City of Kent Other Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 3,140,000 Carryover budget reclassified 52,429,887 To Capital Improvement Fund (57,500) To Criminal Justice Fund (25.000) From Other Operating Projects Fund 25,000 2002 budget reclassified: To Capital Improvement Fund (215,000) Total Original 2002 Budget 55,297,387 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council 6/18/02 Kent Station project expenditures 14,140,691 6/18/02 Transfers out-Bond proceeds to projects 8.500,000 Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund Police Communication Equipment-moved to Criminal Justice Fund (75,000) Total Adjustments to Expenditures 22,565,691 Total Adjusted Expenditures 77,863,078 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 3,140,000 Reclassification of projects to other funds Carryover Budget-revenue 52,323,81& To Capital Improvement Fund (57,50 From Other Operating Projects Fund 25,000 To Criminal Justice Fund (25,000) 2002 budget reclassified: To Capital Improvement Fund (215,000) Beginning Fund Balance 106,057 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 55,297,387 Adjustments to Sources Interest Revenue 5,500 State Grant 900,000 Lease Revenue 1,786 Sale of Land 8,484,487 Transfers in 4,673,916 Bond Proceeds 8,500.000 Total Adjustments to Sources 22,565,691 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 77,863,078 -18- City of Kent Technology Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 4 Authorization 0Expenditures # 3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures Carryover budget Reclassified from Central Services Fund 15,441,718 2002 Budget Reclassified from Central Services Fund 2,740,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 18,181,718 Total Adjusted Expenditures 18,181,718 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues Carryover budget Reclassified from Central Services Fund 15,441,718 2002 Budget Reclassified from Central Services Fund 2,740,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 18,181,718 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 18,181,718 -19- City of Kent Facilities Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures Carryover budget Reclassified from Facilities Capital Projects Fund 14,133,761 Total Original 2002 Budget 14,133,761 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council 6/18/02 Allocate bond proceeds to Facilities Projects 200,000 Not Previously Approved by Council Allocate additional project revenue to projects 7,071 Technical adjustment-internal transfer 2,337 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 209,408 Total Adjusted Expenditures 14,343,169 Sources of Funding Carryover budget Reclassified from Facilities Capital Projects Fund-revenue 14,080,864 Beginning Fund Balance Reclassified from Facilities Capital Projects Fund 82,755 Ending Fund Balance (29,8 8) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 14,13 Adjustments to Sources Interest on Investments 7,071 Transfers in from bonds 200,000 Technical adjustment-internal transfer 2,337 Total Adjustments to Sources 209,408 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 14,343,169 0 -20- City of Kent Water Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 9,589,921 Internal Transfers 3,006,753 Carryover budget 23,596,064 Total Original 2002 Budget 36,192,738 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (17,515) Not Previously Approved by Council Authorize expenditure of additional project revenue in the related projects: Misc.Water Main Replacements 5,865 Tacoma Intertie 491,872 Kent Springs 24,729 Total Adjustments to Expenditures 504,951 Total Adjusted Expenditures 36,697,689 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 8,838,76' Internal Transfers 3,006,75: Beginning Fund Balance 3,207,1& Ending Fund Balance (2,456,027 Carryover Budget 21,659,30f Beginning Fund Balance 1,936,75E Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 36,192,731 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (404,984 Contributions 5,86! Interest Income 491,872 Charge in lieu of assessment 24,72! Ending Fund Balance 389,469 Total Adjustments to Sources 506,951 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 36,699,689 -21- City of Kent Sewerage Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-dune 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures # 3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 24,030,931 Internal Transfers 3,908,392 Carryover budget 49,031,379 Total Original 2002 Budget 76,970,702 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (19,236) #2494 Mitigation contributions per SEPA Ordinance 18,842 6/18/02 Pacific Highway HOV Lanes 1,038,017 Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund LID 352 3rd Ave Improvements 685,615 Internal Transfers from reallocating project funds 1,933,000 Not Previously Approved by Council Projects reduced or cancelled (985,000) Total Adjustments to Expenditures 2,671,238 Total Adjusted Expenditures 79,641,940 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 24,120,958 Internal Transfers 3,908,392 Beginning Fund Balance 1,345,057 Ending Fund Balance (1,435,084) Carryover Budget 42,081,079 Beginning Fund Balance 6,950,300 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 76,970,702 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (184,693) General Contributions 18,842 LID Proceeds 685,615 TIB Grant 1,038,017 Transfers to projects reduced or cancelled (985,000) Internal Transfers 1,933,000 Ending Fund Balance 165,457 Total Adjustments to Sources 2,671,238 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 79,641,940 -22- City of Kent Golf Complex Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 2,995,668 Internal transfers 655,338 Carryover budget reclassified 275,908 From Other Operating Projects Fund 22,000 Reclassified from Facilities Fund 174,889 2002 Budget reclassified from Facilities Fund 45,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 4,168,803 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (1,877) Total Adjustments to Expenditures (1,877) Total Adjusted Expenditures 4,166,926 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 3,334,500 Internal transfers 655,338 #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance-Ending Fund Balance (1,877) Beginning Fund Balance (87,062) Ending Fund Balance (251,770) Carryover budget 262,954 • Reclassified from other funds From Other Operating Projects Fund 22,000 Reclassified from Facilities Fund 174,889 Beginning Fund Balance 14,890 Ending Fund Balance (1,936) 2002 Budget Reclassified: From Facilities Fund 45,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 4,166,926 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (411,642) Ending Fund Balance Adjust Budget to Actual 411,642 Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 4,166,926 -23- City of Kent Equipment Rental Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 2,769,602 Carryover budget 189,000 Total Original 2002 Budget 2,958,602 Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (32,255) Total Adjustments to Expenditures (32,255) Total Adjusted Expenditures 2,926,347 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 2,657,533 Beginning Fund Balance 3,238,198 Ending Fund Balance (3,126,129) Carryover Budget 177,000 Beginning Fund Balance 12,000 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 2,958,602 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (127,029) Internal Service Revenues (24,187) Ending Fund Balance 118,961 Total Adjustments to Sources (32,265) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 2,926,347 -24- City of Kent Central Services Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 7,387,610 Carryover budget 15,441,718 Reclassification of carryover budgets to Technology Capital Projects Fund (15,441,718) Total Original 2002 Budget 7,387,610 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (123,969) Not Previously Approved by Council Technical adjustment to Budget Reduction Ordinance (3,331) Total Adjustments to Expenditures (127,300) Total Adjusted Expenditures 7,260,310 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 7,373,212 Carryover Budget-revenue 15,441,718 Reclassification of carryover budgets to Technology Capital Projects Fund (15,441,718) Beginning Fund Balance 89,935 Ending Fund Balance (75,537) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 7,387,610 #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance (123,969) Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (35,217) Ending Fund Balance 31,886 Total Adjustments to Sources (127,300) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 7,260,310 -25- City of Kent Fire Equipment Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 600,000 Carryover budget 2,605,361 From Other Operating Projects Fund 161,817 Total Original 2002 Budget 3,367,178 Total Adjusted Expenditures 3,367,178 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 443,281 Beginning Fund Balance 381,793 Ending Fund Balance (225,074) Carryover budget-revenue 2,605.361 From Other Operating Projects Fund 161,817 Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 3,367,178 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual 74,605 Ending Fund Balance (74,605) Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 3,367, -26- City of Kent Facilities Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 4,488,757 Carryover budget 17,338,634 Reclassified to Facilities Capital Projects Fund (14,133,761) Reclassified to Golf Fund (174,889) 2002 budget reclassified to Golf Fund (45,000) Total Original 2002 Budget 7,473,741 Adjustments to Expenditures Previously Approved by Council Budget Reduction Ordinance (65,000) Previously Approved by Council in Prior Year or Other Fund 2001 FEMA&WA Disaster Relief 57,194 Not Previously Approved by Council Technical Adjustment to Budget Cut Ordinance (2,659) Total Adjustments to Expenditures (10,465) Total Adjusted Expenditures 7,463,276 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 4,302,330 Beginning Fund Balance 279,172 Ending Fund Balance (92,745) 2002 budget reclassified to Golf Fund-revenue (45,000) Carryover Budget-revenue 16,808,676 Reclassification of carryover budgets to Facilities Capital Projects Fund (14,080,864) Reclassification of carryover budgets to Golf Fund (174,889) Beginning Fund Balance 566,298 Reclassification of carryover budgets to Facilities Capital Projects Fund (82,755) Ending Fund Balance (6,482) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 7,473,741 Adjustments to Sources #3593 Budget Reduction Ordinance-Revenue (65,000) Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual 88,180 Ending Fund Balance (33,645) Total Adjustments to Sources (10,465) Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 7,463,276 -27- City of Kent Insurance Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 8,886,545 Total Original 2002 Budget 8,886,545 Sources of Funding #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 9,314,897 Beginning Fund Balance 1,704,024 Ending Fund Balance (2,132,376) Total 2001 Budget Ordinance Sources of Revenue 8,886,545 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (30,325) Ending Fund Balance 30,325 Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 8,886,545 -28- City of Kent Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund Budget Adjustments January 1,2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 254,936 Total Original 2002 Budget 254,936 Sources of Funding # 3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Revenues 258,072 Beginning Fund Balance 3,561,463 Ending Fund Balance (3,564,599) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 254,936 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual 82,799 Ending Fund Balance (82,799) Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 264,936 -29- City of Kent Economic Development Corporation Budget Adjustments January 1, 2002-June 30,2002 Authorization Expenditures #3585 2002 Budget Ordinance Expenditures 8,385 Total Original 2002 Budget 8,385 Sources of Funding #3585 2001 Budget Ordinance Revenues 8,600 Beginning Fund Balance 34,157 Ending Fund Balance (34,372) Total 2002 Budget Ordinance Sources 8,385 Adjustments to Sources Beginning Fund Balance Adjust to Actual (3,000) Ending Fund Balance 3,000 Total Adjustments to Sources 0 Total Adjusted Sources of Funding 8,385 -30- City of Kent Budget Adjustment Ordinance Adjustments January 31,2002 to July 31,2002 Exhibit A Fund Adjustment Title Ordinance 001 General Fund (981,067) 110 Street Fund (806,396) 130 Lodging Tax Fund 18,652 140 Youth/Teen Programs (22,050) 150 Capital Improvement Fund 265,031 160 Criminal Justice Fund 33,168 170 Environmental Fund 117,351 180 Community Development Block Grants 125,000 190 Other Operating Projects Fund 0 211 Voted Debt Service Fund 0 212 Councilmanic Debt Service Fund 0 250 Spec Assmnt Debt Service Fund 0 310 Street Capital Projects Fund 3,116,274 320 Park Capital Projects Fund 2,255,739 330 Other Capital Projects Fund 22,565,691 340 Technology Capital Projects 0 350 Facilities Capital Projects 209,408 410 Water Fund 504,951 440 Sewerage Fund 2,671,238 480 Golf Complex Fund (1,877) 510 Fleet Service Fund (32,255) 520 Central Services Fund (127,300) 530 Fire Equipment Fund 0 540 Facilities Fund (10,465) 560 Insurance Fund 0 620 Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund 0 680 Economic Development Corporation 0 Total Gross Budget Change 29,901,093 Less: Internal Service Funds 213,156 Other Transfers (5,623,468) Internal Transfers (5,236,037) Subtotal (10,646,349) Total Net Budget Change 19,254,744 -33- Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT, SR 167/S. 277TH NORTHBOUND ON AND OFF RAMPS —AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the State/City agreement which reimburses the State for work performed on the SR 167/S. 277th St. northbound on and off ramps in conjunction with the 277th Street project (Auburn Way N. to SR 167). 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum and agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F 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 19, 2002 To: Public Works Committee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Wor Director Regarding: Washington State D.O.T. Agreement—GCA 3210 SR 167/S. 277th St. Northbound On & Off Ramps In conjunction with the 277th Street project (Auburn Way N. to SR167), certain elements thereof are within the State's limited access right of way for SR 167. As such this agreement reimburses the State its costs associated with the review, approval and operation of these particular elements. Further, the City has requested the State to do certain review and inspection of other elements of the project outside of those elements lying within their limited access right of way for which the State has specific expertise therein and this agreement reimburses the State for same. The Public Works Director recommends approval of the agreement and that the Mayor be authorized to sign same. MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the State/City agreement, which reimburses to State for work performed on the project. S 277th/SR 167 AGREEMENT GCA 3210 SOUTH 277T" STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT SR 167 NB ON AND OFF RAMPS This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , , between the State of Washington, Department of Transportation, acting by and through the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "STATE" and the City of Kent, 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, Washington, 98032, hereinafter called the "CITY". WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has designed revisions to the existing interchange at State Route 167 and South 277th Street in a project designated as "South 277t' Street Reconstruction Project — Phase I" (also known as "South 2771n Street Corridor Project — Phase II, City of Auburn"), hereinafter called the "PROJECT", and WHEREAS, the STATE has approved the design for those elements of the PROJECT within SR 167 that are under the STATE's jurisdiction, including SR 167 ramps, supporting fills and drainage, Illumination, and temporary signal, and all other related elements, and WHEREAS, the CITY has acquired funds for the PROJECT from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, Transportation Improvement Board JIB), Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, the STATE, King County, the City of Auburn, developers, and the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, and WHEREAS, the CITY is an approved "Certification Acceptance" (CA) agency, by which the STATE has granted the CITY the authority to administer projects that utilize funds received from the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, portions of the PROJECT are within SR 167 "limited access right-of- way" (UA), as shown in Exhibit "B" of this Agreement, and 06 WHEREAS the CITY has requested permission from the STATE to administer construction of the portion of this PROJECT within SR 167 UA, and the STATE recognizes the CITY's status as a CA agency and its demonstrated ability to administer construction responsibly. NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of RCW 47.28.140 and in consideration of terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I PROJECT SCOPE The PROJECT includes, but is not limited to, the following improvements outside of SR 167 UA: 1. Elevated grade separation of South 277th Street at the Union Pacific, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad crossings. 2. Widening of the existing South 277th Street to four lanes for through traffic with turn lanes at intersections. 10 3. Improved traffic signalization on South 277th Street at 'D' Street NW, 'B' Street NW, and Auburn Way North. 4. Addition of a new traffic signal at the intersection of 72Id Avenue South/Frontage Road and South 277th Street. 5. A new pedestrian and bicycle trail on the South side of South 277th Street. 6. A new connection between 78th Avenue South and 'D' Street NW. 7. Storm drainage system improvements with detention and water quality control features. 8. Gas, water, electrical, telephone, and sanitary sewer improvements. 9. Landscaping. 10. Temporary access roads from the West Valley Highway to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site. Plans, specifications, and cost estimates for PROJECT items outside the STATE's limited access have been prepared by the City of Auburn in accordance with 3210.02.agr.doc 2 GCA 3210 the Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) for the State of Washington, Department of Transportation. The PROJECT includes, but is not limited to, the following improvements within SR 167 L/A: 1. A temporary access road from West Main Street to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site. 2. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 277th Street and the SR 167 Northbound Ramps. 3. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 277th Street and the SR 167 Souhbound Ramps. Plans, specifications, and cost estimates for PROJECT items within the STATE's limited access have been prepared by the City of Auburn in accordance with the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and amendments thereto, adopted design standards, and as approved in the PROJECT Design File. Further, any and all changes and revisions within SR 167 L/A required during construction shall be in accordance with those same standards, or as otherwise may be agreed to and documented. During construction of this facility, the CITY shall comply with the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways", current edition. Any closure or restriction of SR 167 shall require a STATE approved traffic control plan. 11 RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL The Director of Public Works for the CITY shall be responsible in charge of the entire PROJECT, and shall assign a project engineer (CITY PE) for the PROJECT. The CITY PE shall perform the "Lead" role in administering the construction contract for the PROJECT in its entirety, both inside of and outside of SR 167 L/A. The CITY PE shall ensure that the PROJECT is constructed as defined by the PS&E and any and all subsequent revisions thereto due to field issues. The Assistant Regional Administrator - King Area, for the STATE, shall be in responsible charge representing the STATE's interests, and shall also identify a project 3210.02.agr.doc 3 GCA 3210 engineer (STATE PE). The STATE PE shall oversee the PROJECT from the STATE's perspective to ensure the STATE's interests are addressed. The STATE PE shall review the CITY's construction administration procedures, coordinate submittals, reviews and approvals between the CITY and the STATE, and represent the STATE as the final owner of that portion of the PROJECT within SR 167 UA. The CITY and the STATE have identified the following individuals as project engineers: STATE PE CITY PE Ingo Goller Stan Wade 21851 —84th Ave. So. 220 Fourth Ave S. Kent, WA 98032-1958 Kent, WA 98032 (253) 872-2958 (253) 856-5535 The STATE PE and the CITY PE shall be responsible for familiarizing themselves with the PROJECT including the design file, Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E), the schedule, and all relevant issues. Both shall coordinate and cooperate with each other to ensure completion of the PROJECT in a responsible and professional manner that results in a final product that meets the needs of both the CITY and the STATE. The CITY PE and the STATE PE will each provide a list of those individuals who will be assigned to this PROJECT. This list will also identify specific consultant personnel the CITY may utilize. This list will be updated as needed during the course of the PROJECT. The STATE recognizes the CITY's role as contracting agency for the PROJECT, and will have no official direct contact with the CITY's contractor or the contractor's personnel assigned to the PROJECT. All official communication relative to the PROJECT from the STATE will be through the CITY. Further, all official communication between the CITY and the STATE will be through the CITY PE and the STATE PE. The STATE PE, or designee, shall attend the CITY's meetings that may be deemed necessary for appropriate coordination. 4 3210.02.agr.doc GCA 3210 The CITY acknowledges the role of the STATE PE, which includes the right to request the suspension of any and all construction activity for justified reasons pursuant to the terms of the contract documents, and as specified herein, within the portion of the CITY's PROJECT that is located within SR 167 L/A, with the exception of the CITY maintenance items as listed later in this AGREEMENT. III CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The CITY shall administer construction of the portion of the PROJECT within SR 167 UA, as shown on Exhibit "B," pages 1-3 of 3, and by this reference made a part of this agreement. The CITY shall be responsible to acquire STATE approvals for any and all revisions, deviations, change orders, extra work orders, and changes to the plans and specifications previously approved by the STATE for work within SR 167 L/A. Upon physical completion of the PROJECT and Final Acceptance, as defined in the LAG Manual, the CITY shall provide the STATE with Record Drawings for its use for those areas of the PROJECT within SR 167 L/A. These Record Drawings (also known as "as-built drawings") shall be prepared in conformance with the current edition of the STATE's Plan Preparation Manual and as described in the Special Provisions for the PROJECT. The CITY will provide maintenance services for all PROJECT facilities within SR 167 L/A listed below during construction: 1. Temporary access roads to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site. (Exhibit "B," page 3) IV STATE RESPONSIBILITIES The STATE will review and approve or disapprove all traffic control plans submitted by the Contractor through the CITY that pertain to STATE facilities (State Highway 167 and ramp traffic) within 10 working days of submittal by the CITY. Traffic 3210.02.agr.doc 5 GCA 3210 Control Plans and revisions shall be submitted to the STATE PE for coordination with the STATE's Northwest Region Traffic Office. The STATE will review and approve or disapprove all traffic signal submittals within 30 working days of submittal. The STATE will test signal system materials as required by the STATE's Construction Manual, including the signal controller. Submittals for items within the SR 167 UA to be provided by the CITY's Contractor, through the CITY, and approved by the STATE are as follows: • Traffic signal components The STATE will review any and all revisions, deviations, change orders, extra work orders, and changes to the plans and specifications previously approved by the STATE for work within SR 167 UA, and will approve or deny the same in accordance with the authority outlined in the Construction Manual. The STATE, as is its practice, shall assume electrical inspection responsibilities and authority that have been sub-delegated to the STATE by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) for those electrical installations which will be maintained by the STATE. These include the following items as defined in the PS&E: 1. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 277"' Street and the SR 167 Northbound ramps. 2. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 2771h Street and the SR 167 Southbound ramps. In this capacity, and as representing the interests of L&I and its legally mandated authority, the Electrical Inspector may have direct and official communication with the CITY's contractor and subcontractors. All such communication will be in writing with copies provided to the CITY PE. At the request of the CITY, the STATE will inspect the fabrication of the following elements that are outside of the limited access of SR 167: 1. Pre-cast, pre-stressed bridge girders. 2. MSE Wall Panels 3210.02.agr.doc 6 GCA 3210 1. Elevated grade separation of South 277th Street at the Union Pacific, and_the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad crossings. 2. Widening of the existinq South 277th Street to four lanes for through traffic with turn lanes at intersections. 3. Improved traffic signalization on South 277th Street at 'D' Street NW, 'B' Street NW, and Auburn Way North. 4. Addition of a new traffic siqnal at the intersection of 72"d Avenue South/Frontage Road and South 277th Street. 5. A new pedestrian and bicycle trail on the South side of South 277th Street. 6. A new connection between 78th Avenue South and 'D' Street NW. 7. Storm drainage system improvements with detention and water quality control features. 8. Gas, water, electrical, telephone, and sanitary sewer improvements. 9. Landscaping. 10. Temporary access roads from the West Valley Highway to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site. Plans, specifications, and cost estimates for PROJECT items outside the STATE's limited access have been prepared by the City of Auburn in accordance with the Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) for the State of Washington, Department of Transportation. The PROJECT includes, but is not limited to, the following improvements within SR 167 UA: 1. A temporary access road from West Main Street to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site. 2. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 277th Street and the SR 167 Northbound Ramps. 3. Revisions to the Traffic Signal System at the intersection of South 277th Street and the SR 167 Souhbound Ramps. Plans, specifications, and cost estimates for PROJECT items within the STATE's limited access have been prepared by the City of Auburn in accordance with the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal 3210.02�.agr.doc 7 GCA 3210 The CITY agrees that if payment for STATE work is not made within thirty (30) days after receipt of the billing from the STATE, the STATE may withhold any tax moneys that the CITY is entitled to receive from the Motor Vehicle Fund until payment for the work is received by the STATE. For costs in excess of the projected estimates in Exhibit "A", this provision shall not apply, until both parties agree to such costs. The STATE agrees that within 90 days after the STATE issues Final Acceptance of the PROJECT, the STATE will submit a final payment request to the CITY with the exception of costs associated with the final audit for the PROJECT. VI INSURANCE The CITY shall obtain and keep in force for the duration of the work within SR 167 L/A under this AGREEMENT, public liability and property damage insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. The STATE shall be specifically named as an insured in a policy with the same company that insures the CITY or by an endorsement to an existing policy. The amount of coverage shall be not less than a single limit of $1,000,000 for bodily injury, including death and property damage per occurrence. The CITY shall furnish the STATE proof of insurance prior to undertaking any work covered by this AGREEMENT. VII OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE Upon completion of the PROJECT by the CITY and approval by the STATE, the STATE will provide the CITY a letter of acceptance for the improvements within the SR 167 UA. The STATE will retain ownership and be responsible for the continued maintenance and operation of the traffic signal systems within the SR 167 UA. The CITY shall remove the temporary access road through SR 167 L/A to the Geodecke Wetland Mitigation Site, and restore the existing ground to its original condition, prior to final completion of the PROJECT. VIII 3210.02.agr.doc s GCA 3210 RIGHT OF ENTRY The STATE hereby grants and conveys to the CITY the right of entry upon all land, which the STATE has interest, within or adjacent to the right of way of the highway, for the purpose of constructing this PROJECT. Any disturbed right of way that pertains to STATE facilities (SR 167 and ramps) shall be seeded, fertilized, mulched, and protected from erosion. IX DISPUTES In the event that a dispute arises under this AGREEMENT, it shall be resolved as follows: The Mayor and the Secretary of Transportation shall each appoint a member to a disputes board, these two members shall select a third member not affiliated with either Agency. The decision made by this board shall be final and binding on the PARTIES to this AGREEMENT. X LEGAL RELATIONS To the extent of the CITY's negligence, the CITY agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the STATE from and against any and all third party claims, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, awards and costs (including attorney fees and legal expenses) arising out of or in connection with the CITY's performance of this agreement. The CITY shall defend and settle, at its sole expense, all suits or proceedings arising out of the foregoing, provided that the STATE gives the CITY prompt notice of any such claim of which it learns. In all events, the STATE shall have the right to participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such suit or proceeding through counsel of its own choosing. This indemnification shall also survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. To the extent of the STATE's negligence, the STATE agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY from and against any and all third party claims, actions, losses, liabilities, judgments, awards and costs (including attorney fees and legal expenses) arising out of or in connection with the STATE's performance of this agreement. The STATE shall defend and settle, at its sole expense, all suits or proceedings arising out of the foregoing, provided that the CITY gives the STATE 3210.02.agr.doc 9 GCA 3210 prompt notice of any such claim of which it learns. In all events, the CITY shall have the right to participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such suit or proceeding through counsel of its own choosing. This indemnification shall also survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. XI VENUE In the event that any 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 or proceedings shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Thurston County, Washington. • 3210.02.agr.doc 10 GCA 3210 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION m White, Mayor Date Asst. Regional Administrator--King Area Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JIAI sL.5oz ��'- C ,� .� _eo Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Date Assistant Attorney Gen ral Date i 3210.02.agr.doc 11 GCA 3210 ESTIMATE OF COST WSDOT WSDOT OFFICES HOURS RATE COST NW Region Inspection Offices 400 $56.25 $22,500.00 Includes: Ingo Goller Office Electrical Inspection Const. Traffic Office NW Region Materials 750 $40.00 $30,000.00 HQ Materials Fabrication 300 $85.38 $25,614.00 TOTAL 1 $78,114.00 NOTES: 1) No indirect cost rate applies due to Reciprocal Agreement OH 00041. 2) Hourly rates are estimated as a historical average for the type of work involved, including an average Weighted Wage Rate plus equipment and materials necessary to complete the work. 3210.01 ExhbtA.xls GCA 3210 4p � J 1 104 3� o sU J O IT •1!S 105 CO 1• r tw rr ll ti••R,w�v-w - r W Wl•-•"�� .L�C S33Y.W. 13 3 � � �� O 7 • Q � 7fig 7 I? CA I? ns 04 sue Q y I I S7i�Tf3T- Y Y 9 7S o I i R, as 6 _ 11 HIIIIIIII IN 00 FF ��� �R ~ 1 y i i i 1 S • 10 I I I I I I I H I I I H I I I I I I I L I H H I i I . , I it fill it �_ 78 II 1 L,1 1 I ��• RgMP `•�1, I �tt.u'; `5 1 6 7 N R 1 N - � F —_ 1 u N rI• �� � -. .• Y 1 1 fA ' , 1 q 3 a _t - ®000 '€ y OO O t 1 F � , ' rcc0 * N ' 1 � ' � I I � e ft iR+•= :. wfo Irvl.. 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 00 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C m = 5 rare `a"."d a 1^� re t+l 1^� i' ie : !! r re R"! as F-3 3 e Ail; 3 F e IF m x l R 1 big_ 1� t� la 3• l H ��- �� - �- ��n - o € O k I ij i E +S a E E € e e dJill gat a Rit AM F 9 e F A'-� a I f lit - lot i t I a iii; �YYYr 2 d � n �� g g a 88$3 P1 1.1 $ � �► $, $� � $ .� R � $r Rl gyp ! gEE qe p x■ �� a $ R R bz $z z ' lei i� �� $R°i � R aE a t '� 8e F tR'! l f .t t Q�I�S•� € a :' �>S �r n� ;�� � rI � Y.� � 6. F� a >�q �� �R� d�k �i2� ?� ��[ �i� • I 1 r � i I p I � i I I ICrtlm � S I O-CL/SIr �I O i I I 1 1 +�� $ � I ��(•� i 0 4tAY� 78 ; t� ilk ` X fir 4 - aN a$ � all N m a ���h� � y , c 1 ;�� � ,• plod �ytn S 8 L,7 z a Ee8 A A z L i t i 1 G M r f A31m 1 _-1 Amu m X rr� a --- a-t- Kent City Council Meeting is Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 352, S. KENT STORM SEWERS (1ST, 3RD AND 5TH AVENUES SOUTH, NORTH OF S. 259TH STREET), SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR OCTOBER 15, 2002 —APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, set the Public Hearing for October 15th on the confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll for L.I.D. 352 — 1st, 3rd & 5th Ave. S., north of 259th St. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 4^4 Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 W A S H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 19, 2002 To: Public W rks Committee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: L.I.D. 352— South Kent Storm Sewers (1st, 3rd and 5th Avenues South, North of S. 259th Street) Setting public hearing date for confirmation of final assessment roll The City received a petition for the installation of storm sewers in the vicinity of 3rd Avenue S. and S. 259th Street as shown by the L.I.D. boundary on the attached map. Subsequently, all property owners within the project area were contacted and there was adequate support (65%) to proceed with the L.I.D. formation. Historically, the south Kent area north of S. 259th Street between the railroads has suffered from storm drainage problems. The City pursued a project for a new outlet including a detention pond to serve this area. The detention pond has been completed on City owned property on the north side of S. 259th Street between 1st and 3rd Avenues. A pump station and outlet pipe to the Green River is planned for the near future. These projects are being funded by the City. The L.I.D. requested by the property owners provides the conveyence system to drain their properties to the new outlet. The Resolution of Intent No. 1528 was approved by City Council on April 6, 1999 which set the L.I.D. formation hearing date for May 4,1999. City Council passed Ordinance No. 3452 on May 4, 1999 forming the L.I.D. and ordering the construction of the requested storm drain system. Bids were opened for the construction on July 3, 2001 and the construction contract was awarded to Scarsella Brothers. We are now ready to finalize the L.I.D. assessment roll. MOTION: The Department of Public Works requests that the committee recommend that the Council set October 15, 2002 as the public hearing date on the confirmation of the final assessment roll. � | k/ N -~~ c^ ! " ^� > | d�� m / � in � � /Fl ' + / Er 0 � LJ � ��- — � -"� F- o' � �� — -���` .�..'.'-,......, . . . . . .. . . . ._` in a Dw- 40-1 iE WE —L-1 oil, cc cc LuLjj Lr u co ci --------- ----------- / / Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 354, WASHINGTON AVENUE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES AND MEEKER STREET WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS (HAWLEY ROAD TO JAMES STREET AND 64TH AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE), SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR OCTOBER 1, 2002 — APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, set the Public Hearing for October 1 st on the confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll for L.I.D. 354—Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements (Hawley Rd. to James St. and 64th Ave. to Washington Ave.) 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 400 Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director K E�ININ T Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax. 253-856-6500 *Z01000W A S H G T O N Address. 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 19, 20Q2\ bi To: Public Works Committee From: Don Wickstorm, Public Works Director Regarding: L.I.D. 354 — Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements (Hawley Road to James Street and 64th Avenue to Washington Avenue) Setting public hearing date for confirmation of final assessment roll Washington Avenue and Meeker Street are principal arterials serving as major north/south and east/west routes connecting the Kent Valley to SR 516 and SR 167 and Interstate 5. See attached map for project location. Washington Avenue has operated at a deficient level of service during most of the day. This was largely due to heavy traffic conditions (including trucks) and high volumes of vehicles turning into and out of driveway accesses to adjoining commercial properties. In addition to traffic deficiencies, this section of Washington Avenue was lacking a continuous system of pedestrian sidewalks. In many locations the existing sidewalks were narrow and sub-standard. In several locations pedestrians had to walk along roadway shoulders or through planter strips or parking lots. The street lighting system was also sub-standard and in need of upgrades to provide increased levels of safety for vehicles and pedestrians. The level of development along Meeker Street between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South had increased to a point where the existing roadway facilities were no longer capable of providing an adequate level of service to handle the volume and types of traffic encountered and expected in the future. The construction of Kent Elementary School located south of Meeker Street along 64th Avenue South also increased safety concerns regarding pedestrian movement along Meeker Street. . In order to improve these conditions, the City proposed reconstruction and widening of these portions of the roadway system. These improvements were identified in the City of Kent's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Partial funding was obtained from the Transportation Improvement Board and the City of Kent budgeted funds over a several year period. During the previous 20 years a number of LID no protest covenants were executed by developers in the project area (see attached map) for roadway improvements along these routes. A LID was necessary to complete the project funding, to satisfy the covenants of record and to address the special benefits from the improvements to the local properties within the project area. With the grant money available the City needed to proceed with the project or risk losing the funding. Therefore, the Public Works Department held an informal meeting with the affected property owners on November 15, 2000. The Resolution of Intent No. 1579 was adopted by City Council on December 12, 2000 which set the formation public hearing for January 2, 2001. City Council passed Ordinance No. 3540 on January 16, 2001 forming the L.I.D. and ordering the construction of the roadway improvements. No protests were received on the L.I.D. formation. Bids were opened for the project on May 23, 2001 and the construction contract was awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. We are now ready to finalize the assessment roll. MOTION: The Department of Public Works requests that the Committee recommend that the City Council set October 1, 2002 for the public hearing on the confirmation of the final assessment roll for LID 354. Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT AMENDMENT— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement, which allows for continued construction of the 54" sewer pipe adjacent to the 277th Auburn road project near the BNSF railroad and adjacent property. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I I I i glo ■ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • K E N T Phone:253-856-5500 w A S H I N G T O M Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 19, 2002 To: Public orks Committee From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: Mill Creek Relief System Agreement The attached agreement between the City of Kent and King County is an amendment to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement (original agreement August 20, 1998). This is the second amendment to the original agreement. The first amendment was for the incorporation of the 54" sewer pipe to be constructed under or adjacent to the 277th Auburn road project. As not all property acquisitions were made at the time of contract with Mid-Mountain Contractors for the road and sewer project, a "missing link" has existed near the BNSF railroad and adjacent property. King County has now cleared all acquisition and right-of-way issues and can now proceed with the work. The estimated cost of this work is $2,500,000. This amendment facilitates implementation of the work and obligates King County for the cost of same. MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign an amendment to the Mill Creek Relief System agreement upon concurrence with the language therein by the Public Works Director and City Attorney and to establish the budget for same. Mill Creek Agreement CITY OF KENT KING COUNTY MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT,made as of the !Day of (X.�L "I H'I Jbetween the City of Kent,a municipal corporation of the State of Washington(hereinafter referred to as Kent) and King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington(hereinafter referred to as the County); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Kent and the County(as successor to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle) are parties to a long term agreement for sewage disposal dated May 18, 1967,as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Kent Basic Agreement)and Kent,the County and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District(as successor to Cascade Sewer District)are parties to an agreement dated August 22, 1969 that provides for the joint use and oversizing of certain sewage facilities; specifically,the County's Mill Creek Interceptor Sewer;and WHEREAS, Section 6 of the above mentioned 1969 three party agreement provides for construction of a"relief sewer"or"alternative relief system"at such time as the sewer downstream from the County's Mill Creek Interceptor Sewer approaches its capacity and said downstream sewer has approached or is exceeding its capacity;and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn(hereinafter referred to as Auburn)and the County are parties to a long term agreement for sewage disposal dated March 1, 1974, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Auburn Basic Agreement)pursuant to which the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (as predecessor to the County) constructed certain metropolitan sewage facilities to serve Auburn; and WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Auburn Basic Agreement further obligates the County to construct additional metropolitan sewage facilities at Auburn's request when such construction is feasible under the test of feasibility then generally applied to all extensions of the metropolitan system and Auburn has requested such a facility;and WHEREAS,the County has planned a new metropolitan interceptor sewer that will provide the relief contemplated in the previously mentioned 1969 three party agreement,satisfy the above mentioned request made by Auburn pursuant to the Auburn Basic Agreement and relieve an anticipated capacity constraint in the County's existing Mill Creek Interceptor Sewer,and WHEREAS, Kent has obtained right of way and is constructing an arterial roadway along 277th Street with its eastern terminus at the intersection of SR 516 and 116th Avenue Southeast and its western temunus at the intersection of Auburn Way North/East Valley Highway and Southeast 217th Street and the parties have determined that this roadway alignment is a suitable and advantageous alignment for a portion of the County's planned interceptor sewer; and WHEREAS, the Kent and the County have entered into an agreement dated AO(, ZD �1' 5whereby Kent is constructing a sewer line crossing over the Green River along with a bridge that is part of Kent's roadway project and the parties intend that said crossing become part of the County's planned interceptor sewer;and WHEREAS,the County has determined that construction of the remainder of the planned interceptor sewer in Kent in the roadway project right-of-way can be most effectively and economically accomplished if Kent undertakes the design and construction of the interceptor sewer along with its roadway project; NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS. Section 1. Construction of Interceptor Sewer. Kent will design and construct a 42" diameter sewer line(hereinafter the"interceptor sewer") along 114th Avenue SE from its 2 � intersection with SE 264th Street to its intersection with SE 272nd Street,then west along the right of way for S 277th Street from its intersection with 114th Avenue SE to its intersection with Auburn Way N as generally described in the report entitled"Mill Creek Relief Sewer Planning Study-Final Report"and delineated on Exhibit A attached hereto. Some sections of the interceptor sewer may be less than 42"in diameter if deemed appropriate during final design. Plans, specifications and bid documents for the construction described in this section shall be subject to review and approval by the County. Construction shall be bid and undertaken as a discrete or separate contract, or as a separate schedule within a larger contract,and award of that contract or separate schedule shall also be subject to approval of the County. Section 2. Acceptance of Contractor's Work. Kent shall inspect, control and administer the work in progress. The County shall have the right to review and inspect the work in progress. Prior to final acceptance of the contractor's work by Kent,the County and Kent shall participate jointly in final inspection of the construction described in Section 1 and the County may make recommendations regarding deficiencies or incomplete work in accordance with the construction contract. It shall be the responsibility of Kent to pursue remedies enabled by the contractor's guaranty, and Kent shall pursue said remedies at the request of the County. Section 3. Convevance of Interceptor Sewer to the County. Following completion of the construction described in Section 1 and acceptance of the contractor's work by Kent,the County shall own and have the sole responsibility to operate,maintain, repair and replace the interceptor sewer. Kent shall provide to the County such easements or permits as are necessary and appropriate for the County's operation and maintenance of the interceptor sewer. Section 4. Reimbursement The county shall reimburse Kent for the total project cost of the work described in Section 1. Total project cost shall include contract construction cost, sales tax,permit fees,cost of easements and rights of way,legal costs, property restoration costs, 3 roadway and existing utility restoration costs,costs of pavement restoration in S. 274th Way, engineering design costs and construction inspection costs. Payment shall be made to Kent,at its sole option, either monthly or bi-monthly within 30 days of receipt b the County of a Y Y S P Y tY properly documented invoice. Costs incurred prior to execution of this agreement shall be reimbursed in the initial payment. Section 5. SEPA Compliance. The parties acknowledge that this project may proceed only upon compliance with applicable environmental and permit requirements. If final design of the interceptor sewer results in the need for information or analyses in addition to that contained within the SEPA Determination of Non-Significance issued by the County February 4, 1998,the County will continue to be the Lead Agency for SEPA purposes and will be responsible for the preparation of any additional environmental documents Section 6. Legal Relations A. Indemnification. Kent and the County shall indemnify and hold harmless each other, their respective agents, contractors, officers, attorneys,successors and assignees from and against any and all liabilities, damages,claims,demands,judgments, losses, harm,costs,expenses, suits or actions caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the indemnifying party arising out of or in connection with this agreement . B. No Third Party Beneficiaries. In promising performance to one another under this agreement, the parties intend to create binding legal obligations to and rights of enforcement in one another. The parties do not intend to create any legal obligation or liability or promise of performance to any third party. C. Basic Agreement Unchanged. Kent and the County shall comply with all provisions of the Kent Basic Agreement without qualification or condition by reason of this agreement, it being the intention of the parties that the Kent Basic Agreement shall not otherwise be affected or modified 4 hereby. Section 7. Dispute Resolution. In the event disputes or claims arise over the interpretation,administration or effect of this agreement,either party may refer the matter to a committee composed of the Director of King County's Department of Natural Resources or his/her designee,the Manager of King County's Wastewater Treatment Division,the Public Works Director for the City of Kent and the City Engineer for the City of Kent. The consideration of the dispute or claim by this committee, in an effort to reach a solution which reflects the best public interest, shall be a prerequisite to any legal action by either party. Section 8. Termination. The County shall have the right to terminate this agreement upon 30 days notice at any time prior to award of the construction contract. In the event of such termination,the County shall reimburse Kent for all project costs incurred up to the date of termination. This agreement shall otherwise terminate upon fulfillment of the obligations of the parties to each other. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. KING COUNTY CITY F;KENT, 71A Pam Bissonnette, Director Jt#&ViAtTe NlA'lot. Department of Natural Resources D+F of Pub!ie Work ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tom Brubaker Assistant City Attorney 5 LcYUI 1u t Water Features N rn TT Existing Sewer Interceptors r r . . . . . Proposed Roadway Corridor 2. Proposed Mill Creek Relief Sewer v j Proposed Mill Creek Relief Z Sewer to be Built by King 0 County CD / X j C CD ff i:\prod\apps\mapping\apr\millcrk2.apr Ce U) P. S 77th S ®� W E S _ 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 4 Miles y ExhibjtA Map pro&wed by GLS stall Wastewata Treatment Drvision(WrM King County Deparmicat of Namnl Rosa cs. WTD disclaims any () wamanty for use of this digital product bcymd that for wbulr it was designed. Neither this ftml product nor any portion Z them(may be mpmdwod in any form or by any means without the expressed written authorization of VM. 110 doammt includes data copyrighted by the Kmu Map Company and a being used wrth their permissim use is restricted. May 21,1998 AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY THIS AMENDMENT, made as of this 14-f- day of dole ; 2001, between the City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as"Kent") and King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington(hereinafter referred to as "the County"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Kent and the County are parties to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement, dated August 20, 1998, and Kent, in accordance with said Agreement, has designed and constructed the planned metropolitan interceptor sewer portion east of Auburn Way North in conjunction with an arterial roadway project along South 277`h Street east of Auburn Way North; and WHEREAS, said Agreement identifies the intersection of the South 277`h Street right-of-way with Auburn Way North as the western terminus of the portion of the interceptor sewer to be constructed by Kent; and WHEREAS, the County had planned to construct the westerly portion of the interceptor sewer that would connect the portion east of Auburn Way North with the County's Auburn Interceptor Sewer; and WHEREAS, changed circumstances regarding the construction of the arterial roadway project now make it possible for Kent to construct some of the interceptor sewer, as shown on Exhibit B, that was to be constructed by the County and the parties have determined that it is in the best public interest for Kent to undertake said construction; AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT- 1 (April S, 2001) (Btwn King County and City of Kent) NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment of Section 1. Section I of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph: Kent will also construct a 54" diameter sewer line (hereinafter the "interceptor sewer-phase 2") along South 277th Street from Auburn Way North to the south edge of the Carpinito Property and from 78th Avenue to its termination on the west side of the Puget Sound Energy Interurban right- of-way as delineated on Exhibit B attached hereto. The County shall be responsible for all plans and specifications for the construction described in this new paragraph. Construction shall be bid and undertaken as a separate schedule within a larger contract, and award of that separate schedule shall also be subject to approval by the County. Section 2. Amendment of Section 6.A. Section 6.A. of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: Indemnification. To the extent allowed by law, the County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses,costs, expenses of litigation, attorney's fees,penalties and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of or in connection with or incident to 0 any act or omission of the County, its employees, agents, and contractors in the performance of the County's obligations under the Agreement and this Amendment. This indemnification provision shall include,but is not limited to, all claims against the City by an employee or former employee of the County or its contractors and, as to such claims,the County expressly waives all immunity and limitation of liability under Title 51 RCW. To the extent allowed by law, the City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, expenses of litigation, attorney's fees,penalties, and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of,in connection with or incident to any act or omission of the City, its employees, agents, and contractors in the performance of the City's obligations under this Agreement. This indemnification obligation shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against the County by an employee or former employee of the City or its contractors and, as to such claims, the City expressly waives all immunity and limitation of liability under Title 51 RCW. AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT-2 (April 5,2001) (Btwn King County and City of Kent) Section 3. Additional Sections. In addition to the amendments to Sections 1 and 6.A, the following new sections shall be added to and made a part of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement to read as follows: Section 9. Auburn Permit. Kent will obtain the permits necessary from the City of Auburn to build the sewer pipeline and will also construct approximately 300 feet of 72 inch diameter sewer across South 277t' Street as described in City of Auburn design drawings for Contract 99-17 South 277'h Street Improvement Project. For and in consideration of receiving this permit and undertaking the work described in this Section 9 King County will pay to the City of Kent$800,000 within 60 days after the permit is obtained. Following completion of the construction described in this Section 9 and acceptance of the contractor's work by Kent, the county shall own and have the sole responsibility to operate, maintain, repair and replace the sewer described in this Section 9. Section 10. Records and Payment. The City will maintain adequate accounts and records, such as field reports, daily logs,payment and other such records, during the term of contract work as necessary to ensure proper accounting for contract funds and compliance with the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement and this Amendment. These records will be made available to the County at its request during normal business hours. The City will issue payment to the selected Contractor based on approved progress payments pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into between the City and the contractor. The City will then tender to the County an invoice for reimbursement of this payment together with a description of the completed work for which payment was required. The County will fully reimburse the City all costs incurred and paid by the City within sixty(60)calendar days of the invoice. Section 11. Field Inspection and Approvals. The County will timely provide, at its cost,those necessary personnel at those times the City deems necessary to conduct field inspection and/or testing of the contract work in Section 1. Section 12. Change Orders. The City will consult with the County representatives and receive their approval before approving any changes to the contract work or contract time for performance for work defined in Section 1. Section 13. Public Bids. The City will award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder after accepting publicly advertised bids based upon the public bid processes applicable to the City by local ordinance and state law. AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT-3 (April S,2001) (B[wn.King County and City of Ken!) Section 4. Duration and Termination. This Amendment shall take effect on the date entered above and shall remain in effect until final acceptance of the contract work by the Kent City Council or the termination of the contractor's warranty period, whichever is later, unless extended or terminated earlier by written agreement between the County and the City. Section 5. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all other terms, conditions, or provisions of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT Pam Bissonnette,Director Jim te, Mayor Department of Natural Resources ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tom Brubaker, Deputy City Attorney ATTEST: ti Brenda Jacober, City C rk e a�nrvfs�F�os:wac.ean�a.•�aa AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT-4 (Apnl S,2001) (Btwn.King County and City of Kent) t i � 1 / 1 _ t + � � 1 / r �Ver ti - � / 1 _� / i S w KENT KING COUNTY , - cvn _ - Q c / T C14 t — W co PROPOSED ; z Car inito < 54"(BORED) — p E Property X.SSMH :� 54° 54• I 54 Ln T 4 South 277th Street a: J "oN f1 Railroad T PILINGS Over cross s T > y 40 a j7� .`. 