HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 11/15/1999 Item 2
Public Works/Planning Committee
11/18199
Water Rate Increase
Recommended Motu' n:
I move to:
Option #1 - Recommend to the full Council adoption of the
ordinance increasing the water rate as proposed above.
s
Option #2 - Recommend to full Council to institute a
moratorium on the issuance of all new water service
connections and direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance for same.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 15, 1999
TO: Public Works and P anning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Water Rate Increase
As you're aware we have been working for years with Tacoma, Seattle, Covington
Water District, and Lakehaven Utility District on developing the final contract
language per the implementation and operation of Tacoma's Second Supply Project.
As noted in the attached "Joint Declaration" this hurdle has now been successfully
completed. The official signing is anticipated to occur some time in February once
the necessary formal approvals have been obtained. Council approval thereof "rill be
sought once all the editorial corrections have been accomplished. With this
accomplished, the last major hurdle to implementing this project is the securing of
the incidental take permit under ESA. This permit is predicated upon the Feds
(National Marine Fisheries Service) approving Tacoma's Habitat Conservation Plan
for the watershed. It is anticipated that said permit would be issued in February.
Our share of this project is estimated to cost $28,000,000. As Council is fully aware
this is the only new water supply project in the Puget Sound region or possibly the
state on the verge of being implemented. As Council is also fully aware it is Kent's
next and also the only near term additional water supply source available to the City.
It is conceivable that water could be available therefrom by 2002. Without this
project our only option is a moratorium on all new water service connections.
As noted our share, which is one ninth of the total project cost, is approximately
$28,000,000. To finance it a water rate increase is required. The size of said rate is
approximately 38.2%. The last time the City increased its water rate was 1984 and
in fact the City lowered its rate in 1992 by 24% in conjunction with the
implementation of a street utility. A comparison of the new rates to other
surrounding purveyors is shown in the attached table. Also attached is a table which
shows the new rates and their impact on typical users. In addition to the 38.21%o
change we are proposing to incorporate the 1% utility tax into the rate itself.
Presently it is on the customer's bill as a separate item into the rate itself. We are
proposing this because the balance of the City's utility tax is already incorporated
into the rate and this would clean it up accounting wise.
2 1
It is the Public Works', Department recommendation that the rate increase be
approved. Further we have taken the liberty to place the adoption of the ordinance
on your November 16`h Council agenda. We did so because an ordinance requires
30-day period after passage before it become affective and the new rates must be in
effect prior to January 0 2000. It should be noted this rate increase was anticipated
per the preparation of the 2000 budget and is not related to the passage of I-695.
Actually we anticipated a two step increase, 2 1% in 2000 and 17.2% in 2001. 1-695
only forced us to compress it into the first year to eliminate any legal ambiguity.
MOTION: Option # 1 -Recommend to full Council adoption of the ordinance
increasing the water rate as proposed above.
Option #2- Recommend to full Council to institute a moratorium on
the issuance of all new water service connections and direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance for same.
MP8499
K ] ] ) a 0 ! ) ! ]
£ k k � / ! k „
y ! .
) 0 N � ® » � -
) k k\ § AA § ) (§ ) ( f /
e ! 2
-
�
\ \ ( ( | `
! 7
)
| E . \
2 ƒ� $
, -- §
/} {`
/ { � { k } - `
� k I � ! # / { w § : / . # [ 2- - -
21
, ! a
{ u
§ j 5
-
�
) ! ( § ! 216
2 . §
] 2 u k u ) #
f § :
$ ® .
§ d ! : ! � « ■ / ! f
0 .
-
-
§ { § fEk B. {
co
m \ .. \
\/± ® (
E :2 \ { / ; k )
i a
T
N
N
T
O
O
O
yy ^
c 6 6 L
C
O ^N O U
E
E o n
' � T y N
U N
u u
N 6 N U W 0 W W
o u � EvuiN E °h' c � rnvic c E
@a 3N Ho n ua aw �^ wN 3 of
L U U L
C
O O G O
h
M N K 17
N N
O V O U u
W
= a E Nm m
^ c_ E �`! vi r
@ a 3 N N O n a 3 N N N N N
�.. yuy yuy
o � Nmv�i, E voin
N T N
M N
a um LT
E u E
v 'E E c E
@ a �� :� of o n M.
L O L
C C
O p O
E rn m E rn
T In O O N
w i y N N N
0 U
y M c o E r E » E c E
m
@a CIO mh un u1Oi
N
u u u u u u u u
L p, n n n n a n n
!' N N
E w w w CA �+w w w N m ry
c
m rn pFri : u u 3 u u : m m
m tJ0 O — u
C U U N f7 � W U N ICI V 0 � W
a u ono E o E _ E
w A N A AA
E
0 � H E E c E
@ a o n n n n o N
au suu
L
c n a g n u
0
o m
OJ N N N N
O
� N N
m _
o d p u u u o u E m m
n _ A
@ a a o n rn n ,n o
Impact of Proposed User Charges
On Selected Customers
Monthly Cost to users, dollars
Class and Individual Customer Existing Proposed % Change
Winter/Summer Winter/Summer
Residential Customers Inside Kent
With very low consumption; e.g. one-
person household, limited yard uses.
'/4"meter, 300 cu ft/month 5.92/7.12 7.42/9.10 25/28
With low to moderate consumption; e.g.,
occupants away from home much of the
time.
3/4'meter, 500 cu ft/month 8.20/10.40 10.90/13.70 30/32
With average consumption; e.g., small
family with yard uses.
3/4" meter, 800 cu ft/month 12.12/15.32 16.12/20.60 33/34
With high consumption; e.g., large
residence irrigation system
1-1/2"meter 1,600 cu ft/month 23.14/29.54 31.14/40.10 35/36
Commercial Customers Inside Kent
With very low consumption; e.g., small
store with no special water uses.
3/4"meter, 900 cu ft/month 13.36/16.96 17.86/22.90 34/35
With low consumption; e.g., service station.
1" meter, 2,500 cu ft/month 33.45/43.45 45.95/59.95 37/38
With medium consumption; e.g., large
apartment building.
2" meter, 12,000 cu ft/month 152.80/200.80 212.80/280.00 39/39
With high consumption; e.g., very large
office building.
4" meter, 25,000 cu ft/month 326.80/426.80 451.80/591.80 38/39
With very high use; e.g., major industry
8" meter, 750,000 cu ft/month 9,337.59/12,337.59 13,087.59/17,287.59 40/40
8" meter, 1,500,000 cu ft/month 18,637.59/24,637.59 26,137.59/34,537.59 40/40
JOINT DECLARATION OF THE
THE CITY OF TACOMA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER DIVISION
THE CITY OF KENT
COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT
LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF SEATTLE
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES
The undersigned;parties have been engaged for some time in the negotiation of an
agreement that would provide for the design, financing, construction and operation of the
proposed Second Supply Project.
The undersigned parties have committed substantial resources to this effort
because of the substantial environmental, conservation, recreational, fish, water supply
and reliability benefits that the Second Supply Project will make available to areas of
Pierce and King Counties, and the degree to which it will foster regional cooperation on a
wide array of water related issues.
The undersigned utilities have, after careful examination and due consideration,
concluded that the attached Project Agreement is a full and complete agreement and, with
the exception of editorial corrections, is ready for submission to and consideration by
their respective governiig bodies substantially in the form as attached hereto.
Dated the 3rd day of November, 1999.
City of Tacoma City of Kent
Department of Public Utilities
Water Division
Lakehaven Utility District Covington Water District
City of Seattle
Seattle Public Utilities
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 7.02 of the Kent City
Code and increasing temporary and permanent water rates
within and outside the city limits.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7.02.180 of the Kent City Code is amended to
increase temporary water use rates as follows:
Sec. 7.02.180 Temporary water meters.
A. When water service is required for a specific short-term duration, upon approval.
of the director of public works, a temporary water meter may be obtained from the water
utility.
B. Such meters shall only be used for a designated project and shall be promptly
returned to the water utility upon completion of the project or at the end of sixty(60)days,
whichever comes first. The meters are to be returned in the same condition as when rented,
and the user shall be held responsible for any damage thereto including paying all repair
or replacement costs. While in the user's possession,the user shall be solely responsible
for the meter and as such should it be lost or stolen,the user shall pay the water utility the
cost of its replacement.
1 Water Rate Fee
C. The directot of public works shall require that a cash bond be deposited with the
city prior to receipt of a temporary meter. The amount of the bond shall equal the
replacement cost of the respective meter. Upon return of the meter, the payment of all
outstanding charge$ including any meter repair or replacement costs, the cash bond shall
be released back td the user.
