The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 12-02-2003 RegularCity of Federal Way City Council Meeting AGENDA COUNCILMEMBERS Jeanne Burbidge, Mayor Jack Dovey Eric Faison Mary Gates Linda Kochmar Dean McColgan Mike Park CITY MANAGER David H. Moseley Office of the City Clerk December 2, 2003 AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers - City Hall December 2, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. (www. cityoffederalway, com) CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. IV. PRESENTATIONS a. SPIRIT Award/Month of December b. Introduction of New Employees/City Manager c. Emerging Issues/City Manager CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE COMPLETE THE PINK SLIP & PRESENT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. go Citizens may address City Council at this time. When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt citizen comments that continue too long, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been previously reviewed by a Council Committee of three members and brought before full Council for approval; all items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion. Minutes/November 18, 2003 Regular Meeting; and November 17, 2003 Special Meeting Vouchers Monthly Financial Report Council Bill #335/Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment -Enactment Ordinance Council Bill #336/Impound of Vehicles Code Amendment -Enactment Ordinance 2004 Right-of-Way Landscape Maintenance Contract/Authorization to Bid Over Please... VI. VII. VIII. IX. ao 14th Ave So & So 312th St Traffic Signal Project/100% Design Approval & Authorization to Bid 2004 Fee Schedule - Resolution CEO Magazine Publicity CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Annexation Area/Redondo East - Resolution Annexation Area/Brittany Lane Annexation Area/North Lake Police/Court Lease Extension Settlement Agreement & Covenant Re: Traffic Impacts with Lloyd Development Company CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT ADJOURNMENT ** THE COUNCIL MA Y ADD AND TAKE ACTION ON OTHER ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA ** THE COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL AND ALSO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE UNDER "NEW--FEDERAL WAY DOCUMENT LIBRARY" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Draft minutes of the City Council special meeting held on November 17, 2003; and regular meeting held on November 18, 2003. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Official City Council meeting minutes for permanent records pursuant to RCW requirements. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: n/a PROPOSED MOTION: I move approval of the minutes of the City Council special meeting held on November 17, 2003; and regular meeting held on November 18, 2003. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers - City Hall November 17, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. Minutes CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Burbidge called the special meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order at the hour of 4:10 p.m. CoUncilmembers present: Mayor Jeanne Burbidge, Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, and Councilmembers Jack Dovey, Eric Faison, Mary Gates and Linda Kochmar. Mayor Burbidge excused Councilmember Mike Park. City Staff present: City Manager David Moseley, City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Chris Green. II. NEW CITY HALL UPDATE Mayor Burbidge called on Assistant City Manager Derek Matheson to give a brief update; he then introduced Architect Dave Clark who presented a detailed layout of the new city hall offices and responded to Council questions. Councilmember Dovey expressed concern about moving forward with other items prior to making a decision regarding police evidence storage. Mr. Matheson then focused on options for future police evidence storage areas, followed by a lengthy Council discussion. MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLGAN TO EXTEND THE CURRENT EVIDENCE ROOM LEASE FOR ONE MORE YEAR COMMENCING JUNE 2004 TO JUNE 2005, AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON PROVIDING ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR A POLICE EVIDENCE ROOM IN THE WAY OF A PERMANENT CITY-OWNED BUILDING; SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOCHMAR. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Faison yes Gates yes Dovey yes Kochmar yes McColgan yes Park absent Federal Way City Council Special Meeting Minutes November 17, 2003 - Page 2 of 2 At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Burbidge recessed the special meeting to allow for a brief meeting of the Land Use/Transportation Committee regularly scheduled for 5:30 p.m., and announced the City Council special meeting would continue immediately following the committee meeting. Mayor Burbidge called the City Council special meeting back to order at the hour of 5:45 p.m. Discussion continued on the possible options for a police storage facility. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor Burbidge adjourned the special meeting at 6:10 p.m. N. Christine Green, CMC City Clerk FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers - City Hall November 18, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Minutes I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Burbidge called the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order at the hour of 7:05 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeanne Burbidge, Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, Councilmembers Jack Dovey, Eric Faison, Mary Gates, Linda Kochmar, and Mike Park. Staff present: City Manager David Moseley, City Attorney Pat Richardson, and City Clerk Chris Green. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Dovey led the flag salute. III. PRESENTATIONS a. Introduction of New Employees/City Manager City Manager David Moseley announced there were no new employees to introduce tonight. b. Emerging Issues/City Manager City Manager David Moseley noted there were no emerging issues to discuss tonight. IV. CITIZEN COMMENT Joann Piquette, encouraged all to attend Federal Way Coalition of the Performing Arts concert this Sunday. Bob Hitchcock, thanked the Council for the Tourism Grant awarded to Federal Way Festival Days; and thanked the City Manager and staff for such a successful year last year. Debbie Kaufman, thanked the Council' for retaining the Federal Way Mirror as the official paper of record. Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page2 of l l CONSENT AGENDA bo Co Minutes/November 4, 2003 Regular Meeting; and Special Meetings/Public Hearings on October 22 and 27, 2003 -Approved Council Bill//334/2004 Property Tax Levy -Enactment Ordinance- Approved Ordinance #03-454 Official Newspaper-Approved Tourism Grant Awards-Approved Benton County Jail Interlocal Agreement Addendum-Approved separately City/Federal Way School District Interlocal Agreement Amendment/School Resource Officers-Approved 2003-2004 Youth Commission Work Plan-Approved State Grant Acceptance/West Hylebos Boardwalk Replacement-Approved State Grant Acceptance/Historical Cabins Project-Approved Mid-Biennium Review of 2003-2004 Human Services Contracts-Approved Interlocal Agreement/Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP) - Approved COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED; COUNCILMEMBER GATES SECOND. Councilmember Kochmar pulled Consent Item (e)/Benton County Jail Interlocal Agreement Addendum. The main motion to approve Consent Agenda items (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (.j), and (k) passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes Item (e)/Benton County Jail Interlocal Agreement Addendum: Councilmember Kochmar noted representatives from Benton County contacted the city, and told staff that Benton County could not agree to extend the contract until December 31, 2006 while continuing to charge the same rate per bed. Benton County is, however willing to continue the same rate per bed through December 31, 2004. COUNCILMEMBER KOCHMAR MOVED APPROVAL AN AMENDMENT TO THE BENTON COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES TO EXTEND THE TERM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004; AND AUTHORIZE Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 3 of l l THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH AMENDMENT; DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLGAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS mo Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment (required hearing/pursuant to RCW 35A. 34) Mayor Burbidge read into the record the procedures to be followed for the Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment Public Hearing and opened the hearing at 7:17 p.m. Staff Report Management Services Director Iwen Wang gave a brief presentation to Council outlining the budget adjustment. · Citizen Comment Karolin Loendorf, a new resident of Federal Way, spoke on a variety of subjects, and offered her assistance wherever it could be needed. · City Council Discussion Council encouraged all citizens to shop in Federal Way for the upcoming holiday season! Hearing no further comments, Mayor Burbidge closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. b. Assessment Roll for Steel Lake Management District No. 1 Mayor Burbidge read into the record the procedures to be followed and opened the Assessment Roll for Steel Lake Management District No. 1 Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. · Staff Report Public Works Department ESA/NPDES Coordinator Leslie Ryan-Connelly made a brief presentation to Council. · Citizen Comment Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 4 of l l There was no public comment. · City Council Discussion · Approval/Confirmation of Assessment - Resolution #03-454 COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED TO APPROVE AND CONFIRM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR STEEL LAKE, AS REFLECTED IN EXItIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL; COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes Hearing no further comment, Mayor Burbidge closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. c. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Selection Process Mayor Burbidge read into record the procedures to be followed for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments selection process public hearing, and opened the hearing at 7:48 p.m. Staff Report Federal Way's Planning Consultant Janet Shull made a brief presentation to Council outlining the five site specific requests as follows: Site Specific Request #1/Trimble- a text amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family Low Density and Suburban Estates to Single Family Medium Density. Site Specific Request #2/Velasco- a text amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. Site Specific Request #3/Lee- a text amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family Medium Density to Single Family High Density. Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 5 of ll Site Specific Request #4/Kirk/Nelson- a text amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density to Multiple Family; and Site Specific Request #5 - a text amendment to change the 2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by deleting the planned extension to Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street. · Citizen Comment Doran Reano, spoke in opposition to Site Specific Request #1. Nicolas Sutton, spoke in opposition to Site Specific Request #1. Cheri Eir, spoke in opposition of Site Specific Request #1. Denny Holt, spoke on behalf of the owners, asked for further study of Site Specific Request #4. David Sommerville, spoke in opposition to Site Specific Request #1. Wally Costello, spoke in favor of Site Specific Request #5. William and Victoria Goodman (comments read into the record by City Clerk) asked for many questions to be answered before the approval of Site Specific Request #3. Alan and Suzy Akana (comments read into the record by City Clerk) noted opposition to Site Specific Request #2. Charles Byrne - spoke in opposition to Site Specific Request #1. David Thorstad, spoke in support of Site Specific Request #4. Pam Tollefsen, spoke in support of the staff decision to recommend no change to Site Specific Request #4. · City Council Discussion Council discussed each request with staff. Councilmember Gates asked to include bicycle lanes in Request #5; Mr. Costello noted an amendment would be included to add the bicycle lanes. · Action Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 6 of ll COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #1 FOR FURTHER STUDY; DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLGAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO NOT FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #2 FOR FURTHER STUDY; DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLGAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar no Dovey no McColgan yes Faison yes Park no Gates yes COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO NOT FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #3 FOR FURTHER STUDY; DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLGAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO NOT FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #4 FOR FURTHER STUDY; COUNCILMEMBER PARK SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar no Dovey no McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO FORWARD SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #5 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THE QUADRANT CORPORATION SHALL CONDUCT A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WOULD SHOW THAT BY ITSELF, CONSTRUCTION OF 32N~) AVENUE SOUTH (WHICH BORDERS THE SITE ON THE WEST), FROM SOUTH 320TM NORTHWARDS WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEYERHAEUSER WAY SOUTH EXTENSION WITH NO ADDED SYSTEM DELAYS; AND (2) THIS ANALYSIS SHALL BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 2003 IN Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 7 of l l ORDER NOT TO DELAY THE 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS; COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes There being no further discussion, Mayor Burbidge closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. VII. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS mo Acceptance of Preliminary Design for Community Center - Resolution- Approved Resolution #03-402 COUNCILMEMBER KOCHMAR MOVED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ' RESULTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND DIRECTING PROJECT TO PROCEED TO FINAL DESIGN; DEPUTY MAYOR MCCOLAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes Waiving Section 7B of Purchasing Policies for New City Hall Project- Resolution-Approved Resolution #03-403 COUNCILMEMBER PARK MOVED ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION WAIVING SECTION 7(B) OF THE PURCHASING POLICIES FOR THE CITY HALL PROJECT; COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes Co Approval of Findings & Conclusions of Law on Sound Transit Facility - Resolution - Approved Resolution #03-404 Councilmember Gates recused herself on this item, and left Council Chambers. Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 8 of ll Councilmember Faison noted he is amending the resolution to add the words "staff report" to Section 1 (g) of the proposed Resolution denying the appeal of the Hearing Examiner Decision File #03-05. COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION FILE #03-05, AS AMENDED, APPROVING THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRASIT AUTHORITY PROCESS IV APPLICATION TO SITE A CLASS I ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY; COUNCILMEMBER PARK SECOND. The motion passed 5-1 as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar no Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates recused Councilmember Gates returned to Chambers. VIII. INTRODUCTION ORDINANCES a. Council Bill #335/Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELAT1NG TO BUDGETS AND FINANCE, REVISING THE 2003-04 BIENNIAL BUDGET (AMENDS ORDINANCE NOS. 02~434 AND 03-441). COUNCILMEMBER PARK MOVED COUNCIL BILL #335/MID-BIENNIUM BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO SECOND READING/ADOPTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 2, 2003; COUNCILMEMBER GATES SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes b. Council Bill #336/Impound of Vehicles Code Amendment AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, CHAPTER 15 OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE--IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES DRIVEN BY SUSPENDED/ REVOKED DRIVERS (AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 01-393). Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 9 of l l COUNCILMEMBER KOCHMAR MOVED COUNCIL BILL#336flMPOUND OF VEHICLES CODE AMENDMENT TO SECOND READING/ADOPTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 2, 2003; COUNCILMEMBER GATES SECOND. The motion passed as £ollows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes IX. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Gates reported she would be attending the Transportation Improvement Board meeting where many important items effecting Federal Way, will be discussed. She noted she would be attending the ribbon cutting ceremony for Phase I on Thursday morning, and would be attending the Sound Transit Audit Committee on the 19th. She also thanked Kathy McClung and her staff on working to get Metropolitan Markets to Federal Way. Councilmember Kochmar also thanked staff for their work on Metropolitan Market, which will be located in the Dash Point Road/312th Street area. She encouraged everyone to attend the Multi Service Center's fundraiser, and reported on various holiday events in the community. Councilmember Park announced the next meeting of the Finance/Economic Development/Regional Affairs Committee would be held November 25th at 4:00 p.m. in the Mt. Baker Conference Room. Councilmember Dovey reported on his attendance at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Karl Grosch field. He noted over a hundred in attendance, and thanked the Committees and Commissions who worked on this project. Councilmember Faison reported on his attendance at a meeting with the Redondo Heights neighborhoods. He noted there were many in favor of the annexation and many businesses concerned over the city's sign code. He reported this item would soon come to the Land Use/Transportation Committee for further discussion. He also stated there was interest form the Applewood neighborhood in holding an informational meeting. He announced the next meeting of the Land Use/Transportation Committee would be held December 1 st at 5:30 p.m. Deputy Mayor McColgan reported on the Tourism Enhancement Grants, which were recently awarded. He noted the grants are distributed to organizations that bring events to the city, which promotes tourism. He encouraged anyone with such an event to apply for next years grant next spring. Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page 10 of l l Mayor Burbidge reported on her attendance at the South County Area Transportation Board meeting, where they will be discussing the Tri-Angle study, and noted she .will be attending the Reinvesting in Youth meeting. She noted the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Phase I will be Thursday, November 20th; and the SeaTac Mall, soon to be re-named will be hosting a re-development ceremony. She further reported on various community events in the performing arts, including holiday performances. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager David Moseley reported the permits have been issued to Metropolitan Market, a greatly welcomed new business coming to the Dash Point and 312th Street area. He thanked Kathy McClung, Greg Fewins, and Deb Barker on their hard work on this project. He reported that Advancing Leadership program would be at City Hall on Thursday for a government day; he welcomed all participants. Mr. Moseley announced the United Way campaign has wrapped up, and he was pleased to note co-chairs Kathy McClung and Patrick Briggs were awarded 2002-2003 Outstanding Campaign Employee Award by the King County United Way. He reminded Council, this years campaign set a record for donations, and thanked all staff that participated and donated to the campaign. City Manager David Moseley noted the holiday lights are going up in the downtown core along 320th and Hwy 99; the lights should all be up prior to the tree lighting ceremony on December 6th. Mr. Moseley recognized Community Development Departments Scott Sproul who has been taking classes, and recently passed the Plans Examiners Certification. He also reported Deputy City Clerk Stephanie Courtney has received certification as a Certified Municipal Clerk after three years of studies. He congratulated both staff members and noted his appreciation to them in working beyond the daily work hours to better themselves and the job they do for the city. He added that many cities are experiencing flooding due to the amounts of rain the region has received in the last few days. He reported Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich reported an increase in the Hylebos, but added it hasn't affected any homes or roadways at this point. He thanked the SWM division for all their hard work. City Manager David Moseley reported the city would be requesting a $4.6 million dollar grant from the State Transportation Improvement Board for Hwy 99 Phase III projegt. That amount would cover approximately 60% of the funds needed. Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 18, 2003 Page I1 of ll Mr. Moseley further reminded Council for the need for an executive session for the purpose of discussing Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); for approximately twenty minutes, with no action anticipated. COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED TO SUSPEND COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL MEETING TO CONTINUE PAST THE HOUR OF 10:00 P.M.; COUNCILMEMBER DOVEY SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge yes Kochmar yes Dovey yes McColgan yes Faison yes Park yes Gates yes At 9:55 p.m. Mayor Burbidge announced the Council would be recessing into Executive Session for the purposed of discussing Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for approximately twenty minutes with no action anticipated. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Council returned to Chambers at 10:10 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor Burbidge adjourned the regular meeting at 10:10 p.m. Stephanie Courtney, CMC Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: -~h~t, evnk~n-~57, 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: VOUCHERS CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER Amount Budgeted: Expenditure Amt:: Contingency Req'd: $3,012,043.31 $3,012,043.31 $ ATTACHMENTS: VOUCHER LIST SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: I, the underSigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claims are just and due obligations against the City of Federal Way, Washington~afi, ~ d th.~;.I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claims. MangL-~r~/tt~rvic~s ~ CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve attached vouchers pursuant to RCW 42,24 PROPOSED MOTION: I move approval of Vouchers. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELLOW TO BE COMPLETED B Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 05/10/2001 COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF Federal Way MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Via: Subject: November 1'9, 2003 Financel Economic Development & Regional Affairs Committee Tho Kraus, Finance Manager David Moseley, City Manager Vouchers Action Requested: Accept the vouchers and forward to the Next Council meeting for approval. C°mmittei M~bir I Committee Member k:\fin~acctspay\checkrun~nfr cover.doc ,r- 0 0 0 OOC~ O~ ~' ~" 0 0 0'~ ~' LO 0 0 0 i"- i~- 0 O~ 0 0 oo · = 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ WWW~ ~w~ WWW~ ~o ~zz~w ~ z ~ ~, zzz~ ~a~o~ ~ ~ ~ <<~ ~z~ ~ ooo~ ~~ ~~ ~oOU~W ~ ~ ~ a oooo oooooo a ~ a a a a ooo ooo ~ o~o ~ooo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~o~ ~ooo oo .... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~0 ~ cO 0 O~ ~ 0 0 ~0 0 0 {i) ~ 0 I~ v- 0 0 ~i 0 0 c~o ~ ~ c~ d 0 ,- c5 05 0 O~ ~i 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 I~ ~-- 0 0 ~ 0 0 00000 WWWW~ ooooo 0000000 0000000 ~00 00~ 0 000o0000000000 WWWWWWWWWW o ooo oooooooooo Z~ZZ~ZZZZZZZ ZZZ oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo 00~0~000~0~~0~ oo~ooooooo~o WW~WWWWWWW~ O0 0000000 zz~zzzzzzz~ 0000 O0000000 0000 O00 O0000 0 ~ 0 ~00 ~ 0 ~ ~00~0~00~00 -i'- I- Z LIJ ~> '1 0 0 cO 0 0 0') 0 00~ 0 00~0 0 00~' oooooo WWWWWW 000000 00000 O00 O000 000000000000 O~ ~0 ~0 ~ ~ 00~0 · ~ O0 ~ O~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ ..... WW ~W -- ~ 0000000 O0000 0000 O0000000 ~oo~~o~o~ ~ ~ ~ os~ooso~os9o 0 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0~0~0 > ~0~0 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 0 0 '0 0 0 ~ z 0 ~ Z 0~0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 ~0 ~0 L ~00000000 ~~~0~0000 ~O~<~q ~ ~0~~<<uu°°°m~ ~< ~ -. Z oo~ooo~o,~ g ~ ~ ~[oooov~< ~ oo oo~ ~ooo~ 000000000000000 0000000000 ~ ~ ~ 0000000000 000000000000000 ~ ~ 000~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~000 ~ 00~~~0 ~ 0~~0~000~ · ¢o© oo 0 LI.I > __ < 0 >" 0 C) ~~0~ ~~~0 0000000 O0 ~ 000000000o Z 0 0 Z 0 0 z I".-- I"... 0 0 0 0 ,.--> ~ 0 ~ 0 O0 0 O0 ~ 0 ~0 0 O0 0 O0 oooooooo o 0000000 O00 O0 0000000 O0000 0000~ O~ ~00 O0 WWWW~W WWWWWW~W WW WwwwOww~wwww~WW 0000<0000000~000 ~~o~oo~oo~o 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~00 ~ ~ ~'~ 0 ~ O0 ~ ~ O~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 ~ 0 0 / 0000000000000000000000000000000000 'l ~0 ~WWWW~ W ~~~OO~oo~~ wwwwwww < ~ ~0~~ ~ 0 0~00000~0~ ~ 0 0 000 0 000 0 ~ 00~ ~ ZZZZ o g~~ ~ ~oo ~~z--~ o ~w ~-~ ~ gooo 0 O000000 0 00 O0 0 0000000 0 0000 ~ ~00 ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 O0 0.0~000~ 0 oo~ .. ~WWWWWW~U ~0 oo g g g oooooooooo g ggg g g oo goo~ g g g oooooooooo g ~° ~° ~° ~° O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 000 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ w 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 o ~ w 0 0 ~ ~g~O~ 000000000 000000000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 I-- Z 0 0 0 / 0 ~ 0¢ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~10 m mmo~ o 0 0 ~ o m ~ 0 m 0 '~l ~ ~o~ o o o ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 00~~ <~<~ ~ ~ ~ ~<<< ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ooo~o~ ~ ~ ~oo°°¢¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 9 ~ 9 .... o~o ~o~ ~ ~ z ~<~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ~ '' ~0~0 ~0 ~ 0 Z Z ~ o ~¢~ ~ ~ ~°~ ~o_~ z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ o o o o o 0 0 g 0 0 0 ~°oo ooo 0 0 0 0 0 ...... ~ ~ g ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 '~ 0 ~ 0 '~ 0 '~ 0 '~ 0 ~ 0 '~ 0 '~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ .. >~>~> ~>~9> > > > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o o o o o o o o ~ ~ OI ~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 (D 0 ~ o v- ~1"0 "¢1' ~'-0 O0 000 ~ ~0 0 ~ z ~ ~ o - 00000 ~ 000 0 0 O0000 0 000 0 0 O0 O00000 0 000 0 000 00~0 0 ~0 0 ~0 ~~ ~ 00~ ~ 00~ 0000 000~ 0 0 0 0 f~ ~ z m z ~ w ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ -- 0 D Z Z 0 Z ~ 0 D ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 < z w w ~ ~ z ~ ~ < w 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0 ~-- (00 ~0 0 ~0 LO 0 ~0 0 OCO 0 0,t0 0 00~ 0 00(~ c5 do~ w> w ~ 0 ~ ~ w w ~ oogR~ R~~ ~ < ~ - o ,~ 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 000 0000000000000000 0 0 0 O0 ~0~0~0~ 0~000~ ~ ~ ~ 0~0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 ~< ~ i ~°°°<°<~°<°~°°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ www'~~ ~ oooooooooooooooo o ~ ~ ~ ~ oooo ....... ~~o~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ o~o~ ~ ~ 0 ~0 O0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ I- Z ILl ~ 0 Z ~Z ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 LO ~0 ~ Z Z ~ ~ Z 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ W ~ -- - ~z z w ~ Z W 0 ~ ~ ~ m 0 < W ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ § § § § §o > > > > > 0 ~0 0 ~ ~ O~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~0~ 0~0~ ~~ ~0~z ~w oooo~ o-~ ~ >>>>~ ~o ~ ~o ~ ooooeo pp~ ~~ 000~ ~ oooooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo~ o z ooo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 5 z z o ~ o ~ ~ ~ N o - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z oo ooooo 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~>~>~>~>~> ~> > ~>~> > > > LO ~1 (0 0 0 0 0 CO ~- >>>>>>>>>>~ ZZZZZZZZZZ~ WWWWWWWW~W~ IIIIIIIIII~ WWW~WWWWWW~ 00000000000 0 w 0 0 CO ~-- 0 ~ ~Z 0 z D WDW o 0 000 0 000 w ~0 ~0 ~0 ~ ~ uJ o J "' < &ch&& n n 03 03 03030) 03 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 00~ ~00 0000000 0000000 ~ooo~ mmm o~oo~ ooo mm ooo 0~ ~ 000 0 O000 O000000 0 O00 O00000 O0 0 O0 000 0 WWWWWW 000000 00000 00000 ~ 000 ~0~~0~~~ 000000000~0000~0 0000 O00 O0 ~ ~ 0000~0 ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ wwwwwwwowww ooooooo~ooo O00000000 O0 00000000000 000 O0 O000~ 0 000000000~0 (,DO ~oooo~ooo ~oooo ooo~ 99999999 0000000000 000~00 ~ oo~ ~ oo ~ o° $~~o o o o oo ~$~ ~ o WWW~W~ WWZ ~ 00000 O0 O0 O0000000000 ~ 0 000000000000 O00000 O00 0 o~o~~~~~ooooo ~ ~ co n~ Z o o z > i 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 O~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ iI~ ~ o~o~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ooooO~ooo~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¥ ~ ~0 ~ 000000 000 ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooo ~ ~ ~ ~ 8oo~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~o~ooo~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ooo ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 8~ o o ~~~o°~ o°~o°~~~~ ~0 ~ 0 ~0 o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~%~ % o% o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ ~ ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 ~ o~ o~ oo o o oo oo o~ oo oo o~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 O0 0 ~ ~0 ~ 0 ~ 0 l° ~~ ~o ooo~ g ~o ~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~0~ ~0 ~ 00~ o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~ ~ ~ o o~ ~~ o~z~ ~ ~ ~ 5 -- w~ ~ ~ZO ~ z~ ~<~ ~ 0~ ~ ~Z ~Z~ ~ ~o ~ ~&~~ ~ Ow~~~~ o~o ~/°°° ~ ~¢o~ ~ o¢~~~~*~o~°°° ooo ~ ~ ~ ooo · 000 . 000 000 ~ ooo ~ ~ ooo ooo ~ ~ ooo ~ ~ ~ ooo ...... o ~o o~ ~ ~ ~ ooo ~o ~o ~ ~ ~o 0~0 ~ · 00~ ~~>~>~> ~~oo ~ ~~ ~ g zz~ 0~00~ ~1 ~ ~~~ ~ *' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 00000000~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~00000000 ~ ~ 000~0~0~000 ~ 000~000~ O0 ~~~~----------~~0000000000 ..... .~ .~ 0~ ~ 0000~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 00~ 0000 Z 0 0 0 m ~ 5 o 0 ~ _ 0 ~ ~ z 0 Z ~ ~ 0 0 w o ~ < Z o uJ -J W u_ ~ 0 0 0 ~ LU [~ -- z 0 I.- n~ I- 0 z ~ co 0 "f '"' ~: < 0 0 0 ~ J 0 I-- 0 j ,0 I.- 0 <( o o ~. -r' -r~ ~z ,'7 ~ -- 0 W 0 m < < Z ~ z z 0 ~ o_ n o_ 03 CO CO t"O CO CO t"O CO 0 ~:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L: 0 i-: 0 L: 0 iJ 0 L: 0 t' 0 i' 0 ,-§,-g,-§,-g,- o= '-§¢§,- ,- o ,- > ,-- > ,- > ,- > ,-- > ,- >,- >,- > I'~ I'-- I'-- 1'-- I'-.- I'-- I~. ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00~ ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~00~~ 0~0~~ 00~ IUo~z~u ~ mw ~ zzzzz>~ ~wo0000~ ~ ~~ WWwwwOz~ IE~~E ~ ~o=~===j oow ..... z~ IO ~o~ .... ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~~ o, .~lJJJJJ~O ~ ~00000~ LL~ ........ ~ ? ooooo~ 00000000 000000 O0 000 ~0000000 ~ ooooooo ~ oooooooo ooo ~ oooooooo ~ 0 ~00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 000 ~ ~ O0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ 00000~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~o~o ~ ooooo ~ 0~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O0 ~ 00~~ ~00000~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o ~ z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ m ~ o w ~ o ~ h 0° 0~0~ m ~ m~m~ ~~ ~ ~o~ 0 0 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .L: 0 L.: 0 L..: 0 ~' 0 0 0 0 L.: 0 L.: a-- ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~o~~~ ~ o~oo~ ~ ~00~0~ I W W~ W ~~~W~ ~zz~w~,~,~,~ ~w ~ wwwwwww~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ZZZZZZZ~ wwwwwwwW~ ~ , ,oo~P~ ~ oooooooww ~ 00000000 O00 000 0 00 O00 O0 O0 ~ o ~ ooooooooooo ooo o ooooooooo ~ ~ ~ ~oo~oo~ ~oo o o~oo~o~o ~ 0 O~ 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ ~0. 0~ ~ ~00~0~0~ W 0 W r~ w ~. Z ~ f./) ::Z: fO >- _ w {/~ -- 0 z 0 <~ uJ LU > W -- ~ -- ~ 0 ~ ,,, o < j _ w ~ ~: ~ < Z I:Z::~ IZ w 0 1.1 IJJ C} Z IL 0 LO LO LO LO i.~ 0 ~'- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L: 0 0 u_ (.9 n 0 ii_ fO uJ ILl 0 0 z z §-'= §¢§ o >,- ,- >,- >,- > 0 ~'- C~ CO 0~00~ 000000 000000 000000 OO4 0 ~,o oooooo ~ ~ ~ ooo~®~oo~o ooo · ~ ~ ~ oooo~o ooo~~~o ooo ~ ~zzz~ wwo ~ ~~w ~ z~~o~~ WWw ~ ooo. o~ ~ ~ ~ ~wwww~~ ~w ~wwww~~ zz~ ~ ~ >>>3>z~~ ~ ~ W o~o~~oooo~ ~> ~~~oooo~ ~ ~ ~ 000~0~ ~ ~ x~x~~~m ooo u o ~o~ ~ ~ ~~~oooo~ O00000 000000000000 O00 ~ 0 ~ 000000 ~~ ~ ~ ~ oooooooooooo ooo 0 ~ ~0~ ~o~ O0 oo ~ ~ ~ o ~ o 5 ~ o o - ~ o W 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~~0~~~ 0 ~ 0~ ~0 ~1 § o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 § ~..~..~.. ~ ~~..~.. ~.. ~.. ~~o '-~u. ~ 0 ~ O~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~1 o ~ oooooo~ o ~o~ oo~ ~ ~ o° ~ '~1 ~ ~ oooooo~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~o~d~ ~ o~o~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ 0 ~ ~ ~ WW~WWW- ~ z ~ ~~~ ~ w~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~~w ~ ~u ~ ~ ~ - oo ZZZZZZ~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~ o~ ~ =l~ ~ oooooo~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ oo 0 O0 00000 O0 0 000 000 '~ 0 O0 ~1o o ooooooo o ooo ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >1~ o ...... ~ ~ ~oo ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo _ ~ ~ D ~ D o oo i ~ ~ ~~0 0 000 00~ ~ 000000~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o1~ o ~"~~ " ~o~ oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w z ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ z < 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 o o o o o o o o o~~~o~o~ ~ ~, 0 L 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 L 0 ~ 0 I ~ I ~ O~ O~ 0 ~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ 0~.0~ 0 o3O ('0 0 0 >>>>~>>>>>>>>>>>>> zzzzOzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz WWW~W~W~WW~WWW~W~WW 000000000000000000000 00000000 O000000000000 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 000'0 0 000000000 0 000000000 0 000000 O~ 0 = & ~ ~ 0 I~ z z 0 0 z o z z ~ ~ ~ D 0 z ~ z 0 0 0 ~ o ~ Z ~ 0 ~ ~ zz ~ d~o<~_ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~o 0 0 -- ~Z ~zzz ~ ~W>>>>>>>>>>.>>>>>>z ~ooo~ ~ ~WWWWWWW~WWWWW~W~ oooo 8 '- ................ ooooooooooooooooooo 000000 ~00~0~0000~0~ ~00 ~ 0000~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 O0000 O000000~ 00 O0 < o >- Z W LI.I I-- <( <( z z o~ ~ (D w ~ _4 n- (D w 0 0~ - z w LU ~/) UJ n LLI _ ,,, ~.. n X '~' w 0 0 0 n ~ z z n n n n LLI LLI UJ ~ooo~oooooo~ooo~o m g > g g g g g o© g g g ~-o~ ~>~> ~ >~ >,- >~ >,- >,- >,- CO 0 LO~ 0 0 040 0 (X:) 0 04 0 CO 0 I~ CO 04 UO ~0 0 0 ~-- 0 I~ 0 ~ 0 ~0~ 0 000~0 0 ~ 0 ~ 00000 ~ o ~~ ~ ~o~~o o ~ o ~ 0~~ ~ z w z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ w ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 < ~ o z ~ ~ 0 ~ U>U>U> U>U>U>U> U>U>U>U>U>U 0 O~ -5 § -i i O0 ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ 0 0 O0 ~0 0 ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o ~ o~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~1000000 O~ ~ ~ ~0 ~0 ~ ~ ~0 I0~0~ iwwww ~ ~wW~ ~ ~>~w ~ ~ ~ z Izzzz~o ~ ~o~ ~~ I ~~Z ~ ~ ~ ~o ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W , ~ ' ' ~ ' , ,~1 , , , , , ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~,oooooo E E E E Eoooo 0000 000000 =ioooooo oooo oooooo ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E oooo I~~00 I z ~ , .~ ~~r~ ~0~ , ~ z ~ D D ~ ~ ~ o · ,o o~ ~Oo 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 I ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ · -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~0 ~wwwwwmmmo w ~ 00 O0 O0 O0 O0 oooooooooo ~ ~ ~ ~o~oo~~ 0 ~ 000000 O0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ w _ 0 -- ~ ~ z _ ~ W ~ ~ ~ Z ~ w 0 w 0 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 ~o~~oo~oo~~o ~¢oo¢ooo¢ooo~¢ooo 00000000000000000 00 O0000 O000000000 0~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~uO0 ~ oooo w o o o o g g g g g ~~ ~ 0 ~00~0 ~ 0 ~ ~ o 0000~ ~ 0000~ ~ o 0 m ~ < < z ~ ~ ~ ~,o o o g g o o o ~ g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~0 ~ ~=°~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o _o~ ~ o~ o ~ O~ 0 ~ O~ 0 'l ;I P~ 0 ~-- 0 ~~ 0 ~ooowwwwwwO 000 0000~~~ 0 O0000000 O0 000000000 O0 ~~0~~00 O0 ~~000~00~ < w z z cO 0 0 0 {' 0 x-"- 0 ;. (D 0 0 r~ IJJ ,-J o o O30O00 IJJ Z 0 0 (33 0 0 0 1.1.1 o o I'-- ,-0 ......... ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ==~? ooo~ mmm z ~ oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ooo~ 00000 ~ o g g oooo ooo oo ooooo oooo ooo g g ~ ~ g g oo g, ~ g ~ ~ g ~ oo g g ~o~ ~ oo~ ~ ~ O0 ~ ~ <<<~ ~Z ~b ~0© 0~0~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ gg Oo o° o° o° g ~ E ~ ~ ~ . o o oo ooO oo o. o · o o o~o~° o°~o° ~o°g~g~~~"~ ~0 ~ 0 .. [ ~ o~ o ~ o~ o ~ o~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ = ~IR ~ go o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ o o ooo o 03O u')~- 0 0('~1 Cxl O3 0 cO(O (~ 0 ~0~0 0 z z D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0~0 000 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0~ ~~0~0~ ~0~~0 o < n- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z (/) (/) Z O O W D ~ ~" I~ ~-, o -J O ~ T ('3 (D n 03 LU ~ Z 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ w ~-- ~ ~ 0 w w w Z (/) o uJ <~ (9 (.9 I-- z z z 0 Z Z n ~ n n (3 0 n n ~. w z w w 0 uJ w w n n n n ~ z -r n- n' 0c 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 O O O O .. ~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~>~> ~>~>~>~>~> -- ~ ~WWW~W~WWWWWUUUz >>>>>>>>>>>>>ooo< ~ m ~ ~ ~_ mm 0000000000000 ' , ~ U · ooooooooooooooooo ,o o g g ~ 000 O0 ~ ~ ~ ooooooooooooooooo o o o ~°°° ~ ~m ~~ooo~o=~ooo~ o ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~0~ 0 O0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OOg m 0 ~ o o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0 ~o o o g o o o o o o o o g o o g g ~ ~ 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 0 0 MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 ITEM// CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: October 2003 Monthly Financial Report CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: October 2003 Monthly Financial Report SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Was reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee .during their November 25th meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move for the approval of the October 2003 Monthly Financial Report." CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DEmED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Via: Subject: November 17, 2003 Finance, Economic Development & Regional Affairs Committee Tho Kraus, Finance Manager David Moseley, City Manager October 2003 Monthly Finr cial Report Action Requested: Accept the October 2003 Monthly Financial Report and forward to the December 2"d Council meeting for full Council approval. APPROVAL OF~:'COM~ITxE'EACTION: Com'mifte~'Chair ' 7' .c0niifiiit~e Member K:~FIN~Vl FRX&,I FRFE DRACCV R. DOC J-I ct'ri Federal Way October 2003 ?¢lonthly 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, Street, Arterial Street, Utility Tax Projects, Solid Waste Recycling, Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax, Paths & Trails, Surface Water Management, Debt Service, and Dumas Bay Center/Knutzen Family Theatre Operations. The Summary of Sources and Uses (Attachment A) captures financial activity through October for the years 1998 through 2003. ~ 3~.0 -- 0 -_- 30.0 ~ 25.0 · REVE~JES -I- E)(PEhDITURES : Supreme Court Upholds 1-776 On October 30th, the state Supreme Court reversed King County Superior Court's decision and upheld the constitutionality of Initiative 776. The initiative which passed in November 2002 repealed the $15 annual local vehicle licensing fee imposed in 4 counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish & Douglas) as well as Sound Transit's 0.3% motor vehicle excise tax. The state Supreme Court found that the initiative did not violate the state's "single-subject role" and did not illegally violate King County's bond contracts. Lqsing the $15 fee will cost King County and its cities and estimated $218M over 10 years, according to estimates by the state Office of Financial Management. Pierce and Snohomish County will each lose about $80M. King and Pierce counties continued collecting the fee despite 1-776, while Snohomish and Douglas stopped. The Department of Licensing is beginning the process of refunding about $13.3M to King County motorists and $5.6M to vehicle owners in Pierce County. The impact to Federal Way's is about $750K annually in 2003 and 2004. General governmental operating revenue collections through o October total $37.5M which is $205K or 0.5 V, below the ytd budget of $37.72M. Of this amount, $178K is related to Utility taxes and REET that are reserved for the payment of debt services. REVENUE SUMMARY BY MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES Period Ending October 31, 2003 (In Thousands) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::~:~:R~!~d~."'~¢~-._.~_ ::::~¢ai~:: :::::::~riah~:::::' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i::::::::::::::: :::::::~=~h~:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::2o~:::. .::::::::::::::: ::'J'h~0~0~: :::~?i~[~: :.:-IUrif~c~e):.: =============================== :::~9~::: :::.~,~,~i!:: :::0~i: :::~: ::::::$::::: ::::::'/.::: Property Taxes $ 5,680 $ 7,777 $ 6,164 $ 6,164 00~ Sales Tax 8,964 11.000 9,114 8,763 (351) -3.9~ Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 101 134 108 120 12 11.3o/< Cdminal Justice Sales Tax 1,324 1.611 1,331 1.320 (11) -0.80/< Intergovernmental 3,001 3,346 2,822 2,437 (385) -13,6'/< Real Estate Excise Tax 1,982 1,900 1.605 2,488 883 55.0oA Gambling Taxes 1,685 1.850 1,530 1,616 86 5.6°/< Utility Taxes 5.210 7,748 6,465 5,760 (705) -10.9°/< Court Revenue 851 1,019 801 1,007 206 25.7°4 Building Permits/Fees-CD 1,271 1,180 1,024 1,096 73 7.1% Expedited Review Fees-CD 73 156 156 0.0°A ROW Permits/Fees-PW 241 369 304 300 (5) -1.6°A Expedited Review Fees-PW 45 27 27 0.0o/< Licenses 92 142 9t 59 (32) -35.1~ Franchise Fees 617 622 620 672 52 8.4% Passport Agency Fees 20 20 n/~ Recreation Fees 562 930 535 625 90 1680A Dumas Bay Centre 447 494 418 408 (10) -2,4°/< Knutzen Family Theatre 65 70 53 97 43 81 9% interest Earnings 377 744 605 424 (181) -298% Admin/Cash Mgmt Fees 395 527 439 439 (0) 00% SWM Fees 2,307 3,433 2,548 2,510 (38) -15°/< Refuse Coilention Fees 161 165 163 163 0 00% Police S er~,ices 571 926 731 754 24 3.3% Miscellaneous/Other 104 I 98 72 94 22 00% Subtdt~l:Ol~e}'Rbg~du~:-:.: :-:.:36.:126: :.'.:4~6;0:8~: :.:-:$7;72~/: :.:.:.3-7;518:,-:.:{205 :.:.:-0;5~/. Other Financing Sources 4,532 I 16,056 14,005 14,005 - 0.0% ================================= ~:::iO.6r~:I:S:::~;~i~: :~:::~i;~: :~:::~;r~: :$::~0~: :::::~;~/, Real Estate Excise Tax REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX REVENUE~ Year. to-da~ Ibm Oct~ Month I Actual ' J Budget ' Actual } $ Var % Var Jan $ 114,439 $ 125,916 $ 307.354 $ 181,438 144.1'4 Feb 112,868 I 81,200 346,828 265,628 327.1°/, Mar 247,357 i 126'433 129,g42I 3,509 O.OOA Apr 152,735 I 136,296 193,685 57,389 400'/, May 329,252I, 167,280 196,095 28,815 20.0°/, Jun 255,814 186,111 219,314 I 33,203 20.0°/, Jul__ __ 16~2,739 204,995 271,561 66,56630.0*/, Aug 263,742 193,513 262,023 68,510 40.0°/< Sap 132,484 192,052 349,883 157,831 80.0°/, Oct 210,334 191,291 211,217 19,926 10.0°/< NOV 116,037 122,230 Dec 419,672[ 172,683 Y'fD Total' S I 981 7S4 I S 1,~,0~17 S~:': 2.4~r,g02': .... " ;.:.~i.:'.;.::'~:~ ::......:... ' '~fiii~i · · · ': ~.::..' ':'::': ':'..::'].:.';;::~.::!'~' ~...'~J~ .".::.,'..,,;.;i':'"'. :..,': '.. .:,o~..t s '.::: '"~s~7;4781 $ O00.ooo. ..::.'".....:;. ::'=...,.¢;. !....4;~:.::~-.¢4::,· ...... .. ' To date, REET of $2.5M exceed the ytd budget of $1.6M by $883K or 55%. Compared to 2002, collections are up $506K or 26%. October's receipt of $211K is $20K above the monthly estimate The largest transactions in the current month consist of the sale of a single fam/ly residence, the Pacific Retail Center Building located at 33002 Pacific City of Federal Way Highway South, and the Evergreen Lodge, a nursing home located at 31002 14th Ave South. Sales Tax Sales tax received through October of $8.8M is $351K or 3.9% below the ytd budgeted amount of $9.1M. 2003 ytd revenue of $8.8M is also below October 2002 ytd revenue of $9M by $201K or 2.2%. The current month's receipt of $873K is below the monthly estimate of $919K by $47K or 5.1%. LOCAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUES Year-to.date thru October I2002 : 2003 i 2003 Bdgt Chg Jan $ '" 860,153~_$ 832,623 $ 822,996 $ (9,627) -1.2% Feb 1,234,151J~ 1,226,870 1,185,480 I (41'391) -3.4°/~ Mar 750,503 I 838,199 735,211 , (102,988) -12.3% Apr 730,253 758,811 745,691 (13,120) -1.7% May 911,658 912~738 ! 874,035 {38,703 4.2% Jun 792,402 851,533 789,466 (62,067 -7.3% Jul 840,945 842,437 833,909 (8,528 -1.0%0 Aug 1,010,404 960,618 963,561 2,943 0.3% Sep 935,760 970,696 939,487 (31,209 -3.2% Oct 8~97,820 919,426 872,821 (46,605 -5 1% Nov . 938.959 . 95!.476 i ' - 0 0~ De_c . ~ 6Z..0..23.8. .... 92:~.~96 - -' ' ' ~*~'~ *~m-' ' '[ - ~'! '~ ' '-'~---' *Budget is projected based on past 5 year's history Sales Tax by SIC Code Retail Trade $ 5,617,384 $ 5,654,305 $ 36,9211 0,7% Services 1,123,550 1,164,003 40,453 3.6% ConstmOdContract 964,393 840,778 (123,615 -12.8% Wholesaling ___ 452,536 3,90,304 (62,232 -13.8% Transp/Comm/Utility 327,897 349,803 21,907 6.7o/, Venufactudng 153,270 90,479 (62,792) -41.0°/, 3overnment 149,155 81,114 (68,042) -45.6oA --iWlns/Real Estate 100,007 123,336 23,329 23.3oA Other 75,857 68,535 (7,322) -9.7oA :':."':"~:.'"~i~:¥(~M~.'. "I $ s,~t,04~ $ a, zs2,ss'r:.::.$, (2e!;~_'~_,t .' :' '-2.2,~. Retail sales continue to remain the largest source of sales tax revenue, accounting for 65% of all sales tax collections. Ytd retail sales tax collection is $37K or .7% above ytd 2002. Retail automotive/gas, building materials, eating & drinking, furniture and general merchandise are up while food stores and miscellaneous retail trade are down. Services industry accounts for 13% of the total sales tax collections through October. On ytd basis, services sales tax is up $40K or 3.6% compared to ytd 2002. The increase is mainly due to new installations at one of the major amusement facilities and increase activities in Auto Repair. The increase hotels/motel lodging tax activity is also contributing to the increase in ytd sales tax collections. Construction and contracting activity, which accounts for 10% of sales tax collections, is $124K or 12.8% below ytd October 2003 MonthIF Financial Report 2002's activity. This is consistent with the trend in building permits in 2003 compared to 2002. Wholesale tax which accounts for about 5% of total sales tax collections, is $62K or 13.8% below year 2002's activity due to overall decline in activity. Manufacturing sales tax is down $63K or 41% compared to 2002 due mainly to one-time medical equipment installation that occurred in 2002. SALES TAX ACTIVITY BY SIC CODE YTD Through October 2003 Sales Tax Activity by Area The City's largest retail center, South 348th, which generates over 13% of the City's sales tax experienced a decrease of $11K or .9% when compared to the year 2002. Retail building materials and eating & drinking are up, but are more than offset by declines in retail furniture, wholesale durable goods and retail apparel & accessories. SeaTac Mall is showing a decrease of $59K or 8% compared to year 2002 activity. On a monthly basis, tax received in current month is relatively similar to October 2002. The year-to-date tax from the Mall's department stores, which CitF of Federal Way October 2003 Monthly Financial Report generate more than one-half of the Mall's sales tax, has decreased $43K or 10% compared to 2002. Major Auto Sales through October have collected $401K, which is $26K or 7% above the same period in 2002. S 312th to S316th is up $22K or 5% from the prior year. The increase is attributable to a $27K increase bY the center's biggest box retailer that is offset by $5K net decrease from the other retailers in the center. Pavilion Center is down $28K, or 7.3% due to the downward trend in the retail industry. The center is experiencing across the board decline in activities and is mainly attributed to the center's biggest contributor. Hotels & Motels sales tax collected through October total $110K, which is $16K or 17% above the same period in 2002. The increase is mainly attributed to timing differences in returns filed by one major hotel, increasing activities at another hotel, and a new hotel opening in August 2002. Sales Tax By Area Thru October 2003 S 312th tO S 316th Pavilion Center Hotels & Motels 52% 4.~% 1.3% Major Auto Sales 4.8% ~ 8.1% S 348th Retail Block 13.9% AJ~ C~hers 62,9% Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Hotel/Motel lodging tax collections through October total $120K, which is $12K or 11% above the year-to-date budget of $108K. The increase is mainly attributable to timing differences in returns filed by one major hotel, increasing activities at another hotel, and a new hotel opened August 2002. '.. '* HO TEUMO TEL LODGING TAX REVENUES Year-to-date thru October il 2002 I 2003 I 2003 Budget Change MonthI Actual ! Budget * I Actual I $ % Jan 7,374 7,952 8,122 170 2.1% Feb 8,359 8,105 12,316 4,211 52.0% Mar 6,072 9,017 12,153 3,136 34.8% Apr 7,769 9,031 11,436 2,405 26.65 May 8,491 11,087 11,449 362 3.35 _ Jun 8,938 9,282 9,109 _ (173) -1.9% Jul 13,751 11,276 12,110 834 7.4~ Aug 12,915 11,988 12,608 620 5.2°/ Sep 13,802 15,530 15,666 136 0.9°/ Oct 13,479 14,433 14,949 516 3.6°/ Nov 13,367 12,516 Dec 14,982 13,783 i~T~al ' . 100,950 107,701 "119,~18 ' ' .... 12,217 : 11.3% .?rand:Total'. $ 129,299: $ 134,000 ..'. '~ ' Table reflects cash basis accounting Gambling Tax Gambling tax collection of $1.62M is $86K or 5.6% above the year-to-date budget of $1.53M. In comparison to 2002 year-to-date collections, 2003's tax collection is lower by $70K or 4.1%. October's collection of $158K is $6K or 3.8% below the monthly budget estimate of $164K. GAMBLING TAX REVENUE YTD Through October 2003 i2003 Bd~t Chg Month 2002 Bud~let Actual $ i % Jan $210,579 156,005 $159,323 $ 3,318 2.1% Feb 212,309 151,800 152,943 1,143 0.8% Mar 175,62~5 144,863 160,415 15,552 '10.7% Apr 189,533 177,474 176,029 (1,445) = -0.8% May 167,112 167,198 184,574 27,376 117.4% Jun 161,592 156,862 160,030 3,168 2.0% Jul 142,814 150,802 167,736 16,934 11.2°~ Aug 150,984 129,820 143,130 13,310 10.3% Sep 139,851 140,427 153,398 12,971 9.2% Oct 134,904 164,430 158,147 (6,283) -3.8% Nov 119,265 160,735 Dec 121,874 159,584 YTD Total 1,685,304 1,529,68t 1,615;727 86,046 J 5.6% Grand Total 1,926,443 1,850,000 · '.. ~ Utility Tax The utility tax rate increased from 5% to 6% effective February 1, 2003. The additional 1% was adopted by Council to fund new service level adjustments and is budgeted to yield an additional $1.25M. However, at this time we do not anticipate meeting budget projections due to the leveling off of utility tax, 2002's actual falling short of meeting year-end projection, and the 1% increase not taking effect until February 1 Council also approved an ordinance earlier this year that would provide utility tax relief for low income seniors. The ordinance would relieve the full 6% of the utility tax to eligible citizens through a City administered "rebate" program. The first requests for reimbursement of paid 2003 (February through December) utility taxes will be due no later than April 30, 2004. Year-to-dale ~ Jan $ 568,968 $ 589,3801 $ 519,CB2 I $ (70.298) -11.9% Feb 564,764 606,657 541,210 (65,447) -10.8% Mar 602,121 754,627 602,9~2 (151,645) -20.1% Apr 620,964 802,356 673,457 (128,899) -16.1% May 567,810 714,206 684,910 (29,296) -4.1% Jun 492,725 611,569 563,872 (47,697) -7.~/~ Jul 442,319 597,220 540,460 (56,760) -9.5% Aug 429,790 561,747 521,251 (40,496) -7.2°/ Se~ 429,090 573,957 540,705 (33,252) -5.8°/ Oct z~1,552 652,859 571,949 (80,909) -12.4o/ · . I '" ..... ':" .... ' ....... '.:"" .... " .' ;) i ii ;:'"" '"/:::'"::::':::'L .... Cit~ of Federal WaF Utility tax received through October totals $5.76M, which is $705K or 11% below the ytd budget total of $6.46M. The ytd thru October 2003 utility tax receipt is above the same period in 2002 by $550K or 11%. The year-to-date electricity tax includes a one-time back payment of $52K from Puget Sound Energy for the audit periods 1999 through September 2002. In June 2003, we also received a payment of $4K from Verizon Wireless for the periods 1999 thru April 2003 based on audit results by Microflex consulting firm. And most recently, in September we received $19K from Sprint PCS for the audit period January 1999 through April 2003. Puget Sound Energy reported a sharp decrease in gas revenues due to rate decrease that took effect in September, 2002. The rate hike in April 2003 had not helped much on lost revenues over the winter peak season. Gas taxes are below the ytd budget of $974K by $303K or 31%. Electricity is below the ytd budget of $2.2M by $162K or 8%. Cable taxes are below the ytd budget of $645K by $37K or 6%. Phone taxes are below the ytd budget of $972K by $99K or 10%. Cellular phone taxes are below the ytd budget of$1168K by $106K or 9%. Compared to ytd 2002, Electricity is up $309K or 18%, Gas is down $145K or 18%, Cable is up $106K or 21%, Phone is up $48K or 6%, and Cellular phone is up $144K or 16%. ~ ' UTIL/TY TAXE.~ :: Year4o*.date thru g:)~ober 2002 ~ 2003 .... 2003 Bu.__dgat Chg · ~ Actual i Annual Bdg! ~ YTD Bdt~It Actual $ l" --~'" Electric $ 1,690,451 $ 2,577,611 $ 2,161,851 $ 1,999,944 $ (161,907-7.5% Gas 816,224 1,136,743 973,682 870,786 /302.896) -311% Solid Waste 327,723 452,843 371,052 388,386 17,334 4.7% Cable 502,506 778,217 644,998 608,160 (36,838) -5.7% Phone 824,644 1,170,968 972,391 873,074 (99,317) -10.2% ~,ellular 917.940 1,417,259,1,167,603 %061,582 (1~06.021) -9.1% Pager 8,140 8,604 I 7,807 5,825 (1,982) SWM 122.4 r~?05.J.:;G '65.'94 '52..'22 . It '~: ." 