LUTC PKT 05-15-2006
-----
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
May 151\ 2006 City Hall
4:30 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 1 S\ 2006
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Annexation of P AA Action 5 min / Conlen, Wang
B. Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement - Fi~al Action 1 0 min / Bucich
Acceptance
C. Setting a Public Hearing for the 2007-2012 Transportation Action 10 min / Perez
Improvement Plan
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6. ADJOURN
Committee Members City Staff
Jack Dovey, Chair Cary M Roe, P.E., Public Works Director
Eric Faison Marianne Lee, Administrative Assistant
Dean McColgan 253-835-2701
G: ILl !TC\L(m~ Agendas and Summaries 2006105- J 5-06 L l!Tf' Agenda.doc
----- -- ---- -- - --- --- -- -- --- ---------------------------------- -- --------- -- --
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
May 1 S\ 2006 City Hall
5:30 pm City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean
McColgan; Council Member Jim Ferrell; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Interim City Manager Derek
Matheson; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg
Fewins; MS Director Iwen Wang, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller;
Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter;
City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; City Attorney Pat Richardson; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; resident
Mr. David Kaplan, Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Pierson.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5 :30 pm. Eric Faison was excused because he is out of town.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The April 17tb, 2006, minutes were approved.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
ST2
Tom Pierson, CEO, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce thanked the Council for their work regarding
Sound Transit and light rail. He, explained what the Chamber has done to examine the Sound Transit Light
Rail Phase II (ST2) plan. They have taken a deliberate approach to bring in the experts, including people
from Sound Transit, and had Cary Roe, Public Works Director, give a presentation. The number one
comment they received a feed back was that an SR99 alignment is strongly discouraged because of the
disruptions it would cause businesses. They approved two recommendations:
1) Propose a light rail route that is blended; it would have an /-5 alignment and three stops in Federal
Way. Two stops would be at transit centers at Star Lake and 320th. The third stop would be in the 348'h
area off of SR161.
2) Any future plans for Federal Way should show the City has a hub for transitfrom both north and
south, not as an end point.
David Kaplan urged the City to decide what it wants to do and how to do it. He believes a SR99 alignment
would bring massive disruptions. ST2 would duplicate bus services. Elevated trains are a bad idea because
of the cost, noise and disturbance. The trains would go faster along /-5 and could be longer. He gave
examples of the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago and BART in San Francisco. He does not advocated
looping ST2 trains to the new transit center but rather to the old 324th Park-N-Ride, building a 2 story
parking garage there. He stated that the /-5 alignment is the preferred one for him.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. 26th A venue SW Pipe Replacement Project
Paul Bucich provided background information on this item.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Cmte PASSED Options 1 & 2 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda.
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTe Minutes. doc
__n___n__ ____ __ _____ _______________~______~_______ n____ _ -
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 May ] S\ 2006
B. Joe's Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Project - Bid Award
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Cmte PASSED Options 1 & 3 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda
C. Alternative Cross Sections for S348th Street HOV Lanes Project
Marwan Salloum gave the background information on this topic. Committee Member McColgan asked if
this just moves the problem further down the road. Chair Dovey asked, if a developer made this request,
because of possible impact to his proposed development would it be granted? Mr. Salloum said that the
Compo Plan requirement would win. The developer would have to do the required frontage improvements.
Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller clarified that the City has a process for design standard
modifications and would do for others what it does for itself and has granted "modifications" to developer
street cross sections such as OPUS and the new Lowe's. Chair Dovey said that we might want to look at
our Comp Plan and update it if necessary. Mr. Salloum explained that any time we implement the
comprehensive plan cross section with in a fully developed area, there is the possibility of impacting the
businesses adjacent to the improvements. Therefore, to minimize this impact, minor cross section
modifications are evaluated and implemented such as: reducing planter and sidewalk widths. Council
Member Burbidge asked where, under alternatives AI, would there still be planter strips and what would
the median width be replaced with? Mr. Salloum pointed out the green strips on map AI; those would be
planter strips and the median will be replaced with c-curbing. Chair Dovey asked for clarification on the
median planter strip on S 348th Street at SR99. Mr. Salloum stated that it is there for intersection alignment.
Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously
Cmte PASSED Option 2 on to the May 16th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda
D. Transportation Concurrency Implementation Plan and Draft Ordinance Preparation
Rick Perez gave the background information on this topic. Chair Dovey asked about the estimated City
cost versus a consultant cost. There was discussion on cost recovery; Derek Matheson asked what fees
would be needed to support 100% cost recovery. Mr. Perez said he was not sure what the numbers were
but staff had looked at that and it would increase the fee charged. Committee Member McColgan stated
that he wants to look at 100% cost recovery. Chair Dovey asked if passing the ordinance is different from
setting the fees. Mr. Perez said that the ordinance can be passed now and the fees set later since
implementation is not until June 2007 and fees are adjusted yearly.
Moved: Dovey Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously
Cmte PASSED Option 1 on to the May 16th, 2006 City Council for First Reading.
E. ST2 Light Rail Alignment
Rick Perez provided the background information. Committee Member McColgan suggested eliminating
discussion on elevated alignment. Mr. Perez said that ST is requesting a response from the City on scope,
alignment, and number of stations. Chair Dovey said he always hears about three stops: 272nd, 320tb, &
348th. Mr. Perez said that ST proposes those same three stops. A question is, if the City chooses a SR99
alignment, will it boost economic development? Travel time comparisons were discussed, for timing
purposes South Jackson Street counts as "Seattle". Light Rail goes along MLK Way with many stops.
Council Member Burbidge asked for additional analysis. Chair Dovey asked what stations are planned
between the airport and Federal Way. Mr. Perez responded that two stops are planned: S 200th St. and 240th
(Highline Community College), and then the 272nd stop. With two planned stops south of the airport and
three in Federal Way, ST's plan is to move commuters, not boost local economic development on SR99.
ST believes elevated track will be faster, 50-60mph, whereas at-grade would be 30mph. This is because of
safety issues (pedestrians, traffic lights, cars).
Council Member Ferrell said that the need is to get people to Seattle as quickly as possible. This is about
getting people moved, not economic development. Council Member Burbidge said she understands that
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc
Land UsefTransportation Committee Page 3 May 1st, 2006
but thinks we should see what our northern neighbors (Kent & Des Moines) are doing and what they want.
Mr. Perez said staff does not know what Kent & Des Moines are doing. Chair Dovey suggested that the key
issue is moving people without cars. Mr. Perez said that Light Rail may come to Federal Way faster if the
City accepts fewer stations (because it will cost less to build). King County has proposed rapid bus service
on SR99; this will impact the viability of Light Rail along the same corridor. Council Member Burbidge
suggested that more information is needed before a platform can be decided on. Council Member Ferrell
agreed with Council Member Burbidge; he wants to know what Des Moines and Kent want. Mr. Perez said
that Kent wants more commuter rail improvements; transit dollars may become an issue for the valley cities
versus the 1-5 cities. Chair Dovey suggested staff call the neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Perez agreed.
