LUTC PKT 03-17-1997
(!J!uL
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
March 17, 1997
5:30 pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit)
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
School Impact Fees
Action
FW School Dist
Putman/30 min
B.
South 356th Regional Storm Water Control
Facility/lOO% Design Approval &
Authorization to Bid
PrattilOmin
Action
C.
Oil Rebate Grant Application
Action
Perez/1O min
D.
Final Acceptance 1996 Sidewalk Improvement
Program
Action
Miller/1O min
E.
SW 34Oth & 35th SW Bond Project
Final Acceptance
Action
Miller/1O min
F.
BPA Trail CorridorlPhase llIAuthority to
Award Contract
Action
Miller/lOmin
G.
Street Improvement Standards for
Gravel Roads
Action
Roe/1O min
OTHER ITEMS
FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Ron Gintz
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Greg Moore, CDS Director
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
661-4116
I:\LU-TRANS\MAR17LUT .AGN
City of Federal Way
Cily Council
Land Usc/T."ansportation Committee
Mareh 3, 1997
5:30pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Public
Works Director Cary Roe; City Attorney Landi Lindell; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller;
Senior Planner Greg McCormick; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:34 pm by Committee Member Mary Gates.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the February 24,1997, meeting were approved as amended. The reference to a salmon bearing stream under the
South 356th 50% Design item should have been listed as Type m.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Vallenton of 31810 51st Lane SW UP-304, Federal Way, owns a piece of property on 3rd Avenue in Federal Way. He is
working to build a house and is going through the processes to obtain the necessary permits. The City says he must pave the .8
mile road that provides access to his property. The other residents on the road, all of who willingly pay to grade and gravel the
road at regular intervals, are not responsible to pay for the paving that improves their property. The associated paving cost is half
again the cost of the total project and effectively halts the Vallenton's development of their property. He requested relief from the
condition. Staff will work with the Vallenton's for resolution.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Ren8miT1~ of 32Oth Street and SR99 - The Committee had requested at a previous meeting that staff prepare a recommendation
regarding the process, limits/segments to be renamed, and schedule for renaming streets. The only required element in the
street renaming process is to formally change street names by an Ordinance or Resolution. Other elements include a means for
the City Council to measure the interest of abutting property owners and citizens-at-large, a method to insure participation in
the process via one or more formal Public Hearings, and an appeal period once a formal decision has been made. The
Committee m/s/c approval of the process adopted by staff and recommended approval to the City Council at their March 4,
1997, meeting.
B. METRO Six-Year Plan IInplementationiSoundin~ Board Recommendations - Metro's six-year pian is directed at reducing the
overlap of commuter routes into downtown Seattle to trunk line service in order to allow more local Federal Way and
intercommunity service. Three alternatives were developed and METRO is currently holding a public comment period to
receive and respond to comments. Of the three alternatives, the Committee favors a combination of Alternatives A and C.
Either of them, alone, serves the student population better than Alternative B which was designed for student access of the
City. Alternative A is most favored with continuance of service on Dash Point Road and Military Roads and new service on
356th. The Committee so m/s/c this recommendation to Council for approval at its March 4, 1997, meeting.
C. ISTEA Re~ional Topic Application for SR99 - Public Works staff recently met with the cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Des Moines
and Kent to jointly submit a clustered application for funding of improvements to Pacific Highway South. Federal Way will be
requesting $750,000 for design funding of the segment from South 312th to South 325th Streets. The project, to be
coordinated as part of the SR 99 Redevelopment Project was m/s/c by the Committee to recommend approval to the Council of
the City's grant application to ISTEA with a City match of $101,250 (13.5%) if the grant application is successful.
D. HB 1724/Code Amendments - The Committee was pleased with the HB 1724/Code Amendments. Their concern was with
mandates that cause changes in timelines. In Section 20-134, the Committee wished to see the word "minor" removed as it
discussed sidewalks and street lighting improvements. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of acceptance of the Planning
Commission recommendation to adopt the HB 1724/Code Amendments to the City Council at the March 18,1997 meeting.
5. OTHER ITEMS
The Committee had observed that development activities at Hoyt Road were creating a mess of mud on the roadway. Staff replied
that work had temporarily been halted due to the wet weather.
Due to changes in timelines required by HB 1724, legal notices should be published in a daily newspaper, rather than the City's
official newspaper which publishes bi-weeldy. The Committee agreed the change to a daily publications was prudent and requested
an expanded council calendar with additional detail in the Federal Way News.
6. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
The next meeting will be March 17, 1997.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15pm.
I: \LU- TRANS\MAR3LUTC.SUM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Council Land UseITransportation Committee
FROM:
Iwen Wang, Management Services Director
;;t:(L
DATE:
March 13, 1997
SUBJECT:
School Impact Fee Review
The City Council Land UseITransportation Committee recently reviewed a 52% or $887 increase
in single family school impact fees as proposed by the Federal Way School District via its 1995/96
Capital Facilities Plan. This memorandum and attachment presents an analysis of the increase.
Although this analysis focuses on the single family impact fee calculation, the conclusion applies to
multi-family developments as well. It should be noted that the proposed impact fees represent only
50% of the calculated financial impacts. Therefore, at whatever figure the fee is finally set, it will
only be an approximation, not a precise scientific valuation, of the actual impact.
Summarv Of Findinl!s
The proposed increase in School Impact Fees can generally be attributed to three factors:
1) the change in facility capacity;
2) the change in student generating factors; and
3) the change in construction costs.
Upon review, the following issues have been identified relative to these factors:
1. Facility Capacity: The numbers used are specific capacities for the School District's most
recently constructed schools, Meredith Hill Elementary School and Saghalie Junior High
School, which is consistent with last year's calculation. The changes are due to physical
inventory and different programming needs at the schools.
2. Student Generatinf! Factors: These factors are derived from a sampling of new developments.
The change is due to the fact that the samples used in the 1994/95 Plan are now beyond the
five year window allowed by the Ordinance, thus new samples are selected for the 1995/96
plan.
3. Construction Costs: The construction costs are those related to Meredith Hill Elementary
School and Saghalie Junior High School, which is the same basis as last year's plan. The
changes are due to the fact that final construction costs have become available since the
completion of last year's plan.
A more detailed review of how these three variables impacting the fee is attached for your
information.
School Impact Fee Review
page 2
Recommendations
Based on the attached analysis and findings, I recommend the following:
\
1. Change Facility Capacity Determination:
Use the average capacities for each grade span instead of the capacity of the "most recently
constructed schools". The programming at any given school can change significantly from
year to year based on special programming needs and student populations. However, these
changes tend to average out when the district is taken as a whole.
2. Change Sampling Method for Student Generating Factor Data:
Create a moving average by selecting two samples each year for the five-year window that is
allowed. Therefore, only two samples will be added/dropped from the list every year. To
achieve the minimum fluctuation of this calculation, a simple average is suggested. This will
make each sample weight 10%, thus no more then 20% of the samples will be changed in a
gIven year.
3. Change the Ratio Calculation Between Permanent and Temporary Facility:
Use the relative student capacity (station) ratio instead of square footage. The facility cost
calculation is to determine the cost per student station, therefore, using the relative number of
student stations will be more consistent with the intent and the calculation.
The first two recommendations will improve the predictability and stability of future fees, and the
third is to make the variables in the formula consistent.
The District has been very responsive to questions raised and very open to provide information
requested through the review process.
Should you have any questions or need any clarification about this analysis or the
recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4060. I'll also be attending the
LUTC committee meeting on March 17 to answer any questions Council may have.
Kenneth E. Nyberg. city Manager
Philip Keigbtley, Deputy city Manager
K: \council\schimpct \Sc HIMPT2. DOC
cc:
Analysis Detail
page i
Analysis of Proposed 1994/95/1995/96 Federal Way School District Impact Fee
The following analysis reviews the key factors contributing to the proposed 52% or $887 increase
in the Federal Way School District Impact Fees for single family units.
The three key factors are: I) the change in facility capacity, which is accountable for 29.8% or
$510 of the per unit increase; 2) the change in Student Generating Factors (SGF), which is
accountable for 21.6% or $368 of the increase; and 3) the change in construction costs, which is
accountable for 4.1 % or $70 of the increase. These three factors, when combined, cause the fee to
increase by 55.5% or $948, which is then offset by the increase in State match credits (1.3% or
$21 per unit) and bond levy credits (2.7% or $47 per unit.) The remaining $7 or 0.4% is due to
rounding differences.
1. Facilitv Caoacitv:
Ordinance Definition: The Ordinance defines "capacity" as "...District's design standard per
grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs." It further
defines design standard as "the space ... which is needed in order to fulfill the educational goals
of the District as identified in the District's Capital Facilities Plan."
School District Application: The numbers used in the fonnula are the specific capacities for
Meredith Hill Elementary School and Saghalie Junior High School, which is consistent with
last year's calculation. However, the capacity numbers for both schools are significantly
different than last year's numbers. The changes are due to:
a) Physical inventory:
The School District completed its first physical inventory of facilities in years in February
1995/96.
Note: In reviewing the District's 1994/95 plan, it mentioned the adjustments to its
elementary school capacities due to the completion of a physical inventory of the
elementary schools. Therefore, the elementary school capacity changes must be
primarily attributable to the enrollment changes as discussed below.
b) Enrollment Changes:
Depending on each school's general and special program enrollments, and what other
programs are provided at a school, its program capacity could and will change from year
to year.
Staff Comment: The combined factors resulted in changes to the capacities in 16 of the 23
elementary schools, 2 of the 6 junior highs, and all 4 senior highs. In its 1995196 plan, the
District service standards were identified as class sizes by grade levels and needs. This
information is absent in its 1994/95 plan, therefore, it is unclear if any of the capacity changes
resulted from changes in service standards. Without detailed infonnation showing how the
service standards tie to the capacity calculation in the Plan document, I was not able to verify
the building (or program) capacities as presented.
It appears the intent of the Ordinance is to have a square foot per student standard (as implied
by the tenn Design Standard). However, the definition for design standard and construction
costs does not require such a fixed standard. This allows the District more program flexibility
and other practical considerations. It is interesting to note that the original King County
Ordinance providing for a maximum square foot per student was subsequently repealed.
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Analysis Detail
page ii
It is also debatable whether data from a specific school or the District average by grade span
should be used. The average capacity change in the elementary schools was a decrease of
2.5% vs. 11% for Meredith Hill; the average change in junior highs was a decrease of 2.8%,
vs. Saghalie at 6.8% (based on 803 student stations, or 14.8% based on 731 student stations.)
The City' Ordinance (14-212(C» specifies "The fee calculation shall be made on a district-
wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District". However, if
average capacities were used, then an estimated average construction cost should be used
(which is also consistent with the Ordinance) to be consistent.
2. Student Generatinf! Factors:
Ordinance Definition: "Student factors shall be based on District records of average actual
student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five
(5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation;...."
School District Application: In order to collect representative data, the District selected new
developments that are large in size, significantly built-out and occupied. The data is collected
by district staffusing various approaches. The factors are the simple averages of the sampling
results.
Staff Comment: Because of the District's data collection criteria, all of the single family
development samples selected in 1995's Plan were from older developments which fall outside
the five year window and can not be used in the 1995196 Plan. In addition to the total turn-
over of samples, the number of households surveyed dropped from 852 to 365, because the
size of more recent developments are smaller.
The Ordinance provides that, if the District does not have SGF, data from adjacent districts,
districts with similar demographics or county-wide averages may be used. Based on
discussions with the District, the SGF is much higher in the Kent School District and they have
not been successful in obtaining a county-wide average from King County.
Regardless of the original intent for the five year window on data collection, a moving average
approach would provide some stability to the SGF calculation, thus stability and predictability
to the impact fees.
3. Construction Costs:
Ordinance Definition: The impact fee ordinance generally requires that the impact fee be
based on the District's capital facilities plan (Sec 14-211). It further defines the construction
cost as "estimated cost of construction of a pennanent school facility... for the grade span...."
School District Application: The preamble of the Impact Fee Ordinance allows use of impact
fees for "system improvement costs previously incurred by the District to the extent that new
growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements". The
construction costs of Meredith Hill Elementary and Saghalie Junior High are allowed as "prior
costs." No future capital improvement costs are included in the fee calculation. If included,
they no doubt will increase the proposed fees substantially. The final construction costs for
these schools were not available when the District published its 1994/95 Facilities Plan (April
1, 1994/95), and they are reflected in the 1995196 Plan.