D. Temporary meters may be moved from one(1)hydrant to another within the same
project provided the water utility is notified in advance of the proposed relocation and that
hydrant wrenches are used to make all connections and disconnections.
E. The charge!for water used through the temporary meter shall be at a rate of one
dollar and thirty-thee cents($1.33)per one hundred(100) cubic feet,plus a meter charge
as€ellews: established in subsections E.1 and 2 below. Effective December 31, 1999, the
charge for water u$ed through the temporary meter shall be at a rate of two dollars and
thirty cents ($2 30) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a meter charge as established
in subsections E.1 pnd 2 below.
1. Up to one and one-half(1 1/2) inch meter, fifty dollars ($50);
2. Two (2) inch and larger meter, one hundred dollars ($100).
Payment shall be made in full upon return of the meter. If a meter is lost or stolen,
payment for water used shall be based on an estimate made by the director of public
works.
SE!'TION2. Section 7.02.300 of the Kent City Code is amended to
increase water rates within the City as follows:
Sec. 7.02.3100 Water rates within the city.
A. The monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one dollar and twenty-four cents
($1.24) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and
meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly rate is one dollar and sixty-four cents
($1.64) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and
meter. Effective December 31 1999 the monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one
dollar and seventh four cents ($1 74) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly
2 Water Rate Fee
demand charge for service and meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly rate
is two dollars and thirty cents ($2 30) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly
demand chi for service and meter. The monthly demand charge for service and meter
is as follows:
Meter size Charge
(inches)
5/8 x 3/4 $ 2.20
1 2.45
1 1/2 3.30
2 4.00
3 13.95
4 16.80
6 28.10
8 37.59
10 48.46
B. For lifeline qualified water service customers, the monthly rate is forty-five cents
($0.45) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and
meter as set forth in subsection(A) above.
C. Eligibility criteria for lifeline rate shall be as established by city council.
D. 1. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city,
water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single
billing period under the following circumstances:
a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject
property; or
b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or
C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the
subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that
the meter is functioning properly.
This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty(50)percent of the difference between
the total amount of the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average
water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be
3 Water Rate Fee
computed by detejrmining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use
conditions, during the preceding twelve (12)months and dividing that total volume by the
number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve(12)
month period.
2. Thi$rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be
applied to one(1)billing period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment,the affected water
system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be
located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought
for adjustment must exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single
billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for
adjustment.
3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection,the
city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether
or not to adjust the customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination,
city staff shall be ;entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer's water system
repair prior to granting a rate adjustment.
4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to
the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of
water meter and water system,where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All
repairs shall occur within thirty(30) days of application to the city.
5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance
director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation
committee.
SECTION 3. Section 7.02.310 of the Kent City Code is amended to
increase the water rates outside the city as follows:
See. 7.02.310 Water rates outside city.
A. The monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one dollar and sixty-four cents
($1.64) per one hundred(100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and
4 Water Rate Fee
meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly charge is two dollars ($2) per one
hundred(100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter. Effective
December 31 1999 the monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is two dollars and thi
cents ($2 30)per one hundred(100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service
and meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly charge is two dollars and eighty
cents ($2 80)per one hundred(100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service
and meter. The monthly demand charge for service and meter is as follows:
Meter size Charge
(inches)
5/8 x 3/4 $ 2.20
1 2.45
1 1/2 3.30
2 4.00
3 13.95
4 16.80
6 28.10
.59
8 48.46
10
B. For lifeline qualified water service customers,the monthly rate is forty-eight cents
($0.48) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and
meter as set forth in subsection(A) above.
C. Eligibility criteria for lifeline rate shall be as established by city council.
D. 1. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city,
water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single
billing period under the following circumstances:
a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject
property; or
b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or
C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the
subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that
the meter is functioning properly.
5 Water Rate Fee
This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty(50)percent of the difference between
the total amount of'the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average
water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be
computed by determining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use
conditions, during the preceding twelve(12)months and dividing that total volume by the
number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve (12)
month period.
2. This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be
applied to one(1)Billing period..To be eligible for this rate adjustment,the affected water
system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be
located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought
for adjustment mist exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single
billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for
adjustment.
3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection,the
city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether
or not to adjust tha customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination,
city staff shall be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer's water system
repair prior to granting a rate adjustment.
4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to
the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of
water meter and water system,where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All
repairs shall occur!within thirty(30) days of application to the city.
5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance
director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation
committee.
SECTION 4.—Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
6 Water Rate Fee
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 71999.
APPROVED: day of , 1999.
PUBLISHED: day of 31999.
1 hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\ordinance\W ater.Rate.Amend.123199.dx
7 Water Rate Fee
Item 3
Public Works/Planning Committee
11h5/99
Sewer Rate Increase
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend to the Council adoption of the sewer
service rate increase as proposed herein.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 15, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Sewer Rates
King County (Metro) has increased its rate for sewage treatment from $19.10 to $19.50 per
month per residential equivalent (750 cubic feet of sewage). As we have traditionally done in
the past, we are recommending passing along this increase including the associated utility tax
thereon to our customers. In addition thereto we are also seeking a $0.74 or 2.9% increase in the
overall monthly residential equivalent rate which would raise the total overall increase of the rate
to 6.3%. If you will recall last July we implemented a 4.5% overall rate increase (February
memo attached) to get the sewer fund back on sound financial ground. It now appears that that
increase was not sufficient. One thing that affected this was that our east hill sewer interceptor
project is estimated to cost more than what we perceived it to cost back in January. The 2000
budget reflects the appropriate amount but requires a little more debt service coverage to do so
and thus affected the ending balance. It should be noted that said project cost is still lower then
originally anticipated. While we were putting the 1999 budget together we cut the project budget
more then we should have. Also to clear up an accounting issue we want to incorporate the 1%
utility tax into the rate itself versus it presently being reflected on the customer's bill as an add-
on. Thus the city's entire utility tax would be included in the rate versus part in and part out.
It is the Public Works Department's recommendation that the sewer rates be increased as
proposed herein and on the attached table. Because an ordinance requires a 30 day period after
passage to become effective and any rate adjustment needs to be in place prior to January 1'` in
order to be effective per 1-695, we have taken the liberty to include the rate adjustment ordinance
on the November 16`h Council agenda. I should point out that we will have several versions of
the Ordinance available at the meeting. We will do so because if council elects to fund the
budget short fall attributed to I-695 in part or whole via a utility tax increase or find the
$4,000,000 obligation per the parking garage structure associated with the Commuter Rail
Station via a utility tax increase, that said increase will need to be included into the rate stricture.
MOTION: Recommend to full Council adoption of the sewer service rate increased as
proposed herein.
MP8599
Proposed Sewer Increase
1999 2000
Metro Portion 19.10 19.50
City Charge 6.23 7.41
Subtotal 25.33 26.91
1% Utility Tax 0.25 0.27
Total Sewer Rate 25.58 27.18
% Increase 6.3%
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
February 1, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning_Committee
FROM: Don Wickstro
RE: Sewer Comp Plan
As intended, this item was carried over from the January 20'h Committee meeting. A copy of the
memo from that meeting is enclosed. Nothing new thereon is planned to be presented. It should
be noted, however that the SEPA process for the Plan has not yet been completed. Because this
is a planning level document the SEPA process shouldn't raise any issues unlike that associated
with a specific construction project. Further the document itself presents nothing new or
controversial which supports a high probability of a clean Determination of Non-Significance.
Since we are on a tight time frame, we ask that the Committee recommend adoption of the Comp
Plan to the full Council subject to the issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or
a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)wherein the conditions thereof are of an
inconsequential nature as determined by the Public Works Director to the content of the Plan.
t With respect to the sewer rate increase which is a separate and stand alone issue from the Comp
Plan it is recommended that the rate increase be adopted as proposed with the effective date
thereof being July 1, 1999. The Finance Director did bring to my attention that the City's utility
tax, at least that portion thereof dedicated for street purposes (1%), is added on at the end as a
separate item on the customer's bill. She was originally recommending that it be included in this
rate proposal. The net financial impact thereof to the customer is zero but to May it cleans up an
accounting issue for her. Since the drainage rates as well as the water rates are similarly
affected, it is both our recommendation that this particular issue should be differed to 2000
budget process. To do only the sewer now would raise unnecessary difficulties with the billing
computer program. It should be noted that said 1% was not included in calculating the 4.5% rate
increase therefore, the rates are as they were proposed.