Chair Dovey asked the other Committee & Council members if they knew how they plan to discuss this
topic at the Council Meeting May 2nd, 2006. Council Member Ferrell said yes. Council Member Kochmar
asked for more clarification. Committee Member McColgan is what the current estimate is for. Mr. Perez
said the current estimate is along SR99 and elevated. An at-grade alignment on SR99 could take an extra 6-
12 minutes because it would have lower operating speeds. Chair Dovey asked if this was from Park-N-Ride
to Park-N-Ride and Mr. Perez confirmed that it was. Council Member Burbidge said that federal funds
have been approved for part of the cost of a Metro parking facility at Highline Community College. She
suggests this will be a future stop. Committee Member McColgan said he cannot see having an elevated
SR99 alignment; it would have a huge impact. Chair Dovey said he can't see an elevated alignment on
SR99 unless it had many stops. Mr. Perez noted that the Rainier Valley light rail segment is at-grade. Light
Rail at-grade preempts traffic signals. Chair Dovey confirmed it will be on tomorrow's Council Agenda, as
Council Business.
Forwarded to Council Business for May 2nd, 2006 City Council Meeting.
Cmte Forwarded the topic to the May 2nd, 2006 Council Business Agenda
F. P AA Annexation
Kathy McClung introduced the topic and said that tonight they were presenting the topic and collecting any
follow-up items the Committee might like staff to pursue before the next LUTC meeting. She said that the
broadest defmition of the area was used in the staff report. She also noted that one boundary issue will need
to be resolved with Milton; a subdivision (Stonecreek) is in both Milton's & Federal Way's PAA. Ms.
McClung has spoken with the Community Development Director in Milton to assure her that in using the
broad defmition Federal Way is not trying to take land from Milton; it is just the preliminary report and it is
easier to pair down the land inc1udedthan to expand it afterwards. It was a very cooperative discussion.
Milton's Community Development Director is strongly interested in seeing this issue through and will
bring up the issue with the Milton City Council to see if they have any strong feelings one way or the other.
Ms. McClung is confident the two cities can resolve the issue. Resolution must take place before the City
moves forward with annexation.
Isaac Conlen and Iwen Wang provided the background information. Mr. Conlen began by stating that, in
light of recent legislation that has passed authorizing cities that annex large areas to implement a new
source of tax revenue, staff has taken another look at the City's annexation picture. The PAA's are east of
1-5; part is north of 320th and the other area is a non-contiguous area south ofSR18. He will provide
background information, timeline, and process while Iwen Wang will present the financial issues. He told
the Cmte that if the process of initiating annexation for the entire P AA is begun now it will be possible to
hold the election in 2007 although, he said, there are some components that are outside of City control and
may delay things. The basic process is for City Council to initiate the annexation process by Resolution and
submit it to the Boundary Review Board (BRB). Following the BRB's review will be the establishment of
an election date. Then the election will be held and ifthe annexation passes, door-to-door census will be
conducted. During this time, on a parallel course, the City would issue some educational public outreach
activity such as: open houses, probably some direct mailings, and other methods to involve the public. The
main variable to achieving this time line is the BRB process; there are two paths they can take. They can go
to the quick option, which is a 45 day review period. If they "invoke jurisdiction" it will take longer. That is
a 120 day period but it could extend beyond that. Staff has identified some one-time costs of annexation.
For an annexation of this size, it will cost between $200,000 and $230,000. Options are: 1) Initiate
G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes.doc
-----------------~------------ -
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 May 1 s\ 2006
annexation of the entire area. 2) Initiate annexation of one portion, such as the northern areas of Star Lake
& Camelot, 3) Do not initiate annexation at this time.
Iwen Wang presented the financial information. She explained that the population breakdown for the
annexation areas is estimated to be just over 20,000 people. Approximately 60% of the people are in the
NE and 40% are in the SE. The projected operating deficit is about $3 million for all areas combined; $1.7
million in the NE and $1.3 million in the SE. That is based on a fully staffed, stabilized operation cost.
Council will have some discretion on when or how to phase in the services. The City will also have a
projected capital deficit for the area estimated at $1.4 million per year. Staff has annualized the capital
investment over a 15 year period of time to get the annualized amount. The majority of the estimated deficit
will be in the NE P AA, primarily because they have most of the traffic intersections that will need to be
brought up to City standards. A large part of the capital needs is for trails; currently there are no trails in
this area that meets the City's standard for trails. The assumption is that we need to build all the trails, or
bring the existing ones up to City standards. But she pointed out that even within the City boundaries we
are not meeting our goals of 2.2 miles of trail per thousand of population. This is why Council does have
latitude to decide when, or how, to make those parks or open spaces related improvements. Chair Dovey
asked if there was a City mandate on the trails; Ms. Wang responded that no, there is not. It's just 'city
desired' standard; it is in the P ARCS comp plan. Chair Dovey noted that the Committee has just seen how
the Compo Plan can change based on the needs of the City.
There is the possibility of getting financial assistance, provided by SSB6686, that may substantially
eliminate all the operating deficits (for annexation costs) for up to ten years, period. There is a three year
window (2007-2010) to annex the new areas and receive 0.1 % or 0.2% revenue from sales tax. If
jurisdictions annex from 10,000 to 19,999 people at one time they are eligible for 0.1% sales tax credit. If
they annex more than 20,000 people at one time they are eligible to receive 0.2% sales tax credit. For
Federal Way the 0.1% equates to $1.4 million and the 0.2% is $2.8million so it is very similar to the $3
million dollar deficit we are projecting right now. There will be a meeting tentatively scheduled for May
10th to clarify staff understanding of the legislation. The estimated population of the combined annexation
areas is estimated at 20,152. This is less than 1 % of 20,000 and leaves a very low margin of error.
Populations change through out the year and even by season. Even with the entire area staff can not be
positive the City will qualify for the 0.2% sales tax. SSB6686 is also narrowly drafted in terms of which
jurisdictions even qualify and the amount of [mancial assistance available for annexation deficits will not
be available indefinitely. There is a small window of opportunity; the City has three years in which to get
this reimbursement: 2007,2008, & 2009. The window closes January IS\ 2010. If the annexation is
commenced during that time the City will potentially be eligible for that revenue stream. Ms. Wang doubts
this opportunity will come again. This is some of the information staff wants Council to be aware of. Staff
will be clarifying some issues on this legislation at the May 10th meeting. This item will come back to
LUTC on May 15th, 2006.
Committee Member McColgan stated that the Council needs to know how many people there are in the
areas to be annexed. Ms. Wang noted that a census will cost money, and the count will depend on a
number of factors - even seasons affect area population counts. Staff will be finding out if there is a time
requirement on when the census should be done; does it have to be after the election or can it be done in a
certain time frame? If there is more latitude, staff is more confident of the census getting done. Council
Member Kochmar said that staff is asking for an 'all or nothing' approach; can the vote be done per section?
Ms. Wang responded that staff is not requiring 'all or nothing', staff is saying:
1) If you split the annexation so that there are two, and each vote is over 10,000 people, you only qualify
for reimbursement of 0.1 %. Only by voting together can the number exceed 20,000 and qualify for 0.2%.
2) This is a window of opportunity for funding that we do not want to miss if the City will be annexing
eventually anyway.