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Analysis Detail
page iii
Staff Comment: The existing impact fee calculation formula is designed primarily with new
construction in mind. Although the Ordinance speaks for other improvements, it does not
address how those costs will be incorporated into the fee calculation.
As identified in the District's 1995/96 Plan, the capacity increases in the next six years will be
created by renovation to the existing facilities. The proposed improvement costs at each of the
schools seems to involve more than "capacity" modifications (e.g. a proposed $8.5 million in
improvements at Illahee Junior High with a proposed increase in capacity of 50 student
stations). If the impact fee calculation was to include these renovations, it is necessary for the
District to clearly identify such costs as directly related to capacity improvement vs. general
modernization of the facilities.
Recommendations
Based on the above analysis, I recommend the following three modifications to the impact fee
calculation. The first two will improve the predictability and stability of future fees, and the third
recommendation is to make the variables in the formula consistent.
1. Change Facility Capacity Determination:
Use the average capacities for each grade span instead of the capacity of the "most recently
constructed schools". The programming at any given school can change significantly from
year to year based on special programming needs and student populations. However, these
changes tend to average out when the district is taken as a whole.
2. Change Sampling Method for Student Generating Factor Data:
Create a moving average by selecting two samples for each of the five-year windows that is
allowed. Therefore, only two samples will be added/dropped from the list every year. To
achieve the minimum disturbance of this calculation, a simple average is suggested. This will
make each sample weight 10%, thus no more then 20% of the samples will be changed in a
gIVen year.
3. Change the Ratio Calculation Between Permanent and Temporary Facility:
Use relative student capacity (station) ratio instead of square footage. The facility cost
calculation is to determine the cost per student station, therefore use of the relative number of
student stations will be more consistent with the intent and the actual calculation.
Should you have any questions or need any clarification about the analysis or recommendations,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4060.
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ANAL YSlS
MAR-13-1997 17:50
206-941-0442442
(fuIpL1?c~~ ~&YJ
3t40518th Avenue South Fedetal Way, WA 98003 941-0100 or 927-7420
F.W.S.D. FINANCE
P.01/03
Superl~tandent
Thomas J. Vander Ark
Board of Education
Linda Hendrickson
Holly lsaman
Joel Marks
Ann Murphy
Gall Pierson
lVIemorandum
To:
City Council Land UselTransportation COmmittee
From: Tom Vander Ark, Superintendent
Data:
Re:
March 13. 1997
1995196 Capital Facilities Plan
The School Impact Fee Review Memorandum from lwen Wang shows a recommendation
to make three modifications to the current Federal Way School District 1995/96 Capital
Facilities Plan impact fee calculation.
Although we would prefer to have the committee adopt the original impact fee calculation,
we would agree to change two of the three moctifiœtions to help create more stability in the
fees for developers. We will agree to change one and two as referenced in the
memorandum, but we cannot agree with number three. We do not like this recommended
change for the following reasons:
. this change would not be consistent with the rest of the school district impact fee
formulas in King County would require a separate Capital Facilities Plan and a
change in the City ordinance
. the change doeS not promote stability and is simply an attempt to reduce the fee
WI1h the changes that we would agree to, the new impact fee would now place the Federal
Way School District at the lowest quartile with the rest of the school districts in King
County .
We ask that you consider this information as you decide upon your recommendation to the
Council.
r.Everg Stutfent . . . Worfá Cfass SKills
MAR-13-1997 17:51
F.W.S.D. FINANCE
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICf N110 -1995/96
CAPIT At F AClLITIES PLAN
IMPACf FEE - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
School Site Acquisitioll Cost:
Facility
A
Facility
C
Student
Factor
SFR
COSt!
A
2Ø6~941~Ø44z442
P.02/03
Student
Factor
Cost!
SFR
Cost!
MFR
MFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
creage crð apacrty
10.00 ---..--~~~~ 468 .340 210 $33 $20
------ --- --------- - u........... ..n............. ............n.
30.11 ......!7~7~~ 810 .125 .039 536 $11
..--............... ""'0000_"- ---------- ------- _nu-_n_n..-
0.00 $0 0 .000 .000 $0 $0
TOTAL $69 $31
School Construction Cost:
% Perm Fac.!
Total Sq Ft
Facility
Capacity
Student
Factor
SFR
Facility
Cost
Student
Factor
MFR
Cost!
SFR
Cost!
MFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
97.45% . -~??~~~~~~ 468 .340 .210 $6,518 $4,026
... .......... ...... u_---------- _n__uu_------. ---_._-.----....
97.45% -~!~1~P.~tQ9~ 810 .125 .039 $2,000 $624
_n - n_u_.._... -.- ............. n ............... ................
0.00% $0 0 .000 .000 SO SO
TOTAL $8,517 4,649
Temponuy Facility Cost:
% Temp Fac..
TIS F
FaciUty
C
Facility
S'
Student
Factor
SFR
Student
Factor
MFR
CostJ
SFR
CoSTi
MFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
eta SQ t ost 1Ze
2.55% .....~1~t!~!.. 25 .340 .210 $24 $15
................... ............. ..... ............ ................
2.55% n___~~!.~~Y-- 2S .]25 .039 $9 $3
- u_---- --_n ------ -u-u------- _n___--u.---..- "".-n-'-"".
2.55% $70,147 25 .086 .038 $6 $3
TOTAL $39 $21
State Matcbing Credit Calculation:
Boeck CostJ Sq. Ft.
State
Student
Factor
Student
Factor
Cost!
CostJ
Elementary
JT High
Sr High
SoFt Student MaLch SFR MFR sm MFR
$92.02 80 S8.69% .340 .210 $1.469 5907
....... ............ _u----------- _nu--_--__- _u_-- --- -------- --____---n-___-
$92.02 110 S8.698Æ. .125 .039 $743 $232
____n___""""'. .............. ............. . .......... ...... ...............
$0.00 0 0 . OOOIó .000 .000 $0 $0
Total 52,212 $1,139
Tax Paymeat Credit CaiculatioD
A wrage Assessed Value (March 96)
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 96)
Net Present Value of Average DweUing
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
Present Value or Re~ellue Stream
SFR
MFR.
u~!~~>~~--- . - - ~-,!.-'-~~- - --
5.05% 5.05%
__n--__.."" ...............
.~!~~?-~~~~~-- --~~!!-')-~_u
10 10
.............. .... ....-.....-
$1.58 Sl.58
51,632 5817
SiDgle Family Multi-Family
Residences Residences
$69 $31
$8,517 $4,649
$39 $21
($2,212) ($1,139)
($1,632) ($817)
$4,782 52.745
$2,39\ $1,373
52,391 51,373 ~
111-15
IMPACT P¡;:¡; C!TV Uk
)/1:1/Q7
S;A:l PM
MitigatioD Fee Swmnary
Site Acquisition Cost
Permanent Facility Cost
Temporary f'acility Cost
State Match Crcclit
Tax Payment Credit
Sub-Total
50% Local Share
~Impact Fee
MAR-13-1997 17:51
F.W.S.D. FINANCE
206~941~Ø442442
P.03/03
19M .. SAMPLE SCHOOL DJPACT RES
SOIOOt- ~ SINGI..K- M1JL TR' AMIL Y
.1UIUBDICDOK D ISTIIICI' DIICOURT J'AIØL Y
ICinA- ~.w WM. S 3113 S -2.17S
~ - F edInI W.., 5O'A, S 1,707 S 1,423
-- SOH. S 2.S77 S 1..535
-. " S(M . S 2. 750 S 1.131
.... .Kat SO% . S 3.67S S 1..936
...... .... LaIœ w: . 5OIJ. S 2..T16 S 1.1S1.
NaIthIharc S<M S 20M3 S 803
~ CauntY 'lUveniew 50% S 1.953 S 637
Kia Cauatv . V.- 50% .$ ].229 S 1.4S9
ri'IMI T ahoma SO% S 2..72.5 S 1.925
, 1m .. SAMPLE SCHOOL IMI'ACl RES
SQIOOL ~ IIRGU- M1JL 'I1-F AMI[, Y
JUII8ICDOK DII'ØICI' DI8COUJU I'ANIL Y
-. P..,...d.. 50% S 1..978 S . 1,299
..-
-
Pife 5<M s : 134 S 1,249
- Fedal Way S~ S S94 S 1,462
.-..z!!L
~ COllDtY IfiRhline S~ S 1.572 S 1.534-
I s<a-AJ S 2.S93 S 1.112
.- ICeat 50% S 3.640 S 1.733
Lab W: . ~ S 2.917 S 301
N~ -508"" S 2.424 S 1 J5)8
. BivaYiew SO-~ S 1.710 $ S83
-.. . v8JiCy 50% S ] .295 S 1,.243
---1fta' T ahoma SO% S 2..401 S 1.001
.. ~ d_nte .. that were mUå8d pDmñly cbiaa the )air DOted. 1bere were. bow"". sigbt
vuiatiOD8 depe.~1i"l 011 the datc8 OR wJBh districa b--- ;"'bIo to RCCive impKt fees ad die d8tca em
which the cPiø-.. setùD& ~ ~...., at.. impact .. became ~"4
~~-- .... -ace
EXHIBIT
PAGE d-
'D
0 F .- J-
..
-2-
01/09/97 THlT 10:59 [TI/RX NO 7592]
TOTAL P.03
(fu~l~~~~ ~-&y]
31405 18th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
941-0100 or 927-7420
Superintendent
Thomas J. Vander Ark
Board of Education
Linda Hendrickson
Holly Isaman
Joel Marks
Ann Murphy
Gail Pierson
Memorandmn
From:
City of Federal Way Land UselTransportation Committee
Jody Putman, Director of Business Services ~
February 20, 1997
To:
Date:
Re:
Impact Fee Calculation-
At the Committee meeting on February 10, 1997, you requested information regarding the
calculation of impact fees in the Federal Way School District 1995/96 Capital Facilities Plan
(1995/96 Plan).
We have attached the following documents for your information:
.
a copy of the fee formula from King County which the District uses to calculate impact fees
a copy of the 1994/95 Capital Facilities Plan (1994/95 Plan) student factors and the
developments that were used to calculate the factors
a copy of the 1994/95 Plan impact fee schedule
.
.
If you compare the 1994/95 Plan and 1995/96 Plan fee schedules you will see that the main
difference in the fees is due to the school construction cost. The costs shown in the 1994/95 Plan
were based upon an estimate at the time the 1994/95 Plan was prepared in March 1995. Meredith
Hill Elementary, the school that the cost shown in the schedules (both 1994/95 and 1995/96) was
based upon, was placed in service in September of 1995, and Saghalie Junior High, the school that
the cost shown in the schedules was based upon, was placed in service in September 1994. We put
the updated costs in the 1995/96 Plan when we were able to calculate the fmal costs of the schools.
This cost will not change for the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan.
Additionally, the percentage of permanent square footage and temporary square footage is based
upon the total square footage of school buildings and portables in the District. The two percentages
add to 100%.
We hope this will help with your questions regarding the fee schedule. Please let me know if you
have any questions or need any additional information.
Î
rY. ,
ÎÎ /""OÎ
~r.rr
~E FOR CAI.CULATING SCHOOL IMPACT FEE OBLIGATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
(TO BE BEP~ATELY CALCULATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND HULTIFAH~LygNITS)
Elementary school site cost per student X the student factor
Middle/Junior High School site cost per student x student factor
High School site cost per student x student factor
Al+A2+A)
=
=
Elementary school construction cost per student X the student factor
Middle/Junior High School construction cost per student x student factor
High School construction cost per student x student factor
(81+B2+B3) x ~quare footaqe of permanent facilities
total square footage of facilities
Elementary school relocatable facility cost per student X the student factor
Middle/Junior High School relocatable facility cost per student x student factor =
High School relocatable facility cost per student x student factor
(Cl+C2+C)) x square footaqe of relocatable facilities
total square footage of facilities
~
Boeckh index X SPI Square footage per student
school X state match \ x student factor
Boeckh index X SPI Square footage per student
high school X state match' x student factor
Boeckh index X SPI Square footage per student
X state match' X student factor
for elementary
'.
