No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Council Retreat101 LAND USE AND ANNEXATION DISCUSSION ➢ Orientation: Comprehensive Plan Update Process ➢ Discussion on Density homa ➢ Review of Annexation Policy FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCESS FOR 3RIORITIZING CAPITAL PROJECTS 1% FOR ART DISCUSSION CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND PRIORITIES ➢ Downtown development ➢ Lake Washington Blvd. corridor (including Coulon Park area) ➢ Highlands/Sunset Area improvements and redevelopment priorities ROGRESS UPDATE ON BUSINESS PLAN MISSION ,ND GOAL OF "BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE CITY WITH IPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL" serving vulnerable members of our community) UPDATE ON MARIJUANA REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR RENTON AGING WORKFORCE IMPLICATIONS (information and update) MAVERY° READYINDEXO 600084 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPATE Background: • The City began the mandatory Comprehensive Plan update in early 2013 after the adoption by the City Council of the work program and public participation program (see attached). o One of the primary objectives of the update, besides complying with all mandatory requirements, is to make the Comp Plan a much more refined document that is easier to read and understand, articulates a clearer vision for growth for the next 20 years, and to reference other adopted plans rather than summarize or establish additional policies in the Comp Plan. o The Utilities, Economic Development, and Parks elements have been completed with this new approach. (See attached) o An example of the new approach is the Parks element which was 12 pages in the 2004 Comp Plan and is 2 pages in the updated version. o Significant work has been completed on the Land Use element and the Housing and Human Services element. For the Housing and Human Services element a first ever Community Needs Assessment is being developed. This document will help accurately identify current conditions and needs and help establish a baseline from which future work in this area can be developed. Current Work: • Remaining elements are: Land Use, Transportation, Housing and Human Services, Capital Facilities, and Community Planning. o A revised scheme for Land Use is being considered. The intent is to have zones implemented in only one Comprehensive Plan land use designation, consolidate land use designations, and eliminate zones that essentially duplicate intensity and uses. The resulting proposal is a simplified scheme with a reduced number of Comprehensive Plan land use designations, from 12 to 6, and zones, from 21 to 19. (See attached) Additionally, residential densities are being considered as part of this along with a new R-6 zone. • The proposed R-6 zone would provide greater continuity in matching the density of existing development in many neighborhoods. Next Steps: • Work on the remaining elements is being prepped or underway. • All work will be done in conjunction with the Planning Commission and includes public participation. • Code work for related amendments will be initiated following policy adoption. • Final approval and completion is anticipated for Spring 2015. Comprehensive Plan Update — Draft Schedule (April 2013) 2013 2014 2015 J_j F I M I A M J 1 A S O N D 1 F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M 1 Project Framing Work Plan Public Participation Plan Visioning' Elements Revision Land Use Transportation*3 Housing and Human Services Utilities 3 Economic Development Parks"3 Capital Facilities Community Planning Finalization Environmental Review Approval Process'b Public Process Public Workshop Planning Commission Council Review Notes: ' Provide clarity on issues related to Vision that are currently ambiguous. Also, create a stronger correlation to the City Business Plan and other plans. *= Once land use policies are in place, staff can begin working on evaluating critical areas on a separate track, with the goal of including that work in a combined public hearing in April 2014. *3 Includes portions of the Environment Element *° Includes the Community Design Element *S SEPA Process Includes 60 day review by Department of Commerce ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Creating economic opportunity that keeps Renton as a city of prosperity, where businesses and families thrive. W Discussion Renton's economic development is important because it promotes Renton as the progressive, opportunity -rich city in the Puget Sound region. The economic development policies encourage collaborations between the public and private sectors to ensure the long-term economic health of Renton and its residents. A healthy economy provides jobs and opportunity and helps pay for vital public services such as education, parks, transportation, police and fire protection, and human services. The policies encourage a mix of high tech, creative jobs, as well as retail, service, and office uses that will result in a diversified employment base. The policies encourage the quality development necessary to sustain a high standard of living in Renton. A Goals P-1: Promote and maintain diversified economic growth by utilizing resources and amenities to stimulate economic development while protecting quality of life through environmental sustainability and increased employment opportunities to ensure competitiveness in today's market. P-2 Recruit and retain businesses to ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base and nurture entrepreneurship while fostering successful partnerships with business and community leaders. Invest in and grow workforce training and retraining opportunities to support targeted local industry clusters. Build diverse economic industry base in areas of Aerospace, Healthcare, and Creative industries (High tech, design, software, local artesian, gaming, and architecture.) P-3 Leverage public and private resources to focus development on targeted economic centers in addition to industry clusters and pursue transportation and other regional improvements and services that support and improve quality of life. Build and invest in commercial and residential development and cultivate an attitude and focus towards redevelopment throughout the city of both "Jobs, businesses, and public and privates spaces. transportation, are interdependent parts of IM Policies strong local economies, By planning and building Policy P-1: Develop incentives smarter, we can make for businesses to locate, stay, families, communities and and expand in within the City: entire regions more providing incentives for prosperous"(smart 0 Growth America). Economic Development within the city's urban center, neighborhood business districts and commercial corridors. Policy P-2: Promote targeted local and regional industry cluster development: meet with top employers and key organizations to identify and discuss their future needs to determine how the City can assist them in being successful in expanding in Renton. Policy P-3: Foster communications with, and support for key local and regional economic foundations: support partnerships between businesses, government, schools, and research institutions to implement economic development policies and promote workforce development programs. Policy P-4: Develop a retail recruitment strategy with an emphasis on business district development. Policy P-5: Implement strategies to foster and expand knowledge -based businesses, high profile companies, and locally owned startups. Policy P-6: Ensure Renton's Economic Development Element is consistent with countywide economic policies and strategies in accordance with relevant Countywide Planning Policies. Policy P-7: Provide transparency, efficiency, and uniformity of City regulations, policies, and procedures: allocate sufficient resources to process development projects quickly and professionally. ECONOMIC DEVELOMENT ELEMENT - Page 1 CITY OF RENTON-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy P-8: Define and develop Renton's unique cultural, historic, recreational, educational, and environmental assets as important marketing and image -building tools of the City's business districts and neighborhoods. Policy P-9: Support Downtown Renton Redevelopment: engage Downtown stakeholders and business community members with efforts to implement the City Council's priorities for the City Center Community Plan. Policy P-10: Promote incentives for multi -family development in Downtown: work with prospective single-family and multi -family developers to facilitate new residential development with a diversity of housing types and price ranges to meet the future needs of Renton citizens. Policy P-11: Promote investment in mixed -use centers and compact urban development (including density, redevelopment, and infill design; encouraging growth and balance of employment and housing opportunities within designated urban centers. Policy P-12: Facilitate the Sunset Area Community Revitalization: engage with Renton Housing Authority and prospective developers to identify additional opportunities for the City to leverage successful capital investment in the Sunset Area. Policy P-13: Foster economic and employment growth by encouraging local investment, planning, and financial policies that advance the development of commercial, manufacturing, and industrial development centers. Policy P-14: Encourage investments that address future needs: focus investment in infrastructure and services in designated centers that align with the City's projected population, housing, and job growth targets. Policy P-15: Implement the Renton Airport Compatible Land Use Program when guiding development within the Airport Influence Area. Policy P-16: Further the provisions of Creating Renton's Clean Economy. Attract low -carbon and clean -energy sectors and promote green job development. Encourage economic activity that is highly resource -efficient and minimizes the generation of waste and pollution. Policy P-17: Promote the efficient use of services and resources, including conserving water and energy, reducing waste, and protecting resource lands. Work cooperatively with local businesses to help protect the natural environment in a manner that is efficient and predictable. Policy P-18: Provide peripheral support to community services to facilitate the growth of a regional food economy through the development and expansion of local farmers' markets, food co- ops, and community supported agriculture programs. Policy P-19: Support the Departments of Public Works and Community Services, the Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division, and The Renton Housing Authority to encourage economic development strategies that address disparities in income and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged populations, including minorities and women. Policy P-20: Develop and promote local arts and culture programs, particularly by supporting the Renton Municipal Arts Commission: encourage investments in creative industries and centers, bolster earned income for local attractions, and generate new tax revenues for the City by attracting cultural tourists to the city while expanding cultural experiences for residents. Policy P-21: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and/or archaeological significance. ADOPTED STRATAGIES 1. Clean Economy Strategy— Adopted April 2011 2. Renton Airport Compatible Land Use Program -Adopted December 2004 ME [ECONOMIC DEVELOMENT ELEMEN — - _ Page 2 UTILITIES ELEMENT Introduction The Utilities Element guides future utility service within Renton's planning area and ensures that adequate utility services will be available to support existing and future development in the city. The goals and policies included in the Utilities Element are designed to promote efficient, cost-effective utility service while meeting community needs and protecting both existing neighborhoods and the natural environment. The City of Renton provides water, wastewater, and surface water utility services to Renton residents, as well as some areas outside City boundaries. The City contracts with a private hauler for solid waste and recycling collection and coordinates with King County for use of regional solid waste disposal facilities. Several non -City utility providers also operate within Renton, providing water and sewer service for developed areas that have been annexed relatively recently. Other non -City utilities include electric, natural gas, and telecommunications (cable television, internet, wired telephone, and cellular telephone/data services). Under the Growth Management Act, planned land use patterns and growth must be supported by adequate levels of utility service. The Utilities Element must therefore ensure that adequate levels of utility service are available to serve the levels of growth that are discussed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Functional plans for each utility system must also accommodate projected growth in their respective service areas, based on these adopted growth allocations. A detailed discussion of City utility system capacity and the City's adopted growth allocations is contained in Technical Appendix UT-1. The relationship of the Land Use Element, Utilities Element, and City utility functional plans is shown in Figure UT-1. Major challenges related to provision of utility services include the following: • Recent annexations have created large areas of the City, mostly in southeastern Renton, where water and/or sewer service is provided by non -City providers. • Much of the City's existing wastewater infrastructure is approaching the end of its useful life and will require replacement in the near future. • New requirements for implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) are included in the NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for Western Washington, issued by the Department of Ecology in 2012. These requirements may affect development patterns in Renton and may result in new methods for handling stormwater runoff. Increased use of on -site infiltration may affect aquifer recharge and groundwater quality. Framework Goal Statement Facilitate the development and maintenance of all utilities at levels of service appropriate to accommodate future anticipated growth while protecting natural ecosystems and environmental quality. General Goals and Policies The following general goals and policies are intended to promote safe and efficient utility service, regardless of whether they are City -owned or delivered by a non -City provider. These policies also focus on coordination between utility providers, both within the City and with adjacent jurisdictions. A Goals U-A: Provide an adequate level of public utilities consistent with land use, protection of the environment, and annexation goals and policies. U-B: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater resources of the UTILITIES ELEMENT - - W I Page 1 �hn�'ol' :i�i►� Ti 01�1_.col►,&Ifor 4W City of Renton in order to maintain a safe and adequate potable water supply for the City. Policies Policy U-1: All utility services and systems should be consistent with the growth projections and development concepts established in this Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-2: Protect the health and safety of Renton citizens from environmental hazards associated with utility systems through the proper design and siting of utility facilities. Policy U-3: Promote the co -location of new utility infrastructure within rights -of -way and utility corridors and coordinate construction and replacement of utility systems with other public infrastructure projects to minimize construction - related costs and disruptions. Policy U-4: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and non -City service providers within Renton to cooperatively plan for regional growth. Policy U-5: Approval of development should be conditioned on the availability of adequate utility service and should not result in decreases in local levels of service for existing development. All new development should be required to pay their fair share of construction costs for necessary utility system improvements. Policy U-6: Encourage the use of water and energy conservation technologies to provide utility services in an environmentally responsible manner. Policy U-7: Non -City utility systems should be constructed in a manner that minimizes negative impacts to existing development and should not interfere with operation of City utilities. City development regulations should otherwise not impair the ability of utility providers to adequately serve customers. Policy U-8: Encourage the use of new technology to increase the quality and efficiency of utility service and utility system management. City -Managed Utilities Water The Renton Water System is a publicly owned water system operated by the City of Renton as a self- supporting enterprise utility. Operations and system planning are guided by the City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan (2012) and the provisions of Chapter 246-290 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Group A Public Water Supplies. The City provides water service to an area of approximately 16 square miles, generally coincident with City boundaries, though portions of northeastern and southeastern Renton (East Renton Plateau and Benson Hill) are currently served by non -city water providers. Figure UT-2 shows the boundaries of the City's water service area and those of adjacent water purveyors. WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEM CAPACITY The City's water supply is obtained from a combination of groundwater wells, Springbrook Watershed, and a partial contract with Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) for Boeing facilities. City water sources represent 95% of the City's supplies and the SPU agreement represents 5%. There are also emergency interties with adjacent cities. The current capacity of the City's active supply wells is 19,450 gallons per minute (gpm), or 27.29 million gallons per day (mgd). Emergency wells and interties with adjacent water systems can provide an additional 14,695 gpm (21.16 mgd). The City also maintains two interties with Seattle Public Utilities dedicated to supplying water to the Boeing's Renton Plant and an intertie with the Skyway Water and Sewer District, which purchases water wholesale from Renton. The City's water system also includes a network of ten storage reservoirs, consisting of underground concrete and steel tanks, above -ground steel tanks, elevated steel tanks and standpipes, and covered concrete -lined surface reservoirs. The overall gross storage volume available is approximately 22.88 million gallons. 0 I Figure UT-1. Utilities Plannning Relationships LAND USEGrowth TargetsUTILITIES ELEMENT ,. ELEMENT city utilities Development Polici s Non -City Utilities FunctionalPlans Sp Water Sewer Surface Water Solid Waste Figure UT-2. City of Renton Water System Service Area Water System Mercer Service Area Island INTOR,IOR,.. �r o ,D 0 0.5 P Kent :F set Ievue . Issaquah Nawcasttei' N swam .Onrc�— TOX . l 1 wtstta aw1aIC1M .0900 -----! z _ 4. CUM MEN MKZEda� f�RNt1YCF a �y .ea am` j rMAND �rwer � $A,adyr hake - Dec~ Path: H.ACEDWlannerplGISIGIS„p*Cls%=nptan amendmenfl2013WINdes ElementwxdslWaler System Servke Area Bxlf Aup2013.nurd n.r Cny UasA O Cwj Crook UtKy wrotd Seas Gut Water and Saws Diwid Community &Economic Development l — FAAB„-4„Y 0 CRY aKnd Q C Y.1TwNwk G C YNp' v:, x Adrbn. GJSM M kh V FWM n.�wan WANK las Sn A� Kna Lnw'Ar KC WANK t>tmm fO Adw.w.t.d> ++y.ytxncb daan.t i ft ftn RaAt Wafer SMWOAM Cay.1 Rewo.da W.9.Vhn SAb Dept .tTunapmtaU.n tr i�[ (' r Wffier Swvk* Areas 0 s..m. vmkc uww Q vw.mm Part WANK symm CCoda RWar WSW and Saws DWItt Skyway WANK aw a. ' DMid age 4 UTILITIES ELEMEN O U A detailed description of the City's supply wells, storage reservoirs, and all interties with other systems is included in the Comprehensive Water System Plan. Goals U-C: Provide and maintain a consistent, ample, and safe water supply for the City and future service areas through system planning consistent with anticipated development. U-D: Protect water supply resources and ensure that groundwater quality is not negatively impacted by future development. Policies Water Supply and Service Policy U-9: Provide and maintain water supply, infrastructure, and service consistent with projected population growth within the City's service area, as established in the Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan and the Water System Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-10: Extend water service within the City's water service area in an orderly manner to serve anticipated growth and development in accordance with the Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-11: Ensure adequate water supply to meet both average and maximum daily demand. Employ monitoring of water supply sources and withdrawal limits as necessary to comply with State issued water rights certificates and permits. Policy U-12: Maintain and upgrade the water system to deliver adequate water flow and storage for fire protection to all customers and facilities connected to the City water system. Policy U-13: Continue maintenance and upgrades to the water system to ensure water quality that meets or exceeds all health requirements. Policy U-14: Coordinate with non -City water providers operating within Renton and neighboring jurisdictions where the City has extended water service to accommodate road construction and other public works projects. Policy U-15: Adopt by reference the City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan and all subsequent updates and amendments. Water Resource Protection Policy U-16: Practice and support water resource management that achieves a maximum net benefit for all citizens and promotes enhancement of the natural environment. Policy U-17: Actively promote voluntary water conservation and coordinate with Seattle Public Utilities to meet regional water conservation goals. Policy U-18: Implement the City's Wellhead Protection Plan and Aquifer Protection Program to preserve groundwater quality. Policy U-19: Emphasize the use of stormwater management techniques that maximize water quality and infiltration where appropriate and which will not endanger groundwater quality. Policy U-20: Promote the use of interlocal agreements with other agencies to restrict land use in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize possible sources of pollution and the potential for erosion, and to increase infiltration. Wastewater The Renton Sewer System is a publicly owned wastewater system operated by the City of Renton as a self-supporting enterprise utility. Operations and system planning are guided by the City of Renton Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (2010). The City collects wastewater from a service area of approximately 21.68 square miles, with approximately 3.91 square miles located outside City limits. Primary collection of wastewater is achieved through gravity sewer lines, though the City maintains a series of lift stations and force mains to overcome changes in topography. Collected wastewater is discharged to King County wastewater facilities, where it is ultimately transmitted to the King County South Treatment Reclamation Plant for treatment. UTILITIES ELEMENT. Page :5] Some portions of the city are not served by City sewer and are instead connected to non -City sewer districts. Most notably, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District serves a large portion of southeastern Renton annexed in 2008. Figure UT-3 shows the boundaries of the City's sewer service area and those of adjacent service providers. SYSTEM CAPACITY Sewer system capacity is dependent on a number of factors, including adequately sized pipes to collect wastewater, properly sloped pipes to allow adequate gravity flow, the capacity of downstream treatment facilities to accept wastewater, and the level of inflow and infiltration into the system. An updated hydraulic computer model of the City's wastewater system was completed in 2006, and the City uses this model to evaluate the effects of changes to the sewer system resulting from new development, changes to the existing system, or future population growth. Hydraulic modeling does not show any current capacity deficiencies in the City's system, but capacity is projected to become an issue at various locations as the City nears the "ultimate build -out" year of 2030. lCNM'.ul•'11*? RO-Q1- 109KU, 11 it dating from the 1920's and 1930's. These facilities have reached the end of their useful life, and many are in need of replacement. The Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan establishes a list of recommended capital improvements to the sewer system, ranked in priority order, which includes extensive replacement of wastewater collection pipes, elimination or replacement of lift stations, rehabilitation or improvement of aging interceptor lines. A complete list of proposed capital improvements is included in Chapter 6 of the Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan. INFLOW/INFILTRATION MANAGEMENT Inflow results from storm water flowing into the sewer system, either during a storm incident or from an illegal connection. Infiltration results from groundwater entering the sewer system through leaking pipe joints, cracks, or other defects in the sewer system. While some level of Inflow/Infiltration (1/1) is unavoidable, excessive 1/1 volumes can place a strain on the system, taking up valuable conveyance and treatment capacity with relatively clean water. King County's handling of wastewater flows from the Renton system also contributes to potential The City participates in King County's regional 1/1 capacity issues. During peak flows, King County management program by implementing 1/1 interceptor lines are sometimes used to store reduction techniques, such as minimizing vent wastewater while the South Treatment Plant is holes, sealing manholes in wet areas, and temporarily over -capacity or when flows to the conducting video inspections of sewer lines to check treatment plant need to be limited for other for leaks. Older sewer infrastructure is more reasons. When these interceptor lines cannot flow susceptible to 1/I, and the City has identified priority freely, they may cause back-ups in connected areas for investigation and replacement. A systems, including Renton. During such conditions, complete discussion of the City's 1/1 monitoring the City system has experienced sewer surcharging efforts is contained in the Long -Term Wastewater in low-lying areas, resulting in wastewater Management Plan. overflowing through manhole covers and side sewer connections. INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT Much of Renton's existing sewer infrastructure dates from the 1940's and 1950's, installed as part of federal programs to provide housing for workers at the Renton Boeing Plant. Sewer infrastructure in the Central Business District is even older, much of A Goals U-E: Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service through system planning that is consistent with land use, environmental protection, and annexation goals and policies. U-F: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with the public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. N Policies Sewer Service Capacity and Availability Policy U-21: Sewer