LUTC PKT 05-03-1999
~
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
May 3, 1999
5:30 pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4.
COMMISSION COMMENT
5.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
Draft Resolution to Set Public Hearing Date for the
2000-2005 Transportation Improvement Plan
Action
Perezl5 min
B.
Capital Facilities Plan
Action
Keightley!20 min
c.
Amendments to KC Countywide Planning Policies
Action
Clark/20 min
D.
Sign Code Items for Update Prior to Planning
Commission Presentation
Action
McClung/5 min
E.
Crown Point Storm and Sanitary Sewer Repair -
Final Project Acceptance
Action
Prattl5 min
F.
South 336th!SR99 Bid Award
Action
Miller!! 0 min
G.
Miscellaneous Traffic Channelization Contract -
Final Project Acceptance
Action
Perezl5 min
6.
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
SWManagement/Dept of Ecology Ordinance &
Manual Package
Open Cut of ROW vs Boring
Endangered Species Act Update
RTA Process
7.
ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
253.661.4116
I:\LU- TRANSIMA3LUT AWPD
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
April 5, 1999
5:30pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Mary Gates and Jeanne Burbidge; Council Member Linda
Kochmar; Director of Community Development Services Stephen Clifton; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City
Attorney Bob Sterbank; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Building Official Mary Kate Gaviglio; Code Compliance Officer
Martin Nordby; Assistant to the City Manager Derek Matheson; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle,
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:35pm by Chairman Phil Watkins.
2. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the March 15, 1999, meeting were approved as presented.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on any items other than those on the agenda.
4. COMMISSION COMMENT
There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Fire Code Amendment - The state adoption of the amended fire codes became effective July I, 1998. The City and
Fire Department have been enforcing the new code as by required by state law since that date. However, the City
had not adopted the code. As part of this ordinance, language was added to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC)
that automatically adopts the current state adopted code eliminating the need to amend the FWCC every three years
to keep current with state law. Also adopted were nine local amendments to the Uniform Fire code and
reinstatement of modified definitions and requirements for high-rise buildings. Additionally, redundant language
was removed from Chapter 8 of the FWCC. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the City
Council at the April 20, 1999, meeting.
B. Junk Car/Noise/Civil Citation Code Amendment - The Committee reviewed draft code amendments that extend the
current civil penalties ordinance used for sign code enforcement to the rest of the City code, establish more specific
outdoor vehicle storage standards for residential zones, and correct a discrepancy between the current nuisance
noise code and permitted construction hours. Don Bowditch offered the opinion that he does not believe the City
should get involved in neighborhood covenants but agrees that residential areas are not appropriate areas for
commercial vehicles. Vern Nielson agrees with Mr. Votage and referenced the safety issues surrouding
commercial vehicles in neighborhoods when children play in the street. He also expressed concern about potential
damage to the residential streets. The Committee m/s/c to the City Council the recommendation of approval of the
Planning Commission to provide a civil citation process with associated fee for subsequent appeals, to limit parking
on residential lots and to amend the weekday and weekend hours allowed for construction and its noise.
C. 1999 Grant Applications for Transportation Projects Update - Staff presented an update on grant proposals for
proposed transportation/street projects submitted for consideration and acceptance, those rejected and others which
are pending. Those updates included projects at the BP A Trail Phase III, SR99 and South 330th Street, SR99 and
South 288th Street, South 312th Street and 14th Avenue South, and South 336th Street and Weyerhaeuser Way. In
order to submit new grant proposals for the listed projects, the Land Use/Transportation Committee must concur.
The Committee m/s/c approval for staff to continue to seek grant funding for transportation projects.
D. New 14.000 GVW Cab-over Flat Bed Dump Truck Purchase - Gilchrist Chevrolet in Tacoma was the low bidder on
a flatbed dump truck and truck bed hoist which was budgeted in the 1999/2000 budget. In order to accelerate the
purchase date staff requested approval of purchase of this vehicle from the Land Use/Transportation Committee
rather than the FinancelEconomic Development/Regional Affairs Committee. The Committee so m/s/c and
forwarded the item to the City Council's April 20, 1999, meeting for approval.
6. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers on Monday, April 19, 1999.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm.
I: \LV- TRANS\APR5LVTS. WPD
DATE:
April 19, 1999
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Setting the Public Hearing Date for the Proposed 2000-2005 Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP)
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of
Washington, the City of Federal Way adopted its original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The
City is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis that reflects 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 which is
proposed for the June 1, 1999 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 June 1, 1999 City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends. that the Committee recommend to the City Council to authorize staff to
schedule a public hearing for the June 1, 1999 City Council meeting for the review and adoption
of the 2000-2005 TIP and ASIP.
RAP:Ah
Attachments
K:\LUTC\1999\OO-O5TIP.Wpd
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE OF TUESDAY, JUNE 1,1999 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 and
Arterial Street Improvement Plan annually; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held for adoption of the
revised and extended Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and the
Arterial Street Improvement Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Hearinq.
A public hearing shall be held on
the 1999-2004 Federal Way Transportation Improvement Plan and Arterial
Street Improvement Plan at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 1,
1999, at the
Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers.
Section 2.
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
3.
Ratification.
Any act
consistent
wi th 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
, 1999.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DRAFT
MAYOR, RON GINTZ
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
K:\LUTC\1999\OO-O5TIP.Wpd
DRAFT
Capital Facilities Plan
March 19, 1999
DRAFT
TO:
19 March 1999
DATE:
FROM:
Capital Strategic Plan
When preparing the current biannual budget, Council agreed to consider a Capital Strategic
Plan in early 1999. The purpose of that plan would be to help Council make future decisions
about capital investments that were consistent with the biannual budget process and would be
based on the allocation of resources.
During the preparation of the Capital Strategic Plan, several points became quite clear:
.
There will never be enough funds to slake the public thirst.
.
Capital investment requires consistent, not arbitrary fiscal decisions.
.
Capital investment always requires funding for its ongoing maintenance.
.
Capital investment often has little public constituency.
Consistent with the assignment, the Capital Strategic Plan submitted for your consideration is a
model that provides a framework to address the ongoing need to invest and maintain municipal
facilities within the context of the foregoing observations. The projected revenues for capital
facilities are based on our historical experience with grants and revenues that mayor may not
be realized.
The plan provides a combination of existing and proposed criteria which strive to create a
process by which logical decisions can be made in a methodical manner. The Parks and
Community Facilities Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), include projects and costs that are
illustrative in nature. All costs for projects in CIPs are preliminary in nature.
The Plan is subdivided into sections as shown in its Table of Contents.
When adopted by Council after debate, I believe the elected officials and the City staff will
then have a complete and balanced set of analytical procedures universally connected to the
biannual budget process.
Schedule:
2/2/99
By 3/5/99
3/23/99
4/23/99
4/1/99
4/8/99
4/19/99
4/26/99
4/27/99
5/18/99
I: \capital 1. sum
CAPITAL STRATEGIC PLAN
Draft Outline 03/11/99
City Council authorized staff to proceed with the development of a Capital
Strategic Plan.
City staff draft a Capital Strategic Plan
- Identify revenues available annually through 2012. Also identify new sources
- Identify capital projects and project categories
- Draft project prioritization criteria and funding allocation policies
- Draft a conceptual expenditure schedule through 2012
- Make recommendations to the City Council, both short-term and long-term
Boards and Commissions review the draft Capital Strategic Plan and make
recommendations to City Council:
Mailing Plan to Planning Commissioners for comments
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Parks & Recreation Commission
Arts Commission
City Council Committees review the draft capital strategic plan and make
recommendations to City Council:
Land Use & Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Parks, Recreation, Public Safety & Human Services Committee
Finance, Economic Development, Regional Affairs Committee (FEDRAC)
City Council reviews plan and directs City staff to undertake the necessary
steps to implement the Capital Strategic Plan in 1999.
1
1.
II.
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Background
A. Need for Capital Strategic Plan..........................................................
B. Capital Strategic Plan Process............................................................
Revenue Sources.................................................................................,...
Prioritizing Projects Within CIP Categories.............................................
A. SWM.........................................................."""""""""""""""""""
B. Transportation...........................................""""""""""""""""""""
C. Parks..................................................""""""""""""""""""""""'"
D. Community Facilities................................................"""""""""""'"
Allocating Funds to CIP Categories.........................................................
1999-2000 Capital Projects Funding Allocations......................................
Recommendations........................................""""""""""""""""""""""
EXIllBITS
SWM projects prioritization criteria........................................................,
TIP/CIP projects prioritization criteria.....................................................
Parks projects prioritization criteria (new).............. """""""""""""""'"
Community Facilities prioritization criteria (new)....................................
Existing Budget Policies for Capital Projects...........................................
CIP Funding allocation policies (new).....................................................
Summary of Capital Facilities Prioritization Criteria................................
2
Page No.
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
Page No.
20
30
31
32
34
35
37
TABLES
1.
Revenues 1990 through 1998 annualized.................................................
2.
Revenue projections 1999 - 2008............................................................
.
SWM revenues
TIP revenues
Parks revenues
Capital facilities revenues
.
.
.
3.
SWM Revenues and Capital Expenditures (SWM CIP)...........................
4.
Transportation Capital Revenues and Expenditures (TIP/CIP).................
5.
Parks Capital Revenues and Expenditures (CIP)......................................
6.
Community Facilities Revenues and Expenditures (CIP)..........................
7.
1999-2000 Projects Funding Proposal.....................................................
3
Page No.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Capital Strategic Plan
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. Need for Capital Strat~c Plan
During 1998 budget deliberations, the City Council agreed not to address all capital
funding needs for the 1999-2000 budget. Council agreed to address such funding needs
in early 1999 after the 1998 operational results and the available funding source were
known. To that end, the City Council directed staff on February 2, 1999 to develop a
strategic plan for funding capital improvements and set the following project goals:
1. Develop a capital strategic plan to guide the city's infrastructure development;
2. Establish criteria for inclusion, exclusion and prioritization of future capital
facilities;
3. Identify and establish funding policies, goals and process to accomplish the strategic
capital plan;
4. Dependent on funds available, identify capital projects that need immediate
funding and should be considered in 1999 during mid-biennial adjustments to the
1999-2000 budget.
Capital projects, except Surface Water Management (SWM) ones which are funded
separately, have tended to be addressed individually as need arises using available
year-end carry-forward funds, GO bonds, special funds, grants and more recently
utility tax revenue funds. This inconsistent approach does not address the City's capital
needs on a comprehensive, long-term strategic basis.
In order to achieve the above goals, it is important to develop predictable funding
sources so that projects can be prioritized and implemented in a consistent, well
planned and timely process. The Capital Strategic Plan process will then guide the
capital budget which will be integrated within the existing biennial budget process.
B. Capital Strategic Plan Process
To provide a more objective prioritization of projects to be funded, the Capital
Strategic Plan process includes prioritization criteria and rating method for projects
within each category of projects so that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for each
category can be developed for City Council approval. This is patterned after the
successful model used for the SWM CIP and the Transportation TIP/CIP. The Capital
Strategic Plan process extends that model to other projects and categories.
4
The capital projects implementation process is integrated into the existing City Council
budget approval process (italics indicates new emphasis or additions for capital projects
planning within existing processes) as follows:
Council Budget Process Operating Budget Capital Budget
Council Retreat . Identify program changes . Identify new projects
(Even years) . Review budget policies . Review CIP prioritization
. Overview criteria
revenues/ expenditures . Review CIP funding
allocation policies
. AUocate CIP funding
Comp Plan/CIP Updates . Add new projects and
(Annual) reprioritize ClPs
. Public process & SEP A
. Council approves CIPs, TIP
Biennial Budget . Public process/hearings . Public process/hearings
(Even years) . Approve program . Fund allocated to 2 years of
changes CIPs projects
. Approve operating . Approves capital budgets
budget
Mid-biennial budget adjustment . Public process/hearings . Public process/hearings
(Odd years) . Approve adjustments to . Approve adjustments to
operating budget capital projects funding
ll. REVENUE SOURCES
Table 1 summarizes the 1991 to 1998 revenues historically available for capital projects. This
includes grants and dedicated revenue sources. This provides a basis for estimating future
revenues that may become available for capital projects. These average annual historical
revenues are included in Table 2 and project future revenues likely available from 1999
through 2012.
The unallocated 1998 year-end balance for General fund and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
have been allocated equally to the Transportation, Parks and Capital Facilities ClPs in Tables 4
through 6, respectively.
5
ID.
PRIORITIZING PROJECTS WITHIN CIP CATEGORIES
The criteria used to prioritize projects within the following four categories allows objective
measurement. The SWM and TIP criteria have been used for sev~ral years, and are tested
methodology. The Parks TIP and Community Facilities Plan criteria are newly developed for
purposes of this plan.
A. Suñace Water Management (SWM)
SWM is an Enterprise Fund as required by state law. SWM fees derived from grants,
revenue bonds and loans are the sources of funds for SWM. As SWM is independent of
the City's General Fund, all operations and all capital improvement projects are funded
from SWM revenues. SWM is, therefore, treated separately from all other projects in the
Capital Strategic Plan. The amount of SWM revenues available for capital improvement
projects is the balance available from SWM revenues after deducting operating
expenditures.
The SWM CIP process utilizes measurable criteria (Exhibit A) to prioritize projects. These
projects are \isted in order of rated priority on the draft SWM CIP and available annual
funding is allocated to determine when the projects can be constructed. These draft plans
are taken through SEP A and the public hearing process, reviewed by Council Committee
and approved by the City Council as the SWM CIP.
In this proposed Capital Facilities Plan, no change is recommended to the criteria and
prioritization process used to rank a SWM project. Table 3 summarizes the current SWM
CIP and its revenues and expenditures on proposed prioritized SWM capital projects.
B. Transportation.
Transportation Operation & Maintenance, Asphalt Overlays and Capital Improvements
receive revenues from State Gas Tax, Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET), loans, bonds,
grants and the General Fund. Based on historic revenues from the above identified
sources, the majority of collected revenues is allocated to operations & maintenance and
asphalt overlays with the balance allocated to Capital Improvements. Due to the amount
of revenue collected, this approach results in an under funded Transportation TIP/CIP
Program. Adequate funding for sidewalks, streetlights and street trees should also be
considered.
. Operations & Maintenance. This includes activities from pothole patching,
vegetation management, sidewalks, street lights, signage/striping and traffic signals and
are items included in the Street and Traffic Divisions maintenance budget.
6
. Asphalt overlays. The City Council has dedicated $573,035 of Gas Tax and $967,901
of Utility Tax: to the annual Asphalt Overlay Program to rehabilitate and maintain the
structural integrity of existing streets.
. Capital Improvements (TIP/CIP). These are major improvements that reduce
congestion, improve safety and provide transit access and trails. The 1995 bond issue
used utility tax revenues to construct ten improvements on the TIP. Based on
Transportation concurrency requirements under GMA, the majority of Transportation
TIP/CIP projects are not funded. In addition, matching funds for potential grant
opportunities are also not funded.
The capital improvement program process to develop the annual TIP for transportation
projects is similar to that for SWM above. Measurable criteria have been also used for
several years to prioritize transportation projects. Attached are the prioritization
criteria for proposed TIP projects (Exhibit B).
No change is recommended to the criteria and the TIP/CIP project prioritization
process currently in use. Table 4 summarizes the prioritized TIP/CIP projects, their
costs and available revenues. Matching funds for grants applied for are included in
these costs.
c.
Parks.
Parks maintenance and improvement projects are currently funded by the General Fund,
grants and bonds (Utility Tax revenues were used for Celebration Park and the Knutzen
Family Theater bonds). Funding the following three parks categories is necessary to
maintain our parks infrastructure and to provide for our growing population and service
area:
.
Maintenance. This includes everything ITom mowing to repairing trails. The
parks maintenance budget provides General Fund monies for this work.
.
Rehabilitation. Sports fields and buildings wear out and need periodic major
renovation or replacement. Policies are needed for how and when to perform
rehabilitation. Dedicated funds would help keep up existing parks infrastructure.
.
New parks acquisition and development. The Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Comprehensive Plan identifies the City's level of service standard for City-
owned parks as 10.9 acres per 1,000 population. As the population of the city
continues to grow, the need to acquire additional property for parks exists.
Policies to dedicate funds for acquisition and development of new parks would
significantly help to accomplish this goal.
7
To date, the process to select capital projects for the Parks CIP has been based on a non-
quantitative list of projects identified in the Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan.
A proposed list of measurable criteria to prioritize projects for inclusion in the Parks
Capital Plan are shown in Exhibit C. The approval of measurable criteria to prioritize park
projects addresses the need to have a consistent approach similar to the development of
the SWM CIP and Transportation TIP/CIP. Table 5 summarizes prioritized Parks CIP
projects using the proposed prioritization criteria, the project costs and the revenues
available.