~
for high school
for middle/junior
D1+D2+D)
'< .10 d 1 f . .tt' d"
.<' ((1+1 \ \ -1 X average assesse va ue or the dwell1ng un1- ype 1n the school lstrict.
~cl~"ClO( i(1+i)'U .
-.¡",\ C/'I<
~þ X current school district capital property tax levy rate where i = the current interest rate
-~-.._.. ,- ~..- ~---' ~'..'_h ~.-_.... "---' "'---.--, ......,'--..,-- ~---' ~--'_..
~
C
F-
e
at>~
Vallie of site or facilities provided directlY by the development
number of dwelling units in development
.1 Unfunded Need c
A+B+C-D-TC c
A
+
B
+
C
Subtotal
D
TC
L UNFUNDED NEED UN =
divided by 2 c
= DEVELOPER FEE OBLIGATION
Less FC (if applicable)
NET FEE OBLIGATION
O\,~
òI.:.,1'
~
0
H
m
~
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
,
1
I
~
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPACT FEE
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
School Site Acquisition Cost:
Facility Cost /
A A
Facility
Ca
Student
Factor
sm
Student
Factor
MFR
Cost!
SFR
Cost!
MFR
Elementary
JrHigh
SrHigh
creage ere ~pacltv
10.00 ...........J.1!.~QQ.. 507 .305 .232 $27 $21
.............,................ """""""""""".'" """"""""""""""""'" ................................
30.17 .............~.Z!.Z~~.. 862 .097 .058 $26 $16
........".................... ............................ """"""""""""""""'" """"""""""""""""
0.00 $0 0 .000 .000 SO SO
TOTAL $53 $36
School Construction Cost:
% Penn Fac.l
talS
Facility
Ca
Student
Factor
SFR
Facility
C
Student
Factor
MFR
Cost!
SFR
Cost!
MFR
Elementary
JrHigh
SrHigh
To SQ Ft ost lpaclty
97.43% ...J~?Qi~!.~~~.. 507 .305 .232 $5,310 S4,031
"""'.."""""""""'" ............................ ................................... ................................
97.43% J~.~?QQ.~!.~2~.. 862 .097 .058 $1,420 $848
."""""""""""""'" """""""""""""" .................................. ................................
0.00% SO 0 .000 .000 $0 $0
TOTAL $6,729 4,878
Temporary Facility Cost:
% Temp Fac.
TIS
Facility
S'
Student
Factor
Facility
Co
Student
Factor
MFR
Cost!
S
Cost!
MFR
Elementary
Ir High
Sr High
ota )Q Ft st lze SFR FR
2.57% ...........~~.~!.1~?. 25 .305 .232 $12 $9
.............................. """""""""""""" """"""""""""""""'" """"""""'."""""'"
2.57% ...........~~2!.i~?. 25 .097 .058 $4 $2
.'."".""""""""""" """""""'."""""" """"""""""""""""'" ""'.""."""""""""'"
2.57% $39,427 25 .107 .076 $4 $3
TOTAL $21 $15
State Matching Credit Calculation:
Boeck Cost! Sq. Ft.
State
Student
Factor
Student
Factor
Cost!
Cost!
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
SQ Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR
$89.57 80 58.39% .305 .232 $1,278 $970
""'."""""""""""" ."""""""""""""" """""""""""""" .""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""
$89.57 113.33 58.39% .097 .058 $572 $342
'."""".""""""""'" """""""""""""'" .."""""""""""'..' ""'.."""""""""""""" ."".".""""""""""'"
$0,00 0 0.00% .107 .000 $0 SO
Total $1,850 $1,312
Single Family Multi-Family
Residences Residences
$53.22 $36.17
$6,729.38 $4,878.48
$20.65 $14.83
($1,850.10) ($1,311.74)
($1,538.85) ($772.30)
$3,414 $2,845
$1,707 $1,423
$1,707 $1,423 ~
111-15
C:¿
Tax Payment Credit Calculation
Average Assessed Value (March 95)
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 95)
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
Present Value of Revenue Stream
Mitigation Fee Summary
Site Acquisition Cost
Pennanent Facility Cost
Temporary Facility Cost
State Match Credit
Tax Payment Credit
Sub-Total
IMPClrEEXLS
3/22195
4:07 PM
50% Local Share
[¡Impact Fee
SFR
MFR
.....~.~.~~.?~~.~...... ......~.~~!2?!.......
6.11% 6.11%
""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""
.....~2.n!Q~.~...... .....~.~2.2!.~~~_....
10 10
........................".... """""""""""""""
S1.57 $1.57
$1,539 $772
e
-
-
-
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
STUDENT MITIGATION FACTORS
NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR 5 YEARS
.......
.......
.......
I
......
.þ.
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Elementary Junior High Senior High Total
Single Family Multi-Family Elementary Junior High Senior High Student Student Student Student
DEVELOPMENT Dwellin~s Dwellin~s Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor
Regency Woods 319 0 85 32 33 0.26645768 0.10031348 0.10344828 0.47021944
Lakota Trails 104 0 24 9 8 0.23076923 0.08653846 0.07692308 0.39423077
Stonebrook 108 0 59 12 25 0.54629630 0.11111111 0.23148148 0.88888889
Shaughnessy 74 0 7 5 3 0.09459459 0.06756757 0.04054054 0.20270270
Campus Highlands 247 0 96 29 21 0.38866397 0.11740891 0.08502024 0.59109312
Total 852 0 271 87 90
Avera~es .........0.305 .,:~ .. '....'.. ..0.107....... .0.509
., ... ..0.097.
Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Elementary Junior High Senior High Total
Single Family Multi-Family Elementary Junior High Senior High Student Student Student Student
D EVELO PMENT Dwellin~s Dwellin~s Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor
Steel Lake Estates 0 54 5 3 5 0.09259259 0.05555556 0.09259259 0.24074074
Kingsbridge 0 60 23 4 6 0.38333333 0.06666667 0.10000000 0.55000000
Chrystal Point 0 105 43 13 14 0.40952381 0.12380952 0.13333333 0.66666667
Crosspointe 0 130 28 4 5 0.21538462 0.03076923 0.03846154 0.28461538
Forest Village 0 172 10 2 3 0.05813953 0.01162791 0.01744186 0.08720930
Total 0 521 109 26 33
A vera~es ..,...,,'.... ... ,/0.232 .' 0.058... . 0.076 r . 0.366
YIEI.DJCLS
111119)
4:51 PM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 11, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land U se/Transportation Committee
Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manag~
So 356th Regional Storm Water Control Facility
100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid
FROM:
RE:
Backa:round:
The proposed So 356th Regional Stormwater Control Facility design has been completed and is
hereby presented for your consideration. As you will recall, this proposed drainage facility will
be located in the vicinity of So 356th St and SR99, and will service a drainage basin bounded
roughly by So 341st Place on the north, SR99 on the west, So 356th St. on the south, and 1-5
on the east. Attached for your reference is a location map with the project alignment and
footprints.
The scope of the original project has been modified to include a conveyance line along what will
one day be So 352nd St - from the pond to SRI6l. This is a result of an agreement reached
between the City and WSDOT and discussed with the committee during the December 4, 1995
LUTC meeting. The project is within the, budgeted amount for design, and the engineers'
estimate for construction.
We anticipate bidding and award of the project in April, and starting construction in May.
Construction will be completed in September 1997.
Recommendation
Forward the following recommendations to the March 18, 1997 Council meeting for approval:
Approve the So 356th Regional Storm Water Control Facility design;
1)
2)
Authorize staff to bid the project and return with a request for permission to award the
project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
IP:jg
attachment
cc: Project File
Day File
K:\LUTC\S356RSF.DES
,t,
SCAL( \' - 300'
~
20210"'))
20210<""
lOto.."..
011041111
""',......
2OtI01'.n
"",,?
&J??""
'::'~
EXJSTING .35" PIPE
202'."'"
"",°'''"
:1021."'"
PR<þPOSED 42" PIPE
...,......
..........
,., ,0<. °"
~.,
So. 356th St. Regional
Storm water Control Facility
"".....,.,
""0"'"
10210"""
2Ot'.."U
S 352ND ST
~
~
~
0:
~
0
W
0-
Z
~
U
Z
~
::-
ID
I
0:
(J)
~
(J)
w
:;c
J:
0-
lD
.'~
'-
"
CITY OF .,
- -~-- e:c~
~~ Fð'
DATE:
March 12, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Oil Rebate Grant Application
Background
As part of a settlement of a s~it against oil companies for price fixing, the State of Washington
received $4.2 million that is being disbursed to local agencies for transportation improvements that
reduce fuel consumption in a one-time grant program.
Based on current needs and grant application criteria, staff recommends that Federal Way submit
an application for construction of improvements for the intersection of SW 340th Street and Hoyt
Road SW. Preliminary cost estimates for the project are as follows:
Design:
Right-of-Way:
Construction:
Contingency (10%):
Total
$45,000
$20,000
$290,460
$ 35,540
$381,000
The project would construct left-turn lanes on Hoyt Road and signalized the existing all-way stop-
controlled intersection.
The grant has a limit of $200,000 and requires a 10% match. The City has collected
approximately $75,000 in traffic mitigation fees for this project which can be used for the match.
The remaining costs could be funded from contingency funds for the bond measure projects.
Project funding would be as follows:
Oil Rebate Grant:
Traffic Mitigation Fees:
Bond Contingency Funds:
Total
$200,000
$75,000
$106,000
$381,000
Recommendation
Place the following on the March 18, 1997 Council consent agenda:
1)
Approve the City's Oil Rebate grant application for $200,000 to design and construct
intersection improvements at SW 340th Street and Hoyt Road SW;
2)
If the application is approved, appoint a Blue Ribbon Committee to consider a
recommendation to allocate $106,000 from bond contingency funds for this project.
RAP:rp
k:\1utc\970317rc.mem
DATE:
March 7, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
~~
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
Final Acceptance of the 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Contract
BACKGROUND
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council has to accept the work
as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Industries
requirements. The [mal cost for the 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Contract is $83,935.55 which
is $596.95 below the approved revised contract budget of $84,532.50 (revised at the December
17, 1996 City Council meeting).
RECOMMENDATION
Place the following item on the next scheduled Council Consent Agenda for approval:
1.
Acceptance of the RAM Contractors, Inc. 's, 1996 Sidewalk Replacement construction
contract as complete.
KM:pk
K:\LUTC\96SWFINL.MEM
DATE:
March 7, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
~f'!\
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
Final Acceptance of the SW 34Oth Street and 35th Avenue SW Traffic
Signal Contract .
BACKGROUND
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council has to accept the work
as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Industries
requirements. The final cost for the SW 340th Street and 35th Avenue SW Traffic Signal
Contract, including the missing sidewalk to the north on 35th Avenue SW that was added by the
committee, is $126,907.55 which is $2,153.01 below the approved construction contract budget
of $129,060.56 (includes contingency).
RECOMMEND A nON
Place the following item on the next scheduled Council Consent Agenda for approval:
1.
Acceptance of the Signal Electric Inc. 's, SW 340th Street and 35th Avenue SW Traffic
Signal construction contract as complete.
KM:pk
K:\LlITC\34OSIOPl.MEM
(206) 661-4000
Federal Way, WA 98003-6201
Memorandum
DATE:
March 10, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Useffransportation Committee
~
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
AI Emter, Street Systems Project Engineer
SUBJECT:
Award of the BP A Trail Corridor - Phase II Contract
This project was originally bid on August 16, 1996. Due to discrepancies in the DBE requirements, Lloyd
Enterprises, Inc. bid was deemed non-responsive. The Council approved the termination of the contract with
Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. and approved to allow the rebidding of this project on December 3, 1996.
This project consists of a Base Bid Schedule and five additional schedules, Schedules A through E. Schedule
A is a timber wall option. Schedule B is an asphalt option for the connections at Campus Drive and 1st Way
South. Schedule C is Spur "C" connection to West Campus trail. Schedule D is Spur "B" the overlook trail.
Schedule E is Spur "A" connection to the Aquatic Center. The priority is Base Bid Schedule, Schedule C,
Schedule E, and then Schedule D as funds are available.