facilities and services should be consistent with the growth and development concepts expressed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Extension of sewer service should be coordinated with expected growth and development. Policy U-22: All new development should be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system, except properties zoned for low density single family residential development that are located away from environmentally sensitive areas, outside Aquifer Protection Areas, and having adequate soils to support on -site septic systems. Policy U-23: Projected sewage flows from development should be calculated based on adopted land use plans and policies. These projections should be used as a guide in developing the wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP should be updated as land use plans and policies are revised. Policy U-24: Ensure that wastewater utility staffing is sufficient to maintain the sewer system and provide adequate service to Renton residents. Staffing levels should be commensurate with the physical extent of the sewer system and the number of residents served. Policy U-25: Coordinate with non -City sewer providers operating within Renton and neighboring jurisdictions where the City has extended sewer service to accommodate road construction and other public works projects. Policy U-26: Adopt by reference the City of Renton Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan and all subsequent updates and amendments. Water Quality and Public Health Policy U-27: Timely and orderly extension of the sewer system should be provided within the City's existing and future service areas to meet public health requirements. Policy U-28: Sewer system improvements supporting areas of the City projected to experience high levels of growth should be prioritized to ensure that sewer service is concurrent with anticipated growth. Policy U-29: Protect surface and groundwater quality through coordination with King County to reduce surcharging conditions that may cause wastewater overflows. Policy U-30: Continue coordination with King County Wastewater Division regarding Inflow/Infiltration reduction initiatives, system improvements, and interconnections between City and County sewer infrastructure. ��r��. pig i;�:►iFi 7i►t� C,-�31i�lY�t�'kl_��'!}�,1-i t 7l!+!{�I Figure UT-3. City of Renton Sewer System Service Area Issaquah Bellevue COALCREEK TILIEEK Newcastle' N UTY DISTRICT 1_7 �:• rr. f s*� OF A �r S 1 T U k w l t '.r CEDAR RIVER v rM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT �J CITY OF TUKWILA�— e nr.xo r S CREEK{ >ra WA D SEWER STRICTSA KENT 7 S 0.5 1 Dowrovat Pata.H.ICEDVgannln0lGlS%GISpnMctslmnplan amendmenA2013WtSthe EWwfl NxdslSenNary Sewer Service Anna andAd/acer;MsW is 6XII AU02013 mxd Rardon City Limits Q Cfty of Tukwnla Community &Economic Development A"w A a e 0 Potential Arvwxaton Ares eaundary Q Ca.l Creek Utility District 1d "��° Ohe4o °� " Water and Saver Swvlce Areas 0 I(I g County = Cedar River water and Sewer dstrid Skyway v tar and S.w.r DlaM City of Renton Soos Creak water and So~ D iddd O --- Surface Water THE SURFACE WATER SYSTEM Renton's surface water system consists of natural streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes, and constructed systems that manage drainage, provide flood protection, and water quality treatment. Surface water management is important to meet social, economic, and ecological needs including flood protection, erosion control, water supply, groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Impervious surfaces in an urban, growing community such as Renton can affect surface and groundwater quality through stormwater runoff containing pollutants from roads and parking lots and landscaping. Impervious surfaces can also decrease groundwater recharge and increase the quantity of peak flows of runoff, causing stream channel scouring, sedimentation and loss of habitat. The existing surface water drainage Additionally, as new development and redevelopment occur, Low Impact Development (LID) practices would be implemented to conserve native soils and vegetation, protect hydrologic processes (e.g. infiltration), and reduce and treat overland stormwater flow to more closely match native forest or prairie conditions. Selected examples of LID techniques include bioretention planters, rain gardens, and permeable sidewalks to provide water quality treatment and reduce stormwater flow. SURFACE WATER UTILITY Renton's Surface Water Utility manages stormwater and surface water in Renton's city limits which has grown from about 17 square miles in The Surface Water Utility develops policies, design standards, and capital projects to maintain and restore the quality of Renton's lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, improve drainage, and reduce flooding. system is meeting capacity requirements under normal conditions. However, in some areas of the City, the system has become inadequate to serve present needs during large, infrequent storm events. In more developed areas of the city within the Lower Cedar River and Lake Washington East Basins, problems include flooding and ponding caused by inadequately sized pipes, ditches and detention facilities. In other areas of the city such as the Black River Basin, loss of wetlands and fish passage are concerns as well as development occurring within the watershed, both inside and outside the city. In areas where redevelopment is likely such as the Renton Urban Center, Sunset Area, and other centers, redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment, which could improve water quality over present conditions. the year 2000 to 24 square miles in 2013. Figure UT-4 illustrates the Surface Water Utility service area and its component drainage basins. The Utility develops policies, basin plans, development design standards, and capital improvement projects in order to maintain and restore the quality of Renton's lakes and rivers, improve drainage, and reduce flooding. The Utility coordinates with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding flood hazard management. The Utility also coordinates with multiple state, county, and city agencies to conduct watershed planning for the Green River/Duwamish and Cedar River/Lake Washington Watersheds. The City currently operates a storm system maintenance program that includes cleaning catch basins, pipes and other facilities, along with a street vacuum sweeping program. The maintenance programs remove sediment and pollutants from City -owned and operated storm systems and streets, which reduces flooding and non -point source pollution from being discharged into water bodies in the City. +i7�11L41i1(1F► ��.�aull��"`---__—........._--- --- -- �. .,_. . c a1LIA1.O. 1VI61FYA-VI-,.Vi!i ` Figure UT-4. City of Renton Surface Water Service Area and Drainage Basins D--v4PaNMWDmm&peO&sl-6&IfWv2'NJ—d Communky & Economk DmWpment Renton Cay LLN4 EMIN Duamtsh May Creak e� +rak— � RkAHwMary Mack River East L ke WYalkewwn 8e08 Creak __��/! p _ a( , � J (1 0, ;....! Su�� Cedar RWw 0 Lower Cedar River L -' Nkst Lake Mah600n The Utility also provides public education on how homeowners and businesses can help minimize impacts to surface waters such as by using natural lawn care, and avoiding discharges or spills entering drains or waterways. As the City redevelops and annexes territory, greater demand is placed on the Utility to provide planning, regulatory oversight, capital project implementation, and maintenance services it provides today. STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS The Utility is responsible for meeting federal and state stormwater requirements. A significant effort for the Utility is compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Permit. This permit requires the Utility to control discharge of pollutants to protect surface water and to develop and implement a stormwater management program addressing: 1. Public education and outreach 2. Public involvement and participation 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) 4. Controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites 5. Pollution prevention good housekeeping, and municipal operation and maintenance 6. Post construction stormwater management for new development & redevelopment, including LID. 7. Monitoring. 8. Annual reporting and record keeping of compliance with NPDES permit requirements. AQUIFER PROTECTION COORDINATION Approximately 87 percent of Renton's water is supplied by the Cedar Valley Aquifer, with the rest coming from Springbrook Springs. As Renton's primary water source, the Cedar Valley Aquifer has been designated a "sole source" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; no federal financial assistance can be given to a project which 41 might contaminate the aquifer. The City has identified aquifer protection area (APA) zones. Development projects located in either Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, or Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) are required to pass additional City review to ensure the projects do not produce water quantity and/or quality impacts that may affect the aquifer. Areas of particular concern include areas subject to vehicular traffic or the storage of chemicals. In some areas, infiltration systems are not allowed and could increase runoff, requiring new facilities to be larger. If the new NPDES Phase II requirements result in changes to quality or quantity of runoff and infiltration, the City's aquifer protection regulations could require review and amendments. Goals U-G: Provide and maintain surface water management systems to minimize impacts of land use development and storm water runoff on natural systems, fish and wildlife habitat, water supply, public health, and safety. U-H: Implement a stormwater management program which optimizes Renton's water resources and promotes low impact development that combines engineering with the preservation of natural systems. U-I: Preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat, riparian corridors, and wetlands for overall surface water system functioning. U-J: Protect the natural functions of 100 year floodplains and floodways to prevent threats to life, property, and public safety associated with flooding hazards. U-K: Increase the participation by the City of Renton in resolution of regional surface water and ecological issues that may impact Renton residents. 0 Policies Stormwater Management System Policy U-31: Design storm drainage systems to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation UTILITIES ELEMENT - - - - - - Page 11 problems, and to preserve natural drainage, of LID techniques, such as flow dispersion, watercourses, and ravines. bioretention (rain garden) facilities, and permeable 0 Policy U-32: Control runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites through the implementation of development design standards and construction techniques that promote the use of best management practices to maintain and improve storm water quality and manage stormwater flow. Policy U-33: Provide incentives and regulations appropriate to an urban environment that reduce impervious surfaces, promote natural and distributed stormwater techniques, and incorporate native and naturalized vegetation. Policy U-34: Maintain, protect, and enhance natural drainage systems and natural surface water storage sites to protect water quality, reduce public costs, and prevent environmental degradation. Policy U-35: Work towards protecting surface water resources and groundwater resources from pollutants entering via the storm drainage system. Natural System Protection Policy U-36: Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, recreation, and open space. Policy U-37: Through public programs and new development, naturalize degraded channels, streams, creeks, and banks. Policy U-38: Prohibit filling, culverting, and piping of natural watercourses that are classified as streams, except as needed for a public works project where no other option is feasible and mitigation is provided to replace lost functions. Policy U-39: Where feasible, promote the return of precipitation to the soil at natural rates near where it falls through development design which minimizes impermeable surface coverage and maximizing infiltration through the exposure of natural surfaces through tree retention and the use pavements. Policy U-40: Preserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning. Policy U-41: Protect buffers along wetlands, streams, rivers and other water bodies to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for fish and wildlife habitat. Policy U-42: Ensure water level fluctuations in wetlands used as part of storm water detention systems are similar to the fluctuations under natural conditions. The utilization, maintenance, and storage capacity provided in existing wetlands should be encouraged. Policy U-43: Minimize erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques and resource practices. Policy U-44: Limit discharges of pollutants such as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, and other hazardous wastes to surface waters. Policy U-45: Reduce the impact of new development on the environment by encouraging the use of sustainable design techniques in public and private development, through LID and other sustainable development methods. Public Health and Safety Policy U-46: Prohibit permanent structures from developing in floodways and manage development within the 100 year floodplain. Where development is permitted in the floodplain, ensure compliance with FEMA floodplain development regulations and the National Marine Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. Policy U-47: Emphasize non-structural methods in planning for flood prevention and damages reduction. 