'J% Utility Tax Revenue Y'rD Thru October 2003 Pagers 01% Cellular 184% ~ Storm Drainage 2.6% Electric 34 7% 15.2% Cable Garbage 10.6% 6.7% Gas State Shared Revenue Ytd distribution of $3.8M is below the ytd budget of $4.2M by $395K or 9.5%. The unfavorable variance is due mainly to vehicle licensing fees which the City will not receive, October 2003 Monthly Financial Report offset by major increases in criminal justice high crime and liquor profits tax. Motor V~hide Excise Tax $ ;~ $ - tva Camper Excise Tax n/a liquor Pro, ts Tax 352,045 ! 353,382 404,754 51,372 14.5% Uquor Excise Tax 295,100 289,887 300,207 10,320 3.6% C~m Just Low-Po~DCD 75,563 76,125 78,672 2,547 3.3% Crim Just Hgh C~me 82,034 167,402 167,402 100.0% Equalization ~- n/a Local (2dm Just Sales Tax 1,324,182 1,330,636 1,319,959 (10,677]-0.8% Fuel Tax 1,503,145 1,458,028 1,453,993 (4,036) -0.3% Veh lic/I Fees 644,039 644,791 18,196 (626,5941 -97.2% DUI - Cities 14,304 14,198 14,198 100.0% Local Govt Fin Asst. - n/a * Year-to-date budget estimate. Building Permits and Plan Check Fees Ytd building permit revenues total $1096K, which is above the ytd budget by $72K or 7%. This does not include ytd pass through revenues of $156K. Revenues collected for expedited review is currently not budgeted nor are the offsetting expenditures. Building permits, which includes mechanical, plumbing and clear/grade permits total $541K and is above the ytd budget by $50K or 10%. Electrical permits of $110K are above the ytd budget of $89K by $21.3K or 24%. Plan check fees of $340K are $8K or 2% above the ytd budget estimate of $347K. I : COM M UNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PERMITS/ZONING FEES/PLAN CHEcK'FEEs 1998 - 2003 2002 2003 2003 Budg.._et Revenue Actual Budget Actual $ Var ~ Var January $ 235,933 $ 104,830 $ 134,380 $ 29,550 28.2% February 76,786 67,172 68,531 1,359 2.0% March 108,771 101,240 94,599 (~,641) -6.6% April 119,843 94,241 73,435 (20,806)! -22.1% May 113,178 96,778 104,776 7,998 8.3% June 164,763 127,204 188,806 61,602 48.4% July 110,974 113,358 134,493 21,135 18.6% August 138,o17 113,780 110,152 (3,628) -3.2% September 84,066 113,333 116,571 3,238 2.9% October i 18,473 92.330 70,508 (21,823) -2316% November 85,987 78,393 December 132,036 77,156 YTDTotal $ i.270~803 ~'-'1,024,287$ 1.0e'%~St S ?1.S84 ?.0% Annual Total rS t,488,826'S t,179,816 na na na Exp thru Sep** 1,933,878 2,278,953 2,106,844 .na na Recovery Ratio 65.7% 44.9% 52.0% na na ** Expenditures include Community Development Admin, Planning, and Building. The following table presents a synopsis of ytd building permit activity as of October 31st for new construction between 2001 and 2003. Cit~ of Federal Way October 2003 Monthly Financial Report Build ng Division - Permit Activity Y'TD Through October, 2003 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 :. 7?yp~ of;P~tmit. :.: ;. :.:: :. :.' ~; No, :. :. i 'V~l~ei($~-:.;. :.NO, i.:.~.: Va10~ ($}. :.. NO.i .¥*1~ ~):.' New Resideniial (Platted) 26 $ 3,721,873 137 8 29,127,099 Il8 $ 27,829,718 New Commercial 20 34,525,108 21 35,773,186 13 6,615,534 New Multi-Family Units 6 1,789,9271 0 I 1,042,389 New Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' SublotaI -New Construction 52 $ 40,036,908159 $ 64,900,285132 $ 35,487,641 Manufactured Homes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Alterations123 3,554,618 138 2,920,091 130 3,799,891 Corrtmercial Alterations 218 17,492,218 341 19,640,727 200 14,737,002 Plumbing Only 71 0 86 0 92 0 Mechanical Only 293 1,586,860 278 1,168,727 306 1,371,791 Misc. Buildin~ Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 iSubtotal- Alterations 705 $ 22,633,696843 $ 23,729,545728 $ 19,908,684 Electrical Permits 856 0 1104 O 938 Total Bullding Permits1613$ 62,670,604 2106$ 88,629,830 1798$ 55,396,325 Non-Building Permits: Si!~n Permits 238 476,071215 830,784197 357,610 Totals 238 $ 476,071 215 $ 830,784197 $ 357,610 l~otaICommercial Valuation 238 5; 52,017,326 362 $ 55,413,913 213 $ 21,352,536 Uommercial as a % of Total 15% 83% 17% 63% 12 %39% * Includes all new, alternation ROW Permits and Fees Overall Public Works permits and fees collected through October total $300K, which is $5K or 2% below the ytd budget of $304K. Right-of-way permits collected total $78K which is $80K or 51% below the ytd budget of $158K. Plan review fees collected total $85K which is $20K or 19% below the ytd budget of $105K. Public works inspection fees of $136K is $95K or 229% above the ytd budget of $41K. " '~ P[IBLIC WORKS PERMITS/PLAN REVIEW/INSPECTION FEES .... · [ 2002 [.' .2003 'i 2003Budget : ". 'l: Actual [ Budget~.! Actual ~-i~/~r '["'-~ar'-' January $ 39,039 $ 33,346 $ 31,391 $ (1,955~_ -5.9% February 13,302 26,924 16,851 (10~,07~3)~ -37.4% March 11,707 27,766 76,604 ~ ¥ April 23,975 38,452 14,823 (23,629) -61.5%1 --May 51,651 34,614 26,878 (7,737) -22.4°A June 17,263 31,509 29,063 (2,445) - 7.8°/, July 14,223 27,850 22,556 (5,295) -19.0°/, August 36,986 32,803 25,430 (7,373) -22.5°A September 21,169 26,209 41,158 14,949 57.0°A October 11,332 24,889 14,878 (10,011) November 17,465 28,542 December 41,369 36,552 Month Ave 24,957 30,788 29,963 Court Revenue Court revenue is $6K or 0.9% above the ytd budget total of $700K from fines & forfeitures. Total court revenue collected through October amounts to $1007K which is $206K or 26% above last year's collections of $851K by $156K or 18%. Probation services revenue total $301K and is $200K or 198% above the ytd budget. Ytd probation expenditures total $251K resulting in net probation revenue of $50K. Probations contract was recently revised and is expected to have an unfavorable impact to probation revenues. ........ · .."~. .... .: Probation Ser~iceS, ..~ ..... YI'D Total ~,' · .. 2003 '.' ..:::. Change from Budget. thru October* B ';. udget'., i '"" Actual* ....' "'$ Var SVar R~'~enue $ 110,000 $ 300,663 '"~ 190,663 173.3% Expenses 110,00 i 250,623 (140,623) -127.8% COURT REVENUE By Month i 2002 , 2003 2003 Budl]et I~onth ! Actual Budget Actual i $ Var % Var January $48,982 63,816 $55,490 ($8,327) -13.0% =ebruary 57,256 ' 68,634 78,815 10,181 14.8% Vlarch 69,769 80,526 82,635 2,109 ~pril 72,609 74,543 73,723 (819 -11% day 46,487 68,011 67,131 (881) -13% June 49,004 66,920 77,763 10,843 16 2% July 65,189 68,894 70,613 1,719 25% ~ugust 68,659 73,086 57,817 (15,269) -20.9% Se~ptember 55,775 66,410 64,752 (1,657) -25% 3ctober 79,013 69,583 77,681 8,098 11.6% ~lovember 67,344 62,970 :)ecember 66,133 59,036 ~robation Services 226,465 100,833 300,663 199,830 198.2% 0.0%{ T~aff Schl Adm Fee 12,071 0 0 0 · Included in Court Revenue are Probation Se~ices and remittances from District Court for "Shared Court Costs", "Court Record Services" and Other Court-related miscellaneous revenue. Traffic School is now included in Police Revenues. Traffic and non-parking fines total $433K and is $14K or 3% above the ytd budget. Compared to ytd 2002, collections are above by $77K or 22%. Parking infractions total $50K and is SIlK or 27% above the ytd budget. Compared to ytd 2002, collections are above by $24K or 96%. DUI and other misdemeanors total $I 17K and is $6K or 5% above the ytd budget. Compared to ytd 2002, collections are below by $5K or 4%. Criminal costs total $57K and is $10K or 15% below the ytd budget. Compared to ytd 2002, collections are below by $9K or 19%. :::::::::::::::::::::: :'::::...'.'.:.:::.: ================================== :::: :'..: ':':'.'..:::::':. I --. 2003.~ ....... g.. 200~3.Bu. dg~ __ Annual YTD i 2002 ; Budget Budget Actual ~ $ Var % Var Civil Penalties $5,068 $6,761 $5,210 $51220 I 10 0.2% Traffic & Non-Parking356,173 643,546 418,911 433,408 I 14,497 3.5% Parking Infractions $25,480 51,007 39,311 4~9,87~L_ _1_0,56~3 26.9% DUI & Other Misd $122,219 145,047 111,788 117,~ 5,565 5.0% Criminal Traffic Misd $51,697 63,489 48,931 39,024 I_ (9,906) -20.2% Criminal Costs* $47,946 87,432 67,384 57,078 ~ (10,306)-15.3% Shared Court Costs 54 :b~ 11 532 8.B68 4 463 4 4;'!:i .'4i 8":. Subt-otal ..... 612,7~;~ .... ~08~8'-1'3 '-~00,4~.2 ' - 706,420' ' 5,998 0.~% Probation Services 226,465 110.000 100.833 300,663 1_199,830 I 198'2% Traff Schl Adm~eee 0 I 0.0% * Cfiminol costs include screener foes City of Federal WaF October 2003 MonthlF Financial Report GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENI)ITURES General governmental expenditures through October total $32.99M or 59% of the annual operating budget of $55.9M. Operating expenditures are below the ytd budget of $34.8M by $1781K or 5%. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Period Ending October 31, 2003 (In Thousands) :.:'.:-:-:*:.:-:.:.: :.:...: :-:.2.:. :, .:.:..:.:-:.2. Z003 Re:vlSed BtK~et: ::A¢~I~I~:: :::::::::~:::~::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.: :.Favo~b!~.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.22002~:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:;brough. Through ~vOrabte).: ==================================== ::~c~ua!::: ::~i~/a!::: :~:: ::O~0b~r: .::::~ :.:: ::::::~/;::" 3ityCouncil $ 242 $ 260 $ 240 $ 264 $ (24) -10.2% Oity Manager 589 691 577 537 41 7.1 o/` Municipal Court-Operations 1,019 1,211 994 1,112 (117 -11.8% Management Services 1,362 2,005 1,614 1,412 202 12.5°/, 3ivil/Cdminal Legal Services 942 1,449 1,202 996 205 17.1°/, ~.omm. Development Svcs 2,382 3,662 2,985 2,702 283 9.5% Police Services 11,484 15,572 12,703 12,387 316 2.5°/` Jail Services 829 1,342 1,035 894 142 13.7% =arks and Recreation 2,572 4,042 3,074 2,981 94 3.0% Public Works 2,929 4,090 3,253 2,817 436 13.4% 3ity Overlay Program 1,630 2,379 1,953 1,953 0.0% Selid Waste 254 421 343 233 ! 110 32.1% Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 77 312 64 64 0.0% Surface Water Management 1,418 2,198 1,736 1,619 117 6.7% Debt Service 2,241 15,630 2,442 2,442 0.0% Dumas Bay Centre 434 494 419 419 0 0.0% ~nutzen Family Theatre 125 177 137 159 (22) -16.2% St~bt:olal:oper:Exp :. :. 2. :. :. :.. 2.232025302.. :-:5529326:..:.: .34~7.72.::-: 32,99~-::: ~701. . :. :.:.5/1% Dther Financin~ Uses* 8,155 20,861 17,329 17,329 - n/a total.EXpenditures & .. '. '..'.'.'. '...'.'..-.-.'.' .'.':-..'.'..:.: ..' .',, .... ~ .- , -. ~.-: :... ~i~i~i:i:i:i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:. :~!3ai~i: ~i~i".~i: ~:i~;i~:i :~i~;X2~:! :~!~;~: :!:!:i:~.~;~ 'Other Finar~ci'ng Uses are those acl vitids considered ~n~ {ir~e in nature, ' ........ City Council City Council expenditures total $264K, which is above the ytd budget total of $240K by $24K or 10%. The unfavorable variance is due to the additional $10K support to Airport Communities Coalition and a $10K ytd increase in Council salary based on Independent Salary Commission action. Both items are included in the mid-biennium/housekeeping budget adjustment and will be included in the Council's budget after adoption. Community Development Community Development expenditures through October total $2.7M, which is below the ytd budget total of $2.98M by $283K or 10%. Savings are due to one-time funded programs. Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Ytd expenditures are comprised of tourism enhancement grants ($25K), General Fund admin fees (SLIK), events planning-Korean Cultural & Sports Festival and Women's Marathon/Sporting Event ($23K), visitor information ($2K), signage ($2K), postcards and other ($1K). Overall revenues total $123K and are made up of hotel/motel tax ($120K), interest earnings ($3K), and postcard sales ($53). Public Works Public Works Operations: Public Works Operating expenditures are below October's ytd budget of $3.25M by $436K or 13%. Savings can be found in the timing of some contract payments and one-time funded new programs. Solid Waste and Recycling Operations: Expenditures are below ytd budget of $343K by $110K or 32%. Savings are due to the timing of grant payments. Surface Water Management Operations: Expenditures are below ytd budget of $1736K by $117K or 7%. Savings can be found in one-time funded new programs and salaries and benefits due to the late hiring of the new SWM Inspector. Public Safety Operations Police Services have expended $12.39M through October, which is below the ytd estimated budget of $12.7M by $316K or 3%. As shown in the table below, salaries and benefits are below the budget estimate but are offset by overages in overtime and termination pay. City Manager Activity through October total $537K, which is below the ytd budget total of $577K by $41K or 7%. Savings are due to one-time funded new programs. Municipal Court Municipal Court expenditures total $1112K, which is above the ytd budget total of $994K by $117K or 12%. The variance is due to a higher than budgeted BI contract expenses. However, BI contract revenue more than offsets the expenditure increase. Civil/Crim in al Legal Services Law expenditures through October total $996K, which is below the ytd budget total of $1202K by $205K or 17%. Savings can be found in Civil Legal Services salaries and benefits, ongoing outside legal counsel and public defender, and one-time funded programs. Public safaty p~Snnel Costs 2003 YTD Thru October $ Vadance % Vadance Annual Favorable Favorable Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual (Unfavorable) (Unfavorable) Salaries/VVages 8,903,927 7,419,939 6,980,062 439,877 5.9% P3 278,318 278,318 196,341 81,977 29.5% Temp Help 60,216 50,180 50,180 100.0% Ovedime 255,000 212,500 481,284 (268,784 -126.5% Termination Pay 38,910 (38,910) n/a Benefits 2,211,460 1,842,884 1,645,068 197,816 10,7% Total Personnel Costs 11,708,921 9,803,82i 9,341,665 462,155 4.7% Year-to-date Police overtime is 42% or approximately $300K below the same period last year. There is a $22K increase in overtime for contracted services and the homeland security programs. When the increase from the billable overtime is included, the total overtime is decreased by 37% or around $278K, during the first ten months of the year. Management Services Management Services expenditures through October total $1412K, which is below the ytd budget total of $1614K by $202K or 13%. Savings are due to one-time funded programs City of Federal Wav PS Overtime By Type Type 2002 2003 $ % Training 74,855 22,683 (52,172) -70% Court 31,094 42,622 11,527 37% Field Operation 525,049 296,008 (229,041) -44% SOAP 17,221 2,276 (14,945) -87% Other 64,592 49,027 (15,564) -24% City Portion 712,811 412,616 (300,196) -42% Cont~act or Grant $ 46,290 $ 63,317 $17,027 37% Homeland Sec. - 5,351 5,351 NA Billable 46,290 68,668 22,378 48% Grand Total $ 759,101 $481,284 ~277,817) -37% As shown by the month-to-month overtime comparison graph, the decrease started in February and has stayed about half of last year's spending from March through June of this year. From July through September overtime reflected similar trends to 2002, however at lower levels of expenditures. October continued a similar rate of increase in overtime as was seen in July through September of 2003. If the present trend of 2003 versus 2002 continues, we should end the year with around $640K of total overtime costs, for a reduction of 35% from the 2002 expenditures of $982,445. $120,000 $100,000 $20,00O Police Overtime Expense 2002 --~- 2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec The 2003 budget considers the elimination of the $25 court administration fee, which was redirected to a traffic school fee, and an additional $25 for other indirect costs. The budget also establishes a direct expenditure budget of $60K to cover direct ongoing traffic school costs such as overtime and supplies, etc. The following is an analysis on traffic school activity. Thru October, revenues total $169K while expenditures total $51K, resulting in net revenues of $119K. .... : · .... '.'~ · .:' Change from 2002 . 200~ . ': . 2003..i '$Chg %Chg, Revenue $ 58,212 $ 169,224 $ t11,012 190.7% Expenditures: Overtime 31,088 43,628 (12,540) -40.3% Supplies 15,504 6,578 8,926 57.6% Travel/Training 10,756 295 t0,461 97.3% Other Charges 1,004. 195 809 80.6% Capital 3,958 3,958 100.0% Total Expend 62,310 50,695 11,615 18.6% Rev Over / (Under) Exp $ (4,098) $ 118,528 $ 99,397 -2425.5% October 2003 Monthly Financial Report Jail Services The table below compares activity through September as October invoices have not been received. Jail Services is below the ytd budget of $1035K by $142K or 14%. The annual budget of $1.34M may be slightly high when compared to 2002's annual total of$1.07M. Jail Services By Month YTD thru September ~ I,_ 2003 __ I Chg from Bgt ' 2002 ~ Budget ',-~ctual ', $ Var !-~'Var January $ 108,739 $ 104,341 $ 92,944 $ 11,397 10.9% February 112,436 108,264 86,453 21,811 20.1% March 99,516 115,827 95,849 19,978 17.2% ~,pril 84,259 112,174 104,660 7,514 6.7% May 75,907 121,090 110,778 10,311 8.5% June 74,045 113,642 108,047 5,5~6 4.9% July 92,83~) 129,861 107,300 22,560 17.4% ~,ugust --~)1,360 118,729 95,840 22,888 19.3%' September ~9,959 111,390 91,804 19,586 17.6% Dctober ___ 79,586 104,878 -I November 84,463 102,292 __ _ December 78,485 99,513 Grand Total i $1,071,585 ! $1,342,000 J na I na i n; Parks and Recreation Parks Operations expenditures through October total $2981K, which is $94K or 3% below the ytd budget of $3.07M. Dumas Bay Center and Knutzen Family Theatre's expenditures exceed the ytd budget estimate, but are offset by higher than anticipated revenues. Kenneth Jones Memorial Pool Ytd pool expenditures total $208K and includes a $35K payment for the pool's continued operations under King County. This amount is net of the $76K one-time payment received from King County to be used for the operation and maintenance of the pool. Kenneth Jones Pool Aatnual ~ctual Per Ctt)/s F;r~a¢cials Budget Y'TD October Operating Revenue 314,000 $ 88,648 Transfer-In from Utility Tax 300,000 119,693 Salades & Benefits 101,170 Supplies 12,839 King County Parks-lntedocal Agreement 34,922 Travel & Training 964 Other Services & Charges 9,029 Intergovernmental 421 Capital Improvements/Maintenance 36,097 Interfund Charges 12,899 i'l:etillOperExpendlture~. : .. , .' :$ ', ,:::':~!4,000.. 2~;342 The following table summarizes the total pool's activity under King County's interim operations from January thru June. Revenues total $81K and expenses total $202K, resulting in a subsidy of $121K. ourse Revenue 35,762 Rental Revenue 20,158 Point of Sale (Drop-In) 24,841 Salades & Benefits 142,902 Supplies 5,644 46,317 ges 7,336 Celebration Park: The following table is a breakdown of Celebration Park maintenance and operations. Ytd revenue of $272K consists of a $221K subsidy from the Utility Tax Fund, $7K in concession fees, and $44K in tournament revenue. A portion of the revenues from ball field and field light rentals are accounted for in youth and adult athletic programs. M&O expenditures total $271K. 2005 Actual Celebration Park Operations BudQet Y'I'D October Operating Revenue- Concession Fees 28,000 $ 7,205 Tournament Revenue * 44,490 44,490 Transfer-In from Utility Tax 220,803 220,803 Salaries & Benefits 182,116 181,606 Supplies 31,850 22,571 Professional Services 4,000 3,328 Leases/Rentals 6,000 · 4,065 Electricity 40,000 20,808 Water & Sewer 32,000 27,286 Repairs & Maintenance 9,000 4,221 Interfund Charges 8,940 7,450 * The revenue shown is for the full y~ar based on booking records form youth and adult softball and soccer toumameets, filed rentals, gate fees, and light charges. Both budget and actual are accounted in rec. division and are not separated out. The budget amount is shown only for illustrative purpose. October 2003 Monthly Financial Report Recreation and Cultural Services: Direct program expenditures total $903K or 67.3% of the total annual budget of $1.34M not including indirect costs. Including indirect administration costs, recreation expenditures total $1194K and are 69.9% of the total annual budget of $1.71M. Recreation fees total $617K and are 68.4% of the total annual budget of $902.5K. Recreation fees have recovered 68.4% of direct program costs and is 1.1% above the annual budgeted recovery ratio of 67.3%. Considering indirect administration costs, the recovery ratio is reduced to 51.7% or 1.1% below the annual budgeted recovery ratio of 52.8%. Dumas Bay Centre: Operating expenditures through October total $419K, which is $0K or 0% below the ytd budget of $419K. Dumas Bay Centre has recovered 97.4% of its operating expenses. Dumas Bay Centre operating revenues of $408K are also down by $10K or 2% compared to the ytd budget of $418K. Knutzen Family Theatre: Operating expenditures through October total $159K, is $22K or 16% above the ytd budget of $137K. which Operating revenues of $97K is also up $43K or 82% compared to the ytd budget of $53K. Knutzen Theatre has recovered 60.8% of its operating expenses. RECREATION 8, CULTURAL SERVICE PROGRAMS AND DUMAS BAY CENTRE PERFORMANCE Y'ear to Date Through October 2003 I Revenues t Expenditures RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICE PROGRAMS Aquatics 2,000 1,9081 95.4% 20,621 22,002 106.7% 9.7% 8.7% Arts & Special Events 87,600 63,603: 72.6% 105,950 96,877 91.4% 82.7% 65.7% Youth Athletics 58,450 52,487 89.8% 86,801 71,090 81.9% 67.3% 73.8% Adult Athletics 198,000 172,155 86.9% 112,981 120,563 106.7% 175.3% 142.8% Community Recreation 165,500 146,095 88.3% 136,627 167,186 122.4% 121.1% 87.4% Community Center 26,500 17,155 64.7% 87,555 55,691 63.6% 30.3% 30.8% Recreation Inc 17,700 30,522 172.4% 52,076 51,627 99.5% 34.0% 58.9% Youth Commission 500 409 81.7% 1,800 1,733 .96.3% 27.8% 23.6% Red, White & Blue 24,700 22,416 90.8% 41,200 51,187 124.2% 60.0% n/a Senior Services 7,500 21,970 292.9% 82,301 56,862 69.1% 9.1% 38.6% Kenneth Jones Pool i 314,000 88,648 28.2% 614,000 207,942 33.9% 51.1% 42.6% sub,°,,, r-i: 902._,0,, 81,.,,,t 68.4,i, 1., 1.91,i, ....... .... Administration i . 0.0%1 366,977 ...... ~-65)~7 I'- 792%1 D~ r n/s ;mTALRECRF-&TION I $ 902,450 S 617,367I 68.4%! $ 1,708,3 1,193,704[ 69.9 Dumas Bay Centre [. 493,750 [ 407,531 - 82.5°/0 493,786 ' 418',~48 84.8% t00.0% 97-.~/o Knutzen Family Theatre : 74,476 ' 96,559 129.7% 177,050 158,856 89.7% 42.1% 60.8%~ I,om.DUMAS BAYCENTI~ $ 568,226 I$ 504,090 i 88.7%1 $ 670,S36I $ 577,403I 86.1%1 84.7%i 87.3%I Arts Commission - ],__. 160 ' n/al 85,745 , 41 795 48.7% n/a; n~ G~;i'~ , iS '1,470,67i~I $ 1,~121,61,8, i ..Z;;;:,?6.~, $ .2,465,470"['i- 1,8~,~53:t, 73.5% ':5 ...... 59.7%1 ": '"~-.9iy~ Reveoues do not include grants or operating transfers Expenditures do not include residual equity transfers or other interfund contributions E-10 8 City of Federal Way October 2003 Monthly Financial Report :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:Balance at:~!1:lO3:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :i:i:i:::::i:!:!s,:~7:9;tZgi ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Special Revenue: A~lerial Street 695,572 1,672,760 1,953,370 (280,610 414,962 Utility Tax (1) 7,872,948 5,818,917 13,691,864 (7,872,947) 1 Solid Waste & Recycling 162,896 255,259 232,731 22,528 185,424 Special Study (Gov. TV) 106,511 26,168 7,866 18,302 124,813 Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 182,119 122,547 64,030 58,517 240,637 2% for the Arts 28,114 20,089 (20,089 8,025 CDBG (2) 5,943 115,646 113,881 1,765 7,708 Paths & Trails 51,592 7,863 7,863 59,455 $~to~a:~pe~iafRe~enue:~und~::::::::::: :::::5::::::::::::?:::::::: ::::::::::5:::::::::::::::: :::::5::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::~b~::::: :::::::::::::::::::04:::::: Capital Project: Municipal Facility 7,440,966 82,708 1,967,016 (1,884,309) 5,556,658 Downtown Revitalization 1,031,140 1,031,140 (1,031,140) 0 Unallocated 1997 Bond Proceeds 20,365 20,365 (20,365) (0) Community/Senior Center/Pool 760,671 117,957 642,713 642,713 Celebration Pa rk 107,908 6,435 6,435 114,343 Park Improvements 574,042 1,052,746 685,445 367,301 941,343 Surface Water Management 6,634,716 760,389 803,008 (42,619) 6,592,097 Transportation 8,092,939 11,720,430 8,536,631 3,183,798 11,276,737 ,s~t/t~:,caioi'~!~',':°Je~,~*i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i :!: :i:i:i:i:i2a,~O?-,~: :i:!:!:i:i:i?~,iaa:;aai i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i~:;:~i~a: Enterprise Funds: Surface Water Management 487,502 2,513,911 2,409,262 104,649 592,151 Dumas Bay Centre Operations 407,092 418,548 (11,456) (11,456) Dumas Bay Centre Capital 162,098 305,979 164,742 141,237 303,335 Knutzen Family Theatre Capital 99,660 1,538 1,538 101,198 Knutzen Family Theatre Operations 175,326 158,856 16,470 16,470 s~bto~a~Entetpr~s~:~und~::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::4::::::: ::::::::::5::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::7: 5::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Internal Service Funds: (3) Risk Management 4,057,551 669,145 898,033 (228,887) 3,828,664 Information Systems 1,962,972 1,365,499 1,216,668 148,831 2,111,802 Mail & Duplication 140,528 183,534 122,011 61,523 202,050 Fleet & Equipment 2,119,918 1,189,020 1,059,328 129,693 2,249,611 Buildings & Furnishings 809,634 357,039 249,011 108,028 917,662 $~bto~-~l~ten~al:se~i~:Funds:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::03: ::::::::::::::::::::6~:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::7::: (1) Utility Tax and Debt Service fund balance is reserved for the payment of debt service. (2) CDBG deficit fund balance due to timing of grant reimbursements. (3) Internal Service fund balance is comprised of accumulated replacement reserves for the purpose of fixed asset replacement, with the exception of Risk Management, which is comprised of accumulated reserves for self-insurance and strategic reserve. City of Federal WaF October 2003 MonthlF Financial Report ATTACHMENT A CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND USES OPERATING FUNDS Through October 2003 1998 - 2003 5o:~ces/U:sies:.:.:.;.;-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-:-:.:-:-~998.:-:-:.~ :.: i.: :19919: ii.:. -:.:.;.;2000:.:-:-: :,:.:.;209~1:.:-:- 1:.:.:.:20:OZ.:-~. :-:-:.;am:n:u~l-:-:.;:.;.:O~:tol~er:.:: ;.: :.O~tOber:-i :.:.D~)llars.($):.: ~,eginning Fund Balance $ 13,915,993 $ 17,580.138 $18,050,656 $20,817,900 $22,799,494 $ 24,252,617 $ 24,620,497 $ 24,598,825 $ (21,672 -0.1% :3perating Revenues Property Taxes 4,946,469 4,593,623 4,485,772 5,129,352 5,680,115 7,777,226 6,164,040 6,164,040 0.0% .Sales Tax 7,242,827 7,927,396 8,434,697 8,608,959 8,964,049 ! 10,999,574 9,113,953 8,762,657 (351,296 -3.90/ -Iotel/Motel Lodging Tax 31,782 97,141 117,568 100,950 ~ 134,000 107,701 119,918 12,217 11.3% 3riminal Jus§ce Sales Tax 1,116,704 1,215,389 1,333,457 1,390,089 1,324,182 1,611,369 1,330,636 1,319,959 (10,677) -0.8% Intergovernmental 4,049,197 4,041,093 3,652,661 3,288,111 3,001,375 3,345,546 2,822,213 2,437,422 (384,791) -13.6% Real Estate Excise Tax 1,954,944 2,051,171 1,894,862 1,673,638 1,981,764 1,900,000 1,605,087 2,487,902 882,815 55.0°/ Gambling Taxes 299,260 1,193,211 1,306,075 1,849,652 1,685,304 1,850,000 1,529,681 1,615,727 86,046 5.6°/ LJfility Taxes 3,885,183 4,361,453 4,633,087 5,111,553; 5,210,103 7,747,611 6,464,577 5,759,878 (704,699 -10.9% $ourt Revenue 696,407 682,719 752,950 846,397 851,280 1,018,813 801,255 1,007,083 205,828 25.7% Building Permits/Fees-CD 824,926 1,131,873 917,068 930,578 1,270,803 1,179,816 1,024,267 1,096,251 71,984 Expedited Review Fees-CD 33,247 75,843 108,784 100,432 72,543 155,567 155,567 0.0% ROW Permits/Fees-PW 204,653 180,673 232,437 299,805 240,645 369,455 304,361 299,632 (4,729) -1.6% Expedited Review Fees-PW 35,779 53,324 37,181 21,454 45,489 27,497 27,497 0.0% Licenses 41,809 122,560 71,643 66,509 92,189 142,100 90,713 58,891 (31,822) -35.1% Franchise Fees 462,647 469,923 496,418 581,397 616,668 621,964 619,743 671,975 52,232 8.4% Passport Agency Fees - 20,100 20,100 n/a Recreation Fees 386,527 519,187 470,310 519,597 561,974 930,450 534,686 624,733 90,047 16.8% Dumas Bay Centre 295,369 408,673 406,777 499,140 446,555 493,750 417,583 407,531 (10,052 -2.4% Knutzen Family Theatre 4,181 29,108 64,773 72,343 64,752 69,976 53,072 96,559 43,487 81.9% Interest Earnings 663,923 858,185 ! 958,093 806,~80 377,377 743,621 604,901 424,383 (180,518 -29.8% ~,dmin/Cash Mgmt Fees 138,325 186,802 142,087 396,919 395,017 526,592 438,827 438,827 (0) 0.0% SWM Fees 2,447,395 I 2,637,393 2,467,004 2,116,261 2,307,255 3,432,770 2,547,501 2,509,854 (37,648 -1.5% Refuse Collection Fees 122,632 123,751 108,270 124,809 160,725 165,240 163,458 163,488 30 0.0% Police Services 141,107 260,787 710,869 643,378 571,237 926,082 730,678 754,469 23,790 3.3% Miscellaneous/Other 1,572,680 101,004 49,589 58,899 103,525 98~292 71~529 93,956 22,427 31.4% TO(aI.Ope~"a{it~OReV:eYtise~:*:.:*: -:-~-~3~566~-91.:: ~*i-33~256~923~ ~ 33~832~006. -:.35;253~020. -:.36~[25~878· .~.:-:4;6~084,.24~. *~.:-:37,72~{~528- ~*:.:3'~,516~298 i;: :(20:5~230} Operating Expenditures City Council 174,615 173,069 178,986 188,156 241,701 260,050 239,627 264,043 (24,417 -10.2% City Manager 464,783 486,446 341,307 545,168 589,264 691,203 577,424 536,537 40,887 7.1% Municipal Court-Operations 305,144 597,178 887,636 1,018,841 1,210,569 994,420 1,111,855 (117,435'~ -11.8% Management Services 1,289,927 1,392,655 1,274,859 1,355,362 1,362,285 2,005,360 1,614,326 1,412,399 201,927 12.5% Civil/Criminal Legal Services 1,319,460 1,008,745 1,060,566 948,972 942,278 1,448,586 1,201,944 996,444 205,499 17.1% Comm~ Development Svcs 2,182,173 2,391,429 2,388,989 2,457,544 2,382,422 3,662,187 2,984,764 2,701,943 282,822 9.5% Police Services 9,030,258 9,966,022 10,587,103 10,924,552 11,483,940 15,572,132 12,702,534 12,386,983 315,551 2.5% Jail Services 756,077 1,188,288 1,150,948 1,033,858 829,052 1,342,000 1,035,317 893,676 141,641 13.7% Parks and Recreation 2,261,590 2,718,773 2,535,925 2,558036 2,571,927 4,041,628 3,074,401 2,980,705 93,696 3.0% Public Works 2,656,637 i 2,554,159 2,470,578 2,474,891 2,929,087 4,090,497 3,252,691 2,817,136 435,555 13.4% City Oveday Program 1,684,200 1,501,680 1,385,959 1,288,880 1,630,140 2,379,347 1,953,370 1,953,370 0.0% Solid Waste 229,046 196,786 235,174 270,730 254,417 420,855 342,822 232,731 110,090 32.1% Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax 101 63,339 25,778 77,137 311,797 64,030 64,030 0.0% Surface Water Management 1,198,167 1,260,132 1,219,041 1,294,313 1,418,020 2,198,152 1,736,498 1,619,496 117,002 6.7% Debt Service 1,040,824 2,267,244 2,253,288 2,273,879 2,241,142 15,630,394 2,442,299 2,442,299 0.0% Dumas Bay Centre 331,609 400,832 433,457 461,212 434,164 493,786 418,715 418,548 167 0.0% Knutzen Family Theatre 61,863 98,551 149,736 125,966 124,578 177~050 136,723 158,856 (22,133 -16.2% Total Operating Expenditures 24,681,229 27,910,056 28,326,433 29,114,933 30,530,395 55,935,594 34,771,903 32,991,050 1,780,854 5.1% Operating Revenues overl(under) Operating Expenditures 6,884,962 5,346,867 5,505,573 6,138,087 5,595,483 (9,851,348) 2,951,624 4,527,249 1,575,624 53.4% Other Financing Sources 2,822,839 5,381,058 2,818,304 5,269,286 4,531,950 16,055,663 14,004,810 14,004,810 0.0% Other Financing Uses 7,009,278 9,312,902 6,101,206 9,431,269 8,155,381 20,860,788 17,328,598 17,328,598 0.0% Ending Fund Balance Solid Waste 206,232 273,047 230,142 247,647 267,379 71,971 185,424 n/a n/a Arterial Street 1,640,449 1,411,641 1,110,886 ~ 1,682,419 1,259,494 0 414,962 n/a n/a Utility Tax 1,748,541 3,435,324 4,896,519 3,845,764 5,646,879 31 1 n/a n/a Snow & Ice Removal 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 n/a n/a Surface Water Management 1,849,241 793,111 1,520,426 (72,012) (176,134 992,700 592,151 n/a n/a Path & Trails '8,422 17,648 28,049 38,543 46,618 60,892 59,455 n/a n/a Strategic Reserve 2,029,993 2,005,408 2,059,491 2,160,794 n/a n/a Debt Service 4,627,850 4,537,723 3,684,190 7,716,235 6,607,734 3,872,572 16,227,039 n/a n/a Dumas Bay Centre Operations ( 14,164) 18,875 1,112 9,012 403 ( 19,909) ( 11,456 n/a n/a Knutzen Family Theatre 30,256 72,685 52,315 49,956 62,951 16,470 n/a n/a Police 390,409 439,699 317,066 605,119 564,785 428,280 461,070 n/a n/a P3 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 n/a n/a Interfund Loans 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,500 nla n/a Unreserved 3,687,287 5,580,000 5,963,132 6,100,528 10,081,436 3,779,606 - 7,426,668 n/a n/a Total:Endir~[Fund. Balan[c:e:.:.:. .~;i.:.;16~6;1~4;~17. .$~./!8~995~16!.: $20,273,327 $22,794,004 $24,771,546 i$.~.;.9-,596;1~,~,; i$¥;¥:.:.;.:~ i 15:25,802;285 : 10 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2003-04 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment CATEGORY: [~ CONSENT [] RESOLUTION [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS ~ ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance and budget adjustment exhibits A & B. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: This is an ordinance for the adjustment of the 2003-04 Budget. This adjustment will: 1) incorporate items that have been approved by Council during the year; 2) correct budget errors; 3) adjust revenues and expenditures estimates to reflect updated economic condition and needs. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move for the approval of the ordinance to second reading and adoption on December 2, 2003." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances COUNCIL BILL # 1sx reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2003 MID-BIENNIUM & HOUSEKEEPING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT GENERAL FUND Housekeeping Items Previously Approved by Council CM Proposed 2004 Adjustments 2003 2004 1-Time Ongoing 700,000 16,000 134,000 1t4,000 (1,285) 5,000 10,038 518,870 144,500 15,000 20,000 (14,492) City-Wide: Salary - Lower CPI and Updated Positions .................................................................................. Transfer to City Hall CIP -Improve Additional 11K sq ft .................................................................. Transfer to City Hall CIP - Add Necessary Furniture for Court & Conference Rooms ............................ Transfer to Community Center - for project contingency ................................................................. City Council: Increase funding for Airport Communities Coalition ....................................................................... Increase Council Salary & Benefits Based on Independent Salary Commission Review-Effective 7/1/03.. 35,000 Municipal Court: Increase Fines & Forfeitures for Probation Contract (Offset by Revenues) ......................................... 145,000 Law: Domestic Violence Unit Support ............................................................................................... Community Development: Carryforward Correction-Amanda Permit System Balance, Previously Approved ................................. Eliminate Transfer to CDBG Fund for Planning & Admin Shortfall-No Longer Needed .......................... Parks & Recreation: Carryforward Budget Adj Correct-E-Connect Balance Carryforward, Previously Approved ..................... Public Safety: Westway Lighting Project-Contribution from Puget Sound Energy .................................................... Reinvesting in Youth ............................................................................................................... 5,000 Subtotal General Fund 977,753 688;878 5~000 (175,000) ARTERIAL STREET FUND Transfer to Community Center CIP ............................................................ ' ................................ Reduce Current Appropriation in Order to Transfer to Community Center CIP ..................................... 1,000,000 (1,000,000) UTILITY TAX FUND Transfer to Debt Service Fund-Community Center Bond Issue ........................................................ Transfer to Debt Service Fund-Psrtia! makeup the 2003 transfer shortfall ........................................ 1,024,000 250,000 Subtotal SPeCial Revenue Funds 1,274,000 DEBT SERVICE FUND Paragon Building Mortgage Payment ......................................................................................... 275,890 551,781 Transfer to Community Center CIP ............................................................................................ 1,000,000 Community Center Debt Service ............................................................................................... 1,024,000 Subtotal Debt Service Fund 1,275,890 1,575,781 CITY FACILITIES CIP FUND Municipal Facility (Total $8,148,949) Property Acquisition & Improvements ......................................................................................... 15,301,051 Improve Additional 11K sq ft .................................................................................................... Add Necessary Furniture for Coud & Conference Rooms ............................................................... Eliminate previous amount budgeted ......................................................................................... (23,450,000) (150,000) 518,870 144,500 Community Center (Total $16,639, O01 ) Construction/Road Improvements/Contingencyosts ....................................................................... 16,319,001 Debt Issue Cost ..................................................................................................................... 320,000 1,954,999 PARKS CIP FUND Hauge Property Acquisition-Source is 1/3 PW Unallocated ClP, 1/3 SWM Unallocated ClP, and 1/3 Park 352,215 Reduce Parks CIP Project for Hauge Property Funding Source ....................................................... (108,329) SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CIP FUND Transfer from Unallocated CIP to Parks CIP for 1/3 Share of Hauge Property Acquisition ..................... 117,405 STREETS ClP FUND So 312th St ~ 8th-Add Signal Interconnect-Funding From So 320th ................................................ 200,000 So 288th & Military Road-Additional Cost for ROW, Undergrounding, Utility Relocation/Adjustment ......... 500,000 So 288th & Military Road-Reduce Budget Amount by Shortfall in 2002 Ending Project Balance .............. (17,595) Weyerhauser Way & So 336th-increase Construction for Weyerhaeuser Portion-Funded by Weyerhaeus 900,000 Transfer from Unallocated CIP to Parks CIP for 1/3 Share of Hauge Property Acquisition ..................... 117,405 Westway Lighting Project-Funded by CDBG Grant ....................................................................... 160,000 ROW 23rd Ave South-2002 Project Balance ................................................................................ 1,588,080 Subtotal Capital Projects Fund 12,299,233 1,804,999 663,370 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2003 MID-BIENNIUM & HOUSEKEEPING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Housekeeping Items Previously Approved by Council 20O3 2OO4 DUMAS BAY CENTRE FUND Dumas Bay Restoration Project (ALEA Grant Project) - Transfer to 2% for the Arts ............................. 9,285 CM Proposed 2004 Adjustments 1-Time Ongoing Subtotal Enterprise Funds 9,285 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Increase Insurance Premiums-Policy Year Change, paid 7 months in advance for 2004 ........................ 150,000 Increase Worker's Compensation/Unemployement-Budgeted in Operating Funds, but not in Risk Manage 180,000 INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUND Carryforward Budget Adj Correct-Amanda Permit System Balance Carryforward, Previously Approved .... 114,000 Carryforward Budget Adj Correct-E-Connect Balance Carryforward, Previously Approved ..................... 5,000 New City Hall Phone System-Funding Source is Replacement Reserves ........................................... 175,000 BUILDINGS & FURNISHINGS FUND Transfer Replacement Reserves to Municipal Facility CIP .............................................................. 809,000 SubtOtal Internal Service Funds 1,463,000 - 2% FOR THE ARTS FUND Dumas Bay Restoration Project - Source is transfer in from Dumas Bay ALEA Grant Project ................. 9,285 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND · ',:: ....,'. C:)I~,'.'~ ~ ...... ' ':. -~ · .' · : .'. '.:." Subtotal NQn,Annually Budgotod Fu~ids 512,046 475,109 512,046 - GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT $ 16,500,270 $ 5,166,826 $1,352,248 $ 5,000 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO BUDGETS AND FINANCE, REVISING THE 2003-04 BIENNIAL BUDGET (AMENDS ORDINANCE NOS. 02-434 and 03-441). DRAF1.. WHEREAS, certain revisions to the 2003-2004 Biennial Budget are necessary; and WHEREAS, these revisions are a result of the mid-biennium budget adjustment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance 03-441, Section 1, is hereby amended to adopt the revised budget for the years 2003-2004 biennium as follows: "Section 1. 2003-2004 Biennial Budget. That the budget for the 2003-2004 biennium is hereby adopted in the amounts and for the purposes as shown on the attached Exhibit A & B (2003 and 2004 Revised Budgets)." Section 2. Severabilit¥. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity 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 affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. ORD. # , PAGE 1 Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this ,2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) day of ATTEST: MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. k:\fin\0304budget\mid bien adjX2003 midbiord.doc ORD. # , PAGE 2 0 c 0 ~D c- c- c- c- 0 0 0 0 × t-- ~D 0 MEETING DATE: [~'ef~'lgt~' 3, ~I~ ITEM# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Federal Way City Code As It Relates to the Impound of Vehicles CATEGORY: [] CONSENT X ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: A copy of the Agenda Item for the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee meeting 11/10/03, and a copy of the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Federal Way City Code As It Relates to the Impound of Vehicles Impoundment of Vehicles Driven By Suspended/Revoked Drivers. The Code provides for mandatory periods of impoundment depending upon the severity of the crime. In June of 2003, Division Three of the Court of Appeals reviewed a similar municipal code provision for the City of Warden, and determined that the municipal court judge should exercise discretion and consider relevant factors in determining the period of impoundment. The Court determined that the municipal code should not mandate specific periods of impoundment. Additionally, the registered tow track operators conduct auctions on the weekends. Currently, the Code mandates that the vehicle cannot be released without verifying the bidder has a valid driver's license. Department of Licensing will not verify valid licenses on the weekend. Consequently, the registered tow truck operator cannot release the vehicle on the day of the sale, and storage fees continue to accrue. Based upon the recent case law and the discovery of the impractical requirement, staff recommends modifying the provisions in Article VIII, Chapter 15 of the FWCC to authorize the judges to use discretion when impounding a vehicle driven by a driver with a suspended or revoked driver's license. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Amendment to Chapter 15, Article VIII of the FWCC, and forward to full Council for first reading at the November 18, 2003, Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move approval of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Federal Way City Code As It Relates to the Impound of Vehicles and place on Agenda December 2, 2003 for second reading." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLEDfDEFERRED/NO ACTION [~1 MOyED TO SECOND READING (ordinances o~ly) ~ __ ,~ ~~ ~>~ ~_b. ~, ~0~. COUNCIL BILL # Isx reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/1~001 K:\agenditem~Proposed Ord Amnd Ch. 1 $- Impound Vehicles CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS/RECREATION/HUMAN SERVICES/ PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE 11/10/03 Meeting Date: From: Via: Subject: November 3, 2002 Pat Richardson, City Attorney ¢~ David H. Moseley, City Manager An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Federal Way City Code As It Relates to the Impound of Vehicles Background: In 2001 the City Council enacted Article VIII in Chapter 15 of the Federal Way City Code - Impoundment of Vehicles Driven By Suspended/Revoked Drivers. The Code provides for mandatOry periods of impoundment depending upon the severity of the crime. In June of 2003, Division Three of the Court of Appeals reviewed a similar municipal code provision for the City of Warden, and determined that the municipal court judge should exercise discretion and consider relevant factors in determining the period of impoundment. The Court determined that the municipal code should not mandate specific periods of impoundment. Based upon the recent case law, staff recommends modifying the provisions in Article VIII, Chapter 15 of the FWCC to authorize the judges to use discretion when impounding a vehicle driven by a driVer with a suspended or revoked driver's license. Staff recommends that the Parks Recreation/Human Services/Public Safety Council Committee approve the proposed Amendment to Chapter 15, Article VIii of the FWCC, and forward to full Council for first reading at the November 18, 2003 meeting. Committee Recommendation: Approve the Amendment to Chapter 15, Article vm of the FWCC, and forward to full Council for first reading at the November 18, 2003, Council meeting. K:'OtGNDITEMXPRHSPSCoMMITTEE~anend Impound Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, CHAPTER 15 OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE - IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES DRIVEN BY SUSPENDED/REVOKED DRIVERS (AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 01-393). WHEREAS, in 2001 the City of Federal Way adopted an impound ordinance relating to vehicles driven by suspended or revoked drivers; and WHEREAS, recent case law has determined that the impound period for the vehicle should be at the discretion of the court; and WHEREAS, currently the impound periods for vehicles are mandatory; and WHEREAS, it is impractical for the registered tow truck operator to verify with the Department of Licensing whether the bidder has a valid driver's license because most auctions occur on the weekend; and WHEREAS, the amendment is necessary to comply with recent case law and to provide a practical avenue for the registered tow truck operator; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 15, Article VIII, Section 15-223 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ORD # , PAGE 1 Section 15-223. Notice of Impoundment. (a) The person impounding the vehicle shall provide the driver of the impounded vehicle with a notice including the following: (1) the name of the impounding registered tow truck operator, its address, and telephone number; (2) the location and time of the impound, and by whose authority (including the name of the officer or authorized agent of the Department) the vehicle was impounded; (3) the notice that there may be a mandatory period of impoundment under Section 15-222 as determined by the Municipal Court; and (4) a form, approved by the City, which describes the right to and process for vehicle redemption requirements as set forth in Section 15-224, and which describes the process of Section 15-225 for contesting an impound or the costs of impoundment. (b) Not more than twenty-four (24) hours after impoundment of any vehicle, the registered tow truck operator shall mail a copy of the notice described in subsection (a) of this section by first class mail to the last known address of the legal and registered owner(s) of the vehicle, as may be disclosed by the vehicle identification number and/or as provided by the Washington State Department of Licensing. If the vehicle is redeemed prior to the mailing of this notice, the notice need not be mailed. A proof of mailing form shall be completed by the registered tow truck operator and filed with the Municipal Court. If the registered tow truck operator wishes to request that the person seeking redemption of the vehicle pay a security deposit, the notice shall also state that the person who desires to redeem an impounded vehicle at the end of the mandatory period must within.five days of the impound pay a security deposit to the registered tow truck operator of not more than one-half of the applicable impound storage rate for each day of the proposed period of impoundment, as set forth in Section 15- 222, to ensure payment of the costs of impoundment. The notice shall state that if the security deposit is not posted within five days of the impound, the vehicle will be processed and sold at auction as an abandoned vehicle pursuant to RCW 46.55.130. (c) The registered tow truck operator or the Department of Public Safety, as applicable, shall provide notice as described in subsection (a) of this section by first class mail to each person who contacts the Department or the registered tow truck operator seeking to redeem an impounded vehicle, except that if a vehicle is redeemed Prior to the mailing of notice, then notice need not be mailed. The registered tow truck operator shall maintain a record evidenced by the redeeming person's signature that notice was provided directly to the person redeeming the vehicle. A proof of mailing form shall be completed by the registered tow truck operator and filed with the Municipal Court. (d) If the date on which a notice required by subsection (b) 0fthis section is to be mailed falls · upon a Saturday, Sunday, or postal holiday, the notice may be mailed on the next day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor a postal holiday. ORD # , PAGE 2 SECTION 2. Chapter 15, Article VIII, Section 15-224 of the Federal Way City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 15-224. Redemption of impounded vehicles. Vehicles impounded by the City in accordance with this Chapter, as now or hereafter amended, shall be redeemed only under the following circumStances: (a) Only the registered owner, a person with authorization from the registered owner, or one who has purchased the vehicle from the registered owner and who produces proof of ownership or authorization from the registered owner and signs a receipt therefor, may redeem an impounded vehicle. A person redeeming a vehicle impounded pursuant to this Chapter must, prior to redemption, establish that he or she has a valid driver's license and is in compliance with RCW 46.30.020 and pay a $100.00 administrative fee to the Municipal Court, and obtain a receipt for release from the Municipal Court. If the vehicle was impounded pursuant to FWCC 15-221 and was being operated by the registered owner when it was impounded, the Municipal Court shall not issue a receipt for release until all penalties, fines, or forfeitures owed by the registered owner have been satisfied, or a time payment agreement (in a form approved by the Municipal Court) has been entered into providing for the satisfaction of all said penalties, fines or forfeitures. A vehicle impounded pursuant to this Chapter for DWLS 1 or 2, or ?97OL, can only be released pursuant to a written order fi.om the Court. A vehicle impounded pursuant to this Chapter for DWLS 3 or NVOL may be released pursuant to the Municipal Court receipt. (b) Any person so redeeming a vehicle impounded by the City shall pay the towing contractor for the costs of impoundment prior to redeeming such vehicle. Such towing contractor shall accept payment as provided in RCW 46.55.120 (1) (b), as now or hereafter amended. (c) The Municipal Court is authorized to release a vehicle impounded pursuant to FWCC 15- 221 prior to the expiration of any period ofimpotmdment upon petition of the spouse of the driver, or the registered owner provided the owner was not the driver, based on economic or personal hardship to such spouse, or registered owner resulting from the unavailability of the vehicle and after consideration of the threat to public safety that may result from release of the vehicle, including, but not limited to, the driver's criminal history, driving record, license status and access to the vehicle. The court is also authorized to release the vehicle upon petition of the driver where the driver has obtained a valid driver's license and the driver was the registered owner or has the permission of the registered owner to redeem the vehicle. An individual may have only one such hardship petition granted. If such release is authorized, the person redeeming the vehicle must still satisfy the requirements of FWCC 15-224 (a) and (b). SECTION 3. Chapter 15, Article VIII, Section 15-228 of the Federal Way City Code ORD # , PAGE 3 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 15-228. Registered Tow Truck Operators - Contracts, Requirements. (a) The City Manager is authorized to seek a towing company or companies for a one or more contracts to be a City registered tow truck operator to perform towing and impounds pursuant to this Chapter. Award of any such contract or contracts shall be consistent with the City's adopted purchasing policies and applicable state and local laws and policies, and be approved by the City Manager or the City Council, as applicable. (b) If the City Manager determines not to enter into a contract for registered tow truck operator services, the City Manager may authorize the Director to have any tow truck operator registered with the State of Washington perform towing and impoundS pursuant to this Chapter. (c) A registered tow truck operator shall conduct any auction of vehicles impounded pursuant to this Chapter in accordance with RCW 46.55.130, as now or hereafter amended. In addition, prior to closing any sale of an auctioned, impounded vehicle or transferring title thereto, the registered tow tmc operator sha .......... 6 ~6 .... J ................ j ............................................. re ease the veh cie to ~ individual possessin~ a valid WasMn~on driver's license or a valid driver's license ~om ~other state. (d) Records. (1) With respect to any sale at auction of a vehicle impounded under this Chapter, all registered tow truck operators shall record the date of sale, the vehicle identification number of each vehicle, the name, address and telephone number of the registered owner of the impounded vehicle being auctioned, as well as the name, address, driver's license number and date of driver's license expiration of each buyer. Said record shall be submitted to the Director on or before December 31st of each calendar year. (2) A registered tow truck operator shall maintain copies of all records of all sales required pursuant to this Chapter, for at least six (6) years, and such records shall be open at all reasonable times to the inspection of the designated official, or his or her duly authorized designees for inspection. Section 2. Severabilit¥. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance ORD # , PAGE 4 or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this ,2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY day of ATTEST: MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. K:\ORDIN~WLSimpoundordinance2003.doc Revised 1-13-02 ORD # ~, PAGE 5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2004 RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT -- AUTHORIZATION TO BID CATEGORY: [~] CONSENT ~] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [~ CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [-] OTHER BUDGETIMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated November 17, 2003. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The City must add the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase I Project and South 324th Street Project to its arterial street landscaping maintenance service contract. Because the City has not advertised this contract for bid since 2000, and two new projects must be included in the contract, City staff recommends sending the contract out to bid. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its November 17, 2003 Land Use and Transportation Meeting, the Committee recommended placing this item on the December 2, 2003 Council Consent agenda. ~ PROPOSED MOTION: Motion for the full City Council to authorize staff to seek bids for the 2004 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance Contract. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENmD [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 k:\councilXagdbills~2003\1202 2004 landscape maint cont auth to bid.doc CITY OF Federal Way DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: November 17, 2003 Eric Faison, Chair . Land Use and Transportation Committee Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager~ David H. ~anager 2004 Landscape Mainteflance Contract - Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way contracts for arterial street landscaping maintenance services. The City has not solicited bids since 2000. Meanwhile, the City has completed its Pacific Highway South Phase I and South 324th Street Projects. As both of these projects must be added to the landscape maintenance contract, staff recommends advertising this project for bid. AVAILABLE FUNDING The approved budget for the 2004 Right-of-Way Landscape Maintenance contract is $160,000.00. RECOMMENDATION · Motion for the Land Use and Transportation Committee to place authorization for staffto seek bids for the 2004 Right-of-Way Landscape Maintenance Contract on the December 2, 2003 Council Consent Agenda. cc: Day File k:\lutc~2003\l 117 2004 landscape maintenance contract auth to bid 2004.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 14TM AVENUE S AND S 312T" STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT 100 % DESIGN. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION TO BID CATEGORY: ~] CONSENT [~ ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [-] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [--] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated November 17, 2003. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: After completing a signal warrant analysis, staff concluded that a complete traffic signal at the intersection of 14th Avenue South and South 3 12th Street met the criterion. Currently, this intersection experiences approximately 10 collisions per year. Fourteenth (14th) Avenue South is offset with the most westerly private QFC driveway on S 312th Street. The proposed project will include modifying and adding to the existing pedestrian signal to allow traff~c on 14th Avenue S (the north leg) and the private QFC driveway .(the south leg) to actuate the signal. This new signal will be interconnected and tli th coordinated with SR~99 and with 8 Avenue S / S 312 Street traffic signals. Work will also include improvements to street lighting, striping revisions and upgrading curb ramps to current standards. The estimated project expenditure is $184,799.27 which includes a 10% construction contingency and the project printing and advertising costs. The total available budget for this project is $164,813.00, which creates at project budget shortfall of $19,986.27. However, recent projects have come in substantially under the engineer's estimate. Also, the current bidding climate is favorable, generally resulting in lower bids. Bids received will be brought back to the Land Use and Transportation Committee and Council for approval. If there is a budget shortfall, Public Works staff would recommend that the Council authorize a transfer of funds from the unappropriated Streets Capital fund to cover the shortfall amount. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its November 17, 2003 Land Use and Transportation meeting, the Committee recommended placing the following items on the December 2, 2003 Council Consent Agenda: 1. Approve the 100% design plans for the 14th Avenue S and S 312~' Street Traffic Signal Project. 2. Authorize staffto bid the project and return to the City Council for authority to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. PROPOSED MOTION: Motion to approve the 100% design plans and authorize staff to send the project out to bid. Staff will return to the Land Use and Transportation Committee and City Council for authority to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED B Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances on[y) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 k:\councilXagdbillsX2003\1202 14th ave s & s 312th 100% design approval.doc CITY OF ~ Federal Way DATE: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: November 17, 2003 Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Ken Miller, Deputy Public Works Director ~__._~x Raid Tirhi, Senior Traffic Engineer David H. Mo~~ik4anager 14th Avenue S and S 312tI' Street Traffic Signal Project 100 % Design Approval and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way received complaints about traffic operations of the pedestrian Signal at the '14th Avenue S and S 312th Street intersection. The City completed a signal warrant analysis and concluded that the subject intersection meets warrants for a complete traffic signal. There have been approximately 10 collisions per year at this intersection. Fourteenth (14th) Avenue South is offset with the most westerly private QFC driveway on S 312th Street. The proposed project will include modifying and adding to the existing pedestrian signal to allow traffic on 14th Avenue S (the north leg) and the private QFC driveway (the south leg) to actuate the signal. This new signal will be interconnected and coordinated with SR-99 and with 8th Avenue S / S 312th Street traffic signals. Work will also include improvements to street lighting, striping revisions and upgrading curb ramps to'current standards. PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Item Design King County Signal Review Construction Estimate 10% Construction Contingency SUB-TOTAL Printing Plans and Specifications Advertising Cost Estimate $30,920.77 $2,000.00 $136,253.50 $13,625.00 $182799.27 $800.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1847799.27 Land Use/Transportation Committee - March 17, 2003 14th Avenue S and S 312th Street Traffic Signal Project 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid Page 2 AVAILABLE FUNDING: CIP Funds TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $164,813.00 $164.813.00 PROJECT BUDGET SHORTFALL $19~.986.27 The estimated cost for the 14th Avenue S and S 312th Street Project results in a $19,986.27 budget shortfall. However, on the previous signal project, bids were substantially below the engineers estimate. The bidding climate is very favorable currently and we are anticipating receiving a low bid. The bids received will be brought back to the LUTC Committee and Council for approval. If there is a budget shortfall, Public Works staff would recommend that Council authorize the transfer of the shortfall amount from the unappropriated Streets Capital fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends placing the following items on the December 2, 2003 Council Consent Agenda: 1. Approve the 100% design plans for the 14th Avenue S and S 312th Street Traffic Signal Project. 2. Authorize staff to bid the project and return to the City Council for authority to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. E~c Fais([n, Chair (,l)ffe"~n 'McColgap/, Meml, er Michael Park, Me~nber KIM:rt:su cc: Project File - 14th Avenue S and S 312th Street Traffic Signal and Interconnect Project Day File - K:\LUTC~2003\I 117 LUTC 14s312 Signal.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT ORDINANCE Amount Budgeted: $ X RESOLUTION __ PUBLIC HEARING Expenditure Amt: $ __ COUNCIL BUSINESS __ OTHER ContingencyReqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and 2004 Fee Schedule SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: To implement the annual inflationary adjustment £or all development £ees including building, zoning, land use, public works permit, inspection, and other developraent related services as provided by Resolution 98-281 and adjusted thereafter by Resolution 02-377; and to implement 2004 School Impact Fee pursuant to the Federal Way School District's 2003/04 Capital Facilities Plan. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A. PROPOSED MOTION: I move approval o£ a Resolution adopting the 2004 Fee Schedule and repealing the £ee schedule adopted by Resolution No. 02-377. ............. ................................................................................................................................................................... ...................... (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinance only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT READING ENACTMENT READING ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2004 AND REPEALING THE FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 02-377 FOR 2003. DRAFT WHEREAS, the City is authorized under RCW 35A. 11.020, 35A.63.100(2), and RCW 19.27.040 to require licenses for the conduct of business, permits for the construction of structures and improvements, and to impose fees to recoup the costs of processing and/or providing services; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Code establishes the basis for the assessment and/or collection of such license, permit fees, and service charges; and Whereas, the Federal Way School District has presented and the City has previously approved the District's 2003/2004 Capital Facilities Plan, establishing the School Impact fee for 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council deemed it is advisable and necessary to provide gradual annual increases in Land Use, Mechanical, Plumbing, Public Works, Electrical, and Building permits and established the mid-year Consumer Price Index for All Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the Seattle-Everett-Bremerton area as the basis for such adjustments in Resolution No. 98-281, 01-351, and 02-377, and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. The Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit A to City of Federal Way Resolution No. 02-377, is hereby repealed. Res. No. 01- ., Page 1 Section 2. Fee Schedule. The City of Federal Way hereby adopts the 2004 Fee Scheduleas attached hereto, identified as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated in full by this reference, for the various licenses, permits processes, and other business activities of the City. Section 3. Annual Inflationary Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise specified, all development services and permit fees under the Land Use, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Permit, Public Works, Electrical Code and Uniform Building Code, shall continue be adjusted automatically each year thereafter in according to the percentage of inflation measured by the mid-year CPI-W for the Seattle-Everett-Bremerton area, as established by Resolution Nos. 98-281 Section 4. 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 5. Effective Date. The fee schedule adopted by this resolution shall be effective January 1, 2003. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Savings Clause. Resolution Nos. 98-281,01-351, and 02-377 a portion of which is repealed by this resolution, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this Resolution, and shall remain in full force and effect in the event this resolution is invalidated in its entirety. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this __ day of ,2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Res. No. 01- , Page 2' MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. k:\fin\0304budget\appendix\feeschedule2002 v2 no markup.doc Res. No. 01- , Page 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Pursuant to King County Fee Schedule Operator License (in addition to bus[ness, license).*. ................................................ Manager or Entertainer License .......................................................................... * If the odginalapplication forlicense is made subsequent to June 30, the license fee forthe one-half of the annual license fee. Late Penalty: A late penalty shall be charged on all applications for renewal of a license received later than date (being December 31 of each year) of such license. The amount of penalty is calculated 8 - 30 days past due ............................. r ......................................................... 31 -- 60 days past due ...................................................................................... 61 and over days past due ............................................................................... 1.70% $500 .................................. $50 remainder of that year shall be seven (7) days after the expiration as a percentage of the license: 25% .................................. 50% .................................. 100% .................................. General Business License: New Business, all categories unless otherwise identified herein .............................. $50 Business Renewal .......................................................................................... $25 Duplicate Registration (replacement) .................................................................. $15 Gambling: Business Establishments Authorized by the State Gambling Commission to Operate Social Card Games and/or expanded card room activities: New Business, Expansion, or Change of Ownership ............................................. $500 .................................. Renewal ...................................................................................................... $100 .................................. Restaurants & Taverns: Restaurants per RCW 66.24.400 and Taverns per RCW 66.24.330 authorized to sell spirits, beer, and wine or beer and wine only, by the drink for on-premises consumption with less than 50% in dedicated dining areas: New Business, Expansion, or Change of Ownership .............................................. $500 Renewal ...................................................................................................... $25 Adult Entertainment Establishments: New Business, Expansion, or Change of Ownership .............................................. $500 Renewal ...................................................................................................... $100 $500 $50 25% 50% 100% $50 $25 $15 $5OO $1 O0 $500 $25 $500 $100 Late Penalty: Failure to pay any registration fee due within thirty (30) days after the day it is due shall result in a penalty of 5% on the amount of the registration fee, additional penalty of 5% for each succeeding month of delinquency or part thereof, not to exceed 20% of the registration fee. False Alarm Fee 4th and 5th false alarms in a registration year (July 1 - June 30), each; ..................... 6th and successive false alarms in a registration year (July 1 - June 30 ..................... $50 ................................. $50 $100 ................................. $100 Registration Fee ................................................................................................. Late Registration Fee Penalty ........................................................................... Late False Alarm Payment Penalty .................................................................... Appeal Hearing Cancellation Fee ...... : ................................................................ $15 ................................. $15 $5O ................................. $50 $25 ................................. $25 $10 ................................. $10 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Carnivals or Fairs: 1-10 Booths/Displays ...................................................................................... $100.00 11-20 Booths/Displays .................................................................................... $150.00 20 + Booths/Displays .................... ; ................................................................. $200.00 Compressed gases ................................................................... $100.00 $50,00 Cryogens ................................................................................ $200.00 $132.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves ............................................................. No Charge ................................. $100.00 ................................. $150.00 ................................. $200.00 $100.00 $50.00 $200.00 $132.00 ................................. No Charge Flammable or Combustible Liquids: Install, Remove, Abandon - Residential Tank ....................................................... Hazardous materials .................................................................. $200.00 Mall covered - Annual Fee ............................................................................... Open Burning ................................................................................................ Parade floats ................................................................................................. $35.00 $132.00 $1,000.00 No Charge $100.00 $200.00 $35.00 $132.00 $1,000.00 No Charge $100.00 Places of Assembly: Occupant Load 50 - 299 persons .................................................. $120.00 $80.00 Occupant Load 300 - 999 persons ................................................ $150.00 $100.00 Occupant Load 1,000 or more persons .......................................... $180.00 $120.00 $120.00 $80,00 $150.00 $100.00 $180.00 $120.00 Places of Assembly: 50-299 & Candles/Open Flame - Renewal ...................................... $210.00 $140.00 300 - 999 & Candles/Open Flame - Renewal ................................... $240.00 $160.00 1000+ & Candles/Open Flame - Renewal ....................................... $270.00 $180.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. Uq~ds.&.Hot.W~rk;.JnitiaJ ............................. $210.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. LiquJds.&.Hot.Work:.F~enaw~l ........................ $140.00 Repair Garage & Hot Work - Initial ........................................................................... $210.00 Repair Garage & Hot Work - Renewal ...................................................................... $140.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. LiquJds.&.LP.G.=.lnitia[ ................................... $300.00 Repair Garage & FlammablelCombustJble. UquJds.&.LP..G.,.Re, oewal ............................... $200.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. LiquJds.&.Hot.W~rk:.lnitiaJ ............................. $300.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. UquJds.&.Hot.W~)rk.-.F~enau/~l ........................ $200.00 Repair Garage & Spraying/Dipping & Hot.WDrk.-.JnitiaJ ................................................. $300.00 Repair Garage & Spraying/Dipping & Hot.W~rk.-. E. en~zal ............................................ $200.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/CombustJble.Liquids.&.L.RG.&.Hot.~t~od~.l~ti~ ..................... $390.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. LiquJds.&.LP.G.&.El~ocE..-.Rec ..................... $260.00 Repair Garage & Flammabte/Combustible. LiquJds.&.Spr~ying/D. ipping & E[o ..................... $390.00 Repair Garage & Flammable/Combustible. LiquJds.&.Spr~ying/Dipping &.l~o ..................... $260.00 All Other Permits (See Uniform Fire C, od~SectJQa..l.05.8).-. JnitiaJ .................................... $120.00 All Other Permits (See Uniform Fire C~ode ,Sec_.tJel3..1.05.8).-. J~gne.~(aJ ...............................$80.00 $210.00 $140.00 $240.00 $160.00 $270.00 $180.00 .................................$210.00 .................................$140.00 .................................$210.00 .................................$140.00 .................................$300.00 .................................$200.00 .................................$300.00 .................................$200.00 .................................$300.00 .................................$200.00 .................................$390.00 .................................$260.00 .................................$390.00 .................................$260.00 .................................$120.00 .................................$80.00 Note: Fire Depa[tment Annual Permit Fee entitles applicant to an initial inspection and one follow-up inspection. Additional inspections required to sec~e, compJiance.(min..l/2 J3r) .................................. $47.00/hour ................................. Fire Department Review and Inspection.(zf. Building Perm[ts .......................................... 15% of Building uilding P( ..................... Permit Fee, min. $47 Fire Prevention System Permits $47.00/hour 15% of Building Permit Fee, min. $47 Permit Fee (based on valuation) ....................................................................... Per UBC Table 1-A Per UBC Table 1-A Plan Review Fee ........................................................................................... 65% of FPS ................................. 65% of FPS Permit Fee Permit Fee Note: City retains $20.00 of total fee for processing Public Display Permit (together with $.l.0O.09.casb. bend) .............................................. $100 ................................. $100 EXHIBIT"A" CiTY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE A. In addition to the schedule, a fire district administrative fee in an amount equal to 5% of the land use fee imposed shall be charged and collected by th( and paid to the fire district. The fire fee is noted in bold beneath each fee. Director°s Approval; interpretation (Process 1) - no fee Other minor site review at hourly rate ........................................................... $57.50 1.70% ..................... $58.50 Site Plan Review (Process 2) Base Land Use Fee, Plus: .................................... $905.50 Fire Review at 5% ................................................................................. $45.50 Public Works Fee ................................................................................ $765.50 over 25,000 sq. ft ................................................................................. $288.50 over 50,000 sq. ft ................................................................................. $504.00 over 100,000 sq. ft ................................................................................ $720.50 Land Surface Modification ...................................................................... ~ ..... $1,713.00 Plus Per Acre ...................................................................................... $12.50 Preliminary Plat Base .................................................................................. $6,048.50 Plus Per Acre ...................................................................................... $66.50 Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ $302.50 Final Plat ................................................................................................... $2,433.50 Boundary Line Adjustment Base ....................................................................$1,137.50 Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................ ................................. $56.00 Boundary Line Elimination (lot l[ne.eJimination.=.LLE) .......................................... $144.00 Binding Site Plan ........................................................................................ $1,828.00 Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ $91.50 Short Subdivision ....................................................................................... $1,828.00 Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ $91.50 Shoreline Permit Base, Plus: ......................................................................... $2,044.50 over $15,000 value ................................................................................. $576.50 over $50,000 value ................................................................................. $1,728.50 over $100,000 value ............................................................................... $3,168.50 over $500,000 value ............................................................................... over $1,000,000 value ............................................................................. Shoreline Conditional Use PermJt.(CUP.) .......................................................... Shoreline (Exempt Determination) .................................................................. Shoreline Variance ...................................................................................... Process I - Applications ................................................................................ for radio tower and antenna st[uctures J~or.use by. amateur, radio.ope ..................... Federal Way City Code Section 22-1047 (3) $6,336.50 $9,503.50 $4,895.50 $71.50 $3,239.50 $144.00 $6.50 Project Approval (Use Process. 3) ................................................................... $1,067.50 Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ $53.50 over 25,000 sq. ft ................................................................................. $288.50 over 50,000 sq. ft ................................................................................. $504.00 over 100,000 sq. ft ................................................................................ $719.50 Plus PW Review ................................................................................... $761.50 1.70% ..................... $920.50 1.70% ..................... $46.00 1.70% $778.50 1.70% ..................... $293.00 1.70% ..................... $512.50 1.70% ..................... $733.00 1.70% ..................... $1,742.00 1.70% ..................... $13.00 1.70% ..................... $6,151.00 1.70% ..................... $67.50 1.70% ..................... $307.50 1.70% ..................... $2,475.00 1.70% ..................... $1,157.00 1.70% ..................... $57.00 1.70% ..................... $146.50 1.70% ..................... $1,859.00 1.70% ..................... $93.00 1.70% ..................... $1,859.00 1.70% ..................... $93.00 .70% ..................... $2,079.50 .70% ..................... $586.50 .70% ..................... $1,757.50 .70% ..................... $3,222.00 .70% ..................... $6,444.50 .70% ..................... $9,665.00 1.70% ..................... $4,978.50 1.70% ..................... $72.50 1.70% ..................... $3,295.00 1.70% ................... :. $146.50 1.70% ..................... $6.50 1.70% ..................... $1,085.50 1.70% ..................... $54.50 1.70% ..... ; ............... $293.00 1.70% ..................... $512.50 1.70% ..................... $731.50 1.70% ..................... $774.50 3 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Hearing Examiner Approval (Process4) .......................................................... Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ Plus PW Review ................................................................................... Residential Variances ................................................................................ Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ SEPA Environmental Checklist.OnLy ............................................................... Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ SEPA Checklist as Part of Project .................................................................. Plus Fire Review Fee ............................................................................ SEPA Appeals ........................................................................................... Appeal of Administrative DecisJo[~.*. ................................................................ Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision .*. ........................................................... Comprehensive Plan Amendments ................................................................. Plus Per Acre ...................................................................................... $1,927.50 1.70% ..................... $1,960.00 $96.50 1.70% ..................... $98.00 $1,039.50 1.70% ..................... $1,057.00 $719.50 1.70% ..................... $731.50 $36.00 1.70% ..................... $36.50 $1,296.00 1.70% ..................... $1,318.00 $65.00 1.70% ..................... $66.00 $648.00 1.70% ..................... $659.00 $32.50 1.70% ..................... $33.00 $101.00 1.70% ..................... $102.50 $144.00 1.70% ..................... $146.50 $144.00 1.70% ..................... $146.50 $719.50 1.70% ..................... $731.50 $71.50 1.70% ..................... $72.50 Quasi-Judicial Rezones (Process 5) to RS Zone ............................................................................................... Plus Per Acre ....................................................................................... to RM Zone ................................................................................................ Plus Per Acre ...................................................................................... Max ................................................................................................... to Commercial/Industrial Zone ....................................................................... Plus Per Acre ....................................................................................... Max ................................................................................................... Public Notice Fee (for use process 3 - 6 & SEPA decisions) .................. Pre-Application Meeting ................................................................................ Signs, First Sign ..................................................................................... Each Additional Sign/Same Application ..................................................... Temporary Signs .......................................................................................... $648.00 1.70% ..................... $659.00 $359.50 1.70% ..................... $366.00 $15,840.50 1.70% ..................... $16,109.50 $936.00 1.70% ..................... $952.00 $1,152.00 1.70% ..................... $1;171.50 $25,057.00 1.70% ..................... $25,483.00 $1,296.00 1.70% ..................... $1,318.00 $1,728.50 1.70% ..................... $1,757.50 $26,641.00 1.70% ..................... $27,094.00 $125.00 1.70% $125.00 $382.50 1.70% ..................... $389.00 $35.50 1.70% ..................... $36.50 $14.00 1.70% ..................... $14.50 $35.50 1.70% ..................... $36.50 In-Home Day Care Facilities: 12 or fewer attendees (Process I) ................................................................ $35.50 1.70% ..................... $36.50 Home Occupation (Review Required): Standard Permit ...................................................................................... $35.50 1.70% ..................... Planning Commission ............................................................................... $71.50 1.70% ..................... Accessory Dwelling Units .............................................................................. $144.00 1.70% ..................... * Appeal Fee shall be reimbursed in the event the reviewing authority determines that the appellant has substantially prevailed in the appeal action. Note: Additional fees will be required to pay for any time spent on Land Use Applications by the Department of Public Works above the number of hours covered by the base amount allocated to Public Works for each application. $36.50 $72.50 $146.50 B. REFUNDS OF LAND USE FEES. The Filing Fees as set forth in the Fee Schedule for the City are established to defray the cost of posting and processing and the proceedings in connection with a land use application. The Building & Zoning Director may authorize the refunding of not more than 80% of the total application fees i provided the applicant presents a written request to withdraw or cancel prior to routing of the application for staff review. 4 EXHIBIT"A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Permit Issuance Mechanical appliance are based on installation valuation using UBC Table lA as amended in Section 19 of the City of Federal Way Fee Schedule. B. Plan Review Fees Plan review fees, when charged, are equal to 25% of the total mechanical fee as calculated above. C. Other Inspection Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours, Per Hour, minimum 1 ..................... $60.00 1.70% ..................... 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Sec 116 ............................. $60.00 1.70% ..................... 3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to ..................... which an initial review has been completed (minimum 1/2 hour) $60.00 1.70% ..................... Over the Counter Permit ..................................................................................... $61.00 $61.00 $61.00 $28.50 1.70% ..................... $29.00 Miscellaneous Permits (Land Use, Public Works & Building Permit Services): Any public work, land use, building permits not covered by the fee schedule, if performed by employee, is based on actual hourly cost, plus benefits of 30% overhead of 25%. Any private or public professional service contract needed will be billed 100%, plus 10% billing and administrative charges. Maps, Plats, Miscellaneous .................................................................................. ' Cost + 10% ................................. Cost + 10% Photocopies, Per Page ........................................................................................ $0.15 Rolled Plan Copies, Per Sheet .............................................................................. $5 D size/ size Audio Tape Duplication, Per Cassette ................................................................... $10.00 Video Tape Duplication, Per Tape ........................................................................ $25.00 Clerk's Certification ....................................................................................... $5.00 Notary Public Attestation or Acknowledgment ~r. as ~thenvise_ ............................... $5.00 provided for in RCW 42.44.120, per signature Facsimile Usage (incoming/outgoing).lst. Rage ...................................................... $3.00 each additional page .................................................................................. $1.00 ................................. $0.15 $7 E ................................. $5 D size/ $7 E . size ................................. $10.00 ................................. $25.00 ................................. $5.00 ................................. $5.00 ................................. $3.00 ................................. $1.00 Bound Printed Documents ................................................................................... Actual Cost ................................. Actual Cost ................................. $4.00 ................................. $3.0O ................................. $5.0O ................................. $4.00 ................................. $5.OO ................................. $4.OO ................................. $6.00 ................................. $5.00 ................................. $10.00 ................................. $7.00 ................................. $37.00 ................................. $31.00 ................................. $1.50 GIS Map and Data Requests *: 8 1/2 by 11 - Paper - Color ............................................................................... $4.00 8 1/2 by 11 - Paper - Black & White .................................................................... $3.00 8 1/2 by 11 - Mylar - Color ................................................................................ $5.00 8 1/2 by 11 - Mylar - Black & White .................................................................... $4.00 11 by 17 - Paper - Color ................................................................................... $5.00 11 by 17 - Paper - Black & White ....................................................................... $4.00 11 by 17 - Mylar - Color ................................................................................... $6.00 11 by 17 - Mylar - Black & White ........................................................................ $5.00 Up to 34 by 44 - Paper - Color ........................................................................... $10.00 Up to 34 by 44 - Paper - Black & White ............................................................... $7.00 Up to 34 by 44 - Mylar - Color ........................................................................... $37.00 Up to 34 by 44 - Mylar - Black & White ................................................................ $31.00 3Yz Floppy Disk or CD ROM (per disk/CD) ........................................................... $1.50 $35.00 $15.00 * Maps that require extensive processing time or require additional ink and plotting supplies will be charged at a higher rate. Applicable sales tax will be added to the costs Staff Time to Complete Request, Per Hour .......................................................... $35.00 ................................. Computer Usage, Per Hour .............................................................................. $15.00 ................................. Note: Staff time and computer usage will only be charged on requests for custom products. 5 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Pawnbroker License .......................................................................... ; ........ $300.00 ................................. $300.00 Secondhand Dealer License ................................................................................. $24.00 ................................. $24.00 Late Penalty: A late penalty shall be charged on all applications for renewal of a license received later than seven (7) days after the expiration date (being December 31 of each year) of such license. The amount of penalty is calculated as a percentage of the license: 8 - 30 days past due ................................................................................ 25% .................................. 25% 31 - 60 days past due ............................................................................... 50% .................................. 50% 61 and Over days past due ......................................................................... 100% .................................. 100% A. Permit Issuance - each permit (when not part of a building permi ..................... $26.00 1.70% ................. .... $26.50 Bo Additional Fee: 1. For each plumbing fixture of trap or set of fixtures on one trap (inclu ..................... $9.00 drainage) piping and backflow protection therefore. 2. Rainwater sysiems - per drain (inside building) ................................................. $9.00 3. For each water heater and/or vent ......... : ........................................................ $9.00 4. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap ..................... $9.00 excepting interceptors functioning as fixture traps. 5. For installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treat ..................... $9.00 6. For repair or alteration of drainage orient piping ................................................ $9.00 7. For each lawn sprinkler system or any one meter including backflo~ ..................... $9.00 devices therefore. 8. For vacuum breakers or backflow protective devices on tanks, vats, etc, or for installation on unprotected plumbing fixtures including necessary water piping: one (1) to five (5), each ............................................................................. $6.50 1.70% over five (5), each .................................................................................... $4.00 1.70% C. Penalty Fees: 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 1.70% ..................... $9.00 $6.50 $4.00 Any person who shall commence any work for which a permit is required by this Code without first having obtained a permit shall pay double the perm fixed by this section for such work. Such double permit fee shall be in additional to any penalty for a violation of the provisions of this Code. Administrative Note: For the purpose of this section, a sanitary plumbing outlet on or to which a plumbing fixture or appliance may be set or attached shall be construed to ~ fixture. Fees for reconnection and retest of existing plumbing systems in relocated buildings shall be based on the number of plumbing fixtures involve Annual fee .................................................................................................... $150 Annual fee after July 1 .................................................................................... $75 Per Event or Limited Permit, per day .................................................................. $25 Renewal late charge fee .................................................................................. $50 Processing fee for applications received less than 30 days from the ev, ..................... $50 Litter control security deposit - cash or bond ........................................................ $1,000 Appeal fee .................................................................................................... $50 A. Building Moving and Oversize/Overweight vehicle Permit. 1. Building moving through City ....................................................................... $71.50 2. Building moving into or within City ................................ ~ ................................ $71.50 Pre-move inspection, the higher of actual cost or ............................................ $169.50 3. Oversize/overweight vehicle permit ............................................................... $71.50 B. Street and/or Easement Vacation Application 1-300 lineal feet ............................................................................................. $696.50 every100 lineal feet thereafter, per 100 LF ........................................................... $71.50 ................................. $150 ................................. $75 ................................. $25 ................................. $50 ................................. $5O ................................. $1,000 ................................. $50 t.70% ..................... $72.50 1.70% ..................... $72.50 1.70% ..................... $172.50 1.70% ..................... $72.50 1.70% ..................... $708.50 1.70% ..................... $72.50 6 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE C. Right-of-Way Use Permit, includes 1 inspection 1. Individual single family homeowner applications ................................................ $156.00 2. All other applications .................................................................................... $219.50 3. Supplement plan review fee for any and all permits, per hour ....... . ........................$57.50 4. Supplement construction inspection for any and all permits, per hour ..................... $51 ~00 D, Right-of-Way Code Variance Request, plus recording fee * ................................ $71~50 E, Development Review Fee. 1. Single Family ............................................................................................ $57.50 2. Short Subdivisions Construction Plans (Up to 8 hours of $459.00 review time) a. Supplemental plan review/construction service fee, per hour $57.50 b. Construction inspection Fee, per hobr ....................................................... $51.00 3. Subdivisions and Commercial/Industrial Developments ..................................... $689.00 Construction Plans (up to 12 hours of review time) a. Supplemental plan review/construction service fee, per hour $57.50 b. Construction inspection Fee, per hour ....................................................... $51.00 F. Miscellaneous Public Works Permits and Services (Same fee structure under Section Nine/Miscellaneous Fees) · Recording Fee per chapter 36.198,010 RCW and as amended and K.C. Code 1.12.120 and as amended Delivery Fee ........................................................................................................ $29.50 Right of Way Activity Permit Fee .............................................................................. $35.50 Pursuant to King County Fee Schedule MASSAGE BUSINESSES: 1. Massage Business (in addition to a business license) ....................................... $15.00 2. Ivlassage Practitioner ..................................................................................$15.00 3. Message Manager ...................................................................................... $15.00 1.70% $161.00 1.70% $223.00 1.70% $58.50 1.7O% $52.OO 1.70% $72.50 1.70% $58.50 1.70% $467.00 1.70% $58.5O 1.70% $52.00 1.70% $700.50 1.70% $58.50 1.70% $52.00 1.70% ..................... $30.00 1.70% ..................... $36.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 4. Late Penalty: A late penalty shall be charged on all applications for renewal of a license received later than seven (7) days after the expiration date (being December 31 of each year) of such license. The amount of penalty is calculated as a percentage of the license: 8 - 30 days past due ................................................................................ 25% .................................. 25% 31 - 60 days past due ............................................................................... 50% .................................. 50% 61 and over days past due .........................................................................100% .................................. 100% Proration: The entire annual license fee shall be paid for the applicable calendar year regardless of when the application for license is made and shall not be prorated for any pad of the year except that if the original application for license is made subsequent to June 30, the license fee for the remainder of that year shaft be one-half of the annual license fee. Annual license renewals shaft be required to be obtained and paid full by January 31 of each respective year. PUBLIC BATHHOUSE BUSINESSES: 1. Public Bathhouse Business (in addition to business license) ............................... $15.00 ................................. $15.00 2. Bathhouse Attendant .................................................................................. $15.00 ................................. $15.00 3. Bathhouse Manager ................................................................................... $15.00 ................................. ' $15.00 4. Late Penalty: A late penalty shall be charged on all applications for renewal of a license received later than seven (7) days after the expiration date (being December 31 of each year) of such license. The amount of penalty is calculated as a percentage of the license: 8 - 30 days past due ................................................................................ 25% .................................. 25% 31 - 60 days past due ............................................................................... 50% .................................. 50% 61 and over days past due .........................................................................100% .................................. 100% Proration: The entire annual license fee shall be paid for the applicable calendar year regardless of when the application for license is made and shaft not be prorated for any part of the year except that if the original application for license is made subsequent to June 30, the license fee for the remainder of that year shaft be one-half of the annual license fee. Annual license renewals shall be required to be obtained and paid full by January 31 of each respective year. 7 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE New Residential Services Single Family - First 1300 sq ft ...: ..................................................................... $85.50 Each additional 500 sq ft ..................................................................................$27.50 Each outbuilding or garage (inspected with service) .............................................. $35.50 Each outbuilding or garage (inspected separately) ................................................ $57.00 New Multi-Family (Includes three units or more) Up to 200 amp, Service .................................................................................. $93.00 Feeder ......; ........................................................................ $27.50 201-400 amp, Service ..................................................................................... $115.50 Feeder ............................................................................... $57.00 401-600 amp, Service ..................................................................................... $158.50 Feeder ............................................................................... $78.50 601-800 amp, Service ..................................................................................... $202.50 Feeder ............................................................................... $108.50 Over 800 amp, Service .................................................................................... $289.50 Feeder ............................................................................... $216.50 Altered Single/Multi Family (When inspected separately from the service), Service or Feeder 0 to 200 amp ................................................................................................. $71.50 201-600 amp ................................................................................................. $115.50 Over 600 amp ............................................................................................... $174.00 Mast or meter repair ....................................................................................... $43.00 Circuits, 1st 4 ............................................................................................... $57.00 Circuits, Each Additional over 4 ......................................................................... $6.00 Mobile Homes · Service or Feeder Only .................................................................................... $57.00 Service and Feeder ........................................................................................ $93.00 Mobile HomelRV Park 1st Service or Feeder ..................................................................................... $57.00 Each Additional Service or Feeder ..................................................................... $37.00 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... $87.00 $28.OO $36.50 $58.00 $94.50 $28.0O $117.50 $58.00 $161.00 $80.00 $206.00 $110.00 $294.50 $220.50 $72.50 $117.50 $177.00 $43,50 $58.00 $6.00 $58.00 $94.5O $58.00 $37.50 Commercial/Industrial 0-100 amps, 1st Service or Feeder .................................................................... $93.00 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $57.00 101-200 amps, 1 st Service or Feeder ................................................................. $115.50 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $72.50 201-400 amps, 1st Service or Feeder .................................................................$216.50 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $85.50 401-600 amps, 1st Service or Feeder .................................................................$252.50 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $101.00 601-800 amps, I st Service or Feeder ................................................................. $326.50 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $138.00 801-1000 amps, 1st Service or Feeder ............................................................... $399.00 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $166.50 Over 1000 amps, 1st Service or Feeder ....................... : ...................................... $434.50 Each Additional Service or Feeder ............................................... $232.00 Over 600 volts surcharge ................................................................................. $72.50 Mast or meter repair ....................................................................................... $78.50 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... $94.50 $58.00 $117.50 $74.00 $220.5O $87.00 $256.50 $103.00 $332.00 $140.50 $405.50 $169.50 $442.00 $236.00 $74.00 $80.00 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Commercial/Industrial - Altered Service/Feeders 0-200 amps, each Service or Feeder .................................................................. 201-600 amps, each Service or Feeder .............................................................. 601-1000 amps, each Service or Feeder ............................................................. Over 1000 amps, each Service or Feeder ........................................................... Circuits, 1-5 Circuits ........................................................................................ Each Additional ........................................................................... Temporary Service a. ResidentiallMulti-FamilylComme~cialllndustdal ....................... .......................... b. Commercial/Industrial Service or Feeder ampacity 0-100 amps ............................................................................................ 101-200 amps ......................................................................................... 201-400 amps ......................................................................................... 