On Februmy 25, 1997, the following ten bids were received for the above referenced project:
WestmarkExcavating. ......................................$456,866.88
NorthwestConstruction ........................................$470,349.64
Hilltop ..................................................$498,537.63
Tucci&Sons.............................................$502,154.00
Michele's Trucking & Excavating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $508,780.48
Tydico ..................................................$539,342.00
Wagner Development... """"""""""""" .........$547,826.75
DennisR. Craig. ...... ... ... ....... ........ ............... .$548,829.08
R.W.Scott ...............................................$570,855.30
Golf Landscaping......................................... .$834,994.00
EngineersEstimate.........................................$456,486.50
These bids are a total of the base bid plus Schedules A through E. The low bid is less than 1 % over the
engineer's estimate. The second and third low bids are within 8% above the engineer's estimate.
Phil Watkins
March 10, 1997
Page 2
Project Budget
Available Budget
FederaIFunds.....................................$475,000.00
City Funds .........................................$149,000.00
PathandTrailFund...................................$ 55,000.00
TotaIAvailableFunds.................................$679,000.00
Expenditures
Basc Bid
Basc Bid -I
Schedule C -I-
Schedule E
Base Bid -I-
Schedule C -I-
Schedule J) .¡.
Schedule E
Construction Contingency 10%
Construction Management 15%
$ 90,000.00 S 90,000.00 5; 90,000.00
$ 2,000.00 S 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
S 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
$ 432,24450 S 448,827.88 $ 460,707.88
$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$ 43,224.4.') $ 44,882.79 $ 46,070.79
$ 64.836.68 S 67.324.18 $ 69.1 06.18
$ 641,606.63 $ 662,535.85 $ 677,385.85
Design (Otak Inc.)
WSDOT
Printing
Advertising (est.)
Construction Contract
WSDOT
Estimated Project Cost
Staff recommends awarding the Base Bid plus Schedule C (connection to West Campus trail), Schedule D
(overlook trail) and Schedule E (connection to the Aquatic Center) in the amount of$677,385.85.
Recommendation
To take advantage of an early start, we recommend forwarding to the March 18, 1997 Council Meeting for
approval of the following
1.
Awarding the BP A Trail Corridor - Phase n to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,
Westmark Excavating, in the amount of $460,707.88 for the Base Bid Schedule, Schedule C,
Schedule D and Schedule E and approving a $46,070.79 (10% Construction Contingency) and
$69,106.18 for Construction Management. Total project estimated cost $677,385.85.
2.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract.
cc:
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Philip D. KeightIey, Deputy City Manager
Day file
Project file
K:\STREETS\PROJECTS\BP AIN..UTC97.MEM
DATE:
March 13, 1997
SUBJECT:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land U selTransportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~7
Gravel Streets
TO:
FROM:
Background
Improvements to gravel streets, as a result of the construction of one or more single family
homes, has been a topic that has generated a significant amount of discussion, both within the
Public Works Department, as well as within the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC).
On several occasions in 1995, staff presented to the LUTC, background information and several
suggested changes to City policy/code (see attached memorandums) regarding required
improvements to gravel streets for the construction of a single family home abutting a gravel
street for committee consideration. After discussions on the topic, the LUTC directed staff to
continue requiring gravel street improvements consistent with City policy/code.
At the March 3, 1997 LUTC and March 4, 1997 City Council meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Greg
Vallenton provided public comment concerning the hardship and inequity that the current City
policylcode imposes on them and requested relief in order to construct their new single family
home. .
Action
As a result of conversations with, and direction from the City Manager, Public Works staff has
prepared several proposed revisions and/or confirmation of the current policy/code that requires
a single family permit applicant to construct improvements on gravel streets. The proposed
policy/code revisions and/or confirmation include the following elements:
1.
Gravel streets that currently exist within the City of Federal Way will not be improved by
the City but will be improved by a developer with the provision for a Late Comers
Agreement or by the abutting property owners, via a Local Improvement District (LID);
2.
The application for one single family home permit by an individual homeowner will not
require making improvements to the existing gravel street, but will require signing a No
Protest LID Agreement;
3.
The application for two or more single family home permits will require improvement to
the existing gravel street consistent with the current City Code Section 22-1525;
4.
Maintenance of gravel streets will continue to be the responsibility of the abutting private
property owners, and not the City of Federal Way.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking direction from the Land U selTransportation Committee on the proposed
revisions to, or confirmation of, existing policy/code requirements for improvements to gravel
streets when making application for one or more single family permits.
CMR:jg
enclosures
cc:
Project File
Day File
k:\Iutc\gravelst.mcm
.---....--.......-.
< '
(
CITY OF ...
- - .- - ED EFCAL
~~~
PUBLIC WORKS
MEM 0 RAND UM
TO:
Councilmember Skip Priest, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager I<. ~
Ronald Garrow, Senior Development Engineer ~
FROM:
Date:
March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Development Policies, Substandard Streets
The degree to which existing streets are improved varies considerably throughout the City.
Improvements range from fully developed streets with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, piped storm
drainage systems, street trees, landscape strips, etc. to simple gravel roadways with roadside
ditches. The fully improved streets are generally located in newer areas where full build-out
of the neighborhoods has already occurred. It is in the areas of potential infill that the
substandard roadways can be found. The concern presented here is reaffirming the policies
under which these substandard roads are to be improved for lev.el of service and safety while
not making the requirements too onerous on the individual developer.
City codes require that any substandard streets fronting proposed developments be improved
full width to city design standards if specific thresholds are met. (See FWCC 22-1473 and
22-1474, attached) The installation of improvements beyond the immediate frontage may be
required that are necessary to improve traffic circulation, access and safety, the need for
which is directly attributable to the proposed development. (FWCC 22-1475) Most
applicants request a modification, waiver, or deferment of these requirements through
provisions in FWCC 22-1477. The most often applicable criteria for granting a modification
are that the improvements would not be harmonious with the existing street improvements
and that they would not function properly or safely. Other considerations for modifications
include unusual topographic features precluding the construction of the improvements, the
existing street is improperly aligned for safe operation, or the development of the street is
part of a lorger project scheduled for construction by the City (TIP project).
To facilitate the decision process for these requests, specific policies have been used in the
past to provide consistancy and reasonableness. However, the greatest difficulties have been
in determining the required improvements to serve the proposed developments along the
substandard roadways. To date, the following policies have been used in determining
required improvements:
(
'.""---."""""""""..." -.
'--..... _..
Development on Gravel Streets
1.
Single Family Permit - Pave the street a minimum 20 feet wide with gravel shoulders
to the nearest existing paved right-of-way.
2.
Multiple Building Development - Pave street a minimum 20 feet wide with curb and
gutter on one side and gravel shoulder/walkway all to the nearest existing paved right-
of-way.
3.
Commercial Development - Pave street a minimum 28 feet wide with curb and gutter,
landscape strip, sidewalk, and provisions to widen to 40.. feet in the future all to be
extended to the nearest existing right-of-way paved 28-feet wide.
Development on Substandard Paved Streets « 20 feet wide pavement)
1.
Single Family Permit - Widen pavement to a minimum 20 feet wide plus gravel
shoulder only fronting the subject site.
2.
Multiple Building Development - widen pavement to a minimum 28 feet with curb,
gutter, and sidewalk/trail and extend to the nearest 28-feet wide paved right-of-way.
Actual modifications granted vary considerably based on roadway classifications, design
geometrics (slope, width, radius, etc.), emergency vehicle access, and other considerations.
Also, the applicant is required to sign a no-protest agreement to participate in improvements
to the roadway if they are made in the succeeding 10 years.
King County did not maintain gravel streets and, upon City incorporation, this policy was
continued by the City. A gravel street is difficult and costly to maintain because
potholes/ruts will establish immediately after grading the street.
Impacts to continued and expanded use of gravel roadways include increased dust/reduced air
quality, lack of maintenance, increased wear arid tear on vehicles, increased impact on
existing pavements in transitional areas, and reduced safety. The positive aspects include
less costly development and reduced speeds through neighborhoods. '
Options to the above policies will be presented to the committee at the meeting. Implications
to cost, frequency of application, safety, and other issues will be covered. Staff is seeking
direction from the committee as to acceptability of using the above existing policies or
modifying them based on the information to be presented in the meeting.
§ 22-1452
FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
(
Sec. 22.1452. Backing onto street prohibited.
A parking area that serves any use, other than
one serving detached dwelling units, must be de-
signed so that traffic need not back onto any street.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(105.100), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22.1453. Surface materials.
(a) The applicant shall surface the parking
areas, driveways and other vehicular circulation
areas with a material comparable or superior to
the surface material of the right-of-way providing
direct vehicle access to the parking area.
(b) Grass grid pavers may be used for emer-
gency access areas that are not used in required
permanent circulation and parking areas.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(105.105), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22.1454. Streets used in circulation pat.
tern prohibited.
A parking lot may not be designed so that a
street is used as part of its circulation pattern to
get from one part of the parking lot to another
part of the parking lot.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(105.110), 2-27-90)
Sees. 22.1455-22.1470. Reserved.
ARTICLE XVI. IMPROVEMENTS*
DMSION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 22.1471. Special regulations in desig.
nated areas.
If the city council has approved a public im-
provements master plan or special design guide-
.Cross references-Streets, sidewalks and other public
.places, ch. 13; required improvements in subdivisions, § 20-176
et seq.; public improvement assessments, § 20-206 et seq.;
drainage program, § 21.26 et seq.; in every case where the city
requires an applicant to provide a public walkway, public use
area, or other area, facility or structure that is open to the
public under the zoning regulations, the applicant may exe-
cute an easement or similar document in a form approved by
the city attorney, § 22.10; erosion and sedimentation supple-
mentary district regulations, § 22-948; land modification reo
strictions and requirements, § 22-1091 et seq.; water quality
requirements and surface water, storm water and other water-
ways, § 22.1196 et seq,
Supp, No.2
lines for a particular area that includes a right-
of-way, the master plan or other guidelines will
be filed with the city clerk and will govern the
improvements to be provided by developments that
abut that right-of-way.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.10), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22.1472. Official right-of-way map
adopted.
The public works director shall produce and keep
current an official right-of-way classification map
that classifies each of the improved and proposed
rights-of-way, other than alleys, based on the clas-
sification standards contained within sections 22-
1524 and 22-1525 and the objectives the compre-
hensive plan. This right-of-way classification map,
as adopted and amended from time to time, shall
.have the full force as if its provisions were fully
set forth within this chapter.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.15), 2-27-90)
Cross references-Rights-of-way, § 13-26 et seq.; subdivi-
sion improvements, § 20-176 et seq.; public improvement as.
sessments, § 20-206 et seq.
Sec. 22.1473. When public improvements
must be installed.
(a) The applicant shall provide the improve-
ments required by this article if the applicant en-
gages in any activity which requires a develop-
ment permit, except for the following:
(1) The applicant need not comply with the pro-
vision of this article if the proposed improve-
ments in any 12-month period do not ex-
ceed 25 percent of the assessed or appraised
value (based on an MAl appraisal provided
by the applicant)' of all structures on the
subject property, whichever is greater.
(2) The applicánt need not comply with the pro-
visions of this article if, within the imme-
diately preceding four years, public im-
provements were installed as part of any
subdivision or discretionary land use ap-
proval under this or any prior zoning code.
(b) Right-of-way adjacent to and within subdi-
vision and short subdivisions must be dedicated
and improved consistent with the requirements of
this article, unless different requirements are im-
1616
. '.""'-----~
c
'....
.,',',
::::;:
,:,':-:
;:
¡::)!
Ii
1:::/
II.::!
{"'::,.'
\(."
c.
{(
I '
I
\,
I
\
(
','..,',
,c,',',
'C'C,
;':..';'
.',.','
',',','
;::::;:
II
¡t-¡¡i¡1
~¡~: ¡,¡¡
posed by the city as part of the subdivision or
short subdivision approval.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.20), 2-27-90)
Cross references-Streets, sidewalks and other public
places, ch, 13; rights-or-way, § 13-26 et seq.; subdivision re-
quired improvements, § 20-176 et seq.; drainage program, §
21-26 et seq.
Sec. 22.1474. Required public improvements.
