The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 07-21-1998 Regular I City of Federal Way City Council Meeting AGENDA COUNCILMEMBERS Ron Gintz, Mayor Jeanne Burbidge Linda Kachmar Jack Dovey Michael Park Mary Gates Phil Watkins CITY MANAGER Kenneth E. Nyberg Office of the City Clerk JULY 21, 1998 I I. II. III. a. b. c. d. e. IV. V. AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers - City Hall July 21, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. (www.cí.federal-way. wa. us) ***** CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATIONS "National Night Out" Proclamation Diversity Commission Introductions/Certificates Ethics Board Introductions/Certificates Human Services Commission Introduction/Certificate Economic Development Update/Debra Coates # CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE COMPLETE THE PINK SUP & PRESENT TO THE DEPUTY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. Citizens may address City Council at this time. When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium, adjust the microphone to proper height, and state your name and address for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE f3) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt citizen comments that continue too long, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise i11ßppropriate. 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 will be enacted by one motion; individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.) a. b. c. d. Minutes/July 7 r 1998 Regular Meeting W~erhaeuser 10% Petition for Annexation Council Bill #197/Public Safety Code Amendment!Enactment Ordinance School Impact Fees AmendmentIResolution over please. . . I VI. a. b. c. VII. VIII. IX. a, b. X. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS City Council Presidin~ Officer Allpointment Joe's Creek Water Quality Monitoring Station/Authority to Award Construction Contract Regional Governance and Finance CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS / EXECUTIVE SESSION Potentia] Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)0) Property ACQ)lisition/Pursuant to RCW 42.30. 110(1)(Þ) ADJOURNMENT '" .. THE COUNCIL MAY ADD AND TAKE ACTION ON OTHER ITEMS NOT USTED ON THE AGENDA .. MEETING DATE: July 21, 1998 ITEM# XG-) ..................................................................................................................................-.................................................................... ............................................. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM ...~ y'~~ç.I.;.....ç.!9'...ç Q~~~~~..M~.~.~~g..M.!~. ~~~.~...................................... ................. ............... ........... ................. ......... CA TEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION _STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ...............................................................................................................................,....................................................................... ............................................. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for July 7,1998 regular meeting ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Official City Council meeting minutes for permanent records pursuant to RCW requirement. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: n/a ...........-........................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ : ~t~ ~~~~~il.~~~~~~ ~lœ¥&.~I.;¡¡'mmm mmm d1it I APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACfION: APPROVED _DENIED - T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACfION COUNOL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\COVERCC-5/14/96 FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers - City Hall Regular Meeting July 7, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. DR 4¡:r MINUTES I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Ron Gintz opened the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council at 7:05 p.m., in Council Chambers, City Hall, Federal Way, Washington. Councilmembers present: Mayor Ron Gintz, Deputy Mayor Michael Park, Councilmembers Jeanne Burbidge, Jack Dovey, Linda Kochmar and Phil Watkins. City Staff present: City Manager Kenneth E. Nyberg, Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley, Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank, City Clerk Chris Green and Deputy City Clerk Bob Baker. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE .. Deputy Mayor Michael Park led the flag salute. Mayor Gintz MOVED TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION - POTENTIAL LITIGATIONIPURSUANT TO RCW 42.30. 1 10(1)(i); second by Councilmember Burbidge. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes III. PRESENTATIONS a. Recreation & Parks MonthlProclamation Councilmember Dovey read fÌ'om and proclaimed the month of July as Recreation and Parks Month in the City of Federal Way and urged all citizens and visitors to join in participating and supporting the programs and facilities provided by public and private agencies. Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Barbara Reid was present to accept the proclamation. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7,1998 - Page 2 b. Community Policing Partnership Award Chief Wood presented a Community Policing Partnership Award to Mr. Michael Ball. On May 21, 1998, Mr. Ball found a 2-year old girl wandering on her own in Federal Way after "escaping" from her parents home at approximately 4:00 a.m.. After Mr. Ball determined no adults were present, he took custody of the child and took her to the Federal Way Police Department. Chief Wood noted he was impressed with the initiative and responsibility shown by Mr. Ball. In addition to the plaque, the chief also presented Mr. Ball with a gift certificate to a local restaurant. IV. CITIZEN COMMENT William & Connie Dolezal distributed a journal-sized map to all Councilmembers displaying the Heritage Woods area. The Dolezals are having a problem in that area with a violation of a drainage easement. They don't know what to do about the problem. He stated the IS-foot Native Giowth Easement is not protected and its not growing. He wanted to know what to do about it. Mayor Gintz referred the Dolezals to Community Development Director Gieg Moore. # Shirley Blackburn did not speak as her issue is the same as the Dolezals'. Instead, she left the room with the Dolezals and Mr. Moore. " Barbara Reid noted what the superb job by Mary Faber and the entire Parks & Recreation staff . for the recent Red, White & Blues Festival. She stated it was the best event ever. There were many activities and many came by the Parks booth. The entertainment was wonderful and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. H. David Kaplan echoed Ms. Reid's thoughts. He then spoke ora recent Lakehaven Liaison Committee meeting. He thanked Londi Lindell, the City Manager and Councilmember Burbidge and noted the meeting was excellent, productive and run like it should have in the beginning. He noted everyone works for the same people and respect and cooperation were outstanding. He commended everyone who participated. V. CONSENT AGENDA c. d. e. Minutes/June 16. 1998 Regular Meeting Voucher/July 7. 1998 Monthly Financial ReportlMay 1998 Human Services Appointment Military Rd So at Star Lake Rd Sip:nalization Project! 1 00% Design Approval & Authorization to Bid So 304th St & Military Rd Street & Traffic Signal Improvements/I 00% Design Approval & Authorization to Bid a. b. f. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7, 1998 - Page 3 g. SW 312th St & 14th Ave SW Pedestrian Walkway/I 00% Design Approval & Authorization to Bid Celebration Park Flag Pole National Maintenance Corporation Contract Amendment Steel Lake ParkJPolicy on Park Use Use of Replacement Reserves Fund h. 1. J. k. Councilmember Dovey MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS PRESENTED; second by Councilmember Watkins. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes VI. PUBLIC HEARING 1999-2004 Transportation-Arterial Street Improvement ProgramlResolution # Staff Report Rick Perez presented the plan after he outlined its criteria. He stated projects were ranked and then those wruch may be funded are chosen. He mentioned the new projects wruch are being proposed. Citizen Comment No citizens spoke. City Council Deliberations No Council discussion took place. Resolution/Adopting 1999-2004 TIP/APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 98-273 Councilmember Watkins MOVED APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED; second by Councilmember Gates. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7,1998 - Page 4 VII. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS a. Cancellation of August 18. 1998 Regular Meeting Councilmember Watkins MOVED TO SUSPEND COUNCil.. RULES AND CANCEL THE / AUGUST 18, 1998, REGULAR CITY COUNCil.. MEETING; second by Deputy Mayor Park. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes b. Diversity Commission Appointments Councilmember Dovey MOVED TO APPOINT JOHNATHAN STh1, CHRISTINA LO PINTO AND DIANE LANDSINGER TO THE DIVERSITY COMMISSION; EACH TO SE~VE 3 YEAR TERMS; AND APPOINT MAYA KUMAR AS ALTERNATE, ALSO FOR A 3-YEAR TERM; second by Deputy Mayor Park. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes c. Ethics Board Appointments Councilmember Dovey MOVED TO APPOINT GARY HOOD TO THE ETHICS BOARD FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS; AND TO RE-APPOINT Bil..L LINEHAN AS ALTERNATE, ALSO FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS; second by Deputy Mayor Park. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes d. SeaTac Phase I (Belmor)! Authority to Award Construction Contract JetIPratt was present to request authorization to award bid to the lowest, responsive bidder. The issue was discussed at last nights Land UselTransportation Committee regular meeting. Councilmember Watkins MOVED APPROVAL TO AWARD THE RE-BID OF TillS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7, 1998 - Page 5 PROJECT TO PIVETT A BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,429,377.61 AND THAT A 10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY TOTALING $142,937.76 BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT; second by Councilmember Gates. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes e. Regional Governance & Finance Deputy City Manager Keightley used an overhead to review the background of the issues at hand. He reviewed the future schedule of the Suburban Cities Association and Growth Management Planning Council as well as King County agencies and stated the Federal Way City Council may want to schedule a special meeting. I Topics of the plan were reviewed including the financing plan and the courts. He noted the bottom line is no city dollars should go to King County if the plan is accepted. Discussion by Council ensued and included topics such as annexation monies being set aside, patching roads in newly annexed areas where care may not have been the greatest or given the highest priority, the need for a solid plan to be followed, financing and funding dollars for human servIces. No formal action was taken. The items spoken were for information to the Council only and the special meeting mentioned earlier was not set. VIII. INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE Council Bill #197Æstablishment of Public Safety Department Code Amendment AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE EST ABLISH- MENT OF A PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. (AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-252) Deputy City Clerk Bob Baker read Council Bill #197, by title only. Councilmember Watkins MOVED COUNCIL BILL # 197 BE FORWARDED TO JULY 21 , 1998, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, FOR SECOND READINGÆNACTMENT; second by Councilmember Kochmar. The motion carried as follows: CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7,1998 - Page 6 Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes IX. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Nyberg noted the City's budget is scheduled for adoption on December 1, 1998. He also reported the Police and Parks Departments did an outstanding job at the Red, White & Blues Festival. Written commentary will follow. Mr. Nyberg then relayed that two Public Works projects (312th & 14th & 23rd) were completed timely and under budget. Derek Matheson then gave a brief background on the City's website. He noted the City is expending efforts to make the website's presence known. Further, he explained there are a number of new pieces of information which were recently added. Mr. Matheson then took the Council on a "cruise" of our website. # Mr. Nyberg then announced the official population of Federal Way for 1998 is 76,820. Finally, he noted an executive session is necessary this evening; :20 minutes in duration; and action is expected. x. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Gates reported the Regional Transit Authority is moving rapidly on the Commuter Rail and Light Rail studies. She spoke quickly on other regional issues and then reported the next FinancelEconomic DevelopmentlRegional Affairs Committee will take place on July 28, 1998, at 12:00 p.m. Councilmember Kochmar noted she has been filling in for Councilmember Watkins (due to his broken ankle) at the ACC meetings. She, too, thanked the Parks and Police Departments for their services during the Red, White & Blues Festival. Everyone enjoyed their time as honor, community, commitment and community spirit was shown. She was impressed. Councilmember Dovey noted the Parks & Recreation Committee meeting for July 13 has been canceted. Councilmember Watkins noted the next Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting is set for July 20, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. He attended an ACC meeting today. Linda Loghe is the new Executive Director. She comes to them, with experience, from Portland, Oregon. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7, 1998 - Page 7 Councilmember Burbidge is to attend a July 9, 1998, Water Quality Committee Meeting. She thanked Councilmember Gates and Deputy City Manager Keightley for their hard work during recent meetings. She also echoed the statements of other as they relate to the July 4 event sponsored by the City. Deputy Mayor Park was pleased with new technology and this evenings website demonstration. He also noted his interest in seeking a relationship with a sister-city in Seoul, Korea. He also noted he has been honored with a Living Pioneer Award by the Northwest Asian Foundation. He'll be honored at a banquet on September 18, 1998. Part of the citation for his award was due to the fact he was the first Asian immigrant to an elected position. Mayor Gintz sat in the audience of the Red, White & Blues Festival on July 4, 1998, and really enjoyed himself He noted Debra Coates and he (and spouses) will depart early for Hachinohe and will stop in Yokahama. They'll bring back information regarding available office space opportunities in and around the Osaka area. At 8:42 p.m., Mayor Gintz recessed the regular meeting to begin Executive Session. '* XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. b. c. Property AcquisitionlPursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) Personnel/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.1100 )(g) Potential LitigationlPursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) (ADDED ITEM) At 9: 10 p.m., Mayor Gintz announced another :30 minutes were necessary. At 9:40 p.m., Mayor Gintz reconvened the regular meeting. Councilmember Watkins MOVED TO DIRECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO CLOSE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY REQUIRED BY THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SO. 312m WIDENING PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY, AS PURCHASER, AND LEILA M. VANDERBECK AND HENRY VANDERBECK, AS SELLERS, COVERING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 SO. 312m STREET, FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $116,000.00; second by Councilmember Dovey. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes yes Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING July 7, 1998 - Page 8 Mayor Gintz MOVED TO APPROVE A FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1999; second by Councilmember Dovey. The motion carried as follows: Burbidge Gates Kochmar Watkins yes yes yes no Dovey Gintz Park yes yes yes XII. ADJOURNMENT Having no other business to come before the Council, Mayor Gintz adjourned the regular meeting at 9:50 p.m. ~ Robert H. Baker Deputy City Clerk MEETING DATE: July 21, 1998 ITEM# JL.UJ ."""""""""'..""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'".......................................................................................,........................................",.................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Quadrant 10% Petitions (Notice of Intent to Petition .....,...... ......... .............................. .... ~ ~!"... A.~. !l..~!~!~.Q.~J............... ....................... ................................... ................ .................. ...... ................. ......... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: N/ A ~CONSENT _RESOLUTION - _ORDINANCE _STAFF REPORT _BUSINESS _PROCLAMATION HEARING STUDY SESSION FYI OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ \ .......................................................................................................-............................................................................................... ............................................. ATTACHMENTS: Staff report with exhibits, including the 10% petitions and maps of the proposed annexation areas. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: On May 27, 1998, the City received 10% petitions from property owners to annex two geographic areas. "Area 1" is located north of South 320th Street, east ofI-5, and west of Military Road. "Area 2" is located north of SR-18, east of North Lake, and south of South 334th Street. ... !'.!9.P.~. ~~~ ..~ ~~~ ~.~ ~.~.. ~ ~.~~ ,) .. ~~~.. ~. ~~ ~ ..~9. ~p. ~ ~~.~. 5?K}.? ß.. ~.~~ ~~.. ~ ~}. ~.: i~.. ~.~ ~ ~.~ JJ ~ ~ P.~~~ Y. ~.~Y.:. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. ......... .. . CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Land Use and Transportation Committee recommended at their July 9, 1998 meeting, that Council concur with staff recommendations, with additional recommendation pertaining to Area 1 only, to consider entering into an agreement with the .. A ~Y. ~.~ ~ P..~~ . ~ ~ . ~~.~.I;l,~~.. ~..~. ~Y. ~ ~g p ~.~ ~ ~ ..~ .~~.~.~ ~Y. ..~~ (~~ Y. . ~ ~.~ ~~ A ~ ~ ~ g.!? ..~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~g.!?~.. ~~ A~~.~~~ ~.( ~ pp P. t~ P ~~ ~ ~:.. .. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: City Council acceptance of both 10% petitions, authorization .::~~:~~ :~~~~~ ~~i.~O::::~.::~Si d:ti ::: ~~~ ~~~l:~=:t:j~f~¿{ ~Jf~:P :~..:~t~~.~~~. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL ).../1, PACKET: ÇLQ ~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: _APPROVED DENIED - TABLED /DEFERRED /NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 13, 1998 TO: MAYOR GINTZ AND FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL FROM: LORI MICHAELSON, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: WEYERHAUSER NOTICES OF INTENTION TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION CrN FILE NOS. ANN98-000 I AND ANN98-0002 On May 27, 1998, the City of Federal Way received two Notices of Intention to Petition for Annexation (see Exhibit A) from the Quadrant Corporation, a Weyerhauser Company. The notices constitute the 10% petition stage of the direct petition method of annexation under state law (RCW 35A.14.120). Since the notices involve separate geographic areas of the City, they have been assigned separate application numbers. However, both notices will be processed concurrently, as addressed in this report. For City Council consideration of the proposal, staff has compiled the following information: (A) Description of the Proposed Annexations; (B) Annexation Process; (C) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations; (D) Annexation Analysis; (E) Council Action Required and Staff Comments; (F) Staff Recommendations; and (G) Land Use and Transportation Committee Recommendations. A. DESCRIPTION OF 1HE PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS As proposed, Area 1 (#ANN98-0001) , includes 17.8 acres situated north of South 320th street. Area 2 (#ANN98-0002) includes 18.42 acres located north of SR-18 and south of South 334th Street. Refer to Exhibit B for a map of both annexation areas in relationship to City boundaries, along with a parcel-based spreadsheet showing total ownership information, tax parcel sizes, and land values for each annexation area. Also refer to Exhibits C and D for Area 1 and Area 2 boundary maps, respectively; along with parcel-based spreadsheets for each. Current King County zoning and proposed Federal Way zoning are noted on the individual area maps, as well as existing zoning surrounding the annexation areas. You will note that the Area 1 boundary map and spreadsheet (Exhibit C) include the fire district property as a staff recommendation. This property was not included in the annexation area as petitioned, but is recommended for inclusion as discussed in E., below. In addition, Area 1 boundaries must be modified to include all portions of the 320th Street right-of-way located west of the west boundary of Annexation Area 1, as proposed by the applicant. 1 (Clarification to LUTC packet: The staff report as presented to the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting was later found to contain errors on the Annexation Area 1 maps. Committee members were notified, and the maps were corrected for the Council packet. Specifically, existing King County zoning for all parcels within Area 1 was previously reported as R-18; when in fact, the westerly two parcels are zoned Office. (All remaining parcels within Area 1 are zoned R-18, as reported). Also, the correct location of the northerlymost parcel of Area 1 is actually one parcel west of the location previously shown. This correction represents a slight westerly shift in the northerlymost boundaries of Area 1, and a minor decrease (.54 acres) in the total annexation area as proposed (17.8). These changes result in a less significant area-wide density reduction than was reported to the Committee. However, a per parcel density decrease would still result by changing from 18 units per acre under King County to 12 units per acre currently proposed under Federal Way. Specifically, King County zoning would allow 230 units on 12.83 acres (with office on the remaining 4.97 acres), and Federal Way zoning would allow 223 units over the entire 17.8 acres. Further, King County's office zone does allow residential units as part of a mixed use development, potentially yielding additional density. Also, refer to comprehensive plan and zoning information, under C., below.) B. ANNEXATION PROCESS State law provides for various methods of annexation. As with the previous Weyerhauser and Enchanted Park annexations, the Quadrant annexation petition will utilize the direct peti tion method, as outlined below: (1) The applicant meets with City Officials and staff to discuss the annexation process and the boundaries of the area to be annexed, (2) The first petition called the Notice of Intention to Petition for Annexation (10% petition level) is prepared and circulated by the applicant among all affected property owners. (Note: Under the petition method, state law requires the petitioner(s) to be the owner(s) of no less than ten percent in value of the property to be annexed. As certified by King County (Exhibit E), Weyerhauser is the owner of all property contained within the annexation areas as petitioned.) (3) After the signatures on the petition are validated and found sufficient by the City Clerk, the City Council holds a meeting. (4) The City Council decides whether to accept the proposed annexation, and if so, under what conditions. 7'bis is the current point in the process. Refer to E. ,F. ,and G., below, for Council Action Required, S1-a-Ff Re'-^""""""dations, and Council 2 (8) C. CO"",d't'tee .Recommenda'tions. (5 ) If the City Council accepts the Notice of Intent, a second petition (60%) is prepared for the applicant to circulate in the proposed annexation area. (6) After the signatures on the second petition are validated and found sufficient, the required public hearings on the 60% petition are scheduled. (7 ) At the conclusion of the public hearings, staff prepares and submits the Notice of Intention to Annex and appropriate accompanying information to the King County Boundary Review Board. If the owner of 5% of the property in the annexation area, or an affected governmental unit, invokes Boundary Review Board review, the Boundary Review Board holds a public meeting to decide if the annexation proposal should be approved. If no review is invoked within 45 days, the annexation is automatically approved. If the Boundary Review Board approves the annexation, the city prepares an annexation ordinance. The annexation area becomes part of the City of Federal Way when the ordinance is adopted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNAllONS The City's annexation ordinance requires that zoning be imposed at the time of annexation. Federal Way city Code (FWCC) Article III, Annexation, provides three options for establishing zoning and comprehensive plan designations for annexed areas. However, since zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the annexation areas are currently under review as part of the City's area-wide, annual update to the comprehensive plan, Council need not consider other options at this time. Planning Commision recommendations on the comprehensive plan update are expected to be forwarded to Council sometime in August, 1998. In the unlikely event that the update is not completed prior to a final decision on the annexation by Council (at the 60% petition stage), staff would notify Council of actions available to resolve the issue at that time. Also, Council may determine that other options are appropriate pursuant to G., below. As currently proposed in the area-wide comprehensive plan update, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) designation for Annexation Area 1 (#ANN98-0001) is Multi-Family, and zoning is RM-3600 (I dwelling unit per 3,600 square feet of land area or 12 DU's per acre). For Annexation Area 2 (#ANN98-0002), the proposed comprehensive plan designation is Single Family-High Density, and zoning is RS-9600 (I dwelling unit per 9,600 square feet of land area; 4 DU's per acre). The 10% petitions support these comprehensive plan and zoning designations as currently proposed. D. ANNEXAllON ANALYSIS If the Council accepts the 10% petition and authorizes circulation 3 of the 60% petition, several issues will be examined for Council consideration. These include a cost/benefit analysis of the annexation in terms of revenue generated by the properties and uses in the area, versus the cost of providing City services. Other issues include land use, surface water, site access, street network and circulation. Preparation of any Council-directed agreement pertaining to site development, pursuant to G., below, will be included. The analysis will be performed by City staff from finance, planning, public works, parks, and police. A report on the analysis, and final actions required, will be presented to the City Council at the 60% petition stage of annexation. E. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED AND STAFF COMMENTS Pursuant to state law, the City Council must decide whether to accept Quadrant's intention to annex, and if so, under what conditions. Specifically, Council members must act on the following decision points at the Council meeting. staff comments are provided. v Whether or not the City will accept, reject, or geographically modify annexation areas as proposed. Ci ty Council can accept, reject, or geographically modify annexation boundaries at either the 10% or 60% petition meetings. The annexation analysis prepared by staff for the 60% petition meeting will include the boundaries directed by City Council at the 10% petition meeting. As petitioned, the annexation boundaries for Area 2 are recommended for acceptance by city Council. However, the boundaries for Area 1 should be modified to include the King County Fire District parcel located at 3700 South 320th. This recommendation is consistent with the fire district's previous and current requests (see Exhibit F). Area 1 boundaries should also be modified to include all portions of the 320th Street right-of-way located west of the proposed west boundary of the annexation area. Under the area-wide comprehensive plan update, comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the fire district parcel are consistent with the Area 1 annexation area as petitioned, i.e., RM-3600. Fire stations are a permitted use in the city's multi-family zones (as government facilities). v Whether the Ci ty will require the simul taneous adoption of interim or initial comprehensive plan and zoning map designa tion. Since the City's annexation ordinance requires that zoning be imposed at the time of annexation, the Council should establish intent to do so through one of the approved methods. As long as the current comprehensive plan and zoning amendments precede the 60% petition meeting of City Council, simultaneous adoption of interim or initial designations will not be required for 4 t/ annexation. However, if it appears that the amendments may not be approved prior to the 60% petition; or if Council considers alternative methods of imposing planning and zoning designations as discussed in G., below, staff will conduct the analysis and advise Council of alternatives. Whether the Ci ty will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. staff recommends that all annexations be required to assume a proportionate share of the City's outstanding bond debt. This is consistent with previous annexations. The City's total outstanding bonded indebtedness as of April 30, 1998, was $39,845,000. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS staff recommends the following: (1) The city Council accept both 10% petitions for annexation as proposed; however, with Area 1 boundaries modified to include the fire station parcel on South 320th street and to include all portions of the 320th Street right-of-way located west of the west boundary of Annexation Area 1, as proposed; and authorize circulation of the 60% petition; (2) The City Council require adoption of pre-annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designations; or alternatively, simultaneous adoption of initial or interim designations; and (3) The City council require assumption of a proportionate share of bonded indebtedness as a matter of policy. G. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS On July 6, 1998, the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee reviewed the proposals and concurred with the above three staff recommendations, with the following recommendation added: (4) Acceptance of the final annexation petition for Area 1 should be predicated on a site plan and/or agreement that addresses density, design, and any other development considerations deemed necessary and appropriate by the City Council. site development should also preserve the ability to extend the BPA trail system across a portion of the site. STAFF ANALYSIS Design considerations pertaining to the BPA trail system will be addressed during site plan and environmental review, in context with existing Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) transportation policies. Therefore, no specific action is required to implement this portion of the committee's recommendation. However, there is 5 nothing to preclude such requirement from being agreement, if directed by Council. included in an Several methods are available to Council for implementing the portion of the Committee's recommendation pertaining to a site plan or other agreement to ensure a design density of six units per acres (as preliminary proposed by Quadrant) and any other design considerations. Following is an outline of methods available and a brief evaluation of each. (a) The Council may enter into a pre-annexation concomitant agreement for Annexation Area 1, pursuant to FWCC Sec. 19-104 (see Exhibit G). However, the proposal may not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's concomitant agreement process. FWCC Sec. 19-104 is provided to encourage diversity and creativity; enhance natural and community features; and provide for a combination of residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses. In addition, a concomitant agreement is required to provide specific benefits to the community and users of the site which could not be achieved through normal zoning. This is typically shown by location on a critical transportation corridor; historic or environmental significance; or preservation of an existing significant land use or community. Historically, the city Council has reserved such agreements for unusual sites and uses, such as large geographic areas with a variety of development forms (e.g., Weyerhauser's east campus properties) and/or unique uses, (e.g. Enchanted Park). Allowing a concomitant agreement in the subject case could set a precedent for customizing zoning in less unusual and smaller site circumstances than is contemplated by code or has been previously approved by Council. Alternatively, the Council could also enter into a development agreement pursuant to RCW 36.70.B.170 (Exhibit H). The development agreement is comparable to the concomitant agreement in overall purpose and procedure, but it provides greater flexibility. The concern over potential precedent, however, would be the same for a development agreement as with a concomitant agreement. In addition, the statute (RCW 36.70B.180) specifies that development agreements are not subj ect to subsequent zoning amendments. A final consideration with either agreement is the time-intensive nature of developing and administering the agreement. At this time, no draft agreement has been provided to the City by project proponents. Both the concomitant agreement and the developer agreement are subject to environmental review. (b) The Council could consider lower density comprehensive plan and zoning designations for Annexation Area 1 than the Multi-Family and RM-3600 as recommended in the current area-wide comprehensive plan and zoning update. However, it should be noted that no FWCC zoning designation currently accomplishes the proposed density (six units per acre) and use (attached owner-occupied townhomes). For example, the next lower density 6 below RM-3600 is RS-5.0, which allows 8.7 units per acre, and allows attached dwelling units. However, owner-occupied townhomes are not presently permitted in this or any other lower density single family residential zone. Any changes to the comprehensive plan update, as currently proposed, may be subject to further environmental review. (c) A third option would allow the Council to direct that Annexation Area 1 be taken out of the current area-wide comprehensive plan and zoning update, and determine site specific comprehensive plan and zoning designations as a quasi- judicial action concurrent with the annexation. If this option is exercised, proposed planning and zoning designations will be subject to environmental review and public hearings prior to a final decision on the annexation. Alternatively, the Council may adopt an interim zoning designation of RS-9.6, or retain existing county zoning, at the time of annexation. However, this interim zone may remain in place no longer than 12 months, during which time the process of establishing official permanent designations must be completed. In either case, processing requirements and impacts to the current work program are a consideration. (d) Finally, the Council could, in conjunction with (b) or (c) above, direct a code amendment to modify one of the existing FWCC zoning districts at the appropriate density to allow attached townhouse style development. For example, Council could specify that RS 7.2 (allowing six single family homes per gross acre of land) can allow owner-occupied townhouse development. This would result in the desired density of 6 uni ts per acre and permit townhouses. Code amendments are subject to environmental review and a public hearing. Also, the priority order of any code amendments would have to be determined by Council and included in the work program. Conclusion: Of those alternatives discussed above, the developer agreement offers the most direct avenue in conditioning future development density and design requirements, albeit with certain "downsideH risks as discussed above. If the City Council determines that such conditions are warranted, staff will proceed to draft such an agreement in conjunction with the 60 percent annexation petition. Absent any other Council direction, this agreement would overlay whatever comprehensive plan and zoning designation is adopted by Council through the area-wide comprehensive plan and zoning map update currently in process. Attached Exhibits A B C D E F G H Applicant's Notices of Intention to Petition for Annexation Area Wide Annexation Map and Parcel-Based Spreadsheet Area 1 Boundary Map and Parcel-Based Spreadsheet Area 2 Boundary Map and Parcel-Based Spreadsheet Annexation Petition Certification Letter from Jim Hamilton, fire district administrator Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Sec. 19-104 RCW 36.70. B. 17 0 7 ...... ""-""'-' ""I,,,-,~-.................._...,,~.._,~.....,......