Council PKT 10-03-2000 RegularCity of Federal Way City Council M~.ting
AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBERS
· Mike Park, Mayor
Jeanne Burbidge Linda Kochmar
Michael Hellickson Dean McColgan
Mary Gates Phil Watkins
CITY MANAGER
David H. Moseley
Office of the City Clerk
October 3, 2000
AGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers - City Hall
October 3, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.
(www. ci.federal-way, wa. us)
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
m. PRESENTATIONS
a. City Manager/Introduction of New City Employees.
b. City Manager/Emerging Issues
IV. CITIZEN COMMENT
PLEASE COMPLETE THE PINK SLIP & PRESENT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. Citizens may
address City Council at this thne. when recogniz, ed by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium, adjust the
microphone to proper height, and state your name and address for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO
THREE O) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt citizen comtnents that continue too long, relate negatively to other
individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
(Items listed below have been previously reviewed by a Council Committee of three members and brought
before full Council for approvaU all items will be enacted by one motion; it~lividual items may be removed by
a Councilmemberfor separate discussion and subsequent motion. )
a. Minutes/September 19, 2000 Regular Meeting
b. Vouchers/October 3, 2000
c. Monthly Financial Report/Month of August
d. Council Bill//254/1 and Use Review Processes/Code Text Amendments
Enactment Ordinance
e. Alderbook & Wedgewood Parks Play Structure Purchase
f. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)
g. Procedure/Guidelines for Review of Changes to Park Properties & Facilities
h. Public/Private Partnerships
over please...
i. Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (S 312'h St to S 324~ St)/Improvement
Project 85 % Design Status Report
j. City of Federal Way Market Analysis
k. Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords & Options
1. Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) 2000 Interiocal Amendment
VI. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
VII. CITY MANAGER REPORT
VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
-._._
IX. ADJOURNMENT
** THE COUNCIL MA Y ADD AND TAKE ACTION ON OTIIER ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA **
THERE ARE 2 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETS AVAILABLE FOR CITIZEN REVIEW
OF DETAILED ITEMS ON THE CONFERENCE TABLE AT THE BACK OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEETING DATE: October $, 2000 ITEM#
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for September 19, 2000 regular meeting.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Official City Council meeting minutes for permanent records
pursuant to RCW requirement.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: n/a
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Move approval of the official minutes.
APPROVED FO/R~CLUSION
PACKET: /~.~ ~ IN. IL
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
I: ICO VER. CLERK-1/7/O0
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers - City Hall
September 19, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Park called the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order at the hour of
7:05 p.m.
Councilmembers presem: Mayor Mike Park, Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar, Councilmembers
Jeanne Burbidge, Mary Gates, Dean McColgan, Michael Hellickson and Phil Watkins.
Staff presem: City Manager David Moseley, Interim City Attorney Bob Sterbank, and City Clerk
Chris Green.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Girl Scout Troop//1643 led the flag salute.
III. PRESENTATIONS
Deputy Mayor Kochmar recognized the presence of a Korean film crew filming tonight's council
meeting for a documentary to be aired in Korea.
a. Proclamation/Constitution Week
Deputy Mayor Kochmar read and presented the proclamation acknowledging September 17-23,
2000, as "Constitution Week" to Viola Mullins, Chapter Member of Lakota Chapter of the
National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution; Ms. Mullins thanked Council for this
recognition and the city's participation.
b. Proclamation/Kids Day America
Deputy Mayor Kochmar read the proclamation acknowledging September 23, 2000 as "Kids Day
America/International"; the proclamation will be mailed to requestor Dr. Phil Spencer.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000- Page 4
'~s-YOR KOCHMAR SECOND.
The amendment to the main motion passed as follows:
Burbidge yes McColgan yes
Gates yes Park yes
Hellickson yes Watkins yes
Kochmar yes
The main motion, as amended, passed as follows:
Burbidge yes McColgan yes
Gates yes Park yes
Hellickson yes Watkins yes
Kochmar yes
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
2001-02 Proposed Biennial Budget/Revenue Estimates
- City Manager Presentation
- Citizen Comment (please limit to 3 minutes per person)
- City Council Comments (no action required)
At 7:35 p.m., Mayor Park read the procedure to be followed for the public hearing.
City Manager David Moseley gave a brief presentation to Council outlining the proposed 2001/
2002 budget document. He noted the budget process has included an extensive public involvement
in the beginning of the year, including two open houses, community meetings, and a city wide
survey that was mailed to each resident.
Mr. Moseley reviewed the budget development frame work, baseline estimates, actions to bridge
the gap with the shortfalls of 1-695, proposed operating budget, proposed action to address
community and council priorities, and f'mally, the budget process and calendar.
He extended "kudos" to Management Services Director Iwen Wang and her staff for a wonderful
job on the preparing the budget document.
Mayor Park opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and called for citizen comment.
Perry_ Woodford and George Pfiefer, spoke in support of including lighting and improvements to
the Lakota and Sacajawea parks in the budget.
- Councilmember Watkins inquired as to the current number of full time employees and the full time
employees as proposed by the budget. City Manager David Moseley advised Council of the
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000- Page 5
current staffing level of 286 full time employees and the budget proposes 290, he noted the
reported differences are attributed to the current positions that are covered by grant funding.
There being no further comments, Mayor Park closed the Public Hearing at the hour of 7:59 p.m.
VII. INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE
Council Bill #254/Land Use Review Processes/Code Text Amendments
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION), CHAPTER
19 (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT), CHAPTER 20 (SUBDIVISIONS), AND CHAPTER 22
(ZONING) OF THE FEDERAL WAY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REVIEW
PROCESSES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER WATKINS MOVED COUNCIL BILL #254/LAND USE REVIEW
PROCESSES/CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECOND READING/ENACTMENT AT
THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 REGULAR MEETING; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND.
The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge yes McColgan yes
Gates yes Park yes
Hellickson yes Watkins yes
Kochmar yes
VIII. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gates updated Council on the new Sound Transit Sounder Service and the success
of the first train service, the Regional Transit Committee, and the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Councilmember Burbidge reported on her attendance to the South County Area Transportation
Board and the Human Services Forum for South King County. She announced the next meeting of
the Parks/Recreation/Human Services/Public Safety Committee will be Monday, October 9t~ at
12:00 p.m., and noted Centerstage is presenting "Little Women" at the Knutzen Family Theatre
through September 30t~.
Councilmember Hellickson extended "kudos" to local athlete Megan Quann, who recently won a
gold medal in the 2000 Olympics, and updated council on the planning of an upcoming benefit for
the South King County Multi Service Center.
Councilmember Watkins announced the next meeting of the Land Use/Transportation Committee
will be held Monday, September 25th at 5:30 in Council Chambers.
Councilmember McColgan thanked all commission applicants and extended congratulations to the
new commissioners, recognizing the importance of volunteers in our community.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000- Page 6
- Deputy Mayor Kochmar also extended congratulations to Olympic Gold Medalist Megan Quann,
and updated the council on other community events. She extended "kudos" to Management
Services Director Iwen Wang and her staff for the preparation of the budget documents, and
announced the next Association of Washington Cities meeting will be held in Federal Way on
October 4*.
Mayor Park reported on his attendance to the Valley Communications meeting on September 12th
and announced the approval their 2001 budget which includes a new facility. He also reported on
the SeaTac Mall Community Expo which was held on September 14~, thanking Assistant to the
City Manager Derek Matheson for hosting the city booth. Mayor Park noted his participation in
the first trip of the Sounder Community Train, and announced the next meeting of the Economic
Development Oversight Committee meeting will be held September 27th at 8:00 a.m.
IX. CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager David Moseley noted that a building permit was issUed to the DeVry Institute which
will be a very nice addition to the community. He updated Council on the f'mal asphalt overlay
project of the year, 21st Avenue SW, which will be complete the first week in October. He
welcomed along with Interim Chief Tom Chancy, four members of a Germany Police Department
who are here participating in the STAR international exchange program.
He further reminded Council of the need for an executive session for purposes of discussing
potential litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); it will last approximately ten minutes with no
action anticipated.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 8:15 p.m., Mayor Park announced Council will be recessing to an executive session for
approximately ten minutes, with no action anticipated.
Council returned to Chambers at 8:30 p.m.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor Park
adjourned the regular meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Stephanie D. Courtney
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: VOUCHER
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $1,425,822.14
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $1,425,822.14
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd:
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: VOUCHER LIST
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered,__ _ ____ ___ ~.~-, J°r the labor performed as d~cribed herein and that the claims are just and due obligations against the City
of Fe~deral ~y, Was~n, d~ I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claims.
lVl~a~m e~l~S'ervices l)~tor
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approve attached voucher pursuant to RCW 42.24
""~IT~'~'~"~~"~'~'~'~'~i'"'"~'~"~'n"~'~"~'~'prove vouchers~__ ..~/~ ~~
.........
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
COUNCIL BILL #
APPROVED ORDINANCE #
DENIED FIRST READING
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION ENACTMENT READ
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Date: September 25, 2000
To: Finance, Eco~e3~pment and Regional ~ffairs Committee
Via: David H. Mo_s.ele~, ~l~a~nager
From: Iwen Wang, Management Service Directot~
Subject: Vouchers - Marine Patrol
The August 31st vouchers include four payments related to the proposed Marine Patrol program in the
total amount of $319.54. These four items are identified on the schedule below as the first items
(Ernie's, Tuscan & EVAC) and are the final expenditures to be paid related to this proposed program.
The table below identifies all charges paid to date for this program, a total of $580.77. As you can see by
the invoice date, all transactions occurred in late June and early July. The activities related to the
proposed Marine Patrol program have been suspended since that time.
28-Jun-00 718405 31-Aug-00 155270 Emie's Gasoline & Oil for Boat 18.99
28-Jun-00 718408 31-Aug-00 155270 Emie's Gasoline for Boat 7.95
13-Jul-00 309745 31-Aug-00 155384 Tuscan Enterprises Inc. Lettering on Inflatable Police Boat 190.05
2-Jul-00 99453 31-Aug-00 155410 EVAC Installation of Siren in Police Boat 102.55
6/8-6/11 30-Jun-00 154274 lan Canaan Class at Lake Chelan (6/8-6/11) 75.00
5-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Elliott Bay Fuel Dock - Fuel 7/5 37.89
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS REI - Locking Ring 7/3 11.89
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Sportco - Boat Pole 7/3 22.73
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Radio Shack-fuses 7/3 2.80
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Eagle - Wh'ing Equip 7/3 14.75
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Eagle - Mounting Equip 7/3 4.95
3-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Track City CB-Antenna Mount 7/3 14.06
28-Jun-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Gl Joes - Flare Kit 6/28 32.57
4-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Shilshole Texaco Marina- fuel 7/4 24.53
4-Jul-00 14-Jul-00 154452 Petty Cash - PS Elliot/Bay Fuel Dock - Fuel 7/4 20.06
k:\finance\fincommfi2000\0926\boatpatrol.doc
II -a ~ ~00~00~11~~10~~1~~
II ~ ~ 01111111001~00000~1~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~00000000~000000
~ ........ ~,,~;~
~ ~ o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
~ ~ ° °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0
II ........
. O0
. il~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ H~ H~ ~ H~
Il ~ O~ O~ O{ O~
Il
Il
Il
Il h ~ b b b b
II 0 o o o o o
II ~ o o o o o
II ~ o o o ~ o
II ~ o o o ~ ·o
~ II ~ o o o o o
H II
· - II o -- o -. o .- o -. o -.
~ II o~ o~ o~ o~
. ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
o ii ~ o> o~ o~ o~
o II
~H II ~ ~ ~H ~H ~H
~ II ~ m mO mO mO
0 0 II ~ · ·
HHHHOHHHHHO~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~0~
ffi OHO
~ ~~~ooooooooo ~? ~ ~~~
oooo ooooo ...... ,,,,
~ ~ 000000000000000000000 0 000 0
0000000000
0 0 0 0
~ o ~ ~
~ ~ ~ H
~ ~ -. H -' ~ -' ~" ~"
~"
~ ~0 ~0
0
H O~ Z~ ~ ~ ~
~
II
II
II
II 0 o H ~ ~ ~ ~
~
II ~ o o o o o o
o
II ~ o o o o o o
o
H II
~ II o oh oh oh oh oN
oh
o II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~
~ *
II ~ ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
o . ~ o o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o II
~ II ~ H H H H H ~ H~
~
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH~HHOHHH~ H~H ~
~~
LLLLLL LtL
~ ~ 00000000000000000000000 0000 0 000000000000
0
~ 00000000000000000000000 0000 o oooooooooooo
o ~_
~ Il ~o~o~oo~o~oo~oo~o~ o~ ~ oooo~~
~ I%..
~ H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOO
O
~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
~ ~~~~~~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOO
~
H
~ H
~
U ~
0
0
m ~
o
0 ~ ~ H~
~
~ ~ ~0 ~0
~0
~ 0 ~
~
II
~ o o o o
o
~ o o o .o
o
~ o o o o
o
~ ~ o o o o
o
· . o o .. o .. o .-
o -.
~ o o~ oH oH
oN
~ ~ ~0 ~0 ~0
~0
o ~ o o~ o~ o~
o~
o
~o i~ ~ ~ ~
~
I~ ~ ,
0o ~ ,
H
~ H
~ IIIIIIIIII I HHHHHH ~ I~ ~ I~01 ~
~ II ~
~ ooooooooooo o oooooo o oo o oooo oo
o oo o
~ ~ 00000000000 0 000000 0 O0 0 0000 O0
0 O0 0
~ H 00000000000 0 000000 0 O0 0 0000 O0
0 O0 0
o~ ooooooooooo ~~ ~ 0
~
II -H o~o~~ ~ ~~o o ~o ~ ~H~ IH
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ooooooooooo ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l
~ ~o ~
ooooooooooo o o o oooo
~ ~ ooooooooooo o ~ ~ H~ ~ OOOO ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~
H ~
~ ~ H
0
0 ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0
0 0 ~
H H H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .- ~ ~" 0" ~ .. ~ ....
H .. ~ ..
0 0 0 ~0 O0 ~0
~0 DO O0
II
II
II
II 0 ~ o o o o H ~ ~
~ ~ ~
II ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~
~ H ~
II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
~ Il
· . II 0 .- 0 o. 0 ** 0 .- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 --
0 -- 0 -. 0 ..
~ II O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
O~ O~ O~
Il ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
0 , ~ O> O~ O> O> O~ O> O~ O~
O> O~ O>
0 II
0 0 il ~
'tO II ,--I 0'~ b'3 (:D ti3 I','1 r'3 PS 0 0 0'~ ["- 0 ~ I ~
II ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ N 0 0 I
~ ,, ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,
It ~ ~
II ~ ~
II
II
~ ooo ooooooooo oo o ooo ooooo oo oo o ooooooo0o
~ ooo 000ooo000 O0 o 00o 0000o O0 oo o 000000000
~ H 000 000000000 O0 0 000 00000 O0 O0 0 000000000
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~l ~ O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ OOOOOOOOO
H ~ ~m ~~OO ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ OOOOOOOOO
~ 0 H
H O ~ ~ ~
H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ D 0
o
II
II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0
I1 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 I1 ~ 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0
~ 11
~ II oh oh oh oh Oh oh oh oh oh oh
II ~ ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 m 0 ~ 0
o II ~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o> o~ o~ o~
Oo n
0 ~
~ II ,-I ~ o ,~ o,1 fi-- o o o kc, ,.-I o o 0'~ o~
o kD ~
H II ~ "el (',i 0 ~ ,~ 0 ..~ tn ri o co o a:) m
*~ o o
II 4J ~,l · ~ '
' '
II 0 g O m kO O O O ri r~ ~ U3 O m kO
b ,a0 O
~ II ~-~ ~ o ko ~ ,~p t.q O,1 o~ H b O,1 o:) '~ O~,
m O,1
J~ II -H ri O '~ ~'~ I.n m O,1 O,1 m r-I b m
O O,1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Il 'q~ Lr~ I.~ ~ O,1 C'~ O OO O o0a0 O~O,1 O O ,~L,q 0~
O 00bd
11 I'd .................
O
~ ~ o oo o o oo o o o o o o o oo
oo o ooo
~ ~ o oo o o oo o o o o o o o oo
oo o ooo
~ H o oo o o oo o o o o o o o oo
oo o ooo
0 H 0 ~ ~ ~ Z Z
Z
H ~ m ~ ~ H H
H
~0 ~0 ~0 0 O0 ~0 ~0 ~0 DO 0 ~0 ~0 ~0
~0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
H I1 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
~ II Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh
Oh Oh Oh
0 , ~ O~ O> O> O> O> O> O~ O> O> O> O> O~ O>
O> O~
O0
ri r~ 0 0 ri 0 0 0 0 0 (:~ 0 0 Ul 0 0 ~.O ff"'
0 '~ ~0 ,-4 0 0 ,-I O1 04 0 ~ 0 ~ !~ 0 0 O~
~ rJ ,-~
II 0 r"l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >> ~ > ~ ~ ~oo~>ooo~u
~ ~ 0 0>~ ~ ~ U 0 ~ ~ ..................................
~ ~ ~ ~ >~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 H 000000~00000000000
~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ zz ~ ~ , ~ ,, ''~'3'~' '3' '~
II
~ ~ o o o ooo o oo o o o o oooooooooooooooooo
~ o o o ooo o oo o o o o oooooooooooooooooo
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o m OO~H~~O~
~ ~ o o o 0oo 0 OO o o o o 0ooooooooooooo00oo
H ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ OO ~ ~ ~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~ H -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~ ~ ~ H
0 ~
H ~ ~ H
~ 0 ~ ~ H
II ~ H H ~ H ~ ~
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 H
, ~ .. ~ .... ~ ~" 0 '- ~ -- - ~ -'
~ O0 ~0 0 0 0 ,0 ~0 0 ~0
II
II
II
II H ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o
It 0 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~
II ~ o o o o o o o o o o o
~ II ~ o o o o o o o o o o o
~ II
II o -. o .- o .- o .. o -. o -. o .. o -- o -. o -- o .-
~ II o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
ii ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ 0
o , ~ o~ o> o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o> o~ o>
o II
0 0 II
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
~ 11 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
~ II
~ II o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o~ o~ o~
II ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
~0 ~0
o , ~ o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o>
o II
0 0 II
~ ~ ~ ~ 0~0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
~ O0 0
0 0 ~
0
~
H
H 0
~
~0
o ~0 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 0 o0 o0 ~0 ~0 0
>o
H~
II
II
II
II 0 ~ ~ ~ o o o H ~ ~ H ~ ~ N
N ~ ~
II ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
~ II ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
~ II
· . II o -. o .- o .- o .- o -- o -. o .. o -. o -- o .- o .. o .- o ..
o -. o .. o -.
~ Ii o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o~ o~ o~
~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0' ~0 ~0
~0 ~0 ~0
o ~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o~ o~ o~
o
Oo ~
q:~ ~ ("',l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 C:) 0 0
-~ (",] 'mP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q.~ ,',3 ~ 0 0 0 0 u'l 0 0 O'~b3 0 0 0 0 LFI u3
o
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
II ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~
# 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ II o o ~ ~ ~ ~
Ii
II
#
II ~ ........
II ~ o ~ ~ ~ooo ~ ~ o ~o~~~~~~~
II 0
II
II
II
il ~ ~ ~ ~0~ 0 ~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~H~
II ~ ~ ~ OU~ ~ NO ~NN~~ 0~)~ O~N~H~I
,, § § §o § o
~ II N 0 0 0 0000 O0 O0 0000000000 000 000000 0
~ II H 0 0 0 0000 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000
·
~ II 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~~oooo~~~~
II
II ~ h ~
II H 0 0
,, =..
II ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0
II
II
il ~ o ~ ~ o o o o o
Ii · o o o o o o o o
~ II ~ ~ o o o o o o o
· . I! o .- o .. o -. o .. o .. o -. o .- o --
~ II · oo oo oo MO MO MU MU
I! · ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
o , Q o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o II
0 o II
H
II
H
II
II -H ~H~H~ OOOO~O O
II ~ ............................................
II ~ ~O~ O~H~ O ~O~~~~H~H~O~
II ~ H ~O~ ~~H~~ OOH~OO~O~
OO
Il ~ .....
II 0 H
II
fl
I!
H
U
II ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~HHHHHHHHH~HH HH HHHHH HH
II ~ ~ ~~ H~H~HHHHHHHHHHHHH~~HH~
II ~ ~~m~ ~~ H~
Il
Il { 00000000 00000000 000000000o00000000000000000
Il ~ 00000000 00000000 0o0000ooo000000000000000000
~ Il H 00000000 00000000 000000000000000000000000000
~ Il OOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O~ II
~ II ~¢~HH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1~111
~ II g ~~ ~~ ....... Illlll~lllll~lll~lll
Il
Il
II
II ~
II ~
II ~ ' H ~ H
II ~
II ~ ~
II ~ ~ ·
mO
II
II
il ~ ~ ~ H H
II 0 ~ ~ m
II ~ 0 0 0 0
II ~ 0 0 0 0
II ~ 0 0 0 0
~ II ~ 0 0 0 0
H II
· - II ~ 0 0 .. 0 .- o --
~ ~ ~0 O~ O~ O~
II ~ I ~ ~ 0 ~0
0 II ~ I 0 O~ O~
0
U 0 II ~ ~ O~ H
--
~H II g ~ ~ ~0
UN II · H H H ~ H
J~ II ~
0 0 II g
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
# 0 ~ ~
~ ~ o
mi 0
II · 0
II ~
II
II
"
II
I1
II
I!
II ~ .......................................
II ~o~~oo~~o~~o ~o~~ ~
~ o
II 0
ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ ~ HH HH HH 000 ~
HH~~~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
~ ~ ~
~HHHHHHHHHHHH~~~~~U~
0~ ~
0 UUHHHHHHHHHHHH~~~~~~
H" H ~
$ 00000000000000000000000000000000000
O0 0 0 0
~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000 O0 0 0 0
,, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . o o
~ , ~ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo o o o
~ II
~ " '~' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ';' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '~4 o > ~ ,
II
II
H
II
II
~
II ~
It o o
II 0
H
,
~ -- ~ ..
II o ~ ~ ~ ~
II m ~0 ~0 ~0
~0
II ~ U U 0 ~
II ~
H ~ 0 ~ ·
II
II
II
II 0 ~
~ ~ ~
II ~ 0
0 0 0 0
II ~ 0
0 0 0 0
II · 0
0 0 0
~ II ~ 0
0 0 0 0
H II
°° II 0
0 -* 0 -o 0 .- 0 -o
~ II 0
Oh Oh Oh
II ~ ~
~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ·
0 # ~ 0
O~ O~ O~
0 II
U 0 II H
~ ~ ~
~ H II O m
m m m
0 o II
B ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ 0
I|
II
#
#
#
II ~ o ~mo~ ~ oooo oo ~o~ ~ mmo~ oooooooooo m o
,, -, ~ ~~ ~ oooo ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooooooo ~ o
, ~ . . .___ ...........................
,, ~ ~ ~~ o oooo oo ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o
ii ~ ~ ~J
II 0
H
Il ~ ~ O0~H ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0~00
ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ooo..u~ H
~ H
II
~ II ~ o 00000o 0 000o oo 0oo Oo 00~o 0oooo0oooo
0 o
II ~ o ooo000 o oooo oo ooo oo oo~o o00ooo0o0o
o 0
~ ii 0 o ~oo~ ~ oo~ MM OM~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~
H II ~ ~ 000000 0 ~~ ~ ~ O0 00~0 ~~~~
~
~ II H H 000000 0 0~ ee HHH ~ 00~0 ~U~~
~
II
II H H
mi ~ ~ ~ ~
O
mi ~ 0 ~ H
11 H ~ H ~
ii o ~ u ~ H
. ~0 ~ o0 ~o 0 0 ~0 o0 ~0 ~ 0
II
II
II
II ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
~0
o II ~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o~
o
0 ~ II e H H H H H H H H H
H H
00 II
II
II
II
II ~ ~~ ~ ~ o~ o ~o o ~ ~ o
oo~ ~ oooo
II ~
II
II
~ OOOOOO OOO OO OO O OO O O OOOO O
OOO O OOOO
~ OOOOOO OOO OO OO O OO O O OOOO O
OOO O
~ H OOOOOO OOO OO OO O OO O O OOOO O
OOO O OOOO
~ ~ OOOOOO O~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OOO ~
~ OO ~ ~ ~m ~ m ~m~ O
OOO ~
0 ~ ~ H
H ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 0 ~ ~ H m
0 0 ~ ~
~ 0 ~ H ~ ~ ~ H
· . U -- ~ .. ~ .... ~ ~.. ~ ~ .... H ..- H .- ~"
II
II
II ~ o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
II · o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
$ II ~ o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
~ II · NO HO HO HO HO HO N O HO N 0 HO
N 0 N 0 HO
II · ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 .~0
~0 ~0 ~0
o II
0 o II
# 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
|!
#
#
#
H ~ ~O0~O00~O00~Offi~O~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
O0 ~ 0
, · ...................... ~ ......
II 0 I
I!
fi
I!
IL
II
II
~0~
II 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ h
~ ~ H
......,,...,,.,,.,,-,, ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~
II
II · 0000000000000000000000 0 000 0 0 0
O0 0 0
II N 0000000000000000000000 0 000 0 0 0
O0 0 0
N~ II OOOOOOOOOOO~~~O ~ ~HH ~ ~ O
~ O O
~ II H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO OO O OOO O O O
OO O O
~ II
W II ~ O
~ ~ O
~ II · H O
N U O
UO II ~ ~ O ~ O
~ H O
$ II 0 H~~H~~W~OOM~N~O I ~ N ~ II O
M , ~ ooooooooooooooooooooo~ ~ m~ ~ ~ N ~
II ~ 0
H
II H 0 ~ m
~
II H ~ ~ ~ N
~
II ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
II ~ ~ 0 ~
i, .... ;
,, ~0 ~0 z0 0~ ~ 0 m0 o0
Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ H~
~ ~ O~
II
II h ~ e e m ~ ~
o ~
H
~ II O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
O~ O~ O~
II ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
o II ~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~
o~ o~
o II
~ o II o ~ N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ - -
0 o II
II ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
H 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
II ·
, ~
I!
fl
fi
II
II
II ~ 0 N~e~O~O~~b~e~O~HNb~N 0 pb ~ ~ ~ O0
Il
Il
Il 0
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
II
II ~.-~0 ~K~ ~ ~O~H ~ ~
II ~H~~~ ~0~ O ~ ~H ~ ~ O~
o
fi
Z~O~ ~ 0 ~ O0 ~
00'~0~H~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ '
II
~H~0000~0~
l: { ~ I ' ~~
II
II ~ 000000000000000000000000 0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0
II ~ 000000000000000000000000 0 O0 OO 0 O0 O0 0
~ II ~~~oooooooooo~ ~ o~ ~ ~ Oo ~ O
~ II H oooooo oooooooooooooooooo O oo oo o o o oo o
~ II
Z~ II O O
~0 ~ ~~~~OO~~O O~ ~ OO O
~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ OO OO O ~ O
~ ~ 0
H ~
O ~ Z
0 0 H H
0 H m
H Z
~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .... ~ ~ .. ~
..
H~ H~ I~ ~
~ H~ ~
~0 ~0 0 ~0
II
II ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
# 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
II ~ 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0
# ~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ # ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H II
0- II 0 .- 0 00 0 0o 0 ,o 0 *o 0 *0 0 00 0 0- 0 .-
II ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
0 II ~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
0 II
0 0 II ~
II D ~ -
Il
#
II
#
I!
Il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O~ ~o ~ ~ O ~ O ~
II ~ ..................
II ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~o $o$ O ~ ~ ~ ~$ ~ o
~ ~
II ~ ~ O ~ ~ oo$ ~ ~ oo $ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
II 0 o
II ~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II ~ ~ H ~ ~ -~ ~ ~H ~H ~ O~ ~ ~
~ H
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~H ~ ~m ~ 0
~ ~ 00
II ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~m O~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ 0 00
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~0 ~ ii ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. .~ ~ ~ oo ~oo ~ ,, & o~ ~ ~
II
11 · o oo o oo oo ooo o oo oo o oo o o
o o oo
II ~ o oo o oo oo ooo o oo oo o o o o o
o o oo
II ~ H OO ~ OO ~ ~H B OO ~H ~ e~ O ~
~ ~
~ II H O OO O OO OO OOO O OO OO o OO O O
O O OO
0 ~ II o
~ Il · o o o>
II -H , ~ ~ ~ MO ~$~ $ ~$ ~ ~ O O ~
~
H II ~ O ~ ~ OO ~M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~ O H
O ~
II
II H ~ ~ H
II
II ~ H 0 ~ ~
~ H
II ~ H o ~ ~ ~ H
H
Il ~ ~ ~ 0 H
H 0
#
II
, o0 o0o00
II
II
#
II 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~ m
~ ~
a · o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
~ II ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o
H II
II o .. o ,- o *. o ,. o -- o ,- o -. o ,, o -* o -* o .- o --
o .- o -- o *- o ,-
~ II oh o h o h o h o h o h o h o h o h o h o h o h
o h o h o h
II ~ ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~0
0 I! ~ O> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o> o>
o> o> o>
0 II
0 I~ Il
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~H~ ~ H O0
~ ~0 ~ ~ 000000000000 ~m~H H~ 0
-~ 0 H 0~ ~ ~ H 000000000000 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00
~ ~ O O OO O OO O OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OO O O OO
~ ~ O O OO O OO O OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OO O O OO
~ ~ ~ ~O O ~ ~ OOOOOOOOO~ ~O O~ ~ ~
~ Ii H O O OO O OO O OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OO O O OO
~ Ii
II
II
, ~ 0 0 ~ ~
It ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~
H
,,
I! ~ · ~
, ~ .- ~ .... ~ ~ .. 0 -- 0" ~ -- ~ ~ -'
. uo ~o o o ~o ~o uo o ~o ~o oo ~o
II
II
II
II ~ 0 0 H H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
II · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ I1 ~ 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
H II
· - II 0 -- 0., 0 -- 0 .. 0 .. 0 -- 0 -. 0 -. 0 -. 0 -- 0 -- 0 .-
~ II 0 ~ 0 ~ O~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ti w ~o HO HO ~O ~O ~0 ~0 ~O ~0 ~0 ~O HO
I! · ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~u ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0
0 II ~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ o> O~
0 II
0 0 II
II ,U '
'
II 0 M) ~ Il'} ',~ ('~ (~1 ['" 0 ~-I 0 0 M) I~ IZ3
~ ~
II
II
II ~ o o~ ~ ~o ~ o o o o oo o ~ o ~
~
II -H ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ o o o ~ o ~
~
II · ....... ' ' '
II ~
II 0
II
II
H H ~ ~ ~1~ O ~ ~O ~ H OO~kO
~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ >~o~ ~ ~
O~
~ ~ O O OO O O OOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOO
OOO O
~ ~ O O OO O O OOOOOOOOOOOO O O O OOOOO
OOO O
O O OO O ~ ~OOOOOOHm~O ~ O ~ ~m~mm
~oo ~
~ H o O OO o o oooooooooooo O O o OOOOO
OOO O
o
~
O0 O H 0 ~ HHHHHH"N~MH ' ~ O ~ffO~ff
~00
~ ,, > ~ . ~ o o ~N~~~ ~ ~ ~ oo~o~ Moo
H II ~ D ~ ~ O ~ OOOOOOOOOOOO ~ D " ~~
~
II
II
II H ~ ~ ~ 0
II ~ H ~ ~ 0 H
II ~ ~ ~ ~ H
~ H 0 ~
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~
H
Ii ZN ZN ON N
,," o..
o..
, o -o o ~ o o ~ o -o o
II
II
II
I| ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 II ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0. # 0 .- 0 -- 0 -, 0 -. 0 -- 0 .- 0 -- 0 '- 0 -0 0
-. 0 -0 0 o-
~ II O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
O~
II ~ ~0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0
~0
0 U ~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
O~
0 0 I!
(Xl II ~1 {"' 0 ~ ¢0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0
o P' ~1 ~ 0,1
, ~ · ~; ,; ....... ~ ,
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ' 0 0 ~ ~ ~
0 ~ I -,
II ·
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II ~ o omm m o ~ o o o o o o ~ o
o o m
II -H ~ ~ N N ~ e ~ O 0 ~ O O O O O
0 O h
II ~ ........
II ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~
o ~
II ~
'
II ~
II
II
II
II
Il
II
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ H ~ 0
~ 0
II ~ HHH ~ ~ ~ ~ H .... ~ ~
fl 0 ~ 000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~
~ ~
ii
0 ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
II -H H H ~ ~ ,j ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o
H II ~ m ooo ~ o o o ~ H ~ ~ o ~
~ w
~ II H ~ ~ ~ H o H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
H ~ O
II
II H ~
I~ ~ ~ ~ H
II ~ ~ H ~
fl ~ H ~
H 0 ~ ~
0
II ~ ~ m ~ ~ 0 ~
II ~ ~ ~ H ~ H ~
~
~ Z.. ~ .. m -- ~ ~ .. ~.- 0 .- ~-'
~ -' ~" ~" m--
# o o OO ~o -o ~o o -o -o
~ o ~o
II ~ ~ ~ OO ZO t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~
h~ O~
II ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
~ H
II ~ O~ ~ ~ H~ ~ ~ ~ H~ ~ H~
H~ ~ ~
II
II
II
II h ~ ~ b m ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m ~
~ ~ ~
II
~ n w ~o ~0 ~o ~0 ~o ~0 H0 ~0 ~0 ~0 H0 ~0
~O ~O H0 ~0
II · ~0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0
~ 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~0
O II ~ o~ O> o~ O~ o~ O~ o~ o~ O~ O~ o~ O~
O~ O~ O~
O II
00 II
-~ O0 0 0(~1 0 (Xl ~0 ~ (7~ Lfl ~ (Xl ~ ~ kO ~
0
0
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Was reviewed and approved
by the Finance Committee during their meeting on September 25, 2000.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve August 2000
Monthly Financial Report
......
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1st READING
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION ENACTMENT READ
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
K:~N~MFR~GNDABLL.DOC
OITY eF ~',~m-,~,.~ ,
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 21, 2000
To: Frnance, Economic Development & Regional Affairs Committee
From: Made Mosley, Deputy Management Services Director
Subject: August Monthly Financial Report
Action Requested:
Accept the August Monthly Financial Report and forward to the October Council meeting for approval.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Chair. Mary GateScommittee ~? ~//~'"Member:./- ?''Michael~''~'L~l~° m mittee M ember.Hellic
K:~FIN~FR~MFRCVR. DOC
Questions?? Conlac~:
Marie Mosley 6614063
Tho Kraus 66 I-4170
Sandra Jurich 661-4096
- C,l'r¥ ~F ~ Tarn SweU 6614062
A Cit for All of Us"
Overview 1
Significant Events 1
General Government
Revenues 2-8
Expenditures 9-12
Attachment A 13
August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
The Monthly Financial Report is intended to provide an overview of financial activity that has taken place in the reporting period.
This report focuses mainly on activity incurred in the following operating funds: General, S~xeet, Arterial S~xeet, Utility Tax
Projects, Solid Waste & Removal, Snow & Ice Removal, Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax, Paths & Trail, Surface Water Management,
Slrategio Reserve, Airport Strategic Reserve, Debt Service, and Dumas Bay Centre. The Snmmary of Sollrc, es and Uses
(Attachment A) captures financial activity through August for the years 1995 through 2000..
Annual Audit '
The City received an "unqualified opinion" from the Washington State Auditor's Office for t~e 1999 annual audit, with no'
f'mdings or management letter. The last six audits have all been of similar nature.
Biennial Budget
The 2001/2002 Proposed Biennial Budget was presented to Council at lhe September 19* City Council Meeting. The budget
includes proposed operating expenditures of $38.3 million and $38.8 million for 2001 and 2002 respectively. Proposed ope~ting
revenues total $40.6 million and $41.2 million for 2001 and 2002 respectively. Department presentations and special study
sessions are scheduled for October 24 - 26e~.-- -
Cit~ of Federal Way August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
GENE~L GOYERHMENTAL REYENUES: ~;~,~:,~i~;,~ . ~.~: ~.
General governmental operating revenue collections through August total $26,828,25 l, which is $3,930,002 or 17.2% above the
year-to-date budget of $22,898,25 I. Of this amount, $1,203,777 is related to Utility taxes and REET that are reserved for the
payment of debt service. Attachment A provides a comparison of year-to-date revenues by major sources for 2000 with
comparative figures for the past 5 years.
Property Tax 6,833,380 3,672,303 53.7% 3,672,303 0.0%
17,977
Sales Tax 8,837,773 6,887,845 77.9% 5,765,061 1,122,785 19.5% 928,307
Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 87,035 65,604 75.4% 54,611 10,992 20.1% 12,106
Criminal Justice Sales Tax 1,409,626 1,065,926 75.6% 919,312 146,614 15.9% 153,914
Gambling Tax 1,209,600 944,917 78.1% 801,070 143,847 18.0% 139,137
Utility Tax 4,703,276 3,760,934 80.0% 3,205,701 555,233 17.3% 407,926
Real Estate Excise Tax 1,200,000 1,431,606 119.3% 783,063 648,543 82.8% 203,678
Franchise Fees 515,508 366,549 71.1% 385,084 (18,535) -4.8%1
Licenses & Permits 118,253 64,743 54.7% 98,664 (33,920) -34.4%! 4,256
Intergovernmental 3,152,273 3,037,741 96.4% 2,289,547 748,194 32.7% 213,595
CD Building Permits & Fees 1,006,182 700,041 69.6% 691,692 8,349 1.2%: 63,482
CD Pass Thru Fees 81,226 na 81,226 na 18,844
PW Permits & Fees 226,567 200,141 88.3% 148,167 51,973 35.1% 21,404
PW Pass Thru Fees 32,057 na 32,057 na 3,748
SWM Fees 3,142,645 1,624,892 51.7% 1,624,892 0.0% 21,720
Refuse Fees 150,752 83,681 55.5% 100,501 (16,820) -16.7% 12,001
Admin Fees 171,006 99,335 58.1% 114,004 (14,669) -12.9% -
Fines & Forfeits 949,700 632,161 66.6% 652,226 (20,065) -3.1% 100,252
Recreation Fees 549,852 415,721 75.6% 408,188 7,533 1.8% 68,582
Knutzen Theatre Operations 62,230 39,321 63.2% 41,487 (2,165) -5.2% 5,373
Dumas Bay Centre Operations 447,655 305,931 68.3% 286,499 19,432 6.8% 43,589
Public Safety 343,148 525,356 153.1% 228,765 296,591 129.6% 57,902
·
Interest Earnings 911,054 745,940 81.9% 546,601 199,339 36.5% 130,938
~
Miscellaneous Revenue 146,782 44,280 30.2% 80,814 (36,533) -45.2% 3,831
Subtotal Operations I 36,174,297 26,828,251 74.2% 22,898,251 3,930,002 17.2% 2,632,562
Other Financing Sources 6,648,822 2,706,153 40.7% 2,706,153 - 0.0%
Total Revenues 42,823,119 29,534,404 69.0% 25,604,404 3,930,002 15.3% 2,632,562
*Shows actuals as % of year-to-date budget. For example, 50% means actual revenues were half of what was budgeted
for that period.
COMPARISON OF 2000 OPERATING REVENUES - BUDGET TO
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,0oo
$5,000,000
S-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
City of Federal Wap August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
Property tax
Property tax revenues collected through August totals $3,672,303. When compared to 1999, this is an increase of $115,062 or
-'~.2%. Actual taxes received in the current month total $17,977.
Sales Tax
Sales tax received through August of $6,887,845 is $ i, 122,783 or 19.5% above the year-to-date budget of $5,765,061. Compared
to 1999 year-to-date, sales tax increased $673,761 or 10.8%. Sales tax received in the month of August totals $928,307 that is
$193,568 or 26.3% above the adopted budget estimate. Compared to August 1999, sales tax increased $73,109 or 8.6%.
MoOth ~ ; ~ i i Act~ ACtual i S Variance */,Variance
January $ 654,256 $ ~1.,666 $ 623,386 $ 638,862 $ 711,432 $ 678,339 $ 764,071 $ 85,733 12.6e/~
February 882,234 883,229 902,478 949,276 1,013,425 958,461 1,201,953 243,492 25.4e/,
March 602,830 607,790 640,967 714,640 717,005 678,764 759,673 80,888 11.9~/,
April 573,687 577,022 ~ 582,547 575,596 633,460 609,871 778,206 168,335 27.6~
May 624,667 768,980 660,733 655,396 783,051 723,361 859,218 135,857 18.8%
June 599,100 607,104 669,058 769,461 772,812 705,005 797,833 92,828 13.2%
July 617,531 600,594 678,567 645,475 727,701 676,502 798,587 122,085 18.0%
August 676,546 650,423 694,702 682,263 855,198 734,739 928,307 193,508 26.3%
September 713,489 734,368 735,617 850,295 896,291 811,411 0.0%
October 676,731 652,886 657,100 761,561 817,021 736,316 0.0%
November 654,050 666,751 687,585 739,326 880,787 747,958 0.0%
Decem~ 650,~ ~ ~.611 793,528 800,018 855,762 777,0~7
~udget is projeded based on past 5 )~a¢$ history.
Retail sales continue to remain the largest source, accounting for 64.0% of all sales tax collections. Year-to-date retail sales tax
collections are up $393,239 or 9.8% over 1999, attributable to the addition of several new retail stores that have facilitated the
overall increase in retail activity.
Year-to-date construction and contracting activity, which accounts for 11.2% of sales tax collections, is up $189,144 or 32.4%
compared to 1999 activity. One construction company is responsible for over 40% of this increase. They are one of the top 10
sales tax revenue contributors over the last 12 months. This increase is further reflected in the City's building permit trends.
Manufacturing activity through the end of August has generated $105,161 in revenues. This is down $102,618 when compared to
1999. Just over 75% of this variance is due to a major manufacturing company recently moving out of the state. However since
they continue to have sales in Federal Way, we will still be receiving sales tax from them, but in much smaller monthly
remittances. Since their move in April of 1999 we have been receiving only a few hundred dollars each month. We expect this
to continue throughout the year.
Government activity through August totals $100,952, which is an increase of $14,718 or 17.1% over 1999. This is due to
additional distributions to the Department of Licensing account that relate to the prior period, as well as an overall increase in the
monthly activity.
Ci.tF of Federal Way August 2000 Monthlv Financial Report
RetailTrade $3,353,152 $3,492,756 $3,528,858 $3.591,822 $4,012,299 $4,405,538 $ 393,239 9.8%
Services 434,313 474,993 515,477 543,512 573,645 687,610 113,964 19.9%
Construction/Contracting 452,065 285,724 384,998 381,932 563,900 773,044 189,144 32.4%
Wholesaling 359,641 457,010 302,647 332,621 365,612 423,904 56,292 15.9%
Transp/Comm/Utilities 218,620 186,939 239,340 238,667 246,489 253,205 6,716 2.7%
Manufacturing 245,228 271,716 266,327 300,454 207,779 105,161 (102,618) -49.4%
Government 63,530 69,747 72,063 90,264 86,234 100,952 14,718 17.1°A
Finance/Insur/Real Estate 44,776 50,572 64,509 75,777 79,890 77,930 (1,960) -2.5%
Other 49,526 50,350 56,682 75,901 58,235 60,500 2,265 3.9%
Sales Tax Activity by Area
The City's largest retail center, South 348th retail center, which generates just over 15% of the City's sales tax has experienced a
growth of $25,456 or 2.5% when compared to 1999. This is due to an increase in retail activity in all categories located in the
retail center.
Hotels & Motels sales tax collected totals $62,328 through August, which is an increase of $34,252 or 122.0% over the prior year.
This is due to several new hotels in the area, whose revenues have been gradually increasing the first few months of 2000. This
increase in activity can also be seen in Hotel/Motel Lodging tax activity.
96 change from previous yr 16.0% 21.6% 1.8% 11.8% 6.9% 11.0%
2.5% ne na
Percentage of total 12.4% 14.596 14.5% 15.8% 16.4% 16.5%
15.2~ *1.2% -7.5%
SeaTac Mall
Retail Trade 731,1 82 704,338 656,985 655,558 608,573 628,759
637,959 9,200 1.5%
Wholesaling 15,1 98 13,466 12,933 14,267 16,1 53 23,230
25,182 1,953 8.4%
Services 6,593 6,653 13,953 8,995 7,631 7,576
6,384 (1,193) -15.7%
Manufacturing 6,597 6,666 8,272 9,066 10,202 14,825
17,020 2,195 14.8%
Transp/CommlUfilities 8 -
na
% change from previous yr 15.0% .3.7% -5.3% -0.6% -6.6% 5.0%
1.8% na na
Percentage of total 15.1% 14.0% 13.0% t2.6% 11.4% 10.9%
10.0% -0.9% -8.2~
% change from previous yr 35.4% .6.396 13.396 .2.096 -4.796 10.296
2.396 na na
Percentage of total 4.8% 4.496 4.9% 4. 7% 4.396 4.396
4.096 -0.396 -7. 796
8!~it~i~i~i~iBi~i! i~,~,,~ ~. ~ ' .............. ,i~', 'iii. ;i i 'i~ .~ ............ , ........ ~.~ ~';:~,~i: '~ '~' r ';~r~' ' '~ .... ~ ......... ~ '~;'
% change from previous yr 10.8% 3.8% -7.3% -12.5% 2.1% 7.0%
13.3% na ne
Percentage of total 1.3% 1.396 1.296 1.096 1.0% 1.096
1.0% 0.0% 2.296
% change from previous yr ne na na na -2.5% -5.796
25.3% ns na
Percentage of total ne na 1.696 1.7% 1.6% 1.4%
1.5% 0.296 13.196
96 change from previous yr 12.7% 20.~ -10.6% 13.5% -4.896 7.896
122.0%; na na
Percentage of total 0.496 0.596 0.5% 0.596 0.5% 0.596
0.996 0.5% 100.3%
SeaTac Mall is showing an increase of $12,154 or 1.8% when compared to 1999 activity. Three major retailers located in the
mall reported an increase in activity over 1999.
Major Auto Sales through August have collected $273,972, which is an increase of $6,267 or 2.3% over 1999. This is due to
increased sales at the end of 1999 facilitated by_the passing of 1-695, which reduced the price of car tabs to $30.
Ci~ of Federal I~aF August 2000 MonthlF Financial Report
South 312~ to South 316z block sales tax activity has increased by $8,044 or 13.3% over 1999 activity. This is mainly due to
increased activity in the retail food stores and retail eating and drinking category.
,vilion Center sales tax activity has increased by $21,393 or 25.3% over last year due to the recent addition of a major
fabric/craf~ store to the center.
Gambling Tax
Gambling tax collections are up $143,847 or 18.0% over the budgetary estimate of $801,070. Compared to 1999, collections are
down $21,825 or 2.2%, which is due to an establishment operating Card room activity for part of 1999, but only Pull tabs in 2000.
August collections are up $48,082 or 52.8% compared to the monthly budget estimate. The increase offsets June's below budget
figure as payments were received in July.
January $34,518 $24,558 $31,616 $28,182 $90,611 $96,849 $124,119 $27,270 28.2%
February 34,518 24,558 34,403 21,305 98,117 96,195 116,227 20,032 20.8%
March 34,518 24,558 30,346 23,182 104,183 95,432 106,912 11,480 12.0%
April 28,811 29,665 36,041 29,498 130,536 111,387 141,769 30,381 27.3%
May 28,811 29,665 31,106 19,025 150,818 105,833 108,450 2,618 2.5%
June 28,811 29,665 29,421 20,121 145,174 104,525 98,625 (5,901) -5.6%
July 25,653 17,721 26,096 34,691 137,222 99,793 109,678 9,885 9.9%
August 25,653 17,721 17,016 36,336 110,081 91,056 139,137 48,082 52.8%
September 25,653 17,721 18,454 36,915 111,146 92,408
October 18,681 28,715 23,907 50,005~ 115,324 106,694
November 18,681 28,715 20,591 51,544' 118,762 105,859
December 18,681 28,715 19,766 48,147 118,390 103,568
Real Estate Excise Tax
For the year-to-date comparison, real estate excise tax continues to exceed prior year's collections. Through August, revenues
total $1,431,606 which is $648,543 or 82.8% above budgetary projections of $783,062. For the current month, we received
$203,678 which is $90,480 or 79.9% above the monthly estimate of $113,198. The current month includes over 212 sales
transactions with the largest transaction being the sale of the Glen Park Associates residential apartment complex on SW Campus
Drive.
$ 146,325 $ 163,211 $ 289,269 $ 93,147 $ 103,300 $ 10,154 10.9%
94,719 119,717 65,939 58,710 103,388 44,678 76.1%
101,508 82,116 80,862 74,070 166,189 92,119 124.4%
132,678 166,282 203,522 110,136 166,725 56,556 51.4%
186,187 189,860 169,610 104,960 183,110 78,149
June 108,060 270,672 162,569 101,074 182,137 81,062 80.2%
120,432 295,736 278,955 127,767 323,080 195,313 152.9%
231,911 324,962 194,853 113,198 203,678 90,480 79.9%
181,490 137,949 326,168 119,222 0.0%
151,333 204,439 279,424 106,563
216,381 143,877 209,096 89,950 0.0%
188,999 132,448 177,881 101,203 0.0%
REValue $ 372,004,440 $ 446,253,716 $ 487,629,564 $ 240,000,000 $ 286,321,t82 $ t29,708,663
*Represents mo~hly histodcal patterns for the 2000 Adored Budget.
5
City of Federal WaF August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax
Hotel/motel lodging tax collected through August totals $65,604, which represents activity for November 1999 through June 2000.
This is $10,994 or 20.1% above budget.
Utility Tax
Utility tax received through August totals $3,760,934, which is $555,234 or 17.3% above the monthly estimate. Compared to
1999, utility tax receipts have increased $164,122 or 4.5%. Cellular taxes exceed the budgetary estimates by $261,289 or 108.8%,
which is consistent with prior months. This is due to an increase in the number of cellular communication companies in our area,
as well as an overall increase in cellular activity.
Electric 853,197 1,296,264 1,374,144 1,827,059 1,235,896 1,400,563 $ 164,667
Gas 274,914 426,187 470,968 527,067 402,205 518,824 116,619 29.0%
Garbage 145,642 198,397 212,589 320,005 202,908 242,263 39,355 19.4%
Cable 214,828 291,816 349,334 472,864 305,807 316,290 10,483 3.4%
Phone 410,532 641,593 711,640 969,706 726,647 703,501 (23,146) -3.2%
Storm Drainage 78,373 56,848 81,872 181,948 85,666 74,311 (11,355) -13.3%
Cellular 166,574 261,242 389,772 393,227 240,221 501,510 261,289 108.8%
Pagers 4,950 7,341 6,493 11,400 6,351 3,672 (2,679) -42.2%
Table reflects reporting activity through July
State Shared Revenue
State shared revenues collected total $4,103,664 and are exceeding budgetary estimates by $894,805 or 27.9%. The majbrity of
the variance is due to the city receiving its 2000 and 2001 distribution fi-om the state of $228,709 and $457,120 respectively, to
offset the losses resulting fi-om the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax under 1-695. Criminal justice sales tax, which is
included in state shared revenues, totals $1,065,926 and is exceeding budget by $146,614 or 15.9%.
ta:~0r~mTax $ 306,837 $ 315,154 $ 224,981 $ 238,(306 $ 2S3,056 $ 187,882 $ 2a2,556 $ 14,674
Liquar R-c;iL~ T~( 242, 475 242, 475 242, 475 242, 475 24Z 475 229,231 235,148 5, 917
I.iquor E)cise T~ 119,415 112,844 114,776 119,0/0 124,354 179,129 185,941 6,812 3,8~A
Q'im Just L.o, vPq3/D(~ 167,728 182,930 116,(339 63,737 63,4(;2 71,723 71,723 - 0.0°/
Otim Just I-~ Qirm 63,6~8 65,972 61,637 67,343 86,490 - - m
Equar~lien 140,834 103,593 93,244 92,159 98,493 24,103 24,103 - 0.0~A
Local O~m Just 528,942 533,959 607,717 648,178 706,006 919.312 1,065,93~ 146,614 15.9~A
DU - Caies 10,~8 i 8,192 5,192
Ci~. of Federal H/ay August 2000 Monthly Financt_n~! Report
Fines and Forfeitures
-Vear-to-date fines and forfeitures are below budgetary projections by $20,064, or 3.1%. Revenues are exceeding prior year's
:tivity by $46,01 lor 7.8% through August. DUI and other misdemeanors collected through August total $104,646, which is
$51,040 or 95.2% above the estimated budget of $53,606. Criminal costs collected year-to-date total $67,867, which is $41,679 or
159.1% above budget estimates.
January $58,898 $50,642 $36,755: $60.696 $64.79O $69.293
$61.931 ($7.362) (0)
February 33,042 56.197 38.609 67,000 68,187 74,077
86.177 12,100 16.3%
M arch 36, 296 47.205 46,673 84.432 87.418 80.288
85,133 4,845 6.0%
~.pril 54,415 51.762 51,192 57,881 86.409 85,020
74,618 (10.402) -12.2%
May 49,764 54.538 52.978 73.670 61,806 81.699
76,910 (4,789) -5.9%
rune 56,220 46,811 50,903 65,060 75,375 64.187
73.993 00.196) -12.1%
July 69,336 48.681 53.016 81.666 66,411 83, t23
73,148 (9,975) -12.0%
IAugust 54,319 63.650 65, 748 63,201 75.755 94,539
100,252 5,714 6.0%
September 53,235 35,218 56,801 72,363 64.884 77,993
October 50,022 41,486 56,376 74,815 59.561 80,015
November 50,281 33,604 45,810 57.001 64.896 70,181
December 40,104 30,269 67,590 33,327 58.463 69,285
* Included in Final & For~s are mnlittanoe$ from Dist~ct Court for'Shared Court Costs' 'Courl Recon:l SenZ~ce$* and o~her Court re.ted miscellaneous revenue.
Building permits & Plan Check Fees
Building permit revenues collected total $700,040, which is above budget estimates by $8,348 or 1.2%. This does not include pass
brough revenues of $81,226 for expedited and environmental review. Revenues collected for expedited review are currently not
included in the budget. Building permits, which includes mechanical, plumbing and clear/grade permits total $304,227 through
the end of August. This is a decrease of $127,531 or 19.5% compared to the adopted budget of $431,808. Electrical permits total
$67,356, which is below budget by less than .1%. Plan check fees collected through August total $234,723, which is $86,123 or
57.9% above the adopted budget of $148,600.
//
~$ 77.,,1 ~ 62.985
F~76 [ 44.,~I s1...I ~3.087 98.739 70.358
^~" I~'~°S I 81.0601 93.26o I 82.568 88.404 87.462
May I "5,038I 50,280 ] 52.379 ~ 60,598 161.106 94,271
J.~ e~5 I .~.2~7 ~7~30I ~0~.773 ~..~74 ~03.33~
J~" I 6<055I 50~00I 1",030 115,23~ "2,024
~~' I 6~o72I 5~,~t I 129,554 134,783 88,954
s~8~ 37,509 ~ 61,053 ; 82,001 96,216 86,590
0~4 I 42~ ~,776 [ 111,246 52,306 75,845
.~3~ I ~3 ~2.~85I 88,~88 87,017 72,558
Re~o I 37.1~1 34.9~I 38.6%I 46.2~ 62.7~ 42.3~
YTD Recove~ Ratio 37.8~ 36.9~ 41.4~
** Expenditures include Community Development Administra~on (001-5200-071), Planning (001-5200~73) and Building (001-5200-074).
7
Ci~, o[ Federal Wa.F August 2000 MonthlF Financial Repor~
ROgF Permits and Fees
Overall Public Works permits and fees collected through July total $200,141, which is $51,973 or 35.1% above the adopted
budget. This does not include pass through revenues of $32,057 for expedited review. Plan review fees collected total $128,830,
which is $28,907 or 45.9% above the budget estimate.
January $ 22,397 $ 12,71S $ 7,041 $ 16,188 $ 19,293 $ 16,848 $ 25,214 $ 8,366
February 6,797 23,627 8,583 8,437 16,802 14,177 14,452 $ 275 1.9°/=
March 11,568 10,708 26,504 12,347 38,782 19,833 22,290 $ 2,457 12.4°/~
April 11,224 14,751 9,079 19,977 16,286 22,553 22,313 $ (240) -1.1%
May 18,991 21,158 9,551 26,621 12,147 16,694 45,771 $ 29,077 174.2%
June 7,131 8,283 9,977 26,339 17,944 20,605 24,810 $ 4,205 20.4°/~
July 9,726 29,676 12,353 21,002 10,643 18,506 23,887 $ 5,380 29.1°/~
August 9,339 18,645 27,438 26,631 23,777 18,951 21,404 $ 2,453 12.9%
September · 9,006 15,252 26,180 24,786 10,345 17,751
October 22,059 14,041 15,049 22,326 14,652 19,932
November 27,799 13,524 18,019 28,331 18,508 20,520
December 22,638 14,832 19,049 19,968 12,2;14 20,196
Monthly Average 14,890 16,435 15,735 21,079 17,616 18,881 40,028 10,395 n;
CiO, of Federal Way August 2000 MonthlF Financial Report
Jeneral governmental expenditures through August total $23,189,168 or 60.9% of the annual operating budget of $38,106,687.
Operating expenditures are below the year-to-date budget of $24,269,901 by $1,080,736 or 4.5%. When compared to 1999,
expenditures are up $2,433,291 or 11.7%.
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT
Period Ending August 31, 2000
City Council 197,385 156,409 79.2% 159,386 2,977 7,080
City Manager 605,720 284,307 46.9% 406,474 122,167 30.1' 32,654
Municipal Court-Operations 909,241 462,596 50.9% 606,161 143,565 23.7% 60,957
Municipal Court-Startup 91,122 87,956 na 87,956 na 578
Management Services 1,854,269 1,006,401 54.3% 1,220,766 214,365 17.6% 106,174
Civil/Criminal Legal Services 1,219,275 811,632 66.6% 797,968 (13,664) -1.7% 84,020
Community Development 3,290,641 1,918,060 58.3% 2,225,962 307,902 13.8% 190,598
Public Safety 12,665,324 8,314,556 65.6% 8,356,150 41,594 0.5% 918,469
Jail Services 1,200,000 937,012 78.1% 769,177 (167,835) -21.8% 123,157
Parks and Recreation 3,106,062 2,037,708 65.6% 2,095,470 57,762 2.8% 290,103
Dumas Bay Centre Operations 501,430 321,412 64.1% 323,106 1,694 0.5% 44,759
Knutzen Theatre Operations 162,230 117,030 72.1% 108,153 (8,877) -8.2% 18,625
Public Works Operations 3,515,383 1,923,786 54.7% 2,199,368 275,582 12.5%, 244,152
PW Asphalt Overlay Program 1,898,410 1,248,918 65.8% 1,248,918 0.0%: 692,301
Solid Waste & Recycling 312,366 188,078 60.2% 195,645 7,467 3.8% 20,849
Snow & Ice Removal 55,052 6,493 11.8% 6,493 0.0% 717
Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 115,000 40,424 35.2% 40,424 0.0% 7,394
Surface Water Management 1,795,621 1,073,100 59.8% 1,169,136 96,036 8.2% 133,007
Debt Service 4,612,156 2,253,288 48.9% 2,253,288 0.0% 2,392
Subtotal Operations 38,106,687 23,189,168 60.9% 24,269,901 1,080,736 4.5% 2,977,988
Other Financing Uses 10,770,669 4,276,722 39.7% 4,276,722 0.0%
Total Expenditures 48,877,356 27,465,890 56.2% 28,546,623 1,080,736 3.8% 2,977,988
* Shows actuals as % of year-to-date budget. For example, 50% means actual ex )enditures were half of what was
budgeted for that pedod.
COMPARISON OF 2000 OPERATING EXPENDITURES - BUDGET TO ACTUAL
$40,000,000 Budgeted!
$35,000,000 Expenditures
$38,106,687
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5
S-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
9
City of Federal Way August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
Municipal Court
Through August, Municipal Court Startup has expended $87,956 of its carry-forward budget of $91,122, the majority of which are
the remaining invoices from the property manager for tenant improvement.
Municipal Court Operations expenditures total $462,596, which is below the budgetary estimate by $143,564 or 23.7%. Over half
of this total consists of salaries and benefits, including temporary help and overtime. Temporary help has expended $73,678
through August, which includes charges for security guards.
Civil/Criminal Legal
Activity through August totals $811,632 and is above the budget estimate by $13,664 or 1.7%. Salaries and benefits, which make
up 66.3% of the budget, are 73.7% expended, for a total of $529,514.
Community Development Operations
Total expended through August is $1,918,060 or 58.3.5% of the annual appropriation of $3,290,641. Through August, CD is
below their budget by $307,903 or 13.8% of the year-to-date budget of $2,225,963. Other services and charges total $370,891 or
52.3% of the total budget of $709,444. The variance is partially due to the timing of human services contract payments. Internal
service fund charges total $315,923 or 48.2% of the total budget of $655,057. Internal service fund charges for July and August
were allocated during the month of August.
Parks & Recreation Operations
Expenditures total $2,037,708, which is $57,762 or 2.8% below the year-to-date budget estimate ($2,095,470). This is 65.6% of
its annual appropriation. Savings can be found in services and charges, which total $443,131 or 55.7% of its annual budget
($796,286). Through August, temporary help totals $244,896 or 83.4% of its annual budget ($293,708).
Knutzen Family Theatre
Operating expenditures through August total $117,030 or 72.1% of the adopted budget ($162,230). The current expenditures
exceed year-to-date budget ($108,153) by $8,877 or 8.2%. This year-to-date budget is a straight-line allocation of the annual
budget, based on the fact that we do not have any history upon which to base future fluctuations in spending. Operating revenues
collected total $39,321, which is 63.2% of the annual budget ($62,230). This is below the year-to-date budget, which is also a
straight-line allocation, by $2,165 or 5.2%. The Theatre has recovered 33.6% of all operating costs as of the end of August.
They are budgeted to recover 38.3% with operations, and the remaining subsidized by utility taxes. We anticipate full recovery.by
the end of year.
Public Works Operations
Operating expenditures are below the August budget estimate ($2,199,368) by $275,583 or 12.5%, and expended $1,923,786 or
54.7% of its annual appropriation ($3,515,383). Other services and charges total $285,359, which is only 39.1% of its annual
budget. Intergovernmental expenditures through the current month total $274,292, which is 60.3% of the total budget ($455,036).
About half of this total consists of King County invoices that relate to 1999 activity. Capital expenditures total $79,307, which is
55.4% of the allocated budget ($143,240). The majority of this is related to the remodeling of the old fire station at Steel Lake,
which is the offsite location for the Streets Maintenance Crew. The remodeling should be completed toward the end of summer.