(a) Generally. The development standards por-
tion of sections 22-1524 and 22-1525 establish the
improvements that must be installed, based on
the classification of the various rights-of-way
within the city. The applicant shall, consistent
with the provisions of this article, install all im-
provements established in sections 22-1524 and
22-1525 along the entire frontage and width of
each right-of-way, other than alleys, that abuts
the subject property.
(b) Additional dimensions and improvements.
The applicant may increase the dimensions of any
required improvement or install additional im-
provements within the right-of-way with the
written consent of the public works director.
(c) Authority to require dedication. If a right-
of-way abutting the subject property has inade-
quate width based on the requirements in sec-
tions 22-1524 and 22-1525, the applicant shall
dedicate a portion of the subject property parallel
to the right-of-way and equal in width to the dif-
ference between the present right-of-way width
and the width required by sections 22-1524 and
22-1525 for that right-of-way. The public works
director may waive additional dedication or may
permit dedication of a lessor amount of the sub-
ject property for additional right-of-way width if:
(1) It is likely to anticipate that, within the
near future, the private property across the
right-of-way will be required to dedicate
property for public right-of-way; or
(2) The reduction in the required right-of-way
width will nonetheless provide adequate
room for all improvements, infrastructure
and functions within the right-of-way.
All dedications under this subsection shall be by
conveyance through a- statutory warranty deed.
Supp. No, 2
ZONING
§ 22-1474
(d) Partial right-ot-way improvements. Where a
right-of-way abutting the subject property does not,
~ven after dedications required under subsection
(c) of this section, contain adequate width to in-
stall all of the improvements required within that
right-of-way under this article, the applicant shall
install improvements within the right-of-way
which will provide a safe and efficient right-of-way
and which will facilitate completion of all right-
of-way improvements required in this article at a
later date. The specific extent and nature of im-
provements, where full right-of-way width is not
available, will be determined by the public works
director on a case by case basis.
(e) Easements. The public works director may
require the applicant to grant such easements
over, under and across the subject property as are
reasonably necessary or appropriate under the cir-
cumstances, including, but not limited to ease-
ments for the following:
(1) Pedestrian access and sidewalks.
(2) Street lighting.
(3) Traffic control devices.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.25), 2-27-90)
1617
/'
; ,(
(
C'
Sec. 22.1475. Additional improvements.
The city may require the applicant to pave or
install additional improvements within rights-of.
way, either abutting or not abutting the subject
property. This may include traffic signals, chan-
nelizations, turn lanes, and other improvements
necessary or appropriate to improve traffic circu-
lation and safety, the need for which is directly
attributable to development of the subject prop-
erty. Where appropriate, the public works director
may permit the applicant to fulfill the applicant's
obligation under this section by paying to the city
the pro rata share of the costs of the required im-
provements attributable to development of the sub-
ject property, as determined by the public works
director. The city may also require the applicant
to provide traffic studies and other data describing
the traffic impacts of the proposed development,
the need for improvements under this section, and
the reasonable pro rata share of the costs of these
improvements to be borne by the applicant.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.30), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22-1476. Traffic control devices and
signing.
All traffic control devices and pavement mark-
ings shall conform to the "Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices" (M.U.T.C.DJ as adopted,
from time to time, by the state department of
transportation.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.55), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22.1477. Modifications, deferments and
waivers.
The public works director may modify, defer or
waive the requirements of this article only after
consideration of a written request for the following
reasons:
(1) The improvement as required would not be
harmonious with existing street improve-
ments, would not function properly or safely
or would not be advantageous to the neigh.
borhood or city as a whole.
(2) Unusual topographic or physical conditions
preclude the construction of the improve-
ments as required.
ZONING
* 22-1496
(3) Proper vertical or horizontal alignments (j
cannot be determined because the existing })
(4) ;;:~e;;; ~;; ~;; r ;;~~ ;l:~; ;~:; ~ 0 ~ .::¡.!::,..:,..:.!..:...:,!.:::,':::~.!
construction in the city's capital improve-
ment program.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.60), 2-27-90)
Sec. 22-1478. Bonds.
The city may require or permit a bond under
section 22.146 et seq. to insure compliance with
any of the requirements of this article.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.65), 2-27.90)
Cross reference-Bond procedure, § 22-146 et seq-
Sees. 22.1479-22-1495. Reserved.
DIVISION 2. VEHICULAR ACCESS
EASEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS*
Sec. 22.1496. When required.
If access to the subject pröperty is over a vehic-
ular access easement or tract, the applicant shall,
except as specified in section 22-1497, install im-
provements within the vehicular access easement
or tract consistent with the requirements for
rights-of-way, as established in this article, from
the point the subject property obtains access to
the vehicular access easement or tract to the
nearest intersecting right-of-way. The public works
director shall determine which of the provisions
of sections 22-1524 and '~2-1525 apply to the ve-
hicular access easement or tract based on the clas-
sification criteria of those charts.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.35(1», 2-27-90)
.Cross references-Rights-of.way, § 13-26 et seq.; traffic
and motor vehicles, ch. 15; subdivision improvements, * 20-1;6
et seq.; yard requirements for driveways, parking areas, fences.
structure protruding beyond exterior walls of a structure. re-
taining walls, walkways, and certain other improvements or
structures. § 22-1133; one-way streets and strcl.'ls with nll;dian
barrier requirements, § 22-1158; supplementary district rl'g-
ulation requirements for vehicles and boats, § :¿:¿.11;6 l't Sl'q.:
011 street parking requirements. § 22-1376 et scq.
1619
§ 22.1524
FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
(
Sec. 22.1524. Arterial rights-of.way.
The following chart illustrates the development standards for each classification:
~ CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR
ARTERIAL
rzJ
~ Inter-<:ommunity roadways con. Intra-<:ommunity roadways con. Intra-<:ommunity roadways con.
0 FUNCTION neeting larger community cen. neeting community centers and necting residential neighbor.
Z ters and facilities. facilities. hoods with community centers
0 and facilities,
~
~ Controlled with very restricted Partially controlled with infre- Partially controlled with infreo
~ ACCESS access to acljacent property. quent access to abutting prop- quent access to abutting prop.
~ erties. erties.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
0 (x 1000) 20+ 8.30 3.9
A Design Speed (mph) Flat 55 55 50
Rolling 45 45 40
Mountainous 35 35 35
B. Min. Radius (ft;) Flat 1200 960 760
Rolling 760 600 465
Mountainous 465 410 350
C. Max. Grade (%) Flat 6 6 7
rJ) Rolling 7 8 10
0
~ Mountainous 9 10 12
~ D. M~n. Right-of.Way
(n) 2 Lane - - 60
4 Lane 80 80
E-o 5 Lane 100 100
Z
rzJ E. Min. Pavement
~ Width (ft;) 2 Lane - 40
ø. -
0 3 Lane - 36
,..:
~ 4 Lane 48 48
0 5 Lane 60 60
F. Type of Curb1 Vertical Vertical Vertical
G. Max. Super Eleva.
tion .06 Nn .06 Nn .06 Net
H. Sidewalks 8' 8' 5'
I. Street Trees 30' O.c. 30' o.Co 30' o.c.
J. Median See See. 22.1517 See Sec. 22-1517 See Sec. 22.151,,7
K. LandscapinlÚ
Utility Strip Min." Min." Min."
1. Vertical curb shall conform to "Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter" as shown on Standard Drawing No.9, King County Road
Standards, latest edition.
. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(chart 110-1), 2-27-90)
c~oss references-Rights-o(.way, § 13.26 et seq.; subdivision required improvements, § 20.176 et seq.
1622
(
co
f
~
ZONING
§ 22-1525
Sec. 22-1525. Local rights-of-way.
The following chart illustrates the development standards for local rights-of-way for each classifica.
tion:
(
CLASSIFICATION INDUSTRIAU RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CUL-DE-SAC
COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR ACCESS
Local streets providing In ter.neigh borhood Neighborhood streets Permanently dead-ended
access for business, com- streets connecting two or providing access to resi. streets (600' max. length
FUNCTION mercial, industrial and more neighborhoods and dences, and connecting from centerline of inter-
multüamily facilities not providing in te r- neighborhood streets to seeting street).
serving as arterials. residential travel. the collector system.
Partially controlled Primarily for access to Access to abutting prop- Access to abutting prop-
ACCESS abutting lots and to erties connecting to col- erties with bulb turn
neighborhood streets. lector streets. around2
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 3,000 - 12,000 UNDER 4,000 UNDER 4,000 LESS THAN 500
A. Design Speed
(mph) Flat 55 35 35 35
Rolling 45 35 30 30
Mountainous 35 25 25 25
B. Min. Radius (ft) Flat 760 380 380 380
Rolling 465 380 273 273
Mountainous 350 185 185 185
C. Max. Grade (%) Flat 6 7 8 8
Rolling 8 10 12 12
Mountainous 11 12 15 15
D. Min. Right.
of-Way (ft) 60 60 50 50
E. Min. Pavement
Width 40 40 28 28
F. Type of Curb' Vertical Vertical Vertical or Rolled Curb Vertical or Rolled Curb
G. Max. Super Ele-
vation .06 Wet .06 Wet .06 Wet .06 Wet
H. Sidewalks 5' 5' 5' Optional
I. Street Trees 30' O.c. 30' O.c. Optional Optional
J. Median Optional N/A N/A N/A
K. Landscaping!
Utility Strip Min. 4' Min. 4' Min. 4' Min. 4'
1. Vertical curb shall conform to "Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter" and rolled curb shall conform to "Cement Concrete Rolled Curb,"
both as shown on Standard Drawing No.9, King County Road Standards, latest edition.
2. Radius minimum 45 ft. with landscaped island.
(Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(chart 110-2), 2-27-90)
Cross references-Rights-oC.way, § 13-26 et seq.; subdivision required improvements, § 20-176 et seq.
Supp. No.2
1623
(
PUCET SOUND
c=J 1J~6AS f.J/ $(.JIj~"'?1-NDI1~D RoA-DS
FEDERAL WAY
CITY LIMITS
')
")
N
w
E
s
~
. ..n....._'.,.,-
(
CrTY OF ....
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Councilmember Skip Priest, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager I< 1/2
Ronald Garrow, Senior Development Engineer .;;¿ A-
FROM:
Date:
May 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Development Policies, Substandard Streets
Introduction
(
On Monday, March 20, 1995, the Land Use Committee was presented information pertaining
to the City's current policy on requiring gravel roads and undeveloped rights-of-way to be
paved when such streets are used for access to new developments. This current policy
consists of requiring developments to pave the associated street from the development site to
the nearest paved street. Request was made by staff to confirm continued implementation of
this policy or direct staff to change to a new policy based on the presented information.
After consideration of the information, the committee requested that specific items be
researched and the issue of gravel roadways be brought back to the committee. The items
were as follows: .
1.
How many miles of gravel roadway and how many vacant lots exist that may
be impacted by this gravel roadway policy?
2.
What "latecomer" provisions does the City have under our codes for
reimbursement of costs for construction of the required roadway
improvements? What Local Improvement District (LID) provisions are
available through the city?
3.
What other "innovative" methods are used by other jurisdictions?
The issue presented here is reaffirmation of the policies under which these substandard roads
are to be improved for level of service and safety while not making the requirements too
onerous on the individual developer.
(
Background
The attached information was presented at the March 20, 1995 Land Use Committee
meeting. This information addressed the following items: -
*
Current policy of requiring paved street improvements from the nearest paved
roadway to the subject developing site;
*
Federal Way City Codes that support the requirement for improving the rights-
of-way fronting the developing sites as well as administrative authority the
Public Works Director has to require such improvement beyond the site
frontage limits;
*
The cost of constructing roadway improvements;
*
General mapping of the areas in the City which contain gravel roads.
Supplemental Information - Existing Facilities
(
Through a research of aerial photographs, assessor maps and supported by field
investigations, the following statistics relative to approximate mileage of roadway and
affected parcels was determined (see attached map for reference):
General Area
Adelaide (Single Family)
Pacific Hwy. S. (Commercial)
Tacoma Add. (Single Family)
Total
Miles of gravel roads
1.5 mi.
0.5 mi.
2.0 mi.
4.0 mi.