D. Community Facilities.
Since incorporation, there has been a persistent public demand for community facilities to
meet community needs. Examples of projects for consideration under this category are
listed in Table 6 and are recommended for future Community Facilities CIPs. These
projects were prioritized using the new criteria. Existing City Council prioritization
criteria are shown in Exhibit E. The new criteria are founded on the existing criteria and
the following budget allocation criteria of the City Manager that provide the structure for
basic municipal functions:
. Protection of the public investment, such as inftastructure, rights-of-way, buildings,
park lands and the like;
. Enforcement of the laws, codes and ordinances so as to ensure public safety and
maintain an orderly environment in which people can live, work and play;
. Inspection of buildings, structures, areas and grounds to ensure conformance to the
laws enacted by the legislative body or dictated by higher authority, which laws
promote safety and the common good;
. Mandates which are new requirements leveled on municipalities by higher levels of
government, often without accompanying funding. The existing City Council
prioritization criteria and the prioritization criteria of all four CIP categories (SWM,
Transportation, Parks and Community Facilities) are summarized in Exhibit G.
IV. ALLOCATING FUNDS TO CIP CATEGORIES.
Predictable funding for the above four CIP categories of capital projects would help provide
for the orderly and timely implementation of the projects. The Transportation, Parks and
Community Facilities plans are largely unfunded. The SWM CIP is funded but is an
Enterprise Fund budgeted separately ITom the General Fund with its own revenues.
8
New draft polices (Exhibit F) are recommended, for City Council consideration to allocate
available capital funds to the four categories of projects. These are recommended to become
part of the budget policies for future capital projects.
Needs Analysis. Each project requires a needs analysis to carefully evaluate its scope,
location and total cost for implementation. This should be done as a first step before the City
Council gives approval to fund and include a project in the City's biennial budget. Needs
analyses should be budgeted to assist in the preparation of all four CIP categories as
contracted assistance may be necessary.
v. 1999-2000 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
The unfunded projects, or the unfunded amounts of projects for 1999/2000 in the
Transportation TIP/CIP, Parks CIP and Community Facilities CIP (Tables 4, 5 and 6,
respectively), are summarized in Table 7. This includes $300,000 for the Municipal Court
start up costs.
The funding available for these projects is $1.11 million of 1998 year-end carry forward and
$670,000 of excess 1998 REET collections. This total $1.78 million is available for allocation
during the 1999 adjustment to the 1999-2000 biennial budget.
Table 7 also indicates if the 1.45 million of past utility tax collected above the designated use
can be considered, it will increase the available total to $3.23 million for the City Council to
consider for projects in the Transportation TIP/CIP, Parks CIP and Community Facilities CIP.
VI.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City Council direct staff to undertake the necessary steps in 1999, including the SEPA
process, to implement the Capital Strategic Plan for the City of Federal Way, which include
the following:
1. Approve the on-going process above that integrates the CIPs development and approval
process into the biennial budget process.
2. Approve the modifications necessary to the Comprehensive Plan to provide SWM,
Transportation, Parks and Community Facilities capital facilities categories and the
processing of their CIP approvals. Confirm the use of the existing SWM and
Transportation projects prioritization process and the criteria in Exhibit A and Exhibit C,
respectively. Also approve the new Parks and Community Facilities projects prioritization
process and the criteria in Exhibit E and Exhibit F, respectively.
3. Approve Exhibit F, CIP Funding Allocation Policies, to guide City Council decisions
during budget approvals and adjustments when allocating capital funding amounts to the
9
four CIP categories (SWM., Transportation, Parks and Capital Facilities).
4. Approve the list of capital projects that should be considered during the mid-biennial
adjustments to the 1999-2000 budget and need immediate funding. Proposed projects are
identified on Tables 3 through 6. Table 7 summarizes the unbudgeted needs in Tables 3
through 6 and the staff recommended allocation of funds to projects in the Transportation
TIP/CIP, Parks CIP and Community Facility CIP using the $3.12M available. No change
are recommended to SWM CIP projects and their budget allocations at this time..
10
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
J I
Tables
Revenues 1990 through 1998 Annualized
Revenue Projections 1999 - 2008
.
SWM revenues
TIP revenues
Parks revenues
Capital facilities revenues
.
.
.
SWM Revenues and Capital Expenditures (SWM CIP)
Transportation Capital Revenues and Expenditures (TIP/CIP)
Park Capital Revenues and Expenditures (CIP)
Community Facilities Revenues and Expenditures
1999-2000 Projects Funding Proposal
Capital Facilities Financing Plan Table 1
Revenue Options
City of Federal Way, WA REVENUE HISTORY AND BASIS FOR PROJECTION (in $1,000's)
Projection
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Base
EXISTING SOURCES
UNALLOCA TED FUND BALANCES III
General Fund Balance $ 2,394 $ 416 $ 2,174 $ 1,078 $ 945 $ 2,853 $ 1,675 $ 1,009 $ 1,568
Debt Services
Total Fund Balance $ 2,394 $ 416 $ 2,174 $ 1,078 $ 945 $ 2,853 $ 1,675 $ 1,009 $ 1,568
TAXES DESIGNATED FOR CAPITAL
Real Estate Excise Tax $ 58 $ - $ 188 $ 80 $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Utility Taxes - Overlay $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 772 $ 800 $ 968
Other Taxes
Arterial Street Fuel Tax $ 529 $ 544 $ 522 $ 542 $ 537 $ 530 $ 540 $ 547 $ 536
PATH & TRAILS Fuel Tax $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9
Lodging Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Capital Grants/Contributions
Parks Grants (21 $ - $ - $ 4,810 $ 827 $ 490 $ 196 $ 792 $ 971 $ 1,347
Facilities Grants $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ 200 $ 457 $ 110
Transportation Grants $ 2,732 $ . $ 641 $ 430 $ 2,746 $ 391 $ 509 $ 4,574 $ 1,809
SEPA Mitigation/GMA Impact i
Parks $ - $ - $ 39 $ 177 $ 68 $ 5 $ 16 $ 100 $ 68 "
Transportation $ - $ 94 $ - $ 60 $ 204 $ 12 $ 88 $ 342 $ 126
Designated Capital Sources $ 3,327 $ 646 $ 6,207 $ 2,125 $ 4,054 $ 1,143 $ 2,927 $ 7,800 $ 4,972
Grand Total $ 5,720 $ 1,062 $ 8,382 $ 3,203 $ 4,999 $ 3,996 $ 4,602 $ 8,809 $ 6,540
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Transfer from SWM Opr. $ - $ - $ 2,378 $ 2,190 $ 2,317 $ 1,056 $ 2,106 $ 417 $ 1,744
Capital Grants $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 48 $ 67 $ 9 $ 21
Shared CosULHUD+State $ - $ - $ 152 $ 137 $ 16 $ 717 $ - $ - $ 170
Impact Fees $ - $ - $ 76 $ 37 $ - $ - $ 64 $ 20 $ 33
PWTFL $ - $ - $ - $ 233 $ - $ 1,167 $ 156 $ - $ 259
Capital Fund Interest &Misc $ - $ - $ 27 $ 71 $ 254 $ 309 $ 243 $ 210 $ 185
- Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2) $ (15) $ (90) $ (96) $ (96)
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT $ - $ - $ 2,633 $ 2,668 $ . 2,585 $ 3,282 $ 2,546 $ 559 $ 2,317
-
~
Revenue.xls sum 3/17/99
Capital Facilities Financing PI Table 2
Revenue Options
City of Federal Way, WA REVENUE PROJECTION (in $1,000'5)
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
EXISTING SOURCES
UNALLOCATED FUND BALANCES I')
General Fund Balance $ 1,112 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Debt Services 670 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Fund Balance $ 1,782 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
TAXES DESIGNATED FOR CAPITAL
Real Estate Excise Tax $ 38 $ 148 $ 133 $ 135 $ 137 $ 130 $ 125 $ 119 $ 113 $ 341 $ 333 $ 332 $ 332 $ 326
Utility Taxes - Overlay $ 968 $ 968 $ 979 $ 994 $ 1,008 $ 1,024 $1,039 $ 1,055 $ 1,070 $ 1,086 $ 1,103 $ 1,119 $ 1,136 $ 1,153
Other Taxes
Arterial Street Fuel Tax $ 573 $ 582 $ 590 $ 599 $ 608 $ 617 $ 627 $ 636 $ 645 $ 655 $ 665 $ 675 $ 685 $ 695
PATH & TRAILS Fuel Tax $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11
Lodging Tax $ 20 $ 13 $ 100 $ 102 $ 104 $ 106 $ 108 $ 110 $ 113 $ 115 $ 117 $ 120 $ 122 $ 124
Capital Grants/Contributions
Parks Grants 12) $ 344 $ 350 $ 357 $ 365 $ 372 $ 379 $ 387 $ 395 $ 403 $ 411 $ 419 $ 427 $ 436 $ 444
Facilities Grants $ 112 $ 114 $ 116 $ 119 $ 121 $ 123 $ 126 $ 128 $ 131 $ 134 $ 136 $ 139 $ 142 $ 145
Transportation Grants $ 1,845 $ 1,882 $ 1,919 $1,958 $ 1,997 $ 2,037 $2,078 $ 2,119 $ 2,161 $ 2,205 $ 2,249 $ 2,294 $ 2,340 $ 2,386
SEPA Mitigation/GMA Impact ,j
Parks $ 69 $ 70 $ 72 $ 73 $ 75 $ 76 $ 78 $ 79 $ 81 $ 82 $ 84 $ 86 $ 88 $ 89
Transportation $ 128 $ 131 $ 133 $ 136 $ 139 $ 141 $ 144 $ 147 $ 150 $ 153 $ 156 $ 159 $ 162 $ 166
Designated Capital Sources $ 4,106 $ 4,266 $ 4,409 $4,490 $ 4,570 $ 4,643 $4,721 $ 4,798 $ 4,877 $ 5,192 $ 5,272 $ 5,361 $ 5,453 $ 5,540
Grand Total $ 5,887 $ 4,266 $ 4,409 $4,490 $ 4,570 $ 4,643 $4,721 $ 4,798 $ 4,877 $ 5,192 $ 5,272 $ 5,361 $ 5,453 $ 5,540
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Transfer from SWM Cpr. $ 1,145 $ 2,241 $ 2,241 $1,753 $ 1,764 $ 1,774 $1,785 $ 1,795 $ 1,805 $ 1,814 $ 1,823 $ 1,832 $ 1,841 $ 1,849
Capital Grants $ 21 $ 22 $ 22 $ 22 $ 23 $ 23 $ 24 $ 24 $ 25 $ 25 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27
Shared CosULHUD+State $ 174 $ 177 $ 181 $ 184 $ 188 $ 192 $ 196 $ 200 $ 204 $ 208 $ 212 $ 216 $ 220 $ 225
Impact Fees $ 33 $ 34 $ 35 $ 36 $ 36 $ 37 $ 38 $ 38 $ 39 $ 40 $ 41 $ 42 $ 42 $ 43
PWTFL $ 2,750 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ - $ -
Capital Fund Interest &Misc $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
- Debt Service $ (100) $ (100) $ (264) $ (262) $ (260) $ (257) $ (255) $ (253) $ (251) $ (249) $ (251) $ (253) $ (255) $ (257)
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT $ 4,074 $ 2,424 $ 2,264 $1,783 $ 1,801 $ 1,819 $1,837 $ 1,854 $ 1,871 $ 1,889 $ 1,901 $ 1,913 $ 1,925 $ 1,937
(1) There is also a balance of $1.45 million at the end of 1998 from utility tax collected above the designated uses since 1995. This amount is not
included as available capital sources.
(2) Parks grants are projected at 25% of past annual average.
-
(..).)
2
Revenue.xls sum 3/17/99
Ta~
SURFACE WATER MAr...",GEMENT PROJECTS
Projected Capital Projects and Funding Sources
(
1
Composition of Projected Capital Sources
i
I
------ ---I
1
I
I
i
c. --t--8 ---t---. i
I
I
I
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
--
~--
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1.000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$,
-- T olal Sources
.--.-" Total Cost of Projects
IILong.lerm financing
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
~I Proj I' I '
SOORCESIUSES No- 1999 2000 2001, 2002 I 2003 2004 I 2005 2001 2010 2011 2012
Financing Sources i 1- I, 'jill' I'" - I'" II" _¡'n_____-------,-,!--------- i , I'
PnorVearFundlng I $1,789,843, $ . $ . $ . $. $ .$ . $, . $. $ . $ " $ . I $. 1$. '$
SWM User Fee Trans, fer 10, Cap~al- I' _'00"',',',',1" "'4"5,'38',',4,1,2'2,,4,,0,-'5,2,,4'-', ,,-."',2.'24'_,°.,',5,2,',4, 1.752,',937,,",',',7,6,.3,7,3.2,"1",1"74'3"°0,1",,,, "7,,8,,4,_,',8,',_3,,0,_' ,','7,9,4,,'.7,',O,8,_j ','.:,8,',04_,'5,_,~,-"",8",4"050,,¡,,~,,I,',,823~,28,8-,_-,"83,2',2,'0,1, 1,'8,40,'808.",1" ','8,4"9,','O6,_,3,,,T.-
Other Loans (Includln¡¡ PWTFL) SWM 2,750,000 . . . - .' . . . . . ., " .
GrantsiContributions:Antldpated !sVliM. 19Ú56 , -'9_8,855--__-202,832_-, _206,8_89, 211,027 215,247' __2.19,552_L-j23_,943-'--~2_Ü2i --=-23Ú9ÒI~- 2E,65o,- __~~4()3_¡ _247~251: _252,196_1,-
MitigationFund-Antlcipated IRWMI 33,491,34,161134,844135,541' 36,252 36,97737,717138,471139,240 40,02540,826141,642142,475' 43,324
Total Sources 1 $ 5,913,474 $ 2,413,540 I $ 2,478,200 $ 1,995,381 I $ 2,011 ,010 I $ 2,025,524 $2,041,899 I $ 2,057,122 ' $ 2,On,181 I $ 2,087,068 $ 2,101,762 , $ 2, 116,2~ $ 2,130,535 $ 2.144,584 $
Surfaca Wa.erManagem.nt Projects I""'" i"f' I 1 -, I' '" 'I , ! 1
SeaTac Mall Detention .". '1 2,774,782, - .' . , . 1 . , "
SW356th Street Drainage Sludy ,'. ,-62_3,535 ,,--- --": '¡, -.::-:_..::::_t--~----~,._-- .:
W,Hyleoos,ChannelSta~ilizatlon .", 0 '~ 196,986] --550,,882¡ ",-'-t--'Ci-n'¡-'!_---4-- --I.. .1
;~~~oT~e;t\<;c~r¿~~~~~J:~~:cement 1__:-" '.:_'.~' ,351,U~ -,417,4..2..H --~__..:--' - -:T-~--:-~: . I . I
§;;r¡d--,B~~K~I~:o~e,~:ekSt,a¡'i'!la¡¡o~--_~"' 0-, -'-'--,-,-,-, :.".,1[.-,_- _5,!2'2SH3,'2"s,,7,',_, -- , 8,59..'-",5,=-"';1.",_--,-,-,,,.1"-Ü5i¡'__n -,-"--:1,-.','-,, =~,=-,:,-_,¡-n--,_-,-=,,-""'t:,'!_,' --'--" =:::-
()rif>Ce_replat:elT1ent,chan~~~, ,'," ----'- - £- -9 - 159,458- --- n'-I- -.-¡- --' ------
SW3201h StTrunk Replacemenl 0 . . -j .' 111,757 . . . .
StolTTlDrainUpsize .", ì . . . - 411,595 . . . -
S,StarLakeR°aáTrunkUpsize '. j _m --' __834,847 --- -'- -- "- _:1 -'-- ,,- _:J ----_...:
~i:e~~~~:~~:~:~~rOtStructure :!u :1 ..-:.-.: : ~~~':~t- -868'87~..:........ :.:.........-......--.-.:....1.--.-.-...-.-.~.II....-........ ..:...1..-.-..........'..-.1',
Lake Lorene Outlet Conlrol Structure 11'- .1 232,748,- __.1 ------- '------,,'------
S 3601h St Regional Delenlion Pond .. I . , . ¡ 1,386,971 .1 ' . .
SW3i5th,stCulvertfrrunkRe¡;lacement 01,- '- -'.It .i ....I----..I..178'795.lu-.\-,.--. -:,---_...-~
SlarLakeRoadp,pe.lnsta~atlon ", .J 37,053' ..1'1 .r -_. -, :1
S 278th Place Pipe Installation '. I . I 44,804 I . . ' '-- _:, _n' i . ¡
SlarLake Road Pipe Crossing '., -1114,848 . . . . ,I .1
_Lower Joes Creek ChannelSta,bwzation I)'.' ...1.-. ... .=.! ..J. --.1.7.....9,.O6...j...=.¡.....-.. "'-9...23..'.~ 4.....8....1,,_..-.-..'-.---,-.:::....-..-.. -..-..-....-...--.-.'j-.-.. ...-- .'-.11 -
Lake Ponce de Leon Trunk Replacement '- I -) .1 . 93,254 L 711 ,477 , .