_.......,..................,.. QUADRANT rx>MM RECEIVED BY . lJM'rY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY 21 1398 Quadrant Plaza. Suite 500 N.E. 8th at 112th P.O. Box 130 Bellevue. Washington 98009 Tel (425) 455 2900 Fax (425) 646 8300 A Weyerhaeuser Company May 26, 1998 Mr. Greg Moore, Director Department of Community Development CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 33530 1st Way S Federal Way, W A 98003 RE: Notice of Intention to Petition for Annexation Dear Greg: With this letter we are filing two executed Notices of Intention to Petition for Annexation within the City of Federal Way. The petitions apply to the following two Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company owned properties: 1. 2. Property located immediately north of South 320th Street Property located to the south of South 334th Street These petitions are consistent with the changes previously proposed to the Comprehensive Plan for the same properties. Please advise on the next steps in the annexation process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at 425-646-8352. Sincerely, THE QUADRANT CORPORATION ~~ Susan G. Heikkala Vice President Commercial Division .. Enclosures "'-.. , ""', .. """"! EXHIBIT PAGELOF -- .-- ""-----.---., ¡ !\Y'Y\Q8 - 000 \ RECE?,'FL BY (ØtWNITY DE\fEL'J~M::t\;í DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION MAY 2 7 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and City CoWlcil of the City of Federal Way 35530 First Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Mayor and CoWlcil Members: Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the Wldersigned, Weyerhaeuser Company (the "Initiating Party"), which is the owner of not less that 10 percent (10%) in value of the property for which annexation is sought, hereby notifies the City Council of the. City of Federal Way of its intention to petition for annexation of its property to the City of Federal Way. The property proposed for annexation (the "Subject Property") is legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. A map outlining the boWldary of the Subject Property is also attached hereto. The Subject Property is within the City's Urban Growth BoWldary as designated by the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, and is contiguous to existing City boWldaries. The Initiating Party contemplates that the City of Federal Way will prepare and file proposed zoning regulations for the Subject Property pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 and .340. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the Initiating Party hereby requests that the City Council set a date, not later than 60 days after the filing of this Notice ofIntention, for a meeting with the Initiating Party to determine whether the City of Federal Way will accept this Notice of Intention and allow for the subsequent submission of a petition for annexation, whether it shall require simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and .340, and whether it shall require the assumption of a portion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. DATED this r '1 ""ft-J day of Iv'AY , 1998. TATE COMPANY By Name: Title: N80265 11101-121 4/23/98 EXHIBA1r A PAGELOF ...ß , TRACTS I THROOCH '. AND THAT PORTION OF TAACT ,. LVINC SOUTH or THE BONNEVILLE. ,. LE"-"L DESCRIPTION. r-"SWENTS. ca'E-". CONOtnoNS. ANO RESTRCTIONS ARE T""" powER ""NINISTRAIION RICHT OT WAT. AS ESTAB"SHED BT EASE"ENT "ECORDED UHDER CHICACO IIIL[ "'URANCE COHPANT ORDER NO. <'80" DATED OECEHBER II, '..a. ESII, INC, RECO"DINC NUHBER "<'0.', IIIDwAT SUBUA"'" TRACTS. ACCORDINC TO THC PlAT THCREOT, HAS 'CUED SOLE" ON rH'S R[PORT IN TH[ PRCPARAT"", 0' THIS SU""(Y. R[CORDED IN VOI.UNC )e Of PlAIS, PACC 00, IN KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON; 2. THIS RCCORO Of su""E' "'CHI)'; THAT RrcORO OF SUIIVE'f fI1 ESH, INC. TILED UHD(JI UCEPT THC SauTH 2SO rC(T OF TRACT 7; * RCCORO\NO NO 9OO72S900' THC £ASIER" "ONU"ENT TOR THE "HIERuNC OT SOUTH '20TH AND E'CEPT THAT """VlON aT 'RAeIS , AND 2 CO",,£TED TO "'" STAT( OF WASHINCTOH B' $TREET WAS 'NCORRrcT" SHOWN AS 8(INC THC soum OU""CR COR",R <Y SECTION rD. DEED RrcORD(O UNDER RCCOR""'" NUIIBEA .g.OS"; J. SuBJCCT TO RCSTRIC"ONS CONTAINED" SAID PlAT , -NO LOT OR """TION 0' , LOT IH AND EACCPT THC SOU'H '0 r[(T OF "'ACT J CO",,£TED TO THE SlAT( OF WASH..crON fI1 ""ICH J-WIRC :'::~R~:r,' T~~~w~tR~Z'P()[gf A::,O, ';."¿'¡>"g~ ~~~I~ ~u.~~~~H::'r 'i.~~~R';:~:lRRCD DEED RCCORDED UNDER RECORDINC NUHSCR ..g.SJg; . TCNC[ . '\ REOUIRCD TOR THE uSE DISTRICT STArED ON ""S PLAf. NANELT '000 SOUARC Trrr AlL LOTS AND EACEPT THE SOUTH -0 fC(T <Y TRACT <. AS COND(HHCD UNO" KINC COUNTT SuPCRIOR IN "..S PlAT ARE HCR(8T R£S'RICTED TO RESIOCNCE USE, C""CRNED fI1 RCSTRCToa". RUlCS COUR! CAuSE N"""'R $J""; <f. ANO RccuVorlONS aT COUHTY RESOLUTION N""8£R ...< AND "'" SUBSCQUCNT CHANcrs MADE AND C'CEPT THE SOUTH '0 fE(T OF mc wEST 100 aT TRAeT , CONVEYCO TO THE STATC Q( -v.<" ""'iJ.3, - - - THERC.. S' OFfICIAl CauNTY RESOLU"ON. WASHINCTON fI1 DEED RCCOIlO(O UNDER RCCOR""'" Nu"B(JI ""'20. ,~c:,~~'-- < ~~ ~...o - ,....~ 1) , SUBJECT TO THC RlCHr OT 'HE PuBlIC TO NAKC NECCSSAR' SLOPfS TOR curs ANa FIlLS V"".., ",\.~æ.\.;¡""'o'>' - UPON SAID PRE..SCS IN THE REASONASLE OROOONAl. C_NO or STREETS, A\I(NUES, AU.£TS ANO , . ¡¡i.~ ~~~ ~\.c~~., ." ROADS AS DCOtCAlED IN THE PlAT. ¡¡i. \:> ~o'O' 00'" \. ~ ,. SUBJECT TO AN EASEHENT AND CO,",ITIONS CON""- mCRC" TO PVC£T SOUNO POwER SS\O ,».~,.o' ,,<:P.& b AND lICHT COHP"'IT, TiLED LINDCR RCCOR"'NC NO. '<OJ27,. THE LOCATION <Y THOS £AS(WCNT \ S~~ ri'~..., ~~ / ..'~~~~ >,'$' I? / CANNOT BC Dt:"R"'NCO r""" (HC INSIRUNENT OF RECORD. . -~ ~ I .. \ /..-" o. 5uI!JCCT TO AN EASC"CNr AND CON",TIONS CONTAINED THERC.. 10 PIJC(T SOUNO POWCR r 'auNO CO/ICRm ""'NUWCNT ,~- ~ .p \. I ..- AND LOOHr COHPANT. "m vNOCR RCCORD",C NO. '<8".7. THC LOCATION OF "'"S "'ScwCNT ; \0 - ~~~..C~~';¡,~ Pl.UC /' ø-»" ~,O" - - - ~ A"- CANNOr 8£ DETER.INED IR"" THC INSTRU.CHT or RCCORD. ~ I ' -1' /'_¡¡i.~ "',9'$ .". -1/ T. SUBJECT TO AN c.sc",," AND COHOtT""IS CONT""ED THERCIN TO KIHC COUNTY WAICR In I <f. ,ri"":k' ..- 'ð° ,...0 // /..- /' r "'STR"T NO ,. TOR .- 5TEI.L WATER ""'N. "LED UNDCR RCCORD"'C NOS. )6070'0 ANO '0717". ~:: ,.,00' ,..*Jp.¡> ./ /..-,~ / '"' /'..- / ,," 0'"' ¡. ;~Ai:<~g.~8E~~ ~,"~:fH~~S ~':;;~"'::.'Ò",TH.' pc,:¡~~~";.'H~E~E~"f;.t~r,:,~AI~~ONO;':\~~~N :;~ t c,~~,~~~c,¡.o ~ / f~'Z..t TOW~R '\ I ,\.~\..: '~,-I. ;.;~..-"- . ~;:; or IHIS EASEHENT CANNO' Br DnERIIIN[D fROW THC INSTRUWCN' Of II£COIID. . THAT R£CORO or SUR\I£Y fI1 STEPAN AND ASSOCIATCS. INC. z ~~~o'O \ \. ,,' 'a N:'" -](1 ;; ~ .. SUBJECT TO R"£lMIION 0' All. COAL, OIL, CAS AND HINERAl IIIC>iTS. AND RICHTS TO TILED IN vaLUHC 52 OF SU""ETS, PAc:E 107, RECORD"C H "~ . . H H - - - - ',~:¡:~ D .... EXPLORC 'OR 'HE SAwE PER "STRUHCNT "LCD uHDER RCCOR""'" NO. .aoS2'OJJJ. NO. ."202900<, RCCORDS or ""G COUNTY. WAS>tINCTON .~ 'f ..Joo ~CNCC \.,.c.\ .~\. -0 0 SOUTH LON( Of THC SW 1/4 OF SCCTiON '0 - N sronf' W !i:..- . \'\0 Z Z . 8 ~ /' <':.,0 ~VEY t4STRI..JMENT A T1ON : "'i ' N S!I'OO'SO. w"- 80000' ..-" N 89'44'50- w 600.00' . ,¡ . SuR\I£Y'NO PER'ORWCD IN CON.AJNCTION WITH THIS RCCORD OF SUI!V(Y UTIUUD IN( rouOWlNC COUIPWENT "0 PROCEOURES; ..- ~ =,./V..- SOUTHERLY """"'N Of '00' \l[DC CITY OF I I I 111" TOTAl. 5TATION """"'AI.CD TO """"'ACIURC"S SPtCI/1CATIONS : "'./ ..-","- ~~~N~A~C':.r=~~~~~";';~~~~om. 8 AS REOUIRCD fI1 wAC-m-'JO-'oo ... ./ \"'-. I . 7JO42I1O<O'. 7JOS21027J ANO 7JOS"O27~ .'- I I ..- -.. --- POO':"""'" USED. Tll'L""""A"'." """,.""""R'(;TnHmoNG.<:O" ./ / \ ~~::,:~~.~~.' ~~~ I-. ,. .-. <'<;:;, I ' .. ¡... ..sXCU:Í>NC .IHC RC~C..tNl,..ø<--cJJ2-IJO-OOO.' ._- . '~ov"I.v ..-"- '-T""SillssoaHUNCtASEHENr -(f"'¡,.f>,C I I :: ~.,o' ....., 'I ..- - ACCOROING NOS. 4.82114 I ,\ I r . i J. ..- ANO 4""72 f"" ~\' I ., ./ r1 2 ' 3 "Jf"'¡;ÇJ/" ~ I " I 7 W 2...' ./ /" II i \)'9' r I". NJ I Q c! ./..-"- II' I ,( 5 "J~C;Þ " - . 20."./ ..-"- -1 r 2O'OL""PICPlPClINC co. 'n\Ì\1 Þ- "I). r r I I ~ '/"- I £AS(HENr - REC, I p¡..A\\.; .AI". .:;)VI -5 ,/ ,"-1 ' NO. ".'201 f"'. I,I' DI",I:- ~~'- I ~ ..-"- 2OO1(:'::'~')PlAr ~ II 1".-\ or \O\.... ,ß.'ß1'~ S,f) EASE."" roo SEP"C TANK. I 51 rauNO R£!I"" ...- I ö\ ¡.-" 9\' DRAlN"CLD . "ECOROINO NO \ 16 AND CAP $TCP" L I I r ..... III .'oso'o,., (C>TINÇUISHCS . A. SSOC. LS. CITT OF TACOMA UPON .v_'lITY or NO 22U7" , .ATER TRANSIoIISSION ¡CONCRm 1.4 SANI""'" SEWER SC"""E) I (APR" "00) 1 PIP(UNE (AS(M[HT - P"" I I ~~r,~,NO;...v- CAS ""'KER POST I... - - N 8g"'5'" W I 11 I (TYPICAL) I I' 200,00' I 'I' I I I .0 . I I I I I' I. I 'I: I S(TRC"'" ""0 CAP I I I '"' I W 20" , ... "C$IoI INC. LS. NO. 15<1"- I I 10 . I ~ I 1'N AP"" 1090 , . ;., JO'I ill~ I (TYPICAL) I I , ¡;;; ~ I NI8!1'44"~. W II~.¡; I I '"' I s:G N TOUHO'-"- 20000 '~s I ~ I ,., ;~~~PC':."~CNT :!!z' I N 8g00'50. W I 70000' I ' ;; I ('CBRUNIT '990) '~s I' š=.o::~' , ~z N Sg,O'SO- W Joo.bo' ~"~~ i i IoIQNUW(NTED C~NT£Rl.INC N ....."'- W ".SOI' (CSH) :¡: - - ~- - ,~.f.. .,. - ~ -==- ~~I S()"'" >20"'- S7REET _~"è' ~ ":::', , N ...OJ'2f' W "e.J" rOUND STONE NONUN(~NT ....."" , S£I RCBAII ""0 CAP . WITH CHISELED 'X' -. .ESW INC. L$. NO. ""'/2021'. - - ('CBII\JART 1990) * . = " ~- ,." . . I rauND' X . EHE N (1YPICAI.) . ;r; CONCRm _u"(NT .. , 51 WITH ,- 8RASS CAP, 'N CASC .. 0 (MARCH '990) , ~ ~ ~ '° ~ :5, PAi LI .10 OF SURVEY AMENDED REC( PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 'OF SECTION 10, TWP. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 21 N., RGE. A LEGAL DESORPTION NOTES I ¡¡; /,' ~ II ~ J}r~ -+ ~~ ..r i U.â I ~ -~ N~ \~~k -- \ 1 ..-"- ,\ '0'- - .... L:~': T 00. ~ PlPC rUEO WITH CQHCRm WITH TAC", IN CASE (rtØIIUARY "'0) ~ .- ~I .!. DRAWING NAIoIC , "'D-RS ......, 4 E., n W.M. , u.:.. Oë ti1 , 'r 88S W \ :r: C) 1!:'-:~ ,~ SCALE: 1" - ~ 1.1- DA 'T\N : SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ~ ~ .... 0 Z THIS "AP CORRECTLY REPRESCNTS A SURVEY ""'DE BY "C OR UNDER "Y DIRccnON IN CONrOR"ANCE WITH T~E RCQUIRC"CNTS or T~E SUR\I[y RCCORDING ACT AT T~E RCQuCST or W[YCRHAEUSCR REAL ESTATC CO"P""'Y IN rCSRUARY, IOg7. '01. , RECORDING CERTIFICATE TlLCO roo RCCORO T~IS ~~-¿ OAY or _!!'~---, ,g., AT ~f#-""" IN VQLU"E._d..L- OF SiJIovEY'--ON P~ A...~ AT THC RCOU9I: or ES", INC. ~ l'~ OM"?"-;) SUPT. OF RCCORDS 9'7 c::1.£I') ....o.9hØ /' i! ESM inc. . .... E-. - SI6MT, "'".- ...- - .... 720 So, 348th Str..t fEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON 98003 PHONE, [206] 638-611.3 JQB NO. '9' -)o-gao-oo. aArr. OJ-21-91 ~ ' H..' ----.---. ,-.- "__._I~_"" "'-. -------.-.-- CJ1 U'I 08 CJI ø' ~ It! ~ O'J "0':1 "C. 1$ oI. ::s ~ ... =- 14 ,... ..-.. n. 71; I ~ \ ~ ~ , ) t. , ~ I ,.... :IN" 8\'"& .. -,",D . i f~: ~ /DI 1-- ;I I ~ ,til 5 H.' N ... Vol t: == tf:I. '" tÞi .t',,~ ,. tt' '\ , , PI ,.-.-. " ... -~ I' 0 ~ IT' 0 1$ ff. . : . to iii \\ IJ ~w L.. .. ~ 1 t J '\. , ............ - ---. D % ~ .............u . .!l CP iii , \ ~ ",tIJ I \.~ \ ~ Q 8:) ..'JI: ~ cO 0:. ~ ~iJ' ~ ^ ~ Z t'Ø 0.' ~ 1$ i;\t:) ~ ~ oI. - =- .. ~ ~ IÐ '" " , ~ ~t\ A .... t!t :I ~ ~ ~ . Z UII þ8 Q 8:) IS ..... I'Þ IfI :w .. lei ... t ~ Pot ~ I'Þ ....... r 1:. - E Pot Þ-O' C't" . 16 -- lid 9~ ~ - 11:1 III IfI .. t!!! tf \ n ~ " .. 0 \i~ c. ~ Pot IT' 0 . \~~ 1$ ... ff. ~ .... .. II¡ 0 ra I . OOQO 0 ¡;t~ OOCO ~J-- .J)C}cøœ --oœ-4j ._-------------------- \ . ' t\ ~ tV 98- øøø 2 RECEIVED E}Y:o__..~.,~ COMMUNlìY DE\/¡:1 ,,~' 0'. .' MAY 2 7 1998 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Federal Way 35530 First Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Mayor and Council Members: Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned, Weyerhaeuser Company (the "Initiating Party"), which is the owner of not less that 10 percent (10%) in value of the property for which annexation is sought, hereby notifies the City Council of the City of Federal Way of its intention to petition for annexation of its property to the City of Federal Way. The property proposed for annexation (the "Subject Property") is legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto. A map outlining the boundary of the Subject Property is also attached hereto. The Subject Property is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary as designated by the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, and is contiguous to existing City boundaries. The Initiating Party contemplates that the City of Federal Way will prepare and file proposed zoning regulations for the Subject Property pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 and .340. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the Initiating Party hereby requests that the City Council set a date, not later than 60 days after the filing of this Notice ofIntention, for a meeting with the Initiating Party to determine whether the City of Federal Way will accept this Notice of Intention and allow for the subsequent submission of a petition for annexation, whether it shall require simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations as provided for in RCW 35A.14.330 and .340, and whether it shall require the assumption of a portion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. DATED this 1 q 1¥\- day of Mki ,1998. ESTATE COMPANY M80265 11101-1214/23/98 By Name: . Title: ~1" EXHIBIT A PAGE ,,"-OF-.f; RECORD - ... .,- --- ..,.. 0"" SURVEY ,~W 1/4 OF SECTION WASHINGTON A Po.RTI, . OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 1/4 SW OF SECTION 15 AND OF THE KING COUNTY. 22. TWP. 21 N., RGE. E.. 4 W.M. t! PARCE~ ~-4 TNAT .,,"""" Of' "" NOlI'" .. "" 'Il' "" ""'0-0 oeSCR'.'D PAR'" -ON ,'" ""'r. 'ASI""T or SOuI-<.s1 UN' Of AOAO 0('0'0 10 "'0 COUNN a, DUD OlCONO'O ".."A A,COOIlOHC 00 2~i600J, o,CORDS iY ~.uo COuH", XNO"" AS AO' 8, "S<H.. CCuH" ,°, , !!(QHHHO AT . STON, H""""', 'NT" "" SOUTH OU'A"A COON" or S(cnCH ,~, ~ ZI -TH, 04NO[ . 'ASI, 'OH, .. K"C COUHTY, 'OA$NIHCTON; .-- I><,NC[ N""'. CO.,,' ..ST JO ",,; 8I:õIII!I CO I14[HC' SOU"" e"O~' ¡,(s' IUI.I~ "": II«.C, '00'" 21'011' 'AS' ~"',.S ",T; - '.'NC' """T. ""Z' ,.or J77.00 "" TO "" IOU[ .,,",T 01 O£"'.""'" or TH' "~ oeSCOl8(O .A.C'.. J ""Net ::eN'HU'NC SOU... ".,2' ,ASI ,~',aJ ",,; ~) IN(HC( N""'" 21.,.' "5' 217.. r([l; ~" 'H,Na: NCO... ""2' oUT IG6 SZ "", f1j~ ~l IN(Ha: SOU'" 00'011' "'5' 200 "" 10 TN( POINI 01 8£CIHH"'C; , . '---../ (9£INC KHO'" AS TH, POIInON or TH' ,.srWARO PAo..COOCAnON 01 SOUTH )JO'" 51."', 'rIHC iI£\"o([H I>« NOlI'" L.JH[ 01 TH' A80'J( Ot:$CJI'KO PARC.. X-I, AND IH' SOUTH UH, 01 "'C:S J' - J', HOII'" ,.., ..."", 1.AHOs. -'C""OCO,) Þ PARCE~ L THE SOU'" 'AtJ' or TH' ,AS' 'JO ",T or CO'J!:RHH'HT 1.0, " S(CnON ,~, 'O......p 21 HOIITH, A'Ht( . 'ASI, W,H" IH KINC COUHTY, WA$HOHCTON; ,xCEP' TH, 'ASI JO "" -' ,xC(P' "" SOU'" JO ru, FOIl OOAOs. (8"" ANC"" AS nlACI ". or N""I>< ,.., SHOR' ,""OS ACCOIIOONC TO TH' ""A,COOO'O Pl.AT ""A'or,) PARCEL W « ..PARCE~ ~-I 8""","NC AI A SlONE H""UH'" AI IN, sou", OUARTER COII.ER 01 stcnON I~, TC"$HIP 21 NOII'H, ,..." . ,.SI, WH., oN KINe COUNN, .A$HINCTON; "" SOU'" JO "" 01 II<[ 'A$T 'JO FE" or COV[RHH'HI ,or " stcnON ,~. 'O"'$H" 21 HOIITH, 'AHC[ . ,AST, W,H.. IN x"C COUHTY, W._CTON; ,xCE" "" ,ASI JO FE" r"" '2ND A\<ÐIU' SOU"', ... .- oC .- s:. >< W ""NC, SOUT" "'OJ' wEST ...ONC IN, SOU.!" UN( or SAOO S(cnON, 'JO FE" 10 TN, fRU, POIN' 0< ..., 5I"'A" .. IN( COUHTY 01 KINC, SIA" 01 "A-ClON, ,,"'"""C, ..' . - -,-,.. '--.--.-- "" , - ,_,..,','.', '. '..-.-,--.-.." IN'HC' HOII'" oo.,r wES' '.0.2' FE,,; I>«HC[ SOU'" ""Z' ",ST ~9000 FE"; SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ""HCE sou'" 00.," 'AS I 000,98 rm, HOII' 00 '£55, TO IN, SEcroOH UN'; IN,HC' Al.ONC SAID $(cnON UH', H""'" s"O~' [ASI ~90.00 F[" 10 'H' PONI 01 8'CIHH"C; TM'S ".... CORRECTLY RE..R(SENTS A SURVEY MAOE 9Y "E OR uNOER "Y OIRECTION IN CON'ORMANce WITM TME REOUIRE"ENI5 0' THE SURVEY RECOROINO .CT AT THE 'tEOUEST 0' TME OUAORANT COR"OAATION IN FEBRUARY, 19~7, (8[ONO KN""" AS A PORIION or fRACI 117, NORIN LAK' SHOR' ,-s. Ace"""'NC 10 "'E UNR'C""OCO Pl." """E:)I'.) VPARCEL ~-2 aE",""'NC " A SION£ HONUH'NI AI 'HE SOUIN OUARI(A CORN" 01 StCII"" .., 'C-SiO. ZI NOIITN, A...", . 'ASI, W,H.. XINC COUHIY, WA$NINCTON, AU"""C TN'Nt( H""I>< 00.," ",ST JO r",; !HENCE SOUl" ,,"O~' "'S! ..".. rlII; ~~ R, SCOTT "ACINTOSH '.5. NO, '~OOI .;'/ ~'¡'7 ," 'H'NCE """H 20'" 'AS' "0'0 rw; ""NCE SOUTH IO"Z' 'AS! J1101 FE" rO, "" fRU, POOH I 01 a£Ol""HO; ", IN'NC~ N""IN 00"" 'AS I Z20 FE"; TH,Nt( SOUIN SO'~2' 'ASI )JO r",; IN,Net SOUT" 20"" 'AST Z~"" F£[I; 'H,Nt, H""I>< 1O'~2' "SI '~I.IJ FE" 10 !>i' fRU£ POONI or 8"""N'NC; 1O rE" '.'R'O< F"" COUNTY AO40; ,XCEPI TN, HOII'" RECORDING CERTIFICATE (8"NC ANO...., AS IA.CTS eo. 0O, 91 "'0 n. "OIl'" 'AKE "'011, LANOS, ACC""OO.C 1O "" UHA,C""O,O PLAT !I<,o,or), '" PARCEL ~-J '. .J "LEO 'O~ORO TMIS l1!ZJ-".,OAY OF _MffH______-, ..~, .. ¡;, ",. IN vO"""E JL'L- or sulWtrs ON ...C[ ZJ --" THE REOUEST 0' ES", INC, 8'ooo;...C ., "" NORT"'ASI COIINER or CO"""'~'H' ,or J, S£CIION ,~, '0-"'. 21 """'", A""CE , 'A51, W,~, 'N "'NO COUN!V, WA$HIN""'; "'EHt( SOUl" 81.,2' '.'ST ro..'O"'HC NORT" \.11<, 01 SAID CO'J!:AHH'HI ,01 J, 090 FEET; MAN.!;[R SUPT. 0' RECOROS '"'HCE SOUr" 00"" EASI PARAu." TO !>iE 'AS' LlH' 01 SAOO '°1, 1171 FEET 1O 'h, IAU' POINT 01 8'ClNNINC, IN'Ht( NOR'" ""2' WESI "I "ET, HOR' OA LESS, 10 SOU'h'AST UN' 01 AOAD 0[[0'0 TO X'" COUNTY 9V OEm REC""C'O uNOER A'C""OONC HO. '>I"OJ. R'C""OS or coo.:H", "NO" .5 RO' 8. "$(H'A COUNTY .0.0; RECOROINO NO, ~7~52Z9ðl/ II ESM inc. '...--;'-"'" IN'Net NOA""AST£'" ALONC "'E SOUIN'AS""" UH£ or SAIO COuNTY ROAD 1O . POOH' rACU -Cli TH' IOU, P,,",T 01 8't:NNlNO 8,AAS SOU", oo.,r EAST; ""Ht( SQUIN 00"" ,AST 12O "ET, NOR( OIl LESs. 1O "" !OU, POOH' or IlEClNNlNO; (8E'HC XHO'" AS IHE PQRnONS 01 fRACIS JI ""0 J' 01 NCR'" 'AK' $HOII' 1.AHOs. UNR(COIIO£O, LYINC 'AS' or "" CURvAlVA, CONNECnON or COUNTY ROADS "0.. AS SOUIN JJ,'" 5111([1 - JO'" ""HU' SOU"'.) . ... E.-.. "'" S-. .... NQ,(cr "'- -."" - 720 S, 348th STREET FEDERAl.. WAY. WASHINGTON 98DD3 PHONE: [208] 838-8113 \ , '- . OR'WlNO """E RS1 -P.RJ JOB NO, 19'-"-9U-ooJ DATt: OS-19-87 "R'WN R' 'N I~ . . "", , . <"'.... , " , -\ ! ¡ " " .' ' /¡ "~ ': I \ i I I ! f i I I ! i t. I ¡' RECORD OF --.-"--.-- PARC.C;L N.. A SURVEY OF SECTION 15 AND OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TWP, 21 1O KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON ~ ,'::"."m'-~"", H 89'08'28" - S2.'.9]" (C$W) fP" ".21.04 - ~ 2'" ,,' (uA) H ..~2'OO' ( (PeAr) " - "- - - '- H 'O"QO' C 'HO) .-. 1 li'Ï!-f7-=J-.:;-..,n,a,\19:,(~fu(¡~J,!!'i,!JJ..,............,-:.. 15 - 1~1~!4 .Jk..E': 9<J'O"OO' (H~)-(C$W) . :" J' ,... '" - /'1 CtH"OC'H.C H'SEHEO AO'O----': ï: :! 9<J"l"oo' (PY") : I". II BY ,.,A"EY 2S>1A : ~--- --'1 : '-"s'o', ~~G(~~";.~\~ ,; :: ! (HO) . .....1;';0..,::-------1 : ~I ' CSTA8U~H[HT : I : : j : 1 ;1.-------1 '" : ¡¡ ! , ; 113 ¡ I 0 ' , ,~ ' ~Q;; 1:1 t-------I S : i :ni~ ¡¡Iil:~ ~I' ~,.<o ' ,~ ( Ó"...i~ I: ,.-------1'" ~ :-- ..'f"~~ ,:I I? .0 ~ ~;~~ IiI il I Õ <:: ; i::t~~ 1:1,,-------1< :J ;' '0-':0 :: r---------- !<J -_.._-------~ I ~f!;¡~ li:1 I C;:.è' ..:.. ;;I~ ,~-------j ,fì!!J ,~, ~~~'t3jîl:I:1 ,~ ",/i) ~ <"Q~- ~-I: : 't" ~ Ò' .... ~p~:tu.~-----i:-- S:!u ; :-. 'o¡1 : ~- I ~ « 1<} ::! ~$,,:I.~ ,~-.I$/ I '811;'~~-----j:' -~ ..:::J : 8 :t~~ I ~ }.:. '" : . zl, ;1 - 18 C!; ,!: : I ~-- -----1... ~ a: 1 :1 ," 11>: I:, !l. ' 8 '5 : I ~-I:,-------1z 114 z: ~~ ;1:1 I ~: , ì1)° "I' I ~ 'I~ ::;1.-------1 ,,:~- ~~I:I:I" 4c: ~,~ ,.. ----¡;~I' ,. :f V:I ::.- ~~:F------ '.........,--, - - '- "-" ~I:: I' " ;,:;:~ OOOHCOHO' ~.::I " :~~ ,,'OV[:O ~ ",: : ' I ' " 'O"C(N' -:I:T-------1 - " : O"'C"', (OC).(CS>o)'j: : : ¡'< : >< : ¡ - ~ OMcnON '\ ' A.O'"O5'oo. il-------,~~ ,(;, A : a' \!,- PARCELK-3~0"'."': I::,'" j"";,, ,<[I :I~.!.: ,.500.02 " I.~ ,g:1 -' ... ¡I J ':Þ: ,~~ ,,% :;j.; Õ S'50' PARCEL 1<-4 .~ HO7'56'1.""'" I; ri!,---.;,---1~~ ',I ~.~ I:;; z""o' ("CNOTC'I '~O"\/~8;;$",'~'" """IN A'.OW'"" :ti ~l~ "::' ~-~------ :;:;, DETAIL'B' PL1"'U2 A. J"'" 1 _>t- lI--t~,o ----- -------.,", ("A) "'Q\soum JJ4\h STREET l' "..."~ :::?' 000 ,¡If. ~: fJ~ ~: i ,".200' . H'O'OJ"O'. HR /:,.:fJ lõ8 it", : '-- ) ~'-'-:;'~6'2.'-'~"~1-.2'--- ,,:ì'"f!:!---~,z. ,:\' " " B ""OS""""'H(O('"C'CO'" a'(HO ~~. ..,.-,."..",......, ~~'O! ., 0; (HAFo(C ,-r ;:~~."". (,SIoI) I.:'¡':'¡'::-:'="'="='='C'VNO J/"~~ ..' -- --- ' ~ 04 I.' '" - ~s OoC~0~~"'~:'"I70 ' :'1' I , 'RON ",PC , ï ------1 »OJ'(",r)' "50('" 1- 1 \ , , C 0." '~ 'H ."00'2.' - ' oj, t, -'-'0.'0' (CSIoI)' N "'50'",,, I :,! 1-%: .. tO~ l;AKE 7H)f\E~: 0; :::.BO ,",'" , ~,,~~, 03 ~ ,.. ' I:' :'1', ,(UIflE,CORDED) r-'t-- "'~ I 00 : 01 : ~~ ~..~"-.:. --' sa DETAIL 'B' . ""'1' '," I , ," p- ',,",~o?., '-~' ~':j,-< '-'" N 07'58'2.' - ::IN PARCEl. K-2 ~~...~ :::: \ . £,S , ...Y-'-, ;'I--..I¡-_J.__J.!7':":- - ~ :'Ojl- ~l- -'"PI >O'2a.' ~<;.~ i!; t>, "/ ',I SEE DETAIL ",'/" , ,J, .' (HAl ,.~<:> _'0' ~');;"/.~' '.I o,¡.! " eElDno H.rs..,o" " FauHO'/Z' \; . ,;f, <f/<~:.¡.., '¡Qt PARCEL 1 ê; ""'.J"",") ~~ "JO.OO' "'ON ",PC I --- .'7' ty '(;;'...1- "~';.,'~, /., : Æ> -~ ~- ¡Pl.'.:? ,~¡.~ PARCEL L - , H.""'28'~ ,T~.y ", ¡-"-",1- --, ..^'~ 5;;.;¡~ PARCElK-1 ~ I ;!~...~ '~ I ~ .;rk~. ',,' ¡ ß,": ~--S'" ~~ '.;:; ..°' ~_I ~~ 8~ ttJ ' .. ".20' ~J+/'1'., ì"",41'" !:~ ,.;:- .alo~~ ~ I ""I!: ~ \<t" 1,0:,.1 ¡ I I ~5J 0:;: ,O:-q'-. </' ;:-~.~ z~ :;:' , to'/. <:'t~,_, :::,~---" , .~z. ..,..".'~.~ ~;¡ £"O' ~ ¡ Jo,~,..t-:.,.¡.,~ ,""#:":1: I ,§.. ";'4o!>'.,'" 117 -"'I (,ECALI-(C$W) Hee.,.',}'.. , !:.. .,ooÕ"" ,~'-=t ¡ 3 I ~ ~'..-r ii:: I JO,OO' " 1/': '-J 2~: : : <1.11 S¡:;¡ ,"00.00' (SHOR""'.0.610070) !51!>_- "-:: ,:' ~" '28"I'C . '~---=~~~,('SH) -¡y.!!...,.. ...,.....,....,......, I :,SOV'IH 338th STIIEtT.. ,:,....~. .S9000,llCC") J " I ICS><) -, 11: ~¡~~., -, -'- 7j;¡j:ot..., -- .. '-""'-"-~'J'- ",..g,(r."',.,.....,...~", ""r,,1-mI- "..---- ~ '.,:' " N ..""'J'" O.JO'--- - (SEC HOICS . - 1/) 'JI'S" ~..... "'-c^,cu"11:D CORHCO .ASta j H ...,.',,' ~ 20190.'. ' '- JO' (sec NOflS g, " . 1/) - ;2 2 vPON CXlSIING "'ONv"EN,.nON SEE SHE£T 2 OF 3 '/)UHO .. SEenON 22 rOUHD IEAAA COTTA NOrt . 'OUNO CONCRET( H!)HVH(HT..J I' ..oHIIHEHT WI'" BOASS 9 \ lIHE TO SOU". 'S ('ST'C"'" 0 }O' ..'" BO'SS Pt."C (SCPI'["'BCR "0') "CK "' 'EAO, 1.0' 11£'°- 0 J.' -- 'AOW fH( UN( '0 1>4t ...",' A$l'MA,T (HAA'" ,m) - - - PARCEL M n>J.~'RJ 1>ø..oO1c ~A Of MJNf4'A"TioN ¡c,"",) PORTION SW OF THE t"-::- 16 f~ -- .- , \ I \' , I" rOUHO ",RAH'O HONVHCH' ..". 2' BA'SS C.p 'H C'" (H'RCH "'0) SEE NOTES LE GÐoÐ ON SHEET 2 OF 3 () ~T ACB'. 'NO CAP '(SM, 'HC. L~. HO. 1$0.'" .. .....c.. '090 (SEt O[CORO Of ,.,.'0(' "<.to VHO£O .CCOIIOOHO NO. 000"0.006) I ;., ,~ 1- so PE"O 'NO cþP 'ESM, INC. LS NO. 'S..'/292." e, 5 rOUHO CONCPCI'[ BClL "'ON\JHCHT ""'" BRASS CAP :;(T 0' CS><, 'HC (SEC ACCORD OF SUR"" '..CO VHOCA OECORO'HC HO. 920JIIOool) - vHILSS OTHeR.." HO'CO """'0 "ONI,.'CHT ,S >oOtto -A~HCTOH STArt HIGH"" ~""H'S$I!)H, OCPAA'H[H! Of N,....""S PlANS F"" SIt ,. '.... 0.1. TO WP '.2" O"CO JUl' 'a, '... 0 (SH) RGE. 4 E.. n ~~ ~~ f!!w :J:(!J t1~ (Pl.Af) 0" :;HE" , OF J R(rtAS 10 'HC uHOCCOROCO P,^' or 'HORIN "'C ",OA( LAH"'- ~ ' 200 100 0 200 'DO "--( (",AT) OH Sl+CCT 2 OF , o(fEltS '0 fH( VHRCCOROCO I'LAf Of "'CHAPC'S 'IOR1H ,...( ACRES. /l if .:::¡ (KC) ...e COVHI< C~CINC""'C OCP,,'WCHI Pl.AHS Foo S. J36" SIACeT O(lOCA""" - IHT'CASTATE S - >2.. A'«HUE S. ;uo,n HO 16-21-'-10' SH(ET 1 or " CON"'ACT NO. 2'510 SCAU;: 1" - 200' DATUM: ¡HA) '"CN..C" 'OR RO' g. ",";':N,A 00'0 csroou"'CO 0' OROCO OAf co fEB.VAA' ", 10JO ."0 OC;1SEO ACCOitOONC TO SuR'" NO 203" '5 AC"OROCO 'H VOl UHC ",o, PACt .' "'0 .S "515 Of "OIIIZON.., OAtUH oS "." ,,",.0 01 SURv'" B' STEP"" ...0 "SOCIA"s. "'c.. FII.,D 'N Oo'OI.VH( » or S/JR'o('IS, .Net ,>6, oCCOROoN<; HO. OJO32'OOOJ. RC:""O~ or KONG COVH". "ASH'NCION. .OR'H liH( or HW 'I' 01 >CCnON n . " ..~"'J' .. ; ~ I d--, ~ [ (OC) OU" "AlH OCCO F"CO VNO(A 'VDlTOR'S r,,( HO 2S0'..J ----- ------ ~ /il , ~. "M~"I6'" " 700.00' "-..,.-' I~ I~ JO' (SCL HO'( 12) RECORDING CERTIFICATE FILED 'OR !jJf°RO TNtS z.?g- DAY 0' ,~-------, ~~~ ~Ú.:.:.." AtT~'~rJu(f!öF ~:..,S~~¿£:YS 0" "ANAe£R RECOROINe NO. ~7o522'oJ ,. II ESM '... £_--- SIIMY,""-"""-""""""" inc. 720 S, 348\h STREET f"EOERAL WAY, "" 'GTQN 98003 PHONE [206, 611J '-...' L "HAW"'" _O~ NO Ij.,-.,-g..-~o} ~"W" . I N .'r' F" R A ~Upr, OF ACCORDS OAf<' 00-"-" ""'rr , ~, , Proposed Quadrant Annexation To the City of Federal Way S 312th ST. s. 312th ST. Steel Lake Park u; ~ c 11 PI S.31 cD ~ c S 3141 S 3151h S. 316th ST. This proposed annexation is subject to acceptance by the Federal Way City Council. If accepted, signatures representing at least 60% of the assessed value must be gathered. Legend: . Area 1 . Area 2 .1. Federal Way City Umits Annexation Area Boundary Recommended by Staff c=J Petitioned Annexation Area c=J City of Federal Way Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 8 ~~~è~'PAGE-l-~OF z,. S. 336th 6. 3381h ST. ~ c z 1;1 (I) ~ c "" ~ S. 34Oth PL en ~ c .., ~ 0 1,000 Feet ~ Map Date: June 10, 1998. City of Federal Way, 33530 First Way S, Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000. s. This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. ¡users/mikes/project/an nex/allan nex3. ami Prop<d Quadrant Annexation Valuation/Annexation Petition Signatures Parcel Number Owner Mailing Address Size. Land (Acres) Value Bldg. Value Total Value Signed Petition? Area 1 551560 0091 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 0.71 23,400 0 23,400 YES 5515600005 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.41 241,000 0 241,000 YES 5515600010 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 321,200 0 321,200 YES 5515600015 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 192,700 0 192,700 YES 5515600020 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 192,700 0 192,700 YES 551560 0026 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.28 96,700 0 96,700 YES 5515600025 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.37 103,500 0 103,500 YES 5515600030 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.75 206,200 0 206,200 YES 5515600035 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.60 120,700 0 120,700 YES 5515600037 Fire District #39** 31617 1st Ave S. Federal Way Wa 98003 1.14 125,000 845,100 970 100 NO Area 1 Totals: without Fire Station 1,498,100 0 Area 1 Totals: (with Fire Station 1,623,100 845,100 Bldg. Value Parcel Number Owner Mailing Address Size. Land (Acres) Value Total Value Signed Petition? Area 2 6143600186 614360 0635 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Weyerhaeuser R~E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 Tacoma Wa 98477 208,000 229,000 0 0 Area 2 Totals: 437,000 0 *jtJTmctual size ot annexation is larger, as it contains some right-ot-way, which is not included in this total. ~i~rcel was not included in the original annexation proposal, but Is recommended for Inclusion by Federal Way staff. me:::tJ-GIS. MetroScan. ~:C:\WC4. WB2 -10- ~ ~ I ~I~ ..¡ C,r) .& J!! ~. :;; ~ s R-4 (KG) R-18 (KC) R-4 (KG) 0 (KG) 0 (K~) AM ß600 R~18 ( C) AM 3600 R-18 (KC) AM 3600 R-18 (KC) R-18 (KC) (KG RM3800 R-1 FIRE (KG) STATION I Â: S. 320th St. --.-."'.-", en FEDERAL IW A Y CITY ¡LIMITS I I: :¡; () '" OP-1 I \ OP-1 HI (FW) (FW) en t:: :& - ..J > OP-11 I~! R-4 (FW) (KG) <C ;: ..J <C a: 111- R-4 ~, (KG) OP-1 (FW) '. Proposed Quadrant Annexation To the City of Federal Way Area 1 Legend: -.. Federal Way City Umits Annexation Area Boundary Recommended by Staff Zoning Boundary ..... G----B- c::=J Petitioned Annexation Area c::=J City of Federal Way Existing King County Zoning is shown in GRAY. Proposed Federal Way Zoning is shown in BLACK. Scale: 1 to 4440 1 Inch equals 370 Feet 0 500 Feet ~~ N lusers/mikes/projectlanOE, . x1 d,aml Propc ~ Quadrant Annexation Valuation/Annexation Petition Signatures Parcel Number Owner Mailing Address Size. Land (Acres) Value Bldg. Value Total Value Signed Petition? Area 1 5515600091 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 0.71 23,400 0 23,400 YES 551560 0005 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.41 241,000 0 241,000 YES 5515600010 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 321,200 0 321 ,200 YES 551560 0015 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 192,700 0 192,700 YES 5515600020 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.56 192,700 0 192,700 YES 551560 0026 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.28 96,700 0 96,700 YES 5515600025 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.37 103,500 0 103,500 YES 551560 0030 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 2.75 206,200 0 206,200 YES 5515600035 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Tacoma Wa 98477 1.60 120,700 0 120,700 YES 551560 0037 Fire District #39** 31617 1st Ave S. Federal Wav Wa 98003 1.14 125,000 845,100 970,100 NO Area 1 Totals: (without Fire Station 1,498,100 0 Area 1 Totals: (with Fire Station 1,623,100 845,100 *NOTE: Actual size of annexation is larger, as it contains some right-of-way, which is not included in this total. ** This parcel was not included in the original annexation proposal, but is recommended for inclusion by Federal Way staff. Source: FW-GIS, MetroScan. MS:C:\P AAC3WB2 6-10-98 ;g~ G>:J: m- ~.~ NORTH LAKE AS 7.2 (FW) OP-1 (FW) OP-1 (FW) A-4 (KC) A-4 (KC) RS9.6 FEDERAL WAY CITY LIMITS OP-1 (FW) R-4 (KC) A-4 (KC) A-4 (KC) RS9.6 R-4 (KC) v R-4 (KC) Proposed Quadrant An nexation To the City of Federal Way Area 2 Legend: ... Federal Way City Limits ..... Annexation Area Boundary Recommended by Staff Zoning Boundary G-----e- c=J Petitioned Annexation Area c=J City of Federal Way Existing King County Zoning is shown in GRAY. Proposed Federal Way Zoning is shown in BLACK. Scale: 1 to 4440 1 Inch equals 370 Feet 0 500 Feet ~~ N (fiT ~ ~~ .~jß~ /users/mikes/project/anr . ,ex2d.aml Proposed Quadrant Annexation Valuation/Annexation Petition Signatures Parcel Number Owner Mailing Address Area 2 6143600186 614360 0635 Weyerhaeuser R;E Co Wre 2-1 Weverhaeuser R; E Co Wre 2-1 Area 2 Totals: *NOTE: This area contains NO right-of-way. Source: FW-GIS, MetroScan. MS:C:\PARC3. WB2 6-10-98 U ftfd þ>< G):I: m- ¡m ~.~ ¡ 0 Tacoma Wa 98477 Tacoma Wa 98477 Size* Land (Acres) Value 208,000 229,000 437,000 Bldg. Value Total Value 0 a 208,000 229,000 Signed Petition? 0 F!!jè~?/Ì:]fjJì1J ~ King County Department of Assessments King County Admìnistrúion Bldg. SOO Fourth Avenue, Room 708 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 RECEIVED JUN 1 8 1998 CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Scott Noble Assessor @ (106) 296-5195 FAX 296-0595 ANNEXA TI 0 N PETITION CER TIFI CA TI 0 N TIllS IS TO CERTIFY that the two petitions (labeled Parcels 1 and 2) submitted June II, 1998 to the King County Department of Assessments by N. Christine Green, City Clerk for the City of Federal Way, supporting the annexation to Federal Way of the properties described as the Weyerhaeuser Annexation, has been examined, the property taxpayers, tax parcel numbers and assessed value of property listed thereon carefully compared with the King County tax roll records, and as a result of such examination, found to be sufficient under the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, Section 35A.Ol.040. Dated this 17th day of June, 1998 5uu . !2 .. ~; / ;COli N~ble, King Co ty Assessor . . ' *~ t:#.,- U,-( ~ / :G-u~.'. /)~.).~L /7. .D.'C('¡::I'!,=.:'""\.. :"'\\"" '-;::;( ¿ . ( {/ "A...,. . - ..J_... ;'" D. I (/ ~ h+--f~~ ".' '.. -" - 7E'::~~ EXHIBIT £ PAGE-/-OF -L FROM:KING COUNTY FIRE "39 ADM TO: 2536614129 MAR 6. 1998 2:07PM KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 39 FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT 31617 -1ST AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON 98003-5299 Greg Moore, Director Community Development Services City of Federal Way March 6, ] 998 Dear Mr. Moore, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify our position on the potential annexation of our property, parcel # 91-0788146 located at 3700 S. 320th into the City of Federal Way. Per our earlier request~ we are asking that we be included in a proposed annexation of W eycrhaeuser property that is adjacent to our properly. In an effort to be consistent Witll that almexatioll. we would ask that our property zoning be classified consistent with the Weyerhaeuser alUlcxatioIl property. We are seeking inclusion of our property arUlexation into the update to the Comprehensive PIan. Since the armexalion process is new to me, I would appreciate any information on what I need to do in this process~ it would be much appreciated. . SinC:Q Æ Hamil ton , Administrator n..-,__---~_.... - ..' ---------- - P.02 EXHIB~T PAGEc_J.._OF 03/06/98 FRI13:17 [TX/RX NO 7999] --...._- h. U_---~,"-------_._"._h_._.