Affected parcels
40-50
20+
195
260
In addition to the 2 miles of gravel road in the Tacoma Addition (southwest area), there is
also approximately 1 mile of unopened right-of-way subject to future single family
development. Discounting the commercial area, approximately 50% of the above
residentially zoned parcels (120) are already developed and would most likely not be subject
to future street improvement requirements for additions or other minor permits. This leaves
approximately 120 single Jamily parcels subject to potential development of existing 4.5
miles of gravel roads and unopened rights-of-way.
Supplemental Information - Latecomers Agreement and LID's
The City's Legal Department has prepared an informational package on latecomer
agreements as relates to reimbursement to private developers for improvement to the city
street system and to the formation of LID's.
Federal Way City Codes 20-206 and 20-214 provide a mechanism by which the City may
contract with owners of a property for the construction or improvement of city streets. The
owners are partially reimbursed over time by other property owners benefiting from the
improvements. Reimbursement is provided when development occurs on the benefiting
properties. The City administers the contract over a IS-year period.
LID formations are provided through the Revised Codes of Washington. Thë codes allow
property owners to petition the City to initiate a LID with the City administering the design,
bidding, construction, financing, and assessments.
It is recommended that the Legal Department's package be referred to for pertinent
information.
Supplemental Information - Other Jurisdictions
A survey of local jurisdictions was conducted to verify other policies for permitting single
family development along existing gravel roads. There is no common or "innovative"
method of addressing the gravel roadway issue. No-Protest Agreements for future formation
of Local Improvement Districts appear to be consistently used similarly to what the City of
Federal Way does. The City of Kent requires paving of the street from the nearest paved
roadway to the developing site. The City of Bellevue does not allow more than 4 residences
on any existing gravel roadway. New streets formed as part of a subdivision must be paved.
The requirement for paving roadways is generally based on health, safety, and welfare.
Paved streets provide for better control of contaminated runoff instead of allowing it to
infiltrate into the ground as would be the case with gravel roads. Emergency access for the
fire department under all types of weather conditions is also a consideration in requiring
paved roadways.
Options
There are some options that are available to the City of Federal Way for establishing the
street improvement policy for gravel roadways. The following are presented for
consideration:
Developer Initiated Improvement - As is the current policy, development of a parcel of
property fronting on gravel roadways should include the paving of an access road from the
nearest paved roadway to the development site. The minimum width would be that required
to provide access for emergency vehicles and safe two way flow of traffic. Various funding
options are available to the developer including full funding by the developer, Latecomers
Agreement to provide the developer an opportunity to recapture costs of roadway
improvements beyond the development site from future developments, or the formation of a
Local Improvement District (LID) for the construction of the roadway system.
City Initiated Improvement - Under this option, the City may elect to perform the paving of
the roadway upon receipt of pro-rata share funds collected from developers along the
proposed pavement route. This might be done when a specific percentage of the cost of the
project is collected from developers or within 5 years of the first receipt of pro-rata share
(
monies. The five year limit is chosen to conform to city codes for the maximum time such
monies may be retained before refunding to the payer.
No Improvements Required - Under this option, the City may elect not to require paving of
the street and allow development of properties along non-city maintained streets. No-Protest
Agreements for formation of LID's could continue to be collected. These agreements are
collected from the current owners of the subject properties and run with the land. The
agreements are not affected by change in ownership of the property. The actual formation of
the LID's would not occur until agreements affecting at least 60% of the benefitting
properties had been collected.
Recommendation
Due to limited capital improvement funds for street improvements and based on the desire
for a safer and cleaner environment, the need for quick and adequate emergency access, and
a reduction in the cost of roadway maintenance either public or private, it is recommended to
maintain the current policy of requiring that gravel or unopened street rights-of-way be paved
from the nearest paved roadway to the sites of any future developments.
i.~"" -. ...',
; (,'
.O' I
. J
. PUBLIC WORKS
. :- :. .- : EJ:J~ - MEMORANDUM
~~ A¥"'
DATE:
TO:
FROM: .
September 11, 1995
Councilmember Skip Priest, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Ken Miller. Street Sys1ems Manager Þ^
Ronald Garrow, Senior Development Engineer e- ~
SUBJECT: DEVEWPMENT POLICIFB, SUBSTANDARD STREETS
INTRODUCTION
The issue of substandard streets and the policies for their improvement was brought to the
committee on two previous occasions. On March 20, 1995, information was presented to the
Land Use/Transportation Committee on the City's current policy of requiring all new
development along gravel roads to upgrade the roadway system by paving the street from the
nearest paved roadway to the subject site. Additional information presented included the
following: .
*
Examples of policies from other jurisdictions
Cost of constructing street improvements ($40/1f)
Methods by which developers can recover costs of construction (LID's and
Latecomer Agreements)
Mapping of predominant locations of gravel roadways in the City.
*
*
*
On June 5, 1995, additional information was provided the committee as requested including
the following:
*
*
Approximate mileage of gravel roads in the City (4.0+/- miles)
Approximate number of vacant lots impacted by this requirement for paving to
the nearest paved roadway (260+/- parcels)
Supplemental information on policies by other jurisdictions.
*
The Legal Department has prepared a memorandum (see attached) on the use of Local
Improvement Districts (LID's) and latecomers agreements to assist applicants in recovering
proportionate costs for street improvements for which other properties receive a benefit
:.
. ,I..
Council member Skip Priest
September 11, 1995
Page 2
ALTERN A TIVFB
Based on the previously submitted information and research of other jurisdictions, the
following alternative policies have been formulated for consideration by the committee:
Alternative A: Pave a minimum 20-foot wide roadway from the nearest paved street to the
subject site (current policy). Latecomers agreements may be available
Pros:
Improved air and water quality, reduced maintenance on the roadway,
safer vehicular access for public and emergency vehicles.
Cons:
May be prohibitively costly for the developer. Developer may only
recover some costs through a latecomers agreement with the city,
existing developments adjacent to the new roadway benefit without
having to contribute.
Alternative B: Pave a minimum 20-foot wide roadway only along the frontage of the
developing property.
Pros:
Partially improved air and water quality, proportionate share of
roadway improvement based on front footage.
Cons:
Difficult to maintain due to non uniform surface types, safe vehicular
access for public and emergency vehicles not entirely provided,
continued high level of wear and tear on vehicles. Potholes occur at
transitions and gravel gets on to the asphalt.
Alternative C: Pave from the nearest intersection to th~ subject site or 300 feet, which ever
is less.
Pros:
Partially improved air and water quality, safer access for public and
emergency vehicles, reduced maintenance on the roadway, amount of
roadway improvement limited to approximately $12,000 (1995 dollars).
Cons:
Due to low cost latecomers not effective.
Alternative D: Allow gravel streets to remain and require the execution of a No-Protest
Agreement for the formation of a future LID for roadway improvements on the street
fronting the subject site.
Pros:
No ëost to the applicant at the time of permit for the development of
the roadway.
. "'1
.,
, . .:
~
. '
" -." I,.
"
Council member Skip Priest
September 11, 1995
Page 3 '
Cons:
Decreased air and water quality, greater wear and tear on vehicles,
increased costs to the residents for maintenance on the roadway, poor
vehicular access for public and emergency vehicles, no full or
incremental improvement of the city's right of way.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the need for continued safe vehicular access by the public, service providers, and
emergency vehicles, state requirements for control and treatment of runoff, the desire for
high air quality, and the desire to improve the city's right of way as development spreads
out, staff recommends that Alternate A; the current policy be continued. This policy
requires for all new single family development that a minimum 20-foot wide pav~ment along
with associated drainage facilities be developed from the nearest paved street to the subject
site. New commercial'development may be subject to wider paving requirements and
additional improvements based on the classification of the street being improved and the
amount and type of traffic being generated by the development.
The only recommended variance to the previous standard would be to allow a homeowner to
construct no more than one single family house on an existing gravel street if it is over 300
feet from a paved road to the house access. However, applicants wishing to build on
"unopened" rightway will be required to pave a minimum 20 foot wide access to the nearest
paved street regardless of distance. This requirement will prevent the construction of
additional gravel roads in the City. A no protest LID covenant would also be required from
the homeowner.
RG:cs
K:\LUTC\DEVPOLIC.MEM
'.
I,.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY AT~ORNEY'S OFFICE
Memorandum
DATE:
September 5, 1995
Skip Priest, Chair, City Council Land Use and
Transportation Committee
TO:
SUBJECT:
Jim McNamara, Deputy City Attorney
Latecomer Agreements for ¡mprovement of City Streets
FROM:
This memo is intended to provide background material on
"latecomer agreements" for the improvement of City streets.
LATECOMER AGREEMENTS
RCW 35.72.010 et seq. provides the authority for the City to
contract wi th owners of real estate for the construction or
improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as
a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite
to further property development.
FWCC 20-206 to -214 Public Improvement Assessments (attached)
provides a mechanism by which the City. may contract with the owners
of real estate for the construction or improvement of street
projects. The owner is subsequently reimbursed by other property
owners benefiting from the improvement. The reimbursement shall be
a pro rata share of construction and reimbursement of contract
administration costs of the street project. The City determines
the reimbursement share by using a method of cost reimbursement
which is based on the benef it to the property owner from the
project.
In brief summary, the above RCW and FWCC sections provide that
the owner of real estate who is required to construct/improve a
street project as a prerequisite to further development may make
application to the public works director for the establishment of
an assessment reimbursement area. The application must show
detailed construction plans for the street project including
itemization of all costs and a proposed assessment reimbursement
roll.
. .
Rather than have the project financed solely by the owners of
real estate, the City may join in the financing and be reimbursed
in the same manner as the owners of real estate who participate - in- -. - --. -.
the project. However, the city may be reimbursed only for the
costs of improvements that benefit that portion of the"public who
will use the developments, not for costs that benefit the general
public.
Prior to the execution of any contract establishing an
assessment reimbursement area, notice is mailed to all property
owners within the area notifying them of the potential that they
will be obligated to share in the costs of the street project and
that they have the right to request a hearing before the city
council and object to the assessment.
If any such hearing is requested, the Council shall conduct a
hearing and make a final determination of the area boundaries, the
amount of the assessments, length of time for which reimbursements
shall be required and shall authorize the execution of appropriate
documents. The assessment reimbursement area is based upon a
"determination of which parcels adjacent to the improvements would
require similar street improvements upon development.
within 30 days of final council approval of the assessment
reimbursement agreement the applicant must execute the agreement
and present it for signature by the city. The document is then
recorded.
The developer may then seek reimbursement from benefited
owners for 15 years, so long as those owners are: wi thin the
assessment area, have a reimbursement share, did not contribute to
the original cost of the project, subsequently develop their
property within 15 years, and were not required to improve their
property previously.
.
The benefits to the City of employing this method are that the
streets are improved at a lower cost to the taxpayer and the
improvements are accomplished more quickly.
The benef its to the property owners are that they are not
required to shoulder the entire financial burden and the
improvements are accomplished more quickly.
The danger to the developer and property owner are that the
assessment reimbursement area may be challenged and/or the
reimbursements may not be received.
LIDS
The law provides two methods of forming local improvement
districts: the Resolution of Intention Method by which the
. .
legislative body of a municipality initiates a LID and the Petition
Method by which property owners may petition the city to initiate
a'LID. The-former is-the-mest.common method.
The initial step in the creation of an LID is th~ filing of
a petition signed by owners of property aggregating a majority of
the area of the proposed LID RCW 35.43.120. The Council next
adopts a resolution fixing a hearing on forming ~n LID. Notice is
sent at least 15 days before the hearing date to the owners as
shown on the rolls of the County Assessor of all property within
the proposed LID. The council then conducts the hearing on the
formation of the LID and passes an ordinance creating the LID and
ordering the improvements. RCW 35.43.070.
Following the creation of the improvement the Council conducts
an assessment roll hearing and considers any objections from the
property owners. . The Council then passes an ordinance confirming
and levying assessments as'finally approved.
The advantage of providing for street improvements via the LID
process is that the City does not have to advance the costs of
construction.' The entire cost may be recovered over a period of
years. There is not the 15 year time limit imposed under the
provisions for latecomer agreements.