Surface Water Management Operations
SWM operations is below budget projection by $96,036 or 8.2% of the August estimate of $1,169,136. Supplies are currently
33.8% expended at $13,412. Intergovernmental expenditures are 38.3% expended at $41,213 due to payment of WSDOT street
maintenance contracts per Interlocal Agreements, during the month of August. Salaries and benefits total $521,144, which is
53.6% of its annual budget ($972,919). This is due to the vacancy of budgeted positions within the division.
Public Safety
Police Services has expended $8,314,556 through August, which is $41,594 or .5% below the budgetary estimate of $8,356,150;
Salaries & benefits, which are 68% of their total budget (excluding temporary help, overtime Police security, regular overtime &
termination pay), totaled $6,016,514. This is 69.6% of the almual budget ($8,642,765). Overtime Police security totals $83,150
through August, but is offset by revenues collected for the services provided.
Jail Service is above August budget estimates ($769,177) by $167,835 or 21.8%. The total expended does not include invoices for
July and August. The chart shows cash basis jail cost and booking activity for December through June only.
10
City o.f Federal FF'a~ August 2000 Monthl~ Finat~c!~! Repo, t
Jail Costs vs Bookings & Maintenance
Through August
~ :: $ 937,012
19,500
18,000
· i 16,500
~t5,000
~;50o i:.
oo
Other Financing Uses/Interfund Transfers total $4,276,722 or 39.7% of the annual budget ($10,770,669). This includes
$1,327,101 of interfund operating ~msfers from Utility taxes. The allocation consists of $142,000 for Celebration Park ($91,000
one-time funding and $51,000 on-going maintenance and operations), $117,200 for maintenance and operations on Streets bond
projects, $967,901 for the Overlay project and $100,000 to subsidize the Knutzen Family Theatre.
perating Expenditures By Category
The chart below shows operating expenditures and f'mancing uses through August 31, 2000 by category or object code.
City Manager Contingency Fund 701,324
Personnel Services 15,303,210 10,212,199
Benefits 3,444,708 2,152, 546
Supplies 746,342 431,491
Other Services and Charges 4,737,555 2,631,976 9.7%
Intergovernmental Services/Taxes 3,181,259 2,074,012
Interfund Contributions 10,012,645 4,276,722 42.7%
Residual Equity Transfers 418,763 73,880
Capital Outlays 2,211,711 1,440,878 65.1~
Debt Service- Principal 2,788,739 1,357,950
Debt Service - Interest 1,823,417 895,338 49.1 (
I nterfu nd Svc Payments 3, 507, 744 1,918, 896 54.7%
Expenditures I Uses 48,877,356 27,465,889
Salaries, which comprises 31.4% of the operating budget, is at 66.7% expended. Included in this number are temporary help,
seasonal help, overtime pay, overtime-private security and termination pay.
11
Ci,~ of Federal Way August 2000 Monthly Financial Report
Other services and charges have only expended 56.4% of its annual budget ($4,589,075), with savings in Community
Development, Solid Waste and Recycling, Parks and Recreation and Law.
Capital outlays, which includes $1.9 million for the arterial streets overlay project, is at 65.1%. Of the $1,440,878 in expenditures
through August, 82.8% can be attributed to the Asphalt Overlay project.
Internal service fund charges are currently at 54.7%, which includes the collection of 8 months of replacement reserves and
maintenance and operations charges through the end of second quarter.
12
'13
AT~'AOHWF-NT A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND USE~
oPr:RATING FUN~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~::::ii:::-::i~i!i
i~i::~ii::iiii:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~::~::!::~::~::~::!::~i~iii~i~i~i~i~::~i~i~:Z!:-~ i!ii:;:~i~:::::~i~::~i~iii!::~
i!::~i:::~::~::~i~::~ ~::~::~::~i~ ................................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
B~ Fund Balance $ 11,403,6Z'~ S 10,331,541S 10,396,188 $ IS,12~,342$ 17,678,962$ 18,13~,869S 18,136,869S 18,136,869S 0.0~
Ol:~nmng Revenue~
Pro~ Taxes 2,974,128 3,128,653 3,437.981 3,381.265 3,557.241 6.833,380 3,672.303 3.672.303 0.0~1
Sales Tax 5.230,851 5.339.807 5.430,902 5.630,971 6,214,084 8,837.773 5.765,061 6,887,845 1,122,783 19,8%'
Hotal~lotel Lod~ng Tax - 18,631 87,035 54,611 65.604 10,994 20.1%
Cilminal Justice Sales Tax 712'790 719,436 828.9~8 878,426 959.674 1,409,626 919,312 1,068.926 14~,610 18.9%
Inta~overnmental 3.748.767 3.335,635 3,250,440 3.316,982 3,586.212 3,152.273 2.289.547 3,037,741 748,195 32.7%
ReM Estate Excise Tax 617,500 906,928 1,121,820 1,612,556 1,445,579 1,200,000 783,0~3 1.431,606 648,543 82.8%
Gambling Taxes $241,293 $198.112 $236,044 I 212,341 9~6.742 1.209,~00 801,070 944,917 143,847 18.0~
Utility Taxes - 458,501 2,149,010 3.179,687 3.596.812 4,703,276 3.205.701 3.760,954 555.234 17.3%
Fk'~es & Forfeitures ~414.290 ~119,476 $395,875 553,606 586.150 ~49.700 ~52.226 6~2.161 (20.064) -3.1%
8u~ding Pennits/Fes~.CD 284,270 285,983 439,558 ! :362,687 733,332 1,006.182 I 691,692 700.041 8,349 1.2~
Pass Through Fees-CD 62,799 - 81,226 81,226
ROVV Pen'nits/Fess-PW 97',173 139,567 110,526 157.542 155,674 Z26~567 "~48,167 200.141 51,974 35.1%
Pass Through Fess-I~N 40,345 32'057 32.057
licenses 51,415 44,:368 44,719 35,526 107,82~ 118,253 98.664 64,743 (33,921 -34.4%
Franchise Fees 286,689 401,457 348,354 2~0,632 353 ~, ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', '~ 9 515.508 385,084 ~66,549 (18,535 -4.8%
RecreMJon Fees 273,115 3141257 330,117 338,164 462,468 549,852 40~,188 415,721 7,533 1.8%
Dumas Bey Centre 147,469 158,324 233.999 209,486 312,~41 447,655 286,499 305,931 i 19.431 6.8%
Knutzen Family Theatre 24,597 62,230 41,487 39.321 (2,165) -5.2%
Interest Earnings 490,27'1 290.329 327.426 510,9~8 718.407 911.0~1 546,601 745.940 199,339
Adman Fee-S~VM & Solid Waxta 100.256 10~.264 108,489 110,~60 112.320 171.006 114.004 99,335 (14,569) -12.9%
~ Fees 1,624.407 1,584.399 1.45~,470 1,~25,811 1,710,775 3,142'645 1,624.892 1.624,892 0.0~
Refuse C~lec:tion Fees 97,958 95.700 83.892 98,10'3 99,048 150.752 100.501 83,681 (16,820) -16.7%
Police Se~'ices 149,407 96,519 22~.298 343.148 228,?~5 525,356 296,590 129.6%
Ot~r 565.2'~4 S89,832 820,9,m 1,0s2,e6e 100,297 14~,782 e0,814 44,2~0 ~,532) -4s.2~
Operating Expenditur.~
City Council 143.242 144,308 157,074 158,220 151,163 197.385 159.386 156,409 2,977 1.9%
City Manager 300.036 308,536 375.957 381,879 377,768 605,720 406,474 284,307 122,167 30.1~
Municipal Court-O~ 909,241 606.161 462.596 143,564 23.7%
Municipal Court-Start up 91,122 87,956 87,956 0.0%
Management Servk:es 848,491 966,457 922.~07 1,026,335 1,113,396 1,854,269 1,220,766 1,006,401 214,36,1 17.6~
C~vil/Criminal legal Semites 699,945 814,691 800,839 1.047,339 823,405 1,219,275 797.968 811,632 (13,~4) -1.7~
Comrn~ Development Services 2,391.524 1,752,474 1,713,517 1,725,5~6 1,~42t334 3t2~0.641 2,225.963 1.918,060 307,903 13.8~
Police Sea, ices 5,432,839 5,925,248 I 8,3751~328 7,245,619 7,837,644 12,~65,324 8,356,150 8,314,556 41,594 0.S~
Jail Se~ices 307,262 383,280 I 447,917 503,140 830,701 1,200.000 769,177 937,012 (167,835] -21.8~
Park~ end Rec~a~on 2,081,806 2,089.778 1,760,639 1,863,748 2,011,509 3.106,062 2'095.4?0 2,037.708 57.7~2 2.8~
Public VVon~s 1,858.898 1,395,646 i 1,543,253 1,7~6,612 1.~04,195 3,515,383 2,199,368 1,923,786 275,583 ~ 12.5~
City Overtay P~ram 265,078 3~.~.813 1,013,3:2~ 40,590 433,495 1.89~,410 1.248,918 1,248,918 0.0~
~ Ice Removal (1) 3,067 39.122 50.884 29.568 3.117' 55,052 6,493 6,493 0.0%
.~ ~te 100,819 189.3:36 319,14~ 171,050 132.250 312,366 195,545 188,078 7,467 3.8~
I- .al Lodging Tax - 115,000 40.424 40,424 0.0%
~,_,,.,WatarManagement 907,011 855.483 860,515 ' 758,116 j 897,590 1,795,621 1,169.136 1,073.100 96.036 8.2~
D~bt Service $12'373 649.945 ?'19.379 1,040.824 2,267,244 4,612,156 2.253.288 2,253.288 ' -
D~rnas Bay Centr~ 200,523 187.257 239.478 221,763; 272,284 501.430 ~2~,106 321.412 1.694 0.5~
Knutzen Fan~ Thea~e - 57,782 162.2'30 108y153 117,030 (8,877) -8.2~
~ Financing .Sourc~ 112.418 1.843.700 8,648.822 2,706.'153 2.70~.1 $3
~ Financing Use~ 310,713 782,4~ 269.418 1,378,054 3.$25,592 10.770.869 4,278,722 4.278.722 0.0~A
Ending Fund ~le~c~
~ W~ste '188,505 213.050 29~,991 294.316 299,~1.2 291,487 222,654 Wa n/e
Snow & Ice 191.214 103,239 73.388 10~,530 100,000 100,000 97,369 n/a. Wa
Artm~l Street 971,89~ 362,100 470,902 477,375 349,431 475,206 n/I n/e
~ Tax 2'120.030 2,830,148 3,406,888 5.294,059 n/a n/e
SWM 1,702,890 1.077,~66 1,566,522 2.276,459 1,643,113 564,698 1.409,019 n/a n/e
P~tl & Trai~ 39.284 50,210: 6,15~ 12,555 22,353 31.520 28.741 n/a
Strategic Reserve 2,104,645 2'0~0.477 2'022'389 2'025,496 2'028,204 2,000,000 2,072'320 n/a n/a
Debt Se~tce 1,9~6,991 1,618.909 2.986.805 5,283,482 $,748,50~ 4,738,354 4,027.287 n/a
Duma. Bay Cefllr~ 157,897 115,131 83,742 13.286 47,775 63,938 n/Il fda
Police 1,031,439 - 1.082.207 786,441 748,150 e69,334 800.229 fda
Inteffund ~ 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 n/a n/e
U~'~se~d 4~e63,061 6.425.~48 5,145,210 3~532,267 4,009~345 ~29,6511 - $,404,5~3 n/a We
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: Drat~ Land Use Review Processes Federal Way City Code (FWCC)
Text Amendments
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
)(~ CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted:
X ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT ExpenditureAmt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance. Background Materials -- August 1, 2000 Staff Report to the Land Use
Transportation Committee (LUTC) with Exhibits A through ¢ is available in the Council Conference Room.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The current City of Federal Way subdivision and development review
processes were established in April 1997, as part of the FWCC Amendments to implement HB 1724, the
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (RCW 36.70B). As part of its regular review of development regulations, staffhas
identified several FWCC sections regarding land use review processes, which are in need of amendment. The
proposed amendments are predominately housekeeping in nature and will correct oversights and codification
errors, as well as clarify and improve land use review processes. Because the proposed FWCC text amendments
are procedural in nature, the proposed amendments are exempt from review pursuant to the State Environmental
.... v,..,oj,!.~.~s.t....(..,.s..~,.v..5.).:
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The LUTC discussed the proposed Land Use
Review Processes FWCC Text Amendments during a public meeting on August 7, 2000. At the August 7, 2000
meeting, the LUTC unanimously recommended to forward the proposed Land Use Review Processes FWCC Text
Amendments to the full Council for first reading on September 19, 2000.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to move to second reading and enactment at the next
regular meeting.
APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: 'c' ' '
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED ORDINANCE #
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION/~ ~4 ~ ~..~L~UT?N ~//~ ~
,, ,.- ~-~...----,~,.. .L/.~
I:\2000 Code AmendmentsLMiscellaneous Code Amendments\Council Cover Agenda. doc/9/t'2/00 5:06
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. O0 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL
WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION), CHAPTER 19 (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT),
CHAPTER 20 (SUBDIVISIONS), AND CHAPTER 22 (ZONING) OF THE
FEDERAL WAY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REVIEW
PROCESSES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way adopted Ordinance No. 97-291 in April, 1997,
which significantly revised the Federal Way City Code to bring environmental and land use
review processes into conformance with HB 1724, the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (RCW
36.70B); and,
WHEREAS, because of the broad scope and scale of the Federal Way City Code text
revisions resulting from Ordinance No. 97-291, several references to environmental and land use
review processes were not revised; and,
WHEREAS, the codification of Ordinance No. 97-291 and other ordinances resulted in
unintentional errors in the text of the Federal Way City Code;
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the Land Use Review Processes Federal
Way City Code (FWCC) Text Amendments Ordinance involves exclusively land use and
subdivision procedures, will not contain substantive standards respecting use or modification of
the environment, and is categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), pursuant to FWCC 18-71; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that the Land Use Review Processes Federal
Way City Code (FWCC) Text Amendments Ordinance will implement and is consistent with the
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
Land Use Review Processes Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Text Amendments Ordinance and
forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Land Use Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council
considered the Land Use Review Processes Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Text Amendments
Ordinance on August 7, 2000, following which it recommended adoption of the text
amendments;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 1 September 11, 2000
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Land Use Review Processes Federal Way
City Code (FWCC) Text Amendments Ordinance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (RCW 36.70B).
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, IN
REGULAR SESSION, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Federal Way City Code to
satisfy the following basic needs:
A. To provide appropriate review processes for decisions regulating subdivision and
development applications; and,
B. To be consistent with and implement the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (RCW
36.70B).
Section 2. Section 18-167 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
See. 18-167. Conditional uses.
(a) Conditional use permits are allowed to provide greater flexibility in varying the
application of the use regulations of the shoreline master program in a manner which will be
consistent with the policies of RCW ch. 90.28, particularly where denial of the application would
thwart the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
(b) When a conditional use is requested, the substantial development permit and the
conditional use shall be reviewed under the provisions of process ¥ I___V, section 22-4-76 43 let
seq., and the c'.'~' ee".me~.! hearing examiner shall be the final approval authority.
(c) Conditional uses have unique and special characteristics which require a special
degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or permitted uses in the same
environment, and to assure that the use is in the public interest. In authorizing a conditional use
permit, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the ";~v.~., ....... vv_.w.~ heating examiner to
prevent undesirable effects or mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use.
(d) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the
following criteria:
(1) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the
policies of the master program;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 2 September 11, 2000
(2) The use will not interfere with normal public use of surface waters;
(3) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or
surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the
area;
(4) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
(5) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional request for like
actions in the area.
(e) Other uses not set forth in the shoreline master program may be authorized
through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that extraordinary
circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically prohibited by
the master program may not be authorized.
Section 3. Section 19-100 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 19-100. Annexation--Comprehensive plan designation.
Whenever the council shall determine that the best interests and general welfare of the
city would be served by annexing territory, thev"~°"";""~, m~nager director of community
development shall cause an examination to be made of the comprehensive plan of the city.
(a) Outdated or no comprehensive plan. If the pl~nn'ing m~ager director of
community development determines there is no comprehensive plan designation, or if the
comprehensive plan designation is not current for the area of the proposed or recently annexed
area, thew-~....t,"~°""; ......... -..--~t,*- director of community development will cause an application to be
made for amendment of the comprehensive plan pursuant to Federal Way City Code Section 22-
236 516.
(b) Current comprehensive plan. If thev.~-..-t, ''~°''''~ ......... ~..~,~ director of community
development determines that a current comprehensive plan exists for the proposed or recently
annexed area, thev"~°~"~ ....... ......... ~, ...... e,~- director of communiW development will cause an
application to be filed for an initial zoning designation according to that process described in
Federal Way Code Section 19-103.
Section 4. Section 19-103 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 19-103. Annexation--Initial zone classification.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 3 September 11, 2000
(a) Planning commission recommendation. Upon application by the --~
m~nager director of community development and upon completion of all applicable SEPA
review, the city's planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing to consider the
initial zoning for the area of the proposed or recently annexed area. The planning commission
public hearing shall constitute the first of the two public hearings required pursuant to RCW
35A. 14.340. The council shall hold the second public hearing as set forth in FWCC 19-
103(b)(2).
(1) Notice. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the heating shall be as
described in Federal Way City Code Section 22-52! 532 and, in addition, shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and in the area to be
annexed at least ten days prior to the hearing.
(2) Staff report. The p!=~n~ng manager director of community development or his/her
designee shall prepare a staff report as described in Federal Way Zoning Code
Section 22~522 533.
(3) Public hearing. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on each
application, which shall be open to the public. The planning commission shall
make a complete electric sound recording of each public hearing.
(4) Public comments and participation at the hearing. Any person may participate in
the public hearing in either or both of the following ways:
(i) By submitting written comments to the planning commission either by
the v ....... e, manager's
delivering these comments to ~'~""~'~" director of
community development's office prior to the hearing or by giving these
directly to the planning commission at the hearing.
(ii) By appearing in person or through a representative at the heating and
making oral comments directly to the planning commission. The planning
commission may reasonably limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate
the orderly and timely conduct of the hearing.
(5) Continuation of the hearing. The planning commission may continue the hearing
if, for any reason, they are unable to hear all of the public comments on the matter
or if the planning commission determines that they need more information on the
matter. If during the hearing, the planning commission announces the time and
place of the next hearing on the matter and a notice thereof is posted on the door
of the hearing room, no further notice of the hearing need be given.
(6) Recommendation by the planning commission.
(i) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments
submitted on the matter and following the public heating, the planning
commission shall issue a written recommendation to the city council.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 4 September 11, 2000
(ii) Timing. Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the planning
commission must issue the recommendation within ten working days after
the close of the public hearing.
(iii) Decisional criteria. The planning commission shall use the criteria listed
in FWCC Section 19-103(b)(5).
(iv) Conditions and restrictions. The planning commission shall include in the
written recommendation any conditions and restrictions that the planning
commission determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize
any undesirable effects of granting the application.
(v) Contents. The planning commission shall include the following in the
written recommendation to city council.
(A) A statement of facts presented to the planning commission that
supports its recommendation, including any conditions and
restrictions that are recommended.
(B) A statement of the planning commission's conclusions based on
those facts.
(C)A statement of the criteria used by the planning commission in
making the recommendation.
(D) The date of issuance of the recommendation and summary of the
rights, as established in this article, of the applicant and others to
request reconsideration and to challenge the recommendation of
the planning commission.
(vi) Distribution of written recommendation. The planning manager shall
distribute copies of the recommendation of the planning commission
within two working days after the planning commission's written
recommendation is issued, a copy will be sent to the applicant, to each
person who submitted written or oral testimony to the planning
commission and to each person who specifically requested it.
(b) Council action. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission for the
initial zoning of the area recently annexed or proposed to be annexed, and at least 30 days
following the planning commission public hearing on the matter, the council shall hold a
public heating on the application.
(1) Notice. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be as
described in Federal Way City Code Section 22-52 ! 532 and, in addition, shall be
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 5 September 11, 2000
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and in the area I
proposed to be or recently annexed at least ten days prior to the hearing.
I
(2) Public hearing. The council shall hold its own public heating on each application,
which shall be open to the public. The council shall make a complete electric
sound recording of the public hearing.
(3) Public comments and participation at the hearing. Any person may participate in
the public hearing in either or both of the following ways:
(i) By submitting written comments to the council either by delivering these
comments to the city clerk's office prior to the hearing or by giving these
directly to the council at the heating.
(ii) By appearing in person or through a representative at the hearing and
making oral comments directly to the council. The council may reasonably
limit the extent of oral comments to facilitate the orderly and timely
conduct of the hearing.
(4) Continuation of the hearing. The council may continue the heating if, for any
reason, they are unable to hear all of the public comments on the matter or if the
council determines that they need more information on the matter. If during the
hearing, the council announces the time and place of the next hearing on the
matter and a notice thereof is posted on the door of the hearing room, no further
notice of the hearing need be given.
(5) Decisional criteria. The city council shall approve the recommended zoning
classification iff
(i) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(ii) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including
those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan;
(iii) It is consistent with the public, health, safety and welfare.
(6) Decision. After consideration of the entire matter before the record of the
planning commission, and at the close of the public hearing on the matter, the city
council shall, by ordinance approved by a majority of the total membership, adopt
an ordinance establishing the initial zoning designation for the area.
(c) Effectiveness. The ordinance adopting the initial zone classification shall be effective 30
days after its passage and publication if the area affected by the ordinance has been
annexed to the city; or if the affected area has not yet been annexed to the city, shall be
effective upon annexation of the area into the city. The city clerk shall file a certified
copy of the ordinance and any accompanying maps or plats with the county auditor.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 6 September 1 I, 2000
(d) Judicial review. The action of the city may be reviewed for illegal, corrupt, or arbitrary
and capricious action in the county Superior Court. The petition for review must be filed
within 14 days after the date of the hearing at which the council acted to pass the written
ordinance.
Section 5. A new Section 20-22 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby added to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-22. Application cancellation.
If an applicant for a boundary line adjustment, lot line elimination, binding site plan,
short subdivision plat, preliminary plat, final plat, alteration of plat, or vacation of subdivision
fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being notified by mail that
such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall
have no duty to process, review, or issue any decision with respect to such an application.
Section 6. Section 20-90 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-90. Notice.
(a) Content. The director of community development services shall within 14 days of
issuing a letter of completeness on the proposal, prepare a notice of application containing the
following information:
(1) The name of the applicant and, if applicable, the project name. The date of
application, date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of
the notice of application.
(2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational
description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of
general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that
identifies the subject property.
(3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision and
to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in the
application.
(4) A brief description of the requested decision, a list of the project permits included
in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW
36.70A.440.
(5) A statement of the availability of the official file.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 7 September 11, 2000
- (6) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the director
of community development services regarding the application within 15 days of
the date of the notice.
(7) A statement that only persons who submit written comments to the director of
community development services or specifically requests a copy of the original
decision may appeal the director's decision.
(8) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed
project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed.
(9) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of
notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation
and of consistency as provided in RCW 36.70B.040.
(b) Distribution. Within 14 days of issuance of the letter of completeness, and at least 14
calendar days before the deadline for submitting comments, the director of community
development services shall distribute this notice as follows:
(1) A copy of the notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the
city.
(2) At least three copies of the notice will be conspicuously posted on or near the
subject property. Of these, at least one will be posted on or adjacent to every
public right-of-way providing primary vehicular access to any property that abuts
the subject property.
(3) A copy of the notice will be posted on each of the official notification boards of
the city and public libraries located within the city.
Section 7. Section 20-105 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-105. Departmental action.
(a) The application for a short subdivision shall be reviewed for compliance with
section 20-2, and design criteria and development standards set forth in sections 20-151 through
20-157 and 20-178 through 20-187, other applicable ordinances or regulations of the city, and
RCW ch. 58.17.
(b) Any action by the department of community development services relative to the
application shall contain the following information, where applicable:
(1) Improvements required as conditions of approval of the short subdivision.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 8 September 11, 2000
(2) Review comments and requirements of reviewing agencies.
(3) Reasons for denial of the short subdivision, if applicable.
(c) A short plat may not be recorded until it has been certified by the director of
public works that all improvements required as a condition of approval have been substantially
completed in accordance with section 20-! 07 108. Such certification shall appear on the face of
the short plat.
(d) No final short plat shall be approved until the department of community
development services has made a formal written finding that the proposed short subdivision is in
conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls and that the plat
encompasses good planning features and provisions for safe walking conditions such as
sidewalks for students who walk to and from school.
(e) Every short plat of a subdivision or short subdivision to be recorded must contain
a certificate giving full and correct description of the lands divided as they appear on the plat,
along with a statement that the subdivision has been made with the consent of the owner and all
affected owners.
(1) For those short plats subject to dedication, a notarized written instrument
containing subject dedication to the public must be signed by all parties having
ownership interest in the land subdivided. This notarized dedication must be
placed on the face of the recorded short plat or the written instrument along with a
title report confirming title of lands described shall be recorded as part of the short
plat.
(2) An offer of dedication may include a waiver of right of direct access to any street
from any property if acceptable by the city. Roads not dedicated to the public
must clearly be marked on the face of the plat. Any dedication, donation, or grant
as shown on the face of the plat shall be considered for all intents and purposes, as
a quitclaim deed.
(f) A drainage release shall be provided releasing the city for claims for injury or
damage resulting from the storm drainage system to be installed, if any, and indemnify the city
from any claims brought by downstream owners based on the operation, failure to operate,
improper design, or improper construction.
Section 8. Section 20-118 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-118. Notice of application.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 9 September 11, 2000
(a) Contents. Within 14 days of the letter of completeness being issued, the director
of community development services shall prepare and publish a notice of application within the
local newspaper of general circulation. The notice of application shall contain the following:
(1) The name of the applicant and, if applicable, the project name.
(2) The street address of the subject property or, if this is not available, a locational
description in nonlegal language. Except for notice published in the newspaper of
general circulation in the city, the notice must also include a vicinity map that
identifies the subject property.
(3) The citation of the provision of this chapter describing the applied-for decision
and, to the extent known by the city, any other permits which are not included in
the application.
(4) A brief description of the requested decision.
(5) A list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of
all required studies submitted with the application.
(6) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion of the application,
and the date of the notice of the application.
(7) A statement that notification of the public hearing date will occur approximately
15 days prior to the scheduled heating date.
(8) A statement of the availability of the official file.
(9) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the hearing
examiner and appear at the public heating of the hearing examiner to give
comments orally.
(10) A statement that only persons who submit written or oral comments to the heating I
examiner may challenge appeal the recommendation of the heating examiner.
I
(11) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed
project and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed.
(12) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of
notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation
and of consistency as provided in RCW 36.70B.040.
(b) Distribution. The director of community development services shall distribute this
notice as follows:
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 10 September 11, 2000
(1) A copy will be sent to the persons receiving the property tax statements for all
property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property.
(2) If the owner of the property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another
parcel, or parcels, of property which lie adjacent to the property proposed to be
subdivided, notice of application shall be given to owners of property located
within 300 feet of any portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels
of property owned by the owner of the property proposed to be subdivided.
(3) A copy shall be mailed to appropriate city or county officials if the proposed plat
lies within one mile of an adjoining city or county boundary.
(4) A copy shall be mailed to all agencies or private companies who received copies
of the preliminary plat pursuant to section 20-109.
(5) Notice shall be mailed to the state department of transportation if the proposed
plat abuts a state highway.
(6) A copy will be published in the official daily newspaper of the city.
(7) A copy will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city and at
public libraries within the city.
(c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall erect at least one public notification
sign, which complies with standards developed by the department of community development
services. This sign shall be located on or near the subject property facing the right-of-way or
vehicle access easement or tract providing direct vehicle access to subject property. The director
of community development services may require the placement of additional public notice signs
on or near the subject property if he or she determines that this is appropriate to provide notice to
the public.
(d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs must be in place at least 14 calendar
days after the letter of completeness has been issued, and removed within seven calendar days
after the final decision of the city on the matter.
Section 9. A new Section 22-32.2 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby added to read
as follows:
Sec. 22-32.2. Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites.
Improvements and/or additions to existing developed sites shall be subject to land use
review processes as follows:
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 11 September 11, 2000
(a) Process L Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are
exempt from SEPA shall be processed using Process I provided the improvements and/or
additions do not exceed any of the following thresholds:
(1) There is no change of use.
(2) There is no reduction in the amount of required landscaping, buffering, open
space, or public areas.
(3) There is no material change or reduction in the amount of required parking.
(4) There is no material change in the location of utilities, easements, or pedestrian
connections.
(5) There is no material change to the approved architectural design.
(6) There is no additional adverse impacts to sensitive areas or significant trees.
(b) Process II. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are
exempt from SEPA and exceed the thresholds provided above in section 22-32.2(a) shall be
processed using Process II.
(c) Improvements not exempt.from SEPA. Improvements and/or additions to an
existing developed site that are not exempt from SEPA shall be processed consistent with the
required review process as identified in the applicable use zone chart.
Section 10. A new Chapter 22, Article IV.A of the Federal Way City Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
ARTICLE IV.A. INTERPRETATIONS
See. 22-345. Generally.
A decision by the director of community development as to the meaning, application or intent of
any development regulation in this chapter is known as an interpretation. An interpretation may
be requested in writing by any person or may be initiated by the director of community
development. This article establishes the procedure and criteria that the city will use in deciding
upon a written request to interpret the provisions of this chapter and in issuing any other written
interpretation of this chapter. The interpretation of the provisions of a concomitant agreement
will be treated as an interpretation of this chapter. Any appeals of an interpretation by the
director of community development under this article may be appealed to the city's hearing
examiner as provided for in this article.
Sec. 22-346. Purpose.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 12 September 11, 2000
An interpretation of the provisions of this chapter clarifies conflicting or ambiguous wording, or
the scope or intent of the provisions of this chapter. An interpretation of the provisions of this
chapter may not be used to amend this chapter.
Sec. 22-347. Applications.
(a) Who may apply. Any person, personally or through an agent, may make
application for an interpretation.
(b) How to apply. The applicant shall file a completed master land use application
along with a written description which at a minimum clearly states: 1) the interpretation
requested; 2) the applicable Federal Way City Code section(s) which the applicant requests the
director to interpret; and 3) relevant information and arguments which support the requested
interpretation.
(c) Fee. With the application, the applicant shall submit the fee established by the
city. The application shall not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
(d) Director authority. The director of community development services may modify
the submittal requirements as deemed appropriate.
(e) Routing of application. An application for an interpretation shall be routed to the
director of community development services. The director may route for comment an application
for an interpretation to other staff members or departments.
Sec. 22-348. Interpretations.
The director of community development services may, acting on his or her own initiative
or in response to an inquiry, issue interpretations of any of the provisions of this chapter.
(a) Applicability. A Code interpretation requested by a person other than the project
proponent or property owner must be requested prior to the date of expiration of any applicable
administrative appeal period for a land use decision on the application to which the request
relates. Any Code interpretation requested after the applicable administrative appeal period shall
not affect an issued permit or decision.
(b) Criteria. The director shall base an interpretation on:
(1) The defined or the common meaning, as applicable, of the words in the provision;
(2) The general purpose of the provision as expressed in the provision; and
(3) The logical or likely meaning of the provision viewed in relation to the
comprehensive plan, this chapter, the Federal Way City Code as a whole, or other
plans and studies prepared or adopted by the city.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 13 September 11, 2000
(c) Timing. The director of community development shall mail a written response to
any person filing a written request to interpret the provisions of this chapter within 28 days of
having received that request.
(d) Effect. An interpretation of this chapter will be enforced as if it is part of this
chapter.
(e) Interpretation file and availability. The director of community development shall
maintain an interpretation file that contains all interpretations of this chapter that are in effect.
The interpretation file shall be available for public inspection and copying in the department of
community development services during regular business hours.
(f) Time limitation. An interpretation of the provisions of this chapter remains in
effect until rescinded in writing by the director of community development or until the subject
text of this chapter has been amended consistent with section 22-216.
Sec. 22-349. Notice.
(a) Applicability. Interpretations issued by the director of community development
that are related to a land use or subdivision application shall be incorporated into the director's
decision on the application and be subject to applicable notice provisions for the decision.
Interpretations issued by the director of community development that are not related to a land use
or subdivision application shall be subject to the notice provisions under this section.
(b) Contents. The director of community development shall prepare a notice of each
interpretation that is not related to a land use or subdivision application, containing the following
information:
(1) The citation, if any, of the provision(s) of the FWCC that is the subject of the
along with a brief description of the subject provision(s).
(2) A summary statement of the interpretation of the affected provision.
(3) The date of the interpretation.
(4) A statement of the availability of the official file.
(5) A summary of the rights, as established in this article, of any person to submit an
appeal of the interpretation.
(6) The deadline for filing appeals of the interpretation
(c) Distribution. Upon issuance of the interpretation, the director of community
development shall distribute this notice of the interpretation as follows:
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 14 September 11, 2000
(1)A copy of the notice of the interpretation shall be published in the official
newspaper of the city.
(2) A copy of the notice will be posted on each of the official notification boards of
the city and public libraries located within the city.
Sec. 22-350. Appeals.
(a) Any person who is aggrieved by an interpretation issued by the director of
community development services may appeal that interpretation within 14 days of the date of
interpretation.
(b) The appellant must file a letter of appeal indicating how the interpretation affects
his or her property and presenting any relevant arguments or information on the correctness of
the interpretation. The applicant shall include appeals fees as established by the city. The appeal
will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
(c) An appeal of an interpretation of this chapter will be reviewed and decided upon
using process IV.
(d) If the interpretation of the director of community development services is
modified, the director shall:
(1) Place the modifying decision in the interpretation file; and
(2) Change or remove, as appropriate, the interpretation that was modified.
Section 10. Chapter 22, Article IV.A of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
ARTICLE IV.A B. PROCESS I - DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL
Sec. 22-351. Generally.
Various places of this chapter indicate that certain developments, activities, or uses o~
....v.v.~..v..~~'~* .... *'~*;'~-,' are permitted only if approved using process I. Under process I, the director of
community development services, is authorized to make administrative decisions and
interpretations based on certain criteria as set forth in this article or chapter. Any process I
application not categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C,
shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedural requirements of process III of this chapter. Any
appeals of the director's decision under this article may be appealed to the city's hearing
examiner as provided for in this article.
Sec. 22-351. Purpose of review.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 15 September 11, 2000
Process I has the following purposes:
(1) To review a proposal for compliance with the provisions of this chapter and all
other applicable law.
(2) To ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city is
preserved.
(3) To provide an expedient and reasonable land use review process for
administrative decisions and interpretations of this chapter.
Sec. 22-353. Applications.
(a) Who may apply. Any person, personally or through an agent, may make
application for a process I land use decision.
(b) How to apply. The applicant shall file a completed master land use application.
Accompanying the application shall be a written response to the decisional criteria as set forth in
this chapter for a particular use or activity, and information required by section 22-32. Far
(c) Fee. With the application, the applicant shall submit the fee established by the
city. The application shall not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
(d) Director authority. The director of community development services may modify
the submittal requirements as deemed appropriate.
(e) Routing of application. An application for an administrative decision o~
;'-* .... *o*~'--- shall be routed to the director of community development services. The director
may route for comment an application to other staff members or departments.
(1) The defined or +k ........... ; ....... ,;~...k,~..,r+k ...... ,~o ;. +h~
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 16 September 11, 2000
chapter·
Sec. 22-355354. Notice of administrative decision.
The director of community development services shall mail in a timely manner a copy of
his or her decision to the applicant and any person who submitted comments on the application,
and any person who has requested a copy.
Sec. 22-356355. Appeals.
(a) Who may appeal. The applicant and A any person who received notice of the
administrative decision under section 22-355 354 o-~ ............. ~,,,;
.... or the administrative decision within ' A days .c
fee.
(b) How and when to appeal. The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, must be
delivered to the department of community development services within 14 calendar days after
issuance of the administrative decision. The letter of appeal must contain:
(1) A statement identifying the administrative decision being appealed, along with a
copy of the administrative decision;
(2) A statement of the alleged errors in the administrative decision, including
identification of specific factual findings and conclusions of the director of
community development services disputed by the person filing the appeal; and
(3) The appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any other
information to facilitate communications with the appellant.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 17 September 11, 2000
(c) Fees. The person filing the appeal shall include, with the letter of appeal, the
appeal fee as established by the city. The appeal will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by
the required fee.
(d) Appeal process. Appeals of an administrative decision will be reviewed and
decided upon using process IV.
Section 11. Section 22-389 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-389. Applications.
(a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision
regarding property he or she owns.
(b) How to apply. The applicant shall file a completed application in the department of
community development services on the form provided by the department. The applicant
shall also provide all information or material that is specified in the provision of this
chapter that describes the decision applied for, all information specified in section 22-3-2
33, and any additional information or material that the director of community
development services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter.
(c) Fee. With the application, the applicant shall submit the fee established by the city. The
application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
(d) Completeness.
(1) Within 28 calendar days of receiving an application, the city must determine
whether the application is complete. The city will apply sections section 22-33
and 22 388 to determine completeness. If the city deems the application to be
complete, a letter of completeness must be issued prior to the 28-day deadline. If
the city determines the application to be incomplete, the city shall notify the
applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete application. In this written
determination, the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the
other agencies of local, state, or federal govemment that may have jurisdiction
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 18 September 11, 2000
over some aspect of the proposed development activity. An application shall be
deemed complete under this section if the city does not provide a written
determination to the applicant as required in this paragraph.
(2) Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the additional information
identified by the city as being necessary for a complete application, the city shall
notify the applicant whether the application is complete or whether additional
information is necessary.
(e) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from
requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the letter of
completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or substantial changes in
the proposed action occur.
Section 12. Section 22-396 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-396. Effect of the decision.
Decisions under this section shall become final subject to the following:
(a) ~ applic~t or other p~ of record who may be aggrieved by the decision may
appeal the decision ~min 14 days of me issu~ce of the decision by me director
of co~ity development consistent wi~h the provisions of section 22-397 et
seq. If a ~en notice of appeal is received ~thin me appeal period, me decision
shall be refe~ed to the he~ng exminer ~d shall not become final ~til me
appeal process is complete ~d ~e city issues a final decision. Upon issu~ce of
the ~nal decision, the applic~t may engage in activity based on the decision,
provided applicable pe~its have been approved.
(b) If no appeal is submiUed wit~n the 14 calend~ day appeal period, me
prelimin~ approval shall become final on the first calend~ day follo~ng the
expiration of the appeal period. Upon the decision becoming final, the applic~t
may engage in activi~ based on me decision, provided applicable pe~its have
been approved.
Section 13. Section 22-434 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ~ PAGE 19 September 11, 2000
Sec. 22-434. Applications.
(a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a
decision regarding property he or she owns.
(b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the
department of community development services:
(1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the
department of community development services.
(2) Two sets (three if compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act is
required) of stamped envelopes with address labels obtained from the county,
within the prior six months, containing the names and addresses of the persons
receiving the property tax statements for properties within 300 feet of each
boundary of the subject property.
(3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in
subsection (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that
describes the applied-for decision.
(5) All information required by section 22-3g 33. [
(6) Any additional information or material that the director of community
development services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the
matter.
(c) Fee. With the application, the applicant shall submit the fee established by the
city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
(d) Completeness.
(1) Within 28 calendar days of receiving an application, the city must determine
whether the application is complete. The city will apply seetiens section 22-32 33
.,,~a ~ A-~ar},x to determine completeness. If the city deems the application to be
complete, a letter of completeness must be issued prior to the 28-day deadline. If
the city determines the application to be incomplete, the city shall notify the
applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete application prior to the 28-
day deadline. In this written determination, the city shall also identify, to the
extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government
that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity.
An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the city does not
provide a written determination to the applicant as required in this paragraph,
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ~ PAGE 20 September 11, 2000
(2) Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the additional information
identified by the city as being necessary for a complete application, the city shall
notify the applicant whether the application is complete or whether additional
information is necessary.
(e) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the
city from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the Letter of
Completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or substantial changes in the
proposed action occur.
Section 14. Section 22-438 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-438. Community design guidelines.
(a) Applicability. All commercial, office, industrial, institutional, and multi-family
development applications are subject to the requirements of article XIX, community design
guidelines. Applications for remodeling and expansion of an existing developments shall meet
only those provisions of this article that are determined by the director of community
development services to be reasonably related and applicable to the area of expansion or
remodeling.
(b) Director's decision. Within ten working days after the deadline for submitting
comments and after considering all of the information and comments submitted on the
application, the director of community development services shall issue a written decision.
(c) Decisional criteria. The director of community development services shall use the
criteria listed in the provision of this chapter describing the requested decision in deciding upon
the application. In addition, the director of community development services may approve the
application only if:
(1) It is consistent with the site design standards set forth for all zoning districts in
section 22-1634;
(2) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in section 22-
1638; and
(3) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing
development, it is consistent with those provisions of article XIX, community
design guidelines, identified by the director of community development services
as being applicable;
(d) Conditions and restrictions. The director of community development services
shall include in the written decision any conditions and restrictions that he or she determines are
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 21 September 11, 2000
reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the
application. Any conditions and restrictions that are included become part of the decisiOn.
(e) Contents. The director of community development services shall include the
following in the written decision:
(1) A statement granting, modifying and granting, or denying the application.
(2) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed.
(3) A statement of facts presented to the director of community development services
that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are
imposed.
(4) A statement of the director's conclusions based on those facts.
(5) A statement of the criteria used by the director of community development
services in making the decision.
(6) The date of the decision.
(7) A summary of the rights, as established in this article, of the applicant, and others
to appeal the decision and/or conditions of the director of community
development services.
(8) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed
prgject and the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed.
(9) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of
notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation
and of consistency as provided in RCW 36.70B.040.
(f) Distribution of written decision. The written decision of the director of
community development services is issued, it shall be distributed as follows:
(1) A copy will be mailed to the applicant.
(2) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written comments or
information to the director of community development services.
(3) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it.
(4) A copy will be mailed to the King County Assessor.
(g) Effect of the decision. The applicant may not engage in any activity based on the
decision until the third working day after the time to appeal has expired. If the decision is
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 22 September 11, 2000
appealed, the applicant may not engage in any activity based on the decision until the third
working day after the city issues a final decision on the matter. If the decision of the director of
community development services is not appealed, that decision is the final decision of the city.
(h) Appeals.
(1) Who may appeal. The decision and/or conditions of the director of community
development services related to the community design guidelines may be
appealed by any person who is to receive a copy of that decision under section 22-
437 438(0.
(2) How and when to appeal. The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, must be
delivered to the department of community development services within 14
calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director of community
development services. The letter of appeal must contain:
a. A statement identifying the matter being appealed, along with a copy of
the decision;
b. A statement of the alleged errors in the director's decision, including
specific factual findings and conclusions of the director of community
development services disputed by the person filing the appeal; and
c. The appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any
other information to facilitate communicating with the appellant.
(3) Fees. The person filing the appeal shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee
as established by the city. The appeal will not be accepted unless it is
accompanied by the required fee.
(4) Jurisdiction. Appeals of the decision of the director of community development
services will be heard by the hearing examiner.
(5) Appeal hearing timing. An appeal of a decision of the director of community
development services will be heard on the same date as the public hearing for the
application being processed pursuant to this section.
(6) Notice of appeal hearing. The notice of the appeal hearing shall be included in the
notice of public hearing for the application being processed pursuant to this
section. The notice of appeal hearing shall include:
a. The file number and a brief description of the matter being appealed;
b. A statement of the scope of the appeal, including a summary of the alleged
errors in the director's decision, including specific factual findings and
conclusions disputed in the letter of appeal;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 23 September 11, 2000
c. The date, time, and place of the public hearing on the appeal;
d. A statement of who may participate in the appeal; and
e. A statement of how to participate in the appeal.
(7) The provisions of sections 22-399 through 22-406 shall apply to appeals filed
under this section.
Section 15. Section 22-446 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-446. Effect of the decision.
Decisions under this section shall become final subject to the following:
(a) An applicant or other party of record who may be aggrieved by the decision may
appeal the decision within 14 days of the issuance of the decision by the director
of community development consistent with the provisions of section 22-397 et
seq. If a written notice of appeal is received within the appeal period, the decision
shall be referred to the hearing examiner and shall not become final until the
appeal process is complete and the city issues a final decision. Upon issuance of
the final decision, the applicant may engage in activity based on the decision,
provided applicable permits have been approved.
(b) If no appeal is submitted within the 14 calendar day appeal period, the
preliminary approval shall become final on the first calendar day following the
expiration of the appeal period. Upon the decision becoming final, the applicant
may engage in activity based on the decision, provided applicable permits have
been approved.
Section 16. Section 22-478 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-478. Applications.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. O0 - ., PAGE 24 September 11, 2000
(a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a
decision regarding property he or she owns.
(b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the
department of community development services:
(1) A completed application, with supporting affidavits, on forms provided by the
department of community development services;
(2) Two sets of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and
address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the
county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the
subject property;
(3) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in
subsection (b)(2) of this section;
(4) A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate
the property within the larger area;
(5) Any information or material that is specified in the provision of this chapter that
describes the applied-for decision;
(6) All information specified in section 22-gg 33; and
(7) Any additional information or material that the director of community
development services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the
matter.
(c) Fee. With the application the applicant shall submit the fee established by the
city. The application will not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the. required fee and meets
the requirements of section 22-32 and this section relating to what constitutes a complete
application.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 25 September 11, 2000
Section 20. Section 22-1047 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1047. Exceptions.
The following are excepted from the height limitations of this chapter:
(1) For detached dwelling units:
a. Vents and chimneys may exceed the maximum height limit.
b. Rod, wire, dish and other antennas, other than as specified in subsection
(3) of this section, may be placed above the maximum height if approved
using process I. The city will approve the application if:
1. Views across the subject property are not substantially impaired;
and
2. The antenna must be placed above the roofline in order to function
properly.
(2) Except as specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section:
a. Rooftop appurtenances may exceed the applicable height limitation by a
maximum of four feet, if the area of all appurtenances and screening does
not exceed ten percent of the total area of the building footprint. These
appurtenances must be located in such a way as to minimize view
blockage.
b. Appurtenances that do not meet the standards of subsection (2)a. of this
section may be permitted if the director of community development
determines that, based on accurate graphic representations provided by the
applicant, views from adjacent properties will not be significantly
affected.
c. Any appurtenance, other than chimneys and antennas, must be screened
from all streets and nearby properties. See section 22-960 for requirements
pertaining to rooftop screening.
(3) A radio tower and antenna structure for use by a noncommercial, licensed
amateur operator may be approved through process I III, if the city determines
that:
a. The radio tower and antenna structures is placed to minimize its visibility
from adjoining properties, while still permitting effective operation;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 31 September 11, 2000
b. The radio tower and antenna structure does not extend higher than
reasonably necessary to operate effectively; and
c. The use of the antenna will not materially interfere with radio and
television reception on nearby properties.
In making its decision on the application, the city shall take into consideration the
strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications and the rules
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission regulating such facilities.
If the city approves the radio tower and antenna structure, it may impose
limitations to mitigate or eliminate any adverse impacts. This may include, but is
not limited to, requiring the use of a telescoping antenna, which would only be
extended during limited periods when the antenna is in use.
Section 21. Section 22-1068 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1068. Class I home occupation.
(a) A Class I home occupation is permitted if it meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) It is carried on exclusively by a family member who resides in the dwelling unit;
(2) It has no outside storage, exterior indication or outside activity;
(3) It uses no heavy equipment, power tools or power sources not common to a
residence;
(4) It has no pickup or delivery by commercial vehicles;
(5) It does not include more than four persons per day coming to the subject property
for goods or services;
(6) It creates no noise, dust, glare, vibration, odor, smoke or other impact adverse to a
residential area.
(b) A Class I home occupation which does not meet the requirements of subsection
(a) above may be approved using process II III, if:
(1) It will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ~ PAGE 32 September 11, 2000
(2) It will not include outdoor storage and/or operation of building materials,
machinery, commercial vehicles or tools, that will be visible or audible from or
have an effect on other properties;
(3) It does not create a condition which injures or endangers the comfort, repose,
health or safety of persons.
Section 22. Section 22-1069 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1069. Class II home occupation.
A family child care home, an in-home child care home occupation, is permitted if it
meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The use must be operated as part of a principal residential use of the subject
property by a resident of the subject property.
(2) This use must be licensed to provide in-home child care services by the state
department of social and health services.
(3) Lot size, building size, setbacks, and lot coverage conform to those applicable to
the zoning district. If the lot is legal, nonconforming, it may be approved through
a process I III review.
(4) Not more than two persons not a resident of the dwelling unit may work for the
Class II home occupation at any one time.
(5) One off-street parking space is provided for each nonresident or nonfamily
member employee in addition to the spaces required by the zoning district for the
residential use. The residential driveway is acceptable for this purpose.
(6) The city may require an on-site passenger loading area, depending on the number
and nature of the attendees and the extent and nature of existing street
improvements. If located on a major arterial street, an off-street dropoff/pickup
area must be provided.
(7) In residential zones, no exterior alterations are allowed to accommodate the Class
II home occupation, including signage. Only those interior alterations customary
to residential use shall be made.
(8) The applicant shall provide documentation that residents living immediately
adjacent to the proposal have been notified of the proposal or the applicant may
provide stamped and addressed envelopes of the residents living immediately
adjacent to the proposal and the city will notify the neighbors.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 33 September 11, 2000
(9) In addition to satisfying conditions (1) through (8) above, a family child care
home may also be required to meet the following conditions:
a. Hour of operation and maximum number of attendees may be limited by
the city to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses.
b. A six-foot sight-obscuring fence or vegetation may be required by the city
if it is determined that the proposal adversely affects neighbors.
c. Additional traffic information or mitigation measures may be required if
the community development director or public works director determines
that the proposal may adversely affect intersections or streets in the area.
Section 23. Section 22-1094 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1094. Discretionary approval.
(a) Generally. A land surface modification that does not meet the requirements of I
section 22-1093 may be approved through process I II_~I.
I
(b) Required information. In addition to the application material required in process I,
section 22-386 et seq., the applicant must submit the following:
(1) A recent survey of the subject property.
(2) A map showing the limits of the proposed land surface modification; the location
of utilities, easements, right-of-way improvements and any area regulated under
section 22-1221 et seq. that is on or within 400 feet of any area to be disturbed by
the proposed land surface modification.
(3) A tree retention plan.
(4) An erosion control/construction phase stormwater control plan.
(5) A soils report which contains sufficient information to determine the potential
impacts of the proposed land surface modification, as well as proposed measures
to reduce or eliminate these impacts, all as determined by the city.
(c) Decisional criteria. The city may approve the proposed land surface modification
if it complies with the following criteria:
(1) Except as allowed under this chapter, it will not alter or adversely affect streams,
lakes, wetlands or significant trees, either on or off the subject property.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 34 September 11, 2000
(2) It will not violate any express policy of the city.
(3) It meets at least one of the following criteria:
a. It is necessary to correct an erosion or drainage problem on an
undeveloped site.
b. It is necessary to create new utility or access corridors.
c. Other unusual circumstances exist which make it reasonable to permit land
surface modification in advance of the issuance of a development permit,
subdivision or short subdivision approval or shoreline substantial
development permit.
Section 24. Section 22-1133 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1133. Structures and improvements.
No improvement or structure may be in a required yard except as follows:
(1) A driveway and/or parking area subject to the standards of section 22-1135.
(2) Any improvement or structure, other than a driveway and/or parking area, that is
not more than four inches above finished grade may be anywhere in a required
setback yard.
(3) An improvement or structure, that is not more than 18 inches above finished grade
may extend not more than five feet into a required yard.
(4) Chimneys, bay windows, greenhouse windows, eaves, awnings and similar
elements of a structure that customarily extend beyond the exterior walls of a
structure may extend up to 18 inches into any required yard. The total horizontal
dimension of the elements that extend into a required yard, excluding eaves, may
not exceed 25 percent of the length of the facade of the structure from which the
elements extend.
(5) Fences and railings not over six feet in height may be located in required yards
subject to the fence regulations contained within this article.
(6) Rockeries and retaining walls may be located in required yards iff
a. The rockery or retaining wall is not being used as a direct structural
support for a major improvement; and
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ., PAGE 35 September 11, 2000
b. The rockery or retaining wall is reasonably necessary to provide support to
a cut or slope.
(7) Signs may be located in required yards subject to provisions of section 22-1596 et
seq.
(8) Covered walkways, no more than eight feet wide and ten feet above finished
grade and open along the sides, are permitted in required yards in commercial,
office and industrial zones.
(9) In low and medium density residential zones, the applicant may, through process ~
III, request approval to locate a storage shed in a required yard, except a required
front yard. The city may approve the application if:
a. The proposed structure is no more than eight feet high above finished
grade;
b. The maximum length of the facade of the proposed structure parallel to
each property line, from which the required yard is not provided, shall not
exceed ten feet;
c. The proposed structure contains no more than 120 square feet in total area;
d. No reasonable alternative location exists on the subject property due to
special circumstances regarding the size, shape, topography or location of
the subject property or the location for legally constructed preexisting
improvements of the subject property; and
e. Permitting the intrusion onto the required yard will not create a material,
negative impact on the character of nearby residential uses.
Section 25. Section 22-1177 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 22-1177. Exceptions.
(a) A vehicle of any size may be parked on any lot in the city for not more than 48
hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle.
(b) The city may, using process II III, approve a request to park or store a vehicle or I
boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone if:
(1) The parking or storage of the vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the
character of the neighborhood;
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 36 September 11, 2000
(2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the parking or
storage;
(3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and
(4) The parking or storage is clearly accessory to a residential use on the subject
property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident of the subject property.
Section 26. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and
severable. The invalidity or unconstitutionality of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall not effect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its
application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 27. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days
after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - , PAGE 37 September 11, 2000
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the __ day of ,2000.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE PARK
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, N. CRIST1NE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, ROBERT C. STERBANK
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
I:\2000 Code AmendmentsLMiscellaneous Code Amendments~Draft Ordinance.doc/9/12/00 5:11 PM
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 00 - ~ PAGE 38 September 11, 2000
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
__ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
__BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
On May 24, 2000, the architectural firm Hough Beck and Baird worked with staff and Pacific Playground
to create two play structure proposals for Alderbrook and Wedgewood Neighborhood Parks. Staff met
with groups from both neighborhoods to review and receive comment on the proposals. Staffhad an
tdditional meeting at Alderbrook Park with Lisa Welch and eight neighbor children on August 14 to
receive comment on the proposals as well. After meeting with both groups, staff incorporated the
neighborhood comments into the final design. The cost of the play structures include the play equipment,
soft surfacing material and a one day site supervision from Pacific Playground to work with volunteers on
the community-built installation option. The community-built option will save the City approximately
$5,000 towards the manufacturer installation. The project cost for the Alderbrook Park play structure is
$25,364.62 and the funding comes from mitigation fees collected from the fee-in-lieu-of account. The cost
for the Wedgewood Park structure is $24,681.52 and funding will come from the 1999/2000 general fund
account. The volunteer work parties have been tentatively scheduled for September 29 (Alderbrook) and
October 6 (Wedgewood). On September 7, the Parks and Recreation Commission passed a motion to
s. ...........................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the September 11, 2000 Parks,
Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee meeting, a motion was made to approve
purchase of the play structures for Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of $25,364.62) and Wedgewood
....................................................................................................................................................................
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve purchase of the play structures for
Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of $25,364.62) and Wedgewood Park (purchase amount of
....~..2. ~.,.~..S..!.:~.2.).: .......................................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................
APPROVED FOJ~INCLUSION IN,~UNCIL
- PACKET:
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
I:\COVERCC-5/14/96
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 8, 2000
TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety C~mmittee
FROM: Jon Jainga, Park Planning and Development Manager~
VIA: David ~anager
SUBJECT: Alderbrook ~l~d Wedgewood Neighborhood Parks Play Structure
Purchase Approval
Background
On May 24, the landscape architecture f'u-m, Hough Beck and Baird, worked with staff and Pacific
Playground to create two play structure proposals for Alderbrook and Wedgewood Neighborhood Parks.
On June 9, Hough Beck and Baird provided the City's Neighborhood Specialist with the proposed play
structure layouts for the two parks. The Neighborhood Specialist met with groups from both
neighborhoods to review and receive comment on the proposed play structures. Staff had an additional
meeting at Alderbrook Park with Lisa Welch and eight neighbor children on August 14 to review and
receive comment on the park proposals as well. After meeting with both groups, staff incorporated the
neighborhood comments into the f'mal design.
Staff has reviewed the £mal cost for the purchase or the play structures. The cost of the play structures
include the play equipment, soft surfacing material and a one day site supervision from Pacific Playground
to work with volunteers on the community-built installation option. (Note: the community-built
installation option saves the City approximately $5,000 towards the manufacturer installation). The play
structure packages for Alderbrook and Wedgewood are both within the project budget.
Alderbrook:
Project Budget: $33,000
Funding Source: Mitigation fees collected from fee-in-lieu-of account
Project Cost: $25,364.62 (includes WSST).
Wedgewood:
Project Budget: $50,000
Funding Source: 1999/2000 general fund account
Project Cost: $24,681.52 (includes WSST)
Note: Project expenses to date include trail development, picnic tables and clearing to improve sight lines
into the park. Remaining project expenses include benches, signage and removal of some trees.
Staff has tentatively scheduled the community volunteer work parties for Alderbrook on September 29 and
Wedgewood on October 6.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the play structures for Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of $25,364.62)
and Wedgewood Park (purchase amount of $24,681.52).
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:
On September 7, 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission passed a motion to recomment approval to
purchase the play structures for Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of $25,364.62) and Wedgewood Park
(purchase amount of $24,681.52) and forward to Council Committee for approval.
Council Committee Recommendation Options
Option One: To move to City Council on October 3 approval to purchase the play structures for
Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of $25,364.62) and Wedgewood Park (purchase
amount of $24,681.52).
Option Two: To not approve purchase of the play structures for Alderbrook Park (purchase amount of
$25,364.62) and Wedgewood Park (purchase amount of $24,681.52).
~Ch~ai~ ~~~r Com{n]~'t~/Member
PACIFIC PLAYGROUND, INC. 1 800-962-5048
· ~ ~. ':~ "-',., ....
/ '~'.~ ~,,., %' ~.: ....
~ i ~ '~ '~ '"%.
PROPOSE~:~/pAiH ',, ~.~..
' ~ ~:~*~:r-- ........ '%"
W/ APPROX ",', .---':: .... '
'
:"~.~,, ~ ZONES (DASHED LINE~
_ ./2-] ~
".~F
~OX. kOCAIIO~
- EXISTING PICNIC EXISTING
,BLE PAD, ~P ..... .,~ PICNIC IABLE
....... , ~" ,,:. -- FIELD (FUTURE) ~
/~0 (2) SPICA'S .....:~:~
( ONE (1) M 146 -.... ?-"
~' MULTI SEESAW
'-.... ' APPROX. 175L. F.
.
"'--..""'--. "- BORDER EDGING '"'-.
SEE".A~AC~ED '"':~ ~.~
"ouor~r~o~:'~S~[~;~'''-~-.. [x~s,~ [~ o~"
,¥,_.. . ./...
FROM PACI. FIC'%:'... .. VEG~ATION, ~p.,
~AT[~: dU~[ 26, 2000
_ Wedgewood
' Park.
,o~~ _ ~O~IS City
& ~iffi I~.
.o~ ~.,~cm.~ 0 25 50 100 CONCEPT P~N
~NING
Oun-16-O0 09:58A Pacific Pla.ygv'ound, ~n¢. 1 253 5651Z31 P.01.
M 146 MULTI SPRING SEESAW
GXY 8014 SPICA 1TM · GXY 8015 SPICA 2TM GXY 8016 SPICA 3TM
n n n
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2000 ITEM# ~- ~)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT' A.quatic Lands Enhancement Account ALEA
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: At the May 16 City Council meeting, a resolution was approved to
submit a grant application to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account for the Dumas Bay Centre
property. The project scope proposed is to remove existing asphalt on the grounds behind the centre and
increase storm water infiltration to reduce erosion and protect the existing aquatic habitat in Dumas Bay.
*riot to completing a site plan, the preliminary cost estimates for the project came to $500,000. Based on
the final site plan, the cost estimate for the project is $516,822.82. The City's match of$258,411.41 has
been submitted as a new program request as part of the City's 2001-2002 budge process. Additionally,
staff is review two other grant sources from the Corps of Engineers and Salmon Recovery Funding for the
City's match. The ALEA application requires official approval of the project's site plan. The Arts
...................................................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the September 11, 2000 Parks,
Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee meeting, a motion was made to approve
the site plan as submitted in the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account grant application for the Dumas Bay
st.... ......................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the site plan as submitted in the Aquatic
......................................................
APPROVED FO~I~CLUSION IN ~L
PACI T:
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
I:\COVERCC-5/14/96
Item 5A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Date: September 4, 2000
To: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee
From: Mary Faber, Community and Cultural Services Manager
Via: David M~~Manager
Subject: Aquatic Land§ Enhancement Account
Dumas Bay Restoration Project Resolution
Backeround:
The Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) is a program that provides a 50% match for projects
that include the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes and for
providing and improving access to such lands. Projects that are approved during this grant cycle will
receive funding during Washington State's 2001-2003 biennium (July 1, 2000-June 30, 2003).
At the May 16 Council meeting, Council approved a Resolution to submit a grant application for Dumas Bay
Centre property. The project scope proposed is to remove existing asphalt on the grounds behind the Centre
and increase storm water infiltration to reduce erosion and protect the existing aquatic habitat in Dumas Bay.
Prior to completing a site plan, the preliminary cost estimates for the project came to $500,000.00. Based
on the final site plan, the cost estimate for the project is $516,822.82. The City's match of $258,411.41 has
been submitted as a new program request as part of the City's 2001-2002 biennium budget process.
Additionally, staff is reviewing two other grant sources from the Corps of Engineers and Salmon Recovery
Funding for the City's 50% match.
The ALEA ApPlication requires official approval of the project's site plan. Therefore, the Arts Commission
reviewed the application and final site plan for the project at the August Committee meeting and voted to
approve the site plan. A copy of the application, cost estimate, project scope, and site plan is included.
Committee Recommendation:
Motion to place on the City Council's October 3 agenda, under Consent, approval of the site plan as
submitted in the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account Grant Application for the Dumas Bay Restoration
Project.