MOTION: Recommends to the full Council adoption the Sewer Comp Plan subject to the
issuance of a DNS or MDNS where the conditions thereof are of an inconsequential nature as
determined by the Public Works Director to the content of the Plan.
MOTION: Recommends to the full Council adoption of the Sewer rate increase as proposed
herein with the effective date of July 1, 1999 and direct the City Attorney to prepare and bring
back to the full Council the necessary Ordinance for same.
NV1899
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
January 20, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Sewer Comp Plan
Enclosed is the Updated Sewer Comprehensive Plan along Nvith other pertinent
information. The discussion at this meeting well be the introduction of the Comp
Plan and a rate increase issue. Action will be sought at the next Committee meeting.
The real driver behind the update of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan is the fact that
the service area of the City's Sewer System includes portions of unincorporated King
County. While said area is relatively small with respect to the entire service area to
provide sewer service thereto, a County franchise is required and our existing one has
or is about to expire. To obtain a new franchise, the County requires an updated
Comp Plan. Our original Comp Plan was developed in 1980 and identified
approximately $3,500,000 (1980 dollars) worth of improvements mostly rehabs and
rebuilds. Over the years these projects have all been completed. Since the 1980
Comp Plan, the only new significant project identified is the East Hill Interceptor
project, which is presently fully funded. With its completion, the City will have a
relatively new system that is capable to service the City's growth needs to full build-
out.
It's important to note we have been able to accomplish all this without issuing new
debt orAising rates. In fact, the sewer portion of our Sewerage Utility is debt free.
While sewer rates have gone up over the years, those increases have been attributed
to Metro's (now King County) portion of the rate. Further, at least one of those
years tJhe Utility absorbed the Metro increase versus passing it on. Also, for years
because the Utility pays the State a utility tax (approx. 1%) predicated on gross
revenues as Metro's increases were passed, on the Utility absorbed the State tax
increase attributed thereto. In addition, the State utility tax rate was increased at
least once for which it was also absorbed. Further the City's utility tax rate has had
increases over the years for which they were also absorbed. These absorbtions along
with those associated with labor, material, and equipment costs were appropriate
when the revenue stream so allowed. However, as was noted by the Finance Director
during the 1999 budget discussions, a rate increase in the City's portion of the sewer
rate is now necessary in order for the sewer to pay its operating expenses without
encroaching on Storm Drainage revenues of the Sewerage Fund. As reflected in the
attached table we recommend a 4.5% increase in the overall sewer rate with an
affected date of April 1, 1999. This would equate to an increase of a $1.09 per
month in the single-family residential rate. Such a rate increase would be adequate to
recoup our expenses including covering our annual miscellaneous improvement
program and retaining a one time minor emergency fund of S500,000-$600,000 to
draw on should the case arise.
ACTION: Continue to next Committee meeting
MP0899
SEWERAGE FUND
1999- REVISED FORECAST
(AMOUNTS IN 000's)
SEWER PORTION ONLY
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Priority
Sewer Operating Revenue 12,182 12,625 13,110 14,264 14,290 14,316
Sewer Operating Expenses
Existing Expenses 11,595 12,062 12,576 13,733 13,811 13,892
Additional staff,supplies,services and equipment 86 88 90 93 95 98
Total Sewer Operating Expenses 11,681 12,150 12,666 13,825 13,906 13,990
Sewer Operating Income(Loss) 501 475 444 438 384 326
Other Financial Sources
Miscellaneous Revenue 34 34 34 34 34 34
Interest Income
Total Other Financial Sources 34 34 34 34 34 34
Net Available for Expenditures 535 509 478 472 418 360
Expenditures
Debt Service-Existing
Debt Service-1999 Issue" 97 97 97 97 97
Total Expenditures 0 97 97 97 97 97
Net Available for Capital Projects 535 412 381 375 321 263
Proceeds from Long-Term Debt" 1,183
Total Available for Capital Projects 1,718 412 381 375 321 263
Capital Project Requests
East Hill Interceptor 1,183 0 0 0 0 0 1
Miscellaneous Sewer Lines 270 281 291 303 315 327 2
City-wide Technology Plan 250 250 3
Total Capital Project Requests 1,703 531 291 303 315 327
Total Revenues Over(Under)Capital Projects 15 (119) 90 72 6 (64)
Beginning Working Capital 603 618 499 589 661 667
Ending Working Capital 618 499 589 661 667 603
Increase in revenues 4.327%above Finance's projection.
Reduction in the East Hill Interceptor capital request and the related debt service.
City of Kent
er Rate History(1989 - 1998)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
City Charge 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.02 5.02 5.10 5.14 5.14 5.14
Metro Charge 10.45 11.60 13.20 13.20 13.62 15.90 17.95 19.10 19.10 19.10
Total 16.45 17.60 19.20 19.20 18.64 20.92 23.05 24.24 24.24 24.24
' Residential unit changed from 900 cf to 750 cf.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, adjusting the scheduled charges for
sewer service inside the City limits.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7.04.280 of the Kent City Code shall be amended
as follows:
Sec. 7.04.280. Schedule of charges for service inside City limits.
The following are the sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the City
limits are in effect on the dates and in the amounts listed below.
Type of Service Charge per month
Effective until Effective on
December 31, December 31,
1999 1999
1. Single-family residential dwelling, as $25.33 $27.18
defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC.
2. Two-family or multiple-family residential $25.33 $27.18
dwelling, as defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC,
each unit separately charged.
3. Single-family residential/Lifeline: $23.41 2$ 4.56
Eligibility criteria for Lifeline Rate shall
be established by City Council.
4. All other than single-family residential, $3.38 $3.63
shall be billed in accordance with the per 100 cubic per 100 cubic
consumption of water and at the following feet per month feet per month
rate, except that no monthly bill shall be
less than $25.33 $27.18.
1 Sewer Rate Increasel
SECTION 2. Kent City Code Section 7.04.280,which is amended by
this ordinance, shah remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same
shall remain in full'force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force on July 1, 1999, which is at least thirty (30) days from and after its passage,
approval, and publication, as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBIER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUB 6VICH, CITY ATTORNEY
2 Sewer Rate Increase
PASSED: day of , 1999.
APPROVED: day of ' 1999.
PUBLISHED: day of , 1999.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the
City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City
of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
\1CITYHALL\USERS,LAWUBLIC�Civil\Ordinance\Scwa-Chuge.atrend.12J 199.dcc
3 Sewer Rate Increase
Item 4
Public Works/Planning Committee
11/15/99
Drainage Rate Increase
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend to the Council adoption of the
ordinance increasing the drainage rate in the Soos Creek
Basin as proposed above.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 15, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Drainage Rates
As you're aware earlier this year you adopted the Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program along with the respective drainage rate changes therefore. Said rate change was a two
step increase with the first increase effective January I" of 2000 and the second following one
year later. With the passage of I-695 to resolve any legal ambiguity said two step increases
needs to be compressed to just one increase and the effective date needs to be changed to
December 315t 1999. As such instead of the rate going to $4.64/month on January 15t it is the
Public Works Department's recommendation that it goes to $6.58/month on December 3151. As
was noted during the original presentation and discussions on this matter the City's rate is still 50
cents less then what the County was charging the area prior to its annexing to the City. Further
and more significant is the fact that the money generated therefrom will be used directly to
finance the construction of improvements within this basin.
Besides the changes noted above we would also like to include within the rate the 1-% City
utility tax that is presently shown as a separate item on the customer's bill. This is a zero dollar
change to the customer as they are presently paying it. It simply cleans up an accounting issue
and puts all the utility tax into the rate versus part in and part out. Because an ordinance requires
a 30-day period after passage before it becomes affective and a new rate must be in affect prior
to January 1", we have taken the liberty of placing this item on your November 161h council
agenda for action. Please keep in mind also that any increase in the utility tax to either address I-
695 budget shortfall or the financing of the $4,000,000 parking garage obligation per the
commuter rail station needs to also be incorporated into this rate. Since your decision thereon
might come at either you're November 161h workshop or that evening's Council meeting, we will
have various versions of the rate adjustment ordinance available at the Council meeting to reflect
it.
MOTION: Recommend to full Council adoption of the ordinance increasing the drainage rate in
the Soos Creek Basin as proposed above.