0 Page 12 UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF RENTON - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy U-48: Continue to maintain levees and floodwalls and perform maintenance dredging of the Army Corps of Engineers constructed Lower Cedar River Flood Hazard Reduction Project to protect the Renton Municipal Airport and other essential public facilities; industrial and residential areas and the Renton Urban Center; educational and recreation investments; and other facilities. Regional Coordination Policy U-49: Actively participate in regional efforts to improve fish habitat and water quality that also contribute to the recovery of Endangered Species Act listed salmon in WRIA 8 and WRIA 9, which include the May Creek, Cedar River, and Green River Basins. Policy U-50: Actively participate in the King County Flood Control District regional efforts to implement flood hazard reduction projects and programs on the major river basins in King County, including the Green River and Cedar River basins. Policy U-51: Coordinate with adjacent cities, counties, and state and federal agencies in the development and implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Permit, flood hazard management plans, and storm and surface water management programs. Utility Management Policy U-52: Provide high quality surface water utility services. Continue to develop policies, design standards, basin plans, and capital projects to maintain and restore the quality of Renton's lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, improve drainage, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce flood hazards to protect people and property. Policy U-53: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, urban forestry programs, transportation planning, development reviews, incentive programs and work with citizens, land r owners, and public and private agencies. 4 Policy U-54: Establish regulatory standards for sustainably developed public and private projects, to include standards for site design and layout, construction, and on -going maintenance and operation. Policy U-55: Continue to assume maintenance of stormwater facilities in subdivisions that manage runoff from public streets. Policy U-56: Continue to implement a program to detect and remove illicit connections and contaminated discharges. Policy U-57: Continue to implement public education and outreach activities to inform residents, businesses and developers about ways they can prevent stormwater pollution. Policy U-58: Monitor Surface Water Utility levels of service and adjust staffing and equipment as appropriate due to new annexations and due to the growth of infrastructure and customers that results from new development within the City. Solid Waste While solid waste collection is managed by the City, Renton maintains an interlocal agreement with King County for disposal of collected solid waste. This interlocal agreement also authorizes King County to include Renton in its Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Renton's Solid Waste Utility administers the City's solid waste, recycling, and yard/food waste collection for all residents and businesses through a contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. for the majority of the City and Republic Services, Inc. for the City's annexation area. The City's Solid Waste Utility also develops and manages Renton's Recycling Program, waste reduction, hazardous waste education and special collection events. COLLECTION PROCESS AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES IN RENTON Solid waste and recycling are collected every other week, while food/yard waste is collected weekly. The majority of collected waste is brought to King County's Renton Transfer Station located in the Renton Highlands. Residents of unincorporated King UTILITIES ELEMENT Page 13 `rtiv'41v c,o1vjIb��0, 1ffl fp (11�vl County, as well as City residents are also allowed to use this facility for self -haul disposal. Also within city limits is the Black River Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Transfer Station (CDL), overseen by Republic Services, Inc. Under a contract with King County, this facility accepts construction, demolition, and land clearing waste from waste hauling companies and private residents. Following the city -administered collection process, all solid waste produced in Renton is brought to the King County Solid Waste Division's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, located Southeast of Renton. All recyclables collected from single-family, duplex, and multi -family residents are brought to Waste Management Inc.'s Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville, WA, while all food/yard waste from single-family and duplex residents is taken to Cedar Grove Recycling in Maple Valley. ESTIMATED CAPACITY OF FACILITIES As of 2012, the remaining airspace capacity (with anticipated settling) at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is 9 million cubic yards. However, an additional waste disposal area that is currently in planning will add another 8.6 million cubic yards by 2017, bringing the total estimated airspace capacity to 17.7 million cubic yards. Under current planning assumptions, the landfill has a remaining operating life of nearly 15 years. The Cascade Recycling Center processes approximately 144,000 tons of commingled recyclables and 48,000 tons of construction and demolition materials every year, while the Cedar Grove Recycling Center has a yearly capacity of 195,000 tons of organic material. At this time, the capacities of the Renton Transfer Station, the Cedar Hills Landfill, the Cascade Recycling Center, and Cedar Grove Recycling are sufficient to meet the City's needs. KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION The King County Solid Waste Division serves unincorporated King County and 37 of the 39 cities in the County, including Renton. It manages a complex network of collections, transportation, and processing for garbage, recyclables, organics, and construction and demolition debris. The services and infrastructure of the public and private sectors are included in the County's integrated network to establish long-term capacity for the management of solid waste in the County. R Goals U-L: Provide a responsible, comprehensive solid waste management program that provides cost- effective, environmentally sensitive service to the community. 1, Policies Policy U-59: Actively promote recycling, as well as overall reduction of both the residential and commercial solid waste streams through public education programs and incentive programs. Policy U-60: Work closely with King County Solid Waste Division to plan for regional solid waste collection and disposal, including siting of facilities. Policy U-61: Coordinate with King County's Local Hazardous Waste Management Program to provide opportunities for residents to dispose of commercial and household hazardous materials in a safe, environmentally sound manner. Policy U-62: Administer the City's contracts with private waste haulers to ensure capacity for collection of solid waste, recycling, and food waste that is adequate to serve both existing and future population and that solid waste is handled in a manner that minimizes the potential for land, air, and water contamination. Policy U-63: Adopt by reference the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and all subsequent updates and amendments. X Page 14 _ ._ _ UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF RENTON - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '�J Non -City Managed Utilities Non -City managed utilities operating within Renton conduct their own planning processes and maintain their own systems with limited involvement from the City, and expansion of these systems is often driven by consumer demand and not solely on regional growth forecasts, though those are considered. An overview of the major non -City utility providers offering service within Renton is provided in this section, as well as policies to ensure that Renton is aware of non -City utility upgrades and that utility providers are aware of City needs. Water While the majority of Renton is served by the City's publicly owned water system, portions of northeastern and southeastern Renton (East Renton Plateau and Benson Hill) are currently served by various non -City water providers. The two largest are Soos Creek Water & Sewer District and King County Water District #90. SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Soos Creek is a municipal corporation of King County that operates across multiple incorporated cities and unincorporated King County. Its retail water service area covers approximately 16 square miles (with the majority located within the Cities of Renton and Kent) and serves more than 23,400 equivalent residential units (ERUs). While only one pump station and one reservoir are located within Renton city limits, city residents are served by the broader system which utilizes the District's entire infrastructure. In 1997, the City of Renton and Soos Creek signed an interlocal agreement for the establishment of water and sewer service area boundaries. An addendum to the agreement occurred in 2004 which included a transfer of facilities and a re-establishment of service boundaries. Water Supply, System Capacity, and Proiected Demand Soos Creek's water supply is provided exclusively by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), with flow occurring from four locations. The current contract with SPU r guarantees a total of 7,000 gallons per minute, which is less than the current projected maximum daily demand (MDD) of 7,500 gallons per minute and the projected MDD of 9,458 gallons per minute in 20 years. Increased water supply could become available in the future if the District revises its contract with Seattle Public Utilities. Planned System Improvements The District's capital facility plan identifies capital improvements to be built over the next 20 years, including short- and long-term projects aimed at improving the District's existing system to meet its policies and criteria and respond to projected growth. The types of projects planned include: supply and source projects, pressure zone projects, storage facility projects, intertie projects, and distribution and transmission projects. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT #90 King County Water District 90 is a Special Purpose District located in the Renton Highlands area of unincorporated King County, directly east of and adjacent to the City of Renton. It serves just under 6,000 direct service connections in a service area of approximately 15 square miles (9,770 acres). Because it provides water service to some areas inside the City of Renton, the District maintains an interlocal agreement that details the conditions of the District's operations, infrastructure, and service within the City. Water Supply and System Capacity Seattle Public Utility (SPU) currently supplies 70% of the District's water. The District provides the other 30% of its water supply from a groundwater well and treatment facility, located off Jones Road, that it operates and maintains. In total, the District's water supply capacity is 3,450 gpm. Planned System Improvements The District's Capital Improvement Plan presents recommended improvements over a 20-year period. It addresses construction of new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities to provide for projected growth. The District is planning to focus on improved system reliability through astute upsizing of critical pipes and additional looping of water mains. Another major project that will be UTILITIES ELEMENT - - Page 15 dttr' addressed in phases is the expansion of one of the major pressure zones to address areas of low pressure and improve the utilization of the two main storage reservoirs. Goals U-M: Ensure that water service from non -City providers is available to support development that is consistent with City land use plans and policies, as well as the policies of the service provider. IN Policies Policy U-64: Maintain coordination with non -City water providers to ensure that they have adequate capacity to serve planned development within the City of Renton. Policy U-65: Work collaboratively with non -City water providers to identify opportunities for joint projects to minimize potential impacts to neighborhoods and the environment. Policy U-66: Coordinate with non -City water providers to ensure that all water systems operating in Renton have access to sufficient emergency water flow for fire protection. Policy U-67: Before issuing building permits to new development in areas not served by the City of Renton Water Utility, require applicants to provide a certificate of water availability stating that sufficient water supply is available to meet both regular and fire flow requirements. Wastewater While most of Renton is served by the City wastewater utility, portions of the city are served by other wastewater providers, most notably in areas of southeastern Renton annexed in 2008. The largest non -City provider of sewer service is Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Soos Creek is a municipal corporation of King County that operates across multiple incorporated cities and unincorporated King County. The District covers portions of multiple cities and provides sewer service to approximately 92,500 customers within its 35-square mile service area. Primary collection of wastewater is through gravity mains and trunks that drain to interceptors or lift stations. Wastewater leaves the District at a total of 19 locations, with three discharge connections to the City of Renton. Collected