Chair Dovey said that, looking at the numbers, the annexation vote should be done all at one time and make
sure there are over 20,000 people joining the City, or don't do it at all. The City is losing money if they do
not get over 20,000 in population and so do not earn the 0.2% revenue. Without the 0.2% sales tax revenue,
the City will be facing a deficit in providing services for the newly annexed areas. Committee Member
McColgan asked what are the advantages to the City of annexation and becoming a city with a population
of 100,000? Ms. Wang responded that in the staffreport there are pros and cons of annexation. However,
the most tangible result is that the City will have much better control of the growth pattern in the area and
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-01-06 LUTC Minutes doc
-~- ------
Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 May 1 s\ 2006
be able to direct and control the development and infrastructure. If the City does not put in those parks and
trails the residents will use Federal Way's parks, etc, anyway. Committee McColgan asked again if the City
of Federal Way will benefit by becoming a city of 100,000 instead of 87,000. Ms. Wan responded that staff
does not know if there are political benefits of becoming a City of 100,000. The per capita revenue
distribution, although more people will be more revenue, it will not help that much. Council Member
Kochmar asked if anyone has contacted King County to see what kind of permits are in the pipeline. Ms.
Wang was not sure. Ms. McClung said the City was supposed to be notified any time a development seeks
to be permitted. In those areas development will primarily be residential. She is not aware of a huge
number of plats being processed; there may be a couple. Council Member Kochmar asked if a simple
majority vote of 50% is needed. Ms. Wang said that yes, a simple 50% will work. As long as you start the
annexation process before 2010 the City can get the sales tax revenue. Council Member Kochmar asked
why there was not more business zoning in that area. Council Member Ferrell said that the history of the
area east ofI-5 has been primarily residential, his mother has lived there for 25 years, and the residents like
it that way. It's a very rural suburban area and it does not lend itself to business zoning.
Committee Member McColgan asked when is the Council's decision date in order to get a spring
annexation? Mr. Conlen said that given the level of uncertainty with certain components of the process staff
suggest that the earlier the City starts the process the more likely a spring election will be. If Council wants
to wait for any length of time a decision does not need to be made at this point. Chair Dovey asked if there
was money ($200,000 approximately) in the budget to do the annexation. Ms. Wang responded that there is
money in the City Manager's Contingency fund. There is also some undesignated money in the General
Fund balance, but the City is saving it for a big mortgage payment on City Hall. However, as it gets closer
to year's end it is likely the City will have more money. Ifpermits and sales tax continue at the current rate
projections will be exceeded in those areas and the money might be available. Without that, the City
Manager's Fund can be the contingency place holder. Chair Dovey asked if this $200,000 number was
included in the earlier budget talks. Ms. Wang said it was not. Chair Dovey asked if the City could do this
over three years. Ms. Wang said yes, you can wait, but don't wait too long. Chair Dovey said given the
recent budget talks, he is not sure annexation is a wise thing to spend a quarter million dollars on right now.
Ms. McClung said that there would be some immediate expenses, but the large ones would be impacting
2007 and could be part of the budget process. Staff can bring this back to the next meeting, a cash flow
plan on how the City would spend the money and where it would come from. Council Member also wanted
to see a time line for an educational process. The meeting was adjourned.
Cmte will return to LUTC meeting for May 15th, 2006.
Cmte will return this topic to the May 15th LUTC meeting.
5. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next scheduled meeting will be May 15th, 2006.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006105-01-06 LUTC Minutes~doc
--------------------------------
~~!!~~!~_~~]'~~_!?~!!_=_~ v V\~_~~L~~~~__________________________.__~TEM ~=-_______
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF P AA EAST OF 1-5
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council initiate annexation of some portion or all of the Potential Annexation
Area (PAA) east ofl-5?
COMMlTIEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: May 1,2006
CATEGORY:
o Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing
o City Council Bushiess [g] Resolution 0 Other
STAFF RE!OI!!!JY: Isa~_~9n~!!.? S~~!~~~la~~___________________________~~~~~_~~~__________________
Attachments:
A: Staff Report with Exhibits: (A) Preliminary General Government Financial Impact from Potential Annexation,
(B) Conceptual Time-Line, (C) Stone Creek Boundary/P AA Boundary Map, (D) Estimated Population Map (by
subarea), and (E) Initiating Resolution
Options Considered:
1. Initiate annexation process of the entire remaining P AA, utilizing the election method of annexation.
2. Initiate annexation process of the Star Lake and Camelot subareas, utilizing the election method of
annexation.
3. Do not initiate annexation of any portion ofthe PAA at this time.
---_._-----~---_._----_._------_.._-------~--_._-.-----.---.------.--.------.--.-.-.-------..-...-------.-.-..__..--_.._--~..__._--_._~_._--_._._--_.__..
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: S
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~
Council Conuniltee ColUlCil
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON:
Committee Member
PROPOS D UNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the resolution to initiate annexation process of the entire
'AA, utilizing the election metho~ of annexation_ "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
o DENIED 1ST readiltg
o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 02/0612006 RESOLUTION #
-------- ------~-------- --------------- --
~
OTV OF 1/1 . .L........ 5i'
Federal Way
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 27, 2006
To: Land Useffransponation Committee (~
VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage .
FROM: Kathy McClung, CDS Director .~
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner
Iwen Wang, MS Director
SUBJECT: PAA ANNEXATION
BACKGROUND
The City's PAA, located entirely east ofI-5, is approximately 4,400 acres with an estimated population of
20,152. Recently adopted legislation authorizes a new source of revenues for cities that complete large
annexations. King County supports annexation of this area to the City. See attached Exhibit A for
additional fiscal analysis.
DISCUSSION
Timeline
If we begin the annexation process immediately, a late spring election date may be achievable depending
on the length of Boundary Review Board (BRB) review\. An exact time line cannot be produced because
some aspects of the process (e.g. BRB review, Federal Way/Milton PAA boundary issue) are outside of
the City's controL However, a conceptual time line flowchart is attached as Exhibit B.
Public involvement/education will also be a major component of the process and will begin early in the
process. Public involvement/education methods include direct mailings, newsletters, web and public
television updates, announcements, and informational public open houses.
P AA Boundary -Discrepancy
As you may recall, while processing the Parkway annexation in 2004, we discovered that the County had
approved a subdivision called Stone Creek which is partially situated within the P AA of both Federal
Way and Milton (see Exhibit C). The effected properties were eliminated from the Parkway annexation
so that the annexation could move forward. Resolution of this issue will be necessary if this southern
portion of the P AA is included in an annexation proposaL
One-Time Annexation Costs
The cost to process an annexation of this size is noted in the following table. These costs are estimates at
this point in time and assume annexation of the entire P AA.
Cat or Descri tiou Cost
Election Cost Cost paid to County for election ballots and voter $10,200
pamphlet re aration and distribution
I Assuming election method of annexation initiated by resolution.
-------- ------- --------- -----------..---------- -
Catej!ory Description Cost
Staff Resources Staff resources to prepare annexation materials, staff $61,000
meetings, host open houses, respond to questions, (a portion of planner
update web site, administer census, etc. salary is paid through
* .5 FfE (Planner) 12 months approved carry forward
* .25 FfE (combination Public Works, Parks, funds)
Finance, Police, & Admin) 12 months
Post Annexation Census Door-to-door census required after annexation $118,000-$140,0002
Miscellaneous BRB application fee, cost of legal descriptions, $19,000
mailing, copying, publishing, etc
Total $208,200 - $230,200
Population
As noted above, total population is estimated at 20,1523. The table below breaks down the estimated
population by PAA subarea (see Exhibit D, Estimated Population Map).