4 T cv , }a I z cnT o O � f` *� 0 00 S. Z80�h S� 1 v C ; T c , cri o ? AUBURN T ' , / 1 1 1 � t 1 T Not to Scale SANITARY SEWER TO BE BUILT BY EXHIBIT B THE CITY OF KENT FOR KING COUNTY MARCH 2, 2001 AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY THIS AMENDMENT, made as of this day of , 2002, between the CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Kent") and KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "the County"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Kent and the County are parties to the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement, dated August 20, 1998, as amended on April 16, 2001 (Exhibit A), and Kent, in accordance with said Agreement, has constructed a portion of the planned S. 277th Street Trunk Sewer east of the Carpinito property to 114`}' Avenue SE and west of 78`h Avenue South to the Union Pacific Railway in conjunction with an arterial roadway project along South 277`h Street; and WHEREAS, said Agreement did not include the portion of pipeline between 78`' Avenue South and the pipeline terminus between Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Auburn Way North, as shown on Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the County has successfully secured all necessary permits, easements and rights of entry to construct the remaining portion of the S. 277th Street Trunk Sewer with the exception of a permit from the City of Auburn; and WHEREAS, the S. 277th Street Improvement Project is currently under construction and Kent has a contract with a construction firm experienced in both roadway and sewer line construction; WHEREAS, the parties have determined that it is in the best public interest for Kent to undertake said construction; AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF UNT AND KING COUNTY—Page 1 of 4 NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREET AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Project Description. Section 1 of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph: Kent shall also construct a 54-inch diameter sewer line (hereinafter the "Missing Link') along South 277th Street from 781h Avenue South to the terminus of the existing sewer between BNSF and Auburn Way North, crossing the Monk, BNSF and Carpinito properties as shown on Exhibit B. The County shall be responsible for all plans and specifications for the construction described in this amended paragraph. Construction shall be negotiated by change order with the contractor for the S. 277th Street Improvement Project and shall be subject to the approval by the County. SECTION 2. Auburn Permit. Section 9 of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Section 9. Auburn Permit. Kent will obtain a permit from the City of Auburn to construct a structural shoring system and install the sewer pipeline in a portion of Auburn right-of-way as shown and described on construction drawings titled: S. 277th Street Trunk — Phase 3; approximately 35-feet of structural shoring, in addition to tie-back anchors, will remain permanently in the Auburn S. 277th Street right-of-way. For and in consideration of obtaining this permit and undertaking the work described in this Section 9, King County will pay to the City of Kent Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00)within sixty (60) days after the permit is obtained. Following completion of the construction described in this Section 9 and acceptance of the contractor's work by Kent and the County, the County shall own and have sole responsibility to operate, maintain, repair and replace the sewer described in Section 9. AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY—Page 2 of 4 SECTION 3. Change Order, Reimbursement of Costs & Additional Indemnification. In addition to the amendments to Sections 1, and 9, the following new Sections shall be added to and made part of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement: Section 14. Change Order. The City and the County plan to negotiate a change order for the Missing Link sewer with the contractor for the S. 277th Street Improvement Project. The City will obtain the approval of King County prior to authorizing a change order for this work. The County reserves the right to terminate negotiations with the contractor at any time should negotiations reach an impass or for any other reason so determined by the County. However, the County shall be responsible for all costs related to any work that has been completed up to the date of termination. Section 15. Reimbursement of Costs. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this agreement, the County shall reimburse the City for all its costs related to the construction of the Missing Link. The County shall pay all costs associated with this initial change order and any and all additional change orders, claims, and damages of any kind or nature arising from or connected with any work either covered or affected by this change order, including, without limitation, claims related to contract time, contract acceleration, onsite or home office overhead, and lost profits. Such reimbursement includes but is not limited to change orders, claims, attorney's fees, damages, related to the construction of the Missing Link, including damages resulting from the collapse or settling of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth ("MSE") retention wall, damages to all associated appurtenances, damages to property that the Missing Link runs across or is adjacent to, unforeseen circumstances attributable to the construction of the Missing Link. Section 16. Additional Indemnification. Notwithstandine the Indemnification as provided by Section 6.A, the County shall also defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, expenses of litigation, attorney's fees, penalties and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of or in connection with this Addendum or the construction of the Missing Link. except for the sole negligence of the City. Section 17. Payment. All payments made by the County shall be received within forty-five (45) days from the date the City bills the County. All payments not received by the City within forty-five (45) days shall accrue interest at a rate of 3.0% (three percent.) AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY—Page 3 of 4 SECTION 4. Duration and Termination. This Amendment shall take effect on the date entered above and shall remain in effect until final acceptance of the contract work by the City or the termination of the contractor's warranty period, whichever is later, unless extended or terminated earlier by written agreement between the County and the City. SECTION 5. Nonwaiver by Modification. Except a specifically modified by this Amendment, all other terms, conditions, or provisions of the Mill Creek Relief System Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. KING COUNTY: CITY OF KENT: Pam Bissonnette, Director Jim White, Mayor Department of Natural Resources Dated: Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM Kent City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: KENT CITY CLERK P 1Gn11FILMOpenFdesID177-2002Untaagmcy Agmm wnh Metro)DOC AMENDMENT TO MILL CREEK RELIEF SYSTEM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY—Page 4 of 4 J 1 1 T , 1 i 1 � � T 1 - ' T ver 1L - . _ T 1 — KENT _ KING COUNTY co , Q i — c/� T 3 v 1 T 2 N 1 � n 12 ' +_ w rn : I PROPOSED = 54'(BORED) _ Carpinito co ' — Property Ii = 1� South ; 277th Street z Railroad 1 . _ Overcross s �= 9 dT a �6 Cu ' =� LET L G7 Z z o nth 5� JO a � ° 1 1 o cos. 2a c1 = 1 :3 _ t� � iI - I AUBURN 1 = , 1 17 i 1 1 1 T � = TT Not to Scale SANITARY SEWER TO BE BUILT BY EXHIBIT B THE CITY OF KENT FOR KING COUNTY Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS SPONSOR GRANT AGREEMENT—AUTHORIZE, ACCEPT AND ESTABLISH BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Washington Conservation Corps grant agreement in the amount of$65,000 which provides labor for upcoming projects in the Environmental Engineering Section, and to direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said projects. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director Phone:253-856-5500 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6500 WASMINOTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: August 19, 2002 To: Public Works Co ittee From: Don Wickstro , Public Works Director Regarding: Department of Ecology-WCCO2-16-008 Washington Conservation Corps Sponsor Grant The City of Kent Environmental Engineering Department proposes to hire the WCC to provide labor for a number of upcoming projects. The WCC is a youth job skills training program administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) that was modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930's and `40's. Under the WDOE's Natural Resource Initiative program, youths between the ages of 18-25 will be employed for 12-months to conserve and enhance the State of Washington's natural resources. The Environmental Engineering Department plans to use this labor force for three main projects: 1) To landscape three stormwater detention ponds -two currently existing (S. 259`h St. at 3ra Ave. and S. 1961h St. at 72"d Ave.), and one new one which should be completed by late September (Pacific Highway at 260`h - south pond); 2) To maintain vegetation at recent wetland mitigation projects throughout the City; and 3) to plant and maintain newly planted areas at the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA). Total cost for a 6-person (5 crewmembers with supervisor) WCC crew for 12-months is $130,000, half of which ($65,000) is paid by the WDOE. Also, nearly $9,000 of this total is expected to be paid for through a King County Urban Forestry Grant, leaving a total City of Kent cost per person of $4.49/hour. Total costs will be allocated to a number of different projects from the list mentioned above. The Environmental Engineering Department estimates that the three stormwater landscaping projects by themselves would cost $64,500 if contracted out, but these ponds are not expected to take more than 3-months of the crew's time. MOTION: Recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within said project. WAS1MM"M CC\SERVATION CORPS etr=�rrr . r E C O L Ot �G Y SPONSOR C01\1I11iAC'1' THIS CONTRACT made by and between the State of Washington Department of Ecology Conservation Corps, hereinafter referred to as the "DEPARTMENT, " and that entity whose name appears in item 1, below, hereinafter referred to as the "SPONSOR." 41 1.SPONSOR: City of Rent 2. CONTACTS 3. ADDRESS: Envirnmental Engineering Dept. DEPT PROJECT LEADER Nicholas Mott (360) 407-6946 220 4th Ave. South SPONSOR CONTACT Matt Knox (253) 437- 2o51 Kent, WA CREW SUPERVISOR 98032-2051 OTHER SPONSOR FISCAL OFFICER 4. PROJECT TITLE/DESCRIPTION: Natural Resource Initiative (NRI) 5. PROJECT LOCATION: Kent, WA 6. SCOPE OF WORK: Work to be completed within the framework of Natural Resource improvements and Environmental Education. 7. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: CONTRACT BEGINS_ October 1,2002 CONTRACT ENDS. September 30,2003 8. MAXIMUM BUDGET REIMBURSED to DEPARTMENT Provided by DEPARTMENT Cost Provided by SPONSOR/DONATIONS COST L Crew $130,000 $ 65,000 Total DEPARTMENT Cost $130,000 Total SPONSOR COST $ 65,000 Above cost Not to be Exceeded 10. Special Terms and Conditions ❑ No '1' Yes (See XVII.) 11. Biennial Closures: In accordance with biennial closing procedures, the sponsor must reimburse the DEPARTMENT no later than June 30, 2003 for services supplied under this contract when submitted for payment on properly itemized vouchers (Form A-19) . AFRS ACCOUNT CODE TRANS APPN PROG PROJECT SUB PROJ ORG CO. OBJ SUB AMOUNT CODE FUND INDE INDE PROJ PHAS INDE OBJ X X X All rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to ana governea oy inose venerai i ei nw ai iu Dui luniui it,Wi udu ltu I] the text of this contract instrument and Section XVII.'SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS" II. In the event of an inconsistency in this contract, unless otherwise provided herein,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in `tie following order: (a) Applicable Federal & State Statutes & Regulations, (b) Special Terms and Conditions, and(c) General Terms and anditions. his contract and its appendices, if any, contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto IV. This contract shall be subject to the written approval of the authorized representative of the DEPARTMENT and shall not be binding until so approved. Only the authorized representative by writing(delegation to be made prior to action)shall have the expressed,implied,or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this contract Furthermore, any alteration, amendment, modification, or waiver of any clause or condition of this contract is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by the authorized representative. V. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE A. Authority The Legislature enacted Chapter 43.220 RCW which created the Washington Conservation Corps, hereinafter referred to as the"WCC," and named the DEPARTMENT as one of six state agencies having implementation authority B. Purpose The purpose of this contract is to establish a formal understanding between the DEPARTMENT and the SPONSOR to accomplish the project described in Section 7."SCOPE OF WORK." This contract is designed to specify the kinds and amounts of goods and services to be used and/or exchanged by the DEPARTMENT and the SPONSOR to their mutual benefit through a WCC project. The SPONSOR acknowledges that participation in the WCC program shall not result in the displacement of currently employed workers, including partial displacement such as reduction in hours of non-overtime work, wages, or other employment benefits, nor in the impairment of existing contracts for services. VI DEFINITIONS: "SPONSOR Contact" shall mean the person who serves as the SPONSOR's lead on the project and shall cooperate with all parties concerned to promote successful completion of the project described in Section 7. 'SCOPE OF WORK' �. "SPONSOR Work Director" shall mean the person who specifies work to be performed onsite; outlines, describes, and delegates work to be accomplished; supplies necessary orientation and training for use of special equipment and procedures, and is responsible for directing WCC crew supervisor(s)regarding specific project tasks as described in Section 7."SCOPE OF WORK" C. "DEPARTMENT Project Leader' shall mean the person who is responsible for developing and facilitating the protect and shall serve as liaison between the DEPARTMENT and SPONSOR PROJECT LEADER assumes ultimate responsibility to ensure adequate coordination of the project D. "Corps Member"shall mean an individual enrolled in the WCC program Corps members shall not be considered regular state employees. Provisions of law relating to civil service, hours of work, rate of compensation, sick leave, unemployment compensation, state retirement plans and vacation leave do not apply to the Corps members However, medical aid and state industrial insurance will be provided by the DEPARTMENT for each Corps member. E. "Crew Supervisor" shall mean the person who is responsible for matters relating to personnel administration and overall project direction He/she supervises Corps members (generally four or more) regarding work to be accomplished and is responsible for individual crew safety, daily crew supervision and discipline, completes Corps member training plans, and provides a written evaluation of each Corps member's job performance and skills acquired after two months and at termination of employment VII SCOPE OF WORK: Both parties agree to compete in a satisfactory and proper manner the services described under the Section 7 "SCOPE OF WORK"of this contract, and to provide materials and supplies necessary to ensure satisfactory completion of the project, including any special equipment required by special work conditions, and to procure any necessary permits such as right of entry The DEPARTMENT agrees to provide Corps members who will be used to complete said work. All equipment provided by either the DEPARTMENT or the SPONSOR shall be returned to the provider within fifteen (15)days after termination of this contract, unless otherwise specified in Section XVII. "SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS" III PERFORMANCE: A Time for Performance: Any work performed prior to the effective date of this SPONSOR CONTRACT, or continuing after the completion date of same,unless otherwise agreed upon in writing herein,will be in violation of this contract and will be at the SPONSOR's expense. Compliance With All Laws: The SPONSOR agrees to observe all federal and state laws, regulations, and policies affecting performance under this contract. C. Release of Information or Materials: The SPONSOR will not release any information or materials developed pursuant to this C09 without prior written authority from the DEPARTMENT D. Final Report Evaluation.Within 15 days after termination of this contract, the SPONSOR shall provide the DEPARTMENT with a written evaluation of the project.At a minimum,the following shall be evaluated: 1. Benefit to Corps members 4. Whether the overall goals and objectives of the project were obtained 2. Environmental benefits 5. Suggestions for program improvement 3. Department cooperation/coordination 6. Revised estimates of alternate supplier cost and SPONSOR cost/donation IX. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT: A Termination by SPONSOR for Cause If the DEPARTMENT fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if DEPARTMENT shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, assurances,or stipulations of the contract,SPONSOR shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice specifying the effective termination date to the DEPARTMENT at least seven (7) days before such date. B. Termination by DEPARTMENT for Cause- If SPONSOR fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract,or if SPONSOR shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, assurances, or stipulations of the contract, DEPARTMENT shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice specifying the effective termination date to the SPONSOR at least seven(7)days before such date. C. Termination by DEPARTMENT for Convenience The DEPARTMENT may terminate this contract by giving written notice to SPONSOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination In that event. all finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described above shall be delivered to DEPARTMENT for its review. After the review at the option of DEPARTMENT such documents or material or portions thereof shall become its property D. Insufficient Funding: In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the after The effective date of this contract and prior to normal completion, the DEPARTMENT may terminate the contract under Section IX C "Termination by DEPARTMENT for Convenience"clause,subject to renegotiation under those new funding limitations and conditions X. LIABILITY. 0 1 A. When direct supervision is provided by the DEPARTMENT employed crew supervisor, the DEPARTMENT agrees that WCC members working under this contract are agents of the DEPARTMENT, and therefore the DEPARTMENT shall be liable for personal injury or property damage caused by WCC Corps member negligence. B. When direct supervision is provided by the SPONSOR,the SPONSOR agrees that WCC Corps members working under this contract are agents of the SPONSOR, and therefore the SPONSOR shall be liable for personal injury or property damage caused by WCC Corps member negligence. C. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, all parties to this contract shall be responsible for damage to persons or property resulting from the negligence on the part of itself, its employees, its agents, or its officers None of the parties assume any responsibility to the other parties for the consequences of any act or omission of any person,firm, or corporation not a party to this contract. XI. NON-DISCRIMINATION: The DEPARTMENT and the SPONSOR agree to be bound by all federal and state laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination and agree not to discriminate in employment,either directly or indirectly, because of a person's age,sex,sexual orientation,mantal status,creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental,or physical handicap,unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 0 r_xcept as otherwise provided in this contract,when a bona fide dispute arises oemeen ine ucrrv.I Ivic-i'd i ai" 01� be resolved, either party may request a dispute resolution with the DEPARTMENT The parties agree that this dispute resolution process shall precede any action in a judicial tribunal. Either party's request for a dispute resolution must' be in writing, state the disputed issues, �. state the relative positions of the parties; state the SPONSOR's name,address,and WCC Agreement number, be mailed to the DEPARTMENT within thirty(30)days after the party could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the issue(s) which are now in dispute III. INVOICE VOUCHERS• Reimbursable expenditures under the terms and conditions of this contract shall in no event exceed the amount set forth herein.The SPONSOR shall reimburse the DEPARTMENT for services performed when submitted on a properly itemized voucher(Form A-19)in accordance with Section 9. "MAXIMUM BUDGET Reimbursement shall be made by the SPONSOR within thirty(30) days of receipt of said voucher XIV.AMENDMENTS- Changes in the scope of this contract which cause an increase or decrease in the cost of,or the time required for the performance of any part of the scope of work under this contract,shall be accomplished by written amendment and executed by both parties prior to implementation. XV. SUBCONTRACTS: The SPONSOR shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this contract without obtaining prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT'S PROJECT LEADER XVI. RECORDS RETENTION- Both parties shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of the SPONSOR CONTRACT These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review,or audit by duly authorized personnel for six years after the contract end date. VII.SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: jecial terms and conditions of this contract contained in the box below ❑ are noti'li are made a part of this contract(requires initials) Department Sponsor See Attached Addendum VII.ENTIRE CONTRACT: This document contains the entire and integrated contract between the parties,and no statement, promise, inducement or agreement made by the DEPARTMENT or its agents or employees that is not contained in this written contract shall be valid or binding No alteration, addition, or modification of any of the terms or conditions of this contract shall be effective if not in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the SPONSOR and the DEPARTMENT IGNATURES PONSOR DEPA Y— ITLE. MENT( � Y BY TITLE. Field Operations Coordinator ATE DATE 8/1/02 Pre-Approved as to form by the Assistant Attorney General CA ;an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative action employer For special accommodation needs,contact the Washington Conservation Corps at(206)407-6947 *number is(206)407-6006 Special Terms and Conditions 1. Crew size is 5 corpsmembers plus Supervisor. It is the responsibility of both the Sponsor and WCC to recruit. Sponsor will be billed a flat fee of$5,416.66 per month.This fee is not based on actual crew days worked or number of corpsmembers on the crew. 2. Sponsor agrees that crew will attend up to 4 weeks of formal WCC training. A training schedule will be provided to the sponsor at the beginning of the contract year. 3. The Corpsmembers will also be required to attend community service events, cross training opportunities, all National Day of Service events, any appropriate administrative meetings, and any Emergency Response activities as needed. 4. Crews will come equipped with a standard compliment of work tools. A tool list will be provided to the sponsor. Any additional tool requirements will be met by the sponsoring organization. 5. Any per diem costs for travel required by sponsor will be at the expense of the sponsor. Please contact WCC for cost estimate for any crew travel request. 6. WCC will fill vacant corpsmember positions that occur from October 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002 by November 1 st. After that date, any other corpsmember vacancies that occur before March 30, 2003 will be filled on April 1 st. Any further vacancies that occur after April 1, 2003 will remain unfilled through the duration of the contract. 7. Sponsor agrees to provide a secure site to store tools and park WCC/State vehicle. WCC vehicle is not to be used for heavy hauling. The primary use of vehicle is for transportation of crew,tools, and safety equipment. 8. The WCC standard workweek is Monday through Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm. An alternate work schedule may be arranged with prior approval from the WCC. Washington Conservation- Corps Standard Crew Tool List Safety Equipment Standard crew safety equipment to include the following; Ear plugs, Ear muffs,Hard hats, Safety Glasses, Gloves,Raingear and Chain saw chaps. Hand Tools Chain Saw Claw hammer Gas Cans Mcleod Bar Oil and fuel mix Garden and leaf rakes Saw maintenance tools Loppers Tool box with basic wrenches, sockets etc. Pulaskis Tape measure Adze eye hoes Rock bar Shovels,round and flat Small and large sledge hammers The following tools may be available by arrangement for temporary use by crews through the programs "check out" system. Pionjar gas powered jackhammer/anchor driver Hydro-pack hydraulic hammer/driver with two hundred feet of line Gas powered earth auger Hedge trimmer for blackberry removal and trail brushing Carpentry tools; laser level, skil-saw, saws-all, generator, gas powered corded and cordless drills Brushcutter/weeder for plant maintenance though availability is very limited For project work that entails the use of multiple brush cutters, or extended or frequent use of them, it is required that the sponsoring entity provide the equipment. For long term contracts it is strongly recommended that monies be set aside on a yearly basis for the purchasing and maintenance of brush cutters. Seven hundred dollars ($700.00)per machine is a reliable estimate of the yearly cost of replacement and maintenance of these machines. 2002/03 WCC TRAINING CALENDAR 2002 TRAINING EVENT HOURS PARTICIPANTS FALL&WINTER QUARTER September 12, 2002 * The Hiring Process Workshop 10 Supervisors Only October 18, 2002 * AmeriCorps Kick-Off 10 All Members Seattle Center November 4-7, * New Member Orientation 10 Camp Arnold 2002 * First Aid&CPR 10 All Crews& Placements * CERT Training 20 November 4-7 2002 * Basics of Supervision 10 Camp Arnold * First Aid/CPR 10 Supervisors * CERT 20 2003 January 13-16, 2003 * Assistant Supervisor Training 40 Assistant Supervisors Only January 20, 2003 * MLK Day of Service 10 State Holiday Crew Option SPRING& SUMMER QUARTER April 22, 2003 * Earth Day (Local Service) 10 All Crews& Placements May 5-8, 2003 ■ New Member Orientation 40 Pilgrim Firs New Six Month Members Camp Casey June 15-19, 2003 * Elective Training Week * 40 All Crews& Placements FALL QUARTER September 8-11, Central -Ellensburg 2003 * Graduation Training Week* 40 All Crews& Placements * Supervisor Specific Training 30 Supervisors October START OF NEW CONTRACTS *June Elective Choices to include: Wildland Fires, Wilderness Advanced First Aid,Proper Functioning Condition (Watershed Analysis), Chain Saws, GPS/Orienteering/Natural History * Graduation Training Week to include: Resumes & Cover Letters, Interviewing Skills, Job Search, Career Fair and BBQ. O&V510z Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE APPOINTEE—CONFIRM 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Deborah Ranniger, Ph.D. to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Ms. Ranniger owned and operated Ranniger's Nursery for many years. She has been an active member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce and is an accomplished artist. She is familiar with the DDTF through her work several years ago while employed as a Public Information Specialist in the Kent Police Department. Ms. Ranniger will replace Ben Dillard and her term will continue until 1/l/2006. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Jim White, Mayor Phone:253-856-5700 Fax 253-856-6700 • Address. 220 Fourth Avenue S K E N T Kent,WA 98032-5895 W A 5 M I N O T O N TO: JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR O1n ;z 4R at.- DATE: AUGUST 26, 2002 RE: APPOINTMENT TO KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE I have appointed Deborah Ranniger, Ph.D. to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Ms. Ranniger owned and operated Ranniger's Nursery for many years. She has been an active member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce and is an accomplished artist. She is familiar with the DDTF through her work several years ago while employed as a Public Information Specialist in the Kent Police Department, Ms. Ranniger will replace Ben Dillard and her term will continue until 111J2006. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CIRCLE K EMERGENCY SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS — RATIFY 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council recently authorized the Mayor to award a bid for repair to the Circle K sanitary sewer line. Only one (1) bid was received and it considerably exceeded the engineer's estimate. The City subsequently rejected the bid. Since the time of the bid opening the situation has worsened. The sewer pipe is partially crushed and City crews are forced to pump sewage four(4) times a day to prevent against complete failure. Failure of the system would likely result in material loss and damage to property and create an unhealthy and unsanitary condition if immediate action is not taken. Gary Gill, as Acting Public Works Director, after consultation with the City Attorney, issued a finding that an emergency existed and negotiated a contract for these emergency repairs. The purpose of this motion, as required by state law, is to ratify the Mr. Gill's finding of an emergency. 3. EXHIBITS: to be handed out at the Council meeting 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ualtX moves, Councilmember 641/ seconds �V ratifying the finding of an emergency at Circle K and subsequent contract award for the sanitary sewer repairs. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A Page 2 of 3 WA ST 39.04.280 Page 1 West's RCWA 39 04.280 WEST'S REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED TITLE 39.PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND INDEBTEDNESS CHAPTER 39.04.PUBLIC WORKS Copr. ©West Group 2002.All rights reserved Current through Chapter 3 of 2002 Regular Session 39.04.280. Competitive bidding requirements--Exemptions This section provides uniform exemptions to competitive bidding requirements utilized by municipalities when awarding contracts for public works and contracts for purchases The statutes governing a specific type of municipality may also include other exemptions from competitive bidding requirements. The purpose of this section is to supplement and not to limit the current powers of any municipality to provide exemptions from competitive bidding requirements. (1)Competitive bidding requirements may be waived by the governing body of the municipality for: (a)Purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply; (b)Purchases involving special facilities or market conditions; (c)Purchases in the event of an emergency; (d)Purchases of insurance or bonds;and (e)Public works in the event of an emergency. (2)(a) The waiver of competitive bidding requirements under subsection (1) of this section may be by resolution or by the terms of written policies adopted by the municipality, at the option of the governing body of the municipality. If the governing body elects to waive competitive bidding requirements by the terms of written policies adopted by the municipality, immediately after the award of any contract, the contract and the factual basis for the exception must be recorded and open to public inspection If a resolution is adopted by a governing body to waive competitive bidding requirements under (b) of this subsection, the resolution must recite the factual basis for the exception This subsection (2)(a) does not apply in the event of an emergency. (b) If an emergency exists, the person or persons designated by the governing body of the municipality to act in the event of an emergency may declare an emergency situation exists, waive competitive bidding requirements, and award all necessary contracts on behalf of the municipality to address the emergency situation. If a contract is awarded without competitive bidding due to an emergency, a written finding of the existence of an emergency must be made by the governing body or its designee and duly entered of record no later than two weeks following the award of the contract. (3) For purposes of this section "emergency" means unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the municipality that either: (a) Present a real, immediate threat to the proper performance of essential functions, or (b) will likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily injury, or loss of life if immediate action is not taken. Copr C West 2002 No Claim to Orig U S Govt Works httn•//mint westlaw comldelivery html')dent=atnkdataid=BO05S ROOOO( nll;11000,t01f1571RR' Ri-)Rini Page 3 of 3 WA ST 39.04.280 Page 2 West's RCWA 39.04 280 CREDITS) 2000 Main Volume [1998 c 278 § 1.1 <General Materials(GM)-References,Annotations,or Tables> LIBRARY REFERENCES 2000 Main Volume Municipal Corporations'E'--236. WESTLAW Topic No.268. West's RCWA 39.04.280 WA ST 39.04.280 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. ©West 2002 No Claim to Ong.U.S. Govt Works http-//print.westlaw.com/deliverv.html"dest=atu&dataid=BO055800000035130003020571RR' R R/01 • Kent City Council Meeting Date September 3, 2002 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND DRIVING RANGE POLE REPLACEMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On August 22, two bids were received for the Riverbend Driving Range Pole and Protective Netting Replacement Project. The low bidders was Driving Ranges, Inc. of Sammamish, WA at $175,117.80 for the base bid. The Engineer's estimates was $225,000.00. The Parks Director recommends awarding the contract to Driving Ranges, Inc. for the base bid $175,117.80, plus Washington State Sales Tax (WSST). 3. EXHIBITS: Bid tab an memo from Director John Hodgson 4. RECOMMENDED BY: • (Committee, Staff, Exa ner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISC L/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $175,117.80, plus WSST SOURCE OF FUND I. Real Estate Excise Tax (R.E.E.T.)—Misc. Park Improvements Bud et 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 0r 16 moves, Councilmember seconds move to award the Riverbend Driving Range Pole and Protective Netting Replacement Project to Driving Ranges, Inc. for the base bid amount of$175,117.80, plus WSST. DISCUSSION: • ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A ��• KENT BID TABULATION FORM KENT PARKS, RECREATION &COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON PROJECT: PR 02-05 NAME: Riverbend Driving Range Pole & Protective Netting Replacement DATE: August 22, 2002 TIME DUE: 11:00 a m. TIME OPENED: 11:15 a.m Bidder: Total Lump Mandat Addendum Add. Sum Bid: ory #1 #2 Alternate in dollars Pre-Bid #1,#2 $189,000.00 1. PCL $379,000.00 $563,000.00 Bellevue, WA � %0 111110 $105,000.00 2. Driving Ranges, Inc. $175,117.80 Sammamish,WA $280,117.00 Engineer's Estimate: $225,000.00 The apparent low bidder is Driving Ranges, Inc. at$175,117 80 +WSST. Kent City Council is expected to award the bid on Tuesday, September 3, 2002. KENT CITY OF KENT PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jim White Kent City Council Members FROM: John M. Hodgson, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: Riverbend Driving Range Pole Replacement DATE: August 26, 2002 The poles on the back and east side of the driving range were installed in 1968. Recently they were tested for rot to determine their stability. Four of the poles were rejected. Staff developed plans to replace the poles. During the permit process, King County determined a need to develop a shelf on the Green River levy to eliminate the potential of breaching that could occur. As a result, the driving range will need to be brought in ten to fifteen feet from its current position. The base bid replaces the poles and netting on the back of the range and raises them to 100-feet and adds four poles on the west side and raises them to 120-feet. Staff is recommending accepting the base bid. The funding for this project is from the Miscellaneous Park Improvement budget that is funded through the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). There is not adequate funding for the east side, so that will be done in the near future. JMHIjb REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT ()Db S C A Mee- t kin-c- m 9---1 f B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS oll E. PLANNING COMMITTEE (SC/VV —7 @ 3 F. PARKS COMMITTEE IN �'' �' I 0 G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS &Y' &-n REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES J U LY 16, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Leona Orr, Judy Woods STAFF PRESENT: Mike Martin, Julie Peterson, John Hillman, Tom Brubaker, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:04 PM. Item #3, Dedicated Utility Tax Funding for Youth Teen Programming, was deleted from the agenda. Approval of Vouchers dated July 15, 2002 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the vouchers dated July 15, 2002. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Leona Orr and passed 3-0. Council Agenda Format Changes Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin suggested postponing the Council Agenda Format Changes item as Council President Tim Clark was to be the presenter and he was not in attendance at the meeting. Judy Woods moved to table Council Agenda Format Changes until the next Operations Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:06 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES J U LY 912002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Judy Woods, Bruce White STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Tom Brubaker, Gloria Gould-Wessen, Charlene Anderson, Kim Adams-Pratt, Bill Osborne,Kim Marousek, Len Olive, Steve Mullen, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Gene Rosso, R Jerry Rosso, John Still, Ron Harmen, Robert O'Brien, Donnarae Joseph, Toby Sells, Ted Nixon, Ted Kogita, Tom Sharp, Paul Morford, Melum Roberts, Joe Blattjen, Bruce Rommel Chair Leona Orr called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM. #CPA-2000-3 Agricultural Lands Amendment Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said that at the last Council Workshop there was discussion about utilizing portions of several options designating, as the underlying land use designation, an SR-1 low density single family zoning with an SF-1 (but no urban separator designation), and then do some clustering. Ms. Anderson said that following that process would require an additional public hearing. Committee member Judy Woods moved to accept in part and modify in part the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation regarding agricultural lands as follows: ■ For the southern study area to accept the map, text, and use recommendations regarding Comprehensive Plan designations of Agriculture Support and zoning designations of AG, and to modify the recommendation to replace the zoning designation of A-1 on King County PDR Program lands with a zoning designation of A- 10; ■ For the central and northern study areas to modify the map, text, and use recommendations to replace the zoning designations of A-1 on King County PDR Program lands with a zoning designation of A-10; and to change the remaining Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations to SF-1/SR-1; ■ And forward this Committee's recommendation to the August 20, 2002 City Council meeting for approval after first conducting a public hearing on the limited issue of adding clustering to the SF-1/SR-1 designations for lands in the agricultural study areas. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Bruce White. Leona Orr offered a friendly amendment to forward the recommendation to the July 16ch Council meeting to accept the first part of the motion and to set the hearing on clustering for the August 201h Council meeting. The amendment was accepted by Judy Woods and Bruce White. Ms. Orr clarified that another public hearing would need to be held in order to do the clustering and the first available date for that would be August 201'. She noted that the Council doesn't want to hold up the entire AG lands recommendation into the month of August. The current Planning Committee,7/9/02 2 motion moves the issue forward and gets it adopted with the intent of having a public hearing on clustering and then to be able to apply clustering to the AG land SR-1 zoning designation as soon as it is passed in August, if it is passed. Judy Woods remarked that if clustering were added to the motion now, it would probably cause the Growth Management Board to object because the issue came out of the Land Use and Planning Board without that element. Doing a two step process at this time will keep things in greater clarity with more chance that the GWMB will say okay. City Attorney Tom Brubaker further clarified that the action was to finalize the AG lands process and make the northerly and the central areas SF-1 designation. The AG lands process would then come to a close on the 16th with passage of the amendment by the Council. Further direction was to bring back a clustering concept designation ordinance or zoning code and Comp Plan amendment,which would then be folded back into the AG land SF-1 and perhaps other SF- 1 areas in the City of Kent. That would be a separate zoning and Comp Plan amendment process, which could be done, but perhaps not by August 20th as the various notice and procedural elements would start the whole process over again. He affirmed that staff would try to bring the issue back on August 201h The motion then passed 3-0. Proposed Kent Station Planned Action Ordinance Charlene Anderson said that bringing the Planned Action Ordinance before the Planning Committee to allow for public comment was important because once it is adopted no additional opportunity will be given for public comment on the environmental aspects of the proposal. A Planned Action Ordinance describes certain types and amounts of land use development,planned in advance, within a specific area(Exhibit`B", with map and legal description). Ms. Anderson said that in order to designate such an action, the EIS must be completed. (She confirmed that the Kent Station Planned Action environmental review has been completed.) It also has to be by ordinance, and will allow for a streamlined permit process and will give the applicant and the public more certainty about what's going to be required for any future project and how the environmental issues have already been addressed. The Planned Action Ordinance and mitigation document for the Kent Station Project (Exhibit "A" in the packet) outlines all of the mitigation contained in the environmental and the analysis has been determined to be adequate to fully mitigate all the anticipated environmental impacts. It provides a summary of all of the environmental impacts, the significant adverse environmental impacts, any unavoidable impacts, and what the mitigation measures are. It identifies, specifically, Alternative 2 in the EIS as the preferred alternative and follows Langley's development proposal, however the EIS actually identifies a larger area than was identified in Langley's original Request for Proposal. Pages 7 and 8 of the ordinance break down the exact type and square footage of the proposed space for office, retail, cinema, hotel, etc. When future applications are submitted for a particular development within the area, staff will review them for consistency with the ordinance. If they are found to be consistent, there would be no additional SEPA threshold determination or procedural appeal allowed. The ordinance, with the mitigation document,provides a pick list of mitigation measures. The City would Planning Committee,7/9/02 3 review proposals against the PAO and identify what mitigation is appropriate for each. In addition, all the federal, state, and local development regulations are still applicable. The actions that are covered within the ordinance include the development itself—civil construction drawings and building permits, and includes sub division master planned unit development applications for design review, infrastructure, improvements, etc. Senior Planner Kim Marousek announced the final EIS was issued yesterday, and is supplemental because it follows a phase environmental review process from the Downtown Strategic Action Plan integrating environmental impact statement that was completed a couple of years ago. Through the scoping process for Kent Station,the impact analysis was narrowed down to transportation, aesthetics, environmental health(including noise and site contamination issues), water quality(including wetland and storm water discharge issues), and air quality impacts. The impacts and mitigations evaluated in the Kent Station EIS are based on the specific threshold, building square footage, and location of structures, but the Planned Action Ordinance provides some flexibility(found on page 9 of the ordinance). The state Environmental Policy Act Regulations outline a number of criteria that need to be met before a jurisdiction can designate a planned action. Those state that the action must be adopted by ordinance. All significant environmental impacts must be adequately addressed in an EIS and prepared in conjunction with either a Comp Plan, or a Master Planned Unit Development located within an urban growth area. State regulations give the City authority to limit a project by time for build out and validity of the Planned Action Ordinance. The year 2010 has been identified in the EIS and also in the Planned Action Ordinance as the final build out year for the Kent Station Development. At that time, if for some reason the total project hasn't been completed, the identified mitigation would be evaluated to see if it was still valid for what was left to develop. Chair Orr opened the meeting for public comment, stipulating that the same format would be used as for City Council meetings with a three minute time limit for each speaker. Paul Morford,PO Box 6345,Kent Washington 98064, questioned whether there would be answers to the comments. Charlene Anderson said the Council would consider the comments and could modify the ordinance based on the comments received. Ms. Orr added that the comments would all be put together and sent to the full Council. Mr. Morford commented that he could find no street improvements stated in any of the documents to James Street which, he said, is full length of the project and at peak traffic times is basically blocked. He asked why there were no street improvements to James Street included and questioned also if there would be any improvements to 4th Avenue where the traffic is bumper to bumper and backed up at peak times. (Mr. Morford conceded he had read there was a right turn improvement at 228' and 4th). Mel Roberts, 9421 S 241 S` St, Kent, informed the Committee there was an opportunity to do a bicycle lane on the north side of the Kent Station Project and south side of James Street that would allow connection to the Green River, some of the businesses, the Interurban Trail,the park and ride, and the transit station. People moving up and down Central and even some of the people off the hill would have access to a facility. If it doesn't happen now, it will be 20 or 30 1 Planning Committee,7/9/02 4 years before the opportunity arises again to do something. Mr. Roberts presented a picture memo as support for his suggestion. Judy Woods moved to make the presentation of Mel Roberts memo part of the public record. This was seconded by Bruce White and passed 3-0. Ted Nixon, 911 E Temperance Street, said there were four major concerns which haven't been adequately addressed in the environmental assessment of the site: traffic, sidewalks and crosswalks,parking, and connection to the rest of downtown. The biggest concern is traffic. The impact at the intersections on James and Smith have never been addressed in any of the traffic studies. It does acknowledge that those on West James and West Smith Street will be at Level of Service'F' if they're non signal light intersections. Mr. Nixon said it was his understanding of state ordinances that an intersection can't be kept below Level "F". According to the testimony of Public Works Director Don Wickstrom while discussing the DeMarco Annexation, the impacts of the Kent Station would cause traffic to back up all the way to 116`h and 240`". Mr. Nixon said none of that has been even mentioned anywhere else. He contended this would be a significant impact for the current residents of the community. Right now there are sidewalks on Central and then a person has to go all the way up to Fred Meyer before there is another crosswalk. The communities have been divided out and there is no friendly pedestrian orientation or crossing. There is a junior high school down in the corner of Central and James Street and it's already a very hazardous intersection. The number of reported accidents at that intersection is quite high, and one of the mitigations was to improve the westbound traffic movement through by adding a right turn lane at the bottom of James Street. They are assessing problems that they haven't even identified in the environmental assessment for the traffic for the site. Another major concern is parking. Passing an ordinance for the DC zoning to reduce parking requirements to one half was fine for small in-fill projects (with the added opportunity to address large problems incrementally if that wasn't working out). But this will not give time for reaction, and the RTA hasn't even agreed to shared-use parking of their garage (which is being counted for a thousand parking stalls). Green River Community College has indicated that they would have up to a thousand students and the 50,000 square feet isn't represented. So, there is a severe parking problem. The final concern is that adding a lane won't improve the connection to unite the Kent Station and the historical core of the downtown. Mr. Nixon said he would like to see some mitigations and thinking"outside the box"like over-street plaza's or something rather than force people to walk across five lanes of traffic. Bob O'Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, reminded the Committee that he was on record for saying these kinds of meetings should have been held prior to buying the property. One of the things mentioned in the final supplemental environmental impact statement by the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan, April 7, 1998,page 21, was a Vision for Growing a Hometown. It says"James Street will be the downtown's busiest east/west traffic corridor and the grade separated railroad crossing will eliminate what would otherwise have been a serious Planning Committee,7/9/02 5 blockage of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad crossing." Mr. O'Brien said that part was not anywhere in the Kent Station project plans. Now would be the time to do the railroad crossing grade separation because from what the documents show, it starts 750 feet west of the railroad which puts it almost out to 41h, and on the other side goes 750 feet past Central. The underpass would cut off and completely block 2nd and lst on the north side. The street coming up on Kent Station by the old 105 building would come to a dead end because there would be nowhere to go with it; on the other side is the monster problem of anybody making a left turn on Central having to go practically around into Kent Elementary School's play area. Nowhere has this particular aspect been mentioned. Mr. O'Brien said he was also concerned about exclusivity of a contract with a developer that, in essence, limits the City to that developer's whims. There is nothing about that in the ordinance. He concluded that the citizens wanted to get responses to their questions but never did. Tom Brubaker explained that on July 8th, the City's SEPA responsible official issued the final supplemental environmental impact statement which concluded the environmental review for the Kent Station proposal. Although all of the comments received today have dealt with environmental issues and impacts that are addressed in the SEIS, the issue before the Committee right now is whether or not to forward the Planned Action Ordinance on to the full Council for approval or denial. If the Committee is not satisfied with the level of environmental review or the answers provided to the questions here or in the final supplemental environmental impact statement, it can apply that understanding or perception to the decision about whether or not to forward the ordinance. The Committee and the audience should understand that the City has gone through a supplemental environmental impact statement process pursuant to state law. There have been public hearings, and comments and written comments received from everyone of the people who have spoken today. Mr. Brubaker offered to direct the Committee to those letters and the City's response, if they so desired. Steve Mullen, Transportation Engineering Manager, said each or most of the comments made today were also made in writing as comments to the draft EIS and have been responded to, though the people that made those comments yesterday and the day before may not have read the responses yet. Mr. Mullen addressed Mr. Morford's concern about street improvements to James Street. None were shown because during the peak time the road becomes very congested,but James Street has enough capacity for the roadway. The congestion points are caused by the traffic signals where there are crossing arterial streets. The intersections then can't clear out fast enough because the crossing street uses some of that capacity also. The level of service standard for the City looks at the arterial capacity across an entire zone. One street may be overly busy, but if there's additional capacity east/west (or through that zone) available on another street, it would still meet that level of service standard. The theory is that those cars that want to travel in that direction could use one of the other streets that have capacity available. Individual intersection level of service, as an adopted standard, doesn't exist as those are averaged across the entire network or across the entire network by zone. The impacts are spread across the entire zone and while there may be some arterial intersections that are at a very poor level of service, there are others that have a higher level of service, and when those are averaged, right, wrong, or indifferent, it meets that adopted standard. Planning Committee, 7/9/02 6 Leona Orr asked if the City wasn't also making some improvements at the intersection of James and Central that may be outside of the present document. Mr. Mullen said there are changes under design right now to make a double southbound left turn from Central onto James. The northbound left movement will be improved, and by making those slight geometric improvements,the left turns can run concurrently. If there is an option to turn left or go through the intersection, the signal has to be operated that way. It's the only way to operate it safely. Making some of the geometric improvements will improve the capacity of the intersection. Mr. Mullen conceded that there was too much traffic trying to funnel through too tight an area. But, unfortunately, until the rest of the system is built, and a mature system is reached where there are a lot of connections, it will continue to be difficult, and that's why the major east/west corridors are so important. There are improvements planned for James Street that are not in the environmental document because they are required. Overall, the capacity exists to be able to handle both the existing and the future traffic on James Street. It does back up the intersections, but the City doesn't have a level of service standard, intersection by intersection. Bruce White asked if a railroad grade separation was planned for James Street. Steve Mullen said James Street was one of four routes being considered for a grade separation. 228th Street, 212th Street, and either James or Willis Street (but not both)were going to be separated. To grade separate James Street would isolate a lot of partials and be very, very difficult to accomplish. To grade separate Willis Street would isolate much fewer parcels and could be done with much greater advantage, so it is much more likely that Willis Street would be grade separated and James Street would not. Those considerations are in the preliminary engineering stage and staff is seeking funding. Mr. Mullen addressed Mr. Roberts comments on having a bicycle lane. He said bicycle lanes are already in the proposal for the south side of James Street,but the difficulty with that is it only allows bicycles to be ridden in one direction because there isn't enough room to put in two-way turn lanes. Bicycle lanes on the north side of James would happen if the parcels on the north side were ever redeveloped or if the City were to condemn additional property to make the bicycle lanes possible. The south side bicycle lanes will be separate from the road with an entry ramp to the bicycle lane; the pedestrian path will be separate from the bicycle lane. In response to Mr. Nixon's comments about traffic on James and Smith and that many of the intersections there were at a very poor level of service,Mr. Mullen said he didn't know exactly what the level of service was on those residential intersections with the arterial streets. Again, the level of service standard looks at arterial intersections, anticipating that most of that traffic would migrate to the arterials because they intersect with other arterials. The other alternative would be to signalize each street as it intersects. That's simply not feasible and traffic wouldn't move along the major arterials at all. While there is a lot of delay on some of the residential streets, and it may be challenging and very difficult to turn left at certain times of the day on a major arterial roadway, that's a fact of life and growth and the signalized intersections provide the opportunities to make those left turns safely. Concerning sidewalks, those adjacent to the development will happen,but sidewalks offsite can't be required of the developer. As to the comment of no crossings, Mr. Mullen stated that was one Planning Committee,7/9/02 7 of the great urban myths that he has been trying to explode for years as there is a crossing at every intersection unless a sign says, "No Pedestrian Crossing". A crosswalk may not be marked, but the rights of the pedestrian and the obligations of the motorist at an unmarked crosswalk are exactly the same as for a marked crosswalk. Marked crosswalks don't make the pedestrian safer. In fact,many studies suggest that the marked crosswalk is inherently less safe. Regarding the comment about the junior high school and the many accidents (which aren't necessarily related to the junior high school), the double left turn lane improvement at James and Central will help somewhat. It is a very congested intersection that spills back up Central Avenue for a long way. The City has put in islands to break up the habits of the motorists that travel long distances in the two-way left turn lane and that's helped a great deal at reducing the number of accidents along Central Avenue. Mr. Mullen said he didn't know what the intent was when the parking ordinance was adopted and whether it distinguished between small or large developments. Leona Orr asked if there would be any time for additional comment or changes to the environmental impact statement now that it had been signed. Kim Marousek said there wouldn't be unless an error was found or it was decided a supplement or addendum was needed. At the point where the final EIS is issued, the process is concluded. Then there's a seven day period before any action can be taken on the EIS. Ms. Marousek noted that a couple of things to consider when looking at the parking issue in the downtown was that there is a code requirement for parking which actually puts caps on parking in the downtown area because the City wants to encourage multi model uses,pedestrian oriented uses in the downtown, and to discourage people from driving to the downtown. Staff did go back and reevaluate the supply of parking and when the EIS was