~APPROVAL OF COMMITTE~ ;7 J.7
~""~"~ Com~mit~e Memb
Form #6 Development Project
ALEA Development Project Detail
1. Source of sponsoFs share (minimum of 50% is required):
Local Match:
1. Appropriations $ 258,411
2. Bonds
3. Volunteer labor, equipment and material donations
4. In-kind contributions
5. Land donations
6. Other Local Match (specify: )
7. Grant~:
2. CZM
3. ISTEA
4. Other Grants (identify: )
TOTAL SPONSORS SHARE $ 258,411
2. Have any applications for other fun~ls been made for this project?
· 1 No CI Yes (specify:)
Is this a part of your match?
When will you know if these funds have been awarded?
What kind of contingency plan do you have?
3. What permits/coordination are required for this project? Please list and explain current status.
(NOTE: All projects selected for funding must be able to demonstrate that all permits will be ac-
quired within nine months of signing an AI.EA grant agreement.)
SEPA, Shoreline Hanagement, City o£ Federal Way Land Use Approval Permits are
under preparation along with grant preparation.
4. Has the site plan been officially adopted by the local agency? $
EJNo ~lYes Date adopted: for adoption June 2.000
5. Design and engineering work to be done by~
CI Staff -
~1 Combination _
CI Other (specify)
~ 2000 Grant Applic~tion ~ooklet
· ALEA Development Project Detail continued #6
6' Construction or restoration will be accomplished by:
~ Contract
CI Force account
CI Volunteers
7. Estimated annual monitoring and/o'r maintenance cost $ 3,000 . per year.
The project sponsor acknowledges that the amount indicated above is the most current estimate of funds neces-
sary to cover operation and maintenance of the site proposed for development and that adequate operation and
maintenance funds will be budgeted annually subsequent to the completion of the development.
8. Explain how site monitoring and/or maintenance will be carried out:
The project site will be maintained and monitored~regularly by the City of Federal
Way Parks Department staff on-site at the commuity center through the life of the
project. The City of Federal Way's Surface Water Quality Program staff will also
periodically monitor the site, as well as other King County departments and staff.
Post construction maintenance and monitoring for a period of 5 years h.a_s been established
at an estimated cost of 10% of the planting material costs er ye,ar._
9. Does this project involve development that will occur on, or adjacent ~o~, awe~lana area?
~1 No CI Yes
If yes, all projects will be evaluated whether they are consistent with the DNR policy on wetlands which requires
no net loss of function or area of significant wetland habitat. Further questions should be directed to ALEA
10. Do any listed or priority species or habitats occur on the site?
El No [~ Yes
If yes, what is being done to avoid or mitigate impacts?
The project is being implemented to restore and protect h~b~r~r ~:nr l~_~ted a?.d
priority species. Construction sediment erosion control ~echniques/struc-t,~rm.~
will be deployed dUring the course of the project. The project will occur during
defined permit time line taking into account the presence of'potentially ~mpncr~d -~pecie
11. Has an archaeological sur~ey been comp]eted on the site?
~ No · C] Yes
If yes, describe findings.
12. Will public access be developed to meet requirements for disabled access?
CI No ~i Yes CI N/A (No public access proposed)
If yes, what is being done to allow access for the physically challenged? I/site is not barrier free, please explain.
Ail paths will be constructed of 3/8(-) ~ushed roc~ r~ m~ acce=_si_bi!ity
requirements for the State of Washington.
ALFA 2000 Grant ~pplicati. on Bookie
Form #7 Development Project
AI,EA Development Proj'ect Cost Estimate
Name of Project: Dumas Bay Restoration Pro~ect
Date: __ June
This outline should serve as a guide in preparing cost estimates. Depending on individual projects, some items
will not be applicable; at other times the categories and items will need to be expanded.
1. Site preparation:
1. Clearing .4 Acre(s) $ 4,077.00
2. Cut/Excavate Cubic Yards (C.Y.) $
3. Dredge C.Y. $
5. Grading 46,500 S.F. $ 15,345.00
6. Demolition 21,970 S.F. $ 95,469.00
7.-~il~ P~cm~ra] Erosion Control # Lump Sum $ 5.500.00
8. Non-native Plant Removal Acres or S.F. $
9. Large Organic Debris (LOD) (clear ~.¥. Lump Sum $ 3,300.00
brush)
1. SUB-TOTALS 123;691.00
2. Roads, paths and parkingq
Reads $
(surface) (~idth) (L.F.)
Paths 3/8(') crushed rock +/- 8' wide 1,875 LF $ 10,175.00
(surface) (width) (L.F.)
% of path to the water %.
% of path adjacent to the water % +/- 20% (at top of bank)
Parking (indicate surface) Sq. Feet (S.F:) Spaces $
Foot Bridge(s) $
(materials) (width) (L.F.)
2. SUB-TOTALS 10,175.00
3. Sanitary facilities:
Restrooms (# ) Size __ S.F. $
Trash containers (# ) $
3. SUB-TOTAL $ 0
ALFA 2000 Grant Application Booklet
AI,EA Development Project # 7
Cost Estimate continued
4. Landscaping/Vegetation Planting:
1. Trees,' sh~]Z-Ql~~ncl"d~n~ en~ul4:~-)~ $. 126,922.00
2. Shrubs
3.~-a~~nt existing Cree.~ $ 11,000.00
4. Grass (spec~y sod or seed) !1,800 S.F. (~acive Headow) $ 2.596.00
5. Aquatic Vegetation $
4. SUB-TOTALS 160,518.00
5. Irrigation system: ~.F'5. Lump Sum $ 35,500.00
5; SUB-TOTALS 35,500.00
6. Water recreation facilities:
Swimming area (size) (explain) $ ' -
__ Pier(s) $
(materials) (dimensions)
~ Float(s) $
(materials) (dimensions)
-- Shore works (explain) $
(materials and dimensions)
__ Boat access
__ Nonmotorized $'
-- Motorized $
Moorage ' $
-- Other $
6. SUB-TOTAL $ 0
7. Utilities:
1. Gas Lineal Feet (L.F.) $
2. Underground power L.F. $-
3. Water L.F. $
4. Sewer L.F.
5. Storm/Landscape Drainage ~I~l~. Lump Sum $
- 6. Septic system L.F. $
7. Lighting (explain) $
(number) 80,000; 00
7. SUBTOTAL
AI_EA 2000 Grant Applicat.ion Booklet
AI,EA Development Project
Cost Estimate continued
8. Picnic Facilities:
Tables (# )
Stoves (# )
8. SUB-TOTAL
9. Support Buildings:
Shelter (# ) S.F.
Administrative S.F.
Maintenance S.F.
O~her* (# ) S.F.
*Explain
9. SUB tOTAL $ . .0
10. Signs and Interpretive Elements:
Temporary construction sign(s) (# ) $
ALEA credit sign(s) - required -
(may be incorporated into permanent entrance sign)
# materials- dimensions
Interpretive sign(s) (# )
Will include ALEA credit $ 5,000.00
dimensions.
description
Display(s)fExhibi{(s) (#
Special interpretive features $. 7,000.00
dimensions
integrated into design
description
Installation Costs (included above) $
10. SUB- ~)TAL $ 12,000.00
ALFA 2000 Grant Application Booklet
AI,EA Development Project #7
Cost Estimate continued
401,884.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 11. $
(sum of lines 1-10)
ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING, ENGINEERING )sAN~ 80,376.80
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT COS 12. $
(Note: Limited to 20% of total project cost)
STATEAND LOCAL SALES TAX ( %) 13.$ 34,562.02
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 14.$ 516,822.82
(sum of lines 11-13)
258,411.41
AT,EA GRANT REQUEST 15. $ - ._
(not more than 50% of line 14)
258,411.41
LOCAL MATCH 16. $ .
(not less than 50% of line 14 (should equal D-3, line 1))
Total Project Cost $. ',~6,822.82
(same as line 14)
ALFA 2000 Grant Application Booklet
RESOL[ITION NO. ~00-313
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR AN-
AQUATIC L,A.~NDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT PROJECT TO--
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Chapter 79.24.580, RCW, state funding
assistance has been authorized and made available to aid in the construction of aquatic lands
enhancement projects; to aid in financing the cost of land, the improvement, or protec~tion: of aquatic
lands for public purposes; to aid in providing and improving access to such lands, and
WHEREAS, the Dumas Bay Centre is public land in Federal Way owned by the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Dumas Bay Centre property experiences significant erosion
annually of its sandy banks, which is a result in part of the asphalt areas on the southwest portion
of the site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Federal Way considers it in the best public interest
to increase storm water infiltration, redu~ erosion and restore habitat value generally located on
Dumas Bay and the Puget Sound.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COLrNCIL OF THE CITY OE EEDERAL WAY
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Res. #00-31)Page 1
Section 1. Application for Aquatic Lands Enhancement Funds.
A. The City Manager is authorized to make formal application to the Department of Natural
Resources for Aquatic Lands Enhancement funds.
B. This resolution will become part of a formal application to the Departm~'-~nt of Natural
Resources.
C. The City will provide adequate notification of the application and opportunity for public
input.
Section 2. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Funds.
A. Any fund assistance so received will be used in the restoration {o reduce e/-osion and help
protect the existing aquatic habitat at Dumas Bay.
B. The City will match any fund assistance by 50% and the City's 50% matching share for
the project will be considered as part of the City's 2001/2002 biennium budget prior to the
execution of the grant agreement.
C. The City will maintain any developed facilities financed through the Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Funds for 25 years or longer.
Section 3: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Res. fik}0-:l l;IPage 2
Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
passage by the Federal Way City Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, this 16 day of Hay .., 2~0 --
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR,'ZI~IKE P(~// '
4Zk-'TEST: __ ' _ .
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ONDI ~. L~
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 05109100
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 05116100
RESOLUTIObi biO. 00-313
kAresoXaquatielands.$$
05\09\00
Res. ~0-31:} Page 3
Legal Opinion
CITY OF~
(253) 661-4000
~'~t~~ 33530 1 SI WAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
May 10, 2000
RE: Application to the Department of Natural Resources
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney at law admitted to practice in the state of Washington and the duly selected and
appointed attomey of Federal Way. ' o
I have examined your applications which are to be filed with the Department of Natural Resources
whereby state assistance is requested for the development thereof for the purpose of providing public
access to publicly-owned aquatic land.
I have reviewed all pertinent state and local laws and particularly Sections 79.24(580) inclusive, of
the Revised Code of Washington as related to Federal Way's authority. I have further examined the
proposed program outlined in the api~lication in the light of the comprehensive land use plan for ~e
City of Federal Way, including plans for the development thereof for public access proposed by this
agency.
Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the City of Federal Way, Washington, is a public body
empowered to receive and expend state and local funds, to contract with the state of Washington,
to a~:quire and improve land for public parks and outdoor recreation, to undertake planning activities
incidental thereto, to receive and expend the funds involved for said purposes, to accomplish the
objectives set forth in the project proposal, to commit the applicant to statements made in the
proposal, and that the development thereof is in accordance with the comprehensive land use plan
adopted by the City of Federal Way, Washington.
Very Truly Yours,
Londi K. Lindell, City Attomey
City of Federal Way
APPENDIX A
Project Evaluation Questionnaire
Complete and mail with application - Must be received by June 1, 2000
PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Federal Way
PROJECT NAME: Dumas Bay Restoration Project
SITE LOCATION (required): Section/township/range Section 12, Township 21 North,
Range 3 East
PROJECT TYPE: (circle one) Protection/Restoration - Public Access ~
P/R PA
Answer each question below that is marked for the type of project (P/R and/or PA) you lndicated
above. Combination projects must answer ali questions. If a question is not marked.for a sp~'cific
project type, you must answer that question also. Refer to the info in this booklet including the
Project Evaluation criteria and scoring guidelines for guidance in answering the questions.
1. Project Type and Purpose
A. Explain how this project will protect and/or restore habitat functions and values at
the site. (P/R Projects)
Many of the aquatic fish and wildlife populations are declining or in poor condition
throughout the Puget Sound basin. In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service
and US Fish and Wildlife listed chinook salmon and bull trout from Puget Sound as
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition, the National
Marine Fisheries Services recently reviewed the status of seven other species of Puget
Sound marine fish - including pacific herring pacific cod, pacific hake, walleye
pollock and quillback, copper and brown rockfish - and may propose listing some or
all of these species as threatened or endangered, as well. Other species of concern in
the project area include blue heron, bald eagles, and the offshore ellgrass beds. The
ellgrass beds are an area of high productivity and act as a nursery for marine
organisms providing refuge and food for young fish. The King County Nearshore
Technical Committee has identified the Dumas Bay ellgrass beds as a unique and
highly valued Puget Sound habitat for young salmonid development.
The site at Dumas Bay specifically supports estuarine and marine nearshore habitat
for chinook salmon, bull trout and offshore eelgrass beds. Historically chinook
salmon were present in loe's Creek and Lakota Creek, adjacent to our project site,
both of which drain into Puget Sound at Dumas Bay. Coho and chum salmon
currently spawn in the adjacent creeks. Cutthroat trout are also present in the creek
systems.
ALEA 2000 Grant AppUcation
Appendix A continued
The Washington Dept· of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) has identified the shoreline and
tidelands of Dumas Bay as eagle breeding territory with nests in the Dash Point and ,
Dumas Bay shoreline areas. The shoreline and tideflats of Dumas Bay are also used
as foraging areas by the great blue heron rookery located in Dumas Bay.
One of the major causes of habitat degradation for aquatic fish and other wildlife in
Puget Sound is the increased storm water runofffrom urban developed areas adjacent
to the shoreline and the increased toxic pollution contained in that runoff. Currently,
storm water runoff fi.om a parking lot adjacent to the shoreline at Dumas Bay is
discharging directly into Puget Sound, increasing water temperatures along the
shoreline and causing pollution from cars and other contaminants. This project will
help protect and restore habitat functions and values at Dumas Bay by eliminating
pollution and storm water runoff into the bay from the paved parking lot adjacent to
the shoreline, removing invasive plant species along the shoreline and restoring the
shoreline buffer to more natural conditions. Future phases will consider altern&~ives
to the existing bulkhead at the base of the Dumas Bay, as well as, a more
environmentally sensitive meadow treatment to replace the ornamental lawn
associated with the Conference/Performance Center. This project will directly affect
the nearshore rearing, breeding, and feeding habitat for Puget Sound chinook salmon
species and other marine organisms that occupy the nearshore habitat; improve and
support eelgrass habitat along Dumas Bay; and contribute to the stabilization and
habitat value of the shoreline bluff through added infiltration and reduction in
sediment erosion.
B. Explain how this project will provide or improve public access to the water. (PA
projects)
Development of this project will provide controlled public access to the water as it
relates specifically to views through the development of view corridors and accessible
crushed rock paths and overlooks leading towards the top of the shoreline above
Dumas Bay.
C. How will this project enhance the public's understanding and enjoyment of aquatic
resources ?
This project will enhance the public's understanding and enjoyment of aquatic
resources through the creation of an ecological demonstration garden as part of the
restored shoreline buffer, enhanced views to Dumas Bay and an education program to
include interpretive elements highlighting the project, the importance of the Puget
Sound ecosystem, and how people can influence that ecosystem.
2. Need and Public Awareness
ALEA 2000 Grant Application I
Appendix A continued
A. What is the need for this project and how is it evidenced (studies, surveys, or other
analysis) ?
The site at Dumas Bay provides unique and outstanding estuarine and nearshore
habitat, including nursery, breeding, and feeding areas for juvenile chinook salmon,
bull trout, rock fish, as well as other marine organisms (King County Hylebos Creek
and Lower Puget Sound Basins Current and Future Conditions Report, July 1990;
letter of support, WDFW). The project site is also identified as a high priority area to
prese~e and/or restore by the King County Nearshore Technical Committee. Both
the Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek systems drain into Puget Sound at Dumas Bay,
directly adjacent to our site, supporting the migrating salmon population found in
Dumas Bay. King County classifies these two streams as "Class 2 with salmonids".
Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek are also designated as environmentally sensitive areas
through the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan. Historically chinook, coho,
and chum salmon were present in Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek systems. Today,
coho and chum salmon spawn in the creek systems. This project represent_s an
important link between the fresh water habitat and marine habitat environment~;.for
these migrating salmonid species.
Current studies and reports show an alarming trend in this area of increased pollution
and water temperatures from urban development, in addition to a number of other
factors, contributing to the depletion of this invaluable habitat along Dumas Bay and
the greater Puget Sound region. The 2000 Puget Sound Update published by the
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team states "development has substantially
altered Puget Sound's shoreline, leading to losses of natural habitat - especially in
nearshore areas.., and is the single most common factor associated with the listing
of endangered or threatened species nationwide." In addition, they estimate that more
than 50% of tidal flats and intertidal areas has been lost since 1850, with significantly
higher losses in urban areas, such as Dumas Bay. The main basin of Puget Sound is
the most intensively modified region of the Sound with more than half of its shoreline
altered, and it is estimated that over 80% of the shoreline of King County has been
altered. The 2000. Puget Sound Update also showed a high concentration of PAHs in
shellfish studied as part of the NOAA Mussel Watch program in areas near Dumas
Bay. Commercially important species known to reside in Dumas Bay include:
dungeness crab, littleneck clam, manila clam and geoduck.
The alarming rate of nearshore habitat losses, including the decline of eelgrass beds,
shoreline habitat, and the recent listing of chinook and bull trout salmonids under the
federal Endangered. Species Act, reinforce the importance of this project and its
timing in light of these issues. Nearly 80% of Puget Sound's main basin is no longer
in its natural state due to alternation by human influences, including backshore
alterations (2000 Puget Sound Update), such as the current conditions at Dumas Bay.
As a result, this area has been identified by the City of Federal Way through City
ordinances and the City's Comprehensive Plan as a high priority area to preserve and
restore and is supported in the studies and reports referenced above. -
ALEA 2000 Grant Appllca¢ion /
Appendix A continued
This project is also supported by local communities, as well as, federal agencies with
letters of support from the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Washington Dept. offish &
Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the King County Dept. of Natural
Resources Nearshore Technical Committee. King County has also recognized the
unique opportunity this project presents to designate the shoreline habitat restoration
of Dumas Bay an official management demonstration zone for an ESA listed species.
B. Is the site located in an ecologically critical area of the estuary or basin that is
important for certain species? (P/R projects)
The site is located in an ecologically critical area of Dumas Bay for chinook and coho
salmon, cutthroat trout, eelgrass, rockfish, sea cucumbers, bull trout and geoduck
clams as described in the reports, studies and letters referenced above. It is directly
connected to both Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek, which drain into Puget Sound at
Dumas Bay, and support spawning coho and chum salmon. The ShoreZone inventory
provided by the Dept. of Natural Resources also maps the project site as an_ eelgrass
area, providing important habitat for salmon, marine fish, birds and other wildlife.
C. How has the public been made aware of this project? Is it identi, fied in an approved
watershed plan or local plan?
This project is identified and supported by the public through the City's
Comprehensive Plan process as a habitat restoration/preservation project to a
designated environmentally sensitive area. Dumas Bay is also specifically identified
in the King County Current and Future Conditions Report (1990).
D. Describe the public's response to this project, including any concerns.
The public has shown an overwhelming support for this project, by local communities
as Well as federal agencies, with letters of support from the Puyallup Tribe of Indians,
the Washington Dept. offish & Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers and the King
County Dept. of Natural Resources Nearshore Technical Committee. King County
also supports this project as a unique opportunity to designate the shoreline
restoration of Dumas Bay an official management demonstration zone for an ESA
listed species. This project is supported by the community under the restoration of
environmentally sensitive areas in the City's Comprehensive Plan process.
3. Physical Suitability of the Site and Appropriateness of Use
A. Describe the current use of the site and history. Include past human uses attd prior
habitat functions. Are there any water control structures affecting the site
culverts, tide gates, outlets, etc.)? Are there any exotic species that may affect the
success of the project?
This site was originally developed as a retreat facility owned by the Catholic Church
and managed by the Sisters of the Visitation and remained in private use u_ntil 1993.
ALEA 2000 Grant Application
$:X20~0-0~ B'~kdn~n~v'~lu, a6o~
Appendix A continued
The site, now owned by the City of Federal Way, is currently used as a
Conference/Performance Center and performing arts center for the City and its
neighboring residents. Historic photos suggest this area originally served as upland
habitat associated with the two creek corridors on either side of the site, as well as,
shoreline habitat for fish and other aquatic life in Puget Sound.
There is currently an outlet at the base of the slope directly discharging storm water
from the parking lot above into Dumas Bay. The proposed development would
eliminate pollution and storm water runoff into the bay from the parking lot and
restore the upland shoreline area to more natural vegetation and drainage conditions.
There are no known exotic species that may affect the success of the project.
B. Does the project have functional connectivity with existing or potential habitat sites
(eg: contiguous to other high value habitats; can become part of an existing or
potential wildfire corridor)? (P/R projects)
The project site is directly adjacent to both Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek, which
drain into Puget Sound at Dumas Bay. Both creeks have been designated as
important salmonid and cutthroat trout habitat in the City of Federal Way's
ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. The creeks' riparian environments are already
protected through development regulations associated with a d. esignated
environmentally sensitive area in the City's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan to
protect the fresh water habitat environment. This restoration and preservation project
represents an important link between fresh water habitat and marine habitat
envkonments for migrating salmon species, including chinook, coho and chum
salmonids, and will provide an important connection in restoring estuarine feeding,
rearing and breeding habitat along Dumas Bay. In addition, adjacent and nearby
shoreline areas protected under the City's Comprehensive Plan, create a pattern of
protected and/or restored shoreline from Dash Point State Park & Wetlands and the
Dumas Bay Park/Wildlife Preserve south of our site to Poverty Bay Park just north of
our site. Protected riparian corridors as part of the Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek
basins on either side of Dumas Bay Park extend east to Olympic View Park &
Wetlands and encompass the Decatur High School and Olympic View Elementary
School. These corridors represent important habitat for salmonids and other
migrating fish species, as well as, a wildlife corridor for bald eagles present at Dumas
Bay.
C. Is the site large enough to maintain long-term ecosystem function on its own, or is it
adjacent to a large protected area or areas that will complement existing habitat?
(P/R Projects)
The site is adjacent to a larger area of contiguous habitat through the Joe's Creek and
Lakota Creek corridors, as described above. This combined habitat preservation and
conservation area creates a critical connection between fresh water habitat -
environments and marine environments for fish and other aquatic wildlife to support a
ALEA 2000 Grant Application I
Appendix A continued
larger resource and ecosystem.
D. Describe the natural features of this site that make it a suitable location for this
project, such as wave exposure, shoreline processes, bank height, view, slope,
habitat, etc.
The site is relatively fiat with little to no existing vegetation, and what vegetation
does exist is ornamental in nature, requiring more fertilizer, water and maintenance
than the more natural, sustainable environment proposed. The elevated site is ideally
situated to provide outstanding views of the Sound and eliminate any disturbances to
the proposed project from or to natural features, such as wave exposure, shoreline
processes, erosion, etc. As such, it is ideally suitable for the habitat restoration and
uses proposed at the site.
E. Is the site sufficiently separated from sources of contaminants or environmental
disturbances (eg: contaminated sediments, pollution, noise, or light) so ascot, t_o
cause a long-term problem for fish and wildlife or public use?
The proposed development would eliminate existing sources of contaminants and
environmental disturbances from sediments and pollution associated with the existing
asphalt parking area into Dumas Bay by restoring a native shoreline buffer along
Dumas Bay. Future phases will consider alternatives to the existing bulkhead at the
base of the Dumas Bay, as well as, a more environmentally sensitive meadow
treatment to replace the ornamental lawn associated with the Conference/Performance
Center. The project will not produce any noise or light pollution related to public use,
and will not cause any long-term problems for fish or wildlife species.
F. What steps have been taken to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to sensitive areas?
The City of Federal Way has made it a priority in their City ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan to protect and enhance sensitive areas within the City. The 1997
Dumas Bay Center Monitoring and Final Recommendations Report, as well as, an
Environmental Analysis report (1994) were conducted for the associated
Conference/Performance Center at Dumas Bay to evaluate and study the
environmental conditions related to the site.
In the design of this project, consideration has been given to the sensitive slope
adjacent to our site and the environmental conditions presented in these reports
through the proposed re-establishment of a native shoreline buffer and revegetation of
the slope adjacent to Dumas Bay. Future phases will consider alternatives to the
existing bulkhead at the base °fthe Dumas Bay, as well as, a more environmentally
sensitive meadow treatment to replace the ornamental lawn associated with the
Conference/Performance Center. In addition, the proposed educational program will
highlight sustainable landscape practices, native plant materials, integrated pest
management strategies a/id appropriate maintenance practices adjacent to ashoreline
environment. Controlled public access to view overlooks will.help avoid adverse
ALEA 2000 G~-ant Application
Appendix A continued
impacts to the shoreline and slope, as well.
4. Site Monitoring and Management
A. Describe the monitoring requirements for successful restoration. (P/R projects)
Successful restoration of the site will require on-going monitoring through the
construction phase of the project to ensure all necessary precautions are taken to
avoid any adverse impacts to the shoreline environment from construction activities,
such as sediment/erosion controls, on-site detention/collection of storm water during
construction and proper plant installation to eliminate use of fertilizers or other
harmful chemicals. Proper monitoring and maintenance of the site through the plant
establishment period will also be critical to the successful restoration of the site.
The City of Federal Way is committed to having a representative on-site during all
phases of the project to ensure these goals are met.
B. What arrangements have been or will be made to monitor the site for the life 'of the
project? (P/R ProJects)
The City of Federal Way is committed to the long-term monitoring of the site for the
life of the project. City of Federal Way staff has over 10 years of experience in
monitoring and maintaining park, shoreline and environmental facilities throughout
the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound regions.
C. How will the site be staffed and managed to protect the site from vandalism, and to
ensure public safety and compliance with existing laws? (PA projects)
A full-time staff' of three people are located at the Conference/Performance Center,
seven days a week, 24 hours a day (including two additional caretakers living on the
premises) to monitor and manage the site, protect the site fi.om vandalism and ensure
public safety and compliance with existing laws.. The park is closed to the public
fi.om dusk until dawn.
D. Is there potential for user conflicts at the site? (PA Projects)
There is no potential for user conilicts at the site. Public access to view overlooks
will be controlled to protect the slope and shoreline below and on-site demonstration
gardens and educational components of the project will enhance the user's experience
at the site.
E. What are the long-term arrangements for maintenance of the site ? (PA projects)
The long-term maintenance of the site will be a regular part of the on-site staff
management responsibilities for the Conference/Performance Center at Dumas Bay.
City of Federal Way staff'has over 10 years of experience in monitoring, and
maintaining park, shoreline and environmental facilities throughout the Pacific
ALEA 2000 Grant Application
S:X2OOO~OSB~kdmin~Evalua6on Req~nu~.do~
Appendix A continued
Northwest and Puget Sound regions.
5. Quality of Design
A. Will the project require decreasing involvement over time? Attributes intpactittg the
likelihood of success include ele~,ation, water level, currents, deposition, wave
energy, topography, bathymetry, and shoreline conditio,. (P/R projects)
Due to the elevated location and separation fi.om direct tidal and wave influences on
the site,' as well as the sustainable nature of the proposed landscape improvements,
the project will require decreasing involvement over time. However, on-going
periodic monitoring of the project site may be desired to provide historical analytical
data for future projects of a similar nature and to maintain the demonstration gardens
with new and state-of-the-art technologies.
B. How will tinting of the restoratiott effort minimize impact on.fish and wildlife?. Will
activities such as vegetative planting or instream work occur at the most.viable
times? (P/R projects)
Proposed timing of the restoration effort will minimize impacts on fish and wildlife
through appropriate erosion control and access measures to ensure no adverse impacts
to the slope or associated shoreline environment occurs. No work in adjacent surface
water bodies is anticipated for this project.
C. What is the nature and condition of existing suirounding land use as well as future
concerns such as shoreline designation, zoning, comprehensive or project specific
planning?
Current surrounding land use is residential with environmentally sensitive areas,
shoreline and wetlands. Long-term protection of environmentally sensitive areas has
been designated through the City's ordinances, zoning, and the Comprehensive Land-
use Plan.
D. How is the site desigr~ visually integrated into the landscape features? (PA projects)
The site design will be visually integrated into the landscape features through the use
of native plants to complement the surrounding native vegetation and re-establish a
shoreline buffer. Informal pedestrian paths and view overlooks will respond to the
existing topography, as well as, the sensitive nature of the shoreline and adjacent
slope environments. '
E. How will the site be designed to handle projected use?
Accessible crushed rock paths will provide controlled public access to protect the
slope and shoreline along Dumas Bay. On-site demonstration gardens and other
interpretive educational components of the project will enhanc9 the user's experience
ALEA 2000 Grant Application
Appendix A continued
at the site.
F. How viable are the proposed public use facilities, given the required regulatory and
proprietary approvals, funding, etc. ?
All applicable permits will be secured prior to beginning project construction. As a
restoration/habitat enhancement project, we do not anticipate any adverse impacts
during the permit process. The City, as the proprietary agency and project sponsor,
supports the proposed design and public use facilities and is committed to ensuring
the long-term restoration and preservation of Puget Sound's marine and estuarine
environments.
6. Quality of Interpretation
A. Describe the interpretive elements of the project, including conte,t and materials that
will be used.
Public involvement and interpretive education programs will be a significant
component of this project. Interpretive components of the project will be integrated
into the overall design and will describe sustainable landscape practices adjacent to
shoreline environments, ecological value of estuarine and nearshore habitat and
appropriate maintenance practices adjacent to a shoreline. The educational element
of the project will consider the overall ecological system associated with a marine
environment and discuss the relationship in the life-cycle of salmon and other fish
species between fresh water ~ind salt water environments, as well as, describe other
benefits of an estuarine and nearshore marine ecosystem. The overall long-term
sustainability of these environments will be a continuing theme throughout the
materials used to support the proposed educational/public involvement program.
Due to the existing Conference/Performance Center and programs on the site, the
elevated views, direct relationship to the Sound and past environmental history, this
site is uniquely suited to accomplish all of the goals stated above to support this
project and the overall public awareness of aquatic habitat environments.
7. Overall Compatibility with ALEA program objectives
A. Describe how this project meets the objectives of the ALEA program (refer to page 2
of this booklet}.
This project meets all of the objectives of the ALEA program. The proposed
improvements will rehabilitate critical marine and estuarine aquatic habitat in an area
critical to fish and other aquatic wildlife, including species recently listed or proposed
for listing with the federal Endangered Species Act. It will encourage the re-
establishment of a more naturally self-sustaining landscape over the long-term with
the restoration of shoreline habitat in place of asphalt paving. The propos&l
improvements will also fully integrate the site into the larger ecological landscape
ALEA 2000 Grant Application 1
S:&2~O~Q~B~d~fl~v~lua~ ~.~
Appendix A continued
through the connection to adjacent riparian corridors, preserving habitat for salmon
species migrating from the Sound to spawning areas up-creek.
The proposed project will protect existing high value aquatic habitats, including
nearshore salmon habitat and eelgrass beds, allowing natural processes to occur by
eliminating existing sources of contaminants and environmental disturbances from
sediments and pollution off.the existing asphalt pavement into Dumas Bay. Future
phases will consider alternatives to the existing bulkhead at the base of the Dumas
Bay, as well as, a more environmentally sensitive meadow treatment to replace the
ornamental lawn associated with the Conference/Performance Center. Controlled
public access to view overlooks will help protect the existing shoreline and aquatic
habitat, as well.
The proposed development will provide improved, accessible opportunities for people
to view the waterfront and shoreline environment. The educational program,
interpretive design elements and demonstration gardens will to help increase pu.b_lic
awareness of aquatic lands as a finite natural resource and irreplaceable public
heritage, creating a self-sustaining, ecologically healthy system consistent with the
goals and objectives of the City and the ALEA program.
ALEA 2000 Grant Application
North
_~e_gional Location Map
Dumas Bay Restoration Project
'.
i'
':~ I '
~'
· -~,;,~-. "~': , .Federal
Site Location Map [ikeFa~illtios
Dum~ Bay Restoraion Project
RECEIVED¥.,
- HAY 2 2 2000
State of Washington ~M~I~ON D~8ION ,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing A~ress: 6~ ~pil~ Way N · Olympia, WA 98501-1091 - (360) 902-2200, TDD (~0) 902-2207
Main Office L~tion: Natural Resources Budding · 1111 Washington Street SE - ~ympia, WA
~ay 17, 2000 _
Darla Wise
City Of Federal Way
33530 1" Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003-6210
RE: Dumas Bay Restoration Project Application for ALEA Grant Funding
Dear Ms. Wise:
The Department of Fi~h and Wildlife (WDF~ is responding to your request for project comment
and support. While we have not been able to review specific details regarding the proposed
restoration project, we are sufficiently familiar with the site and the restoration beneficiaries to
provide these comments.
The proposed restoration project will provide direct benefits to both fish and wildlife species
associated with Dumas Bay. This will be accomplished by reducing the existing impervious
surface area in the vicinity of the shoreline and restoring natural shoreline vegetation. Reduction
of this impervious surface area is expected to result in lower volumes Of stormwater runoff which
will ultimately increase water quality conditions and decrease fine sediment loading of the bay.
The conversion of presently disturbed/paved areas and removal of exotic, invasive vegetation to
functional estuarine habitat will also lead to improvement of the overall habitat condition which
will benefit both aquatic organisms and terrestrial species as 'well.
The water quality and habitat improvements can be expected to target these benefits for juvenile
salmonids as the proper function of estuaries and estuary-associated stream reaches are crucial for
juvenile to adult survival. This project, together with Other restoration efforts, can be expected to
improve this survival factor for chinook, coho and chum salmon in addition to cutthroat trout and
native char (bull trout). Adult bull trout and cutthroat also key on these estuaries and lower
stream segments for forage opportunities due to relatively higher productivity and food sources.
It is for these reasons that WDFW can support this restoration project for funding. The City of
Federal Way has demonstrated a genuine commitment and effectiveness in dealing with natural _
resource issues and restoration efforts such as this.
Sincerely,
Don Nauer
Area Habitat Biologist/Region 6
Ut' i-b. UI-NHL bJHY 1U:Z:)o-ooI.-~uq~ r~M~ ,ZO VU
RECEIVED
G DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
C£ATTL[ OISTI~ICT, CORP9 OF
,,.o. ,ox
ADMINIDI'EATION DWIglON
May 22, 2000
Ms. Dada Wise
Sud'~¢ Water Program Coordinator
City of Federal Way
33530 1'~ Way S.
Federal Way WA 98003
Dear Ms. Wise
RE: Dumas Bay Restoration Pmjcct.
The Environment Resources Section of the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) would like to offer its support in spirit, for the Dumas Bay l~stor~tion
Project. The proposed Project would remove an asphalt parking lot on the shoreline side
of'Dumas Bay Center and also remove noxious invasive v~getation from the shoreline
bluffand re-vegetate with native plants. The former paved area will be replanted with
native vegetation providin8 restoration and protection ofshorellne habitat. The
replacement ofimpt~Mous asphalt with native vegetation will increase stormwator
infiltration, reduce sediment erosion, improve water quality, and restore habitat value
adjacent to and within Dumas Bay.
If you have.any questions regarding this letter &support please contact Mr.
Patrick Cagney of'my staff'at (206) 764-6577.
Respectfully, . .
Mark Zimi~hi~
Environmental Resources S~tion
· .. 'C'ITY OF FEDERRL WRY ID:255-661-zlOZ18 MHY 25'00 16:09 No.UUn
City of F. ecleral Way
33530 1" Way South
Federal way, WA 98003
RE: Dumaa Bay ReetoraUon Project ALEA Grant
Dear Ms. Wee:
The Puyallup Tribe of Indians wholeheartedly &upporla the City'~ offo~l~ toward
obtaining grant funding to perform restoration work at Dumas Bey. As you are
awlre, the nearahore environment playa a vital support role for emigrating
salmonids em well as many other ~pecies. The incremental lo~a of natural
shoreline habitat due to (~evelopment has had a profound impact upon the
procermae and funceone necessary [o sustain the~e species.
Proj~ct~ auch ae tho one you have proposcd offer a means of centering aritl~l-
habitat end am therefore key alementa of an effective endangerad el~ecles
respormeo
We wish you the best of luck in completing thia project.
Protection Manager
6824 Pioneer Way East · Puyallup. Washington 98371 · (253)A4R-g?~'.~ , (~53)593.02~4
I
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
...............................................................................
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
On June 12, the Council Committee reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation on
procedure guidelines for Celebration Park. The committee recommended changes to the commission's
recommendation, and returned the item to the commission. The committee also stated that the guidelines
;hould not be limited to Celebration Park, but should apply to all parks. On August 3, the commission
reviewed the Council Committee's changes and passed a motion to recommend to the Council Committee
to accept the changes as recommended and to add the word "all" before "parks." The recommended
procedure/guideline to follow where possible to review changes to park properties and facilities is as
follows: "Where possible, any changes to all park properties and facilities (with the exception of Dumas
Bay Centre and Knutzen Family Theatre) in the use or change/installation of new structures or facilities
beyond replacement be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The commission will forward
a recommendation to the Council Committee. When legal review is appropriate, the Law Department will
review the recommendation prior to forwarding to the Council Committee. Council Committee's final
.............................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the September 11, 2000 Parks,
Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee meeting, a motion was made to approve
the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation on procedure/guidelines to review changes to all
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
......
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's
APPROVED Fg.I~INCLUSION I~. OUNCIL
PACKET: ~ '....~.,~ J'~ ~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1 st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
I:\COVERCC-5/14/96
Item 5E
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 27, 2000
To: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Pub//lic Safety Council Committee
From: Parks and Recreation Commissi.,pc,n~/~
Submitted by: Jennifer L. Schroder. Director//'~,4'-~
Via: David Mosek~~nagev;/'
Subject Procedure/Guidlfliries for Review of Changes to Park Properties and Facilities
Background:
The Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee reviewed the commission's
recommendation on procedure guidelines for Celebration Park on June 12, 2000. The committee recommended
changes to the commission's reconm~endation. The committee directed staff to return this item to the commission
and asked that they review their changes and forward a recommendation on the proposed guidelines.
Furthermore, the committee stated that the guidelines should not be limited to Celebration Park. The guidelines
should apply to all park properties. The committee's changes are shown below. Deletes are shown as strike-outs,
adds are underlined:
Where possible, any changes to park properties and facilities (with the exception of Dumas Bay Centre and Knutzen
Family Theatre) in the use or change/installation of new structures or facilities beyond replacement of c'x2rsting
stiuctuics oi ,~,Ali~ics be reviewed aiid apt.,~uvcd by the commission. The commission will forward a
recommendation to the council committee ...........................................
When legal review is appropriate, the Law Department will review the recommendation prior to forwarding to the
Council Committee. Council Committee's final recommendation will be placed before the full Council for
adoption.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:
At the commission's August 3, 2000 meeting, the commission reviewed the Council Committee's changes to the
proposed procedure. The commission passed a motion to recommend to the Council Committee to accept the
changes recommended by the Council Committee and to add the word "all" before "parks." The recommended
procedure/guidelines to follow where possible to review changes to park properties and facilities is the following:
Where possible, any changes to all park properties and facilities (with the exception of Dumas Bay Centre
and Knutzen Family Theatre) in the use or change/installation of new structures or facilities beyond
replacement be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The commission will forward a
recommendation to the Council Committee. When legal review is appropriate, the Law Department will
review the recommendation prior to forwarding to the Council Committee. Council Committee's final
recommendation will be placed before the full Council for adoption.
Council Committee Recommendation Options:
· Option~ To move to City Council on October 3, under consent: to approve the Parks and Recreation
Commission's recommendation on procedure/guidelines to review changes to all park properties
and facilities.
Option two: To move to City Council on October 3, under consent: to approve the Parks and Recreation
Commission's recommendation on procedure/guidelines to review changes to all park properties
and facilities as amended by the committee.
Option Three: To return this item to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further review.
Inh' ov oFco nvurr . t
~3,flmmittee Chair ~~ee Member / Com~tte~ ~[emb;r
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
....................................................................
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: On August 7, the Parks and Recreation Commission submitted to the
Parks, Recreation, Human Service & Public Safety Committee guidelines to follow when considering
public/private partnerships. The Council Committee returned the item to the commission for further
review. The commission's Capital Facilities Committee met on August 10 to consider the Council
~ommittec's comments. The committee recommended a 13-step process. On September 7, the Parks and
Recreation Commission passed a motion to recommend to the Council Committee approval of the
recommendation for procedures to follow when evaluating public/private partnerships.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the September 11, 2000 Parks,
Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee meeting, a motion was made to approve
the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation for procedures to follow when evaluating
......................................................................................................................................................................................
.........
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's
PACKET:APPROVED FO~NCLUSION( '~..tX,¥' j~t IN~CIL
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1 st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
D
TE:
September 8, 2000
Parks, Recreation, Human Se/~s'~/,~ic SafeW~.C.9._ql~l Committee
TO:
FROM:
Jennifer Sch.~.~ector (_/~
VIA: David Mg~qe~n~e~
SUBJECT: Public/Private Partnerslflps
Background
The Parks and Recreation Commission submitted to the Council Committee on August 7, guidelines to
follow when considering Public/Private Partnerships. The Council Committee returned this item to the
commission for further review and with the following comments:
· Be more specific. Who does what when?
· What about exceptions?
· Address recommendation to parks only, not city-wide.
· Include all park property
Capital Facilities Committee Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission's Capital Facilities Committee met on August 10, 2000 to consider
the Council Committees comments. In attendance were Laird Chambers, Dini Duclos, Marion
Bartholomew, Jim Baker, staff Jennifer Schroder and Jon Jainga. The committee recommends the
following:
1. Under the direction of the City Manager, a proposal for public/private partnerships will be
evaluated by staff for compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan.
2. Following the receipt of a proposal, the City Manager will present to the City Council and the
Parks and Recreation Commission the scope of the proposal, along with a summary of the
project's compatibility with the comprehensive plans.
3. After review of the proposal, Council will direct the City Manager to either continue or end
consideration of the proposal.
4. If Council approves the City Manager to continue review of the proposal, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, together with the proponent, will hold a public meeting for the
community to review and comment on the proposal.
5. The Parks and Recreation Commission will provide a summary report identifying the public's
comments recorded to the Council Committee.
6. The Council Committee will forward a recommendation to full Council for the City Manager to
either continue or end consideration of the proposal.
7. If the Council approves the City Manager to continue review of the proposal, the City Manager
will require the proponent to conduct a due diligence/feasibility report, prepared by the proponent
at their own expense, to review and will include, but not be limited to: all necessary permits,
mitigation requirements and environmental impacts. In addition, the proponent will provide the
City a business plan.
8. The City Manager and/or his designee will present to the City .Council and the Parks and
Recreation Commission a summary of the proponent's feasibility report and business plan.
9. Based on all the information reviewed, the Parks and Recreation Commission will forward a
recommendation to the Council Committee.
10. After the consideration of the Commission's recommendation, the Council Committee will
forward their recommendation to full Council.
11. The City Council, after review of the Council Committee's recommendation, will either direct the
City Manager to negotiate a lease agreement with the proponent or end consideration of the
proposal.
12. After the City has approved a lease agreement, the applicant will be required to include the PRCS
Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission in the design review processes.
13. Sites to consider public/private partnerships include, but are not limited to, Steel Lake, Lakota,
Sacajawea, Celebration and French Lake Parks.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:
At the commission's September 7, 2000 meeting, the commission passed a motion to
recommend to the Council Committee on September 11 approval of the Capital Facilities
Committee recommendation for procedures to follow when evaluating public/private
partnerships.
Council Committee Recommendation Options:
Option One: To move to City Council on October 3 approval of the Parks and Recreation
Commission's recommendation for procedures to follow when evaluating public/private
partnerships.
Option Two: To move to City Council on October 3 approval of the Parks and Recreation
Commission's recommendation for procedures to follow when evaluating public/private
partnerships as amended by the committee.
Option Three: To return this item to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further review.
[~/C,~mmittee Chair
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312* to 324t~ Street)
Improvement Project 85% Design Status Report
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT ExpenditureAmt: $
__ BUSINESS PROCLAMATION ContingencyReqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandumto the Land Use TransportationCommittce dated September 5, 2000
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to 324th Street) Widening
Improvement Project includes adding HOV lanes north and southbound, adding curb, gutter and sidewalk, adding lighting and
landscaping to meet the Downtown standards, adding planted medians, restricting left mm movements to intersections as much
as possible, and consolidating driveways where possible. The purpose of the project is to improve aesthetics and traffic flow,
to reduce accidents by eliminating conflicts, and to promote transit and carpool use.
The project is funded as follows:
PROJECT EXPENDITURES FUNDING AVAILABLE
Planning and Design $894,511 Total Grant Funding (TI,~ $1,274,000, $9,839,433
Right of Way Acquisition 2,537,106 STPUL $2,399,433, STPC $5,396,000, WSDOT $770, O00)
Year 2001 Construction 6,010,000 Mitigation Fund 47,899
10% Construction Contingency 601,000 Surface Water Fund 211,000
10% Construction Management 601,000 (Part of SWM project WHII-CIP-03)
Underground Conversion (PSE, US West) 500,000 Budgeted City Matching Fund 1,110,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,143,617 TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $11,208,332
Some minor deviations from the City Center Design Guidelines are needed to facilitate this project:
· The planter strip was eliminated at properties where the planter strip would impact the function of the business to the
extent the City would have to buy the entire property. The planter strip was eliminated at locations where driveways
are close together. The width of the planter strip was adjusted at locations where the sidewalk butts up against the
buildings.
· The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requires a one-foot-shy distance from the center
lane to the median. The City is attempting to obtain a waiver of this requirement, however, should the request for
waiver be denied, the median minimum width would be reduced from six feet to four feet.
· The City is attempting to accommodate property conformance for Type III landscaping, parking, and setback
distance to the sidewalk and right-of-way, as is practical. This project will increase the number of properties that are
non-conforming.
All overhead utilities along Pacific Highway between S. 312th and S. 324th will be converted into an underground system
..e...x...c...e....p..t....f..o...r.. ~..e.. ~..g...e...t...S...o....u...n....d._..E....n...e..~r..g...y...(...P..~..E...)....e.!~.e...c.~-i..c...a..~...~s.~!.s..s.!..~....n.....s...y....s.t..e..m..
-(..!..~....5..~.~...~...~.....v..~..!.t..s.....~..r...!a.r...g...e.r.~.-..S-taft '.m..v..e..s.~!..g...a.t...eH.d...~e_.e..'
options for the relocation of the electrical transmission system. The first option would relocate the existing transmission
system from the east side to the west side of Pacific Highway South, placing the poles behind the sidewalk. The new system
would be built parallel to the existing one in order to maintain continuity of electrical service. This option would require four
overhead crossings of Pacific Highway South within a one-mile distance. Currently, there are no crossings of Pacific Highway
South.
The second option is to convert to an underground transmission system, with a preliminary cost estimate of three million
dollars. The City would be responsible for 100% of the cost, and maintenance for an underground system is significantly more
costly than an above ground system in terms of time, materials and traffic disruption.
The third option would leave the system on the east side of Pacific Highway South and relocate the poles to behind the
sidewalk south of the electrical substation. North of the substation, the poles would be relocated to the planter strip behind the
curb line. The new line would reuse the existing conductor and would result in fewer construction impacts. The costs for
relocating the transmission lines under this option would be paid by PSE. The City would not be expected to reimburse PSE
for these costs.
The PSE standard for a transmission pole is a wood pole except when the location of the pole necessitates the use of a
galvanized steel pole. There are four locations within the project limits where a galvanized steel pole is required. The four
required galvanized steel poles would be provided by PSE at no cost to the City. Should the City desire consistency by using
only galvanized steel poles within the project limits the City would have to pay the difference in cost, which is estimated at
approximately $60,000.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its September 11, 2000 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee forwarded to the full City Council the following staff recommendations:
1. Authorize staff to proceed with the fmal design of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I - South 312th to
South 3244 Street Widening Improvement Project and return to the LUTC Committee at the 100% design
completion stage for further reports and authorizations.
2. Authorize Puget Sound Energy to proceed with the design for relocating the electrical transmission system on the
east side of Pacific Highway, as described in the third option, at no cost to the City.
3. Authorize Puget Sound Energy to use galvanized steel poles for all poles within the project for consistency and
aesthetic purposes, at an additional cost to the City of approximately $60,000, providing it can be done within the
................................. ....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize staff to proceed with the final design of the Pacific
Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I - South 312th to South 3244 Street Widening Improvement Project and return to the LUTC
Committee at the 100% design completion stage for further reports and authorizations; to authorize Puget Sound Energy to
proceed with the design for relocating the electrical transmission system on the east side of Pacific Highway at no cost to the
City; and to authorize Puget Sound Energy to use galvanized steel poles for all poles within the project for consistency and
aesthetic purposes, at an additional cost to the City of approximately $60,000, providing it can be done within the existing
project budget.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED ORDINANCE #
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION RESOLUTION #
k:\counciBagdbills~2000XsO9hovphi 85% dcsign.doc
CITY OF~
DATE: September 5, 2000
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM: Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manager
VIA: David H. Moseley, City Manager
SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to 324th Street) Improvement Project
85% Design Status Report
BACKGROUND
The Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I (South 312th to 324~h Street) Widening Improvement Project includes
adding HOV lanes north and southbound, adding curb, gutter and sidewalk, adding lighting and landscapingto meet the
Downtown standards, adding planted medians, restricting left turn movements to intersections as much as possible,and
consolidating driveways where possible. The purpose of the project is to improve aesthetics and traffic flow, to reduce
accidents by eliminating conflicts, and to promote transit and carpool use. An average of more than 40,000 vehicles a
day use this section of Pacific Highway South, which operates at an average level Service "E". From 1994 through
1996, (the last years that reliable data is available) there were 379 accidents in this section with 184 accidentshaving one
or more injuries. No fatalities were reported during this period.
In an effort to reduce costs and public disruption, the following planned projects have been incorporated into the design
and will be constructed as part of this project:
· Surface Water WH 11-CIP-3 Storm Drain Up Size Project (Approximately 60% of this Surface Water
Management project will be completed as part of this road project.)
· Utility Underground Conversion within project limits.
The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is
approximately 85% complete, which includes the following completed tasks:
· The Topographical Surveys
· The Geo-technical Investigation
· The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase I & II
· SEPA Determination and Project Permitting
· NEPA Environmental Classification
· Project Design to 85%
· Open House held on February 23, 2000
Ongoing tasks include:
· Right of way requirements (property appraisals, negotiation, acquisition, and certification)
· Complete design to 100%
· Utility Underground Conversion Agreement with Puget Sound Energy for project limits.
September 5, 2000
LUTC Memo - Pacific Hwy. S. HOV Lanes Phase I, 85%
Page 2
PROJECT FUNDING
The project is funded as follows:
PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Planning and Design $894,511
Right of Way Acquisition 2,537,106
Year 2001 Construction 6,010,000
10% Construction Contingency 601,000
10% Construction Management 601,000
Underground Conversion (PSE & US West) 500,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,143,617
FUNDING AVAILABLE
(TIA $1,274,000, STPUL $2,399,433, and STPC
Total Grant Funding $9,839,433 $5,396,000, WSDOT$770, O00)
Mitigation Fund 47,899
Surface Water Fund .: 211,000 Part of SWM project WH1 I-CIP-03
Budgeted City Matching Fund 1,110,000
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $11,208,332
CITY CENTER DESIGN DEVIATIONS
Some minor deviations from the City Center Design Guidelines are needed to facilitate this project. The following is a
list of said deviations:
PLANTER STRIP
The planter strip (the planting area between the back of curb and the sidewalk) was eliminated at properties, such as
Chevron and Texaco, where providing planter strip would impact the function of the business to the extent the City
would have to buy the entire property. Also, planter strip was eliminated at locations where driveways are close
together, such as Taco Bell. The width of the planter strip was also adjusted at locations where the sidewalk butts up
against the buildings, such as Schuck's Auto Supply at S. 324th Street.
MEDIAN
Currently, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requires a one-foot-shy distance from the
center lane to the median. The City is attempting to obtain a waiver of this requirement, however, should the request for
waiver be denied, the median minimum width would be reduced from six feet to four feet.
NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES
Many properties are non-conforming for Type III landscaping, parking, and setback distance to the sidewalk and right-
of-way. This project will increase the number of properties that will be non-conforming. The City is attempting to
accommodate conformance as is practical.
September 5, 2000
LUTC Memo - Pacific Hwy. S. HOV Lanes Phase I, 85%
Page 3
OVERHEAD UTILITIES CONVERSION
All overhead utilities along Pacific Highway between S. 312th and S. 324th will be converted into an underground
system except for the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) electrical transmission system (115,000 volts or larger).
RELOCATION OF PSE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM (115,000 VOLTS OR LARGER)
Three options were investigated for the relocation of the electrical transmission system. The first option would relocate
the existing transmission system fi.om the east side to the west side of Pacific Highway South, placing the poles behind
the sidewalk. The new system would be built parallel to the existing one in order to maintain continuity of electrical
service. This option would require four overhead crossings of Pacific Highway South within a one-mile distance.
Currently, there are no crossings of Pacific Highway South.
The second option is to convert to an underground transmission system, with a preliminarycost estimate of three million
dollars. The cost for transmission conversion is not included in Schedule 71 (ElectrictariffG) Conversions;therefore the
City would be responsible for 100% of the cost. Maintenance for an underground system is significantly more costly
than an above ground system in terms of time, materials and traffic disruption.
The third option would leave the system on the east side of Pacific Highway South. The transmission system poles
would be relocated to behind the sidewalk south of the electrical substation. North of the substation, the transmission
system poles would be relocated to the planter strip behind the curb line. The new line would reuse the existing
conductor and would result in a shorter construction time with fewer construction impacts. The costs for relocating the
transmission lines under this option would be paid by PSE. The City would not be expected to reimburse PSE for these
costs.
The PSE standard for a transmission pole is a wood pole. The only deviation from the wood pole is when the location of
the pole necessitates the use of a galvanized steel pole. There are four locations within the project limits where a
galvanized steel pole is required. The four required galvanized steel poles would be provided by PSE at no cost to the
City. Should the City desire consistency by using only galvanized steel poles within the project limits the City would
have to pay the difference in cost, which is estimated at approximately $60,000.
COMMERCIAL OVERHEAD SERVICE
Approximately ten commercial overhead electrical services within the project limits will need to be addressed by either
converting to an underground system, or by allowing the service to remain overhead. PSE will provide a connection
point at the property line to each commercial business.
Staff is in the process of investigating all available options for reconnecting the existing services to the underground
system, including cost and responsibility, and will report to the committee at the 100% design report.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends placing the following items on the September 19, 2000 Council consent Agenda:
1. Authorize staffto proceed with the f'mal design of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes
Phase I - South 312th to South 324th Street Widening Improvement Project and return to the
LUTC Committee at the 100% design completion stage for further reports and
authorizations.
September 5, 2000
LUTC Memo - Pacific Hwy. S. HOV Lanes Phase I, 85%
Page 4
2. Authorize Puget Sound Energy to proceed with the design for relocating the electrical transmission
system on the east side of Pacific Highway, as described in the third option, at no cost to the City.
3. Authorize Puget Sound Energy to use galvanized steel poles for all poles within the project for
consistency and aesthetic purposes, at an additional cost to the City of approximately $60,000.
MS:jif
K:~LUTC~000\sr99phase185 %.doc
Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase 1 - S. 312th to S. 324th
Right of Way Status Summary ]~3~:B[r~
Tax Identification
Number Owner Name Business Name
0921049241 Puget Sound Energy / Electric PSE SubStation
0921049164 Chevron Services Co. Chevron
7853600186 FFCA/IPI 1985 Property Co. Jack In The Box
0821049060 US Bank of Washington US Bank
0921049255 Forbes, Roger H and Concentric, Inc. Deja Vu
7853600185 House of Shogun, Inc. Shogun Restaurant
7853600200 N.A. Properties Limited Partnership
Four Go(Jdwill
1500500110 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Ross PI~7~
1500500130 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Bank of America
0921049208 SeaTac Village, LLC; Kurtzman
Properties, LLC: R. Poplawski, LLC S. 318th (SeaTac Village Driveway)
0921049109 Thinh Nguyen and Gam T. Pham Cyber Bear
0821049062 Amedcan Stores Properties, Inc. Rite Aid
0921049110 Robert Shin and Myung Shin Bar/Barber
0921049252 Chong Nam Yi and Young Suk Yi Akasaka Restaurant
0921049248 Equilon Enterprises, LLC Texaco
0821049228 Gae Janine Reid Village Inn Pancake House
7622400010 Connecticut General Mortgage &
Realty Investments Seatac Mall
1500500120 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Coco's
0821049077 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Arbys
0921049046 Dana Plaza, LLC =Caf~ Indochine
0921049223 Dana Plaza, LLC Indochine Seafood and Satay Bar
0921049286 Dana Plaza, LLC Discount Tire
0921049294 Clairmont Hotels, LLC Clairmont Hotel
0921049113 Hossfeld, et al. Genghis Khan Gdll and Bar
1500500090 KC Investments, LLC Washington State Bank
0821049237 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC China House
0821049264 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Goodyear
0921049159
0921049200 Estate of Ilene I Marckx and ^lgie _
0921049256 Martinson, Trustee of the Credit Schuck's Auto / Baskin Robbins
0921049257 Shelter Trust UNV Francis Marckx
0921049258
7622400015 ,Sears, Roebuck and Company Sears
Federal Way Plaza/Dunkin' Donuts
0921049221 Sea-Tac Center Associates
/Misc.
0921049292 Waldman, Stephen and Wendy 'Taco Bell
Schuck°s Auto Supply (old Al°s
1500500150 Larkspur Center Investors
Auto)
0921049118 Woelfl, et al. Car Toys / Sleep Country
0921049129 Steven S. and Holly A. Haney Elephant CarWash
1500500100 Harsch Investment Properties, LLC Olympic Sporting Goods (old)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: City of Federal Way Market Analysis
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: September 26, 2000 Memorandum to Council; City of Federal Way Market Analysis
(Located in pocket of binder); TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 based on the Market Analysis;
TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 based on PSRC forecasts.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The Draft City of Federal Way Market Analysis was presented to Council at
the July 10, 2000, Special Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting at which time the consultant,
ECONorthwest, made a presentation. Based on input and feedback during that meeting, changes were made to the
Analysis. ECO Northwest prepared two separate TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020. One was
based on the results of the Market Analysis and the other was based on the actual Puget Sound Regional Council
_..~,.c..~..~.0,,:.y..~.a..r..(o..~,~?~.s.,.t?~ ......................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The LUTC discussed the Draft Market Analysis
during a public meeting on July 10, 2000. During this meeting, the LUTC made a unanimous motion to forward the
Analysis to the full Council for acceptance and approval. During the July 10, 2000 LUTC meeting, staff did not
make a recommendation to the LUTC as to which TAZ-level population allocations should be utilized.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept and approve the City of Federal Way Market
Analysis and to direct staffto use the TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 from the Market Analysis
for the EMME/2 Travel Demand Model.
...... .........................
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED ORDINANCE #
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION RESOLUTION #
l:hMarket Study~Final Chapters\Council Cover. doc/9/26/00 5:03 PM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
September 26, 2000
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Kathy McClung, Interim Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~
SUBJECT: Acceptance and Approval of City of Federal Way Market Analysis
I. BACKGROUND
Attached, please find the City of Federal Way Market Analysis which is being provided to
you for your acceptance and approval. The Draft City of Federal Way Market Analysis was
presented to you at the July 10, 2000, Special Land Use Transportation Committee meeting
at which time the consultant, ECONorthwest, made a presentation. Based on your input and
feedback during that meeting, changes were made to the Analysis. These changes were
provided to you via e-mail on September 22, 2000 along with a hard copy. In addition, to the
requested changes, ECONorthwest reviewed and re-edited the document to provide internal
consistency and also incorporated the Summary, which was previously a separate document,
into Chapter 5. These edits involved no substantive changes.
The Market Analysis was undertaken to determine whether the City of Federal Way
presently has a 20-year supply of adequately zoned land to meet anticipated need, to update
the economic component of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (CityShape), and
to provide 20-year demand in terms of employment and population by City Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZ's). The TAZ information is needed in order to update the City of
Federal Way Transporation Model.
Two separate TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 were prepared by ECO
- Northwest (attached). One was based on the results of the Market Analysis and the other
was based on the actual Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) 20-year forecasts. The
Market Analysis concluded that for the City limits, the PSRC 20-year population forecast is
too high as a "most likely" forecast. However, the Market Analysis agreed with the
population forecasts for the Potential Anexation Area (PAA) and with the employment
forecasts for both the City limits and PAA.
Page 2 of 2
The PSRC forecasts are important for purposes of transportation planning at a regional
level. Based on information from PSRC staff, if the City chose not to use the PSRC
forecasts for the Transportation Model and other transportation planning, doeumention
must be provided to the PSRC. Once the Market Analysis has been accepted and approved
by Council, a copy of the Analysis will be provided to the PSRC.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recomends the following:
1. Council accept and approve the City of Federal Way Market Analysis.
2. Council direct staffto use the TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 from
the Market Analysis for the EIVINHS/2 Travel Demand Model.
Attachments
City of Federal Way Market Analysis (Located in pocket of binder)
TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 based on the Market Analysis
TAZ-level population allocations for the Year 2020 based on PSRC forecasts
I:~arket StodyWinal ChapterskMemo to City Council on Final Market Analysis.doc/9/26/00 5:03 PM
TAZ-LEVEL POPULATION ALLOCATIONS FOR THE YEAR 2020 BASED
ON THE MARKET ANALYSIS
Table C-2. Growth allocation by TAZ, 2000-2020
2000-2005 2006-2010 20t t-20t $ 20t 6-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
Inside City Limit
0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 11 1
2 62 13 62 13 94 19 94 19 312 65
3 71 4 71 4 106 6 106 6 353 20
4 55 5 55 5 82 8 82 8 273 27
5 19 I 19 1 29 2 29 2 97 5
6 80 8 80 8 120 12 120 12 400 39
7 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2 81 5
8 44 ' 3 44 5 66 19 66 27 221 54
9 53 12 53 12 79 18 79 18 264 59
10 27 2 27 2 40 2 40 2 133 8
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 28 0 28 I 41 3 41 4 138 8
14 28 0 28 1 43 3 43 4 142 8
15 47 I 47 1 71 5 71 7 237 13
16 36 I 36 1 54 4 54 5 179 10
17 10 0 10 0 13 1 18 I 52 3
18 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 2 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 54 2 54 4 81 14 81 20 271 41
21 6 0 6 0 9 1 9 I 29 2
22 37 I 37 1 37 5 12 6 122 13
23 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 11 1
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2 81 5
26 23 6 23 12 35 43 35 61 115 121
27 179 11 179 11 268 16 268 16 895 52
28 162 9 162 9 243 14 243 14 809 4(
29 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 8 11
30 13 0 13 0 13 I 4 1 43
31 58 4 58 4 58 14 19 18 194
32 31 I 31 I 46 3 46 4 154
33 29 2 29 3 43 12 43 17 145 3z
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
35 6 4 6 4 8 11 11 19 32 3~
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
37 9 0 9 0 11 I 16 I 45
38 21 I 21 I 32 2 32 3 106
39 10 0 10 0 15 I 15 I 50
40 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
41 3 0 3 I 5 3 5 5 16 1(
42 7 4 7 4 8 13 12 21 34
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 11 0 11 0 14 I 20 2 56 '
45 14 0 14 0 17 I 24 2 68 ,
46 6 2 6 4 9 14 9 19 29 3!