~~O~:~~~ ~~t:~~~~~~ci~~~~::'PI: r == : ! : ¡-- ~ ---.---=.~ - +1-.-_5~8'43~- :-~-160;~---=-=:f
East 15.inch Lateral Delenlion ',' 1 . I . , . . - -' 160,250.... .1
3rd Place S Pipe Replacement .-, i . i . I . . .1 . 412,767 .
S. 3161h Place Delention Facility .".:. . I -I . I . 673378 . ,
Aldc"'aleParkTrunkReplacomont : -l -: . .i .¡ . '.1 140,7291' 1,163,504
SW 340lh PI Trunk Replacement , . ! . 1 - I . -I 398.733
1st Way S rrunkReplacemenl .','. -I .: " -I ',691,9191
EBranchLakmaCreekChanneIStabil;zal;on ,-,"_..) -: -1 .j _.; _cL- j ,
OutietChannelModification ICPR6-C.¡ .¡ .1 .1
MirTOrLakeFloodprOOfingfReIOCalingStructur.¡MirTOr1.a¡ -I -! ., .¡ .-11
Easter lake BermConstruc"on ¡CPR8-C: .! -I - i --- j
lakel10verflowChannei ¡WH9A., t- '-'- ,:¡-,
SPl8T0135 10 SPL8T0160 Trunk Replacemenl ¡ SPL8.C I ' . I .
I
ElCity Sources
Subtotal Cap'al Projects
Annua' Programa
Malnlononco Coot.
Tolal Coo, 01 Proj.c.o
Ending Ba/anco (Unfunded)
SWM.1
DGranlslconlributions
. ¡
:¡
150,856, 1,640,333:
. i
Grami
Tota'
25,837,334
2,750,000-
3,114,215-
.663,024
~
i
"
'J
0 "
:1
, "
1.
i
"
I
I
1".", c.
- . 156,oi9
371:497
-;80,Ù6
358,495
252,818
18,7611,604
5,061,517
3.523,416
29,535,313
4.418,903
........
..t..
Tab", 4
Projected Capital Projects and Funding Sources
$25,000,000
,--,-.----.-.------...---..---
.-.--.
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
1999
2000
2001 2002 2003
--Total Sources
2006 2007 2008 2009
-Woo.. Total Cost of Projects
2004
2005
¡ proj I
SOURCEs/USES ($I,OOO's) : No. 1999 2000 I 2001
Financing Sources ¡ L I I
Prior Vear Funding ,: $ . i $ - I $ I $
Unallocated Fund Balance ! 33.4% : 595,070 i-. i
Real Estate ExcISe Tax ; 33.4% : 12,_763: _49,420. 44,296 :
FueITaxiUtilitytax.ArteriaIStreetOvertay¡100.0%; 1,540,9011' 1,549,4961 1,569,194,-
GO Bond. ! TRN : . I : I
Other Loans (Including PWTFL) : TRN ¡ . .m.. I - - I _I
Grants. Received ' TRN! 2,778,000; - ~2,000 I -
MltlgationlContnbution. Received TRN I - 1- - - - ; . - - - I
Grants ' Anticipated TI~N i '-- 6.,356,_0Q0-l--_1,!319,33"
Miti a!lon/Contribution. Antici ated TRN ' t 500,000 : 133,210 I
Total Sources 1$ 4,926735 $11,116,9161$ 3,666,034 $
Traffic/Streets Projects 'i I I I
SR 99: S 312tt, St:-S324th St: Add HOIÎ I~ 99,09 ! - 554,600 --¡"-395,400- . m
23rd.AveS:S3,_1.7t,h. St.--S3i4ihSt:..WI.'d.e~9g:03 i,-3,iiiOOO ..J-:-711.,-õ§0,-'-~1.'~ .... ,.1
SR99@S330thSt:Signalization,left.turI9g.1O: __H)O,-OOO- __140,000 'I
S 312th St@ 14th Ave S: Signal I 01-12. , ,125,000 I
S288thSt@SR99:Addleft.tumlanes ¡ 01-13": - -, 1,115,300
SR 99: S 324th St. S 340th St HO,V lanes' 2001 I. .1 950,000
S336thSI@WeyerhaeuserWyS' Realign! 03-15': ..'
.$ 356th St: 1st Ave S - SR 99: WIden to 511 2001 i 'I 6,605,000 I
S320tl1St@1stAveS:Add2ndleft.tumll'16"",_-
SR99.S284t11St.SR509:ConstructHO 17' .! .1
S320thSt@20thAveS: AddNBright-tur! 18 ¡ .!-
S 320th SI@ 23rd Ave S: Add 2nd left.tur ! 19 ¡ . I . !
S 348th St: 9th Ave S. SR 99: Add HOV I: 20 '
21stAveSWlSW357thSt: SW356thSt.ì 21:
SW312thSt: 1stAveS.SR509: Wldent: 22:
Summary of Future Proiects Beyond 2004 : :
2002
,
45,235 i
- ..m.- . -I
1,592,~321
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
2010
2011
~
2003
45,638 ,
1,616~623 :
I
, j
- _1,9,57,721_; - 1,996"675 i
135,875 138,592 :
3.731,562 ! $ 3,797,728 I $
10,722,000
648,700
960,000
1,358,000
3,900,000
3,096,000
750,000 ,
.,
I
, !
r "'~~
Composition of Projected Capital Sources
H
H--- u_---- _n 1
~--- ----- j
11Ft - -=~
-~
,
,
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$,
2012
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
mCity Sources
DGrantsiMitigation Fees
I
¡
1
1$
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total
I
1$
I
$
s
$- :
1,6§Ö:~~~ 1- - -1.~7..~-.~.'.~.-.~.-.~..n¡ '-
, -
I - - un:_l -
- 2, ~ 1;:6~~! '-.-'~'¡51i~t~~~ 2'~~1~~f -
3,996,2691 $4,065,0261 $ 4,213,0411 $
$
-- 113,751
1,741,562
,$
111,104 '
1,767,685
i$
110,794 !
1,794,201 I
!
,
43,293 :
1,64Ù72 :
111,054 i
1,821.114;
. . i
108,926 I
1,848,430 I
I
595,070
915:338 L î
23,554.587 ..
41,732 I
-1,665,:851
J
!
-2.077,549 ¡
- 144~191'
3,928,957 I $
!
I
,
- -- -L
2,~6,61~ I
141,364
3,662,342 : $
¡
3,44~,OOO
Ú9f782¡ 2,339,656
159,199 : 162,383
4,357,975 ! $ 4,434,208: $
2,248,806
156,077
4,263,872 I $
34,098,281-
2,286,630
~
. !
8,950,000
7,883,000
i40:000-
125,000
1,115,300
1.739,000
8,672,000
~i
:!
.,
- :
Annual Overlay Program
Maintenance Cost.
Total Co.t 01 Project.
. ¡ ,,-
3,T75,000
TR,1
-
lJ'\
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$.
$(1,000,000)
$(2,000,000)
Maintenance Cost.
PARK PROJECTS
Ta
Projected Capital Projects and Funding Sources
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
-+-Total Sources
-It- Total Parl<.s Projects
SOURCES/USES
Financing Source,s ,l
Prior Year Funding , $ I $
Unallocated Fund Balance 33,3%, 593,289
Real Estate Excise Tax 33,3%'1' f~,~2.s!
Fuel Tax. PathiTrail 10,00%1 911971
GO Bond PK I -
Other Loans (Induding PWTFL) PK - , - I
Grants/Contnbutlons ' Received PK ' I
Mitigation Furid :Received PK! - 'I
Grants/Contributions, Anticipated". 25';, -34f59:2 1,025,4&1 357,473 364,623'
Miti ation Fund ,Antici ated 100% 69:029 70,409 71,818 73,254
Total Sources I $1,027,832 $ 1,154,439 $ 482,845 $ 492,466 I $
~¡¿~1::: "0 , -lO::::þ~,.tt"', S-=--, ',': ~.....,-: I.~ ,
Sports Fields 4 I' 20,000 I 930,000, - ' 21,224
Fishers,Ponel, , ,5_- -t"" ",,-I-j 20,8_08, ,159,1!1'
Wedgewood Pari<. 6 I 50'0001: . I
Lakota Park Redevelopment 8" '-" _1 - !
Thompson Open Space ,6.. - 20,~00 164,040- '" -I
Neighborhood Pari<. Renovation 9 f - 1 20,400 20,808 21,224 !
French Lake Park 10 [ . ¡ 20.400 212,242 !
Hlstoncal Cabins Park 10 ¡ -I.. 21,2241
Pari<. Acquisition 10 ! 100,000 I 102,000, 104,040 106,121 ¡
Spring Valley Open Space 10 ' 20,400 104,040 " - ¡
363Rd Open Space 11 20,400 52,020 ' .
New Pari<. Development 11 .1 21,2241
Steel Lake Park 11 20400 u..u' ,
Poverty Bay Pari<. 12. ! 20:400
Pari<. Play Areas 13 1
Total Parks Proiects
,
:$
,~ i
49,27~1
,~,293 L-
44,163
- -=9:~.1...
45,100 i
-' 9,:90!-
2004
i--- 100
I $ - I $
t- _00- -I
i :
45,501 ¡4~ 153j
9,589 I ,..9,6901
- I 8,000'~001
371,~15 II' 379,354 l
74.719 76,213
501,725 1 $8,508,420 I $
2003
270,608
54,122 1_7.728,566
21,649
, i
216,4861
108,243
22,082 1
, ¡
- . ¡
110,408 I
21,649
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
2005
¡
-H
i
41,607 !
9,7~2¡
(520,~00) I
1
, I
386,941 I
77,738
3,923)1 $
¡
1-
-j $-
22,523
22,523
112,616
281,54; I
t
PK-1
Composition of Projected Capital Sources
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
ElCity Sources
OGrants/Mitigation Fees
- ,-S
2006 i 2007 2008! 2009 i 2010 2011 i 2012
I ' , , ,
-..$ _=---_rSm -n ')$ --[$ -'is ~.. is
39,',s.,'07,_l..,,_,,_,37'¿9~l,_,113,'~1,61-",1,10';7"1!I",,,11Ö,,~,52! 110,;2,2:,,1,0,8,6,'00, :,
9,894 j 9,998 10,103 10,209 10,317 I 10,425 ¡ 10,534 '
(520,~00)1 (f112'~38)1"¡1,H2~38),- (1,112,~38)1(1,112,~38): (1,112,~38)! (1,112,~3¡j)!
394,680 I 4-62,573410,625 I - 418'~3711" 427';14[ 435,;58 444,i73
79,292 80,878 82,496 84,146 85,829 I 87,545 89,296
3,374 $ 581,795 $ 496,203 $ 488,874 $ 479,016: $ 468,388: $ 459,933 $
, . i $
-j'
323.40; I
--1
, !
6,163,522
1,162,662
9,192.968
Total
593,289-
912.597
137;-922-
282,975
,!
, ,'S'
- ,$
- , $
287,171
23,902
304,749
22'97~1
114,86~ 1
287,17; I
, ,!
--=,-'-,','~f ..
23,433
: I
117,166 I
,-- ,
"
I
'I
292,915j
'1
I
.1
24,867]
25,365 :
25,872 -¡
23,902"
- 24,380
- :
1~1'89~_[
129,361]
'¡
126,824 I
124,3'37
j
304,74~ i
I
310,844' ,
317,060 :
323,402 ;
-
~
Tè.
J
COMMUNITY FACILITY PROJECTS
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
1999 2000
Projected Capital Needs and Sources
(
t
Composition of Projected Capital Sources
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000 I
2001
$,
2002
2003
2004 2005 2006
2007
2008
2010 2011
2009
2012
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
--Total Sources
DGrants/Mitigation Fees
2004 2005 1 2006 I 2007 200S 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
I j I I ;, ,
1$$---:-,$ '-'S ,-$ -'$-'$!s :$ 1$1,985.798
'-j--- -", -- " ',+- + !-' . , I, --593,289
- 45,S011' -43.163! 4,;eoT '3ÚOi--37,S91f--Hf4ÚJ-:- -fiO}71f 110,462 ¡ 110,722' 10-8,600 :912,597
1Ö'.4~040,._~_106:121_~1Qa:~43 --~iJÓ~4o.8 ' -,--!"1,,2,"-,616,',,.'" 114,S6!i- - -117',166} Ti9ß09j 12:1:899: 124.3371 {373,709-
",,',,- I _--,n_,"'",,' 1,1, '
I '.¡ -- I I
12Õ'~9"-1-' 123,414, , i2~,~821 .12eJQO_- _1i~~~_---~3~~L -136'~5¡¡LJ3.e-,~84[ 141,~64 i-1.¡4,~¡¡9 1/85,~i3t
270,535 '$ 272,698 $ 275,732 $ 278,315 $ 281,176 $ 361,866 $ 364,195 $ 368,955 1 $ 374,385 I $ 377,537 1 $ 5,650,956
3Qo,CIQOI,- "-I "I --'1 -- :),
,1,5,,30,()()0¡i- .1- , 'j "" ""," -",-,~",,-',"-,L_____,:.l
5,520,404 -'"j'" 'I "I
' ~~1- TI~}I ' "'~ ""I' ',~ ~¡¡:+:¡i--' ;',6, ',",'i-,', ,,~~t :"~jn -.:-J, '1--
. , 106,121 ' '1 'I "
102000 i " , 106 121 . ! ,225-232 - , -
Ú13! 2,29i! Ú93 2,4631 2,383 ,Ú43- , 2,269 2'202,-6',77'f[- 6,751
'I ',[53,060 .1 '1' --- ',-'-~'
.1 -I.! 54,1221 , 59,7551
$3,306,0991$7,157,667 $ 2,2971$ 395040!$ 8,716,0411$4,418,7061$340,1921$11489126 $11,718,796 $ 66,531 $ 6,751l$ 6,8671$ 7,0211$ 7,0241$., 1-"'
Maintenance Cost" 2,5% I $ 10,508' $ 51,689 I $ 51,747! $ 61,623 I $ 279,524 1 $ 389,991 1 $ 398,496 I $ 685,724 ! $ 978,694, $ 980,357' $ 980,526 ¡ $ 980,698 I $ 980,873 1 $ 981,049 : $ 7,811,49~
Total Cost of Projects ¡ $ 3,316,606 : $ 7,219,356 I $ 54,044 ¡ $ 456,662 I $ 8.995,565 ! $ 4.80~,697 ! $ 738,688 I $ 12,174.ø5()T $-12.&97,490 ! $1,046,889 1$ 987.278 , $ 987,565 1$987,894 1$ 988,073/ $55~459:658-
Ending Balance (Unfunded) , $ (593,014): $ (1,943,568)1 $ 206,415 I $ (190,941)1 $ (8.725,030)1 $(4.535,999)' $(462,955)1 $ (11,896,535)1 $(12,416,314)1 $ (685,023)1 $ (623,081)1 $(618,610) $ (613,510) $(610,536)1 $(40,99J'~03)
. Projected Malnlenance CoslS do not Include 1997 bonded projects which maintenance costs are aiready funded, '
.. Bond Issue reduces fulure avallablilly of sources, Debt Services are based on 6,5% inleresl, 10yr issues,
... EOlTech need shown as 5% of annual General, Ut and REET lax allocations,
SOURCEs/USES
Financing Sources
.Pnor Year Funding
unallocated 'Fund Balance
Real Estate ExciseTax
Lodgin¡jTax . - .
(:;'0 Bond
Other Loans (Including PWTFL)
Grants/Contributions. Received
Mitigation Fund, Received
Grants/Contributions, Anticipated
Mitigation Fund, Anticipated
Total Sourcea
City Facility Project.
Municipal Court Startup
MunicipalCourt Facility
Public Safely Facility
Downtown Revitalization
COnvenf;onlPerform/ng Arts
Community Center
Senior Center
Maintenance Facility
High Crime Area Cam
Dumas Bay Centre
Operating & Technology Equipment
Klahanee Lake CeiSc
Knutzen Family Theatre
--II- Total City Facility Projects
ElCity Sources
I proj I
I No., 1999 I 2000 2001 2002
¡I' 1 I I
¡333d$(1~n~rI5,'00,~.o T--~mL_-:-,$
:333iitn_~:r2S49:272 --44:163- 45:100+1--
'IT~f':f:-~~0'~OOr12~~~~ -~~O,~.oo. ==~1Õ2:~OO .'-
, CF I ,¡ , , - I
ICF - :- '- --:-- "'
11 CF - 11.1,7801'- .fi{()1_5 . ..116,2-961',-118:622
CF ", ".
! $ 2,723,592 $ 5,275,788 $ 260,459 $ 265,721 $
I
.'
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
ç
7
8
6
9
10
66:430
z:¡h9,368
-io,oOO
70,000
30,301
t
, i
I
. i
. '
.1
)
6,867 ¡
-I
7,021 l
. +
7,024 ),
. I
CF-1
-
-....l
I.a.,
1999/2000 Capital Improvement Projects Prioritization 1
Amount Available for Aopropriation - Sources'
-- -
General Fund Balance
----- _--__n___-
Real Estate Excise Tax
Total Available:
Utility Tax (if available) *
Total Available with Utility Tax:
* If excess utility tax collected since 1995 is made available for other capital projects.