401-600 amps ......................................................................................... over 600 amps ................................................................................... : .... Miscellaneous Equipment- Commercial/Industrial/Residential a. Thermostats, First ...................................................................................... Each additional inspected at the same time ............... : ...................................... b. Low voltage fire or burglar alarms, or voice or date cabling First 2500 sq ft ........................................................................................... Each additional 2500 sqft .............................................................................. c. Signs and outlet lighting First Sign ................................................................................................... Each additional inspected at the same time at the same ...................................... building or structure d. Swimming Pools, Hot Tub, Spa ...................................................................... e. Yard Pole meter loops .................................................................................. f. Plan Review for service greater than 200 amp at 35% of regular Permit Fee plus a plan submission fee of g. Additional plan review/inspection, per hour ...................................................... $93.00 $216.50 $326.50 $363.00 $72.50 $6.00 $50.00 $57.00 $72.50 $85.50 $115.50 $125.00 $43.00 $13.00 $50.00 $13.00 $43.00 $20.00 $85.50 $57.00 $72.50 $85.50 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... 1.70% ..................... $94.50 $220.50 $332.00 $369.50 $74.00 $6.00 $51.00 $58.00 $74.00 $87.00 $117.50 $127.00 $43.50 $13.50 $51.00 $13.50 $43.50 $20.5O $87.00 $58.00 $74.00 $87.00 9 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2004 FEE SCHEDULE Based on Total Valuation as follows: $1 to $500 ............................................................................... $30.00 For each additional $100 or fraction thereof up to and including $2,000:.... .................................................................... $30, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof up to and including $25,000: ..................................................................... $90, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof up to and including $50,000 ...................................................................... $504, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof up to and including $100,000 .................................................................... $829, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof up to and including $500,000 .................................................................... $1279, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof up to and including $1,000,000 .................................................................. $4079, Plus For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof over $1,000,000 ............................................................................... $7079, 'Plus 1.70% $30.50 $4.00 1.70% $30.5, Plus $4.00 $18.00 1.70% $90.5, Plus $18.00 $13.00 1.70% $504.5, Plus $13.00 $9.00 1.70% $829.5, Plus $9.00 $7.00 1.70% $1279.5, Plus $7.50 $6.00 1.70% $4279.5, Plus $6.00 $4.50 1.70% $7279.5, Plus $4.50 Other Inspections and Fees, Per Hour (1): 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (min. 2 hours) ............................... $60.00 1.70% ..................... $61.00 2. Reinspection fees assessed under UBC Section 108.8 ....................................... $60.00 1.70% ..................... $61.00 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (min. 1/2 hour) ...................... $60.00 1.70% ..................... $61 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to ..................... $60.00 1.70% ..................... $61.00 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or ..................... Actual Costs (2) .................................. Actual Costs (2) (1) Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages, and fr benefits of the employees involved. (2) Actual costs include City administrative and overhead costs. School Impact Fee: Single-Family Residences, per dwelling unit ......................................................... $3,894.00 ................................. $3,269.00 Multi-Family Residences, per dwelling unit ........................................................... $1,094,00 .................................. $940.00 Case Report, '1st 10 pages*. ............................................................................ $10.00 Traffic Accident Report, 1st 10 pages *. ..............................................................$10.00 Reports exceeding ten (10) pages, per page ........................................................ $0.15 Photograph Duplication (digital or film), per photo ................................................. $1.00 Videotapes, per tape ....................................................................................... $25.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0.15 $1.00 $25.00 $5.00 File to disc, per disk ........................................................................................ $5.00 Fingerprint Card ............................................................................................. $10 1st 2~53 each .................................. $10 1st 2/$3 each additional additional Photo ID Card ............................................................................................... $10.00 Concealed Pistol License - New ........................................................................ $60.00 Concealed Pistol License - Renewal ................................. ' ................................. $32.00 Lamination .................................................................................................... $5.00 Late Fee (if applicable) .................................................................................... $10.00 Concealed Pistol License - Reissuance .............................................................. $10.00 Traffic School (including Police and Court costs) ................................................... $100.00 ..................................$10.00 ..................................$60.00 ..................................$32.00 ..................................$5.00 ..................................$10.00 ..................................$10.00 ..................................$100.00 *Victim of a crime receives one copy of the case report at no cost; driver and registered owner of vehicle involved in traffic accident receives one copy the collision report at no cost. EXHIBIT "A" MEETING DATE: ITEM// December 2, 2003 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: CEO Magazine Ad and Editorial CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $5275.00 Expenditure Amt.: $0.00 Contingency Req'd: $0.00 ATTACHMENTS: Memo to FEDRAC dated November 19, 2003 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Washington CEO Magazine approached the City of Federal Way over a year ago about a feature story on the City. The timing was not right, given that the permit process and strategic publicity plan had not yet been completed. With those now in place, the Economic Development Committee feels the June 2004 issue would provide a good opportunity to showcase Federal Way. The magazine reaches a readershp of approximately 25,000 chief executive officers of Washington State companies. Each month the magazine focuses on a different organization or community in its "regional report", a feature that is professionally written and contains photographs, graphic images, and advertising from local businesses. CEO Magazine's June 2004 issue would be most desirable because the theme, "The best companies in Washington State to work for," is traditionally the most widely read issue of the year. Cost to the City is $5,275 for a full-page ad. In exchange, the magazine will provide a feature article on Federal way, 2500 reprints of the article for our use, and will conduct a CEO Roundtable of leaders in the community to discuss the pros and cons of the city's business climate. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the CEO Magazine Ad and Editorial proposal to the full City Council on December 2, 2003 with a do pass recommendation. PROPOSED MOTION: "Motion to authorize City Manager to enter into an agreement with CEO Magazine for an ad and editorial" CITY MANAGER A~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED B Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM Date: To: Via: From: Subject: November 19, 2003 Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee David H. Mo~se}~y, City Manager Donna Hans~Lhl(ssistant City Manager CEO Magazine ad and editorial BACKGROUND Last month the Economic Development Committee discussed the possibility of a feature story on the City of Federal Way appearing in Washington CEO Magazine. The magazine had approached the City last year, but the timing was not right, given that we had not yet completed our permit process improvements or the strategic publicity plan. With those now in place, we feel the June 2004 issue would provide a very good time to showcase Federal Way. According to Washington CEO Magazine, their publication reaches a readership of over 25,000 chief executive officers of Washington State companies. Each month the magazine focuses on a different organization or community in its "regional report". The reports have become quite popular with subscribers, as the magazine strives to spotlight economic development issues facing cities. The feature stories are professionally written and contain photographs, graphic images, and advertising from local businesses. The "report" is a stand-alone booklet that can be removed from the magazine and kept for future reference. Staff and Washington CEO Magazine representatives met to discuss the various possibilities for a story in 2004. It became clear that the June 2004 issue would be most desirable because the theme, "The best companies in Washington State to work for," is traditionally the most widely read issue of the year. Cost to the City is $5,275 for a full-page ad. In exchange, the magazine will provide a feature article on Federal way, 2500 reprints of the article for our use, and will conduct a CEO Roundtable of leaders in the community to discuss the pros and cons of the city's business climate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that FEDRAC recommend approval of purchase of a full-page ad in Washington CEO Magazine at a cost of $5,275.00. COMMITTEE ACTION Approve the purchase of a full-page ad in Washington CEO Magazine at a cost of $5,275.00. AppRoVAL'BY ....~ ' ' '::.' ".' '. COMMITTEE:' :'" '":' ' ' ' :"" ' · Committee Chair :i" ,:':' ,'..' COmmittee Member · i...':'. :'. ' Committee Member CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Redondo East Annexation CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] ORDINANCE [] PUBLIC HEARING [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: 12/2/03 Council Memo, 12/2/03 location map, 9/29/03 LUTC Memo, 11/24/03 Financial Report, 11/20/03 Resolution, Island Method Overview dated 11/24/03 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Proposal to annex unincorporated Redondo East Community near intersection of Pacific Hwy and 272nd Street and is approximately 50 acres in size. This area qualifies for the Island Method of annexation. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the full Council that a Resolution be prepared for Council adoption to enter into an interlocal agreement with King County for annexation of Redondo East. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move approval of the Resolution to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with King County for annexation of the Redondo East area." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED B Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sx reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM November 24, 2003 To: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Jeanne Burbidge, Mayor Federal Way City Council Rox Burhans, Associate Planne.r(X~ Kathy McClung, Director ~,~\~ David Mose~/~nager Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Potential Annexations MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 L Background During the September 29, 2003 Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting, staff provided general information on the unincorporated Redondo East and S,W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Communities located in the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)o The City Manager also read into the record a memo submitted by the Homeowner Association Board o]'Regency Woods (S.W. Parkway) indicating their support for annexation to Federal Way (Exhibit/). During the October 20, 2003 and November 3, 2003 LUTC meetings, staff presented information on the PAA North Lake Community. Members of the North Lake Improvement Club also presented the LUTC with a letter signed by North Lake area registered voters indicating their support for annexation to the City (Exhibit Il). The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272"a Street. This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties. The S.Wu Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods~ The S.W. Parkway area also contains an automobile junkyard that would require immediate compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements, upon annexation. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320th Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. Please refer to Exhibit II! for location maps of each area. At each of the above LUTC meetings, Staff presented general information related to the area's size, population, existing land use, and preliminary costs and revenues to provide City public services to these unincorporated communities. Additional information was also provided regarding the island and election methods of annexation. Please refer to the enclosed September 29, 2003, October 20, 2003, and November 3, 2003 LUTC memos for more information (Exhibits IK V, and VI). During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, staff was directed to prepare resolutions for Council consideration to initiate the Redondo East and S.W. Parkway annexations. The Redondo East Community would be annexed using a new island annexation process. The S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community would be annexed using an election method, initiated by Council resolution process. Staff was asked to prepare the S.W. Parkway initiating resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. However, due to the need to prepare legal descriptions for proposed annexations, this item could not be added to the October 21, 2003 Council agenda. At the November 3, 2003 LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. The North Lake Community would be annexed using the election method, initiated by Council resolution process. The LUTC also recommended that staff prepare a resolution initiating the North Lake annexation after adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). In an effort to present a comprehensive annexation proposal for Council consideration and provide more specific financial information, the three proposed annexations considered by the LUTC have been placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Exhibit VII will provide the Council with more specific financial information on the anticipated costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake, S. W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. The following will explain the annexation timing options considered by the LUTC regarding the Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Community annexations. IL Redondo East Island Annexation In response to LUTC direction, Exhibit VIII is a resolution to initiate an island method annexation of the unincorporated Redondo East Community. The City would later effect the annexation through an interlocal agreement with King County and a Council ordinance. For reference, Exhibit IX provides an overview of the island method process, prepared by the Municipal Research Services Corporation (MRSC). In the event that the Council chooses to proceed with an island method annexation for the Redondo East Community, the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider, based on staffs current understanding of the island method process. These process alternatives are related to the timing of when the annexation would be effected. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended Staff recommends that the Council effect the Redondo East annexation (via interlocal agreement and Council ordinance) after Council adoption of the PAA Study~ The adoption of the PAA Study will amend the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations. If the Council concurs with staff's recommendation and initiates the Redondo East annexation during its December 2, 2003 meeting, the annexation could be effecied approximately September 2004~ However, be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). Staff's recommendation is based on the State statute's contemplation of what appears to be the ideal process for island annexations, that the City prepared proposed comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the new area will be considered simultaneously with the ordinance effecting the island annexation (35A. 14.460 RCW). In order to do this, however, the City would have to comply with the requirements in 35A. 14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning regulation. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the Redondo East area. Page 2 Second Process Alternative There may be an alternative process to reduce a limited amount of time to effect the Redondo East annexation. This process would involve adoption of existing King County Redondo East Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, as interim designations for up to one-year. However, this alternative process does appear to have complications, according to the MRSC August 2000 Annexation Handbook. The Annexation Handbook warns that Washington State law does not specifically authorize the adoption of existing King County designations. However, it is important to note that several municipalities, including Federal Way, have adopted local code provisions to permit the adoption of existing County designations. The alternative process may also be impractical because City staff would be administering King County policies and code requirements, so the City Council would also be required to adopt the King County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning designations, and Code. In order to avoid these possible complications, Staff recommends effecting the Redondo East annexation after adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the Redondo East Community. III. S.W. Parkway Election Annexation During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, the LUTC directed staff to prepare a resolution to initiate an election method annexation of the S.W. Parkway Community for Council consideration at the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. Pursuant to the LUTC's recommendation, the annexation would be held on the next available election date~ However~ due to State statute requirements regarding election method resolutions: staff was unable to prepare a resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. During the LUTC's October 20ti~ and November 3rd meetings~ the LUTC considered a similar proposal for the annexation of the North Lake Community using the election method of annexation. As part of staff's research for the proposed North Lake annexation (Section IV below), staff prepared two procedural alternatives for initiating the annexation election. The first alternative process would initiate the annexation using what is likely the State "preferred or recommended" process. The second process alternative would initiate the annexation to occur on the closest possible election date. As noted in staff's November 3rd LUTC memo and explained below, there are complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date. Based on these complications, the LUTC recommended that the North Lake annexation be initiated after Council adoptior~ of the PAA Study~ It is important to note that the complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date were discovered after the LUTC's S~W~ Parkway annexation recommendation. In light of the LUTC recommendation to initiate the North Lake election annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Study, staffdid not prepare a resolution to initiate the S.W. Parkway election method annexation at the December 2, 2003 Council meeting. As explained below, staff has prepared two process alternatives for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexation. The first process alternative would initiate the annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Study~ This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC recommendation for the similar North Lake annexation and the State "preferred or recommended" process~ The second process alternative would place the annexation on the closest possible election date. This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC's earlier September 29th recommendation. The following will explain the relevant annexation related State statutes and process alternatives for Council consideration. Similar to the island method statutes explained in Section li above, the State statute contemplates what Page 3 may be regarded as a preferred process for election annexations, that the City will prepare proposed zoning designations for the new area so that the zoning will be considered simultaneously with the resolution initiating the election process (35A. 14.015 RCW). In order to meet the requirements of this process, the City would have to comply with 35A. 14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the S.W. Parkway Community. A key difference between the island and election methods "ideal or preferred" annexation processes is that the election method's initiating resolution must contemplate the proposed zoning regulation, versus the effecting ordinance in the island method~ In the event that the Council chooses to proceed forward with an election method annexation for the S.W. Parkway Community, the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended The first process alternative contemplates initiating an annexation election after completion of the ongoing PAA Study, tentatively scheduled for completion in July 2004. Consistent with staff's recommendation for the Redondo East island method annexation, this action will amend the FWCP to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre-annexation zoning. Please refer to Exhibit X for the first alternative procedural timeline. Be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study. Initiating an election method annexation after adoption of the PAA Study could place the annexation election on the November 2, 2004 General Election (RCV~ 29.13.070)~. Staff would need to do additional research on the submittal deadline of proposed ballot initiatives. By initiating the S.W. Parkway annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study, the City will have established the pre-annexation zoning and comprehensive planning designations and completed the required State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review for the annexation process. In addition, this alternative process will also avoid the MRSC identified complications associated with adoption of existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, policies~ and codes. Second Process Alternative The second process alternative contemplates placing the S.W. Parkway annexation on the closest possible election ballot (May 18, 2004, Special Election). Using the second alternative process, the City would need to adopt the existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations already in place for S.W. Parkway for an interim period of up to one-year. This one-year time frame will then allow the City to then implement pre-annexation comprehensive planning and zoning designations, possibly through the adoption of the ongoing PAA Study. The City would need to adopt the existing King County designations in order to comply with the initiating resolution requirements, defer the need for the minimum of two public hearings on Pre-annexation Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map designations, and reduce the completion period of the required SEPA requirements. However, as previously explained, the MRSC Annexation Handbook has identified potential problems that may complicate an annexation using this process. Please refer to Section II above for a complete description regarding possible complications identified by MRSC. Exhibit XI explains the procedural timeline for the second annexation process alternative that would place the annexation election on the closest possible election date° The second annexation process alternative would initiate the annexation election during the January 6, 2004 Council meeting. The annexation election would be held on May 18, 2004 through a Special Election (RCW29.13.020). If the Council chooses to proceed with an election annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane I Be advised the November 2, 2003 LUTC Memo incorrectly indicates September 16, 2004 as a primary election date. Page 4 Community, Staff recommends that the Council proceed with Alternative I that would initiate the annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community. III. North Lake Annexation At the November 3ra LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. However, in order to present the Council with a more comprehensive annexation proposal that included all three proposed annexations, and to provide the Council with specific financial information, the North Lake annexation proposal was placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Pursuant to the LUTC's direction to staff, the North Lake election method annexation would be initiated by Council resolution after adoption of the PAA Study. A second process alternative that would initiate and effect the North Lake annexation more quickly is provided in Exhibit Al. This process alternative is identical to the second process alternative described in Section II above for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexation. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake Community. IV. Recommended Council Action Ao Redondo East: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the enclosed resolution to enter into interlocal agreement negotiations with King County for an Island Method annexation of the Redondo East area (to be effected after Council adoption of the PAA Study), and to direct staff to submit a Notice of Intent to annex the Redondo East area to the King County Boundary Review Board. North Lake: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staffto prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the North Lake area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. S.W. Parkway: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staffto prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the S.W. Parkway area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. List of Exhibits Exhibit I: Regency Woods Support Memo Exhibit II: North Lake Registered Voters Support Letter and Signature Sheets Exhibit III: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Location Maps Exhibit IV: September 29, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit V: October 20, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit VI: November 3, 2003 LUTC Memo Page 5 Exhibit VII: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Communities Fiscal Information Exhibit VIII: Redondo East Resolution Exhibit IX: MRSC Island Method Overview Exhibit X: Alternative I Election Method Flow Chart Exhibit XI: Alternative II Election Method Flow Chart K: Rox/Potential Annexation Area Study Phase Il/Annexation/Dec 2~ Council Memo for Three Proposed Annexations Page 6 City of Federal Way Redondo East Community EXHIBIT~-~ PAGE__~__OF ~_~-- CITY OF & Federal Way September 24, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services David ~ Manager Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Issues Discussion MEETING DATE: September 29, 2003 City staffhas been working on a variety of issues relating to the PAA for the past year. This report will discuss the progress made on a variety of issues and outline Council options for possible future consideration. GENERAL BACKGROUND The State Supreme Court reached a decision that amended the petition annexation method the state had been using for years and added confusion about how cities could accomplish an annexation. Last year, the State Legislature further amended the annexation methods and provided some additional options for annexations. Since that time the State Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider their decision but there is no timeline tied to this reconsideration and we have been told that the State Legislature will most likely look at the annexation issues again in their next session. The establiShed methods currently available for annexation are: · The Island Method- When an area is surrounded by at least 60 percent by one or more jurisdictions, the City that has it in their adopted PAA can annex the island legislatively. Voters in the area do have the ability to rescind the annexation by a majority vote. · The Petition Method- A majority of the property owners and registered voters in the area must sign a petition to annex the area. · Election Method Initiated by Petition - When l 0 percent of the number of voters in the last election within the area sign a petition to add a proposition for annexation. A majority vote will approve the annexation. · Election Method by Resolution - The City Council may pass a resolution to add an area for annexation to the next general election. A majority of votes in the area pass the annexation. The annexation methods described above are greatly over-simplified. They do not include the public hearings, legal notices, and Boundary Review Board process. EXHI B IT PAGE_.A.._OF PAA STUDY UPDATE The consultants have completed the PAA report, which is contained in two parts: The PAA Subarea Plan and the PAA Feasibility Study. The final Stakeholders meeting was held last Monday night and the final Open House is Thursday, the 25th. (A verbal report of these meetings will be included in the presentation to LUTC.) The PAA Subarea Plan essentially follows the existing King County designations. The staff adopted the position of not sponsoring wholesale changes because of the more extensive environmental review and public process that would be required and was not anticipated with this study. The PAA Feasibility Study shows a yearly hypothetical City deficit of around three million dollars if the City were to annex the entire PAA study area. The next step of the process is to complete the State Environmental Protection Act Review (SEPA), which we anticipate to have completed by sometime in November. Following the comment and appeal period for this review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the Planning Commission to review staff proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Designations and Policies and individual Comprehensive Plan Map requests. This discussion must be folded into the adoption of the next Comprehensive Plan Update, which will most likely occur in November. No action on the PAA Study is required of the LUTC at this time. REDONDO EAST UPDATE Background- At the July 7th LUTC meeting the staff were directed to pursue the annexation of the Redondo East area through the Island Method of annexation. City staff met with a King County representative to discuss initiation of this annexation. The next step in the process is to prepare a resolution for the Council that will direct staff to begin negotiation with King County for an interlocal agreement. King County agreed to provide a "boilerplate" resolution that we can use as a model. Council then conducts a public hearing and adopts the interlocal agreement and an ordinance that provides the effective date of annexation, zoning, and bonded indebtedness. Area Description -The Redondo East area has approximately 260 citizens and 150 housing units. The housing units are composed of Crestwood Senior Mobile Park and Applewood Subdivision. There is a strip of vacant multi-family zoned property along Pacific Highway, South of the "Y" at 16a* Avenue South. A variety of commercial properties, developed, undeveloped, and under-developed compose the remaining parcels. One of the larger underdeveloped properties is the vacant entertainment center. The consultant's report shows this area as generating a small increase in revenue over the City's expenses, should the City decide to annex. Suggested LUTC Recommendation - "I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption by the Council to enter into negotiations with King County over an interlocal agreement for the annexation of Redondo East area." ~'r[c Faison, :Chair -~ Mi6hael l,a~ber ~MCCOlg n, M6~ber Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion LUTC Memo PAGE '3..OF S :ptember24'2°°3page2 NORTII LAKE AREA Boundaries - Councilmember Faison has asked staff to provide information regarding the North Lake and Regency Woods/Brittany Lane areas for consideration of annexation. The North Lake area is bounded on the north by 320th, on the east by Peasley Canyon Road, on the south by Highway 18, and on the west by the City boundaries. The North Lake Area is approximately 384 acres of which nearly half is developed into residential properties. Another 126 acres is undeveloped, about 100 acres is in utilities and streets, and there is a very small percentage in commercial, office, and open space. Commercial land includes a nursery and gas station. The average assessed value of homes in this area is about $190,000. The 2003 population is estimated at 600. The PAA Study has the following analysis on the North Lake area: "In relative terms, the small North Lake area is likely to come the closet to breaking even. North Lake has taxable property per resident that is more than 50 percent higher than that of the three PAA's combined (Table D-4, values that translate into roughly a 20 percent boost in the area's per capita revenues). We also estimate that North Lake will generate lower-than-average demand for public safety services. However, North Lake appears to generate only very low levels of sales tax revenues. On balance, our rough assessment is that even annexation of the North Lake neighborhood would generate net costs in excess of $50 per resident." (Annexation Feasibility Study pp D 4,5.) Options - The Geographic Information System analysis of the North Lake area shows that the area qualifies for the island annexation method by less than one percent. If the Council wishes to actively pursue annexation in this area, the election method by resolution would be the best option, absent property owners that want to facilitate a petition or ballot measure. The estimated cost to put an issue on the ballot is about $2.00 per registered voter. This cost includes legal notices. This expense has not been budgeted at this time. The next available election for this issue is in February. Suggested LUTC RecOmmendation - "I move to direct the staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption at the October 21' 2003, meeting to put the North Lake area annexation on the next available election." APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION Eric Faison, Chair .... MiCha{~[ Pa/r~, 1V~mber Dean McColgan, Member EXHIBIT PAGE Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion September 24, 2003 LUTC Memo Page 3 REGENCY WOODS/BRITTANY LANE AREA Boundaries - The Regency Woods/Brittany Lane area is roughly a triangle within the Parkway area of the PAA study. It is bounded by 1~5 on the west, Enchanted Parks on the east, and City of Milton on the south. Background - When Enchanted Parks was annexed into the City of Federal Way; there was initially some interest from the Regency Woods and Brittany Lane residents about annexing into the City. This idea was tabled at the time because there were infrastructure problems within these relatively new developments that the property owners, King County, and the developer were still resolving. These problems have since been taken care of. A rough estimate of the population for this area is 1100. There is a large condominium to the north, Regency Ridge. The Regency Woods subdivision composes the majority of the area and there is a small commercial strip to the south including a junkyard. The junkyard is relevant to mention because it is the one use within the PAA that requires immediate compliance according to Federal Way City Code Section 22.330(a)(9). Staff is researching possible options for this situation. It would not make sense to omit this parcel from an area-wide annexation because it would leave an isolated parcel between Federal Way and Milton that King County would have to provide services. Specific information about this area is difficult to report because the information we have is for the greater Parkway area. The PAA report does place the Parkway neighborhood as the lowest recommended priority for annexation because their cost estimate to serve that area is the highest. Breaking out this area as defined above, may lower the cost to serve by some extent. The average assessed value for homes in the Parkway neighborhood is $172,000. Options - This area does not qualify for the island method of annexation. If the Council wishes to pursue this area, the election method by resolution would be the best option. The costs would be the same as described in the North Lake area above. Suggested LUTC Recommendation -"I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption at the October 21, ~7, meeting to put the Regency Woods area annexation on the next available election." __~_.~RI:.COM ,MEN i):k'i'iON " "· 11 It / .d ....... , [1 i~ie ?fii~o(,, Chair Miclu,el P~Me,,,be,' Ilea,, McColga,,, STAFF IMPACT The only time currently on the Community Development Work Program for annexations is to complete the PAA study. The department has 1.5 FTE's devoted to all non-permit planning work. Additionally, there is some consulting money budgeted for code amendments and special projects. Should the Council decide to move forward with these annexation proposals as a high priority, staff will prepare a revised work program that we will present to LUTC at a future meeting. EXHIBIT_.T/... Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion LUTC Memo Page 4 North Lake, S.W. Parkway, & Redondo East Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation I. Background and Overview The Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) directed staffto prepare more specific fiscal information regarding the anticipated costs and revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake and S.W. Parkway Communities to the City. The following will provide the LUTC with the requested information. In light of Council's consideration of the Redondo East area, Staff has also prepared specific fiscal information for this area. The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272na Street. This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties. The S.W. Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320~ Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. A considerable amount of the information used in this report is drawn from the PAA Study. Staff has supplemented this information with more detailed, area-specific information and analysis to determine the likely operating or day-to-day services needed, and any capital improvements that may be needed in the foreseeable future. Staff also examined dedicated capital revenue sources (REET taxes, utility tax, etc.) and alternative capital revenue sources (i.e~ grants, cost partnerships, etc.) to provide the Council with the most likely assessment of the anticipated revenues that will be available to fund public services and improvements to these communities~ Table I below summarizes the net fiscal impact to the City of annexing the unincorporated North Lake, SoWo Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. Operating deficits or surpluses would be realized on an annual basis. Capital deficits or surpluses have been allocated over the course of 18 years. As indicated below, when reviewing the three annexation proposals comprehensively, them is no significant financial gain or loss to the City. Table I: Net Fiscal Impact of Three Annexation Proposals Operating Summary Operating Summary North Lake S.W. Parkway I Redondo East Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $ 207,483 $151,955 $ 593,314 Operating Costs (230,894) (243,987) (117,000) (591,881). Net Operating Surplus or (Deficit) $ 2,982 $ (36,504) ' $ 34,955 $ 1,433 Capital Summary Annual Capital Revenue $106,872 $ 86,891 I $ 31,152 $ 224,915 Total Annual Capital Costs (102,311) (61,756) I (59,117) (223,183) Annual Capital Surplus or (Deficit) $ 4,561 $ 25,135 I $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Combined Operating and Capital Summary (Deficit) $ 7,543 $ (11,369) $6,990 $ 3,164 EXHIBIT_._ _.._ PAGE / _OF t© Operating Services As indicated in Table I above, the general governmental operating revenues and costs (as adjusted by the size, characteristics, and conditions of the three communities) indicate that Redondo East has the most favorable operating balance of the three proposed annexation areas, The North Lake Community's operating revenues would slightly exceed the cost to provide City operating services. The S.W. Parkway Community's operating costs exceed anticipated operating revenues. When considering the three proposed annexations comprehensively, the anticipated operating revenues generated in the three areas would be sufficient to provide City operating services. Capital Improvements The analysis of anticipated capital costs and revenues indicates that the Parkway Community fares the best, requiring the least annual investments; the North Lake Community would nearly breakeven, and Redondo East shows more capital needs than resources would support. The higher capital needs in the North Lake area is primarily due to the major arterial roadways in this area that would require more expensive overlay costs. The higher capital costs in the Redondo East area is primarily due to a lack of parks facilities. Staff recommends that the City address the existing North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Community parks and open space deficiencies by adding neighborhood parks and open space improvements. Summary The combined operating and capital balance sheet indicates a positive balance for the North Lake and Redondo East areas, a smaller but still negative balance for S.W.' Parkway, and a small combined surplus~ While the capital surplus is not always available for operating purposes, the City is not prohibited from using capital resources generated from one area for use in another. The table shows a positive balance among the three areas between operating and capital resources/needs, The bottom line also suggests that no single annexation area would provide the City with a substantial fiscal gain or loss. The following will provide more detailed information regarding anticipated operating and capital costs and revenues associated with an annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities to the City of Federal Way o IL Report Methodology As explained above~ this analysis draws a considerable amount of information from the PAA Study. However, this analysis deviates from the PAA Study in the following two respects~ The first is the geographic scope of the analysis° The PAA Study reviewed the PAA as a whole and in three large sub areas with a combined total population of over 21,000. In contrast, this analysis will focus only on the North Lake, S.Wo Parkway, and Redondo East Communities that have a combined 2003 population of less than 2~000~ The second difference in the two analyses is in the scope of operating and capital revenues and costs considered, The PAA Study provided a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis for all local government operations, including those services supported by user fees and accounted for in enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are used to support City surface water management and solid waste and recycling services. State law does not allow co-mingling of Two new developments are currently under various stages of permit process in the North Lake area which will almost double the housing units (from 218 to 412) and population (from 600 to 1,134) in the area and will bring the total population for the three areas from 1,960 to 2,494. Because the likelihood of the development to occur in the near future and the significant size of these developments, this analysis included these proposed developments in assessing the service demand and fiscal impact. EXHIBIT ¥ PAGE OF enterprise fund resources with general fund resources. Therefore, this analysis more clearly segregates enterprise related activities and focuses on general governmental services and capital improvements. III. Demographics and Housing Characteristics Table II below organizes the PAA housing and population data as analyzed in the PAA Study, and the three specific areas addressed in this staff analysis. For cross-reference purposes, North Lake is located in the Northeast PAA Subarea, S.W. Parkway is located in the Southeast PAA Subarea, and the Redondo East Community is the same Redondo East area addressed in the PAA Study. The three areas combined represent 12 percent of the population and 15 percent of the assessed value in the PAA. The higher assessed value to population ratio indicates that these areas as a whole have above average fiscal viability for annexation. It is important to note that as the more feasible areas are annexed, any remaining PAA areas would be less likely to financially "pencil out" for future annexation consideration. Table Ih 2003 Entire PAA and Proposed Annexation Areas Demographic Information Northeast Subarea PAA Stud,, Southeast Subarea Redondo East Subarea PAA Total Housing Units 4,130 3,340 150 7,620 Population 12,300 8,900 260 21,460 Assessed $707,053,000 $521,416,000 $17,542,000 $1,246,011,000 Value Three Possible Annexations North Lake2 S.W. Redondo Total Percent Parkway East of PAA Total Housing Units 412 400 150 962 13% Population 1,134 1,100 260 2,494 12% Assessed $94,280,000 $77,595,000 $17,542,000 $189,417,000 15% Value IV. Operating Revenues and Costs Operating Revenues Primary general governmental revenues are property and sales taxes, state shared revenues (distributed based on population), utility tax revenues used for maintenance purposes, and various miscellaneous taxes and fees. General governmental revenues are used to provide the majority of daily City services including public safety (police, court, and prosecution), street and parks maintenance, recreation programs, development review, building permit services, etc. Table III below identifies anticipated operating revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. Population figure includes the proposed North Lake Ridge and North Lake Estates, Division 1 Developments EXHIBIT V P, AGE. i i~ OF l.:o Table III · Proposed Annexation Areas t)peraunl ~ tcevenues North S.W. Redondo Revenue Source Lake2 Parkway' East Total Property Tax 126,335 103,977 23,506 253,819 State Shared Revenue 29,820 24,835 6,840 61,495 CJ Sales Tax 22,670 18,880 5,200 46,750 Local Sales tax 9,861 18,350 79,000 107,210 Utility Tax (O&M) 10,263 8,136 3,409 21,808 Surface Water Fees - - Fines & Forfeits 9,768 12,198 6,000 27,966 Building Permit 11,151 9,546 7,000 27,697 Vehicle License Fee (repealed by 1-776) - Franchise Fee 9,400 7,849 2,000 19,249 Solid Waste - - Development Fees 3,594 2,864 1,000 7,458 Recreation Fees ' - Zoning Fees 645 530 1,000 2,175 Gambling Tax - 16,000 16,000 Business License 369 318 1,000 1,687 Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $207,483 $151,955 $593,314 Per capita Revenue $206.33 $188.62 $584.44 $237.94 The estimates specified in Table III above are proportional to the PAA Study revenue estimates (using population as a baseline), with the following changes or adjustments: Property tax is based on the estimated 2003 assessed value (AV) of a specific neighborhood. b. State shared revenue is adjusted to remove the restricted fuel tax used for arterial street programs, which is moved to the capital section of this analysis. c. The change in criminal justice distribution° d. Utility tax revenues are adjusted to remove the portion associated with the street overlay program from operation to capital (the same adjustment is also made to PW operating cost). e. The Vehicle license fee is eliminated due to the recent court decision on 1-776. fo Recreation fees are eliminated because there are no new recreation facilities in the area; the change in participation in existing city programs and facilities would be minimal. g. Gambling tax is only available in the Redondo area° The gambling tax in the Northeast PAA is associated with a particular business in the Star Lake area, not in the North Lake neighborhood. h. Eliminate surface water and solid waste enterprise revenues that are not available for general services, B. Operating Costs The PAA Study provided a thorough review of City services and driving forces behind the demand for services. The PAA Study projects costs to increase proportionally for both direct services and supporting operations from increased service demand from the annexations (assuming a "stable state" of service condition and maintaining existing service levels). However, EXHIBIT V PAGE OF the PAA Study cost model is developed on a much larger scale. A direct extrapolation of the three proposed annexation areas would not take into account any specific characteristic of the smaller neighborhoods. To address the differences, staff made the following adjustments to the PAA Study cost analysis for the three proposed annexation areas: 1. Parks/Recreation cost is adjusted to reflect the need for neighborhood parks in the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East areas with no change to other PRCS department services. 2. Community Development costs are adjusted to the extent that it offsets the incremental permit fee revenue. 3. With only marginal increases in service activities, no impact to indirect support (i.e. accounting, human resources, etc.) and administration costs is expected. Table IV below provides staff's assessment of the anticipated operating costs to provide public services to the three proposed annexation areas. Staff believes this represents the more likely impact from the three neighborhoods based on a review of each community's needs. Table IV - Staff Assessment of O1: :rating Cost Estimates North S.W. Redondo Total Services Lake Parkway East City Council $ - $ $ ~ $ - CM - ~ CD (permit processing, offset revenue) l 1,796 10,076 8,000 29,872 Law ! - - MS - - PRCS (new park maintenance) 6,000 5,000 - 11,000 PS (include court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (exclude SWM, SW, Overlay) 60,951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $230,894 $243,987 117,000 $591,881 Per Capita Operating cost $203.70 $221.81 $450.00 $237.37 As a means of comparison between the staff prepared small area assessment and the PAA Study assessment, Table V below identifies the PAA Study operating costs prorated by population for each of the three proposed annexation areas, without enterprise fund or capital operations. EXHIBIT - PAGE OF_ ,,, Vo Table V - PAA Stud,, :)perating Cost Estimates - North S.W. Redondo Cit~ Service Lake Parkway East Total City Council $ 2,396 $ 2,758 $ 1,000 $ 6,154 CM 17,786 21,638 10,000 49,424 CD 27,554 23,441 13,000 63,995 Law 11,888 14,425 6,000 32,313 MS 16,772 19,835 7,000 43,607 PRCS 5,068 43,063 1,000 49,132 Public Safety (w/court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (excl. SW, SWM,) 60,951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $294,562 $354,070 $147,000 $795,633 Per Capita Operating Cost $259.87I $321.88I $565.38I $319.08 Capital Revenues and Costs Overview Table VI below summarizes projected capital revenues and costs for each of the three proposed annexation areas. The primary sources of the City's general governmental capital funding are utility tax, real estate excise tax (PEET) and arterial street fuel tax. While grants and cost sharing opportunities with other jurisdictions is also important, they are only available on a case-by-case basis, and depend on the nature of the project. Staff has indicated below when these opportunities may be available~ The capital costs or needs are determined based on inventory and field inspections of the current capital facilities in each area. The analysis does not include needs for surface water facilities, as these improvements would be financed using surface water enterprise revenues. Table VI: Capital Revenues and Costs Summary Projected Annual 'North S.W. [ Redond(~I Total Capital Sources Lake Parkway[ least Utility Tax (Capital and Overlay) 71,745 57,113 22,436 151,294 PEET (Capital) 27,646 23,547 7,000 58,193 Arterial Street Fuel Tax (Overlay) 7,481 6,230 1,716 15,428 Annual Capital Sources $106,872 $86,891 $31,152 $224,915 North S.W. Redondo Total Projected Annual Costs Lake Parkway, East Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 5; 70,406 Average Annual Park Capital $ 41,667 $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $ 152,778 Total Annual Capital (102,311) (61,756) (59,117) (223,183) Annual Capital Surplus or (deficit) $ 4,561 $ 25,135 $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Note: The amount of utility tax shown represents the portion of thc tax designated for capital, based on 2003 collection levels. Thc capital amount includes street overlay funding and the newly added funding for the community center. The REET is based on a PAA Study estimate prorated by population. The arterial street fuel tax represents a move from the operating section of the PAA Study to capital; which is consistent with associated costs. EXHIBIT ¥ PAGE OF/o 6 The following will explain State and local policies that guide when capital improvements are made. B. Parks & Recreation Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not mandate a minimum quantity of parks and recreation facilities for a given community. Through adoption of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), the City Council has established a Parks and Recreation LOS goal that is reflective of the needs and desires of the Federal Way Community. Generally speaking, this goal would provide 10.9 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Articulating this goal into a LOS standard ensures new residential development provides adequate parks and recreation facilities. The City's actual LOS standard is approximately 10.7 acres of park land perl,000 residents. As Federal Way annexes unincorporated areas that do not meet City parks LOS goals, as is the case with the three proposed annexation areas, the City may exercise significant latitude regarding if and when any parks improvements are made. As explained above, the FWCP LOS standard is not a mandate, but rather a goal to guide parks planning and ensure new development provides appropriate facilities. The parks improvements identified below represent staffs assessment of the recommended improvements to meet the FWCP LOS goals. The analysis assumes that improvements will be made during the 18 year planning horizon. Staff recommends that parks improvements be considered within six to ten years of annexation. 