Population
Subarea Estimate
Star Lake 4,078
Camelot 8296
Lakeland 3,017
Parkway 3,569
Jovita 1,192
TOTAL 20,152
FISCAL ANALYSIS
A. Overview
The 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study ("Study") summarized the City's PAA in three larger areas:
the NE P AA, the SE P AA, and the Redondo P AA with total estimated housing units of 7,622 and a
population of 21,500. In the fall of 2003, Redondo, North Lake (in NE P AA), and portions of
Parkway (in the SE P AA) voted to annex. These three neighborhoods, combined, were estimated to
have 788 hOusing units with a population of approximately 1,800. The post-annexation census
revealed actual numbers of 1,219 housing units and a population of 2,730. The difference is
primarily due to a large, new residential development in the North Lake subarea.
After the 2003 annexation, the remaining
P AA area consists of five subareas: Star
Lake and Camelot remaining in the NE
P AA with an estimated total of 4,117
housing units and a population of 12,375. Lakeland (part of Parkway), and Jovita remain in the SE
P AA with 2,938 estimated housing units and a population of 7,778. Combined, these areas have an
estimated total of7,055 housing units and a population of 20, 152.
2 Costs of census vary by time of year. A winter census would be the most expensive and may result in lower counts.
3Estimated population was computed by I) establishing the estimated number of existing dwelling units in each Subarea &
Census Tract using the data from the King County Assessor records, 2) estimating the number of occupied units using the
vac~cy rate from 2000 Census data, 3) Subtracting the number of vacant units from the number of total dwelling units, 4)
multiplying the resulting number of units by the average household size, again from the 2000 census.
Page 2
--- --- ----- -- - -
B. Operatin2: Revenues and Expenses
Overall, the general governmental operating revenues and expenses show there will be substantial
operating deficits to annex the two areas because they are predominantly residential in character.
The per capita revenue is slightly higher in the NE P AA due to the slightly higher average assessed
value of homes in this area. At the same time, the per capita operating cost is higher in the SE P AA
due to the three large scale active parks (Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake Park, and the ball fieids)
requmng substantial
maintenance versus the
tw $2,549,784 $1,643,340 $4,193,124
o passI ve open
I ks. th NE (4,205,599) 2,993,625) 7,199,224)
spaces par 10 e
PAA that require fewer $(1,655,815) $(1,350,285) $(3,006,100)
resources to maintain. $ 206 $ 211 $ 208
340) (385) 357)
$ 134) $ (174) . $ 149)
C. Capital Sources and Needs
On the capital side, the combined areas would need nearly $10 million in service-level-related
transportation improvements to bring a number of intersections up to City standards; they will also
need nearly $18 million in neighborhood parks, open spaces, and most of all trails to meet the City's
Park Plan goals. The Parks' capital cost is lower than the Study suggested due to two changes in
assumption used here:
L We assume the annexation in itself does not affect the demand on the Community Center
space. This is due to the population in the PAA is already, or will be, using the City's facility
regardless of whether or not the area is annexed.
2. We also assume the community parks can serve a population beyond the sub-PAA area. The
Study calculates community park requirements independently by subareas; therefore the SE
P AA has a surplus of community parks while the NE P AA has a deficit. When the two areas
are combined, the community parks acreage meets City standards.
The Capital Needs table .'
h 1. d . I Capital Needs :'IE PAA SE PAA Combined
sows annua lze capita. .
needs using the above total Annual CapItal Sources $638,558 $909,565 $1,548,122
capital costs as a base and Annualized Park Capital (over 15 yrs) (841,335) (690,693) (1,532,028)
spreads them over a IS-year Annualized Street Capital (over 15 yrs) (578,689) (271,676) (850,365)
period us10g an inflation Annual Pavement Maintenance (215,168) (308,893) (524,061)
factor of 3.5%. In addition Annual Capital Surplus (Deficit) $(996,635) $(361,697) $(1,358,332)
to the capital improvements,
the assumption is that an annual pavement maintenance program will be maintained using the street
overlay program funding sources available from the area. This may not be sufficient to bring the road
surface conditions to the same rating of existing City streets. The capital resources include 50%
estimated utility tax revenues, arterial street and new fuel taxes, and REET expected from the area.
Based on these assumptions, the combined P AA area shows an annualized capital funding deficit of
around $1.4 million.
While the capital deficit is substantial, the Council does have substantial discretion and control in the
timing and amount of many of these capital investments.
Page 3
D. Effect of SSB 6686
The phenomena of operating and capital investment deficits is very consistent with what we have
seen in findings from other communities that have completed annexation feasibility analyses. The
financial deficit that cities would inherit with large annexations has been one of the major deterrents
in achieving these annexations as envisioned by the Growth Management Act. Substitute Senate Bill
6686, enacted by the 2006 Legislature, attempts to address this concern by allowing a limited new
local option sales tax that is offset by a state sales tax credit (thus there is no impact on consumers) to
mitigate the deficits and encourage annexations.
Specifically, effective June 7, 2006, the bill allows a city to levy to up to 0_1% sales tax for an
annexation between 10,000 and 20,000 populations, and up to 0.2% sales tax for annexations with a
population greater than 20,000 or more. The local option tax and subsequent tax credit payment is
made at the beginning of each state fiscal year (July I) starting in 2007 and the local tax can only last
up to ten years from the time the city first imposes the tax. The tax credit will be effective on July 1 st
of the fiscal year subsequent to the year the annexation takes place. This tool is only available to
cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, excluding Seattle; is only available to those
jurisdictions which annex sufficiently large populations; and it is only available for those annexations
which commence prior to January 1,2010.
There are a couple of areas where we need to get additional clarity as to how the bill will be
interpreted. For instance, it is not clear how the timeline will work from the annexation, to a city's
imposition of the tax, the notification to the Department of Revenue (DOR), and the first actual tax
distribution. It is also unclear if the City could impose the tax before an annexation actually occurs
(SSB 6686 requires a city to commence the annexation - we assume this is defined by the adoption of
a resolution). Lastly, it is not entirely clear whether the "up to ten years" timeline in the legislation
begins with the date the City enacts the tax and ends ten years later or begins from the first tax
distribution. Weare part of a cities group that has asked to meet with the Department of Revenue on
technical questions surrounding SSB 6686 - and we expect that meeting to occur in mid-to-late May.
Eligible Costs
The revenue generated from the local sales tax is to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services
for the annexation area. While this language is not an outright prohibition of capital investments, the
expressed intent of the legislation is to focus expenditures on operations, maintenance, and associated
startup capital costs. There have been a significant number of discussions - a few of which helped
persuade the Governor to ultimately sign SSB 6686 into law - that lead us to conclude our city and
others would be safest to stay within this narrower definition of eligible expenditures. Additionally, it
is expected that the Governor's office will pursue 2007 legislation to add re~orting and accountability
requirements to the provisions of law in SSB 6686.
Amount of Sales Tax Credit
Because this is a local option tax, the tax will be based on the whole city's taxable sales, not just those
in the newly annexed areas. Using the City's sales tax revenue conection of $11.5 million in 2005,
that is $1.4 million on 0.1 % or $2.8 million for the 0.2% of sales tax. This is the maximum amount
the City may receive. The actual revenues will only be for the amount necessary to fill the financial
gap in the annexation area. The City is required to make annual estimates for the upcoming gap and
notity DOR by March I each year for the next fiscal year's distribution. Once the revenue collected
bridges the gap, the City must notify DOR to suspend the distribution for the remainder of that year.