47 4 3 4 3 5 8 7 13 20 21
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 6 5 6 5 4 7 4 7 20 2~
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-7
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 11 0 11 0 14 1 20 2 56 3
54 36 29 36 29 24 43 24 43 120 143
55 26 20 26 20 17 31 17 31 86 102
56 11 9 11 9 7 13 7 13 36 45
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 43 34 43 34 28 51 28 51 142 170
60 15 12 15 12 10 18 10 18 50 61
61 7 6 7 6 5 9 5 9 23 29
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 7 6 7 6 5 10 5 10 25 32
65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 5 4 5 4 4 7 4 7 18 22
67 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 5 11 17
68 16 13 16 13 10 19 10 19 52 63
69 31 24 31 24 20 36 20 36 102 121
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 5 4 5 4 4 6 4 6 18 21
72 119 33 119 33 79 49 79 49 395 164
73 28 22 28 22 19 34 19 34 93 112
74 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 3
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 16 13 16 13 11 20 11 20 54 67
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 I 3 1 3 1 2 2 0 5 7
80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 3 10 3 9 4 6 6 0 16 26
82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 5 7 5 6 7 4 9 0 27 17
86 54 16 54 32 81 113 81 162 271 323
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
89 18 0 11 1 4 1 4 0 36 2
go 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
92 249 6 149 10 50 10 50 6 497 31
93 28 1 28 2 19 1 19 I 95
94 93 4 93 6 62 3 62 3 310
95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0
C-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
102 20 22 20 54 30 75 30 65 99 215
103 15 23 15 '23 19 23 26 23 75 90
104 3 6 3 6 4 6 6 6 16 23
105 24 64 24 64 31 64 43 64 122 255
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 39 58 39 58 49 58 69 58 197 233
108 27 41 27 41 33 41 47 41 133 163
109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 18 I 18 I 23 I 32 1 90 5
1'11 61 91 61 91 77 91 108 91 307 366
112 8 13 8 13 10 13 14 13 41 52
113 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
114 36 3 36 3 45 3 63 3 181 10
115 56 83 56 83 70 83 98 83 280 334
116 27 34 27 29 18 21 18 0 90 84
117 33 39 33 34 22 24 22 0 111 98
118 16 8 16 7 11 5 11 0 54 21
119 26 2 26 2 18 I 18 0 88 5
120 27 2 27 2 18 I 18 0 90 5
121 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
122 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 18 2 18 2 23 I 32 0 90 5
125 18 14 18 35 26 49 26 42 88 141
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 15 7 15 9 23 9 23 4 77 2~
128 66' 5 66 6 99 6 99 3 330
129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 30 32 30 79 45 111 45 95 149 31~
132 4 4 4 10 5 14 5 12 18 4C
133 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 0 0
134 0 27 0 24 0 17 0 0 0 6~
135 5 12 5 10 4 7 4 0 18 3(
136 0 48 0 42 0 30 0 0 0 12'
137 16 16 16 19 24 19 24 9 79
138 5 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 25
139 203 14 203 17 305 17 305 9 1,017
140 114 8 114 10 171 10 171 5 569 3;
141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 I I I 4 2 5 2 4 7
145 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 0 7 1:
146 39 61 39 53 26 38 26 0 131 15
147 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 14
148 I 2 I 2 0 I 0 0 2
149 7 8 7 7 5 5 5 0 23 2
150 83 21 83 25 125 25 125 13 416 8
151 12 15 12 18 18 18 18 9 61 6
152 29 2 29 2 43 2 43 I 145 8
153 7 I 7 I 11 I 11 0 36 2
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-9
2000-2005 2006-20t 0 20t 1-2015 20t 6-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 154 46 115 46 77 137 38 229 384 458
156 12 4 9 4 6 11 3 19 29 37
157 60 18 45 18 30 53 15 89 149 178
158 10 21 10 18 7 13 7 0 34 52
159 26 10 26 9 17 6 17 0 86 26
160 90 7 90 6 60 4 60 0 301 17
161 16 2 16 I 16 I 32 1 79 4
162 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 25 2 25 2 25 I 51 I 127 7
164 88 15 66 15 44 22 22 22 219 74
165 20 16 15 16 10 24 5 24 50 80
166 26 2 26 2 39 2 39 I 131 7
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 9 24 9 21 9 14 17 10 43 69
170 28 13 21 13 14 20 7 20 70 67
171 24 I 18 I 12 I 6 I 59 3
172 97 3 73 3 48 4 24 4 242 14
173 207 6 155 6 103 9 52 9 517 29
174 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 I 29 2
175 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 I 29 2
176 14 0 17 0 17 I 20 2 68 4
177 18 7 14 7 9 10 5 10 45 33
178 71 2 88 2 88 6 106 10 353 2C
179 0 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 2 C
180 9 0 11 0 11 I 13 I 43 2
181 8 0 10 0 10 I 12 I 38 2
182 5 0 7 0 7 0 8 I 27 2
183 17 0 21 0 21 I 25 2 84
184 8 0 10 0 10 I 12 I 41 2
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
196 439 8 439 29 293 29 293 17 1,464
197 148 59 148 206 99 206 99 118 495 58E
199 24 9 24 33 16 33 16 19 79
200 95 I 57 I 19 3 19 5 190 11
202 0 34 '0 34 0 101 0 168 0 33~
203 116 I 70 1 23 4 23 7 233
204 45 I 27 I 9 2 9 3 90
206 51 I 31 1 10 2 10 3 102
207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
TOTAL 5,218 1,537 4,848 1,849 4,976 2,436 5,014 2,358 20,056 8,18(
Outside City
Limit
I 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 41 (
7 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 2 (
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (
C-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
185 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 23 0
186 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
187 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 122 2
188 116 1 116 1 116 1 116 1 463 4
189 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 11 0
190 21 8 21 8 21 8 21 8 86 32
191 13 4 13 4 13 4 13 4 52 18
192 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 27 4
193 17 4 17 4 17 4 17 4 68 15
194 47 3 47 3 47 3 47 3 190 13
195 24 11 24 11 24 11 24 11 97 42
196 168 6 168 6 168 6 168 6 671 24
197 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 25
198 101 8 101 8 101 8 101 8 404 32
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 9 33
201 13 tl 13 11 13 tl 13 11 52 42
203 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 2 1
204 I 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 2 0
205 101 12 101 12 101 12 101 12 404 49
206 17 21 17 21 17 21 17 21 68 84
207 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 34 28
208 18 4 18 4 18 4 18 4 70 17
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
210 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 25 16
211 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 52 0
212 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0 104 0
213 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18 50 73
214 8 I 8 I 8 I 8 I 34 6
215 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 115 0
216 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36 0
TOTAL 830 141 830 141 830 141 830 141 3,322 562
Source:ECONo~hwest, 2000
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-11
TAZ-LEVEL POPULATION ALLOCATIONS FOR THE YEAR 2020 BASED
ON PSRC FORECASTS
TAZ Allocation of Population and Employment by 5-year Pedod
PSRC POPULATION FORECAST IThis sheet allocates the summary resuEs by 5-year
Ipefiod.
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
Subarea TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp , Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
Ins~e City Limit
A 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 18 1
A 2 74 12 74 12 111 18 111 18 371 61
A 3 96 4 96 4 144 6 144 6 481 20
^ 4 56 4 56 4 84 7 84 7 280 22
A 5 28 I 28 I 43 2 43 2 142 6
A 6 117 8 117 8 176 12 176 12 585 39
B 7 24 0 24 0 35 2 35 2 118 5
B 8 61 3 61 5 91 19 91 27 303 55
A 9 66 11 66 11 98 17 98 17 328 56
A 10 34 I 34 I 52 2 52 2 ,172 7
F 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B 13 40 0 40 I 60 3 60 4 201 8
B 14 41 0 41 I 62 3 62 4 206 8
B 15 69 1 69 I 103 5 103 7 343 14
B 16 52 I 52 I 78 4 78 5 260 11
F 17 18 0 18 0 23 I 32 2 90 4
F 18 I 0 I 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
F 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B 20 80 2 80 4 119 15 119 21 398 41
B 21 9 0 9 0 14 I 14 I 45 2
E 22 37 I 37 I 37 4 12 5 124 12
D 23 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 18 1
D 24 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 2 0
C 25 24 0 24 0 36 2 36 2 120 5
C 26 38 6 38 12 57 42 57 60 190
120
A 27 260 11 260 11 390 17 390 17 1,302 56
A 28 235 10 235 10 353 15 353 15 1,175 48
F 29 4 2 4 2 5 5 7 8
20 16
E 30 13 0 13 0 13 I 4 I
43 2
E 31 64 4 64 4 64 12 21 16 212
35
D 32 45 I 45 I 67 3 67 4 224
9
C 33 43 2 43 3 64 12 64 17 215
33
C 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 11 4 11 4 14 11 19 19
54 37
G 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 37 9 0 9 0 11 I 16 I 45 2
D 38 31 I 31 I 47 2 47 3 156
6
C 39 14 0 14 0 22 I 22 1
72 3
C 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0
0 0
C 41 4 0 4 I 6 3 6 5
20 10
G 42 12 4 12 4 15 13 21 21 59 42
G 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 44 11 0 11 0 14 I 20 I 56 2
G 45 14 0 14 0 17 I 24 I 68 3
C 46 10 2 10 4 16 13 16 19 52
38
G 47 7 3 7 3 8 8 12 13
34 25
H 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
H 49 10 5 10 5 7 7 7 7
34 25
H 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 53 11 0 11 0 14 I 20 I 56 2
H 64 61 28 61 28 41 43 41 43 203
142
H 55 44 20 44 20 29 30 29 30 147 102
H 56 19 9 19 9 13 13 13 13 63 44
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
Subarea TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
H 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 59 73 34 73 34 49 50 49 50 244 168
H 60 26 12 26 12 17 18 17 18 86 61
H 61 12 6 ~2 6 8 8 8 8 41 28
H 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 64 13 6 13 6 9 10 9 10 43 32
H 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 9 4 9 4 6 7 6 7 29 22
H 67 7 3 7 3 5 5 5 5 23 16
H 68 27 12 27 12 18 19 18 19 90 62
H 69 52 24 52 24 35 36. 35 36 174 120
H 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 71 9 4 9 4 6 7 6 7 29 22
H 72 119 55 119 55 79 83 79 83 395 276
H 73 48 22 48 22 32 33 32 33 160 111
H 74 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 2 2
H 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
H 77 28 13 28 13 19 20 19 20 95 66
J 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
J 79 I 3 I 3 2 2 2 0 7 7
J 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 81 5 10 5 9 7 7 9 0 27 26
J 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
J 85 9 7 9 6 12 4 17 0
47 18
C 86 93 16 93 32 139 112 139 160 463 321
C 87 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
K 89 18 0 11 I 4 I 4 0 36 2
H 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K 92 249 4 149 7 50 7 50 4 497
23
N 93 42 I 42 2 28 I 28 I
140 6
N 94 135 5 135 6 90 4 90 4 450
19
J 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
J 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
J 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
K 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M 102 34 22 34 54 52 75 52 65 172
215
L 103 26 22 26 22 32 22 45 22 129 89
L 104 6 5 6 5 7 5 10 5 29 22
L 105 42 64 42 64 53 64 74 64 210
255
L 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 107 67 58 67 58 84 58 117 58 334 232
L 108 45 41 45 41 56 41 79 41 226 164
L 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 110 18 I 18 I 23 I 32 I 90 4
L 111 105 91 105 91 131 91 183 91 524 363
112 14 13 14 13 18 13 25 13 72 50
L 113 I 0 I 0 2 0 2 0
7 0
L 114 36 2 36 2 45 2 63 2
181 7
L 115 96 83 96 83 120 83 168 83 479 331
P 116 47 34 47 30 31 21 31 0 156 85
P 117 56 40 56 35 38 25 38 0 188
99
P 118 28 9 28 8 19 5 19 0 93 22
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
Subarea TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
P 119 26 I 26 1 18 1 18 0 88 4
P 120 27 1 27 1 18 I 18 0 90 4
J 121 9 16 9 14 11 10 15 0 43 41
J 122 9 1§ 9 14 11 10 15 0 43 41
J 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 124 18 1 18 1 23 I 32 0 90 4
M 125 31 14 31 35 46 50 46 42 154 142
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 24 7 24 9 35 9 35 4 118 29
128 78 4 78 5 117 5 117 2 389 16
J 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M 131 51 32 51 79 77 111 77 95 255 317
M 132 6 4 6 10 9 14 9 12 32 39
P 133 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 15
P 134 0 27 0 24 0 17 0 0 0 67
P 135 9 12 9 11 6 8 6 0 32 30
P 136 0 48 0 42 0 30 0 0 0 120
Q 137 26 16 26 19 39 19 39 9 129 '63
Q 138 7 0 7 0 11 0 11 0 36 1
Q 139 203 10 203 13 305 13 305 6 1,017 42
140 114 6 114 7 171 7 171 4 569 23
Q 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M 144 2 I 2 4 3 5 3 4 11 15
P 145 3 5 3 4 2 3 2 0 11 12
P 146 67 61 67 53 45 38 45 0 224 153
P 147 7 0 7 0 5 0 5 0 23 1
P 148 1 2 1 2 1 I 1 0 5 5
P 149 12 9 12 8 8 5 8 0 41 22
Q 150 126 22 126 26 188 26 188 13 628 86
Q 151 20 15 20 18 30 18 30 9 99 60
Q 152 42 2 42 3 63 3 63 1 210 9
Q 153 10 1 10 I 16 1 16 0 52 2
Q 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 155 263 45 197 45 132 136 66 227 658 454
R 156 21 4 16 4 10 11 5 18 52 36
R 157 102 18 77 18 51 53 26 88 255 176
P 158 18 21 18 18 12 13 12 0 61 53
P 159 44 11 44 9 29 7 29 0 147 27
P 160 155 8 155 7 103 5 103 0 515 21
S 161 27 2 27 2 27 1 54 1 136 6
S 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 163 43 3 43 3 43 2 86 I 215 9
T 164 151 15 113 15 75 23 38 23 377 77
T 165 34 16 26 16 17 24 9 24 86 81
166 38 2 38 2 57 2 57 1 190 8
S 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 169 15 24 15 21 15 14 30 10 75 70
T 170 49 14 37 14 24 20 12 20 122 68
T 171 40 1 30 1 20 I 10 I 99 4
U 172 106 2 79 2 53 3 26 3 264 11
U 173 207 4 155 4 103 6 52 6 517 21
V 174 9 0 11 0 11 I 14 I 45 2
V 175 9 0 11 0 11 1 13 I 43 2
V 176 24 0 29 0 29 I 35 2 118 5
T 177 29 7 22 7 14 10 7 10 72 33
V 178 103 2 129 2 129 6 155 11 515 21
· V 179 I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 5 0
V 180 13 0 16 0 16 I 19 I 63 3
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
181 11 0 14 0 14 1 17 I 56 2
182 5 0 7 0 7 0 8 I 27 1
183 24 I 31 I 31 2 37 3 122 5
184 12 0 15 0 15 I 18 I 61 3
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
196 439 6 439 21 293 21 293 12 1,464 60
197 254 58 254 204 169 204 169 117 645 583
199 40 9 40 33 27 33 27 19 133 94
200 95 I 57 1 19 2 19 4 190 8
202 0 33 0 33 0 99 0 165 0 329
203 116 I 70 I 23 3 23 5 233 10
204 45 0 27 0 9 I 9 2 90 4
206 51 0 31 0 10 1 10 2 102 4
207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7,024 1,543 6,597 1,845 6,844 2,434 6,959 2,357 27,425 8,179
Outside City Limit
I 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 41 0
7 I 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 2 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 23 0
186 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
187 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 122 2
188 116 1 116 I 116 I 116 I 463 4
189 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 11 0
190 21 8 21 8 21 8 21 8 86 32
191 13 4 13 4 13 4 13 4 52 18
192 7 I 7 1 7 1 7 I 27 4
193 17 4 17 4 17 4 17 4 68 15
194 47 3 47 3 47 3 47 3 190 13
195 24 11 24 11 24 11 24 11 97 42
196 168 6 168 6 168 6 168 6 671 24
197 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 25
198 101 8 101 8 101 8 101 8 404 32
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 9 33
201 13 11 13 11 13 11 13 11 52 42
203 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 2 1
204 I 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 2 0
205 101 12 101 12 101 12 101 12 404 49
206 17 21 17 21 17 21 17 21 68 84
207 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 34 28
208 18 4 18 4 18 4 18 4 70 17
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
210 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 25 16
211 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 52 0
212 26 0 26 0 26 0 26 0 164 0
213 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18 50 73
214 8 I 8 I 8 1 8 I 34 6
215 29 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 115 0
216 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36 0
TOTAL 830 141 830 141 830 141 830 141 3,322 562
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2000 ITEM//:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Req'd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated September 19, 2000 and
letter sent to Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair, Blue Ribbon coramission on Transportation
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation was created in 1998 by the
Washington State Legislature and GovernorGary Locke. The Commission is chargedwith conductinga comprehensive
review of transportation needs and priorities across the state and submitting recommendations to the Governor and
Legislature by December of 2000.
The Commission, which is comprised of 46 members from the public and private sectors, is specifically charged with
taking a fresh look at the strategies currently used by federal, state, and local governments for financing and maintaining
transportation systems, including highways, ferries, and transit. Its mission is to identify policies and actions that will
improve the state's delivery of effective, long-term transportation solutions over the next twenty years.
The Commission has published Draft Accords and Options for public comment. The comment period closes on
October 1, 2000. Staff prepared a draft letter for review by the Land Use and Transportation Committee and
incorporated their comments into the final letter that was sent to the Blue Ribbon Commission on September 27~.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its September 25t~ meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee reviewed and provided comments to the draft letter. The Committee directed staff to
incorporate their changes into the letter and send the revised letter to the Blue Ribbon Commission in order to meet the
October 1 st deadline for comments. The Committee also directed staff to place the revised letter on the October 3, 2000
Council consent agenda, with the understanding that upon review by the full Council if any substantial commentswere
raised an additional letter would be sent to the Blue Ribbon Commission highlighting any suggested revisions.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize Mayor to sign the revised letter to the Blue
Ribbon Commission as approved by the Land Use and Transportation Committee.
APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: ~~'~~-~'~~-~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKrS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION: COUNCIL BILL #
1st Reading
APPROVED Enactment Reading
DENIED ORDINANCE #
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION RESOLUTION #
K:\COUNCIL~AGDBILLS~2000\001003 - BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION.DOC
CITY OF~
DATE: September 19, 2000
TO' Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM: Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~
David H. ~-osel~~xanager~
VIA:
SUBJECT: Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department staff provided a brief presentation and draft comment letter on the
Blue Ribbon Commission Transportation Draft Accords and Options at the September 11, 2000
LUTC meeting. Given the complexity of the topic and the sheer number of agenda items at the
September 11th meeting, staff requested to place this topic on the September 25th agenda for further
discussion and consideration.
INFORMATION
As presented at the September 11~ meeting, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation report
is divided into two distinct elements. The first being the accords section which are broad based
policy statements that are generally sound principals of how the overall state and Puget Sound
regional transportation systems need to be managed. The second element is the options section,
which are intended to support the seven accords by providing potential approaches to solve critical
problems in the areas of investment, revenue, and administration of the statewide transportation
system.
Staff has focused on two particular accords and their correspondingoptions that we believe will have
the most impact on how the tranportation system in our region as well as the state will be managed in
the future. The first accord and supporting options deals with making transportationfunding simpler
and more flexible. The second accord and options allows regions to solve their own transportation
problems.'
Simpler and more flexible transportation funding is critical to solving our regions and statewide
transportation system problems. Not only are more funds needed but providing more flexibility in
revenue sources, more equitable distribution of funds, and increased local decision making for the
use of funds. The Blue Ribbon Commission provides five viable options that support this important
accord. These include options: No. 29- ensure the preservation and maintenance of city and county
streets and roads through new funding distributions of the gas tax that takes into account not only
population but also centerline miles, lane miles, arterial miles, functionalclassificationor some other
CITY OF~
~' V 335301st way South (253) 661-4000
PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
September 26, 2000
Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
411 University Street, Suite 120
Seattle, WA 98101-2515
Dear Mr. Beighle:
The City of Federal Way appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Blue Ribbon
Commission on Transportation Draft Accords and Options. We applaud your efforts and support
the balanced approach the Commission has taken in recommending transportation reforms while
at the same time recognizing the significant shortfall of transportation funding at all levels of
government. The following comments are intended to provide a summary response to the
accords and corresponding options that are of specific interest to the City of Federal Way.
Invest for an Efficient and Effective Transportation System
The City strongly supports the concept of making investments in the Transportation System that
result in an efficient and effective transportation network. Specifically we support the following
options; No. 1 -to utilize a corridor approach to transportation planning and funding, emphasizing
the most heavily traveled corridors with the understanding that there are needed transportation
improvements that do not fall within these specified corridors but nevertheless have a significant
benefit to the transportation system as a whole. As such, we would like to request that these
types of projects are not precluded from being funded. Option No. 2-preservation, maintenance,
and safety of the existing and future transportation infrastructure should be the top priorities for
investment. Option No. 3 - as it pertains to one of the most important links that we believe is
missing, and that is highways of statewide significance are not required to be compliant with
transportation concurrency.
Be Accountable and Efficient
We agree that transportation agencies at all levels need to be accountable and provide efficient
cost effective programs and projects. Specifically we support Option No. 18 - the use of
benchmarks to assess and monitor administration costs in the delivery of transportation programs
and projects. However, it would be helpful to develop a consistent set of standards in order to
accurately compare performance of agencies within the state as well as external to the state as
suggested in Option No. 20. We also support options 22(b) and 23(a), however under any
circumstance them needs to be a stronger linkage between authority, responsibility and funding.
Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
September 26, 2000
- Page 2
For example, maintenance, operation, and construction of state highways in cities with a
population over 22,500 as prescribed by RCW 47.024.020 are saddled with a disproportionate
share of the responsibilities without the corresponding authority and funding.
Take Care of What We Have
As we noted in our previous support of Option No. 2 (preservation, maintenance, and safety) the
City firmly believes in the importance of taking care of the transportation infrastructure we have.
To this end, we also support the following options: No. 24 - reduce highway wear and tear
through higher pavement standards where it is cost-effective, No. 25 - phasing in a studded tire
ban, No. 26 - which would require a strict model ordinance for utility cuts on roads and streets to
reduce pavement damage, and finally No. 31 - creation of a statewide weight-based vehicle fee
to account for increased pavement impact associated with 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight
trucks.
Make Transportation Funding Simpler and More Flexible
The City endorses the Commission's position on the need to develop additional and flexible
revenue sources that will provide a more equitable distribution of transportation funds and
provide enhanced local decision making for the use of those funds. We feel the Blue Ribbon
Commission has identified several excellent options that if implemented would go a long way
towards funding the existing as well as the future transportation needs of our state. The City
supports the following options: No. 29 - that portion which ensures the preservation and
maintenance of city and county streets and roads through new funding distributions of the gas tax
that should take into account not only current population but also centerline miles, lane miles,
arterial miles, functional classification or some other equitable means of distribution, No. 30 -
Increase of the statewide gas tax periodically to meet needs for basic maintenance, preservation,
and safety, No. 46 - create a funding structure that is efficient, rational, and understandable,
No. 47-change the formula for distribution of future gas tax funds to cities and counties taking
into account incorporation and annexations, No. 49 - keep funding sources predictable and at
pace with the economy, No. 50 - funds raised in the region for transportation improvements
should be invested in the region, and finally, No. 51 (g) - authorizing counties and cities to utilize
tax increment financing based not on property tax but on the sales tax. In contrast to the funding
options supported above, we oppose No. 34(a) in that it fails to recognize the important role
transportation plays in the economic vitality of the region.
Allow Regions to Solve Their Own Transportation Problems
The City opposes the creation of a new Regional entity, as it is contrary to the concept expressed
in Option No. 33, which states "...the intent is to simplify and minimize structural redundancy
rather than to add new (government) layers." Any regional governance approach must include
cities, counties, ports and the state in the decision making process in order to be successful. It is
our position that regional coordination and cooperation is taking place and in fact, in order to be
competitive for grant funding inter-jurisdictional coordination is virtually required in the Puget
Sound Region. We believe there are numerous examples of successful regional projects that
Mr. Doug Beighle, Chair
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
September 26, 2000
Page 3 ,
have been planned, funded and constructed and that the most important next step is to ensure
adequate revenue to fund regional projects.
In closing, the City of Federal Way believes that the most important issue is to ensure that
significant additional revenues are a part of any transportation reform package. We understand
that a balanced approach is required to make changes to our transportation policies and funding
structure that will satisfy the diverse needs and opinions of our region as well as the state. Thank
you again for taking on this important task and for allowing our City the opportunity to provide
comments. We look forward to working with the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Governor, and
the Legislature as this process moves forward.
Sincerely,
Michael Park
Mayor, City of Federal Way
MP/CMR:O
cc: Honorable Mary Margaret Haugen, Chair Senate Transportation Committee
Honorable Maryann Mitchell, Co-chair House Transportation Committee
Honorable Ruth Fisher, Co-chair House Transportation Committee
Honorable Mark Miloscia, State Representative .
Honorable Tracey Eide, State Senator
City Council (7)
David H. Moseley, City Manager
Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director
Chris Green, City Clerk
k:\lutc~2000\blue ribbon commission Itr. doc
ISSION ON
PORTATION
The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
Draf~ Accords and Options for public comment
May 18, 2000
The Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation was created in 1998 by the Wash-
ington State Legislature and Governor Gary Locke. The commission is charged
with conducting a comprehensive review of transportation needs and priorities
across the state and submitting recommendations to the Governor and Lecjisla-
ture by December 2000.
The commission, which is comprised of 46 members from the public and private
sectors, is specifically charged with taking a fresh look at the strategies currently
used by state, federal and local governments for financing and maintaining trans-
portation systems, including highways, ferries and transit. Its mission is to identify
policies and actions that will improve the state's delivery of effective, long-term
transportation solutions over the next twenty years.
,,/COMMISSION ON May, 2000
J ./J IIIIMSPORIAII0#
Dear Washington citizen:
Before you read this document, I would like to share with you some ideas concerning the
challenges that the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation faces as we begin laying
the foundation for our final recommendations.
Washington's transportation system is on a collision course with reality. Looking ahead
20 years, the Puget Sound region will experience severe congestion during much of the
day. The congestion contagion is already showing signs of spreading north and south
along I-5. Congestion is threatening movement on 1-90 over Snoqualmie Pass and in
Spokane. Critical rail and freight corridors throughout the state are bogging down.
Meanwhile our ability to preserve and maintain the existing system is under severe pres-
sure.
.Just as the conditions of the system challenge us, so does the huge chasm between public
perception and the views of the transportation establishment, l~.ighty percent of the
public believe that government has enough money if it would just spend it efficiently.
Critics say, "just shake up the government and then they will have sufficient resources to
fix the problems.'
On the other hand, the transportation establishment says "just give us enough money
and we will fix the problems.' Citizens do appear ready to support specific projects that
will benefit them. But the reality is that the public is not about to provide any additional
funding, and clearly not $3 billion a year, to the transportation establishment without a
major shakeup and clear improvement in how the product is delivered. There must be
understandable goals, accountability, and efficiency in planning, decision-making and
on-time delivery -- all measurable.
In response to the critics of government, our view is that reforms are essential but not
sufficient. Along with reform must come additional money. Not in a flood, but in a
staged increase that is married to specific investments and tied to specific results.
This state has no transportation plans in place today that, if implemented, would yield
results that would come close to meeting the challenges of the future. One key reason is
the long-standing lack of consensus on how to solve our transportation problems. His-
torically, our transi~ortation planners have faced intense social and political chasms.
Advocates of a particular solution scorn all other alternatives. Our state's historic legacy
of mutually paralyzing opposition is our gridlock today.
This statewide, volunteer Blue Ribbon Commission does not have the time or resources
to substitute for the required intensive planning efforts of the regional and
statewide planning agencies. However, we can articulate clear and understandable goals
and standards, with a method for measuring results.
The public agrees that unless this state moves boldly our transportation system will .be
overwhelmed. "Be bold ]" we are advised, and they are right. But the message is mixed
about what it would mean to be bold. Successfully moving people and goods is complex.
There is no single, simple solution. We know that we can neither spend nor build our
way out of the problem without triggering paralyzing taxpayer and neighborhood re-
volts. Neither can we jaw bone our way out by appealing to the public to change behav-
ior. Our proposed solutions must be robust, multi-modal and must fit the particular
challenges, situations and land uses they serve. That means more transit, but also more
roads. In dense urban areas, meeting our transportation needs will also mean more alter-
natives. We will also need car pools, van pools, pedestrians, bicyclists, urban centers that
work and tools to change behavior. And because these alternatives are less established,
they require even greater emphasis.
The commission's findings reported on the condition of the state's transportation system.
The commission's options have some compelling themes, presented to you as draft ac-
cords, which are simple statements with serious intent. They lay the foundation for the
commission's recommendation for a goal-based, accountable, understandable, and effi-
cient state-wide transportation system backed by staged investment to achieve measur-
able results and establish trust.
The draft accords and options presented herein may not yet be bold enough tO achieve a
first-class transportation system in Washington. Review them and tell us how to im-
prove them. We need your best ideas. Also, take the time to understand the perspective
of those with whom you may disagree and try to craft solutions that can work the entire
problem.
Contact the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation at (206) 652-2562, or toll-free
at (888) 414-2562. E-mail us at blueribbon@seattle.econw, com
I look forward to hearing from you.
Doug Beighle
Commission Chairman
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION MEMBERS
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Doug Beighle, The Boeing Company, CHAIRMAN
John V. Rindlaub, Bank of America, vice CHAIRMAN
Rick Bender, Washington State Labor Council
Marry Brown, Washington Office of Financial Management
Robert M. Helsell, Wilder Construction Company CHAIRMAN, BENCHMARKS COMMITTEE
Doug Hurley, CH2MHill CHAIRMAN, ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Honorable Valoria Loveland, Washington State Senale
Honorable Richard Mclver, City of Seattle
Honorable Maryann Mitchell, Washington State House of Representatives
George W.'Skip' Rowley, Jr., Rowley Enterprises CHAIRMAN, REVENUE COMMITTEE
Dale Stedman, Washington Good Roads Association CHAIRMAN, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Doug Hurley, CH2MHilI, CHAIRMAN
Peter Bennett, K L/ne America Inc., VICE CHAIRMAN
Rod Brown, Marten & Brown
Greg Devereux, Federation of State Employees
Bob Dilger, Washington Building and Construction Trades Council
Honorable Ruth Fisher, Washington State House of Representatives
Honorable Robert Higgins, City of Spokane
Honorable Jim Horn, Washington State Senate
Tomio Moriguchi, Uwajimaya, Inc.
Connie Niva, Washington State Transportation Commission
Randy Scott, Association of Washington Tribes
Honorable Judie Stanton, Clark CounOl
BENCHMARK COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Robert M. Helsell, Wilder Construction Company, CHAIRMAN
John F. Kelly, Alaska Airlines, wcE CHAmP, MAN
John V. Rindlaub, Bank of America, VICE CHAIRMAN
Greg Devereux, Federation of State Employees
Honorable Richard Mclver, CiO/of Seattle
Karen Schmidt, Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
Honorable Judie Stanton, Clark County
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dale Stedman, Washington Good Roads Association, CHAIRMAN
Bill Lampson, l ampson International, v;cg CHAIRMAN
Bruce M.Anderson, SuperValue,/nc.
Ted Bott/get, Washington Public Ports Association
Don Briscoe, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
Honorable Shirley Hank/ns, Washington State House of Representatives
Honorable Mary Margaret Haugen, Washington State Senate
Peter Hurley, Transportation Choices
Honorable Berrie Ingham, Yak/ma County
Andrew Johnsen, Govemor'~ Executive Policy Office
John F. Kelly, Alaska Airline$
Charles Mott, Innovac
Patricia Otley, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
REVENUE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
George W.'Skip' Rowley, Jr., Rowley Enterprises, Inc., C~;RM~N
Robert M. Helsell, Wilder Construction Company, WCE CHAIR
Roger Dormaier, Wheat Growers Association
Honorable Dave Earling, Edmonds City Council
Jim Fitzgerald, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 7015
Honorable Booth Gardner, former Governor
Honorable Ed Murray, Washington State House of Representatives
Aaron Ostrom, 1000 Friends of Washington
Nell Peterson, Transportation Solutions
Larry Pursley, Washington State Trucking Associations
Honorable George L. Sellar, Washington State Senate
Doug Vaughn, Washington Office of Financial Management
Honorable Judy Wilson, Thurston Coun(y
Several members of the commission served for some months, but left the committee due
to employment changes or reassignments. They were:
Arthur Jackson, The Bon March~
Tim Cies, Governor's Executive Policy Office
Jennifer Joly, Governor's Executive Policy Office
Patricia Notter, City of Wenatchee
Michael Roberts, Governor's Executive Policy Office
Honorable Dino Rossi, Washington State Senate
Ken Smith, Wafer Tech
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY'
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"For the good of Washington, we must take action"
After listening to experts from around the state and developing a set of findings on
the current condition of Washington's transportation system, the z16 members of
the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation have taken the next step in developing a
set of recommendations for the future of our transportation system. This document pre-
sents an array of 64 options for the future, derived from seven principal accords. The
options represent possible approaches to achieving the unified spirit of the accords. Some
are intended to work together; others are mutually exclusive and require a choice.
These options build upon the findings developed by the commission during the preced-
ing eight months. The findings indicated that, while Washington has an extensive and
interconnected transportation network, we are not prepared for current and future growth,
and our investment as well as the state's economic well being are threatened. Recogniz-
ing the urgency of Washington's transportation dilemmal the:options represent ways to
solve critical problems in the areas of investment, revenue, and administration. The op-
tions also reflect the commission's twenty-year outlook, respecting the need to approach
some problems immediately and others over a longer timeframe.
We understand that the problems facing us are enormous, and the issues complex. None-
theless, these options and accords spell out in straightforward terms what we believe are
positive steps toward putting the transportation system on firmer ground for the future.
In one sentence, 'For the good of Washington, we must take action."
Invest for an efficient and effective transportation system
The first priority for investing in the transportation system will be to preserve and main-
tain the existing system, and to keep it safe. Future investments will look at the most
pressing problems facing the statewide system, among them traffic congestion. A corri-
dor approach can be useful in strategizing for the most effective mix of investments in
heavily congested areas. Technological improvements can assist in managing some traf-
fic congestion. A broader mix of transportation modes, more aggressive land use con-
trois, and congestion pricing are also under consideration. In the area of revenue, flexible
and more predictable funding sources would permit a broader range of Investment.
Changes to the state sales tax and gas tax could also provide additional transportation
revenue.
Guided by goals, measured by results
By establishing a set of simple, measurable, and achievable goals, we can direct our deci-
sion making to achieve those goals. The commission has developed a series of bench-
marks and indicators that compare Washington to other states and to the national mean
Draft Executive Summary
for public comment
in the areas of the physical condition of the state's highways and bridges, traffic conges-
tion, travel options, air pollution, administrative costs, transit operating costs, safety, and
freight mobility. By maintaining these benchmarks it will always be possible to measure
Washington's performance in comparison to the rest of the country. It will also be pos-
sible to add future benchmarks.
Be accountable and efficient
These options attempt to address some of the frustration felt by the public, and to attach
specific responsibility to projects, ensuring that projects are built on time and within
budget. Begin with a thorough performance review of Washington State Department of
Transportation's CvVSDOT) administrative practices. Then, following improvements to
data collection and cost allocation systems, use benchmarks to monitor efficiency, and set
spending limits for administrative expenses. Regarding the principal governance of the
state's transportation system, the options look at alternatives for the roles and selection of
the secretary of WSDOT and the Transportation Commission. Challenge the existing
structure of WSDOT, and examine potential changes to its authority: increasing it, re-
ducing it, or keeping it the same. Allow government to take measured risks in areas that
can reduce overall costs, such as managed competition, design-build, and the use of inno-
vative practices and materials. Reengineering the workplace, use of the private sector to
deliver projects, and sharing resources among different agencies are also proposed.
Take care of what we have
Maintaining the existing transportation system and keeping it safe is the state's highest
transportation priority. This includes directing funding to take care of what we have, as
well as simple investment tools such as phasing out studded tires and stricter controls on
utility cuts. Revenue strategies can also contribute to maintenance of the system: devel-
opment of a revenue framework based on maintenance as well as future growth; allocate
sufficient funds for baseline maintenance, preservation, and safety; and periodically in-
crease the gas tax to ensure that baseline needs are met.
Adapt for the future
Be open to future changes in technology, economy, and demographics, and be flexible
enough to adapt to them. Be holistic in thinking: use a regional approach to investing,
and look at transportation corridors instead of individual projects.
Allow regions to solve their own transportation problems
Transportation problems often jump jurisdictional boundaries, and, in the future, should
be solved on a regional basis. This may mean the reconstitution of existing agencies, or
iii
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
the creation of new regional entities. Our findings showed that transportation seems to
work best when there is one entity responsible for all phases, including planning, fund-
ing, construction, and administration. Investing regionally can also allow for broader
(and less time-consuming) permit review, regional programming of funds, and ways to
raise revenue that are targeted to each region's needs. Regional approaches may also
allow some areas to take more aggressive approaches to solving transportation problems,
such as instituting commuter taxes or tolls, ride sharing credits, weight-based fees, and
increased local option taxes.
Make transportation funding simpler and more flexible
Streamline and simplify the funding system, eliminating layering and restrictions. New
models for funding must be found, both in order to keep pace with maintenance needs,
and to loosen the existing highly categorized and relatively inflexible fund sources.
The findings note that the gas tax is the only dedicated statewide transportation revenue
source available to the entire roadway system. Yet it is not distributed equitably, nor is its
distribution based on objective measures of need. Gas tax distribution appears to penal-
ize cities, and does not reflect changing demographics. New models for distribution of
this important revenue source are required to fund the transportation system of the fu-
ture. Distribute gas tax revenues based on road miles, miles traveled, or on other new
distribution formulas that are fairer to cities. Allow gas tax distributions to change over
time to accommodate growing populations and annexations.
Revenue options advanced by the commission would help to achieve a more equitable
distribution of transportation funding, and allow greater flexibility in local decision mak-
ing for the use of those funds.
Respect the environment
The state of the environment is the ultimate benchmark for our transportation strategies,
It will not lie or gloss over problems. How we fare will be indicated by how well our
species do, how well open space is preserved, the condition of groundwater, and the
quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
These options emphasize balancing the need to streamline the permitting process with
the fundamental need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment. Cre-
ation of one-stop permitting centers, with integrated rather than redundant review teams,
is a key option. Increasing the amount of coordination in permit review at all levels of
government, reaching agreement early on issues of mitigation, and allowing the creativ-
ity of pilot projects to permeate the permit process are all among the options presented.
iv
Draft Executive Summary
for public comment
Encourage public involvement
The options presented herein are possible approaches for a set of recommendations to be
drafted by the commission this autumn. The public is encouraged to debate the pros and '
cons of the options, to tell us what you think, and to participate in shaping the final
'package,' Please contact us:
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
411 University Street, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 652-2562
(888) 414-2562 (toll free)
(206) 442-4253 (fax)
blueribbon@seattle.econw, com
www. brct.wa.gov
Blue I~ibb0n Commission on Transportation
May 2000
vi
ACCORDS AHD IHTRODLICTIOH
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
BLUE RIBBON
COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
ACCORDS
Adopted J~4ay 1~, 2000
"Business as usual" no longer works. We must respond aggressively and
innovatively to growth and transportation demand.
Washington's transportation system should be guided by a plan that is sup-
ported by the public and based on goals that are simple, understandable, prac-
tical, and measurable.
The public deserves a specific set of investments that will achieve the goals for
an efficient and effective transportation system. We must make our roads and
highways safer, provide more transportation choices, and address congestion. '
The public requires accountability - they want to know what their transporta-
tion dollars are buying. This includes the assurance that projects will be built
on time and within budget.
We must preserve and maintain our diverse transportation assets and ensure
an integrated and functional statewide system. In addition, regions must be
given the flexibility and tools to solve their own transportation problems.
Public officials and transportation agencies must make the most efficient use
of public funds. But, efficiencies alone will not provide sufficient funding to
address future demands.
We must streamline the permitting process for transportation projects while
protecting the environment.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
INTRODUCTION
Accords for the Future
ATrCCOrd speaks of agreement. The 46 members of the Blue Ribbon Commission on
ansportation represent a broad diversity of opinion and often widely divergent
points of view. Over the past two years, the commission has studied, explored, and
analyzed many aspects of transportation throughout the state. This pursuit led to a set of
findings on the current status of the transportation system. The commission looked at
how transportation is managed and administered, at every level of government. They
studied the ways that money is raised for transportation spending, and examined how
that money is invested. The commission has come to recognize that the state's needs and
how those needs are addressed are complicated, complex and outdated.
This report marks the commission's next step in attempting to find solutions to epic traf-
fic problems. This document represents the 'accords' of the Blue Ribbon Commission on
Transportation. Within these accords is an extensive array of 'options' or choices that
citizens and political leaders will debate and then use to make decision about the state's
transportation future. Some of the more pressing questions being raised by the commis-
sion are: What government should make transportation decisions? State or local? Do
you prefer more roads or more transit, or a mix of both? What are some of the ways
governments can build roads or provide transit services more quickly and at lower costs?
What makes the most sense in raising money for transportation projects?
These accords reveal the difficulty of the remaining challenges facing the commission,
because they require a choice that depends upon a vision for the future. The commission
will spend the next several months listening to people throughout Washington and doing
more technical analysis before developing and refining choices from this set of options.
The commission's recommendations will be based in large part upon these options.
As population grows and expands throughout Washington, our transportation problems
will grow ever more difficult and urgent. Solutions for the next twenty years must be
found today. And that is something we can all agree on.
ix
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
OPTIONS
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
INVEST FOR EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
The findings stress the importance of maintaining Washington's extensive trans
portation system. One of the most pressing demands on our existing transporta-
tion system is traffic congestion. Its solutions will require new and different invest-
ments and strategies. The findings identified a need to plan for and invest in the best
mix of transportation programs and projects for our state's future. An adequate level of
funding, from the appropriate sources, will be needed to achieve an efficient and
effective transportation system, one that points 'us in the right direction to face future
needs. That may mean different ways of raising funds or paying for transportation
projects, methods that may not be popular.
These strategies below would begin to direct the state's transportation system toward
meeting some of the 9oals outlined in the benchmarks, such as reducing congestion,
increasing the use of non-automobile travel modes, and ensuring that the transporta-
tion system is safe and well-maintained.
1. Invest -- to achieve transportation system benchmarks -- in
the most effective mix of strategies in the most heavily trav-
eled corridors, using a corridor approach to transportation
planning and funding.
Building infrastructure -- roads, bridges, rail lines -- and buying equipment are funda-
mental investments for a transportation system. In order to determine the most effective
mix of investments, the commission will use computer modeling and analysis, and work
with members of the public, transportation organizations, and stakeholders. Priorities
will be identified and investment strategies can be based upon the recommended mix for
various corridors and areas.
Corridor analysis should focus first on the most heavily traveled corridors -- automo-
bile, transit, and freight -- to determine the most effective mix of investments. Delays
should be reduced by fixing the worst bottlenecks and most congested areas first. Main-
tenance and preservation should be improved on the routes most heavily traveled by
people and goods. The most heavily used transit corridors should be kept in good condi-
tion.
Invest in traffic system management techniques and intelligent transportation systems to
provide for a more efficient flow of traffic in congested areas where effective:
· freeway on-ramp metering
· signalization improvement
· intersection modification
· priority treatment for HOVs and transit vehicles
Draft Accords and Options
[or public comment
· electronic information signs
· sharing of information by WSDOT, transmission to the public through
radio and television
· incident response
· roving service patrols
· enhanced preservation. Retrofit streets and arterials for transit and non-
motorized vehicles at the time such facilities undergo maintenance and
preservation.
Invest in traffic demand management to reduce demand on the highway system:
· Utilize incentives such as the commute trip reduction program (in nine
eligible counties); restore the ridesharing tax credit to work sites with fewer
than 100 employees, and to high school and college faculty and students.
· Employ parking strategies, including cashing out employer-provided park-
ing if the employee will travel to work other than by driving alone.
· Expand park and ride lots.
Encourage flexible work hours, 4-day work weeks, telecommuting and
employer-paid transit passes.
2. Preservation, maintenance, and safety are the top priorities
for investment.
· Existing transportation infrastructure should be maintained to at least a
minimum standard throughout the system.
· Pavement management systems should be used by alljurisdictions to main-
tain and preserve roadways most effectively. Pavement management sys-
tems include the lowest life cycle cost method for pavement repairs.
· A uniform transportation data collection system for alljurisdictions should
be instituted. Components of this system should include traffic data, pave-
ment condition data, and bridge condition data.
3. Strengthen the link between transportation investments and
land use planning.
Transportation infrastructure should meet Growth Management Act concurrency re-
quirements. Jurisdictions should provide incentives for 'smart growth' with the goal of
combatting suburban sprawl and creating more compact developments that require fewer
cars and fewer arterial lane miles. Jurisdictions should work with the private sector to
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
build more affordable housing as well as more pedestrian-oriented (urban) housing to
reduce vehicle miles traveled.
4. Use cost-benefit analysis as an investment aid to select the
most effective transportation investments.
While cost-benefit analysis is used for road 'projects, the research shows that there is no
agreed upon analytic approach to dividing transportation resources among the modes.
This analysis would be helpful. For now, more widespread use of cost-benefit analysis
by transportation planners in all modes should help in sifting the most pressing priorities
from the huge 'needs' lists now prevalent throughout the transportation system. In the
most congested areas of the state, cost benefit would be an element for consideration in
the most effective mix of strategies.
5. Funds should be able to be used across all modes for the best
possible mix of projects to achieve transportation system
goals.
New, less restrictive, revenue sources could work in parallel with investment goals and
regional strategies, such as congestion relief, demand management, enhanced transit, or
capacity expansion.
6. Invest in human resources needed to sustain the transporta-
tion system.
Future transportation investments should recognize the human resources necessary to
supply the technical Workforce capable of maintaining, preserving and improving the
transportation system. State, local and regional transportation authorities are encour-
aged to form partnerships with labor to develop apprenticeships and training programs
to insure the availability of a skilled transportation workforce.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
GUIDED BY GOALS, MEASURED BY RESULTS
Since the formation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation in 7998,
benchmarks have been in the forefront of the commissioners' discussions. Bench-
marks allow us to quantify where Washington stands in comparison to other states. By
giving a 'baseline' of current status, these measures can then be assessed for future
action, and used as performance goals. Is Washington better than, worse than, or
about the same as other states? Do we need to improve? By how much?. These bench-
marks are based on statewide data (state, county and city levels) whenever possible
and comparative data is used where available.
7. No city street, county road or state highway will be in poor
condition.
Data show that in ] 971 about 30% of the state's highways were in poor condition, but by
1998, through consistent preservation funding, that number declined to less than 10%.
The Transportation Commission and WSDOT have made pavement and bridge preser-
vation a high priority.
Data on the condition of local arterials are being compiled by a pilot project under the
auspices of the Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program (LEAP) but are not
yet available. A benchmark for local arterials should be added when the data become
available.
8. No bridge will be structurally or seismically unsafe.
Public opinion surveys and the commission's findings show that traffic and highway safety
are principal concerns among Washington voters. The structural safety of the thousands
of bridges in Washington, especially during earthquakes, is of primary importance, and
the benchmarks in this area reflect that high safety standard.
The state has been actively pursuing a program to retrofit bridges and structures identi-
fied by risk level. Over 300 bridges have been retrofitted at a cost of approximately $40
million~ however, almost 1,000 bridges remain to be repaired in the two highest risk
levels (1 and 2). The cost of the remaining retrofits is $560 million, of which the largest
share is a single structure, the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, at some $350 million.
9. Congestion and delay will be better than the national mean.
Traffic congestion in Washington is among the nation's worst, especially in the central
Puget Sound region. The annual cost to the state's drivers is 130 million lost hours and $2
billion in wasted time and resources. Excess traffic congestion also contributes to in-
creased vehicle emissions, potential loss of business, and a diminished quality of life.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
Regions that have data available may also benchmark congestion by other measures such
as changes over time in person delay or average travel speed.
10. Vehicle miles traveled per capita will not increase.
Traffic congestion. [n 1999. about ] 1% (794 miles) of the state highway system was
congested; by 2020, it is projected that 37% (2,600 miles) will be congested. Between
60% and 80% of the state's urban interstate system is congested, considerably higher
than the national average. National comparison shows the severity of Washington's prob-
lem and serves as a call to action. This is an aggressive target that stretches the limits of
what might be achievable. Achieving this target would require a mix of various strate-
gies, not only investing in capacity.
Driver delay. Delay per driver is a calculated average based on the number of licensed
drivers in a region. It does not attempt to distinguish between individuals actually expe-
riencing delay and those traveling on uncongested roads or not traveling at all. The data
show that the Seattle-Everett metropolitan area experienced 70 hours of average delay
per driver annually compared to the national average of about 40. The Vancouver-Port-
land region was also well above the national mean, while Tacoma and Spokane were still
fortunate to be below the national average.
System usage. In the last twenty years, Washington's population has grown about 40%
while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has grown 60%. VMT had been growing faster than
population since the mid-1980s; however, vehicle miles per capita have not grown quite
as rapidly over the 20-year period and have leveled off in 1990 at about 9,000 miles per
person per yeah
11. The non-auto share of commuter trips by transit, bicycles,
and other choices will increase. (The target will be set based on year
2000 census information expected to be released later this year.)
The data most useful for benchmarking purposes are the U.S. Census Bureau'sjourney-
to-work surveys. The trend from 1980 to 1990 was a declining share of non-auto triPs.
That trend will.need to be reversed if growth is to be accommodated in urban areas. The
2000 census will be able to provide recent data on whether the downward trend contin-
ues or whether it has been reversed.
12. The administrative efficiency of Washington state transpor-
tation agencies, including state, counties and cities, will be at
the national mean in the short term and in the top 25% in
the longer term. (Interim annual targets can report progress toward
meeting this benchmark.)
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
Benchmark committee members spent more time examining issues of cost efficiency than
any other single topic area. Because every transportation agency and government entity
has slightly different methods of categorizing, accounting for and tracking expenditures,
finding common ground for comparisons was extraordinarily difficult.
Nevertheless commissioners felt strongly that aggressive targets were important in this
area to ensure that public confidence in government use of funds could be restored.
While dramatic reorganizations and reductions in costs are common in the private sector,
public sector efficiencies are often impeded by structural barriers like civil service regu-
lations, procurement requirements, and public and community processes.
Commissioners considered the following broad types of measures before concluding that,
although somewhat rough, the proposed measure was the best available general way to
communicate the commissions intent that all Washington transportation agencies be-
come significantly more efficient. The commission welcomes additional options from
stakeholders and the public.
~A/SDOT costs:
Administration as a percent of total spending. The most common method of mea-
suring administrative cost efficiency is to calculate administrative costs as a percent share
of total disbursements. Administrative costs for the state transportation system range
from approximately 8% to about 15% of the total, depending on which costs are included
in the definition of administration and how large the total disbursements are in any given
year. Thus, in a year with a large new capital program the administrative percent of total
might look small even if the functions were exactly the same as the previous year in
which there was a smaller total capital program.
Comparisons using federal government data appeared to indicate that Washington was
at the high end of administrative costs, near such high-cost states as California, New
York, and Illinois. However, the data reported to the federal government included total
state overhead costs, including miscellaneous expenditures not reported in the basic cat-
egories of construction, operation or maintenance.
Washington's administrative totals (including non-WSDOT costs) appeared to fluctuate
between 10% and 12% in recent years compared to a national median around 7%. How-
ever, WSDOT's direct 'support' programsI are at about 8% of total WSDOT disburse-
ments and there is no information on what costs are included by other states in their
'Support' programs Include the following: Program D -- highway management and facilities; Program S --
executive management, regional administration, finance and administration, management information systems;
Program T -- planning, data and research; Program U -- charges from other state agencies, including attorney
general, auditor, personnel services, revenue collection services.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
reports. The Washington Roundtable in its recent report recommended that administra-
tive costs in transportation agencies not exceed 10%. Depending on how that percent-
age was calculated, WSDOT might or might not already be below that threshold.
Growth in administration spending. When compared to the national average,
Washington's administrative costs grew more rapidly than other states' costs, which grew
at about the rate of inflation. The most rapidly growing components were planning in
the early years of the decade as new ISTEA and Growth Management Act requirements
were mandated and management information systems (MIS), with significant Y2K costs
in the latter half of the decade.
WSDOT operation and maintenance costs. O&M spending per mile for Washing-
ton has been below the national mean since 1992. Previous data regarding road surface
conditions indicated that Washington's state highways were above average. The commit-
tee chose not to use these data as it believed they were an indicator of a policy choice
about spending levels and not a measure of efficiency.
WSDOT construction costs. The committee considered various ways to measure
efficiency in construction and project delivery. Costs per lane mile are often used in
comparisons, but the figures vary enormously from project to project, depending on fac-
tors the committee members felt were unrelated to the efficiency of the transportation
system, e.g., the price of real estate, the topography, geologic conditions and the labor
market. When excluding these variables and looking at construction costs alone, Wash-
ington appeared to be right at the national average. Project delivery costs ~verall do
appear to be high in Washington for reasons related to our environmental and permitting
regulations. The committee was not able to identify consistent and comparable data on
project delivery costs for benchmarking purposes.
City and County Costs:
As with the state, the committee began by reviewing available city and county data that
indicated that administration costs as a percent of total transportation disbursements
appear high, especially for urbanized and older jurisdictions. County and city Staff ad-
vising the committee provided a number of briefings on the nature of cost accounting
and classification in local government. While both cities and counties use the state's
budgetary accounting and reporting system, there is little consistency across jurisdic-
tions in how costs are classified. What appear to be wide differences in administrative
costs are also attributable to whether a jurisdiction maintains its planning, engineering
and construction management functions in-house or contracts them out, in which case
the associated overhead is hot carried on thejurisdiction's books.
Using data developed by -Jensen Consulting for the Washington Roundtable, the com-
mittee learned that overall growth in spending for Washington's counties and cities fol-
lowed similar patterns to the trend for the state. Administrative costs grew considerably
faster than inflation and also grew faster than spending on maintenance or construction.
Draft Accords and Options
for public commenl
Expenditures in the categories of construction, maintenance, and administration are not
tracked on an individual jurisdiction basis at this time; however, a legislative pilot project
is underway to create system-wide databases of transportation spending. Together with
contextual indicators such as population, miles of roadways and vehicle miles traveled,.
as well as outcome measures such as pavement condition, data will eventually provide
the ability to track and measure the performance of the transportation system at the local
levels. Not wanting to benchmark local governments' costs separately £rom state costs
until then, the committee opted to set a single benchmark for administrative costs at the
state level for now.
13. Public transit operating costs will be at the peer group me-
dian.
Transit operating costs. Transit agencies report their revenues and expenditures, along
with operating statistics, to the Federal Transit Administration annually. The data en-
tered into a national transit database allow comparisons to agencies of similar size else-
where in the country. Washington's transit agencies have consistently ranked high in
costs per passenger and per vehicle hour compared to their peers nationally. However,
in recent years cost indicators have been flat or declining for Washington transit agen-
cies.
In the wake of Initiative 695, transit revenues are greatly reduced, which is resulting in
cutbacks in administration, planning and customer service at Washington transit agen-
cies. It will also eventually lead to cutbacks in transit operations, presumably by elimina-
tion of some of the less productive routes.
For these reasons, past trends may not be a useful guide to future performance. The
committee preferred cost per vehicle revenue hour for benchmarking purposes, but asked
that additional research be done to collect cost per passenger mile before making a final
recommendation.
Tbhe committee chose to develop 'indicators' for safety, air quality and freight mo-
ility. These are an important aspect of the transportation system but are not
readily able to be benchmarked because of the limits of available data or because
these elements are affected by too many variables other than transportation invest-
merits.
14. Fatal accidents will continue to decline.
All accident rates have been declining here and in other states for a number of years. The
reasons include increased enforcement of drunk driving laws and higher seat belt use.
The committee first reviewed fatality rates and concluded that Washington was already
considerably better than the national average. The committee thus recommended the
creation of an indicator for traffic safety, rather than a benchmark.
9
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
15. Air quality, carbon monoxide and ozone, will be maintained
at federal standards.
For ozone and carbon monoxide, the data showed a declining incidence of pollution
since the 1970s and a steady state in maintaining federal standards in recent years. The
committee chose not to suggest benchmark targets since federal laws already require it
and mechanisms are in place to monitor and sanction regions that do not comply. There-
fore, the committee chose to adopt air quality as an indicator rather than a benchmark.
16. Growth in trade-related freight movement will be accommo-
dated on our transportation system.
The committee chose to use data on truck and rail car volume numbers as an indicator to
measure the growth of freight movement on the state's transportation system. Air cargo
data were not included because it was assumed that all air shipments eventually travel to
their final destination by either truck or rail and are thus already included in the previous
numbers.
10
Draft Accords and Options
[or public comment
BE: ACCOUNTABLE
W' ho is in charge?" is a question that resonated in the commission's discussion of
administration of transportation programs in Washington. Findings noted the
large number of governmental entities responsible for transportation and the resultant
confusion on the part of the public over accountability. The findings stated that trans-
portation governance seems to work best when authority for plannin9, funding, and
implementing a project is consolidated.
Along with the confusion over authority comes a growing frustration on the part of the
public over pro~ects that take many years to complete, and are over pro~ected budget.-
Such delays and overruns have come almost to be expected, but make for a distrustful
and skeptical public. The findings ask for further exploration of ways to reduce the
time and cost of implementing a transportation project, and improve efficiencies in
administering transportation programs.
17. Conduct a thorou§h review of WSDOT administration prac-
rices.
The fact that there is still discussion over how WSDOT's costs are allocated among
various functions that may or may not be described as administrative is sufficient reason
to call for a thorough review of administrative practices. A complete review would achieve
clarity of operational costs thorough a performance review of practices. It may also re-
veal areas of inefficiency. This option would require the Secretary of the WSDOT to
conduct a review no later than X (date), including the following:
· Scale and size of accounting and Management Information Systems divi-
sion staffs.
· Possible duplication of functions among regions.
·Possible application of computer and Internet technology for administra-
tion purposes.
·Scale and size of other support programs, including program D, S, T, and
U functions. (see footnote on page 7 for description)
;~18. Use and apply benchmarks to assess and monitor efficiency.
By comparing Washington against other states, a clearer picture of Washington's rank
among its peers wilJ emerge.
This option recommends instituting the benchmark committee's work as the basis for an
oversight board ('Commission for Transportation Accountability') or a restructured trans-
portation commission. The goals must be measurable and used for continuous improve-
ment, and can be aspirational, for example:
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
· For the 2001 to 2003 biennial budget, DOT administrative costs would be
below the national median;
· For the 2003-2005 and subsequent biennia, WSDOTadministrative costs
would be in the top 25% most efficient of all the states.
19. Cap and monitor other transportation administration costs.
Cap local and regional government administrative costs at 10% for the following func-
tions:
· Management, general services, planning, facilities and training
· Create an incentive structure forjurisdictions achieving the cap
· Report ongoing measures of administrative efficiency for all jurisdictions
20. Improve data collection and cost allocation.
The Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee (JLARC) audit was concerned that it is
difficult to assess actual costs of WSDOT operations. The audit recommended changes
to WSDOT's management and financial accounting systems to enable better review of
project histories throughout all phases. WSDOT's performance could then be compared
accurately to other states and otherjurisdictions, and consistently analyzed against bench-
mark targets. The findings state that comparative figures are also difficult to come by at
the local (city and county) levels. Without access to comparative data, it is not possible to
measure accurately the cost and quality of services. Refining budget accounting and
record system codes and guidelines can result in better analysis and reporting of opera-
tions and maintenance costs at city and county levels.
21. Change the role and or selection process for theTransporta-
tion Commission to clarify accountability.
The commission's responsibility could be expanded to a single point of accountability for
reporting on or monitoring the state transportation system at all levels. This could in-
clude all state, city, county, and special agency components of that system.
The commission would adopt benchmarks and cost-effectiveness standards, report on
the accomplishment of tho.se benchmarks and standards, establish system standards for
highways and other elements that are of statewide significance, evaluate regional plans
for compliance with the state system plan and certify regional plans, and review and
recommend policy changes that would enhance the accomplishment of system goals.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
Have the Transportation Commission become a single
point of accountability for reporting or monitoring the
performance of the state transportation system at all
levels, including benchmarks and cost-effectiveness stan-
dards.
Have the Transportation Commission be responsible for
policy and budget, recommend legislation, and select
DOT secretary. (This describes the commission's current role.)
Have the Commission act in advisory role to the cover-
nor. (This is the model practiced by ten other states.)
Eliminate transportation commission.
Make appointments of Commissioners from each con-
gressional district.
22. Change th~..selection process for the DOT Secretary to in-
crease accountability.
Shall the position of WSDOT Secretary stress its advisory role (both to the governor
and the transportation commission) or more accountability for outcomes? The selection
of and reporting by the secretary could be done in one of several ways:
Retain the current system, with the transportation com-
mission selecting the secretary.
Have the governor appoint the secretary.
Have the secretary elected by popular vote.
23. ReevaluateWSDOT'sjurisdiction over highways and ferries.
The.jurisdiction of WSDOT should be examined, both as it deals with the various trans-
portation modes, and how it exercises its authority statewide. Use the recommendations
of the road jurisdiction study to evaluate jurisdictio~_s. WSDOT could either be central-
ized to provide more authority at the state level, or its authority could be devolved to
regions. Reorganization, reassignment, and the boundaries of WSDOT's current dis-
tricts are all to be considered. Regardless of the model of governance, the level of respon-
sibility should match the fiscal capacity.
a. Increase WSDOT's responsibility.