completed, parking supply and demand was looked at based on a standard traffic transportation type analysis. It was also looked at by code for comparison and the supply/demand was higher than what the code would require so the assumptions were reevaluated between the time of publishing the draft and the final ordinance. Pages 4-14 (in the Response to Comments) shows a comment response letter to Sound Transit because they came up with a similar comment to Mr. Nixon's that negotiations for the parking garage were still going on. When the assumptions were made under the original draft environmental impact statement, they were quite conservative, and the table looks at more realistic updated estimates of supply. It shows,based on phases, that at full build out,there would very nearly be all the parking needed on site. Potentially there would be a shortage of 79 spaces if there was an evening weekday event. There might be a shortfall in Phase 1, but other approaches were identified that could serve as interim responses, such as concluding the agreement with Sound Transit. Another option might be utilizing the municipal lot on South Smith Street; there are approximately 128 unused spaces on that site. Also, other surface parking could be provided at another location within the Kent Station site before Phase 2 is built out. Ms. Marousek said a lot of analysis was done on the issue and staff feels it has been adequately established that there will be sufficient parking on site. Planning Con=ttee,7/9/02 8 Leona Orr reminded everyone that the issue of discussion was whether or not to move the Planned Action Ordinance forward to the Council,which would facilitate moving forward with the Kent Station development, and not to debate whether or not the mitigation measures were correct or incorrect. (The EIS has been done and finalized so that would be after the fact, although based on comments, there is opportunity for Council to adjust things if it's felt adjustments need to be made.) Bob O'Brien, in response to Steve Mullen's response on the railroad separation issue, countered that the final supplemental environmental impact statement of 1998 integrated the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and says that the James Street grade separator will eliminate the railroad crossing. Mr. O'Brien insisted that didn't sound like an option of Willis or James. He recalled that Ms. Marousek had said a final supplemental environmental impact statement can't be changed. Kim Marousek responded that the environmental impact statement document Mr. O'Brien was referring to was done in 1998, and the current document actually builds upon that document, which was incorporated and added to and is being supplemented with the current document. Ms. Orr added that the changes that were made from that document to the current document are legitimate because a prior document can be reviewed and have changes made to it. Ms. Marousek said the grade separation project was speculative. It is on the TIP, as are other projects brought up, but it's not part of the current proposal. This proposal can move forward independent from future potential action that may occur. At the point the grade separation proposal becomes a reality and the funding is there, the environmental review for that project would be done and the impacts independently evaluated. Although the projects are related in some manner they are separate entities. In further comments, Paul Morford said he hoped the Council would consider the things that the people have said even if the SEPA didn't. Ted Nixon said the only thing he had a problem with in the ordinance was in Section 5. The ordinance itself indicates that this is in complete compliance with City regulations, ordinances, and the Downtown Plan, etc. so the conflict paragraph (if indeed it does agree with the Comp Plan, zoning, and regulations) for overriding other City codes and regulations when there's a conflict with this ordinance, isn't necessary to have since the implications aren't totally understood. A lot of this is going to be sort of a field trial. Mr.Nixon asked that the Council look at removing at least the conflict section of the ordinance. Kim Marousek explained that Section 5 looks at future mitigation measures that are going to come out of this ordinance and the SEPA mitigation exhibit, and those will supercede provisions of the City code unless it's a life safety issue. This is looking at the environmental impacts and not looking at future land use actions that may occur,but the environmental impacts have been evaluated and staff feels those mitigation measures are necessary to fully mitigate the project. Tom Brubaker reminded everyone that this EIS was issued under SEPA, which is the State Environmental Policy Act (not the State Environmental Protection Act) that was enacted years ago because decisions were being made without taking into consideration impacts to the environment. The purpose of the statute and the task before the Council and the Committee is to understand the impacts to the environment but not necessarily to mitigate every impact to the Is Plammng Committee,7/9/02 9 environment. The Council could review and analyze all the impacts to the environment and theoretically approve the development with no mitigation measures because their task is complete when they've done adequate review of the impacts to the environment. Bruce White recommended that the Planning Committee forward the Planned Action Ordinance with exhibits to the full City Council for adoption. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:06 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 169 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Judy Woods, Bruce White STAFF PRESENT: Bill Osborne, Charlene Anderson, Merina Hanson,Kim Pratt, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeffrey Barker, Tom Sharp The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3:03 PM. Mobile Home Park Closures and Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance City Planner Bill Osborne presented for approval an ordinance that would provide for relocation assistance planning pursuant to mobile home park closures within the City of Kent. He said there were not many incentives that could be provided in the development code,Mobile Home Park C, that would be meaningful to the development community in getting them to provide financial relocation assistance, and it would have to be left to the parties who own mobile home parks to consider what was in their best interests in negotiating with the tenants. That flexibility is built into the mobile home park closure process that's mandated by the state. This ordinance amends the Mobile Home Park Code Chapter 12.05 to include mobile home park relocation assistance planning, defines mobile home park closures and the responsible parties, and also acknowledges the state law on mobile home park closures in Chapters 59.20 and 59.21. Mr. Osborne went over some of the provisions in the ordinance: ■ "Mobile home park providers shall provide early notice to and maintain communication with their tenants". That is in the state law and the City of Kent recognizes it in this ordinance. Having a mobile home park closure relocation assistance planning process puts that particular element ahead of approval of any other application or request for approval on a land use action. Unless a mobile home park closure relocation assistance plan and report is approved by the Housing and Human Services Manager,no other approval can be processed until that particular application for closure and relocation assistance report and plan have been approved. ■ "These relocation assistance reports and plans shall contain to the greatest extent possible the information that identifies impacts on mobile home park unit owners and tenants." This gives the City a better idea of what sort of services or impacts the City itself might have to take on or address when mobile home parks are closed. In response to Committee Member Bruce White's question about how the City would supercede state law regarding closure notices and how it would affect the closure notice if the landowner gave the notice without going through the City of Kent procedure, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams-Pratt said the City probably couldn't stop them from going ahead and sending out their 12 month notices,but they effectively wouldn't be able to do anything with the property until they complied with City code. Mr. White put forth the question of whether the 12 month time clock would be reset if a developer were to give the notice as required by state law and then three Planning Committee Minutes,7/16/02 2 months later came back, put forth a plan and followed the proposed ordinance. Ms. Adams-Pratt said it could be argued to a developer that City code says all the tenants had to be given the plan before giving the 12 month notice. But, the City probably could not force a developer to reset the time clock. Mr. White questioned what would happen if the 12 month notice was given, the City of Kent ignored and all the people moved, and then the developers came to make land use application. Ms. Adams-Pratt said the code allows some discretion with the Manager of Human Services and that would certainly be looked at. Complete defiance of the code wasn't anticipated, but there are penalties in the code and further provisions could be made for that type of situation. Bruce White contended that the provisions in the ordinance were heavy handed and it had been his understanding that it was to be on more of a voluntary basis in terms of offering incentives to the owner to make it in his best interest to voluntarily help out his tenants. Bill Osborne clarified that the incentives that had been discussed were for providing financial relocation assistance, and the requirement of relocation assistance planning was not intended to be an incentive based approached. It was simply a matter of procedural fairness that the tenants receive sufficient notice to make other plans and arrangements. Financial relocation assistance which had been undertaken in a few other cities, such as Seattle and SeaTac, typically has been tied to some sort of an incentive for development proposals that follow or for the rezone or comp plan land use change, and those are the sort of incentives that was considered here. The City's development regulations are flexible enough (particularly in commercial and industrial zones where most mobile home parks in Kent are located) that there really isn't much meat to any incentives that might be offered that couldn't already be achieved through some other process. Bruce White suggested that it might be considered an invasion of privacy to force the landowner to give up all personal information on his tenants to provide lease agreements (as stated in Section 12.05.330,No. 1) which is private information and a contract between himself and his tenants. Kim Adams-Pratt answered that the reason for that section was that, as with the recent closure, all the tenants ended up coming to the City's Human Services Department and they were left scrambling for information to help those tenants. Section 12.05.330 attempts to provide some basic information that would allow Human Services to help tenants where they could. Mr. White suggested that the tenant's consent be obtained before the landowner could provide the information. Bill Osborne explained that Subsection 4 and 5 of Section 330 stipulates that sensitive personal information be provided voluntarily by the tenants. The intent of the other information was fairly consistent through many other jurisdictions that have undertaken some form of relocation assistance planning. He added that the state has a general form for Application for Relocation Assistance. The requested information gives the City understanding of the impacts on the typically low income households and what the demand for services would be as a result of a mobile home park closure. Ms. Adams-Pratt added that the City was just asking for the forms, not the actual leases. Mr. Osborne continued that Number 3, "The copies of all lease or rental agreement forms," included several stipulations as part of the Mobile Home Park Landlord/Tenant Act for the duties of the tenant and the landlord which would apply to the terms of a lease. He said lease terms are Planning Committee Minutes, 7/16/02 3 very important in considering a mobile park closure because sometimes they refer to closures. Leona Orr suggested adding language to Number 3, "Copies of all lease and rental agreement forms", to specify that the information was to determine the length of the lease to make it clear that the City was not looking for personal information. Kim Adams-Pratt said a separate version could be added, asking in general when each lease term would expire. Judy Woods asked if Seattle and SeaTac and other cities had had experiences similar to what the City of Kent had prior to coming up with an ordinance. Bill Osborne replied that Seattle had two closures that utilized their code to some extent,but what ended up happening in the Seattle cases was that the owner/applicant who purchased the mobile home parks decided to go ahead and hire a reloeation coordinator and essentially do a privately directed relocation assistance plan. They provided both relocation planning assistance and financial relocation assistance to each of the households. The owner/applicant was interested in making something happen so they took it on themselves to negotiate getting the land use change in an expeditious manner. SeaTac has not actually exercised their code, either. Negotiation between the tenants and the landlord took place and all of the tenants were asked to sign off on a negotiated agreement. The private owner of the mobile home park or the developer/applicant took the incentive to make something happen to assist those who needed the assistance. Leona Orr questioned whether the item would have to go to the Land Use and Planning Board. Bill Osborne said it didn't,but since it would be a revision to Title 12 of the Planning and Development Code of the Kent City Code and technically an amendment to the development regulations of the City, there would be a need for a period of time in which the state was notified and had time to comment, so the Land Use and Planning Board could have a workshop and a public hearing during that time. Bruce White said he felt there was value in giving the public and the owners an opportunity to comment, and to get examples of how people would perceive the ordinance as affecting them. Planning Manager Charlene Anderson said the 60 day notification for the state comment would be over around the middle of September, and between the end of August and the first of September the issue could probably go to the Land Use and Planning Board. Bruce White commented that in Section 12.05.360, Provision A, it says "The Manager of Housing and Human Services may deny, revoke, or condition a certificate of completion, a permit, or another approval," and asked what would be the incentive or disincentive for someone to not abide by the provision if they had done what they needed to do in order to get permission to start the state mandated procedure and then didn't follow through. He asked what the City could do once the clock started running. Kim Adams-Pratt said the only things the City has control over are the permits, and a developer wouldn't get a building permit until they had complied with the regulations. Leona Orr asked whether copies of the ordinance would be sent to all of the mobile home park owners and managers after it was adopted so they would be aware of what had happened,just in case they missed the public hearing. Bill Osborne said the City could make the mobile home park owners parties of interest and they would be put on the public notice mailing lists. Kim Adams-Pratt mentioned that copies could also be sent to state individuals as well so they also would know of the City provision. Planning Conuruttee Minutes, 7/16/02 4 Committee Member Judy Woods moved that the Planning Committee forward the proposed ordinance to the Land Use and Planning Board for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Bruce White and passed 3-0. Bruce White asked if anything had happened at the state level since the Committee's last discussion that would have replenished the relocation assistance fund. Bill Osborne said that at the last count, $211.83 was left in the fund and that could have been built on in the last month and a half because in the previous two months $30 had built up. There could now be around $250 statewide for all mobile home units being forced to relocate throughout the state,but it doesn't look like that fund would have more money until January of next year. The meeting adjourned at 3:35 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES DULY 99 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly, Julie Peterson, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Ed Crawford, Jim Schneider,Nancy Mathews, Pat Fitzpatrick,Mike Martin, Bruce White, Lorna Rufener, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jude Restis, Robert Whale The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 4:04 PM. Item#4, OJJDP Grant, was deleted from the agenda. Approval of Minutes of Mav 14, 2002 Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of May 14, 2002. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Public Health of Seattle & King County Grant—Accept Drinking Driver Task Force Coordinator Nancy Mathews said the City had been offered a grant from Public Health of Seattle &King County for$20,000 to do tobacco education for youth. The funds will be used during the Youth Conference for a workshop track on tobacco education, and some monies will also be provided to other communities to do follow up activities on tobacco education. This grant will not require any additional funds from the City. The current expenditures meet the match and it's anticipated that the same staffing levels would be maintained. Julie Peterson asked how many youth would take part in the Youth Conference. Ms. Mathews said there were three Youth Boards for Tobacco in King County—one on the East side, one on the west side along the bay, and one in South King County. This would be the South King County Youth Board and the other two groups would be sending teams to the conference. They would then go back into their communities in Seattle and Bellevue to do tobacco education. The Conference sends out invitations to every school in South King County, and at least one activity is encouraged for each of the 8 school districts. When a team goes back, they may do an activity for their whole school, so 800 to 1,500 youth would have access to information and education. Ms. Peterson asked if data was required to go back to the county and then the federal government so they could track what the money actually does in the community. Ms. Mathews said that quarterly reports and monthly billings would be done, and those all get passed through Public Health back to the state and then to the federal government. Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council accept the grant funds from Public Health of Seattle& King County and establish the budget documents as required. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Public Safety Committee, 7/9/02 2 WSLCB Expenditure Amendment Nancy Mathews said that in January when the current Under Age Drinking Grant, (RUAD Grant) was received, it was made retroactive to last fall but those three months of opportunity to do program activities were lost. Part of that budget was the $6,000 to pay for the presenters to come to last year's conference. The conference was over by the time the state finally got the budget done, and staff had to go back and ask to take that$6,000 to hire a consultant to help formalize the Youth Board to make sure there are good goals and a mission and vision statement that follows the visions of the Police Department and the City. The RUAD Grant also requires an evaluation, and the consultant will be working with the Liquor Control Board to determine exactly what type of surveys are needed, the kind of questions to ask, and other data to provide an evaluation of the RUAD Program. The consultant will work with the state to make sure that everything is in place for the time that meets the City's needs as well as the state's. A budget adjustment isn't needed and the object code and line item will remain the same. The only change is the function for which the money is to be used. LLEGB Grant—Accept Police Captain Lorna Rufener said the Department had received the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the past, and is requesting approval to apply for this year's grant in the amount of $68,410. The City's match would be$7,601. The money would be used for community education and new program, as well as some additional training for employees. The community education programs would involve a citizen's action group similar to Citizens on Patrol that would assist in doing neighborhood checks, facilitating Block Watch activity, and a variety of other services that are in the developmental stage. In addition, some video vignettes of the Citizens Academy would be developed to show on the Public Access Channel to broaden citizen understanding of the Police Department. Also, a program for youth would be put together that would emphasize safety issues. Rico Yingling moved to recommend that Council approve the application for a Fiscal Year 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Pipeline Safety Consortium Interlocal Agreement Fire Chief Jim Schneider said the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium was established and an interlocal agency agreement developed after the explosion that occurred in Bellingham in 2000. Auburn, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, Kent, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Tumwater, Woodinville, and Clark and Thurston Counties participate in the agreement which will soon expire. Kent will ask the other cities for an additional year to allow time to work through the transitional agreement with Olympic Pipeline to ensure proper safety guidelines on the pipeline that runs through the City of Kent. The agreement has been approved by the City Attorney's Office, and there are no fiscal resources attached to the extension; it is strictly amended for one year. Chief Schneider said the pipeline issue was a very difficult and sensitive issue to work through, as Olympic Pipeline has a lot of latitude and federal guidelines aren't as stringent as they Public Safety Comrruttee,7/9/02 3 probably should be. Olympic doesn't have to do some of the things the cities have requested. Also, the fact that the pipeline is an older system creates a lot of concern. Julie Peterson moved to recommend to the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment 1 to the Interlocal Agreement establishing the Washington City and County Pipeline Safety Consortium. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Ordinance Prohibiting Fireworks,New Year's, 2002 Ordinance Permanently Prohibiting Fireworks During New Year's Deputy City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick requested to discuss both of the Fireworks Ordinance items together. He said that state legislature recently amended the fireworks laws and did two things that affect the City of Kent: they changed the language from"common fireworks"to "consumer fireworks", which are the fireworks that can be found in the fireworks stands around the City (not the fireworks that are sold on the reservations that are generally illegal in the City of Kent), and they specifically made it legal to discharge,purchase, and sell fireworks over the New Year's Eve period. State law completely preempts the field of fireworks so that cities don't have the power to regulate them except in one limited circumstance of the time in which somebody can sell or discharge fireworks, and that's the only place a city can differentiate from state law for common fireworks. In order to make the ordinance more limited in time than the state law, an ordinance would have to be passed,but it wouldn't become effective for one year. The legislature has given the cities 30 days to opt out of the specifically permitted discharge period over 2002-2003 New Year's Eve so they don't have to go through the whole year's period and so they wouldn't be stuck with legal fireworks discharge. There are two ordinances. One specifically addresses the City of Kent and opts out of the discharge of common fireworks over New Year's—which isn't a change from the past. The City's current ordinance specifically says that fireworks cannot be discharged over the New Year's period, however the Legal Department feels that since the legislature has specifically permitted fireworks, the City needs to specifically say that they can't be discharged. Technically, the City code will not be changed but will simply comply with the legislature's window to opt out of that period. If the ordinance isn't passed, a fairly strong argument could be made that it would be legal in 2002 to discharge fireworks over the New Year's period. The second ordinance deals with everything after July 4, 2003 and is just cleanup. The State legislature changed the language they used in describing the times that fireworks can be sold and discharged. This ordinance will be more consistent with state law regarding the way the window over New Year's Eve was restructured. The ordinance won't become effective until one year and one day after its passage, and there will be no effect on the City code. Rico Yingling recommended that Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 13.05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession or use of consumer fireworks during the 2002/2003 New Year's period from December 27`h through December 31"and to replace the term"common fireworks" with the term "consumer fireworks" in accordance with a newly enacted state law. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Public Safety Committee,7/9/02 4 Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council adopt the ordinance to amend Chapter 13.05 of the Kent City Code to prohibit the sale, purchase, possession, use, or discharge of consumer fireworks during any New Year's period or any other period other than that specified in the existing code for July 41h. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Update on July 41h Activities Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin said the Mayor's Office starts to become inundated with fireworks related calls in early June, which is about the time that fireworks are being sold on the Indian reservations and surrounding areas; people start learning how to use them so they can use them on the 41h of July and for about two weeks afterwards. He said the Mayor has collected a large bag of fireworks paraphernalia that was picked up by the Parks Department and wanted the issue brought to Council's attention to see if they were hearing from the constituents the same thing he was hearing—that the City becomes a war zone on the 41h of July. The fireworks that are being shot off are illegal at any time in the City of Kent,but there is a confusion on the part of the public about whether or not they are illegal. To a lot of people the notion that a person can just drive a couple of miles,pay cash money for something across the counter, argues against the fact that it would be illegal anywhere, and there is some amount of confusion about what can and can't be done in the City of Kent, legally or illegally. The notion of banning all fireworks on the 41h of July would, at the very least, avoid any confusion about what can and can't be done in the City of Kent. The destruction was worse last year, but there still is a cost, and it's not cheap. The question is whether the pleasure of celebrating the 4`h of July with traditional fireworks and illegal fireworks is worth the cost. Chief Jim Schneider added that a report was compiled from the Parks Department, Police Department, and Fire Department that looked at both the overtime costs for the City of Kent and the property losses that were related to each department. ■ The Parks Department had a property loss of$490 from the loss of three trash cans—two of which were totally destryed and one which was partially destroyed. Parks' estimated overtime cost through the 4` of July(for about 7-8 days) was $3,382 or 78 hours of overtime. ■ The Police Department gets a lot of calls from people complaining that they hear fireworks going off,but the police usually aren't able to follow up because by the time they get to a location the perpetrators are gone. From June I"to July 7`h they had 163 requests for service and 203 information-only calls for a total of 366 calls for the entire month. Out of those, 234 were fireworks related calls for service that were received between June 28ch and July 4th. The overtime cost related to the Splash event at Lake Meridian came to about $3,900. Rico Yingling questioned why that would be included on the list. Chief Schneider said it was because the Police were there for both code enforcement and public relations. Mr. Yingling contended that that money would have been spent anyway. Public Safety Committee,7/9/02 5 Chief Schneider continued with the report: ■ The Fire Department had 27 calls for service and 25 of those were minor incidents like shrub and brush fires. There was about$5,000 in property loss related to fireworks this year, and the Department responded to two major emergency incidents that involved injuries to citizens of the City of Kent. The first incident was a serious injury to a 29 year old male that was engaged in using a mortar to set off illegal fireworks. He received burns to over 10%of his body in the neck, chest, and body area and also a fractured leg. He is currently in the hospital at the bum unit at Harborview Medical Center. The second incident involved juveniles, ages 4 to 13. They were not playing with illegal fireworks, but somebody else discharged illegal fireworks that landed and discharged in front of the kids. They were treated at the scene. Every day after the stands opened on the morning of Friday, June 281h, the Department evaluated and inspected every stand to make sure they were not selling illegal fireworks. Some illegal fireworks were confiscated. An investigation team went out and followed up on all complaints that came in, especially those on July 0. Sixty-seven hours of straight time and 76 hours of overtime were spent doing follow-up for a total of$6,200 in prevention. On the suppression side, additional personnel were added on the day of July 4`h for about 10 hours. Fifty calls came in on the Fourth, and two additional engines and one brush rig were staffed. Overtime hours came to about $3,100. Rico Yingling commented that Mr. Martin had stated the City was inundated with calls from early June until the first week in July, but the report didn't sound that way. Chief Schneider said that probably 72%-74%of the calls the Fire Department gets are EMS related, which could include life threatening injuries or death type situations. Having to go out on fireworks related calls means that personnel is not able to respond to the EMS calls and that creates an additional burden on the system. Investigators are sent out with police officers so an engine company doesn't have to be sent out, but there's probably a good chance that a second due engine company would have had to respond to a call rather than the first due engine company(which is the one that should have responded). With 50 calls on the Fourth, some would have had to be stacked. Right now probably 25-27% of calls are stacked,which means two calls occur at the same time within 20 minutes. Usually the minimum time on the scene would be 20 minutes, so if the company was out committed to a grass/shrub fire and an EMS call came in, that would be referred to as being inundated. Mr. Yingling contended that it sounded like the Fire Department was able to meet all its objectives and there was no data that any EMS calls were delayed; also, twenty percent of the calls get stacked already. He suggested that if fireworks were to be banned from Kent, the data would need to stand up and show that it wasn't just passionate words or an emotional appeal to take away something that a lot of people in the City very much want and enjoy. Extra calls also come in on New Year's or St Patrick's Day's when there is a lot of heavy drinking, and perhaps the same sort of list also needs to be made on those days showing the amount of extra calls, extra work, labor/overtime hours, dealing with drunks and speeders, or other things that are the result of too much drinking. There are other incidents like this,but an undue amount of attention seems to be paid to fireworks. Mr. Yingling stated that he felt the City had done everything needed to make sure that people were safe with fireworks, such as checking the stands which Public Safety Comnuttee,7/9/02 6 makes it easier for people who are purchasing to know that the fireworks and stands are okay and are operating within the policy of the City of Kent. He suggested that the Department make surprise visits to local neighborhoods to check to see if the fireworks being used were legal and to let people know ahead of time that they could get randomly checked for the legality of their fireworks. Chief Schneider said a lot of public education programs are done throughout the year,both in the newspaper and in the schools. What seems to work effectively is having a police officer and an investigator together in a car patrolling around the neighborhoods. The City has identified certain areas as being more common for illegal firework activity and the concentration is on those areas. Mike Martin added that the City tries to do everything it can to reduce the risks. He said that a couple of Kent's neighboring jurisdictions had prohibited fireworks successfully. Mr. Martin mentioned-he had been under the impression that a lot of the consumer fireworks were sold at stands either owned or operated by people that live in Kent,but that was not the case. Out of the 20 or so stands that were operated in the City, only three were operated by local businesses. But, a lot of people use fireworks stands as a way to bolster non profit organizations, and that is a good thing. Rico Yingling agreed and said that was why people should be buying their fireworks from a charitable group like the Boy Scouts. Connie Epperly commented that last year, one single person operated five stands for personal gain. She added that there were two weeks of terrible things happening last year with fireworks related incidents reported in the paper everyday, and it was like the 4th of July went on for half a month. Maybe things were calmer this year because the City was so close to banning fireworks last year, as there was a tremendous improvement. And, even though fireworks were being set off a week beforehand, it wasn't to the extent of last year. The meeting adjourned at 5:57 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES J U LY 15, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Julie Peterson,Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Tom Brubaker, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 5:08 PM. Street Vacation —Temperance Street: Set Hearing Date Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the City needs to vacate a portion of Temperance Street as part of the overall development for the Kent Station. In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held before authorization can be given, and this is brought today to set the hearing date. Julie Peterson moved to recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date of September 171h for the street vacation located along a portion of Temperance Street. The motion was seconded by Leona Orr and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 5, 2002 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Julie Peterson, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Gary Gill, Brett Vinson, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Ted Kogita The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 5:03 PM. Kent Station Grant—State Funding was added as agenda item number 5. Approval of Minutes of July 15, 2002 Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2002. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. LID 353 —Resolution of Intent, S 2281h Street Extension —541h Ave S to Kent-Des Moines Road (SR516) —Set Public Hearing Date Public Works Director Don Wickstrom presented the LID 352 Resolution of Intent for the S. 228`h Street Extension from 54"' Ave. South to Kent-Des Moines Road in order to set the public hearing date. He said staff recently met with the property owners to discuss the formation of the LID and to answer any questions they had. About 2,600 notices were sent out for the informal meeting and 100 people showed up. They had the usual type questions and concerns about their properties. Mr. Wickstrom requested that the Committee pass a resolution, which would set a hearing date of September 17`h Julie Peterson moved to recommend that Council adopt a Resolution of Intent for the creation of LID 353 which sets September 17, 2002 as the public hearing date on the said LID formation. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling. Ted Kogita, 2522 Reith Road, Kent, Washington, asked if the LID would encompass the West Hill because Polygon was going to run that road through to build more houses up there and it would open through West Hill on the north side. Don Wickstrom said the boundary did include West Hill up to Military Road north of SR516. The motion then passed 3-0. Joint Trench Agreements—AT&T Broadband and Qwest Don Wickstrom said the City would be digging the underground trenches related to the Kent Station Project for Puget Sound Energy's conduit in order to comply with the schedule. Qwest and AT&T want their lines in the trench and they will reimburse the City about $70,000. The City had to develop a reimbursable agreement. Rico Yingling recommended the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the joint trench agreements subject to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director concurring with the language therein. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. Public Works Committee, 8/5/02 2 S 1961h/2001h St West Leg King Countv Agreement—Supplement No. 5 Don Wickstrom presented supplement number 5 to the county/city agreement for the S. 196`h/200`h St. West Leg. The county/city line is the middle of the river. The county paid for half of the bridge and everything west of the river on 200`h, all the way to Orillia Road, plus north on Orillia. Kent was the lead agency. There was also a piece of wetland mitigation the City had to do and the site used was a piece of property by 2161h and 42nd Avenue. The wetland was built in accordance to the Corps approved plan,but now they say there is too much water and the City will have to go back and fill it up a bit. This has to be done because of the Corp's requirements, and since it was the only mitigation required for the county's project, they are reimbursing the City an estimated $20,000. Construction on the road is finished and the City wants to get the project off the books and get the county to accept it. Julie Peterson recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the King County Agreement— Supplement No.5, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. Kent Station Grant—State Funding Don Wickstrom said that during the last legislative session the City was able to get included in the legislative budget a grant for the Kent Station Project for infrastructure work in the amount of $900,000, less the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development's expenses which are generally$7,650. The City will receive$892,350 in grant funds,which will go towards the Second Avenue Improvement sewer and utility work and the signal work at 4th and the entrance road. Rico Yingling moved to recommend to the full Council that the Mayor be authorized to execute a grant agreement with the state for the Kent Station Project subject to the review and approval of the language therein by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney and to establish the budget for same including the spending of the funds on the project. The motion was seconded by Julie Peterson and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. • EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Pending Litigation