wastewater is treated at King County's Renton treatment facility. System Capacity The District utilizes hydraulic modeling, forecasted population growth, and a range of assumptions to prepare existing, 10-year, 20-year, and ultimate build -out scenario analyses that identify potential deficiencies within the system. These analyses identified relatively few capacity deficiencies in the portion of the District's Renton service area. Currently, capacity issues exist in two gravity lines that discharge to the City of Renton sewer system. Additional capacity issues are projected to develop in southeastern Renton as development continues. Capital Facilities Plan Based on the system analyses described above, a range of necessary improvements have been identified to meet the District's future sewerage needs. Improvements have been classified as either short-term (within the next 10 years) or long-term (through ultimate build -out) and fall under one of two categories: pipe replacements/upgrades or lift station replacement/upgrades. Funding has also been allocated to conduct general facilities upgrades and maintenance. " Goals U-N: Ensure that sewer service from non -City providers is available to support development that is consistent with City land use plans and policies, as well as the policies of the service provider. R Policies Policy U-68: Maintain coordination with non -City sewer providers to ensure that they have adequate capacity to serve planned development within the City of Renton. Policy U-69: Work collaboratively with non -City sewer providers to identify opportunities for joint projects to minimize potential impacts to neighborhoods and the environment. CITY OF RENTON - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN �4 Policy U-70: Ensure that wastewater flows from areas served by non -City providers do not create capacity deficiencies where non -City sewer lines discharge to the City of Renton system. Coordinate with both sewer providers and City development services staff to ensure such areas have adequate sewer capacity before development is approved. Policy U-71: Before issuing building permits to new development in areas not served by the City of Renton Wastewater Utility, require applicants to provide a certificate of sewer availability stating that sufficient capacity is available to meet both regular and peak demand. Electricity Electricity is distributed in Renton by a combination of three purveyors, which are part of an integrated transmission grid that connects production and consumption locations across the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the regional administrative entity of the U.S. Department of Energy, operates major transmission lines that transmit power from generation facilities to retailers across the state, who then sell power to local customers. Most electricity customers in Renton are served by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), while Seattle City Light (SCL) provides power to the Bryn Mawr and Skyway areas, including some customers within current Renton city limits. ELECTRIC FACILITIES The electric transmission grid consists of high - voltage transmission lines (115 kilovolts (kV) or above) and distribution lines (55 kV and lower). Distribution substations transform high -voltage current into lower voltages suitable for distribution on local lines. Local transformers further reduce voltage to levels suitable for use by customers. Bonneville Power Administration Facilities BPA Transmission lines at voltages of 500 kV, 345 kV, and 230 kV enter the Renton Planning Area from the east and south, terminating at the Maple Valley Substation in southeastern Renton. The Maple Valley Substation provides power to Puget Sound Energy's adjacent Talbot Hill Substation, which distributes electricity to local PSE customers. Puget Sound Energy Facilities As the primary electric retailer in Renton, Puget Sound Energy maintains a variety of transmission lines, distribution lines, and substations in the area for provision of power to local customers. Locally, PSE distributes power from its Talbot Hill Substation, located adjacent to BPA's Maple Valley Substation in southeastern Renton. Seattle City Light Facilities Seattle City Light maintains distribution lines and two minor distribution substations in a small portion of the Renton Planning Area. Power is provided to these substations by Seattle's Creston distribution substation, located outside Renton's planning area. GRowTH AND CAPACITY As population in Renton continues to grow, demand for electricity will increase. BPA, PSE, and SCL all conduct ongoing system planning efforts to ensure adequate energy supply is available for their customers and that transmission and distribution infrastructure can accommodate anticipated demand. PSE has planned additional transmission lines and upgrades to existing infrastructure to increase system reliability and capacity in response to growth, as well as construction of a new substation. Seattle City Light has likewise planned for the replacement of existing aging infrastructure in the Skyway and Bryn Mawr areas with new, higher -voltage distribution lines. A Goals U-O: Promote the availability of safe, adequate, and efficient electrical service with the City and its planning area, consistent with the regulatory obligation of the utility to serve customers. I R Policies Policy U-72: Coordinate with local and regional electric providers to ensure that the siting and location of transmission and distribution facilities is accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-73: Encourage electricity purveyors to make facility improvements and additions within existing utility corridors wherever possible. Policy U-74: Require underground electric infrastructure installation to be coordinated with the City of Renton Public Works Department to prevent cross -boring through existing water, sewer, or natural gas lines. Natural Gas Natural gas service in Renton is provided by Puget Sound Energy under a franchise agreement with the City. The gas distribution system consists of a network of pressurized mains and distribution lines that convey natural gas throughout PSE's service area. PSE receives natural gas from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, which operates large, interstate natural gas pipelines. Two pipelines cross the Renton Planning Area and terminate at the South Seattle Gate Station. PSE mains extend from the gate station, distributing the gas to pressure regulators and smaller lines, which provide natural gas to customers. Growth and Facility Capacity Natural gas system capacity is primarily a function of the volume of gas flowing from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation pipelines, and demand fluctuates based on power consumption. Natural gas is used primarily as fuel for home heating, so demand is highest during winter months and peaks during extremely cold weather. PSE maintains storage tanks that provide a reserve against such periods of high demand. In the event of supply shortfalls from extreme demand, residential customers are granted first priority for service. Because it is clean -burning and less expensive than other energy sources, the popularity of natural gas has risen in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue. Population growth within PSE's service area will also increase demand for natural gas. Puget Sound Energy conducts ongoing system planning to ensure that adequate supply is available to customers. Improvements to regional infrastructure, including the South Seattle Gate Station, and construction of additional high- pressure mains, have been planned. Precise timing O and location of infrastructure improvements will be determined based on right-of-way permitting, environmental analysis, and coordination with the City of Renton. n Goals U-P: Promote the safe transport and delivery of natural gas and other fuels within the planning area. N Policies Policy U-75: Coordinate with local and regional purveyors of natural gas for the siting of transmission and distribution infrastructure within the Renton Planning Area. Policy U-76: Support voluntary energy conservation and efficiency programs, including the supplementation of natural gas supplies through new technologies. Policy U-77: Allow extension of natural gas distribution infrastructure within the Renton Planning Area, provided such facilities are consistent with development assumptions in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-78: Require underground natural gas infrastructure installation to be coordinated with the City of Renton Public Works Department to prevent cross -boring through existing utility lines. Telecommunications Telecommunications services in the City of Renton consist of conventional telephone, cellular telephone and data, cable and satellite television, and internet service. All telecommunications services are provided by private companies. TELEPHONE Conventional telephone service in Renton is provided by CenturyLink (formerly Qwest Communications). CenturyLink is an investor -owned corporation and one of the largest telecommunications companies in the United States, serving millions of customers nationwide. CenturyLink also provides broadband internet EPae 18. - - UTILITIES ELEMENT CITY OF RENTON - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN l service and satellite television service through DirecTV. Digital phone service is also provided by Comcast in conjunction with their cable television and internet services. Telephone Facilities Conventional telephone facilities consist of switching station, trunk lines, and distribution lines located throughout Renton. Switching stations direct calls from one line exchange to another, trunk lines connect switching stations to one another, and distribution lines provide phone connections to individual customers. Growth and Facility Capacity The capacity of conventional telephone switching stations is determined by the type of switch employed. Use of modern digital switches allow for straightforward increases in switch capacity to accommodate growth. Regulations governing telecommunications service require that telephone purveyors provide adequate service on demand. CenturyLink installs new lines and upgrades facilities as required to accommodate customer demand. CELLULAR TELEPHONE AND DATA Cellular phone and data service providers are licensed by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for a particular band of radio frequencies. Major cellular service providers operating in Renton include AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and Sprint. Cellular Telephone and Data Facilities Cellular telephone systems consist of a series of wireless antennae, each located at the center of a single "cell" of the overall system. The cellular transmitters themselves are generally located where topography and features of the built environment will have the least effect on signal quality, such as existing broadcast communication towers, water towers, high-rise buildings, or vacant open land. Growth and Facility Capacity The significant growth in wireless phone and data usage over the past few years is anticipated to continue, placing additional demand on existing cellular networks. The capacity of a cellular transmission cell is limited by the number of radio frequencies available for use; the carrier's FCC license defines what frequency spectrum is allowed. To increase system capacity, carriers often install additional transmitters, thereby creating multiple smaller cells that cover less area than the original, larger cell and serve fewer customers each, increasing overall system capacity. CABLE AND SATELLITE TELEVISION Cable television service in Renton is currently provided by Comcast, and satellite television service is currently provided by DirecTV through an agreement with CenturyLink, allowing customers to bundle their phone, internet, and television services. Satellite television is also available from Dish Network. Cable Television Facilities Cable television facilities include broadcast receivers, a headend, a trunk system, and a feeder system. After receiving and processing broadcast signals, the trunk and feeder system distribute television signal to individual customers. Cable trunk and feeder lines generally follow existing street rights -of -way. Satellite television facilities generally consist only of receiver dishes installed at individual customer locations, which receive signal directly from orbiting communications satellites. While uplink transmitters are necessary at the origin of the broadcast, no additional local infrastructure is needed to receive satellite television signal. Growth and Facility Capacity Because Comcast currently holds the cable television franchise for the City of Renton, the company must continue to make cable television service available upon request. Comcast offers telecommunications service over a large portion of Western Washington in addition to Renton and UTILITIES ELEMENT Page 19 reviews population growth as part of its ongoing minimize aesthetic impacts and to be co -located on system planning operations. existing structures and towers wherever possible. Satellite television services are provided in response to customer requests. Capacity planning occurs at a regional or national scale due to the substantial investment required to use communications satellites. INTERNET Broadband internet service is provided in Renton by a variety of private providers. The two largest are Comcast and CenturyLink, who provide internet services in addition to phone and television. Wireless internet service is also provided by Clearwire through Sprint's network of cellular communication towers. Internet