WSDOT would restore and maintain current responsibility for all state-owned and state
interest facilities, and add arterials of regional significance. A part of the additional re-
sponsibility would be to maintain a continuous transportation system plan stipulating
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
full corridor requirements for the movement of people and goods.
b. KeepWSDOT responsibility as is.
WSDOT would continue to be responsible for all state-owned and state interest facilities
(highways, ferries, passenger rail, some airports), as it currently is.
c. ReduceWSDOT's responsibility.
WSDOT would be responsible for highways of state significance only. Responsibility
for other state-owned roads not classified as highways of statewide significance would go
to counties or to regions.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE
Tahe findings speak of a system of many miles and multiple modes. It is how we get
round. The transportation system is also a large part of the state's economy, with
over $3.7 billion in public money and $1 1 billion from households and businesses
invested each year in Washington's transportation. The findings also note that that this
system represents an asset that must be maintained, so that Washington continues to
receive cost-effective transportation services.
24. Reduce highway wear and tear through higher pavement
standards where it is cost-effective.
The key to well-maintained roads is investing in durable pavements and minimizing dam-
age caused by drivers.
Generally, there are three types of pavement used for roads in Washington; Portland
cement concrete, asphalt concrete, and bituminous surface treatment. Portland cement is
the most expensive (a rough estimate is $1 million per lane mile) and is used primarily on
the interstate system. Most of the state and local systems, however, use asphalt concrete
or bituminous surface treatment, that have half the life or less than Portland cement. A
new way of designing asphalt concrete, called Superpave, is now being tested and is
expected to extend pavement life and reduce maintenance and preservation costs.
A higher pavement standard that will better withstand wear and tear in some high vol-
ume areas will clearly save money over the long term.
25. Phase in a studded tire ban.
In 1999, Washington banned the use of older type studded tires in favor of lightweight
studs, which are estimated to reduce road wear by only 15 percent. Studies indicate that
over the course of its 30,000-mile useful life, a typical (not lightweight) studded tire will
remove between one-half and three-quarters of a ton of asphalt cement mix from the
roadway. Studies also indicate the cost of material roadway replacement is at least $8 to
$15 per studded tire, and if the pavement adjacent to the rutted lane is also replaced,
replacement costs can soar to $40 to $50 per studded tire. This option suggests that the
work begun by the legislature to discourage studded tires should be continued by phas-
ing in a studded tire ban, in favor of all-season radial fires or other new technology.
26. Require a strict model ordinance for utility cuts on roads and
streets to reduce pavement damage to be used throughout
the state.
Elements of the model ordinance include a ~oint trenching' policy, an expedited permit
process for joint trenching, a multi-year waiting period to re-cut the roadway for compa-
15
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
hies not.willing to joint trench, a refrain from trenching during peak traffic hours, and
some flexibility for low-density, non-urban areas.
27. Develop a new funding framework based on two categories:
Maintaining the current system and improving the system to
meet the needs of growth, economic initiatives and changing
circumstances.
At the state, regional and local levels:
· basic functions would be funded by directly distributed formula funds
(e.g. gas tax for highways and ferries, and other sources for public trans-
portation, rail and trip reduction programs);
· improvements and all other investments would be funded by flexible, non-
18th Amendment funds.
28. Provide baseline allocations to all jurisdictions and modes for
maintenance, preservation and safety.
~ Provide a baseline allocation for state highway operation,
maintenance, preservation and safety programs, for op-
eration of the basic auto ferry system and for WSDOT
agency overhead from state gas tax funds.
Current (1999) estimated annual cost to provide baseline operation and maintenance of
the state system is $930 million at Transportation Commission policy levels. This is not
the current budgeted level but rather the amount needed to fund service levels as adopted
in the Washington Transportation Plan. It is assumed that efficiencies will be identified
to reduce this figure.
Ix Provide baseline allocations for roadway preservation,
maintenance, and safety to cities and counties from state
gas tax funds. In addition to existing distributions, con-
vert some competitive grant programs into pass-through
distributions to accomplish this.
Determine adequate levels of funding for basic operation
and maintenance of public transit, passenger-only ferry
service, passenger and freight rail services and trip reduc-
tion programs and ensure a basic fund allocation to these
modes that keeps pace with inflation.
16
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
As with the roadway system, allocate sufficient funds for the basics in these alternate
modes. The estimated baseline costs, at 1999 policy levels, to provide local public transit
service is $1,126 million, passenger ferry service $8.5 million and all other modes $48
million. The loss of the motor vehicle excise tax through Initiative 695 has left a funding
gap of some $700 million in transit and ferry services that will need to be considered.
29. Ensure preservation and maintenance of city and county
streets and roads through new funding distribution. Con-
sider these options:
~ Use a new mileage-based distribution formula for city and
county gas tax funds (converted from grant programs) for
maintenance and preservation and require the use of
pavement management systems.
For cities and counties, newly converted preservation pass-through funds could be dis-
tributed according to new mileage-based formulas:
Example of GasTax Redistribution Formula
(For illustration only--NOT a recommendation)
Current alloc. Centerline Option: Arterial Option:
Number gas tax/pop, miles !las tax/mile miles gas tax/mile
Cities e $3,333]mila ~ S5,000/mile
Under 2,500 148 $3,134,800 1,348 $4,493,333
2,500-5,000 32 $2,531,435 852 $2,840,000
5,000-22,500 63 $14,169,860 3,279 344 $1,717,850
Over 22,500 35 $53,652,898 8,786 1,402 $7,010,950
TOTAL 278 $73,508,993 14,265 $7,333,333 $8,728,800
urban arterial miles
Counties 39 1,610 $8,050,000
· Cities under 5,000 could receive pass-through funds for preservation of
all centerlin~ miles at a rate of $50,000 per mile once every 15 years or the
equivalent of $3,333 per mile on an annual basis. ($50,000 is the average
cost per mile of a 2" asphalt overlay.)
· Cities over 5,000 could receive pass-through funds for arterial miles only,
but the rate would be higher; $50,000 per arterial mile once every l0
years or the equivalent of $5,000 per mile on an annual basis. Under this
17
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
distribution formula, $16 million in funds would be needed for cities, or
the equivalent of one-half cent bf gas tax.
· Counties could receive pass-through preservation funds for urban arterial
miles at the same rate as larger cities, creating a need for an additional $8
million.
· Currently, the Small City account receives $7.5 million a year: the Urban
Arterial trust account receives about $30 million per year. The proposed
conversion could be funded using existing funds. It would be preferable,
however, to create the conversion and then back-fill the redirected funds
with new money allocated to improvement projects.
b. Have counties assume jurisdiction and funding of city
streets in cities under 5,000 in population.
Since the smallest cities generally do not have professional public works staff or pave-
ment management systems, their ability to manage their own streets is very limited. ]~ather
than provide them with formula funds for preservation along with technical assistance,
have ownership of and responsibility for these streets go over to the authority of the
county in which each city is located. Gas tax funding would follow the jurisdiction trans-
fer. This option would remove the need for extensive technical assistance and grant
programs for small cities.
30. Increase the statewide gas tax periodically to meet needs for
basic maintenance, preservation and safety of the highway,
bridge and auto ferry systems, as well as city streets and
county roads.
Annual increases in the state gas tax would allow maintenance to keep pace with infla-
tion. Assuming 3% annual inflation, the increase for basic maintenance would be $28
million in 2001, requiring a one-cent increase in the gas tax.
31. Create a statewide weight-based vehicle fee.
Such a fee could be imposed at any level up to Sxx per ton of vehicle weight. For very
heavy vehicles, this would be intended to recover revenues from MVET, no longer paid
by trucks since the passage of 1-695, and partially to replace funds needed for mainte-
nance and preservation of highways, streets, and roads.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
ALLOW REGIONS TO SOLVE THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION
PROBLEMS
With multiple_jurisdictions sharing authority, it is difficult to establish
priorities
and coordinate effectively, The commission's findings stated that transportation
governance works best when authorit}/ for all aspects ora pr~ect rests with a single
entity. The findings also noted that existing methods of funding pro~ects may not be
effective for the state's future transportation system needs. Changes to the funding
system may make it more flexible.
A regional approach, whether for revenue, investing, or administration, envisions entire
corridors rather than individual pro~ects, flexible rather than restrictive funding, and
seamless boundaries instead of multiple, jurisdictions. The findings recommended fur-
ther evaluation of new and existing models of regional governance, investment, and
funding. ,A regional approach to transportation can lead to more effective and effi-
cient leadership and help achieve the efficiency benchmark. It may also respond to
the frequent critique of the 'peanut-butter' approach to funding. Ther-e ~wil~eed to be
a method for ensuring a regional entity makes progress in achieving the benchmarks
for the transportation system. Critics argue a region too ma}/be inclined to 'peanut-
butter' funding or to spend funding that is not the most effective mix of investments.
32. Take a new regional approach to investing. There should be
better coordination of transportation planning, funding, in-
vestments, and decision making in all jurisdictions.
In order to specifically address varying transportation needs throughout the state, some
state transportation mobility funding should be shared with regions:
· grant regions revenue authority to address their high priority needs.
· block-grant a percentage of any new state mobility funds to the regions;
regions will decide how to spend these funds.
· grant regions ability to seek ballot approval for significant transportation
revenue decisions.
· focus the regions' investment on transportation corridors.
· integrate transportation and land use planning, and
· grant regions authority to use congestion pcicing.
33. Provide regions with the ability to plan, select, fund and
implement or contract for implementation of projects iden-
tified to meet the region's transportation goals.
The intent is to simplify and minimize structural redundancy rather than to add new
layers. Options for such authorities may include:
19
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
& Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs)I
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
The MPC) and RTPO process is intended to foster ongoing coordinated transportation
planning among the numerous jurisdictions within a region. With a role already strength-
ened by the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation and l~.fficiency Act to include
project selection across jurisdictions and modes, new models could expand that author-
ity:
MPOs/RTPOs could have planning and funding responsibilities for regional transporta-
tion corridors and set standards for regional operation.
Alternately, MPOs/RTPOs could have planning, funding, and implementation responsi-
bilities and become regional project delivery agencies for large multi-jurisdictional projects.
b. Counties
Additional transportation modes and facilities could be added to the county's responsi-
bilities. Regional land use and development authority-could be added to county govern-
ment. Federal and state funds could flow to the county along with any new responsibili-
ties. Local option funding could be increased.
c. Transit/transportation authorities.
Trans[.ink in Vancouver, ]~C, has assumed responsibility for roads and transit in that
metropolitan area, as well as planning, service levels, and funding.
d. Or, ii necessary, create new organizations.
A new regional entity, possibly modeled on one of the above options, would be respon-
sible for some or all transportation funding and project selection only. Funding would
follow ownership.
The membership for the new entity could be through one of several ways:
· Directly elected by popular vote of regional citizens.
· Federated body, composed of ex officio members representing variousju-
risdicti0ns within the region, such as is currently done with Sound Tran-
sit.
· Appointed, by governor, legislature, a federated body, or regional repre-
sentatives.
34. Create regional revenue sources.
Create a 'tool kit' of potential revenue sources that can also work in parallel with invest-
ment goals and congestion relief strategies. These sources would be considered for pub-
lic approval either statewide or by new regional transportation authorities for specifi-
cally defined transportation projects:
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
a. Optional regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) charge.
Develop a three-year or five-year demonstration program to impose a charge based on
vehicle mi]es traveled (V]VJT) up to 2 cents per mi]e, on the honor system the first year
and subject to odometer checks the second and third years.
IX Examine the feasibility of creating HOT lanes; for ex-
ample, on 1-405 and SR 167 in King Co,,nty. Use public-
private initiatives.
1-405 and SR 167 have been identified as the most likely candidate facilities for the ben-
efits of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. A request for proposal could be issued to
determine the feasibility of a project, based on the lessons learned from recent experi-
ences with other projects in Washington.
~ Evaluate existing authorization for cities and counties to
impose a new commuter parking tax on employers and
consider expanding authority regionally.
The tax could be a flat rate per parking stall (regardless of whether provided free or at a
cost to employees). Alternatively, impose a commuter parking tax on employer-pro-
vided parking subsidies (e.g. if an employer provides parking worth $100,000 per year,
that amount would be taxed at a given percentage.)
~l Authorize a local option ride sharing tax credit to cities
and counties.
This would provide an incentive to employers to develop and fund trip reduction pro-
grams and to offset the burden of new parking taxes on businesses.
e. Authorize tolls for use of congested facilities, to pay for
new facilities and/or to pay for replacement and repair of
existing facilities.
Develop a phased implementation strategy to impose tolls on one or several of the most
heavily congested routes in urban areas, e.g. I-§, 1-90, 1-405, SR 520 or SR 167. Autho-
rized under the federal value pricing pilot project, and building on the Puget Sound
Regional Council's pricing study (currendy underway), the implementation could begin
with research on pricing models, electronic revenue collection technology and selection
of a suitable first project.
Allow tolls to be imposed on an existing or new roadway or bridge to pay for the devel-
opment and construction of a new, parallel facility that adds capacity to the corridor.
Thus users of the corridor pay for the addition of new capacity.
[ Authorize congestion pricing in congested urban areas.
Congestion pricing allocates costs to users of a specific facility at a specific time of day.
Placing tolls on congested roadways during rush hour can result in more free-flowing
traffic on the most crowded highways. Thus, those using the toll roads or bridges pay a
fee for the delay they impose on others during busy periods.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
BE EFFICIENT
As the findings state, transportation pro~ect delivery is time-consuming and expen-
sive. Speaking generally, government agencies have lost the public's confidence
in their ability to do pro~ects well, to innovate, or to be efficient. Government agen-
cies find it difficult to be innovative because of regulations they must follow and
systemic problems such as personnel and budget processes. Whether through con-
ventional methods of belt-tightening, or through innovative approaches, government
must be willing to take the risks necessary to produce systemwide change in its ability
to get pro~ects done.
35. Reengineer the workplace to achieve greater efficiency.
Establish project teams, with an emphasis on setting goals and predicting outcomes. En-
courage innovation among employees, using the WSDOT quality program model. In-
corporate elements of total quality management into business practices. Form partner-
ships with labor organizations to develop apprenticeships and training programs to en-
sure the availability of a skilled workforce to deliver projects and service.
36. Consider the use of managed competition for operations and
maintenance functions.
Under managed competition, private sector bids are sought for operations and mainte-
nance activities, and then compared to a bid from the public sector staff currently per-
forming the service. Legislative authorization would be required to permit managed
competition. Alternately, because managed competition is very restricted under current
state law, it may be best to introduce a pilot program, perhaps through mediation be-
tween labor and management. While other jurisdictions have realized cost savings, there
is debate as to whether cost control in the public sector rests with the group bidding on
and performing the work
37. Authorize and encourage jurisdictions to share resources.
This approach was successfully instituted in the neighboring cities of Kelso and Long-
view, Washington. Sharing of resources may include consolidation of overlapping func-
tions, merging of departments, and sharing of equipment, personnel, and other resoUrces,
such as technology and pra'ctices. Additionally, this option may include establishment of
a human resources skills bank of transportation professionals and, in conjunction with
labor, development of a program that would allow state, local and regional transporta-
tion authorities to draw from skills bank during peak periods of need. Legislative autho-
rization is required to permit sharing resources among jurisdictions and eliminate re-
strictions.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
38. Improve project management.
There is a need to strengthen oversight and accountability for project delivery. This
includes discipline to achieve project delivery targets. Incentives are needed to deliver
projects in a shorter time. Require project managers to be involved in the final design
phase of a project. Oregon has concluded that this approach brings a higher level of
knowledge to projects and pays dividends during bidding and future project planning.
39. Take measured (appropriate) risks,
Though risk-taking is not often associated with the public sector, assessing an appropri-
ate risk can lead to decisions that improve a project's efficiency. Risk-taking in a large
construction project recognizes the time value of money. The rewards of risk-taking
include early completion, below cost completion, improved design. Pooling risks may
make risk taking (and the potential for mistakes) more politically palatable. Agencies
might not be rewarded or recognized for time-'ghd/or money-saving risks taken.
40. Reduce overall construction costs.
Construction costs account for 56% of total project costs. Construction cost savings can
- be realized through the use of innovative methods and new materials, advance purchases,
wages, and mitigation costs. Also contributing to higher construction costs are the state's
two-year funding cycle and the phasing of project budgets. Funding through phases and
cycles does not contribute to achieving lowest possible construction costs. These are
outlined below
a. Save money on materials and methods.
There are incentives to use innovative materials and methods, particularly when the pri-
vate sector is involved in construction and operation of public rights-of-way. Examples
include:
· At the beginning of a project, develop a construction strategy, including
lifecycle costing. Use value engineering when costing the project and its
components m 80% of a project's cost can be found in 20% of the func-
tional items.
° To the extent possible, do simultaneous instead of sequential project phas-
ing. Also, in~:lude utility work as part of the construction contract, or co-
ordinate roadway projects with necessary utility work, enabling some costs
to be shared.
° Pre-purchase of some materials may be possible early in project develop-
ment. This can save costs later. Also, the use of standardized project de-
sign for similar capital facilities can reduce overall costs.
23
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
b. Use right-of-way'banking,'
Allow early purchase of rights-of-way, prior to completion of all environmental and other
permitting, so that land is purchased before it becomes unaffordable.
c. Continue to assess prevailing wage survey techniques.
This option can reduce labor costs in some areas of the state, particularly non-metropoli-
tan areas.
d. Reduce mitigation costs.
Document the amount spent on mitigation (as a percentage of overall cost); seek permit
reform to reduce costs.
41. Use enhanced team planning/partnering.
Early involvement of all participants in a capital project, known as 'partnering,' has proven
· _,~ successful in building construction projects and can be used in transportation projects as ......
well. Through partnering, early agreement on roles, responsibilities, dispute resolution,
project and team scope, and mitigation measures is achieved, and consensus is built early
in the development of the project. The result can be faster project delivery. Projects can
benefit from participation of all interested parties early in the planning process. This can
apply to interagency agreements as well, so roles are clear, redundant reviews elimi-
nated, and decisions stick; however, the process can be time consuming and agreements
are not binding.
42. Do environmental review early.
Establish standards for environmental reviews that are consistent across jurisdictions.
Begin at the preliminary project layout (or comprehensive plan phase) instead of waiting
for initial project design. Allow environmental review to inform the design, which can
result in a better overall project.
Responding to constraints on staff and financial resources, other states and other coun-
tries have been using alternative methods to get projects completed efficiently. Alterna-
tive project delivery (APD) can result in projects that meet the public's desire for projects
that are timely, cost-effective, and accountable. These types of projects also can yield
innovations in design and construction. The principal alternative is the design-build
process with its variations, including various level private sector roles in creating, financ-
ing, owning, and operating projects.
43. Incorporate the design-build process and its variations into
construction projects to achieve the goals of time-savings
and avoidance of costly change orders.
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
l.n design-build projects, a single entity is hired to carry out all phases of a project, from
initial design to final construction. The advantages of design-build are derived from the
collaborative effects of the designer-builder relationship, the potential for innovation and
greater cost control. Examples in other states have shown significant savings in total
project cost but even greater savings in the time of project delivery, which can be re-
duced by as much as one-third. For all transportation agencies to use design-build and
its variations, greater authorization is required from the Legislature, including legislative
adjustments to allow and include more public-private teams, and authorization to de-
velop pilot projects to test various project delivery methods to measure best results.
Variations of design-build include;
a. Allow private construction and management of transpor-
tation activities.
Having to consider future maintenance costs creates an incentive for builders to develop
innovative construction approaches that can lead to longer life of roadways and other
transportation facilities. This option most closely resembles the state's public-private
initiatives program.
b. Use build-transfer-operate approach.
This alternative allows public financing and construction of transportation facilities, which
are then leased to private companies for management and operation. Funds are often
raised through toll collection.
44. Increase education and training in alternative project deliv-
ery (ADP) concepts.
There is a perceived lack of understanding on the part of public agencies, the legislature,
and the public about alternative project delivery (ADP). Jurisdictions with expertise
could assist in an education effort. The authority to share resources between govern-
mental entities would need to be allowed. This would require departments and. agencies
involved to be trained, and to train outside entities.
45. Use the private sector to deliver projects and transportation
services.
Some pilot projects allowing the private sector to provide expertise and financing in
developing transportation projects have been attempted in Washington. Using private
funding, these projects can provide cost-effective transportation facilities, and the possi-
bility of getting large-scale projects built when public funds are lacking. The public has
demonstrated some distrust of for-profit operators of public facilities.
Barriers preventing the private sector from providing transportation services should be
examined in light of some public expressed interest in alternative services, which could
include ferry, bus, or monorail.
· 25
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
MAKE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SIMPLER AND MORE
FLEXIBLE
With funding 'needs' exceeding available resources, and infrastructure demands
spreading across several, jurisdictions, new models for funding must be found.
The findings suggest further examination of a regional approach to transportation
lundin9, and a Ioosenin9 of highl,v categorized, restrictive, and relatively inflexible
fund sources.
The findings note that the gas tax is the only dedicated statewide transportation rev-
enue source available to the entire roadway system. Yet it is not distributed equitably,
nor is it:; distribution based on objective measures of need. Gas tax distribution ap-
pears to penalize cities, and its distribution does not reflect changin9 demographics.
New models for distribution of this important revenue source are required to fund the
transportation system of the future.
These strategies below would help to achieve a more equitable distribution of trans-
portation funding, and greater flexibility in local decision making for the use of those
funds.
46. Create a funding structure that is efficient, rational, and un-
derstandable.
Treat the state, counties and cities comparably in how their transportation facilities are
funded. Shift funding focus away from jurisdictions to functions (maintenance, safety,
and mobility) and to corridors. Shift funding focus to user fees -- those who use the
system should also pay for the system.
Fund sources should be clearly linked to functions in ways that are easy to explain. Link
transportation-related taxes to transportation purposes that are easily understood. En-
sure that basic operations and maintenance are adequate, and that growth and change
over time can be addressed. Simplify grant funding by loosening restrictions.
Recognize diff~rential regional needs, both rural and urban. Focus on mobility, not only
on raising revenues. Use long-term financing to pay for facilities that have a long-term
useful life.
a. Revenue measures should contribute to streamlining and
simplifying the existing transportation funding structure
and avoid further layering of fund restrictions.
Grant programs should be consolidated and grant criteria loosened.
b. Simplify most state grant funding programs by eliminat-
ing local match and leveraging requirements.
Adjust local match and leveraging requirements to allow single source funding of most
projects. Create incentives to match or leverage funds to encourage partnering, but do
26 '
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
not make it a requirement, especially on smaller projects. Create one-stop grant funding
centers where all competitive funds are disbursed under regional priority programming
agreements and administered using a single application process.
c. Ensure that access to funds among governmental jurisdic-
tions and transportation modes is equitable and does not
favor certain parts of the system,
47. Change the formula for distribution of future gas tax funds
to cities and counties.
]~ase future distributions of new gas tax funds to cities on road miles and other demo-
graphic and utilization factors (e.g. growth rate, employment base, Mit), not on popu-
lation as is currently done. Population by itself is not a good indicator of infrastructure
and funding needs. The counties currently use a distribution formula with multiple vari-
ables, including road miles, need and population, agreed upon through the Road oluris-
diction Commission (RJC) process. Cities should develop a new formula through the
next RJC process.
a. Redistribute future gas tax funds to cities.
Under this option, city gas tax funds would be distributed in one of two ways:
(i.) City direct gas tax fund distribution:
· 70% based on population
· 10% based on centerline miles
· 20% based on adjusted arterial miles
A more accurate variable to use in lieu of centerline and arterial miles would be lane
miles, however these data are not available for cities. Consequently, the arterial mile
data were adjusted to approximate lane miles for each jurisdiction. It was assumed the
larger the population, the more large arterials the city would have and the more lane
miles would exist. The following formula was used to adjust arterial centerline miles to
lane miles:
Population Adjusted Arterial Formula
2?.,500 or more 4 x number of arterial center]ine miles
5,000 - 22,500 3 x number of arterial centerline miles
5,000 and under 2 x number of arterial centerline miles
(ii.) Base distribution plus new revenue distribution
Cities would receive a base distribution equal to the direct gas tax distribution made to
cities in 1998. Any increase in revenue over the base in future years would be distributed
· 27
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
to cities.based on the following:
· 50% based on population
· 25% based on centerline miles
· ?5% based on adjusted arterial miles
The adjusted arterial mile is calculated the same as in (i) above.
Under both options, future levels of funding would shift widely from previous distribu-
tions for some.jurisdictions. While the alternative formulas are more sensitive to density
and growth, they represent a significant change and a gradual 'ramping' of the formulas
over a period of years might be appropriate.
tx Adjust future county and city gas tax distributions such
that direct distribution dollars for basic functions follow
road miles upon incorporation or annexation.
Currently, when a previously unincorporated area becomes a city or is annexed to a city,
no new tax funds are made available to that city. Gas tax that was allocated to the county
for the unincorporated road miles continues to be part of all county funding. Cities as a
group receive a single fixed distribution that is divided among them by population, re-
sulting in diminishing funds per capita as new cities are created. This penalizes cities and
appears to go against the intent of the Growth Management Act that encourages concen-
tration of facilities in incorporated areas.
Future methods of distributing gas tax might allocate funds based on a percentage of
total statewide county road miles (or other variables) for counties and a percentage of
total countywide city street miles for cities. Thus, as annexations and incorporations
occur, funds can be shifted over time based on local comprehensive plan facility needs.
48. Jointly program and administer state competitive and pass-
through funds by consolidating services provided by separate
agencies.
The WSDOT Local Roadways Division and the Transportation Improvement Board
would merge into a new hybrid organization. The new entity would manage the TIB's
existing grant programs as well as the new pass-through funds along with a systematic
program of technical assistance. The goal of the merger would not be to achieve efficien-
cies through staff reductions, but rather to achieve better coordination and enhanced
services to local agencies. The new hybrid entity could have the following features:
· Located within WSDOT, but with a separate governing board with stake-
holders represented on it. The governing board would still set policy and
program criteria.
28
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
· WSDOT expertise in technical assistance to local government (e.g. pave-
ment management systems) would continue to be utilized. WSDOT's
functions in setting and monitoring standards would also be retained.
49. Keep funding sources predictable and at pace with the
economy. New revenue should be dedicated to transporta-
tion improvements, including roads, ferries, freight mobility,
transit and trip reduction. Options for predictable and flex-
ible funding include:
a. Authorize an increase in the state sales tax.
Each one-tenth of one percent increase in the state sales tax would raise $80 million per
year. With new revenues dedicated to transportation purposes, modes would compete
against each other for the best use of funds in each region. Funds could be dedicated to
statewide, regional, and local projects, as well as to a 'very large project' fund.
tx Authorize a sales tax on gas, to be imposed on the under-
lying commodity price, not on the full price that includes
state and federal fuel taxes.
The full price of a gallon of gas already includes state and federal motor fuel taxes: a sales
tax on the full price of gas would represent double taxation. Therefore, this option sug-
gests that a sales tax could apply only on the underlying commodity price. Dedicate the
proceeds of the new tax to transportation purposes. The revenue from this source would
fluctuate with the commodity price. Funds raised could be used for roads, or for projects
and programs not permitted under the 18th amendment to Washington's constitution.
~ Shift sales tax revenues generated by transportation from
the general fund to transportation purposes.
Given the strong recent growth in the economy, it is possible to shift these surplus gen-
eral fund revenues to transportation without cutting into education or other important
general programs. To alleviate concerns that these funds would be needed in the future
if the economy slows, an annual re-authorization of these funds based on revenue fore-
casts under the 601 spending limit could be included as part of the proposal. At a given
growth rate threshold, the funds would revert to the general fund.
50. Find ways to achieve transportation investment equity.
Adopt a new regional equity principle for taxes and fees
based on a combination meeting the needs of the region
that generates the funds and sustaining the integrity of the
statewide transportation system.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
The current system of allocating transportation revenues around the state will not ad-
equately address transportation funding needs in the urban counties with the most acute
problems. In considering equity, the needs of the statewide system must be addressed.
Through the regional approach, funds raised in the region for transportation improve-
ments should be invested in the region. Future regional investments should include a
'large project fund' for large regional and local transportation projects not eligible for
funding through the state system.
Create a three-tiered regional equity principle:
· Allocate sufficient funds to basic operations, maintenance, preservation
and agency overhead at a minimum level for the statewide, county and
city roadway systems from statewide funds;
·Allocate all other funds so they primarily benefit the region in which funds
are generated;
· mllo_c, ate all funds locally or regionally authorized for that region's benefit.
For example, at the second tier, a minimum return would be guaranteed
and at the third tier, 100% of locally or regionally voted taxes or fees would
remain in the home region.
51. Create local and regional revenue options such as:
a. Optional regional vehicle license fee at some level up to
$100 per vehicle.
This is a fiat fee Jn which each car pays the same amount annual]y. As such, it is regres-
sive and imposes a disproportionate burden on people of lower incomes.
b. If regional transportation authorities are not created,
increase the existing county-authorized vehicle license fee
from $15 to some amount up to $45 per vehicle.
This would be a flat fee, paid annually by the owner of each vehicle.
c. Create a two-tiered user charge consisting of a fiat fee
portion per vehicle plus a variable portion based on miles
traveled.
This option could consist of two parts, for example, a $25 flat fee per vehicle plus a
mileage charge.
d. Authorize an optional increase in the local sales tax (in
addition to the statewide option proposed above), to be
dedicated to transportation purposes at the local level.
(Note: the 2000 legislature has implemented this opton.)
Revenues could be divided among the county, transit district (s), and cities. Entities would
have to agree on common priorities.
30
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
e. Give more flexibility for increasing the existing local
option gas tax.
f. Authorize an additional local option gas tax to cities over
100,000 in population at a rate of up to 2 cents per gallon.
~ Authorize to counties and cities tax increment financing
based not on the property tax but on the sales tax.
Ifa specific investment in transportation facilities could be demonstrated to increase
taxable retail sales, the portion of the sales tax revenues attributable to the investment
would be reserved to service financing costs.
52. Grant regions revenue authority and investing flexibility to
address their high priority needs.
53. In order to address more specifically varying transportation
needs throughout the state, some state transportation mo-
bility funds should be shared with regions.
54. Develop a new joint regional programming and prioritization
process for federal funds that were previously allocated to
the state, regions and local jurisdictions.
Federal dollars previously allocated to the state, regions and localjurisdictions would be
pooled and prioritized by region. Entities within a region would develop agreements on
how federal dollars should be used.
· Focus federal dollars on major corridors to meet the commission bench-
marks.
·Increase flexibility of mixing and matching funds for various purposes
and modes by consolidating funds.
· Hold federal bridge, safety, and transit funds out of the regional pools and
allocate according to federal law.
· Concentrate on fewer and larger projects by region.
· Increase direct distributions to small jurisdictions from the state.
· Federally fu.nded projects would be managed only by designated jurisdic-
tions. Administration of federal funds would continue to be located at
WSDOT, as required by federal law.
31
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
55. In addition to regional programming and prioritization of
federal funds, include state funds in the new process. This
could entail having competitive grant programs run at the
regional level.
56. Include new local option regional funds in the joint regional
programming and prioritization pool of federal and/or state
funds.
32
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT
ppublic surveys in Washington consistently show that a high value is placed on
reservation and enhancement of the environment and native habitat. Indeed,
these values are key to the identity of the Northwest. Yet there is the perception of
permitting and regulation as 'red tape,' a sign of government waste and inefficiency.
Permitting is no longer perceived as a process that is designed to protect the environ-
ment, and it may not be achieving substantive results.
The problem with permitting is twofold. First, the requirements are too complex, time-
consuming, and sometimes redundant. Second, critics of the existing system argue
that there is an emphasis on procedure over substance. Such a system does not
produce the best projects, or those that best protect the environment. Some of the
current emphasis on process may be due to lack of agreement on the substance. The
commission may be able to foster a consensus on the actual protections needed, at
least for transportation projects, which could allow the process to be streamlined.
There is a backlog of permitting, some of it due to recent actions required by the
Endangered Species Act. A recent article highlights the fact that the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers offices in the Pacific Northwest has a backlog of 880 permits, and a
quadrupling of their workload since the 'endangered' listing of several species of
salmon in 1999.
57. Create one-stop permitting with decisions that stick.
~ Delegate authority. Empower local governments with
'certified agency' status to make final decisions on per-
mits.
I~ Authorize permit reviews to be conducted by certified
jurisdictions to avoid multiple reviews.
58. Require early agreements.
~ Require early interagency agreements early in decision-
making process.
b. Provide early involvement by stakeholders.
A model of early involvement could improve the NEPA process. Timetables would be
established -- no new issues, concerns, or lawsuits are permitted after the investment of
substantial time and resources.
e~ Involve resource agencies early in planning, design, and
critical area designation.
33
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
59. Create project teams.
Representatives from each of the pe[mitting agencies would be assigned to a project and
see it through the process together. Designate a permit coordinator from the team.
60. Coordinate mitigation across jurisdictions.
Work with local agencies and state agencies to coordinate review efforts. Work to in-
form federal agencies of the ongoing work of state, local, and regional bodies, and at-
tempt to coordinate with federal agencies to the extent possible. A goal is to achieve
delegated authority of federal review to responsible state, regional, or local authorities.
Through the techniques made possible by advances in technology and knowledge, miti-
gation may be performed more strategically than before, over a broader geographic area
and over a comprehensive range of projects and project types.
a. Coordinate environmental mitigation strategies with
other agencies.
Coordinate with other federal, state and local agencies, and with non-governmental or-
ganizations to develop comprehensive strategies. Use geographic information system
(Gig) mapping to determine the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial miti-
gation efforts.
b. Use watershed based planning.
Incorporate a holistic strategy for environmental mitigation, instead of project-by-project
review. Create an overall program of watershed management that integrates environ-
mental programs and decision making in a broad range of ecological areas, including
wetlands, flood management, storm water, hazardous waste, aquatic sediments, fish and
wildlife, erosion control, and stream restoration. Map the entire state using geographic
information systems (GIS).
61. Encourage pilot projects.
A sample pilot project would be to consider endangered species on a program-wide level
rather than on a project-by-project basts. Another may the use of GI$ mapping to deter-
mine impacts on endangered species habitat early in planning for a project.
62. Empower regional authorities with permit responsibility.
· Planning -- In the development of transportation project environmental
impact statements, allow regional authorities to give programmatic EIS
approval. Programmatic approval may also be linked to regional trans-
34
Draft Accords and Options
for public comment
portation plans and area-wide mitigation provisions. Locals may also be
responsible for identification of critical areas, and come up with project
alternatives and mitigation programs. Locals would be held responsible
for growth management compliance, and also for meeting benchmarks for
mobility and air quality.
· Project coordination -- Convene regulators and agree on roles, jurisdic-
tions, and authority. For those projects whose scope is too large to be
covered by a programmatic environmental impact statement (mis), ac-
knowledge those elements that require site-specific mis and mitigation.
Have a coordinated project team that can agree early on alternatives, ne-
gotiate review schedules, and negotiate the level of detail of review.
· ~mplementation -- Set project-specific timeline contracts; have conse-
quences for any delay. If necessary, designate and fund regulatory staff.
Empower transportation project managers to make decisions. Local agen-
cies would be required to give up some authority.
63. Make better use of current environmental processes.
The fo]lowing are methods of working better with available resources:
· Better integration of NEPA/SEPA: to the extent possible, coordinate re-
views at the federal, state and local levels.
· Create permit centers with federal, state and local permit agency staff under
one roof, Using the existing pilot center in macey as a model.
· Simplify public notice requirements, coordinate across jurisdictions, and
eliminate redundancies.
· Fund staff in resource agencies to review permits: Staff shortages are a
principal cause of delay in issuing environmental permits. Funding staff
positions for specific projects or on an ad hoc basis will facilitate earlier
project review.
· Set and honor timelines.
· Develop an environmental cost model to document and monitor the costs
of environmental review, permitting, and mitigation on projects.
64. Write and apply substantive standards for transportation
(road) projects to streamline permit approvals thereby re-
ducing process review delays. Identify highway projects of
statewide significance to be eligible for review under this
option.
· 35
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
36
APPENDIX
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
PRESENTERS
Tvhe work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation is indebted to the
olunteer contribution of all the individuals and agencies listed below. Presenters
were invited who could express a diversity of viewpoints on topics and who Could
participate in discussions challenging the status quo. Their time commitment and
their willingness to share their expertise are greatly appreciated.
Administration Committee (listed in alphabetical order)
Jerry AIb, WSDOT, perm# process
John Ball, Wash. Federation of State Employees, quality program
Klm Becklund, City of Bellevue, permit reform
Scott Boettcher, Washington Permit Assistance Center, permit assistance center
Jonathan Brock, University of Washington, managed competition
Phil Bussey, Washington Roundtable, nationwide transportation study
Bill Chapman, Preston Gates & Ellis, permit reform
Rick Cocker, Cocker Fennessy, public opinion research
Gary Demich, WSDOT, I-5 DuPont interchange
Bill Eager, TDA, comparative highway construction cost figures
Jerry Ellis, WSDO T, public-private infliatives
Tim Erickson, WSDO T, commercial vehicle information s~tems
Steve Excell, Washington Roundtable, statewide comparison of transportation expenses
Stan Finkelstein, Association of Washington Cities, local jurisdictions (city)
Bob Gregory, Kelso/Longview, public works merger
Jim Hamilton, Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, local business viewpoint
Charlie Howard, WSDOT, 1977 WSDOTconsolidation
Tom Jensen, Washington Roundtable, transportation investment cost analysis
Bob Keller, Washington Federation of State Employees, quali(y program
Greg Kipp~ King County, early agency involvement in project development/review
Glen Leicester, Greater Vancouver (BC) Transportation Authority, TransLink
Dean Lookingbill, Southwest Washington RTC, role of MPOs and RTPOs
Jim McCoard, Washington Federation of State Employees, quality program
Mary McCumber, Puget Sound Regional Council~ early planning and involvement
Rob McKenna, King County, closing the transportation infrastructure gap
Helga Morgenstern, WSDO T, efficiency measures
Appendix
Chris Mudgett, County Road Administration Board, local jurisdictions (county)
John Musgrave, Wesl Seattle Chamber of Commerce, transportation funding equity
Joyce Olson, Community Transit, project delivery and efficiencies
Jerry Porter, Kiewit Pacific Co., design/build case studies
Ron Sims, King County, coun(y transportation role
Ken Smith, value engineering
Rick Smith, WSDOT, design-build project defivery
Ken Stone, WSDOT, permit process
Tricia Thomson, American Public Works Association, permitting and permit centers
Eugene Wasserman, Seattle Neighborhood Business Council, small business viewpoint
Investment Committee (listed in order of presentations given)
Greg Selstead, WSDO T, process to update WSDO T's 20-year plan
Daniela Bremmer, WSDOT, process to update WSDOT's 20-year plan
Charlie Howard, WSDOT, traffic congestion, WTP update, preservation of roads
Sam Seskin, Parsons, Brinckerhoff,, Quade and Douglas, land use and transportation
Paula Hammond, WSDOT, WSDOT operated road network
Chris Mudgett, County Road Administration Board, county road network
Diane Carlson, Association of Washington Cities, city street network
Tom Phillips, Community Planning and Research, homeowner preferences
G.. B.Arrington, Tri-Met, Portland, OR, Linking transportation and land use
Mary McCumber, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), GMA and Vision 2020
Peter Beaulieu, PSRC, freight and economic development
Paul Chilcote, Port of Tacoma, freight mobility
Jim Toomey, Port of Pasco, economic development
Rick Walsh, King County, Metro transit
Jeff Hamm, Jefferson Transit transit
Mark Hallenbeck, University of Washington, HOV system performance
Rob Fellows, WSDOT, HOV system
Mike Hoover, State Senate Republican Caucus, HOV system
Chris Endresen, PSRC, HOV system
Ken Kirkland, WSDOT, maintenance of WSDOT road network
Dave Parkinson, Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad, short line railroads
Steve Anderson, WSDOT passenger and freight raft operations in Washington
39
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
Investment Committee (continued)
Jim Slakey, WSDOTpassenger and freight rail operations in Washington
Terry McCarthy, WSDOT, Washington State Ferries
Bill Roach, King County Metro, commute trip reduction
Bryan Lagerberg, King County Metro, commute trip reduction
Karen Schmidt, Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, freight mobility
Revenue Committee (listed in order of presentation given)
Don Taylor, Washington Department of Revenue
Gary Lowe, Washington State Association of Counties
Chris mudgett, County Road Administration Board
Stan Finkelstein, Association of Washington Cities
Diane Carlson, Association of Washington Cities
Jerry Fay, Transportation Improvement Board
' Denny Ingham, WSDOT TransAidOffice
Dan Snow, Washington State Transit Association
Joyce Olson, Community Transit ,
Jay Reich, Preston, Gates & Ellis
Helga Morgenstern, WSDOT Finance and Administration
Eric Meale, WSDOT Economics Division
Aubrey Davis, Washing? Transportation Commission .
Jerry Ellis, WSDOT Economic Initiatives
Greg Hanon, Western States Petroleum Assocbtion
Mark Hallenbeck, University of Washington TRAC
Rob Fellows, WSDOT Office of Urban Mobili(y
Mike Hoover, Senate Republic Caucus
Chris Endresen, Puget Sound Regional Council
: ~ John Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency
'~' Doug Howell, Center for Energy and the Environment
~ Rob McKenna, Metropolitan King County Council
40
Appendix
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
S ummarized below are findings adopted on Jan. 12, 2000 that are providing the
basis for the commission's accords and options.
· Understanding the problems
Washington's population has grown 36 percent in the last two decades and is expected to
climb another 36 percent by 20?-0. Population growth, increased employment, more cars
and more trips are impacting Washington's roadways. Finding. resources to maintain
· roads adequately is a major problem faced by counties and cities around the state. Highly
restrictive funding processes and the great number of entities responsible for planning
and coordination have led to a system that doesn't always make the most cost-effective
investments. In two measures of urban congestion -- percent of urban lanes congested
and traffic per lane -- Washington ranks among the worst in the nation.
· Recognizing the consequences
Washington's transportation system influences almost ever3/facet of life in the state, in-
cluding how we spend our time, where we live and work and the profitability of our
businesses
· Responding to the public
Polling results and the passage of Initiative 695 demonstrate that many Washington resi-
dents are skeptical about the efficiency of current transportation programs and funding.
However, polling also demonstrates that a majority of voters believe Washington needs
to maintain and improve its transportation system by increasing investments over the
next five years majority of the voters, but gas taxes are considered more acceptable than
other options.
· Simplifying transportation governance and accountability
While drivers may not notice when they cross from one jurisdiction to another,
Washington s transportation system is a patchwork created and maintained by more than
450 governmental entities through processes that have evolved slowly over the years.
There isn't always adequate coordination, and processes that once served important func-
tions have sometimes outlived their usefulness. In some areas, the complexity of the sys-
tem and the numbe!r of players suggest needs for greater simplicity and accountability.
· Fostering greater funding flexibility
Much of the state's funding is distributed through accounts restricted to specific uses,
such as repairing roads or increasing safety. The commission is considering whether agen-
cies and jurisdictions should be granted greater flexibility in setting funding priorities.
· 41
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation
May 2000
· Maintaining the transportation system
Washington's transportation system represents public assets worth more than $100 bil-
lion. Providing sufficient maintenance to preserve these assets is an important priority.
While most state highways are currently in good condition, many bridges, urban arteri-
als, county roads and city streets are not. Heavy vehicles, studded tires and weather
contribute significantly to deterioration of roads and bridges.
· How much congestion is acceptable?
Residents of urban areas agree there is too much congestion, but there is no consensus on
what level is acceptable. Each year in Washington, congestion wastes time and resources
worth more than $2 billion. The commission is looking for ways to balance investing in
building more roads with expanding public transit and reducing the number of trips
people make in vehicles.
· Identifying needs and priorities
The more than 450 jurisdictions and agencies that shape Washington's transportation
system have identified needs for the next 20 years that by will exceed funding available
from current sources by billions of dollars. The state lacks consistent methods for mea-
suring needs across jurisdictions, however, and not all entities use the best tools available
for identifying the highest priorities and most cost-effective investments.
· Reducing maintenance costs
Transportation agencies in other states have reduced costs by establishing clear perfor-
mance goals and reengineering workplace procedures to encourage frontline employees
to come forward with cost-saving ideas. Another potential strategy is allowing managed
competition between private companies and public-sector work teams.
· Re-evaluating the permitting process
Businesses, individuals and transportation agencies go through the complex process of
obtaining permits before launching construction projects. The fOundation exists for a
thorough reform of permitting processes at both the state and local levels with the goal of
protecting public interests while reducing the time and costs involved.
· Promoting innovation and efficiency in constructing projects
Governments around the country have saved time and money completing projects by
venturing from the traditional design-bid-build process. The commission is considering a
number of alternate strategies, including the design-build process, in which the same
entity both designs and builds a project. Processes that promote innovation and create
incentives increase the likelihood of finishing projects on time and on budget.
· Distributing funds effectively
42 '
Appendix
The state doesn't always distribute transportation funds based on objective measures
reflecting each agency or jurisdiction's actual roadway responsibilities. Basing alloca-
tions on figures such as miles of roadway, traffic volumes, population growth and the
local tax base are options to look at.
· Facing the gas tax dilemma
State gas tax revenues -- generated by collecting a fiat amount for each gallon of gas
purchased (regardless of the price does not keep pace with inflation.
· Making transportation a factor'in land use decisions
Over the last 50 years, residential and commercial development in Washington has tended
towards low-density suburbs, promoting a heavy reliance on automobiles that underlies
congestion problems in most metropolitan areas. Now, governments are looking for ways
to respond to new growth regulations and growing consumer demand for compact, mixed-
use developments that help reduce congestion.
· Encouraging carpooling and transit use
Park-and-ride lots have proven to be a strong incentive for transit use and carpooling;
many lots in congested corridors are now full.
43
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION CACC") 2000 INTERLOCAL
AMENDMENT
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
X CONSENT RESOLUTION Amount Budgeted: $
ORDINANCE STAFF REPORT Expenditure Amt: $
__BUSINESS PROCLAMATION Contingency Reqd: $
HEARING STUDY SESSION
FYI OTHER
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum from Kimberly Lockhard, Administrator of the ACC and
Proposed Amendment to 2000 Interlocal Agreement, Airport Communities Coalition
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: As outlined in the attached Memorandum from Kimbcrly Lockhard, the
kirport Communities Coalition ("ACC") has proposed an amendment to the 2000 Interlocal Agreement. During its
cecent audit of the ACC, the State Auditor questioned some language in the current Interlocal Agreement among
ACC member cities, with respect to executive sessions that may be held by member city councils to discuss the
subjects of the ACC Interlocal. The Auditor agreed that ACC's actual practice in holding executive sessions was
not of concern. To resolve any questions about the language of the Interlocal Agreement, however, the ACC has
requested that its member cities pass an amendment to the interlocal striking the language in question. This
amendment does not affect the 2001 ACC Interlocal Agreement, which will be presented to the City Council
later this fall.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Finance/Economic Development/Regional
Affairs Committee considered this proposed Amendment at its September 25, 2000 meeting and recommended the
Amendment be sent to the full City Council for approval
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to direct City Manager to enter into Amendment to 2000
Interlocal Agreement with ACC.
APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: ~r~ ~ ~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
DENIED 1st Reading
TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
AIRPORT
City of Tukwila
City of Des Moines
City of Federal WayCOMMUNITIES Kimberly Lockard
City of Normandy Park COALITION Administrator
Highline School District
-re: Gary Long, City Manager, City of Burien
John ~cFarland, City Administrator, City of 'l'ukwila
Itoh Olander, City Manager, City of Des Moines
v/Bob Sterbank, City Attorney, City of Federal Way
Merlin MacReynold, City Manager, City of Normandy ~ark
Joe McGeehan, Superintendent, Highline School District
Cc: ACC fixo¢utive Committee
From: Kimbedy Lockard, Administ~a/_~/~1
Date: September 2~, 2000
ACC; 2000 Intedoca~ Agreement Amendment
Attached please find an amendment to the ACC lnterlocal Agreement (ILA) for your
consideration and approval at your next City Council/School District meeting. The ACC
Executive Committee approved the recommended amendment at its 9~20~00 meeting and has
requested me to ask each City to formally approve. (I will be sending out the 2001 ILA for your
consideration and approval under separate cover.)
In response to concerns of the State Auditor's office that the ILA is not consistent with the Open
Public Meetings Act and public disclosure laws in Section 6.B., we consulted with our municipal
attorney, Mike Kenyon. After analysis of both the legal and "public relations" aspects of the
current language in the ILA, it is the recommendation of the ACC Executive Committee to retain
the first sentence of Section 6.B., and simply delete the remainder (beginning with, "In order to
preserve confidentiality ...").
There is no legal requirement that issues relating to the Open Public Meetings Act or the Public
Disclosure Act actually be addressed in an ILA between or among public agencies. Rather, the
only requirement is that such public agencies actually comply with those statues (e.g. timely
response to records requests, consideration of matters in executive session as authorized in
RCW 42.30.100, etc.). In reafity, and in fact, we have confirmed with the auditor that we
are in compliance with these regulations. It is fair to assume that some attempt may be
made to use the fact that we are being audited, or any critical audit findings, as ammunition
against the ACC or its Executive Committee members. Specifically addressing either statue in
an amended ILA may provide additional cause for criticism. By adopting this recommendation,
we cannot eliminate the possibility of negative statements being made, but we minimize the
potential for it and we ensure that the ILA no longer causes concern for the State Auditor.
21630 11th Avenue S. Des Moines, WA 98198-6398 (206) 870-6581 Fax: (206) 870-7225
e-mail: klockard@cityofdesmoines.com
Each member organization must approve such an amendment at their respective City
Council/School Board meetings. This can be done on consent agenda. I have enclosed the
proposed amendment in red-lined version. Please place this matter on your next City
Council/School District agenda. In anticipation of approval, I have also enclosed two original
amendments for your signatures. Please execute both copies of the II_A and return one original
to me.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. We have appreciated your support and
are looking forward to working with you in 2001, as well.
Thank you.
21630 llth Ave. So., Des Moines, WA 98198-6398 Phone 206/870-6526 Fax 206/870-6540 E-Mail khanson@cityofdesmoines.com
Interlocal Agreement
Airport Communities Coalition DRAFT
Proposed Change to 2000 ILA
Section VI. of the Airport Communities Coalition Interlocal:
VI. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
A. The Executive Committee may, from time to time, retain legal or
other professional assistance or contribute to the retention by one of the parties
of legal or other professional assistance to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement. A contract or engagement letter shall be provided for each
consultant so retained, which contract or engagement letter shall subsequently
be marked as an Exhibit and incorporated into this Agreement, subject to all
terms herein. All such contracts may be reviewed and updated annually for
modifications or termination.
B. Information and materials developed by providers of professional
services, who are retained and are compensated pursuant to the provisions of
this Agreement, shall be made available to each party to this Agreement which
has borne its share of the cost of providing such services in the manner provided
herein, and to all parties admitted to membership in ACC pursuant to the
provision of Section IV
DRAFT
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION
In accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Revised Code of
Washington, Chapter 39.34) the City of Normandy Park, the City of Des Moines, the
City of Burien, the City of Federal Way, the City of Tukwila, and the Highline School
District (hereafter the "Parties"), each of which is a Washington Municipal Corporation
hereby amend Section 6.B. of the 2000 Interlocal Agreement as follows:
VI. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
A. The Executive Committee may, from time to time, retain legal or
other professional assistance or contribute to the retention by one of the parties of legal
or other professional assistance to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. A
contract or engagement letter shall be provided for each consultant so retained, which
contract or engagement letter shall subsequently be marked as an Exhibit and
incorporated into this Agreement, subject to all terms herein. All such contracts may be
reviewed and updated annually for modifications or termination.
B. Information and materials developed by providers of professional
services, who are retained and are compensated pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement, shall be made available to each party to this Agreement which has borne
its share of the cost of providing such services in the manner provided herein, and to all
parties admitted to membership in ACC pursuant to the provision of Section IV.
Page 1 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
CITY OF NORMANDY PARK
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ., 200__ ,200
By By.
Wilton S. Viall, III Merlin MacReynold
City Attorney of Normandy Park Its City Manager
At the direction of the Normandy Park
City Council by motion regularly passed
at an open public meeting on
,200
Page 2 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
CITY OF DES MOINES
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ,200 ,200
By By,
Gary N. McLean Robert L. Olander
City Attorney of Des Moines Its City Manager
At the direction of the Des Moines City
Council by motion regularly passed at
an open public meeting on
, 200
Page 3 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
CITY OF BURIEN
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ., 200 ; 200~
By. By.
Michael Weight Gary Long ·
City Attorney of Burien Its City Manager
At the direction of the Burien City
Council by motion regularly passed at
an open public meeting on
,200
Page 4 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
CITY OF TUKWILA
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ,200 ; 200
By. By.
Robert F. Noe Steve Mullet
City Attorney of Tukwila Its Mayor
At the direction of the Tukwila City
Council by motion regularly passed at
an open public meeting on
,200
Page 5 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ,200 ; 200
By. By.
Bob Sterbank David Moseley
City Attorney of Federal Way Its City Manager
At the direction of the Federal Way City
Council by motion regularly passed at
an open public meeting on
,200
Page 6 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
APPROVED AS TO FORM this DATED this day of
day of ,200~ ; 200
By
David T. Hokit Joseph R. McGeehan
Attorney for Highline School District Its Superintendent
At the direction of the Highline School
District Board by motion regularly
passed at an open public meeting on
,200~
Page 7 of 7
Airport Communities Coalition
2000 Interlocal Agreement Amendment
City of Federal Way
Market Analysis
Prepared for
City of Federal Way
by
ECONorthwest
99 West Tenth, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 687-0051
July 2000
Table of Contents
Page
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1-1
METHODS ................................................................................................................. 1-1
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................... 1-7
CHAPTER 2 PRELIMINARY FORECASTS OF GROWTH
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2-1
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS ...... 2-1
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2-11
CHAPTER 3 LAND SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3-1
METHODS ................................................................................................................. 3-1
BUILDABLE LANDS ESTIMATES ................................................................................... 3-4
DEVELOPMENT (LAND) CAPACITY ESTIMATES .......................................................... 3-11
CHAPTER 4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4-1
FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS .................................................................. 4-2
CHAPTER 5 DEMAND ANALYSIS AND GROWTH ALLOCATION
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5-1
GROWTH FORECAST (CITY-WIDE) .............................................................................. 5-1
REVISED FORECASTS OF GROWTH IN FEDERAL WAY, 2000-2020 ........................... 5-14
EVALUATION OF LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT .................................................................. 5-21
GROWTH ALLOCATION (TAZs) ................................................................................ 5-23
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY ................................................................................. 5-26
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation July 2000 ECONorthwest Page i
APPENDIX A CAPACITY STUDY METHODS ............................................... A-1
APPENDIX B REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS .................................B-1
APPENDIX C GROWTH ALLOCATION BY TAZ ........................................... C-1
APPENDIX D TERMS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................... D-1
Page ii ECONo~hwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Chapter I I ntrod u cti o n
PURPOSE
The City of Federal Way Market Analysis updates the previous market
analysis prepared for the 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive PI~_~.
This Market Analysis covers the City limits and the Federal Way
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) located outside of the City limits. The
purposes of the Market Analysis are to determine how fast and with what
type of development different areas of the City will grow. Specifically, it
describes:
· The kind of growth to be anticipated in the next 20 years (2000 -
2020), broken down in five-year increments.
· The areas, by City Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and City
zoning district, that will receive this growth by 2020.
· Future land and redevelopment space needs.
The information in this report will be used:
· To meet requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA);
specifically, to determine whether the City of Federal Way presently
has a 20-year supply of adequately zoned land to meet the anticipated
need. This information will help shape recommendations by City staff
on requests for changes to the comprehensive plan ~esignations and
zoning, or the expansion of allowable uses in a zoning district.
· As a basis for the EMME/2 Travel Demand Model that will be used to
help decide the location of future transportation improvements.
· To update the Economic Development Chapter of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the City Center Chapter.
METHODS
The market analysis and growth allocation has both a supp]ycomponent
and a demand component.
Supp]yof land is vacant land available to accommodatc development
(buildable land),l i.e., land that is not constrained physically (e.g., by
wetlands or steep slopes)? and is serviceable. Zoning designations determine
what uses are allowed, and at what densities development can occur. Even
developed land can contribute to the supply of land if it is judged
~ Or partially vacant, meaning that a developed tax lot has a large enough vacant remainder to permit
additional development.
~ Referred to in the GMA as c~i~'c~l sreas.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-1
redevelopable. Estimates of the supply of vacant and redevelopable land can
be converted to development capa¢itybased on allowable uses and density
(e.g., number of housing units, or square footage of office or retail space).
Demand for land is typically characterized through analysis of national,
regional, and local demographic and economic data. For residential uses,
population and households drive demand. For the residential sector, for
example, information about the characteristics of households is used to
identify types of housing that these households would be ]ii, ely to occupy. For
non-residential uses, an employment forecast is the primary driver of
demand for land, and is converted to estimates of the probable absorption
rates for commercial and industrial lands.
Figure 1-1 shows the relationship between the supply and demand
components of a buildable lands analysis.
Figure 1-1. Overview of Methods: Market Analysis and Growth
Allocation
Demand Supply
Forecasts [ I
of growth: All land in
people & jobs Federal Way UGA
(2000-2020) ~,
r Minus land unavailable for
development:
I Conversion of I · Fully developed lands
k
growth into acres~ · Critical areas
· Market constraints
· Regional development pattern Buildable
· Physical constraints / land
· Planning and infrastructure .J_ capacity
Demand for
development by type,
zoning designation,
and TAZ
Allocation of development
by type, zoning designation,
and TAZ
Page 1-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth AJIocation
We began our analysis by developing population and employment
forecasts for Federal Way for the period 2000-2020. Our principal source of
information on City population and employment forecasts was the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC), 1990 Census data, and building permits.
The specific methods used to develop the population and employment
forecasts are described in Chapter 2. Forecasts are prelimin~u~in the sense
that they provide a starting point for a final estimate of population and
employment growth that we develop in Chapter 5, where the preliminary
estimates are adjusted based on information presented in Chapters 3 and 4,
and additional market data. The population and employment forecasts drive
the demand side of the analysis.
Federal Way provided ECO with several GIS databases that characterize
the supply of land and the development capacity of land. The strength of the
City database is that it starts with comprehensive assessment data,
crosschecks those data against aerial photographs and site inspection, makes
explicit its identification of critical (i.e., constrained, or non-buildable) lands,
and uses standard procedures for estimating redevelopment potential. ECO
used the City land data to create summary tables of the amount of buildable
land by type (plan/zone classification), by TAZ, and to determine whether
there are ]ii, ely to be any supply-side constraints on demand for different
types of land. Chapter 3 describes land supply.
To develop a method for allocating future growth in Federal Way, ECO
reviewed development activity over the last 10 years (Chapter 4). The
primary data source for this review was building permit data from the City
and the PSRC. We used the permit data to create summary tables showing
the type and density of development. Specifically, our analysis of building
permits shows, by year, the following information:
The mix of residential types: single-family (divided by construction
type-conventional site built, manufactured, and mobile homesmand
by lot size); duplex/tri]quad, town houses, and apartments;
The mix of commercial types: retail, office, industrial;
· Lot size/density, and gross-to-net acre relationships;
· Size of unit per type; and
· Value or price per size and type of unit.
We 'crosschecked and supplemented this information with secondary real
estate information sources including, CB Richard Ellis, Dupre and Scott, and
the University of Washington's Center for Community Development and Real
Estate, and Multiple Listing Service, as well as discussions with local brokers
and developers.
The final step (Chapter 5) was to allocate future development to City
TAZs and to City zoning districts. The allocation considered the relationships
among demographics, employment growth, market trends, development
activity, and the supply of buildable land in Federal Way. The citywide
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-3
demand forecasts were combined with assumptions about the relationship
between population, employment, development, and land supply based on
existing conditions and expected shifts in the future. These assumptions
cover a range of topics including:
· Household size (persons per dwelling unit)
· Tenure and type of new residential development
· Employment density (employees per square foot)
· Development density (dwelling units per acre, floor area ratios, and
net land coverage).
We also met with a focus group that included realtors, developers,
lenders, and others familiar with the regional real estate market.
To account for the complexity of the real estate market, and the
relationship between public policy and demand, we developed a spreadsheet
to simulate and allocate future development demand by sub-area, type of
unit, tenure, and other key variables. The simulation is designed so key
variables that affect development demand can easily be changed. To perform
the allocation, we created, for each City TAZ and City zoning district in the
Market Analysis Study Area, an index of demand by type that can be
compared to land supply. The simulations required significant hand
allocations of growth at the TAZ level. The complexity of programming every
variable that will affect the location and timing of development in the City
into a spreadsheet simulator was less efficient than developing a simulator
that performs the allocation based on a few variables and then msklng
adjustments. The simulation provides output in the form of estimates of
future residential units by type and tenure, square feet of commercial and
industrial development by type, and acres of land needed to accommodate
this development by City TAZ and City zoning district.
A key issue in this analysis is allocation of development to areas inside
and outside the Federal Way City limits. Portions of the City TAZ allocation
coverage extend outside the City limits (refer to Map 1-1). This Market
Analysis covers the City limits and the Federal Way Transportation Analysis
Zones (TAZs) located outside of the City limits. For purposes of this analysis,
we refer to all areas within the City limits as the City£imi~s and TAZ areas
outside of the City as the TAZ Study Area (please refer to Map ~-~ -Market
Analysis $~udyAre~). It must be noted that the City's Urban Growth Area
(UGA) is referred to as its Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and the PAA
boundaries and the City TAZ boundaries do not coincide exactly (please refer
to Map 1-2- l~ederal Way Potential Annexation .,4z'e~.
Development and land use data provided by the City are more detailed
and reliable for areas inside the Federal Way City limits. Thus, our analysis
considers these two areas separately. As stated above, for the purpose of this
study, we refer to all areas within the Federal Way City limits as the City
Liraits, and areas outside as the TAZ Study Area.
Page 1-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 1-1 2000 Federal Way ,t
Market Study
%
Market Analysis
Study Area
192
14
13
193
11
18
17
L__ 78 ,
138
Tacoma
141
180
I
212
213
~ 215 216
_. _~ Milton
Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
N Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003
T~2. Boundary (Each T~. is labelled (2,~) 661-4000.
N with its ID number)
~ Federal Way City Limits This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY. Tho
~ Federal Way TAZ Study Area City of Federal Way makes no
Scale: 1 to 62040 warranty as to its accuracy.