R
TaN
n
y k 0
Pit
e
1999
Project Description
i n
!
e
I
Capital Projects FundIng Requirement DurIng or Soon After 1999/2000:
CFi 1 IÜtlniCiPaT~ourtStartup -
CF! 1 jMUnicipal Court Facility
- I - - - - -
~Fi 2 2 I~U~iC Safety F~Cility--
CF' 3 I Downtown Revitalization
CF' 4 3 I ConventiOn!Pefforming Arts
I
CF 8 I Dumas Bay Centre
ì - - -- - -
CF I 8 I Operating & Technology Equipment
PK¡ 1 iBPA TRAIL PHASE III
I ,- -- --
PKI 3 'Skate Park
PK: 4 I Sports Fields
PK! 6 iWedgewOOd-Park-
PK' 8 IThOn,Psonopenspace-
PK[ 9 ¡Neighborhood Park Renovation -
Ii-. . . -
PK! 10 (French Lake Park
PK! 10 [park Acquisition
PK i 10 [spring Valley Open Space
PKI11 !363Rd Open Space
, I
PK: 11 I Steel Lake Park
PK: 12 I Poverty Bay Park
ì . - -
TR 1 ¡SR 99: S 312th St, S 324th St: Add HOV lanes
TR 2 123rdAveS:S317thSt=-S~324th-St:Widento5Ianes
TR 3 ISR 99 @ S 33Òih St: Signalization, left,turn lanes -
TR 4 4 [S312thSt@14thAveS:Signal
TR 7 4! S 288th St @ SR 99: Add left,turn lanes
TR I 8 5 Is 336th SI @ vlJeyerhaeuser 'Ny S: R-ealign intersection
CIP Request for 1999,2000 BudQet
300,000
-m --- ---
66,430
2,819,368
20,000
70,000
30,301
352,000
250,000 I'
20,000
- 50,OOO-¡-
100,000 I
I
, I
-I
554,600
3,172,000
100,000
8,006,998 i
,Capital
2000
Amount
Provided!
GrantS
Anticipated
Funding
Required
i
, !
1,530,000
-" - ,
5,520,404
-+-.., 30Ó,OOO-'-
-,-------~=-----
1,530,000
~'.I----~:~~--~.:_~_:.,r. T~:;...
12,750 32,750 '... ........ ...-
102,000 , - --l_-_-17~~~~,-
2,5131 -I 32,814
1,077, 1201 - - _7~",=60_}~~~4L~6~,
930,0061 ,~~~:~~~ I--~~¿:~~~
---- I_u.umn______--
- , 50,000
;~::~~ \- _1~20~ ;:::~l~:~i~~'
20400 I--+jif",-,
1~~:~~~ I : r-2~~-:~~~
20,400 I-! 20,400
I In_----
20,400 I - : 20,400
20,400 ¡ :1------20,400'-
-- ---I --- +..._-----..~--_..-
: :;~~;~~~--j -- n -- ~;~~.: ~~~_.j__._n~:~:~t~-
------- J-------_. - Î -.--,n_-n_n_-_-.-
140,000 I 240,000 . -
125,000 i 100,000 125:000
1,115,3001--_8!~,~~~¡ 2~3~ÓO
648,700 ! 474,350 ¡ 174,350
24,661,500 I 24,641,608 I 8,147,739
1 The list contains only those projects require funding during 1999/2000 budget period. The priority ranking of projects are not
consecutive as some projects/activities of higher priority but are scheduled beyond the 1999/2000.
2 10% innation is added to the project budget.
3 Amount shown is for feasibility study only.
4 These projects are slated for construction in 2001 but currenlly heve grant applications oulslanding which will require city match if awarded.
5 I hla projeclls alaled ror construction In 2003 but currently have grant appllcallons outstanding which will require city match If awarded.
300,000
.-- ---~ --- -
1,830,000 38,250
2,350,404 existing bgt
- - -- -- n- - -
3,250,404 existing bgt
3,250,404
3,332,468
3,365,281
4,079,841
4,229,841
4,394,841
4,444,841
4,559,081
4,600,289
_n- ------,-
4,620,689
4,822,689
4,843,089
4,863,489
4,883,889
4,904,289
6,563,289
- - u -
7,725,289
7,725,289
7,750,289
7,973,389
8,147.739
At1Hl1.lI11
__un -.- -
1,111,648
670,000
1,781,648
1,450,030
3,231,678
Balance!
Cumulative
Total
Project
Annual
M&O
existing bgt
820
7,145.60
6,250
23,750
1,250
510
510
510
5,050
510
510
510
510
40,000
22,000
4,000
4,000
. ,
4,000
165,206
~
Needs xis cop
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F.
Exhibit G.
11
Exhibits
SWM Projects Prioritization Criteria
TIP/CIP Projects Prioritization Criteria
Parks Projects Prioritization Criteria (new)
Community Facilities Prioritization Criteria (new)
Existing Budget Policies for Capital Projects
CIP Funding Allocation Policies (new)
Summary of Capital Facilities Prioritization Criteria
.
~O
EXIDBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 1 of 10)
.. .2. METHODOLOGY
RANKING OF PROJECTS
Evaluation of proposed capital improvement projects is conducted in four tiers:
Tier I ranks problem areas. based on the severity using historical flooding
and predicted future flooding.
Tier II ranks potential solutions for each problem area so that a preferred
alternative can be selected.
.
Tier III evaluatés the preferred alternatives to develop an initial ranking for
priority of implementating the projects city-wide.
.
Tier IV is a possible re-evaluation of the ranking in Tier ill due to the need
to sequence or group projects. The order of implementation may be
changed if projects must be constructed in a specific sequence. Also under
this tier, the final proposed order of projects is compared to that from the
first tier and differences are resolved.
Evaluation criteria were established within the tiers, and projects are given zero to five
points for each criterion, with five representing projects that best satisfy the criterion. All
criteria are weighted using values from one to three. The criteria included in each tier are
shown in Table 2-1, along with their weighting factor and maximum possible scores for
each project.
--.
021
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 2 afla)
Comprehensive Surface Water Facilitt¡ Plan-Phase 1...
I.
TABLE 2-1.
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
Tier / Criteriçm Weighting Factor Maximum $corea
Tier I Problem Ranking
There are no evaluation criteria for the first tier.
Tier II Altema.tive Ranking at Each Location
Public Health and Safety
Flooding of Public Streets ;3-, 15
Flooding of Properties 3 IS
Frequency of Flooding 1 5
Magnitude of Flooding 1 5
City Responsibility 3 15
Total 55
Environmental Components
Streambank Protection 3 15
Habitat 3 IS
Water Quality 1 5
Infiltration Opportunities 3 15
Total 50
Community Components
Land Use/Aesthetics 2 10
Construction Related Impacts 1 5
Multiple Use Potential 2 10
Socioeconouúc Considedtion 2 10
Total 35
Cons tructability
Total Project Cost- 3 15
Maintenance and Operation Cost 1 5
Sensitive Area Regulations/Permits 2 10
Property Acquisition 1 2
Total 35
Project Dependencies
Project Coordination 2 10
Total 10
2.
J.
4.
6.
_.
.2}.,
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 3 of 10)
...2. METHODOLOGY
'I.
TABLE 2-1 (continued).
SUMMARY OF EV ALUA nON CRITERIA
Tier /Criterion Weighting Factor Maximum ScoreQ
I Tier III City-wide Ranking of Preferred Alternatives
Public Health and Safety
Flooding of Public Streets 3 15
Flooding of Properties 3 15
Frequency of Flooding 1 5
Magnitude of Flooding 1 5
City Responsibility 3" 15
Total 55
Environmental Components
Streambank Protection 3 15
Habitat 3 15
Water Quality 1 ,2
Total 35
Community Components
Multiple Use Potential 2 10
Socioeconomic Consideration 2 10
Complaint History 2 10
Total 30
Constructibility
Total Project Cost 3 15
Maintenance and Operation Cost 1 ,2
Total 20
Project Dependencies
Project Coordination 2 10
Existing Versus Future Problem 1 ,2
Total 15
Tier IV Ranking Re-evaluation
There are no evaluation criteria for the fourth tier.
a. The maximum score for each criterion represents the weighting factor times the
maximum rank of five points.
I
J..
3.
5.
First Tier Criteria
There are no evaluation criteria for the first tier. The first tier is used to form an
impression of the relative severity of the problem areas and the intuitive priority for which
the improvements should be implemented. This priority is formulated \,-,ithout the ~l~e of
explicit evaluation criteria. In the first tier, 'a ranked list of projects is developed as ;: check
to the results generated from the formal evaluation matrix approach described belo\-:
~,
.2.3
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 4 of 10)
Comprehetlsive Surface Water Facility Plan-Phase 1...
Second Tier Criteria
(
Public Health And Safety
Flooding of Public Streets
This criterion scores whether the proposed project reduces the flooding of public streets. A
low score indicates that the proposed project does not reduce flooding of public streets. A
moderate score indicates that a flood problem that impacts minor or collector roads is
corrected by this project. A lúgh score indicates that the proposed project remedies a serious
flooding problem of a major street or arterial.
Weighting factor = 3.
Flooding of Properties
This criterion ranks the proposed project's reduction of the flooding of property, such as
homes or businesses. A low score indicates that the proposed project does not reduce
flooding of properties. A moderate score indicates that a problem creating nuisance
property flooding, but not structural flooding, is corrected by the project. A high score
indicates that the proposed project remedies a serious property flooding problem, including
structural flooding.
Weighting factor = 3.
Frequency of Flooding
This criterion scores projects lSased on the frequency of predicted future flooding. A low
score indicates that the proposed project corrects infrequent flooding, such as that which
would occur during a IOO-year, 24-hour storm event. A lúgh score would be assigned to a
project that corrects fre'quent and chronic flooding, such as in an area that has received
frequent citizen complaints or that which floods during the 64 percent of the 2-year, 24-hour
storm event.
(
'-
Weighting factor := 1.
Magnitude of Flooding
This criterion assigns a score based on the predicted magnitude of flooding. A low score
indicates that relatively ITÙnor flooding is predicted at the project site, less than 10,000 cubic
feet of runoff. A moderate score indicates that the project corrects a problem that causes
flooding of about 50,000 cubic feet. A high score is assigned to a project that corrects
predicted flooding that exceeds 100,000 cubic feet of flood volume.
\^/eighting factor := 1.
Cd Y l\cspollsiúility
TIll:; criterion assigns projects ¿¡ score hè1scd on their ability to co:-r~ct PC["(CiVl'c1
responsibilities of the Citv, r\ JCH'/ scn;-" In"ic~:(H' :1 r"b~;"<>l,, 1,---".. In,.,,' 'oj ,-
..
elf
EXIllBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 5 of 10)
...2. METHODOLOGY
(
responsibility, such as may be expected from flooding of undeveloped remote property. A
high score indicates that the proposed project corrects a flooding problem that has the
potential for high City responsibility, such as flooding of a major roadway.
Weighting factor = 3.
Environmental Components
Streamballk Protection
This criterion rates how the proposed project will impact downstream streambank
protection and whether it will improve stability by reducing bank and bed erosion. A low
score means flows will increase, with increased probability of,erosio.n; a mid-scale score
means no appreciable change is predicted; a high score means a reduction in peak flows or
correction of an existing streambank problem area.
Weighting factor = 3.
Habitat
('
'.
This criterion rates how the project will affect the aquatic and riparian habitat, particularly
how fish passage may be impacted. A completed project that adversely impacts existing
habitat, for example, piping a section of open channel, would receive a low score. A
moderate score indicates little or no disturbance to the existing habitat. A high score
indicates that the project will improve the existing habitat, such as by repairing severe
erosion nick-points or restoring native vegetation.
Weighting factor = 3.
Water Quality
This criterion evaluatès whether the proposed project will provide any improvement to
stormwater runoff quality prior to its discharge to the receiving watercourse. A low score
would be assigned to a project that provides no significant improvement, such as the
replacement of a restrictive pipeline element. A project that provides a slight
improvement to water quality, such as construction of a sedimentation forebay to a regional
detention facility, would receive a moderate score. A high score indicates that the project
will significantly improve water quality or has incorporated several water quality
improvement features, such as sedimentation, biofiltration and oil/water separators.
Weighting factor = 1.
Infiltration Opportunities
This criterion is based on whether the proposed project contains features that promote the
infiltration of suitable stormwater runoff into the groundwater. A low score indicates that
no feasible opportunity exists; a moderate score indicates a moderate potential exists; and a
high score indicates the project is located in an area where high levels of infiltration can be
achieved and the project includes features to take advantage of those high levels.
Wcighti!¡g fi1c!()¡O
)
.
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 6 of 10)
).5
Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan-Phase 1...
Community Components
Land Use/Aesthetics
This criterion measures a project's compatibility with its surrounding land use. A project
would receive a low score if it did not fit well with its surroundings, such as a large concrete
structure within a creek corridor. A high score would be assigned to a project that fits
naturally or unobtrusively with its surroundings, such as log check dams within a creek
system to control erosion.
Weighting factor-= 2.
Construction-Related Impacts
Many project elements can be objectionable to the public during construction. Depending
on the type and location of construction, construction noise or impacts on transportation or
recreation can be issues. This criterion assigns a low score to a project that would have a
significant adverse impact on transportation or recreation, or is located where construction
noise would be especially undesirable. A project would receive a high score if few or no
adverse construction impacts are anticipated.
Weighting factor = 1.
Multiple Use Potential
Frequently, opportunities exist during project design to provide multiple uses of the final
facility. For example, a regional detention facility may be able to double as a park or
playfield during non-storm pe¥Í°ds. A project with no multiple-use potential, such as the
replacement of an undersized pipe, is assigned a low score for this criterion. A high score is
assigned if other beneficial u~es may be incorporated into the project.
Weighting factor = 2.
Socioeconomic Consideration
Depending on its location and size, a project can create, remove, or preserve socioeconomic
development opportunities in the community. A project would be assigned a low score if a
highly viable commercial property is to be used for non-commercial (and tax free) public
purpose, such as locating a regional storage facility in a commercial zone. Conversely, a
project would be assigned a high score if, for example, it provides property that can be
developed because the area will no longer flood, or it prevents degradation of downstream
economic and/or environmental resources.
Weighting factor = 2.
COilS frllc fa ù ¡Ii hj
Total Projcel Co:;!
This criterion ["~res the total economic imp~ct to the CIty for the construction. of the
...J...."...,'" ..L:~\
.
J.(p
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 7 of 10)
...2. METHODOLOGY
construction, construction administration, land acquisition, and environmental mitigation.
A low-scoring project has a high economic impact on the City. A high-score indicates a
project with a low economic impact on the City.
Weighting factor = 3.
Maintenance and Operation Cost
This criterion rates the projected annual maintenance and operation cost for the proposed
project. Some .projects inherently require greater maintenance and operation costs than
others. A low score indicates a project that requires a high level of maintenance and
operation. A high score indicates a project that has a low çost of maintenance and
opera tion.
Weighting factor = 1.
Sensitive Area Regulations/Permits
Projects that involve work adjacent to or within sensitive areas typically require lengthy
and expensive procedures to obtain a permit for construction. A low score indicates that a
project is anticipated to have extensive permitting requirements because it is located within
sensitive areas. A project with a high score indicates that the project does not involve
sensitive areas and therefore does not have extensive permitting requirements.
Weighting factor = 2.
Property Acquisition
Often when a project requires acquisition of private property, considerable effort and
resources are required. This is frequently the case when property is needed for the public
benefit from a property 'owner who does not want to sell, therefore requiring condemnation
proceedings. A low score for this criterion indicates a project that involves private property
acquisition. It may also be scored low if timing for the property acquisition is critical to the
implementation of the project. A high score is assigned to a project that does not require
property for implementation.
Weighting factor = 1.
Project Dependencies
Project Coordination
Frequently, a proposed project can be readily incorporated into another construction project
in the vicinity, such as replacing an undersized road culvert during a road widening project.
Coordinating these construction projects can save considerable money and effort.
Therefore, a project is assigned a low seore if there is no opportunity to incorporate it into
others in the vicinity or no such opportunity is known. If there is an opportunity to
inel ucle construction of the project with other construction in the Mea, then a high ~~,~nrc i~
,1ssigI\ccL
).7 '
EX1llBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 8 of 10)
Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan-Phase I...
Weighting factor =: 2.
Third Tier Criteria
The criteria in the third tier have the same weighting factor and description as the second
tier. In addition, the third tier includes two criteria not among the second-tier
criteria-complaint history (a community component) and whether the problem addressed
is existing or future (a project dependency).
.
Environmental Components
Streambank Protection
Habitat
Water Quality
.
Public Health And Safety
Flooding of Public Streets
Flooding of Properties
Frequency of Flooding
Magnitude of Flooding
City Responsibiltty
.