Facilities Internet service is provided via cable television infrastructure, telephone lines, or wirelessly. Growth and Facility Capacity Internet service is not considered an essential public utility and is provided in response to customer requests. Individual providers conduct system planning in response to population growth and increased demands for service. Given the increasing rate of internet adoption in American homes in recent years, it is likely that demand for internet service will continue to increase, and it will be necessary for providers to continue to increase capacity and connection speeds to satisfy demand. IM Goals U-Q: Promote the timely and orderly expansion of all forms of telecommunications service within the City and its planning area. N1 Policies Policy U-79: Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-80: Require wireless communication structures and towers to be designed and sited to Policy U-81: Encourage healthy competition among telecommunication service providers in the City to promote high -quality, cost-effective service for Renton residents. Policy U-82: Require underground telecommunication infrastructure installation to be coordinated with the City of Renton Public Works Department to prevent cross -boring through existing water, sewer, or natural gas lines. K Lal Page 20 UTILITIES ELEMENT PARKS, RECREATION, NATURAL AREAS, AND TRAILS ELEMENT Creating and preserving Renton's parks, recreation, natural areas and trails. W Discussion Parks, trails and natural areas create opportunities to recreate, connect A Policies Policy P-1: Expand parks and recreational opportunities in new and existing locations with an identified need, in order to fill gaps in service and keep pace with future growth. people and build community, protect "City parks offer children natural resources, and offer places for the daily benefits of direct quiet reflection to experience nature. experience with nature — The City of Renton strives to provide the motivation to explore, access to parks, indoor and outdoor discover and learn about their world and to engage recreation facilities, natural areas and in health -promoting, trails, and focuses on developing a physical activity." "city unique and varied system. Renton's Parks Forum, American Planning Association" natural areas are a critical link between people and their environment, build stewardship ethic and attract residents and businesses. Planning for natural areas provide a balance between public access to natural areas with the need to protect and conserve natural resources. Alternatively, Renton's developed parks offer a wide range of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities supporting the vision for healthy and active lifestyles. Recreation programing connects people, builds community, fosters volunteerism and creates long term partnerships, especially with other major community resources. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are intended to illustrate the desired future for the community, while giving the Community Services Department the flexibility it needs to achieve these goals. A Goals P-1: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Areas provide the opportunity for the community to connect to, participate in, support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle. P-2: Support a city where residents and visitors can recreate and exercise contributing to a healthy lifestyle and where using an integrated trails/road network, becomes a realistic transportation alternative. Policy P-2: Create a connected system of parks corridors, trails and natural areas that provides nearby and accessible opportunities for recreation and non -motorized transportation. Policy P-3: Cultivate strong, positive partnerships at the local and regional level with public, private and non- profit organizations in order to unite community efforts to develop and sustain the park system. 1.� Policy P-4: Create a distinct identity that celebrates the natural, historic and diverse character of the community through park and facility design, recreation programming, interpretation and education. Policy P-5: Ensure long-term economic and environmental sustainability in system planning, design, operation, maintenance and decision making. Policy P-6: Promote healthy and active lifestyles and build community through programs that are inclusive, fun and accessible for a diverse population. Policy P-7: Protect, conserve and enhance the area's diverse natural resources for the long-term health of ecosystems, and for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. ADOPTED PLANS The Washington Recreation and Conservation Office require the City to adopt a specific parks plan every six years to maintain eligibility for State and Federal grant funding. The following plans have been adopted: 1. Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan — Adopted November 7, 2011 by Resolution #4123 2. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan — Adopted May 11, 2009 by Resolution #4005 X X sed Land Use Consolidation Current Current Implementing Designation Zones Residential Low RC, R-1, R-4,. Density I RMH' Residential Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential Muld- ° N Family v m Commercial ° Y Neighborhood ° c en a 0 v c a, u Center Village .c R-8 R-10, R-14, RMH Proposed Designation Residential Low Density (LD) Residential Medium Density (MD) RMF, RMT, Residential High RMU Density (HD) II CA, CO, IL RMF, RMT, RMU, CV, R-14 Urban Center IIUC-N2 North Urban Center CD, RMU, RMT, CO Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) Employment IL, IM, IH Area Industrial Employment Employment CA, CO, IL, IM, Area (EA) Area Valley IH, RC F_ Commercial CammertW CO R Office Residential PIL }irsidetstiak (COR) 12 21 6 Proposed Implementing Zones RC, R-1, III RMH • R-6 • R-8 • RMH • R-10 • R-14 • CN • RMF • RMH • (RMU) • (RMT) • CA • CO • CV (combine CD and CV zone with a new Downtown overlay) • UC (combine UC-N1 & UC-N2 allow 150 du/acre) • 04 • CO • IL • IM • IH • RC • frAI Comments This would be the same • Renames Residential Single Family to Residential Medium Density • Adds new zone, R-6 • Ensure R-8 zone criteria are appropriate for rezone considerations. • Renames Residential Medium Density and consolidates Residential Multi Family to Residential High Density • Adds CN (limited scale commercial zone), RMF (multi -family 20 du/acre), and RMT (multi -family 35 du/acre) as implementing zones. • Rezone RMU (75 du/acre) properties with CV (80 du/acre) zone. Ensure allowed land uses are appropriate or establish appropriate limiting criteria. • Need to ensure tight rezone criteria for RMF, RMT, and CN zones. o RMTzone may be eliminated through South Renton Rezone process, if not criteria needs to be closely evaluated, • New designation combining commercial and mixed use zones. • Zoning criteria need to be very carefully written with consideration for rezone requests. • Combine UC-N1 (85 du/acre) and UC-N2 (150 or 250 du/acre) to UC zone and allow 150 du/acre in combined zone. • Combine CV (80 du/acre with 60 ft height) and CD zones (150 du/acre with 95 ft height) to CV zone • Establish Growth Center Overlays (Downtown and Highlands). With CV zone in Downtown overlay allow 150 du/acre • Rezone RMU (75 du/acre 50 ft height) to CV (80 du/acre & 50 ft or 60 ft if mixed use) zones. Only allow mixed use In certain areas. Delete RMU zone. • Renton Technical College is only IL zoned property in designation, rezone IL and remove IL as implementing zone. • Combine the EAV and EAI land use designations. • CO criteria need to be tightened with consideration for rezone requests • Designate CA zoned properties with CMU and delete CA as implementing zone CDR I This would be the same 19 *Total Comprehensive Plan Designations or Zones RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Background: • Many of the zones, especially residential, in use in the City have been in place in their current form, or with slight modifications, since the early 1990's. • The City of Renton is a very different place now than it was at the time these zones were conceived and established. The intensity and scale of residential, commercial, and office development has increased and become more complex. Along with this, the population has increased from approximately 40,000 to over 95,000. • The State has put significant limitations on the authority of cities to tax residential development since the Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted by the City in 1994. Residential growth no longer pays in taxes the cost it requires for facilities and services. • When the Growth Management Act was adopted, there was an expectation that the State would provide additional funding for infrastructure to ensure adequate facilities were in place at the time of development. This has not occurred. • A significant amount of the growth in population is from annexations and when an area is annexed, typically King County zoning is matched as closely as possible. The City has not evaluated the allowable density of these annexed areas in the absence of County zoning with consideration of existing and planned infrastructure and critical areas concerns. • The City has accepted responsibility for planning for new residential growth as identified in the King County household and employment growth targets (see attached). • As part of the ongoing development of the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City has developed two concepts to date: o Retain the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zones o Consolidate Comprehensive Plan designations and better align zoning designations to the Comprehensive Plan land use designations Current Work: • The City is developing additional Land Use alternatives that focus on compatibility, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, of current land uses and future growth. Those alternatives include: o Re -designating the zoning of built out areas to the density of the zone it most closely matches in order to have greater compatibility based on the suitability of density and critical areas. o Consideration of rezones for some areas, such as for mixed use along corridors based on opportunity sites (e.g. vacant and redevelopable sites), the character of adjacent lands, and the Comprehensive Plan Vision. • This analysis will assist the Administration, Planning Commission, and City Council to consider how well the alternatives would help implement the City's vision in a more straight -forward, understandable, compatible, and consistent manner. • As part of the next docket, Council will be considering establishing minimum lot sizes for all residential zones as well as lot coverage requirements of new residential development. This will result in normally lower density as well as appearance. Next Steps: • All scenarios and alternatives presented above will be considered. The goals for the final recommendation are to: ensure fiscal sustainability in regards to residential land use, balance the desires of existing neighborhoods, and meet our adopted growth targets. • Policy review and consideration is anticipated during late spring 2014. King County Growth Targets, 2006 - 2031, Compared to 2007 Buildable Lands Capacity FEB. 2013 Regional Geography PAA Housing Housing +/- Employment PAA Emp. Employment +/ aty / Subarea Housing Target Target Capacity 7 Target Target Capacity I 7 Net New Units I Net New Units Net New Units I I Net New Jobs I Net New Jobs I Net New Jobs Cities Bellevue 17, Seattle 86, Total 103,1 Auburn 9,620 9190 19 350 - Bothell 3,000 810 2,860 4,800 200 Burien 4,440 3,170 4,960 Federal W 8100 2,390 5,670 12 300 290 Kent 9,270 90 9,080 13,280 210 Kirkland 8,570 - 6,380 20,850 - A25,O75 Redmond 10,200 640 8,990 23,000 Renton 14,835 3,895 16,250 29,000 476 SeaTac 5,800 5,240 25,300 Tukwila 4,800 50 3 490 3C 15,500 2,050 The base year for these Targets Is 2006. As cities annex territory, PAA targets shift Into Targets column. Key, Sufficient capacityB Adjustments to Burien, Kent & Kirkland targets have been made to account for 2010 and 2011 annexations. Slight shortfall King County Growth Targets Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, August 2009. Adjusted 3une2011 Substantial shortfall0 ANNEXATION POLICY Background: • The City of Renton approved three large Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) incorporated in the adopted City Comprehensive Plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies. The three PAAs are divided between three large geographical areas: East Renton, West Hill, and Fairwood. (PAA map attached) • Since 1990, the City has completed 61 annexations and these annexations have significantly changed the size and character of the City. (Map attached) • Also during that same period of time, population in the City has gone from 41,688 to 95,540 today. Currently: • All annexations currently in process are small annexations using the property owner driven 60% Assessed Value method. These annexations range in size 4 acres with an estimated 3 residents to 20 acres with an estimated 118 residents. The City uses a fiscal analysis model that was developed by an interdepartmental group and includes costs that increase at a faster rate than revenue. The analysis evaluates current conditions and anticipated conditions in 10 years. o Since the model was developed in 2011, all proposed annexations are evaluated with this fiscal analysis and the vast majority have been either revenue neutral or represented a slight revenue gain to the City. o However, fiscal implications still merit consideration given changes in the economy in general and the long term impacts new residents have on City resources. • Many County annexed areas have presented challenges for the City in terms of vested residential development projects that the City must usher through the development process. o In response to this, the Council adopted a Resolution asking King County to develop an Interlocal Agreement that ensures greater consistency between the County and the City within the PAA. ■ To date, the County has not acted on this request by the City. • Significant consideration is given to annexation requests that are within the Renton School District boundary. Future: The appropriateness and consistency with current goals and responsibilities of the City in maintaining all the three PAA's as areas that could be annexed to the City should be evaluated. o State funding that supported annexations of populations over 10,000 has not been extended and would not be available to Renton to help make large annexations financially viable. ■ In the absence of support from the State, it seems appropriate to no longer accept large annexations of Renton's PAA's. ■ Small annexations that help make the City boundary more logical and balanced ("cleaned up") seem appropriate and should be supported. ■ Additionally, small annexations that do not simply represent "cleaning up" the City boundary should only be supported if they demonstrate a positive fiscal impact. Work with King County to develop a joint planning agreement to address consistency of developments with Renton's standards through an inter -local agreement. Wes, = Hill 52sdR r Renton city s Renton Plateau F F ,- st- 3. I � E•! r � r•� k PehoMtliy Rd S 1BOth �� I Soos Creek; LAIL— PAVMFR LAKE I J \ SE 2Mth St (�Zenton Potential Annexation Areas Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Renton City Limits �( D PicAdministrator G. DO 0 G. Rosario Renton Potential �'NTO July2006 Annexation Area Annexations Since GMA MERCER ISLAND SEATTL 7 TUKWILA 19% NEWCASTLE Creek wad I; KING COUNTY ' 3 Elementary _ S*,0oa 1 Community & Economic Development + ce-orb%—W AMA.W.rm, Anlhon e Tema I \ I A�nneemv GIs ( � r City of Renton 2014 Boundary 'iWL.