40 MP8899
Proposed Drainage Increase
1999 2000 1% Utility 2000
Rate Before Tax Tax Rate
Basin A 7.25 7.25 0.07 7.32
Basin B 4.46 4.46 0.04 4.50
Basin C 4.56 4.56 0.05 4.61
Basin D 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin E 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin F 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin G 6.51 6.51 0.07 6.58
Basin H 2.53 6.58 0.07 6.651 Soos Creek Basin
Basin 1 4.29 4.29 0.04 4.33
Basin J 4.29 4.29 0.04 4.33
Basin K 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin L 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin M' 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin N 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin O 2.53 2.53 0.03 2.56
Basin P 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60
Basin Q 7.25 7.25 0.07 7.32
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORIGS
April 2, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wicks trom
RE: System Development Fee - Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program
There were questions rai$ed at the most recent Public Works/Planning Committee
meeting that were not adequately answered. As such, the attached memorandum
(Soos Creek Basin Systenn Development Fee) explains the impact of what a system
development fee would have on the proposed rate structure.
Also attached is my memorandum explaining the computer modeling effort that was
completed during the study and the cost of one of the projects. At this time I am
requesting that Committee move this item forward to the next full Council meeting.
MOTION: Recommend authorization for Council to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary Ordinance adopting the Meridian Stormwater Capital
Improvement Program.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
April 1, 1999
TO : Don Wickstrom
FROM: Paul Scot
RE : Soos Cree'k Basin System Development Fee
In establishing a system development fee for stormwater, I found
that of the jurisdictions in the proximity of Kent, only Auburn,
Des Moines and Renton have such a charge . The fee for Auburn and
Des 'Moines is $400 while Renton is $385 . It seemed reasonable for
this analysis to use $400 as the system development fee in
projecting revenue .
Using the Growth Management Plan I extrapolated a rate of straight
-line growth for households in this basin at 1 . 03% . The resulting
ESU' s, excluding streets, are as follows :
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
9132 9225 9318 9411 9504
Using $400 as the system development charge, the extra revenue that
would be generated based upon the 1 . 03% growth in ESU' s would be
$37, 200 annually.
The revenue requirements of this basin, incorporating the
additional money generated by a system development charge, would
result in the rates as summarized below:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
4 . 64 6 . 82 6 . 66 6 . 50 6 . 34
Because the rates fluctuate between 2001 through 2004 , it is my
suggestion that the rates be averaged for the four-year time period
so there would only be one required rate adjustment needed in 2001 .
The modified rate structure would then be as follows :
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
4 . 64 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58
The comparison of thie rates required to generate the needed revenue
to make the capitalimprovements in the basin with and without the
$400 system development fee, with the four year time period
averaged, are summarized as follows :
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
With charge 4 . 64 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58
Without charge 4 . 86 6 . 79 6 . 79 6 . 79 6 . 79
Difference 0 . 22 0 . 21 0 . 21 0 . 21 0 . 21
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 23, 1999
TO: Public Works/Plannin ' Committee
FROM: Don Wickstronti
RE: Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program
I am writing to address several questions that came up both before and during the Public
Works/Planning Committee meeting with regard to the presentation on the Meridian Annexation
Area Stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The questions specifically relate to the
comppter modeling effort that was completed during the study and the cost of one of the
projects. The questions and answers are as follows:
1) Why was Lake Meridian not included as impervious area in the model?
oThis question relates to the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis". The
source of the confusion may be the table at the bottom of page 8 or Tables 2 and 3 on pages 29
and 30 in the report. These tables correctly indicate that the lake is not treated as "effective
impervious area". This is a result of both the definition of "effective impervious area" and the
structure of the HSPF model used for the hydrologic analysis.
Effective impervious area is an area where there is no opportunity for surface runoff from an
impervious site to infiltrate into the soil before it reaches a conveyance system (pipe, ditch,
stream, etc.). Impervious areas and pervious areas are "land types" that have specific areas and
parameter sets that are programmed into the model. In HSPF programming language, these areas
are called "EVPLNDs" and "PERLNDs". Open channels and lakes are characterized separately
from the 1MPLNDS and PERLNDS in the model. In HSPF programming language, these open
channel reaches and lakes are called "RCHRES's" and have their own parameter sets.
Hydrologic flux and balance calculations are completed for both the land types (PERLNDs and
1MPLNDs) and the open water segments (RHRES's), guaranteeing that the hydrologic cycle is
simulated in its entirety.
2) Streamflows seem to increase dramatically downstream of the outlet of Lake Meridian.
Is this a result of discharges from wetlands along the flow path?
Streamflows do increase in the downstream direction as expected, with the increases generally
explained by increases in tributary drainage areas. Wetlands may function to either move
10 groundwater to surface water—"discharge", or move surface water to groundwater — "recharge".
Wetlands also provide for surface and subsurface storage of water. These functions may vary
seasonally. The exact hydrologic timing and function of a specific wetland is difficult to
determine without monito king using surface flow and crest gauges and shallow and deep
piezometers.
Streamflow in the Lake Meridian Watershed was simulated by four RHRES's (see discussion
above). Streamflows are extracted from the model at the downstream end of each RHRES.
Streamflows for a range of, return periods under the current land use scenario are presented in
Table 7 of the report titled:'"Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis". Flows expected
under the future land use seenario are presented in Table 10. Data for the four Lake Meridian
RHRES's are listed at the top of the table.
The tables show that, under both current and future conditions, for the 25-year event,
streamflows increase in the!downstream direction in relation to the increased tributary area. For
example, under the current 0onditions scenario, flow at the outlet of the lake is 11.7 cfs, increases
to 15.8 cfs at the cross culvert under 152nd (approximately 1,400 feet south of Kent Kangley
Road), and is 23.9 cfs at the.confluence of the outlet channel and Big Soos Creek.
3) What alignment doles the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel follow downstream of its
beginning at the Lakee Meridian Park? Does it flow directly east to Big Soos Creek?
The alignment of the Lake Meridian Outlet channel was investigated using several approaches:
1) Public Works staff walked the channel on two occasions, 2) a survey crew completed a
channel survey and the resulting information was used to develop a map of the stream location
and associated channel cross sections, 3) staff from two consulting engineering firms walked
sections of the channel. As 4 result of these activities, the following alignment was identified:
• The outlet channel begins at the Lake Meridian Park at the Southeast corner of the Lake, and
continues through a series of culverts in the park and a culvert across 152"d Way SE
• Starting on the east side of 152"d Way SE, the channel follows a route through a forested
area. The channel continues through this area, outletting to a long Swale/pond on the west
side of the Cascade Villa Mobile Home Park. From the Swale/pond outlet, drainage flows
through a series of culverts on the east side of 152"d Way SE, including a culvert crossing
Kent Kangley Road from the Northeast to the Southwest.
• Drainage then flows through a wetland area west of 152"d Ave SE and south of Kent Kangley
Road. A culvert convey$ flow across 152"d Ave to the start of a channel on the east side of
152"d Ave. This straight channel continues along an alignment just east and parallel to 152nd
Ave until the outlet at Big Soos Creek south of Highway 18.
There is no direct surface connection of the channel with Big Soos Creek other than the
confluence south of Highway 18. However, as described on page 4-8 of the report titled:
"Meridian Annexation Area' Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan", the Public
Works Department is currently examining the feasibility of constructing a new channel to
convey flows from Lake Mefidian more directly to Big Soos Creek. One potential alignment for
this new channel is shown inFigure 6 of the same report as a red line labeled "LM-2".
4) Why was the HSPF model used when it is an older model that is not very "user- 10
friendly"?
The HSPF model is an older model. In fact the current release is the l Ith version of the model.
It is the only model available that accurately simulates the entire hydrologic cycle over extended
periods of time. In addition, it is an EPA supported model that is very well documented. The
model has been used extensively throughout Puget Sound in development of Basin Plans that
recommend capital improvements, and resource management and land use policies. It is not
"user friendly".
5) How was the model calibrated? Why wasn't verification completed?
As described on pages 5, 11, and 12 of the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic
Analysis", the model was calibrated using lake level (stage) data from Lake Meridian for the
period October 1994, 1995, and 1996. As described in the report, calibration requires selecting
appropriate parameter values that represent the physical hydrologic processes for the watershed,
testing the values by comparing the model results with recorded streamflow or stage data, and
modifying parameter values where appropriate to achieve a better match between simulated and
recorded results.
Verification is a separate step that involves comparing the output of the calibrated model with a
separate period of observed flows to "verify" that the model is accurately representing
hydrologic processes. An additional two to three years of observed data, separate from the
calibration time period, is required for verification. Therefore, collection of data for verification
would have delayed completion of the study two to three years.