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
0 1Mile ~ll~=n~=l'~=n_
~'~~ GI$ DIVISION
/usors/mikos/land/idonl .ami
/
-~ Map 1-2 2000 Federal Way / / /
M~~
-I Market Study ~
_1 nl s/, ~, s-r ',
~Federal Way Potential ~ /~-~' Y~ "~
_1
~Annexation Area _'".,, fi
~ '% ~ Tacoma ~ ',' 139 r~ %,~,~ 144 p~ 146/ 148~ 202
~ 155 156 157 16
Legend: M~ Bate: May, 2080.
Oi~ of Fed~BI Way,
J ~ Ci~ of Federal Way 33~0 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
J (2~) 661-4000.
Federal Way Potential Annexation
N ~ Area (P.A.A.)
~ This map is intended for use as a
j ~ Feder~ Way graphical representation ONLY. The
Ci~ of Feder~ Way m~es no
T~ Bounda~ (Each T~ is labelled
Scale: 1 to 62040 with its ID number) warr~ as to its a~uracy.
d linch equals 5170 Feet
~ 0 1 Mile -:-~-: I ~~~
j luserslmikesll~mst~.aml
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The rest of this report is organized as follows:
· Chapter 2, Preliminary Forecasts of Growth, describes the regional
forecast of growth and shows how the regional population and
employment forecasts get allocated by PSRC to Federal Way.
· Chapter 3, Land Supply and Development Capacity, summarizes the
supply of vacant buildable land by type in Federal Way as of early
2000.
· Chapter 4, Historical Development Patterns, describes development
trends in Federal Way over the past 10 years using building permit
data and other sources.
· Chapter 5, Demand Analysis and Growth Allocation, analyzes factors
that affect demand for land and presents the results of ECO's TAZ-
level allocation and allocation by City zoning designation of new
development between 2000 and 2020.
A list of terms and acronyms used in this report follows Chapter 5. The
report also includes three appendices:
· Appendix A, Capacity Study Methods, describes the methods used by
City of Federal Way Staff to develop capacity estimates for the Federal
Way City Limits.
· Appendix B, Regional Growth Patterns, describes trends in
development in the Puget Sound Region.
· Appendix C, Growth Allocation by TAZ, presents tables showing
population, employment, dwelling units, and built space growth
allocated by TAZ.
· Appendix D, Terms and Acronyms
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 1-7
Preliminary Forecasts
Chapter 2of Growth
INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Act (GMA) recognizes the need for population
forecasts in local planning efforts. But the GMA requires population forecasts
to the county level only. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) develops
20-year forecasts for all counties, as well as annual population estimates for
counties and cities. No provision is included in the GMA for OFM or any
other agency to develop sub-county population or employment forecasts.
However, local forecasts provide the basis of estimating housing needs and
need for public facilities.
At a minimum, population and employment projections for jurisdictional
Growth Management Act planning should f~lf~l! two requirements: they
should be: (1) consistent with regional Growth Management Act plans, and
(2) realistic (i.e., they should be based on a reasonable evaluation of the
prevailing supply and demand conditions in a given market). To meet the
first of these two requirements, we look to current Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) regional and county-level projections as a starting point for
our Federal Way planning area population and employment forecasts.
We use the PSRC regional forecasts as a starting point for developing
population and employment forecasts first for Federal Way, and finally for
each of the 216 City TAZs, in five-year increments to 2020. In the following
section we briefly discuss the methodology behind the PSRC forecasts,
detailing both the strengths and limitations associated with their projections.
In the rest of this chapter we discuss the first three levels of our analysis,
beginning with a discussion of regional and county-level expectations for the
future, then detailing our methods and findings for preliminary control totals
for the Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area.
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
The Puget Sound Regional Council has developed forecasts of population,
households, and employment for the central Puget Sound region for the years
2000, 2010, and 2020. The process of PSRC's 2001 Update of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan includes a refinement of the forecasts. Regional Council
staff prepares the forecasts under federal guidelines, with the assistance of
local planners to ensure a general consistency with local comprehensive plans
that are developed under state guidelines. The local review process serves a
critical role in the usefulness of the forecasts.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-1
The Regional Council prepares these forecasts to meet its responsibilities
as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) under federal law, and the
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) under state law for
the central Puget Sound region (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties). PSRC develops small-area forecasts of population, households, and
employment to meet the requirements of federal legislation and data needs
for land use and transportation modeling. These small area forecasts are
based on 219 Regional Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZs). The PSRC's most
recent forecasts (revised in 1997 using 1996 data) are an interim product and
will be ~updated in 2001 (after the decennial Census).
PSRC small-area forecasts (PSRC FAZs) are an allocation of regional
totals generated by the PSRC's regional econometric model (STEP97),
updated in 1997 by Conway and Associates. PSRC staff initially allocate the
regional forecasts to 219 Forecast Analysis Zones (Regional FAZs), utilizing
the DRAMJEMPAL gravity model, the Regional Council's travel demand
model, and post-modeling adjustments that reflect extensive local review.
The Regional FAZ forecasts are then allocated to a finer zone structure,
PSRC Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) for use in the Council's travel
demand models (also subject to local review). The City of Federal Way is
covered by three PSRC (FAZs) (please refer to Map 2-1) and approximately 15
PSRC TAZs.
The PSRC publishes the forecasts along with the fo]lowing caveat, "The
Regional Council strongly suggests that when using the forecasts, other
sources of similar data, in particular data found in local or county
comprehensive plans, should be considered.", The process of applying the
PSRC forecasts to local projects should include applying more detailed and
current data from City staff and local land use studies. In addition, an
adjustment of the overall forecast growth may be useful to reflect new
economic trends that had not yet been revealed by the end of 1996 (the last
year of input data for STEP97).
~ http ://www.psrc. org/datapubs/data/datap age.htm#forecasts
Page 2-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 2-1 2000 Federal Way Kent
Market Study
386',
PSRC FAZ and
TAZ Boundaries
$87
~393~ ·
O
400 395 392 388
389
.... 403 398
Tacoma 402 ; = ,'
o 404
399
_. _~ Milton
Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
////~ City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
/V Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Federal Way, WA 98003
TAZ Boundary (Each TAZ is labelled
N with its lB number) (253) 661-4000.
~ FAZ 3010 This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY. The
[~ FAZ 3020 City of Federal Way makes no
Scale: 1 to 62040 warranty as to its accuracy.
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet
FAZ 3505 ~ GIS DIVISION
/users/mikeslland/psrc.aml
REGIONAL OVERVIEW
According to the PSRC's forecasts, between 2000 and the year 2020, total
population in the central Puget Sound region is expected to grow by roughly
920,000, from 3.4 million in Year 2000 to almost 4.3 million two decades from
now. King County is expected to receive roughly 40 percent of this projected
- increase, or slightly greater than 375,000 people, representing a 21 percent
total increase over the 20-year period (see Figure 2-1).
Coincident with its forecast of population growth, the PSRC also forecasts
a general decrease in the typical size of households. In the Puget Sound
region as a whole, the PSRC estimates that from 2000 to 2020 the average
household size will fall from 2.50 to 2.34 persons. For King County, PSRC
anticipates an even larger drop, with the average household expected to fall
from 2.40 to 2.17 persons (see Figure 2-2).
Figure 2-1. Historic and Projected Population, PSRC Region and King
County, 1990-2020
5,000,000
-,=,,- REGIONAL
~ KING COUNTY
4,000,000
3,000,000
2 000 000 ....
1,000,000 ...............................
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report annual estimates of
population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, unlike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are at least partially a result of differences in
estimation methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Annual Population Estimates by Census
Tract for 1990 through 1999.
Page 2-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Figure 2-2. Average Household Size, 1990-2020
2.60
._~ REGIONAL
2.50
e.....~.~...,..~_ KING COUNTY
2.30 ~
2.20
2.10
2.00 .....
1990 1999 2000 2010 2020
Persons per Household
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts.
The PSRC projects that employment in the central Puget Sound region
will grow from roughly 1.8 million jobs in 2000 to 2.3 million in 2020. PSRC
expects King County to receive 40 percent of the region's total growth in
population, but 60 percent of the region's new jobs.
In a continuation of the Puget Sound region's widely acknowledged shift
towards a service-oriented economy, the PSRC anticipates that employment
gains in the Puget Sound region as a whole will be heavily weighted in the
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (FIRES) sectors. Specifically,
the PSRC anticipates that growth in FIRES employment will account for 59
percent of total job growth in the Puget Sound. The PSRC anticipates that
King County will be at the forefront of this regional shift, forecasting that
over the next 20 years, within King County's boundaries, 68 out of every 100
new jobs created will be in the FIRES sectors (see Figure 2-3).
Figure 2-3. Regional Employment Growth, 1990-2020
2020 2,261,100
2010 2,075,592
· Retail
2000 ~ 1,799,208 ·FIRES
· Manu
· Gov/Edu
1990 1,445,243 []WCTU
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000
Total Employment
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-5
FEDERAL WAY ESTIMATES AND FORECASTS
In generating our preliminary population and employment forecasts for
the Federal Way area, we focused on two geographic levels of analysis: (1)
Federal Way City Limits - Federal Ways existing City boundaries; (2)
Market Analysis Study Area - a larger area that coincides with Federal
Way's Transportation Analysis Zones, which, in addition to the City limits,
includes a portion of Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), a
portion of unincorporated King County that is not included in Federal Way's
PAA, and small portions of the cities of Des Moines, Kent, and Milton. The
Study Area boundaries were defined by Federal Way staff. The problem for
forecasting is that it is desirable for a City transportation model to look
beyond its boundaries to a larger region, but that adds the complication of
having growth forecasts for areas that the City does not yet have planning
responsibility for.
Table 2-1 summarizes the difi~erent geographic identifiers we use in our
discussions. In general, our analysis includes five different levels of
geographic detail, shown in Table 2-1 from largest to smallest.
Table 2-1. Geography of Forecasts
Geographic Identifier Description
PSRC Forecast Analysis The City of Federal Way comprises roughly three PSRC
Zone FAZs.
Census Tracts The level of geographic detail for which the U.S. Census
Bureau provides the greatest level of detailed data.
Census tracts are, on average, roughly one third to one
half the size of one PSRC FAZ.
Regional Transportation The finest level of geographic detail used in Puget Sound
Analysis Zones (Regional Regional Council population and employment forecasts.
TAZs) In some cases a regional TAZ is identical to a census
tract, in others two TAZs may make up one census tract.
Federal Way Federal Way TAZs are, on average, roughly one-sixth the
Transportation Analysis size of regional TAZs and are used for transportation
Zones (City TAZs) planning on a finer City level.
Census Blocks Census blocks are the finest level of geographic detail
the United States Census Bureau uses, and in dense
urban areas these blocks often correlate to actual city
blocks. On average, one census tract may encompass 40
or 50 census blocks.
Source: Compiled by ECONorthwest.
FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
In generating our preliminary control total projections for the Federal
Way Market Analysis Study Area, we relied on four primary data sets: (1)
PSRC TAZ-level forecasts for 2000, 2010, and 2020; (2) Census 1990 block-
level population estimates; (3) PSRC geoceded housing unit permit data from
1991 through 1998 (augmented by data from the 1999 King County Annual
Page 2-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Growth Report); and (4) estimates of covered employment for 1998 as
reported to the Department of Employment Security, geocoded by the PSRC.
Our estimates of historical and current population are based on PSRC
tract-level estimates, which are ultimately constrained by Washington State
Office of Financial Management county-level estimates for each given year.
By statute, these tract-level allocations are based on OFM county totals.
Therefore, the PSRC allocations for all census tracts in a county must sum to
the OFM estimate for the county as a whole.
In contrast, our estimates of future population are based on PSRC 1999
TAZ-level forecasts: The Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area estimates
reflect an aggregation of PSRC TAZ or tract-level estimates. Estimates for
census tracts or PSRC TAZs with boundaries that did not corresvond with
the Market Analysis Study Area boundaries were allocated inside and
outside of the study area based on the 1990 distribution of population within
those tracts/PSRC TAZs, as reported in 1990 census block-level statistics. As
a check on this assumed distribution, we analyzed building permit data to
ensure that population distribution within the split tracts/PSRC TAZs had
not undergone substantial shifts in the 10 years since the 1990 census.
Year 2000, 2010, and 2020 estimated employment in the Federal Way
Market Analysis Study area represent PSRC projections as reported in the
1999 PSRC TAZ-level fo.recasts, checked against geocoded Department of
Employment Security 1998 reported covered employment (augmented by
1995 estimated government/education employment). Forecast non-
government employment in PSRC TAZs whose boundaries did not correspond
to Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area boundaries was allocated inside
and outside the planning area boundaries based on the 1998 distribution of
covered employment for each PSRC TAZ. (Forecast government and
education employment were each allocated based on their 1995 distribution,
which reflect the most up-to-date data available for those sectors.)
FORECAST CITY LIMIT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
Based on our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level population forecasts, we
estimate Year 2000 population in within Federal Way's City Limits of 81,150.
The PSRC forecasts suggest that, between 2000 and 2010, population will
increase at a rate of slightly more than 1,200 people per year, which
represents an average growth rate of 1.5 percent per year. From 2010 to
2020, the PSRC forecasts growth at a rate of slightly more than 1,500 persons
per year, representing an average growth of 1.6 percent per year. Ultimately,
our aggregation of the PSRC projections suggests that, by 2010, Federal Way
will reach a population of 93,431, and by the year 2020, it will reach 108,547
(see Figure 2-4). This assumes that no mojor annexations occur within these
time periods.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-7
Figure 2-4. Projected Population for Federal Way City Limits, 2000-
- 2020
120,00(7
---- Historic
- 110,000 108,547
_ *_ PSR____~C Projectio~n
_ 100,00(7 93~
- 90,000- ._.~ ~'
81,150
1006 1008 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report annual estimates of
- population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, unlike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
- between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are a result of differences in estimation
methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
_ Census Tract for 1990 through 1999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying text.
Employment
Our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level employment forecasts indicate that
Year 2000 employment within the Federal Way City Limits is slightly more
than 29,000 jobs (29,055) employment which is dominated by the retail,
finances, insurance, real estate, and services sectors. Based on information
from the City of Federal Way, there are also 750 licensed home occupations in
the City. In general home occupations do not include any outside employees
working in the home, and therefore, numbers involved in home occupations
would not have been reported to the state, and consequently, would not have
been included in the 29,055 jobs. As is true of forecasts for all of King County,
the PSRC anticipates that growth in these sectors will also be the primary
driver of employment growth in the coming decades. Ultimately, our
aggregation of PSRC forecasts suggests that employment in the Federal Way
City Limits will increase by roughly 4,800 in the decade between 2000 and
2010, to a level of 33,867 jobs, extending to 37,232 jobs by 2020. Increases in
employment in the FIRES sectors is anticipated to represent a full 71 percent
of the total 2000 to 2020 growth, with increases in retail making up an
additional 14 percent (see Figure 2-5 and Table 2-2).
Page 2-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
- Figure 2-5. Projected 'Employment for Federal Way City Limits, 1990-
- 2020
_ 2020 - 37,232
- [] RET
_ 2010 33,867 [] FIRE;
- [] Manu
_ 2000 29,055 [] WTCU
- [] EDU
1990 26,955
[] GOV
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Total Employment
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
Table 2-2, Projected Federal Way City Limits Employment by Sector,
1990-2020
RET FIRES MAN WTCU EDU GOV Total
1990 8,424 11,125 3,862 930 629 1,985 26,955
2000 8,641 11,213 3,962 1,584 2,124 1,631 29,055
2010 9,236 14,650 4,103 1,924 2,308 1,645 33,867
2020 9,787 17,018 4,253 1,956 2,491 1,726 37,232
2000 to 2020
Change 1,146 5,806 291 373 367 195 8,177
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
FORECAST FOR MARKET ANALYSIS STUDY AREA POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT
The following sections present population and employment forecasts for
the Market Analysis Study Area, which is the combined City limits and TAZ
study area (TAZs outside of the City limits). The discussion concludes with a
table, which presents forecasts for all three geographic areas (City limits,
TAZ study area, combined City limits and TAZ study area [Market Analysis
Study Area]).
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-9
- Population
- Based on our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level population forecasts, our
- preliminary estimate of Year 2000 population in the Federal Way Market
_ Analysis Study Area is 109,397. The PSRC forecasts suggest that, between
2000 and 2010, population will increase at a rate of approximately 1,400
- people per year, which represents an average growth of 1.3 percent per year.
- From 2010 to 2020, the PSRC forecasts growth at a rate of slightly more than
_ 1,675 persons per year, representing an average growth 1.4 percent per year.
Ultimately, our aggregation of the PSRC projections suggests that, by 2010,
- the Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area will support a population of
- 123,355, and by the year 2020, it will reach 140,126.
Figure 2-6. Projected Population for Market Analysis Study Area (City
Limits + TAZs Outside City Limits), 2000-2020
150,000
-m-- Historic 140,126
130,000-
120,000- ~ 123,355
110,000-
m..m--m--m 109,397
100,000
90,000
80,000 .........................
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020
Note: Estimates for 1996 through 1999 are generated by the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM). Upon receipt of OFM countywide estimates, PSRC staff disaggregate and report annual estimates of
population by jurisdiction and census tract. Year 2000 to 2020 forecasts originate with the PSRC and, unlike the
current-year estimates, are not required to be consistent with OFM figures. The relatively large difference
between estimated 1999 and projected year 2000 populations are a result of differences in estimation
methodologies.
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying text.
Employment
Our aggregation of PSRC TAZ-level employment forecasts indicate that
Year 2000 employment in the Federal Way Market Analysis Study Area is
31,346 jobs--employment which is dominated by the retail, finance,
insurance, real estate, and service sectors. As is true of forecasts for all of
King County, the PSRC anticipates that growth in these sectors will also be
the primary driver of employment growth in the coming decades. Ultimately,
our aggregation of PSRC forecasts suggest that employment in the Federal
Way Market Analysis Study Area will increase by roughly 5,000 in the
decade between 2000 and 2010, to a level of 36,333 jobs, extending to 40,071
jobs by 2020. Increases in employment in the FIRES sectors is anticipated to
Page 2-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
represent a full 70 percent of the total 2000 to 2020 growth, with increases in k
- retail making up an additional 15 percent (see Figure 2-7 and Table 2-3).
Figure 2-7. Projected Employment for Market Analysis Study Area
- (City Limits + TAZs Outside City Limits), 2000-2020
2020 40,071
[] RET
2010 36,333 ·FIRES
[] MAN
[] WTCU
· EDU
2000 31,346
· GOV
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Total
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
Table 2-3. Projected Employment by Sector Market Analysis Study
Area (City Limits + TAZs Outside City Limits), 2000-2020
RET FIRES MAN WTCU EDU GOV Total
2000 9,323 11,771 3,905 1,663 3,147 1,537 31,346
2010 9,997 15,327 4,044 2,023 3,291 1,651 36,333
2020 10,636 17,883 4,196 2,053 3,571 1,732 40,071
2000 to 2020
Change 1,313 6,112 291 390 424 195 8,725
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts and Washington State Department of
Employment Security data.
SUMMARY
Table 2-4 summarizes population and employment forecasts for the
Federal Way City limits, the TAZ study area, and the Market Analysis Study
Area (combined City limits and TAZ study area). The results show that the
PSRC forecasts anticipate a slower rate of growth outside the City limits
than inside.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 2-11
The PSRC forecasts allocate more than 27,000 new persons (108,547
minus 81,150) and 8,000 new employees (37,232 ~m~uus 29,055) to areas
within the Federal Way City limits between 2000 and 2020. By contrast, the
PSRC allocates 3,332 persons and 548 employees to the TAZ Study Area
between 2000 and 2020.
Table 2-4. Summary of Population and Employment Forecasts for
Federal Way City Limit, TAZ Study Area, and Market Analysis Study
Area, 2000-2020
Population Employment
Year City TAZ Market City TAZ Market
Limits Study Analysis Limits Study Analysis
Area Study Area Area Study Area
2000 81,150 28,247 109,397 29,055 2,291 31,346
2010 93,431 29,924 123,355 33,867 2,466 36,333
2020 108,547 31,579 140,126 37,232 2,839 40,071
Change 2000- 27,397 3,332 30,729 8,177 548 8,725
2020
Percent Change 34% 12% 28% 28% 24% 28%
2000-2020
AAG R 2000- 1.47% 0.56% 1.25% 1.25% 1.08% 1.24%
2020
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts b TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999. For details of allocation mechanisms see accompanying text.
The PSRC forecasts are a regional allocation of population and
employment growth in the Puget Sound area. The methods applied to develop
the PSRC allocations, however, suggest that consideration of local factors
may suggest local modifications to the growth forecasts. Chapter 3 describes
land supply and Chapter 4 describes recent development trends in the City of
Federal Way and the TAZ study area. In Chapter 5, we consider regional
market trends; along with the local data presented in chapters 3 and 4 to
evaluate the PSRC allocations of population and employment for the Federal
Way City limits and the TAZ study area.
Page 2-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Land Supply and
Chapter 3 Development Capacity
INTRODUCTION
Amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1997 require
certain cities, including Federal Way, to collect data on buildable lands and
analyze how planning goals are being achieved. The amendments, often
referred to as the Buildable Lands Program, require local governments to
monitor the intensity and density of development to determine whether a
county and f;he cities within its boundaries are achieving urban densities to
meet state growth projections. If development does not occur at planned
levels, jurisdictions must consider measures other than expanding urban
growth areas (UGAs) to accommodate development.
This chapter presents the results of inventory of the supply of vacant,
buildable land within Federal Way, and our estimates of development
capacity on those lands. Comparing the buildable land and capacity analysis
to the demand analysis allows us to determine whether there are supply-side
constraints on demand for different types of land.
METHODS
Federal Way provided ECO with several GIS databases that characterize
the supply of land and the development capacity of land. ECO used the City
land data (a summary of the methods used by Federal Way in their capacity
analysis is presented in Appendix A) to create summary tables of the amount
of buildable land by zoning designation and by City TAZ (detailed tables on
land supply are presented in Appendix B).
The definitions used to classify land are critical in any land supply
analysis. It is important to use clear definitions that allow classification of
land into mutually exclusive categories. Following are definitions used for the
purposes of this study. Definitions applied by the City in their buildable
lands inventory :are consistent with state codified definitions as presented in
the CTED Buildable La~uds Program Guideh'.ues.,
a Focusing on its city limlts, but also looHng at it Potential Annexation Area, wh/ch has the same
boundaries as its Urban Growth Area.
2 Buildable Lauds Program Guidelines, Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development, 1998.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-1
· Lands Suitable for Development:Vacant, partially-used, under-
utilized, and redevelopable land that is: (a) designated for commercial,
industrial, or residential use; (b) not intended for public use; (c) not
constrained by critical areas in a way that limits development
potential and makes new construction unfeasible.
· Vacant Land: Land that has no structures. For the purposes of the
City's analysis, parcels with improvement values of $0 were classified
vacant.
· Redeve.lopabIe Land: Parcels that are not constrained physically and
has services available, including the following categories:
· Partz'ally-Used Land: Parcels with development (improvements) that
contain enough land to be further subdivided without need of rezoning
and where there is a large enough vacant remainder to permit
additional development. For instance, a single house on a one-acre
parcel where urban densities are allowed is partially developed.
· Under-Utilized Land: Parcels of land zoned for more intensive use
than that which currently occupies the property. For instance, a
single-family home on multifamily-zoned land will generally be
considered under-utilized. This definition also includes land on which
development has already occurred but on which, due to present or
expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive uses during the
planning period.
The definitions for redevelopable land applied by the City in their
capacity analysis are:
· Parcels zoned for residential use that are 2.5 times or larger than the
minimum lot size in the district
· Parcels zoned for commercial use with an improvement-to-land value
ratio of 0.5 or less. Note that: (1) reasonable differences in the ratio or
measurements would yield different estimates of redevelopable land,
and (2) classifying a parcel as potentially redevelopable means that it
has a higher probability of redeveloping than other parcels, but does
not mean that all parcels so classified will redevelop during the
planning period, or that other parcels will not redevelop.
· CriticalAreas (Constrained Land): Land subtracted from Total Vacant
Land to get Buildable Land (which is further divided into totally
vacant and partially used based on parcel boundaries and existing
development on parcels). There are several categories of constraints:
· Wetlands
· Floodplain
· Streams
· Geologically Hazardous Areas - Erosion Hazard Areas,
Landslide Hazard Areas, Seismic Hazard Areas, Steep Slope
Hazard Areas
Page 3-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
· Lakes
· Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
· Aquifer Recharge Areas
· Wellheads
The GMA defines critical areas to, "...include the following areas and
ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous Areas';
(RCW 36.70A. 170). Moreover, the GMA requires communities to classify
critical areas and to regulate development in these areas (RCW 36.70A. 050;
RCW 36.70A. 060).
The City of Federal Way has mapped wetlands and streams; therefore, for
purposes of this study, critical areas were taken out at the parcel level.
· Gross Vacant Acre:A Gross Vacant Acre is an acre of vacant land
before land has been dedicated for public right-of-way, private streets,
or public utility easements. For example, a standard assumption is
that about 20 percent of land in a subdivision is used for streets and
utilities; if so, then a gross vacant acre will yield only about 35,000
square feet (80 percent of a full acre of 43,560 square feet) for lots.
· Net Vacant Acre: An acre of vacant land after land has been dedicated
for public right-of-way, private streets, or utility easements. If a
development had 10 single-family lots, each at 4,356 square feet, then
it would have a density of 10 units per net acre. But because streets
are needed to get to all those lots, those 10 lots would cover more than
an acre.
With respect to an evaluation of land capacity, the distinction between
gross acres and net acres is important because some vacant land is in large
tracts and some is in unbuilt, platted lots. The tract land is in gross acres;
part of it must still he used for roads. The platted land is in net acres: roads
have already been provided. Thus, at any given residential density, a net
vacant acre always accommodates more housing units than gross vacant
acres because all the land is going to lots.
The Federal Way database also tracks pending development as indicated
by approved building permits. This information on the development
"pipeline" is important from both a land supply and land demand perspective.
For the purpose of its buildable land inventory, Federal Way deducts pending
development from the buildable land inventory.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-3
BUILDABLE LAND ESTIMATES
The City's database classified all tax lots into one of 11 categories (please
refer to Table 3-1). For the purpose of the buildable land inventory, tax lots
are classified as vacant or as redevelopable. The inventory is presented for
two geographic areas: tax lots within the City limits, and tax lots in TAZs
outside the Federal Way City limits (referred to as the "TAZ study area").
WITHIN THE FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS
Table 3'1 shows land in tax lots by classification. In February 2000, the
City had approximately 19,983 tax lots on 10,997 acres. The majority of land
(16,917 parcels/tax lots) inside the City limits (85%) was classified as
developed. About 1,379 acres were classified as vacant buildable, while
appro×~mately 1,097 acres were classified as buildable redevelopable.
Table 3-1. Land in Tax Lots by Classification, Federal Way City Limits,
February 2000
Classification Number of Total Developed Critical Buildablel
Parcels Acres Acres~ Areas Redev. Acres
Parcels included In land supply analysis:
Vacant Parcels 1,326 1,803 424 428 1,379
Under-developed/Redevelopable Parcels 1,123 1,339 1,097 242 1,097
Sub-total 2,449 3,142 1,$21 670 2,476
Parcel excluded from land supply analysis:
Fully Developed Parcel 16,917 6,159 - -
Associated with Fully developed parcel2 53 28 - -
Fully Developed, Part of Larger Parcel= 3 100 - - -
Open Space4 112 169 -
Park 67 865 -
Pending Project 25 117 -
Public Lands 37 147 - - -
Special Cases 9 89 - - -
Tract? 311 181 - - -
Sub-total 17,534 7,855 - - -
Total 19,983 10,997
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest. 2000.
t Included roads, sidewalks, and paved areas as well as built space.
= Parking lot or other use closely associated with another developed parcel
~ Single parcel divided by ROW. Shows up as 2 records in the database, specially coded to prevent over-counting
Publicly owned open space
s Non-open space land owned by government agency (city, county, state, school district, fire district, utility district)
e Parcels, such as BPA corridor, cemetery which are technically vacant or redevelopable, but in fact are extremely unlikely
to develop.
? Private open space areas associated with subdivisions.
Page 3-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 3-1 shows vacant land by plan designation. Table 3-2 summarizes
land classified as vacant by plan designation. The data show that Federal
Way has a relatively small amount of buildable vacant land compared to the
City's total land area--about 552 acres designated for commercial/office uses,
and 823 acres for residential use.
Table 3-2. Vacant Land by Plan Designation, Federal Way City Limits,
February 2000
Cons- Vacant
Number of Vacant trained Buildable
Plan Designation Tax Lots Acres Acres Acres
Commercial/Office
Business Park 59 203 71 132
Central City Core 9 9 0 8
Central City Frame 7 8 0 8
Commercial-Business 90 112 10 102
Commercial-Retail 2 9 4 5
Corporate Park 20 120 27 94
Neighborhood Commercial 36 29 2 27
Office Park 75 209 35 175
Subtotal Commercial 298 699 149 552
Residential
Rural Residential 13 53 22 31
Suburban Residential 334 379 149 232
Urban Residential 619 569 83 486
Multiple Family Residential 57 98 24 74
Subtotal Residential 1,023 t,099 278 823
Total 1,325 1,802 427 1,379
No Designation Available 4 4 0 4
Source: City of Federal Way, analysis by ECONorthwest.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-5
J
Map 3-1 2000 Federal Way
Market Study
Vacant Land by
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
193
138
Tacoma
212
213
216
Map Date: May, 2000.
Legend: City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
~ City Center Core ~ Neighborhood Business Federal Way, WA 98003
N ~ City Center Frame ~ Community Business (253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
~ Corporate Park ~ Parks and Open Space graphical representaUon ONLY. The
City of Federal Way makes no
~ Office Park ~ MulU-Family warranty as to its accuracy.
Scale: 1 to 62040
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ Professional Office ~ Single Family-High Density
0 1Mile ~ Commercial/Recreation ~-] Single Family-Medium Density
~ Business Park ~ Single Family-Low Density ~ GIS DIVISION
luserslmikesllandltazavac.aml
Table 3-3 shows land classified as vacant by City zoning district.
According to City staff, comprehensive plan designations and zoning districts
are consistent with each other.
Table 3-3. Vacant Land by Zoning District, Federal Way City Limits,
February 2000
Number of Vacant Constrained Vacant
Zoning District Abbrev. Tax Lots Acres Acres Buildable Acres
No Zoning Available 3 2 0 2
Commercial/Office
Business-Commercial BC 90 112 10 102
Neighborhood Business BN 36 29 2 27
Business Park BP 59 203 71 132
City Center Core CC 9 9 0 8
City Center Frame CF 6 7 0 7
Corporate Park CP-1 20 120 27 94
Office Park OP 42 106 27 80
Office Park I OP-1 21 89 7 82
Office Park 3 OP-3 1 6 0 6
Office Park 4 OP-4 2 9 4 5
Professional Office PO 12 12 1 11
Corem/Office Subtotal 298 702 149 555
Residential
Single-Family
Single-Family 15 P, S15.0 291 258 75 184
Single-Family 35 RS35.0 46 122 74 49
Single-Family 5 RS5.0 6 40 17 23
Single-Family 7.2 RS7.2 354 289 31 259
Single-Family 9.6 RS9.6 258 239 35 204
Suburban Estate SE 14 53 22 31
Subtotal Single-Family 969 1,002 254 750
Multiple Family
Multiple Family 1800 RM1800 15 9 I 8
Multiple Family 2400 RM2400 6 18 7 11
Multiple Family 3600 RM3600 35 69 16 54
Subtotal Multiple Family 56 97 24 72
Res Subtotal 1,025 1,099 278 822
TOTAL 1,326 t,803 428 1,379
Source: City of Federal Way, analysis by ECONorthwest.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-7
Redevelopment potential, as defined by the City, deals primarily with
parcels with developed structures that are judged as likely to be demolished
and new buildings constructed in their place.8 The City considers any parcel
with an improvement to land value ratio of 0.5 or less (the improvement
value is no more half of the value of the land). There is no consensus in either
planning practice or real estate development about a simple measure that
defines redevelopment: ratios of improvement value to land value used for
the purpose are usually between 0.5 and 1.5. But not all, or even a majority of
parcels that meet this criterion for redevelopment potentialwill actual]y
redevelop during the planning period. The issue of/~ow much of the
potentially redevelopable land will be assumed to redevelop over the planning
period is discussed in Chapter 5.
Federal Way classifies partially-usedl~ds (see page 3-2) as residential
lands that can be divided 2.5 times or more.4 For example, a 12,500 square
foot lot in an RS-5000 zone (5000 square foot minimum lot size) would be
considered partially-used because its size is 2.5 greater than the minimum lot
size for the zone. Consistent with the definitions firED uses in the Buildable
Lands P~ogram Guidelines, Federal Way includes partially-used land as a
subset of redevelopable land. The City considers lands with improvement-to-
land value ratios of 0.5 or less (improvements are 50 percent or less of land
value) as redevelopable.
Map 3-2 shows redevelopable land as classified by the City's definitions.
Table 3-4 presents land classified as redevelopable in the City's capacity
database. The City classified 1,123 lots on 1,097 acres as redevelopable.
8 An alternative approach to estimating redevelopment potential is to analyze the relationship of
parcels to other surrounding parcels. For example, some jurisdictions define redevelopment potential as
parcels that have improvement values significantly lower than surrounding parcels in similar
designations. This approach, however, requires a property-by-property analysis using advanced GIS
tools; it is not used in this study.
Yet another approach to estimating redevelopment potential is to analyze land value as a function of
parcel size. In general, one would expect larger parcels with lower improvement values to have higher
redevelopment potential. Large parcels with low to medium improvement values may be under-
developed.
4 As for the ratio of improvement to land value that defines redevelopment, this measure is reasonable.
Other cut-offpoints could also be justified, but there is no overwhelming technical or political reason for
choosing 2.5 instead of, say, 2.25 or 3.75. But 2.0 is the lowest factor justified (otherwise the lot could
not be legally divided, and 3.0 seems to require too much land before a remainder is classified as
buildable: 2.0 to 2.5 seems about right.
Page 3-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Map 3-2 2000 Federal Way '~ ~' ~
Market Study !,~
Redevelopable Land by
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
192
18
L~ 78 ,
%141
LI
LI
2,tl
212
213
ilion
Map Date: May, 2000.
L Legend: City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
L ~ City Center Core ~ Neighborhood Business Federal Way, WA 98003
L N ~ City Center Frame ~ Community Business (253) 661-4000.
This map is intended for use as a
IL ~ Corporate Park ~ Parks and Open Space graphical representation ONLY, The
City of Federal Way makes no
L ~] Office Park ~ Multi-Family warranty as to its accuracy.
Scale: 1 to 62040
IL 1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ Professional Office - ~ Single Family-High Density
L 0 1 Mile ~ Commercial/Recreation [---I Single Family-Medium Density
L ~ Business Park ~ Single Family-Low Density ~ OIS DIVISION
L luserslmikeslland/tazared.aml
FEDERAL WAY TAZ STUDY AREA
The focus of this market analysis is in the Federal Way City limits. The
TAZ'level allocation of development, however, is necessary for transportation
planning and includes areas outside the City limits (the TAZ study area).
Data available for areas outside the Federal Way City limits are less detailed
than for areas inside the City limits. As a result, our analysis of areas outside
the City limits is more general.
Table 3-7 shows land in tax lots by classification. In February 2000, the
TAZ study area outside the City limits had 9,506 tax lots on about 5,304
acres. The majority of land inside the TAZ study area (55%) was classified as
developed. About 2,909 acres were classified as developed, while 1,800 acres
were classified as vacant buildable.
Table 3-7. Land in Tax Lots by Classification, Inside TAZ Study Area
but Outside City Limits, February 2000
Number of Total Develop. Critical Buildable
Classification Parcels Acres Acres' Acres2 Acres
All land in city limits 19,983 10,997 9,376 1,626 2,477
Land in TAZ study area
(outside city limits)
Fully developed 7,322 3,072 2,697 375 0
Park 3 5 3 2 0
Public Land, Not in study 19 68 46 22 0
Under-developed/Redev 332 503 152 68 437
Tract 76 0 12 12 0
Vacant 1,754 1,655 0 293 1,363
Total TAZ study area 9,506 5,304 2,909 772 t,800
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000.
~ Includes roads, sidewalks, and paved areas as well as built space.
2 Some overlap exists between critical acres and developed acres. Thus, Developed+Crifical+Buildable does
not sum to Total Acres.
DEVELOPMENT (LAND) CAPACITY ESTIMATES'
In February 2000, the City of Federal Way revised its land capacity
analysis for areas within the City limits. The capacity method used by the
City in this analysis was used by all cities in King County. Land capacity is
an estimate of the amount of development that land can accommodate given
land uses.
~ Land capacity and development capadty get used interchangeably to talk about the same question:
how much development (measured, for example, as housing units or square footage) can vacant and
under-utilized land support? What capacity does the ]andhave to support deve]opmeni?
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-11
Several approaches are available to estimate capacity. A starting point is
generally an estimation based on the maximum intensity a site could be
developed at g~vea po!icy co~strairts (e.g., plan designation, zoning,
minimum service requirements, and so on). For example, if a one-acre site
has zoning regulations that allow 100 percent lot coverage and up to three
floors, the theoretical maximum capacity on that site would be 130,680
square feet of built space (43,560 sq. ft./acre x 3 floors). Planners commonly
describe capacity or intensity of development in terms of floor area ratios
(FAR). FAR is simply the amount of built space on a site divided by the area
of the site. The example above equates to a (FAR) of 3.0 (130,680/43,560=3.0).
It is typical for capacity analyses to make deductions from the maximum
capacity allowed by public policy for public uses, right-of-way, and other land
uses that reduce the buildable area of a lot. This approach recognizes real'
world factors that affect the amount of buildable area on any given tax lot.
Taking deductions for specific factors is one variation on estimating
theoretical capacity. FARs based on zoning then allow estimations of the
maximum amount of built space that could be built.
Development, however, frequently occurs at densities that are less than
the ma×imum allowed under existing zoning. Using adjusted FARs based on
recent development, one can develop market-based estimates of capacity. The
method used by Federal Way is a combination of a maximum, policy-based
capacity approach and a market-based approach.
The City's methods to estimate residential capacity differentiated
between lands zoned for residential use and lands zoned for mixed-use. The
City essentially has two categories of zoning and plan designations: zones
that allow only residential uses, and zones that are primarily intended for
commercial uses, but also allow residential uses outright. Determining
capacity in mixed-use zones require assumptions about the mixture of
residential and non-residential uses.
For all uses, the City applies the following deduction factors:
· RJght-o£-way£actormakes deductions for local streets to service
the development.
· t~blicpurpose £a¢tor makes deductions for tracts to be used for
drainage, open space, utility easements, substations, etc.
· M~r]~et £actor makes deductions for land that will be unavailable
for development for various reasons (most of them related to a
landowner unwilling to sell at prevailing prices) during the
planning period.
To estimate capacity on lands zoned for residential use, the City classified
residential land into four categories: vacant, redevelopable, parcels not
Page 3-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
subdividable, and recently platted lots (vacant with no deductions). This
approach recognizes that vacant tract land requires deductions to estimate
capacity as opposed to a vacant lot in a subdivision, where all deductions
have occurred by virtue of it being platted.
To estimate capacity on mixed-use lands, the City applies four additional
factors:
t]uilding£ootprint£actoraccounts for the amount of the lot that will be
covered by a building.
· Allowable height (in :tToors)accounts for the maximum height allowed
under the zoning district.
· Percentage of built space in residentialaccounts for the amount of
buildable capacity that will be allocated for residential uses.
· Average size of residential units converts floor area capacity to
multiple family units.
The City's method is as follows:
Lot net square feet
x ROW factor
x Public purpose factor
x Market factor
x Building footprint factor
= Subtotal of buildable square feet
x Number of floors
= Total buildable square feet
The method then breaks out land by use (residential and non-residential)
and applies a residential area factor (expressed in square feet per dwelling
unit) to arrive at the total residential capacity and an employee per acre
factor to arrive at the total employment capacity.
The overall logic of this approach is sound and consistent with standard
practice and state requirements. The assumptions used, however, are not
based on observation of market trends. The City's discussion of methods and
results of those analyses are presented in Appendix A.
The following sections describe the results of that analysis, and makes
comparisons with the land supply data described in the previous sections as a
cross-reference. Like the land inventory, the capacity analysis is presented
first for areas within the City limits, and then TAZ study area (outside the
City limits).
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-13
WITHIN THE FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS
RESIDENTIAL LAND
Table 3'8 shows estimated residential land capacity for areas within the
City limits. The City estimates that capacity for about 4,839 new dwelling
units exists on land zoned for residential uses. The City has about 823
vacant, residential buildable acres (Tables 3-2 and 3-3) available within the
City limits, and another 827 acres classified as redevelopable (Table 3-4). If
we consider just the vacant acres, dividing development capacity by vacant
acres (4,839/823) yields a derived net residential density of 5.8 dwelling units
per net residential acre. If redevelopable acres are added in, the overall
density decreases depending on the density increases assumed to occur on
redeveloped land.
The City estimates additional capacity for 7,329 dwelling units on non-
residential lands. All capacity on non-residential lands is assumed to be for
multiple family dwellings. Estimated residential capacity in non-residential
zones is a substantial portion of the City's total estimated residential
capacity.
The methods applied by the City to estimate residential capacity in
mixed- use zones are based on a theoretical floor area, and assumptions
about the percentage of non-residential land that will develop in residential
uses.
Table 3-8. Estimated Residential
Capacity, Federal Way City Limit,
February 20004
Number of
Zoning Dwelling Units
RM1800 247
RM2400 213
RM3600 535
Multiple Family 995
RS15.0 825
RS35.0 80
RS5.0 188
RS7.2 1,878
RS9.6 870
SE 4
Single Family 3,844
Total Residential Zones 4,839
Mixed Use Zones 7,329
TOTAL t2,168
Source: City of Federal Way Land Capacity Analysis, February 2000.
~ See Appendix A for derivation.
Page 3-14 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
The assumptions shout residential development in mixed-use zones are
critical because the mixed-use zones (non-residential) zones are anticipated to
accommodate a large percentage of the City's future residential population.
We address this issue in Chapter 5. As a very rough estimate, st sn average
of 2.8 persons per household for single-family dwelling units and 2.15 persons
per household for multiple-family dwelling units, based on the City's capacity
estimates for residentially-zoned land (4,839 new units), that land can
accommodate about 12,900 people. Those 4,839 units would be about 79
percent single-family and 21 percent multiple-family (based on the
underlying zoning). Based on the City's capacity estimate for mixed-use zones
(7,329 units) and assuming it is all developed over a 20-year period with all
multiple-family units, then the total dwelling unit growth in the City limits
would be about 12,168 units (68 percent multiple-family units) and would
accommodate about 25,365 additional people (at 2.15 persons per household).
This compares to PSRC's forecasted 20-year growth of 27,397. Chapter 5
evaluates some of these assumptions in more detail.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND
Table 3'9 shows capacity for lands zoned for commercial and office uses.
The method the City applied to determine capacity begins with total area
(within tax lots) less critical areas, then a right-of-way factor is applied to
deduct for internal streets and other right-of-ways. The method also applies
deductions for public purposes and the market. The area left is then
multiplied by a lot coverage factor, which provides an estimate of the area of
the lot that can be covered by a building. The final step in the analysis is to
multiply the building coverage by the number of floors allowed. This provides
an estimate of theoretical floor area on any given tax lot and represents close
to an upper bound on the amount of development that is allowable on lands
zoned for commercial and office uses.
The method then allocates a percentage of capacity to residential uses in
those zones that allow residential uses. All residential capacity is assumed to
be for multiple fsmily units. Using these methods, the City's analysis
estimates capacity for about 23.4 million square feet of floor area in
commercial and office zones. Applying assumptions about the split between
residential and commercial uses yields the estimate of 7,329 residential units
and about 18 million square feet of commercial and office floor area.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-15
Table 3-9: Estimated Dwelling-Unit and Commercial Capacity of Land
Designated for Employment, Federal Way City Limits, February 2000
+ * = I = =
# of M.F. Buildable
Building total % resi- Residential Size of units dwelling sq. ft. left for
Zoning sq. ft. dential sq. ft. sq. Ft. units commercial
BC 4,662,258 0.33 1,538,545 1,000 1,539 3,123,713
BN 938,512 0.33 309,709 1,000 310 628,803
BP 4,386,306 0.10 438,631 500 877 3,947,675
CC 4,236,465 0.50 2,118,233 700 3,026 2,118,233
CF 1,225,173 0.50 612,587 700 875 612,587
CP-1 640,756 0.00 0 Na 0 640,756
OP 3,509,995 0.10 350,999 500 702 3,158,995
OP-1 3,156,967 0.00 0 Na 0 3,156,967
OP-2 0 0.00 0 Na 0 0
OP-3 212,890 0.00 0 Na 0 212,890
OP-4 126,933 0.00 0 Na 0 126,933
PO 317,597 0.00 0 Na 0 317,597
TOTAL: 23,413,850 7,329 18,045,147
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Analysis, February 2000.
FEDERAL WAY TAZ STUDY (AREA OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS)
The boundaries of the Federal Way PAAs do not match those of the TAZ
study area. The PAA database contains data on 7,116 tax lots; the TAZ study
area contains data on about 9.500 tax lots. An analysis of the two databases
indicates that nearly all tax lots in PAAs area also in the TAZ study area, but
the TAZ study area includes 2,884 tax lots not identified in PAAs.
No reliable capacity estimates exist for the TAZ study area. To assess
whether enough capacity existed to accommodate the PSRC population
forecast, ECO developed a roug]~ capacity estimate based on zoning and
assessment data.8 ECO estimates capacity for about 4,569 dwelling units as
of February 2000 within the TAZ study area. About 80 percent of the
dwelling unit capacity in the TAZ study area is for single-fsmily units.
G Developing capac/ty estimates for the TAZ study area was not a part of ECO's work program. To
develop the estimates, ECO identified vacant and redevelopable parcels and then made assumptions
about density based on the underlying zoning district.
Page 3-16 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 3-10. Estimated Residential Capacity i.n the
Federal Way TAZ Study Area, February 2000"
Vacant Redevelop Total
-able
Single-family 2,801 840 3,641
Multiple family 650 279 928
Subtotal 3,451 1,119 4,569
Source: Estimates by ECONorthwest, 2000
~ The estimates shown in Table 3-10 are rough estimates developed
by ECONorthwest through review of vacant parcels and zoning.
ECO did not develop any capacity estimates for non-residential uses for
the Potential Annexation Area or the TAZ study area. Non-residential
capacity outside the City limits are relatively limited by zoning that does not
allow commercial uses.
EVALUATION OF LAND CAPACITY ESTIMATES
The methodology used by the City to estimate capacity is based on a
methodology used by all of the cities within King County and is not based on
historical market trends. The estimates are probably closer to a
representation of theoretical capacity than what the market will produce.
ECO's review of the City's estimates of capacity on residential land indicates
the methods applied and deduction assumptions are reasonable; however, it
may underestimate residential capacity because it makes conservative
assumptions about densities and lot divisions. As a result, ECO has made
some adjustments to the City's capacity, and these assumptions and
conclusions are discussed in Chapter 5.
The City's method for mixed-use zones begins with an estimate of
unconstrained land in tax lots by zone (this includes both vacant land and
lands with improvement to land value ratios of 0.5 or less). The City's method
then applies the following deduction factors to get to a revi.~ed buildable area
estimate:
· R4'gI~t-o£-way£actormakes deductions for local streets to service the
development. The ROW factor is assumed at 0.95 for all zones except
the CC and CF zones, which assume 0.85.
Pub]z'cpurpose£sctormakes deductions for tracts to be used for
drainage, open space, utility easements, substations, etc. The public
purpose factor is assumed at 0.98 for all zones except for the CC and
CF zones, which are assumed at 1.0.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-17
· Mar/ret £actor makes deductions for land that will be unavailable for
development for various reasons during the planning period. For
vacant land, the market factor is assumed at 0.90 except in the OP-1
zone, which is assumed at 0.10. The market factor for redevelopment
is 0.83.
The right-of'way (ROW) and public purpose factors generally account for
roads, easements, and other access and public uses. The deduction of between
7 percent and 15 percent for commercial land was agreed upon by King
County as being reasonable for cities to use. The market factor is more
difficult to assess; ECO is not aware of any empirical studies on how much
land may be kept off the market over a 20-year period. However, again, a
range of deductions to be used was agreed upon by King County, and local
jurisdictions could choose percentages for various zones based on the local
market. For vacant land, Federal Way chose a 10 percent discount for the
majority of non-residential zones. The 90 percent discount in the OP-1 zone is
based on limited ownership (Weyerhaeuser Corporation).
The unconstrained lot area, multiplied by the ROW, public purpose, and
market factors, provides a revised estimate of land available for development.
This figure is then multiplied by a building footprint factor and the number of
allowable floors in each zone to estimate capacity of floor area.
Table 3-11 shows a comparison of City FAR assumptions and observed
FARs for different time periods in the Federal Way City limits. The results
indicate that the implied FARs assumed by the City are substantially higher
than FARs observed over any time period in Federal Way. The reason for the
higher FARs chosen by the City is due to a code amendment adopted in 1996,
which allows commercial buildings in the City Center to a height of 95 to 145
feet depending on use and provision of public amenities, such as public open
space. In addition, the City may consider a code amendment that would allow
these increased height limits outright. Furthermore, FARs observed in the
recent past, are not necessarily indicative of what FARs might be achieved in
the future. It is reasonable to assume that FARs will increase in the 20-year
planning period due to urbanization, supply constraints, investment in
infrastructure by the City, and potentially, public policy.
Page 3-18 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 3-11. Comparison of City FAR Assumptions and Observed
FARs
Observed FAR
Implied FAR for Observed Observed FAR, of Recent
City's Capacity FAR, All Development Projects
Zoning Estimates Development since 1995 (Wlntsr 2000)
BC 0.50 0.17 0.22 0.10
BN 0.50 0.17 0.10
BP 0.50 0.16 0.32
CC' 3.50 0.21 0.26
CF 2.40 0.29 0.43
CP-1 0.30 0.10
OP 1.05 0.34 0.36 0.55
OP-1 1.05 0.43 0.37 0.35
OP-2 1.05 0.60 0.38
OP-3 1.05 Na
OP-4 0.70 0.00
PO 0.40 0.18
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database.
Another key assumption in the City's capacity methodology is the
allocation of multiple-family residential units in mixed-use zones. Table 3-12
provides a comparison of the City's assumptions with the actual observed mix
for all development in the City and all development since 1990. ECO's
analysis assumes 800 square feet per residential unit in mixed-use zones.
The data indicate that residential development in mixed-use zones has
been considerably below the City's assumptions for future development, with
the exception of the CF zone. The existing amount of residential development
in mixed-use zones is only a small fraction of all residential development in
the City (about 5 percent for all development; about 10 percent for residential
development since 1990).
The analysis also indicates that some non-residential development is
occurring in residential zones. This is not surprising; cities commonly allow
non-residential facilities such as schools, churches, fraternal organizations,
and so on as conditional uses in residential zones.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-19
Table 3-12. Mix of Residential and Non-Residential Uses by Zone,
Federal Way City Limits
All Development Der Since t990 City
Assump
Zoning Total DU % Res Total DU % Res (% Res)
BC 201 8% 63 14% 33%
BN 13 2% I 0% 33%
BP 26 3% 0 0% 10%
CC 0 0% 0 0% 50%
CF 1,028 38% 385 53% · 50%
CP-1 I 0% 0 0% 0%
OP 322 8% 0 0% 10%
OP-1 0 0% 0 0% 0%
OP-2 0 0% 0 0% 0%
OP-3 0 Na 0 0% 0%
OP-4 0 0% 0 0% 0%
PO 17 7% 0 0% 0%
RM1800 5,066 100% 209 100% Na
RM2400 6,077 100% 819 100% Na
RM3600 2,837 98% 649 100% Na
RS15.0 1,058 91% 137 91% na
RS35.0 82 35% 5 5% na
RS5.0 504 97% 132 100% na
RS7.2 11,892 95% 1,426 93% na
RS9.6 3,348 95% 537 100% na
SE 21 45% I 100% na
Total 32,493 na 4,364 na na
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database, analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000.
The City's capacity analysis yielded about 18 million square feet
(18,045,147) of non-residential buildable floor area and 12,169 dwelling units.
Table 3-13 shows a basic simulation of the City's method at the aggregate
level. The key variables in the simulation are the floor area ratio (FAR),
percent of land in mixed-use zones allocated to residential, and the average
area of apartments.
The base simulation shown in Table 3-13 is set so it comes close to the
City's capacity estimates. There are an infinite number of combinations of
assumptions that could result in values comparable to the City's results. The
combination of variables that we used were a 1.0 FAR, and 20 percent of
Page 3-20 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
mixed-use capacity to residential units. The point of Table 3-13 is to/llustrate
that the population growth forecasted by PSRC (27,397 persons) can be
accommodated provided land in non-residential, mixed-use zones get
developed for housing. In Chapter 5 we evaluate how reasonable these
assumptions are.
Table 3-13. Simulation of Land Capacity, Federal Way
City Limits
Variable Value
Vacant lot area After Deductions
(Square Feet (SF)) 16,742,633
Redev lot area after deductions (SF) 6,898,882
Total lot area (SF) 23,641,516
FAR Assumption 1.00
Total bulldable area (SF) 23,641,$16
Percent residential assumption 20%
Mixed-use area in residential (SF) 4,728,303
Avg Res Size (SF) 600
Non-res buildable in mixed use (SF) 18,913,212
Res units in mixed-use zones 7,881
Res units in res zones 4,839
Total residential units t2,720
Source: ECONorthwest, based on City capacity methods.
Note: Figures vary slightly from the City capacity estimates shown in Appendix A due
to rounding errors.
Table 3-14 shows estimated non-residential capacity under different
assumptions about FAR and the percentage in residential use. The table
shows the amount of non-residential built space for different FAR
assumptions and residential assumptions. For example, if one assumes that
development in mixed-use zones averages an FAR of 0.6 and that 20 percent
of that built space is used for residential purposes, about 11.35 million square
feet of non-residential capacity would remain.
The results show that non-residential capacity is highest using higher
FAR assumptions and lower residential allocations.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 3-21
Table 3-14. Estimated Total Non-Residential Built Space Capacity
Using Different FAR and Percent Residential Assumptions (in
millions of square feet of floor area)
Percent of Total DevelopablelRedevelopable Square Footage to
Residential Use (millions of square feet)
FAR Aesmp 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
0.20 4.26 3.78 3.31 2.84 2.36 1.89
0.40 8.51 7.57 6.62 5.67 4.73 3.78
0.60 12.77 11.35 9.93 8.51 7.09 5.67
0.80 17.02 15.13 13.24 11.35 9.46 7.57
1.00 21.28 18.91 16.55 14.18 11.82 9.46
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000.
Table 3'15 shows estimated total residential capacity using ~lifl'erent FAR
and residential assumptions. The results combine residential capacity on
residential land and residential capacity in mixed-use zones; in other words,
Table 3-15 shows an estimate of total residential capacity for all of Federal
Way, based on ~ifferent assumptions about FAR and percent residential in
mixed-use zones. Residential capacity increases as FAR and allocation to
mixed-use zones increases. Table 3-15 illustrates our point that there are
many combinations that yield over 11,000 to 12,000 dwelling units, about the
number needed to accommodate PSRC's forecasted population growth.
Table 3-15. Estimated Total Residential Capacity (dwelling units)
Using Different FAR and Percent Residential Assumptions, Federal
Way City Limits
Percent Residential
FAR 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
0.20 5,567 6,294 7,022 7,749 8,477 9,204
0.40 6,294 7,749 9,204 10,659 12,114 13,569
0.60 7,022 9,204 11,386 13,569 15,751 17,933
0.80 7,749 10,659 13,569 16,478 19,388 22,298
1.00 8,477 12,114 15,751 19,388 23,025 26,662
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000.
The scenarios shown in Tables 3-14 and 3-15 indicate that the key
variables that affect capacity are floor area ratio and allocation of residential
units to mixed-use zones. In Chapter 4 we review historicsl development
patterns in the Puget Sound region and Federal Way. This analysis provides
a strong indication of what densities and mixes of uses the market has built
to in the recent past. In Chapter 5 we evaluate population and employment
forecasts and develop estimates of demand for dwelling units and built
commercial space based on our evaluation of what the market will build to in
the next 20 years. We then present revised capacity estimates based on FARs
and housing type mix. Land demand is then allocated to TAZs based on the
revised capacity estimates.
Page 3-22 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Historical Development
Chapter 4 Patterns
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes development patterns in the Puget Sound Region,
King County, and Federal Way over the past 10 years. Historical
development patterns are direct indicators of how demand for residential,
commercial, office, and industrial development have manifested itself in the
region and in Federal Way. Historical development patterns show the rates
at which housing, retail, office, and industrial space has been absorbed in the
recent past, which provides a starting point and check on assumptions about
future absorption.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to
monitor development. Amendments to the GMA in 1997 require King County
and its cities to collect data on buildable lands and analyze how planning
goals are being achieved. The amendments, often referred to as the Buildable
Lands Program, require local governments to monitor the intensity and
density of development to determine whether a county and the cities within
its boundaries are achieving urban densities to meet state growth projections.
If development does not occur at planned levels, jurisdictions must consider
measures other than expanding urban growth areas (UGAs) to accommodate
developmen~,
Our analysis of development trends covers:
· The mix of residential types: single-family (divided by construction
type--conventional site built, manufactured, and by lot size);
duplex/tri/quad, town houses, and apartments;
· The mix of commercial types: retail, office, industrial;
· Lot size/density, and gross-to-net acre relationships;
Size of unit per type; and
Value or price per size and type of unit.
We used several data sources to complete our analysis of historical
development trends. The key ones:
· Bui]c]ing permit data from PSRC and the City;
· City GIS data that includes year built, number of dwelling units, and
floor area at the tax lot level; and
· Secondary real estate information sources, such as CB Richard Ellis,
Dupre and Scott, and Mundy Associations as well as interviews with
local brokers and developers.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-1
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is presented in Appendix C.
FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
ECO conducted a detailed analysis of development in Federal Way using
assessment data, the City's capacity database, PSRC building permit data,
and City building permit data. We used these data sources to quantify the
amount and density of development within the Federal Way City limits, and,
to the degree data were available, the Federal Way Potential Annexation
Areas (PAAs).
One problem with reporting historical data for Federal Way is that
Federal Way did not incorporate until 1990. Before 1990, the US Bureau of
Census classified Federal Way as a Census Designated Place (CDP). Before
Federal Way incorporated, King County was responsible for issuing and
tracking building permits. The analysis of building permits in this chapter
only includes permits issued after Federal Way incorporated.
Analysis of recent development patterns is an important component of the
demand analysis. Historical data, combined with data on recent development
approvals (the development pipeline) provides empirical evidence of the rate,
location, and intensity of development. Analysis of recent densities provides
an indication of what future development might look like, and what the
actual capacity of land is, given the market characteristics of the City.
RESIDENTIAL
According to the 1999 King County Annual Growth Report, Federal Way
added 9,516 people and 6,036 jobs between 1990 and 1998. In addition, the
Annual Growth Report shows Federal Way as having 31,729 dwelling units
in 1998 and the U.S. Census shows 28,087 units in 1990., This results in an
increase of 3,642 dwelling units between 1990 and 1998.
Table 4-1 shows the density of residential development by type in Federal
Way for different time periods. The data indicate that residential
development in Federal Way averages, across all dwelling unit types (SF and
~ The change in total dwelllng units is inconsistent with building permit data presented in the 1999
Annual Growth Report which indicates that 2,531 residential building permits were issued between
1990 and 1998. The change of 3,642 dwelling units results in an average household size of 2.61 persons,
a figure relatively close to the average household size reported for Federal by the 1990 Census. The
2,531 building permits issued would result in an average household size of about 3.75 persons. Our
evaluation is that the 3,642 is the more reliable figure.
Page 4-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
MF) about 5.4 dwelling units per net residential acre. This figure increases to
about 6.6 dwelling units per net I~uil~lal~le residential acre. The data show
that residential densities for recent single- and multiple family development
(1995-1999) have occurred at lesser densities than during the earlier period.
Table 4-1. Density of Residential Development by Time Period, City
of Federal Way
DUINet
Total Tax Total Buidlable DUINet Buildable
Type/Period Lots Acres Acres Total DU Acre Acre
Single-Family
No Year 144 90 61 144 1.6 2.4
Before 1990 14,507 3,999 3,711 14,507 3.6 3.9
1990-1994 498 145 131 498 3.4 3.8
1995-1999 1,575 364 341 1,575 4.3 4.6
Subtotal SF 16,724 4,598 4,245 16,724 3.6 3.9
Multiple Family
No Year 85 28 12 3,189 Na Na
Before 1990 528 1,293 569 10,293 8.0 18.1
1990-1994 14 108 91 1,656 15.3 18.2
1995-1999 7 30 26 635 21.0 24.4
Subtotal MF 634 1,460 697 15,773 10.8 22.6
Total
No Year 229 119 73 3,333 Na Na
Before 1990 15,035 5,293 4,280 24,800 4.7 5.8
1990-1994 512 253 222 2,154 8.5 9.7
1995-1999 1,582 394 367 2,210 5.6 6.0
Total 17,358 6,058 4,942 32,497 5.4 6.6
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, 2000.
Note: No Year includes permits that did not have a year issued value.
Table 4-2, Figure 4-1, and Map 4-1show new dwelling units approved
(residential building permits) in the Federal Way City limits between 1990
and 1999. The data indicate that the City issued permits for about 4,060
residential units, or about 406 units annually during this period. On average,
about 51 percnet of the permits issued were for single-family units. King
County approved a substantial number of dwelling units (1,016) in 1990 just
after Federal Way incorporated and King County was still processing permits
submitted prior to incorporation for property located in Federal Way. Since
1991, an average of about 293 dwellfng units were approved annually; 57
percent of approvals were for single-family units.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-3
The Federal Way building permit data are substantially different than
the year built data in the City's capacity database. The capacity database
shows nearly 4,400 dwelling units with a year built of 1990 or greater,
whereas the building permit data show 4,060 units issued during that time.
Most of this difference is probably accounted for by the lag time between
when permits are issued and dwelling units are built---many permits must
have been issued before 1990 with dwelling units built after 1990.
Table 4-2. New Dwelling Units Approved by Residential Building
Permits, Federal Way, t 990-1999
Single Multiple Mobile Home Accessory
Year Family Family on Lot Dwelling Total
1990 546 873 1,419
1991 190 0 190
1992 255 47 302
1993 186 186
1994 185 246 431
1995 212 8 220
1996 108 129 2 1 240
1997 151 368 3 2 524
1998 102 95 5 2 204
1999 116 225 2 1 344
Total (90-99) 2,051 1,991 12 6 4,060
10-yr Avg
(90-99) 205 199 I 1 406
Total (91-19) 1,505 1,118 12 6 2,641
Avg (91-99) 205 221 3 2 406
Percent of
Total (91-99) 57% 48% 1% 1% 100%
Source: City of Federal Way, 2000.