With the population in the P AA very close to the 20,000 threshold, there is a possibility that the City
would not be eligible to receive the fun 0.2% sales tax credit. However, with the law being narrowly
constructed to assist certain cities that act within a certain time period, this is a window of opportunity
for the City to receive substantial assistance to mitigate the operating deficits even if the credit
Page 4
------ - ---- ------ ---- ------ --- ----
amount is only at 0.1 %. The ten-year period is also a reasonable timeline for a community to
stabilize services in the newly annexed area and to take necessary actions to address option deficits.
E. Net Deficit with SSB6686
With the updated population estimate for the P AA at 20,152, the City could pursue annexing the
whole remaining P AA area. The $2.8 million from the 0.2% sales tax would substantially cover the
projected $3 million operating deficits. However the updated population estimate is just that - an
estimate based on certain assumptions, and the 152 over 20,000 is an extremely narrow margin for
any assumption errors. Should the actual population fall below the required 20,000 as determined by
the post annexation census, the new sales tax the City may receive would only be $1.4 million or
0.1 %; and leaving the City with a gap of $1.7 million a year. It may be worthwhile for the City to
conduct a pre-annexation census to get more certainty regarding the actual population in the area
because of the financial risk involved. It is important to remember that populations change
throughout the year; even a pre-annexation census does not guarantee the same result as a final
census.
Alternatively, the City could pursue annexation of a portion of the P AA with sufficient population to
meet the 0.1 % sales tax eligibility. Using the NE P AA as an example, it has an estimated population
of over 12,000, with a baseline projected deficit of $1. 71 million, and thus the deficit couldbe largely
offset by the $1.4 million through a 0.1% sales tax credit payment. However, this would leave a
substantial portion of the P AA, with a population of nearly 8,000, unannexed. Unless the City decides
not to ever annex this area at all, we would face the financial challenge sooner or later as it is unlikely
the area will break even financially in the foreseeable future. Further, it is extremely unlikely that the
financial assistance provided under SSB 6686 will remain available indefinitely.
OPTIONS
Options Positives Ne2atives
I. Initiate the This option would: This option would:
annexation process a) Achieve local, regional and state-wide a) Result in a long-term
for the entire planning and public policy objectives and deficit with regard to
remaining P AA, goals related to annexation operational costs versus
utilizing the b) Maximize collection of tax revenues revenues in the annexed
election method of available under authority recently granted to area
annexation. cities that annex areas containing large
populations
c) Allow local control of development standards
in the P AA where current development
patterns affect the City's levels of service
2. initiate the This option would: This option would:
annexation process a) Work towards achieving local, regional and a) Result in a long term
for only a portion state-wide planning and public policy deficit with regard to
of the PAA, such as objectives and goals related to annexation operational costs vs.
the Star Lake and b) Collect a portion of temporary tax revenues revenues in the annexed
Camelot subareas, available under authority recently granted to area
utilizing the cities that annex areas containing large b) Would not maximize
election method of populations the City's ability to
annexation. c) Allow local control of development standards collect tax revenues
in the P AA where current development available under
patterns affect city levels of service authority recently
granted to cities that
annex areas containing
Page 5
~----------- ------------ - --- --- ---- --------~---- ------------------------
Options Positives N~atives
a large population
c) Likely make annexation
of the remaining PAA
not included in the
current proposal more
difficult, when initiated
at some future time.
3. Do not initiate This option would: This option would:
annexation of any a) Not result in an operating deficit a) Not achieve local,
part of the PAA at regional and state-wide
this time. planning and public
policy objectives and
goals related to
annexation
b) Preclude the City's
ability to collect tax
revenues available
under authority granted
to cities who annex
areas containing large
populations
c) Not allow local control
of development
standards in the P AA
where current
development patterns
affect the City's levels
of service
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After considering the positives and negatives of each option, staff recommends approving Option I.
EXHIBITS:
A. Preliminary General Government Financial Impact from Potential Annexation
B. Conceptual Time-Line
C. Stone Creek Boundary Exhibit
D. Estimated Population Map by Subarea
E. Initiating Resolution
Page 6
,--------- ---~ - --~---- ---
Preliminary PM General Govt Operating Estimates
Item NEPAA SEPAA Total
Unit $ Unit $ Unit $
Housing UniVAverage AV 4,117 166,470 2,938 157,987 7,055 162,229
Population 12,375 7,778 20,152 -
Facilities in area Acres Es Mnt Hrs Acres Es Mnt Hrs Acres Es Mnt Hrs
Parks 34.80 180 74.72 7,476 109.52 7,656
Bigaman Pk, passive 16.72 122 16.72 122
Camelot Pk, passive 18.08 58 18.08 58
Lk Geneva Pk, active 18.64 1,521 18.64 1,521
5M Lake 31.71 2,451 31.71 2,451
Bat! Field 24.37 3,504 24.37 3,504
PW (GG portion only)
Signaled Intersections count 15.00 count 2.00 17.00
Street Lights 100% 561.00 100% 190.00 751.00
Road Miles 100% 46.45 88% 25.41 71.86
Ooeratina 1m lact
NE PAA . SE PAA Combined
GG Operating Revenue Per Capita Total
Property Tax, Proj. levy rate 1.22 836,134 1.22 566,284 1.22 $ 1,402,418
State Shared (w/o Art St Fuel) 25.23 312,250 25.23 196,254 25.23 508,504
CJ Sales, per capita 20.98 259,607 20.98 163,167 20.98 422,774
Local Sales - 107,649 - 67,659 8.70 175,308
Utility Tax, 50% 122.73 509,938 122.73 320,504 122.73 830,442
Fines & Forefetures - 106,643 - 67,027 8.62 173,670
Building Permtis - 121,734 - 76,512 9.84 198,246
Franchise, 60% of HH 29.55 219,368 29.55 137,876 29.55 357,244
Development Svs - 39,237 - 24,661 3.17 63,897
Rec Fees - 23,140 - 14,544 1.87 37,683
Zoning - 7,042 - 4,426 0.57 11,469
Gambling Tax - - - - - -
BL, number of businesses 140.00 7,042 113.00 4,426 11 ,469
Total GG Revenue 2,549,784 1,643,340 232.47 $ 4,193,124
GG Operating Exp FTE Cost
Council - 27,727 - 17,427 - $ 45,154
CM 0.30 63,986 0.26 40,216 0.56 104,202
Court 1.41 141,835 U1 89,146 2.72 230,981
Community Development 3.02 318,863 1.92 200,410 4.94 519,273
Law 0.50 67,185 0.44 42,227 0.94 109,412
Prosecution 0.50 68,252 0.52 42,897 1.03 111,149
MS 2.41 194,090 2.18 121,989 4.60 316,079
PK 0.50 58,654 3.32 387,204 3.82 445,858
PS 18.56 2,188,980 11.67 1,375,809 30.23 3,564,789
PW 4.33 1,076,028 2.27 676,300 6.60 1,752,328
Total Ooerating Costs 31.54 4,205,599 23.90 2,993,625 55.44 $ 7,199,224
Net Revenue (Loss) (1,655,815' (1,350,285) $ (3,006,100\
Per Capita Net Revenue (Loss) (134) (174) (149)
0.1 % Sales Tax based on current taxbase = $ 1,388,235
0.2% Sales Tax based on current taxbase = $ 2,776,471
Update Assumptions:
1. Property tax revenue assumes 15% property value increase over the past 3 years and by applying 2006 levy rate
2. 10% general cost inflation for PS and 6% for all other GG services over 3 years