Calibration results are shown in Figure 4, page 27 of the report. Simulated lake levels are
generally within 6" of recorded levels. The parameters used for the Lake Meridian Watershed
were also used for the other watersheds. The same soil types/geologic units located in adjacent
watersheds will generally exhibit the same hydrologic characteristics. Therefore, the success of
the calibration in the Lake Meridian Watershed indicates the same level of success in the
adjoining watersheds.
It should be kept in mind that no model can ever replicate the complex processes involved in the
natural hydrologic cycle. However, computer modeling, coupled with direct field observations
of flooding and a design process that includes a factor of safety to account for uncertainty, is an
important tool to be used in development of solutions for flooding.
6) What is the cost for the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel project? What is the justification
for the project?
The hydraulic modeling indicated that all of the culvert crossings south of SE 276"' Place along
the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel are undersized. In addition, the channel segment upstream of
the culvert crossing of 152"d near SE 276h Place is undersized. Because 152"d Avenue is
designated as a principle arterial, as developments occur therealong, improvement of 152"d
Avenue to City standards is being required. As such, the issues relating to the channel have to be
addressed and to burden an individual owner therewith seems inappropriate. In addition to these
issues, the existing channel is severely degraded in terms of fisheries habitat.
In response to the floodingland fisheries problems, a preliminary
P p ary design and cost were developed
for a new channel to be located adjacent to 152"d Ave SE. The estimated cost for this project is
$3.7 million.
Another alternative to the; north-south alignment for the new Lake Meridian Channel was
investigated. It would involve diverting some or all of the outflow from the lake to a channel
that would flow more directly to Big Soos Creek. Flow would be diverted beginning somewhere
just east of the existing lal a outlet and flow in a north and east direction to connect with Big
Soos Creek. The pros andcons of this alternative are discussed in the report titled: "Meridian
Annexation Area Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan". The estimated cost for
this project is $2.4 million. IDue to the greater uncertainty associated with regulatory approval of
this project and the need to provide conservative project estimates in the CIP, the cost for the
north-south alignment was ilncluded in the CIP.
W4699
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
March 1, 1999
To: Public Workv/ la ing Committee
From: Don Wickstro ublic Works Director
Re: Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program
The following memo provides background on the Stormwater Capital Improvement
Program and related stormwater utility rate changes proposed for the Meridian and
Meridian Valley Annexation Areas. Additional details relating to the Program and
proposed rates will be discussed at the March 1, 1999 meeting of the Kent City Council
Public Works/Planning Committee.
Two reports provided-with this memo contain supporting information. They are:
• Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis (AQUA TERRA Consultants, 1999)
• Meridian Annexation Area Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan (R.W.
Beck, 1999)
BACKGROUND
The 1996 Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexations added approximately 6.6 square
miles to the City of Kent. Prior to the annexations, stormwater service and stream
resource management was under the jurisdiction of King County. These areas generally
received a low level of service. Flooding and fish habitat problems were being addressed
based on a prioritization among other projects throughout the larger Soos Creek
Watershed. Several improvements were originally proposed in the Soos Creek Basin
Plan completed in 1990. That plan is now almost 10 years old.
In response to the annexations, the City initiated several studies to address stormwater
conveyance and fish habitat needs for the area. They included the following:
• A Fish Habitat and Population Survey to determine the presence or absence
of fish populations, the quantity and quality of existing fish habitat, and
identify habitat improvement needs (this study included other areas in the
w city)
• A Hydrologic Analysis to quantify the changes in stormwater runoff rates
and volumes that are expected to occur as the area develops
• A Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan to: 1) analyze and
locate flooding problems and develop solutions; 2) compile habitat
improvements identified in the fisheries study and improvements identified by
other sources (agencies, tribes, etc.), and 3) develop a prioritized list with
associated casts for flooding solutions and fish habitat improvements
The main goal of the effort was to develop a Capital Improvement Program, with an
associated budget and schedule, that would address the stormwater and fisheries habitat
needs in the area. Funding mechanisms could then be developed to meet these needs.
BASIN ORIENTATION
A study area was estab.lished for completion of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
The study area included the watersheds for three drainage systems which, in turn, are
tributary to Big Soos Creek. A map showing these watersheds is attached. While the
total area of the three watersheds is 8.2 square miles, 2.5 square miles are currently
outside the City limits.
The Soosette Creek Watershed contains the most complex drainage network of the three
study watersheds, draining areas from as far north as SE 248`h St. Several large wetlands
and a regional detention'facility are located in the watershed. The confluence of Soosette
Creek and Big Soos Creek is located beyond the City limits.
The Clark Lake /Meridian Valley Creek Watershed collects water from two tributaries —
one which originates north of the current city limits, and the other which includes Clark
Lake. The confluence of the tributaries is located in the vicinity of the SE 2401h St and
132"d Ave SE intersection. Downstream of the confluence, Meridian Valley Creek flows
towards the southeast through the Meridian Valley Country Club to its outlet to Big Soos
Creek at SE 256h and 148`h Ave SE.
The Lake Meridian Watershed is dominated by the lake, which covers almost half of the
watershed area. The outflow channel is the most highly degraded drainage system within
the study area. Through the majority of its length it consists of a linear ditch running
adjacent to the east side of 152"d Ave SE. The ditch conveys outflow from the lake and
local stormwater runoff to Big Soos Creek where Big Soos flows under the Kent/Black
Diamond Road.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
It is expected that the Puget Sound Chinook are going to be listed as a threatened species
this spring under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are also indications that
Puget Sound Coho may also be listed within the next couple of years. These listings will
have implications for City resource management and land development. State and local
response plans are currently under development.
The creeks in the annexation areas are among the most productive, in terms of fisheries,
in the Lower Green River system. As a result of this and the "fisheries-focus" of state
and local agencies in response to the ESA listings, the Capital Improvement Plan
developed for the annexation area includes several fisheries-related projects. The overall
objectives of these projects are: 1) preservation of existing fisheries resources and 2)
restoration to improve habitat where there has been some impact from urbanization.
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
A total of 39 flooding and fish habitat problems were identified during the studies. Most
of the flooding problems involve culverts that are undersized. New culverts are proposed
for 18 locations.
Identified fisheries problems include fish passage barriers that need to be removed and
riparian habitat problems such as a lack of streamside vegetation and insufficient
streambed gravels for salmon spawning. Thirteen projects have been developed to
address these problems.
Details relating to all of the problems and solutions are presented in the attached
"Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Program" report. (see Tables 2 and 5)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND SCHEDULE
The Capital Improvement Program is presented in the attached table. A total of
$10,311,300 in improvements are proposed, including $8,413,000 (82 %) in conveyance
projects to solve flooding problems, and $1,898,300 (18 %) in fish habitat projects. The
plan is scheduled for funding over a six year time period.
The projects are presented in the table in prioritized order, based on the following
criteria:
• The magnitude and location of the flooding problem — the threat to life and property
and the flood hazard on major transportation arterials
• The need to complete projects in a sequence from downstream to upstream to avoid
exacerbation of existing problems
• Agency and Tribal input
• Grouping related projects
• Projects for which designs have been completed and/or easements have been secured
REVENUE AND RATES
Stormwater Utility fees will be the primary source of funding for implementation of the
Capital Improvement Program. A series of calculations and fiscal models were
completed to determine: 1) proposed stormwater rates and associated annual revenue, and
2) the approach for generation of revenue to fund the entire program within a 6-year time
period.
Given the $10,311,300, fotal cost for the program and a six year funding schedule, the
following method for generation of revenue is planned:
• A 2-step stormwater utility fee increase, with the first increase from the current rate
of $2.36/month to L$4.89/month implemented on January 1, 2000, and the second
increase from $4.89/month to $7.25/month implemented on January 1, 2001
• Funding would be ,generated on a "pay as you go" basis for the first five years.
Revenue bonds would be issued in the sixth year to cover the remainder of the capital
needs.
For comparison, current rate in the City's Mill Creek Basin is $7.25/month, and the rate
in unincorporated King!County is $7.09/month. Please keep in mind that prior to this
area annexing into the City, all properties were subject to and paying the County's
stormwater rate. While!by 2001, our rate will be slightly higher than the County's, the
money generated will be used to construct improvements within the basin.
This is an introduction item at this time and we will be requesting "action" at the next
Committee meeting.