2. Recommended Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Please refer to Table VII for the recommended parks capital improvements. Table VII: Recommended Parks Capital h 1provement: Parks Capital North s.~q. ' Redondo Total Improvements Lake Parkway, East Neighborhood Park 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 Community Park - - - Trail - - - Open space 250,000 - - 250,000 Community Center - - - Area Parks Capital Total 750,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,750,000 Average Annual Park Capital(over 18years) $ 41,667 $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $ 152,778 The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how the parks capital improvement cost and revenue estimates were determined. North Lake area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the North Lake area, two investments are recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Staff recommends the conversion of the existing County owned Hatfield gravel pit to a neighborhood park. The cost to develop a park on this 3.6 acre site is approximately $500,000. Hatfield Pit is located off Military Road South. Based EXHIBIT ,, PAGE Co on past experiences with King County regarding transfer of County owned property, it is assumed that Hatfield Pit would be transferred to the City at no cost. Open Space: Total cost $500,000. It is anticipated that a $250,000 King County Conservation Future Fund grant will be available to fund portions of this cost. The City has recently collected parks and recreation mitigation fees from one residential subdivision in the North Lake area (approx. $25,000). This money and any additional parks and recreation mitigation fees collected in the unincorporated North Lake area could be used to finance parks improvements in the North Lake. S.W. Parkway area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the S.W. Parkway area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. There may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the Redondo East area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. There may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Streets Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The GMA requires adoption of roadway LOS standards to be implemented by local jurisdictions. The State also requires local jurisdictions to adopt t~ansportation improvements plans that identify needed transportation improvements on a six-year horizon basis. Roadway improvements are required to occur concurrently (or within the six year TIP horizon) with new development. The City considers the following factors in the prioritization of transportation improvements: concurrency requirements, LOS, safety, amount of funding, and level of support. 2. Identified Streets Capital Improvements Table VIII below calculates the street related capital improvements needed for the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East areas. Table VIII Street Capil al Improvements Street Capital North I S.W. Redondo Total Improvements Lake I Parkway East Average Annual Street Capital (over 18 years) 12,444 12,444 Annual Pavement Maintenance 48,200 6,200 3,561 57,961 Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 $ 70,406 EXHIBIT . PAGE_ g OF\ VI. A~ The above annual pavement maintenance estimates are based on actual field inspections of existing roadway surface conditions. The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how street capital imProvement cost estimates were determined. North Lake area: An intersection improvement located at Military Road South and Peasley Canyon Road South is identified as a potential future project. The intersection is currently rated as service level E and future improvements would only be required if the area is further developed. The total project cost is estimated to be $898,000. However, only one intersection quadrant is located in the proposed North Lake annexation area. The remaining quadrants are located in unincorporated King County. Therefore, Federal Way would only be responsible for 25 percent of the project cost or $224,000. There may also be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: An intersection/signal improvement at SR 99 and South 16th is identified. The project is currently identified on the "Nickel Tax" funding plan. Therefore, no capital improvement funding is required. · S.W. Parkway area: No street capital improvement projects are identified in this area. Final Considerations Other Factors to Consider As explained in Section One above, the three proposed annexations, when viewed comprehensively, are able to fund the projected public services. However, it is important to recognize the factors, other than financial, that should be taken into account when considering an annexation proposal. Residential development within the Federal Way PAA (east of I-5) is occurring at a rapid rate. A considerable amount of the PAA subdivisions are proposed at higher densities then would be permitted by City of Federal Way codes. Additionally, most PAA subdivisions typically include capital infrastructure (i.e. roads, pedestrian facilities/sidewalks, parks and open space, etc.) that do not meet City LOS standards. The difference between City and King County LOS standards can not only generate additional demand for City infrastructure and services (such as parks and recreation facilities), but also increase the amount of nonconforming development that the City will eventually inherit. By annexing unincorporated PAA areas sooner rather than later, the City could exercise greater influence in land use planning and reduce the amount of inherited nonconforming infrastructure and development. A second, non-financial factor that should be taken into account when considering annexation proposals is compliance with GMA and Countywide Planning Policy (CWPP) guidelines. Generally speaking, the GMA and CWPP indicate that cities are the appropriate public services provider within urbanized unincorporated areas, like the Federal Way PAA. The CWPP also encourage annexation of PAAs' to cities. The annexation of the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities would be consistent with and supportive of GMA and CWPP guidelines° Potential Effects of ?hased Annexations The phasing of annexation typically involves annexing those areas that are most financially self- supporting first, followed by annexing the more expensive areas to serve at a later time. With the previous annexations of the Weyerhaeuser/East Campus and the Wild Waves/Enchanted Parks areas, and should the City annex the unincorporated Redondo East area, all of the concentrated EXHIBIT, 9 PAGE OF commercial areas will be annexed to the City. These types of areas typically generate sufficient tax and fee revenue to offset the costs to provide public services. The remaining unincorporated PAA areas would likely be less dense and contain fewer commercially zoned properties that would be less likely to be financially self-supporting. While it is clear that annexing the entire PAA at once is not a financially viable option, a phased approach of selected areas could increase the financial gap to annex the remaining PAA areas in the future. EXHIBIT., d ~ PAGE /o OF I~ 10 RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, COMMENCING NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY TO ANNEX THE CITY'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA KNOWN AS REDONDO EAST CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (SR 99) AND SOUTH OF SOUTH 272s° STREET AT THE EXISTING NORTHWEST CITY LIMITS IN THE REDONDO NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way seeks to annex the territory identified in the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan as the Redondo East Potential Annexation Area, described as that portion of Sections 32 & 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, Substitute House Bill. 1755, 58t~ Leg., Reg. Sess. (2003) amended RCW 36.70A. 110, Chapter 35o13 RCW and Chapter 35A. 14 RCW to create alternative means by which the legislative body of a code city planning under chapter 36.70A RCW and subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 may initiate an annexation process for unincorporated islands of territory (hereafter "the island annexation method"); and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is a code city planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70Ao215 and, therefore, may avail itself of the island annexation method; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way adopted its Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Res. # . , Page 1 EXHIBIT V ti[ PAGE OF Area (UGA) by Ordinance 721 on May 28, 1996, and adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan's UGA by Ordinance 721A on September 10, 1996 and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance 794 on October 27, 1998, Ordinance 791 on November 10, 1998; Ordinance 840 on August 8, 2000 and Ordinance 897 on October 23, 2001; and WHEREAS, The Redondo East Potential Annexation Area was identified in the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan and King County's Comprehensive Plan as a Potential Annexation Area within the City's urban growth area; and WHEREAS, SHB 1755, Section 3 authorizes the City of Federal Way to initiate an annexation process for the Redondo East Potential Annexation Area by adopting a resolution commencing negotiations for an interlocal agreement with King County as provided in Chapter 39.34 RCW. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The Redondo East Potential Annexation Area was identified in the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan as a Potential Annexation Area within the City's urban growth area satisfying the requirement in S.H.B. 1755, section 3(1)(a). (b) At least 60% of the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation is contiguous to the City of Federal Way or one or more cities or towns, forming an island of unincorporated territory, satisfying the requirement in S.H.Bo 1755, section 3 (1)(b). (c) The Proposed annexation represents a logical extension of the corporate limits to infill Res. # , Page 2 EXHI PAGE OF_ the irregularly shaped boundaries of the City of Federal Way. (d) The interests ,of the people of the City of Federal Way and the unincorporated Redondo East community will be best served if the Redondo East Potential Annexation Area is annexed to and becomes part of the City of Federal Way; (e) The proposed annexation is in compliance with the criteria for initiating the island annexation method established in RCW 35A. 14 as amended by S.H.B. 1755 Sec. 3(1). Section 2. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares its intent to annex, via the island annexation method, the real property described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 3. The City of Federal Way directs staffto commence negotiations with King County for an interlocal agreement as provided in Chapter 36o34 RCW, negotiations to be completed within approximately six months from the effective date of this resolution. Section 4. The City of Federal Way directs staff to file a Notice of Intent to annex with the King County Review Board for approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.93 RCW. Following Board action, staff shall bring the matter back to Council for further action consistent with the provisions of RCW 35A. 14, as amended by S.H.B. 1755. Section 5. 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 6. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed° Res. # , Page 3 EXHIBIT_ _ L- PAGE OF__H[_. Section 7. City Council. RESOLVED WASHINGTON this This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way BY THE CITY __ day of COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 2003. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FEDERAL WAY, MAYOR, JEANNE BURBIDGE ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Revised: 11/20/03 K:La, nnexation\RedondoIslandReso 1 Res. # , Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF FEDERALWAY REDONDO EAST ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Sections 32 & 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-way line of South 272nd Street and the Easterly right-of-way of State Road No. 1, Pacific Highway South, said point also being on the Kent City Limits, Federal Way City Limits, and the south line of the North 38 feet of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East Willamette Meridian; THENCE westerly along the Kent City limits to the intersection of the South right-of-way line of South 272nd Street and the Westerly right-of-way of State Road No. 1, Pacific Highway South, said point being an angle point in the Kent City limits and the Des Moines City Limits; THENCE along portions of the Des Moines City Limits as annexed by Ordinance No. 1166 and No. 1270 the following described courses: Westerly along the South right-of-way line of South 272nd Street to the Easterly right-of-way of 16th Avenue South, being in the Northwest quarter of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; THENCE Southerly along said Easterly right-of-way to its intersection with the Westerly right- of-way of State Road No. 1, Pacific Highway South; THENCE Southerly along said Westerly right-of-way to its intersection with the South right-of- way of South 279th Street; THENCE Westerly along said South right-of-way to the East line of Lot 6, Block 2 of the plat of Redondo on the Highway, recorded in Volume 30 of Plats at page 39, said East line also being the West line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 33; THENCE Southerly along said East line of Lot 6 to the Southeast comer thereof; THENCE Southerly and Westerly along the proposed Easterly right-of-way line of 15th Avenue South as shown in the illustrative site plan 'for the proposed development called "Pacific Place" dated 03/10/2000, to the North line of the Plat of Applewood, recorded in Volume 142 of Plats at pages 56 through 59; Res. # ~ Page 5 EXHIBIT _--- PAGE OF THENCE Westerly along the North line of said Plat of Applewood to the Northwest comer thereof; THENCE Southerly along the West line of said Plat of Applewood and the Southerly extension thereof to the South right-of-way line of South 284th Street and the Federal Way City Limits as established by King County Ordinance 8779; THENCE along said Federal Way City Limits the following described courses: Easterly along said South right-of-way line of South 284th Street to the West line of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W .M., King County; THENCE Northerly along said West line to the North line of the South half of said Southwest quarter of Section 33; THENCE Easterly along said North line to the East right-of-way line of Pacific Highway South, State Road No. 1; THENCE Northerly along said East right-of-way line to the South right-of-way line of South 272nd Street and the point of Beginning. Res. # , Page 6 EXHIBIT__ - PAGE EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF FEDERALWAY REDONDO EAST ANNEXATION DEPICTION ~ City of ]Federal Way Redondo East Community 0 .~QO Fee~ ~ Res. # , Page 7 EXHIBIT_ PAGE I _OF_ printfile Page 1 of 3 Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington Now Available in a Few Counties - The "Alternative" Unincorporated Island-Interloeal Method of Annexation under SHB 1755 08~ The 2003 legislature adopted SHB 1755 (Chapter 299, Laws of 2003), creating an "alternative" method of annexing islands of unincorporated territory through use of interlocal agreements. However, this new "island-interlocal" method of annexation is only available to cities and towns located in counties that are subject to the "buildable lands" review and evaluation program under the Growth Management Act (GMA). These counties are Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston. This article is intended to provide an overview, in question and answer format, of this new "island- interlocal" annexation process. For convenience, the term "city" in this article also refers to a town. Why did this bill come about? Legislative history reflects that the bill was a compromise proposal generated by city and county representatives to address concerns regarding "urban subsidies" received by residents in unincorporated "island" areas that are surrounded by one or more cities as well as perceived "cherry-picking" by cities annexing areas with high tax revenues, leaving less valuable property for counties to serve. Presumably, annexations achieved through negotiation of an interlocal agreement should ensure that counties and cities appropriately address their respective fiscal and operational considerations associated with particular annexations. How is this new method of annexing unincorporated "islands" of territory different from the existing method? Unlike the existing method of annexing unincorporated "islands" of territory, which is available to all cities ~ and requires the proposed annexation area to have at least 80 percent of it boundaries contiguous to a I ! single city (see RCW 35.13.182 and RCW 35A.14.295), the proposed annexation area under this new !'--'1 "island-interlocal" method need have only 60 percent of its boundaries contiguous to a city or to more than one city. As with all annexations in counties subject to the GMA, the proposed annexation area must be within an urban growth area (UGA). How is an annexation under this new method initiated? This new method of annexing unincorporated islands of territory actually embodies two alternative ilXl ~ procedures, one process - initiated by a county - that can be employed if an initial process - initiated by a ~ city or county - fails. The process is begun by the legislative body of a qualifying city or county (see above) adopting a resolution "commencing negotiations" for an interlocai agreement with the county or a city, as the case may be, for annexation of territory described in the agreement that is within the city's UGA and that has at least 60 percent of its boundaries contiguous to the annexing city or the annexing city and one or more other cities. After a resolution is adopted, the county and city are to negotiate and try to reach an agreement regarding the annexation. If, after passage of the resolution, the county and city reach an agreement, the respective legislative bodies must each hold a public hearing, which may be a joint hearing, before actual execution of the agreement. The county and city must, either separately or jointly, publish the text of the agreement at least once a week for two weeks before the date of the hearing(s) in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area proposed for annexation. Presumably, these publications should also provide notice '~ 0 0 0 0 0 http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx, prntPath= ~2fSubjects ¼2fLega1¼2fannex ¼2fFiles ~... 11/22/2003 printfile Page 2 of 3 of the public hearing(s). How is an annexation under this method completed? Following the public hearing(s) and adoption of the agreement between the county and city legislative bodies providing for the annexation of the unincorporated island, the city council adopts an ordinance annexing the territory as described in the agreement. The ordinance may provide that the property owners in the annexed area will assume their share of the city's outstanding indebtedness and/or that a specific proposed zoning regulation is adopted for the area. The ordinance must set the date that the annexation is effective, but that date must be 45 days or more following the date of ordinance adoption to accommodate a referendum procedure. The city council must publish notice of the effective date of the annexation at least once a week for two weeks after passage of the ordinance in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area to be annexed. Is the annexation ordinance subject to a referendum? Yes. Under Section 2(5) and 4(5) of SHB 1755, the annexation ordinance is subject to a referendum election if, within 45 days of adoption of the ordinance, a sufficient referendum petition is filed with the city council. A referendum petition is sufficient if it is signed by registered voters representing not less than 15 percent of the number of votes cast at the last state general election in the area to be annexed. If a sufficient petition is filed, an election on the annexation is to be held at a general election if it is within 90 days of the filing of the petition or at a special election that is 45 to 90 days after filing of the petition. The election is held only within the area subject to annexation and is decided by majority vote. What if a city and county cannot reach agreement on annexing the unincorporated island? The county may initiate the annexation process with another city that has boundaries contiguous to the unincorporated island if the county initiated the annexation process by resolution, as above, and: the affected city rejected the proposed annexation or declined to enter into an agreement; or 180 days have passed since the county adopted the resolution and no agreement has been reached and neither the county or the city have, after a public hearing, passed a resolution extending the negotiation period. However, the negotiation period may be extended at the option of either the city or county by adoption of a resolution extending that period by one or more six-month periods, if a public hearing is held and findings of fact supporting the extension are adopted prior to each extension. The process then goes on exactly as in the original process above, although in this case it is only the county that, by resolution, can initiate the process. Annexation under this process is also subject to referendum. May a city, under this second process, annex territory that is within another city's urban growth area or within an "urban service area" or "potential annexation area" designated for another city? Apparently so. A separate provision of this bill amends the GMA and authorizes the designation in a county comprehensive plan of "urban services areas" or "potential annexation areas" for specific cities within an urban growth area. See SHB 1755, Sec. 5, amending RCW 36.70A.110. Some counties have previously designated such areas within urban growth areas that border more than one city. If the territory proposed for annexation under this second process has been designated as part of an "urban service area" or "potential annexation area" for a specific city (i.e., not the annexing city under this second process) or if it c~ 0 0 0 0 0 http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx, pmtPath= ¼2fSubjects ¼2fLega1¼2fannex ¼2fFiles ¼... 11/22/2003 printfile Page 3 of 3 lies within another city's urban growth area, or if the urban growth area territory proposed for annexation has been designated in a written agreement between the county and a specific city for annexation to that city, the city that the county negotiates with under this second process may still annex that territory as long as that designation receives "full consideration" before this second process can be initiated, What exactly may be necessary to satisfy this "full consideration" requirement remains to be seen, May a county, under this second process, reach agreement with more than one city concerning annexation of the same territory, and, if so, what happens in that event? Yes, a county may reach agreement with more than one city to annex the same unincorporated island, thereby throwing to the voters in that territory the choice of which city, if any, to annex to. The ballot for this election is to provide voters with the choice of whether or not to annex to a city and, for those voters wanting to annex, the choice of which city to annex to. If a majority of voters chose annexation, the area will be annexed to the city receiving the most votes among those voting in favor of annexation. The rules governing this election are otherwise those for an annexation by the election method. See RCW 35.13.070 and RCW 35.13.080 (for non-code cities); and RCW 35A.14.070 for code cities. The county bears the cost of this election. http://www~mrsc~~rg/print~~e~aspx?prntPath=%2fSubjects%2fLega~%2fannex%2fFi~es%~.~ 11/22/2003 cITy OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: SW Parkway/Brittany Lane Annexation CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: 12/2/03 Council Memo, Support letter undated Regency Woods HOA, 12/2/03 location map, 9/29/03 LUTC Memo, 11/24/03 Financial Report, 12/02/03 Process Flow Charts (2). SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Proposal to annex unincorporated SW Parkway/Brittany Lane area located south of Enchanted Parkway and includes Regency Woods, Brittany Lane and Regency Ridge neighborhoods.. This area would be annexed by the election method.. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: to recommend the full Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution initiating the SW Parkway/Brittany Lane area by election method after adoption of the PAA Study.. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to direct staff to prepare a Resolution initiating the SW Parkway/Brittany Lane area annexation by election method after adoption of the PAA Study." CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~//., X (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM November 24, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Jeanne Burbidge, Mayor Federal Way City Council Rox Burhans, Associate Pianner('~ Kathy McClung, Director ~L"/ David Mose~nager Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Potential Annexations MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 Background During the September 29, 2003 Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting, staff provided general information on the unincorporated Redondo East and S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Communities located in the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The City Manager also read into the record a memo submitted by the Homeowner Association Board o/'Regency Woods (S.W. Parkway) indicating their support for annexation to Federal Way (Exhibit/). During the October 20, 2003 and November 3, 2003 LUTC meetings, staff presented information on the PAA North Lake Community. Members of the North Lake Improvement Club also presented the LUTC with a letter signed by North Lake area registered voters indicating their support for annexation to the City (Exhibit II). The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272"a Street. This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties. The S.W. Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods. The S.W. Parkway area also contains an automobile junkyard that would require immediate compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements, upon annexation. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320th Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. Please refer to Exhibit III for location maps of each area. At each of the above LUTC meetings, Staff presented general information related to the area's size, population, existing land use, and preliminary costs and revenues to provide City public services to these unincorporated communities. Additional information was also provided regarding the island and election methods of annexation. Please refer to the enclosed September 29, 2003, October 20, 2003, and November 3, 2003 LUTC memos for more information (Exhibits I~ I/, and VI). During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, staff was directed to prepare resolutions for Council consideration to initiate the Redondo East and S.W. Parkway annexations. The Redondo East Community would be annexed using a new island annexation process. The S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community would be annexed using an election method, initiated by Council resolution process. Staff was asked to prepare the S.W. Parkway initiating resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. However, due to the need to prepare legal descriptions for proposed annexations, this item could not be added to the October 21, 2003 Council agenda. At the November 3, 2003 LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. The North Lake Community would be annexed using the election method, initiated by Council resolution process. The LUTC also recommended that staff prepare a resolution initiating the North Lake annexation after adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). In an effort to present a comprehensive annexation proposal for Council consideration and provide more specific financial information, the three proposed annexations considered by the LUTC have been placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Exhibit VII will provide the Council with more specific financial information on the anticipated costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake, S. W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. The following will explain the annexation timing options considered by the LUTC regarding the Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Community annexations. IL Redondo East Island Annexation In response to LUTC direction, Exhibit VIII is a resolution to initiate an island method annexation of the unincorporated Redondo East Community. The City would later effect the annexation through an interlocal agreement with King County and a Council ordinance. For reference, Exhibit/Xprovides an overview of the island method process, prepared by the Municipal Research Services Corporation (MRSC). In the event that the Council chooses to proceed with an island method annexation for the Redondo East Community~ the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider, based on staff's current understanding of the island method process~ These process alternatives are related to the timing of when the annexation would be effected. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended Staff recommends that the Council effect the Redondo East annexation (via interlocal agreement and Council ordinance) after Council adoption of the PAA Study. The adoption of the PAA Study will amend the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations~ If the Council concurs with staff's recommendation and initiates the Redondo East annexation during its December 2, 2003 meeting, the annexation could be effected approximately September 2004~ However, be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). Staff's recommendation is based on the State statute's contemplation of what appears to be the ideal process for island annexations, that the City prepared proposed comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the new area will be considered simultaneously with the ordinance effecting the island annexation (35A.14.460 RCW). In order to do this, however, the City would have to comply with the requirements in 35A. 14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning regulation. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the Redondo East area. Page Second Process Alternative There may be an alternative process to reduce a limited amount of time to effect the Redondo East annexation. This process would involve adoption of existing King County Redondo East Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, as interim designations for up to one-year. However, this alternative process does appear to have complications, according to the MRSC August 2000 Annexation Handbook. The Annexation Handbook warns that Washington State law does not specifically authorize the adoption of existing King County designations. However, it is important to note that several municipalities, including Federal Way, have adopted local code provisions to permit the adoption of existing County designations. The alternative process may also be impractical because City staff would be administering King County policies and code requirements, so the City Council would also be required to adopt the King County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning designations, and Code. In order to avoid these possible complications, Staff recommends effecting the Redondo East annexation after adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the Redondo East Community. III. S.W. Parkway Election Annexation During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, the LUTC directed staffto prepare a resolution to initiate an election method annexation of the S.W. Parkway Community for Council consideration at the October 21~ 2003 Council meeting~ Pursuant to the LUTC's recommendation, the annexation would be held on the next available election date~ However, due to State statute requirements regarding election method resolutior~s, staff was onable to prepare a resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. During the LUTC's October 20m and November 3rd meetings, the LUTC considered a similar proposal for the annexation of the North Lake Community using the election method of annexation. As part of staff's research for the proposed North Lake annexation (Section IV below), staff prepared two procedural alternatives for initiating the annexation election. The first alternative process would initiate the annexation using what is likely the State "preferred or recommended" process° The second process alternative would initiate the annexation to occur on the closest possible election date. As noted in staff's November 3rd LUTC memo and explained below, there are complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date. Based on these complications, the LUTC recommended that the North Lake annexation be initiated after Council adoption of the PAA Study. It is important to note that the complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date were discovered after the LUTC's S~W. Parkway annexation recommendation. In light of the LUTC recommendation to initiate the North Lake election annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Study, staff did not prepare a resolution to initiate the S.W. Parkway election method annexation at the December 2, 2003 Council meeting. As explained below, staffhas prepared two process alternatives for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexation. The first process alternative would initiate the annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Studyo This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC recommendation for the similar North Lake annexation and the State "preferred or recommended" processo The second process alternative would place the annexation on the closest possible election date. This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC's earlier September 29th recommendation. The following will explain the relevant annexation related State statutes and process alternatives for Council consideration. Similar to the island method statutes explained in Section II above, the State statute contemplates what Page 3 may be regarded as a preferred process for election annexations, that the City will prepare proposed zoning designations for the new area so that the zoning will be considered simultaneously with the resolution initiating the election process (35A. 14.015 RCW). In order to meet the requirements of this process, the City would have to comply with 35A.14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the S.W. Parkway Community. A key difference between the island and election methods "ideal or preferred" annexation processes is that the election method's initiating resolution must contemplate the proposed zoning regulation, versus the effecting ordinance in the island metho& In the event that the Council chooses to proceed forward with an election method annexation for the S.W. Parkway Community, the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended The first process alternative contemplates initiating an annexation election after completion of the ongoing PAA Study, tentatively scheduled for completion in July 2004. Consistent with staff's recommendation for the Redondo East island method annexation, this action will amend the FWCP to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre-annexation zoning. Please refer to Exhibit X for the first alternative procedural timeline. Be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study. Initiating an election method annexation after adoption of the PAA Study could place the annexation election on the November 2, 2004 General Election (RCW29.13.070)~. Staff would need to do additional research on the submittal deadline of proposed ballot initiatives. By initiating the S.W. Parkway annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study, the City will have established the pre-annexation zoning and comprehensive planning designations and completed the required State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review for the annexation process. In addition, this alternative process will also avoid the MRSC identified complications associated with adoption of existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, policies, and codes. Second Process Alternative The second process alternative contemplates placing the S.W. Parkway annexation on the closest possible election ballot (May 18, 2004, Special Election)~ Using the second alternative process, the City would need to adopt the existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations already in place for S.W. Parkway for an interim period of up to one-year. This one-year time frame will then allow the City to then implement pre-annexation comprehensive planning and zoning designations, possibly through the adoption of the ongoing PAA Study. The City would need to adopt the existing King County designations in order to comply with the initiating resolution requirements, defer the need for the minimum of two public hearings on Pre-annexation Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map designations, and reduce the completion period of the required SEPA requirements. However, as previously explained, the MRSC Annexation Handbook has identified potential problems that may complicate an annexation using this process. Please refer to Section II above for a complete description regarding possible complications identified by MRSC. Exhibit XI explains the procedural timeline for the second annexation process alternative that would place the annexation election on the closest possible election dateo The second annexation process alternative would initiate the annexation election during the January 6, 2004 Council meeting. The annexation election would be held on May 18, 2004 through a Special Election (RCVg 29.13.020). If the Council chooses to proceed with an election annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane 1 Be advised the November 2, 2003 LUTC Memo incorrectly indicates September 16, 2004 as a primary election date. Page 4 Community, Staff recommends that the Council proceed with Alternative I that would initiate the annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community. IlL North Lake Annexation At the November 3rd LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. However, in order to present the Council with a more comprehensive annexation proposal that included all three proposed annexations, and to provide the Council with specific financial information, the North Lake annexation proposal was placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Pursuant to the LUTC's direction to staff, the North Lake election method annexation would be initiated by Council resolution after adoption of the PAA Study. A second process alternative that would initiate and effect the North Lake annexation more quickly is provided in Exhibit XI. This process alternative is identical to the second process alternative described in Section II above for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexation. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake Community. IV. Recommended Council Action Ao Redondo East: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the enclosed resolution to enter into interlocal agreement negotiations with King County for an Island Method annexation of the Redondo East area (to be effected after Council adoption of the PAA Study), and to direct staff to submit a Notice of Intent to annex the Redondo East area to the King County Boundary Review Board. North Lake: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staffto prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the North Lake area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. S.W. Parkway: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staffto prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the S.W. Parkway area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. List of Exhibits Exhibit I: Regency Woods Support Memo Exhibit II: North Lake Registered Voters Support Letter and Signature Sheets Exhibit III: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Location Maps Exhibit IV: September 29, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit V: October 20, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit VI: November 3, 2003 LUTC Memo Page 5 Exhibit VII: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Communities Fiscal Information Exhibit VIII: Redondo East Resolution Exhibit IX: MRSC Island Method Overview Exhibit X: Alternative I Election Method Flow Chart Exhibit XI: Alternative II Election Method Flow Chart K: Rox/Potential Annexation Area Study Phase II/Annexation/Dec 2~ Council Memo for Three Proposed Annexations P~e6 Regency Woods PO Box 3762 Federal Way, WA 98063 To: City of Federal Way The board of directors with the support of the homeowners would like to be considered in the annexation process of Federal Way, WA Regards The Homeowner Association Board of Regency Board Tom Frostad Ron Morrow Della Hodgson EXHIBIT , PAGE__L_OF_L__ Community Oity of i Southwest Parkway EXHIBIT ~--~-~ PAGE ~- OF ~_~._.. CiTY OF ~ Federal Way September 24, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services David ~ Manager Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Issues Discussion MEETING DATE: September 29, 2003 City staff has been working on a variety of issues relating to the PAA for the past year. This report will discuss the progress made on a variety of issues and outline Council options for possible future consideration. GENERAL BACKGROUND The State Supreme Court reached a decision that amended the petition annexation method the state had been using for years and added confusion about how cities could accomplish an annexation. Last year, the State Legislature further amended the annexation methods and provided some additional options for annexations. Since that time the State Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider their decision but there is no timeline tied to this reconsideration and we have been told that the State Legislature will most likely look at the annexation issues again in their next session. The established methods currently available for annexation are: · The Island Method- When an area is surrounded by at least 60 percent by one or more jurisdictions, the City that has it in their adopted PAA can annex the island legislatively. Voters in the area do have the ability to rescind the annexation by a majority vote. · The Petition Method- A majority of the property owners and registered voters in the area must sign a petition to annex the area. · Election Method Initiated by Petition - When 10 percent of the number of voters in the last election within the area sign a petition to add a proposition for annexation. A majority vote will approve the annexation. · Election Method by Resolution - The City Council may pass a resolution to add an area for annexation to the next general election. A majority of votes in the area pass the annexation. The annexation methods described above are greatly over-simplified. They do not include the public hearings, legal notices, and Boundary Review Board process. EXHIBIT PAGE__L_.OF. L_ PAA STUDY UPDATE The consultants have completed the PAA report, which is contained in two parts: The PAA Subarea Plan and the PAA Feasibility Study. The final Stakeholders meeting was held last Monday night and the final Open House is Thursday, the 25th. (A verbal report of these meetings will be included in the presentation to LUTC.) The PAA Subarea Plan essentially follows the existing King County designations. The staff adopted the position of not sponsoring wholesale changes because of the more extensive environmental review and public process that would be required and was not anticipated with this study. The PAA Feasibility Study shows a yearly hypothetical City deficit of around three million dollars if the City were to annex the entire PAA study area. The next step of the process is to complete the State Environmental Protection Act Review (SEPA), which we anticipate to have completed by sometime in November. Following the comment and appeal period for this review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the Planning Commission to review staff proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Designations and Policies and individual Comprehensive Plan Map requests. This discussion must be folded into the adoption of the next Comprehensive Plan Update, which will most likely occur in November. No action on the PAA Study is required of the LUTC at this time. REDONDO EAST UPDATE Background- At the July 7th LUTC meeting the staff were directed to pursue the annexation of the Redondo East area through the Island Method of annexation. City staff met with a King County representative to discuss initiation of this annexation. The next step in the process is to prepare a resolution for the Council that will direct staff to begin negotiation with King County for an interlocal agreement. King County agreed to provide a "boilerplate" resolution that we can use as a model. Council then conducts a public hearing and adopts the interlocal agreement and an ordinance that provides the effective date of annexation, zoning, and bonded indebtedness. Area Description - The Redondo East area has approximately 260 citizens and 150 housing units. The housing units are composed of Crestwood Senior Mobile Park and Applewood Subdivision. There is a strip of vacant multi~family zoned property along Pacific Highway, South of the "Y" at 16th Avenue South. A variety of commercial properties, developed, undeveloped, and under-developed compose the remaining parcels. One of the larger underdeveloped properties is the vacant entertainment center. The consultant's report shows this area as generating a small increase in revenue over the City's expenses, should the City decide to annex. Suggested LUTC Recotmnendation - "I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption by the Council to enter into negotiations with King County over an interlocal agreement for the annexation of Redondo East area." ]] APP~AL~F R~COMMENDAT ION / ) ~-. 'Il E'r[c Fais°, Chair '-Mi~haelpa~ber l~n/M C g ,Member II Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion LUTC Memo ~tember 24, 2003 PAGE ~ ,.OF~ Page2 NORTH LAKE AREA Boundaries - Councilmember Faison has asked staff to provide information regarding the North Lake and Regency Woods/Brittany Lane areas for consideration of annexation. The North Lake area is bounded on the north by 320th, on the east by Peasley Canyon Road, on the south by Highway 18, and on the west by the City boundaries. The North Lake Area is approximately 384 acres of which nearly half is developed into residential properties. Another 126 acres is undeveloped, about 100 acres is in utilities and streets, and there is a very small percentage in commercial, office, and open space. Commercial land includes a nursery and gas station. The average assessed value of homes in this area is about $190,000. The 2003 population is estimated at 600. The PAA Study has the following analysis on the North Lake area: "In relative terms, the small North Lake area is likely to come the closet to breaking even. North Lake has taxable property per resident that is more than 50 percent higher than that of the three PAA's combined (Table D-4, values that translate into roughly a 20 percent boost in the area's per capita revenues). We also estimate that North Lake will generate lower-than-average demand for public safety services. However, North Lake appears to generate only very low levels of sales tax revenues. On balance, our rough assessment is that even annexation of the North Lake neighborhood would generate net costs in excess of $50 per resident." (Annexation Feasibility Study pp D 4,5.) Options - The Geographic Information System analysis of the North Lake area shows that the area qualifies for the island annexation method by less than one percent. If the Council wishes to actively pursue annexation in this area, the election method by resolution would be the best option, absent property owners that want to facilitate a petition or ballot measure. The estimated cost to put an issue on the ballot is about $2.00 per registered voter. This cost includes legal notices. This expense has not been budgeted at this time. The next available election for this issue is in February. Suggested LUTC RecOmmendation - "I move to direct the staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption at the October 21' 2003, meeting to put the North Lake area annexation on the next available election." APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION~_~~ / ,//~/~/~i j///7 /~'"'/~-' Eric FaisOn, Chair Michal~l Paff~, M'ember Dean McColgan, Member EXHIBIT PAGE Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion LUTC Memo September 24, 2003 Page 3 REGENCY WOODS/BRITTANY LANE AREA Boundaries - The Regency Woods/Brittany Lane area is roughly a triangle within the Parkway area of the pAA study. It is bounded by I-5 on the west, Enchanted Parks on the east, and City of Milton on the south. Background - When Enchanted Parks was annexed into the City of Federal Way; there was initially some interest from the Regency Woods and Brittany Lane residents about annexing into the City. This idea was tabled at the time because there were infrastructure problems within these relatively new developments that the property owners, King County, and the developer were still resolving. These problems have since been taken care of. A rough estimate of the population for this area is 1100. There is a large condominium to the north, Regency Ridge. The Regency Woods subdivision composes the majority of the area and there is a small commercial strip to the south including a junkyard. The junkyard is relevant to mention because it is the one use within the PAA that requires immediate compliance according to Federal Way City Code Section 22.330(a)(9). Staff is researching possible options for this situation. It would not make sense to omit this parcel from an area-wide annexation because it would leave an isolated parcel between Federal Way and Milton that King County would have to provide services. Specific information about this area is difficult to report because the information we have is for the greater Parkway area. The PAA report does place the Parkway neighborhood as the lowest recommended priority for annexation because their cost estimate to serve that area is the highest. Breaking out this area as defined above, may lower the cost to serve by some extent. The average assessed value for homes in the Parkway neighborhood is $172,000. Options -This area does not qualify for the island method of annexation. If the Council wishes to pursue this area, the election method by resolution would be the best option. The costs would be the same as described in the North Lake area above. Suggested LUTC Recommendation - "I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption at the October 21, 2~a~2~-, meeting to put the Regency Woods area annexation on the next available election." >~c~ o~ II 'APpROvAI~OI~RECOMMENDATION ' ...:.':, '.. "· :" ' :.. . ':..'::.i.' ':? .:. "' 1] E~iC Fh!