Note: King County was responsible for review and issuing building permits in 1990. Throughout the remainder
of this report we use data from 1991 through 1999 as the basis for demand estimates.
Page 4-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Figure 4-1. Dwelling Units Approved by Residential Building Permits,
Federal Way City Limits, 1990-1999
1,000
900
800
~ 700
" 600
.c: 500
400
300
200
100
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Yea r
[· Family 1:3 Multiple Family m on · Accessory Dwelling
Single
Mobile
Home
Lot
Source: City of Federal Way, 2000
Table 4-3 shows assessed value of residential development by type and
year built as of February 2000. The data indicate that as one would expect,
newer units tend to have higher assessed values. Moreover, newer single-
family residences are, on average, larger than older residences. The average
size of multiple family units decreased slightly for the period 1995-1999
compared to 1990-1994.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-5
JL
LI Map 4-1 2000 Federal Way
LI Market Study
Rosidontial Pormits,
by Transportation Analysis
Zones (TAZ)
LI
LI
LI
193
LI
LI
11 ® 18
[I
78
LI ~, 197
LI
180
Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
3,3530 First Way $,
~ City of Federal Way Federal Way, WA 98003
N Multi-Family Permits (253) 661-4000.
~ Permit, Issued BEFORE 1995 This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY. The
~ Permit, Issued AFTER 1695 City of Federal Way makes no
Scale: 1 to 62040 Single-Family Permits warranty as to its accuracy.
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ Permit, Issued BEFORE 1995
0 1 Mile ~ Permit, IssuodAFTER 1995
(Note: 0nly permits issued after '~,~]~~ GI$ DIVI$1ON
1990 are displayed.)
luserslmikesllandlresperm.ami
Table 4-3. Assessed Value of Residential Development by Type and
Year Built, Federal Way City Limits, February 2000
Total Land Value Imp Value Total Value Average Average
Period DU~ (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) Value Size (SF)
Single-Family
No Year 144 9.4 5.0 14.4 100,256 Na
Before 1990 14,507 737.3 1,427.4 2,164.7 149,219 1,996
1990-1994 1,575 86.8 236.7 323.5 205,383 2,376
1995-1999 498 28.8 83.9 112.7 226,311 2,579
Total 16,724 862.3 1,753.0 2,615.3 156,382 2,032
Multiple Family
No Year 544 3.5 7.9 11.4 20,883 Na
Before 1990 10,293 93.4 243.2 336.6 32,706 798
1990-1994 1,656 12.8 55.4 68.2 41,191 1,103
1995-1999 635 4.3 27.4 31.7 49,905 935
Total 13,128 114.0 333.9 447.9 34,118 Na
Source: City of Federal Way Capacity Database; assessed values from King County Assessor, 2000.
Note: No Year includes permits that did not have a year issued value.
~ The total number of dwelling units reported in the capacity database is slightly different than the value reported
in Table 4-2. This is probably due to misclsssificafion of land use by the assessor or discrepancies in the
number of multiple family units in individual buildings.
NON-RESIDENTIAL
The City of Federal Way tracks land use, floor area, year built and other
important development data in its capacity database. Non-residential
development is classified into seven categories:
· Hotels
· Industrial
· Institutional
· Office
Retail
Recreation
Schools
The data allow analysis of built space by type and time period, floor area
ratios, improvement values, and lot sizes. Table 4-4 summarizes data for all
non-residential development in Federal Way and Map 4-2 shows locations of
non-residential permits. The data indicate that the majority of non-
residential development is relatively low-intensity. Prior to 2000, floor area
ratios (square feet of floor area divided by square feet of land area) average
0.13 for all development. New development, however, is going in at
intensities more than twice the City'~ average; floor area ratios (FARs)
averaged 0.25 for the period 1995-1999 and 0.5 for 2000.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-7
Table 4-4. Total non-Residential Built Space by Time Period, Federal
Way City Limits
Number
of Tax Acres in Buildable Imp Value
Period Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 614 2,265.9 2,051.2 10,376,174 0.12 589,928,933
1990-1994 56 265.7 245.0 1,732,663 0.16 141,756,500
1995-1999 26 74.6 66.2 725,361 0.25 41,246,700
Total 704 2,634.8 2,388.2 13,282,112 0.13 772,932,133
Not Yet
2000 10 32.5 29.7 652,895 0.50 Assessed
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-5 shows total built space by use for non'residential development
within the Federal Way City limits. The data show Federal Way had over 13
million (13,487,093) square feet of built non-residential space in February of
2000. The FAR shows considerable variation by use, with hotel uses having
the highest overall FAR and recreational uses having the lowest. The final
column shows improvement value by use; the total assessed value of non-
residential improvements was nearly $775 million.
Table 4-$. Total Non-Residential Built Space by Use, Federal Way
City Limits, February 2000
Number
of Tax Acres in Bulldable Implied Imp Value
Use Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area~ FAR (2000)
Hotels 15 38.9 34.6 442,300 0.29 14,142,600
Industrial 152 501.8 473.6 3,839,438 0.19 188,136,758
Institutional 75 338.6 284.7 850,224 0.07 63,970,410
Office 160 423.5 354.3 3,286,495 0.21 178,307,685
Recreation 19 407.2 357.4 359,021 0.02 33,970,700
Retail 252 510.3 494.4 4,068,020 0.19 215,681,780
Schools 33 418.3 392.9 641,595 0.04 80,521,000
Total 706 2,638.6 2,392.0 13,487,093 0.13 774,730,933
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
~ Includes built space in non-commercial zones.
The 2000 Improvement Value for Hotels does not include the Marriott or Holiday Inn, since they had not been
assessed at the tiroe of writing.
Page 4-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
~11 Map 4-2 2000 Federal Way
I Market Study
~, Commercial P.ormits, 90-.08
~ by Transportabon Analys~s
~I Zones (TAZ)
I-I 192
LI 14
LI 13
'~-- 193
LI
LI
11
E)~8
LI
78
197 ,~
138
141
LI %
LI
180
212
213
218
L
Legend: Map Date: May 2000.
City of Federal Way,
L r~] city of Federal Way 33530 First Way S,
L Federal Way, WA 98003
N Commemial Permits (253) 681-4000.
L This map is intended for use as a
L (~ Permit, Issued BEFORE 1995 graphical representaUon ONLY. The
City of Federal Way makes no
Scale: 1 to 62040 E) Permit, Issued AFTER 1995 warranty as to its accuracy.
L 1 Inch equals 5170 Feet Nots: Only permits issued after m~rm,~.,
L 0 1 UJJe 1990 are displayed. Commercial ._~i~=r~
permits issued outside Federal Way
L are not shown. ~ GIS
DIVISION
/users/mikes/land/co mperm.aml
Table 4-6 shows total non'residential built space by zoning district, for
non'residential districts, within the Federal Way City limits. The total built
space figure is smaller than in the previous table because this table does not
include built space in residentially-zoned lands. As one would expect, the
density of development as measured by FARs, varies by zones. The average
FAR for all zones was 0.20, but was as high as 0.60 in the OP-2 (Office Park
2) district.
Table 4-6. Total Non-Residential Built Space by Zoning, Federal Way
City Limits, February 2000
zoning Tax Lots Acres Buildable Acres Built Space FAR
BC 218 278.3 270.8 2,062,731 0.17
BN 62 88.8 87.0 629,662 0.17
BP 70 116.4 105.8 717,738 0.16
CC 39 147.09 146.49 1,496,260 0.23
CF 67 164.6 163.3 2,075,125 0.29
CP-1 7 362.2 310.8 1,304,299 0.10
OP 72 227.6 206.1 3,055,565 C.34
OP-1 3 28.5 21.2 402,045 0.43
OP-2 2 11.1 5.5 144,000 0.60
OP-4 I 40.0 35.7 5,088 0.00
PO 21 25.4 23.4 188,450 0.18
Total 562 1,490 1376.1 12,080,963 0.20
Source. Federal Way Capac;ty Database, Februar/2000.
Note. Does not include built space in residential zones.
RETAIL
Table 4-7 shows the amount of retail space built by time period in the
Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has just over four
million square feet of retail space. FARs average about 0.19, but were 0.24 for
development between 1995 and 1999.
Page 4-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 4-7. Amount of Retail Space Built by Time Period, Federal Way
City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year 2 10.1 10.0 142,057 0.32 Na
Before 1990 222 389.8 376.5 3,102,025 0.19 155,503,080
1990-1994 15 87.8 85.5 592,632 0.16 42,718,700
1995-1999 13 22.6 22.4 231,306 0.24 17,460,000
Total 252 510.3 494.4 4,068,020 0.19 215,681,780
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
OFFICE
Table 4-8 shows the amount of office space built by time period in the
Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has nearly 3.3
million square feet of office space. FARs average about 0.21, but were 0.36 for
development between 1995 and 1999.
Table 4-8. Amount of Office Space Built by Time Period, Federal Way
City Limits
Number
of Tax Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year 3 8.0 5.8 224,000 0.88 Na
Before 1990 140 362.3 307.0 2,434,796 0.18 144,274,785
1990-1994 9 20.3 16.6 235,501 0.33 16,041,700
1995-1999 8 32.9 24.9 392,198 0.36 17,991,200
Total 160 423.5 354.3 3,286,495 0.21 178,307,685
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
INDUSTRIAL
Table 4-9 shows the amount of industrial space built by time period in the
Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has just over 3.8
million square feet of industrial space. FARs average about 0.19, but were
0.26 for development between 1995 and 1999.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-11
Table 4-9. Amount of Industrial Space Built by Time Period, Federal
Way City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year I 3.3 3.3 616 0.00 38,800
Before 1990 127 419.8 398.0 3,096,284 0.18 134,500,058
1990-1994 20 71.6 65.1 660,960 0.23 50,742,800
1995-1999 4 7.2 7.3 81,578 0.26 2,855,100
Total 152 501.8 473.6 3,839,438 0.19 188,136,758
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
OTHER BUILT SPACE
Federal Way classifies several other categories of built space beyond
office, retail, and industrial. The City tracks built space for hotels,
institutional uses, recreational facilities, and schools.
Table 4-10 shows the amount of hotel space built by time period in the
Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that prior to 2000, the City had
just over 237,000 square feet of hotel space with a FAR average of about 0.18.
This table shows that the FAR for hotels has been increasing since 1999.
Table 4-10. Amount of Hotel Space Built by Time Period, Federal Way
City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 11 31.8 27.5 172,812 0.14 10,317,400
1990-1994 I 0.8 0.8 9,360 0.26 2,065,200
1995-1999 1 2.5 2.5 55,147 0.51 1,760,000
Total 13 35.1 30.8 237,319 0.18 14,142,600
Not Yet
2000 2 3.79 3.79 204,981 1.24 Assessed
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-11 shows the amount of institutional space built by time period in
the Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has just over
850,000 square feet of institutional space. A substantial amount (61%) of
institutional built space is on land zoned for residential uses. FARs for
institutional uses are very low compared to others uses averaging about 0.07.
Page 4-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 4-11. Amount of Institutional Space Built by Time Period,
Federal Way City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
No Year I 4.9 4.3 26,094 0.14 Na
Before 1990 67 294.8 245.8 743,177 0.07 57,479,610
1990-1994 6 27.1 22.9 60,674 0.06 3,550,400
1995-1999 1 11.8 11.7 20,279 0.04 2,940,400
Total 75 338.6 284.7 850,224 0.07 63,970,410
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-12 shows the amount of recreational space built by time period in
the Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has nearly
360,000 square feet of recreational space. Like institutional facilities, FARs
for recreational facilities are very low. Recreational FARs average about 0.02,
but are probably combined with outdoor recreational facLlities or open space.
Table 4-12. Amount of Recreational Space Built by Time Period,
Federal Way City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 17 378.0 330.6 288,377 0.02 17,013,900
1990-1994 2 29.2 26.8 70,644 0.06 16,956,800
1995-1999 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Total 19 407.2 357.4 359,021 0.02 33,970,700
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Table 4-13 shows the amount of school space built by time period in the
Federal Way City limits. The data indicate that the City has just over
640,000 square feet of school space. FARs average about 0.04, but were 0.09
for development between 1995 and 1999. This is not surprising; most schools
include a substantial amount of outdoor space for their grounds.
Table 4-13. Amount of School Space Built by Time Period, Federal
Way City Limits
Number of Acres in Buildable Implied Imp Value
Period Tax Lots Tax Lots Acres Built Area FAR (2000)
Before 1990 30 389.3 365.6 538,703 0.03 70,840,100
1990-1994 3 29.0 27.3 102,892 0.09 9,680,900
1995-1999 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Total 33 418.3 392.9 641,595 0.04 80,521,000
Source: Federal Way Capacity Database, February 2000.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 4-13
Demand Analysis and
Chapter 5 Growth Allocation
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 described the official regional growth forecasts for Federal
Way; Chapter 3 described the amount of land available to accommodate that
growth; Chapter 4 described Federal Way's recent development history. We
are now in a position to make a judgment about the amount of growth
(employment and built office and retail space; population and housing units)
that is likely to occur in Federal Way, and how that growth is likely to b~
distributed by location and time period. Our conclusion, which we document
in this chapter, is that: (1) the PSRC population forecasts for Federal Way
are too high as "most likely" forecasts for the City Hmits, and (2) the PSRC
population forecasts for the TAZ Study Area (TAZs outside of the City) and
the employment forecasts for both the City Limits and TAZ Study Area are
reasonable.
To document this conclusion, this chapter begins with a review of
population and employment forecasts, comparing them with recent
development trends. That review leads to a conclusion about the amount of
population and employment growthmand thus, development, that the City
should be planning for over the next 20 years. It then describes three future
development scenarios for how that growth might be accommodated. It
concludes with an allocation of that growth to Federal Way transportation
analysis zones (TAZs): ECO's opinion of the most probable development
scenario.
GROWTH FORECAST (CITY-WIDE)
METHODS
A key objective of our work program is an estimation of growth in the
Federal Way City Lir~its and the Federal TAZ Study Area. For a number of
reasons, we began our analysis in Chapter 2 by using the PSRC regional
population and employment forecasts to develop a forecast for the City Limits
and the TAZ Study Area. We started with the PSRC forecast for two reasons:
(1) it is the official coordinated forecast for the Puget Sound Region, and (2) it
is regionally controlled (it sums to OFM county-level forecasts).
Several options exist for evaluating the PSRC forecasts: (1) compare the
PSRC forecasts to historical amounts or growth rates (extrapolation); (2)
compare historical shares (ratios); (3) simulate ~]if~erent rates (simulation); or
(4) create an independent model (econometric modeling).
For any complex social system (a household, a business, a city) the future
is inherently uncertain and forecasts are educated guesses about that future.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-1
The best forecasts are ones that offer compelling reasons for those guesses.
For this project, we have decided that the best way to explain the City's
possible growth futures is to:
1. Describe the amount and type of development that would have to occur
to accommodate the population and employment forecasted by PSRC,
given the City's estimates of vacant and redevelopable land. Therefore,
the market analysis begins with the PSRC population and employment
that are exogenous to this study. As a starting point, we compare the
PSRC population and employment forecasts to the City's development
capacity estimates. This comparison requires a conversion of forecasted
population and employment into acres and built space.
2. Evaluate how likely that forecast is, given: (a) historical and forecasted
future rates of growth from the region; (b) historical amounts and rates
of growth in Federal Way; and (c) the policies and markets of
jurisdictions that compete with Federal Way for regional growth.
PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF PSRC FORECAST TO FEDERAL WAY
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
The basic assumption of this analysis is that: (1) population growth
translates into more households, which create a demand for housing, which
creates a demand for residential land; and (2) employment growth requires
new commercial or industrial space, which creates a demand for commercial
and industrial land. Table 5-1 uses this logic to compare demand based on
PSRC population and employment forecasts, and lend capacity from the
City's capacity analysis.
Many assumptions were required to develop demand estimates. ECO
estimates that Federal Way will need about 12,272 dwelling units to house
the 27,397 new people forecast by the PSRC between 2000 and 2020. This
figure assumes:
· An average household size of 2.35 persons;~
· A five percent residential vacancy rate; and
· Persons in group quarters will increase by 200 persons.
Table 5-1 summarizes the results of this preliminary housing needs
analysis and compares the results with the City's capacity estimates. The
table is organized into several sections as follows:
~ This assumption requires explanation. In the Puget Sound region as a whole, the PSRC estimates
that from 2000 to 2020, the average household size will fall from 2.5 to 2.34 persons. For King County,
PSRC anticipates an even larger drop-the average household size is expected to fall from 2.4 to 2.17
persons. The 1990 Census reported that the average household size was 2.61-a figure higher than both
the Puget Sound region and King County. Because of the larger household size historically in Federal
Way, we assume a smaller drop to 2.35 persons, a figure that is comparable to the regional average.
Page 5-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
· Resident~ia] demand provides an estimate of the total number of
dwelling units needed to accommodate the PSRC population forecast
for the Federal Way City limits. The analysis divides population
(27,397 persons) by persons per dwelling unit (2.35) to estimate
occupied dwelling units (11,658). The analysis assumes a five percent
vacancy rate, adding 624 dwe]Hr~g units to arrive at a total dwe]Hr~g
unit estimate of 12,272.
· C~f~y capaci~.F az~al, rsis shows the capacity estimates developed by City
Staff. The estimates are broken out by residential and mixed-use
zones.
· Res~'de~'a! cap~¢j~ md~o~'o~ es~'m~e~. For residential uses,
ECO converted dwelling unit capacity to population capacity using an
average household size of 2.35 persons (2.80 persons for single-family,
and 2.15 persons for multiple family).~ The results show a total
population capacity of 12,902 persons in residential zones.
For dwelling units in mixed uses, ECO assumed that 100 percent of
dwelling units in m~xed-use zones would be multiple family. The
dwelling unit capacity (7,329) results in a population capacity of
15,757 persons, assuming an average household size of 2.15 persons in
multiple family units. The City's capacity analysis indicates a total
residenti~ capacity of 12,168 dwe]]~ug units. Assuming an average
household size of 2.35 persons, this results in a population capacity of
28,59~ persons~a figure very close to the PSRC forecast.
The City's capacity estimates assume a housing mix of 32 percent
single-family and 68 percent multiple family;
· ~m~o.~ ¢~¥.~ ~ 5~ ~a¢~ ~'~. The City estimated a
total non-residential built space capacity of about 23.4 million square
feet. The City's estimates assumed that 23 percent of total non-
residential space capacity would go to residential uses, leaving about
18 m~]]~on square feet of non-residential built space capacity.
· ~s~'~ 5~ff~ ~¢e ~~. The PSRC estimates Federal Way will
have 8,177 new employees between 2000 and 2020. Applying an
average built space per employee assumption of 350 square feet yields
demand for about 2.86 m~]]~on square feet of non-residential built
space. Thus, the City has an excess capacity of about 14.6 million
square feet of non-residential built space.
s A higher average household size assumption would result in a higher population capacity estimate.
The average of 2.$5 persons assumed by ECO is conservative in that it is a smaller decrease than
forecast by PSRC for King County.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-3
Table 5-1. Preliminary Comparison of Capacity
and Demand, Federal Way City Limits, 2000-2020
Variable Value
Residential Demand (PSRC Forecast)
New population, 2000-2020 27,397
Average HH size 2.35
DU to house new population 11,658
Vacancy rate 5%
Total DU needed 2000-2020 12,272
City Capacity Analysis
Residential Capacity
Residential zones (DU)
Single-family (DU) 3,844
Multiple-family (DU) 995
Total 4,839
Population
Single-family (@ 2.80 persons/DU) 10,763
Multiple-family (~2.. 15 persons/DU) 2,139
Total 12,902
Mixed-use zones
Implied housing need in mixed-use zones
Dwelling units (multiple-family) 7,329
Persons (@ 2.15 persons/DU) 15,757
Implied housing mix
Single-family 32%
Multiple-family 68%
Employment Capacity
Total Capacity--sq ff (City estimate) 23,413,850
Residential---sq ff (multiple-family @ 800 sf/du) 5,946,314
Percent residential 25%
Non-residential--sq ft 17,467,536
Percent non-residential 75%
Estimated built space demand
PSRC new employment, 2000-2020 8,177
Average built space per employec .~q ft 350
Needed built space~sq ff 2,861,950
Surplus built space capacity--sq ff 14,605,586
Source: PSRC Forecasts, Federal Way Capacity Estimates, Analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: some figures differ from the City's capacity analysis because of rounding areas.
Thus, this preliminary analysis indicates that Federal Way has a large
surplus capacity for employment. It also shows that, based on reasonable
assumptions about housing need and capacity of lands zoned for residential
development, the City will need to achieve a housing mix that would be
nearly 70 percent multiple-family for all units added to existing housing
Page 5-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
stock. A thorough answer to whether this mix is achievable requires some
additional evaluation. The following sections answer these questions by
evaluating additional information that is relevant to development in Federal
Way.
EVALUATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT IN FEDERAL
WAY
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is presented in Appendix B.
HISTORICAL CITY GROWTH
In Chapter 2 we presented population and employment forecasts based on
aggregations of PSRC transportation analysis zones for the Federal Way City
Limits and the TAZ Study Area. In this section, we evaluate those forecasts
based on population and employment growth and development trends in
Federal Way over the past 10 years.
Table 5-2 shows selected growth indicators for Federal Way between 1990
and 1998. Population and housing grew at about the same rate during this
period. Employment grew at twice the rate of population.
Table 5-2. Growth Indicators, Federal Way City Limits, t990-1998
Percent Annual
Indicator 1990 1998 Change Change Increase
Population 67,304 76,820 9,516 14% 1,190
Employment 21,756 27,792 6,036 28% 755
Housing 28,087 31,729 3,642 13% 455
Source: US Census, 1999 King County Annual Growth Report
Figure 5-1 shows historical population for Federal Way between 1990 and
1999, and compares it with the PSRC population projection for the year 2000.
The data show that, based on historical trends, Federal Way is not likely to
achieve the year 2000 population projection that PSRC developed.
Extrapolating historical population to 2000 yields an estimate of 77,961
persons. The PSRC 2000 projection of 81,150 is 3,189 persons higher than the
2000 extrapolation.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-5
- Figure 5-1. Historical Population, Federal Way City Limits, 1990-1999;
_ PSRC Projection, 2000
85000
- *- Historic
- 80000 -- Current PSRC ·
. Projection
70000
- 65000
60000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
_ Source: Historical population from Washington Office of Financial Management, and Year 2000 projection from
PSRC.
_ The PSRC employment forecasts for Federal Way are consistent with
historical trends. Table 5-3 provides a comparison of PSRC population and
employment forecasts for the Federal Way City Limits. It shows that PSRC
- expects population to grow at a rate slightly faster than employment. The
ratio of population to employment is a standard measure of a community's
balance between housing and jobs. At state or regional levels, a typical ratio
is about 2.0. Though a large economy (like a state) does not vary from that
ratio much (young, old, retired, and unemployed people make up about half
the population), sub-regional economies (e.g., a city in a metropolitan area)
are more variable. Federal Way's ratio of close to 3.0 shows that it has
substantially more people compared to jobs than what would be expected
regionally. In other words, on this dimension it fits the definition of what are
referred to as "bedroom communities." (Later sections explain why we think
that pattern will change.)
Table 5-3. Comparison of PSRC Population and Employment
Forecasts, Federal Way City Limits, 2000-2020
Year Population Employment Pop/Emp Ratio
1990 67,309 21,756 3.1
2000 81,150 29,055 2.8
2010 93,431 33,867 2.8
2020 108,547 37,232 2.9
Change 2000-2020 27,397 8,177 3.4
Percent Change 2000-2020 34% 28%
Source: 1990 data from 1999 King County Growth Monitoring Report; Forecasts from PSRC
Page 5-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
The PSRC population forecast implies that Federal Way will increase
population by about 1,370 persons per year. Applying the PSRC's estimate of
average household size of 2.35 for new households created between 2000 and
2020 yields a dwelling unit need of about 580 dwelling units annually. But
between 1991 and 1998, Federal Way added about 293 permits annually, 52
percent of the PSRC forecast. In other words, the PSRC forecasts implies that
Federal Way will increase the number of permits issued by almost 300 per
year, an increase of approximately 100 percent over its production in the
1990s, and that it will sustain that increase for 20 years.
CITY LAND CAPACITY
The City's capacity analysis showed limited capacity for land designated
for residential uses. The City estimated that residential lands could
accommodate about 4,839 dwelling units: about 12,902 persons (from Table 5-
1) and 46 percent of PSRC's forecasted population growth of 27,937. About 80
percent of the capacity on single purpose residential lands is for single-family
dwellings.
The City allows multiple-family development outright in all commercial
zones (mixed-use zones) and some office zones. The implication of high
forecasted growth rates, and a supply of vacant land in mixed-use zones
zoned outright for single- and multiple-family dwellings, is that some
residential development will locate in mixed-use zones. Existing land use
patterns confirm that this is the case; however, only 11 oercent of land in
mixed-use zones is presently in residential uses.
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING
Data from the King County Am~u~tl C/ro~t]~ Report indicate that the
housing mix in Federal Way in 1998 was about 53 percent single-family and
47 percent multiple-family. Table 5-1 shows that the City's capacity (by the
City's estimates) for new units is for about 32 percent single-family and 68
percent multiple-family.
The average percent of multiple-family units for incorporated areas of
King County in 1998 was about 44 percent, a figure relatively close to
Federal Way's 1998 percentage of multiple-family. Tukwfla had the highest
percentage of multiple-family dwelling units at 57 percent, while Kent had
about 55 percent, and Redmond had about 54 percent.
It will be a challenge for Federal Way to achieve such a high percentage of
multiple-family units between 2000 and 2020. The market has not
historically developed at that mix. The anticipated multiple family
development must derive from either development in mixed-use zones, or
rezoning and redevelopment of primarily built but underutilized residential
property. ECO's market analysis takes the perspective of a lending
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-7
institution; we apply due diligence to our conclusions, which tend to be
conservative. Our evaluation is that, in the absence of substantial public
investment and policy shifts, the City will not meet its goals for residential
development in mixed-use zones. Even with substantial public investment
and policy shifts, the City will be challenged to meet its goals for residential
development in mixed-use zones.
The City does have a vision for a city center, and has adopted policies that
are intended to implement that vision. Moreover, the City is also in the
process of m_~_~ug considerable investments in the downtown area. Historical
trends capture events that happen in the past. After mA]~ng our preliminary
forecast, ECO reviewed factors that are likely to change in Federal Way
including market conditions, policy conditions, and public investment. We
interviewed the City, and they informed us of foreseeable changes in the
future. Following is a summary of the City's vision.
Federal Way's vision is to create a definable and vibrant City Center and
Urban Center for Southwest King County. Federal Way is one of 21
designated Urban Centers in King County. The King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CWPPs) envision that at build-out, an Urban Center
would contain a minimum of 15,000 jobs within ½ mile of the transit center,
(Federal Way's Transit Center will be located on the southwestern corner of
South 318· and 23~ Avenue), 50 employees per gross acre, and an average of
15 households per acre. Federal Way's Urban Center is 209 acres in size;
therefore, at build-out the Urban Center criteria calls for 10,450 employees
and 3,135 households (7,367 people at 2.35 units per household).
The Economic Development Executive, a position jointly funded by the
City and the Chamber of Commerce, is actively working on attracting
multifsmily housing development in conjunction with the Transit Center. In
addition, the City is pursuing an aggressive schedule of infrastructure
investment in the Urban Center. In 1995, the citizens of Federal Way
approved a $7.5 million bond initiative that included a sight'cant amount of
infrastructure improvements in the City Center to accommodate future
growth within the Urban Center. Some of the City's efforts to date include
adoption of new streetscape guidelines related to roadway profiles,
streetlights, sidewalk widths, and street trees in 1998. In addition, in 1999,
South 312~ Street between Pacific Highway South and 23rd Avenue South
was widened to five lanes, and new sidewalks, street lighting, and street
trees were added. Furthermore, Summer 2000 will see the widening and
improvement of the Pacific Highway South/South 320~h intersection. The
succeeding three-year period through 2003 will see additional construction
such as widening of Pacific Highway South in the City Center area,
construction of the Transit Center and fly-over ramps from I'5, and upgrade
of the Sea Tac Mall surface water conveyance system.
The City is also researching the preparation of a Planned Action SEPA for
the City Center, which would allow environmental review to occur in advance
of development, thereby allowing development to proceed more quickly.
Page 5-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
While these are all actions that will remove barriers to development, none
provide direct incentives for development. Ultimately, private developers and
landowners make the decision to develop a parcel of land for a particular use,
within the physical and legal constraints of that property. The most
important factors driving this decision are the ability to achieve sustained
rents (or, in the case of condominiums, sales prices) at occupancies that
justify the costs of land and building construction and the operation expenses
of the facility, as well as provide an attractive rate of return given the level of
risk. Federal Way's multi-family rental market is strong, though it lags the
rest of the Puget Sound region in overall rents and occupancy, as shown in
'Table 5-4. Federal Way is 18th out of 25 in average monthly rents, has the
second highest vacancy rate in the region (albeit not an abnormally high rate
given most national markets for this type of property), and is first in the
percentage of projects offering incentives such as free rent, which reduces
overall income (an indication of a softer market). The City Center is even
further challenged in this market in that higher land values require higher
levels of density, which depend on achieving an even higher rent premium.
Currently, the City Center, in our opinion and based on the feedback
provided by the many representatives we spoke with in the development
community, does not have the demand nor the amenities to achieve this rent
premium.
Other cities and locales within the Puget Sound region, situated in
somewhat similar urban settings, have been able to achieve what Federal
Way is seeking in higher density multi-family development in its urban
center. Bellevue, for instance, has experienced and is currently experiencing
a high degree of high-density multi-family housing. Yet what is important to
recognize is that this development has occurred well after Bellevue's
establishment as a major regional retail and employment center. Federal
Way has this potential, to an extent. In our opinion, though, higher-density
multi-family development will occur only after the City Center, or
immediately adjacent areas, has attained a critical level of office employment
and amenities. Bothell, as well, has been successful in developing its urban
center with mixed use and multi-family developments. Yet it also has the
benefit of both a more established city core and geographical constraints
(such as the Sammamish River, I'405, and a series of hills) to facilitate this
development. It also resides in the area of the region that has experienced the
most rapid and sustained employment growth.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-9
Table 5-4. Ranking of Average Rents, Vacancy Rates, and Percent of
Projects with Government Incentives
Area Avg. Rent Vacancy Rate % Offering Incentives
Kirkl;,nd 999 4.3% 5.8%
Issaquah 960 4.5% 17.1%
Bellevue-West 945 2.5% 9.7%
Redmond 883 3.8% 25.4%
Mercer Island 872 2.6% 6.7%
Factoria 858 3.5% 18.4%
Juanita 803 2.8% 15.1%
Woodinville/Totem Lake 756 3.7% 24.9%
Mill Creek 739 4.2% 22.2%
Bellevue-East 734 2.7% 15.3%
Bothell 733 3.5% 15.6%
Mountlake Terrace 695 3.8% 21.6%
W. Seattle 660 2.3% 3.6%
North and Central Seattle 659 2.3% 6.6%
Renton 656 4.2% 25.7%
Lynnwood 647 3.7% 18.2%
Kent 629 4.7% 33.6%
Federal Way 624 (18) 5.1% (2) 35.4% (1)
Edmonds 619 3.0% 10.7%
White Center 614 4.7% 12.3%
Auburn 592 5.1% 27.2%
Des Moines 581 5.2% 29.1%
Riverton/Tukwila 579 3.7% 25.0%
Burien 575 4.5% 14.7%
Airport 537 4.4% 13.5%
AVERAGE 718 3.8% 18.1%
Source: Dupre and Scott, The Apartment Vacancy Report, Spring 2000, vol. 18., no. 1.
Thus, unless there are factors, that will substantially change the market
conditions for multi-family development, we do not believe that the City will
be able to meet the PSRC 20-year population forecasts.
DIFFICULTIES OF DEVELOPING IN MIXED USE ZONES
All commercial and some office zones in Federal Way allow multiple-
family residential uses. However, the zoning code requires ground floor retail
or office uses in mixed-use zones, when fronting rights of ways. Multiple-
family dwellings can occur on upper levels.
Several challenges exist in the market for this type of development.
Multiple-fgmily units in mixed-use zones are di~erent from those in typical
residential zones because it is not a standard product for developers and
Page 5-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
lenders. However, there are a few successful models in the area to pattern
new projects after. Successful models of vertical mixed-use development
include Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, and Renton. Ground floor retail adds
complication and expense to development, as do buildings over three floors.~
The examples of mixed use development that have worked in larger cities are
usually subsidized in some way, with the public sector assembling or writing-
down land, lending or guaranteeing loans at below'market rates, abating
taxes or development fees, or providing other amenities.4 In addition, mixed-
use development becomes feasible when there is a certain amount of
commercial activity in the area to attract and support the residential
development, as in the case of Seattle.
These perceptions are common in the development community and place
multiple-family dwellings in mixed-use developments at a disadvantage
relative to multiple-family dwellings in residential zones. However, there are
ways of encouraging multiple-family development in the City Center. The
City of Redmond allows multi-family on the first floor, but requires increased
first floor heights. This enables commercial uses to locate there in the future
as the market allows. While flexibility is desirable from the City's standpoint,
the additional expense provides disincentives to developers over standard
garden or mid-rise apartments.
Another change, that may encourage residential development in the City
Center, is the recent passage of legislation that expands the multiple-unit
dwellings property tax exemption to cities with 50,000 or more population.
This allows the deferment of property taxes on multiple family development
for ten years after construction. While this provides incentives for multiple
family development, it is not unique to Federal Way and thus may not confer
any competitive advantages to developing in Federal Way versus other
locations.
COMPETITIVENESS OF FEDERAL WAY RELATIVE TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS
Through most of the 1990s, housing demand in Southwest King County
has been soft relative to other areas of the County. In absolute terms,
unincorporated areas like the Sammamish Plateau and the Soos Creek area
absorbed large portions of the County's new single-family development, and
cities like Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kent absorbed large numbers of
both new single-family and new multi-family housing.
When we look to the future, however, there is reason to believe that
Southwest King County in general, and Federal Way specifically, will begin
to receive more attention from developers. With housing prices in places like
* Buildings over three floors are required to have elevators under the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA). Moreover, structures over three floors generally require additional structural work.
4 Such subsidies may be justified by important public purposes. However, they add an additional layer
of complication and risk to development.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-11
Seattle and Kirkland rising rapidly due to a combination of strong demand
and diminishing supply, and with the recent incorporation of the Sammamish
Plateau (which was at least partially driven by resident's desire to curtail
development), one would expect Federal Way's supply of relatively
inexpensive land to attract an increasing number of new households in the
coming years, and thus, developers.
On the commercial side, Federal Way remains in a position to capitalize
upon the region's sustained demand for office uses. W]xile the area has not
seen the rapid development experienced in other parts of the larger region
(e.g., the Eastside areas of Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond), its location
between Seattle and Tacoma, proximity to Sea-Tac Airport, and cheaper land
prices make it attractive for future office development. New development in
the East Campus Corporate Park, for instance, has seen strong absorption,
and is anticipated to be built out within the next five to ten years.
Preliminary development applications for office and retail projects to the
west of the I-5 corridor also indicate strong interest on the part of the
development community. A total of nearly 900,000 square feet of office space
is either under construction or proposed for delivery through 2010.
While land on the east side of I-5 in the East Campus area is experiencing
the most office demand and development activity currently, the area around
the City Center (core and frame) should see office development over the study
period of this forecast. In effect, this area holds the seeds of an "Edge City,"
anchored by a retail center with direct access to the I-5 corridor. Office
development of this area requires rents that can sustain both higher
densities as well as the costs of re-developing largely retail uses. As the East
Campus development is absorbed, demand and potential rents in the City
Center will increase such that office development will become viable.
Other areas west of I-5 that will be recipients of new office demand,
though at a less robust pace than the areas near and east of I-5, include the
West Campus area, as well as areas on the southern sections of Pacific
Highway, zoned Business Park.
Federal Way is positioned as a residential community with excellent
access to Tacoma, the Kent Valley industries, and Southcenter area in
Tukwila, and even downtown Seattle (with expansion of express transit
service). The City has lower than average jobs per capita located in the City
(0.36 jobs per capita in Federal Way, versus 0.56 regional average), giving the
City the reputation of largely a bedroom community. Federal Way residents
are well served by local retail destinations; retail jobs account for one-third of
the jobs located in the City--twice the regional average. Portions of Federal
Way are known for relatively high incomes, particularly in neighborhoods
along Puget Sound. In addition, on a county'wide basis, Federal Way is an
affordable community.
Page 5-12 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
INCENTIVES/POLICIES
Federal Way's growth-related policies are consistent with communities
nearby that, in essence, compete for growth. Cities in Pierce County and
Southwest King County generally have few impediments to growth that are
unique to their community. Federal Way's impact fees are primarily tied to
schools. Impacts associated with traffic and drainage are identified through
the SEPA process. Additionally, the dedication of parkland or payment of a
fee in lieu of dedication is one of the requirements for subdivision approval.
Commercial incentives are virtually non-existent.
The City of Kent enforces GMA impact fees for school funds only. l,lke
Federal Way, new subdivisions are subject to setting aside an agreed upon
percentage of land for parks, or a fee paid to the Parks Department in lieu of
the land set aside. SEPA related mitigation might lead to fees for new or
related road projects. Commercial related incentives do not exist, consistent
with State laws prohibiting property tax incentives. Kent does, however,
qualify to include property tax incentives for multifamily development in the
Urban Center, as do all cities with population greater than 70,000. Federal
Way is also eligible for the property tax incentives for multiple family
housing development.
The City of Burien, while much smaller than Kent and Federal Way, is
representative of the smaller cities in Southwest King County competing for
growth. The City of Burien has a parks impact fee for new subdivision,
similar to Kent's and Federal Way's, which is paid in lieu of land set aside for
parks within the subdivision. No other impact fees exist in Burien.
In sum, our brief review found no compelling evidence that Federal Way's
plan and implementing policies give it either strong advantages or strong
disadvantages for development relative to the other cities of South King
County and North Pierce County that serve roughly the same market.~
PSRC FORECAST METHODS
PSRC's forecasts are accepted throughout the region as the sub-area
forecasts necessary for regional travel demand modeling and as general
forecasts of where jurisdictions' comprehensive plans would guide growth
within the four-county region. It is important for local planning efforts--
particularly transportation planningmto remain consistent with the PSRC's
forecasts. General consistency with regional models provides a regional
context for local planning efforts and forecasts.
But a more meaningful application of PSRC's forecasts should include
various reality checks and adjustments at the jurisdiction level. The
adjustments should reflect and account for the deeper understanding of local
market conditions and land use policies (as described in this report) than the
= We have already discussed the exception: the fact that most of the multiple-family residential capacity
must meet all the requirements of Federal Way's various mixed-use zones.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-13
regional modeling process can capture. For example, PSRC's own methods
would have probably led to lower residential forecasts if it had used the City's
current buildable land analysis in its modeling.
PSRC's modeling process has two important features: (1) population,
employment, and household forecasts that are fully integrated with the
regional transportation model; and (2) an extensive region-wide review and
adoption process by local planners and elected officials. Our adjustments
need to reflect a complete understanding of the value and the impact of these
features. We need to adjust the PSRC forecasts in such a way as to bend but
not break the connectivity to the regional travel demand models that are
used for MTP 2001 Update and for allocation of federal transportation funds
(TIP). Our adjustments also need to understand the amount of locally specific
information that the PSRC forecasts include, and how that information may
have changed since the PSRC forecasts were developed
Detailed local expertise is difficult to capture in regional modeling. Our
adjustment of the PSRC's forecast need to reflect an understanding of the
modeling process, local land use policies, and real-world market conditions.
Such a refinement may allow improvements to the regional forecasting
process, and will produce a more customized set of forecasts to aid decision-
making in Federal Way.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF MARKET CONDITIONS
The availability of inexpensive land in Federal Way may spur
development in coming years; however, the strength of this effect is largely
limited by Federal Way's supply of residential land. As the City's supply of
vacant or redevelopable land gets drawn down farther, any competitive
advantage afforded by that supply begins to also disappear.
On the whole, residential demand in South King County has been weaker
than other areas of the Puget Sound Region. While higher housing prices and
strained capacity in other parts of the region may lead to some increase in
residential growth pressures in Federal Way, we do not see these pressures to
be of the magnitude necessary to meet the population projections identified
by the PSRC. On the commercial side; however, Federal Way will continue to
experience office, retail, and industrial employment growth at a rate slightly
below that of the region as a whole. The employment forecasts of the PSRC
are consistent with this assessment and reflective of longer-term future
market conditions. These conclusions lead us to adjust the PSRC population
growth forecast for Federal Way in the next section.
REVISED FORECASTS OF GROWTH IN FEDERAL WAY, 2000-2020
The key objective of our assessment of regional market conditions in the
previous section was to evaluate the PSRC population and employment
forecasts. Our review of regional and local commercial and industrial
development trends suggest that the PSRC employment forecast is
reasonable.
Page 5-14 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Our evaluation of residential supply and demand forecasts; however,
suggests a mismatch between residential demand forecasted by PSRC and
the capacity of residential land in residentially zoned districts to
accommodate new housing units. However, the remainder of Federal Way's
residential capacity is located within the mixed-use zones and the City
assumes that the mixed-use zones will absorb the additional housing
demand. Absorbing that capacity requires aggressive assumptions about both
housing mix and the amount of residential development that will occur in
mixed-use zones. While we may underestimate the market's response to City
investment and policies, we do not believe that Federal Way will achieve a
housing mix that is more than two-thirds multiple family in the next 20
years.~ Our conclusion is that it is unlikely that the PSRC population forecast
will be achieved if the vacant land in the City retains its current zoning.
That conclusion is, of course, rebuttable. The City could argue that as
land supply gets tight, developers will increasingly develop in mixed-use
zones at densities that are comparable to the City's capacity assumptions,
and the PSRC population growth forecasted for inside the Federal Way City
limits may be accommodated.
If the City accepts our analysis, but still wishes to try to accommodate the
population growth forecasted by PSRC, we see at least two options for public
policies:
1. Adopt, and plan for, lower estimates of population growth.
2. Rezone land to add more residential capacity, or otherwise
facilitate residential development (e.g., changes to development
regulations).
If the PSRC population increase of 27,397 between 2000 and 2020 is
unjustifiably high given past development trends and residential capacity in
Federal Way, what is a more reasonable estimate? We answer that question
by evaluating the kind of housing absorption that would have to occur to
accommodate different increases in population.
Table 5-5 shows the impact on housing mix of various population forecast
scenarios. The table is intended to show:
1. The total number of dwelling units needed for different population
assumptions, and the number of dwelling units needed annually;
2. How many dwelling units need to be built in mixed-use zones; and
3. The mix of housing units by types.
6 While it is theoretically possible, historical analysis indicates that no communities in the region have
achieved that mix of housing.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-15
The PSRC forecast implies more than 600 dwelling units will need to be
added annually between 2000 and 2020. Federal Way averaged about 293
new dwelling units annually for the years 1991 through 1999 (see Table 4-2).
Thus, the PSRC forecast assumes that the growth rate will increase by 100
percent over recent trends. Moreover, the PSRC forecast implies that nearly
70 percent of new housing units built between 2000 and 2020 will be multiple
family units. ECO could find no historical precedent in the Puget Sound
region for this housing m~x.
ECO's evaluation of residential growth (and thus, population growth) in
Federal Way is that market factors do not suggest a substantial shift in the
rate of residential development from the past ten years. If anything, recent
economic factors (interest rate increases, energy price increases) will serve to
stabilize or decrease the rate of residential development, at least in the next
few years.
Our revised population forecasts rely on a housing unit method. The
general basis of this forecast method is that population increases occur
subsequent to housing development. We present two possible forecasts: a low
forecast based on historical trends, and a mid-range forecast that falls
between the conservative forecast and the PSRC forecast.
A population forecast of 20,000 new persons over the 20-year period
results in a total population change of about 25 percent; a 1.1 percent annual
growth rate, a rate we would classify as moderate. Even so, it results in an
annual dwelling unit need and housing mix that may be weighted a little too
heavily toward multi-family units, but which is consistent with development
trends over the past 10-years.
A mid-range population estimate of 23,500 results in a housing mix of 37
percent single-family and 63 percent multiple-family. This forecast is roughly
between the low forecast and the PSRC forecast and is presented as a third
scenario. Under the mid-range population scenario, about 25 percent of
capacity in mixed-use zones would be in residential use (based on the City's
capacity estimates). Reducing population to 20,000 persons yields a housing
mix of 43 percent single-family and 57 percent multiple-family; about 18
percent of the mixed-use capacity would be for residential uses (based on City
estimates).
Based on our evaluation of local and regional market trends, ECO
believes the low forecast of 20,000 new persons between 2000 and 2020 is the
most likely scenario.
Page 5-16 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-5. Impact on Housing Mix of Alternative Population
Forecasts, Federal Way City Limits, 2000-2020
Measure PSRC Medium Low
Forecast
New population, 2000-2020 27,397 23,500 20,000
Total DU needed 2000-2020~ 12,272 10,526 8,959
New DU annually 614 526 448
Residential Zones
Total DU capaCity in residential zones 4,839 4,839 4,839
Total population capacity in residential zones2 12,902 12,902 12,902
Mixed-use zones
Implied DU in mixed use zones (MF) 7,433 5,687 4,120
Implied persons in mixed use zones 14,495 10,598 7,098
Implied housing mix
Single-family3 31% 37% 43%
Multiple-family 69% 63% 57%
Source: Analysis by ECONorthwest, 2000
I Assumes 2.35 persons per household and 5% vacancy rate
; From Table 5-1
$ Based on the City's single family capacity estimate of 3,844 dwelling units
CONVERSION OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TO DWELLING UNITS
AND BUILT SPACE
The results of this section are largely derived from running the
development simulator that outputs dwelling unit and built space demand,
by type, for the City Limits and for the TAZ Study Area outside the City
Limits.
We begin the analysis with population and employment forecasts. Table
5'6 summarizes the population and employment forecasts for Federal Way
and the TAZ Study Area outside the City Limits for the period between 2000
and 2020. All of the forecasts are derived from the PSRC regional forecasts
with the exception of the population forecast for the Federal Way City Limits
(see the previous section for a discussion of the revised City limit population
forecast).
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-17
Table 5-6. Summary of Revised Population and Employment
Forecasts for Federal Way City Limits, TAZ Study Area, and
Combined City Limits and Study Area, 2000-2020
Population Employment
Year City TAZ Market City TAZ Market
Limits Study Analysis Limits Study Analysis
Area Study Area Area Study Area
2000 81,150 28,247 109,397 29,055 2,291 31,346
2010 93,431 29,924 123,355 33,867 2,466 36,333
2020 101,150 31,579 132,729 37,232 2,839 40,071
Change 2000-2020 20,000 3,332 23,332 8,177 548 8,725
Percent Change 25% 12% 21% 28% 24% 28%
2000-2020
AAGR 2000-2020 1.11% 0.56% 0.97% 1.25% 1.08% 1.24%
Source: PSRC July 1999 Population and Employment Forecasts by TAZ and Annual Population Estimates by
Census Tract for 1990 through 1999; revised city limit population forecast by ECONorthwest.
Residential Development
Table 5-7 converts population into new housing unit demand for the
period 2000-2020 by area. The analysis assumes a slight increase in persons
in group quarters; an average occupied household size of 2.35 persons, and a
five percent vacancy rate. The results show demand for about 8,869 new
dwelling units in the City Limits, 1,470 in the TAZ Study Area outside the
City Limits, and 10,339 for both areas combined.
Table 5-7. Estimated Housing Demand, 2000-2020
TAZ Study Area Market
Federal Way (Outside City Analysis
Housing Need, New DU, 2000-2020 City Limits Limits) Study Area
Change in persons (2000-2020) 20,000 3,332 23,332
-Change in persons in group quarters 200 50 250
=Persons in households 19,800 3,282 23,082
+Persons per occupied DU 2.35 2.35 2.35
=Occupied dwelling units 8,426 1,397 9,822
/ (1-vacancy rate) 95% 95% 95%
=TOTAL NEW DU 8,869 1,470 10,339
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
An important component of the simulation is an estimate of new dwelling
units by type and tenure. The City's capacity database provides reliable data
on the distribution of units by type. The best data that are available on
tenure, however, are from the 1990 Census.
Page 5-18 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
In 1990, about 57 percent of occupied dwelling units in Federal Way were
owner-occupied. A review of Census data on unit type and tenure shows that
the majority (92%) of single-family dwellings (detached and mobile homes)
are owner-occupied. The Census data suggests a strong correlation between
housing type and tenure. Given the land base in Federal Way, and recent
development trends that suggest a higher percentage of multiple family
housing, it is un]ikely that the percentage of homeowners will increase; in
fact, it is more likely that it will decrease.
Table 5-8 shows estimated new dwelling units by type and lot size. The
simulation results in a mix of new dwelling units that is 45 percent single-
family and 55 percent multiple family. The number of single-family housing
units the simulation shows (3,991) will be needed within the City Limits is
slightly higher than the City's capacity estimate (about 3,845 dwelling units),
but within what we consider a reasonable margin of error.
Table 5-8. Estimated New Dwelling Units by Type and Lot Size, 2000-
2020
Federal TAZ Market Analysis Percent of
Way City Study Study Area (City New DU
Type Limits Area Limits + Study Area) 2000-2020
Single-family by lot size
<5000 559 93 651 6%
5000-9999 2,634 437 3,071 30%
10000-19999 639 106 744 7%
20,000+ 160 26 186 2%
Total Single Family 3,991 662 4,653 45%
Multiple family -
Duplex 239 40 279 3%
Row/Town House 160 26 186 2%
Garden Apt 3,681 610 4,291 42%
Mid-Rise 798 132 931 9%
Total Multiple Family 4,878 809 5,686 55%
Total 8,869 1,470 10,339 100%
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Commercial and Industrial Development
We developed a spreadsheet to simulate demand for new commercial and
industrial built space. The estimates of demand for built space use the PSRC
sector-level employment forecasts as their basis. The simulation makes
several deductions from the base employment forecast before applying an
assumption about square feet per employee to estimate built space.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-19
Table 5-9 summarizes the assumptions applied in the sector-level
simulation. The first assumption is the percentage of employment for each
sector; the percentages reflect the PSRC allocation of employment in Federal
Way by sector. The next two columns (% of employment that requires no non-
residential built space, and the percent of employment that will locate on
existing developed land) are deductions from employment that requires new
built space: in other words, some of the forecasted employment will be
accommodated in space that does not need vacant commercial or industrial
land. The vacancy rate increases the amount of new built space needed.
Finally, the square feet per employee factor converts employment into built
space.
Table 5-9. Assumptions for Estimating Built Space Demand, 2000-
2020
Percent of % of total emp
New Emp that requires no Percent of emp Adjust for Sq. ft.
(2000- non-res built on existing vacancy floor
Sector 2020) space/land developed land rate area/emp
Retail 15% 1% 5% 7% 700
FIRES 70% 2% 10% 7% 350
Manufacturing 3% 1% 10% 5% 650
WTCU 5% 1% 10% 5% 600
Education 5% 0% 15% 0% 400
Government 2% 0% 15% 0% 400
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: the assumptions used by ECO are slightly different than those used in the City's capacity analysis.
Table 5-10 shows estimates for built space by employment sector for the
period between 2000 and 2020. The estimated demand is for nearly 2.8
million square feet of new built space within the Federal Way City I,imits,
and nearly 3.0 million square feet in the combined City Limits and TAZ study
Area. Because the finance, insurance, real estate, and services (FIRES) sector
accounts for 70 percent of new employment, this sector has the greatest
demand for built space.
Page 5-20 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-10. Estimated Demand for New Built Space by Employment
Sector, 2000-2020
City Limits TAZ Study Area Total (Market Analysis
Study Area)
Employees Built Employees Built Employees Built
Sector Space (sf) Space (st} Space (et}
Retail 1,227 761,279 82 51,019 1,309 812,298
FIRES 5,732 1,754,089 384 117,554 6,116 1,871,643
Manufacturing 270 110,022 18 7,373 288 117,395
WTCU 368 154,545 25 10,357 393 164,903
Education 401 136,229 27 9,130 428 145,359
Government 180 61,164 12 4,099 192 65,263
Total 8,t77 2,779,935 548 186,304 8,725 2,966,238
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
EVALUATION OF LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT7
One ]cey objective of this study is to help the City review applications for
comprehensive plan designation and zone changes, particularly in mixed-use
zones. ECO reviewed historical development data to assess development
trends by comprehensive plan designation and zoning. We then correlated
types of employment with expected locations to develop an estimate of how
much land is needed for each comprehensive plan and zoning district between
2000 and 2020.
The key question posed by City staff is: does the City have enough land
designated in different districts to accommodate demand? This question
requires additional discussion and clarification. This question suggests
several corollaries:
Does the City have enough land zoned for different uses in the right
locations?
· Is that land serviced, or serviceable?
· Are there a variety of parcel sizes available to accommodate different
uses?
· Can reasonable access be provided?
For the purpose of this analysis we use zoning from the City's capacity database. We assume that
3onln~ and plan designations are generally consistent.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-21
Thus, a simple comparison of employment forecasts and land capacity by
zone misses some key points. Nevertheless, the City can still have
considerable influence over the availability of land for different uses through
the rezoning process. Rezoning land, however, should be carefully considered
in the broader context of impacts to transportation facilities, public services,
and the broader vision the City has for urban form.
The answer to this question also depends on what assumptions are
applied to the City's capacity estimates and how employment is likely to
disperse itself in various zones. Using the City's capacity assumptions and
estimates results in a surplus of land under any reasonable employment
allocation. Table 5-11 shows the City's capacity estimates for mixed-use
zones. The City's assumptions show a capacity for nearly 50,000 additional
employees in Federal Way.
Table 5-11. Built-Space and Employment Capacity in Mixed-Use Zones in the
Federal Way City Limits, City of Federal Way Estimates
zoning vacant Total Retail Retail Emp Office Office Industrial Ind Emp Total
Land Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Emp Cap Capacity Cap (~800 Emp
(~soo SE) (~2SO SE) SE) Capacity
BC 4,464,276 3,123,713 3,123,713 6,247 6,247
BN 1,166,926 628,803 628,803 1,258 1,258
BP 5,759,269 3,947,675 3.947,675 4,935 4,935
CC 355,945 2,118,233 1,588,675 3,177 529,558 2,118 5,296
CF 325,575 612,587 459,440 919 153,147 613 1,531
CP-1 4,081,827 640,756 640,756 2,563 2,563
OP 3,472.513 3.158,995 3,158,995 12,636 12,636
OP-1 3,588,298 3,156,967 3,156,967 12,628 12,628
OP-2 0 0 0 0 0
OP-3 241,977 212,890 212,890 852 852
OP-4 216,413 126,933 126,933 508 508
PO 499,622 317,597 317,597 1,270 1,270
Total 24,t71,741 18,045,147 5,800,630 11,601 8,296,842 33,187 3,947,675 4,935 49,723
Source: City of Federal Way, March 2000
Table 5-12 shows a comparison of City and ECO capacity estimates to
forecast employment. The employment allocation by zone is based on the
amount of built space in various zones by type of employment. Under both
scenarios, the City has enough capacity to accommodate the 20-year
employment forecast. Several districts, however, achieve more than 50
percent buildout: BN, CF, CP-1, and PO. The City should pay close attention
to zone change requests in the BI~ district: this district provides the majority
of the City's land base for neighborhood business uses. The City should also
pay close attention to development in the CF zone: this is the City Center
Frame district and is crucial for achieving the City's vision.
Page 5-22 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth AJlocation
Table 5-12. Comparison of City and ECO Capacity Estimates to
Employment Forecast
Absorption
Zoning City Emp ECO Emp, 2000-2020 Emp City ECO
Capacity Capacity' Allocation
BC 6,247 3,124 1,495 24% 48%
BN 1,258 629 471 37% 75%
BP 4,935 3,948 526 11% 13%
CC 5,296 4,539 1,008 19% 22%
CF 1,531 1,313 1,069 70% 81%
CP-1 2,563 1,098 653 25% 59%
OP 12,636 5,415 2,453 19% 45%
OP-1 12,628 5,412 314 2% 6%
OP-2 0 0 0 Na Na
OP-3 852 213 0 0% 0%
OP-4 508 127 4 1% 3%
PO 1,270 272 139 11% 51%
Total 49,723 26,090 8,177 16% 31%
Source: City of Federal Way, March 2000
~ This analysis is based on density assumptions that ara roughly half of what the City assumed.
GROWTH ALLOCATION (TAZS)
The previous section converted new population and employment into
demand for new dwelling units and built space. This section summarizes the
methods we used to allocate that growth to the 216 transportation analysis
zones (TAZs) within the Federal Way TAZ study area.
We began this analysis by reviewing the assumptions underlying the
City's capacity analysis. Chapter 3 concluded that the City's methodology
represents capacities that are closer to the theoretical allowable capacity
than to what recent development trends suggest the market will build to.
Based on our review of development trends (see Chapter 4), we made
adjustments to the City's capacity floor area ratio (FAR) assumptions that
are the basis for the City's estimates for mixed-use zones.
Table 5' 13 compares the City's initial FAR assumptions with the revised
assumptions applied by ECO to develop capacity estimates that better
represent recent development trends and allocate that capacity to TAZs. The
assumptions applied by ECO are lower than the implied FAR assumptions
used by the City (building footprint*number of floors). They are, however,
higher than observed FARs. Our analysis assumes a tightening land supply
and City policies that will result in higher observed FARs over the next 20
years.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-23
Table 5-13. Comparison of Observed and Assumed FAR
Observed Observed FAR, Observed
Implied ECO FAR, All Development Density of
Zoning FAR Assumption Development since 1995 Recent Projects
BC 2.35 0.35 0.17 0.35 0.10
BN 2.35 0.35 0.17 0.11
BP 2.35 0.35 0.16 0.24
CC 7.60 0.75 0.21 0.47 0.26
CF 4.50 0.75 0.29 0.51
CP-1 3.35 0.60 0.10
OP 3.35 0.60 0.34 0.45 0.55
OP-1 3.35 0.60 0.43 0.35
OP-2 3.35 0.60 0.60 0.38
OP-3 3.35 0.35 Na 0.38
OP-4 2.35 0.35 0.00
PO 2.35 0.30 0.18
Source: Federal Way Capacity Analysis, ECONorthwest, 2000
ECO's allocation of growth to TAZs is based on our evaluation of land
capacity, development trends, and feedback from the development
community during a focus group session. To make the task of allocating
growth to 216 TAZs more manageable, we grouped TAZs into 20 sub-areas
inside the City Limits, and one sub-area outside the City IJmits. Each sub'-
area was assigned a development priority (1-high, 2-medium, and 3-1ow) for
residential, office, and retail development. The development priority reflects
a number of market factors: availability of land, access, services, desirability
for specific types of development, and other factors discussed during the focus
group session.
The final step in the analysis is to allocate development in five-year
increments. To accomplish this, we developed a matrix that began with 100
percent of development and allocated specific percentages to each five-year
increment. Sub-areas identified as high priority for development are
generally weighted so that development is allocated earlier in the 20-year
period. Sub-areas with low priority are weighted for development later in the
20-year period. Finally, development in sub-areas is allocated for each five-
year period.
Tables 5-14, and Maps 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 show the allocation results by
subarea. The table summarizes population and employment, dwelling units
by type, and built space by broad employment sector.
Page 5-24 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Table 5-14. Allocation Summary by Subarea
Dwelling Unlta Built Space
Subarea New Pop New Em SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
N - North 3,536 322 1,157 408 1,56~ 41,282 0 10,321 51,603
NC 1,299 14¢ 523 52 575 22,718 0 5,680 28.398
EL - Easter Lake 707 535 114 199 313 167,228 0 41,807 209,035
ML - (Central) Mirror Lake 271 1-~ 120 0 120 0 0 0 0
L - Lakota 359 56 136 23 159 11,923 0 2,981 14,904
NW- Northwest 66 20 0 29 29 5,437 0 1,359 6,796
SL - Steel Lake 312 118 75 63 138 34,005 0 8,501 42,506
CC- City Center 1,245 1,199 0 551 551 381,689 0 95,417 477,087
ECN - East Campus North 2,038 764 0 902 902 219,408 0 54,852 274,259
NW - (Part) Twin Lakes 188 136 0 83 83 0 53,053 0 53,053
WCN - West Campus, North 533 31 16 220 236 343 125 86 553
KC- Kitts Comer 1,448 1,531 0 641 641 452,039 47,459 113,010 612,508
WC-WestCampus 362 728 0 160 16( 106,633 165,822 26,658 299,113
NW - Northwest (Except Twin Lakes) 404 2.~ 179 0 17~; 0 0 0 0
ECS - East Campus South 815 37C 192 80 272 113,500 0 28,375 141,874
KCS - Kltts Comer 1,048 731 0 464 464 0 283,946 0 283,946
SW - SouthWest 2,886 362 859 418 1,277 0 84,359 0 64,359
C348 - 348th Corridor 563 873 0 249 241; 216,655 0 64,164 270,819
HW - Hylebos Wetlands 249 81 0 110 110 0 28,229 0 28.229
SR 18 Q I-5 443 258 6 190 196 0 98,286 0 98,286
SC - South Central 759 43 324 12 336 0 0 0 0
S - South 714 40 287 29 316 0 0 0 0
EP- Enchanted Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City LimEs 20,045 8,17 3,988 ' 4,883 8,871 1,772,839 761,279 443,210 2,977,327
Outalde City Limlta
TAZ Study Area 3,326 562 664 808 1,472 118,811 51,019 29,703 199,532
Total All Areas 23,371 8,738 4,652 5,691 10,343 1,891,650 812,298 472,912 3,178,860
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000.
Note: Office uses include all employment in FIRES and Government, and 50% of employment in WTCU (see Table 5-10).
Table 5-15 shows allocation of population and employment by subarea
and by five-year increment.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-25
_1
Map 5-1 2000 Federal Way ~t
Market Study
Population
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
F
Tacoma
Milton
Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
Population Area 33530 First Way S,
Increase Key Federal Way, WA 98003
N A- North L- KC (Kitts Comer) (253) 681-4000.
~ O- 45 B- NC M- WC (West Campus)
C - EL (Easter Lake) N - NW Part (except Twin Lakes) This map is intended for use as a
~ 46- 143 D- ML (Central Mirror Lake) O- ECS (East Campus South) graphical representation ONLY. The
City of Federal Way makes no
E- Lakota P- KCS (Kitts Comer)
Scale: 1 to 62040 ~ 144- 288 F- NW Q- SW warranty as to its accuracy.