Attachments
W3499
N
° � D
� Z
= D
mZ
P P 9 9 A P 9 9 : 9
q a !! O m
d sm D
8 9 - Z
H s 00
Y a o
9 w Z
m a 3 = vD
m m
3 o mM
m� a 4 zn n L n m ,^
° � a
m
n
•3' = C
a D
TmT
IR !0 gv !7 izz IR Yw.e e N
3yd i�i33 i • • m• $a. 9s�: n •a c� 5� .�i
Fit '2
34o
Ly • �S a w• 9 N 'iS • 3u Ji4
q "# C P o o
: 4 3 3 /
m
0 o a b
m
z
o T
I iff
D
75 tl G O A
N N
a 2f 6 $ O
W
N
O
O
J.
$ $ 0 0 0
N
H
T r T O N y O N T
n u u
Y
Q
u
e Your yu..
Q Yg
$a
gg Hill .� m a s o a n
ga 3 •
3 yy 3
5 g
ytl Qy air
eYeg3�So�l
Y3 ?*3 n g i NP fP v in Q 3Ro 0 • '
� y$i3 an � S � y 3 • a c� m
E 77 tS V.• s ja i
,,pp3: EY � � � • ° y m
aC g t 'x
3o a gP P P d�
N 0.1
�46 'I' ks�� '�5 �E as gs ° � •� �_£ ���� � , j ° � aa�a
it
r gggg$
• �88& i � �• rff sff a
g�� fig 1g i� i� ; � 4 ;� 9 x � � �R •a �ff
i4 p 3 �a �S g�gS
0
4
8N
O
Q
N
N8
NO
8m
uO
T _
W
Y
0
W i5'� � S 4 2f 6 ES 2f R 2f ES 6 25 C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending Section 7.05.090 of the
Kent City Code by increasing the basic rate and the basin-
specific rate charged by the City storm and surface water
utility, and amending Section 7.05.160 of the Kent City
Code by amending the date for imposition of increased
connection fees in the Soos Creek Watershed(Basin H).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7.05.090 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 7.05.090. System of charges.
A. There is hereby imposed a system of charges on each parcel of real property within.,
the city served by or to which is available for service the storm and surface water utility
established by this chapter. The charges are found to be reasonable and necessary to fund
administration, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair,
improvement, and replacement of all existing and future storm and surface water
facilities, including the accumulation of reserves and the retirement of any associated
debt.
B. The following charges are hereby established for all parcels of real property in the
city:
1. Residential parcels. Effective January 1, 1998, the single-family
residential rate shall be two dollars and forty-four cents($2.44)per month for each parcel
1 Stormwater Charges
having one(1)residential dwelling plus the basin specific charge of subsection BA below.
Effective December 31 1999 the single-familresidential rate shall be two dollars and
forty-seven cents ($2 47)per month for-each parcel having one (1)residential dwelling
plus the basin specific charge of subsection BA below.
2. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels: Agricultural parcels shall be
charged the monthly residential parcel rate. Undeveloped parcels shall not be charged.
3. Other parcels:
a. ! The charge for all other parcels except residential parcels,
agricultural parcels and undeveloped parcels shall be based upon:
(1) The total amount of impervious surface as expressed in
equivalent service units (an equivalent service unit has been determined to be two
thousand five hundred (2,500)square feet of impervious surface or any fraction thereof);
and
(2) The percentage of impervious surface area on each parcel.
b. ! The charge for all such parcels shall be computed:
(1) By multiplying the total number of ESU's on each by the
appropriate parcel impervious multiplier; and
(2) Multiplying the results by the sum of the single-family
residential rate and the appropriate basin-specific charge.
C. Impervious multipliers are hereby established:
(1) Percentage of impervious area per parcel Impervious multiplier
(impervious surface/total surface x 100)
1 to 40 1
41 to 60 1.2
61 to 80 1.4
81 to 100 1.6
2 Stormwater Charges
(2) Impervious multipliers correlate the hydraulic impact of a
parcel to its percentage of impervious surface per parcel. The multiplier for the average
single-family residence is established as one (1). The multiplier linearly increases as the
percentage of impervious area increases. The final category has a multiplier of one and
six-tenths (1.6)which reflects the hydraulic impact on the drainage system compared to
that impact of the average single-family residence.
4. Basin-specific charges: The city shall have all lawful powers and
authorities to fix, alter,regulate and control charges within specific basins and subbasins.
The purpose of the power and authority granted in this section is to provide for charging
parcels of one (1) basin or subbasin for improvements, studies or extraordinary
maintenance which specifically and solely benefit the property owners thereof. The basin-
specific charges are as follows:
Charge in dollars per ESU per month
Basin Effective date Effective date Effeetivee
January 1, 1998 ;-2000 7 -R 1 inn,
December 31,
1999
Westside
Q 0.09 0,09 0.10 0,03
K, L, M, D, E, 0.13 4. -3 0.14 04-3
F, P &N
Eastside
Mill Creek
Upper(G) 4.07 4 4.11 4
Lower (A) 4.81 4-.4.86 441
Valley Det. (Q) 4.81 444-4.86 47&
Garrison Creek
3 Stormwater Charges
Lower(B) 2.02 2702 2.04
Upper(J &1) 1.85 4$5 1.87 4-.M
Direct (C) 2.12 2442.14
Soos Creek(IT) '0.09 IN 4.18 414
The boundmies of the described basins are generally indicated on Attachment A
to Ordinance No. 3461 which is on file with the City Clerk. The boundaries of the basins
and subbasins are generally defined and on file in the city clerk's office. The detailed
definitions thereof lire reflected on maps filed in the engineering division of the public
works department, which are available to the public for review and/or copying during
normal business hours.
5. Water quality charges:
a. The city hereby authorizes and declares its intent to establish,
within two (2)years of the adoption of this chapter, a water quality charge which may be
added to any or all of the above rates. The purposes of such a charge will be to finance
monitoring, testing, treatment and control of pollutant discharges into the storm and
surface water syste�n,including the exercise of all lawful enforcement powers of the city.
A plan for developing such charges, and a schedule and budget for this project shall be
submitted to the city council for review and approval within ninety(90) days of adoption
of this chapter. A system of water pollution charges for storm and surface water run-off
from all parcels of real property in the city shall be developed within two (2) years.
b. Such charges should be based upon appropriate indices of pollutant
discharges which approximate each parcel's contribution to the problem of water quality
within storm and surface water facilities including all receiving waters.
6. Undeveloped parcels shall be subject to all charges established under this
section upon development of a parcel. Development shall be determined by the date of
issuance of a building permit or any other permit for development purposes or as
otherwise established by the director of public works.
4 Stormwater Charges
SECTION 2. Section 7.05.160 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 7.05.160. Connection fees. Connection fees shall be assessed against an
owner of.real property at the time of issuance of a development permit for any onsite
storm or surface water drainage structure or facilities which attach or connect to, or
otherwise drain into, the system of drainage facilities as defined in KCC 7.05.050 or
where any additional surface or storm water run-off is generated and delivered or
transported through either natural or person-made watercourses to the utility's system of
storm and surface water facilities. The connection fees shall be as follows:
Basin Connection charge in dollars per month per acre
G 12.50
1 11.25
A 13.75
B 12.50
C &A 1.25
All others (except Basin H) 0.0
As of Januaiic ', -2000 December 31, 1999, for Basin H only (the Soos Creek
Watershed, generally),the charge per connection will be a flat fee of four hundred dollars
($400)per ESU.
The basins are as defined under KCC 7.05.090(B)(4). The charge is calculated by the
number of months from the date of adoption of this chapter to the date of issuance of the
development permit, and the acre represents the area of the property being developed. All
connection fees collected by the storm and surface water utility shall be placed in a
separate revenue account for the storm and surface water utility.
5 Stormwater Charges
SE TION3. -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this 6dinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE,MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JAC013ER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM: •
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 1999.
APPROVED: day of , 1999.
PUBLISHED: t_day of , 1999.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. ,passed
by the City Coungil 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:\cn,7l0r&..e&.=unmans...ma I27199.d.
6 Stormwater Charges
s z-
Item 5
Public Works/Planning Committee
11/15/99
Sunset Clause/Street Utility Tax
Recommender! Motion:
move to recommend to the Council adoption of the
ordinance repealing the sunset provisions for utility taxes
relating to street improvements.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 15, 1999
Works/Planning TO: Public g Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom'
RE: Street Utility Tax
As you're aware in January of 1996 the City increased its utility tax by an additional 1% and
dedicated the monies therefrom to the street improvement program. This was done so because a
court decision determined that the manner in which Seattle levied its street utility rate was
unconstitutional. As such we instituted the utility tax and dissolved our street utility. The
monies generated from either was approximately the same. These monies along with gas tax
revenues make up 83% [Gas tax = $1,685,494, (40%); Utility tax = $1,795,351, (43%)] of the
City's "Street Fund" revenues. Said Street Fund is the funding source for implementing the
City's Street Capital Improvement program. Every year under the Growth Management Act the
City's is required to update its financially balanced 6-year Capital Facility Plan for which the
Street Capital Improvement program is an element thereof. The problem however is that the
ordinance enacting the utility tax has a sunset provisioned which expires December 31, 2006.