Constructability
Total Project Cost
Maintenance and Operation Cost
.
Community Components
Multiple Use Potential
Socioeconomic Consideration
Complaint History
.
J<¡
EXHllilT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 9 of 10)
...2. METHODOLOGY
.
Project Dependencies
Project Coordination
Existing or Future Problem.
Existing Versus Future Problem
The trunk analysis performed for this study uses existing and future la~d use conditions.
Consequently, pr:oblems are identified for both existing and future conditions. If a project is
found to occur only under future land use conditions, then it is assigned a low score. A
moderate score is assigned if a project solves both a minor existin,.g problem and a minor
future problem. A high score is assigned if the project solves a moderate to large existing
problem and a severe future problem.
Weighting factor == 1.
Complaint History
For some projects, there may be a 10I1g history of citizen complaints of flood problems. This
criterion considers both the frequency and number of citizen complaints. A project would
be assigned a low score if the area does not have a history of citizen complaints. A project
would receive a high score if the project serves a location that has received many and
frequent citizen complaints.
Weighting factor == 2.
Fourth Tier Criteria
There are no evaluation criteria for the fourth tier. The fourth tier is required when one
project depends on anothèr is such a way that a lower priority project must be constructed
before a higher ranked project. The sequence in which projects in the same watershed must
be constructed will influence project priority ranking.
Often, one project must be constructed before others to avoid creating new flooding
problems. For example, pipeline improvements are normally started at the downstream
end and improvements progress upstream. This is done because upstream improvements
can increase downstream problems if the lower areas have not been prepared to
accommodate increased flows. Projects that are part of a special construction sequence may
be assigned a higher implementation priority if any project in the sequence receives a high
score.
The forth tier is also used for to evaluate the reasonableness of the results produced
through the evaluation matrix approach by comparing them to those generated fro.., the
Tier I analysis. This "reality check" ensures that anomalies in the priority ranking Me
evaluated and corrected if necessary.
.....
,¡q -
EXHIBIT A
SWM Projects
Prioritization Criteria
(page 10 of 10)
Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan-Phase L.
Other Considerations
Several other criteria may be incorporated into the list; those described above represent the
most significant for use in long-term planning. Some situations, however, would warrant
re-evaluation of the prioritized projects. These could include such emergency conditions as
a restrictive culvert identified for replacement becoming plugged during a storm and
creating a road wash-out. The culvert replacement might have been assigned a relatively
low priority, but it would be implemented immediately as part of the road re-opening.
A funding windfall such as a grant opportunity or mitigation money can also affect
priorities. A grant might only apply to a specific project, which would move the project
forward for implementation. Future regulatory or political manda,tes also could require the
implementation of a project out of the originally defined sequence. .
The matrix should therefore be viewed only as a tool for establishing relative priorities.
Many conditions could warrant a change in the priorities established from the matrix
approach.
30
Exhibit B
Transportation TIP/CIP Prioritization Criteria
Each project is rated on a scale of zero to five (five being best) on the following criteria:
1. Concurrency Requirement: If the project is needed within six years (corresponding to the Transportation
Improvement Program requirements) to maintain the level of service standards adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan, five points. If needed within 20 years (corresponding to the Capital Improvement Plan
horizon), three points.
2. Level of Service Improvement: If a concurrency requirement, same score as Concurrency. Otherwise,
estimated number of levels of service improvement. For example, improvement from D to C, 1 point; E to
C, 2 points.
3. Safety Improvement: If the project would improve the transportation safety at a high collision location or
corridor, points are assigned based on the existing collision experience.
..
Poitlts
"'.' Intcr!lection Ç.ollision Rate
(Colli!õions per million entering vchic1cs)
: '."". '. Corridor C'.:oJlisìon Rate
. (Collisions per million ,'Chicle miles)
0
1
0-0.50
0.50 - 1.00
0 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.5
2
3
1.00 - 1.50
1.50 - 2.00
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 10.0
4
5
2.00 - 2.50
10.0 - 25.0
>2.50
>25.0
4. HOV Supportive: Projects that add HOV lanes, 5 points; projects that reduce delays for transit, 1 point per
LOS improvement for transit vehicle movements.
5. Non-motorized Supportive: One point for each side of the street that sidewalks are added; 1 point each for
each side of the street that bike lanes are added; 1 point for improving pedestrian opportunities for crossing
major streets.
6. Community Support: Subjective determination based on citizen complaints and estimate of impacts of
project.
7. Air Quality: Same as LOS Improvement.
8. Ease ofImplementation: Subjective determination based on project complexity, competitiveness for grant
applications, political opposition, environmental impacts, etc.
9. Benefit/Cost Ratio: Sliding scale based on the subtotal of points from all other criteria divided by
estimated cost of the project. The best ratio is deemed as five points, the worst zero points, and all other
projects are interpolated.
Criteria
Responds toan UrgenfNeeqor
Opportunity, Confonns to Legal,
Contractural or Government
Mandate
2
3
Fiscal Values
4
5
6
7
8
Number of City Residents Served
')
Maintenance and Operations
Impact
10
Geographic Distribution
Park Acquisition/Develop.
* No need or urgency
* No known issues
* Leveraging of fund through
partnerships, grants, bonds or
volunteers is unlikely
* Not in any plan document
* Project simply an idea
* No public input
* No other supporting
infonnation
* No impact
* No imminent threat of
development
* No association with or
impacts to other projects
* No residents served
* Requires substantial ncw
M & 0, no current
budgetary commitment
* Duplicates service,
significant number of
resources available in area,
level of service overlap
* Suspected health or safety issue
* Provides public safety benefit
through recreation
* Leveraging of funds somewhat
likely through partnerships,
grants, bonds and volunteers
*NA
* Some public involvement such as
letters, workshops
* Professional report
*NA
* Temporary repair measures
available without significant
liability or added future cost
* Indications of possible
development
* Program quality limited or
reduced
* Minimal benefit to existing or
other projects
~ Only one neighborhood served
*NA
* Resources/capacity available
without additional budget
commitment
* Requires new resources which
are availahle or likely available
in budget
* Adequate number of parks are
nearby, minimal level of servicc
overlap
*NA
,It/Renovation Criteria
* Suspected need based upon visual
inspection, public comment
* Suspected threat of development
* Suspected need based upon visual
inspection, or public comment
* Visible deterioration
* Leveraging of at least Y1 project
funding available from other sources
is likely
* Identified in Comprehensive or
Functional plan
* Schematic or conceptual level
approval
* Property identified
* High public support
* Completed appraisal
* Evidence of possible structural failure
* Confinned private development sale
possible
* Program participation limited or
reduced
* Significant future cost increase
* Moderate benefit such as relieving
overuse at another facility
* Corrects minor problem at adjacent!
existing facility
* More than one City neighborhood
served
* Has minimal or no impact on existing
M & 0 resources
* Resources already allocated or
planned for project in budget
* M & 0 requirements absorbed with
existing resources
* Parks nearby, no level of service
overlap, and gaps in service identified
n{hibit "',,
* Report or other documentation has been
prepared
* Confinned threat of development
* Fills important gap in park system
* Significant public comment survey, petition,
public hearing
* Legal, contractual, gov't mandate
* Documented evidence of unsanitary condition,
health and safety code violations, injury
* Leveraging of~ than 50 percent of
project costs from other sources in hand
* Helps meet level of service objectives
* Construction documents complete
* Option or right of first refusal, willing seller
* Imminent possible structural failure, facility
closure, or other similar factor
* Program cancellation
* Unable to meet level of service
* Imminent sale for private development
,!
* Significant benefit such as providing added/
restored capacity to an existing facility
* Corrects major problem at adjoining facility
* Provides benefits to local economy and tax
base
* Project will serve a City,wide population
* Substantial reduction in M & 0
* Underserved area. No facilities within
service area
w
-
3:L
EXHIBIT D
COMMUNITY FA Cll..ITIES
PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Statfused the following criteria to prioritize the Community Facilities projects in order to develop
the Community Facilities TIP for City Council review and approval. The criteria include a rating
procedure to help make the prioritization process more objective.
1.
Mandates. The project is required in order to meet mandates or statutes of higher
governments and/or City legal or contractual obligations.
- N/A (0 points)
- Meets likely future mandate or obligation (1 point)
- Meets one documented mandate or obligation (2 points)
- Meets more than one documented mandate or obligation (3 points)
2.
Health and Safety. The project provides an essential public purpose that helps assure
public health and safety.
- No health and safety benefits (0 points)
- Some benefit likely (1 point)
- Highly beneficial (2 points)
- Essential - well documented needs are shown to exist (3 points)
3.
On an Adopted Plan. The project is on or conforms with an adopted plan (i.e.
Comprehensive Plan, CIPs, TIP and budgeted programs).
- Not on an adopted plan (0 points)
- Likely to have to be placed on an adopted plan (1 point)
- Identified on or conforms with an adopted plan (2 points)
- Identified on an adopted plan and helps meet level of service objectives (3 points)
4.
Cost Benefits. The project benefits related to costs include: 1) the direct service revenues
and values provided; 2) the benefits to the local economy and improves the tax base; 3)
the benefits and improvements to other projects and services; 4) the generation of on-
going cost savings; 5) reduces significant future costs by taking the action at this time and
not loosing opportunities; 6) the capital investment is well leveraged with external funds
and financial partnerships; 7) self-supporting for on-going operations and maintenance;
reduces future costs by making the repair or improvement; and 8) the project represents
the greatest value of all alternatives considered.
- No cost benefit (0 points)
- Minor cost benefits (1 point) - provides benefits in at least 3 categories
- Major cost benefits (2 points) - .provides benefits in at least 5 categories
- Superior cost benefits (3 points) - provides benefits in at least 7 categories
.~"
33
5.
Public Support. The project serves significant numbers of residents and/or businesses and
neighborhoods.
- No support (0 points) - serves no additional residents or businesses
- Some support (1 point) - serves one neighborhood or business area
- Good support (2 points) - serves more than one neighborhood or major business area
- Excellent support (3 points) - serves City-wide population or major business areas
6.
Implementability. The project is 1) fiscally ready and 2) easy to implement.
- Completion very difficult (0 points) - meets neither criteria
- Completion difficult (1 point) - nearly meets one criteria
- Completion likely (2 points) - nearly meets two criteria
- Completion easy (3 points) - meets both criteria
-
34
EXHIBIT E
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PROJECT INCLUSION/PRIORITY
(In Priority Order) :
I.
Projects which are required by statute or by an existing agreement with another agency.
2.
Projects which are essential to public health or safety.
3.
Projects which are urgently needed by some other criteria than public. health or safety, e.g.
environmental or public service.
4.
Projects which have exhibited a high degree of public support.
5.
Projects which are grant funded and would have minimal or no operating cost impact on the
General Fund.
6.
Projects which, if not acted upon now, would result in the irrevocable loss of an opportunity, or
other major alternative actions would have to be initiated.
7.
Projects which would preserve an existing capital facility, avoiding lignificandy greater expenses
in the future (e.g. continuation of a ten-year cycle street maintenance program).
8.
Projects which would result in significant savings in General Fund operating costs.
9.
Projects which would fulfill a City commitment (evidenced by previous inclusion in the annual
CIP and community support) to provide minimal facilities.in areas which are deficient according
to adopted standards.
10.
. Projects which would provide significant benefits to the local economy and tax base.
II.
Purchase of land for future projects at favorable prices prior to adjacent development.
12.
Purchase of land for future City projects (landbanking).
13.
Projects which would provide new facilities which have minimal or no operating costs or which
have operating costs but have been designated as exceptions to the operating cost policy by
previous City Council actions.
14.
Projects which would be constructed in conjunction with another agency with the other agency
providing for the operating costs.
15.
Projects which would generate sufficient revenue to be essentially self-supporting in their
operation.
16.
Projects which would make an existing facility more efficient or increase its use with minimal or
no operating cost increase.
17.
Projects which would fulfill City commitment (evidenced by previous inclusion in the annual erp
and community support) to provide greater than minimal facilities.
18.
Projects which are grant funded but would require increased operating costs in the General Fund.
19.
Projects which are not grant funded and would require increased operating costs in the. General
Fund. and have not been designated >as exceptions to the operating cost policy by previous City
Council actions.
35
EXHIBIT "F"
CIP FUNDING ALLOCATION POLICIES
D RAFf
The following policies have been developed to help determine how the various CIP categories
may be funded so that projects within the CIPs can be developed in a timely and orderly manner
with known amounts of funding. Although the SWM CIP is an Enterprise Fund separate from the
General Fund, it should also be subject to an annual review. Therefore, the following policies
offered for City Council consideration apply only to the Transportation, Parks and the Community
Facilities Improvement Programs.
1. A high priority use for capital funds allocated to each CIP category is to match grants and
leverage funds from outside sources. Annually, each CIP category should provide an amount
available for grants matching. For major projects, it may be necessary on a case-by-case basis
for the City Council to authorize loans or to use funds from non-capital sources to obtain the
matching funds (i.e., for a major street project, it may be necessary use asphalt overlays funds
for street project grant matching).
2. With each biennial budget the City Council determines:
A. needed capital projects;
B. reviews prioritization criteria for the four categories ofClPs (Exhibits A, B, C and
D);
C. reviews funding allocation criteria (Exhibit F);
D. sets funding allocation amounts for projects for funds to go to the three CIP
categories in item 7 below, and;
E. determines whether SWM fees need to be adjusted to meet SWM capital needs.
3. At year end, the City Council may choose to allocate a percentage of, or a combination of the
following fiscal sources:
A. Unallocated year-end balance carry-forward funds from operating funds;
B. Annual REET collections above committed budgeted expenditure amounts;
C. The remainder of the 5% of Utility Tax collections not budgeted for operating costs of
projects and for debt service; and/or
D. Other revenues (i.e. wireless communications lease revenues, impact fees for parks and
transportation, etc) and new tax sources such as Admissions Tax..
J{P
t'--
~
Exhibit G
Summary of Capital Projects Prioritization Criteria
(The numbers in each column correspond to the prioritization criteria for each project category as shown in each exhibit)
,
¡
Existing Criteria/ Exhibit No. Exist/ SWM/ TIP/ PARKS/ Facility/ Recommended Criteria Priority
Exh.E Exh.A Exh.B Exh.C Exh.D
legal Mandate/Contractual obligations. 1 1 1 1 legal/Contractual Obligations 1 M'
Essential to Public Health/Safety. 2 1 3 2 2 Essential to Public Health/Safety 2 P'
Urgent and essential public purposes -- environmental, socio-economic 3 2,3 7 1 Essential for Public Purposes - Long,term community
protection or preservation. health/safety
Service level Commitment -- minimum (Conform with CIP or other adopted plan) 9 2 4 3 Conform with adopted plan. 3 M
Service level Commitment (conform with adopted plan) -- above minimum 17 4 Conform with adopted plan.
Preserve Capital Investment/prevent significant higher future cost 7 4 9 6 4 Benefits/Costs 4 p
Generate on-going cost savings. 8 Benefit considerations:
Generate significant economic benefit to local economy tax base (cost/benefit) 10 3 direct service revenue/value; impact to local economy;
benefit/improve efficiency to other projects/services; generé\te on,
going cost saving; avoid opportunity cost.
Generate significant revenue to be self'supporting 15 Cost considerations:
Opportunity project if not done immediately future alternatives are significantly 6 1 capital investment required (including the consideration of
more expensive (cost/benefit) external funds leveraged); subsidy required to operate/maintain;
future cost to repair/cure damages for not taking current action;
cost of the best alternative.
Grant leveraging and minimum/no general fund operating impact 5 3
Grant leveraging and w/general fund operating impact 18 3
Grant leveraging by participating in other partnership projects that have no general 14 3
fund operating impact
land banking - at a lower/undeveloped price for future project 11
land banking - future project, no price incentive 12
Facility that will not impact General Fund operating cost 13 9
Benefit/improve/inter-dependency of other projects -- such as connectivity, 16 5 4,5 7
operating efficiency, or service level of existing facility/service -- at minimal or no
additional operating cost
Benefit/improve/inter-dependency of other projects: No grant and will impact 19
operating cost
High Degree of Public Support: (Feasibility: include public support and 4 3,4 6 5 5 Public Support: geographical/population demands; support 5
physical/fiscal readiness of project) neighborhood based problem solving;
Number of Residents Served 8
Geographic Distribution 10
4 8 6 Ability to implement: physical & fiscal readiness of the project. 6
. M = Mandates imposed by other level of governments, or external obligations/commitment must be fulfilled.
P = Protection/preservation of public safety and community wellbeing, including capital investments of the community.
Crrteríaxls Sheet1
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
I.
Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) ~ /
Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community De¿¡~ent Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~
Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
April 29, 1999
BACKGROUND
The city has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the
King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit A). Generally, the
amendments include the following:
1.
Motion 98-4 - An amendment that would coordinate the evaluation and reporting of
data and information on implementation of the CPPs with the requirements of RCW
36.70A.215, "Buildable Lands."
2.