3. Change PS total staffing/population ratio to 1.5 FTE/1000 population from 1.25/1000. Current actual = 1.67/1000.
5. Assume 50% of utility tax is available for M&O
6. Assume Arterial Street Fuel Tax not available for M&O
7. PW data excludes SWM and SWR A
8. % of PWs asset inventory = area hh/total subarea hh EXHIBIT
9. SWM deficit is projected at:
PAGE , OF: , "
K:\ANNEX\2006\2006 annex study.xls whole new pop 1 of 1
Preliminary Annexation Time Line
Initiate discussion of boundary issue with Milton
(May 4, 2006)
Initiate public outreach/education f+- Initiate annexation(s) by Council Resolution
(June 6, 2006)
(June 12, 2006 - ongoing)
I Resolve Milton boundary issue (end of August?) I
File with Boundary Review Board (BRB)
(Sept 4, 2006)
BRB Review - jurisdiction not invoked BRB Review - jurisdiction invok{
45-day review period , 120 days or more
(Sept 4-0ct 19,2006) (Unknown)
~
Council sets election date at next Council
meeting
(November 7,2006) Council sets election date at next
Council meeting
(Unknown -likely Jan/Feb 2007 bul
I could be longer)
Election .. "- Election.
Minimum of 60 days from date council Minimum of 60 days from date Coune
sets election sets election
(Any scheduled election after Dec 22, (Date unknown - depends on length (
2006 - Opportunities in Feb, Mar, Apr, BRB review)
May, Sept and Nov, 2007
~ ~
Reciept of official election results from Reciept of official election results frO]
County County
(Date unknown - depends on election (Date unknown - depends on electiOJ
date chosen) date chosen)
~
City Council approves annexation by City Council approves annexation b)
ordinance ordinance
(next Council meeting - date unknown) (next Council meeting - date UnknOWl
~ ~
Conduct door-to-door census Conduct door-to-door census
(Timing unknown) (Timing unknown)
EXHIBIT--..D..
PAGE , OE....1
-------
~_..~---_.~--- ----------~--_._---_._.-
'AmJrl::xJe sp Oj9l AIUBJJeM OU S9lj1lW !eM je.!apa:l JO NO ll41 '^ lNO uOllBlUasaxlaJ jeOI.ldeJfl e 9l a91.1OjpapualU1 S1 dew S!4lalON a93a1d ~
, ... >. E
L.-L~ ~. rer ~
I r-E1f"-rq ~ ~
II t-.~ I {as
I I .,. ',,- I _ (fJ
'-)~.. I hm II :zCU I
I i I, , II '0
Ii ,1 t: ~
"'\~J II · · tLL. ~
/"-no{ I In.' !.. ...... I ". . ~'.. ~
, '~ ",I , [/
l ... f'1;r.' I .... /-/' ,
,-,_. J ~.I<. ,<0::"(..( '.
',-, '" .... K'f.'l-://r . .
// I ... I . .. ii' . //;&~~/f"
~ · , I / JIo..'\~'
I I ~ .c:: 1/.. --, L..~.... C~/"r/ I ~
--' J' ~ AI / f ....'>- . /- V<;;...' ....
I 1"\ llC ::::: " (1 ./..../~// . I 0 ~
, [ \ I \\~,. ./ // ... I, ". o~
.. 'T-----~____,._.- .~'... ,.. ......... ..':."' It)
\ \ ../'" .....-~----. -.---J.----w-_+___~
" / /~,,~~. .' 0
. /~~ ~
.1 '~Ou .. N
-~ - ~
I ,/ e."i:~~ ___---- -....... I'll
.1.... ~\ _' __~-~- '.-._~ U
/ .,/ ..../.-" \ /--- ~ .' '...._., '~"" .. CI) 0
./ .. ~ ,I -1\1I~ '~0-7' '-
/f'~~' \ /(---"\-1'"\ ' " I I I I I I I /""-;/" ,..~.. """
~- At \ 'i ~\ \ ' L~..J.. -~'-J ' I ' ! /"';.-
A\. ----, -------.--~ SA~ON'Z'Z -L! i ! , ,,~
'\' , ------. '. ; ( ~ -\1' (----r--r-r-,'" S"--l-J. .' 'I'
01'\ ._-- -,..- -' _---~\ ,-_-:, ,J', ~ \ l-!..\----U 1 )~(--T!'~~?t'. ,I f
^'--- .___..._--rij \ .c_-i' (~)--L\- """" ~, - r 9[1-{ I).. ';'""""\ I I ,,--
~ -~ ~ t .-" ,~ ~---\P'.~ ~G>~L -. I J" ... vi ."
:?*/ ~ ('1 / f ,.....; ,~\r--. }--'~J -'--' \'--t'\.5-..{/~
't\ ~.~ /" \,. / \ '.\----0\ -"~. "\!" / r--.:\ WJ\,\~,,,\ \
..., -S: '-, ..-' _.---+.14~___10'.l) -- 1 ,--.....,y- ~ . __-'" ',\ 'I .,..~~
.\ US i..(',\\11lll-U LLij "I!tF\ \?>::*~"'
\.. . It: .g \ /W-" ~11' P.V $ --rr-ll;t-. "-I.,. .~t,--.J...-1;;'5 l/\ /1.,:)':.::- 7
f\: a:: c:: . /.~-,... I [...m'~~...... ..~\\, ,\ ;1
--I \, 0 '/ '14' - it .' \ .,~_ ,-, \ / ",
i"" U ; <: '-- '" 4 ~ !P1' i. rj,~<;/j, )
." ........ J r--__ ,,/..... ,"" .........- (I) ~ ~_ -- f \:, \
i ,"~' I, I-.......;.,~_'~{"I .' ""--', \ I.' ',/ t\ ._
I 41 ij'~- ,. r~'-i ..1...,' f- -'r"'F- " \ , . L-~ 1_ '.-....r-,;:'\-- ,
! 6t" -- ,/' -;--'\ -- , \.l. Y.""pt. ..-c " :;;\----- E
"'l "" -I::' \ ! ..- - ,.I. -. J --/..~-rlo' L\- I .' M 0
)"0 ~.,,:-.- i:.-.o;-L ---<::" 1 ,,1..- --~e}.J-jl:\/Lj ~):/I 8 ~
. ,o~.. iI..-, . -- . / I ~. I l!t I I
. · . ,. ----~, '. / \ , ," .-:J ~"-T-- .- "
1: ., r.-...:, lJOt.n "--- ~ --- ~ "-- --L-":::... l \ - ....r- -... iI) ~.........l l! I,
i - ~ fI' . "l/llf'*~-- -- -- " !?j;,. / .,~< ,---j .----
, ... 0;;; b' ..,., '/} -.~"'1K ,''., " -. '" "0
~_ I ~ .r.., --rOll l S'/J00t-t '.;~:L.-L_L.=; i~' , ~ ~ ~ ~~:;,.