With its expiration there goes about 43% of the street fund revenue. While we were fully aware
of this, it was our intent to pursue abolishment of said sunset provision in the coming year. If we
were successful it would have resulted in us formulating a 2001 balanced Capital Facilities Plan
without have to declare non-concurrency with respect to the Transportation element for lack of
funding per implementing the west leg the 2281h Street corridor which is a concurrency project.
Now with the passage of 1-695 if the abolishment is not in affect prior to December 3151 of this
year a vote of the citizens is required to accomplish same. While avoiding a non-concurrency
issue was our primary objective, I-695 has raised other issue with respect to the revenue sources
of the "Street fund "which with at least the abolishment assure some financial integrity to the
fund and as such in return to the City's street infrastructure system.
As stated, the utility tax revenue makes up 43% of the "Street Fund" monies. Without this
source we could not have made the progress we have per implementing either the 277`h street
corridor project or the 1961h street corridor project. Further we're not out of the financial woods
yet. The State could simply change state law and reallocate state shared gas tax revenue to the
State's Department of Transportation (DOT) to address its I-695 budgetary short fall. While this
is seemingly politically improbable today, will it remain so in the future as the impacts of I-695
sink in? Who knows! We do know that key legislators have at least approach the State's
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) about its share of the gas tax revenue whether its for
diversion to their own district or to DOT we can only guess, however, the thought is there. Even
were the gas tax not in jeopardy and its probably not the "Street Fund" is the fund where
presently a lot of on going annual street related programs are funded. For example and not
counting any street or intellection improvement projects included therein is the annual asphalt
overlay program ($460,000), the Road Slurry Seal program ($50,000), the Street Striping
program ($79,000), the Sidewalk Rehabilitation program (5300.000), the Bike Path Construction
program ($100,000), the Shopper Shuttle program ($45,000), the Traffic Signal Controller
Cabinet Replacement program ($50,000), the City-wide Guardrail & Safety Improvement
program ($30,000), and the:Neighborhood Traffic Control program ($75,000) all of which total
$1,189,000. In addition thereto the "Street Fund" also pays the annual debt payment on all
outstanding street related band issues, which presently totals $610,000.
In addition thereto included in the 2000 budget is another bond issue for $6,949,000 (5694,900
annual payment) for the parking garage @ $4,000,000 and the corridor projects @ $2,949,000.
The sum total of both the existing and proposed annual debt is projected to be $1,304,900.
Finally the "Street Fund" also funds 10 FTES [2 in Parks Operation for the Street Tree
Maintenance program ($127,650) and 8 in Engineering per implementing the Corridor projects
($40,000)] which together Val $167,650 annually. The bottom line here is these annual costs
total $2,661550. With the loss of the utility tax the "Street Fund" is $300,851 short in meeting
these annual obligations without even considering any money for any street improvements. The
last significant funding source of the "Street Fund" is the County's adopted local option (SI5)
vehicle registration fee ($611,033). While I-695 did not repeal the authority for it, to date we
have heard several versions from the State saying they will collect it or they won't collect it. So
who knows at this point. Its loss would only add to problems leaving the fund with just enough
money to cover a little more than debt service.
We know that I-695 lost in King County. We also know based on a recent survey of Kent citizen
that traffic congestion is a number I concern thereof. So in lieu having the City's street
infrastructure spirally deteriorate into a pot hole morass, it's the Public Works Department's
recommendation that the sunset provision in the Utility Tax Ordinance be abolished. A copy of
the proposed Ordinance to do so is attached. Please be aware that because an ordinance requires
a 30-day affective period after passage we have taken the liberty to place this item on your
November 16`h council agenda for action.
MOTION: Recommend to full Council passage of the Ordinance abolishing the sunset
provisions of the Utility Tax Ordinance related to the 1% for the Street Improvement Program.
MP8999
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending section 3.18.020 of the
Kent City Code by repealing the sunset provisions for utility
taxes relating to street improvements.
WHEREAS, the utility tax dedicated to street improvement programs
expires on December 31, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the city council desires to repeal the sunset provisions for the
tax; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.18.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 3.18.020. Certain utilities subject to tax.
A. In addition to the other business and license fees required by the ordinances of the
city, there is hereby levied upon all persons (including the city) engaged in certain
business activities a utilities tax to be collected as follows:
1. Upon every person engaging in or carrying on any telephone business
within the city, an annual tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross
operating revenues, including revenues from intrastate toll, derived from the operation of
such business within the city. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interims tax of
three-tenths (0.3)percent,which revenue from said ifite tax shall be dedicated to youth
teen programs, plus an in4er-im tax of one (1.0) percent eff_eti:e tmtil > +:« p.m. --
1 Utility Tax
Deeeff ber- 31, 2006; revenue from said intefifn tax shall be dedicated to street
improvement programs. Gross operating revenues for this purpose shall not include
charges which are passed on to the subscribers by a telephone company pursuant to tariffs
required by regulatbry order to compensate for the cost to the company of the tax imposed
by this chapter.
2. Uppn every person engaging in or carrying on a business of selling,
furnishing, distributing, or producing gaseous gas for commercial or domestic use or
purposes, a fee or tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross income
from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In
addition, there shO also be assessed an4ntefim tax of three-tenths (0.3)percent,which
revenue from said int tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs,plus an inter
tax of one (1.0) percent cv ti 4i! :C°" �December-"> 2°°�>which revenue
from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs.
3. Upon every person engaged in or carrying on the business of selling,
furnishing, or distributing electricity for light and power, a fee or tax equal to three and
one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the
tax year for which a license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed an
inter-i tax of three-tenths (0.3) percent, whie is interim teoE shall be
dediemed to youth teen pr-egFams-,plus an interims tax of one (1.0)percent effective until
11:59 p.m. on Dedember 31,2006,which revenue from said inte tax shall be dedicated
to street improvement programs.
4. Ulion every person engaging in or carrying on a business providing
garbage service, a tax equal to six and one-half(6 1/2)percent of the total gross income
from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In
addition, there shall also be assessed an inter tax of three-tenths (0.3)percent, which
revenue from said interif3 tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs,plus an iptefim
tax of one(1.0)percent eff-eetive ufAil "'`° " r,—.e. _e_31, 2006,which revenue
from said ipterirl tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs.
2 Utility Tax
5. Upon every person (including the city) engaging in or carrying on the
business of selling, furnishing or distributing water, sewer or drainage services, a tax
equal to three and one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross income from such business
in the city during the tax year. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interi tax of
three-tenths (0.3) percent,which revenue from said We tax shall be dedicated to youth
teen programs, plus an inte tax of one (1.0)
December- 3!, 2006, which revenue from said intetim tax shall be dedicated to street
improvement programs.
B. In computing the tax provided in subsection (A), the taxpayer may deduct from
gross income, the following items:
1. The actual amount of credit losses and uncollectibles sustained by the
taxpayer.
2. Amounts derived from the transactions in interstate and foreign commerce
which the city is prohibited from taxing under the laws and constitution of the United
States.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
• 3 Utility Tax
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 1999.
APPROVED: day of 11999.
PUBLISHED: _ day of , 1999.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. ,passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
e:\avorafi�+uwtyT aoc
Utili •
4 h' Tax
i
Item 6
Public Works/Planning Committee
11115/99
Garbage and Recycling Rates
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend to the Council that the City pursue
negotiations with its hauler the termination of its contracts
as soon as possible.
. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
November 15, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom`t6
RE: Garbage Contracts and Recycling
My attached Oct 27"' memo to Brent clearly explains the situation and said situation was also
discussed at the Council's retreat held earlier this year. Since its preparation, the new twist is the
passage of I-695 which raises the issue of whether City approved rates under a contractual
arrangement fall under the voter approval requirement. Since the City's existing garbage hauling
contracts and it recycling and yard waste contract all expire in March of 2001, the cleanest option
would be to get out of the garbage business altogether. We believe that I-695 places such a cloud
on the validity of the contractor passing on to their customers the annual cost of living increases as
allowed in the contracts, that they will see it to their benefit to terminate the contracts early. Besides
the areas served by both is the exact same as approved by WUTC. There should not be a territory
issue like we experienced the last time we got out of the business. The other option would be to get
newly amended contracts in place prior to December 3151,however, l-695 is not going away. Soto
pursue same raises a lot more questions than answers, such as what happens when these new
contracts expire and how long should they be for anyway. With such a short time, can we even
negotiate rates that are fair to the customers. Lastly,will the contracts even withstand an I-695 legal
challenge or do we even want to be in the position of having to expend funds for the defense of
same. Bottom line is the Public Works Department recommends getting out of the garbage business.