~o~, Chair Michael P~'~f, M~mber Dean McColga'n, Member STAFF IMPACT The only time currently on the Community Development Work Program for annexations is to complete the PAA study. The department has 1.5 FTE's devoted to all non-permit planning work. Additionally, there is some consulting money budgeted for code amendments and special projects. Should the Council decide to move forward with these annexation proposals as a high priority, staff will prepare a revised work program that we will present to LUTC at a future meeting. EXHIBIT_, i._ _ Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion LUTC Memo Page 4 North Lake, S.W. Parkway, & Redondo East Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation I. Background and Overview The Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) directed staffto prepare more specific fiscal information regarding the anticipated costs and revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake and S.W. Parkway Communities to the City. The following will provide the LUTC with the requested information. In light of Council's consideration of the Redondo East area, Staff has also prepared specific fiscal information for this area. The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272nd Street. This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties~ The S.Wo Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320th Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. A considerable amount of the information used in this report is drawn from the PAA Study. Staff has supplemented this information with more detailed, area-specific information and analysis to determine the likely operating or day-to-day services needed, and any capital improvements that may be needed in the foreseeable future. Staff also examined dedicated capital revenue sources (PEET taxes, utility tax, etc.) and alternative capital revenue sources (i.e. grants, cost partnerships, etc.) to provide the Council with the most likely assessment of the anticipated revenues that will be available to fund public services and improvements to these communities. Table I below summarizes the net fiscal impact to the City of annexing the unincorporated North Lake, S.Wo Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. Operating deficits or surpluses would be realized on an annual basis. Capital deficits or surpluses have been allocated over the course of 18 years. As indicated below, when reviewing the three annexation proposals comprehensively, there is no significant financial gain or loss to the City. Table I: Net Fiscal Impact of Three Annexation Proposals Operating Summary Operating Summary North Lake S.W. Parkway i Redondo East Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $ 207,483 I $151,955 $ 593,314 Operating Costs (230,894) I (243,987) ! ( 117,000) (591,881 ) Net Operating Surplus or (Deficit) $ 2,982I $ (36,504) i $ 34,955 $ 1,433 Capital Summary Annual Capital Revenue i $106,872 $ 86,89!i $ 31,152 $ 224,915 Total Annual Capital . I (59,117) (223,183) Costs (102,311) (61,756) Annual Capital Surplus or (Deficit) i $ 4,561 $ 25~135 ! $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Combined Operating and Capital Summary Net Surpl'us or [ (Deficit) { $ 7,543 $ (11,369) I $6,990 $ 3,164 EXHIBIT_. .... PAGE / OF 1© Operating Services As indicated in Table I above, the general governmental operating revenues and costs (as adjusted by the size, characteristics, and conditions of the three communities) indicate that Redondo East has the most favorable operating balance of the three proposed annexation areas. The North Lake Community's operating revenues would slightly exceed the cost to provide City operating services. The S.W. Parkway Community's operating costs exceed anticipated operating revenues. When considering the three proposed annexations comprehensively, the anticipated operating revenues generated in the three areas would be sufficient to provide City operating services. Capital Improvements The analysis of anticipated capital costs and revenues indicates that the Parkway Community fares the best, requiring the least annual investments; the North Lake Community would nearly breakeven, and Redondo East shows more capital needs than resources would support. The higher capital needs in the North Lake area is primarily due to the major arterial roadways in this area that would require more expensive overlay costs. The higher capital costs in the Redondo East area is primarily due to a lack of parks facilities. Staff recommends that the City address the existing North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Community parks and open space deficiencies by adding neighborhood parks and open space improvements. Summary The combined operating and capital balance sheet indicates a positive balance for the North Lake and Redondo East areas, a smaller but still negative balance for S.W. Parkway, and a small combined surplus~ While the capita| surplus is not always available for operating purposes, the City is not prohibited from using capital resources generated from one area for use in another. The table shows a positive balance among the three areas between operating and capital resources/needs~ The bottom line also suggests that no single annexation area would provide the City with a substantial fiscal gain or Ioss~ The following will provide more detailed information regarding anticipated operating and capital costs and revenues associated with an annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities to the City of Federal Way o IL Report Methodology · As explained above~ this analysis draws a considerable amount of information from the PAA Study. However, this analysis deviates from the PAA Study in the following two respects~ The first is the geographic scope of the analysiso The PAA Study reviewed the PAA as a whole and in three large sub areas with a combined total population of over 21,000. In contrast, this analysis will focus only on the North Lake, S.W~ Parkway, and Redondo East Communities that have a combined 2003 population of less than 2,000~ The second difference in the two analyses is in the scope of operating and capital revenues and costs considered. The PAA Study provided a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis for all local government operations, including those services supported by user fees and accounted for in enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are used to support City surface water management and solid waste and recycling services. State law does not allow co-mingling of Two new developments are currently under various stages of permit process in the North Lake area which will almost double the housing units (from 218 to 412) and population (from 600 to !,134) in the area and will bring the total population for the three areas from 1,960 to 2,494. Because the likelihood of thc development to occur in the near future and thc significant size of these developments, this analysis included these proposed developments in assessing the service demand and fiscal impact. EXHIBIT ¥ 2 PAGE OF enterprise fund resources with general fund resources. Therefore, this analysis more clearly segregates enterprise related activities and focuses on general governmental services and capital improvements. III. Demographics and Housing Characteristics Table II below organizes the PAA housing and population data as analyzed in the PAA Study, and the three specific areas addressed in this staff analysis. For cross-reference purposes, North Lake is located in the Northeast PAA Subarea, S.W. Parkway is located in the Southeast PAA Subarea, and the Redondo East Community is the same Redondo East area addressed in the PAA Study. The three areas combined represent 12 percent of the population and 15 percent of the assessed value in the PAA. The higher assessed value to population ratio indicates that these areas as a whole have above average fiscal viability for annexation. It is important to note that as the more feasible areas are annexed, any remaining PAA areas would be less likely to financially "pencil out" for future annexation consideration. Table II: 2003 Entire PAA and Proposed Annexation Areas Demographic Information Housing Units Population Assessed Value Northeast Subarea 4,130 PAA Stud,, Southeast Subarea 3,340 Redondo East Subarea 150 PAA Total 7,620 12,300 8,900 260 21,460 $17,542,000 $707,053,000 $521,416,000 $1,246,011,000 Three Possible Annexations Housing Units Population Assessed Value North Lakez 412 1,134 $94,280,000 S,Wo Parkway 4O0 1,100 $77,595,000 Redondo East 150 260 $17,542,000 Total 962 2,494 $189,417,000 Percent of PAA Total 13% 12% 15% IV. Operating Revenues and Costs Operating Revenues Primary general governmental revenues are property and sales taxes, state shared revenues (distributed based on population), utility tax revenues used for maintenance purposes, and various miscellaneous taxes and fees. General governmental revenues are used to provide the majority of daily City services including public safety (police, court, and prosecution), street and parks maintenance, recreation programs, development review, building permit services, etc. Table III below identifies anticipated operating revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, SoW. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. 2 Population figure includes the proposed North Lake Ridge and North Lake Estates, Division I Developments EXHIBIT PAGE Table III ' Proposed Annexation Areas c~peratlnl g t~evenues North S.W. Redondo Revenue Source Lake2 Parkway' East Total Property Tax 126,335 103,977 23,506 253,819 State Shared Revenue 29,820 24,835 6,840 61,495 CJ Sales Tax 22,670 18,880 5,200 46,750 Local Sales tax 9,861 18,350 79,000 107,210 Utility Tax (O&M) 10,263 8,136 3,409 21,808 Surface Water Fees - - Fines & Forfeits 9,768 12,198 6,000 27,966 Building Permit 11,151 9,546 7,000 27,697 Vehicle License Fee (repealed by 1-776) - - - Franchise Fee 9,400 7,849 2,000 19,249 Solid Waste - - Development Fees 3,594 2,864 1,000 7,458 Recreation Fees - - Zoning Fees 645 530 1,000 2,175 Gambling Tax - 16,000 16,000 Business License 369 318 1,000 1,687 Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $207,483 $151,955 $593,314 Per capita Revenue $206.33 $188.62 $584.44 $237.94 The estimates specified in Table III above are proportional to the PAA Study revenue estimates (using population as a baseline), with the following changes or adjustments: Property tax is based on the estimated 2003 assessed value (AV) of a specific neighborhood. b. State shared revenue is adjusted to remove the restricted fuel tax used for arterial street programs, which is moved to the capital section of this analysis. c. The change in criminal justice distribution° d. Utility tax revenues are adjusted to remove the portion associated with the street overlay program from operation to capital (the same adjustment is also made to PW operating cost). e. The Vehicle license fee is eliminated due to the recent court decision on 1-776. f. Recreation fees are eliminated because there are no new recreation facilities in the area; the change in participation in existing city programs and facilities would be minimal. g. Gambling tax is only available in the Redondo area. The gambling tax in the Northeast PAA is associated with a particular business in the Star Lake area, not in the North Lake neighborhood. h. Eliminate surface water and solid waste enterprise revenues that are not available for general services° B. Operating Costs The PAA Study provided a thorough review of City services and driving forces behind the demand for services. The PAA Study projects costs to increase proportionally for both direct services and supporting operations from increased service demand from the annexations (assuming a "stable state" of service condition and maintaining existing service levels). However, EXHIBIT V m PAGE OF \,o ,,, 4 the PAA Study cost model is developed on a much larger scale. A direct extrapolation of the three proposed annexation areas would not take into account any specific characteristic of the smaller neighborhoods. To address the differences, staff made the following adjustments to the PAA Study cost analysis for the three proposed annexation areas: 1. Parks/Recreation cost is adjusted to reflect the need for neighborhood parks in the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East areas with no change to other PRCS department services. 2. Community Development costs are adjusted to the extent that it offsets the incremental permit fee revenue. 3. With only marginal increases in service activities, no impact to indirect support (i.e. accounting, human resources, etc.) and administration costs is expected. Table IV below provides staff's assessment of the anticipated operating costs to provide public services to the three proposed annexation areas. Staff believes this represents the more likely impact from the three neighborhoods based on a review of each community's needs. Table IV - Staff Assessment of Op :rating Cost Estimates North S.W. Redondo Total Services Lake Parkway East City Council $ - $ $ $ - CM - - CD (permit processing, offset revenue) l 1 ~796 10,076 8,000 29,872 Law I _ MS - PRCS (new park maintenance) 6,000 5,000 - 11,000 PS (include court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (exclude SWM, SW, Overlay) 609951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $230,894 $243,987 117,000 $591,881 Per Capita Operating cost $203.70 $221.81 $450.00 $237.37 As a means of comparison between the staff prepared small area assessment and the PAA Study assessment, Table V below identifies the PAA Study operating costs prorated by population for each of the three proposed annexation areas~ without enterprise fund or capital operations. EXHIBIT PAGE s- OF \o Vo Table V - PAA Stud~ )perating Cost Estimates ' Nortl~ S.W. Redondo Cit~ Service Lake Parkway East Total City Council $ 2,396 $ 2,758 $ 1,000 $ 6,154 CM 17,786 21,638 10,000 49,424 CD 27,554 23,441 13,000 63,995 Law 11,888 14,425 6,000 32,313 MS 16,772 19,835 7,000 43,607 PRCS 5,068 43,063 1,000 49,132 Public Safety (w/court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (excl. SW, SWM,) 60,951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $294,562 $354,070 $147,000 $795,633 Per Capita Operating Cost $259.87I $321.88I $565.38I $319.08 Capital Revenues and Costs Overview Table VI below summarizes projected capital revenues and costs for each of the three proposed annexation areas. The primary sources of the City's general governmental capital funding are utility tax, real estate excise tax (REET) and arterial street fuel tax. While grants and cost sharing opportunities with other jurisdictions is also important, they are only available on a case-by-case basis, and depend on the nature of the project. Staff has indicated below when these opportunities may be available~ The capital costs or needs are determined based on inventory and field inspections of the current capital facilities in each area. The analysis does not include needs for surface water facilities, as these improvements would be financed using surface water enterprise revenues. Table VI: Capital Revenues and Costs Summary Projected Annual North I S.W. Redondo [ Total Capital Sources Lake Parkway East Utility Tax (Capital and Overlay) 71,745 57,113 22,436 151,294 REET (Capital) 27,646 23,547 7,000 58,193 Arterial Street Fuel Tax (Overlay) 7,481 6,230 1,716 15,428 Annual Capital Sources $106,872 $86,891 $31,152 $224,915 North S.W. Redondo Total Proj,ected Annual Costs Lake Parkwa}z East Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 $ 70,406 Average Annual Park Capital $ 41,667 $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $ 152,778 Total Annual Capital (102,311) (61,756) (59,117) (223,183) Annual Capital Surplus or (deficit) $ 4,561 $ 25,135 $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Note: The amount of utility tax shown represents the portion of the tax designated for capital, based on 2003 collection levels. The capital amount includes street overlay funding and the newly added funding for the community center. The REET is based on a PAA Study estimate prorated by population. The arterial street fuel tax represents a move from the operating section of the PAA Study to capital; which is consistent with associated costs~ EXHIBIT, ¥ , PAGE ,, G OF_/C 6 The following will explain State and local policies that guide when capital improvements are made. B. Parks & Recreation Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not mandate a minimum quantity of parks and recreation facilities for a given community. Through adoption of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), the City Council has established a Parks and Recreation LOS goal that is reflective of the needs and desires of the Federal Way Community. Generally speaking, this goal would provide 10.9 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Articulating this goal into a LOS standard ensures new residential development provides adequate parks and recreation facilities. The City's actual LOS standard is approximately 10.7 acres of park land perl,000 residents. As Federal Way annexes unincorporated areas that do not meet City parks LOS goals, as is the case with the three proposed annexation areas, the City may exercise significant latitude regarding if and when any parks improvements are made. As explained above, the FWCP LOS standard is not a mandate, but rather a goal to guide parks planning and ensure new development provides appropriate facilities. The parks improvements identified below represent staff's assessment of the recommended improvements to meet the FWCP LOS goals. The analysis assumes that improvements will be made during the 18 year planning horizon. Staff recommends that parks improvements be considered within six to ten years of annexation. 2. Recommended Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Please refer to Table VII for the recommended parks capital improvements. Table VII: Recommended Parks Capital Ir ~provements Parks Capital North S.W. ' Redondo Total Improvements Lake Parkwa}, East Neighborhood Park 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 Community Park - Trail - Open space 250,000 250,000 Community Center - Area Parks Capital Total 750,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,750,000 Average Annual Park Capital (over 18 years) $ 41,667 $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $... 15.2,778 The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how the parks capital improvement cost and revenue estimates were determined. North Lake area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the North Lake area, two investments are recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Staff recommends the conversion of the existing County owned Hatfield gravel pit to a neighborhood park. The cost to develop a park on this 3.6 acre site is approximately $500,000. Hatfield Pit is located off Military Road South. Based EXHIBIT PAGE '-/ OF, 1o _ on past experiences with King County regarding transfer of County owned property, it is assumed that Hatfield Pit would be transferred to the City at no cost. Open Space: Total cost $500,000. It is anticipated that a $250,000 King County Conservation Future Fund grant will be available to fund portions of this cost. The City has recently collected parks and recreation mitigation fees from one residential subdivision in the North Lake area (approx. $25,000). This money and any additional parks and recreation mitigation fees collected in the unincorporated North Lake area could be used to finance parks improvements in the North Lake. S.W. Parkway area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the S.W. Parkway area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. Them may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the Redondo East area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. Them may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Streets Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The GMA requires adoption of roadway LOS standards to be implemented by local jurisdictions. The State also requires local jurisdictions to adopt transportation improvements plans that identify needed transportation improvements on a six-year horizon basis. Roadway improvements are required to occur concurrently (or within the six year TIP horizon) with new development. The City considers the following factors in the prioritization of transportation improvements: concurrency requirements, LOS, safety, amount of funding, and level of support. 2. Identified Streets Capital Improvements Table VII1 below calculates the street related capital improvement, s needed for the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East areas. Table VIII: Street__ Capil ~.! Improvements Street C'apital No~th ' " S.W. Redondo Total Improvements Lake Parkwa~ East Average Annual Street Capital (over 18 years) 12,444 - - 12,444 Annual Pavement Maintenance 48,200 .6,200 . 3,561 57,96.1 Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 $ 70,406. EXHIBIT_ ¥... PAGE_ ¢ OF_\ VI. A~ The above annual pavement maintenance estimates are based on actual field inspections of existing roadway surface conditions. The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how street capital imProvement cost estimates were determined. North Lake area: An intersection improvement located at Military Road South and Peasley Canyon Road South is identified as a potential future project. The intersection is currently rated as service level E and future improvements would only be required if the area is further developed. The total project cost is estimated to be $898,000. However, only one intersection quadrant is located in the proposed North Lake annexation area. The remaining quadrants are located in unincorporated King County. Therefore, Federal Way would only be responsible for 25 percent of the project cost or $224,000. There may also be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: An intersection/signal improvement at SR 99 and South 16th is identified. The project is currently identified on the "Nickel Tax" funding plan. Therefore, no capital improvement funding is required. · $. VK. Parkway area: No street capital improvement projects are identified in this area. Final Considerations Other Factors to Consider As explained in Section One above, the three proposed annexations, when viewed comprehensively, are able to fund the projected public services. However, it is important to recognize the factors, other than financial, that should be taken into account when considering an annexation proposal. Residential development within the Federal Way PAA (east of I-5) is occurring at a rapid rate. A considerable amount of the PAA subdivisions are proposed at higher densities then would be permitted by City of Federal Way codes. Additionally, most PAA subdivisions typically include capital infrastructure (i.e. roads, pedestrian facilities/sidewalks, parks and open space, etc.) that do not meet City LOS standards. The difference between City and King County LOS standards can not only generate additional demand for City infrastructure and services (such as parks and recreation facilities), but also increase the amount of nonconforming development that the City will eventually inherit. By annexing unincorporated PAA areas sooner rather than later, the City could exercise greater influence in land use planning and reduce the amount of inherited nonconforming infrastructure and development. A second, non-financial factor that should be taken into account when considering annexation proposals is compliance with GMA and Countywide Planning Policy (CWPP) guidelines. Generally speaking, the GMA and CWPP indicate that cities are the appropriate public services provider within urbanized unincorporated areas, like the Federal Way PAA. The CWPP also encourage annexation of PAAs' to cities. The annexation of the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities would be consistent with and supportive of GMA and CWPP guidelines° Potential Effects of Phased Annexations The phasing of annexation typically involves annexing those areas that are most financially self- supporting first, followed by annexing the more expensive areas to serve at a later time. With the previous annexations of the Weyerhaeuser/East Campus and the Wild Waves/Enchanted Parks areas, and should the City annex the unincorporated Redondo East area, all of the concentrated EXHIBIT 9 PAGE_. OF commercial areas will be annexed to the City. These types of areas typically generate sufficient tax and fee revenue to offset the costs to provide public services. The remaining unincorporated PAA areas would likely be less dense and contain fewer commercially zoned properties that would be less likely to be financially self-supporting. While it is clear that annexing the entire PAA at once is not a financially viable option, a phased approach of selected areas could increase the financial gap to annex the remaining PAA areas in the future. EXHIBIT_ PAGE_/ OF 10 Election Method Process Alternative I (staff recommended): Adoption of Federal Way Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations Tentative PAA Study Adoption: July 6, 2004 · Adopts City Pre-annexation Comp. Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: July 6, 2004 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: July 8, 2004 · There may be an option that would allow us to submit the Notice of Intent in advance of the Council resolution. · Subject to a 45 day "no action period" Close of No Action Period: August 23, 2004 Council Resolution Setting Election Date (special Council meeting): August 26, 2004 Election Date: November 2, 2004 · Election date coincides with State general election · Staffwould need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT_._ _ PAGE I ,,OF, Election Method Alternative II: Adoption of Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: January 6, 2004 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: January 12, 2004 · Subject to 45 day "no action period" Close of BRB No Action Period: March 10, 2004 · Date accounts for additional days for BRB's mailed official response, holidays etCo Council Resolution Establishing Election Date: March 16, 2004 Election must occur at least 60 days after Council establishes date Annexation Election: May 18, 2004 · Staffwould need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT PAGE\ OF...L._ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: North Lake Annexation CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt.: $ Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: 12/2/03 Council Memo, Support letter from North Lake Area Voters 11/3/03, 12/2/03 location map, 11/20/03 & 11/3/03 LUTC Memos, 11/24/03 Financial Report, 12/02/03 Process Flow Charts (2). SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Proposal to annex unincorporated North Lake area bounded by 320th to the north, Hwy 18 to the south, Peasley Canyon Road to the east and the city limits to the west.. This area would be annexed by the election method.. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: to recommend the full Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution initiating the North Lake Annexation by election method after adoption of the PAA Study.. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to direct staff to prepare a Resolution initiating the North Lake Annexation by election method after adoption of the PAA Study." CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 CITY OF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM November 24, 2003 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Jeanne Burbidge, Mayor Federal Way City Council Rox Burhans, Associate Planner('~ Kathy McClung, Director ~NxS-~'/~ David Mose~nager Redondo East, S. W. Parkway, and North Lake Potential Annexations MEETING DATE: December 2, 2003 L Background During the September 29, 2003 Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting, staff provided general information on the unincorporated Redondo East and S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Communities located in the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)o The City Manager also read into the record a memo submitted by the Homeowner Association Board of Regency Woods (S.W. Parkway) indicating their support for annexation to Federal Way (Exhibit 1). During the October 20, 2003 and November 3, 2003 LUTC meetings, staff presented information on the PAA North Lake Community~ Members of the North Lake Improvement Club also presented the LUTC with a letter signed by North Lake area registered voters indicating their support for annexation to the City (Exhibit I1). The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272na Street~ This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties. The S.Wo Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods, The S.W. Parkway area also contains an automobile junkyard that would require immediate compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) requirements, upon annexation. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320th Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. Please refer to Exhibit III for location maps of each area. At each of the above LUTC meetings, Staff presented general information related to the area~s size, population, existing land use, and preliminary costs and revenues to provide City public services to these unincorporated communities. Additional information was also provided regarding the island and election methods of annexation. Please refer to the enclosed September 29, 2003, October 20, 2003, and November 3, 2003 LUTC memos for more information (Exhibits IV.. V, and VI). During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, staffwas directed to prepare resolutions for Council consideration to initiate the Redondo East and S.W. Parkway annexations. The Redondo East Community would be annexed using a new island annexation process. The S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community would be annexed using an election method, initiated by Council resolution process. Staffwas asked to prepare the S.W. Parkway initiating resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. However, due to the need to prepare legal descriptions for proposed annexations, this item could not be added to the October 21, 2003 Council agenda. At the November 3, 2003 LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. The North Lake Community would be annexed using the election method, initiated by Council resolution process. The LUTC also recommended that staff prepare a resolution initiating the North Lake annexation after adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). In an effort to present a comprehensive annexation proposal for Council consideration and provide more specific financial information, the three proposed annexations considered by the LUTC have been placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Exhibit VII will provide the Council with more specific financial information on the anticipated costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake, S. W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. The following will explain the annexation timing options considered by the LUTC regarding the Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Community annexations. II,, Redondo East Island Annexation In response to LUTC direction, Exhibit VIII is a resolution to initiate an island method annexation of the unincorporated Redondo East Community. The City would later effect the annexation through an interlocal agreement with King County and a Council ordinance. For reference, Exhibit/Xprovides an overview of the island method process, prepared by the Municipal Research Services Corporation (MRSC). In the event that the Council chooses to proceed with an island method annexation for the Redondo East Community', the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider, based on staff's current understanding of the island method process. These process alternatives are related to the timing of when the annexation would be effected. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended Staff recommends that the Council effect the Redondo East annexation (via interlocal agreement and Council ordinance) after Council adoption of the PAA Study. The adoption of the PAA Study will amend the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations~ If the Council concurs with staff's recommendation and initiates the Redondo East annexation during its December 2, 2003 meeting, the annexation could be effected approximately September 2004. However, be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study (tentatively scheduled for July 2004). Staff's recommendation is based on the State statute's contemplation of what appears to be the ideal process for island annexations, that the City prepared proposed comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the new area will be considered simultaneously with the ordinance effecting the island annexation (35A.14.460 RCW). In order to do this, however, the City would have to comply with the requirements in 35A. 14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning regulation. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the Redondo East area. Page 2 Second Process Alternative There may be an alternative process to reduce a limited amount of time to effect the Redondo East annexation. This process would involve adoption of existing King County Redondo East Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, as interim designations for up to one-year. However, this alternative process does appear to have complications, according to the MRSC August 2000 Annexation Handbook. The Annexation Handbook warns that Washington State law does not specifically authorize the adoption of existing King County designations. However, it is important to note that several municipalities, including Federal Way, have adopted local code provisions to permit the adoption of existing County designations. The alternative process may also be impractical because City staff would be administering King County policies and code requirements, so the City Council would also be required to adopt the King County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning designations, and Code. In order to avoid these possible complications, Staff recommends effecting the Redondo East annexation after adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the Redondo East Community. III. S.W. Parkway Election Annexation During the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting, the LUTC directed staff to prepare a resolution to initiate an election method annexation of the S.W. Parkway Community for Council consideration at the October 21, 2003 Council meeting~ Pursuant to the LUTC's recommendation, the annexation would be held on the next available election date~ However, due to State statute requirements regarding election method resolutions, staff was unable to prepare a resolution for the October 21, 2003 Council meeting. During the LUTC's October 20th and November 3rd meetings, the LUTC considered a similar proposal for the annexation of the North Lake Community using the election method of annexation. As part of staff's research for the proposed North Lake annexation (Section IV below), staff prepared two procedural alternatives for initiating the annexation election. The first alternative process would initiate the annexation using what is likely the State "preferred or recommended" process. The second process alternative would initiate the annexation to occur on the closest possible election date. As noted in staff's November 3rd LUTC memo and explained below, there are complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date. Based on these complications, the LUTC recommended that the North Lake annexation be initiated after Council adoption of the PAA Study~ It is important to note that the complications associated with placing an annexation proposal on the closest possible election date were discovered after the LUTC's S~W~ Parkway annexation recommendatiom In light of the LUTC recommendation to initiate the North Lake election annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Study, staff did ~ot prepare a resolution to initiate the S.W. Parkway election method annexation at the December 2, 2003 Council meeting. As explained below, staff has prepared two process alternatives for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexatiom The first process alternative would initiate the annexation after Council adoption of the PAA Study~ This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC recommendation for the similar North Lake annexation and the State "preferred or recommended" process~ The second process alternative would place the annexation on the closest possible election date. This process alternative would be consistent with the LUTC~s earlier September 29th recommendation. The following will explain the relevant annexation related State statutes and process alternatives for Council consideration. Similar to the island method statutes explained in Section Il above, the State statute contemplates what Page 3 may be regarded as a preferred process for election annexations, that the City will prepare proposed zoning designations for the new area so that the zoning will be considered simultaneously with the resolution initiating the election process (35A. 14.015 RCW). In order to meet the requirements of this process, the City would have to comply with 35A.14.340 RCW requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning. The City would also need to amend the FWCP to establish FWCP Map designations for the S.W. Parkway Community. A key difference between the island and election methods "ideal or preferred" annexation processes is that the election method's initiating resolution must contemplate the proposed zoning regulation, versus the effecting ordinance in the island method. In the event that the Council chooses to proceed forward with an election method annexation for the S.W. Parkway Community, the following will provide the Council with two process alternatives to consider. First Process Alternative: Staff Recommended The first process alternative contemplates initiating an annexation election after completion of the ongoing PAA Study, tentatively scheduled for completion in July 2004. Consistent with staff's recommendation for the Redondo East island method annexation, this action will amend the FWCP to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre-annexation zoning. Please refer tO Exhibit X for the first alternative procedural timeline. Be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study. Initiating an election method annexation after adoption of the PAA Study could place the annexation election on the November 2, 2004 General Election (RCW 29.13.070)t. Staff would need to do additional research on the submittal deadline of proposed ballot initiatives. By initiating the S.W. Parkway annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study, the City will have established the pre-annexation zoning and comprehensive planning designations and completed the required State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review for the annexation process. In addition, this alternative process will also avoid the MRSC identified complications associated with adoption of existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, policies, and codes. Second Process Alternative The second process alternative contemplates placing the S.Wo Parkway annexation on the closest possible election ballot (May 18, 2004, Special Election). Using the second alternative process, the City would need to adopt the existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations already in place for S.W. Parkway for an interim period of up to one-year. This one-year time frame will then allow the City to then implement pre-annexation comprehensive planning and zoning designations, possibly through the adoption of the ongoing PAA Study. The City would need to adopt the existing King County designations in order to comply with the initiating resolution requirements, defer the need for the minimum of two public hearings on Pre-annexation Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map designations, and reduce the completion period of the required SEPA requirements, However, as previously explained, the MRSC Annexation Handbook has identified potential problems that may complicate an annexation using this process. Please refer to Section II above for a complete description regarding possible complications identified by MRSCo Exhibit XI explains the procedural timeline for the second annexation process alternative that would place the annexation election on the closest possible election date~ The second annexation process alternative would initiate the annexation election during the January 6, 2004 Council meeting. The annexation election would be held on May 18, 2004 through a Special Election (RCW29.13.020). If the Council chooses to proceed with an election annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane I Be advised the November 2, 2003 LUTC Memo incorrectly indicates September 16, 2004 as a primary election date. Page 4 Community, Staff recommends that the Council proceed with Alternative I that would initiate the annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the S.W. Parkway/Brittany Lane Community. III. North Lake Annexation At the November 3rd LUTC meeting, staff was directed to place the North Lake annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda. However, in order to present the Council with a more comprehensive annexation proposal that included all three proposed annexations, and to provide the Council with specific financial information, the North Lake annexation proposal was placed on the December 2, 2003 Council agenda. Pursuant to the LUTC's direction to staff, the North Lake election method annexation would be initiated by Council resolution after adoption of the PAA Study. A second process alternative that would initiate and effect the North Lake annexation more quickly is provided in ExhibitXI. This process alternative is identical to the second process alternative described in Section II above for the proposed S.W. Parkway annexation. Please refer to Exhibit VII for specific information regarding likely costs and revenues associated with annexation of the North Lake Community. IV. Recommended Council Action Redondo East: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the enclosed resolution to enter into interlocal agreement negotiations with King County for an Island Method annexation of the Redondo East area (to be effected after Council adoption of the PAA Study), and to direct staffto submit a Notice of Intent to annex the Redondo East area to the King County Boundary Review Board. North Lake: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the North Lake area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. $. W. Parkway: Staff recommends that the Council pass a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption to initiate an Election Method, Initiated by Council Resolution annexation of the S.W. Parkway area after Council adoption of the PAA Study. List of Exhibits Exhibit I: Regency Woods Support Memo Exhibit II: North Lake Registered Voters Support Letter and Signature Sheets Exhibit III: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Location Maps Exhibit IV: September 29, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit V: October 20, 2003 LUTC Memo Exhibit VI: November 3, 2003 LUTC Memo P~e5 Exhibit VII: Redondo East, S.W. Parkway, and North Lake Communities Fiscal Information Exhibit VIII: Redondo East Resolution Exhibit IX: MRSC Island Method Overview Exhibit X: Alternative I Election Method Flow Chart Exhibit XI: Alternative II Election Method Flow Chart K: Rox/Potential Annexation Area Study Phase II/Annexation/Dec 2~a Council Memo for Three Proposed Annexations Page 6 33228 38th Avenue South Auburn, WA 98001 November 3, 2003 Mr. Eric Faison Chairman, Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) Federal Way City Hall Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mr. Faison: As requested by the LUTC, we are presenting herewith petitions signed by registered North Lake voters requesting an annexation to the City of Federal Way Of the 440 registered voters, we were able to contact 205. Of these, 122 signed in support of annexation. This indicates a 60% support for annexation to Federal Way. The other registered voters whom we were not able to contact had either moved or were away. We would like to request that your committee recommend our North Lake area for an annexation vote as soon as feasible. Sincerely, The canvassing group for the North Lake area Signature Support Julie Cleary Chuck Gibson Debra Hansen Wendy Honey Helga Jackson Bill Jones Lois Kutscha Irene Mills Gary Mingus Sterling Smith Eleanor Vandenheuvel Attachment: Signature Support for Annexation Vote Lists EXHIBIT PAGE I OF $ o o t~ ~m c) IT1 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ 0 o 0 o,9.0 ~ o m ~r-' ~_o m-q ~m SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature ,, WltT RhONDA 33453 33RD PL S MARSH I I JANE L 33458 33RD p,,L S GIBSON JANET M 33461 33RD PL S GIBSON CHARLES 33461 33RD PL S MINGUS IANNE L 33603 33RD PL S MINGUS GARY D 33603 33RD RE S .. ,'~. ?'~, ,(< / ?- , MINGUS KAREN 33603 33RD PL S BEATTY ,JUDY 33619 33RD PL S J .I BEATTY DAVID WILLIAM 33619 33RD PL S / BEER RIANN N 33620 33RD PL S C~/~'~,.'~,~/, / ROSS KATINA A 33620 33RD PL S / ROSS DOUG W 33620 33RD,~L S (~:~..~' (/' ~ ~ RC-'N~C,.E 33624 33,'~D"PL EHLIS, BRENDAN E 33625 33RD PL S EHLIS ERNESTINE 33625 33RD PL S , , EHLIS ROY W 33625 33RD PL S WOLF JEFF J 33445 35TH AVE S WOLF ELIZABETH M 33445 35TH AVE S BROBAK MITCHALL J :33456 35TH AVE S CASTRO DEBROBAK SANDRA 33456 35TH AVE S ~ANSEN DEBRA 32805 38TH AVE S WALLS DONALD R 32805 38TH AVE S WALLS ADAM H 32805 38TH AVE S NAUMANN LYNN A 32811 38TH AVE S OLSON JAMES O 32814 38TH AVE S OLSON LOIS M 32814 38TH AVE S EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF II~ 0 - ~ ~, , ~ ~ ./~c ;IGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE List Name , First Name M.I. Address Signature ~LAN~GApEER ......... BROOKE" 32455 ,42ND PL S ..... .... ENGLUND CHARLOTTE C 32818 42N0 AVE S , iPOORMAN AHARON P 32818 42N0 AVE S POORMAN PETER CHARLES 32818 42ND AVE S SNYPP JOHN S 32821 42ND AVE S KREGER TAMMY 32908 42ND AVE S KREGER WAYNE H 32908 42ND AVE S PANNI fi~'Y .5'~,~ I~THERINE NAFEESA 32911 42NDAVES STIERS GAlL 33009 42ND AVE S , .., ... SN(~G~SS EDWARD D 3243~ 44TH AVE S~ SNO;~RASS BETTY J 32436 441H AVE S NASH-~HILLIPS RAMONA S , , 32508 441H AVE, S ,, PHILLIPS CHAD iH 32508 a4TH AVE S HOGEN, SON CURTIS R 32606 441H AVE S HOGENS, ON GAlL M 32606 44,TH AVE S HALL i FRANCES A 3802 S 32181 ST HOUK ! DEBOF~,H D 3812 S 3218'1' ST HOUK i BRUCE L 3812 S 32181 ST SMITH i JEFFREY L 3820 S 32181 ST DAUGHERIY,~ CARL L 3828 S 3218T SI DAUG~ERTY NOLA MAE 3828 S 32181 ST ARCHER RHETT AUGUSTE 3711 S 322ND ST JOHI~ON MINDY 3711 S 322ND ST HULSE JOYCE P 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE DENNIS W 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE BRE'I-r 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE BRETT H 3737 S 322ND ST GEISDORF LEROY 3745 S 322ND ST M~.[~}ONNELL SHARI L 3003 8 322ND ST EXHIBIT PAGE OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature SANDMAN DUSTIN JAY 32704 39TH AVE S '~'.~/~.,. :VAN HORN LIANE 32719 39TH AVE S d'~/.~.'~'./// ,, 'BERGE 'KARl E 32723 39TH AVE S GASSER MELISSA J , ,. 32723 39TH AVE S F 32723 39TH AVE S GASSER RALPH GASSER RAYMOND 32723 39TH AVE S ~ILERS LAWRENCE G 32727 39TH AVE S sus^N G 32727 3 TH s MILLER POTTER LINDA L 32404 42ND PL S POTTER WILLIAM G 32404 42ND PL S BROTHERS RON A 32412 42ND PL S ,DAVIDSON PAUL 32412 42ND PL S ROGGE DEBRA DIANE 32412 42ND PL S STEWARD CHARLES MATTHEW 32412 42ND PL S LAUGHLIN STEVE E 32422 42ND PL S CONNORS LEIA M 32423 42ND PL S CONNORS NANCY 32423 42ND PL S FERN SCOTT 32432 42ND PL S GORTON DOUG 32432 42ND PL S THOMAS DANNY D 32432 42ND PL S CARROS MARCELLA A 32442 42ND PL S GORDEN BARBARA A 32442 42ND PL S GOVEIA ANGELA MARIE 32442 42ND PL S HAVEL ROBERT L 32442 42ND PL S LARSON KATHLEEN ELAINE 32442 42ND PL S BEKAERT GEORGE 32449 42ND PL S BEKAERT SANDRA 32449 42ND PL S MURRAY BLAKE D 32449 42ND PL S GHISLANDI ALAIN M 32452 42ND PL S GHISLANDI LINDA JO 32452 42ND PL S EXHIBIT - PAGE OF___. SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address ~ ........ ~__ .THOMP_SQbL_--------- MAR-JORiE~ -- ~ 33~03 33~ ~0 HARIG :RICHARD EUGENE ~07 ~RD PL S NIEUWHOF ANGE~ S ~07 ~RD PL S OSTER SAND~ A 3~08 33RD PL S JOVANOVICH TOM 3~09 ~RD PL S ~. JOVANOVICH THERESA A 3~ ~RD P~ S ROGERS BRUCE ~HIAS HO~EN KRISTINE ~ ~Y RUSSELL HA~LD R 3~11 33RD p~ s PET~LO CATHERINE JO ~15 ~RD PLS---~~' STONEBACK ROGER C 3~17 ~RD BENSON WANDA L 3~19 ~RD P~ S MCCL~RY ANCIL M ~21 ~RD PL S RIEBESEHL JOHN ~ ~ 1 RIEBESEHL CARO~N 3~35 ~RD PL S ~NGRIDGE DASD ~39 ~D PLS ~NGRI~E ~REN K 3~9 ~RD PL S JAMES KELLY N 3~9 ~RD PL S ~ JAMES BARRY 3~9 ~RD PL S JAMES GLOR~ M EXHIBIT -7F, PAGE £ ,,OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I, Address Signature WESTBROOK TRACY 3806 S 328TH ST WESTBROOK RANDY :3806 S 328TH ST RODRIGUEZ CELESTE 3808 S 328TH ST RODRIGUEZ DEAN M 3808 S 328TH ST CHUNG EUNHEE 3810 S 328TH ST CROWSTON LORI M 13923 S 328TH ST STEPP ROBERT MATTHEW 13923 S 328TH ST CAMACHO GENARO 3800 S 328TH ST OLOHAN GLENN M 3300 S 334TH ST CLEARY JULIANNE iM 3312 S 334TH ST C LEARY CHRISTOPHER ;R 3312S334THST, YOUNG BRAD A 3317 S 334TH ST '~ ,. (,~ ,~: ~./ ,,. RE)SENOW ............... DAVID ...... [t~I:_ITH ........ 3318 S334TH-ST ROSENOW BEVERLY J 3328 S 334TH ST ROSENOW JACK G 3328 S 334TH ST ('~ ~,-,,,.? ~.~_ SCHAMERHORN DALE G 3605 S 334TH ST SCHAMERHORN NANCY '3605 S 334TH ST HAZZARD ROGER 3610 S 334TH ST HAZZARD KAREN iL 3610 S 334TH ST N -~, "~ BARRINGER SHIRLEY A ,3625 S 334TH ST BARRINGER JASON C 3625 S 3,.'.'.'.'.'.~ITH ST CHRISTENSEN HERMAN !3625 S 334TH ST EXHIBIT ...... ,, PAGE OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature BREWER LUCILLE P 33406 38TH AVE S BAILEY PAUL K 32105 39TH AVE S iSAND RODNEY D 32105 39TH AVE S DIXON DAVID L 32111 39TH AVE S DIXON KENDRA D 32111 39TH AVE S HENRY GORDON T 32111 39TH AVE S SAUCEDO RICHARD 32116 39TH AVE S LINDSEY VANESSA F 32117 39TH AVE S LINDSEY CLAUDIA 32117 39TH AVE S FLESCH BRUCE PHILIP 32122 39TH AVE S LOCKARD HERBERT A 32125 39TH AVE S DIXON ARTHUR LAGRAND i32131 39TH AVE S GENETT RENEE K 32216 39TH AVE S CRISP-HAYES ELANIE 32217 39TH AVE S HAYES iEDGAR J 32217 39TH AVE S RUARK MAUREEN E 32225 39TH AVE S RUARK MICHAEL 32225 39TH AVE S KELLY MARY CLAIRE 32226 39TH AVE S KOHLER ROBERT D 32226 39TH AVE S LONG JANICE EILEEN 32226 39TH AVE S NORTON LISA A 32233 39TH AVE S WILSON MARK J 32234 39TH AVE S WILSON ELENrrA C 32234 39TH AVE S ALCO3-F MARCELLE JEAN 32258 39TH AVE S HENDERSON JACQUELINE R 32258 39TH AVE S BROOKS LARRY ]' 32511 39TH AVE S COFFER PAMELA JO 32604 39TH AVE S CUNNINGHAM CINDY 32604 39TH AVE S KREMER iCAROLYN J 32629 39TH AVE S KREMER LYLE C 32629 39TH AVE S BOONE MARK LESLIE 32704 39TH AVE S EXHIBIT ,'TT_ , PAGE__. 0F SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature MORRIS DAVID H 32634 MILITARY RD S ; STEWARD CLARA I 32653 MILITARY RD S LETOURNEAU MILDRED 32662 MIUTARY RD S BARAJAS LAURIE L 32802 MILITARY RD S DILLION ELWIN C 32802 MILITARY RD S ,,.,MONTGOMERY CRYSTAL ANNE 32802 MILITARY RD S ANDERSON DEBRA M 32922 MILITARY RD S / FRAZER GORDON B 32922 MILITARY RD S [ FRAZER DONNA M 32922 MILITARY RD S t "'NCKLEY JAMES " C 32934 MIUTARY RD S t".~/)..~ If' HINCKLEY RUTH A 32934 MILITARY RD S N, AMES PAUL G 33008 MILITARY RD S BALDUFF CHRISTOPHER A 33010 MILITARY RD S ~,/// FISCH M AMALIA 33010 MIUTARY RD S · 1 SEABORN JOSEPH G 33010 MILITARY RD S DOMZALSKI DONNA L 33016 MILITARY RD S GRAY KARYN K 33016 MILITARY RD S / KING KENNETH JOHN 33016 MILITARY RD S ~ KLEINBROOK CAROL 33030 MIL{TARY RD S x); KLEINBROOK L E 33030 MILITARY RD S KLEINBROOK RICK E 33030 MILITARY RD S DOMZALSKI RICHARD L 33040 MILITARY RD S ('~.~,! DOIVlZALSKI RACHEL E 33040 MILITARY RD S CASTONA ROBERT ,D 33045 MILITARY RD S ,~-~J(' HUDSON AMIE MARIE 33045 MILITARY RD S HUDSON JAMES 33045 MILITARY RD S SUNDERLAND ERIK DALE 33045 MILITARY RD S MARIE '3~1~,-),-.-~. GERALD A 33049 MILITARY RD S MARIE LADONNA L ~33049 MILITARY RD S QUINTON MICHEAL E133059 MlUTARY RD S ,HAWLEY RICHARD ,K !33071 MILITARY RD S EXHIBIT, PAGE fl OF 0 ..... ~/7/ SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I, Address Signature ARMITAGE CHRISTINE D 32200 MILITARY RD S t~ffVl203 GONZALEZ JOYLINA J ,32200 MILITARY RD S #IVl204 FOLEY ELLEN G 32200 MILITARY RD S #M206 FOLEY PATRIClA I 132200 MILITARY RD S #M206 PROUTY JEFFREY L 32200 MILITARY RD S #M301 EJIOGU KENNETH C 32200 MILITARY RD S ~M306 EJIOGU NGOZI JOY 32200 MILITARY RD S ~M306 KNUDSON JILL A~INE 32200 MILITARY RD S ~4~1205 FINK COLLEEN M 32200 MILITARY RD S ltV101 KINCAID CAROLYN ~ DIANE 32200 MILITARY RD S #X101 KINCAID KENNETH WILSON 32200 MILITARY RD S #X101 PERRY COURTNEY L 32200 MILITARY RD S #X102 SERPICO TIMOTHY FRANCIS 32200 MILITARY RD S #Z204 L,,.LAKE SEAN L 32200 MIUTARY RD S #Z305 ~JOHNSON i JENNIFER M 32241 MILITARY RD S ROSENTHAL SARA D 32241 MILITARY RD S REED DOROTHY FAYE 32243 MILITARY RD S THOMAS LINDA 32247 MIUTARY RD S CROYLE ANTHONY JOSEPH 32255 MILITARY RD S PARKE EUZABETH MARIE 32255 MILITARY RD S LEVEOUE LISA LYNNE 32410 MILITARY RD S #A WOLTKAMP GARY E 32440 MILITARY RD S WOLTKAMP TERESA L 32440 MILITARY RD S. WILUAMS THERESA R 32441 MIUTARY RD S WILLIAMS FRED JAMES 32441 MILITARY RD S CASE GARY E 32448 MIUTARY RD S SCHEELER ROBERT M 32448 MILITARY RD S SASSOON CELIA S 32461 MILITARY RD S WHISENHUNT MARTHA 32466 MILITARY RD S EXHIBIT _ =___ PAGE to OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name Fimt Name M.I. Address Signature :,MtTCi ;ELL ROGERT L ~ G ~'~ ~ ~DFORD BR E~ A ~ i38TH A~i S ~DFORD DIANE LYUN ..... 32~7 ~TH A~ S G~HAM JERRY 328~TH AVE S SNYPP DIAN M 32~5 ~TH AVE S I .............. J a2~ ~. A~ s FINDT BRUCE 32~7 38T" AVE S BENTSON ROSS D 33~ ~TH AVE S KISER ELLIS WAYNE 33012 ~TH AVE S KISER J~NCY 33012 ~TH A~ S ,...~ / -'~' ¥ EXHIBIT TI ,a,,, PAGE t OF 30 ~4 -'S OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name --irst Name M.I. Address Signature KUTSCHA NORMAN P 33021 38TH AVE S '/~/./~'?./;~;~/¥ ./.',~,/V""~r2~/,gr'<'/. , MILLER ~II~'FANY LYNN 33022 38TH AVE S /".;l~j CASPERSON CL~RK ~3028 38TH AVE S _ PERRY SIMONE S 33030 38TH AVE S ~//~" OODl '~',;:£ [TIP/."/[.' :-- 33205 38TH AVE S /'>'? C ~/¢,,-(" , . MARTINSON r^LGIE M 33211 38TH AVE S ~?" ' ' ,.~:;.~ ,'/." ,~ . ,.~., - L OV-ED _~,c'.-,-,'2g p. CDERT ,"' ....... ', A'.,_ S ------'--'"~ 'RANON PHILIP A 33~22 38TH AVE S ?~ O IRANON CHRISTINA M 33222 38TH AVE S ~i Illgal i FLESHER LARRY p 33223 38TH AVE S "~ CMERSC,".' C: .....,,,, ~, AL ,,n ............. TINNERMAN TONI R 13246 38TH AVE S '~./~.'.~!..??z ~ '~: PARIETTI JEAN U 33256 38TH AVE S ~~ '~,¢~, ~ ' .-~ SELF iWlLLARD D 33256 38TH AVE S ~.~.7_.~> TINNERMAN ED C ~BIH AVE S BREWER LEON K 3.3406 38TH AVE S J~.._~ SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature WITT RHONDA 33453 33RD PL S MARSH JANE L 33~,58 33RD PL S," GIBSON JANET M 33461 33RD PL S WATt.&ND .............. GHARL~3-Tff'E-~ M ..... 33485 33RD Pb S- · MINGUS ANNE L 33603, 33RD PL S MINGUS GARY D 33603 33RD PL S MINGUS DOROTHY E 3.3603 33RD PL S MINGUS KAREN 33603 33RD PL S BEATTY IUDY 33619 33RD PL S BEATTY RACHEL N 33619 33RD PL S BEATTY KRISTINE M 33619 33RD PL S BEATTY DAVID WILLIAM 33619 33RD PL S BEER RIANN N 33620 33RD PL S ROSS KATINA A 33620 33RD PL S ROSS DOUG W 33620 33RD PL S CARLSON AURORA RENEE 33624 33RD PL S FREEMAN ANDREVV WAYNE 33624 33RD PL S EHUS BRENOAN E 33625 33RD PL S EHLIS ERNESTINE 33625 33RD PL S EHLIS ROY W 33625 33RD PL S WOLF JEFF J 33445 351'H AVE S WOLF ELIZABETH M 33445 35TH AVE S BROBAK MITCHALL J 33456 35TH AVE S CASTRO DEBROBAK SANDRA , , 33456 35TH AVE S NAUMANN LYNN A 32811 38TH AVE S OLSON JAMES O 32814 38TH AVE S 'OLSON LOIS t U 32814 38TH AVE S PAGE [$ OF 3o SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE La_~_ Name First Name M.I. Address Signature HAWLEY MARTHA A 33071 MILITARY RD S ~CDOWELL PATRICIA ANN :33220 MILITARY RD S I ~ ('i . ,, DZIN~L~,. LISA A DZINGLE ~'"~.,, RUSSELL A i.3¥ ARY RD S DZINGLE '~. DAWN J 33408 MILITARY RD S R..OGER'~ JEANNE E '"'~' ~Y RD S --' ' EXHIBIT_ PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature LANGABEER BROOKE 32455 42ND PL S ENGLUND CHARLOTTE C 32818 42ND AVE S POORMAN AHARON P 32818 42ND AVE S =OORMAN PETER CHARLES 32818 42ND AVE S SNYPP JOHN S 32821 42ND AVE S KREGER TAMMY 32908 42ND AVE S KREGER WAYNE H 32908 42ND AVE S ODELL LARRY M 32911 42ND AVE S PANNI KATHERINE iNAFEESA 32911 42ND AVE S TIGHE JACQUI 32911 42ND AVE S STIERS GAlL 33009 42ND AVE S SNODGRASS EDWARD D [32436 44TH AVE S SNODGRASS BETTY !J 32436 44TH AVE S NASH-PHILLIPS RAMONA S 32508 44TH AVE S i PHILLIPS CHAD H 32508 44TH AVE S IIHOGENSON CURTIS R 32606 44TH AVE S HOGENSON GAlL M 32606 44TH AVE S ~HALL FRANCES A 3802 S 321ST ST HOUK DEBORAH D 3812 S 321ST ST BI ,'/ HOUK BRUCE ,L S 321ST ST SMITH JEFFREY L 3820 S 321ST ST ,.,A. RCHER RHETT AUGUSTE 3711 S 322ND ST JOHNSON MINDY 3711 S 322ND ST HULSE JOYCE P 3737 S 322ND ST IHULSE DENNIS W 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE BRETT 3737 S 322ND ST ~'~'~ HULSE BRETT H 3737 S 322ND ST GEISDORF LEROY 3745 S 322ND ST /V EXHIBIT PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name Fimt Name M.I. Address Signature BREWER LUCILLE P 33406 38TH AVE S SAND RODNEY . ~D 32105 39TH A~ S dENRY GORDON~ T 32111 39TH A~ S /"~ / ~ ~ .... 32116 39TH AVES FLESCH BRUCE PHILIP 321~ 39TH AVE S LOC~RD HERBERT A 32125 30TH A~ S . DIXON ARTHUR ~G~ND 32131 39TH AVE S ~) ~'~ CRISP-HAYES E~NIE 32217 39TH A~ S HAYES EDGAR J 322~7 39TH AVE S '~'. ~UARK ~UREEN E 3~25 39TH A~ S RUARK MICHEL 3~25 39TH AVE S KELLY MARY C~IRE ~26 39TH A~ S KOHLER ROBERT O 32226 39TH A~ S , LONG JANICE EILEEN 3~6 39TH AVE S WILSON MARK J 322~ 39TH A~ S WILSON ELENITA C 3~ 39TH AVE S BROOKS ~RRY ..... F 32511 39TH A~ S KREMER CAROLYN J 32~9 ~TH A~ S ("7 ~b ,: EREMER LYLE C 32629 ~TH AVE S ,,, BOONE MARK LESLIE 327~.39TH A~ S EXHIBIT PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature MCDONNELL STEVEN P 3903 S 322ND ST NA YOUNG YUL 3906 S 322ND ST CASSADY KENNETH S 3913 S 322N0 ST CASSADY JODY L 3913 S 322ND ST THOMPSON VERLA L 3914 S 322ND ST THOMPSON RICHARD R 3914 S 322ND ST CHANEY JORY M 4102 S 324TH ST BAUGHN MICHAEL R 4110 S 324TH ST LIVSEY PATTY M 4114 S 324TH ST TUCKER JOSEPH A 4201 S 324TH PL GULIN RYAN G 4207 S 324TH PL J SWEENEY RHONDA J 4211 S 324TH PL )Zi ¢'lf~.