-_- FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT . 31617 1st Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-5201 ~ RECEIVED BY CuM!,1UNITY DEVELOP,~E~T DEPARTMEm JUN 2 9 1998 Greg Moore, Director Community Development Services City of Federal Way June 29, 1998 Dear Mr. Moore, I understand that Weyerhaeuser Corporation has submitted a 10% petition to annex a portion of property located north of S. 320th. I would like to take this opportunity to restate our desire to include our property, parcel # 91-0788146 located at 3700 S. 320th, as part of the Weyerhaeuser annexation into the City of Federal Way. If there is any additional infonnation that I can provide, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. fé. sm2rel~ / . Jim~ Administrator Cc: Lori Michaelson ~ Sr. Planner EXHIBIT -f PAGE .t--_OF ~ Phone: (253) 839-6234 or 927.3118 f-mail: info@fwfd.bess.net An Equal Opportunity Employer Fax: (253) 946-2086 § 19-103 FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE fected by the ordinance has been annexed to the city; or if the affected area has not yet been an- nexed to the city, shall be effective upon annex. ation of the area into the city. The city clerk shall file a certified copy of the ordinance and any ac- companying maps or plats with the county au- ditor. (d) Judicial review. The action of the city may be reviewed for illegal, corrupt, or arbitrary and capricious action in the county Superior Court. The petition for review must be filed within 14 days after the date of the hearing at which the council acted to pass the written ordinance. (Ord. No. 93-190, § 1, 11-9-93) ~ Sec. 19.104. Pre. annexation concomitant r f\' agreement. (a) Purpose. The intent of a pre-annexation con- comitant agreement is to create a process to pro- mote diversity and creativity in site design and to protect and enhance natural and community fea- tures. The process is provided to encourage unique levelopments that may combine a mixture of res- idential, commercial, office and industrial uses. By using flexibility in the provisions of a pre- annexation concomitant agreement, this process will promote developments that will benefit the citizens that live and/or work within the city. (b) Application process-General description. The application process includes an infonnal reo view process, State Environmental Policy Act com- pliance, review by the city's long-range planning division and annexation review committee ("committee") and public hearings before the city council. (c) Committee defined. The city's annexation re- view committee shall consist of at a minimum: City manager, planning manager, public works director, development services manager, parks di- rector and city attorney. (d) Informal review process. An applicant shall meet informally with the committee to discuss any proposed pre.annexation concomitant agreement. The purpose of the meeting is to develop a pro- posal that will meet the needs of the applicant and the objectives of the city as defined in this 3.rtic1e. Supp. No.4 (J/ (e) SEP A. The State Environmental Policy Act regulations, and city SEP A requirements shall be completed prior to formal review by the long. range planning division and the committee. <0 Concomitant review. After informal review and completion of the SEP A process, the proposals shall next be reviewed by the city's long-range planning division and the committee. (g) Recommendation to city council. The plan- ning manager shall prepare a recommendation to the city council on the proposed pre-annexation concomitant agreement, which recommendation shall incorporate the comments of the committee. (1) Decisional criteria. The recommendation shall be guided by the following .criteria: (i) (a) The proposed pre-annexation con- comitant agreement shall have a beneficial effect upon the commu- nity and users of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional application of city zoning districts and shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. ( 'f (ii) (b) Benefits may include, but are not limited to, the securing of annex- ation of properties: 8 located on critical transportation corridors; 8 of historical significance; 8 of environmental significance; 8 or to preserve an existing signif- icant land use or community. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development in the community. The proposed pre-annexation concomi. tant shall provide for areas of openness by using techniques such as clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well -designed open space and/or land. scaping. It is consistent with the comprehen- sive plan. ( , (iii) (iv) 1136 EXHIBIT ~ PAGEL OF ~ ( /) ( " / l PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (v) It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. (2) Content. The recommendation to council shall include any conditions or restrictions that the committee determines are reason- ably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of approving the pre- annexation concomitant application. In ad- dition, the recommendation shall include: (i) A statement recommending approval, modification or denial of the applica- tion. (ii) Any conditions or restrictions that are imposed. (iii) The identification of the existing Fed- eral Way zoning designation most com- patible to the terms of the concomi- tant, which the concomitant shall overlay. (iv) A statement of facts that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (v) A statement of the conclusions based on those facts. (vi) A statement of the criteria used in making the recommendation. (vii) The date of the recommendation. (h) Council action. Council action shall be as described in Federal Way Zoning Code Section 19.103(b), (c) and (d). (Ord. No. 93-190, § 1, 11-9-93) Supp. No.4 1137 § 19-104 EXijlBIT ~ PAGE~OF ~ [The next page is 11831 36.70B.170 COUNTIES * 36.70B.170. Development agreements-Authorized (1) A local goverIunent may enter into a development ågreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. A city may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chap- ter 36.70A RCW. (2) RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.190 and section 501, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 do not affect the validity of a contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation agreement, or other agreement in existence on July 23, 1995, or adopted under separate authority, that includes some or all of the deveJopment standards provided in subsection (3) of this section. (3) For the purposes of this section, "development standards" includes, but is not limited to: (a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes; (b) The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions. of state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications; (c) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and other requirements under chapter 43.21C RCW; (d) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other development features; (e) Affordable housing; . (t) Parks and open space preservation; (g) Phasing; (h) Revie~ procedures and standards for implementing decisions; (i) A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and (j) Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure. (4) The execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of county and city police power and contract authority. A development agree- ment may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. Enacted by Laws 1995, ch. 347, § 502. Historical and Statutory Notes Findings-Intent-1995 c 347 cient use of resources at the least econom- §§ 502-506: "The legislature finds that ic cost to the public. Assurance to a the lack of certainty in the approval of development project applicant that upon development projects can result in a waste government approval the project may pro- of public and private resources, escalate ceed in accordance \\<ith existing policies housing costs for consumers and discour- and regulations, and subject to. conditions age the commitment to comprehensive of approval, all as set forth in a develop- planning which would make maximum effi- ment agreement, will s ngthen the pub- .4 CO lic part and men and devE cial gove 36.7 U Î duri j the agrE agre devE stan perIJ deve Enac FiJ §§ 5( 36.70 36.7 A. of th deve] SUCCE ann€: agreE Enact Fin §§ 50: 36.701 36.70 Ac or ref plann: legish devel< of ch: devel< Enact€ , ,C,' .",..o.,'; , 'ES I a A its A her md lin .ble lap- !!ows ent, , or lent but and )in lent ~on t tents I and lU"eS ; I I ;;e of í gree- j other ~w or ' lealth , ¡ \ :anom- ~toa ¡upon IY pro- }O1icies ,ditions eVe1op- Ie pub:. , . C,QUN'J;IES 36~70B~200 lic p1aruúng process, encourage private , participation and comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of develop- ment. Further, the lack of public facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new housing and commer- cial uses.,;, Project applicants and local governmentS may include provisions and lIgI'ee1Ilenw, wb!!reby applicants are reim- bursed over time for financing public facil- ities. It is the intent of the legislature by RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 to allow local governments and owners and developers of real property to enter into development agree!Ilents." [1995 ,c 347 § 501.] 36.70B.180... Development agreements-Effect Unless 'amended or tenninated, a development agreement is enforceable during itstenn by a party w the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the tenn of the agreement, or for all or that part of the build-out period specified in the agreement, and may not be subject w an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. A permit or approval issued by the county or city after the execution of the development agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. Enacted by Laws 1995, ch. 347, § 503. Historical and Statutory Notes Findings-lntent-1995 c 347 §§ 502-506: See note follo\\ing RCW 36.70B.170. 36.70B.190. Development agreements-Recording-Parlies and successors bound A development, agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of the county in which the property is located. During the tenn of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property covered by the development agreement. Enacted by Laws 1995, ch. 347, § 504. Historical and Statutory Notes Findings-Intent-1995 c 347 §§ 502-506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170. 36.70B.200. Development agreements-Public hearing A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The county or city legislative body or a planning commission, hearing examiner, or other body designated by the legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct the hearing. If the development agreement relates w a project permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.'(OC RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the =:~=~"347,§ 505 EXHIBIT II PAGE~OF ~ MEETING DATE: July 2..t íqc¡S ITEM# ~X <é-) .................................................."................................""""""."""""""".""""""""-""""""""...................,......"""""""'............................".................... ...... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM ... ~ Y!:l..~ç.!.;. ..~~.~.~.~.~...~.~.f~!Y...Q.!".~~~~ ~~~....................... ............,.. ....,.... """ ................ ................, """ ...............,... ................ CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: - CONSENT X ORDINANCE _BUSINESS _HEARING FYI _RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT _PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: Expenditure Amt: Contingency Reqd: ........................................................................................"......................................................................,....................................... .........................,.................. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ................................................................................."........""""""""""""""""."""""""""".""""""""""""""".........................................................."....... .. SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: This is a housekeeping item which amends Ordinance 95-252 creating the Public Safety Department so that the appointments and the reporting structure of Deputy Directors are consistent with other City departments. .....................................................,......""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""..................................................................,.....................,.................. ............. CITY COUNOL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to amend Ordinance 95-252 creating the Public Safety Department and forwarding to full Council for approval. ....................................................................,................................................................".................................................,............... .......................",........-........ OTY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: ~W{ û~ 'ft'l'::-"'\\-~,^I&:tw.. I~ a.¡frt:~ L"",~VY«~ ~r..:.~~..~~....~~\...~..~.................................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""...........................~..!).!~...... APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNOL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNOL ACTION: _APPROVED _DENIED _TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION COUNOL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ~ Item SF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREA TION, PUBLIC SAFETY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date: June 22, 1998 From: Ron Wood, Director Department of Public Safety Subject: Public Safety Department Ordinance Background: This is a housekeeping item which amends Ordinance 95-252 creating the Public Safety Department so that the appointments and the reporting structure of Deputy Directors are consistent with other City departments. Committee Recommendation: Motion to amend Ordinance 95-252 creating the Public Safety Department and forwarding to full Council for approval. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: ~~ C ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT 1c!.;LC¡(fP AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. (AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-252) WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 95-252 the Federal Way City Council established a City Department known as the Federal Way Public Safety Department ("Department") and created the positions of Director of the Department ("Director") and one or more Deputy Directors ("Deputy Director") who report directly to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, when the Department was created, a Director for the Department had not been appointed and the scope of the Director's duties were not fully defined; and WHEREAS, the reporting structure and future appointments of Deputy Director(s) should be consistent with all other City departments wherein the Deputy Director(s) shall be appointed by and report directly to the Director; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance 95-252 shall be amended as follows: A. Appointment of Deputy Director(s) of Public Safety. Section 4 of ordinance 92-252 shall be amended as follows: Section 4. One or more Deputy Directors of the Department ("Deputy Director") shall be appointed by the Director. The Deputy Director(s) shall perform such duties as required by, and be directly accountable to, the Director. The position(s) of Deputy Director shall be exempt from the civil service system. B. Administrative Authority. Section 5 of ordinance No. 92-252 shall be amended as follows: Section 5. The Director shall be in direct charge of the Department and shall be responsible for all aspects of Department operations and police services delivery. The Director shall perform such duties as required by, and be directly accountable to, the City Manager. Section 9. Severability. 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. Section 10. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this ,1998. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, RONALD L. GINTZ ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ...~~.!~.Ç..P.A.~;....} ~!.Y...~).! ...~.~.~.~...................... ............ .... ........_..rr~.M.~ ~ÇÇ) ..........................".... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM ...~P!!~.ç.!.~................~~ !!Q~r.!.~p.~~! ..¥.~.~..~~.~Q~~!~ ~.~.......................... ..... ..................,...... ......... ..................,.......... ..... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI X RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PRO C LAMA TION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ..........................................,.............................................",.....""""""""""""""""".""""""""""""""""""""""""""..............................................,............. . ATTACHMENTS: June 30, 1998, memo from Greg Moore to Land Use/Transportation Committee. The memo bas four attached Exhibits A, B, C, & D. .......................... ...... ....................... ............. ..... ................................. ............ ............... ............ ............................... ..... ................. ..... ............. ............................ SUMMARY /BACKGROUND: This is the annual update of the school impact fees based upon the revised school district capital facilities plan. The single family dwelling unit fee is proposed to increase by $510 to $2882. This increase is primarily due to an increase in student generating factors, and, to a lesser extent, school site acquisition costs. The multifamily dwelling unit fee is proposed to decrease by $184 down to $874. This decrease is primarily due to a decrease in student generating factors. These revised fees went to the Land Use/Transponation Committee on July 6, 1998. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................""" """"""""""""""""""""" CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting of July 6, 1998, the Land Use/Transportation Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval to the full City Council ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. .. .Ç..' !X. .J\M..~.~g~ .~.QMME..@'A:r.! Q N :......1Jtto. ~:!...~:r.~...~~.~~...~.~..~]~~.,.... .. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: ~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED - T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF II{ . ~ .~ :~ --"" (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Date: June 30, 1998 To: Land UseJTransportation Committee (LUTC) Greg Moore, Director ~1 Department of Community Development From: Subject: School Impact Fees Request of Land Use and Transportation Committee: Recommendation to City Council recommending approval of draft resolution adopting School Impact Fee Schedule for 1998-1999 (see Exhibit A). Background: Ordinance On November 21, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance 95-249 authorizing the collection of school impact fees on residential development. This ordinance was adopted under the authority of Chapter 82.02 Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Section 14.217 of the ordinances authorizes the City Manager to enter an interlocal agreement with the school district to implement the ordinance. Responsibilities of the school district and city are noted below in Sections 14-218 and 14-219. Sec. 14-218. Submission of District Capital Facilities Plan and Data. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials to the City: A. The annual update of the District's Capital Facilities Plan, including an updated fee calculation and a revised fee schedule. B. An annual report on the School Impact Fee Account, showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. (See Exhibit B) Sec. 14-219. Review. The fee schedule in the District's Capital Facilities Plan shall be reviewed and updated by by the Council on an annual basis after the Council receives the District's Capital Facilities Plan and report required under Sec. 14-218. The review may occur in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the City's comprehensive plan. Interlocsl Agreement: In May 1996, the City Council authorized and the City Manager executed an Interlocal Agreement for the Collection, Distribution, and Expenditure of School Impact Fees. Impact Fces: Exišting and proposed impact fees are noted below. Attached as Exhibit C is sample impact fees from around King County as provided from the school district. Single Family Multi-Family 1996 1997 1998 (proposed) Difference 98-97 $1,707 $2,372 $2,882 $ 510 $1,423 $1,058 $ 874 $- 184 " Primary difference this year for single-family school impact fee going up is an increase in student generating factor and, to a lesser extent, school site acquisition costs. Primary difference for multi-family school impact fee going down is a reduction in student generating factor. Capital Facilities Plan: Attached as Exhibit D is the 1997-98 Capital Facilities Plan of the school district. Representatives ITom the sc.hool district will be available to identify changes in the revised capital facilities plan, explain the need for revisions to the fee schedule and to answer questions from the committee. List of Exhibits: A. Draft Resolution for School Impact Fees B. Annual Report/School Impact Fee Account C. Comparison/School Impact Fees D. 1997-98 School District Capital Facilities Plan GM:de\\I\memos\landuse , RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR 1998-99 WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act of 1990 and 1991, RCW 36.70A e.t gq. and RCW 82.02 ~ gq. (the "Act"), which authorizes the collection of impact fees on development activity to provide public school facilities to serve new development; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that impact fees may only be collected for public facilities which are addressed by a capital facilities element of a comprehensive land use plan; and WHEREAS, the District has prepared a capital facilities plan in compliance with the Act which has been adopted by the City of Federal Way as a sub-element of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 95-248; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way has adopted Ordinance No. 95-249, as amended by Ordinance No. 97-293, for the assessment and collection of school impact fees upon certain new residential developments on behalf of the District; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Nos. 95-249 and 97-293 authorize the City Council to adopt an impact fee schedule based upon the school impact fee calculation formula and other information provided by the District; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 97-239 amended Resolution No. 95-222 to include the school impact fee schedule previously adopted by the City Council; and RES # ,PAGEl E"X", H, ,Jr'~-1n, ,-' I -, - ~.~~ C, lO8r. --L- ~ Î - -- --___HH -- __,H H ---- - _H' ---.- - WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed fee schedule and other information submitted by the District, and made appropriate adjustments to the fee schedule previously adopted in Resolution No. 97-246; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Impact Fee Schedule Adoption. The fee schedule setting forth the calculation and amounts of school impact fees to be collected pursuant to Chapter 14, Article VI, Section 14-213 of the Federal Way City Code shall be and hereby is adopted. A copy of the fee schedule is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. Amendment of Ci(y of Federal Way Schedule of Fees and Charges. Section Twenty of Resolution No. 95-222, as amended by Resolution No. 97-239, shall be further amended as follows: SECTION TWENTY. IMPACT MITIGATION. Type of Fee Amount School Impact Fee * * As adopted by the Federal Way City Council in Resolution No. 98-- and authorized by City Ordinance Nos. 95-249 and 97-293 (a copy of the impact fee schedule is available in the City Clerk's Office or the City's Department of Community Development). Section 4. Severabili(y. 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. , PAGE 2 EXHIBIT ¡,j PAGE ~ OF ~ RES # Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective ten (10) days from the date of its passage. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of , 1998. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MA YOR, RON GINTZ. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. K:\RESO\SCHIMFEE.97 , PAGE 3 EXHIBIT A , PAGE~OF ~ RES # I I I I I I I I I I J , I I I f I ¡ I r . , FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT .210 ~XtlI B!I A .of v:: ';:~ -fr";' CAPITAL F ~gr;E~LAN P AGE -=I- 0 F ~ ScJ:¡ool Site Acquisition Cost: Facility . Cost I Elementary IrHigh SrHigh Facility Student Factor Student Factor. Cost! MFR Cost! SFR Acrea~e Acre Capacity SFR MFR 14.00 $25,000 510 0.3851 0.1078 $264 $74 - 0.00 $0 787 0.1174 0.0373 $0 SO 0.00 . SO 1,232 0.1064 0.0363 SO SO TOTAL 5264 574 School Construction Cost: % Penn Fac.! . Elementary Ir High .SrHigh . ~ Senior Hig Facility Student Factor CostJ Student Factor Costl Facility Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR 97.34% $10,500,000 510 0.3851 0.1078 $7,718 S2,16O 97.34% $0 787 0.1174 0.0373 SO SO -- 97.34% S1,833,152 100 0.1064 0.0363 S1,899 S648 h is Truman Alternative SchC?QI Grades 9-12 TOTAL $9,616 2,808 Temporary Facility Cost: . % Temp Fac. T tatS F Elementary Ir High Sr High , Facility Cost Student Factor Student Factor Costl MFR CostJ SFR Facility S' 0 >q t lIe SFR MFR. 2.66% $62,368 25 0.3851 0.1078 $26 $7 ."-- 2.66% S62,368 25 0.1174 0.0373 $8 $2 -- 2.66% $62,368 25 0.1064 0.0363 $7 $2 TOTAL 540 512 State Matching Credit Calculation: Boeck Cost! Sq. FL S Ft Stud Elementary IrHigh Sr High State M h Student Factor SFR Student - Factor MFR CostJ SFR Cost! MFR )q ent atc $97.23 80 59.89% 0.3851 0.1078 $1,794 $502 $97.23 0 59.89% 0.1174 0.0373 $0 SO $97.23 120 59.89% 0.1064 0.0363 S743 $254 Total 52,537 5756 Tax Payment Credit Calculation Average Assessed Value (April 98) Capital Bond Interest Rate (April 98) Net Present Value of Average Dwelling' Years Amortized Property Tax Levy Rate Present Value of Revenue Stream IMPCrFE 1998 SIZ2I9I t:O4 AM SFR MFR S143,979 S34,641 5.19% 5.19% S1,1O1,581 S265,038 10. 10 $1.47 $1.47 51,619 5390 Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost Permanent Facility Cost Temporary Facility Cost State Match Credit Tax Payment Credit Sub-Total Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences S264 $74 $9,616 $2,808 $40 $12 ($2,537) ($756) (SI,619)' ($390) $5,764 S1,749 $2,882 $874 $2,882 $874 ~ III-IS 50% Local Share ~Impact Fee Year 1996 1997 May-98 Summary of Impact Fees City of Federal Way Collected Net Interest Earned Expended $145,095.001 $1.958.681 $67,322.15 EXHIBIT /3 PAGE_~~I OF I Balance Comments $79.731.53ILocker Bay Removal- Thomas Jefferson and Totem $307,156.00 $11,076.64 $71,471.47 $326,492.70 I Locker Bay Removal - Thomas Jefferson, Lakota & Totem Saghalie Junior High $61,672.50 $8,769.25 $0.00 $396,934.45 FEDERAL WA Y SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEES - CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES - 1997 Invoice expenditure Date Warrant ., Project Vendor Type Amount 10/11/96 11294 Saghalle Jr. HIgh lP& H Construction General Contractor 3,524.20 10/11/96 17298 Saghalie Jr. HIgh lP& H Construction General Contractor 28,125.80 4/17/97 17453 Totem Jr. High Tyro Systems General Contractor 5,541.21 5/22197 17484 lakota Jr. High Jeffrey Greene & A$sOC General Architect 736.50 817/97 17534 Saghalie Jr. High City of Federal Way Inspection Fee 12,350.00 8/28197 17540 Saghalle Jr. High lP& H Construction General Contractor 599.12 8/28197 17541 Saghalle Jr. High lP& H Construction General Contractor 12,413.67 9/18/97 17574 Totem Jr. High Tyco Systems General Contractor 1,250.31 10/9/97 17606 Thomas Jefferson Sr. High MarIne View Construction GeneraJ Contractor 928.65 11/26/97 17651 Totem Jr. High Tyco Systems General Contractor 6,002.01 ~--~~ Summary city of Federal Way Impact Fees 6119138 TOTAL 71,471.47 .. --- ----- -H_- ----- ------ -m--'_-- '------.-- EXHIBIT C PAGE 1 OF ¿;2- " School Impact Fee Comparisons School District Enumclaw 96 - Plan $1,978.00 $1,299.00 97 Plan $1,360.00 $922.00 :ø.~ fi:~~P.~~# ~~~ij ~ :~:: :::::: :::::::::~: ~::::: ~$;~~~:øQ.::::::::::: ~Þ~r~Q~: Single Family Multi Family Federal Way 96 Plan $2,594.00 $1,462.00 97 Plan $2,372.00 $1,058.00 '9' 's"n'...O" "~"""ä' "þ'¡"":"""""""""""""""$'2' 'S'8' '2' '0'0' """""""-"$8' '7"Ä"O' '0'" :,,::~::þ"!'.~',,:,.,!1.I~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,,'--;"":;",::::::::::::::::,,,-:,!!~.,,: Fife 96 Plan $2,134.00 $1,249.00 97 Plan $2,123.00 $1,270.00 : øJ ft}Qp'~~ :~j~ri:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :$~;~Q:(J,;Ø9::::::::::: ~~ ~~~W: Highline 96 Plan $2,572.00 $1,534.00 97 Plan $2,560.00 $1,109.00 ~ ~~: f:t.~~p~~ :~~~: ~:~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~ :~~~#.~ø~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~$~~:9~ ~ Issaquah 96 Plan $2,593.00 $1,112.00 97 Plan $2,797.00 $609.00 ~ $~: ~r~p~~4 :~~~6: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ :~~~~~~9: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~1 ~#.~~~ ~ Kent 96 Plan $3,640.00 $1,733.00 97 Plan $3,513.00 $1,721.00 ~ ~~: ~rpP~~ :~~~~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ :~~t~~Q9: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~1 ~ø:s.:~~~ ~ Lake Washington 96 Plan $2,917.00 $370.00 97 Plan $3,178.00 $166.00 : ~ø: ~r~p~~~~ :P.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~ r~~~Q.ø::::::::::::::: :$f~Q:.9Q.: Northshore 96 Plan $2,424.00 $1,398.00 97 Plan $2,240.00 $1,028.00 : ~~: Br.~p~~~~ :p)~p:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: n$~)~q::::::::::::::: :$~t;qQ.: Riverview 96 Plan $1,780.00 $583.00 97 Plan $473.00 $111.00 : ~~: þ:r.QP'Q~~~ :~)~p:: ~: ~: ~: ~::::::::::: ~: ~::: ~: ~~~~ø:~9~:::::: ~: ~: ~:::: :~~~ :~~9: Impact Fee Comparison 6/22/98 EXHIBIT- C. PAGE ~ OF ~ School Impact Fee Comparisons School District Snoqalmie Valley 96 Plan $3,295.00 $1,243.00 97 Plan. $3,018.00 $918.00 : ø.~~~QP'~~# ~~)~~ ::~:~::::: ~:~:::::~::::::::: ~:~~ØQ~: ~:::::::::~: ~:$~~~: Single Family Multi Family Tahoma 96 Plan $2,401.00 $1,008.00 97 Plan $2,765.00 $1,077.00 :$~: ~~è;»Þ.*~~~:1:'.1~ij:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~iM:r;øQ::: ::::::::: ::::$$~~ ~:Qø: 96 Average $2.575.00 $1.175.00 97 Average $2,400.00 $1,304.00 : ~~: f'.~9P.~# :A~å.g~::::::::::::::::::: ø:;~~;Ø9:::: ::::::: $.1 ~~~~:()p: Impact Fee Comparison 6/22/98 J -I I J - ¡ J I FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION Linda Hendrickson Holly Isaman Joel Marks Ann Murphy Jim Storvick SUPERINTENDENT ¡;J J } .-1 .1 1 J J J . .J J Thomas J. Vander Ark DEVELOPED BY Jody Putman, Director, Business Services Geri Walker, MIS Specialist ,," EXHIBIT Þ PAGEL-OF ~~ j l ---j ì 1 SECTION I I - 1 J } 1 SECTION II J I ] J I J ] ! J J SECTION ill SECTION IV FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................ INTRODUCTION.................................................. THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction........................................................,.... Inventory of Educational Facilities............................. Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities.................... Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities.......................... Needs Forecast - New Facilities.............................. Six Year Finance Plan.............................................. MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction. ..........................,................. ............ .... Map - Elementary Boundaries.................... Map - Junior High Boundaries.................... Map - Senior High Boundaries................... SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction........... ........... ........................... ............ Building Capacities................................................... Portable .Locations.................................................. Student .Forecast.................................................... Capacity Summaries...... ....... ............. .......,........ ....... King County Impact Fee Calculations....................... SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1996/97 PLAN EXHIBIT D PAGE~ OF3S Il-lV I-I 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 ll-1 ll-2 ll-3 ll-4 ill-I ill-2 i11-4 ill-6 i11-8 ill-13 IV-I INTRODUCTION 1 -1 j ¡ ~l ~.1 In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A. City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, and the City of Kent Ordinance No. 3260 effective March 1996, the Federal Way School District has updated its 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan as of April 1998. .' This Plan has been adopted by King County, the City of Kent and the City of Federal Way and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Auburn and City of Des Moines have not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. } The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growt~ can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area. which encompasses the Federal Way School District boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. ::J J J J J I .] J i 1 J This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction., which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies. Additional plans will be consistent with the six year Capital Facilities Plan. At this time, the Federal Way School District is evaluating the need for and possible timing of future bonds. ii EXHIBIT D PAGE~OF .35 ¡ 1 -1 ¡ ¡ INTRODUCTION (continued) In October of 1997 the District convened a Study and Survey Committee. The. Committee is made up of patrons, parents, professional consultants, school staff and central administration staff. The charge of the Committee is divided into four focus areas on a , continuum, which will lead to recommendation to the Board of Education. The four focus committees are: . 