Motion 98-5 - An amendment to the CPPs to reflect the Joint Planing Areas that have
been resolved and to recognize the existing Interlocal Agreement for the City of
Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area.
3.
Motion 98-6 - An amendment to remove the Redmond Overlake and Kirkland Totem
Lake areas from the list of Urban Centers, and to add Redmond Overlake to the list of
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
4.
Motion 98- 7 - An amendment to increase the distance for property owner notice of
resource land designations.
II. HISTORY
Sept 23, 1998
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) adopted Motions 98-4,
98-5, 98-6, and 98-7 (Exhibit B) which recommend these amendments.
March 4, 1999
Per Ordinance No. 13415 (Exhibit C), the King County Council approved
and ratified these amendments on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
May 23,1999
Federal Way will have been deemed to have ratified the amendment
unless the amendment is disapproved by legislative action.
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 2
April 29, 1999
III. DISCUSSION
This section will address each amendment request followed by staff discussion.
1.
Motion 98-4 - An amendment that would coordinate the evaluation and reporting of
data and information on implementation of the CPPs with the requirements ofRCW
36.l0A.2I5, "Buildable Lands. "
Motion 98-4 makes the following recommendations:
A. Recommends an amendment to Framework Policy FW-I (Step 6B), which would
coordinate the review and evaluation of the CPPs with the evaluation and reporting
requirements ofRCW36.70A.215.
Staff Discussion
Countywide Planning Policy FW-l (Step 6B) states that the Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC) or its successor should conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of the implementation of the CPPs no earlier than five years after
adoption of the Phase II amendments to the CPPs based on information from the
Benchmarks monitoring program. Phase II amendments were adopted in 1994,
therefore, this evaluation should occur in 1999. In 1997, the buildable lands
legislation was introduced amending the Growth Management Act (GMA). The
buildable lands legislation requires an evaluation and report to the state no later
than September I, 2002, of data and analysis of planned and actual housing
density, and employment growth and land capacity.
Amendments to the CPPs are being proposed in order to provide for consistency in
reporting times between the CPPs and state law.
B. Further recommends an amendment to Framework Policy FW -I (Step 8),
coordinating the 10 year review of Urban Growth Areas with the requirements of
state law.
Staff Discussion
Countywide Planning Policy FW-I (Step 8a) states that the GMPC shall review all
Urban Growth Areas ten years after the adoption of Phase II CPPs, which would be
in the year 2004. On the other hand, RCW36.70A.130 requires a review of Urban
Growth Areas every ten years to determine the densities permitted and whether
urban growth projections for the succeeding 20 years can be accommodated. This
section also states that this review may be combined with the review under RCW
36.70A.215.
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 3
April 29, 1999
This amendment would result in the two reporting periods being consistent.
C. Further recommends an amendment to Affordable Housing Policy AH-6,
coordinating the review of affordable housing policies with the review and
evaluation requirements of state law.
Staff Discussion
This amendment would result in a 1999 evaluation of how affordable housing
goals are being met. Thereafter, state reporting requirements and the evaluation of
housing goals as required by the CPPs would be coordinated.
D. Further recommends an amendment to Economic Development Policy ED-14,
coordinating review of the county's commercial and industrial land inventory with
the review and evaluation requirements of state law.
Staff Discussion
This amendment would result in consistency between state reporting requirements
and the evaluation of employment goals as required by the CPPs.
2.
Motion 98-5 - Recommends an amendment to Framework Policy FW-i (Step 8b) to
reflect the resolution of the Joint Planning Areas (JP As) listed in the i994 version of
the CP Ps. The amendment strikes reference to the JP As for the cities of Redmond,
issaquah, Renton, North Bend, and Black Diamond. inserts language indicating that
while the Snoqualmie JP A remains unresolved, joint planning for Snoqualmies's urban
growth area is governed by a 1990 Interlocal Agreement between King County and the
city.
Staff Discussion
The Joint Planning Areas (JPAs) for Redmond, Issaquah, Renton, North Bend, and
Black Diamond were resolved in 1995 and 1996 through actions of the GMPC and the
Metropolitan King County Council. The only remaining JP A is for the City of
Snoqualmie, and an Interlocal Agreement was signed in 1990 between the City of
Snoqualmie and King County, that specifies the terms for beginning discussions on
future annexations of the JP A. The proposed amendment does not directly affect the
City of Federal Way and complies with the intent of the Growth Management Act
Land Use Transportation Committee
Page 4
April 29, 1999
3.
Motion 98-6 -
A.
Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-39 to remove Redmond
Overlake and Kirkland Totem Lake from the list of Urban Centers, which were
withdrawn from consideration after the adoption of the CP Ps in 1994.
B.
Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-51 to add Redmond Overlake
to the list of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
Staff Discussion
The City of Redmond amended its comprehensive plan in July 1995 to redesignate the
Overtake area from an Urban Center to a Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The City of
Kirkland designated Totem Lake as an activity center in its comprehensive plan in July
1995. These proposed amendments do not directly affect the City of Federal Way and
comply with the intent of the Growth Management Act
4.
Motion 98-7 - Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-4 to increase the
distance for property owners notice of resource land designations from 300 to 500 feet.
This is in accordance with action taken by the Washington Legislature in 1998 (HB
2830).
Staff Discussion
In 1998, the Washington State legislature adopted HB 2830 which revised RCW
36.70A to increase the distance for property owner notice for resource land designations
from 300 to 500 feet. This amendment is intended to make the CPPs consistent with
state law.
IV RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the L UTC forward a recommendation of approval to the full city
council and vote to ratify the proposed amendments to the CPP's.
V. LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
April 12, 1998, Correspondence from King County
GMPC Motions No. 98-4, 98-5, 98-6, and 98-7
King County Council Ordinance No. 13415
January 19, 1999, King County Council Staff Report
IIKCWPPS\OS0399LUWPD/ApriI29,1999
April 12,1999
AËCËI\lE:Q
APR 1 6 1999
c7;'ÇY CLr:RKS
OF FEDËoc?'FFICt=
'VtL WAY
c~ - on( jJCJ1/l
~
~.Ji'., '
1J44~1
P¡{¿
@)
King County
The Honorable Ron Gintz
Mayor. City of Federal Way
33530 - 1 st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6210
Dear Mayor Gintz:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to
the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). We apologize for the delay in
transmitting these amendments to you. '
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) met on September 23, 1998, and approved
the following Motions:
.
Motion 98-4: recommends an amendment that would coordinate the evaluation and
reporting of data and information on implementation of the CPPs with the requirements
of RCW 36.70A.215, "Buildable Lands".
.
Motion 98-5: recommends amending the CPPs to reflect the Joint Planning Areas that
have been resolved and to recognize the existing lnterlocal Agreement for the City of
Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area.
.
Motion 98-6: recommends removing the Redmond Overlake and Kirkland Totem Lake
areas from the list of Urban Centers, and to add Redmond Overlake to the list of
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
.
Motion 98-7: recommends increasing the distance for property owner notice of resource
land designations.
On February 22, 1999, the King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on
behalf of unincorporated King County. A copy of King County Ordinance 13415 is enclosed to
assist you in your review of these amendments, along with the council staff report.
EXH~Er "
PAGE-I- ur -2- r-
. ~'š
.".....
.m.
The Honorable Ron Gintz
April l2, 1999
Page 2
As you know, amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing
70 percent of the population of King County according to the Interlocal agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies unless, within
90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please be aware that the 90-day deadline in this instance is May 23, 1999. If you
have any questions about these amendments or the ratification process, please feel free to contact
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst for the Office of Regional Policy and Planning, at (206) 205-0702, or
Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, for the Metropolitan King County Council, at
(206) 296-0352.
If you adopt any legislation relative to this action, please submit one certified copy to Carol
Chan, Policy Analyst with the King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning-at
516 Third Avenue, Room 420, Seattle, WA 98104-by 5:00 p.m. on May 31,1999. Ifno action
is taken, please submit a letter to the above address stating the same.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~ /Jl~
Louise Miller, Chair
King County Council
~
King County Executive
Enclosures: King County Ordinance 13415 with attachments
January 19, 1999 Staff Report
cc:
Laurie Smith, Legislative Analyst, King County Council
Ethan Raup, Director, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
Carol Chan, Policy Analyst, Office of Regional Policy and Planning
EXHIBr' Þ.
PAGE-Â- 0 F 2.
....-,---.."-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
~....... .
September 23, 1998
Sponsored By:
Executive Corrunittee
/kg
1
MOTION NO. 98-4
13415
A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County
to amend the Countywide Planning Policies to coordinate the evaluation
and reporting of data and information on implementation of the policies
with requirements of state law. .
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.215 requires an evaluation and report to the state no later than
September 1, 2002 of data and analysis of planned arid actual housing density and
employment growth and of resulting land capacity in jurisdictions within King County.
WHEREAS,RCW 36.70A.130 requires a review of urban growth areas at' least every ten years to
determine permitted densiti~s and urban growth projections, and further states that this review may
be combined with the evaluation and report to the state noted above.
:,
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-l (Step6b) states that the Growth Management
Planning Council should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the
Countywide Planning Policies no earlier than 1999 based on information from the Benchmarks
monitoring program.
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-I, Step 8a states that the GMPC shall review all
Urban Growth Areas ten years after the adoption of the CPPs, which would fall in 2004.
WHEREAS, coordinating the reports to the state with the comprehensive evaluation,
including evaluation of Urban Growth Areas, housing goals, and land capacity for housing
and employment would be practical and effective.
THE GROWTH MANAGEIvŒNT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Framework Policy FW-I (Step 6b) is amended as follows:
. "The Growth Management Planning Council should conduct a comprehensive
evaluation to assess implementation of the Countywide Planning Policies. The
evaluation should be initiated as indicated by based on the results of the monitoring
program, but no earlier tho.n five years after adoption of the Phase II .Amendments to
the cpr and be coordinated with evaluation and reporting requirements of state law.
The evaluation shall include opportunities for publi~ involvement':'
UG MPCI98GMPC/Mot9 8-4.doc
- 1 -
EXH I B r~'._...:a
PA G'E-t- 0 F'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
"""'. .." .
13415
. I
Framework Policy FW-I (Step 8a) is amended as follows:
"The GMPC shall review all Urban Growth Areas 10 years after the adoption and
ratification of Phase II amendments to the CPP. The review shall be conducted
utilizing monitoring reports and benchmark evaluation and be coordinated with
evaluation and reporting requirements of state law. As a result of this review the
GMPC may recommend to the MKCC amendments to the Urban Growth Area.
Alternatively, King County may initiate consideration of Urban Growth Area
amendments. "
Affordable Housing Policy AH-6 is amended as follows:
" Every fiye years, b Beginning in 1999, and subsequently in coordination with.
evaluation and reporting requirements of state law, the Growth Management Planning
Councilor its successor organization responsible for monitoring growth management
implementation shall evaluate achievement of countywide and local goals for housing
for all economic segments of the population. The Growth ManagementPlanning
Councilor its successor shall consider annual reports prepared under Policy AH-5 as
well as market conditions and other factors affecting housing development. If the
Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor determines that housing
planned for any econòmic segment falls short of the need for such housing, the Growth
Management Planning Councilor its successor may recommend additional actions. As
part of its evaluation, the Growth Management Planning Councilor its successor shall
review local performance in meeting low and moderate income housing needs.
The basis for determining local performance shall be a jurisdiction's participation in
countywide or subregional efforts to address existing housing needs and actual
development of the target percentage of low and moderate income housing units as
adopted in its comprehensive plan. In establishing planning targets to address future
affordable housing needs, it is recognized that success will be dependent in part upon
regional factors beyond the control of any singlejurisdiction. Anyone jurisdiction
acting alone, or even in concert with other local governments, mayor may not be able.
to achieve its targets in these policies, despite its best efforts. Success will require
cooperation and support for affordable housing from the state, federal and local
governments, as well as the private sector. The significant role of the market must also
be recognized.
In determining performance the GMPC or its successor shall therefpre use reasonable
.judgment, and also shall consider these market and other factors, as well as action taken'
to e~courage development and preservation of low and moderate income housing, such
as local funding, development code changes, and creation of new programs."
Economic Development Policy ED-14 is amended as follows:
"Jurisdictions shall cooperate on a countywide basis to inventory, plan for, and monitor
the land supply for corrunercial, industri.al, institutional, resource n~Si tial uses.
UGMPC/98GMPClMot98-4.doc - 2 - EXH lB'
PAGE .1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
n,."'"
13415 ,4
J
Local jurisdictións shall, in fivc ycar increments, for the nCJet ')0 years in coordinati~n
with evaluation and reporting requirements of state law identify the amount, character
and uses ofland needed to achieve the jurisdictions' job growth goals."
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on jptember 23, 1998
and signed by the members of the GMPC cutive Committee on Ie.¡ /6 in
open session in authentication of its a option.
air, GroWth Management Planning Council
å~ C ~ 1;p rese~ ta ti v e
~ f~ød-
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
C thia Sullivan, King County Representative
EXHIB B
P AGE -J- \..iU-
UG MPC/9 8G MPClMot9 8-4. doc
- 3 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
~..
September 23, 1998
13..415'1
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
/kg
MOTION NO. 98-5
A MOTION by the Growth lvÚi.nagement Planning Council of King County
to amend the Countywide Planning Policies to reflect Joint Planning Areas
that have been resolved and to recognize an existing Interlocal Agreement
for the City of Snoqualmie's Joint Planning Area.
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Areas (JPA) for Redmond, Issaquah, Renton, North Bend,
Black Diamond, were resolved in 1995 and 1996 through actions of the Growth
Management Planning Council and Metropolitan King County Council.
WHEREAS, the only remaining JP A is for the City of Snoqualmie, and an interlocal agreement
was signed in 1990 betwee~ the City of Snoqualmie and King County that specifies the terms for
beginning discussions on future annexations of the JPA.
THE GROWTII MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 8b) is hereby amended as follows:
"The Urban Gro\\'th -<,\Teas of the fo11o\',;n:; cities ,,'{hich JIe in dispute as ofMa)' 25,
1991 JIe now aclcnov,'led:;ed as Joint Plar..ning ¡\Teas (Redmond, Issaquah, R'cnton,
North Bend, Black DiJlIlond, Snoqualmie). By December 31, 1995, King County, the
cities, citizens, and property ö",..riers will have completed a planning process to
determine land uses and the Urban Growth ./\rea for each city. The Kin:; County
Exccutive will recommend JlIlcndments to the Urban Grovrth ..'\rea for each city for
adoption by the 11KCC. The Urban :;rowth ¡'..rea for each city will be amended in :l
sep:lfate Council ordinancc. These amendments JIC not su}}jcct to ratification under
this policy. By 1998, all of the joint planning areas identified in the 1994 CPPs have
been resolved, except for the CitY of SnoQualmie. Joint planning for any potential
additional annexation of land to the CitY of SnoQualmie shall be conducted consistent
with the tenns of the 1990 Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of
. SnoQualmie. Future Countvwide Planning Policy amendments regarding the
SnoQualmie joint planning area consistent with the 1990 Interlocal Agreement are not
subject to ratification."
UGMPC/9 8GMPC/Mot98- 5 .doc
- 1 -
EXHI B IT --1.---. ----
ÞAGE~OF .1IL-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
13415 "
'.
)
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning C~uncil of~ing County on Sep~e91ber 23, 1998
and signed by the members of the GMPCKC .eCommlttee on /6 / "-I in
open session in authentication of its ado on.
8
9
r\.û
n, City of Seattle Representative
~~~
Bob Edwards, Suburban Cities Representative
Cynt a Sullivan, King ounty Representative
EXHIBIT -
PAGE-L OF
UG MPC/9 8G MPClMoI98-S .doc
- 2 -
-'-~~...".-....,........ .
1
23
. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
27
. 26
:A
25
, . , . , , , , , , , . , .
. . . . . . . . . .
;g,~
G>. ::to .
m-
.03
~
=:~~
I.
\ .
20
2\
I " ~
. . . , . . , '. . . . . . . . . ',' . , . . . . . . . . . . . .
.29
28
.. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AREA COVERED
BY AGREEMENT
:.A A - Annexation Area
EA B - Join l Planning Area
13415
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
"-:",--:-- "-0'-"------------'
September 23, 1998
Sponsored By:
. Executive Committee
/kg
1
MOTION NO. 98-6
13415
A
2
3
4
5
A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to remove
Redmond Overlake and Kirkland Totem Lake from the list of Urban
Centers, and to add Redmond Overtake to the list of
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
WHEREAS, the City of Redmond amended its comprehensive plan in July, 1995 to redesignate
the Overlake area from an Urban Center to a Manufacturing/Industrial Center as defined under the
. Countywide Planning Policies.
WHEREAS, the City of Kirkland designated the Totem Lake area as an activity center in its
comprehensive plan in July, 1995.