~.-~' ~v'"7 SWEENEY EDWARD JOSEPH 4211 S 324TH PL NEWMAN FARLIN P 4218 S 3~4TH PL"~... NEWMAN KAREN A 4218 S 324TH PL ~- NEWMAN RONALD M 4218 S 324TH PL.~ BRADFORD LOWELL A 4226 S S24TH PL ... _ _,~.. MEISER LOREN C 4235 S 324TH PL , / SUNDSTROM WENDY R 3809 S 325TH ST SUNDSTROM DENNIS 3809 S 325TH ST SUNDSTROM ALBERTA M 3817 S 325TH ST HAWKS VERN REVERE 3822 S 325TH ST EXHIBIT_ PAGE tq OF___._- SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature SANDMAN DUSTIN JAY 32704 39TH AVE S iVAN HORN LIANE 32719 39TH AVE S BERGE KARl E 32723 39TH AVE S GASSER MELISSA J 32723 39TH AVE S GASSER RALPH F 32723 39TH AVE S GASSER RAYMOND 32723 39TH AVE S EILERS ;LAWRENCE G 32727 39TH AVE S EILERS SUSAN G 32727 39TH AVE S MILLER RONALD P 32734 39TH AVE S .OTTER UNDA L 32404 4 ND PO~-I'ER WILLIAM G 32404 42ND PL S"~ CONNORS LEIA M 32423 42ND PL S CONNORS NANCY 32423 42ND PL S GOVEIA ANGELA,. MARIE 32442 42N0 PL S HAVEL ROBERT L 32442.,. 42NDPL S BEKAERT GEORGE 32449 42ND PL S J [BEKAERT SANDRA 32449 42ND PL 8 ' ..~,~ GHI$1J~NDI ALAIN M . 32452 42ND ~1. $ ~-r'~, ' ,/ EXHIBIT_... L__ PAGE t._LL _OF %o SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature (, .HARLOW KRISTIAN P ~ (~ 3916 S 326TH PL STEINHART MARY J ~J0 3917 S 326T, PL _i STEINHA. RT WALTER R F~ ' :3917 S 326TH PL ~ ~_~ ARNOLD ELLEN :E ~J~ 3924 S 326TH PL I ARNOLD JOHN R 3924 S 3~.TH PL DALE HAROLD E N~ 3925 S 326TH PL/ · D,,UNN MICHAEL J 3933 S 326TH PL ~/~ [ ~. ENGELS KAREN E '~i~ [ 3933 S 326TH PL ST JOHN CYNTHIA .EE 4202 S 326TH PL LOVELESS ROBIN J 4229 S 326TH PL LOVELESS DAN 4229 S 3~6TH PL TURNER ~VILLIAM JAY 4230 S 326TH PL WRIGHT EDWINA G 4230 S 326TH PL WRIGHT MICHAEL P 4230 S 326TH PL MCNABB IWILLIAM ALVIN 4237 S 326TH PL TANNER CHERI L 4237 S 326TH PL ..... TANNER JAMES E 4237 S 326TH PL BREEZEE DEAN A 4240 S 326TH PL BREEZEE JENNIFER 4240 S 326TH PL MONZINGO ROBERT DANNY 4240 S 326TH PL THOMAS DAWN A 4240 S 326TH PL ABELE ANGELA J 4245 S 326TH PL ISMALLEY A 4245 S 326TH PL 'FULLMER AMANDA S 4250 S 326TH PL FULLMER PATRICK THOMAS 4250 S 326'rH PL HARRIS JENNIE MARIE 4250 S 326TH PL HARRIS KENNETH 4250 S 326TH PL OWENS MARK A 4252 S 326TH PL OWENS TRACEY-LEIGH 4253 S 326TH PL EXHIBIT___Z PAGE OF O SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address MCDONNELL STEVEN P 3903 S 322ND ST NA YOUNG YUL 3906 S 322ND ST C~SSADY KENNETH S 3913 S 322ND ST CASSADY JODY L 3913 S 322ND ST THO .M. PSO" VERLA L 3914 S 322N0 ST THOMPSON RICHARD R 3914 S 322ND ST CHANEY JORY M 4102 S 324TH ST BAUGHN MICHAEL R :4110 S 324TH ST LIVSEY PATTY i M 4114 S 324TH ST TUCKER JOSEPH ,A 4201 S 324TH PL ,BIRT ANDY 'CHARLES '4207 S 324TH PL GULIN RYAN G 4207 S 324TH PL HENDRICKSON BARBARA 4207 S 324TH PL HENDRICKSON DAVID 4207 S 324TH PL OSEGUERA THERESA 4210 S 324TH PL GAMBLE JEFFREY Q 4211 S 324TH PL ........ SWEENEY RHONDA J 4211 S 324TH PL SVVEENEY EDWARD JOSEPH 4211 S 324TH PL DENNING ,KATHLEEN A 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN JONATHAN W 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN 'FARMN P 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN KAREN A 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN MICHAEL G 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN RONALD M 4218 S 324TH PL BRADFORD ~LOWELL A 4226 S 324TH PL MEISER LOREN C 4235 S 324TH PL DUNAWAY THERESA 4210 S 324TH PL SUNDSTROM WEEDY R ,3809 S 325TH ST ~ SUNDSTROM DENNIS 3809 S 325TH ST ~ ~0 SUNDSTROM ....ALBERTA ~-)0 M ,, 3817 S 325TH SI, ~) HAWKS VERN REVERE 3822 S 325TH ST EXHIBIT PAGE OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name Fimt Name M.I. Address Signature HAWKS JEANNE P 3822 S 325TH ST "--'~ C, HANEY, JANE ELLEN 3831S 325TH ST CHANEY BRADLEY 3831 S 325TH ST M,c..,c~ J~W,~ J ~ J 391os ~ A 3910 S 325TH PL MICHNICKA ANNA ,K 3910 S 325TH PL ~C.N,CK~ wu~¥su~w J ~0~ 39~os~-.PL ~C, ,, LEE JOHN C :3911 S 325TH PL LEE MELISSA JOY 3911 S 325TH PL JONES WILLIAM D 3919 S 325TH PL DICKSON CATHERINE K 3924 S 325TH PL VANDERVLUGT SCOTT t JAMES 3924 S 3.2..5TH PL DAVIES MARY . NOBLE 3925 S 325TH PL DAMGAARD ..... MAUREEN D , 4~01 S 325TH ST DECKER MARCIA W 4301 S 325TH ST LE BEAU CODN ;4301 S 325TH ST VELTKAMP DARRELL R 4312 S 325TH ST GRAVES BRUCE A .. 3804 S 325TH ST JACKSON HELGA V 4318 S 325TH ST JACKSON THOMAS iG '4318 S 325TH ST T ~:IARLOW PETER GRONBECH 3916 S 326TH PL ~:~U~2~/~' ,, ,f ? 5 EXHIBIT PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE L_=~__ Name Fimt Name M£ Address Signatun~ ARMITAGE CHRISTINE D 32200 MILITARY RD S GON7~I F7 JOYUNA J 32200 MILITARY RD S ~M204 'FOLEY ~11FN G 12200 MIUTARY RD S FOLEY PATRICIA 32200 MILITARY RD S ~d2~6 PROUTY JEFFREY L 32200 MIMTARY RD S ftM301 EJIOGU KENNETH C 32200 MILITARY RD S ;Nd306 EJIOGU NGOZI JOY 32200 MiMTARY RD S ;~M306 . KNUDSON JILL ANNE 32200 .,LITARY RD S 11N205 ~ ..<~ .~ ~.~../ FINK COl I FFN M 32200 MIMTARY RD S ~V101 aNC~D KENNETH W~LSO~ ~Z00MIU~ARYRDS~X~0~ ~ ~ · /~/~ ~, PERRY COURTNEY L 322t~0 MILY~,~Y RD S f~Xl02 SERPICO TIMOTHY FRANCIS 32200 MILITARY RD S ~Z204 LAKE SEAN L 32200 MILITARY RD S ~305 THOMAS UNDA 32247 MILITARY RD S ELIZABETH MARIE 32255 MILITARY RD S O;t~ \ PAR ,KE LEVEQUE ~ LYNNE 32410 MlUTARY RD S ~V~ J WOLTKAMP GARY E 32440 MILITARY RD S WOLTKAMP rERES^ L :32440 MILITARY RD S WI_I_~!AMS rHF_RESA R 32441 MILITARY RD S --WILLIAMS q~ED JAMES 32441 MIMTARY RD S /~j ~'~ SCHFFI FR ROBERT iM 32448 MILITARY RD S -.WHISENHUN, T MARTHA 32466 MILITARY RD S MORRIS VALERIE ~IARIE 32634 MIETARY RD S MORRIS DEE A 32634 MIUTARY RD S EXHIBIT PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.L Address S~na~.re 'MILLS IRENE A 3488 S 336TH ST MILLS ROBEI~, T, ..... iJ 3488 S 336TH ST PIERSON RICHARD N 3516 S 336TH ST PIERSON GAlL A 1516 S 336TH ST JONES DIETRICK C 3106 S 337TH ST ~/C~.-~_ , OKUBO MARK LEE 32200 MILITARY RD S ROUNDHILL DAN C 32200 MILITARY RD S ~A101 ELLEY GORDON K 32200 MIUTARY RD S MM ~OK-KHIENG 32200 MILITARY RD S ~/A303 MURSCH DEBORAH A 32200 MILITARY RD S ftA304 BEVINS MELODY G 32200 MILITARY RD S NEWELL Ii-lOMAS G 32200 MILITARY RD S ~E~8101 NEWELL CHERYL L ~21)0 MIUTARY RD S ~BB'O1 /~:~r ,7 j~-~.{~[:Z,.. ~_., , MALONE KASSI,, ^ 32200 MILITARY RD S ~BB302[/2~g ~ ' ,.MALONE LORI A 32200 MILITARY RD S HERMIOA LARRY O 32200 MILITARY RD S f/F:202 ! ~/r~ : ,. JEWET~ KAREN L i322IX) MlUTARY RD S t~H203 FEQP. ES 'JOHN- M ~.'- ............ SEIUNGER Al, FN iL 32200 MILITARY RD S ~J304 SPANO MICHELLE E 32200 MILITARY RD S f~KIQ2 JENSEN BRADLEY iH ~2200 MILITARY RD S ~f(104 SPARTZ JOSHUA PAUL 32200 MIUTARY RD S ~(301 SPARTZ SARA (ENDALL 32200 MILITARY RD S fl~301 MAClNNES MICHAEL ALLAN 32200 MILITARY RD S ~LIO~ EASTER AUCIA DAWN 32200 MILITARY RD S DOS SANTOS S~ACY A 32200 MIUTARY RD S a~M105 HARKOVICH SARAH E 32200 MILITARY RD S EXHIBIT .... PAGE,, OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE MCDONNELL STEVEN P 3903 S 322ND ST NA ,YOUNG YUL 3906 S 322ND ST CASSADY KENNETH S 3913 S 322ND ST C^SSADY JODY L 3913 S 322ND ST THOMPSON VF_RLA L 3914 S 322ND ST THOMPSON RICHARD R 3914 S 322ND ST ,.,~ ,,- ;.-.~..~...... ~~T r~ZC~.~ .... TUCKEF~ ,'OSEPH ^ 420~ S =~r. PL ;BIRr[ t~NDY CHARLES 4207 S 324TH PL GULIN RYAN G 4207 S 324TH PL HENDRICKSON BARBARA 4207 S 324TH PL HENDRICKSON DAVID 4207 S 324TH PL OSEGUERA THERESA 4210 S 324TH PL GAMBLE JEFFREY Q 4211 S 324TH PL SWEENEY RHONDA J 4211 S 324TH PL SWEENEY EDWARD JOSEPH 4211 S 324TH PL DENNING KATHLEEN A ~218 S 324TH PL NE~NMAN JONATHAN W :4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN FAIL'LIN P 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN KAREN A 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN MICHAEL ~ 4218 S 324TH PL NEWMAN RONALD M 4218 S 324TH PL BRADFORD LOWELL k ~ S 324TH PL MEISER LOREN C 4235 S 324TH PL DUNAWAY THERESA 4210 $ 324TH PL SUNDSTROM WENDY R 3809 S 325TH ST SUNDSTROM DENNIS 3809 S 325TH ST SUNDSTROM ALBERTA M 3817 S 325TH ST HAWKS VERN REVERE 3822 S 325TH ST EXHIBIT PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE WFFF RHONDA 33453 33RD PL S MARSH JANE L 33458 33RD PL S GIBSON JANET M 33461 33RD Iq., S GIBSON Cd-IARLES 33461:33RD PL S WATLAND CHARLOTTE M 33485 33RD PL S MINOUS ANNE L 33603 33RD PL S MINGUS GARY D 33603 33RD PL S MINGUS KAREN 33603 33RD PL S BEATTY JUDY 33619 33RD PL S [ .e. TT .. C,EL , =RD S BEATTY DAVID WILUAM 33619 33RD PL S BEER RIANN N 33620 33RD PL $ ROSS KATINA A 33620 33RD PL S ROSS DOUG W 33620 33RD PL S CARLSON AUROI:~ RENEE 33624 33R:D PL S ..... FREEMAN ANDREW WAYNE 33624 33RD PL S EHUS BRENOAN E 33625 3:3RD Pi- S EHUS ERNESTINE 33625 33RD PL S EHUS ROY W 33625 33RD PL S CA~,TRO DEBROBAI~ 8~,NI3~J~ 334~6 ~ AV~_, S ! L I,-~, t L .... t ~ , HANSEN DEBRA 32805 38TH AVE S WALLS DONALD R 32805 38TH AVE S WALLS ADAM H 32805 38TH AVE S NAUMANN LYNN A 32811 38TH AVE S OLSON JAMES O 32814 38TH AVE S OLSON LOIS M 32814 38TH AVE S EXHIBIT,, PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name Flint Name M.I. Address Signature MILLS IRENE A 3488 S 336TH ST .~.~ /~ MILLS ROBERT J 3488 S 336TH ST PIERSON GAlL A 3516 S 336TH ST JONES DIETRICK C 3106 $ 337TH ST OKUBO MARK LEE 32200 MILITARY RD S ROUNDHILL DAN C 32200 MILITARY RD S ~,.101 ROUNDHILL SARAH ANNE 32200 MILITARY RD S POHLE AARON J 132200 MILITARY RD S 'HIC_,KEY KENDRA S ;32200 MILITARY RD S :t~A104 ELLEY GORDON K 32200 MILITARY RD S UM SOK-KHIENG 32200 MILrrARY RD S ~A.303 MURSCH DEBORAH A 32200 MIUTARY RD S BEVINS MELODY iG 32200 MILITARY RD S ~.AA-104 NE~VELL THOMAS G 32200 MILITARY RD S NEWELL CHERYL L 32200 MlUTARY RD S a~BB101 MALONE KASSI A 32200 MIUTARY RD S ~BB302 MALONE LORI A 32200 MILrrARY RD S HERMIDA LARRY O 32200 MILITARY RD S HERMIDA TINA M 32200 MlUTARY RD S :~q=202 JEWETr KAREN L . 1 32200 MILITARY RD S :~H203 . . FLORES JOHN H 3Z200 MILITARY RD S :ii,J101 SEILI~ ALLEN L 32200 MILITARY RD S ~J304. SP.,ANO MICHELLE E 32200 MILITARY RD S JF__NSEN BRADLEY H 3;~200 MIUTARY RD S SP,ARTZ JOSHUA PAUL 32200 MILITARY RD S SP/~TZ SARA KENDALL 32200 MILITARY RD S r MACINNES ,MIC L ALLAN 322(X) MILITARY RD S f/L10.3 EASTER AUClA DAWN ~32200 MILITARY RD S 'DOS SANTOS STACY A 32200 I~LITARY RD S HARKOVlCH SARAH E 32200 MILITARY RD S #M2Q2 SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE ,,Last Name First Name M.I. Address WESTBROOK TRACY 3806 S 328TH ST ~ 3808 S 328TH ST ~-t~ ~ b~c.~-~ ;~t.~'¥c'~ ~ ~ M 3808 S 328TH ST ;CHUNG EUNHEE 3810 S 328TH ST C~ROWSTON !LORI M 3923 S 328TH ST STEPP IROBERT MATTHEW 3923 S 328TH ST HODSON IANET 3300 S 334TH ST KOCHA HELEN M 3300 S 334TH ST OLOHAN GLENN M 3300 S 334TH ST CLEARY JULIANNE M 3312 S 334TH ST CLEARY B 3312 S 334TH ST CLEARY CHRISTOPHER R 3312 S 334TH ST YOUNG BRAD A 3317 S 334TH ST HURST JOHN J3318 S 334TH ST ROSENOW DAVID KEITH 3318 S 334TH ST ROSENOW BEVERLY J 3328 S 334TH ST ROSENOW JACK G 3328 S 334TH ST SCHAMERHORN DALE G 3605 S 334TH ST SCHAMERHORN NANCY 3605 S 334TH ST HAZZARD ROGER 3610 S 334TH ST HAZZARD KAREN L 3610 S 334TH ST BARRINGER SHIRLEY A 3625 S 334TH ST BARRINGER JASON C 3825 S 334TH ST CHRISTENSEN HERMAN 3625 S 334TH ST TREECE (ATHLEEN A 3634 S 334TH ST RATHE ERWIN G 3636 S 334TH ST ~,ATHE NANCY ~,NNE 3636 S 334TH ST VANDENHEUVEL DON G 3718 S 334TH ST VANDENHEUVEL ELEANOR L 3718 S 334TH ST PAGE OF SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address dARLOW KRISTIAN P 3916 S 326TH PL STEINHART MARY J 3917 S 326TH PL STEINHART WALTER R 3917 S 326TH PL GONZALES DAWN J 3917 S 328TH ST ARNOLD ELLEN E 3924 S 326TH PL ARNOLD JOHN R 3924 S 326TH PL DALE HAROLD E 3925 S 326TH PL DALE HELEN A 3925 S 326TH PL DUNN MICHAEL J 3933 S 326TH PL ENGELS KAREN E 3.933 S 326TH PL S'~JQI4H CYN. TH!A ~EE 4202 S $26T; LOVELESS ROBIN J 4229 S 326TH PL LOVELESS DAN 4229 S 326TH PL ;MICHAEL P 4230 S 326TH PL SMALLEY A FULLMER AMANDA S 4250 S 326TH PI~ OWENS MARK A 4252 S 326TH PL OWENS TRACEY-LEIGH 4253 S 326TH PL EX H I B IT__-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~~ PAGE %~ OF ~ ,, SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature HAWKS JEANNE P 3822 S 325TH ST MEACHAM ELSIE 3825 S 325-TH ST MF_.ACHAM LAURIE 3825 S 325TH ST CHANEY JANE ELLEN 3831 S 325TH ST CHANEY BRADLEY 3831 S 325TH ST DEHUFF MIKE 3834 S 325TH ST DEHUFF CARRIE J 3834 S 325TH ST DEHUFF KIMI~ERLY LYNN 3834 S 325TH ST JOHNSON MARGARET L 3903 S 325TH PL MICHNICKA JADWlGA J 3910 S 325TH PL MICHNICKA SYLWIA A 3910 S 325TH PL MICHNICKA ANNA K 3910 S 325TH PL MICHNICKI WLADYSLAW J 3910 S 325TH PL MICHNICKI DANIEL S 3910 S 325TH PL LEE JOHN C 3911 S 325TH PL LEE MELISSA JOY 3911 S 325-rH PL JONES WILLIAM D 3919 S 325TH PL DICKSON CATHERINE K 3,924 S 3251'H PL VANDERVLUGT JAMES V 3924 S 325TH PL VANDERVLUGT SCOTT JAMES 3924 S :325TH PL VANDERVLUGT JUDY A 3924 S 325TH PL DAVIES MARY NOBLE :3925 S 325TH PL ii :4312 S 325TH ST '%. !JACKSON HELGA ,V 4318S325THST tJrg~Q,a V' ~rCt~LTl~ JACKSON THOMAS I:HARLOW PETER GRONBECH 3916 S 3261'H PL EXHIBIT ,, PAGE SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT FOR ANNEXATION VOTE Last Name First Name M.I. Address Signature LANGABEER BROOKE 32455 42ND PL S ENGLUND CHARLOTTE C 32818 42N0 AVE S POORMAN AHARON P 32818 42ND AVE S POORMAN PETER CHARLES 32818 42ND AVE S SNYPP JOHN S 32821 42N0 AVE S KREGER TAMMY 32908 42ND AVE S KREGER WAYNE H 32908 42ND AVE S ODE. LL LARRY M 32911 42ND AVE S PANNI KATHERINE NAFEESA 32911 42ND AVE S TIGHE JACQUI 32911 42ND AVE S STIERS GAlL 33009 42ND AVE S NASH-PHILLIPS RAMONA S 32508 44TH AVE S HOGENSON CURTIS R 32606 44TH AVE S ,(~ HOGENSON GAlL M :32606 44TH AVE S J HALL F~NC~S ^ 38O2 S 321ST ST HOUK OEBORAH ,O 3812 S 321.~T ST HOUK BRUCE iL 3812 S 321ST ST SMITH JEFFREY L 3820 S 321ST ST DAUGHERT~, ,, CARL iL 3828 $ 321ST ST DAUGHERTY NOLA MAE 3828 S 321ST ST ARCHER RHEI-F AUGUSTE 3711 S :322ND ST JOHNSON MINDY 3711 S 322ND ST HULSE JOYCE P 3737 S 322ND ST .... HULSE DENNIS W 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE BRETT 3737 S 322ND ST HULSE BRETT H 3737 S 322ND ST GEISDORF LEROY 3745 S 322ND ST MCDONNEll SHARI L 3903 S 322ND ST EXHIBIT PAGE,- o OF North Lake ,,x.,":' ':'""--. - ?.., t., /',{. ,.,."~.',',"' ', '.. i City of Federal Way North Lake Community EXHIBIT. PAGE '~ OF~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way September 24, 2003 TO: Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Davi anager Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Issues Discussion-North Lake MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2003 GENERAL BACKGROUND At the September 29, 2003 LUTC meeting an update of the Potential Annexation issues was provided. A motion was passed to forward the Redondo area and the Regency Woods area were forwarded to the full council for consideration. The North lake area was tabled until there was an opportunity to meet with some of the North Lake residents. I have repeated the portion of the September 29t~ staff report regarding North Lake and added new information that staff has discovered since that meeting. NORTH LAKE AREA Boundaries - The North Lake area is bounded on the north by 320th, on the east by Peasley Canyon Road, on the south by Highway 18, and on the west by the City boundaries. The North Lake Area is approximately 384 acres of which nearly half is developed into residential properties. Another 126 acres is undeveloped, about 100 acres is in utilities and streets, and there is a very small percentage in commercial, office, and open space. Commercial land includes a nursery and gas station. The average assessed value of homes in this area is about $190,000. The 2003 population is estimated at 600. The PAA Study has the following analysis on the North Lake area: "In relative terms, the small North Lake area is likely to come the closet to breaking even. North Lake has taxable property per resident that is more than 50 percent higher than that of the three PAA's combined (Table D-4, values that translate into roughly a 20 percent boost in the area's per capita revenues). We also estimate that North Lake will generate lower-than-average demand for public safety services. However, North Lake appears to generate only very low levels of sales tax revenues. On balance, our rough assessment is that even annexation of the North Lake neighborhood would generate net costs in excess of $50 per resident." (Annexation Feasibility Study pp D 4,5.) EXHIBIT._V_ PAGE I On October 6, Councilmember Faison and myself attended the Northlake Community Meeting. There were about 15 people attending. Of those, about 10 were strongly in favor of annexation and the remaining were undecided. Options - The Geographic Information System analysis of the North Lake area shows that the area qualifies for the island annexation method by less than one percent. If the Council wishes to actively pursue annexation in this area, the election method by resolution would be the best option, absent property owners that want to facilitate a petition or ballot measure. The estimated cost to put an issue on the ballot is about $2.00 per registered voter. This cost includes legal notices. Since the last LUTC meeting, staff have discovered that a legal description, prepared by a licensed surveyor must be included in any resolution. For all three annexation areas being considered, it will be about $4,000. None of these expenses have been budgeted in this year's budget. The next available election for this issue is in February. Once the legal descriptions for the annexation areas have been prepared, King County has to verify that they are correct prior to the resolution being passed by the Council. King County estimates a week turn around time but there is no guarantee. I have prepared a suggested motion that will bring the issue to the Council at the next available meeting once the resolution can be completed. Suggested L UTC Recommendation - "I move to direct the staff to prepare a resolution for Council adoption to put the North Lake area annexation on the next available election." EXHIBIT__ ---- PAGE . ._OF ,, Potential Annexation Area Issues Discussion September 24, 2003 LUTC Memo Page 2 CITY OF ~ Federal Way October 29, 2003 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: MEMORANDUM Eric Faison, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) David Mose~~nager Rox Burhans, Associate Planner ~ Kathy McClung, Director Response to LUTC Request For Additional Information on North Lake Annexation November 3, 2003 I. Background During the previous October 20, 2003 LUTC meeting, Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director, provided general information on the unincorporated North Lake Community located in the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). This information was related to the size, population, existing land use, and anticipated costs and revenues to provide City public services to North Lake. Additional information was also provided regarding the election method of annexation. The LUTC requested staff prepare additional information regarding the North Lake Community. The LUTC requested information related to likely capital facility improvements that would be required in the North Lake Community, more specific information regarding likely operating revenues and costs to serve North Lake, and a timeline for placing the North Lake Community on a February 2004 election ballot. The following text and accompanying exhibits will address the LUTC request for additional information. II. Election Method Process and Timeline The Election Method, Initiated by Resolution provides a process by which annexation is initiated by Council resolution and is effected by an election of residents living in the area being considered for annexation. The timeline specified in this memo is reflective of staff's current understanding of the Election Method process. The State statute contemplates what appears to be the ideal process for election annexations, that the City will prepare a proposed zoning regulation for the new area so that the regulation will be considered simultaneously with the resolution initiating the election process (RCW 35A. 14.015). In order to do this, however, the City would have to comply with the requirements in RCW 35A. 14.340 requiring the City to hold two public hearings, at least thirty days apart, on the proposed zoning regulation. Staff has prepared two process alternatives for placing the North Lake annexation on an election ballot. The first process contemplates an alternative method for placing the annexation on the nearest possible election date. The second process contemplates initiating the North Lake annexation after the adoption of the ongoing PAA Study, which is more consistent with the above State "ideal process." The following will outline the two alternative processes. The LUTC directed staff to prepare a timeline for placing the North Lake Community on a February 2004 election ballot. However, based on procedural requirements related to the King County Boundary Review Board's (BRB), Chapter 36. 93 RCW, and the minimum number of days an annexation election can be held after Council selection of the election date (min. 60 days), an annexation election cannot be placed on a February 2004 ballot. It appears that the closest possible election date for the North Lake annexation would be April 27, 2004. However, as explained below, in order to make this timeline, the City would need to initiate an alternative process that may make this an undesirable action. Please refer to Exhibit I for the tentative procedural timeline. Staff would also need to do additional research in order to verify the submittal deadline for proposed ballot initiatives. First Process Alternative As noted in Exhibit I, in order to meet the deadlines for the April 27th election date, initially, the City would need to adopt the existing King County Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map designations already in place for North Lake. The King County designations would be in place for up to one-year from the effective date of the annexation. This one-year time frame will then allow the City to then implement pre-annexation comprehensive planning and zoning designations, possibly through the adoption of the ongoing PAA Study. The City would need to adopt the existing King County designations in order to comply with the initiating resolution requirements, defer the need for the minimum of two public hearings on Pre-annexation Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Map designations, and reduce the completion period of the required State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. However, the above process has potential problems that may complicate an annexation. The alternative arrangement described in Exhibit I does appear to have complications, according to the Municipal Research Service Corporation's (MRSC)August 2000 Annexation Handbook. The Handbook warns that the adoption of existing King County designations is not specifically authorized by Washington State law. However, it is important to note that several municipalities, including Federal Way, have adopted local code provisions to permit the adoption of existing County designations. The first alternative may also be impractical because City staff would be administering King County policies and code requirements, and the City Council may be required to adopt the King County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning designations, and/or Code° Second Alternative Process In order to provide a second alternative to avoid the above complications, staff has created the following tentative timeline that would initiate the annexation election after completion of the ongoing PAA Study. This action will amend the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan to anticipate the annexation areas and establish pre-annexation zoning. Please refer to Exhibit H for the alternative procedural timeline. However, be advised that the timeline for this process is dependent upon adoption of the PAA Study. The PAA Study is tentatively scheduled for adoption in April 2004. Initiating an election method annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study could place the annexation election on the September 16, Page 2 2004 primary ballot. As indicated in the attached flow chart, staff would need to do additional research on the submittal deadline of proposed ballot initiatives. By initiating the North Lake annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study, the City will have established the pre-annexation zoning and comprehensive planning designations and completed the required SEPA review for the annexation process. In addition, this alternative process will also avoid the above noted complications associated with adoption of existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations, policies, and/or codes. Staff recommends that the LUTC proceed with Alternative II that would initiate the North Lake annexation after the adoption of the PAA Study. III. Capital Facility Improvements The North Lake capital facility improvement information requested by the LUTC was not available at the time of this memo's preparation. Public Works Department staff will provide the requested information to the LUTC during the November 3, 2003 meeting. IV. Operating Costs and Revenues The North Lake operating cost and revenue information requested by the LUTC was not available at the time of this memo's preparation. Finance Division staff will provide the requested information to the LUTC during the November 3, 2003 meeting. V. Suggested LUTC Recommendation "I move to direct staff to place the North Lake Community annexation on the November 18, 2003 Council agenda, directing staff to prepare a resolution initiating the North Lake annexation by Election Method after adoption of the PAA Study." APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT em,5~ ~r~mber o gan, Member List of Exhibits Exhibit I: Alternative I Flow Chart Exhibit II: Alternative II Flow Chart Exhibit III: October 20, 2003 LUTC Memo From Kathy McClung EXHIBIT PAGE., OF 3 Page 3 North Lake Election Timeline Alternative I: Adoption of Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: December 2, 2003 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: December 10, 2003 · Subject to 45 day "no action period" Close of BRB No Action Period: February 6, 2004 · Date accounts for additional days for BRB's mailed official response, holidays etc. Council Resolution Establishing Election Date: February 17, 2004 · Election must occur at least 60 days after Council establishes date Annexation Election: April 27, 2004 · staff would need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT ....... PAGE t OF__L__ North Lake Election Alternative II: Adoption of Federal Way Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations Tentative PAA Study Adoption: April 2004 · Adopts City Pre-annexation Comp. Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: May 4, 2004 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: May 10, 2004 · There may be an option that would allow us to submit the Notice of Intent in advance of the Council resolution. · Subject to a 45 day "no action period" Close of No Action Period: July 5, 2004 Date accounts for additional days for BRB mailing of official decision Council Resolution Setting Election Date: July 6, 2004 Election Date: September 16, 2004 · Election date coincides with primary election · Staff would need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT: L PAGE OF_L_ North Lake, S.W. Parkway, & Redondo East Fiscal Impact Analysis of Annexation I. Background and Overview The Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) directed staffto prepare more specific fiscal information regarding the anticipated costs and revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake and S.W. Parkway Communities to the City. The'following will provide the LUTC with the requested information. In light of Council's consideration of the Redondo East area, Staff has also prepared specific fiscal information for this area. The Redondo East Community is located near the existing northwest City limits at the intersection of Pacific Highway South and South 272"a Street. This area contains the Crestwood Mobile Home Park, Applewood Subdivision, and several commercial properties° The S.W. Parkway Community is located south of the Enchanted Parks theme park and includes the Regency Woods, Regency Ridge, and Brittany Lane neighborhoods. The North Lake Community is located immediately south of South 320m Street, north of SR 18, and west of Peasley Canyon Road. A considerable amount of the information used in this report is drawn from the PAA Study. Staffhas supplemented this information with more detailed, area-specific information and analysis to determine the likely operating or day-to-day services needed, and any capital improvements that may be needed in the foreseeable future. Staff also examined dedicated capital revenue sources (REET taxes, utility tax, etc.) and alternative capital revenue sources (i.e~ grants, cost partnerships, etc.) to provide the Council with the most likely assessment of the anticipated revenues that will be available to fund public services and improvements to these communities. Table I below summarizes the net fiscal impact to the City of annexing the unincorporated North Lake, S.Wo Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. Operating deficits or surpluses would be realized on an annual basis. Capital deficits or surpluses have been allocated over the course of 18 years. As indicated below, when reviewing the three annexation proposals comprehensively, there is no significant financial gain or loss to the City. Table I: Net Fiscal Impact of Three Annexation Proposals (Jperating Summary Operating Summary North Lake S.W. Parkway Redondo East Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $ 207,483 $151,955 $ 593,314 Operating Costs (230,894) (243,987) (117,000) (591,881) Net Operating Surplus or (Deficit) $ 2,982 $ (36,504) $ 34,955 $ 1,433 Capital Summar~ Annual Capital Revenue $106,872 $ '86,891 $ 31,152 $ 224,915 Total Annual Capital Costs (102,311) (61,756) (59,117) (223,183) Annual Capital Surplusor (Deficit) $ 4,561 $ 25,135 $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Combined Operating and Capital Summary ........ Net Surplus or EXHIBIT_ _ __ PAGE__ OF I© Operating Services As indicated in Table I above, the general governmental operating revenues and costs (as adjusted by the size, characteristics, and conditions of the three communities) indicate that Redondo East has the most favorable operating balance of the three proposed annexation areas. The North Lake Community's operating revenues would slightly exceed the cost to provide City operating services. The S.W. Parkway Community's operating costs exceed anticipated operating revenues. When considering the three proposed annexations comprehensively, the anticipated operating revenues generated in the three areas would be sufficient to provide City operating services. Capital Improvements The analysis of anticipated capital costs and revenues indicates that the Parkrway Community fares the best, requiring the least annual investments; the North Lake Community would nearly breakeven, and Redondo East shows more capital needs than resources would support. The higher capital needs in the North Lake area is primarily due to the major arterial roadways in this area that would require more expensive overlay costs. The higher capital costs in the Redondo East area is primarily due to a lack of parks facilities. Staff recommends that the City address the existing North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Community parks and open space deficiencies by adding neighborhood parks and open space improvements. Summary The combined operating and capital balance sheet indicates a positive balance for the North Lake and Redondo East areas, a smaller but still negative balance for S.W. Parkway, and a small combined surplus. While the capital surplus is not always available for operating purposes, the City is not prohibited from using capital resources generated from one area for use in another. The table shows a positive balance among the three areas between operating and capital resources/needs. The bottom line also suggests that no single annexation area would provide the City with a substantial fiscal gain or loss~ The following will provide more detailed information regarding anticipated operating and capital costs and revenues associated with an annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities to the City of Federal Way~ IIo Report Methodology As explained above, this analysis draws a considerable amount of information from the PAA Study. However, this analysis deviates from the PAA Study in the following two respects° The first is the geographic scope of the analysis. The PAA Study reviewed the PAA as a whole and in three large sub areas with a combined total population of over 21,000. In contrast, this analysis will focus only on the North Lake, S.W~ Parkway, and Redondo East Communities that have a combined 2003 population of less than 2,000~. The second difference in the two analyses is in the scope of operating and capital revenues and costs considered. The PAA Study provided a comprehensive fiscal impact analysis for all local government operations, including those services supported by user fees and accounted for in enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are used to support City surface water management and solid waste and recycling services. State law does not allow co-mingling of Two new developments are currently under various stages of permit process in the North Lake area which will almost double the housing units (from 218 to 412) and population (from 600 to 1,134) in the area and will bring the total population for the three areas from 1,960 to 2,494. Because the likelihood of the development to occur in the near future and the significant size of these developments, this analysis included these proposed developments in assessing the service demand and fiscal impact. EXHIBIT V, PAGE OF/c .... enterprise fund resources with general fund resources. Therefore, this analysis more clearly segregates enterprise related activities and focuses on general governmental services and capital improvements. IlL Demographics and Housing Characteristics Table II below organizes the PAA housing and population data as analyzed in the PAA Study, and the three specific areas addressed in this staff analysis. For cross-reference purposes, North Lake is located in the Northeast PAA Subarea, S.W. Parkway is located in the Southeast PAA Subarea, and the Redondo East Community is the same Redondo East area addressed in the PAA Study. The three areas combined represent 12 percent of the population and 15 percent of the assessed value in the PAA. The higher assessed value to population ratio indicates that these areas as a whole have above average fiscal viability for annexation. It is important to note that as the more feasible areas are annexed, any remaining PAA areas would be less likely to financially "pencil out" for future annexation consideration. Table II: 2003 Entire PAA and Proposed Annexation Areas Demographic Information Northeast Subarea PAA Stud~ Southeast Subarea Redondo East Subarea PAA Total Housing Units 4,130 3,340 150 7,620 Population 12,300 8,900 260 21,460 Assessed $707,053,000 $521,416,000 $17,542,000 $1,246,011,000 Value Three Possible Annexations North Lake2 SoWo Parkway Redondo East Total Percent of PAA Total Housing Units 412 400 150 962 13% Population 1,134 1,100 260 2,494 12% Assessed $94,280,000 $77,595,000 $17,542,000 $189,417,000 15% Value IV. Operating Revenues and Costs Operating Revenues Primary general governmental revenues are property and sales taxes, state shared revenues (distributed based on population), utility tax revenues used for maintenance purposes, and various miscellaneous taxes and fees. General governmental revenues are used to provide the majority of daily City services including public safety (police, court, and prosecution), street and parks maintenance, recreation programs, development review, building permit services, etc. Table III below identifies anticipated operating revenues associated with the annexation of the unincorporated North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities. 2 Population figure includes the proposed North Lake Ridge and North Lake Estates, Division I Developments EXHIBIT V PAGE Table III: Proposed Annexation Areas Operatinl Revenues ' North S;W. Redondo Revenue Source Lake2 Parkway East Total Property Tax 126,335 103,977 23,506 253,819 State Shared Revenue 29,820 24,835 6,840 61,495 CJ Sales Tax 22,670 18,880 5,200 46,750 Local Sales tax 9,861 18,350 79,000 107,210 Utility Tax (O&M) 10,263 8,136 3,409 21,808 Surface Water Fees - - Fines & Forfeits 9,768 12,198 6,000 27,966 Building Permit 11,151 9,546 7,000 27,697 Vehicle License Fee (repealed by 1-776) - - Franchise Fee 9,400 7,849 2,000 19,249 Solid Waste - - - Development Fees 3,594 2,864 1,000 7,458 Recreation Fees - - Zoning Fees 645 530 1,000 2,175 Gambling Tax - - 16,000 16,000 Business License 369 318 1,000 1,687 Total Operating Revenue $233,875 $207,483 $151,955 $593,314 Per capita Revenue $206.33 $188.62 $584.44 $237.94 The estimates specified in Table III above are proportional to the PAA Study revenue estimates (using population as a baseline), with the following changes or adjustments: a. Property tax is based on the estimated 2003 assessed value (AV) of a specific neighborhood. b. State shared revenue is adjusted to remove the restricted fuel tax used for arterial street programs, which is moved to the capital section of this analysis. c. The change in criminal justice distribution° d. Utility tax revenues are adjusted to remove the portion associated with the street overlay program from operation to capital (the same adjustment is also made to PW operating cost). e. The Vehicle license fee is eliminated due to the recent court decision on 1-776. fo Recreation fees are eliminated because there are no new recreation facilities in the area; the change in participation in existing city programs and facilities would be minimal. g. Gambling tax is only available in the Redondo area. The gambling tax in the Northeast PAA is associated with a particular business in the Star Lake area, not in the North Lake neighborhood. h. Eliminate surface water and solid waste enterprise revenues that are not available for general services. B. Operating Costs The PAA Study provided a thorough review of City services and driving forces behind the demand for services. The PAA Study projects costs to increase proportionally for both direct services and supporting operations from increased service demand from the annexations (assuming a "stable state" of service condition and maintaining existing service levels). However, EXHIBIT 4 the PAA Study cost model is developed on a much larger scale. A direct extrapolation of the three proposed annexation areas would not take into account any specific characteristic of the smaller neighborhoods. To address the differences, staff made the following adjustments to the PAA Study cost analysis for the three proposed annexation areas: 1. Parks/Recreation cost is adjusted to reflect the need for neighborhood parks in the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East areas with no change to other PRCS department services. 2. Community Development costs are adjusted to the extent that it offsets the incremental permit fee revenue. 3. With only marginal increases in service activities, no impact to indirect support (i.e. accounting, human resources, etc.) and administration costs is expected. Table IV below provides staff's assessment of the anticipated operating costs to provide public services to the three proposed annexation areas. Staff believes this represents the more likely impact from the three neighborhoods based on a review of each community's needs. Table IV - Staff Assessment of Op ~-rating Cost Estimates North S.~. Redondo Total Services Lake Parkway East City Council $ $ - $ $ - CM - - CD (permit processing, offset revenue) 11,796 10,076 8,000 29,872 Law - - MS - - PRCS (new park maintenance) 6,000 5,000 11,000 PS (include court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (exclude SWM, SW, Overlay) 60,951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $230,894 $243,987 117,000 $591,881 Per Capita Operating cost $203.70 $221.81 $450.00 $237.37 As a means of comparison between the staff prepared small area assessment and the PAA Study assessment, Table V below identifies the PAA Study operating costs prorated by population for each of the three proposed annexation areas, without enterprise fund or capital operations. EXHIBIT_ .... PAGE OF ,, Table V - PAA Stud,, 2)peratin$ Cost Estimates ' Nortl~ S.W. Redondo Cit~ Service Lake Parkway East Total City Council $ 2,396 $ 2,758 $ 1,000 $ 6,154 CM 17,786 21,638 10,000 49,424 CD 27,554 23,441 13,000 63,995 Law 11,888 14,425 6,000 32,313 MS 16,772 19,835 7,000 43,607 PRCS 5,068 43,063 1,000 49,132 Public Safety (w/court and prosecution) 152,147 188,800 98,000 438,947 PW (excl. SW, SWM,) 60,951 40,111 11,000 112,061 Total Operating Cost $294,562 $354,070 $147,000 $795,633 Per CapitaOperatingCost $259.87I $321.88I $565.38[ $319.08 Vo Capital Revenues and Costs Overview Table VI below summarizes projected capital revenues and costs for each of the three proposed annexation areas. The primary sources of the City's general governmental capital funding are utility tax, real estate excise tax (REET) and arterial street fuel tax. While grants and cost sharing opportunities with other jurisdictions is also important, they are only available on a case-by-case basis, and depend on the nature of the project. Staff has indicated below when these opportunities may be available° The capital costs or needs are determined based on inventory and field inspections of the current capital facilities in each area. The analysis does not include needs for surface water facilities, as these improvements would be financed using surface water enterprise revenues. Table VI: Capital Revenues and Costs Summary Projected Annual ' North S.W. Redond~ Total Capital Sources Lake Parkway East Utility Tax (Capital and Overlay) 71,745 57,113 22,436 151,294 REET (Capital) 27,646 23,547 7,000 58,193 Arterial Street Fuel Tax (Overlay) 7,481 6,230 1,716 15,428 Annual Capital Sources $106,872 $86,891 $31,152 $224,915 North S.W. Redondo Total Projected Annual Costs Lake Parkwa}, East Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 $ 70,406 Average Annual Park Capital $ 41,667 $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $ 152,778 Total Annual Capital (102,311) (61,756) (59,117) (223,183) Annual Capital Surplus or (deficit) $ 4,561 $ 25,135 $ (27,965) $ 1,731 Note: The amount of utility tax shown represents the portion of the tax designated for capital, based on 2003 collection levels. The capital amount includes street overlay funding and the newly added funding for the community center. The PEET is based on a PAA Study estimate prorated by population. The arterial street fuel tax represents a move from the operating section of the PAA Study to capital; which is consistent with associated costs~ EXHIBIT V PAGE C OF/O The following will explain State and local policies that guide when capital improvements are made. B. Parks & Recreation Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not mandate a minimum quantity of parks and recreation facilities for a given community. Through adoption of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), the City Council has established a Parks and Recreation LOS goal that is reflective of the needs and desires of the Federal Way Community. Generally speaking, this goal would provide 10.9 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Articulating this goal into a LOS standard ensures new residential development provides adequate parks and recreation facilities. The City's actual LOS standard is approximately 10.7 acres of park land perl,000 residents. As Federal Way annexes unincorporated areas that do not meet City parks LOS goals, as is the case with the three proposed annexation areas, the City may exercise significant latitude regarding if and when any parks improvements are made. As explained above, the FWCP LOS standard is not a mandate, but rather a goal to guide parks planning and ensure new development provides appropriate facilities. The parks improvements identified below represent staffs assessment of the recommended improvements to meet the FWCP LOS goals. The analysis assumes that improvements will be made during the 18 year planning horizon. Staff recommends that parks improvements be considered within six to ten years of annexation. 2. Recommended Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Please refer to Table VII for the recommended parks capital improvements. Table VII: Recommended Parks Capital h ~provements Par~s Capital North S.~V. - Redondo Total ,, Improve,,ments Lake Parkway' East Neighborhood Park 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 Community Park - - - Trail - - - Open space 250,000 - 250,000 C. ommun, ity Center - - Area Parks .Capital Total 750,000 [,000,000 1_,000,000 2,750,000 Average Annual Park Capital(over 18yea_rs) $ 41,667 I. $ 55,556 $ 55,556 $ 152,778 The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how the parks capital improvement cost and revenue estimates were determined. North Lake area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the North Lake area, two investments are recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Staff recommends the conversion of the existing County owned Hatfield gravel pit to a neighborhood park. The cost to develop a park on this 3.6 acre site is approximately $500,000. Hatfield Pit is located off Military Road South. Based EXHIBIT PAGE ,_, OF,, Co on past experiences with King County regarding transfer of County owned property, it is assumed that Hatfield Pit would be transferred to the City at no cost. Open Space: Total cost $500,000. It is anticipated that a $250,000 King County Conservation Future Fund grant will be available to fund portions of this cost. The City has recently collected parks and recreation mitigation fees from one residential subdivision in the North Lake area (approx. $25,000). This money and any additional parks and recreation mitigation fees collected in the unincorporated North Lake area could be used to finance parks improvements in the North Lake. S.W. Parkway area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the S.W. Parkway area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. There may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: Based on the population and inventory of park facilities within and near the Redondo East area, one investment is recommended. · Neighborhood Park: Anticipated $500,000 acquisition and $500,000 development costs. There may be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding for neighborhood parks, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Streets Capital Improvements State Growth Management Act and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Requirements The GMA requires adoption of roadway LOS standards to be implemented by local jurisdictions. The State also requires local jurisdictions to adopt transportation improvements plans that identify needed transportation improvements on a six-year horizon basis. Roadway improvements are required to occur concurrently (or within the six year TIP horizon) with new development° The City considers the following factors in the prioritization of transportation improvements: concurrency requirements, LOS, safety, amount of funding, and level of support° 2. Identified Streets Capital Improvements Table VIII below calculates the street related capital improvements needed for the North Lake, S oW~ Parkway, and Redondo East areas. Table VIII: Street Capilal Improvements Street Capital North S~W. Redondo Total Improvements Lake Parkwa}~ East Average Annual Street Capital (over 18 years) 12,444 - - 12,444 Annual Pavement Maintenance 48,200 6,200 3,561 57,961 Average Annual Street Capital $ 60,644 $ 6,200 $ 3,561 $ 70,406 EXHIBIT ¥ PAGE_ OF l VI. 3. The above annual pavement maintenance estimates are based on actual field inspections of existing roadway surface conditions. The following will explain staff's rationale regarding how street capital imProvement cost estimates were determined. North Lake area: An intersection improvement located at Military Road South and Peasley Canyon Road South is identified as a potential future project. The intersection is currently rated as service level E and future improvements would only be required if the area is further developed. The total project cost is estimated to be $898,000. However, only one intersection quadrant is located in the proposed North Lake annexation area. The remaining quadrants are located in unincorporated King County. Therefore, Federal Way would only be responsible for 25 percent of the project cost or $224,000. There may also be grant opportunities available to fund portions of the above costs, however, due to the competitive nature of grant funding, no grant funding is assumed for this project. Redondo East area: An intersection/signal improvement at SR 99 and South 16th is identified. The project is currently identified on the "Nickel Tax" funding plan. Therefore, no capital improvement funding is required. · $. W. Parkway area: No street capital improvement projects are identified in this area. Final Considerations Other Factors to Consider As explained in Section One above, the three proposed annexations, when viewed comprehensively, are able to fund the projected public services. However, it is important to recognize the factors, other than financial, that should be taken into account when considering an annexation proposal. Residential development within the Federal Way PAA (east of I-5) is occurring at a rapid rate. A considerable amount of the PAA subdivisions are proposed at higher densities then would be permitted by City of Federal Way codes. Additionally, most PAA subdivisions typically include capital infrastructure (i.e. roads, pedestrian facilities/sidewalks, parks and open space, etc.) that do not meet City LOS standards. The difference between City and King County LOS standards can not only generate additional demand for City infrastructure and services (such as parks and recreation facilities), but also increase the amount of nonconforming development that the City will eventually inherit. By annexing unincorporated PAA areas sooner rather than later, the City could exercise greater influence in land use planning and reduce the amount of inherited nonconforming infrastructure and development. A second, non-financial factor that should be taken into account when considering annexation proposals is compliance with GMA and Countywide Planning Policy (CWPP) guidelines. Generally speaking, the GMA and CWPP indicate that cities are the appropriate public services provider within urbanized unincorporated areas, like the Federal Way PAA. The CWPP also encourage annexation of PAAs' to citieso The annexation of the North Lake, S.W. Parkway, and Redondo East Communities would be consistent with and supportive of GMA and CWPP guidelines. Potential Effects of Phased Annexations The phasing of annexation typically involves annexing those areas that are most financially self- supporting first, followed by annexing the more expensive areas to serve at a later time. With the previous annexations of the Weyerhaeuser/East Campus and the Wild Waves/Enchanted Parks areas, and should the City annex the unincorporated Redondo East area, all of the concentrated EXHIBIT ..... 9 PAGE ..... OF t commercial areas will be annexed to the City. These types of areas typically generate sufficient tax and fee revenue to offset the costs to provide public services. The remaining unincorporated PAA areas would likely be less dense and contain fewer commercially zoned properties that would be less likely to be financially self-supporting. While it is clear that annexing the entire PAA at once is not a financially viable option, a phased approach of selected areas could increase the financial gap to annex the remaining PAA areas in the future. EXHIBIT, ,, v ~: PAGE ..... /o OF /~ 10 Election Method Process Alternative I (staff recommended) : Adoption of Federal Way Pre-Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations Tentative PAA Study Adoption: July 6, 2004 · Adopts City Pre-annexation Comp. Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: July 6, 2004 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: July 8, 2004 · There may be an option that would allow us to submit the Notice of Intent in advance of the Council resolution. · Subject to a 45 day "no action period" Close of No Action Period: August 23, 2004 Council Resolution Setting Election Date (special Council meeting): August 26, 2004 Election Date: November 2, 2004 · Election date coincides with State general election · Staff would need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT PAGE OF.L__ Election Method Alternative II: Adoption of Existing King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations Council Initiating Resolution: January 6, 2004 Submit Boundary Review Board (BRB) Notice of Intent to Annex: January 12, 2004 · Subject to 45 day "no action period" Close of BRB No Action Period: March 10, 2004 · Date accounts for additional days for BRB's mailed official response, holidays etc. Council Resolution Establishing Election Date: March 16, 2004 · Election must occur at least 60 days after Council establishes date Annexation Election: May 18, 2004 · Staffwould need to verify the submission deadline for ballot proposals EXHIBIT PAGE_. \ ,OF..1__ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Police/Court Lease Extension CATEGORY: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $7937886.0 0 Expenditure Amt.: $30442.20 Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memo from construction management consultant Pat Patterson re conditional CO and possible construction pitfalls. 2) Most recent version of the project schedule (slightly dated). SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: At the November 17, 2003 special City Council meeting, staff recommended that the Council extend the current lease for the Police Department and Municipal Court by one month as a contingency in case unforseen cirumstances require the project completion date to be extended beyond the June 30, 2004 lease termination date. The project team is working very hard to meet the June 30 deadline and intends to meet the deadline. However, many things are beyond the project team's control, including the bidding process, delivery of materials, and unexpected occurrences during construction. Careful management of the project schedule and, to a lesser extent, pursuit of a conditional certificate of occupancy are options to help complete the project on time. While staff believes there is an excellent chance the Police and Court can move into the New City Hall by June 30, staff cannot offer the Council 100% certainty. The risk of not having a backup plan is problematic as Police and, to a lesser extent, the Court are essential public services that must be operational at all times. Unfortunately, Morris Piha, the property owner, is not willing to provide the City an option to extend the lease and will offer only an outright extension. The company has advised the City that it would charge 120% of the current monthly rate of $27,976 for a one-month extension. 