: I ~ ~ -~" . 8.y ,to, i ,./- ---~ "~, ' ~~..i:~l8~
I I , r'" '-r~- \.. I ( r., "'. /.. . -- 0- 0 ~ '0
~ .- V.;. I' ,- ~'.-- 1 V Q)-
I 1 1 / ! ~7 \ ' . ~-~----___j ,,-'I ~ lII'-~_-J ,..' \, Q.>~"O""
' ---,' " J I ~ -. ,_ <'IJ........... l.t)
! , 3: lL~t< /c.....x<<:.,~ j. ff:' /., \ 1/ \ I 7:) ~r-fr'Jtil", /c, v ~ '-, ': ' ;-rn-"T-- -7 26~~~ I
I I 1i ."-----JroJ--:-~~jf~. -t- f~ ~ - "tR'.'-Y ~J.... /!\~~ t' /'~....\.~ ~~' T-~t: j , II I l r I "
I I t I ....._j.... ~~""J l--__!~r____ )e -r- ~ 1""/ *r-.....f~/\' ,,!pI t ~-~aT-'---"--"'-_L{ /
j "'C J--.-l ~ ......./ ; r-,{~-: --'" ':.--. j -.J~ --I ! \ )- I\-., I j----r '~" ~ - ;--;T;~- ___ - '-'_." "
~ ! Q) ~fI}J_~..-:.!.'t.} -""'J ! / .. " ,'r-.-.,.!~"Pt;:ur- ~--l..L--). ~ tv~,(,--:;r:::~l'--l>-" ~~] \$" 't---t.--.Li;' '-\ r~---~
"LL 'I" ., I ' 1 ( , , , "r'-= /".r So I. ~ ,,\00-"1 ~--I I 1 ~ ~+_ .......... "-
, ' ",' II' ,.'--~ -. .,', ' , . r-fliT-rT\ . ',,- -- ,,_-~, ,,,,-,,,. ,-' \
~ 1 ~/'L_.!--.LJ.-, f~.1-.L ' ' ! LLL l I \1 \. 1 \ /' l \ "i r'...--'--1--...._~.' j - ~l
- -- -~~'--~--_-_,~/.,/ I / ~ --~~....I--.L. ---'---f "I--~'~" I
\:::--.--. -.'--~~-_..----'..- . L' . '. '...... '- ".
",. I --r-'- ----,L---T--- -----==- ~.L.
"'-.I_,-~ I ' .'1 - "lton ~
-_~iii~' I I I... ~ 0
--------., '.; 'ns...
'\ -'I~ \-..----~ I ~ VJ
\ ~~'~L I I ~ ·
L___ 'iL=-1 I ~ g s
1 r--, --l-------~'---- .- G>
.... 1\ I , -c1Uc
~ ~ ~I ! G>x~
~ ~' \ i .!!! G> G>
3 ,t,:d \" ,L-~ _ > C G>
o ~ "':'/}:', I I r cv C L-
a) :(~ ~~ ""... ,: I' If: <( 0
:g ~ f" 6'~ -r~_ "',.,/
----- '- a. ~~...,)~ .,--- .......
S^'i1ITz~ <( r" . VcSt", ........
c 1:; 1:; --L'o_ 2t." ". MEBi .... .. .... ....... ..... ro
~ $ $:g , ~ ~~............................................................... $
I'll - - Q. rl' "'0.,....-......
X I'll m - ~......
Q) ~ CD !: C !r'-.. n "~-.
C '0 '0 ,g ,g ", v . ..,
". c . . ::: = f"l o" ~.(L '+- ro
~ <( u.. u. :!: :!: CI) 1 ' . "< 0 "-
... i' .> ' \, '" \S' (I)
~ OD00GI l\"'\I~' ~~ ~'U
"~~ I -.-J""-... Jf? .- (I)
,......."'- 0 LL
'.~ .I
-~----------- ---------------
C/) ~ iCity of
Uj, ~P~~~~~~d ,<:17~~t .. .. .:~t;~;~~~zl:~
>
<{' Federal Way
.c: -
~;
Potential
Annexation Area
~..' . $fa..'L.:Cil<g:........ ..~;..
I Annexation
,':_:>---::- :--'t<-,<,,\_<;;
S 288th ST C~~'~}ftKkt~s ,.--, . _:,,:::- >, -;:;:':;~~~~;,~>;t:~;-~~~
~ .." ,,',,' Combined Estimated
r= ~ Population (North): Area Estimated
::j
J> Q 12,374
U' ?1
ti~ Population Map
~ ~
lO
U'
S 304th ST . Legend
. II . . City Limits
. .
a> Community Level Subareas
Camelot Camelot
S 312th ST
C/) Jovita
>-
$ Lakeland
:c
0 Parkway
iL
0 Star Lake
if S 320th ST
J:>
<""'1& Notes on Methodology:
S 324th ST <'((\ Estimated population was computed by 1) establishing
4 the estimated number of existing dwelling units in each
(l
~ Subarea & Census Tract using the data from the King
~ :.<. County Assessor records. 2) estimating the number of
'" <; ~ occupied units using the vacancy rate from 2000
J!! 1"1l,L 110 Census data, 3) Subtracting the number of vacant units
from the number of total dwelling units, 4} multiplying the
;:r 16 resulting number of units by the average household size,
C/)
(5 ill HwYJ[j' again from the 2000 census.
;.:.
T ~ Any variation in the vacancy rate, average household
.- (D size or number of existing units could affect the
9 estimated population.
,,'0
~....' .
'<' ....
. . : . .
a.
Combined Estimated '(I <Il
18 2
.,.. Population (Sorth):
lf7~'~J7718~,! a
).. 'c
-'.5: '0
I 5
l'11.. >-
Lakeland ~, ,~
~. ,~ ~
i .'"
Ji Jovita'~ 0 0.25 0.5
~: W , 'Miles N
,.~,'y <,.,," '. ,$
; .
. : . . . Map Date: December, 2005 Please Note:
City of Federal Way. This map is intended for use
3:J.325 8th Ave S, as a graphical representation
PO 80x 9718 ONLY The City of Federal
Federal Way. WA 98063 Way makes no warranty
I (253) 835-7000 as to its accuracy.
www.cityoffederalway.com
,.i..'_-,-._
E A Federal Way
c:\mikeslgis\standardlpaazone.mxd
PAGE , 01: , ~. ~.''-...
.
-- --
DRAFf RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR THE
ANNEXATION, BY ELECTION, OF CONTIGUOUS
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY LYING IN AN AREA GENERALLY EAST OF
EXISTING CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS, SOUTH
OF S. 272nd ST., WEST OF 55TH AVE S. AND 51ST AVE S.. AND
NORTH OF THE CITY'S SOUTHERLY POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREA BOUNDARY, INCLUDING THE STONE
CREEK SUBDIVISION IN IT'S ENTIRETY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, has determined that it
would be in the best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way and the annexing
area to annex certain property lying in an area generally East of existing city limits, South of S.
272nd Street, West of 53rd Ave. S. and 515t Ave. S. and North of the city's Southerly Potential
Annexation Area ("P AA") boundary, including the Stone Creek Subdivision in it's entirety; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning
Policies encourage transition of unincorporated urban and urbanizing areas within P AA from
county governance to city governance; and
WHEREAS, the annexation area is generally within the City of Federal Way's PAA; and
WHEREAS, financial analysis of revenues and costs for the annexation area indicate a net
operating deficit to the City of Federal Way in the amount of approximately 3 million dollars;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee considered the proposed
annexation at their meeting of May 1, 2006 and at the meeting of May 15,2006 recommended to
City Council to proceed forward with the annexation process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area
Subarea Plan, as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and which establishes e
R,,"_P'g" ~~~~~OF~
- -----------~------
----- ---------
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the proposed annexation area as well as general
land use policies; and
Now THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Interest. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way
and the annexing area would be served by the annexation of certain contiguous unincorporated
territory lying in the area east of existing city limits, South of S. 272nd Street, West of 53rd Ave.