-1
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Policy LU-39 is hereby amended as follows:
"The location and number of Urban Centers in King.County were determined through
the joint local and countywide adoption process, based on the following steps:
a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers;
b. Jurisdictions electing to contain an Urban Center provided the GMPC-with a
statement of commitment describjng the city's intent and commitment to meet the
Centers' criteria defined in these policies and a timetable for the required Centers
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement or identification of existing
environmental documentation to be used; and
c. The GMPC reviewed the Centers by local jurisdictions consistent With Policy FW-l,
and the following criteria:
I) The Center's location in the region and its potential for promoting a countywide
system of Urban Centers;
. 2) The total number of centers in the county that can be realized over the next twenty
years, based on twenty years projected growth;
3) The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for
achieving Center goals; and
4) Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Centers is
assured.
UGM PC/9 8 GMPC/MoI9 8-6. doc
. EXHIBIT
PAGE-ÏOF 10
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
':'7'-- ..-.
D. The GMPC confirmed the following Urban Centers:
13415
~
Bellevue CBD
Federal Way CBD
Kent CBD
Kirldand Totem LJ.ke
Redmond CBD
Rcdmond Overbke
Renton CBD
Seattle CBD
Seattle Center
First Hill/Capital Capitol Hill
University District
Nortbgate
SeaTac CBD
Tukwila CBD
(The printed version of the CPPs contains the following footnote for Kirkland Totem
Lake not found in King County Ordinance 11446 which adopted the CPPs: "* The
City of Kirkland withdrew its nomination of Totem Lake as an Urban Center in
September 1995." Because this amendment to LU-39 strikes Kirkland Totem Lake
from the list of Urban Centers, the footnote is no longer necessary and should not be
included in any new printings of the CPPs.) .
Policy LU-51 is hereby amended as follows:
'.'The location and number of regional Manufacturing I Industrial Centers in King
County were determined through the joint local and countywide adoption process,
based on the following steps:
a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for Manufacturing I
IndUstrial Centers;
b. Jurisdictions electing to contain a Manufacturing/Industrial Center provided the
GMPC with a statement specifying how the Center will meet the intent of the
Countywide Policies, including plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other
commitment to implement Manufacturing I Industrial Centers;
c. The GMPC reviewed the Manufacturing I Industrial Centers elected by local
jurisdictions consistent with Policy FW-I, and the following criteria:
'1. The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing and proposed
transportation facilities and its potential for promoting a countywide system of
Manufacturing /.IndUstrial Centers;
2. Thetotal number of Centers in the county that are needed in the county over the
next twenty-years based on twenty yèars projected need for manufacturing land to
satisfy regional projections of demand for manufacturing land assuming a 10 percent
increase in manufacturing jobs over this period;
UGMPC/9 8 G MPCIM 0 t9 8 -6. doc
- 2 -
EXHIBIT.
PAGE--1. OF
"'<; ...'
1
2
3"
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
" 23
...,.....-,.. - ._~ ----- .-..
13415
".~
.
3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for
aclùeving ManufacturinglIndustrial Center goals;
4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to Manufacturing
/ Industrial Centers is assured; and
5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation facilities.
d. The GMPC confirmed the following Manufacturing / Industrial Centers: North
Tukwila, Duwamish and BallardJInterbay in Seattle, a:HJ the Kent Industrial Area.. and
Redmond Overlake."
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King Cou~h' o~S?,~ber 23, 1998
and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on I Ú in
open session in authentication of its adopti .
ir; Growth Management Planning Council
to-~
j
~~ (!k¿
Bob Edwards, Surburban Cities Representative
UGMPC/9 SGMPClMot9 S-6.doc
- 3 -
EXH I fEi/ J_LO ..
PAGE-'~~/ -
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29.
30
31
32
33
-'--'---- '-~--'-------
September 23, 199~
13415 If
Sponsored By:
Executive Committee
/kg
1
MOTION NO. 98-7
2
3
A MOTION amending the Countywide Planning Policies to increase the
distance for property owner notice of resource land designations.
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, in 1998 the Washington legislature adopted HB 2830 which revised RCW 36.70A to
increase the distance for property owner notice of resource land designations from 300 to 500 feet.
. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HEREBY
MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
Policy LU-4 is hereby amended as follows:
"All jurisdictions' shall encourage compatible land uses adjacent to natural resource
areas which support utilization of the resource and minimize conflicts among uses.
Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing the plat and permit notification
requirements for properties within JOO 500 feet of the resource land, as specified in
RCW 36.70A as amended. Jurisdictions will consider an increased distance for
notification and notification titles to property within or adjacent to these resource
lands." .
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King Cou~ty on September 23, 1998
and signed by the members of the GMPCKC Executive Committee on ! () -Ie¡- in
open session in authentication of its ~
- I, f/J/Û1- .
. Ron ims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
~f~~P~ti~
:%þ r;k~
BobEd~ards. Suburban Cities Representative
UGMPCJ98GMPClMot98- 7 .doc
Cyn . Sullivan. Kï g County Represent,tiV)
- 1 - EXHIBlu.._- ,
PAGE",OF .1I.L-
2
..,
J
4
5
6
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
~...
11/23/98
clerk l2/1 0/98
Introduced By:
Cynthia Sullivan
Ice
Proposed No.:
98-739
ORDINANCE NO.
13415
,
AN ORDINANCE adoptirig an amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies pursuant to RCW 36.70A.2l 0; ratifying the
amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
King County; amending Ordinance 10450, Sections 3 and 4,
as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 and K.c.C. 20.10.040.
7
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
8
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The council makes the following findings.
9
A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC) recommended King County 2012 - Countywide
Planning Policies (Phase I) in July, 1992 in Ordinance 10450.
B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
amendments to the Còuntywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994 in Ordiñance 11446.
C. The GMPC met on September 23, 1998 and vot~d to pass amendments to the .
King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies [5/25/94] to accomplish the following:
amend Framework Policy FW-I (Step 6b) to coordinate the review and evaluation of the
17
Countywide Planning Policies with the evaluation and reporting requirements of RCW
18
36.70A.215~ amend Framework Policy FW-l (Step 8b) to reflect Joint Planning Areas that
19
have been resolvèd and to recognize an existing lnterlocal Agreement for the city of
20
Snoqualmie.'s Joint Planning Area; amend Policy LU-39 to remove Redmond Overlake and
- 1 -
EXHIBüT C
PAGE---1- U~c 4-
2
..,
.J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?.,
-j
".,..._.-~-- --.---------...--.
13415
Kirkland Totem Lake from the list of Urban Centers and to add Redmond Overlake to the
list of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; and amend Policy LU-4 to increase the distance
for property owner notice of resource land designinions consistent with chapter 36.70A
RCW.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.030 are
eaéh hereby amended to read as follows:
A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide.Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shovvn by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I and 2 t6 Ordinance 13260.
E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments I through 4 to this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.c.c. 20.10.040 are
each hereby amended to read as follows:
Ratification for unincorporated King County. A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted
by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
B.. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
- 2 -
EXH I B rr. C
ÞAGE 2.C)F
2
..,
.J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
~-_... . -_h..__..
13415
C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance,
ll061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
unincorporated King County.
E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
of unincorporated King County.
F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
of unincorporated King County,
G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachments I and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
- 3 -
EXHIBIT: C
PAGEju~
" .,'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
~...-..
13415
H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
population of unincorporated King County.
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 14th day of December, 1998.
PASSED by a vo to of J.L to D this co2.;¡ "'~a y of f -<! b R ú á tf'j .
1 92.3.
ATTEST:
~f' .
Clerk 0 the CouncIl
. APPROVED this ~ day of
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
~ 5øJ~
,19~1
Attachment 1: Growth Management Planning Council Motion 98-4, dated 9/23/98.
Attachment 2: GroWth Management Planning Council Motion 98-5, dated 9/23/98.
Attachment 3: Growth Management Planning Council Motion 98-6, dated 9/23/98.
Attachment 4: Growth Management Planning Council Motion 98-7, dated 9/23/98.
- 4 -
EXHIBrr' C .
PAGE~,""h ~"--
Metropolitan King County'Council
Growth Management Committee
Staff Report
Agenda Item No.:
2
Name:
Laurie Smith
Proposed No.:
98- 739
Date:
January 19, 1999
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 98-739 would adopt the Growth Management Planning Council's (GMPC)
recomrnended amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies [5/25/94], and ratify them on
behalf of the citizens of unincorporated King County.
JiA.Cl(GROUND: The GMPC met on September 23, 1998 and adopted four motions recommending certain
"housekeeping" amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Põlicies [5/25/94], as follows:
Motion 98-4:
. Recornmends an amendment to Framework Policy FW-1 (Step 6B) coordinating the review and evaluation of
the Countywide Planning Policies with the evaluation and reporting requirements ofRCW 36.70A.215
("buildable lands").
. Furth~r recommends an amendment to Framework Policy FW -1 (Step 8) coordinating the 10 year review of
Urban Growth Areas with the requirements of state law.
. Further recommends an amendment to Affordable Housing Policy AH-6 coordinating the review of affordable
housing policies with the review and evaluation requirements of state law.
. Furtherrecommends an amendment to Economic Development Policy ED-14 coordinating review of the
county's commercial and industrial land inventory with the review and evaluation requirements of state law.
Motion 98-5:
. Recommends an amendment to Framework Policy FW-l (Step 8b) to reflect the resolution of the Joint
Planning Areas (JPAs) listed in the 1994 version of the CPPs. The amendment strikes references to the JPAs
for the cities of Redmond, Issaquah, Renton, North Bend and Black Diamond. Inserts language indicating that
while the Snoqualmie JPA remains unresolved, joint planning for Snoqualmie's urban growth area is governed
by a 1990 Interlocal Agreement between King County and the city.
Motion 98-6:
. Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-39 to remove Redmond Overlake andXirkland Totem
Lake from the list of Urban Centers, which were withdrawn from consideration after the adoption of the CPPs
in 1994.
. Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-51 to add Redmond Overtake to the list of
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. '
Motion 98-7:
. Recommends an amendment to Land Use Policy LU-4 to increase the distance for property owner notice of
resource land designations from 300 to 500 feet. This is in accordance with action taken by the Washington
State legislature in 1998 (lIB 2830).
Q/gmc99/Sbffrcportl98-739(1-19) 02124199 2:33 PM
EXHIBIT ])
PAGE I ~,~,~
_dCC
SUMMARY; Proposed Ordinance 98-739 would adopt an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 and would ratify the amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
King County. It would amend Ordinance 10450, Sections 3 and 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and K.C.C.
20.l0.040.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at
least 30% of the city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County according to the
Interlocal agreement. A city shall be deemed to have ratified the countywide planning policy ~nless, within 90
days of adoption by King County, they city by legislative action disapproves the countywide planning policy.
Notification of action taken by cities related to these policy amendments will be catalogued by Executive Staff and
entered into the minutes of the Growth Management Planning Council after the 90 day window has passed.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Countywide Planning Policies
FW -1 (Step 9) Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies may be developed by the Growth Management
Planning Councilor its successor, or by the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided in this policy.
Amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies, not including amendments to the Urban Growth Area pursuant
to Step 7 and 8 band c above, shall be subject to ratification by at least 30 percent of the city and (;ounty
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. Adoption and ratificatiòn of this policy
shall constitute an amendment to the May 27, 1992 interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle,
and the suburban cities and towns in King County for the Growth Management Planning Council of King County.
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance 98-739, dated 11/23/98, with attachments.
Q/gmc99/staffreport/98-739(1-19) 02124199 2:33 PM
EXHIBIT)
PAGE 2 u~ .2a
.,.",-_.~-._-. .. . ,.
MEMO
FROM:
Land Use Committee Members
Kathy Mcclung, Deputy CDS Director ~
TO:
DATE:
April 27, 1999
Sign Code Revision Update
RE:
Last Fall, when the Planning Commission work program was
presented to the LUTC, there was some preliminary concern about
the number of sign code issues that were proposed for change. I
promised that we would come back to the LUTC, before we went to
the Planning Commission to finalize the list.
I am planning a limited presentation to give time for you to ask
clarifying questions and to express any issues you may want to
remove from being considered at the Planning commission level.
c. Betty Cruz
Martin Nordby
1. PUMP TOPPER SIGNS
Issue- At one of the sign appeal hearings, the Hearing Examiner
ruled that pump topper signs had to be permitted as a point of
purchase sign.
Code lanquaqe- The code does not address pump topper signs.
Staff recommendation- Size limits and number limits should be
added to the code.
2. NORMAL MAINTENANCE
Issue- sign permits are required for any work on signs except
normal maintenance. Should sign permits be required for panel
changes?
Code lanauaqe- The definition is "Normal maintenance- signs may
include, but is not limited to: replacing light bulbs, painting
faded or peeling paint, replacing small pieces of a damaged sign.
This does not include change of color, materials, sign type,
size, height, or text, except for that specifically permitted for
a new tenant change to a multi-tenant sign."
Staff recommendation- Sign permits should not be required when
the size and structure are not changing in a panel sign either on
a building or freestanding.
3. HIGH PROFILE SIGNS
Issue- When a property has separate pads (lots) that combine to
over 15 acres, can independent lots over the 15 acres have their
own signage in addition to the high profile signage?
Code Lanquaqe- Properties over 15 acres in size are permitted
high profile signs which can be larger and a different style than
the code allows elsewhere.
Staff recommendation- Yes. If the pad is on a separate lot,
then they should be able to have separate sign consideration.
4. SIGN PERMIT EXPIRATION
Issue- There is no expiration time for sign permits like we have
for other types of permits. This causes staff to maintain files
open indefinitely.
Code language- The Code does not address this issue.
Staff recommendation- One year after permit is ready to issue, it
expires with ability to ask for one six month extension (to be
consistent with other types of building permits). Also the
permit will expire once it is applied for if the city requests
more information and the applicant does not respond within 6
months.
5. NEW BUSINESS TEMPORARY SIGN
Issue- At the Council retreat in 1998, it was suggested that new
businesses be issued an A-frame sign issued by the City for up to
six months which would have text "The City of Federal Way
Welcomes...".
Code language- The code provides for temporary signs for up to 30
days when there is a special sale or grand opening. Special
sales are limited to banners, but grand openings can have a
banner, portable sign, inflatable devices, search lights and
beacons. The temporary sign requirements were expanded in 1995
with the last sign code revision.
staff recommendation- There may be other ways to meet the goal of
the city welcoming new businesses. There is the potential for
existing businesses to be resentful that they do not have the
same opportunity. It sends a message that portable signs are
"ok". The city may not want its name affiliated with certain
types of new businesses.
6. GOVERNMENT SIGNS
Issue- The code does not require permits for government signs
unless they are in residential zones. This issue was brought to
the Council's attention approximately 2 years ago. The direction
given to staff was that government signs should still be required
to meet the same requirements that businesses have to.
Code lanauaae- The code only gives discretion for the location,
number and content of government signs. The size, height and
type are not regulated. Government signs in residential zones are
regulated through Table 2 and identify sign type, number, sign
area, height and location.
Staff recommendation- This section of the code should be revised.
Whether a permit is required is only one of the issues. Staff
should not have discretion for content as long as it only
identifies the facility and it's events, but government signs
should be comparable to other signs allowed in that particular
zoning district.
7. DEFINITIONS
Issue- The following terms are not defined or need clarification:
canopy or awning
commercial message
grand opening
Architectural embellishments
Roof sign
Menu board
Vehicle Signs
Instructional signs
Warning Signs
Cabinet sign
Individual Channel letters
Tenant directory sign
Building sign- needs to wording in section 22-1601 (B) (1).
Code Lanauaae- There are no definitions for the above terms.
Staff Recommendation- Adding these definitions will help permit
processing and code enforcement.
8. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Issue- The construction sign standards for pedestal, monument,
pole, and pylon signs are not consistent with those definitions.
Staff Recommendation- Make definitions consistent with
construction standards.
9. BALLOONS
Issue- Balloon displays of five or less are exempt from the code,
however there is no limit mentioned on number of displays
allowed. It is common for displays to be placed on every
fencepost of a particular site.
Code lanquage- Balloons no greater than 18 inches in diameter and
no more than five balloons per display with a tether no longer
than 36 inches are exempt from the code.
staff recommendation- No more than two displays per site.
10. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
Issue- 1) There has been some demand for "coming soon" signs
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Code language- Construction signs are permitted under the code,
but can only be issued after a building permit is issued.
Staff recommendation- No change. Having the sign up during the
construction phase should be adequate time to advertise a new
business before it actually opens.
Issue - 2) Allow "Coming Soon" or "Open During Construction"
signs for businesses making a change, while they are still in
business.
Code language- Additional construction signs while a business is
still operating wouldn't be permitted.
Staff Recommendation- Allow "coming soon" or "open during
construction" only after building permits are obtained.
11. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Issue- Multi-tenant complexes request multiple directional signs.
The code does not specify number or height of directional signs.
Staff Recommendation- Add height and number requirements to code.
12. FINAL INSPECTION PROCESS
Issue- Once a permit is issued and the sign is put up, there is
no formal process in the code to address a final inspection.
Code language- The Code does not address this issue.
Staff recommendation- Staff needs to inspect the sign to ensure
it was constructed according to plans. Code language to
formalize the process is needed.