120% of the current rate minus the $3,129 attributable to the evidence area (which the City would pay regardless whether the Council extends the overall Police/Court lease) is $30,442.20. This figure would be accommodated within the current project budget. Similar to the 10% budget contingency that Council has built into the project budget, staff recommends that Council authorize this contingency to the project schedule, Morris Piha expects a decision quickly because the company is currently marketing the property to prospective tenants. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A - This issue was discussed by the full Council at its November 17, 2003 special meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to extend the lease for the Police Department and Municipal Court by one month to July 31, 2004." CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED B Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DEmEO [] TABLED/DEFERREDfNO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordi.a.ces COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 l'l Pal Patterson 4221 s.185th St. SeaTac, WA 98188 Phone: 206 793 6644 Fax: 206 246 6680 E-mail P2CS~comcast.net November 20, 2003 Mr. Derek Mateson City ofFederalWay 33530 lstWayS. Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Re: New City Hall Project This letter is in response to concerns regarding the effect on the project schedule of a conditional Cer- tificate of Occupancy and possible construction pitfalls. First of all, with the exception of Planning issues, the use of a conditional CO is a moot point. In or- der to occupy the building, all items with regard to life/safety must be completed. Typically, these items are finished last, for example, fire alarm and fire sprinkler testing. All other major items like mechanical and electrical would generally have passed inspection for occupancy before this time. There might however be some issues with Planning that would be outstanding, for example, land- scaping. It would be advisable to check with Planning ahead of time to ascertain what issues my crop up at the end of the project. Secondly, it is important to realize that the project schedule drives the project. By looking at the critical path (the bars in red), one can see what items will affect the timely completion of the project. This is a preliminary schedule and most items are on the critical path. At this point, the schedule needs to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the demolition on some of the first and most all of the sec- ond floor could not take place due to the continued lease of the space. Please note that this block of items at present are not specifically linked to the "official" start of the main body of work beginning in late January. The plan now is to split the work into a 1 st floor/2nd floor strategy allowing the demolition to occur on the 2nd floor while work is begun on the 1 st floor. A revised schedule will be forthcoming. One issue that will slow the project schedule is not ordering long lead items in a timely manner. Such items include: hollow metal frames and doors, specialty hardware, light fixtures, detention cell plumbing fixtures and equipment, carpet, and HVAC air handlers. This pitfall can be avoided by al- lowing ample time for delivery, coupled with timely submittal review. It is important to be proactive and confirm with a supplier that a particular item has indeed been ordered (even if ordered by a sub- contractor) and where in shipment it stands. Finally, while the project schedule will direct the flow of subcontractors, it cannot predict non- performance of any one in particular. It is the role of the Construction Manager to maintain the movement of the subs. The major subcontractors such as Mechanical and Electrical must be ade- quately supervised and required constantly to produce updated materials and work delivery sched- ules. For the lesser subcontractors, should one of them stumble, there is a myriad of strategies for stacking the subs to meet deadlines. It is important however to pay critical attention to the subcontractors whose work begins in the last stages of the project. For example, the Data and furniture subcontrac- tors, the bulk of whose work is performed in the final weeks of the project. For this reason, daily re- view of these subcontractors work will go a long way toward maintaining control of the schedule at the end of the project. In summary, as long as due diligence is done on updating and paying attention to the schedule, the project will be completed on time. Maintaining the schedule will allow the Construction Manager to be proactive and resolve the problems that typically arise on all construction projects. Sincerely, Pat Patterson P2CS Construction Management CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Proposed Settlement Agreement and Covenant Regarding Traffic Impacts of Land Lloyd Development Company Planned Development Master Plan CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: [] CONSENT [] ORDINANCE Amount Budgeted: $ [] RESOLUTION [] PUBLIC HEARING Expenditure Amt.: $ [] CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS [] OTHER Contingency Req'd: $ ATTACHMENTS: A copy of the Settlement Agreement and Covenant Regarding Traffic Impacts of Land Lloyd Development Company Planned Development Master Plan ("Covenant") SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: Land Lloyd Development Company applied to the City of Milton for approval of a six-phased master plan to be constructed over a 15 to 20 year period. The City of Federal Way appealed Milton's determination under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance because of Milton's failure to mitigate traffic- related impacts upon the City of Federal Way and the Parkway Potential Annexation Area. The Covenant would settle the issues underlying our SEPA appeal because it provides the City of Federal Way with the following: (1) an initial traffic impact analysis ("TIA") taking into consideration the City's 20 year capital improvement plan and six year transportation improvement plan; (2) a TIA at each of the six phases of development; (3) the right to appeal any SEPA determination made at any of the six phases; and (4) improvements to 5th Avenue allowing traffic to travel south if there is a 5% increase in Lloyds' cumulative truck traffic over the current baseline or if Milton removes the current load restriction. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSED MOTION: "I move approval of the Settlement Agreement and Covenant Regarding Traffic Impacts between Lloyds and the City of Federal Way, and authorize the City Manager to sign the Covenant." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: [] APPROVED [] DENIED [] TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION [] MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # REVISED - 05/10/2001 K:\agenditem\AgendaBillForLIoydsAgmt RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF AND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL 33530 First Way South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington Attention: City Attorney Patricia A. Richardson Document Title: Settlement Agreement and Covenant Regarding Traffic Impacts Land Lloyd Development Co. Planned Development Master Plan Grantor: Land Lloyd Development Co. Grantee: City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation Abbreviated Legal Description: Complete Legal Description can be found on Exhibit A Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number(s): Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 1 50397121.01 K:/SA112103Clean SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COVENANT REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS LAND LLOYD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN THIS SETTLEMENT AGEEMENT AND COVENANT REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS ("Covenant") is entered into this __ day of ,2003. The parties ("Parties") to this Covenant are the City of Federal Way, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("City"), and Land Lloyd Development Co., a Washington corporation ("Property Owner"). RECITALS A. The Property Owner owns certain real property located within the City of Milton ("Milton") and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference ("Property"). B. The Property Owner has applied to Milton for approval of a six phase planned development master plan pursuant to Milton file numbers PD1-2001 and 200066.59 ("permit application"). C. The approximately 142 acre, six-phase master plan development is to be completed over a fifteen to twenty year period and is proposed to include 291,300 square feet of light industrial space, 162,000 square feet of flex space, 945,000 to 1,026,500 square feet of office space, and 284 dwelling units of multi-story retirement condominiums and medium density residential ("Project"). D. The Property Owner submitted an environmental checklist to Milton to determine if significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment would result from the Project, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). E. As lead agency under SEPA, Milton has performed its environmental review of the permit application and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the Project on March 3, 2003. The City filed an administrative appeal of the MDNS with Milton on April 3, 2003. F. Pursuant to the SEPA process, which requires notice to affected agencies, the City received copies of the environmental checklist, a traffic impact analysis ("TIA") prepared for the Project by Heath & Associates, Inc., dated August 2000, and other related information concerning the Project. G. The City has had an opportunity to review the Project, and other related information concerning the Project including the TIA, which contains assumptions and calculations regarding trip generation, trip distribution and assignment, level of service ("LOS") and Project generated traffic impacts. Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 2 50397121.01 K:/SA 112103Clean H. Based on its review, the City has determined that the Project would, without specific additional mitigation, result in significant adverse environmental impacts to City transportation facilities, which include City street right-of-ways, intersections, and improvements within such right-of-ways ("transportation facilities") within the City. The City believes that these impacts will be exacerbated by Milton truck routing restrictions, which result in truck trips being directed onto City streets, rather than through Milton. I. Based on the City's review of the TIA, the City has determined that the Property Owner must make legally binding commitments to (1) perform Project - specific traffic analysis when specific development is proposed; and (2) mitigate the specific, adverse traffic impacts on the City by the payment of impact fees, equitably distributing truck trips between Milton and the City, and/or providing for the construction of its proportionate share of the transportation facilities that are reasonably necessary to assure that the LOS of the City's transportation facilities is not reduced below the City's adopted LOS standard in effect at the time the specific development is proposed as a direct result of the Project. J. Both the City and the Property Owner wish to avoid uncertainty and consequent delay of the Milton SEPA environmental threshold determination and master plan approval processes concerning the Project and of any subsequent appeal process, and therefore have voluntarily entered into this Covenant. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Phased Traffic Analysis 1.1 Timing of TIA Submission. Within 3 days of submitting a permit application for the Project (unless exempt from SEPA) to Milton, the Property Owner shall provide a TIA analyzing the traffic impacts associated with that application and identifying measures to mitigate such impacts to the City. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "City" includes all areas currently within the corporate boundaries of the City of Federal Way as they exist at any time during the term of this Agreement, including areas annexed within the term covered by this Agreement. The TIA shall evaluate the specific traffic impacts of the proposed phase of the Project on transportation facilities within the City and the City's potential annexation area ("PAA") and identify measures to mitigate such impacts. The City's PAA is shown in Exhibit B. 1.2 Selection of Traffic Consultant. The Property Owner shall select a qualified traffic 'consultant to draft and revise each TIA. The Property Owner shall notify the City of its selection before TIA work is commenced. The City shall have the fight to reject the use of that consultant within seven days of notification. The City shall not, however, unreasonably reject any consultant. Settlement Covenant - I 12103 Page 3 50397121.01 K:/SA I 12103 Clean 1.3 TIA Contents. The design of each TIA shall be based on the City's Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis and TIA'scoping document (as amended),~ provided by the City identifying required study areas and shall include the following: 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6 1.3.7 Trip generation, including truck traffic; Trip distribution, including truck traffic; Identification of impacts in the anticipated year of occupancy of that Phase based on the City's then current transportation improvement program and adopted LOS standard or other adopted means of measuring traffic impacts and determining the adequate performance of City transportation systems and facilities; The TIA for the first phase shall show the cumulative impacts of development based on the City's 20 Year Capital Improvement Program; Identification of measures to mitigate identified impacts, including but not limited to prorata financial contributions to impacted roadways, constructing improvements to reduce or eliminate identified impacts, modifying the proposal to reduce or eliminate identified impacts, and/or payment of fees based on the City's Transportation Impact Fee ("TIF") which will be adopted consistent with Chapter 82.02 RCW, and which may be revised consistent with that Chapter. However, mitigation measures shall not include load limits designed to prevent project truck traffic from traveling to the north. If transportation impacts cause the level of performance of City transportation systems and facilities to fail (drop below the adopted minimum LOS), mitigation shall be required to ensure that the adopted LOS is maintained. If the LOS is below the adopted minimum LOS without the phase of the Project being reviewed in the TIA, then the mitigation shall return the LOS to the pre-project LOS. If the applicant constructs improvements beyond its obligation to mitigate, the applicant shall be allowed to enter into a latecomer's agreement to the extent permitted by law. In determining the prorata share of the Project phase being reviewed, the TIA will use a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of p.m. peak hour trips generated by the Project phase in the year of occupancy at that phase and the denominator of which is the total number of trips at the year of occupancy within the Project phase. All TIAs shall address the cumulative impacts of the Project'and identify potential roadway and/or intersection improvements that may be needed to accommodate future traffic impacts. All TIA's t The current Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis (which include the scoping document form) are attached as Exhibit C for reference. Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 4 50397121.01 K:/SA112103Clean 1.3.8 shall supplement and refine the cumulative impacts analysis that is completed in any previous TIA. If, at application for a particular phase of development, the buildout year of the development is revised to extend beyond the 20-year horizon analyzed in the TIA for the first phase, the TIA for that phase shall address the cumulative impacts to the new horizon year. Each TIA thereafter shall supplement and refine the cumulative impacts analysis that is completed in any previous TIA. All TIAs shall identify the proposed routing of truck trips and shall identify routes that would accomplish an equitable distribution Of truck trips between Milton and the City. 1.4 City Review and Approval of TIA. The City shall review the TIA within 45 days after submission by the Property Owner. If the Property Owner requests and the City agrees to conduct expedited review in less than 45 days, the Property Owner shall reimburse the City for additional expenses associated with such expedited review as reasonably determined by the City. If the TIA complies with Subsection 1.3, then the City shall approve the TIA. The City shall specify the mitigation measures within the City for identified impacts. Those measures, unless subject to arbitration pursuant to Section 7, shall become the binding mitigation for Project impacts to City transportation facilities. In the event the City identifies mitigation measures in the PAA still within King County jurisdiction, the parties shall work with King County to implement those mitigation measures. In the event the City's proposed mitigation measures are arbitrated, the mitigation measures required by the decision of the arbitrator shall become the binding mitigation for Project impacts to City transportation facilities. 1.5 City Disapproval of TIA. TIA approval may be withheld if the TIA does not comply with Subsection 1.3. However, approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the TIA does not comply with Subsection 1.3, the City shall provide within 45 days of TIA submittal a written summary of the deficiencies in the analysis and identified mitigation that must be rectified in order to comply with Subsection 1.3. The Property Owner shall re-submit a revised TIA within 15 days that adequately addresses the City's comments. The City shall review the TIA within 15 days. If the TIA adequately addresses the deficiencies identified by the City comments, then the City shall approve the TIA. If the TIA does not, the City shall review again as provided in this section, until it is approved. TIA approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. At the time of TIA approval, the City shall specify the mitigation conditions within the City for identified impacts that, unless subject to arbitration pursuant to Section 7, will become the binding mitigation of the Project. In the event the City identifies mitigation measures that must be made in the PAA still within Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 5 50397121.01 K:/SA I 12103Clean King County jurisdiction, the parties shall work with King County to implement those mitigation measures. In the event the City's proposed mitigation measures are arbitrated, the mitigation measures required by the decision of the arbitrator shall become the binding mitigation for Project impacts to City transportation facilities. All mitigation shall be reasonably necessary to mitigate specific, adverse Project impacts. 1.6 Additional Time for TIA Review. Additional time for City review and Property Owner resubmission of the TIA may be agreed upon, in writing, by the Property Owner and City. 1.7 Bonding of Mitigation. Prior to permit issuance by Milton, the Property Owner shall provide by cash deposit, third party bond or other surety instrument, as approved by the City, reasonable security to assure that the mitigation obligations will be performed. The security shall not be released until the foregoing obligations, including any required improvements and/or payment, have been met. 1.8 Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by Milton and prior to occupancy of any constructed phase of the Project, the Property Owner shall implement the binding Project mitigation. 2. Additional Truck Trip Mitieation The Property Owner/applicant shall be required to construct improvements to 5th Avenue from the project entrance south to Porter Way necessary to accommodate truck traffic projected to be generated by the project at such time as (1) the cumulative truck traffic generated by the master plan is projected to exceed the "Year 2003 baseline truck traffic" by 5 % (or 6 round- trips) or (2) at such time as the City of Milton agrees to lift the current load restriction, whichever comes first. "Year 2003 baseline truck traffic" is 116.60 round-trip truck trips generated by the Property Owner's/applicant's current use on the property as shown in Exhibit E (spreadsheet) and Exhibit F (documentation for baseline). Under no circumstances shall a certificate of occupancy be issued for any phase of the master plan that generates truck trips in excess of the 5% stated above until the improvements to 5th Avenue are completed and apprOved by the City of Milton and the City of Milton lifts the current load restriction. Nothing in this condition/paragraph shall be construed as mandating the City of Milton to provide any funding for 5th Avenue improvements. Truck traffic impacts shall be fully mitigated and such mitigation fully installed prior to the opening of 5th Avenue to truck traffic. The applicant may elect to construct improvements beyond its proportionate share in order to open 5th Avenue. In that event, the applicant shall be allowed to enter into a latecomer's agreement to the extent permitted by law. In addition to latecomer's agreements, the City of Milton shall cooperate with the applicant in arranging for other reimbursement, in seeking grants or other funding sources for the improvements, and in permitting construction of the required improvements. Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 6 50397121.01 K:/SA I 12103 Clean 3. Withdrawal of SEPA Appeal and Incorporation of Covenant into City of Milton MDNS and Lloyds Master Plan 3.1 SEPA Appeal Withdrawal/Incorporation of Covenant into MDNS and Master Plan Conditions. The City agrees to withdraw its presently pending SEPA appeal if and when Milton (a) incorporates this Covenant into the Master Plan approval and SEPA determination as required mitigation, and (b) incorporates the additional truck trip mitigation condition stated in Section 2 of this Agreement as a specific condition of the Master Plan. The Council's decision regarding the MDNS and the Master Plan will state that the Covenant is incorporated by reference and provides additional required traffic mitigation. In the event the Milton Council does not incorporate all terms of the Covenant, the Covenant remains valid and enforceable as between Lloyds and the City, and the City retains the right to appeal the Milton Council's determination regarding the Master Plan and SEPA appeal to Superior Court. In any event, the City also retains the right to appeal any future permit, decision, or SEPA determination made by Milton if traffic impacts have not been adequately analyzed and mitigated in compliance with the Covenant and with the conditions placed upon the Master Plan. 3.2 Notification. Should the MDNS or Master Plan approval be withdrawn, modified, or challenged in any way that could affect the terms or enforceability of the Covenant, the Property Owner shall notify the City of the modification, withdrawal or challenge of the MDNS or Master Plan in the manner specified in Subsection 8.8 of this Covenant. Such notice shall be provided within 24 hours by fascimile to the City Attorney and Public Works Director, and sent out by mail within 24 hours. The City shall have the right to appeal such action and/or bring other appropriate legal action. 4. Term~ Termination The term of this Covenant shall commence upon the date it is incorporated by Milton's City Council into Milton's MDNS and Master Plan or, in the event the Milton City Council does not affect such incorporation, upon the date of signature, consistent with Subsection 3.1. The Covenant shall terminate only upon the completion of the Project and the completion of all covenants and conditions set forth herein to the City's satisfaction. At time of termination, the City and the Property Owner shall record and file a termination of this Covenant in the real property records of King County, Washington. 5. Indemnification The Property Owner agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 7 50397121.01 Kr/SA112103Clean actions and liabilities (including costs and all reasonable attorneys' fees) to or by any and all persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Covenant except to the extent caused by the negligence of the City or the breach of this Covenant by the City its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers. 6. Notification to City by Owner of Permitting Activin, 6.1 The Property Owner shall notify the City of all Project permit applications submitted to Milton which generate traffic. The Property Owner shall also notify the City of all permit applications, including all applications to local, state, and federal agencies and any municipal body, which could impact City roadways, or which may require a consideration of traffic impacts. If a permit requires such notice to the City, the Property Owner also shall notify the City of the decision on such permit, as provided in Section 6.3. 6.2 "Permit" shall be broadly construed and includes, but is not limited to, any threshold determination under SEPA (or NEPA), building permit, land use decision, subdivision approval, rezone, master plan amendment or revision or approval, permit revisions, zoning code text amendment, comprehensive plan amendment, or any permit revisions or amendments, whether characterized as an administrative, legislative, or quasi-judicial permit or decision, which has not yet been reviewed by the City of Federal Way under the terms of this Agreement. 6.3 Notice of application shall be provided by the Property Owner within 3 days of the date of application submittal by facsimile to the City Attorney and Public Works Director, and also sent out by mail at the same time. Notice of any decision shall be provided by the Property Owner within 24 hours of the date of decision issuance by fascimile to the City Attorney and Public Works Director, and also sent out by mail at the same time, provided that, if the day following the issuance of the decision is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the Notice shall be provided by the close of business on the next regular business day. In the event notice of a decision is received within 48 hours of the decision, the City shall raise no objection, but the Property Owner shall not object to extension of the applicable appeal period by 24 hours. Notification shall occur as specified in the Covenant in Subsection 8.8. 7. Arbitration 7.1 Arbitration. Any claim between the parties arising out of or related to the Covenant, including but not limited to the determination or performance of traffic impact analysis or traffic mitigation obligations under the Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 8 50397121.01 K:/SA112103Clean Covenant, shall be determined by arbitration. Arbitration proceedings shall be held in the City of Federal Way, or as otherwise agreed by the parties. The parties shall first, however, try to work out their differences and shall make a good faith effort to complete the relevant review processes established in the Covenant. 7.2 Selection of Arbitrator. There shall be one arbitrator, who shall be a lawyer with at least ten years experience practicing Washington land use law and/or serving as a land use hearing examiner. Each party shall submit a list of three proposed neutral arbitrators within seven days of the arbitration demand; if the parties do not select an arbitrator within five days, then within three days the responding party shall select the arbitrator from the list previously provided by the demanding party. If a party fails to comply timely in good faith with the selection process, any party may petition the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint the arbitrator. Any issue about whether a claim is covered by this arbitration clause, or regarding the validity of the arbitrator's selection, shall be determined by the arbitrator. 7.3 Arbitration Procedure/Attorneys' Fees. There shall be no substantive motions or discovery, except the arbitrator shall authorize such discovery and enter such preheating orders as may be appropriate to ensure a fair private hearing, which shall be held within forty-five days of the demand; and concluded within four hours. These time limits are not jurisdictional. The arbitrator shall issue a decision within two weeks of the arbitration unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The arbitrator shall apply substantive law and may award injunctive relief or any other remedy available from a judge. The arbitrator shall not have the power to award punitive damages but shall award attorneys fees and costs to the substantially prevailing party. The non-prevailing party shall pay the arbitrator's costs 8. General Provisions 8.1 Entire Covenant. This Covenant contains all of the Covenants of the Parties with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Covenant and no prior Covenants or understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any purpose. 8.2 Modification. No provision of this Covenant may be amended or modified except by written Covenant signed by the Parties. 8.3 Full Force and Effect. Any provision of this Covenant which is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 9 50397121.01 K:/S A I 12103Clean 8.4 Duration and Enforceability. This Covenant and the conditions set forth shall constitute a Covenant running with the land until terminated as set forth in Section 4, burdening the Property and benefiting the City, and shall be binding upon Property Owner, its successors and assigns, including any property or lot owner claiming by or through Property Owner. 8.5 No Waiver. Failure of the Parties to declare any breach or default immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall not waive such breach or default. Failure of the Parties to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of the either Party's right to declare another breach or default. 8.6 Governing Law. This Covenant shall be made in and shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 8.7 Authority. Each individual executing this Covenant on behalf of the Parties represents and warrants that such individual is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Covenant on behalf of the Party for whom it is executing this Covenant. 8.8 Notices. Any notices required to be given by the Parties shall be delivered to the Parties at the addresses and fax numbers set forth in Exhibit D. When mailed notice is required, notice shall be deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in Exhibit D. Any notice so posted in the United States mail shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of mailing. At the sender's option, if mailed notice is required, notice may be delivered personally instead. 8.9 Captions. The respective captions of the Sections of this Covenant are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or otherwise affect in any respect any of the provisions of this Covenant. 8.10 Performance. Time is of the essence of this Covenant and each and all of its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates is essential to performance under this Covenant. 8.11 Remedies Cumulative. Any remedies provided for under the terms of this Covenant are not intended to be exclusive, but shall be cumulative with all other remedies available to the Parties at law, in equity or by statute. 8.12 Compliance with Ethics Code. If a violation of the City's Ethics Resolution No. 91-54, as amended, occurs as a result of the formation Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 10 50397121.01 K:/SA I 12103 Clean 8.13 8.14 8.15 and/or performance of this Covenant, this Covenant may be rendered null and void, at the City's option. Counterparts. This Covenant may be executed in any number of counterparts, which counterparts shall collectively constitute the entire Covenant. Recording. This Covenant shall be recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington. Venue. The venue for any dispute related to this Covenant shall be King County, Washington. DATED the day and year set forth above. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: David H. Moseley, City Manager 33530 1st Way South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 ATTEST: City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney LAND LLOYD DEVELOPMENT CO. By: Mr. Robert Couper, Its Land Lloyds Development Company 34667 Pacific Highway S. Federal Way 98003 206-786-2162 Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 11 50397121.01 K:/SA 112103Clean STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that David H. Moseley is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the City Manager of the City of Federal Way to be the free and voluntary act of such City for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of ., 2003. (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary) Notary public in and for the state of Washington, residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument, on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of Land Lloyd Development Co.., a Washington corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of ,2003. (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary) Notary pUblic in and for the state of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 12 50397121.01 K:/SA 112103 Clean EXHIBIT A TO SETTLEMENT COVENANT REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS (LAND LLOYD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN) MiltOn ,PO Master Plan Legal D(CsCdption ~TH~&$T ~A~T~R OF THE SOUTHWEST ~U&~TE~,'~No THaT PO~T~ ,~ LOT ,~L,O~= S'~I~ ~OATH L~NE~ ~O$-Z~ ;EGT Tgi:THC Pfll,NT OF eEG~I~O';,E~CE~T THat PDRTZDN'T~KIOF ,CDNY~ED .TO THE. TO~N DF~ H~LTON, ~Y* O~EO R~CORDG~ U~.ER "' ' R, liE. Tliorpe ~: Associates, Inc. 8/£'d S2SI~dS3±N3 ~AOq] NIdCp:~ '' £0, BT ^0~ 16:24 2099230814 Milton ,PD_Master plan Legal De~Cription~ PAGE R,W..Thane & Associates, Inc. 8/¢ 'd .. 11/18/200B 16:24 20692B0814 DEARBORN AND MOSS PAGE MiltOn'PD, MasterPlan Legal,.,i ,..-, Description · R.,W..Thorpe & Asso'ciates, Inc. 8/S'd ~g, 8T ^0~ 1~/200~ Milton PD ~aster Plan Legal' De'scription ,RECQR~ JAr ~IO C~IlrW, LYB~, I/~TH~.# Tgi: FOLLOg~Ki.~$:R~,ED 'TRRC'/;' II£GINIIING RT A FOllrr OPPOSITE, HIBH)iAY ~N$IIIEER'$ SI'ATI ,OH 1781+~0 ON ~ L[ LZ~E ~Y ~ '$AT~ Hl~Y' ~ ~. S, FIBRE C~f LIE TO aCT. ~ ~, PAGE '4, sa, a~, ^oH i MiltOn PD~M. aS:ter'Plan Legal' De scrlption, Parcel B: Th~ No~heast qUa_rt~ of the Southeast qu~ quart,ex' of ~h~ Southeast quart~ t~ss ,th, m: 3o~cc: I,~S Coup. b' A~.~SOC S Of-2cc PAGE A~ociates, Inc. ,5 EO, B'[ AON, Annexation Area Vicinity Map Scale: 0 1/2 Mile Map Date: September, 2003 Please Note: City of Federal Way, This map is intended for use 33530 First Way S, as agraphi~d representa~on Federal Way, WA 98003 ONLY. The City of Federal (253) 661-4000 Way manes no warranty www.ci.federal-way.wa, us as to its a~;umY. , ,--.~ ~.,~..~..~.., Map A-1 EXHIBIT B CITY'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA EXHIBIT C TO SETTLEMENT COVENANT REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS (LAND LLOYD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN) GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES Major new developments will require a TIA for building permits on collector and arterial streets and land use actions. Key terms to be defined are: Major new development: A development generating 10 or more trips (entering and exiting) during any peak hour. Developments generating a number of trips larger than this threshold value shall have a TIA prepared to analyze impacts to the transportation system and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Impact: Any intersection, including site access driveways, in which the development generates 10 or more trips in any one approach during any peak hour in the applicable horizon year shall be defined as impacted. Horizon year: The future forecast year at which the future conditions without the proposed development are compared to future conditions with the proposed development in order to determine the impacts of the proposed development on levels of service and capacity. The horizon year for each phase of the development shall be the greatest extent of the conditions shown in Table 1. TABLE 1: DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE HORIZON YEAR .Apphcable HOriZon .Year from Phase Completion} Revisions to Comprehensive Plan required Addition of through travel lanes to any arterial New or revised traffic signal None of the above 20 years 10 years 5 years 0 years Appropriate mitigation measures: Any combination of street improvements or Transportation Demand Management measures which reduce the number of trips generated by the development at an impacted intersection below the impact threshold values in Table 2 or improve the level of service to E or better with a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000 for signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersections or a volume/capacity ratio of less than 1.000 for unsignalized intersections not controlled by an all-way stop. Levels of service are defined by the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual and are shown in Table 3. TABLE 2: IMPACT THRESHOLDS I ~,,';': "Impact Parameter [ Threshold Site-Generated Traffic Volume 10 vehicles per hour in both directions Minimum Signalized or All-Way Stop- E Level of Controlled Intersection Service Other Unsignalized Intersection None Maximum Volume/Capacity Ratio 1.000 (any movement) TABLE 3: LEVELS OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS ..,..Le"v. el o£ ~' UnsignalizedlIntei:secti0ns.. ' . ".. , '..i slgnall~ed Intersections. ' · '" "~ "~ '~:~"~'~;: .... I.. (A~e~rageDelay:Pe~.:vehicleinSeconds) '":'""':'~ ~': ' : ...... ~ ~?,,Se~iee~ ::: ~,:,', ~ ......... ~ ........ ~ . .. . . ,.~ ...... ..~ . .~.,~:~.~ (Aver~age;Dela~ per Vehicle in Seconds) A < 10.0 < 10.0 B 10.0 - 15.0 10.0 - 20.0 C 15.0 - 25.0 20.0 - 35.0 D 25.0 - 35.0 35.0 - 55.0 E 35.0 - 50.0 55.0 - 80.0 F > 50.0 > 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual City of Federal Way Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 2 Revised 21 July 2003 CONTENTS Review and approval of Transportation Impact Analyses shall be subject to meeting the following criteria as applicable. The document shall be prepared under the direction of a Civil Engineer with experience in traffic engineering registered in the State of Washington. Final documents shall bear the seal of the responsible Engineer. The City will use a transportation model in order to provide reasonable future traffic volumes and trip assignments. The cost of model runs as required in order to supply data to the applicant as well as review of the TIA shall be borne by the applicant. A deposit towards these costs will be paid by the applicant at an introductory meeting with City staff. Actual costs will be applied to the deposit. Costs beyond the deposit will be paid by the applicant upon approval of the development or withdrawal of the application. Model runs will generally cost approximately $100 per run. The following outline should be used in order to facilitate expedient review by the city. I. Inventory Existing and Proposed Land Use. A. Existing Land Use. 1. Proposed Site's Land Use. 2. Proposed Site's Physical Location. 3. Proposed Site's Physical Characteristics. Design constraints to proposed development. B. Proposed Land Use. 1. Change in Land Use. 2. Other Developments Approved in Vicinity. City will provide'listing. II. Inventory Existing and Planned Transportation System. Scope of Impact Analysis. Describe the location of new facilities and existing facilities impacted by increased traffic. Increased traffic is defined as 10 or more trips in both directions during any peak hour, all intersections created by driveways serving the site, local street segments used by the development to access the collector and arterial street network, and all intersections of collector City of Federal Way Revised 21 July 2003 Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation lmpact Analyses Page 3 mo City of Federal Way and arterial streets. B. Existing Transportation System. All pertinent data in the City's possession will be supplied by the City. All other data required for the TIA shall be provided by the applicant. The TIA shall address the following: 1. Street Network by Functional Classification. 2. Geometrics of Network and Intersections. 3. Traffic Control Locations. 4. Signal Timing and Signal System Operation. 5. Site Access Points. 6. Existing Right-of-Way. 7. Hourly Traffic Counts, less than 2 years old. 8. Turning Movement Counts, less than 2 years old, including peak hour factors, percentage of trucks, numbers of buses stopping, and pedestrians. 9. Accident Data, last 3 calendar years. 10. Identification of Safety Inadequacies. This is defined by any of the following conditions over a three-year period: a. A collision rate of more than 1.0 collisions per million entering vehicles at an intersection. b. A collision rate of more than 10.0 collisions per million vehicle miles on a roadway segment. 11. Transit Service. Existing and planned facilities. 12. Bicycle Facilities. Existing and planned facilities. 13. Pedestrian Facilities. Existing and planned facilities. Forecast of Conditions Without Development. Selection of Horizon Year(s). The estimated year of completion of each phase of Revised 21 July 2003 Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 4 the development shall be analyzed for capacity and level of service. In addition, the horizon year for each phase of the development shall be determined by the extent of mitigation measures as shown in Table 2 and described below. Plan revisions required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase of the development requires revisions to the most current, approved version of the Comprehensive Plan e.g. revised location or classification of collectors or arterials, conditions twenty years following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed. Roadway widening required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase of the development requires the addition of through traffic lanes to any roadway, conditions ten years following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed. Signal revisions required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase of the development includes new or modified signalization, conditions five years following the completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed. Minor or no improvements required. If required mitigation of transportation impacts for any phase of the development does not involve any of the improvements cited above, conditions at the time of completion of that phase shall be forecast and analyzed. Annual Growth Rate. When available, the City will supply volumes for forecast years from the City's transportation model. Otherwise, the applicant will develop forecasts extrapolated from modeled forecast years or historic volume data. Add Impacts of Adjacent Major Developments Pending and Approved. The City will supply copies of applicable Transportation Impact Analyses, if available. The applicant would not be required to develop any missing data. IV. Development-Related Traffic. mo Identify Critical Hours (hours of largest impact) for analysis, in conjunction with City Staff. Any or all of these peak hours may apply. 1. Morning Peak 2. Afternoon (School) Peak 3. Evening Peak City of Federal Way Revised 21 July 2003 Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 5 4. Saturday Peak 5. Sunday Peak Calculate Trip Generation. Development proposals with multiple phases of construction shall include all phases of the development for the purpose of calculating trip generation. If only a portion if the subject land parcel is proposed for development, trip generation shall include the buildout of the remainder of the land parcel under current zoning, or if the proposal involves a zone change, the proposed zoning. The latest version oflTE=s Trip Generation shall be used as applicable. For land uses not listed in Trip Generation, studies of at least 3 sites for similar development in similar regions may be used upon approval by City Staff. Pass-by trips shall also be quantified, if applicable. No reduction will be given for diverted link trips without data supporting the revised assignment of those trips. Co Trip Distribution. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide trip distribution data for approval by City staff. Modal Split. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide modal split data for all modes for approval by City staff. mo Trip Assignment. If available, the City's transportation model shall be used. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide trip assignment data for approval by City staff. No movement shall have more trips assigned to it than capacity allows. V. Forecast of Conditions With Each Phase of Development A. Combine Non-Site Traffic and Site-Related Traffic 1. Moming Peak 2. Afternoon (School) Peak 3. iEvening Peak 4. Saturday Peak 5. Sunday Peak Bo Capacity and Level of Service Analysis. Highway Capacity Manual procedures shall be used. Ideal saturation flow rates greater than 1900 vehicles per hour of green per lane should not be used unless otherwise measured in the project City of Federal Way Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 6 Revised 2 t July 2003 vicinity. Signal timing used in capacity analysis of future year scenarios must have a cycle length no greater than 120 seconds, even though cx~sting conditions may have cycle lengths up to 150 seconds. Minimum phase lengths shall allow for adequate pedestrian crossing time at 4 seconds for walk and 4 feet per second for clearance (unless majority of pedestrians are elderly or children, in which case longer pedestrian timing may be required), and be 15 seconds for protected left- turn phases and 10 seconds for protected/permissive left-turn phases. Peak hour factors for scenm'ios involving forecasts of 5 years or more should be based on the entire intersection, not individual approaches or movements, and use a default of 0.95 unless existing conditions have mi intersection peak horn' factor that is greater, in which case the existing value may be used. Arrival types at signalized intersections will be supplied by the City, if available from the City's TRANSYT- 7F or SYNCHRO models. Queue lengths shall be calculated at the 95th percentile. All impacted intersections as defined in II.B shall be analyzed. Co Access Management Standards. City standards are summarized in Table 4. On state highways, the minimum spacing is 250 feet, or as shown in Table 4. TABLE 4: ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ~.., i, ' Through ' "? ' '~ ;i:~:. ' Si~=,nal ~':: .i '!:.,~c~ -~e~il.n '~vam¢ ;;. ~ ,,'. : ..... ' . .. ?~..:C~s~ificatio~i ...... :' ~ _ . ~R-Tum ~t-tum ~, .Ri~t-Tum ~'~ "P~si0i~ 5 '::: ....,. ~2:. . ...,.... .,,' t~s, .~,,,,,...= :~: Cm~g.~o~=nnts :~n'x~°ut. ' :'":: =r '~' . "m ' out I ~ised 6 Only at si~alized Only at 330 150 150 40% intersections si~alized intersections 2 ~ised 4 330 330 330 150 150 30% 3 Tw~Way 4 150 150* 150* 150* 150* 20% ~ft-Tum ~ne 4 Two-Way 2 150* 150* 150* 150* 150* 10% LeR-Tum ~ne Accesses for Single Family Residences are exempted. Greater spacing may be requuired in order to minimize conflicts with queued traffic to the 95* percentile queue length. If the existing efficiency is less than the standard, new or revised signals may not reduce the existing efficiency. VI. City of Federal Way D. Identify Safety-Related Constraints. Mitigation Measures. A. Issues to be Considered: Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 7 Revised 21 July 2003 Bo Co Do 1. Design Vehicle Requirements 2. New Facilities (all modes) 3. Geometric Modifications 4. Traffic Control Modifications 5. Timing of Implementation with Respect to Phases of Development o Sight Distance Requirements. If required by staff, intersection sight distance shall be analyzed in accordance with AASHTO for the site conditions using posted speed limits. Planned and Committed Improvements on Affected Transportation Network. Data will be supplied by the City. On-Site Improvements. Improvements to streets abutting the development shall be in accordance with City ordinances and design standards. If frontage improvements would be required on a street where a City project is proposed in the City=s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the applicant shall pay a share of that project based on the proportion of the frontage length to the length of frontage to be constructed by the project or, if the project is designed, the applicant shall pay a share of the project based on the design engineer=s cost estimate for facilities to be provided on the frontage. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide the frontage improvement based on the adopted Comprehensive Plan roadway section. Off-Site Improvements. All improvements shall meet current City standards. Developments impacting City projects as shown in the City--s current 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program by 10 or more peak hour trips shall either provide the project or pay a pro-rata share of the project, calculated as the number of new peak hour trips generated by the development divided by the estimated total peak hour traffic volume at the time that phase of the development is completed. If a project has been deemed to be fully funded by the Public Works Director, the pro-rata share will be calculated based on the design engineer=s current cost estimate and funding from federal and state grants. If frontage improvements are also provided on a TIP project, the cost of the frontage improvements provided by the development would be subtracted from the cost of the TIP project before calculating pro-rata share of mitigation for off-site improvements. City of Federal Way Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 8 Revised 21 July 2003 Eo Levels of Service. Signalized intersections and all-way stop controlled intersections shall have a level of service of E or better and a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000 on all movements. Other unsignalized intersections shall have a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.000 on all movements. Local streets and collectors. The use of traffic control devices to reduce impacts on residential streets should be negotiated with local neighborhood groups with the goal of reducing neighborhood infiltration of development-generated spillover traffic. New or revised traffic signals. Signals proposed as mitigation shall meet at least one MUTCD warrant for signalization in the applicable horizon year. Minor street movements having an unsignalized level of service of A should not be included in meeting volume warrants. Warrant analysis for left-turn phasing shall be conducted for new or revised signals, using the mode recommended by the majority of the following procedures: LTAP, TRC 212 procedures, and Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic Signal Policy. Progression analysis using current versions of PASSER II and TRANSYT-7F shall be provided for new or revised signals if located within one-half mile of signals existing or listed in the City's current Capital Improvement Program. Turn lanes. ao Left-turn lanes. Guidelines from Highway Research Record 211 should be used to analyze the need for left-turn lanes. Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual Figure 910-6 may also be used. Generally, all signalized approaches should have left-turn lanes where left-turns are permitted on two-way streets. Right-turn lanes. Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual Figure 910-10 should be used for right-turn lanes at unsignalized intersections, even on multi-lane approaches. Guidelines for Right-Turn Treatments at Signalized Intersections (ITE Journal, February 1995) should be used for warrants for right- turn lanes at signalized intersections. City staff will provide copies of these guidelines if requested. Internal (On-Site) Transportation System. All systems shall meet current City codes and design standards. Issues to be considered: City of Federal Way Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 9 Revised 21 July 2003 Fo 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Design Vehicle Requirements. Turning radii, vertical clearances, etc. Facility Requirements (all modes) Traffic Control Requirements. Signing, striping. Driveway Design. Width, throat length. Parking Requirements Special Features Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans. When TDM plans are proposed as mitigation measures, the applicant may submit a report to Public Works Traffic Division to document the success of the TDM Plan one year after occupancy of the development. Upon approval, the applicant may be refunded any traffic mitigation fees collected for the development based on the percentage of reduction in vehicular trips, up to 20%. Analysis of Proposed Mitigation Measures. The greatest horizon years identified in IIII.A for each phase of the proposed development shall be analyzed. VII. Appendices A. Maps not contained in the body of the report. B. Count data used for analysis. Co LOS calculations (detailed summary sheet from HCS signalized OK). Software output must explicitly state all input and phase lengths used in analysis. The City will provide existing conditions available coded :in. SYNCHRO, if requested. Warrant worksheets for signals, all-way stops, protected turn phasing, right and left-turn lanes, intersection sight distance, etc. E. Signal progression analyses. All input and output. k:\traffic\tia guidelines.doc City of Federal Way Guidelines for the Preparation of Transportation Impact Analyses Page 10 Revised 21 Jt~ly 2003 EXHIBIT D TO SETTLEMENT COVENANT REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS (LAND LLOYD DEVELOPMENT CO. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN) CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE CITY The City of Federal Way Public Works Director The City of Federal Way 33530 Ist Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-661-4131 (Phone) 253-661-4129(Fax) Mr. Greg Fewins Deputy Director, Community Development Services The City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-661-4108 (Phone) 253-661-4129 (Fax) Land Lloyd Development Company Mr. Robert Cooper Land Lloyds Development Company 34667 Pacific Highway S. Federal Way 98003. 206-786-2162 (Phone) 253-926-8593 (Fax) Settlement Covenant - 112103 Page 16 50397121.01 K:/SA112103Clean