It ought to be noted that due to the involved process of
creating a LID, the city has so far not employed this method. The
legal costs involved are significant, though these costs can be
passed through to the benefited owners
CONCLUSION
Of the two methods for financing the improvement of city
streets discussed above, latecomer.agreements possess the advantage
that the improvements may be improved at a lower cost to the
taxpayer and benefitted property owners. However, because the
period of cost recoupment is limited to 15 years, the developer
and/or property owner may not receive a full reimbursement.
LIDs possess the advantage to the City that the City does not
have to advance the costs of construction and there is not a 15
year limit on the recoupment of costs.
cc: Londi K. Lindell, City Attorney
Greg Moore, Director of Community Development
Cary Roe, Director of Public Works
Ron Garrow, Senior Development Engineer
K:\memo\latecome.jjm
,,: . .
- '.
§ 20-'~G
FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
(c) Where safe and feasible, -the meandering of
streets and/or sidewalks around significant trees
is encouraged.
(d) All street trees and other plantings shall be
installed in conformapce with standard land-
scaping practices and with appropriate city guide-
lines and regulations.
(Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.360.10-16.360.40),2-27-90)
Cross reference-Landscaping requirements in the zoning
regulations, § 22-1561 et seq:
See. 20-187.. Monuments.
(a) Permanent survey control monuments shall
be provided for all final plats and short plats at:
(1) All controlling comers on the boundaries of
the subdivision or short subdivision;
(2) The intersection of centerlines -of roads
within the subdivision or short subdivision;
and
(3) The beginnings and ends of curves on cen-
terlines or points of intersections on tan-
gents.
(b) Permanent survey control monuments shall
be set in two-inch pipe, 24 inches long, fIlled with
concrete or shall be constructed of an approved
equivalent. Permanent survey control monuments
within a street shall be set after the street is paved.
Every lot comer shall be marked by a three-
quarter-inch galvanized iron pipe or approved
equivalent, driven into the ground. If any land in
a subdivision or short subdivision is contigUous to
a me~dered body of water, the meander line shall
'be reestablished and shown on the final plat or
short plat. .
(Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.370.10, 16.370.20),2-27-90)
Secs. 20-188-20-205. Reserved.
ARTICLE V. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
ASSESSMENTS *
Sec. 20-206. Purpose.
This article is intended to implement and
thereby make available to the public the provi-
sions of RCW 35.72.010 et seq., by allowing the
city. to contract with the owners of real estate for
the construction or improvement of street projects
which the owners elect to install as a result of
ordinances requiring such projects as a prerequi-
site to further property development, and allowing
the partial reimbursement to the owner by other
property owners benefiting from such improve-
ments in certain instances.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § I, 1-30-90)
State law reference-Contracts (or street projects, RCW
35.72.010 et seq.
Sec. 20-207. Authorization.
>
Any owner of real estate who is required to con-
struct or improve street projects as a result of any
provision of this article as a prerequisite to fur-
ther development may make application to the
public works director for the establishment by con-
tract of an assessment reimbursement area as pro-
vided by state law.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 2, 1-30-90)
Sec. 20-208. Contents of application.
Every application for the establishment of an
assessment reimbursement area shall be accom-
panied by the application fee specified in section
20-213 and shall include the following items:
(1) Detailed construction plans and drawings
of the entire street project, the costs of which
.Cross references-Finance, ch. 7; streets, sidewalks and
other public places, ch. 13; utilities, ch. 16; in each œse where
the city requires an applicant to provide a public walkway,
public use area or other area, facility or structure that is open
to the public under the zoning regulations, the applicant may
execu~ 'an easement or similar document in a (orm approved
by the city attorney, § 22.10; required improvements under
the zoning regulation, § 22-1471 et seq.; official right-o(.way
map adopted, § 22-1472.
State law reference-Public improvements, authority RCW
35AAO.200, 35.23.352, 35.72.010 et scq., 39.04.010 et scq.
1202
(
J
'i:.'
(
¡;
,
\
/
.
8
SUBDIVISIONS
are to be borne by the assessment reim-
bursement area, prepared and stamped by.
a state licensed engineer;
(2) Itemization of all costs of the street project
including, but not limited to, design,
grading, paving, installation of-curbs, gut-
ters, .storm drainage, sidewalks, street
lights, engineering, construction, property
acquisition and contrac:t administration;
(3) A map ånd legal description identifying the
proposed boundaries of the assessment re-
imbursement area and each separately
. owned parcel. within the area. Such map
shall identify the location of the street.
project in relation to the parcels of property
in such area;
(4) A proposed assessment reimbursement roll
stating the proposed assessment for each
separate parcel of property within the pro-
posed assessment reimbursement area as
determined by apportioning the total project
cost on the basis of the benefit of the project
to each parcel of property within such area;
(5) A complete list Df record owners of property
within the proposed assessment reimburse-
ment area certified as complete and acCu-
rate by the applicant and which states
names and mailing addresses for each such
owner;
(6) Envelopes addressed to each of the recõrd
owners of property at the address shown on
the tax rolls of the county treasurer within
the assessment reimbursement area who
has not contributed a pro rata sh~e of such
costs as based on the benefit to the property
owner from such project. Proper postage for'
registered mail shall be à.ffbced or provided; .
{7) Copies of executed deeds and/or easements
in which the applicant is the grantee for all
property necessary for the installation of
such street project.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 3, 1.30.90)
Sec. 20-209. Notice to property owners.
. Prior to the execution of any contract with the.
. .... . ..- - city..:establishing an assessment reimbursement
§ 20.210
}
area, the public works director or designee shall
mrol, via registered mail, a notice to all record
property owners within the assessment reimburse-
ment area as determined by the city on the basis
of information and materials supplied by the ~p.
plicant, stating the preliminary boundaries of such
area and assessments alóng with substantially the
following statement:
As a property owner within the Assessment
Reimbursement Area whose preliminary
.boundaries are enclosed with this notice, you
or yoùr heirs and assigns may be obligated to
pay under certain circumstances, a pro rata
share of construction and contract adminis-
tration costs of a certain street project that
has been preliminarily determined to benefit
your property. The proposed amount of such
pro rata share or assess~ent is also enclosed
with this notice. You, or your heirs and as-
signs, may have to pay such share, if any de-
velopment permits are issued for development
on your property within
( ) years of the date a contract estab-
lishing such area is ;recorded with the King
County Department of Records, provided such
development would have required similar
street improvements for approval. You have
a right to object to your property's assess-
ment and request a hearing before the Fed-
eral Way City Council within twenty (20) days
of the date of this notice. All such requests
must be in writing and filed with the City
Clerk. Mter such contract is recorded it shall
be binding on all owners of record within the
assessment area who are not a party to the
contract. Dated: .
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 4, 1-30-90)
State law reference-Assessment reimbursement con-
tracts, RCW 35.72.040.
Sec. 20.210. City council action.
If the owner of any property within the pro-
posed assessment reimbursement area requests a
hearing, notice of such shall be given to all af-
fected property owners in addition to the regular
notice requirements specified by this article. Cost
of this notice shall be borne by the applicant. At
the hearing the city council shall take testimony
from affected property owners and make a final.
1203
...
-
8'
burse the city fo~the.ful¡'administrative.andpro--. ...- ...... .
fessio~al costs & reviewing and processing such
application and of preparing the agr~ement. At
the time of application a minimum fee of $250.00,
plus .025 percent Qf the value of the assessment
contract, to a maximum of $2,500.00 shall be de-
posited with the city and crëdited against the ac-
tual costs incurred. The applicant. shall reimburSe
the city for such costs before the agreement is
recorded.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 8, 1-30-90)
'0-210
FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
detenninationofthe area boundaries;the'amount
of assessments, length of time for which reim-
bursement shall be required and shall authorize
the execution of appropriate documents. If no
hearing is requested, the council may consider and
take fmal action on these matters at any public
meeting held more than 20 days after notice was
mailed tó the affected property owners.
COrd. No. 90-22, § 5, 1-30-90)
Sec. 20-211. Preliminary assessment reim-
bursement area, amendInents.
If the preliminmy determination of area bound-
aries and assessments is amended so as to raise
any assessment appearing thereo~ or to include
omitted property, a new notice of area boundaries
and asseSsments shall be given as in the case of
an original notice; provided, that as to any prop-
erty originally included in the preliminmy assess-
ment area which assessment has not been raised,
no objections shall be considered by the council
unless the objections were made in writing at or
:01' to the date fIXed for the original hearing.
_e city council's ruling shall be determinative
and fmal.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 6, 1-30-90)
Sec. 20-212. Contract execution and re-
cording.
(a) Within 30 days of fmal city council approval
of an assessment reimbursement agreement, the
applicant shall execute and present such agree-
. ment for the signature of the appropriate city of-
ficials. .
(b) To be binding the agreement must be re-
corded with the county department of records
within 30 days of the final exec~tion of the agree-
ment pursuant to ROW 35.72.030.
(c) If 'the contract is so med and recorded, it
shall be binding on owners of record within the
assessment area who are not party to the agree-
ment. .
COrd. No. 90-22, § 7, 1-30-90)
Sec. 20.213. Application fees.
The applicant for street reimbursement agree-
1ts:as'-provided. for-in -this -article.-shall reim-
Sec. 20:214. City Ímancing of improvement
project,s.
As an alternative to fmancing projects identi-
fied in this article solely by ownerS of real estate,
the citY may join in the fInancing of an improve-
ment project ~d may be reimbursed in the same
manner as the owners of real estate who partici-
pate in the project, upon the passage of an ordi-
nance specifying the conditions of the city's par-
ticipation in such project. The city shall be
reimbursed only for the costs of improvements that
benefit that portion of the public who will use the
developments within the established assessment
reimbursement area. No city costs for improve-
ments that benefit the general public shall be re-
imbursed.
(Ord. No. 90-22, § 9, 1-30-90)
State law reference-Alternative financing method, RCW
35.72.050.
(The next page is 12551
1204
8
8,
l'~~~ .
.
!
..
...,
\-'
:_,
f~
,0-.
L-
Title 35 RCW: Cities nnd Towns
.
35.'71.120
35.71.120 Contracts with mall organization for
administration-Conflicting charter provisions. If the
corporate authority desires to have the mall administered by
a mati organization rather than by one of its departments, the
corporate authority may execute a contract with such an
organization for the administration of the mall upon mutually
satisfactory tenns and conditions: PROVIDED, That if any
provision of a city charter conflicts with this section, such
provision of the city charter shall prevail. (1965 c 7 §
35.71.120. Prior. 1961 c Ill. § 12.]
35.71.130 Election to discontinue mall-
Ordinance-Outstanding obligations-Restoration to
fonner status. Th.e board of directors of a mall organiza-
tion may call for an election, after the mall has been in
operation for two years, at which the voting shall be by
secret ballot, on ~e question: "Shall the mall be continued
in operation?" If sixty percent of the membership of the
organization vote to discontinue the mall, the results of the
election shall be submitted to the corporate authority. The
corporate authority may initiate proceedings by ordinance for
the discontinuation of the mall, allocate the proportionate
amount of the outstanding obligations of the mall to 'the
abutting property of the mall or property specially benefited
if a local improvement district is established, subject to the
provisions of any applicable statutes and bond ordinances,
resolutions, or agreements, and thereafter, at a time set by
the corporate authority, the mall may be restored to its
fonner right of way status. [1965 c 7 § 35.71.130. Prior.
1961 c 111 § 13.]
35.71.910 Chapter controls inconsistent laws.
Insofar as the provisions of this chapter are inconsistent with .
a provision of any other law, the provisions of tlús chapter
shall be controlling. (1965 c 7 § 35.71.910. Prior. 1961 c
III § 15.]
Chapter 35.72
CONTRACfS FOR STREET PROJECfS
Sections
35.72.010
35.72.020
35.72.030
Contracts authorized for street projects.
Reimbursement by othc:r property ownc:rs.
Reimbursement by othc:r property ownc:rs-Reimbursement
share.
Assessment reimbursement contracts.
Alternative fmaneing method-Participation by county, city,
town. or dep3Itmcnt of tranSportation-Eligibility for
reimbursement.
35.72.040
35.72.050
35.12.010 Contracts authorized for street projects.
The legislative authority of any city, town. or county may
contract with owners of real estate for the construction or
improvement of street projects which the owners elect to
install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a
prerequisite to further property development. (1983 c 126 §
1.]