-.4579 - 0211411998-Anmarco 5041-12/102003 - Fak ®5203 - 0510320D6 - HDgwam 0 5373 - 08/0920D8 - AQUA BARN City Limits Before GMA [ 4642-112711998 - Hughes 5064 - 03242004 - Bales O 5205 - 0510320D6 - Falk Ii 0 5398 - 08; 112008 - Liberty �LJ PAA Boundary 3163-102411997 - JF Investment © 5068 - 04282004 - Stonerklge 5208 - 061182OD6 - Akers Farms 0 5447 - 04 102009 - Sprlgbrook Terrace Annexations since GMA 4684 - I V0511997 - Hoffman (]Slim -052a2004-Carlo 05223-111192006-Ouedn1- (]5456-051312009-MacKay ORDINANCE-EFFECTNEDATE-ANNEXATION 7_14760-042111998- East Renton Plateau 5092-09/22/2004-Tydico ®5236-05242007-Hudson 5459-07/0520D9-Shamrock 00 0- 1111011997 - Deannexa8on M 4780 - 0511911999 - Davis 5090-11A122004 - Johnson 5243.011142007 - Maplewood Add tin O 5484-10;142009 - EarEngton 4275 - 07011990 - Duncan 4819-12/1511999 - Smith 5138 - 06/012005 - Honey Creek 0 5261-031152007 - Perkins 5488-10/302009 - Duva'I South 4318 - 072111991- Shurgard 4829 - 02/162000 - Morrison 5140 - 00/012005 - Maplewood East 0 5283 - 06/1112007 - Leitch 5543 - OB/012010 - Sierra Heights Elementary 4337.0125/1992- Honey Creek Ridge [=3 4876-12/1312000- Knight =3 5142-0a1012005 - Merritt 1 5293.071302007 -Aster Park 5545 - 081012010- Maplewood Heights Elementary 4383- 12118/1992 - Senescu 4891-021212001- Martino Empire Estates 5147 - 071042005 - Wedgewood Lane 5301-10222W7-Anttone' 5552-111072010 - Kendall 4476-10011994 - Wlsper 4918-10242001- Lee ® 5161-112720D5 - Park Terrace 5315.12/242007 - Marsha!1 5631-1V132011- Tess ® 4510 - 05103/1995 - Stonegate 0 4924-121052001- Plate 0 5171 - 0110820D6 - Mosier 11 5318 - D41162008 - Manit 11 5632-11202011 - Gaile 0 4554.12/111190 - Hoknan 5012 - D61182003 - Wong 5175-12212005 - Lindberg 5327 - 0310112008 - Benson Hill 0 5655 - 00112012 - Fairlane Woods 5685 - 07/D42012 - Windstone V 14 mxd Fiscal Sustainability Renton City Council February 26, 2014 Renton Economy Is Improving $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 M N $1,000 M x H $500 $0 T�'Taxable Sales ($-Mil-)-- ��Residential Building Permits Units M l0 I- 00 M O rl N M 1�t u1 l0 I- 00 a) O O O O O O r-I rl rl T--I rl r-I r-I rl r-i r♦ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N fV N N N N N N N N N N N N %0 -ASource: Doug Pedersen & Associate ft I A DO,, 1200 1000 800 E a� a 600 C 400 a� cc 200 0 Employment & Population Population Growth 40% Employment Growth 10% t 35% - - =4�Unemployment rate 9% 0 30% g L7 25% ��._ _ 7% L 20% 6% ca �- 4.53% 15% - - 5/ c 0 3.70% 7& a 10% — _ __ -_ 4% E o6 5/ ° - 3 % -' 2 E / & -5% - - 1% { W -10% - - - 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 * Source: Unemployment Rate- BLS; Population/Job Growth- Doug Pedersen & Associates New/Additional ► Staffing to maintain service levels • Development services activities Q Police/Fire/Prosecution service levels Maintain quality of life and reduce service deficiencies ► Wage competitiveness for difficult to recruit positions ► Demands driven by changing demographics (aging, homeless, diversity) Past Staff Reductions 2M 2A_� React AM' Citywide FTE Reduction (include com sys intermitt, 764.15 (40.49) (52.92) 7.16 6.25 28.17 7.00 674.03 101.17 -13.2% City Council 8.00 - - - - 8.00 - 0.0% Executive 15.00 (0.50) (2.00) (1.50) - (2.00) 9.00 (6.00) -40.0% Court Services 17.50 (0.50) (1.00) 0.50 - (2.50) 14.00 (3.50) -20.0% City Attorney 11.75 - - - 0.13 11.88 0.13 1.1% Community and Economic Development 69.00 (4.50) (16.50) (2.50) 2.00 (5.00) 1.00 43.50 (25.50) -37.0% Community Services 142.74 (3.80) 122.94 (19.80) -13.9% Intermittent & Temp Position 43.94 (7.49) (4.22) 0.66 - 32.89 (11.05) -25.1% Sum of Rengular Position 99.00 (2.20) (5.50) 1.00 1.75 (3.80) 90.25 (8.75) -8.8% Finance and Information Technology 52.50 (4.50) (6.00) 1.00 0.50 (4.00) 39.50 (13.00) -24.8% Fire and Emergency Services 164.00 (9.00) (3.00) 9.00 - (6.00) 6.00 161.00 (3.00) -1.8% Human Resources and Risk Management 12.00 (1.00) (2.00) - - - 9.00 (3.00) -25.0% Police (exclude staff transferred to SCORE) 159.20 (5.80) (2.00) - - (3.00) 148.40 (10.80) -6.8% Public Works 156.20 5.00) (10.70) (1.00 2.00 2.00 139.50 16.70 -10.7% Cumulative Budget Reductioq ► 2008 mid -year: ► 2009 reduction: ► 2010 reduction: > 2011112 reduction: 2013/14 reduction: $ 5.0 million 6.0 million 6.0 million 4.0 million 7.7 million Cumulative Total: $28.7 million IN General Revenue/Fee Increases ► Business License Fee increase $600k ► City internal utility tax increase $425k ► Impact Mitigation Fees adjustment o Council adopted updated fees in 2012 Implementation over a 3-year ramp -up period starting 2014 ► All these revenue sources are designated or restricted for capital purposes Operating Reality (w/o impact from Capital) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Summary ($ in Million) Actual Actual Actual Estimate Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Beginning Fund Balance $ 12.0 $ 11.0 $ 10.4 $ 15.6 $ 12.8 $ 12.9 $ 10.3 $ 6.4 $ 0.7 Operating Revenue $ 94.7 $ 97.2 $ 101.8 $ 100.6 $ 105.5 $ 107.5 $ 110.1 $ 112.5 $ 114.2 Base Operating Expenditure (94.7) (97.0) (99.6) (99.6) (103.9) (105.9) (107.9) (110.3) (112.7) Personnel cost increase i0.7) (1.6) (4.3) (6.1) (7.9) (9.8) Operating Surplus (Deficit) $ 0.0 $ 0.3 $ 2.2 $ 0.3 1 $ (0.0) $ (2.6) $ (3.9) $ (5.6) $ (8.3) 1X Sources $ 8.3 $ 13.2 $ 6.7 $ 2.8 $ 1.2 $ 0.9 $ 0.9 $ 0.3 $ 0.3 1X Uses (9.3) (14.4) (4.4) (5.9) (1.1) (0.9) (0.9) (0.3) (0.3) Net Resources -Uses $ (0.9) $ (1.2) $ 2.3 $ (3.1) $ 0.1 $ - $ (0.0) $ (0.0) $ (0.0) Ending Fund Balance 1 $ 11.0 $ 10.4 1$ 15.6 1 $ 12.8 1 $ 12.9 1 $ 10.3 1 $ 6.4 $ 0.7 $ (7.6) With preliminary labor costs, the 2014 operating expenditure will equal operating revenue and the fund balance will be maintained at $12.9 million level. 0 Structural DePersists Base Operating Expenditure -- - Cost of Wage Increase Operating Revenue - -' Ending Fund Balance $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 $(20.0) K�yr Assum tip ons: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20118 Sales Tax Growth -4.3% 3.5% 5.2% 4.3% 4.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 0.5% Property Tax 2.7% 2.7% 3.5% -3.7% 7.4% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Wage Increase (blended) 0.0% 1.0% 2.5% 0.6% 2.1% 4.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0 pera ti ng Reven u e G rowth -3.0% 2.7% 4.7% -1.1% 4.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.2% 1.5% Ooeratina Expense Growth -2.6% 2.4% 2.7% 0.7% 5.2% 4.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 01 Past Capital General Governmental CIP Sources $50 BFB Bond/Loan Contributions $45 jk— - Grants ■ Business License Taxes/General Cie $35 $30 0 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 2011 2012 2013 City current Resource Capital Projects Categories General Governmental CIP by Type $50 -Economic Development ■ Community Services $40 ■ Transportation $35 c $30 0 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Legal Debt Capacity Computation of Limitation of Indebtness December 31, 2013 General purpose Parks and Utility Non -Voted Voted Open Space Purpose (Limited GO) (Unlimited GO) Voted Voted 2013 AV (2014 Tax Base): $ 11,274,415,348 x Non Voted Debt Li mits Voted Li mits Less General Obligation Bonds Outstanding Add Cash on hand for Debt Service Available Debt Capacity by Purpose Total Voted Capacity 1.50% 1.00% * 2.50% 2.50%1 169,116,230 112,744,153 79.682,283 281,860,384 281,860,384 $89,433,947 $112,744,153 $281,860,384 $281,860,384 S765.898.868 *With the assent of three -fifths of the voters the total general obligation debt may not exceed 2.5% of the n«o«orl „nhia Debt Service Capacity General Government Debt Service to Maturity $9- - --- $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 an $s.W 0 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 .jo I AAVI bldf Lilly LU4-D $3.OM needed to backfill annexa ion saes tax credit 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 20V 2028 ■ NCH Development - - - --.--. _.-- S. Lk Wa. Infrastructure elf Y ■ Valley Comm Refunding Fire Station 13 N SCORE ■ 2013 LTGO QECB i ransportation rrojects T ype TIP I Priority Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Six -Year Period Total 1 1 Street Overlay 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 916,000 4,883,000 2 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,000 3,296,000 27 3 Preservation of Traffic O er Device Program 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 372,000 ` W 23 a Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,0001 525,000 ` 220 „", s Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Relacem Pro 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 735,000 a 21 6 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 80,000 80,000 22 7 Maple Valley Highway Attenuator 130,000 405,000 535,000 24 8 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 105,000 a SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 286,646 4-A SW 27th St - Loan Repayment 150,000 150,000 150,0001 450,000 14 S 7th St - Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 8,593,230 10 Carr Road Im rovements 1,670,000 721,000 2,391,000 3 1 Locian Ave N Improvements 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 7,700,000 w 7 2 Rainier Ave S - S 3rd St to Airport Way 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 18,000,000 m 16 3 Houser Way N - N 8th St to Lake Washington Blvd 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 3,875,000 11 a NE Sunset Boulevard SR 900 Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 26,000,000 a 6 5 Duvall Ave NE - NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 8,590,000 12,050,000 vo 5 6 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 160,000 8,137,000 c a 7 Park Ave N Extension 1,600,000 1,600,000 V 12 8 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 8,875,000 6,505,000 18,300,000 15 a S Grady Way - Main Ave to West City Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 3,000,000 9 9 116th Ave SE Improvements 1,500,000 3,200,000 4,000,000 8,700,000 35 10 Lake Washington Blvd N - Park Ave N to Gene Coulon Memorial Park 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 36 11 Lind Ave SW - SW 16th St to SW 43rd St 250,000 1,350,000 1,900,000 3,500,000 13 12 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S to SR 900 1 50,000 5,300,000 5,350,000 W 25 1 Intersection Safety & Mobility Program 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,432,000 m 26 2 Traffic Safety Program 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 236,000 18 1 Lake to Sound L2S Trail 570,000 685,000 1,255,000 6 N 17 2 Lake Washington Loop Trail 350,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 5,000,000 z° 2 29 3 Barrier -Free Transition Plan Implementation 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 206,000 2 19 4 Walkway Program 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,390,000 32 1 Arterial Circulation Program 110,000 120,000 145.000 145,0001 145,000 150,000 815,000 31 2 Project Development & Pre -Design Program 100,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 120,000 675,000 t33 3 Environmental Monitoring Program 10,000 10,000 S 28 4 ITS Program 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 34 5 1%fortheArts Program 152000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 30 6 City Center Community Plan Support Total Projects 6,631,876 14,545,000 18,964,000 38,670,000 37,520,000 35,422,000 151,752,876 Total Sources 1 6,631,876 3,943,000 3,390,000 2,350,000 2,385,000 2,405,000 21,104,876 hism Unfunded 10,602,000 15,574,000 36,320,000 35,135,000 33,017,000 130,648,000 , I- � no.., .