MOTION: Recommend to full Council that the City pursue negotiation with its hauler the
termination of its contracts as soon a possible.
MP9199
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 27, 1999
TO: Brent McFall'
FROM: Don WickstroML) �j
RE: Garbage and Recycling Rates
As you know, our existing recycling program for residential customers is paid out of the
Environmental Fund. This fund receives three percentage points of the City's 7.8 percent
garbage tax. Present expenses in the Environmental Fund, (primarily the recycling
program) exceed existitg revenues and are being covered by the existing fund reserve
balance, which is being depleted. Currently, there are over 6,300 residential garbage
customers, 84 percent (nearly 5,300 residents) who recycle at a cost to the City of over
$280,000 per year. In January, 2001, when the Meridian annexation area is serviced by
Kent's contracted garbage and recycling hauler, an additional 5,000 residents could sign
up for the recycling program, at a c�st to the City of an estimated $240,000 per year. The
Environmental Fund does not'have'ade'quate revenues to support this additional expense.
The City has adopted King Cdbnty's Cornp'rehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,
requiring 65% reduction in the ,wasW-stream by the year 2000. The City of Kent
currently meets this goad, but fail a
on use of the County Ian dfill. to maintain the 65% goal could have repercussions
•
Attached you will find comparisons of garbage and recycling rates charged to all
residential customers throughout the City of Kent, including the annexed areas. The rates
are broken out for comparison to "garbage only" and "garbage including recycling". The
actual rate charged to customers in the annexed areas, serviced by Meridian Valley
Disposal and Sea-Tac Disposal companies, is the rate which includes recycling (the blue
shaded areas).
50% of Kent residents are under the current garbage and recycling contract with Kent
Disposal. As shown in' the chart, the majority of Kent Disposal garbage customers
subscribe to the one can; 32 gallon, 60 gallon or 90 gallon toter service level. Adding the
recycling fee of $3.36 (32 gallon toter size) to the garbage fee for Kent Disposal
customers, will result in rate increases of between 15% and 31%. For comparison, the
current garbage rates are shown in yellow, the new garbage rates including the recycling
fee are in green. It should be noted that 69% of Kent Disposal customers currently use
the 90 gallon recycling toter, however this is not available in the annexed areas.
It is our recommendation we change our recycling service to correspond to what is
presently provided in our annexed areas and that we embed the cost therefore into a
single rate for garbage service which includes recycling whether you use it or not. This
will allow us to continue to meet requirements of our agreement with King County per
providing recycling to ; City residents. It will also be consistent with all other
garbage/recycling services provided throughout the City and for that matter throughout
the County.
•C t.r nOn� 'cn nLn tr N J'�
# C _^. C
r i �1
O� OO U N t NJO J OO C A V• L V^ n N L W N N + T
O 00 Cr N IJ J w
U J J b
;O O C1 �O i i N T N 14i % U W L O N pp Qp q O U �l
� ^ � N •- W U
�G e
� y w e e
CD CD
m �,
M o0
no
23
CD
_ �• C A W O r J O W U J W O A O W b O� W A a b r A b O
%
UC .3.3
0 �) y N r w w (/� i W N w r m �„ m V
N A W = N
O % H O� 41 yW N W N b O 00 00 W U W N
_ O � a 00 J W J N U T U W t/1 W W 90
w e o rA
T � —
S
w
T
�• Q
C �•
a �
A
fD ^. n m
v P N b J T b N Y O\ 00
r n V•
• V X b 4 J U J m J J J J J � � j pp O � O O O O O N
GARBAGE and RECYCLING CUSTOMERS within Kent City limits
Kent Disposal — City residents under current contract
Garbage 6307
Recycling 5281 (90 gal. toter- 3655)
(32 gal. toter- 1645)
Yardwaste 1683
MeridianValley Disposal — Meridian/Meridian Valley Annexations
Garbage 5009
Recycling 4248 (all 32 gal. toter)
Yardwaste 2071
Meridian Valley Disposal —Ramstead/East Hill Annexations
Garbage 3 54 •
Recycling 312 (all 32 gal. toter)
Yardwaste 134
Sea-Tac Disposal—Chestnut Ridge/Beck/Del Mar Annexations
Garbage 833
Recycling 635 (all 32 gal, toter)
Yardwaste 278
50.4% of city residents are under the current garbage/recycling contract with Kent
Disposal .
69% of Kent Disposal customers who recycle use the 90 gallon toter, 31% use the 32
gallon toter.
A
Item T
Public Works/Planning Committee
1111 SMS
Public Works Permit Fees Increase
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend to the Council adoption of the
ordinance increasing Public Works improvement plan
review and inspection fees to 6% as specified.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
November 15, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM Public Works DirectoA
RE: Development Design Review fees
As you know the Public Works Department is a participant in the review
process for development permits. Under City Code our plan review fee which
includes inspection is presently 4% of the estimated cost of all Public Works
improvements associated with a new development. This includes such
improvements as streets, street lighting system, storm drainage systems(public
and private) and utilities. This year we are projecting to generate over
$500,000 therefrom. Unfortunately when you add up all the pieces of
individuals time involved in the process we estimate that there is equivalent to
18 FTEs. This is not counting the 3 unfilled mid-year approved positions or
the 2 FTEs in the Operations Division. The total cost therefore using 18 FTEs
times $60,000 per year (salary and benefits) equals $1,080,000.
The Public Works Department is recommending that the percentage be
increased to 6%. In a good year like this year this would increase our revenues
by another $250,000 however, thus far it still would not cover our total costs.
It would though lessen the permit process subsidy from the General Fund. I
have attached the necessary proposed ordinance herewith. It should be noted
that in the Ordinance if we use a consultant to review the plans the fee would
be reduced to 4%. The developer however would incur the consultant's fees
for the review of the plans. Because an ordinance requires a 30-day affective
period after passage and per I-695 the affective date for same needs to be prior
to December 31" or a vote of the citizens is required, I have taken the liberty
to place this item on your November 16`' council agenda for action.
MOTION: Recommend passage to full Council of the ordinance raising the
Public Works Plan Review Fees as noted above.
•
MP9099
e .
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 6.03.010
of the Kent City Code increasing charges and modifying
requirements relating to public works improvement plan
approval and inspection fees.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 6.03.010 of the Kent City Code is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 6.03.010. Fees designated.
A. The public works department shall be responsible for the plan review, plan
approval, inspection and acceptance of all public works improvements, such as streets,
sidewalks and walkways, street lighting systems, storm drainage systems (public and
private) and utilities, and shall make a charge therefore to the developer. As used in
this section the term "developer," shall not apply to public works improvements
constructed by another agency of the state including counties, other cities, or special
purpose districts. The charge shall be fouf (4) six 6 percent of the estimated
construction cost of said improvements. In all cases, the minimum fee shall be no less
than five hundred dollars ($500). The developer will be required to submit separate
cost estimates for each item of improvement. These will be checked by the public
• 1 Improvement Plan Approval
and Inspection Fees
works department for accuracy. Alternatively, the developer may, at its option, hire an
outside consultant �to conduct plan review for the city, subject to the city's prior •
written approval of the selected consultant. If the developer hires an outside
consultant for plan;review, the fee established herein will be reduced from six (6)
percent to four (4) percent. Monies derived from the above charges shall be deposited
to the general fund; of the city. A nonrefundable deposit of fifty (50) percent of the
total fee is due and!payable prior to starting the review with balance due and payable
prior to the approvall of the construction plans.
B. Two (2) re-keviews of the construction plans are included in the above-noted
fee. Any additional re-reviews which are attributed to the developer's action or
inaction shall be charged at a rate of fifty dollars ($50)per hour.
SECTION Z Kent City Code Section 6.03.010, which is amended by
this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or •
sentences of this 6rdinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same
shall remain in full!force and effect.
SECTION 4. EEfective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
2 Improvement Plan Approval •
and Inspection Fees
e
• ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11999.
APPROVED: day of , 1999.
PUBLISHED: day of , 1999.
• I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:1CiviROrdinancell�rowPia inspec[Fbes_doc
• 3 Improvement Plan Approval
and Inspection Fees