1. Educational Plan Committee 2. Special Education Committee 3. Classroom Standards and Facility Use Committee 4. Future Alternative Committee ] J ;~,l The Educational Plan Committee prepared an Educational and Technology Plan including infonnation on: District Beliefs, the District Strategic Plan, Technology Plan, State Goals, Perfonnance Standards, Curriculum Matrix and Promotion. This committee developed a recommendation on grade configuration as it relates to District goals. The committee is recommending a change in the Federal Way School District grade configuration to: K-5 6-8 9 - 12 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools .J Educational capacity is not a focus for this group. The recommendations are based on meeting the educational needs of students to support the District vision that "Every student will possess a world class set of skills to become a successful participant in society." The recommendations from this group were sent to the Future Alternatives Committee for further review. . J J J 1 J J ¡ The Special Education Committee developed a series of recommendations for facility use as it relates to Special Education. The recommendations are based on consideration of student needs rather than on space for other programs. The committee recommends a commitment of dedicated space to support services staff for testing and therapy services, adequate and secure storage for therapy equipment and available office area for confidential caIls and conferences. The support staff includes Speech and Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Adaptive Physical Educational Specialist. The committee further recommends an increased capacity be dedicated to ECEAP and Head Start programs to offer services to students and families with full day programs. The need for three additional classes and one portable over the next five years is forecast for these students. AdditionaIly the committee forecasts a need for one or more classrooms dedicated to pre-school in the next five years. III 1 J EXH!fa~T 1) PAG ¡¿LOF 35 ¡ 1 } I i Introduction (continued) . Other committee recommendations are to add one more class of Integrated Kindergarten and First Grade over the next five years, add one more SBD (Severe Behavioral Disordered) within five years and finally that space is provided for the services the school has selected to provide for the Special Education population such as Resource Rooms. The Future Alternatives Committee will consider these recommendations. The facility recommendations of this committee and forecast of increased need are footnoted in the fonnula for future capacity needs in the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan. ECEAP, Head Start and Pre-School are not a part of the district student population forecast, although the district does provide facilities and services to these programs. I J :~l J -J .J J I J J 1 1 J The Classroom Standards and Facility Use Committee is tasked to examine all facilities to determine the ability to meet the educational programs of the Federal Way School District for the next ten years. A part of the process is to develop a target population for each building. The committee is establishing a capacity at each building that meets the educational needs of current programs. The committee studied projections for five years to identify where capacity would not be sufficient for projected enrollment. The capacities established by this committee fonn the basis of the capacity analysis in the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan. Additionally the committee studied community use of the Federal Way Schools and reviewed the fonnat for Building Condition Evaluations. The final committee, which will fonnulate the Board Recommendations, is the Future Alternatives Committee. This committee is studying the reports ftom the other three groups to ascertain how the recommendations will meet the District Strategic Plan and Grade Span expectations. The committee will consider the impact of school calendar, schedules, class size, technology, the impact of special education and day care. They will also examine the impact of Choice Schools, extended day and extended year conce;>ts, Running Start and transportation issues. The outcome of this study will be a recommendation to develop a District alternative configuration plan. The committee expects to bring a recommendation to the Board of Education in September of 1998. The Federal Way School District Board of Education will review the recommendations of the Future Alternative Committee. If the Board adopts a new configuration, the capacity analysis of the Capital Facilities Plan will be updated. On January 13, 1997 the Board of Education adopted a ten-year Real Estate Plan. This plan deals with long-tenn use of current land and the acquisition of additional land to meet student population projections in the 20-year planning window. The plan recommends surplusing land that is not deemed suitable for school construction for any reason, and the purchase of one additional elementary site. The District is currently reviewing options for the purchase of this additional site. iv ~~~B~ O~ 35 j ¡ ¡ I J - I -J I ';'J J J SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of infonnation.be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for the FederaJ Way School District #210. This is followed by a Financial Plan which shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and update modernization needs listed. OJ J I I - J I J EXHIß~T .D PAG ~_~(~F ~5 1-1 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Adelaide 1635 SW 304th Street Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th Street Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th Street Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th Street Federal Way 98023 ! Lakeland 35675 32nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Road Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 30Oth Street Auburn 98001 ! Mirror Lake 625 S 314th Street Federal Way 98003 Nautilus 1000 S 289th Street Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327th Street Federal Way 98023 '] Panther Lake 34424 Ist Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th Street Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 J Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Place Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270th Street Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Avenue S Kent 98032 -1 ~':,o Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 J Wildwood 2405 S 300th Street Federal Way 98003 Woodmont 26454 16th Avenue S. Des Moines 98198 I JUNIOR ffiGH SCHOOLS Illahee 36001 1st Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 ] Lakota 1415 SW 314th Street Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Road Federal Way 98003 Saghalie 33914 19th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 J Totem 26630 40th Avenue S Kent 98032 . SENIOR ffiGH SCHOOLS ] Decatur 2800 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th Street Auburn 98001 J ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS Merit School 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 J Harry S. Truman High School 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 J D ...1 EXHIS~T I-2 PAGË Î CJF,6 J ¡ i ¡ 1 ] ;;;} r Site # I 9 23 35 40 63 71 72 84 96 1 ) j J I J J I j J CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FAC~ITIES DeveJooed Prooertv Administrative Building MOT Site Central Kitchen Federal Way Memorial Field 31405 18th Avenue S 1066 S 320th Street 1344 S 308th Street 1300 S 308th Street Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 98003 98003 98003 98003 Undeveloped Property Location 27th Avenue SW & Dash Point Road SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S E of 10th Avenue SW Between SW 334th & SW 335th Streets E of 47th Avenue SW & SW 314th Place S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S 36600 block of Pacific Highway S 3737 S 360th Street S 308th Street & 14th Avenue S Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. 1-3 EXHH;~~T .D Pi-\'GE 1 OF 3S NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACll..ITIES t I ¡ ! _1 J 1 ~ J ] J J I ] ] J J J EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Truman High School Modernization with (1) expansion Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity (1) Portables Notes: (1) Anticipated source offunds is state matching funds, Impact Fees, future bond issues or non-voted debt issues. 1-4 EXHø~~r 1) PÞ~GE. q OF 35 NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES ! ¡ } J ] 1 ~ J- J ] J J J ] J J J LOCA TION Unknown Unknown Unknown ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS N/A 2 2 Notes: (1) Construction of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation (MOT) site is dependent on sale of current MOT site. (2) Anticipated source of funds is state matching funds, Impact Fees, future bond issues or non-voted debt issues. I-5 EXHIí3;r j) P14GË1!LOF 3'5 ] "] J ~~ J J J J ] J _1 J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1997/98CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Revenue mp8Ct Feel (I) 5700,000 523,7S4 5723,7~ ..and Sale F\Inda (2) 52,225,000 $1,791,832 5788,028 $250,000 $68,191 $5,123,OSI I8Ie Match F\Inda (3) $4,950.600 $1,105,000 $811,898 $6,167,491 roT AL $7,175,600 53.596,832 51,623,610 5250,000 S61,191 SO 512,714,)03 Unsecured Funding Sources SI8Ie Matcll F\Inda (6) 54,loo,OOC lBond OC' Levy F\Inda (4) $15,OOO,OOC J.ancI Fund Sales (7) $I,OOO,OOC mpact Fees (5) 51,295,133 !rOTAL 522,095,133 NEW SCHOOLS 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Cost B lNew Elementary Site (II) $600,000 5600,OOOI ~ew Elementary School 56,300,000 54,200,000 510,500,~1 MODERNJZ.A.TION AND EXPANSION Truman SeniOC' High (Alternative) $3,233,680 52,155,787 55,389,46 TEMPORARY FA CILITŒS Portables (8) 51,122,624 5623,680 5561,312 52,307,61 Federal Way Academy (10) 5374,208 $374,208 OTHER iafety Improvements (9) $4,825,600 $4,825, acilitiea Dep8l1ment 5250,000 5250,000 5250.000 $250,000 $250,000 5250,000 51,500, echnology System Improvements Librwy System $SOO,OOO 5650,000 5650,000 51,800, echnology System Improvements MIS Project 51,600,000 5600,000 5100,000 52.300, OTAL $7,175,600 53.596,832 51,623,680 5250,000 510,344,992 Sti,6O5,787 529.596,891 NOTES: 1. These reel are eurrent\y bein¡ held in a Kina County one! a City oCFederal Way impact fee accounl,. and will be available COC' \IIC by the Diatri~ fOC' I)'S\em improvements. 2. These funds come from varioua wes orland and are set .ide fOC' estimated expenditures. 3. a-anteed atatc match reimbursements. 4. These funds, iC secured. will be \llCd COC' future projed8. S. These are projected reel baed upon known residential developments in the Dia1ri~ over the next six yean. 6. These funds are projected atatc matchin¡ funds. 7. These funds are projected land we income. I. These Ceca represent the cost of movin¡ and siting exiatin¡ portables. The Distri~ may choose to purchase new portables in the yean shown. This estimate may alao include the coat oC purchasing these portables. 9. These projects have been approved by the B~ oCDirectora and cover moat schools. These projects do not inae- capacity. 10. Federal Way Academy is a jllniOC' his/> prop'8III which win inaeae cap8CÎty at one jllnior high site. II. This lite is \8r¡er U- I 0 aaes. E}~HIr3~T D r~Ji\"¿¡"~ , II O. F 3~ IF" !,-'-o,\"----..d.i ie;;;:, -Ll_.' . / , ~ F_,. SIW98 );12 PM 1-6 .' SECTION n - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ! ¡ ! ! "J 1 a J The Federal Way School District (the District) has twenty-three elementary schools (grades K-6), six junior high schools (grades 7-9), three senior high schools (grades 10-12) and two alternative schools (grades 7-12) for the 1997/98 school year. On April 20, 1996 the Federal Way School District Board of Education adopted the boundaries for these schools. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school for each grade level (the alternative schools, Harry S. Truman High School and Merit School, serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs which affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infTastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities~ new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have pennanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. ) J J J J J 1 It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. J 11-1 EXHn~~T .j) ~Î / ('- i--- l~ = ~ r./~\I,,'"'::-=-. . .¡;-O)\F /I ~~~, '=~- '-- I-.J J ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARIES E F -- a_- G . J H , .. P\ ~if~~~~~....u~~,,;' , ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS z- nf ::' . ¡ '-":"'~:~', ~ II~: ¡,~ ¡ ¡' { : Code" . Code.. . \':'-'1 ~ ;. ,-, II ¡w.¡r.. , ' , ; ~....;.. r~ 10 Adelaide C-6 I ¡ ~ ~ ~"~' rfj , :: ~-;J ~... ~: ,,-- 04 :: ::~ ~ , \¡,,~~.~, .~;: li-,"'~' V, 28 Camel~ G-ð 62 Lakota D-6 :~= ;;""'1" .¡liB~,~ :. ~;<,""" 22 Enterpnse 0-9 61 SscaJs_a E.5 ":::: ',:.:'. ,~""'-,I: .-'<¡il .'; 'I ' ' : 14 Glftn Gables A.7 70 Ssghlllie C-II 0,' , ' , 30 LakeDollo" G-6 65 Totem G-3 '~--.... "~ :':'~',~'~^; :;:2, \ ¡ :- ;; ~:I::ve ~ 8 Merit F-II li:'ó~r] ~'""'i¡Ji ;¡Ï1Î¡" ];! ::,;' i¡¡~ ~ . 2 Mark Twain F-4 ~ , '~..11 ; Ii ~i 29 MeredlthHiII H-ð SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 3 ! -::.; .. _I' !I v." ,"....'~ J ¡¡¡ 3 6 Mirror Lake 10-6 ! ":" ,:v; -~ ~... < ,..::u i 5 Nautilus E-ð Code.. . ' ,.,.' .~: -Fil ' i 15 Olympic Vi- C.7 ~. .11 : F ' " : 21 Panthe, Lake 10-11 80 DecJtur C-6 1/ ,_. ~ ¡ - r ~ ~.:~ . ,,-" ~ : 37 RalnlerView F.10 81 Federal Way E-ð C'J'J?'" ¡ ¡I,::~ ,;'. ~ ð 41 Sherwood Forest D-6 83 ThomasJefferaon G-4 ~-.- ~,.1ß"'~ ....":¡¡.' " ' .llJi.,!" ~ ~- 24 Silver Lake 0-7 8 Hany S, TNman - F-6 I OUCH ,," t:' . ,; - I;' ,:.,iI:-~' § 26 Star Lake G-3 8 Merit ' F-6 / . '...' (.-;- ,~r;;:>'....~"" , -- 25 Sunnycrest G-2 ", "- ".'j.' . ' ':n>"'; " j;"';~" ~ 13 Twin Lakes B-6 oJ .~ r>:.:.~ , . '~.., . -»';1, ,'.~.II'II '! ¡ -::: j: 27 V~lhlllla G-4 Future School Sites - œ ~'!.~ ,:"t,~ ~'¡-:.. , ,~". ,'.,' : .. 7 WIldwood F-ð Surplus Sites - 1),; ".. ., ... i,1 i 1".:'" ' 1 Woodmont F-3 ~, -V , :¡;;~ ,¡ ¡ ¡ ;1 ~ ¡ J 100 Educational Service Center F-6 " .',..... '.-i;;.,', ,:,:;;'. ~286 ' 99 Future Support Services E-II = Code--. ~~' ~j,. , 'I."'¡" '..., ~. ..', , ; , ;1 ~ Ií~,.. II ':r~ :';11 97 Malntenance-Operations.Transportation 10-6 ~ ' .:~ , :';"!,'1i; , . ¡' '.', ~ ~ \1 Parks- no<! " ,..,.. \' , :'" '. ;r.¡' 'aÜ)¡ "':'~' ; ",,'-t.."i~C .~C-' "'a ¡;¡ ~... 'I ~J.... ., Ii'"'-':, ..': ,'?¡'::a., j ,... - nYJ . ~ . - 'c, or: \1: 5', FiDER~LWAY,JvAsHINGT~NllndVl~/N/~jl-\~~;!7~~~ -::7 ~~ ~Oj;:','~~~-', \:~~,~. ,~_,~ rjl ¡ l.ouN. 1~~=1j ,; "~1'~-~.'!~ l ~ ¿'~" ~~ '-~¡~ ,..' ,-.. ,: .-. ~Î~- - -Ii- ,.1'" -- ~1,L;,~"'~f1L"'9:~-.:~~'~'~~ r;l1i.~_¡I~~;\' ;;',,' -¡.>' ~'~J-' ! ~_...... \..!Ù!t:>:'1II1;~I,:J~'~ ~ rID~" X~~':~'~':;; '~~",' "'¡'/~'iM;¡';'-=-, ~ :"~'-')' J' : ' ~ .~-'::1=Mt"'~'¥-;"~~¡i~Yb:'" ,~.'::~.: "'¡w'~~€: ':(~;'_', ;;F,"n =...- 6 ~,/:.f ~;~,¡~ W~~ ~,l :, W. ~.' "'!S"l!JM,,:I; iI~ ,J,,~ ¡ , 'i ..... ,,:"" ~;,~~~..ì~,~ =- ~':-"',-&," 'I':~,"~~"'" ">':'J."~:':~:~¡ZJ.:.:, ,"'! '~,:::~~l;J "'~'~,-,!;;>"'- ~',Æ1~\~H~' ,¡pj/la . ¡~':::"r 6, ~i~="Õ";::; '.,.'~¡;' :: ~~~:;~"I~o' ~_.~:~IÁ""" '-"~\ :._.~r i. '. '~r ",'~ '" ,,<!f;{. !i?; ,: ~ ""', ..' ,-~ ,.' .. . 1f '-':~' ~\ ; ~ 6. ¡ A. ¿ .~,. :','i.,'F£'-,_., :'~".> ~.:;Jm.'1 '-:::;;-"\",; 'j'ti"'" j 7 .:'. " ", ..' . .:~ ", . ' :. '~t:. ,~. ~-';~h H~ ,'-' - ~ ' ,c.... ~ 7~ '!,." ",~r. I ,.;7:X- ,¡.....~<. ~"'1:" 1"".""', ,.. -' '::~ ::r- ,,~,,':'~.'... ~.':.:i~',';.,"'~"<'.'...Jir.L '~,""/~-"¡'" '(fi~' 'i~Y, ~, .. ~ ,," :"......,-", ".("-:{', .... i "..!{( ,... ~....... (,-," N ~: B ::'!~>j-. , I, -'I~:;)#.~<~- J; _'....'uo:.":' .~:,i... ~I¡ c! -. . ';.' ." ~ ij~." ~~ . ~.L~ "'-""...,¡.,.,......' '- I; §; w ~ E 8---""'<i; , ,~---=t;":.(~ .--=-!!I ~I~ ~i. Ai i""',""~:,<;f.J ~ _l1 ç ~;8 .., ~ . ~ ~"'~" ~.;. ~ . ;~. a :Æ~\?~~~I.::iiI '. , ~~,' Ii-: .....~, ...¡ :J~~. ~ : --".;:: ,,'."'~,;,,:.¡~ ~~ IIIPL ~~:,.I ~ ¡". i~ ' .' .. r.;¡;;-.. ........... ¡--: IT ~ .'-9.~ .' .. -.~.=:- ... '" "'1\ ,." - - " .;-,~! )"" ¡: S 350 51 ~ ou:.. .-:"" ~ r,:: ~"'.'~."'.:. 1::..........1~' ' !~ .--, -':::"::,- Iii .1 iii ¡¡ :¡ . 'J ' :t '-~'71'-~ ~ ¡ ~ ._, t -""'i'~.-~ Vi , I -=-~=:-- ~~ ~ ~~w. : ~' .' '. - '....; ',~ - ._~! ~ ..J --,... ,~~ ~~~g..,j -~. - ',' '. "."..y;¡"'" ";1 i. i! ..... u.: . . . . , . ~~:~,;. ;' ... \: .' . if .> ~._.." ;. ~ ,'.,.x1J. ~.: ~~i~ -¡ ill' : 0 .1 -_...w... ~~ I .., ,fill#' t,'-". - ' ,.,t ,:. ,...... ,.J 'JEL:I~!!7 ¡..¡lo~ '1~ ~~~~.~ ,~' ~-;;;; ,{, . 1-.. -"""I ' . ,,~" ..n~. ,#'~ '¡..~:'\~.:-:::. ;~E~ ~l 7kK' -'-' i ::'"r' ""J ¡ /0 ;:-. . .rr-- ~~ ,~ß ¡ - .: ¡ ¡! ~ ~ /1 ~ '. ..J ... M . ¡' " "'-": ~,¡. ,il ij ....._,-. & focU;,;.. ¡ . ! "" c.!::!I i i ....' r? If'.., .........--...... (253) 945-2000 . .....-, "'LTON I -- - ........- ¡ "A I~~ """...,"- /I E F G -..,..... H ....-...;---..: 11-2 J ~ ~t WLiL FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210 .J I J Junior High School Boundaries E F -- --G 'I H DtS_o..,-.-.. .-. ....... ,-~ ._loo --_. ,m'\¡}~~ii~~ ~~:n='~~~ .- I z- (if '" '~; '-':"~:~'- t' ,. ¡/...;~ ¡;' '1'-9 ,- - ,_. " ',,\ , '--- Code--. Code--. \ ¡"'iI ~~~I ~WI~t.. ò :""~:-:. ! 10 Adelaide C-6 64 111a'- E-9 I : LP., . i:T.. ~.-' ' , ~ é ': ò :, '. -~' 16 Brigadoon ~ 66 Kilo G-6 2 \-¡~~II.r:tT ,-- . ~" - ~ - .__.{, ,~,..-.::: '2 28 C.melo~ G-5 62 Lakota D-6 ~~ ~ ~ ) Jïj;ri:r., -. -','~ I ,- "..e 22 Enl8rpnse 0.9 61 Sacajawea E.5 "i'::: ~',~;.;),;' ~. -"""-"'1. ¡ ; . - - ~ : 14 Green Gables A.7 70 Saghalie C-6 ....... ' , ", - - 'OM"' ~ -- ^' ò; " : 65 Totem G-3 11 Lake Grove D-6 8 Merit F-6 "~':"" ::--, -~ -'îi.; -- - , .:. ." . S258S1 33 Lakeland F-9 I-I' ~-J. "" :;:E;ò :ò' ..:'; ""d 2 Marti Twain F.c ~ ~ ~ . ;' -. ¿~~; , >'.' ~,-, 't ¡Ii 29 Meredith Hill H-5 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 3 ; 6:!' - 'ut I ..,. r.n..~" u~. "'. ~ j !i; 3 :; §; ~1 :-~, ..i~~'i:j'.' :.-~;; 37 RainierView F-10 81 Federal Way E-5 I.,..,J, J ?' 'I ¡ ,1 .. ~jij:E 1-\'\.- ~ ... 41 Sherwood Forest D-8 83 ThomasJefferaon G.c f---'-w- ~ ~L!nI ' ~., 5272'Îi ."'1 '. ,V.~bf L \'I¡ - 24 Silver Lake D.7 8 Harry S. Truman F-6 I "'CH "~7J . r1~" il. - -'.., - .u:.?~m~..~ 26 Staruke G.3 8 Merit F-6 '~. ....... ;¡ . r'~',(.",-:£: .".,,~'...\""'" \ '. - 25 Sunnycrest G-2, i.,~ ~ '::) ( , ',:'-n....".it" ; ,'~' ...;... 13 Twin Lakes 8-6 i$ 4 . ..~ ~ .. -;1 "'~II!II 'ò <~ ' 2~ ~:~~ ~:: ~=~~::'Sites= ' -A, ;~~"f .,::-' .~. 4 >¡E-'íI- 'i"~::' ): 4 1 Woodmont F-3 ,':::'." ':;ë:~ -, I~ -i=jH( .=> ¡ , ..... :;4¡.p.~ '*.= ' *-, ~ ':: ;=,':::~::"' ;~ = C"'--'....--:: .,;:i:ì~' . ':! ¡;;;. .;..: : ,'1 : -, êi ;. ,,¡ '~~::.j I Parks - ~ ~~:; ~' '" ~'~ ~.~ ¡! u.. *:' ...~... t I~' I\}-~ t~ 5.' FiDER~L WAY, JASHINGT~N IInd VlJrTJNIT C"jt' ) W~"~~~.~';) ~~ ,..~i.~ ~¡j.,-.r~,.~~~ ..~;. . .'..~ff'.'¡[iji'É~' VJI . I NO ,..~~..: ~'iw~~f~:'t~ : .,;~" .'!L "':.~.~ mi,., , .~.,~" ';:.':'H~ ~ '- - - "j¡;~"" ~.'..: ~.-.A..:J~~~ '~:<.'I.:~'..:."'I. ~~!'- ~ ';I;r,.:~':~~r' . ~;..~:. ~:3'~', ~ ~~.. kit!. f'J~-"i :, - "', .., -;',z..§~:::!t: "ï. ~~~~~' "", '~;--i:i""~'-'. ,.-*,' :::::., ,'t~.~'-i\~;~'~~~~, .~.. .18.,. Fj;"-. It! L~~".;:':: :,"¡..J,.,,¡ ~"'ìiJi;iÊ:~: . ¡'-',i;. .ø'f.. 1:,..- 6 .",..... '~,"':" , "~'-, ; =n. ' '" .~,~~"!fi;'. ...; " " "'" .'~.< "~ I-=- - sJ ' .~~~ ~. .:.:~) !' ..:- -. - : ~~~ "'.~lli1' ; .Bl~ ¡ ".:"" ~ '111'~ . .~- ,;."~~'>"íi~..~~_~':_"~"~~.;;'\.'.':"',--'::,:'J_~";k.."'~.~~,?~)'r'.:': "," '::'-'~~~¡":H~::.t. " "..' ~~"¡;'=1.~" 6, - ",oT,iS =-...." ,~" ~" .. . -, Iswl¡!';ro~';';,r- :~; ,-~. :-.:: !-;;JTA "20SI \~I ~ i "?lmrmi ;€~: ' ,..." ~ I ,,- , . " ..._~ . ò., '~'-~';'~~' " .,:'.. :.:,2'?[i{7.-..q~¡t'!. '~~; ~~"',..,".:'" .. ...:~-~ .'-: .~\ ¡Wt. ! ...; A, -¡ .. ." '.~ ~;I:..iI~,' .'- l~.:m'" ""',,. . '-:.~¡n ¡ ....' .rr\1 " 'M;' s .. ~. '~,;.:~.".~,;r;" -,.., ,"'.,":'~D"-'-!~ ""F-\.' !! f 7 "c.. . ',.., - ", ,. ---;....,,1 _.. ~ ,-, ."mi"" "-.! n'-'- o.-¡-"":'-:J¡r ,'"".". 1.. . - ~--~ -~r7t~~.;~ '~~ ';-:" ~;")ï~!" ,~~~~~~:~. )~:~:~ .:~ ~.;-. '-. ¡:.1~(' '_YIÍ!~t:~. /; j ~:~; 'T ~ . . ,.,"u>-. 5'l~~'. ¡ ~_.~ '" I N . B ,'; ~~'" "'.' .,.:~, i~,~ .~ ¡'-~';"""<,,;i. ,~¡¡ i W+E 8' .""".~;~L ¿~'~~~;~"'m t'~ ~ ¡i/) :/!~..oou., '~:"~;øo_~",,~,~~<~lu)\ ~8 I-I ~ ~ 1/;,;!:- ""'-I' ~. ',' ~I ~ or' / '4~" I, Æ'r.' %~::,;"~I-"~;-~ .. V) , d ....~ ' ~ I~~- ~I"""'.I '.:: '\ ... ._J. t/,; . . ,--.. t M. I 1=\;.,' ,~: " ~~ i'lli~' ~ : : ~" '~;fii '. ,/,!j1;.: J=::J ,-.JF~ffi" , -. J .tIt ouon~-- h"~~i;i~ ".~ :"¡~j,. .1.1 qt~: S35OSt It ;!IIL ,-:JfJ.~~lJ¡~,'.,;.,.:I,:,.,. I~ ~f:..n~L~ i~ J _~1~~ r;';~I: ¡~~~';~W:S:.iT~'!riS~i:~l~A ~' ~lI" :1""'=""""""'""?"""",.,,. .".,..r " Åif-::_~: ~~h LL --,... ,,\,;.,. ! n "F!;.. :IJ).w:" - .$titO:¡ ......J~ -<:..i rl ~ 0 , . :""':...:. . . '~;~~-:,2'11J.~j~j¡;j'y--i!,~~~,û: '-" k' ¡. '\7-76 .. ,,° ,,'~.,.. --' '..... '.......~. ... ,.~ C¡;:;~ 1/0 ~ jI~ .~'..JJ::. J.k £ ~.IO=, ¡,"1". . .. ~ Federal Way Public Schools I;jf-. ,:..;: ¡, ~ .;,¡ß ~; I:!¡;¡' , ¡ ~;~ =::.:n:.:::..:::: (253) 945-2000 L__." I '~-ai;¡y.:s , ,~l"'¡..::::.. ~ JJJ n-. """'.",W4""" 11 E F G -'T" --. H - ":EDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS - 11-3 Senior High School Boundaries E F -- -_G'.l H ,U\;jR~~~~i\ í~~.m:~.¡.:u1, z- [if :7:' ~ 0," ¡~ ,~. ':. " >~ t~ .< : ':4¡~~1~ ~æ~' ~:, ~~p~~' . ¡ ",':~~~';':-; ~!:., '~ 10 Adelaide C~ 64 1l1a'- E-9 ; .'.,' :.;:æ¡::¡ J,;': . : ": 16 Brlgacloon B-1 16 Kilo ~ ] . ! õ>~ - -' ~~. ¡.. - -.' ,~~b ' ] 28 Camelot G-5 82 Lakota D-6 I~~ :~~. .~.:~(~ -]~.", '~~ I . '. ,,-1 22 Enterprise 0-9 81 Sacaja_a E-5 :-= ",...' , ;uø\:~il, . " ' ' 14 Green Gables A-7 70 Saghalie C~ . , .' ., ~,,' ; " : ' : ~~ :::~:~:: ~ 8: ~~m ~1 I~ ~::: ~:~}~~~: ~n,~ ; ~: . ¿jJ. J :- 33 Lakaland F-9 ~ ~ :'~~1. HMf ' , ;~\:¡ ¡ ¡ .! :::'; ~:I ' 2 Mark Twain F'" t...: ::- ui.: ' :- ~'_.t :~.. ".' ~ 'J¡ ~.'¡! 29 Meredith Hili H-5 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 3 i :' aUt, -;-;.:,. I~ Q~ ,""'" "":': - j ,\Š 3 8 Mirror Lake E~ '"':" '1:1]<. ~ JL.'" ~ II:' f 1: =~~VIew ~~ Code--. i~:;' Ki . -~~,'" :-,' ',' ø~: 21 Panther Lake E.- 80 Dec;,tur C~ . ,'/t' '--~Sj~' ~ . ,1-::- :Æ: 37 RainierView F-10 81 FederalWay E.5 ~'.( ¡1 r " .~) j~~~; jj": 't,: ..- 41 Sherwood Forest D-6 83 ThomasJelferson G'" >--1--..- !LH1.,.., """~ :::; """ \"'1- - ~: ~:ir::t ~~ : =:S,Truman ~~ Ii ...CH .,< _:~ t.~ " -: : :,ti:~~:~~S ...L, ~~ ~:,i~~kes ~ Future School Sites- m 4 :. ''It,¡U ~~~>"~~11¡1Œ9:i;:-m":~II!IJI,.r~ :L: w.~ J: A -' ,..¡f..: ," ,.,., ,..- , 7 WildwOOd F-5 Surplus Sites - I I!.' ..' .., ... ¡¡ ¡ '.' ' 1 Woodmont F-3 :.:.. . -tJ , ~~. j' : . ="' ¡ 100 Educational Service Center F-6 I . "i..>~ -Dfwr..-. ¡'¡I-i:. " , . . :-,;;';,; 286 : 99 Future Support Services E.- = Code-- . I ":;.>djf,," ËI-HII .";.. ~.". ; .. "" ' . ' ;1 t. ,~I .~ ¡:.;] 97 Maintenanc:~perations-Transport8lion E~ oae-- - ~~ '~III,.1!få,\" '; ;;:?~ t!!!,. ¡-jr:>-\~:-:-.. .; Ii\~ ~'f :!I (~ Parks- ~ ~ ;~";'~"'~ .~._.~-" iTIO. "'~' ~p_.~' Þ,..if"1I~' ' \;.s , sFioER~L WAY, ~1'ASHINGT~NllndV/~(¿'NIT~~C~.~~;I~rB: ~-:; ~I~:-' _)_~-,r~.~..."" ~:,,':i.:l~:¡i'E;I~.Ü;#,~," fS-r I¡il ,0.,,0 ;~:1i ,;,-~~t- ., ~~~~. . "-~" ',.' '-:'~.¡.. .~, . '.~'I~'~ -'-~ - ,(T, ! ~~ :t;t~. .. _.: '!t'"'." ," .. .I,oe.' -.,.,,' . ~!¡'- ¡ , -'.,' ,. ~"-,,...!J~~,~. r:-.,_.II;1iI¡¡~E/;r¡'n :L~~:, ~c.,~ ,qJ:~\.~"R&~lt 1: "',,' ~~~~',~I~,.~t~~~~~~j,.,.T,'~~":.!"'!~,,~7.~~; ;,.wd~~~ ~.~::~ :'-~»~.f::~"""~,"._;~.... 6 .-#" ~~ ~. ,..J"""~:~Ð': ~~\ - ~ ~ '. -....~:." .' ..... ...., ':"i ....:;¡ 1'-- ~ ",~,~ .~~' ~...." .Æ.i<.\~¿" ..~,.I~..,.?~ :" I ' '¡ .;:;- ~1"""e ¡¡,¡, : ,~ , - ~':~ .' .' ~, . ," -,.~ :.>i;;:"~ ':~~;'J;:IiJ~:(k¡"2)'r' ,'-: '.-;;¡'¡¡q ,l1l:I..: . ,.' ,; ,..'~:=...:;~' 6. , '0"": .-"'." ,."'~:'C\.Í ',.....!....~"'iro';.; : .~~I¡, ::.::!-:.::-,',...... ; ii.rIJ } .~J~T:_J~~:~~~~!i~~;~,': .".~ .~~, ~ " ' ~"':~,:~':~~~ ~,~,,-:. .. -:--1re ~ ,',:=~ ~-~,\~\ ¡'W\ l .., II ~ ..." "II:.Si::.~,!~. - . iõPcJll.-'; ,I' ,:... "'~,' ',.!:J;: rJ~1 r ' '~;'-; .' '. '¡-t =' ¡ 7~.~¡' ,:'_'I'~~,'~'J ~..íI::~., ",7~:'~ ";~~'." ~~~;fjih Ii ":1'-"~'\~\' ~"... ~ IT -Î- . -. "l-"[¡I~~" ..' " :.-""" "..."\.: L- '."'-/1,,'" ._~." ',:-'U,,'," -"."" ~~?~. --,;¡~~ "(íF:-" ,> ", 7 ~- "~.::~' '(/",~~ I: i"w~,~,,:'-~',: '?;:l-:¡ ,:t~- 0 'l.- "," ;"':." ":.#.",.,O',~. ~ ~:,'; ,- "," J N : ~ ,r; - ,.., .,.. ~ ;:.:;;t";:~:-ê 0/"'- IIIIIII ¡ ~ : ""-..."""~,;;" r. ',; !Ë ¡ .- ~ I~ I;~.~ ~-¡¡J.f.-~~:7;: ~ 1 . J i~. ':-:-,":':::1 ~ ',-~.Þ,' .~~~ ![ : B W ~ E B M-"> ~~ ;' ~ :~~~~~ " '~;:~ ~ ~I ~ U / Ii ./1:A~:~" ~i;~~~:J . ~5:"" ~ ',\. ¡ .J ¡ "'...:i!! . '~~.. IL_C !,..-." - . " /' +,(J ¡-.,' ~, . -.;- . -. ,- ... 1- ~ ,= r.; .' '.~¡ -~'. ¡' : ~L¡; "7 .~' fr' . .Ü'..:: .J' '. ~, n " s ~. , .'!~:"'~' -. I !,loll. =' I]; ""'- Oo! ..:' ;,..t ,/', I~ ~ .~. i- ~ , .....,..""'""',-'::- ".". ¡:.:l~ ill,' ;:~~:;..i)1~- S35ASt ~~ ":' "~~:: }.~) ~ //:.::.. ';: ::) .WJ ]' '::'~ ;;r;f\;I;I:.~!~~I:I, ~~.7. '\.~':Ii¡r ~~.";:I"...""""",.l'""",.,.,,,? ;rrn...:.- ~ LL -==,:- ,~ ~~~=~"-," ~þ~"." .,:-: ; ~~.,~ Q ..IffMW[J ...;;111m. :,:".9:19 r~. I 2).. . - ' ~ """- . t.wì~J;¡ -æ. - ;', ~ ¥ ' 0 . ;I~" :». r,"~-":'..' 0:;- ;z..~':: "";';t;\ ~_.' ~: ] . :"'u:....:.. ' ~"~-I; ~::~~11'~; I. '.Ii -"'. ,.i:1 ~ßl~~P ~,I~~ifi-f~ .-,: I-~,I --;¡; ~i .,' ..."'" . ',,'., - k2' , D i~~ l ..no ~I" .,~'~~~:::f ~ ,}~ i ";; -r:iJ¡'i:, ~L-~"WK'--'- m, ' ] , ¡ IV :--.A . 1. '-' ~ ':;¡¡¡, j' ~ ¡¡'- ~ ~. 10 ~ ~ ,~~ ' ~- ~ ,.. - ~J ~ ~ _IL r' ] ~ Federal Way Public Schools ~, .,,~-;: ¡. ~, :. [¡II °: t::=Þ- . , Plann;n.& Fa,;H,... ---- ;1 '-d--šiw,_S -". 'T"'li ¡ I .. do ~ c',r:( ? ;=:'::':;-";" {253} 945-2000 11 ""-' ."'ON I F G ...:=t=-H f' ' .!.. E ~' FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Code -- . JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Code -- . -' .. 11-4 j 1 ¡ ¡ j "J J J 'I J I ] J J J J J J J SECTION ill - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast - 1998 through 2003 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi Family Units III-l EXHIBIT .Þ PAGE /(. OF ~ ) ¡ I } J 0] J ~ ] ] ] J J J J 1 J ] Building Capacities This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard .of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. The District has identified a Building Program Capacity for each of the schools in the District. This Full Time Equivalent (FTE) capacity is based on: . the number of classrooms available in each school any special requirements at each school the contracted class load by grade level . . In general, the District's current standard provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grade K is 24 students, for grade 1-6 is 26 students, grades 7-12 is 25 students, Gate classrooms are 25 students, individual education programs classrooms are 15 students, and special education classrooms are 12 students. This size is determined based upon current ratios and trends as well as the classroom physical size. Educational Program Capacities change every year. This analysis is for the 1997/98 school year. The capacity of an individual school could and does change at any time depending on program changes which may require additional space. III-2 EX!HIßmr 1) PAGE1LOF3~ r I -1 I I ] l J 1 J '] ] J I ] ] I ..J J Portable Locations The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not efficient" use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and fÌ"om year to year. Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students until pennanent facilities can be built or boundary adjustments can be made. When pennanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either moved to another school for an interim classroom, or used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of the Federal Way School District that portables are not acceptable as pennanent facilities. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by the Federal Way School District. 111-4 EXHIBnT PAG~!~J /(L (~\~ - U ~l j) ~Ó ¡ ¡ -I ," J !~ J J ] J J ,] J J J J Capa11 FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUll..DING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY Adelaide 488 Bri2adoon 528 Camelot 374 Enterprise 516 Green Gables 502 Lake DoUoff 512 Lake Grove 476 Lakeland 488 Mark Twain 503 Meredith Hill 502 Mirror Lake 398 Nautilus 568 Olympic View 449 Panther Lake 514 Rainier View 476 Sherwood Forest 550 Silver Lake 528 Star Lake 502 Sunnycrest 462 ¡Twin Lakes 502 Valhalla 494 Wildwood 428 Woodmont 442 1998 TOTAL 11,202 'Elementary Average 487 Notes: " JUNIOR HIGH BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY Illahee 821 Kilo 854 Lakota 741 Sacajawea 828 Saghalie 768 Totem 709 1998 4,721 I 787 I ~Junior High Average SENIOR mGH BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY Decatur 1,111 Federal Way 1,308 Thomas Jefferson 1,266 1998 TOTAL 3,695 I 1,232 I ~Senior High Average ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY 194 1998 TOTAL 210 Elementary program capacities are based on the number of teaching stations in the building, contracted class size, and special use classrooms in place during the 96/97 school year. AU available instructional space is calculated. Secondary program capacities are based on peak loading. The calculation is based on 2S students per available teaching stations. Capacities were calculated by the Study and Survey Committee. 111-3 EXH!B~T j) PAG~ß-OF ?is ,I 1 1 ] .J J j J 1 J J J ] J J .J J Porta FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS - 1NnR\1CI1ON.\L 1NITII\1CI1ON.\L Adelaide 1 Bri~adoon 1 Camelot 1 Enterprise. 1 Green Gables ¡Lake Dolloff 1 Lake Grove :1 Lakeland. 1 Mark Twain. 3 Meredith Hill Mirror Lake 1 1 Nautilus Olympic View :1 Panther Lake 3 Rainier View :1 Sherwood Forest 3 Silver Lake 4 :star Lake 4 Sunnycrest Twin Lakes 2 1 Valhalla Wildwood 4 ont 1 1 TOTAL 36 4 PORTABLES LOCATED AT JUNIOR HIGHS /'ION INSTRIJCßONAL INSTRIJCßONAL IIIahee 3 Kilo 3 1 Lakota 2 Sacajawea 2 Saghalie. 4 Totem 5 TOTAL 17 3 . Additional portables are ordered, but not yet in place: Enterprise 1 Portable Lakeland 1 Portable Mark Twain 1 Portable Saghalie 2 Portables ID-5 PORTABLES LOCATED AT SENIOR HIGHS NON INnRIJCßONAL INITRIJCßONAL Decatur 4 Federal Wav 1 Thomas Jefferson Truman/Merit 7 1 TOTAL 12 1 PORTABLES LOCATED AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Science & Testin K 5-Mile Lake MOT Clothin Bank 1 1 1 1 4 BEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES (NOT DISTRICT OWNED) Mirror Lake 1 Sherwood Forest 1 Total 2 EXHIB~T .D PAGE~OF ?;5" Student Forecast ¡ 1 I ] ] J ;(~ J t 'J J ., J .' The District has several methods available to forecast the number of students it anticipates in future years. The District is using a program called Enrollment Master for base line grade level forecast and a statistical trend method for comparison. Enrollment Master is a statistical model that uses feeder school information, cohort survival, and historical student data to forecast future student enrollment. The District also continues to use the MicroSam software. The District uses these software packages to forecast for a maximum of six years. The District also prepares long range forecasting using different models. These projections reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management of the State of Washington. . , -"] ~ 1 J , J III-6 EXHIB~T ..-Þ PAG~ßLCF 36 ¡ ~ 1 HI ] I ~ J } ] J J J J 1 .J J Tllfcst Sl22198 1:32 AM FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPTIAL FACILITIES PLAN FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT FORECAST I ~~~ I 1998 I 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I 2003 I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K .........}!.7~~ ._!~73~ ...........!...Z.?~ ._)J.~Z~ .__....!!..~.QQ .._.......!1~~}. ...........!...~~~. ..............................-. 1 ...........!!ß.~.!. ...........!1.?~ ............~2.~t _.......!1.~!.? ............~!.~.~..~ ...........!1.~~! ...........!...~~:! "'..'."""""""""".""'" 2 ...........!!.~.!~. ..._...~.1§'2.~ ........._1,?~~ ...........!1.?2~ ........_~-~}.§. ...........~.1.~~.~ ...._.....!...~.~~ ..............................,.... 3 ...........!...:??.§. .........l~~¿§' ......_~Z.!.3.. ..........}.!.~Q.? ......_1..~!~. ...........!1.~1~ ...........!...~.~~ .................-.........",.. 4 .........},7.2~. ...._.!~_9~ ...........!!..~~.? ...........!1.?~.~ ...........!...~.!~. ...........!.1~~.~ .._.....~..&~2. .............................."... 5 ............~~.~Q ...........!,71}. ..........1...~.!Z ..._...)1.~~ ._......1!2~~. ...........!1.~~.2 ......_l...~r~. ...................,............... 6 1,600 1,631 1,714 1,818 1,859 1,743 1,830 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7 ...........!...~2:! ......_1,6~ ...........!...~.?~. ...........!J.~~~ ...........!...~§..~ ...........~.1~..9.~ ...........!...Z~~ ................................... 8 ...........1.~.~~. ...........!1§'2.2 ........._!!.~~~. ...........~.!~~.? .........}...?g ...........~.!~~.~ ...........!...2.2Q. ................................... 9 1,758 1,709 1,706 1,652 1,683 1,769 1,876 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 10 ............~~Z .._.....~.1.?~~ ...........!l?~~. .._.......!I§'~.Q ...........!...~~:? ......_.~J.??? ...........!...:?~~. """..'."""...""""..-.' 11 ...........!,4~~. ._._J.¿Q~ _._1,6.~Q ._.._~.1§.!.~ ...........!.'..~.~. 1,560 ...........!...~.~2. '.."'.'...""".'..""""'."'. ................,..- 12 1,351 1,373 1,419 1,568 1,525 1,522 1,474 ENROLLMENT - HEADCOUNT SUMMARY ~~.~p'..@Ç,L......... .........~.!!.2.~~. ........!~1.!??. ........!f..'.~.~~. ........gl.?2.! .........~.~!.~.?~. ........!~~?~.~ .........~.~!.2.~~. Ir Hi h ..._.....?..!.~:! .......2~~~.2 ....._..?!.Q.!~. ._.......~~~..?? ...........~!~.~2. ..._.....~!.~~.~ _........~...~.~:! ..........~...................... SrHigh 4,372 4,607 4,762 4,862 4,763 4,739 4,805 TOTAL (HC) 21,478 21,842 22,199 22,530 22,740 23,030 23,327 ENROLLMENT - FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) SUMMARY ~~.~p...~).......... _......~.!...Q.?'?" .........11,322 ._...~.!...~~~. ........!l!.?2.~ .......11...?2~ ........!.!1.~..~.? .......1.~.'.~.~~ Ir Hi h ...........~.~.~.~~. ...........~!.~.2 ......_.?!2.!~. ...........?l!.:?? ...........~!.~.~2. ...........~!.~~.~ ...........~!.??~. .........JL.................... SrHigh 4,372 4,607 4,762 4,862 4,763 4,739 4,805 TOTAL (FIE) 20,615 20,976 21,321 21,641 21,840 22,119 22,405 Rate of Gro\\1.h 2.88% 1.72% 1.62% 1.48% 0.91% 1.26% 1.28% llI-7 EXH~ß~T- j) PAGE ~ OF ~ Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High Schools f :J .-1 1 ;} J J J J J :.1 . J J .J J The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the district to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, junior high, and senior high levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. . 111-8 EXHftB~T -'Þ Pt~CG. E~ OF 35 J ¡ I -) ] I ] 1 ..J J ] J J OJ J J J J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY - ALL GRADES Actual .. Projected. - CAPACITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACI1Y 19,828 19,828 19,802 19,776 19,750 19,824 20,308 Add or subtract changes to capacity 3. Special Education Changes "(26).. J2()). J~6) (26)". ..:"(26).. .. 4. New Elementary 510 S. Truman High modenúzation and expansion 100 Adjusted Program Capacity 19,828 19,802 19,776 19,750 19,824 20,308 20,308 ENROLLMENT I Basic FTE Enrollment I 20,615 20,976 121,321 I 21,641 121,840 22,119 22,405 , SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1. Current Portable Capacity 1,625 1,625 2,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,625 ...."" iSö .... " """ 2. Federal Way Academy Add new portable capacity 375 250.. 225 Adjusted Portable Capacity 1,625 2,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,625 2,625 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCA TABLE CAPACITY 838 826 855 509 384 814 528 NOTES: 1. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pennanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 2. Federal Way Academy junior high program will increase capacity at one Junior High Site. 3. Add Programs - 3 ECEAP, 1 SBD (Severely Behavioral Disordered) and 1 Pre-School Program This reduces Basic Education capacity in the school years indicated. 