13. SUBDIVISION SIGNS
Issue- This issue was brought to the Land Use Committee's
attention in 1997. The Council gave direction at the time to make
some changes to the code that would make more subdivision signs
conforming. The issue of signs in public right of way was not
resolved.
Code language- The code does not allow any signs in public right
of way.
Staff recommendation- The Council direction on code changes for
subdivision signs need to be incorporated. The right of way issue
is complicated by court decisions. We will need to work with the
legal department to come up with a possible solution. If no
solution is found, then these signs will have to be eventually
removed.
14. MENU BOARDS
Issue- Menu boards are not addressed in the sign code. In
addition to adding a definition, criteria should be added for
size, number and location.
15. Fix typo in section 22-1599 (skips d)
16. PROHIBITED SIGNS
Issue- Off-site signs are prohibited except in limited
circumstances but are not listed as prohibited.
Code lanauaae-off-site signs not listed as prohibited.
Staff recommendation- List off-site signs as prohibited
exceptions.
with
17. SPECIAL SALES
Issue- Extend "30 days within a calendar year" limitation on
special sales and promotional signs to 60 days.
Code lanauaae- Section 22-1600, Table 1 limits special sales and
promotional signs to 30 days within a calendar year.
Staff recommendation- Signs outside of the permitted signs should
be kept to a minimum in order to reduce sign clutter. Allow
special promotions for 60 days total a year, no more than 4 times
a year.
18. MULTI-FAMILY USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Issue- There are no sign provisions for multi-family uses in
single family zones.
Staff Recommendation- Amend Table 2 to allow signs for existing
multi-family uses in single family zones.
19. RECREATION CLUBHOUSE OR AREA
Issue- Recreation areas or clubhouses are permitted one street
sign of approximately 12 square feet only at streets where there
is direct access. We have had a request to look at allowing
signage at the point of the subdivision access in order to
advertise swim lessons, etc.
Code Lanauaae- Table 2
Staff Recommendation- No change. Clubhouses and recreation areas
are supposed to be for the use of the residents within the
complex or subdivision, not for the general public. If the
general public was going to be using these facilities on an on-
going basis, the requirements for parking, pedestrian amenities,
etc. would be more stringent.
20. DAYCARES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Issue- Daycares do not have sign provisions.
Code Lanauaae- commercial daycares are not provided for in Table
2.
Staff Recommendation- Add the same provisions as we currently
have for churches and if the daycare is within a church, add a
provision for an additional 20 square feet. (Interpretation
12/19/98)
21. LOW PROFILE COMBINED SIGN PACKAGE
Issue- When the code was changed last year, the process for
reviewing combined sign packages was not changed to reflect new
processes. It should be process 3.
22. BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNS
Issue- When a multi-tenant complex chooses to not display a
freestanding sign, can they have additional space for a building
mounted center identification.
Code Lanauaae- The code does not make a provision like this.
Staff Recommendation- Allow additional building mounted signs of
up to 7% of the building face and not to exceed 240 square feet.
23. LANDSCAPING
Issue- Vegetation is required but is not defined and there are no
guidelines.
Code lanquaqe- section 22-1602{D) "an area adjacent to the base
of each freestanding sign must be landscaped equal to the sign
area; provided, however, the city shall not require more than 200
square feet of landscaped area. This landscaping must include
vegetation and may include other materials and components such as
brick or concrete bases as evidenced in plazas, patios and other
pedestrian areas, planter boxes, pole covers or decorative
framing.
Staff Recommendation- Landscaping vegetation shall consist of
ground cover that within 2 years time shall cover 90%,etc.
24. EXEMPTION FROM AMORTIZATION
Issue -Process. The code needs to have the process updated for
requesting exemption from amortization.
Code Language- section 22-335{f) (5) & (g) (5) requires old process
1 for processing exemptions.
Staff Recommendation- The old process 1 required public notice.
Since the criteria for granting exemption is straightforward, it
makes sense to have an administrative process that is appealable
to the Hearing Examiner.
25. SIGN AREA TRANSFER
Issue- Section 22-1601 (B) (4) second to last paragraph need to be
clarified.
Code Lanquaqe- An applicant is not permitted to transfer sign
area calculated pursuant to subsection (3) from one building to
another but is allowed to move allotted sign from one building
face to another.
Staff Recommendation- clarify.
26. COMMUNITY SERVICE EVENT OR CIVIC EVENT
Issue- The staff has narrowly defined these types of events to
once a year events like Family Fest, Salmon Bake, Bite of Federal
Way, etc. All types of temporary signs are permitted with the
number, location, height and size handled on a case by case
basis. The Theater Group at Dumas Bay has requested use of this
provision to advertise their events.
Code Languaqe- "means an event { such as food fest, concert, fun
run and/or meeting) sponsored by a private or public
organization, including a school, church or civic fraternal
organization, not primarily for the purpose of selling or
promoting merchandise or services.
staff Recommendation- Broaden the interpretation of when these
type of signs can be used, but add better criteria in the
definition and in the numbers, etc.
CITY OF -
:. . : EI:J~
~~~
DATE:
April 12,1999
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land U seffransportation Comm itreeù \
Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager'
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Crown Point Storm and Sanitary Sewer Repair -- Final Project Acceptance
Background:
The referenced construction project has been completed and the contractor is now requesting
release of the retainage associated with the project. Prior to release of retainage on a Public
Works project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of
Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements.
Attached please find a copy of the August 29, 1998 memorandum to the Land Use/Transportation
Committee entitled Crown Point Sewer Repair - Proposed Interlocal Agreement// 100% Design
and Authority to Bidl/ Authority to Award Bid. This memo was presented to the committee as
part of a request for permission to bid and award this combined Cíly/Lakehaven emergency
project. Because this project was an emergency, staff requested and received permission to award
the contract without returning to Council after bids were received. Tiiis permission was granted
on the condition that the construction bid received was less than the engineering design cost
estimate presented in the above mentioned memorandum.
The low project construction bid was $44,309.80 and was submitted by Brad Mason Trucking
and Excavation, Inc. Because this amount was below the engineerin¡;: design cost estimate, the
project was awarded to Brad Mason Trucking and Excavation, Inc. T'1e final construction cost
for the Crown Point Sewer Repair project was below the Council autlHJrized expenditure and is
summarized in the table below for your information:
Construction Item: Engineer's Estimate Engineer's Estimate Final Cost Final Cost
(City Portion) (Lakehaven Portion) (City) (Lakehaven)
Temporary Patch $10,425 $ 0 $10.425 $ 0
Storm Line $32,390 $ 0 $25,R80 $ 0
Sanitary Line $ 0 $32,390 $ 0 $20,600
Sales Tax $ 2,786 $ 2,786 $ 0 $ 1,772
Construction Management $ 0 $ 9,700 $ 0 $ 9,787
20% Contingency $ 6,478 $ 8,975 $ 0 $ 0
TOTAL $52,079 $53,851 $36,305 $32,159
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the following item be placed on the May 4, 1999 (:ouncil Consent Agenda
for approval:
1.
Final acceptance of the completed Crown Point Storm au! Sanitary Sewer Repair,
constructed by Brad Mason Trucking and Excavation, Inc.
K: \LUTC\1999\CROWNACC. WPD
Date:
July 29,1998
To:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
From:
Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager
Subject:
Crown Point Sewer Repair - Proposed lnterlocal Agreement// 100% Design and
Authority to Bid// Authority to Award Bid
Background:
As you may recall, an 18" corrugated metal storm line serving the Crown Point subdivision
separated at an unknown time in the past and was discovered last winter. The damage appears to
have been caused by a falling tree on a steep slope. The separation of the storm line allowed
water to escape from the system and undermine the storm line down slope of the break and
undermine a portion of a nearby 8-inch ductile iron sanitary sewer line ywned by the Lakehaver
Utility District.
Concurrent with our investigation of the storm line problem, the 1 '.'æhaven Utility District
discovered that the portion of their 8-inch line traversing the steep slop~ ¡,above the washout area
but very near the City's storm line) was in need of replacement. The justification for the
replacement is excessive joint deflection - which is presumably a result of the fact that the upper
strata of this steep slope moves continuously.
Emergency repairs consisting of - a temporary patch of the separated storm sewer line, backfill
of the eroded portion of the steep slope, and anchoring of the portion of sanitary sewer line which
was undermined - were completed earlier this year. Permanent repairs a'e planned for the months
of August and September - when the steep slope upon which the linec ,Ire located is the driest.
Although the storm and sanitary projects are not mutually dependerL the proposals presented
below for your consideration all suggest that the projects be combined - as long as the character
of the construction for both lines remains the same, i.e., the solution consists of above ground
installation of fused joint high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. Should the character of
construction of the sanitary line be changed to some sort of below grou1"\c1 installation due to any
unforseen circumstance, the sanitary portion of the project will not be ccastructed concurrent witt.
the storm line. Instead, the District would accomplish construction at d uter date under a separate
contract.
Proposed lnterlocal Agreement:
In order to accomplish the proposed repairs to the storm and sanitary lines the City must enter into
an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the District. Please find copy of the proposed (ILA) for the
referenced sewer repair for your consideration.
The proposed ILA outlines a cost and responsibility sharing plan which will achieve a shared project
economy in the execution of the referenced repair work - provided that thr character of construction
remains similar for both the storm and sanitary lines. The ILA suggests that the City bear the cost
of design of both sewer lines. Construction costs associated with each utility line will be borne
solely by the respective owner. Staff seeks Council's authorization to entl.~r into this agreement with
the District.
100% Design and Authority to Bid:
The project design has reached the 100% completion point and is now submitted for your
consideration. The following expenditure summary and cost estimate O1'tlines the total cost of the
project - including that portion of the cost allocated to the Lakehaven LTtility District:
Design:
City
District
Storm and Sanitary
Department of Ecology Modifications
$13,000
$ 0
$ 0
$4,000
Construction:
Temporary Patch
Storm Line
Sanitary Line
Sales Tax
Construction Management
20% Contingency * *
$10,425*
$32,390
$ 0
$ 2,786
$ 0
$ 6,478
$ 0
$ 0
$32,390
$ 2,786
$ 9,700
$ 8,975
TOTAL
$65,079
$57,851
* Actual Cost (all other costs are estimates)
* * The 20% contingency amount is recommended by the design consultant due to the steep slope and
the migratory nature ofthe slope's overlying soils
The City project costs will be borne by the Minor CIP portion of the Sl I face Water Management
Annual Programs fund. Staff is seeking Council approval of the project :'.1d Council's permission
to bid the project.
Authority to A ward Bid:
Due to the nature of this project and the time constraints placed upon this Hoject by the geotechnical
conditions, staff is requesting that Council deviate slightly from its normal practice of requiring a
return visit to Council between the bid for services and the award o/bid for services. We subject
our request to the following two conditions: the first condition is that th~ low project bid received
is within the project budget as summarized above; the second condition is that the low bidder is both
responsive and responsible and capable of completing the project to thf-'~ity's satisfaction.
Note that this project will be bid using the Small Works Roster of conLactors maintained by the
City. This Roster is routinely utilized for smaller construction projects. '¡ 1è City therefore has prior
experience with many of the Roster's contractors. The remaining construction costs including the
20% contingency total $95,505.00 - staff will return to Committee and l;ouncil for permission to
award the bid should the low project bid (including contingency) exceed this amount.
Recommendation:
Staff requests that the Committee forward the following project recoPlmendations to the City
Council for consideration during their August II, 1998 meeting:
1.
Authorize staffto enter into the proposed lnterlocal Agreement ",ith the Lakehaven Utility
District for the Crown Point Storm and Sanitary Sewer Line Rer~ 1cements
2.
Authorize staff to bid the Crown Point Storm and Sanitary Sewer Line Replacement project.
3.
~ubject to the low bid meeting the budget constraints detailed in '.js memorandum and the
low bidder being responsive, responsible, and capable - authorize staff to award the bid for
the Crown Point Storm and Sanitary Sewer Line ReplacenH>nt without returning to
Committee and Council.
JTP/MS:js
Attachments
K:\SWM\MINORCIP\CROWNPOl\LUTC.IOO
CITY OF ..
- 8_- ED~
~ ~ FlY"
DATE:
Apri129, 1999
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM:
Ken Miller, Deputy Public Works Director
\4r'
SUBJECT:
South 336th Street at SR 99(13th Avenue South to 18th Avenue South)
Street Widening Project; Authorization to Award Bid
BACKGROUND
The South 336th at SR-99 Right Hand Turn Lane Project was funded as a part of the 1995 voter-
approved bond issue. The original project scope was only to construct an eastbound 150-175 foot
right hand turn lane. During the design it became apparent that due to heavy westbound left turn
movements, traffic congestion, and accidents, that improvements would also have to be made east
of SR-99. On February 25, 1997 Council approval was granted expanding the project to include a
westbound left turn lane and extending the right hand turn lane on South 336th Street to 13th Avenue
South.
On August 25, 1998 bids were opened for the project and the low bid was approximately $92,000.00
over the Engineer's Estimate. With the other costs such as contingencies, utility relocations, project
administration, etc. the project was approximately $130,283.00 over budget. Additionally, the City
was having difficulty obtaining the necessary right of way from the Columbia Bank comer located
on the northeast comer of said intersection. Consequently on September 15, 1998 the City Council
approved the staff recommendation to reject all bids and allow rebidding the project during the first
quarter of 1999, or at such time as right of way was obtained.
Right of way acquisition is complete and the project was rebid on April 27, 1999. The following bids
were received:
RW. Scott
Tydico, Inc.
Olson Bros. Excavating, Inc.
Enberg, Construction Inc.
Tucci & Sons, Inc.
Gary Merlino Construction Inc.
Westwater Construction Inc.
$490,184.70
$494,000.00
$497,482.00
$502,942.55
$523,589.20
$583,290.00
$584,883.00
Engineer's Estimate
$549,026.00
A V AILABLE BUDGET
Funding Available
Mitigation Funding Received
$693,500.00
$ 57,244.64
TOTAL
$750,522.00
ESTIMA TED PROJECT COSTS
Right of Way
Design Costs
Construction based on low bid
10% Construction Contingency
Printing/Advertising
Construction Administration
Estimated Utility Adjustment costs
$160,000.00
$ 94,000.00
$490,184.70
$ 49,018.47
$ 8,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 10,000.00
TOTAL
$831,203.17
The project is estimated to be approximately $80,681.17 over budget based on the bids received.
Staff attribute this increase in cost to delay in biding from last year to this year, increased utility
adjustment costs, a robust economy with high availability of work for contractors, and increased
property acquisition costs.
The project shortfall could be funded with $80,681.17 from the $339,800 in unallocated street bond
funds. This increase is $49,601.83 less than the $130,283.00 increase requested in 1998, in part due
to additional mitigation funds that have been collected.
Recommendation
Place the following items on the May 20,1999 Council Consent Agenda:
1.
Approve awarding the South 336th Street at SR 99 (13A venue South to 18th Place
South) Street Improvement Project to RW. Scott Construction Co., Inc. in the
amount of $490,184.70, and approve a 10% construction contingency in the
amount of $49,184.70;
2.
Authorize staff to use $80,681.17 of the unallocated bond funds;
3.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
KM\TM:jg
K:\LUTCI I 999133699awd. wpd
CITY OF -
- ~-- ~~
~~~.
DATE:
April 29, 1999
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use & Transportation Committee
FROM:
Richard Perez, Traffic Engineer RIå
SUBJECT:
Miscellaneous Traffic Channelization Modification
Project Acceptance and Retinae Release
BACKGROUND
Prior to release of retinae 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 &
Industries' requirements. The above referenced contract with Apply-A-Line, Inc. is complete.
The project's scope of work included:
1.
Re-channelization of 23rd Avenue S between S 312th Street and S 320th Street and
installation of a crosswalk and raised island at S 314th Street.
Modification of the C-curb on eastbound S 320th Street at 20th Avenue S to add 100'
storage.
Installation of C-curbs on eastbound and westbound S 288th Street at Military Road S to
prohibit left-turn access to driveways within 200' from the intersection.
2.
3.
The original cost estimate was under $20,000, therefore this contract was not reviewed by the City
Council. However, at the October 6, 1998 meeting of the City Council, staff was directed to
construct access management improvements on S 312th Street between 14th Avenue S and Pacific
Highway S to resolve the high number of collisions in the vicinity of the Pavilions Centre access. .
In an effort to complete the proposed access improvements in a timely manner, this work was
added to the existing contract with Apply-A-Line.
The final construction contract amount is $32,222.50. This amount is $598.50 below the
$32,821.00 budget that was allocated to the various projects described above.
RECOMMENDATION
Place the following item on the May 18, 1999 City Council Consent Agenda for approval:
Acceptanceofthe Apply-A-Line,Inc., Miscellaneous Traffic Channelization Modification Project,
in the amount of $32,222.50, as complete.
cc:
Cathy Rafanelli, Management Services
Project file
Day file
K:\LUTC\l999\ACCMGMT.WPD