S. and 51st Ave. S. and North of the city's Southerly PAA boundary, including the Stone Creek
Subdivision in it's entirety as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth.
Section 2. Voters. As nearly as can be determined the number of voters residing in the
aforesaid territory is___.
Section 3. Election. The City Council hereby calls for an election to be held pursuant to
Chapter 35A.14 RCW to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for
annexation.
Section 4. Taxation and Indebtedness. There shall be submitted to the electorate of the
territory sought to be annexed a proposition that all property located within the territory to be
annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as
property located within the City of Federal Way is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any
portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City of Federal Way, which indebtedness has been
approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to or existing at, the date of annexation.
Section 5. Zoning. All property located within the territory to be annexed shall,
simultaneous with the annexation, have imposed the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
Res. # _ Page 2
and zoning designations, prepared under RCW 35A.14.330, and depicted in the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Cost of Election. The cost of said annexation election shall be paid by the City of
Federal Way.
Section 7. Resolution to be filed. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution
with the King County Council and with the King County Boundary Review Board.
Section 8. Notice of Intention. The City shall also file with the King County Boundary
Review Board a Notice of Intention hereof as required by RCW 36.93.090 et seq.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution 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 resolution.
Section 10. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority, and prior to the effective
date, of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City Council.
Res. #_ Page 3
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this
day of 2004.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
-
Mayor, Michael Park
ATIEST:
City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, CMC
APPRovED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK.:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION No:
Res. #_ Page 4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 6, 2006 ITEM #:
......__......._.._............. .......................... ..............._.... ....................._.................. ................................._ ................... ............................................................_................................... ............................._...... .....m........... m.......................___........... .........m.........___..m__...___.... .......m......._............ ....__................_
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement - Final Acceptance
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement
Project constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation as complete?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: June 6, 2006
CATEGORY:
IZI Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
D City Council Business D Resolution D Other
~.!~!!.~.:I.'..2.~!_!.!Y..:_!>.!'l:~!~:_~.~~!.~h2l?.~.M~!:1.~g~!~.L_ DEPT: Public Works
..............................__.._........_.........._.............._.............m_.......................___........._..........._.__...______
Attachments: LUTC memo dated May 15th, 2006
Options Considered:
1. Authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project,
constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation in the amount of $419,663.76 as complete.
2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project,
constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation as complete and provide direction to staff.
.......--........-..---.............--........."....---.....................-...........-......--.........................................................................-............--..............-.............................................-...-................................-..............................-..-...............-............."'''-'''''''''-'-'''--'-~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staf
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~, !Iii Ii (il
Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option_
Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch
Restoration Improvement Project, constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation in the amount of
$419,663.76 as complete."
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
0 DENIED 1 ST reading
0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
------- --
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15th, 2006
TO: Land Use and Transportation COmmJU~
VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage
FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public W orks Dir~ hrZ
Paul A. BUCICh, .P .E., SWM Manager .
SUBJECT: Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement - Final Acceptance
POLICY OUESTIONS:
Should the Council accept the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project constructed by
Kemper Construction Corporation as complete?
BACKGROUND:
Prior to release of retain age on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as
complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The
above referenced contract with Kemper Construction Corporation is complete. Upon City Council's acceptance
of the project, and meeting certain conditions by State law, the City will release the retainage bond held during
performance of the contract.
PROJECT SAVINGS AND CONTINGENCY:
The final construction contract amount is $419,663.76, which includes $3,207.30 that will be paid following the
completion of the 2nd herbicide treatment in 2006 in accordance with the contract. This is $24,583.74 below the
$444,247.50 original bid price, and $69,008.49 below the $488,672.25 budget (including contingency) that was
approved by the City Council on May 17, 2005.
OPTIONS:
1. Authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project,
constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation in the amount of$419,663.76 as complete.
2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the Lakota Creek East Branch Restoration Improvement Project,
constructed by Kemper Construction Corporation as complete and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the June 6, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Forward staff recommendation Option 1 to the June 6, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
cc: Project File
Day File
- --------
-----
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 6, 2006 ITEM #: -
....................... ........................................... .......................................-................ .............................................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Setting the Transportation Improvement Plan Hearing Date
POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council set a Public Hearingfor adoption of the Transportation Improvement
Plan on July 18th, 2006?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation MEETING DATE: May 15,2006
CATEGORY:
[8] Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other
~!~l!!"~!'.2~!.~X:~i.~~_~~r~~~....~.i.!:Y!~~[f.!.~~!1.gi.!1.~~~ ....il!t;;Lm DEPT: Public Works
.............................-....... .............................................. ................- .............................-..........
Attachments:
1. Staff report to the LUTC dated May 15, 2006.
2. Draft Resolution.
Options Considered:
1. Set Public Hearing for adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan on July 18th, 2006.
2. Set Public Hearing on an alternative date recommended by the committee.
........................... ..................................... .................................. . ..................................................-.....-.. ................... ........... ................................. ...........................- ....................... ................................................... .................................-...........................
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Sta
CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~.
Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LUTC recommends Option _
Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to set Public Hearing for adoption of the Transportation
Improvement Plan on July 18th, 2006. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
0 DENIED I ST reading
0 T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
---~---
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 2006
TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~
VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager (h1?~
FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E. Public Works Director
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ttf'
SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing/or 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan
POLICY QUESTION:
Should City Council set a Public Hearing for adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan on July 18th, 2006?
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the
City of Federal Way adopted its original Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement
Plan (ASIP) on July 23, 1991. The City is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis to
reflect the City's current and future street and arterial needs.
The City is required to hold a minimum of one public hearing on the revised plans. Staff proposes that this occur
at the July 18, 2006 City Council meeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by Resolution, a copy of the
respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and the Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board. The attached Resolution sets the public hearing date for the July 18, 2006
City Council meeting. The TIP will be presented to the Land Use and Transportation Committee on June 19,
2006.
OPTIONS:
1. Set Public Hearing for adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan on July 18th, 2006.
2. Set Public Hearing on an alternative date recommended by the committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Option 1 to set the Public Hearing date for adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan for July
18, 2006.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Forward Option 1 to the June 6, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda.
----------
- -------- ------ -------
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING DATE OF TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006 FOR
ADOPTION OF A REVISED SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ARTERIAL STREET
IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 RCW, the City
Council of the City of Federal Way must adopt a revised and extended Six-year Transportation
Improvement Program ("TIP") and Arterial Street Improvement Plan ("A SIP") annually; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way's SEPA Responsible Official reviewed the TIP and
ASIP under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.2IC, and issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance on May 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held prior to the adoption ofthe revised and extended
Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and Arterial Street Improvement Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
W ASHlNGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held on the 2007-2012 Federal Way
Transportation Improvement Plan and Arterial Street Improvement Plan at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
July 18, 2006, at the Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be
Res. # , Page 1
----- -----------~- --------
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 resolution.
Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of
the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the
Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this day of ,2006.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, LAURA HATHAWAY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
Revised: 4/18/06
Res. # , Page 2