G - SL (Steel Lake) R - C348 (348th Corridor)
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ 289- 572 H- CC (City Center) S- HW (Hylebos Wetlands)
I - ECN (East Campus, North) T-SR18@l*5
0 1 Mile ~ More than 573 J- NW Part (Twin Lakes) U- SC (South Central)
K- WCN (West Campus North) V- S - South
W - EP (Enchanted Park)
GIS
DIVISION
luserslmikesllandlpop.aml
Map 5-2 2000 Federal Way t
Market Study
Employment
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
F
Tacoma
Milton
Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
Employment Area 33530 First Way S,
Increase Key Federal Way, WA 98003
N [~ O- 19 A- North L- KC (Kitts Corner) (253) 661-4000.
B- NC M- WC (West Campus)
~ 20 - 61 C - EL (Easter Lake) N - NW Part (except Twin Lakes) This map is intended for use as a
D - ML (Central Mirror Lake) 0 - ECS (East Campus South) graphical representation ONLY. The
[~ 52- 129 E- Lakota P- KCS (Kitts Comer) City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Scale: 1 to 62040 F- NW O- SW
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ 130-258 G-SL(SteelLake) R-C348(348thCorridor)
H - CC (City Center) S - HW (Hylebos Wetlands) mn, m,~.~
I- ECN (East Campus, North)T*SR18@1-5 ..j~l ~~~
0 1 Mile ~ More than 257 J- NW Part (Twin Lakes) U- SC (South Central)
K- WCN (West Campus North) V- S - South ~ GIS DIVISION
W- EP (Enchanted Park)
/users/mikes/land/emp.aml
Map 5-3 2000 Federal Way ~t
Market Study
,,
Dwelling Unit
Allocation
By TAZ, 2000-2020
F
Tacoma
_ _ _~ Milton
_Il Legend: Map Date: May, 2000.
City of Federal Way,
J Dwelling Unit Area 33530 First Way S,
Increase Key Federal Way, WA 98003
J[ N A - North L - KC (Kitts Corner) (253) 661-4000.
j ~ O- 29 B- NC M- WC (West Campus)
C- EL (Easter Lake) N- NW Part (except Twin Lakes) This map is intended for use as a
j ~-~ 30- 75 D- ML (Central Mirror Lake) O- ECS (East Campus South) graphical representaUon ONLY. The
E - Lakota P - KCS (Kitts Comer) City of Federal Way makes no
F - NW Q- SW warranty as to its accuracy.
j Scale: 1 to 62040 [---] 76- 127 G- SL (Steel Lake) R- C348 (348th Corridor)
1 Inch equals 5170 Feet ~ 128-275 H-CC (City Center) HW
~s 's, 1(?b°s Wet, ands) ~'*'~
I-ECN (East Campus, North) - @ 1-5 "~'~--~1 ~--~-~~
J 0 1 Mile [~ More than 275 J- NW Part (Twin Lakes) U- SC (South Central)
Jl K - WCN (West Campus North) V - S - South ~d~ GIS DIVISION
W- EP (Enchanted Park)
J /users/mikes/landldu.aml
Table 5-15. Growth Allocation by Subarea and Time Period
2000-2005 2006-2010 20 11-2015 2016-2020 Total
Subarea Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
N - North 707 64 707 64 1,061 96 1,061 96 3,536 32;
NC 260 7 260 14 390 49 390 70 1,299 14(
EL - Easier Lake 141 27 141 53 212 187 212 267, 707 53~'
ML - (Central) Mirror Lake 54 2 54 2 81 5 81 7 271 1.~
L - Lakota 108 6 108 6 108 19 36 2.~ 359 5~
NW- Northwest 13 2 13 2 16 6 23 1(~ 66 2(~
SL - Steel Lake 62 12 62 12 78 35 109 5~; 312 118
CC - City Center 374 240 374 240 249 36( 249 360 1,245 1,19~;
ECN - East Campus North 611 76 611 267 408 267 408 153 2,038 764
NW - (Part) Twin Lakes 38 64 38 48 47 34 66 0 188 136
WCN - West Campus, North 267 8 160 11 53 11 53 6 533 35
KC - Kitts Comer 290 38-~ 290 383 362 38: 507 383 1,448 1,531
WC - West Campus 72 73 72 182 108 255 108 218 362 728
NW- Nodhwest (Except Twin Lakes) 121 6 121 8 81 5 81 5 404 23
ECS - East Campus South 307 37 184 37 61 111 81 185 615 370
KCS - Kitts Comer 315 292 315 256 210 183 210 0 1,048 731
SW - SouthWest 577 91 577 109 866 109 866 54 2,886 362
C348 - 348th Corridor 225 67 169 67 113 20; 56 33~ 563 673
HW - Hylebos Wetlands 50 28 50 24 50 1~ 99 12 249 81
SR 18 O I-5 177 52 133 52 89 77 44 77 443 258
SC - South Central 304 9 228 I; 152 13 76 13 759 43
S - South 143 4 179 4 179 12 214 20 714 40
EP - Enchar~ed Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total City Limits 5,216 1,537, 4,846 1,84-~ 4,973 2,43~ 5,011 2,358 20,045 8,179
Outalde City Limits
TAZ Study Area 830 141 830 141 830 141 830 141 3,322 502J
Total All Areee 6,046 1,67/ 5,876 1,989 6,803 2,577 5,841 2,498 23,387 8,741
Source: ECONorthwest, 2000
Note: Years may not add to total for sub-areas due to rounding.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way Market Analysis updates the previous market
analysis prepared for the ]995 City o£Federal Wa)' Compret~ensJve Plan. The
purposes of the Market Analysis were to determine how fast and with what
type of development different areas of the City will grow. Specifically, it
described:
· The kind of growth to be anticipated in the next 20 years (2000 -
2020), broken down in five-year increments.
· The areas, by City Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) and City
zoning district that will receive this growth by 2020.
· Future land and redevelopment space needs.
Page 5-26 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
ECO reviewed both demand for land in Federal Way and the supply of
land. ECO's key conclusions are:
· Long-run forecasts of growth made by the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) are the starting point for any evaluation of long-run
development activity for at least two reasons. First, increases in
population and employment drive demand for real estate
development. If, for example, the PSRC population forecast were to
show very little population growth, then one should not expect to see a
lot of housing development. Second, the PSRC forecasts have some
official status for planning in King County and its cities, especially for
the purposes of transportation planning. If Federal Way is to diverge
from these forecasts, it will have to make a case for why such
divergence is reasonable.
· PSRC forecasts that population will increase by 27,397 persons in the
Federal Way City Limits between 2000 and 2020, and that
employment will increase by 8,177 jobs. The PSRC population forecast
within the Federal Way City Limits was 81,150 as of early 2000;
population is forecast to increase to 108,547 in 2020. This report
estimates that employment within the Federal Way City Limits was
29,055 as of early 2000. PSRC forecasts total employment in the
Federal Way City Limits at 37,232 in 2020.
· The PSRC population forecast for Federal Way is too high as a "most
likely" forecast for the City Limits. The PSRC population forecast for
the TAZ Study Area (TAZs outside of the City) and the employment
forecasts for both the City Limits and TAZ Study Area are reasonable.
The PSRC population forecast implies that Federal Way will increase
population by about 1,370 persons per year. Applying the PSRC's
estimate of average household size (2.35 persons per household) for
new households created between 2000 End 2020 yields a dwelling unit
need of about 580 dwelling units annually. But between 1990 and
1999, Federal Way issued about 406 permits annually, 70 percent of
the PSRC forecast. In other words, the PSRC forecasts implies that
Federal Way will increase the number of permits issued by 175 per
year over the average of 406 per year, an increase of approximately 43
percent over its production in the 1990s, and that it will sustain that
increase for 20 years. The analysis presented in this report (including
an evaluation of the supply of buildable, residential land by zoning
type) leads to the conclusion that population growth within the
Federal Way City Limits is more likely to be about 20,000 persons
between 2000 and 2020.
· City staff estimate a total residential capacity of 12,168 dwelling
units. Staff estimates that about 4,839 dwelling units can be
accommodated on lands designated out-right for residential uses and
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-27
another 7,329 dwelling units can be accommodated on lands
designated for mixed-use development. These estimates imply a
housing mix of 32 percent single-family and 68 percent multiple
family for future development. The average percent of multiple-fsmily
units for incorporated areas of King County in 1998 was about 44
percent, a figure relatively close to Federal Way's 1998 percentage of
multiple-family. Tukwila had the highest percentage of multiple-
family dwelling units at 57 percent; Kent had about 55 percent, and
Redmond had about 54 percent.
· It will be a challenge for Federal Way to achieve the percentage of
multiple-family units between 2000 and 2020 that the PSRC growth
forecast and buildable land supply single-family dwellings imply. The
market has not historically developed at that mix. The anticipated
multi-family residential development would have to derive from either
development in mixed-use zones, or rezoning and redevelopment of
residential land that is primarily built but underutilized. Between
1990 and 1999 the City's capacity database indicates that 450 multi-
family dwelling units were constructed in its mixed-use zones, but
that all of them were traditional multi-family products (i.e., without
the ground-floor retail that the mixed-use zones require).
Federal Way's growth over the last 10 years is consistent with growth
trends in the larger market of Southwest King County. Through most
of the 1990s, housing demand in Southwest King County has been soft
relative to other areas of King County. In absolute terms,
unincorporated areas like the Sammamish Plateau and the Soos
Creek area absorbed large portions of the County's new single-family
development, and cities like Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Kent
absorbed large numbers of both new single-family and new multi-
family housing. On the whole, residential demand in South King
County has been weaker than other areas of the Puget Sound Region.
· There are, however, some reasons to believe that Southwest King
County in general, and Federal Way specifically, will begin to receive
more attention from developers. With housing prices in places like
Seattle and Kirkland rising rapidly due to a combination of strong
demand and diminishing supply, and with the recent incorporation of
the Sammamish Plateau (which was at least partially driven by
resident's desire to curtail development), one would expect Federal
Way~s supply of relatively inexpensive land to attract new
development.
The strength of that effect, however, may be limited by Federal Way's
supply of buildable land zoned for single-purpose, residential
development.
Page 5-28 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
· While higher housing prices and constrained capacity in other parts of
the region may lead to some increase in residential growth pressures
in Federal Way, they are not likely to be of a magnitude necessary to
meet the population projections identified by the PSRC. The
evaluation of residential supply and demand forecasts suggests a
mismatch between residential demand forecasted by PSRC and the
capacity of residential land in residentially zoned districts to
accommodate new housing units. The majority of Federal Way's
residential land capacity is located within the mixed-use zones. The
City's previous planning has assumed that the mixed-use zones will
absorb the additional housing demand. But such absorption requires
aggressive assumptions about both housing mix and the amount of
residential development that will occur in mixed-use zones. Even
considering ho~' the market might respond to City incentives (both
investments and policies), this market analysis concludes that the
likelihood of Federal Way achieving a housing mix that is more than
two-thirds multiple'fsmily in the next 20 years is small.8 At a
minimum, the PSRC population forecast, in light of recent and
expected market demand and supply conditions for residential
development in Federal Way, do not meet any common definition of a
"base case" or "most likely" forecast. It is unlikely that the PSRC
population forecast will be achieved if the vacant land in the City
retains its current zoning and requirements.
· On the commercial side, however, Federal Way will continue to
experience office, retail, and industrial employment growth at a rate
slightly below that of the region as a whole. The employment forecasts
of the PSRC are consistent with this assessment and reflective of
longer-term market conditions. The City has enough capacity
designated for different uses to accommodate the 20-year employment
forecast.
· There are several implications of the market analysis for City land-
use policy. If the City is to achieve the residential growth implied by
the PSRC forecast for 2020, it will have to take additional steps to
make that forecast more likely. Given its supply of buildable land in
single-purpose residential zones, policies will have to address
residential development in mixed-use zones (e.g., City Center Core
[CC], City Center Frame [CF], Community Business IBC]). The City
may decide that its 3xisting mixed-use development policies are
necessary to get the kind of development it wants in its city center,
and that slower development is a reasonable price to pay to get it. Or,
it may offer incentives, change the requirements for ground-floor
retail, or rezone some of the mixed-use to single-purpose residential
(which can be thought of as a shift from vertical mixed-use to
horizontal mixed use). Second, while there is adequate land for
s While it is theoretically possible, the historical data show that no community in the region has
achieved that mix of housing.
Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation ECONorthwest July 2000 Page 5-29
employment growth in the aggregate, several districts achieve more
than 50 percent buildout (Neighborhood Business [BN], City Center
Frame [CF], Corporate Park [CP-1], and Professional Office [PO]). The
City should monitor zone change requests in the BN zone (this district
provides the majority of the City's land base for neighborhood business
uses) and in the CF zone (which is crucial for achieving the City's
vision of a mixed-use city center).
Some alternative actions that could be undertaken by the City to shift its
future population/employment balance are:
1. Adopt, and plan for, lower estimates of population growth.
2. Rezone land to add more residential capacity, or otherwise facilitate
residential development (e.g., changes to development regulations).
The City has taken many steps already to encourage both higher
residential densities and mixed-use development. However, mixed-use
development is an emerging trend that many developers have little
experience with. The City should pay close attention to the perspectives of
developers when reviewing applications, particularly for mixed-use
developments.
Page 5-30 ECONorthwest July 2000 Federal Way Market Analysis and Growth Allocation
Appendix A Capacity Study Methods
This Appendix contains documentation of the methods used by the City of
Federal Way in development of its land capacity analysis. The City updated
the land capacity analysis in January 2000, and provided the revised land
capacity database to ECONorthwest in February 2000, for the completion of
the market analysis and growth allocation project.
METHODS APPLIED BY THE CITY
1. The source of this information is King County Assessor's records,
accessed through MetroScan. GIS generated the lot square footage
in cases where there is no parcel information (recently subdivided
areas, etc.).
2. Parcels were evaluated based on current ownership and future
plans. The following parcels were excluded:
· Parcels owned by public agencies, which are unlikely to be
developed.
· Any parcel with a current building permit.
· Parcels unlikely to ever be developed (cemeteries, under the
BPA power lines).
· Vacant parcels associated closely with developed parcels
(parking for St. Francis Hospital, the plaza at Weyerhaeuser's
West Campus).
3. Parcels were divided into 3 categories, Fully Developed (and
excluded parcels), Redevelopable, and Vacant. Vacant parcels have
an improvement value of 0.
Commercial/Industrial Redevelopable parcels are defined as
parcels where the ratio of improvements to land value is less than
50 percent. In residential areas, Redevelopable is defined
differently. In Single Family areas, lots, which can be divided 2.5
times or more, are redevelopable. In Multi-Family areas, lots,
which have a single-family residence or a duplex, are
Redevelopable. Only Vacant and Redevelopable parcels were
included in this survey.
4. Residential parcels were further divided into the categories
Subdividable, NOT Subdividable, and Recently Subdivided. For
residential zones, some discounts were not applied to the latter two
categories.
Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results ECONorthwest July 2000 Page A-1
5. Critical areas were taken out at the parcel level. These include: (1)
wetlands (except wetlands under 2500 square feet); (2) wetland
buffers; (3) streams; and (4) steep slopes (greater than 40 percent
slope). The resulting square footage is the buildable area. The data
source for wetlands, buffers, and streams is the City's 1998 wetland
study. The source of steep slope data is contour information, stored
in the City's GIS.
6. Square feet of buildable land was aggregated by zone, and the
amount of building area that could be developed in each zone was
computed.
For commercial zones, several discounts w~re removed from the
total, including Right-of-Way, Public Purpose, Building Footprint
(commercial only), and Market Factor. The square footage was
multiplied by the number of stories that are likely. These factors
varied by zone and development category (vacant and
redevelopable).
For residential zones, the total square feet was divided by the
zone's minimum lot size, and a similar set of discounts were
applied, with the exception of Building Footprint.
7. Since some residential uses are allowed in commercial zones, a
percentage of these zones was counted in residential categories.
The total building square feet in these zones w~.s divided by the
percentage allocated to residential, and the resulting figure was
divided by the average unit size, which varies by zone.
8. The remaining commercial square footage was divided by a factor
to establish the number of employees possible. See Notes for the
figures used.
NOTES - CAPACITY STUDY
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES
I & II. Vacant & Redevelopable
A. CC/CF Public Purpose Factor: 1.0 instead of 0.98 as development of
additional public facilities in the Core/Frame (schools, churches, etc) is
un]ii, ely.
B. CP'i Market Factor: Set to 0.1, as any additional development is
unlikely in this zone.
Page A-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results
III. Summary
1. Percent of Zone that,s Residential: This figure is simply a best guess.
2. Unit Size: Unit size was selected to reflect the type of residential
development that will likely occur in each zone. In zones other than CC and
CF, the smaller size accounts for the fact that development will likely be a
mix between standard residential uses and assisted living or senior housing.
In OP, the size of 500 square feet is used, as only senior housing is allowed.
IV. Employment Summary
1. CC/CF Retail/Office ~plit: A breakdown of 75 percent retail and 25
percent office was used.
2. Average Square Feet per Worker: The figures used (500 - commercial,
250 - office, and 800 manufacturing) are standard figures.
RESIDENTIAL USES
II. Parcels Not Subdividable, Not Subject to Discounts: Parcels included
in this category are too small to legally subdivide. They will be counted as
having one potential unit per case, with only a market factor discount being
removed.
III. Vacant, Not Subject to Discounts: This includes areas, which have
been recently subdivided. As all parcels are highly likely to fully develop, no
discounts are taken even a market factor. Also included are areas governed
by development agreement, where the number of housing units is set
(Residential North).
Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results ECONorthwest July 2000 Page A-3
A D-R-A-F-T COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES + SUMMARY 2/22/00
1999 Capacity Analysis
(BASED ON 1998 ASSESSOR RECORDS AND FEDERAL WAY GIS DATA)
I. VACANT (Parcels with an Improv~mnt value of $O)
· !, * * * * ,- *
LOT PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING SUB-TOTAL OF TOTAL
NET R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR FOOTPRINT BUlLDABLE # OF BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. FACTOR FACTOR I10%*} FACTOR SQ. FEET FLOORS SQ FT
BC 4,464,276 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 1,309,216 2 2,618,432
BN 1,166,926 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 342,219 2 694,437
BP 5,759,269 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.35 1,688,992 2 3,377,984
CC 355,045 0.85 1.00' 0.90 0.60 162,966 7 1,140,760
CF 325,575 0.85 1.00 0.90 0.50 124,532 4 498,130
CP-1 4,081,827 0.95 0.98 0.10 0.35 133,006 3 399,019
OP 3,472,513 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 1,018,366 3 3,055,099
OP-1 3,568,298 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 1,952,322 3 3,156,957
OP-2 0 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 0 3 0
OP-3 241,977 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 70,963 3 212,890
OP-4 216,413 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 63,466 2 126,933
PO 495,622 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.35 146,522 2 293r043
TOTAL: 24,171,741 6,112,571 15,563,694
II. REDEVELOPABLE (Parcels where the re§o ofimprovements to land value is less than 50~)
LOT PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING SUB-TOTAL OF TOTAL EXISTING NET
NET R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR FOOTPRINT BUILDABLE # OF BUILDABLE BUILDING BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. FACTOR FACTOR {17%*} FACTOR SQ. FEET FLOORS SQ FT SQ FT SQ FT
BC 4,337,392 0.95 0~98 0.83 0.35 1,173,072 2 2,346,143 302,317 2,043,826
BN 509,196 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 137,715 2 275,429 21,355 254,074
BP 1 ,g84,407 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 536,694 2 1,073,388 65,986 1,008,322
CC 1,111,749 0.85 1.00 0.83 0.60 470,603 7 3,294,222 198,517 3,095,705
CF 577,795 0.85 1.00 0.83 0.50 203,817 4 815,269 88,226 727,043
CP-1 2,637,725 0.95 0.98 0.10 0.35 85,950 3 257,851 16,114 241,737
OP 578,845 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 156,552 3 469,655 14,760 454,895
OP-1 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 0 3 0 0 0
OP-2 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 0 3 0 0 0
OP-3 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 0 3 0 0 0
OP-4 0 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 0 2 0 0 0
PO 51~819 0.95 0.98 0.83 0.35 14~015 2 28,030 3,476 24;554
TOTAL: 11,788,927 2,778,417 8,559,987 709,831 7,850,156
III. SUMMARY (Sreak~ow~ beN/ee, residential uses and non-residential uses) ~l~PAcrr~ STUDY,,S, UMblARY - ,. ".':
+ * = I = =
BUILDING BUILDING SIZE OF # OF M.Fo FINAL POSSIBLE NEW HOUSING UNIT~:
TOTAL % OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS DWELLING BUILDABLE
ZONING SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL SQ. FT. SQ. FT. UNITS SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ZONES: 4,839
UNITS
BC 4,662,258 0.33 1,538,545 1,000 1,5,39 3,123,713 NON-RESIDENTIAL ZON 7.329
UNITS
BN 938,512 0.33 309,709 1,000 310 628,803 TOTAL: 12,168
UNITS
BP 4,386,306 0.10 438,631 500 877 3,947,675
CC 4,236,465 0.50 2,118,233 700 3,026 2,118,233 POSSIBLE NEW COMMJINDUST. SF:
CF 1,225,173 0.50 612,587 700 875 612,567
CP-1 640,756 0.00 0 0 640,756 TOTAL: 18,045,147
SQ. FT.
OP 3,509,995 0.10 350,999 500 702 . 3,156,995
OP-I 3,156,957 0.00 0 0 3,156,967 POSSIBLE NEW EMPLOYEES:
OP-2 0 0.00 0 0 0
OP-3 212,898 0.00 0 0 212,~90 TOTAL: 45,723
OP-4 126,933 0.00 0 0 126,933
PO 317r597 0.00 0 0 317,597
TOTAL: 23,413,850 7,329 18,045,147
Page A-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results
B RESIDENTIAL USES D.R.A.F-T 2/22/00
1999 Capacity Study
(BASED ON 1999 ASSESSOR RECORDS AND FEDERAL WAY GIS DATA)
I. VACANT (Pan=els wfth an improvemnt value of $0)
PUBUC MARKET TOTAL OF
MINIMUM BUILDABLE LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUILDABLE
ZONING LOT SIZE SQ. FEET FACTOR FACTOR I10%) LOTS
RM 1800 1800 350,622 195 0.90 1.00 0.90 158
RM2400 . 240~ 465,926 194 0.90 1.00 0,90 157
RM3600 3600 1,618,001 449 0.90 1.00 0.gO 384
RS15.0 15000 5,647,806 377 0.85 0.90 0.90 259
RS35.0 35000 1,590,141 45 0.85 0.90 0.90 31
RS5.0 5000 981,782 196 0.85 0.90 0.90 135
RS7.2 720~. 9,381,989 1,303 0.85 0.90 0.90 897
RS9.6 9600 8,971,064 728 0.85 0.90 0.90 500
SE 217800 706,478 3 0.85 0.90 0.90 2
TOTAL: 3,489 2,504
REDEVELOPABLE
PUBLIC MARKET SUB-TOTAL OF SUB-TOTAL OF
TOTAL OF
MINIMUM BUILDABLE LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUlLDABLE EXlSING
BUILDABLE
ZONING LOTSIZE SQ. FEET FACTOR FACTOR 117%~ LOTS UNITS
LOTS
RM1800 1800 3,213 2 0.90 1 .IX) 0.83 1
1 0
RM2400 2400 2,965 1 0.90 1.00 0.83 1
1 0
RM3600 3600 23,173 6 0.90 1.00 0.83 5
I 4
RS15.0 15000 7,603 1 0.85 0.90 0.83 0
1 -1
RS35.0 35000 30,000 1 0.85 0.90 0.83 1
1 0
RSS.0 5000 37,440 7 0.85 0.90 0.83 5
1 4
RS7.2 7200 35,145 5 0.85 0.90 0.83 3
1 2
RS9.6 9600 11,527,859,202 1,200,819 0.85 0.90 0.83 762,460
67,502 694,958
SE 217800 1~8,561,342,349 728,014 0.85 0.90 0.83 462~252
928~858 -4861806
TOTAL: 1,928,855 1,224,728
996367 228,381
II. PARCELS NOT SUBDIVIDABLE- NOT SUBJECTTO MOST DISCOUNTS (Un-~ubdlvidableParcels)
- VACANT
# OF PUBMC MARKET TOTAL OF
LOTS R.O.W. PURPOSE FACTOR BUlLDABLE
ZONING FACTOR FACTOR I10%~ LOTS
RM1800 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
RM2400 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
RM3600 0 N/A N/A 0.gO 0
RS15.0 233 N/A N/A 0.90 210
RS35.0 24 N/A N/A 0.90 22
RS5.0 0 N/A N/A O.gO 0
RS7.2 161 N/A N/A 0.90 145
RS9.8 179 N/A N/A 0.90 161
SE 0 N/A N/A 0.90 0
TOTAL: 597 537
Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results ECONorthwest July 2000 Page A-5
III. VACANT, NOT SUBJECT TO DISCOUNTS*
~ OF PUBUC ~RKET TOTAL OF a~n0
· OF
LO~ ~O.W. PU~OSE FACTOR BUILDABLE ZONING
LO~
ZONING FACTOR FACTOR (10%) LO~ RMI~
RM18~ 0 ~A ~A ~A 0 RM2~
157
RM2~. 0 ~A ~A ~A 0 RM~
RMV0 82 ~A ~A ~A 82 RS15.0
RSl~.0 ~ ~A . . NIA ~A 1 RS35.0
52
R~.0 0 ~A ~A ~A 0 RSS.0
RSS.0 1 ~A' ~A ~A I RS7.2
1,127
RS7~ ~ ~A ~A ~A ~ RS9.6
6~,~
RS9.8 17 ~A ~A ~A 17 SE
~,~
SE 0 ~A ~A ~A 0 NO.RES ZONES
3,~8
TOTAL: 1M 1~ ~TOTAL: ~ 23~,1~
~s ~ I~s ~n~ su~ ~ ~i~ am 8ke~ ~ No~: NS = 'D'
~ ~p, as ~11 as a~s ~ by ~ ~n~.
Page A-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix A: Land Capacity Methods and Results
AppendixB Regional Development Patterns
Federal Way is part of the larger, Puget Sound real estate market.
Analysis of regional development trends provides a better understanding of
factors affecting development in Federal Way. Our analysis of regional
development patterns is based on building permit data from PSRC.
To supplement building permit data, ECO reviewed a number of market
studies of the Puget Sound region. We crosschecked and supplemented this
information with secondary real estate information sources including, CB
Richard Ellis, Dupre and Scott, and Mundy Associates, as well as discussions
with local brokers and developers.
REGIONAL MARKET OVERVIEW
CB Richard Ellis prepares quarterly market reports for housing, retail,
office, and industrial development in the Puget Sound region. The reports
break the region into five or six sub-markets, depending on the type of
development: downtown Seattle, the North-end, the South-end, Tacoma/
Pierce County, Eastside, and Snohomish County. Federal Way is usually
included in the South-end market (housing, retail space, office), and is not
specifically classified in an industrial sub-market.
At the regional level, the general market outlook is for strong continued
growth of all types (CB Richard Ellis). In the short run, population and
employment, the two key economic drives of the Puget Sound development
market, are forecast to grow at a slower pace then during the late 1990s.
Long run forecasts developed by PSRC indicate that substantial population
and employment growth will occur in the region over the next 20 years.
A number of factors will affect where that growth locates. When choosing
where to live, households consider factors such as: access to work; access to
shopping, recreation, and friends; public services; neighborhood
characteristics; and type and size of housing. Businesses consider location,
transportation facilities, taxes, as well as other factors.
Some factors point to growth in the south end of King County, and
Federal Way. According to the Puget, Sound Business Journal, congestion,
high rental rates, and limited access in Seattle and surrounding areas are
making South King County more desirable for development. Federal Way's
location in the I-5 corridor between Tacoma and Seattle also provides easy
access.
The following sections provide a more detailed overview of residential,
retail, office, and industrial development in the Puget Sound region over the
past decade.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-1
- RESIDENTIAL -
Figure B-1 shows residential building permits issued in incorporated
- areas of Puget Sound counties between 1991 and 1998. The data show that
_ the region approved relatively comparable numbers of single-family and
_ multiple family building permits between 1991 and 1995. The most notable
trend is the increase in multiple family construction since 1995.
- Figure B-l. Residential Building Permits Issued in Incorporated Areas
_ Puget Sound Counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish), 1991-1998
- 9,000
= Multiple family
- 8,000 ---
_ 7,000 --- & Single-family
_ ~ 6,000
_ ~ _~ 5,000
_ o. 3,000
2,000
1,000
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Year
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000.
Table B-1 provides a regional summary of building permits issued for new
residential construction. The data show that King County approved more
than 6,000 units each year between 1991 and 1998. Moreover, King County
accounted for more than 60 percent of all residential permits issued during
this period.
Table B-I. Residential Building Permits Issued by Type,
Incorporated Areas of Puget Sound Counties, 1991-1998
County Single- Multiple Mobile Total Units AvgAnnual
Family Family Home Units
King 30,161 1,105 16,873 48,127 6,016
Kitsap 1,083 379 1,981 3,443 430
Pierce 2,427 196 7,053 9,676 1,210
Snohomish 8,207 379 11,730 20,316 2,540
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000
Table B-2 shows residential building permits issued by type for cities in
King County between 1991 and 1998. Federal Way ranked 6~ out of King
County cities in terms of the number of building permits issued annually
during this period. PSRC data (Table B-2) indicate that Federal Way issued
Page B-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
about 2,089 residential building permits, or about 261 permits annually
during this period. Nearly two-thirds of the multiple family permits issued in
Federal Way were for complexes with 50 or more units. No permits for
demolitions were issued in Federal Way between 1991 and 1998.
Table B-2. Residential Building Permits Issued by Type, King County Cities,
1991-1998
City Single- Mobile Total Duplex Triplex/ 5-9 10-19 20-49 50 or Total Demo. New Avg
family homes SF Quad Units Units more MF Iitions Units- Annual
Units Units Units Demo Units
Seattle 2,279 37 2,316 1,161 1,338 1,450 1,539 3,560 7,206 16,254 -2,566 21,136 2,642
Bellevue 1,556 1 1,557 150 333 453 398 766 1,842 3,942 -84 5,583 698
Kent 2,013 142 2,155 31 388 455 25 155 1,198 2,252 -17 4,424 553
Renton 1,121 23 1,144 89 417 528 639 60 391 2,124 -16 3,284 411
Redmond 1,086 ~ -23 1,109 4 16 27 52 414 1,622 2,135 -2 3,246 406
Federal Way 1,269 208 1,477 18 51 25 74 444 612 2,089 261
Auburn 1,168 268 1,436 75 215 44 131 135 79 679 2,115 264
Kirkland 772 772 147 145 337 513 294 370 1,806 -32 2,610 326
Issaquah 651 11 662 53 56 228 124 278 398 1,137 -4 1,803 225
Enumclaw 671 147 818 6 12 6 12 62 98 916 115
Bothell 360 19 379 21 37 101 376 32 50 617 -5 1,001 125
North Bend 507 10 517 4 24 130 62 220 737 92
Duvall 570 5 575 0 575 72
Newcastle 213 -1 212 8 208 216 428 54
Black Diamond 305 1 306 1 3 7 11 317 40
Mercer Island 253 253 4 4 18 22 81 129 -8 390 49
Shoreline 268 5 273 18 20 35 73 346 43
Des Moines 232 4 236 8 10 22 24 64 -2 302 38
Snoqualmie 224 2 226 20 3 23 249 31
Maple Valley 143 86 229 0 229 29
Burien 164 3 187 14 20 34 221 28
Woodinville 65 3 68 6 24 25 198 253 321 40
SeaTac 104 65 169 3 47 50 219 27
Tukwila 126 126 12 90 21 123 -2 251 31
Carnation 165 4 169 0 169 21
Pacific 134 7 141 2 2 143 18
^lgona 153 28 181 4 15 19 0 200 25
Lake Forest 95 95 2 6 8 103 13
Park
Kenmore 66 3 69 2 2 71 9
Normandy Park 56 56 0 56 7
Covington 25 1 26 0 26 3
Milton 26 26 0 26 3
Yarrow Point 15 15 0 15 2
Clyde Hill 14 14 0 14 2
Skykomish 6 I 7 0 0 7 1
Beaux Arts 2 2 0 2 0
Hunts Point .4 .4 0 -4 -1
Medina -20 -20 3 3 -17 -2
Source: PSRC Permit Data, 2000.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-3
Table B-3 shows housing indicators for selected King County communities.
The data indicate that all of the selected cities are getting a relatively high
mix of multiple family housing. Federal Way approved about 313 new
dwelling units annually between 1996 and 1998; 62 percent of the approvals
were for multiple family dwelling units. Only one percent of new dwelling
units approved between 1996 and 1998 were through redevelopment.
Table B-3. Housing Indicators for Selected King County Communities
Federal
Indicator Way Auburn Burien Kent SeaTac Tukwila
1998 Total Housing Units 31,729 15,924 12,952 29,930 10,620 7,454
Percent Multiple Family 44% 46% 39% 55% 39% 57%
1996-98 Average New Units Per Year 313 472 59 618 33 43
Percent MF 62% 44% 25% 53% 0% 40%
1996-98 Percent of New Units
Through Redevelopment 1% 2% 10% 6% 58% 2%
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council
Table B-4 shows housing price indicators for sub-areas in King County.
The data show that Federal Way is in the middle range of median housing
prices for King County. The highest housing prices were in the Raceway/Lake
Morton region, the lowest were in the Green River Valley and Twin Lakes
sub-areas (the Twin Lakes sub-area falls partially within Federal Way).
Page B-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
Table B-4. Housing Price Indicators for King County Sub-Areas
Percent increase in median
sales price
Median price Highest Median price
Subarea (1999) price paid per sq ft 2 years 5 years t5 years
Raceway/Lake Morton $242,450 $585,000 $115 8.1% 5.0% 6.0%
Enumclaw Plateau $233,000 $800,000 $125 8.8% 5.0% 6.0%
Woodmont/Redondo $215,003 $915,000 $108 7.5% 5.0% 5.0%
KentJRenton Suburbs $206,975 $460,000 $111 8.1% 5.0% 6.0%
Lake Youngs $205,000 $847,000 $113 7.6% 4.0% 6.0%
Black Diamond/Maple Valley $197,000 $550,000 $117 7.0% 5.0% 6.0%
E Rural King County $195,000 $937,057 $143 10.5% 7.0% 8.0%
Lea Hill $194,950 $2,453,000 $102 5.2% 3.0% 5.0%
Kent Meridian $189,725 $700,000 $106 5.8% 4.0% 5.0%
Kentridge $179,950 $352,092 $109 7.5% 4.0% 5.0%
Federal Way $176,500 $460,000 $100 6.5% 4.0% 4.0%
Covington $167,500 $897,000 $113 7.2% 5.0% 6.0%
Auburn $160,000 $400,000 $102 4.8% 4.0% 5.0%
Jovita/Algona/Paciflc $158,000 $750,000 $104 6.4% 4.0% 5.0%
Star Lake $164,000 $387,000 $103 6.7% 4.0% 5.0%
Des Moines $156,975 $500,000 $108 8.6% 5.0% 5.0%
Enumclaw $154,900 $384,958 $104 7.2% 5.0% 5.0%
Green River Valley $150,000 $395,000 $115 8.7% 5.0% 6.0%
Twin Lakes $150,000 $468,500 $97 7.2% 4.0% 5.0%
Source: Seattle Times: Home Values.
RETAIL
The South-end Market Area is, according to CB Commercial data, the
largest regional market,, with 46 percent of the retail space in the region
(28.2 million square feet). Table B-5 shows a breakdown of retail soace by
type for the South-end Market Area. The area has 11.6 million square feet in
community/neighborhood centers and 7.4 million square feet in regional
centers, accounting for 70 percent of total retail space in the area.
, The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes south King
County and Pierce County.
Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-5
Table B-5. Retail Market Overview, South-End Market Area,1 4th
Quarter 1999
Type Gross Vacancy Vacant Square Avg Asking
Leasable Area Rate Feet Lease Rate (net)
Freestanding 4,274,601 2.7% 113,704 $16.00
Corem/Neighborhood 11,596,443 7.3% 847,700 $18.00
Strip/Specialty 1,639,603 15.0% 245,940 $17.00
Power Center 2,723,774 2.1% 55,837 $15.70
Regional Center 7,387,598 4.6% 339,830 $25.07
Other 671,669 2.2% 14,978 $14.00
Total 28,293,688 5.7% 1,617,989 $19.07
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Retail Market 4a Quarter; and Mundy Associates,
LLC.
~The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes south King County and
Pierce County.
Table B-6 shows historical retail market trends for the South-end Market
area between 1992 and 1999. New retail space construction averaged about
741,000 square feet annually between 1992 and 1999. The largest year was
1995, when 1.8 million square feet of new retail space was built in the region.
Federal Way added the Pavilions Shopping Center in 1995, and a 135,000
square foot Wal-Mart opened in 1999.
Table B-6. Retail Market Historical Trends, South-End
Market Area,~ 1992-1999
Year New Construction Net Absorption Vacancy
(Sq Ft) (Sq Ft) Rate
1992 127,139 3.3%
1993 801,494 -163,375 4.0%
1994 559,927 178,567 3.6%
1995 1,814,316 1,410,478 3.0%
1996 196,000 -262,852 7.1%
1997 750,000 1,474,549 7.4%
1998 685,000 3,062,303 4.9%
1999 381,249 364,062 3.5%
Total 5,187,986 6,190,871
Annual Average 741,141 773,859
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Brief, Retail Market 4t~ Quarter;,
and Mundy Associates, LLC.
~ The South-end Market Area extends south from the West Seattle Bridge and includes
south King County and Pierce County.
According to CB Richard Ellis, the combination of low unemployment,
exponential growth in the high-tech sector, and a strong national economy
promises continued retail growth in the near term.
Page B-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
OFFICE
The unemployment rate remained low, as new jobs in the high-tech sector
kept unemployment stable during a Boeing downturn. Regional computer
software and service employment grew 15 percent during 1999.
Table B-7 shows data for the regional market office for the fourth quarter
of 1999. Federal Way accounted for about two percent of regional office space.
Federal Way also had the second highest vacancy rate, at 10.7 percent.
Moreover, the Tacoma/Federal Way sub'market absorbed more than 230,000
square feet of office space, while adding more than 260,000. The Tacoma/
Federal Way sub-market also had the lowest class "A" lease rate of any sub-
market in the region.
Table B-7,"Puget Sound Office Market, 4m Quarter 1999
Market Net Vacancy Net Under Avg Class
Rentable Rate Absorption Construction "A" Lease
Area (SF) (SF) Rate (full
service
ISF/YR)
Downtown 28,469,378 2.1% 353,469 2,997,727 $30
South-end 5,741,805 7.6% 77,959 301,508 $19
Tacoma/Federal Way 3,646,401 9.0% 233,377 263,000 $18
Federal Way 1,076,418 10.7% NA NA NA
Tacoma 2,410,090 8.6% NA NA NA
Fife 94,000 5.7% NA NA NA
Puyallup 65,893 2.5% NA NA NA
Eastside 20,864,771 3.9% 1,412,423 3,772,968 $24
Snohomish County 2,980,614 12.6% 177,885 51,000 $21
North-end 1,135,559 2.6% -8,855 0 $20
Market Total 62,838,528 4.1% 2,246,258 7,386,203 $24
Source: CB Richard Ellis, Puget Sound Market Index Bdef, Office Market 4~ Quarter 1999.
INDUSTRIAL
The regional industrial market posted vacancies of 4.5 percent and added
nearly 2.8 million square feet of space during the fourth quarter of 1999. The
Kent Valley led industrial development, adding 1.9 mi]lion square feet. Table
B-8 summarizes the regional industrial market for the fourth quarter of
1999. Note that CB Richard Ellis does not explicitly include Federal Way in
either the Kent Valley or Tacoma/Fife sub-markets.
Appendix B: Regional Development Pattems ECONorthwest July 2000 Page B-7
Table B-8. Puget Sound Industrial Market, 4th Quarter 1999
Market Net Rentable Vacancy Net Under Net Lease
Area Rate Absorption Construction Rate
($F) ($F) (PSFIMO)
Seattle Close-~n 70,927,337 2.0% -265,167 0
High-tech 1,142,109 1 2% $0.85
Non high-tech 69,785,228 2.0% $0.45
Kent Valley 85,844,794 4 9% 224,142 1,928,114
High-tech 1,861,314 6.9% $0.95
Non high-tech 83,983,480 4.9% $0 35
Tacoma/F~fe 8,085,025 13.5% 79,082 401,350
H~gh-tech 0 na na
Non h~gh-tech 8,085,025 13.5% $0 32
Eastside 20,357,740 4.7% 153,793 212,808
High-tech 4,661,838 6.7% $1.25
Non h~gh-tech 15,695,902 4.1% $0 60
Snohomish County 5,988,159 13 3% -164,916 264,075
High-tech 171,246 35.6% -8,855 $1.10
Non high-tech 5,816,913 12 6% $0 50
Market Total 191,203,055 4.5% 26934 2826347
H~gh-tech 7,836,507 6 6%
Non hlgh-tech 183,366,548 4 4%
Source CB R~chard EIl~s, Puget Sound Market Index Bnef, Office Market 4~ Quarter 1999
Page B-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix B: Regional Development Patterns
Appendix C Growth Allocation by TAZ
This appendix presents the allocation of population and employment by
TAZ. Table C'I shows the detail for Table 5-14. Table C'2 shows the detail for
Table 5-15.
Table C-t. Allocation Summary by TAZ
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
Inside City Limit
0 11 I 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
2 312 65 29 109 138 15,977 0 3,994 19,972
3 353 20 124 32 156 0 0 0 0
4 273 27 0 121 121 4,007 0 1,002 5,009
5 97 5 43 0 43 0 0 0 0
6 400 39 172 5 177 5,446 0 1,361 6,807
7 81 5 36 0 36 0 0 0 0
8 221 54 56 42 98 14,101 0 3,525 17,626
9 264 59 35 82 117 15,027 0 3,757 18,783
10 133 8 0 59 59 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 138 8 61 0 61 0 0 0 0
14 142 8 63 0 63 0 0 0 0
15 237 13 105 0 105 0 0 0 0
16 179 10 79 0 79 0 0 0 0
17 52 3 0 23 23 0 0 0 0
18 2 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 271 41 110 10 120 8,618 0 2,154 10,772
21 29 2 13 0 13 0 0 0 0
22 122 13 40 14 54 2,184 0 546 2,731
23 11 I 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 81 5 36 0 36 0 0 0 0
26 115 121 I 50 51 38,854 0 9,714 48,568
27 895 53 396 0 396 825 0 206 1,032
28 809 46 358 0 358 0 0 0 0
29 11 17 0 5 5 5,437 0 1,359 6,796
30 43 2 19 0 19 0 0 0 0
31 194 40 77 9 86 9,739 0 2,435 12,174
32 154 9 68 0 68 0 0 0 0
33 145 34 55 9 64 8,618 0 2,155 10,773
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 32 38 0 14 14 12,185 0 3,046 15,231
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 45 3 20 0 20 0 0 0 0
38 106 6 47 0 47 0 0 0 0
39 50 3 22 0 22 0 0 0 0
Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-1
Dwelling Units BuiltSpace
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 16 10 0 7 7 3,033 0 758 3,791
42 34 43 0 15 15 13,748 0 3,437 17,185
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 56 3 25 0 25 0 0 0 0
45 68 4 30 0 30 0 0 0 0
46 29 39 0 13 13 12,621 0 3,155 15.776
47 20 25 0 9 9 8,072 0 2,018 10,090
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 20 25 0 9 9 7,953 0 1,988 9,941
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 56 3 0 25 25 0 0 0 0
54 120 143 0 53 53 45,958 0 11,489 57,447
55 86 102 0 38 38 32,990 0 8,247 41,237
56 36 45 0 16 16 14,453 0 3,613 18,067
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 142 170 0 63 63 54,729 0 13,682 68,411
60 50 61 0 22 22 19,839 0 4,960 24,798
61 23 29 0 10 10 9,459 0 2,365 11,824
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 25 32 0 11 11 10,505 0 2,626 13,131
65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 18 22 0 8 8 6,993 0 1,748 8,742
67 11 17 0 5 5 5,639 0 1,410 7,049
68 52 63 0 23 23 20,470 0 5,118 25,588
69 102 121 0 45 45 38,952 0 9,738 48,690
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 18 21 0 8 8 6,920 0 1,730 8,650
72 395 164 0 175 175 47,857 0 11,964 59,821
73 93 112 0 41 41 36,206 0 9,051 45,257
74 0 3 0 0 0 1,137 0 284 1,421
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 54 67 0 24 24 21,611 0 5,403 27,013
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 5 7 0 2 2 0 2,918 0 2,918
80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 16 26 0 7 7 0 10,578 0 10,578
82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 27 17 0 12 12 0 6,626 0 6,626
86 271 323 0 120 120 104,102 0 26,025 130,127
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 0 I 0 0 0 343 125 86 553
89 36 2 16 0 16 0 0 0 0
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page C-2 ECONorthwest July 2000 Append;x C: Growth ^llocahon by TAZ
Dwelling Units BuiltSpace
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
92 497 28 0 220 220 0 0 0 0
93 95 5 42 0 42 0 0 0 0
94 310 17 137 0 137 0 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 99 215 0 44 44 39.261 39,615 9,815 88,691
103 75 90 0 33 33 29,124 0 7,281 36,405
104 16 23 0 7 7 7,352 0 1,838 9,190
105 122 255 0 54 54 47,708 45,201 11,927 104,836
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 197 233 0 87 87 75.000 0 18,750 93.750
108 133 163 0 59 59 50.893 2,258 12,723 65,875
109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 90 5 0 40 40 0 0 0 0
111 307 366 0 136 136 117,861 0 29.465 147.326
112 41 52 0 18 18 16,694 0 4,173 20,867
113 7 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
114 181 10 0 80 80 0 0 0 0
115 280 334 0 124 124 107,408 0 26,852 134,260
116 90 84 0 40 40 0 33,315 0 33,315
117 111 98 0 49 49 0 38,709 0 38,709
118 54 21 0 24 24 0 7,659 0 7,659
119 88 5 0 39 39 0 0 0 0
120 90 5 0 40 40 0 0 0 0
121 25 40 0 11 11 0 16,477 0 16,477
122 25 40 0 11 11 0 16,454 0 16,454
123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 90 5 0 40 40 0 0 0 0
125 88 141 0 39 39 0 57,369 0 57,369
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 77 29 27 7 34 0 10,374 0 10,374
128 330 19 58 88 146 0 0 0 0
129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 149 318 0 66 66 57,393 58,875 14,348 130,616
132 18 40 0 8 8 7,252 7,244 1,813 16,309
133 0 15 0 0 0 0 6,199 0 6,199
134 0 68 0 0 0 0 28,529 0 28,529
135 18 30 0 8 8 0 12,220 0 12,220
136 0 121 0 0 0 0 51,029 0 51,029
137 79 63 17 18 35 0 24,560 0 24,560
138 25 I 11 0 11 0 0 0 0
139 1,017 57 450 0 450 0 0 0 0
140 569 32 0 252 252 0 0 0 0
141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix C: Growth AIIocatJon by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-3
Dwelling Uni~ Built Spare
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
144 7 15 0 3 3 2,727 2,719 682 6,128
145 7 12 0 3 3 0 4,975 0 4,975
146 131 151 0 58 58 0 60,809 0 60,809
147 14 1 0 6 6 0 0 0 0
148 2 5 0 1 1 0 2,010 0 2,010
149 23 21 0 10 10 0 8,417 0 8,417
150 416 84 147 37 184 0 25,624 0 25,624
151 61 60 11 16 27 0 23,801 0 23,801
152 145 8 64 0 64 0 0 0 0
153 36 2 16 0 16 0 0 0 0
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 384 458 0 170 170 147.478 0 36,869 164,347
156 29 37 0 13 13 12,006 0 3.002 15,008
157 149 178 0 66 66 57,171 0 14,293 71,464
158 34 52 0 15 15 0 21,323 0 21,323
159 86 26 0 38 38 0 8,751 0 8,751
160 301 17 0 133 133 0 0 0 0
161 79 4 0 35 35 0 0 0 0
162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 127 7 0 56 56 0 0 0 0
164 219 74 0 97 97 0 26,103 0 26,103
165 50 80 0 22 22 0 32,712 0 32,712
156 131 7 58 0 58 0 0 0 0
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 43 69 0 19 19 0 28,229 0 28,229
170 70 67 0 31 31 0 26,814 0 26,814
171 59 3 0 26 26 0 0 0 0
172 242 14 95 12 107 0 0 0 0
173 517 29 229 0 229 0 0 0 0
174 29 2 13 0 13 0 0 0 0
175 29 2 13 0 13 0 0 0 0
176 68 4 I 29 30 0 0 0 0
177 45 33 6 14 20 0 12,657 0 12,657
178 353 20 156 0 156 0 0 0 0
179 2 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0
180 43 2 19 0 19 0 0 0 0
181 38 2 17 0 17 0 0 0 0
182 27 2 12 0 12 0 0 0 0
183 64 5 37 0 37 0 0 0 0
164 41 2 18 0 18 0 0 0 0
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lg6 1,464 83 0 648 648 0 0 0 0
197 495 588 0 219 219 189,218 0 47,304 236.522
199 79 94 0 35 35 30,190 0 7,547 37.737
200 190 11 84 0 84 0 0 0 0
202 0 336 0 0 0 113,500 0 28,375 141,874
203 233 13 103 0 103 0 0 0 0
204 90 5 0 40 40 0 0 0 0
206 102 6 5 40 45 0 0 0 0
207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page C-4 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C' Growth Allocation by TAZ
Dwelling Units Built Space
TAZ New Pop New Emp SF MF Total DU Office Retail Other Total
211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 20,056 8,t77 3,993 4,883 8,876 t,772,839 761,279 443,210 2,977,327
Outside City Limit
1 41 0 18 0 18 0 0 0 0
7 2 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 23 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0
186 7 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
187 122 2 23 31 54 354 152 89 595
188 463 4 1 204 205 888 381 222 1,491
189 11 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
190 86 32 38 0 38 6,760 2,903 1,690 11,352
191 52 18 23 0 23 3,782 1,624 945 6,351
192 27 4 12 0 12 922 396 230 1,548
193 68 15 30 0 30 3,121 1,340 780 5,241
194 190 13 84 0 84 2,709 1,163 677 4,549
195 97 42 38 5 43 8,886 3,816 2,222 14,923
196 671 24 14 283 297 5,023 2,157 1,256 8,436
197 0 25 0 0 0 5,297 2,275 1,324 8,896
198 404 32 23 156 179 6,775 2,909 1,694 11,379
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 9 33 4 0 4 7,026 3,017 1,756 11,799
201 52 42 23 0 23 8,914 3,828 2,229 14,970
203 2 I 1 0 1 175 75 44 294
204 2 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0
205 404 49 23 156 179 10,455 4,489 2,614 17,558
206 68 84 30 0 30 17,731 7,614 4,433 29,777
207 34 28 15 0 15 6,003 2,578 1,501 10,081
208 70 17 31 0 31 3,520 1,511 880 5,911
209 0 I 0 0 0 311 133 78 522
210 25 16 11 0 11 3,425 1,471 856 5,752
211 52 0 23 0 23 0 0 0 0
212 104 0 46 0 46 0 0 0 0
213 50 73 22 0 22 15,521 6,665 3,880 26,066
214 34 6 15 0 15 1,215 522 304 2,040
215 115 0 51 0 51 0 0 0 0
216 36 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0
Total 3,322 562 635 835 t ,470 118,8t t 51,019 29,703 19~ ,632
Source ECONorthwest, 2000
Appendix C. Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-5
Table C-2. Growth Allocation by TAZ, 2000-2020
2000-2005
I 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
Inside City Limit
0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0I 11 1
2 62 13 62 13 94 19 94 19' 312 65
3 71 4 71 4 106 6 106 6 353 20
4 55 5 55 5 82 8 82 8 273 27
5 19 1i 19 I 29 2 29 2 97 5
6 80 8I 80 8 120 12 120 121 400 39
7 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2I 81 5
8 44 3 44 5 66 19 66 27, 221 54
9 53 12 53 12 79 18 79 181 264 59
10 27 2 27 2 40 2 40 2I 133 8
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 28 0 28 1 41 3 41 4 138 8
14 28 0 28 1 43 3 43 4 142 8
15 47 1 47 1 71 5 71 7 237 13
16 36 I 36 1 54 4 54 5 179 10
17 10 0 10 0 13 I 18 11 52 3
18 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 0I 2 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 54 2 54 4 81 14 81 20 271 41
21 6 0 6 0 9 I 9 1 29 2
22 37 1 37 1, 37 5 12 6 122 13
23 2 0 2 0I 3 0 3 0 11 1
24 0 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 16 0 16 0 24 2 24 2 81 5
26 23 6 23 12 35 43 35 61 115 121
27 179 11 179 11 268 16 268 16 895 53
28 162 9 162 9 243 14 243 14 809 46
29 2 2 2 2 3 5 4 8 11 17
30 13 0 13 0 13 1 4 1 43 2
31 58 4 58 4 58 14 19 18 194 40
32 31 1 31 1 46 3 46 4 164 9
33 29 2 29 3 43 12 43 17 145 34
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 6 4 6 4 8 11 11 19 32 38
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 9 0 9 0 11 1 16 I~ 45 3
38
21
1 21 1 32 2 32 3I 106 6
39 10 0 10 0 15 1 15 1 50 3
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 3 0 3 1 5 3 5 5 16 10
42 7 4 7 4 8 13 12 21 34 43
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 11 0 11 0 14 1 20 2 56 3
45 14 0 14 0 17 1 24 2 68 4
46 6 2 6 4 9 14 9 19 29 39
47 4 3 4 3 5 8 7 13 20 25
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 6 5 6 5 4 7 4 7 20 25
C-6 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-20t5 2016-2020 I Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp I Pop Emp
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0
52 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0I 0 0
53 11 0 11 0 14 I 20 2 56 3
54 36 29 36 29, 24 43 24 43 120 143
55 26 20 26 20I 17 31 17 31 86 102
56 11 9 11 9I 7 13 7 13 36 45
57 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 43 34 43 34 28 51 28 51 142 170
60 15 12 15 12 10 18 10 18 50 61
61 7 6 7 6 5 9 5 9 23 29
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 7 6 7 6 '5 10 5 10 25 32
65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 5 4 5 4 4 7 4 7 18 22
67 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 5 11 17
68 16 13 16 13 10 19 10 19 52 63
69 31 24 31 24 20 36 20 36 102 121
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 5 4 5 4 4 6 4 6 18 21
72 119 33 119 33 79 49 79 49 395 154
73 28 22 28 22 19 34 19 34 93 112
74 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 3
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 16 13J 16 13 11 20 11 20 54
67
78 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 1 3 I 3 I 2 2 0 5 7
80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 3 10 3 9 4 6 6 0 16 26
82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 5 7 5 6 7 4 9 0 27 17
86 54 16 54 32 81 113 81 162 271 323
87 0 0 0 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0
88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
89 18 0 11 I 4 I 4 0 36 2
90 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 249 6 149 10 50 10 50 6 497 31
93 28 1 28 2 19 I 19 1 95 5
94 93 4 93 6 62 3 62 3 310 17
95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix C: Growth AIIocahon by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-7
2000-2005 2006-2010 I 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop EmpI Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
102 20 22 20 54I 30 75 30 65 99 215
103 15 23 15 23I 19 23 26 23 75 90
104 3 6 3 6~ 4 6 6 6 16 23
105 24 64 24 64I 31 64 43 64 122 255
106 O 0 0 0[ 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 39 58 39 58 I 49 58 69 58. 197 233
108 27 41 27 411 33 41 47 411 133 163
109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 18 1 18 1 23 I 32 1' 90 5
111 61 91 61 91 77 91 108 91 307 366
112 8 13 8 13 10 13 14 13 41 52
113 I 0 I 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
114 36 3 36 3 45 3 63 3 181 10
115 56 83 56 83 70 83 98 83 280 334
116 27 34 27 29 18 21 18 0 90 84
117 33 39 33 34 22 24 22 0 111 98
118 16 8 16 7 11 5 11 0 54 21
119 26 2 26 2 18 1 18 0 88 5
120 27 2 27 2 18 1 18 0 90 5
121 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
122 5 16 5 14 6 10 9 0 25 40
123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 18 2 18 2 23 I 32 0 90 5
125 18 14 18 35 26 49 26 42 88 141
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 15 7 15 9 23 9; 23 4 77 29
128 66 5I 66 6 99 61
99
3
330
19
129 0 0I 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0
130 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0
131 30 32 30 79 45 1111 45 95 149 318
132 4 4 4 10 5 14i 5 12 18 40
133 0 6 0 5 0 4I 0 0 0 15
134 0 27 0 24 0 17I 0 0 0 68
135 5 12 5 10 4 7 4 0 18 30
136 0 48 0 42 0 30 0 0 0 121
137 16 16 16 19 24 19 24 9 79 63
138 5 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 25 1
139 203 14 203 17I 305 17 305 9 1,017 57
140 114 8 114 10I 171 10 171 5 569 32
141 0 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 0 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 I I 1 4I 2 5 2 4 7 15
145 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 0 7 12
146 39 61 39 53 26 38 26 0 131 151
147 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 14 1
148 I 2 1 2 0 I 0 0 2 5
149 7 8 7 7 5 5 5 0 23 21
t50 83 21 83 25 125 25 125 13 416 84
t51 12 15 12 18 18 18 18 9 61 60
152 29 2 29 2 43 2 43 I 145 8
153 7 1 7 1 11 1 11 0 36 2
C-8 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 I Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp~ Pop Emp
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I 0
0
155 154 46 115 46 77 137 38 229I 384 458
156 12 4 9 4 6 11 3 19 I 29 37
157 60 18 45 18 30 53 15 89I 149 178
158 10 21 10 18 7 13 7 0 ' 34 52
159 26 10 26 9 17 6 17 0 86 26
160 90 7 90 6 60 4 60 0 301 17
161 16 2 16 1 16 I 32 I 79 4
162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 25 2 25 2 25 1 51 I 127 7
164 88 15 66 15 44 22 22 22 219 74
165 20 16 15 16 10 24 5 24 50 80
166 26 2 26 2 39 2 39 1 131 7
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 9 24 9 21 9 14 17 10 43 69
170 28 13 21 13 14 20 7 20 70 67
171 24 I 18 1 12 I 6 I 59 3
172 97 3 73 3 46 4 24 4 242 14
173 207 6 155 6 103 9 52 9 517 29
174 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 I 29 2
175 6 0 7 0 7 0 9 1 29 2
176 14 0 17 0 17 1 20 2 68 4
177 18 7 14 7 9 10 5 10 45 33
178 71 2 88 2 88 6 106 10 353 20
179 0 0 1 0 i I 0 I 0 2 0
180 9 0 11 0 } 11 1 13 1 43 2
181 8 0 10 0 10 1 12 1 38 2
182 5 0 7 0 I 7 0 8 1 27 2
183 17 0 21 0I 21 I 25 2 64 5
184 8 0 10 0 10 1 12 I 41 2
190 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
196 439 8 439 29 293 29 293 17 1,464 83
197 148 59 148 206 99 206 99 118 495 588
199 24 9 24 33 16 33 16 19 79 94
200 95 I 57 I 19 3 19 5 190 11
202 0 34 0 34 0 101 0 168 0 336
203 116 I 70 I 23 4 23 7 233 13
204 45 1 27 I 9 2 9 3 90 5
206 51 1 31 1 10 2 10 3 102 6
207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 5,2t8 1,537 4,848 1,849 4,976 2,436 5,014 2,358 20,056 8,180
Outside City
Limit
1 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 41 0
7 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 2 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix C' Growth Allocation by TAZ ECONorthwest July 2000 Page C-9
2000-2005 I' 2006-2010 I 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total
TAZ Pop Emp Pop EmpI Pop Emp Pop Emp Pop Emp
185 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 23 0
186 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 0
187 31 0 31 0 31 0 31 0 122 2
188 116 I 116 1 116 I 116 1 463 4
189 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 11 0
190 21 8 21 8 21 8 21 8 86 32
191 13 4 13 4 13 4 13 4 52 18
192 7 I 7 1 7 I 7 1 27 4
193 17 4 17 4 17 4 17 4 68 15
194 47 3 47 3I 47 3 47 3 190 13
195 24 11 24 11 24 11 24 11 97 42
196 168 6 168 6 168 6 168 6 671 24
197 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 25
198 101 8 101 8 101 8 101 8 404 32
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 9 33
201 13 11 13 11 13 11 13 11 52 42
203 I 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 2 1
204 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0
205 101 12! 101 12 101 12 101 12 404 49
206
17
21
I 17 21 17 21 17 21 68 84
207 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 34 28
208 18 4I 18 4 18 4 18 4 70 17
209 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
210 6 4. 6 4 6 4 6 4 25 16
211 13 0I 13 0 13 0 13 0 52 0
212 26 0I 26 0 26 0 26 0 104 0
213 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18 50 73
214 8 I i 8 1 8 I 8 1 34 6
215 29 0' 29 0 29 0, 29 0 115 0
216 9 0, 9 0 9 0' 9 0
0
TOTAL 830 141I 830 141 J 830 141 ,I 830 14t 3,322 562
Source' ECONorthwest, 2000
C-10 ECONorthwest July 2000 Appendix C: Growth Allocation by TAZ
Appendix D Terms and Acronyms
Buildable Land - Vacant or partially vacant land (a developed tax lot that
has a large enough vacant remainder to permit additional development) that
is not constrained physically and has services available.
FAZ - These refer to the 219 PSRC Regional Forecast Analysis Zones
covering the Central Puget Sound Region.
GovlEdu - Government and Education.
FIRES - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services Sector.
Lands Suitable for Development (Buildable Lands) - Vacant or
redevelopable land that is: (a) designated for commercial, industrial, or
residential use; (b) not intended for public use; (c) not constrained by critical
areas in a way that limits development potential and makes new construction
unfeasible.
Manu - Manufacturing
PAA - Potential Annexation Area
PSRC - Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments
TAZ (City) - These refer to the 216 Transportation Analysis Zones that
cover the City and areas outside of the City (please refer to Map 1-1)
TAZ (PSRC) - These refer to the PSRC Transportation Analysis Zones
that are larger than the City TAZs
UGA - Urban Growth Area
Vacant Land - Land that has no structures. For the purposes of the City's
analysis, parcels with improvement values of $0 were classified vacant.
WCTU - Wholesale, Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Appendix D: TerMs and Acronyms ECONorthwest July 2000 Page D-1