4. New Elementary EXHR~~T .D PAG~~CF 3ó ~""¡nJlnan High School modernization and expansion 3122198 9:02 AM III-9 f J ¡ I .J .J J ~~ J J ] J ) 1 .J j J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACrrYS~Y-ELEMENTARYSCHOOLS CAPACITY BUll..DING PROGRAM CAPACITY Actual 1997 1998 - - Projected - - 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 11,202 11,202 11,202 11,176 11,150 11,124 11,608 2. Special Education Changes 3. New Elementary School """.It:!u:.:?:: :)Æij';:::~ u{26) (l6)n(26) .n{16j: ... ... ... ...SIO.~:::: Adjusted Program Capacity 11,608 11,582 11,202 11,202 11,176 11,150 11,124 ENROLLMENT I Basic FrE Enrollment ll,099 111,329 Ill,545 Ill,702 Ill,n8 , 11,847 112,046 I SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1. Current Portable Capacity 900 900 925 925 925 925 850 Add/Subtract portable capacity ..n Move to Senior High (50) 4. Add per inventory ...75 u : .::. u Move to Junior Hi~h (75) Adjusted Portable Capacity 900 925 925 925 925 850 850 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCA TABLE CAPACITY 1,003 799 556 373 271 611 386 NOTES: 1. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pennanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number oJÙY. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 2. Add Programs 3 ECEAP, 1 SBD(Severely Behavioral Disordered) and 1 Pre-School Program This reduces Basic Education capacity in the school years indicated. 3. New Elementary School 4. Portables ordered but not yet placed at Enterprise, Lakeland and Mark Twain Capsum98 Y22I98 P:02 AM EXH~r9~T D L)j-I-!,\~ ,..= ~ Fk~~~~r Ill-tO f - J J "] "] ~1 J OJ J J J ] J I J J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS A ctuaI .. Projected. - CAPACITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 I ::: c, Adjusted Program Capacity 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 ENROLLMENT I Basic FTE Enrollment I 5,144 I 5,040 I 5,014 I 5,077 I 5,299 I 5,533 I 5,554- I SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1. Current Portable Capacity 425 425 425 575 575 575 875 2. Federal Way Academy Add/Subtract portable capacity Add From Elementary Adjusted Portable Capacity '<, ':-::-: ' H."",:, 425 575 , - -H _H 'H'H 2~~~ ::::c:1~.:~::_. 575 IH875H 875 425 575 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCA TABLE CAPACITY 2 106 282 219 (3) 63 42 NOTES: 1. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other adnùnistraûve techniques which can be used to temporarily house students unûl pennanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 2. Federal Way Academy junior high program will increase capacity at one junior high site. Capsum98 5122/98 9:02 AM EX~~~~T_~.Þ r: - ,- ¡-- ~ - - * ~"-'!r\\ ~. L:.. ~ '-ò-/' L -- III-ll I ¡ . ¡ -1 J J ~ J } ] J J ] J J J J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1997/98 CAPITAL FACn..ITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Actual - - Projected - - CAPACITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 BUll..DING PROGRAM CAPACITY 3,905 3,905 3,905 3,905 3,905 3,905 4,005 Add or subtract changes in capacity due to construction or remodel 2. Truman High modernization and expansion . ...... 100 .." ". Adjusted Program Capacity 3,905 3,905 3,905 3,905 3,905 4,005 4,005 ENROLLMENT I Basic FI'E Enrollment I 4,372 I 4,607 I 4,862 I 4,763 I 4,862 I 4,739 I 4,805 ( SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1. Current Portable Capacity 300 300 725 975 975 975 975 Add new portable capacity ........ 375 250. .. .. Move from Elementary 50 ' .. .. ... .. Adjusted Portable Capacity 300 725 975 975 975 975 975 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCA TABLE CAP A CITY (167) 23 18 117 18 241 175 Noms: 1. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pennanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based upon actual population needs. 2. Truman High School modernization and expansion C8psum98 Y22J98 9:02 AM E X H ~ ¡EM"L-D PAG~a1 C~~~ 111-12 King County. the City of Federal Way. and the City of Kent Impact Fee Calcùlations Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. ¡ J I ;] J J J J J J J 1 To detennine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a fonnula was established. This fonnula can be found in King County Code 21A and was also adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The fonnula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. - STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANAL YSIS The Federal Way School District student generation factor was detennined separately for single family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single family units and multi-family units, which were constructed in the last five (5) years. -~ACTFEECALCULATION Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. Single Family Units 1$2882.1 1$874.1 ,,' Multi-Family Units Student Generation Factors - For page numbering j J 111-13 EXH~B~T -Þ P' I t~, /(-'--.. 1,-:- ~ '~,' .,~, 35 M U Ii.- ~ (-..../ ~.- ...... L-.,¡ -- L.-....J î..-J - I..-.J L-.J - ~ ~ - I ¡ --.... ~~ FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILmES PLAN STUDENT GENERATION NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR S YEARS Single Family Student Generation Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Single Family MulU-Famlly Elementary Junior High Senior High Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor (97) Southern Rose 22 0 10 2 0 0.45454545 0.09090909 0.00000000 0.54545455 97) Grouse Pointc 30 0 14 4 4 0.46666667 0.13333333 0.13333333 0.73333333 (96) Bellacarino Woods 80 0 34 10 7 0.42500000 0.12500000 0.08750000 0.63750000 (96) The Highlands 69 0 16 7 3 0.23188406 0.10144928 0.04347826 0.37681159 (95) Camelot III 21 0 10 0 1 0.47619048 0.00000000 0.04761905 0.52380952 (95) Campus Glen 95 0 23 10 12 0.24210526 0.10526316 0.12631579 0.47368421 (94) Parkwood Campus 48 0 21 10 3 0.43750000 0.20833333 0.06250000 0.70833333 (94) Alder Glen 44 0 20 6 4 0.45454545 0.13636364 0.09090909 0.68181818 (93) Campus Highlands Division 3 86 0 51 15 15 0.59302326 0.17441860 0.17441860 0.94186047 (93) Regency Woods 323 0 116 32 38 0.35913313 0.09907121 0.11764706 0.57585139 Total 818 0 315 96 87 Student Generation 0.3851< 0.1174 0.1064 "..,',< 0.6088",' ..... ..... ..... I .... ~ :1,~ m J' ¡ {;-~ " ,)( ~r i ' .;;;pn r' ,,- :::i.t,' . ! 'I ; '::Jill ~íl:,3J , :::.:81 '~ Multi-Family Student Generation County Wide Average ( Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Student Student Student Student School District Factor Factor Factor Factor Issaquah School District 0.105 0.039 0.049 0.193 Kent School District 0.235 0.080 0.062 0.371 lake Washington School District 0.051 0.020 0.014 0.085 North Shore School District 0.040 0.010 0.020 0.070 Average ..0.1078" .. 0.0373 ..,... ~ 0.0363:, "0.1813> YIELDB " .IIW9I ':UAM '. I ¡ ] ] -I ~~ J ] ] ] J ] J 1 _1 J FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1997/98 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cost: Facility Cost I Elementary ]r High SrHigh Facility Student Factor Cost! Cost! Student Factor Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR 14.00 ....._E~.!.QQQ.. 510 0.3851 0.1078 $264 $74 ......,....................... ..--..-.......-.. -""-"'-"""-." .-..........-...'." 0.00 $0 787 0.1174 0.0373 $0 $0 -......-......-.-... .-"""'-'.-. ..-..................... '--"'-'. .---....... 0.00 $0 1,232 0.1064 0.0363 $0 $0 TOTAL 5264 574 School Construction Cost: % Penn Fac.! Elementary Jr High .SrHigh . . Senior Hig Facility Co Student Factor Student Factor Cost! S Facility Cost! Total SQ Ft st Capacitv SFR MFR FR MFR 97.34% ~.!2z.~~!.2QQ.. 510 0.3851 0.1078 $7,718 $2,160 ..................."......... ...,..,.."",..,.."""", ..........,.....-.............. ...........,.................... 97.34% $0 787 0.1174 0.0373 $0 $0 ..................."......... ....-..",..-....... ............--....... .......-...-.............. ................................ 97.34% $1,833,152 100 0.1064 0.0363 $1,899 $648 h is Truman Alternative School Grades 9-12 TOTAL 59,616 2,808 Temporary Facility Cost: % Temp Fac. talSF Elementary Jr High SrHigh . Facility C Student Factor Student Factor Cost! S Cost! Facility S. To ~Q t ost lze SFR MFR FR. MFR 2.66% .........~~~.!.~§..~. 25 0.3851 0.1078 $26 $7 ....................,......... .""""..""'."."""" ...........-................... ................................ 2.66% .........~..~.~!.~~~.. 25 0.1174 0.0373 $8 $2 .......,...................... ............................ ............,...................... ............................... 2.66% 562,368 25 0.1064 0.0363 $7 $2 TOTAL $40 $12 State Matching Credit Calculation: Boeck Cost! Sq. Ft. S F S d State M h Student Factor SFR Student Factor MFR Cost! sm Cost! MFR Elementary JrHigh Sr High sq t tu ent ate $97.23 80 59.89% 0.3851 0.1078 $1,794 $502 ...-................... .................,.......... """"""-"""."".'."'" ........................",..... $97.23 0 59.89% 0.1174 0.0373 $0 SO .............................. ............................ ".."""""""""""" ...............-...."......... ........................"..... $97.23 120 59.89% 0.1064 0.0363 S743 $254 Total $2,537 $756 SFR MFR Tax Payment Credit Calculation Average Assessed Value (April 98) Capital Bond Interest Rate (April 98) Net Present Value of Average Dwelling Years Amortized Property Tax Levy Rate Present Value of Revenue Stream IMPCl'fE 1998 "22198 9:04 AM .....~.~.~~.!.~z.~...... ......~.~:!!§'1.L.... 5.19% 5.19% ...............,.............. ........".................... ...~~.~.~.Q.~.!.~~.~.... .....~~~.~!g~.~..... 10 10 ...........................". """."""."""'..""'" $1.47 $1.47 51,619 $390 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost Permanent Facility Cost Temporary Facility Cost State Match Credit Tax Payment Credit Sub-Total 50% Local Share ~Impact Fee $264 $9,616 $40 ($2,537) ($1,619) $5,764 $74 $2,808 $12 ($756) ($390) $1,749 S2,882 S874 52,882 ~ ~ . '---.. -. J~.. \:.. . l~-: .'.J ri F-)A~~~:~F 36 III-I 5 '" ¡ ¡ j J J J: 1 .~ ] J ] , J ) J ,J .J ] ] SECTION IV SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1997/98 CAPITAL FACll..ITIES PLAN The 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 1996/97 and 1997/98 Plan are listed. SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY OF NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACll..ITES Develooed Property Security/Science Kit Center sale is pending Undeveloped Property Site 98 is sold NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES Facility equity updates have been removed from the needs forecast- existing facilities. NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES A new elementary school is added to the needs forecast - new facilities. The Six Year Finance has been rolled forward to reflect 1998/2003 . \ } IV-l EX~.~~T ]) p ¡.{~.;.._~ ~ ~ c 36 SECTION m - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY Changes to capacity between the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page IV-3. PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Changes to portables between the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page IV-4. j j I ] STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 1998 through 2003. The new forecast reflects an increased rate of growth at a decreasing rate observed in the District. CAP A CITY SUMMARY The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and student forecast. The Board is considering the Federal Way Academy, a program for junior high students that would be sited at an existing junior high site in portables. This program is shown as an increase in capacity in the 1999/2000 school year. 1 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page IV-5. ) ] ] ) ] ] J J ] IV-2 EXH"~~T -Ò PAG¿~OF M I CAPACITY CHANGES FROM 1996/97 TO 1997/98 j I J J . J :-"j J I ] J J J J J J 1 The Study and Survey Commlttee did a full inventory of all educational facilities and met with building administrators to discuss program needs. Committee members developed a target capacity for each building. This capacity was calculated using baseline instructional space requirements to meet current and proposed educational plans. The capacities shown represent actual program capacities as they exist at the time of publishing. IV-3 Ex~m~~T j) Pì/\i~l=-- Q.~-'F~ M~~ ;.JJ V I - , PORTABLE CHANGES FROM 1996/97 to 1997/98 The numbers of portables in the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan indicated number of portable structures at each site. The 1997/98 Capital Facilities Plan indicates the number of portable classrooms available at each site. ELEMENTARY Adelaide - One new portable Wildwood - Two ITom Sherwood Forest Elementary SECONDARY Totem - One ITom Camelot Elementary J J . } J f ..J J t J J .J J J IV-4 EXH~~RT. j) Pn:3;~~i~F Y5 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 1996/97 TO 1997/98 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in student Generation factors between the 1996/97 Capital Facilities Plan and the 997/98 Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments. I ¡ I ~ J 1 J J ) J J ¡ ) J IMPACT FEE Item Elementary Site Cost Frorn/fo $4,500. To $25,000. 97.45 % to 97.34% 2.55% to 2.66% $92,361 to $62,368 Percent of Permanent Facilities Percent Temporary Facilities Temporary Facility Cost Boeck Cost!Sq Ft $94.27 to $97.23 Comment Current negotiated prices Purchase of additional portable facilities Updated cost of most recently purchased portable (Adelaide Elementary) Change per SPI State Match 58.92% to Change per SPI 59.89% Average Assessed Value SFR- Per Puget Sound Educational Service $136,500 to District (ESD 121) $143,979. MFR - $41,846 to $34,641. Capital Bond Interest Rate 5.81% to Market Rate 5.19% Property Tax Levy Rate $1.55to $1.47 Per King County IV-5 , . Ex~.m~~T .J) PAGË~OF ~ MEETING DATE: July 21, 1998 ITEM# J7T (?l } ......................................................................................"......""""""""""""""""""-"""""................,,...................................................,............ ..................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL PRESIDING OFFICER APPOINTMENT ....................................................................".......................................................................................",......................................... ...........................,............... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: CONSENT ORDINANCE X BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMA TION _STUDY SESSION _OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ......................................................................................."....................................................................."......................................... ............................"............. ATTACHMENTS: Section 8 of City Council Rules of Procedure ...................................................",.........................................................................................................................."....................... ............................",............ SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Punuant to Section 8,1 ofthe Council Rules of Procedure, in the event both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are absent, the Councilmemben present shall elect one of its members to serve as Presiding Officer until the return of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. As both Mayor Gintz and Deputy Mayor Park will be out of the country during the period of July 27 through August 5, 1998, it will be necessary to elect a Councilmember to serve as Presiding Officer in their absence. ....................................................,......................................................................,....................................................,...................... ...............................,.......""" OTY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A .....................................................................",..........................................................................................................................,..... ............".............................. OTY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Council to elect a Presiding Officer pursuant to Council Rules of ...~~.~:~.~~~~:...............................................................................,................................................................~..ð~......................,............ . APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: óJt¡ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNOL ACTION: _APPROVED _DENIED - T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION COUNOL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ( 7.5 Ordinances, or ordinance summaries, shall be published in the official newspaper, as a legal publication, immediately following enactment. 7.6 Ordinances become effective thirty (30) days after the passage of the ordinance unless otherwise specified. ~MAY RAND R 8.1 The Presiding Officer at all meetings of the Council shall be the Mayor, and in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor will act in that capacity. If both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are absent, the Councilmembers present shall elect one of its members to serve as Presiding Officer until the return of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. 8.2 The Presiding Officer shall: (1 ) (2) Preserve order and decorum in the Council chambers; Observe and enforce all rules adopted by the Council; (3) Decide all questions on order, in accordance with these rules, subject to appeal by any Councilmember; and (4) Recognize Councilmembers in the order in which they request the floor. The Presiding Officer, as a Council member, shall have only those rights, and shall be governed in all matters and issues by the same rules and restrictions as other Councilmembers. (5) From time to time, appoint Councilmembers to serve on ad hoc committees. ~ C NCILRELATI STAFF WITH CITY 9.1 There will be mutual respect from both City staff and Councilmembers of their respective roles and responsibilities when, and if, expressing criticism in a public meeting. 9.2 City staff will acknowledge the Council as policy makers, and the Councilmembers will acknowledge City staff as administering the Council's policies. 14 MEETING DATE J I 21 1998 ITEM# ~ ill / '- I : uy , - ~ """"""""""'.......,.........................""""""""""""""""""'.........,......."""""""""""""""""...................,"""""""",,""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: SWM Small Works Roster Bid Award for Joe's Creek Flow Control Structure """"".......................................,...."""""""""""""'.........,......................................................................,"""""""""""""""'...................,..."""".........,.. ...... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: _CONSENT _ORDINANCE X BUSINESS HEARING FYI _RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT _PROCLAMATION _STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ 45,256.00 Expenditure Amt: $ 44,498.49 Contingency Reqd: $ ...................""""""""""""""""'"...............................................,.........,.................................................."""""""""""""""""""""'........,...................,... ..... ATTACHMENTS: Joe's Creek Flow Control Structure Bid Tabulations """""........................................,......""""""""'.....................................,..................................................,...........................""""""""""""'......... ..........,....... SUMMARY fBACKGROUND: On June 16, 1998 the City Council approved the project design and authorized obtaining construction bids from the Public Works Small Works Roster. The Surface Water Management Division of Public Works has solicited and received bids from the Small Works Roster for construction of the Joe's Creek Flow Control Structure, which is a Minor Capital Improvement Project. Four bids were received on July 10,1998. The low bid was of $40,453.17. As the total bid amount is in excess of$20,000.00, we are seeking the Council's authorization to award the bid to the lowest responsive responsible bidder - Roadway Construction, Inc. The engineer's estimate is $ 41,142.00. The project budget includes a 10% construction contingency and totals $45,256.00. This matter was originally scheduled for consideration by Council Committee on July 20th and City Council on July 21 st. The Committee meeting scheduled for July 20th was canceled. Because of the need to finalize the contract to allow meeting the time constraints for in stream work, this matter is being forwarded directly to full Council for consideration as a part of the July 21 st business agenda. 5taffrecommends that the Council authorize award ofthe Joe's Creek Flow Control Structure construction contract to the low bidder, Roadway Construction, Inc. in the low bid amount of $40,453.17 and that a 10% construction contingency in the amount of $4,045.32 be authorized for the project. This brings the total approved construction budget to $44,498.49. """"""...................,..................................................""""""""""""""""""""""""""'...................,.........,............................................................,..... ........... CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None. Please see 2nd paragraph above. """""""......................................,..""""""""""""""""""""........,....."""""""""""~"""'."""""""""'""""'............................,.................."""',""""'ï"'\""'" CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: {fHwtvt. IiGYt "fCcC'l"\--\M.4c"~ ~~ (uvt' f'4{"(./~~ ~ - . I 11:4 ð /¿¡'~ """..............................................,."""""""""""""""...................,..............................,......................................................................,........... ......................... ...........................................,.......................,.............................................................................................."..."".............................., ..............................,......... APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: cJ-k (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # _APPROVED DENIED _T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION K: \SWM\MIN ORCIP\J 0 ECREEK\CCA GD98. WPD JOE'S CREEK FL6.. ..;ONTROL STRUCTURE Bid Tabulation No. SWR 98-001 Bid 1 Bid 2 BlcJ3 tM 4 Vendor Name ---> ROADWAY CaNST INC JERRY NYBO CaNST INC MOSS CaNST INC ENGBERG CaNST INC Location ___mom> Tacoma Eatonville Des Moines Enumclaw Item Amount Unit Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total 1 Mobilization, including bridge insurance 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 2 Steel Weir Plate 1 EA 750.00 750.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,820.00 3,820.00 3 Interlocking Concrete Block Structure 1 LS 22,484.00 22,484.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 32,000.00 32,000.00 4 Grading the areas, per plan 1 LS 4,500.00 4,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 6,200.00 6,200.00 5 Install owner supplied fiberglass structure 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,010.00 1,010.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,420.00 1,420.00 6 Stream Diversion, per HPA 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 7 Grass Seeding 1 LS 500.00 500.00 800.00 800.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 920.00 920.00 8 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 9 Light Loose Riprap, in place per plan 8 TN 32.00 256.00 200.00 1,600.00 250.00 2,000.00 487.50 3,900.00 10 Erosion Control 1 FA 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 11 Trail Construction per plan less steps & retaining wall 1 LS 1,920.00 1,920.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 12 Trail Steps per plan 12 EA 86.67 1,040.04 200.00 2,400.00 250.00 3,000.00 120.00 1,440.00 13 Trail Retaining Wall 65 LF 18.46 1,199.90 50.00 3,250.00 100.00 6,500.00 32.00 2,080.00 14 Geotextile 84 SY 7.14 599.76 10.00 840.00 30.00 2,520.00 7.20 604.80 Subtotal 37,249.70 41,400.00 81,520.00 89,884.80 8.6% Sales Tax 3203.47 3 560.40 7010.72 7 730.09 TOTAL 40 453.17 44 960.40 88530.72 97,614.89 Co ¡es SUbmined ONE ONE ONE ONE Bid Sinn.lure SIGNED SIGNED SIGNED SIGNED Bid Bond YES YES YES YES Addendlll1s N/A N/A N/A N/A References N/A N/A N/A N/A MEETING DATE: July 21, 1998 ITEM# * (Q-J """..................................................................,...................."""'........................................................,.........................""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""" CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM ... § Y..~.~~ ç.I.;...~ ~ g ~ ~.!:l..~~..ç~y ~.!".!:l..~.!:l. .~.~..~..¥..~.!:l..~ ~~~.......... ........... ...... ..............................,....... .........,... ........ """""""" CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: - CONSENT ORDINANCE X BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION _STAFF REPORT PROCLAMA TION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: Expenditure Amt: Contingency Reqd: .................................................................................."...""""""""""""'.""""""""'.""""""""""""""""""""..............................................................."..... ... A TTACHMENTS: Suburban Cities Association (SCA) memo and SCA alternative RG&F proposal; SCA 7/15/98 Policy PaperlFinancial Analysis. ................................................,....................................................................................,..........................................................,.."""' ........................................., SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: On 717/98, the City Council reviewed the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) process to derive an SCA alternative RG&F proposal to the GMPC March, 1998 draft proposal rejected by Suburban Cities, On 7/15/98, the Suburban Cities Board approved the attached SCA alternative RG&F proposal for consideration by the cities as to whether the SCA proposal would be ratÏfiable in concept. StaffwiU provide City Council, under separate cover, a draft City of Federal Way response letter to SCA for City Council consideration. ........................................,....................................................................................,......................................................................... .."."""""""""""""""""""" CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A ..................................................................................."..........................................................................................."....."""""""""""""""""" """""""""""'" ~:~:: ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~::~1t4 ßt&~~ ~r~ ~~~~I~~~ :~:~~~~ ~ete r=~ne if APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: @ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CIIY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACfION: APPROVED DENIED T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACfION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # TO: SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCIATION - Member Cities, Mayors, Councilmembers, City Managers and Interested Staff FM: Mayor Wally Rants, Chair, SCA Steering Committee on Regional Finance and Governance RE: July 15, 1998 SCA Revised Proposal on Regional Finance and Governance- Submitted for Your Consideration and Action (We are asking members to approve or disapprove in order to establish an SCA position. This is not a ratification vote on the plan.) I am pleased to forward to you the attached Revised Proposal on Regional Finance and Governance for your consideration. This Revised Proposal has been developed over the last two months by a team of elected officials and city managers/administrators selected as a steering committee by the Suburban Cities Board. The Revised Proposal was reviewed and approved by the SCA Board of Directors on July 15, but your approval, a-s the member cities ofSC~ must first be obtained before this Revised Proposal is submitted to the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) for its dehòeration. We ask that your City CQuncil formally accept or rèject this proposal as a bargaining position for the Association, and communicate its decision to SCA in writing, no later than August 7, 1998. Approval by a super-majority of member cities (60% or 22 cities) will be deemed approval by the SCA. This is not a ratification vote Oh the plan. Ratification will occur later. The Revised Proposal is a policy docum<mt. It sets forth the policy positions of the SCA in general terms covering the full range of issues addressed in the original regional finance and governance (RFG) proposal. The original RFG proposal, you will recall, was unanimously rejected by the SeA membership in April 1998. The Revised Proposal takes the input we received JÌom member suburban cities through a comprehensive survey (30 of 37 cities responding), and through the efforts of the Steering Committee on Regional Finance and Governance (membership list attached). It sets forth what we believe are the consensus positions of the member cities. If approved by the member cities, the Revised Proposal will be the basis for SCA's communications and negotiations toward a final detailed agreement at the King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). SCA member cities sit on GMPC. The Revised Proposal is set forth in chart form, for quick comparison between the present situation, the original RFG proposal ftom March 1998, and this SCA Revised Proposal Overall, the Revised Proposal consists of 1. Revised Proposal Chart 2. Definition of Regional and Local Human Services 3. Glossary 4. Policy Paper: Financing of Regional and Local Services Together with a short overview, these three documents are attached for your review. Please share these with your Council. If you wish assistance ftom a member of the SCA Steering Committee on Regional Finance and Governance in briefing your Council, please contact Lynda Ring Erickson at the SCA office (206) 236-7676, and she will work with you to find an appropriate SCA representative to attend your Council meeting. Thank you. Overview ofSCA Revised Proposal 7-15-98 2 Overview of Suburban Cities Association Revised Proposal On Regional Finance and Governance July 15, 1998 To assist suburban cities in detenninmg whether to support the SCA Revised Proposal on Regional Finance and GOvernance, this memorandum presents an overview of the Revised Proposal, as developed by the SCA Steering Committee on Regional Finance and Governance. What You Told Us One of the first steps of the SCA Steering Committee was to ask each City to complete a detailed survey to convey its ideas, support and opposition to the various parts of the origjnal RFG proposal. Survey results were mailed to member cities in June. The response was overwhelming, both in level of interest, detailed responses, and variety of views expressed. Here's a summary of the key survey results: . Dealing with the "urban subsidy," explicitly and comprehensively, is a top priority. The amount of the urban subsidy must be acknowledged by the County and corrective allocations made as part of the RFG agreement. Without addressing this issue, the original RFG proposal was not a "good deal" for suburban cities, rather, we ended up net "losers" when the overall balance sheet was reviewed; some cities faced significant financial consequences ftom the original proposal Your top four choices for expenditure of the urban subsidy were: EMS, human services, infÌ"astructure deficiencies in P AAs and regional parks and open space system acquisitions. . Solving problems related to the potential annexation areas is a second over-arching theme ftom the suburban cities. The County must correct serious infrastructure deficits in the urban unincorporated areas. This must be done with specified County dollars, in a way that encourages future annexations. Cities should not be forced to provide services in potential annexation areas (PAAs) prior to annexation. Resolution ofPAA issues--boundaries, permitting standards, service levels, and financing--is critical to achieving our long tenn vision, but P AA agreements and subsequent annexations will take time to implement. 20 cities have P AAs. Most of these cities have not yet commenced negotiation of a P AA agreement with King County. If such an agreement could be reached, then virtually all cities would be willing to annex their P AA within 10 years: most would annex much sooner if possible. . Human services are very important, but there is great disparity of views among cities as to how to revise the original RFG proposal on human services. Most cities supported the concept of the County assuming fimding responSlòility for '1-egional" human services out of existing County dollars. Most cities wanted some type of monitoring of County performance and involvement in plamring of human service delivery after the transfer of responsibility occurs. Overview ofSCA Revised Proposal 7-15-98 . The courts of limited jurisdiction proposal is a good starting point for negotiation, but should not be submitted for ratification; rather, it should be resolved through separate negotiations between the effected cities and King County. 3 . The pools proposal is unacceptable. . The zoo proposal is essentially acceptable, but this is not a priority issue for SCA . The specialized police services proposal is essentially acceptable. . The animal control proposal is essentially acceptable. . A limited subsidy of rural service levels with regional r~enues is acceptable, but must be better defined. . Most of you preferred a phased iDlplementation plan or accountability standards that would trigger forward progress. What We Did-An Introducûon to the Revised Proposal Using your input, and earlier commissioned studies of the County's finances, we went through the original RFG proposal issue by issue and developed a response. We started with the "guiding principles" and then moved on to the substantive concerns. Guiding Principles - Based on your input, we can confirm that the principles and vision we developed two years ago by SCA to launch this effort are still intact. A more abbreviated version of these concepts fonus a foundation for the Revised Proposal Finance Plan - The new, key concept which is at the heart of the Revised Proposal is to replace discussion of the "urban subsidy" with the concept of a much larger sum of money: "Net Regional Revenues." Why did we do this? It became clear that; (1) "urban subsidy" means somethIDg different to just about everyone, and (2) the prevailing focus on the 15% sales tax collected within Cities by the County is too narrow to capture the heart of the conflict. The heart of the conflict being that regional revenues collected in cities are being expended by King County on local services in the unincorporated urban and rural areas. Net Regional Revenues are funds available ttom regional revenue sources that are not being applied to pay for regional services. Comparing the financial analysis of County expenditures prepared by the GMPC consultant (McIntyre) and ttom the SCA consultant (Gardiner), and essentially splitting the difference, we find an estimated $76 million (1998 dollars) in annual Net Regional Revenues. We propose that this be first applied to pay for the Rural Subsidy ($16.7 million), then divided between Seattle and the suburban cities on a weighted average ofproperty and sales tax contnòutions. This leaves $20 million for Seattle (from Overview of SCA Revised Proposal 7-15-98 which the $2 million contnòution to the Zoo would be drawn), and $39.1 million for suburban cities. The suburban city portion would be expended first to pay for regional human services ($7.6 million in addition to the $14 Million plus the County currently spends) and then applied to infrastructure investment in unincorporated areas, and whatever Phase n RFG agreements may call for. Anticipated Phase n topics include Jails, Regional Parks, Emergency/Disaster Management and Pools. 