- 35.72.020 Reimbursement by other property.
owners. The contract may provide for the partial reimburse-
ment to the owner or the: owner's assigns for a period not to
(1992 &1..)
.,
-
cxceed fifteen years of a ponion of the costs of the project'
by other property owners who:
(1) Are detennined to be within the assessment reim-
bursement area pursuant to RCW 35.72.040;
(2) Are detennined to have a reimbursement share based ..
upon a benefit to the property owner pursuant to RCW
35.72.030;
(3) Did not conuibute to the original cost of the street
project; and .
(4) Subsequently develop their property within the
fifteen-year period and at the time of development were not
required to install similar street projects ~use they were
already provided for by the contract
Street projects subject to reimbursement may include
design, grading, paving, installation of curbs, gutters, storm
drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic controls, and other
similar improvements. as required by the street standards of
the city, town, or county. (1983 c 126 § 2.]
35.72.030 Reimbursement by other property
owners-Reimbursement share. The reimbursement shall,
be a pro rata share of construction and reimbursement of
contract administration costs of the street project A city,
town, or county shall determine the reimbursement share by'
using a method of cost apportionment which is based on the
benefit to the property owner from such project [1983 c
126 § 3.]
35.72.040 Assessment reimbursement contracts.
The procedures for assessment reimbursement contracts shall
be governed by the following: .
(1) An assessment reimbursement area shall be formu-
lated by the city, town. or county based upon a determina-
tion by the city, town. or county of which parcels adjacent
to the improvements would require similar street improve-
ments upon development.
(2) The preliminary detennination of area boundaries
and assessments, along with a description of the property
owners' rights and options, shall be forwarded. by certified
mail to the property owners of record within the proposed
assessment area. If any property owner requests a hearing
in writing within twenty days of the'mailing of the prelimi-
nary determination, a hearing shall be held before the
legislative body, notice of which shall be given to all
affected property owners. The legislative body's ruling is
determinative and final. .
(3) The contract must be_recorded in the appropriate
county auditor's office within thirty days of the final
execution of the agreement.
(4) If the contract is so filed, it shall be bin.ding on
owners of record within the assessment area who are not
party to the contract. (1988 c 179 § 16; 1983 c 126 § 4.)
Severability-Prospective applicatlon-Sect1on captions-1988 c
179: Sc.c RCW 39.91.900 and 39.91.90\.
35.72.050 Alternative financing method-
Participation by county, city, town, or department of
transportation-Eligibility for reimbursement. (I) As an
alternative to financing projects"under this chaptec ~Qlely by
owners of real estate, a county, city, or town may join in the
financing of improvement projects and may be reimbursed
(TiUc 3S RCW-page 2311
- .
. -
Permit Number
J
;;:.'
LATECOMERS. AGREEMENT.. -' ---- ---- .
FOR
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
THIS LATECOMERS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement II) is made between the..
city of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation (llcity"),
and , a (IIOwnerll).
A. The Owner is desirous of making certain street
improvements which may include grading, paving, curbs, gutters,
storm drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic controls, and
other similar improvements and appurtenances thereto at, or near,
certain real property owned by the Owner.
B. There are no adjoining property owners presently available
to share in the cost and expense of the construction' of such
improvements. The parties wish to enter into an agreement
providing for the installation of such improvements and providing
for partial reimbursement to the Owner of a portion of the costs of
such improvements pursuant to Chapter 35.72 of the Revised Code of
Washington.
c. The City has determined that the construction and
installation of the improvements are in the public interest and the
Owner is willing to pay all the costs and expenses for the
installation of such improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree a~ follows:
1..
Description of Property.
1.1 Owner's Property. The Owner acknowledges that it is the
owner of the certain real property located in Federal Way,
washington; legally described in Exhibit IIAII attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (IIOwner's Propertyll).
1. 2 Benef i ted Property. certain real property which is
adjacent to or near the Owner's Property will receive the benefit
of the proposed improvements, which properties are legally
described in Exhibit IIBII attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference (IIBenefited Propertiesll). .
2. Improvements. The .Owner agrees and to install, at his or
her expense, the following described improvements:
(ItImprovementslt) .
, -. -.
,-
The Owner agrees that all work performed in connection with
the Improvements shall be in full compliance with all applicable
federal,' state and city laws, including without lim$tation_all._cLty-_.- --_.
codes, ordinances, resolutions, policies, ~standards and
regulations.
3. Cost of Improvements. The Owner agrees that all expenses'
and claims in connection with the construction and installation of
the Improvements, whether for labor or materials, have been or will
be paid in full by the Owner. The Owner further certifies that the
total cost of construction of the Improvements is equal to
($ ) (IITotal Cost II) .
If the actual cost of the Improvements is different than the amount
certified above, the Owner shall provide documentation to the City
establishing the-basis of any increased amount. In the event the
ci ty approves the increase, this increased amount shall be the
Total Cost, for purposes of calculating the Benefited Properties
pro rata share.
4.
Reimbursement.
4.1 Latecomer's Obliqation to Reimburse. Any owner of the
Benefited Properties (IILatecomer"), who did not contribute to the
original cost of the Improvements and who- subsequently elects to
develop his or her respective property within ten (10) years from
the date this Agreement is recorded with the King County Auditor's
Office and at the time of development is not required to install
any street improvements as a result of the installation by the
Owner of the Improvements, shall not be granted a permit for the
development without first paying to the City, in addition to any
and all other costs, fees, and charges associated with permits,
inspections or for street, signalization, and lighting
improvements, his or her pro rata share of the Total Cost of the
Improvements and all administration costs associated with this
Agreement, as determined by Subsection 4.2 herein.
4.2 Pro Rata Share. The method for determining the pro rata
share of the Total Cost and administrative costs to be paid by any
Latecomer shall be one of the following, at the City's election:
e.
front foot method
zone front foot method
square footage method
contract method
trip generation
other equitable
any combination
(traffic) method
method
of methods a through f
a.
b.
c.
d.
f.
g.
(check the applicable method of assessment)
The decision of the Director of Public Works or his or her
authorized representative in determining or computing the amount
due from any Latecomer shall be final and conclusive.
- 2 -
.' """".n..".'."'."'.'" ','.,',',
" ",
5. Payment to owner. The City agrees to pay all amounts
received from Latecomers to the Owner within thirty (30) days after
receipt thereof, less..a l5%"processingfee.. (,'!Latecomer' s Fee").
The city shall not be obligated to collect any Latecomers Fees
after the expiration of the Term of this Agreement. -
6. Term/Extension of Aqreement. The term of this Agreement.
is for a period, of ten (10) years commencing on the date this
Agreement is recorded and terminating ten (10) years thereafter;
provided, however, that in the event an extension is authorized by
the Federal Way City council, this Agreement may be extended for
one (1) additional five (5) year period ("Term"). The extension
may be granted upon a written request by the Owner prior to the
expiration of the initial ten (10) year period.
7. street System. The Owner agrees that the Improvements
have been or are about to be connected with the transportation and
street systems of the city and, upon such connection and acceptance
by the City through its legislative bOdy, the Improvements shall
become a part of the municipal transportation system.
8. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded with the
King County Auditor's Office within thirty (30) days of execution
of this Agreement by the city and the Owner.
9. Ti tIe to Improvements. The Owner hereby transfers to the
city all of the Owner's right, title and interest in and to the
Improvements. The city reserves the right, without affecting the
validity or terms of this Agreement, to make or cause to be made
extensions to or additions of the Improvements, without liability
on the part of the city.
10. Assiqnment of Fees. The Owner hereby assigns to the Gity
all of the Owner's right, title and interest in and to any
Latecomer's Fees in the event' the city is unable to locate the
Owner to tender the same. The Owner shall be responsible for
informing the city of its current and correct mailing address. The
City will make a good faith effort to locate the Owner and in the
event the city is unable to do so, the Latecomer's Fee shall be
placed in the Special Deposit Fund held by the city for a period of
two (2) years. At any time within this two (2) year period, the
Owner may receive the Latecomer's Fee, without interest, by
notifying the City of the Owner's then current mailing address.
After the expiration of the two (2) year. period, all rights of the
Owner to any Latecomer's Fees shall terminate, and the'city shall
be deemed to be the owner of such funds.
11. Enforcement. .The City does not agree to assume any
responsibility to enforce this Agreement. This Agreement will be
a matter of public record and will serve as a notice to all
potential Latecomers. The Owner shall be responsible to monitor
those parties enjoying the Impro~ements. In the event the, City,
becomes aware of a Latecomer, it will use its best efforts to
- J -
,-'
, '. ,.
collect the Latecomer's Fee, but shall not incur any liability
should it fail to coll~ct such fee.
J.
12. Indemnificatfon. The Owner agrees to indemnify and hold
the city, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses,
actions and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to'
or by any and all persons or entities, . including, without
limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives,
arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Agreement or
the construction or installation of the Improvements.
13.
Equal Opportunity EmPlover.
'In all of the Owner's activities, hiring and employment made
possible by or resulting from this Agreement~ there shall be no
discrimination against ,any' person because of sex, sexual.
orientation, age (except minimum age and retirement provisions),
race, color, creed, nationaloriqin, marital status or the presence
of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a
bona fide occupational qualification. .
14.
General Provisions.
14.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all of
the agreements of the parties and no prior agreements or
understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be
effective for any purpose.
14.2 Modification. No provision of this Agreement may
be amended or added to except by agreement in writing signed
by the parties.
14.3 Full
Agreement which
no way affect,
hereof and such
and effect.
Force and Effect. Any provision of this
is declared invalid, void or illegal shall in
impair, or invalidate any other provision
other provisions shall remain in full force
14 . 4 Successors In Interest. This Agreement shall inure
and be for the benefit of and shall obligate all of the
parties respective successors in interest, heirs,
beneficiaries or assigns. .
14.5 Attorney Fees. In the event either party defaults
on the performance of any terms in this Agreement, and this
Agreement is placed in the hands of an attorney, or suit is
filed, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of
its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The venue
for any dispute related to this Agreement shall be King
C?unty, Washington.
- 4 -
, .. .
..- .
14.6 No Waiver. Failure of the city to declare any
breach or default immediately upon the occurrence .thereof, or
delay in taking any. action.inconnection with, shall. not waive 0..-
such breach or default. Failure of the City to declare one
breach or default does not act as a waiver of the City's right
to declare another breach or default.
14.7 Governinq Law. This Agreement shall _be made in and
shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the state of Washington.
14.8 Authority. Each individual executing this
Agreement on behalf of the city and the Owner represents and
warrants that such individuals are duly authorized to execute
and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the Owner or the city.
14.9 Notices. Any notices required to be given by the
city to the Owner or by the Owner to the city shall be
delivered to the parties at the addresses set forth below.
Any notices may be delivered personally to the addressee of
the notice or may be deposited in the Uni ted states ~ail,
postage prepaid, to the address set forth herein. Any notice
so posted in the united states mail shall be deemed received
three (3) days after the date of mailing.
14.10 captions. The respective captions of the
paragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of
reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or otherwise
affect in any respect any of the provisions of this Agreement.
DATED this ---- day of
,19-
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
By:
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
ATTEST:
City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC
- 5 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Londi K. Lindell
k:\forms\1atecome.agr
OWNER
(Signature)
(print Name)
(Address)
- 6 -
" ~",.
^. "., .
.." -
. .
CITY NOTARIZATION
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)
)
)
l
J
0:-'
SSe
COUNTY OF KING
I certify t~at I know or have satisfactory evidence that the
person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the
person whose true signature appears on this document.
On this day of ,19 ,before me
personally appeared Kenneth E. Nyberg, to me known to be the city
Manager of the city of Federal Way, a municipal corporation that
executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the
said instrument to be the fre~ and voluntary act and deed of said
corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official hereto affixed the day and year
first above written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My commission expires
. '.
.
~
~
: "-.
OWNER NOTARIZATION
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)
)
)
SSe
COUNTY OF KING
.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the
person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the
person whose ~rue signature appears on this document.
On this day of , 19 -' before me
personally appeared , to me known
to be the Owner, that executed the within and foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged the said instrument his/her free and voluntary act
and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath
stated that he/she has executed said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official hereto affixed the day and year
first above written.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My commission expires