4 Separate ttom these Net Regional Revenues, we introduce the concept of an Annexation Area Infrastructure Investment Program. We have identified $50 million in annual County revenues currently applied in the County's Capital Improvement Program, ITom sources including but not limited to mitigation payments for development, county road tax revenues, REET and stormwater management fees. Each year for 10 years, $50 million would be targeted to make inftastructure improvements in the P AAs on a schedule agreed to between the city and county. All or a portion of the funds could go to improvements after annexation. These funds would be augmented; it is hoped, by new state grant funds. The source of such state funds is unclear, and would take a combined lobbying effort of the County and cities. Animal Control - The original RFG proposal is acceptable, with minor revision. Pools - Delete the original RFGproposal on pools entirely. The Forward Thrust bond covenants will not allow pools to be closed until 2008. Instead a 12-18 month study of the region's aquatics systems and needs is proposed. Funding for the study comes fÌ'om contnõution by King County and all subUrban cities except those cities which have already assumed a County pool The study would look towards developing a regional system of pools, and include a transition plan for each existing pool, among other issues. Zoo - The proposal supports the original RFG proposal, with addition of a "non-supplanting;' clause, and clarification on the source of new regional dollars being transferred to Seattle. Spécialized Police Services - The original RFG proposal ofjoint information system purchasing standards and Phase n work on efficiencies is endorsed. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction - The Revised Proposal endorses recommendations of the Court Commission as a starting point for negotiations between cities and the County, but we recommend this part of the package not be submitted for ratification. Potential Annexation Area Policies, Urban Transition and Rural Service Levels - This subject is divided into two areas: Rural and Transition ( of the urban unincorporated area). For the Rural areas, we propose an indexed Rural Subsidy of $16.7 million in 1998 dollars funded fÌ'om Net Regional Revenues, together with the approval by July 1, 1999, ofrural service standards. At this funding leve~ rural services would receive about 10% of the County's current expense revenues. Overview ofSCA Revised Proposal 7-15-98 5 In the Transition Areas (PAA's), we propose, first, approval ofPAA boundaries that are readily agreeable; second an intensive effort to reach closure on the disputed or unclaimed boundaries of all P AAs by individual negotiation between cities and the County (or failing that after 3 years time, action by GMPC). Second, to create incentives for annexation, $50 million/year for 10 years in existing County revenues (separate and in addition to Net Regional Revenues) will be applied to the Annexation Area Inftastructure Investment Program Ten inftastructure deficient PAAs are identified as the primary beneficiaries of this program; more P AAs can be added to the list. WIthin two years ofF AA boundary agreement Cities and the County will jointly determine what Ìnftastructure investments are the top priority for each P AA and when (prior or post annexation) such investments should be made in order to encourage voters to approve annexation. It must be acknowledged that even this $500 million is insufficient to address all existing Ïnfi.-astructure deficits, so absent significant additional state dollars, there is no ~Í'erfect" solution. As noted above, we propose committing to a joint legislative effort to seek such additional state dollars of at least $50 million/year, but are equally committed to moving ahead on P AA investment activities immediately. Third, in providing local services within unincorporated urban areas, the County must live within the revenue stream generated from those areas--but only where a city has stated its commitment to annex such P AA within 10 years. By contrast, in unclaimed areas, the County can exceed this revenue stream in providing local services, but is capped in the amount of such additional revenues it can access for this purpose. The idea here is that if cities don't want an area despite the availability of County inftastructure investments, it is not fair to penalize the citizens of those areas indefinitely. Upon City request, the County will adopt city development standards in a P AA Human Services - A basic package of nine regional human services would be available for the first time to every resident of the county custòmized subregion ally. The County will fund these human services from a combination of its existing funding ($12 plus million per year) and Net Regional Revenues at a level equivalent to current suburban city efforts. No revenue will be transferred from the suburban cities to fund these services. County expenditures will be tracked and allocated by subregions. Services will continue to be provided primarily through contracts with third party providers. A two year transition period will occur, during which time existing City contracts will be transferred to the County. Funding level, scope of service and providers would remain the same during the two year transition time. The two year transition allows time for C~ies to participate in making decisions about changes through a subregional planning effort. The subregions are the same as the current King County Community Services Department subregions which are buih on school district boundaries - there are three rural subregions and three urban subregions. Overview ofSCA Revised ProposaI7~15-98 Why does the Steering Committee recommend the revised plan? 6 There are key differences between the March proposal and the recommended revision that address suburban cities needs and our guiding principles: . The Revised Proposal deals directly with the problem of regional revenues being spent by the County on local urban unincorporated services through re-direction of Net Regional Revenues to priority service areas for cities. Annually $39.1 Million in 1998 dollars would be re-directed to regional services on behalf of suburban city residents as annexation and incorporation of urban unincorporated area occurs. The Revised Proposal does not call for suburban cities to send monies to King County for human services. The Human Services part of the proposal provides regional funding for (over $19.6 million dollars) and access to a basic package of human services to every resident of the County customized subregionally. A specific plan for addressing the transition of the urban unincorporated area to incorporated/annexed status is included. Key features include adoption of city development standards and the funding of inftastructure improvements in the most deficient potential annexation areas. The original proposal on pooJs is dropped and instead substitutes a study to make a more appropriate long~term pIan. The Revised Proposal does not submit the courts package for ratification. The Revised Proposal clarifies the unincorporated rural subsidy and the need for rural service standards. The Revised Proposal specifically addresses needs of the smaller cities by: eliminating the requirement to transfer funding for human services, providing a two year transition time for human services when providers and funding would remain the same, providing a opportunity for mral cities to participate in planning human services separate ftom the urban areas, making rural city FAA's one of the ten targets for infrastructure funding and providing a opportunity for King County to fund Specialized Police services for cities under 5,000 population. The revised proposal provides even greater opportunity to address high priority service delivery issues for suburban cities and Seattle in Phase n with the remaining $31.5 million in Net Regional Revenue. The revised proposal does not raise taxes and provides a blue print for obtaining regional services for city residents with their ex:ÏBtÏng county tax dollars. Meets the requirements and intent of the Growth Management Act generating the solutions locally rather than through mandates fÌ"om the state Legislature. . . . . . . . . . We believe the Revised Proposal is responsive to the consensus concerns expressed by SCA members. We encourage your attention to the detail of the Proposal, and will be glad to answer questions you may have about it. For more information, please contact the SCA office at 206-236- 7676. ~-- Submitted by SCA Steering Committee on Regional Fmance and Governance Mayor Wally Rants, Chair ALLOCATION OF SUBURBAN CITIES PORTION OF NET REGIONAL REVENUES . ~~ )RPORA TED q S~y BUYS. NEW OR INCREASED REGIONAL SERVICES . TIME LIMITED PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS $39.1 MILLLION NET REGIONAL REVENUES GLOSSARY OF TERMS SCA REGIONAL GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE REVISED PROPOSAL 1. NET REGIONAL REVENUES -- These are the funds that are available from regional revenue sources not currently being used to fund regional services. Regional revenues come from all county taxpayers (like the general county property tax levy) or are generated within cities (like the 15% sales tax). 2. URBAN SUBSIDY -- An "urban subsidy" occurs when the taxpayers in incorporated cities are taxed to provide services for residents and businesses in unincorporated urban areas. 3. RURAL SUBSIDY -- A '1'ural subsidy" occurs when the taxpayers in incorporated cities are taxed to provide services for residents and businesses in unincorporated rural areas. 4. URBAN LEVEL OF SERVICE.- The quantity and quality oflocal public services being provided inside cities. 5. URBAN UNINCORPORATED LEVEL OF SERVICE -- The quantity and quality of local public services being provided by the County within the urban growth boundary outside of cities. 6. RURAL LEVEL OF SERVICE - The quantity and quality oflocal public services being provided by the County outside the urban growth boundary. 7. INFRASTRUCTURE -- Publicly owned physical facilities, fixtures, improvements and land that together provide a public system for surface transportation; lighting; wastewater and stonnwater management/treatment; water supply; parks, recreation facilities and open space; and buildings and facilities supporting public services. 8. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA (PAA) -- The developed or undeveloped land area adjacent to a city which is within the urban growth boundary but not yet within the boundary of the city. A Potential Annexation Area is defined on a map by the City with concurrence regionally. ~ional and Local Human Services -Roles and Relationships Human services should be provided as a seamless partnership between and among local communities and the region. This set of services should be available to persons in need regardless of where they live and the ability of the local community to provide for such services. ReeionaJ Role The regional role is to help assure that people have access to a basic package of services regardless of where they live and to promote more effective and efficient service system development, by: . providing base (a minimum required level of) support for those human services identified as regional (using the criteria listed below), . planning, implementing, and ~valuating regional services in coordination with local services on a subregional basis in cooperation with local jurisdictions and providers, . providing technical assistance and limited funding for development and improvement of both regional and local services (pilot projects, cUITÏculumJprotocol development, training, etc.), and . providing support and/or develop necessary regional human service systems and share results and strategies. Local/Community Role The local/community role is to help assure that all of the members of the local community have the opportunities they need to participate in community life, both receiving the support and assistance they need and providing the support and assistance they can to others, by: . providing financial support and/or other assistance (no required level) for those community-based services identified as local, . participating in subregional planning, implementing, and evaluating services in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions, providers and the region, and, if desired, . enhancing regional services (including 9 service areas, mental health, developmental disabilities, substance abuse, public health, employment, housing, and aging) within the local community to better meet local need in coordination with the region, and . conduct local plamúng efforts as desired. Criteria for Identifviß!~ Re2:ional Services from the Current Service List: . Services not feasible to offer in every locality and/or for which economies of scale make subregional delivery the most viable option. Services for which there is a regional need but insufficient local demand to justify operation/development oflocal services. . Services which people may need to access in localities other than where they reside. . Services necessary to support other regional systems. Criteria for Identifvin!! Local Services from the Current Service List: . Services meeting unique, local needs and are strongly supported by the local community. . Services which fit into local partnerships (esp. school districts and other key local parties). . Services that do not fall into any of the "regional" categories. Services whose core is recreation. V'-- r_..__. n.-.. ,,~,-- . D__- ."., ~/A /(\0 Human Service Regional Local 1. Family Support & Child He-1lthy FamilylEarly Childhood Intervention and Activities for Famùles Development Family Support Program . Parenting classes Child Care Subsidy Services . School-related activities Refugee & Immigrant Assistance Family support Legal Assistance Family Counseling .. , .. ,..... or" . ,. ~ r","'.'":'rt"""~';!"'\q"'!1;,,,,1 .,......., ~ St:. ,.~C 1_1,:1 !1M.' .)C .~v~,\ca.~.:.~.~,:::~.::..!..:..C:"""". sc. .ICI.:, - ,," 'r'""", """""""""".'""'110""""':" .'"l'I',',').:\",I,)I"""" t"" \, ..", ~. i::ii:~;;~~:~~~: h"'", ':' "~=~=.~~::t substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, . Youth Clubs . including teen parents . School-based Youth Programs ¡I~~--===-._--_..__._=-==--==~~"---' -"--" ....--.-.----]¡ 3. ln1onnatlon and Ret6Tal Commwuty ln1ormatIon Lme General commwuty-reiated l&:R Crisis Clinic Child Care Information and Referral Aging/Domestic Violence and other specialized I&R 'r II I,-. - 4. BasIc Needs/Survival Semces (mostly funded with CDBG - need a sort of regional and local in the CDBG program too.) * -.-------- -.--.----.-..----.-..--..--__-1! .to' ooà Banks .. Meal Programs Clothing Banks One-time Emergency Assistance Minor Home Repair Emergency Shelters Regional Food Supply (including Emergency Food Program) Homeless prevention Major Home Repair Transitional Housin !i-- . 5. Domestic VlOlence : ~~\I¡~C !!!.~~1 pri.;!w;ii::.. :i~'!.~~. ~"!l.~:df~dc~II. Rc!'.iomti ~~::. ¡S !IN p;-I,!!'oaJ"\' bILl to cl~l~~f~¡¡I)S, All Domesuc VlOlence BasIc ServIces . Legai AÙ\lOCUCY . Counseling Community Advocacy . Batterer's Treatment . Shelter .¡ .------ -~--_. ...-- 6. Sexual Assault Sernces All Sexual Assault Hasic ServIceS . Assessment . Legal Assistance - . Prevention . Treatment . Support . ,'..,.', .'"",.,'. 7. Health (Community and Denial Commwuty Clinics Clinics only) Dental Clinics .. 8, Employment. ESL Literacy Employment Support Workforce Development Youth Emplovrnent Enhancements ~ ... 9. Aging Programs. Adult Day Care .. Senior Centers Meals on Wheels .. Other Senior Services Senior Transportation .. nr"ft itl tn,lnL1/0j(/") 1 DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 TOPIC GUIDING PRINCIPLES PRESENT SITUATION 1 SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCIATION REVISED PROPOSAL Regional Finance and Governance Plan July 15,1998 SCA BOARD AND STEERING COMMITTEE DRAFr Framework policies from the Countywide Planning Polices are described in the text of the Plan - the essential elements are: . define appropriate regional and local responsibilities for service delivery; . match service responsibilities of jurisdictions with the fiscal capacity to maintain services at the level desired by taxpayers; . identify regional funding sources and establish regional funding strategies to deal with infrastructure and service needs for several types of development anticipated by the CPPs, e.g., urban centers, manufactu.ringlindustrial centers, rural areas; . identify key regional infrastructure investments and funding sources for them; and . evaluate oppommities for government consolidation. . the comty is the provider of regional services throughout the comty and the provider of general government local services in the rural areas; and . cities are the appropriate providers of local services in the urban area (either directly or bv contract). SCA REVISED PROPOSAL By their very nature the Framework policies should be removed as the Regional Finance and Governance Plan is approved. Therefore, in lieu of amending them, the SCA proposal should simply propose their deletion and include the principles below in the RFG plan itself. VISION . Primary local service responsibility should reside with cities and primary regional and rural service responsibility should reside with the County. The entire urban area should be incoIporated, with cities providing local urban services. It is recognized that special service districts may be the appropriate local service providers in certain instances unless cities assume these services. . An entity providing a service should have clear responsibility and authority, and be held accountable. The taxpayer should know who is the service provider, and the service provider should be accotmtable to the taxpayer for the service provided. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 2 . The region's jurisdictions are committed to SERVICE DELIVERY, TRANSITION & work to have the cities provide local services FINANCJNG. (either directly or by contract) in more of the urban area and the county to focus on . Regional services should be ftmded from regional services, so as to complement the regional reValues. Local services should direct regional finance and governance work be funded from local revenues generated from within the corresponding local area. Net regional revenues (see glossary), in addition to other available County funds, should be allocated to fund regional services, an agreed upon level of rural services, and P AA agreement infrastructure and service commitments. . The revised proposal shall not require suburban cities to pay additional dollars or transfer additional taxing authority to the County for regional services. . It is recognized that the revised altemati ve could affect some Jurisdictions more than others. No jurisdiction's short-tenn or long-term financial health should be severely impacted. . Phased or customized solutions to service transition should be accommodated. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS . In order that the County may focus its revenues and energies on the provision of regional and rural services, proposals creating incentives for annexation or incorporation of the urban unincorporated area must be aggressively pursued, Cities shall not be required to provide services to 1AÌ~";'al annexation areas prior to DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 3 annexation. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCH DRAFT. REG PLAN SCA REVISED PROPOSAL ANIMAL . 33 out of 38 cities . Cities continue to issue licenses Agree with March RFG Plan, one revision CONTROL contract with County . 1 FfE at KC for educationllicensing proposed. currently. campaign . Most Cities provide a .05 per capita - 1 time from SCA . Only those cities that contract with the clerk to issue licenses. . Transition to regional at 3 years or Comty would pay for the one time . Licence fees go to breakeven which ever is earliest licensing campaign rather than all SCA ColU1ty to defray costs . Can join later after negotiating conditions, members. of program. equipment and regulations . County enforces City . Coordinate data collection animal control . Possible unifonn regs. regulations which may vary some from City to City. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCHÐRAFTRFGPLAN SCAREVISEDPROPOSAL POOLS . There are 14 swimming . Those in cities transfer 1/99 Omit March draft proposal. Substitute pools built with . Transition fimd for each city of $525,000 proposal below: Forward Thrust bonds (over three years J in the late 1960's . Pools remain open during transition . The County and Suburban Cities jointly operated by King . Money can be spent on operations, capital or undertake a study to detennine an aquatics County located in Cities new site system that will meet the region's needs or their P AA. . Can close after three years, once for the future. It is anticipated that such a . Pools must be operated construction commences, if close early lose study might take from 12 to 18 months, until 2008 under proportional monies with an additional 6 to 8 months needed Forward Thrust bond . Follow bond covenants for King County and the Cities to make covenants. decisions based on the information in the . BeUevue, Issaquah and study . Shoreline have already . The study would be jointly financed by had pools transferred to King County and all of the suburban cities them by the COlU1ty. (Issaquah, Bellevue and Shoreline would . Eisilit other cities have be credited their share based on the fact DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 4 pools in their that they have aheady assumed pools). boundaries located on . The study would be focused toward the School District possibility of developing a system of new property. statlTof-the-art subregional pools. . Renton has a pool in its . It would include a transition plan for the P AA and two others existing pools. The transition plan would (North Bend and also need to examine the issue of bond Redmond) have pools in covenants and indemnification for closure their cities on park of the existing pools. property. . Capital financing alternatives would be . Seattle assumed examined including such options as a Forward Thrust pools in countywide bond or a new aquatic district. their city after they were . Governance options would be reviewed built. including operation of the new system by King Cotmty; operation by primary cities cooperatively with adjoining cities and King Cotmty for unincmporated areas through contracts; a new aquatics district, etc. . King Cotmty would continue to 0Vv'11 and IDaint~in the pools during the study and decision period. . A joint City-County steering committee (with ex-officio members from effected school districts and Seattle) would be established to guide and oversee the study. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCHDRAFf RFG PLAN ... SCA REVISED PROPOSAL ZOO . Seattle operates ($6 . Support placing future bond issue on the One clarification proposed. million per year) and ballot subsidizes the . King Cmmty transfers $500,000 per year . Support transfer of funding out of Woodland Park Zoo. through 2001 and $2,000,000 a year Seattle's share of net regional revenues. . Capital bas been thereafter New ñmding from regional revenues financed through . Seattle develops additional programming would not supplant City of Seattle Countywide bonds ($31 equivalent to the $2 million targeted to funding. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 5 million in 1985). balance of county . County and SCA serve on Bond oversight committee . Two thirds of the Zoo's visitors are from outside Seattle - one third from King County and the balance from other areas. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCHDRAFfRFGPLAN . SCA REVISED PROPOSAL SPECIALIZED . A variety of . Computer based infonnation sharing One clarification proposed. POLICE jurisdictions provide improved by joint purchasing standards. police specialty services Cities acquire at replacement time on their . Oarify that the policy paper on Police at this time. own schedule Specialized Services previously completed . The County provides . Phase 2 will consider efficiencies in; calls for fiscal impacts of phase n to be services to some cities training, prisoner transfer, marine patrol, air articulated for cities and the County. via contracts or at an support, bomb disposal, canine, computer hourly rate. forensics, etc. . Prior to the completion of the next phase of work, the county shall consider not charging cities under 5,000 in population for specialized police services, excluding air support. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCH DRAFT RFG. PLAN . SCA REVISED PROPOSAL .. COURTS OF . Cities must provide . No governance changes proposed; cities can . Endorse recommendations of the Court LIMITED misdemeanant court choose district or municipal. Commission as the starting point for JURISTICTIO services through either a . Proposes District Court contract formula for negotiations of a new District Court N municipal court or operations (75% of fines and fees to County; contract. through the COlUlty 25% to cities) and for capital facilities (50% . We would request that the Court issue not District Court. paid by COlUlty and up to 50% paid by cities be included in the package for ratification. . 22 Cities contract with witbin division receiving improvements King County for based on case filings). District Court services . Term of contract is ten years. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 6 and 17 have their own . Proposes legislative changes to be pursued municipal court or jointly to increase state participation in contract with a paying for court costs~ allow municipal municipal court courts to be jointly sited and operated. (including Seattle). . District Court services would be improved in . The District Court three key areas: reduce pre-sentence jail contract is due to be time, facilitate joint prisoner transport, and renegotiated. Over the provide for the ability to consolidate last ten years there has hearings on cases and warrants among cities. been a significant shift away from the District Court system. . The Col.Ulty subsidizes with regional revenues the District Court system by approximately 50%. Cities with municipal courts subsidize their own courts to varying degrees and their taxpayers contribute to the regional revenues supporting the district court. . Current contract is on a cost reimbursement basis with an annual cap on growth. It expires at the end of 1999. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION . MARCH. DRAFT RFG PLAN SCA REVISED PROPOSAL DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 7 PROPOSED . In 1995 annexation and Substitute proposal is described below. ANNEXATIO incorporation was N AREA projected to move RURAL RURAL POLICIES, 364,400 urban . Acknowledge and establish at GMPC's . Comty will propose a list of local rural URB AN unincorporated review of RF & G, the estimated level of services and for each a level of service TRANSITION residents into cities and rural subsidy. Subsidy comes from 15% standard. The service levels will be AND RURAL leave 155,000 in rural sales tax. measurably lower than adjacent urban SERVICE unincorporated areas by . Remainder of 15% converts to regional incorporated service level standards. The LEVELS 2012. revenue systematically with standards will be discussed and approved annexations/incorporations and also at GMPC. The standards will be adopted . Between 1995 and 1998 supports infrastructure transition fund. bytheCountybyJilly 1,1999. more than 70,000 . GMPC/CPP to discuss rural service . The Comty will fund rural services using residents were already standards. only local county revenues generated incorporated. within the rural areas, together with an agreed upon level of subsidy from net . Twenty eight Cities regional revenues. That subsidy amOl.IDt have PAA's shall not exceed $16.7 million/year, in 1998 dollars ( includes overhead), adjusted . There are annually to account for change in the unincorporated urban implicit price deflator. If the Urban areas which will be Growth Boundary moves farther east in willingly annexed to the future then the subsidy woilld be adjacent cities or renegotiated to account for a reduction in incorporated and those the rural area. that will not. . If rural residents \\-ish to pay for a higher level of local service than can be provided . There are by rural derived revenues and the agreed approximately ten areas upon subsidy from net regional revenues, in, the County that have then cities will support reasonable state significant legislative changes as may be proposed by infrastructure and the County for local funding of the service service delivery issues level increases. Shoilld these funding some of which are not levels be adopted and implemented, they within anyone's PAA shall only be utilized in the rural area. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 and will require incentives to annex. TRANSITION . Legislation to speed up annexations and increase standards for incorporations. . Annual County budget to present analysis of separate regional and local budgets. . The entire urban area is to be located witbin cities; the county is to be the regional service provider and (along with special districts) provider of local services in the rural area. . A process is needed to define and evaluate "significantly deficient infrastructure" in potential annexation areas (PAA's); this process is expected to occur during GMPC review of RFG draft Plan. . Responsibility for construction of all or part of county infrastructure improvements in PAA's shall be allocated between county and the annexing city. Special purpose district infrastructure deficiencies will also be allocated between the district and the annexing city. . Legislative action to support infrastructure financing will be needed. Improvements will be budgeted and ftmded as part of regular capital improvement programs (CIP) budget processes of the Cotmty, special districts and cities. 8 . The COtmty will present its annual budget in a manner that allows the cities and COtmty to jointly track these rural revenues and services as part of the COtmty's local services budget. TRANSITION . It is the goal of the suburban cities to create strong incentives for the pennanent transition of the entire urban area to incorporated status. . It is further the goal of the suburban cities to transition the application of the suburban city share of Net Regional Revenues, currently applied by the Cotmty to unincorporated area (urban and rural) services in excess of agreed subsidies described below, to instead provide regional services. . Suburban cities recognizes an immediate (1999) transition of $13 million to regional services, equivalent to the transfer of 1/3 of the unincorporated area population since 1995 (1/3 of the Net Regional Revenues of $39.1 Million is $13 million). 1995 is recognized as the base year because all the parties since then have been engaged in the process to realign service delivery in King COtmty and because GMPC has been tracking subsidy dollars using 1995 as a base year. The balance of the transition will occur consistent with the subsequent discussion on potential annexation areas. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 9 . The PAA's adopted by cities as of the date of the RFG Phase I agreement are recognized and affinned by all parties and are subject to a single amendment to the Co\D1tywide Planning Polices and are not subject to additional public review or consultation with other jurisdictions. Cities retain the right to update their P AA boundary until RF&G ratification. Remaining areas shall be resolved as to their future status as follows: 1. Disputed P AA areas (claimed by multiple jurisdictions) shall be resolved by January 1, 2001, through agreement of the County and adjacent cities, or the GMPC shall be empowered to resolve such disputes. 2. Areas claimed by no jurisdiction for inclusion in a P AA as of the date of the RFG Phase I agreement shall be subject to discussion between the County and all adjacent cities, in an effort to reach agreement on whether incorporation should be proposed, or a P M( s) can be agreed upon. Areas remaining unclaimed after January 1, 2002, shall be submitted to GMPC for action. v.hich may finally designate such areas either for future incorporation as a new city, or inclusion in the P AA of an existing contiguous city. . Local service levels provided by King County in the urban unincorporated area DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 10 shall differ depending upon whether there is agreement regarding annexation/in corporation. 1. Where there is no commitment on the part of a city to accept an area within their P AA within 10 years, then the County may provide services in these areas at levels of service higher than rural service levels, as determined appropriate. For this purpose, the County may access the proportion of $26 million (1998 dollars) a year in Net Regional Revenues (this is the NRRfor suburban cities of $39.1 millìon less revenues representing areas annexed since 1995-- $13M which includes $7.6 million for human services), that represents the proportion of the urban 1.IDÍncorporated residents not covered by a suburban city P AA agreement. This amO\.mt shall be reduced annually by the percentage decrease in urban unincorporated population as a result of annexations . 2. Where a City bas declared its commitment to armex an area within 10 years. subject to such terms as are agreeable to both the City and County, then the County shall provide service levels to such areas solely with revenues generated from within the urban 1.IDÍncorporated area. In order to create incentives for annexation no Net: Regional Revenues will be utilized. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 11 POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS . New CPP LU-31.1 calls for PANs to be . If a City with a P AA so requests, the adopted and ratified for all urban Col.mty shall adopt land use policies and unincorporated areas of the County. GMPC development standards for that P AA that documents and adopts P AA bO1mdaries with are equivalent to the City's land use a CPP and Map. policies and development standards. Both . For undisputed annexation areas, new CPP the Comly and the respective cities will language calls for a memoranchnn of commit the necessary resources to understanding between the County and city implement this transition. The City shall which lays out schedule for P AA services be delegated the authority to administer agreements and requirements to land use actions and permitting ill such communicate concerning land development areas. Development fees shall be set by proposals and annexations. Calls for the County at a level at least sufficient to County to "consider applying city cover reasonable city expenses of development standards and practices as administering such permits; if CUITent appropriate." CO1mty fees are higher than necessary, the . For disputed areas, a CPP would call for excess revenues shall be transferred to the public comment on proposals for P AA County. boundaries, then execution of interlocal . If a City with a P AA so requests, the agreement to establish P AA boundaries. If County and the City may enter into a no agreement occurs within five months of service agreement for that P AA which ratification of the CPP, a mediation process addresses other local services in addition is called for (up to six months long). GMPC to permitting. Such agreements may would develop ground rules for the include special purpose districts. mediation. If no agreement is reached . There are ten FAA's CUITently identified as through mediation, GMPC will recommend a having serious infrastructure deficits. CPP to establish P AA boundaries; this These areas shall become the priority for would occur within 18 months of ratification County infrastructure development dollars of this CPP. and other dollars contributed to the . If lands are added to the urban growth area, Annexation Area Injrastmcture thev must be included in a city's P AA and if Investment Program (see Financing DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 12 contiguous to city's boundary, the lands shall proposal); provided, however, iliat the be annexed at the time they're designated investment programs shall be jointly urban. developed by the City, the Cotmty, and . Regarding special district services, cities included special pmpose districts, and shall determine service areas and service shall be phased in a way that the parties delivery responsibility in cooperation with believe will maximize the likelihood of districts; a study may be conducted to make prompt annexation or incoIporation. This those determinations. An interlocal may mean that County infrastructure agreement may be executed between cities dollars are invested post-annexation or and districts. Consolidation of special incoIporation as previously determined by districts should be encouraged. agreement. . Cities are encouraged to annex their P AA'S . Agreements between the County and Cities as soon as they're able to coordinate/support related to P AA infrastructure investment, full range of urban services. development standards andlor local . A new CPP calls for cities to enter into services must be completed within two interlocal agreement with the County within years of the P AA boundary being six months of the P AA boundary agreement, approved. to define service delivery responsibilities. . The County will rnaÜnain a separate Subjects to be covered in the agreement budget for local services, including both would include land development standards; the rural and the UIÚnco1porated areas. municipal, community and human services; a . If lands are added to the urban growth financing plan; future UGA changes; area, they must be included in a city's phasing of large annexation areas. PAA and if contiguous to a city's boundary, the lands shall be annexed at the time they're designated urban. If the adjacmt city will not accept the area as part of its P AA, the area must either be approved as a new city by residents at the time of conversion to urban status OR the area must retain its rural status. . Cities are not required to provide services outside their city limits or repay the County for prior infrastructure investments. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7.15-98 13 . Consolidation or assumption of special purpose districts within cities shall be encouraged. Consolidation shall be encouraged only \Wen agreed to by the City in \\hose potential boundaries the district is located in part or in \Wole. Creation of new special purpose districts or the expansion of existing districts into unserved urban areas shall be discouraged. The creation of new special purpose districts in the rural area should only occur to prevent the expansion of urban systems into the rural area and to con-ect clearly identified health and safety problems. . The Boundary Review Board shall be eliminated and its role assumed by the GMPC when Cities have established PAA's covering 90% of the urban area within the County. Note: These concepts would be incorpomted into CPP amendments where appropriate. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15.98 14 TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCH DRAFT RFGPLAN SCAREVISED PROPOSAL HUMAN . County currently . King CmUlty would assume governance of Support March RFG Plan with the following SERVICES provides regional "discretionary" regional human services clarifications and revisions: human services (Public outsíde of Seattle (Seattle retains governance . Clarify that the objective is to provide a Health and County of its Seattle financed human services basic package of human services as a Hospital, Housing, system). regional service available and accessible Juvenile Justice, Mental within all the subregions of the County Health, Developmental urban or rural. The assumption of service Disabilities, Substance would begin within 24 months of the Abuse) to all citizens of ratification of the RFG Plan the COlUlty outside and . Regional and local human services are . All of Attachment 4 to the SCA Human inside Cities, including differentiated and a table describing the Services POlley paper, \Wich defines in Seattle. definitions is part of the proposal. more detail regional and local roles, should become a part of the proposal. Clarify that . Seattle and the COlUlty family support and child development cooperatively local services are school based. administer employment programs and the Area . Sub-regional planning will be conducted to . Clarify that cities and service providers Agency on Aging. craft a framework for sub-regional service will be involved in the subregional implementation (based on the Community planning and ñmding process during each . Seattle, King County Services Division's Strategic Plan, which two year ñmding cycle. and 17 Suburban Cities SCA helped develop). fund and operate for the . Financing by the County would be most part through non- maintained at current levels (approx. $15 profit agencies nine million adjusted each year by CPI); this is additional human tenned "maintenance of effort." services. The County . Suburban cities' current total aggregate . No revenue would be transfeITed from and Seattle do not financing from 17 cities (current estimate of cities for regional Human Services. Net restrict. service on the $5.3 million) would be calculated as a per Regional Revenues would be used to basis of residency and capita charge for all 37 suburban cities to finance regional Human Services. County provide service to all allocate from a not-yet-defined revenue overhead would be limited to 10%. King County citizens. source allowed under Senate Bill 5038 (e.g., . To the County's current level of effort Some suburban cities MVET or liquor taxes); these resources would be added additional ñmding from restrict service to City would be redirected at the state level to the r61i2ional revenues to a level that is DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 15 residents. County and placed in a regional human equivalent to the level of effort currently in services sub-fund of the COulltYS Current place in the suburban cities . All three parties provide Expense Fwd. (approximately $4.4 million in 1996 additional funding for dollars) plus three increments. One other human services increment would add an equivalent funding beyond these nine. A level for the non-participating city smaller number of population to that provided by suburban cities are participating cities ($.8 million in 1996 involved in this funding. dollars). The second increment would be for urban unincorporated population as it . Combined all annexes ($2.1 million) and the final jurisdictions spent $49 increment would be to deal with access million (1996) on the gaps in service as identified below. The nine human services: total fimding would be approximately $7.6 Seattle $27.6, King million in 1998 dollars. Cowty $16 and . An audit would be conducted to determine Suburbs $4.4. the exact level of effort prior to transition. . King County would have a separate . Local government agreement with Seattle; to provide some funding of these nine County regional human services human services is $10 discretionary funds for regional human million greater than services in Seattle (currently estimated to be United Way's funding $1.7 million, 1996 dollars). for all human services. . There would be agreement among SCA and . These additional funds - if required would the County that "reasonable access" to basic come from regional revenues. package of services has not occurred in some parts of the County, so an additional "increment" of funding estimated at $1.7 million is called for to achieve that access. . Of that $1.7 million, about $260,000 would . Omit this provision. be expected to come from administrative- savings from the change to regional service. Additional funds (about $900,000) would be transmitted to the County by cities following DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 16 their annexations ofunincolporated areas. The remainder of the unfunded "increment" would be reduced by the expected growth in the selected revenue source above the CPI over a three-year period. . If the Cotmty were to receive new state funding to offset unfunded mandates, the County would designate part of that funding to address welfare refonn impacts and to reduce the "imbalance" of the distribution of regional funds for Seattle residents vs. the balance of County. NEW PROVISIONS . Comly spending for Human Services would be tracked and allocated based on the CSD sub-regions. The rural area would always have subregion(s} that are separate from the metropolitan urban area. . Cities could augment funding for regional services if they desired. Local human services may be provided by cities but they are not required. Cities may choose to allocate any city funding in concert with subregional planning and funding efforts. . King County intends to conrinue its practice of providing hmnan services primarily through contracts with non- profit human service providers serving its planning subregions. . P]anning, ftmding and contracting within subregions would initially be done on a two-year cycle. During the first two year cycle. "Regional" service provider DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 17 contracts would be transferred from cities to the Co1.U1ty after the audit to determine which contractual services are local and wbich are regional. No changes in the provider, fimding levels or service scope of the contracts would be made during the first two-year cycle. Changes would only be made after subregional planning and funding recommendations was completed. . During the first three two year planning/funding cycles the County will complete at least two perfonnance audits of service effectiveness and subregional level of effort. Each city participating in human services funding will receive a copy of the audit and a briefing for their Comci1. . At the end of the first three two year planning/funding cycles a review of the need to continue perfonnance audits and fonnal subregional planning will be undertaken with recommendations to GMPC. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCHDRAFTRFG PLAN SCA REVISED PROPOSAL "OTHER" . County will annually differentiate regional . Ok as proposed AGREEMENT and local services in their budget. S . At the point \\hen all urban area is within . New wording: At the point when all urban cities, county's 15% share oflocal sales area is within cities, net regional revenues taxes would be used only for local services would be used only for local services in in rural areas at a rate agreed to in advance. rural areas at a rate a~eed to in advance. DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 18 All other money from tbis source will be All other money from this source will be spent on regional services agreed to in spent on regional services or other advance. programs agreed to in advance. . Boundary Review Board . The Boundary Review Board sbal1 be authority/responsibility transferred to eliminated and its role assumed by the GMPC. GMPC \Wen Cities have established P AA' s covering 90% of the urban area within the County. . Water service to roral area issues to be . OK as proposed. discussed at GMPC as land uselGMA issues, not RFG issues. TOPIC PRESENT SITUATION MARCH DRAFT RFG PLAN , SCA REVISED PROPOSAL FINANCING . Between 1995 and the . Plan transfers revenue authority (Human REGIONAL SERVICES PLAN year 2012, if the Services), operating responsibility (Pools) or . There will be $39.1 million (1998 dollars) County maintains its increases suburban cities contract in annual regional revenue available to 1995 service levels and payments/obligations (Courts) to fund reallocate as annexation or incorporation reduces FfE's as local Human Services, Courts and Pools. occurs or the county freezes/reduces local service population . Plan transfers local service responsibility to service levels in urban unincorporated declines it will have the cities from the County for all remaining areas in anticipation of annexation. (See en.ough revenues to urban unincorporated areas. Urban Subsidy Policy Paper prepared for meet expenses. . Plan requires one time commitment of the SCA Steering Committee) . Net regional revenues suburban city funds for Anùnal Control and . The suburban cities revised RFG proposal will exist as transition a commitment to purchase like computer would allocate the annual $39.1 million in of population occurs to software for public safety. the following ways: cities or the county 1. Responsibility for nine categories of DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 19 freezes/reduces service . Seattle would receive ongoing fimding for Human Services shifted to the County levels in anticipation. the zoo and participate in public safety from suburban cities and the Cities share . Net regional revenues, software commitments. of the financing would be covered by including the urban regional revenues -- $7,600,000 subsidy combined with . Comrtytrarun&srevmootoSeattlefurthe 2. $32 Million in net regional revenues to be capital improvement zoo, converts animal control to a regional allocated in priority order to: revenues that are service v.hich they finance beyond license - Human Services gmerated in the urban fees, "subsidize" 50% of the balance of - Temporary COl.mty staffing of unincorporated area court costs (a local service) not covered by P AA definition and agreement may be reallocated to fees, transfers responsibility for pools to the negotiations finance increased levels cities, commits to a growing level of effort in - Potential Annexation Area or new regional services financinghuman services (which becomes a infrastructure investment program and infrastructure regional service financed in part through a for up to 10 years improvements within revmue authority transfer from the suburban - Phase IT regional services \\hich PAA's. cities) and commits to an unspecified level of include Jails, Regional Parks, capital improvement fimding within P AA' s. EmergencylDisaster Management and Pools - Enhancement of regional services . County transf&s revmue to Seattle for the zoo from Seattle's share of Net Regional Revenues, converts animal control to a regional service \\hich they finance beyond license fees, commits to a jointly financed study of regional aquatic strategies, commits to a growing level of effort in financing nine categories of human services v.hich become a regional service. . Seattle would receive ongoing funding for the zoo and participate in public safety software commitments. TRANSITION . Plan transfers local service responsibility to the cities from the COlIDty for all DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 20 . remaining urban unincorporated areas. During the transition of urban unincorporated areas to cities and the realignment of county and city service delivery a number of steps will have to be taken to; 1) assure continuous quality of service delivery, 2) assure that unincorporated urban areas new infrastructure is built to adjacent city standards, 3) assure that the COl.mty remains fiscally sound and can stick to an appropriate FrE to population ratio for unincorporated service, and 4) assure annexation or incorporation of remaining areas of the County with serious infrastructure deficiencies. The RFG Plan needs to address each of this items through commitments by the parties to perfonn specific actions over the transition period. . POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM . A combination of the following sources of funds would be used to finance a P AA Infrastructure investment program. These funds would be set aside to address the infrastructure needs of selected urban unincorporated areas in the County: 1) King County Capital Improvement Program Target investments (Minimum of $50 million per year oflocally derived dollars for DRAFT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 21 ten years including any accumulated unincorporated urban area mitigation payments, the County Road Fund, REET I and II, Stormwater Management Fund, Current Expense CIP contribution, cash balances, internal service ñmd reserves, sale of assets and any other available capital improvement ñmding) 2) the balance of the net regional revenues as they become available (through annexation or incorporation) may be considered until committed in Phase II, and 3) grant monies from the State (potentially $50 million per year for ten years through jointly pursued State legislation); . The total available dollars would be set aside separately in accounts for each annexationfmcorporation area. Improvements from the set aside ñmds would be made on a schedule determined by the County and the annexing or incorporating city in a fonnal written agreement. County monies would be targeted for such improvements as roads, stormwater/flood prevention and parks. State money would also be available for water and sewer system upgrades/improvement. The total cumulative revenue available for the ten areas combined at the end of the ten year period would be $500 million (plus any accumulated interest) in County capital improvement dollars and up to . . . Dlv\FT Suburban Cities Revised Proposal 7-15-98 22 $500 million from the state adjusted for inflation. . The County and the Cities wolÙdjointly approach the legislature to create any necessary authorization . . Initially ten urban unincotporated areas are targeted for the use of P AA infrastructure funding as follows: 1. East Federal Way 2. White Center/ North Highline 3. Skyway 4. Sammamish Plateau 5. Kingsgate 6. North Kirkland 7. Renton P AA 8. South Park 9. Lee Hill 10. Rural Cities PAA's . Cities may nominate additional areas or remove areas from the list for one year after all or part of an area is designated as part of its P AA or for one year after the RFG Plan ratification which ever is longest. . Allocation of monies among the ten areas will be determined based on criteria developed by all of the cities involved. Any areas on the list planned for incorporation will be represented by the County. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 1 Financing of Regional and Local Services Regional Governance and Finance Plan DRAFT Suburban Gties Policy Paper .July 15, 1998 PURPOSE The pwpose of this policy paper is to: 1. Provide an overview of King County finances and how they are effected by annexarionlincorporarion 2. Evaluate the amount and content of the "Urban Subsidy" 3. Determine the amount of "urban subsidy" that Suburban Cities and Seattle could expect to have redirected to regional services as unincorporated urban areas annex or incorporate 4. Propose a financing plan for Phase I of the RFG process for regional and local services and the requirements within P AA' s 5. Provide a "balance sheet" for suburban cities under the proposed financing plan OVERVIEW OF KING COUNTY FINANCES This section of the Policy Paper provides basic facts about King County Finances in a question / answer fonnat. It is designed so that the reader can quickly grasp the information presented. At a high level what is the basic structure of the County's budget? The King County budget is organized in a different manner than most city budgets. The County has a much larger number of funds that track revenues and expenses for County operations in addition to the County's General or Current Expense fund. Below is a table that helps to show the similarities and differences between the County and City budgets. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 . Fund type CITY AND COUNTY BUDGET STRUCTURE BY KEY FUND AND REVENUE TYPES (JI.ALICS HIGHLIGHT DIFFERENCES Typìcal City Fund Key City Revenues County Fund Names Names . Current Expense. Property, criminal . Current or General Fund justice and general Expense sales tax . Utility or business taxes . State shared per capita revenue . Licenses and permits . Fees and fines . Reimbursement from other fimds for services Gas tax Fees Part of Property or Sales Tax bv Council J!Q1jg . Street Fund . Park and . Recreation Fund. . Enterprise . Water Utility . Garbage Utility . Storm Water Utility . Sewer Utility . Recreation Facilit Internal . Facilities Service . Insurance . Equipment R lacement . Rate revenues Vendor income . . Payments from user departments of City government . Crimin::!l Justice . Substance Abuse . Developmental Disabilities . Mental Health . EMS . Public Health . Work Training . Surface Water Management . County Road . CDBG . REET . Development & Environmental Services . Solid Waste . Boeing Field . Kingdom . Metro Transit . Metro Transit . Facilities Insurance Equipment R lacement . . 2 Key County Revenues . Property and Sales Tax Contract payments Criminal Justice State Shared Licenses and permits Fees and fines Reimbursement from other fimds for services . . . . . . CJ Sales Tax RE Excise Taxes State and Federal apportionments or granls for operations Special proverty tax levies Fees Gas Tax Coumv Road Property Tax Levy Contract vayments Permit fees Mìtigation payments . . . . . . . . . . Rate revenues . Lease income . Contract fees . Vendor income . Payments from user departments of County government Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 3 . Computers and commm1Í cati ODS . Employee Benefits . Computers and Communicatio DS . Employee Benefits . Printing . Finance and Bud et . Capital Projects. Gas tax Funds for . Mìtigation funds individual . General Taxes, operations grants or rate revenues allocated by Council thru CIP . REET . Bond roceeds . Property tax or other designated revenue . Fund for each bond issue Capital Proj ect . Arterial Street Fund . Capital Proj ects Funds . Gas tax . Mìtigation funds . General Taxes, grants or rate revenues allocated by Council thruCIP . REET . Bond proceeds . Fund for each bond issue . Property tax or other designated revenue What is the size and composition of King County's overall budget? To get a picture of the King County budget size and proportion I have used the same fund category breakdown as above in a table that shows the proportion of revenues for the various parts of the County's activities. ALLOCATION OF KING COUNTY REVENUES 1998 BUDGET FUND TYPE COUNTY FUND 1998 BUDGETED PERCENT AGE OF NAMES REVENUES TarAL ($l,OOO's) OperatiIlg . .<...... ...~ ..... ....$395,005 ................ 15% ...... ... ............ . Current Expense and $395,005 Mìsc. Operating Special Revenue ... $520,809 19.8% Criminal Justice, $35,241 AFIS and E911 Developmental $96,897 Disabilities and MentalHea1th EMS $24,948 Public Health $145,267 Work Training $4,034 Surface Water $31,300 ~.. em em County Road $82,090 Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 4 CDBG $16,794 REET $13,049 Development & $27,927 En vir ODIn ental Services Hazardous Waste $9,045 Other $34,217 Enterprise $577,140 22% Solid Waste $63,803 Boein~ Field $8,543 Kin~dom $12,943 Metro Transit $316,343 Metro Wastewater $175,508 Internal Service .. $225,659 8.6% Facilities $22,298 Insurance $19,914 Equipment $53,240 Replacement Computers and $24,955 Communications Employee Benefits $84,886 Printing $2,649 Finance and Budget $17,717 CapitalProiect ... >>~ $679,890 I ...... 25.8% ..< Capital Proj ects F mds $679,890 for individual operations Debt Service > ........ ...... ....... $230,449 .. 8.8% Food for each bond $230,449 Issue Tar AL ....... ... .... ... ... ... $2,628,952 100% .. .. .... ... ....... Source: 1998 King ColU1ty Budget Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 Where do the major County taxes come from? Below are tables that show the proportion of the two major sources of County taxes that are derived ftom within unincorporated areas, suburban cities and Seattle. (:':,;;- -~'~~j~j~lí~~ î\î~~~';~;:g~ tti_;:i:( :if; ':: ~,'~~ ~~ ;~~~t~~~g~g~1~~re~~' ;: j}:\: ;~'~T: ¡c~;~J¡7~4t; ~~.;\ œ KING COUNTY GOVERNMENT ~~Äi~~~~~1~~~~i;¡ i~~~'~\~~1!4 ~;~:~ Unincorporated $17,600,000 30% Suburban Cities $25,767,000 44% Seattle $15,133,000 26% KING COUNTY TOTAL $58,500,000 100% KING COUNTY GOVERNMENT 1'991i'GENERALt,.p.ROBERTY"'.."" C 'O"""'û' ,""',,' " """,o/c"",.-,. TAXitŒéi:Eìv,Eb}'äY'-~ÀFtE~:::;~:::::~:',<:-;; -, ,,::~:;;,!t't~~,~.-~:AA::. :~~{~;::r~~~' Unincorporated $36,414,200 20% Suburban Cities $83,752,660 46%) Seattle $61,904,140 34% $182,071,000 100% KING COUNTY GENERAL LEVY TOTAL Source: Sales tax, Municipal Research and Services Center, Property Tax from 1998 budget and Assessor's Annual Report 5 Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 6 What happens to the County's revenues when unincorporated areas annex or incorporate? The table below list King County's major revenues and what happens to them with annexation or incorporation. KING CO UNIT REVENUES EFFECTED BY ANNEXATION OR INCORPORATION REVENUE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AFTER INCORPORATION CURRENT.EXPENSE ..... FUND COUNTY GENERAL 10OOÁ! TO COUNTY 10OOÁ! TO COUNTY~ PROPERTY TAX CITY ALSO HAS SEPARATE LEVY SALES TAX 100% TO COUNTY 15% TO COUNTY~ 85% TO CITY FEES FOR RECREATION, 100% TO COUNTY GOES TO CITY IF CITY COURT, POOLS OFFERS PROORAMS; MA Y GO TO COUNTY AS PART OF CONTRACT FEE FRANCHISES AND 100% TO COUNTY 1 OOOÁ! TO CITY LICENCES GAMBLING TAXES 100% TO COUNTY 100% TO CITY OTHER COUNTY .................... .. ... FUNDS ...... ...... ~ ROAD DISTRICT 10OOÁ! TO COUNTY WHEN CITY PROPERTY PROPERTY TAX TAX LEVY IS IN PLACE THIS TAX IS NO LONGER COLLECTED (1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1 OOÁ! of all funds collected in No change. SALES TAX County STORM WATER 1000Á! TO COUNTY 100% TO CITY UNLESS MANAGEMENT FEES CONTRACTED TO COUNTY REET 100% TO COUNTY 100% TO CITY LAND USE AND 100% TO COUNTY NEW PERMIT BUILDING PERMITS REVENUE WOULD GO TO CITY (1) Cities receive Road District Tax levy after annexation/incorporation until City general property tax levy begins collections. (2) Cities receive state shared revenues (MVET, gas tax, liquor taxes and sales tax equalization) after incorporation. They may also collect Utility tax, B&O tax, and optional County vehicle licence fee for streets if they are enacted by the City. The County receives limited state shared revenues - a little liquor tax and MVET that support Health and human services, the County continues to receive gas tax. Dráft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 7 What responsibilities does the County retain and what responsibilities do they lose when an area is annexed? The table below displays both revenues and service responsibility changes with annexation. REVENUES AND SERVICE RESPONSmIL TIES FOR KING COUNTY BEFORE AND AFTER INCORPORATION (Services that chan2;e in italics) REVENUE BEFORE SERVICE AFTER SERVICE INCORPATION RESPONSmn..ITY INCORPORA- RESPONSmILITY TION CURRENT ..... ... . ........ ... ... EXPENSE ...i~ FUND. ... ... i .i « < COUNTY 100% TO . Cotmcil and 100% TO . Council and GENERAL COUNTY Executive COUNTY~ CITY Executive PROPERTY . Administration ALSO HAS . Administration TAX . Tax Assessment SEPARATE . Tax Assessment . Elections and LEVY . Elections and SALES TAX 100% TO Records 15% TO Records COUNTY . Parks and COUNTY; 85% . Targeted Human Recreation TO CITY Services FEES FOR 100% TO . Animal Control GOES TO CITY . Superior Court RECREATION COUNTY . DDES subsidy IFCITYOFFERS . Felony Prosecutor, COURT, . Targeted Human PROGRAMS; Jail and Defense POOLS Services MAYGOTO . Juvenile Court, Land Use COUNTY AS Detention and . PART OF Planning Interveoti on Jail CONTRA cr FEE . 100% TO CITY FRANCHISES 100% TO COUNTY . Sheri{f. Prosecutor AND and Defense LICENCES GAMBLING 100% TO . District and 100% TO CITY Superior Court TAXES COUNTY . Juvenile Court, Detention and Tnt erv enti on . Contribution to CIP OTHER COUNTY FUNDS ROAD 1 Oü% TO . Rood Maintenance WHEN CITY None DISTRICf COUNTY . Street Repair PROPERTY TAX PROPERTY . Transooriation LEVY IS IN Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 8 TAX system planning PLACE THIS . Street TAX IS NO Improvement LONGER . Signal. sign and COLLECfED (1) street liPht svstem CRIMINAL 10 % of all fimds Helps fimd Criminal No change. Helps fimd Criminal JUSTICE collected in Justice Services in the Justice Services SALES TAX County Current Expense Fund primarily in the Current Exoense Fwd STORM 100% TO Storm water system 100% TO CITY None WATER COUNTY planning. UNLESS MANAGEMEN maintena:m:e, CONTRACTED T FEES development review TO COUNTY and construction REET 100% TO Parks and sports fields 100% TO CITY None COUNTY acquisition and develovment LAND USE 100% TO DevelofTTnent and NEW PERMIT Complete permits AND COUNTY buildinf.! permits REVENUE submitted prior to BUILDING WOULD GO TO incorporation. PERMITS CITY (1) Cities receive Road District Tax levy after annexation/incorporation until City general property tax levy begins collections. (2) Cities receive state shared revenues (MVET, gas tax, liquor taxes and sales tax equalization) after incorporation. They may also collect Utility tax, B&O tax, and optional County vehicle licence fee for streets if they are enacted by the City. The County receives linùted state shared revenues - a little liquor tax and MVET that support Health and human services, the County continues to receive gas tax. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 9 What did County property taxes collected in Cities pay for in 1997? A number of elected officials wanted to know what the property taxes that are paid to the county each year buy for their citizens. Below is a table that attempts to layout the types of services and facilities that the property taxes collected from every city resident by the county pay for. WHERE DO MY COUNlY PROPERTY TAXES GO? FUND Amount of General County Services Property Tax Allocated in 1997 ($l,OOO's) Current Expense $154,284 . Council and Executive . Administration . T ax Assessment . Elections and Records . Targeted Human Services . Superior Court . Felony Prosecutor, Jail and Defense . Juvenile Court, Detention and Intervention . Subsidy for Special Revenue funds that are not self supporting -- permitting, human services and health Human Services $3,155 Mental Health services Vetéran's Aid $1,420 Services for veteran's River Improvement $2,000 Flood prevention improvements Bond Redemption $21,210 Conservation Futures Open Space land purchase TOTAL $182,071 Source: 1998 King County Budget, pg A-II. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 10 URBAN SUBSIDY EVALUATION Why would suburban cities be concerned about an "Urban Subsidy"? "In the simplest terms, urban subsidies exist when taxpayers in incorporated cities are taxed to provide services for residents and businesses in unincorporated areas." (Gardiner, pg. 3) The suburban cities are interested in this issue for three reasons: . The financial inequities that subsidizing unincorporated area public services impose on City residents and businesses; . A subsidy of unincorporated area public services increases the obstacles to annexation or incorporation ofunincorporated urban areas into adjacent cities - perpetuating inefficient service delivery, development patterns and public facilities; . A subsidy promotes County local service delivery patterns that are costly and interfere with the County's focus on its countywide regional service delivery responsibilities. What di> all the reports and letters about Urban Subsidy really mean? In recent years the Cities and the County have commissioned jointly and individually studies of the "Urban Subsidy" and corollary issues in order to attempt to define the amount of subsidy. Armed with information about the scope of the subsidy the Cities and the County could then :make policy and service delivery decisions that would eliminate or substantially reduce the subsidy and its effects. Below is a summary of the major points from each report or relevant issue paper / statement and an evaluation of their content. McIntire Report (April 1997. Commissioned by GMPC) The McIntire report is a case study which attempted to project the County's future financial position and define and project the amount of the urban subsidy over the life of the current GMA planning period (1992 - 2012). The consultant analyzed County revenue and expenditure trends and created a financial model to project revenues, expenses and the subsidy through the year 2012 using a set of assumptions about revenue growt~ county service levels, population growth and annexation. The report focused on three funds - Current Expense, Criminal Justice, and Road. The base year from which all projections were made was 1995. Prior to the base year the County and Metro had been merged and significant incorporation and annexation activity had already taken place. The County has changed its approach to annexation and incorporation becoming a major contract service provider among the newer cities. Between 1995 and 1998 additional incorporation and major annexation has occurred (Maple Valley, Covington, Kentnore incorporations; Kent and Lake Forest Park Draft Subllfban Cities Policy Paper 7~ 15~98 11 annexations; please note that Shoreline was also incorporated by taken out of study numbers already). The County also renegotiated its largest contract (for Policing) with its contract cities, changing its contracting and pricing approach significantly. In order to make projections the report used a set of key assumptions. The report projected future County expenses and revenues using a constant ratio of County full tUne employees (FTE) to population and a constant tax rate based on 1995. These assumption~ were modified by pricing assumptions for contract or overhead services (for each price increase of 10%, 3% less service was purchased fÌ"om the County) and an assumption about decreases in federal revenue (10% overall from 1995 to 2012). Annexation and incorporation was projected to move 237,122 out of364,400 urban unincorporated residents into cities by 2012, leaving 127, 278 or 35% still in urban unincorporated areas and 155,000 in rural unincorporated areas (based on Rural Subsidy Issue Paper 5/18/98). By 1998 70,000 more residents were already incorporated or 29% of the projection in 3 years. McIntyre then allocated revenues and expenses to regional services, unincorporated municipal services, contract municipal services, municipal services in cities and federal contracts. Important conclusions include: . The County FTE to population ratio increased by 12.2% between 1990 and 1995 after the effect of the METRO merger is deducted. . At the 1995 ratio of County employee FfE to population County revenues would exceed County expenses by $92 Million in the year 2012 (in constant 1995 dollars) and $70 Million in the year 2000. . In 1995 the County spent more to provide municipal services in both unincorporated and incorporated areas than those areas generate in revenue. . In 1995 the County spent more to provide contract municipal services in cities than those cities provided in contract payments to the County. . There are significant shifts in County service delivery patterns. Between 1992 and 2012 the County's service population in unincorporated areas shrinks while the County's service population for regional services grows. The County has provided a growing amount of municipal service within cities, mostly by contract. . When all Current Expense sales tax revenue is assigned to support unincorporated municipal services between $8.9 and $11.2 Million more revenue is needed to support unincorporated services at the 1995 fiE to population level When only sales tax revenue originating in unincorporated areas is assigned to support unincorporated Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 12 municipal services $50.9 million more revenue is needed to support unincorporated servIces. . Total Current Expense Fund expenses in the unincorporated area for 1995 were estimated at $85 Million. Approximately $20 Million in expenses for the rural unincorporated area (based on 5/18/1998 Rural Subsidy Issue Paper) and $65 Million was for the urban unincorporated area. Reviewing the report raises some issues that may effect the conclusions. The key issues are: (1) The assumption about the level of capital investment by the County between 1995 and the year 2012 both overall and as it effects the amount ofproperty tax revenue available to the Current Expense fund for service delivery. The projections of capital investment by the County between 1995 and 2012 were $427 Million in 2000 and $503 Million in 2012 (constant 1995 dollars). This investment level was intended to represent an averaging of cyclical highs and lows adjusted for reduced unincorporated area responsibilities and increased regional responsibilities. The actual average scheduled investment in the 1998 County CIP over six years is $364 Million (1998 dollars) 15 to 20% less. Ifplanned levels of investment have decreased a disproportionate amount of revenue would have been allocated to capital and not available for operations in the projections especially in funds such as Roàd and Storm Water Management. Actual County policy may be moving funds from capital to operations or reserves. Funding that in part might be available for investment in unincorporated urban area inftastructure. Total property tax revenue to the County in 1995 was $273 Million. Of that amount $142 Million went to the Current Expense Fund, $44 Million to the Road Fund, $6 Million to special revenue funds including mental health, approximately $20 Million to debt service for capital projects and the balance to voter approved purposes like EMS and Regional Justice Center construction. In addition, the Current Expense fund contn"buted $5 Million toward capital projects in the CIP in 1995. Allocation of property tax revenue to capital investment is a policy decision that reduces the amount ofproperty tax revenue available for service delivery. Decreasing the amount of property tax. directed the CIP would increase the amount available for operations having the effect of increasing regional revenues. (2) The amount of sales tax. revenue assigned to support unincorporated municipal services. The McIntire Report does not reach a conclusion about the Urban Subsidy or even define it. After allocating all Current Expense Fund sales tax revenues to support unincorporated municipal services the report implies that there is a relatively small subsidy of up to $11 Million dollars needed. One could even go the next step and imply Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 13 that this subsidy is offset by the amount of subsidy needed to cover the net loss incurred in municipal service contract costs where the County provides services in cities. Even the County is no longer arguing (Snns, Sullivan and Vance letter to Steering Committee 5/28/97) that the sales tax beyond that generated in the unmcorporated area should be assigned to unincorporated municipal services. Using this assumption the McIntire report would estimate the Urban Subsidy at $50.9 Million in 1995 dollars or approximately $54 Million in 1998 (2% annual inflation assumed). (3) Allocation of General Government expenses. The County has the difficult job of determining what portion of its general government services should be paid for by general tax dollars and what parts are the responsibility of other funds. Special revenue, capital and enterprise funds as well as direct services funded ftom the current expense fund all share in paying for general government services in the county's financial plan. General Government includes computer and telephone system costs, insurance, facilities, records, motor poo~ finance, personne~ County Council and Executive. How general government services are paid for effects the amount of the urban subsidy. If funds outside the current expense fund pay for the majority of general government services then that leaves more funding available for regional services. In fact in 1995 $25 million dollars was collected to offset $38 million in general government expenses (Table n - 6a, McIntire). This leaves $13 million or 34% for support by tax and other Current Expense revenues. The current expense fund is only 18% of the total county operation. If an increased amount of general government expense was allocated to other funds so that the Current Fund paid 18% then $6 million more would be available for regional services (since some of the County's non-current expense services are subsidized by the Current Expense fund the total here would likely be less). As non-current expense fund activities increase the share of general government services goes down, increasing available regional revenues. (4) Assignment of a proportion of service cost for services provided to cities to the unmcorporated areas for parks and human services. In the McIntire study the cost of a little more than half of human services, special programs, recreatio~ park maintenance and pools was allocated to the category "municipal services in cities" a total of$12.5 Million. Whether this allocation is appropriate given the amount of service received by city vs unincorporated citizens could be challenged. An increaSé in the amount allocated to unincorporated citizens increases the subsidy. (5) Subsidy of regional services outside of the current expense fund nom Currrent expense revenues. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 14 In 1995 $23 million of Current Expense revenue was used to subsidize the operations of special revenue funds such as the Health Department, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES), AFIS, Park operations and Alcohol and Substance Abuse services. Special revenue funds support regional (ex. Public Health) and municipal services (ex. DDES) that have legally restricted revenue sources but usually are not self supporring like Enterprise Funds. All of these expenses were allocated to either regional ($9 million) or unincorporated municipal services ($14 million). To the extent that the allocation is revised, over time the urban subsidy is either increased or decreased. (6) The assignment of responsibility for a deficit in municipal service contract services provided by the County in Cities. The McIntire study does not reach a conclusion about the assignment of responsibility for the deficit to the County when municipal service contract costs exceed charges for service. It should be noted however that the impact of a change in the County's largest contract's pricing model occurred after the McIntire study was complete. This creates a question about the real extent of the "deficit". Gariliner Report (April 1997. commiss~_furnm:Þan Cities Association) The Gardiner Report is an independent analysis of the Urban Subsidy- The study focuses on defining the amount of the Urban Subsidy given alternative sets of assumptions. The same base year, 1995, is used to allocate County Current Expense Fund revenues and expenses among regional services, municipal unincorporated services, contract municipal services, municipal services provided in cities and federal contract services. The Gardiner report does not project the future financial position of the County nor does it look at funds outside the Current Expense Fund in its analysis. Major conclusions: . The report concludes that the Current Expense Fund Urban Subsidy is $36.3 Million in 1995 dollars ($38.5 in 1998 dollars) when 20% of the sales tax collected in cities and all of the sales tax collected in unincorporated areas is allocated to offset the cost of municipal service provision in unincorporated King County. The Urban Subsidy grows to $42.3 Million in 1995 dollars ($44.8 in 1998 dollars) when only the sales taxes collected in the unincorporated area is allocated to offset the cost of services. . Regional services cost $48 million ($50.9 in 1998 dollars) less than the available regional revenues in 1995 when 80% of the sales tax collected in cities was allocated to regional services and $54 million ($57.2 in 1998 dollars) when 100% of the sales tax was allocated. . The "additional" regional revenues were being used to subsidize both unincorporated municipal services ($42.3 million) and other county services ($11.8 million). Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 15 . When all sales tax revenue is assigned to support unincorporated municipal services $9.7 Million additional non-sales tax revenue is needed to support unincorporated seTVlces. . As a result of incorporations and annexation after 1990 the County has experienced a 34% decline in sales tax revenue ûom the unincorporated area. . When Human Services are considered "regional services" rather than "municipal services" and sales tax collected in the unincorporated areas is allocated to unincorporated service expenses - regional services have a $47.9 Million ($50.8 million in 1998) surplus of revenue; municipal services in unincorporated areas have a deficit of$31 million ($32.9 in 1998); and municipal services in cities have a deficit of$11.8 million ($12.5 in 1998). Rural Subsidy Issue Paper (5/18/98 prepared by King County staff) The Rural Subsidy Issue Paper uses the McIntire Report approach as the basis for calculating the amount of subsidy required to support services in the rural unincorporated area of King County. The paper calculates the amount of revenue and expenses attributable to the rural area and determines the extent of the revenue shortfall or needed subsidy to pay for the services delivered to the rural area. 1996 is used as the base year and the analysis of expenses and revenues is limited to the Current Expense Fund. A formula for determining the amount of rural service in each of the key "municipal" and general government service areas is defined and then applied to 1996 total Current Expense Fund expenditures. The rural portion of ' 'regional services" was not defined. A 1996 population of 131,000 was assumed for the rural unincorporated area. Major conclusions: . Between 1991 and 1997 the County Current Expense Fund took in less than it spent four out of seven years. The deficit varied from 1.5% to 4.5% of expenditures. . The public safety "rural" level of service was determined by using the staffing model developed for municipal policing contracts. The rural area was treated as a "contract city". Dispatched calls for service to the rural area or % of police cases derived ftom the rural population vs urban population was used as an allocator for other criminal justice costs such as court, jail and attorney expenses. . Parks and Human Services costs were allocated based on specific expenditures in the rural areas line by line. . Overhead was allocated at 5% of the expenses of each general government services department for a total of$2.2 million. These expenses were offset by reimbursement from other funds totaling $319,000 for a net expense of$I.9 million. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 16 . The total level of rural expenditures was estimated at $22.4 million in 1996 dollars. . Revenues including sales tax generated in the rural area to support "municipal services" totaled $8.2 Million. Sales tax represented $5.3 Milllion of the total Property taxes generated in the rural area were allocated to offset "regional services". . The amount of 1996 dollars ITom other sources needed to support ')nunicipal services" in the rural area or the "rural subsidy" was calculated to be $14.1 Million. . The county received $40.9 million in current expense fund sales tax revenue that was collected within cities in 1996. Reviewing the report raises some issues that may effect the conclusions. The key issues are: 1. Should the "rural" subsidy calculation also consider expenses and revenue ITom the Criminal Justice and Road Funds? The McIntire Report considered expenses and revenues ITom all three funds in evaluating the "Urban Subsidy". When determining the level of service provided in the unincorporated rural area it would be appropriate to review these two funds as well The McIntire Report found a total of$17.9 million in Criminal Justice Revenues and $16.4 million in expenses, $4.3 million of which were allocated to the unincorporated area. The rural area accounted for 12.7% of the public safety budget in 1996 so applying the same ratio would add $2 million in expenses to the current expense total of$22.4, increasing the subsidy by a like amount. The Criminal Justice sales tax totaled $10.1 million in 1995 and $10.3 million in 1997 so it is likely that the 1996 total is close to the same amount. Regional revenues would also increase by $10 million in sales tax revenue to a total of$50.9 million available to offset a subsidy requirement of$16.1 million (1996). Property tax, gas taxes, vehicle licence fees and mitigation fees are the key revenues in the Road fund. Services and capital projects are both funded ITom these revenues and the McIntire report allocates all the revenues and expenses to unincorporated areas since the County is responsible for the road system only in the unincorporated area. While the rural unincorporated area represented 30% of the unincorporated population in 1996 it can be argued that the proportion of road nilles located in the rural area is higher than 30% of all county road miles and therefore expenses are disproportionately high. I do not have information on rural road (lane) miles or total road (lane) miles to verifY this assumption. However, the county receives 20% of its Road Fund revenue fÌ'om Gas Taxes which decrease very little as a resuh of incorporation. It could be argued that these funds would offset any disproportionate needs in the rural area. As a resuh there is likely not a subsidy necessary for rural road services to the Road Fund. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 2. Is the level of allocation of General Government or overhead expenses too high? The current expense fund is 18% of total non-debt County expenses. The cun-ent expense fund bore 34% of the cost of General Government in 1995 or $13 million. The rural unincorporated population (8% of county total population) receives both regional and municipal services 1Ì'om the County which would require more than their population's share of general government effort. Eight percent of$13 million is $1 million doll~s. The Rural Subsidy Issue Paper allocates a net general government cost of $1.9 million to the rural area or 15% of total net general government expenses. This proportion of general government costs is probably reasonable. 3. Js the Public Safety staffing model used for cities the appropriate "rural" level of service? This question is key to a definition of "rural" service levels. While the rural part of the County has a low population base it has a large land area. Rural response times are expected to be lower than urban response times. It is likely that the staffing level to achieve a rural response time may result in a higher FTE/population ratio than is typical for an urban area to achieve an equivalent lower response time due to travel distances and land area. Whether the "urban" staffing leve~ as used in this mode~ is appropriate would be subject to additional review. The County Council apparently has a policy of keeping public safety staffing levels at or near 1990 levels. This date is prior to most annexation and incorporation activity in the County and is described by County staff as an historically high level I do not know how the public safety ~affing model for cities relates to the 1990 level of service policy. !fit is the same or higher however. then the use of the staffing model is likely unreasonable. Adiusting the '1"u.ral" public safety service level costs downward would have the effect of decreasing the rural subsidy. Since public safety is the single largest service cost the effect could be as much as 1 0%. 4. Is it appropriate to use part of the Urban Subsidy to underwrite services in the rural unincorporated part of the county? As a policy matter, a good argument can be made for subsidizing rural service delivery with regional revenues because rural areas provide a general benefit to the region. Growth Management policies and implementing regulations reduce potential development levels (and therefore potential tax revenues) for the rural area while providing areas of open rural lands adjacent to the metropolitan area. Less densely developed land is more expensive to serve on a per capita basis. !kban Subsidy Letter 1Ì'om Executive Sims and Councilmembers Sullivan and Vance (dated 5/28/98) This letter defines Urban Subsidy from the County's perspective and proposes reallocation of urban subsidy derived revenues to specific se:tVÏces. The key conclusions from the letter are: 17 Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 18 . The County believes that the Cities' position based on its 4/21/98 letter is that the urban subsidy be defined as "the revenue which is generated in cities and directed to unincorporated area local service." Further the County believes that our focus is on the 15% sales tax generated in cities which we believe should finance regional services instead oflocal services in unincorporated areas. . The County believes that the total urban subsidy is $38 million dollars (1995 dollars) the equivalent of sales taxes collected within cities for the current expense fund ('the 15%'). . The net urban subsidy available for reallocation is $11 million (1995 dollars) after deducting support for rural services ($14 million in 1996 dollars) and local services provided by the County in cities (primarily human services and parks - $13 million). . The County would like to reallocate the remaining $11 million in revenue to cover; 1) the "full costs" of suburban cities contracts with the County, $5 million 1995 dollars (fi'om the McIntire report) 2) subsidizing "urban-level local services" in the urban unincorporated part of the County until they are annexed by cities, after annexation the subsidy would be used for regional services and local services in the rural area. . The County supports the RFG proposal before GMPC as a reasonable compromise but is willing to carefully consider any modifications proposed by Suburban Cities provided that additional costs to the county for one service are offset by improvements for the County on other services. Reviewing the letter raises some issues that may effect the conclusions. The key issues are: . We should reallocate net regional revenues not the urban subsidy (see next section). Rural subsidy is one of the items that needs to be considered. . The responsibility for contract under-pricing is the County's not the Cities' taxpayers. Contract pricing has changed since 1995 especially for policing, so we question the application of a $5 million cost subsidy today. . An urban level of local services should be provided to unincorporated urban areas only after annexation. . Reallocation of regional revenues should be coupled with reduction in county local service responsibilities related to urban unincorporated areas so that the transition does not disrupt service levels. We are not negotiating tradeoffs in service financing we are realigning service delivery. . The County will be solvent with revenue to spare if it is diligent about controlling its FIE to population ratio between now and the year 2012. . Human Services are a remonal not a local service for the followinQ: reasons: Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 19 1. The CPP's call for the County to have a key role as a regional service provider in human services. 2. Human services are currently financed through regional and state revenues not only in King County but most Counties in the state. 3. The state recognizes Counties as the primary government responsible for human services. 4. The county currently provides human services to all county residents not just unincorporated residents. What should be the suburban cities definition of urban subsidy? Basic concq>ts In order to clarify what resources are available for the financing of the RFG plan it is important to distinquish between three concepts introduced and liberally confused in the financial work to date. The first concept I would like to dub "Net Regional Revenues", These are the funds that are available from regional revenue sources not currently being used to fund regional services. Regional revenues come from all county taxpayers (like the general county property tax levy) or are generated within cities (like the 15% sales tax). The second concept is the "urban subsidy" which occurs when the taxpayers in incorporated cities are taxed to provide services for residents and businesses in unincorporated areas. The urban subsidy could never be bigger than the amount it costs to provide service to the unincorporated area whereas the amount of net regional revenue available to fund regional services could far surpass funding for unincorporated areas, especially over time as the unincorporated area shrinks. "Net Regional Revenues" could be used in part to subsidize the unincorporated urban and rural areas and so the "urban subsidy" is a shrinking expense bemg financed by "Net Regional Revenues". The third concept I would like to dub "IncorPoration Impacted Revenues". These are County operatmg and capital revenues both within and outside the County Current Expense fund that are lost as a result of annexation or incorporation. These funds are tied to unincorporated urban areas directly and come to the county only when the area is unin corp orated. How much is it? Both McIntire and Gardiner define "Net Regional Revenues" and the "Urban Subsidy", neither attempt to define "Incorporation Impacted Revenues". In estimating a bottom line for these three amounts of money I was conservative m applying the analysis presented in the prior sections of this report. A literal application would have resulted in higher numbers for Net Regional Revenues specifically. First let us look at Net Regional Revenues. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 20 Net Regional Revenue McIntire establishes $83.7 million (1998 dollars) as the amount of current expense regional revenue not already committed to regional services when the 15% sales tax collected itt cities is assigned as a regional revenue. I would argue that all or a large part of the Criminal Justice Fund's sales tax revenues ($10.3 million in 1997) and a smaller CX contribution to General Government expenSe (initially estimated at $6 million in 1995 dol1ar~) be added to the McIntire estimate. This modification would boost the total of "Net Regional Revenue" to $94 million (1998 dollars). Garditter establishes $57.2 million (1998 dollars) as the amount of current expense regional revenue not already committed to regional services when the 15% sales tax collected in cities is assigned as a regional revenue. I would argue the same two additions to this number which would resuh itt a total of$67.5 million (1998 dollars) itt "Net Regional Revenue". An amount of "Net Regional Revenues" itt the $76 million ballpark (1998 dollars) would be reasonable based on these two separate evaluations. This number will likely increase with time as the 15% sales tax collected in cities changes. Urban Subsidy Mcintire establishes the urban subsidy at $54 million (1998 dollars) out ofa total unincorporated service cost of$90 million (1998 dollars). All of the 15% sales tax collected in cities plus $11 million fÌ"om other regional revenues would need to be allocated to the subsidy. Gardiner estimates the urban subsidy to be $44.8 million (1998 dollars) in the current expense fund using the same assumptions about sales tax allocation. An additional subsidy would be present in the Criminal Justice Fund of approximately $4.5 million (1998 dollars). An "Urban Subsidy" amount of$50 million would be reasonable based on these two separate evaluations. Incorporation Impacted Revenues Incorporation Impacted Revenues are County operating and capital revenues both within and outside the County Current Expense fund that are lost as a resuh of annexation or incorporation. The following table is a rough estimate of the impact of the urban unincorporated area moving into cities. Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15.98 21 KING COUNTY REVENUES EFFECTED BY ANNEXATION OR INCORPORATION TOTAL URBAN UNINCORPORATED AREA REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE 1998 DOLLARS CURRENT ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE FUND REVENUE SALES TAX $12.3 million (1996) $12.8 million FEES FOR $1.8 million Courts (1995) $3.7 million RECREATION, $1.2 million Pools (1995) COURT, POOLS $.5 million (?) Recreation/Parks 1995 FRANCmSES, $2.4 million Gambling (1995) $5.3 million GAMBLING TAXES $2.6 million Cable and other AND LICENCE S licences 1995 OTHER. COUNTY FUNDS ROAD DISTRICT Urban portion of $50 million Same PROPERTY TAX aYe per yr spent on capital AND OTHER ROAD $28 million in revenue for RELATED capital ITom road fund REVENUES annually $34 million total fÌ"om mitigation over six years (1998) STORM WATER $12.1 capital funds total Same MANAGEMENT FEES (1998) Urban portion of$15.5 million in fees annually (1998) Urban portion of$12 million Same annually committed by policy to arks LAND USE AND Urban portion of$5.5 million Same BUll,DING PERMITS 1998 annuall Source: Gardiner Report revenue charts for operating revenue in current expense fund; County 1998 budget, CIP and CIP information paper for GMPC all other. REET How much revenue do suburban cities and Seattle have available to reallocate? The amount of revenue available to allocate is equivalent to "Net Regional Revenues" or $76 million in 1998 dollars. All County taxpayers contribute to regional revenues with City taxpayers contributing through general fees and charges, property and sales taxes and unincorporated taxpayers contributing through general fees and charges and property I Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 22 taxes. To determine how much net regional revenue suburban cities would have available to reallocate the beginnihg of a simple ~'balance sheet" helps. Net Re . onal Revenues Less: Rural Subsid 1 Sub total Less: Cit of Seattle share 2 Remainder 'of regional revenue available for reallocation $76,000,000 $16,700000 $59,300,000 $20,200,000 $39,100,000 (1) Current and Criminal Justice Funds combined -- $14.7 million in 1998 dollars for CX, $2 million for CJ (2) Weighted average ofproperty and sales tax proportional contributions - Seattle 34%. FINANCING PLAN Regional Services Based on the information provided above there would be $39.1 million (1998 dollars) in annual regional revenue available to reallocate as annexation or incorporation occurs or the county freezes/reduces local service levels in urban unincorporated areas m anticipation of annexation. Once a picture of the end result has been agreed on then a phasmg plan can be developed. One third of the population in the urban unincorporated area has already been mcorporated or annexed since 1995 -- 120,000 plus residents out of a planned 364,400 by 2012 have already moved to incorporated status. This should mean that $13 million out of the $39.1 million total would already be available for reallocation applying 1995 population to FfE ratios to the present time. The suburban cities revised RFG proposal would allocate the annual $39.1 million in the following ways in priority order: 1. Nine categories of regional Human Services shifted to the County from Cities: $7,600,000 2. Transitional Funding in the first ten years for PAA infrastructure and temporary staffing to complete agreements. 3. Phase II RFG Plan $31,500,000 (Phase II includes Jails, Regional Parks, Emergency/Disaster Management and Pools). 4. Enhancement of regional services. Transition During the transition of urban unincorporated areas to cities and the realignment of county and city service delivery a number of steps will have to be taken to 1) assure continuous quality of service delivery, 2) assure that unincorporated urban areas new Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 23 I infrastructure is built to adjacent city standards, 3) assure that the County remains fiscally sound and can stick to an appropriate FIE to population ratio for unincorporated service, and 3) facilitate annexation or incorporation of remaining areas of the County with serious infrastructure deficiencies. The RFG Plan needs to address each of this items through commitments by the parties to perform specific actions over the transition period. Potential Annexation Area Infrastructure Investment Program (... A combination of monies from King County Capital Improvement Program targeted investments and matching funding jointly pursued from the State of Washington would be used to fund the Infrastructure Investment Program. Monies from the King County Capital Improvement Program ( Minimum of$50 million per year oflocally derived dollars for ten years including any accumulated mitigation payments) would be set aside to address the infrastructure needs often urban unincorporated areas in the County. The total available dollars would be set aside separately in accounts for each annexation/incorporation area. Improvements from the set aside funds would be made on a schedule determined by the County and the annexing or incorporating city in a formal written agreement completed witllln two years of the PM boundary being set. County monies would be targeted for roads, storm water/flood prevention and parks. State money would be pursued for water and sewer system upgradesfunprovement. Among other sources the State Public Works Trust Fund may be a potential source of financing at the State level. The total cumulative revenue available for the ten areas combined at the end of the ten year period would be $500 million (plus any accumulated interest) in County capital improvement dollars and up to $500 million from the state adjusted for inflation. The County and the Cities would jointly approach the legislature to create any necessary authorization. The ten ~eas are as follows: 1. East Federal Way/West Auburn 2. White Center! North Highline 3. Skyway 4. Sammanúsh Plateau 5. Kingsgate 6. North Kirkland 7. Renton PAA 8. South Park 9. Lea Hill 10. Rural Cities PAA's . Cities may nominate additional areas or remove areas iÌom the list for one year after all or part of an area is designated as part of its P AA or for one year after the RFG Plan ratification which ever is longest. Allocation of monies among the ten areas would be -.'-.OW.-_O_,.""",."""",-""..""""",. "'."""" " "".""---""'" .""'W"'--""-"'-'-""--~'------ Draft Suburban Cities Policy Paper 7-15-98 I 24 determined based on criteria developed by all of the cities involved. Areas planned for incorporation will be represented by the County. BALANCE SHEET FOR SUBURBAN CITIES WITH THE PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN A number of cities have asked how this all adds up for the suburban cities as a whole. The financing plan as described above does not require any new revenue ftom suburban cities. There are short term assessments for some cities to finance the animal control one year marketing program and the pools study. The District Court services contract would be negotiated outside of the RFG process. REGIONAL REVENUE I URBAN SUBSIDY BALANCE SHEET Net Re1Z;Ìonal Revenues $76,000,000 Less: Rural Subsidy (1) $16,700,000 Sub total $59,300,000 Less: City of Seattle share (2) $20,200,000 Remainder of regional revenue! $39,100,000 urban subsidy available for reallocation RFG Plan -- Phase I Nine categories of human services $7,600,000 RFG Plan - Phase n or transition funding Potential service areas incJude $31,500,000 Pools, Jail services, EmergencylDisaster Management (1) Current and Criminal Justice Funds combined -- $14.7 million in 1998 dollars for CX, $2 million for CJ (2) Weighted average of property and sales tax proportional contributions - Seattle 34%. Potential Annexation Area Infrastructure Investment Program . Total available: Up to $1 Billion accumulated over ten years in individual accounts or grants from the State. . Allocated among ten urban unincorporated areas of the County . Iroprovements are scheduled based on written agreement between the annexing city and the County . Upon the request of potentially annexing city, the County would administer adjacent city infrastructure standards in order to assure that new public and private public improvement construction in unincorporated areas is at an urban level