--.1 "w General Government Projects Page Priority Projects Type* JThru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 16 KC Proposition 2 Cap Exps Levy Fd A - 787 160 5 - - - - 952 17 North Highlands Community Center D - - - - 2,000 - - - 2,000 18 Black River Riparian Forest D - - - - 90, 100 200, 2,000 2,390 19 Maplewood Community Park D - - - - - 225 4,000 225 4,450 20 Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion D 94 280 - 300 4,400 - 350 4,400 9,824 21 Springbrook Trail Missing Link D 650 - - - 100 2,000 - - 2,750 22 Accessible Playground D - 750 750 - - - - - 1,500 23 Sunset EIS Park D - 280 - 100 3,000 - - - 3,380 24 Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan P 213 - - - - 225, - - 438 25 Park Master Planning P - - - - 90 90 90 360 26 Integrated Pest Management Program P - - - - 100, - - - 100 27 Security Upgrades M 125 160 90 60 '90 °' 90 - - 615 28 Henry Moses Aquatic Center M 580 177 120 60 120 120 - - 1,177 29 Community Services Maintenance Shops Reh M - - 100 - - i - - - 100 30 Urban Forestry M 145 86 - - 110, 110 110 110 671 31 Parks General Major Maintenance M 1,037 429 300 190 475 ' 485 440 2360 5,68S 32 Irrigation Renovation & Conservation M 352 - - - 425, 250'' 250 `� 250 1,527 33 Irrig Automation and Consery M 137 30 30 15 15, 15 15 15 265 34 Parking Lot and Drive Repairs M 49 10 50 50 `90, 50 309 60 409 35 Ball Field Renovation Program M 55 16 - - 50 50 75 50 296 36 Pathway, Sidewalk, Brdwk Repairs M 429 10 75 75 65 40 40 40 771 37 Sports Court Repairs M 20 20 40 20 150 80 20 20 375 38 Leased Facilities M 500 - 120 120 - - - - 740 39 Highlands Library Natural Area M - 10 - - 10 10 10 10 50 40 Tree Maintenance M 337 183 232 100 250 250 250 250 2,055 41 Coulon Park Repairs and Maintenance M - 645 431 330 175 385 270 160 2,307 42 Riverview Park Bridge Reconstruction M - - 250 - I - - - - 253 43 Grant Matching Program X - 239 21 - - - - - 260 44 Capital Project Coordination X 186 72 74 75 78 80 - - 565 45 Contract Coordination X - - - 131 139 147 155 572 Total Projected Costs 4,909 4,184 2,843 1,500 12,014 4,794 6,576 10,195 69,841 Total Resources Available 5,7751 3,3191 2,843 1 1,6851 1,7,191 1,754 1,790 1,827 1 18,989 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) 867 (866) - 1 185 (10,295) (%040) (4,786) (8,368) (50,852) * A - Acquisition, D- Development/Redevelopment, M -Mai ntenance/Preservati on, P - Planning, X - Cross Categories Unfunded Capital $60.0 NTransportation Projects $50.0 ' General Government Projects - Unfunded $40.0 91% 91% o $30.0 -_ $20.0 ---- 78% �8% $10.0 --- -. 22% 22% 9 9% $ 0.0__ .. _ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 How did we get here Repeal of motor vehicle excise tax c,999> Limitation of property tax growth to 1 % (2001) State budget decision (liquor tax/profit, shared revenue reduction) (2013) ► Recession highlighted the risk of relying on 1-time revenues for operations Service demand from population and businesses growth Per Capita Tax Revenue 100, 000 $1,000 1 N 3 90,000 $900 I G 80,000 - -^ $800 c�a 70,000 -�--- - — �.�. $700 cMOW u - — $ 600 > 60,000 - a 10 X 50,000 - _ -- - - - - -- E' $500 a 40,000 — �----- --- $400cz 0 30,000—4—Population $300 _,_. m 2 000 f�Tax Revenues ($ Thousands) $ 7 0, 2 CL Inflation Adjusted Per Capita Taxes a° 10,000 $100 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Renton is not Alone ... what other entities have done B&O tax (e.g. Burien, Bellevue, Kent, Issaquah, Mercer Island, Seattle) / Business Licenses (e.g. Kirkland, Redmond, Tukwila) ► I me rfu nd utility tax (e.g. Kent, Kirkland, Seattle, Tukwila all have 10% or higher utility tax on their water/sewer /drainage utilities) ► Transportation Benefit District (35 cities implemented the $20 city option license fee) ► Voter approved property tax lid lift/special levy (e.g. Seattle, Bellevue, Mercer Island, Redmond, Auburn) ► Voter approved property tax bond levy (e.g. Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland, Shoreline, Issaquah) Voter approved utility taxes (e.g. Federal way) Voter approved Fire Authority & benefit charges (e.g. Algona, Auburn, Pacific, Kent) Resources Options Source _ im @d o'unf AP'ova proo gYrng [7 1. Utility Tax: Above Current 1 % — $2.5M/yr Council can raise tax on General purpose Rate city operated utilities (-25% of the total); other utilities require voter approval. 2. Voted Property Tax Lid Lift From $3.15 to $3.325 (or 17.5C Simple majority voter General purpose 5.6% increase)—$2M/yr approval. 3. Voted Property Tax, excess 20C — $2.3M/yr 60% approval, 40% Capital purpose levy Not subject to $3.325 limit. The turnout duration is only as needed to retire the bonds. 4. Transportation Benefit $20/vehicle — $1.4 million/yr Council action Transportation purpose District (KC proposed TBD may generate $2.4M/yr) 5. Fire Benefit Charge FBC at 40% of operating Voted every 6 years. Fire purpose (City or RFA) expense will generate around $6.5M/yr 8. Business Licenses Currently at $2.9M a year Council action General purpose (85% including the 25% increase in dedicated for capital) 2013. 9. B&O Tax. A 0.1 °o tax is anticipated to Council action General purpose generate $3 to $6 million. 10. User Fee. BLS transport & MVC Fee Council action General purpose (fire combined around $500k a year. operations) M Fire Authority & Benefit Charge City Fire Benefit Charge (RCW 3 5.13.256) • No planning committee required (no governance or liability/asset transfer issues, nor interim financing, operating service contracts to establish) ■ City Renton Fire Department only ■ Can set up as an internal "fund" to track resources separately ■ Up to 60% operating cost may be funded by Benefit Charge ► City Form new Fire Authority (may include one or more Fire Districts/Department) (RCW 52.26, Regional Fire Authority) ■ Planning committee and typically each entity share governance equally ■ Up to 60% operating cost may be funded by Benefit Charge ► City Annex to Existing Fire Authority/District (RCW 52.04.061) ■ No planning committee but will likely need "pre -annexation ILA" to spell out responsibilities, personnel and assets to be transferred, etc. ■ Governance will be by FD Commission (up to 5 commissioners) ■ Up to 60% operating cost may be funded by Benefit Charge All options require voter approval. Fire Benefit Charge requires 60% voter approval and reapproval every six years. If not approved, Fire District/Authority can reclaim �,. , _ __ __ - ____ geed to lower their tax rate accordingly) Effect of Hare Author'o'ty Charge Fire Authority Option Pay 15,486,378 Benefit 4,774,594 Nonpersonnel costs other than Interfund charges 1,168,263 Direct Department Operations 21,429,235 Internal Services IT/92 642,779 Communications/93 72,363 FI eet/95 1,155,118 Insurance/96 373,937 Facilities/97 769,388 Interfund Services 3,013,585 Total Fire Budget 24,442,820 Add: FS13 promissory note not in Department bgt 220,000 FD 25 (1,125,000) FD 40 (4,000,000) Internal charge not avoided @ 60% (1,808,151) City Budget can be reduced 17,729,669 City Revenue Reduction $1 Tax $11,266,617,697 11,266,618 Est. Resources Available for other City services 9463,051 Equivalent Millage $ 0.573646 Assume 57% of FBC is paid by Residential $ 154.93 Less: Property Tax @ (186.59) :Impact on Average Home $231,570 $ (31.66) R&O Tax One of the financing tools available to cities ► 40 cities in Washington have B&O tax including 12 cities in King County Average 0.15% (maximum 0.2% unless voters approve to exceed the limit) All KC cities with over l OOk population have B&O tax I B&O Tax Option I Assume generally the same rate as Kent 6,000,000 (average 0.1%) B&O Tax Revenue 6,000,000 Less: 2 FTE Administration and Audit (200,000) ?? Eliminate BL (combined rate must be below 0.2% allowed for B&O taxes) Est. Resources Available 5,800..000 Equivalent Millage $ 0.532547 jimpact on Average Home I o Voter Approved fond Levy ► Voter approved property tax to fund capital projects 60% approval rate required Duration and amount is limited to the retirement of bonds Need separate maintenance & operating levy Effect of Bond I voter Approved Bonds + Lid Lift Property Tax Option Bond Levy for $50M of projects over 10 yrs $ 6,318,941 2.5% "Lid Lift" to maintain new CIP 1,250,000 Est. Resources Available $ 7,568,941 Equivalent Millage $ 0.671802 Bond $ 0.56 Lid Lift $ 0.11 Impact on Average Home $ 155.571 Council Action Administration is seeking Council direction to: ► Explore Operating Revenue options • Engage potential partners and form Regional Fire Authority exploration committee Evaluate B&O tax options to minimize impact on small businesses Explore feasibility of voter approved bonds for capital projects APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODEL Table C-I Ranked Project List and Co.t Model f 1• �^ red«Iwerrw 4»rtm{m,p buiNn{hd4ie, ixkW {[C snJ fun Th.Nre unnd Wnry Max A.wUc:e a«. potenHN IW +it97 aoo f 13523M 3 n/M 000 3 W117- 3 75!1900 3 LI00500 $ 4.1042.200 MH nr.nF.[ur,tnn. Mrwv,r. field,M,ad I4hW9. Iphrm T Pw rl«r;. AIn WW "Nth.S 'M' 26 r4m«n. am,wlw{.nd are crmr u..r wwrbn. S Mpb PaA .®IN[aM nid.r.i.PN Ibl4 mwnb.111Y. 1...U.NaMw,1a,«rbbtlrwk.m. 7.595.000 $ 10, 179,000 S 12, ,Ooo 20,1 ,a00 3 367200 11 95.000 3 462200 trebeem. plryp.r.rd, Mdp4krbNt.1J•Park NwW.aNNeShr.INe MaWihr4pwl4 WRII{■ M. mm wN rim PU W Imi'd"iywn.rwb mnWMNwrclns 211 hark Mer Ay«ir 1«eY nb. acrardNibdnl-Nrdrb�n ua'ry mncpl pt.rranprrM.,.enrWNJb nre.bY/m,nrpm. 3 5135000 S 7HZ—m a W—M I I/.SA. 7P.R-* 300000 3 .r . ,Wpkm.Mm,n,{ement pbn.SMbNM. Sh«N.0 W,l.r hgrrA WFA r, Wa.ry Ww«nfN 77 N.Med M,ny.m-t Pon-d tlt. M«t Aber WNr 6uNAY M,nyawaM Man. N.F11WHN- 1A A.1-t«y-dnr.n,{.nrwApbu Ngkm.Mm.A.pm-lpbn. Nr".dkii.9-h 3 3.W8.6m / 5,23i,000 S 0,3m. 10, .Wo 3 13/.1 S - 166,100 rrapam, WFN tiCMx Nr.r {aNn PWu l3pWw. m ryi.d.q.wl„ r th.rbrmr av,{Wk. 27 i9{hkndr Pw«W tl.ldrt-i q dn.bp arraawrl la"K.VW3 ..v I...pt pW u.nknnn. [ahWtpryxry4uMxuWttJ f 14597000 3 19501.0W 3 23777000 00 S 397300 3116000 ,0 3 I110,0w 3 t.240,1100 ant« -nonA/wM.--1.M are wtn loner 1-1 Alden mraA _7 o..ka w dm NMrlMraM mrr.pmMtphR agNte NWd Na.fw..Y r>rNa.WutN avRw./,u 203 bff 0 7,01 . ,7 b.11r..d, we.Y wmtN{. aM parYwr w/HerrMN. NdpW N M.Shadn. MrW Prgr.u. WSN 1 27 tM CIeKWIn PYw. _- — .—�m`.iod rullro mp.m IknWp r-rdY:1.r [ro Tw Mrtn rwmi w.a•n.la u�rr...,x fi.w,mxtd la um. wWn[,.a t 10,153oao 3 n /13,a99 iea t 547 aa s z3953.a99 i 3o t5.4a T ip99 a t ptaY,ru,r.rbeemr, bib w.hmr ndrllMN{wall hrY NdW.dN N.Sh«.Me bMu.rhqum 27 NAN 1,M t5. CNw Ikw Win Pkn. Fw W.r O.e4 WN1aM, tR.kmmbr/aM mau,{wMnt pk.,wpk. adAUrtJ Nan/onkoarrWw.Mn,{M Iy i 3 4A .000 3, S 1,600 3Ww 27 nrx AUMlh Cnur Req«y rhPu out.NUNl awp buNNp. bdnebp Maraiwi{M1Mrhoed p«YrM htw. multi l-.rW.nN yx,. 1 78000 3 I05000 315000 206,000 3 1106.300 3 3 1105300 on. pi-N/aM do wlMM m CxYCWw N.ickkw Mr«L brIWNnUw my C-,mm 27 Yrw WrW Pr,W,rrr, WMA 1,nd the CMr flrx W . Mao ^CmtOmnwry npkt.,R. imantrr.Mmanapm-1 pbn, k�pl.m.N m.npm-t pb.. Oanlq.M rrfav ba[. - 2 .000 3,666.000 4,702. S 7, IF32 32.000 ba1M NUnShw.iw htrl.Y Pro[rrry WRN/and M.May Crnk lrYtflnYhnWtu.bryJ. pr.p.rtlr 2/ 1 • thryb.mm. rWbl.. 1r.9 [Y,.Nen 10w.bxneM Tra1 mrMetbn pml.[b fr.rri tlN Tr,ar aM [kKk htw,r rbn tlrN «. umurbd u parb W .NurN rna,. 21. 3 200,000 $ ~- 266.000 7 --� -mwo f 5]t 000 hrkd.Y.bp rmrdn{m Mrwrb.. knprw. NI thartturn.k«iJ.dNIh. CAP [eMx Pl.r, 3 5.1 000 4 . hWtx nev«.,wAIA ■era Ora CNrlpar loan Pwi. 25 Ilnren [emmwlry rvk -11. wnew—Av pw w hCnrmun.Y U— v-_4•�_ 24 3 IT110000 s 23023000 3 z7c13000 s 4 S16000 3 1316.500 3 1,2$0500 MN..0 O.nmu+rlvrw aM dwdq Mw,wmxrypwwkh mmrmuatrard«. 24 z1,tOt,WO a m t 47. 3 311.300 S n.-i-Mamxwl4rA p«k .W. FIMY been mN«LLad bwlinp,quka land fw ddKi" p«1NL.y+M urWwbtY,nnenu 5 S 4.012000 3 5376000 3 6535000 3 10545.000 5 566,700 S 6500 S 572200 n r.rboarn, t b,thhour. Kkk IevN K ori3c.y rehwnbnxd do t. Nunrk. w.. IMhdr4'n tlr.Ory 440, W. I4 bmrrl.nrnri.dbr Yteilatto. 5wJN/ Ap.em rxlbn tmrr[.d by Syhn W.M Udit 3 SWAM 0 933,000 3 1,194.de 9 1.54 ,9W S 16 . S a 104.400 3 NNudNNtMSkareh.Ma,W Preyryn, WIINLOr..rapwrNrh WN«Nwd II,R 23 —W Gerd-, y.ra bM aM,'«dewbp,dalien,l-mmun:ryl,rd.m, qA-turY rew Nnrw nei[hbwheMx 3 437.000 3 5".000 3-120110 3 1,1w.G69 3 3 Tw $ 700 7 wmwnnY p«b. 22 -1dm AarAWbn v +.wuaa.n.wpro.wl.r provW9t{Ntpr*,nl kJ,p.hew+nn wbrrrd n«wNar.R kaadrdN 3 4,000,000 S 5360,000 3 6.515.000 3 10,612.000 1 - 40,000 3 40,000 [-M Pl,ru 22 Edhmdrrn.wy D.vebp wY,x«ih[to deNpt{.deMr uun{rmreq pkn n, nlxww., mob aM nWm.M $ $123,000 S 6,206.000 $ 9.974.000 3 15.247000 3 11 .400 64000 S 130000 ,n,{.ment pkn,tldr.xin{Wulw.tbM. Canrkwa agana0n.nmN.rpnnU:u to the ranthx U,.k i1 1 Wxrd. Yar:/dal, l.rh Pk- wa.6p�EMk%CNip-1?*N 6M rnra Md.rrJW". a fatlMAA,9ak1 bM b.Ahx S 416,000 3 5".0w i 676.000 i 1.104.000 S M,J00 4. f 66 D30 . P,rk YrrYNedNq.Shsekr.Mrkr .ed WAML 21 PARK5. RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN 1 313 APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODEL Table C-I Ranked Project List and Cost Model 9.n.an 6.khkerheedhhl aM du.bpp. nddawhed whoa. d39ems,tNud riwth dSE Putty nrM. 13 0 Tolil C4F.Fal :Osl 7 4.3 .= Total CapItal C ust 3 5, ,WO Total Capital Cost i 3 t,640,000 Total 5xiMing Annual' 3 Total Proposed f 97,SW . Total Olprr�dffig Cost S 97,5W M,u•n NNthbwheed I.k 2 ul,e and d.raiep pe n.ithbelhaW wl, dS. S. ua-1 M.2ad SWI.0 13 3 !16tl.000 3 5304,1100 f 3,640.W9 i 3 97.500 3 97,500 ia.% lmd 1.hl n.W&.heed pvk un•nRln at aaw"S.Ider K.*"[eM.•k. Mu pbubt aut.daWt 00 3 3,492.000 3 42< OW! 6,915.000 3 202W 3 774W S 97.6W bufdki kkwWA.CityCa—Mv1,9-11h. Munn Pmpun, WRA■ and a. Cad. W. 13 3 U3.255.= 00 f 4.364,OW ! 5301,000 3 6640.0W 3 S 97.5W S 97,5W Gat Mabau Ndtkbwhw hh 2 •M duebpa ndihbh-4 aA nvN at U 11Nk St— 13 00 ! 4.364.0W f 5.304.000 f a610.000 f - 3 97.SW 3 97.500 irwl .wiprtwhwd P.k1 ..Md...Wan.l%,b.rh.ed Wrt north W-- taWev.d, wex d Pwat 13 W f 4.364.OW 3 5304.0W ! tp40,W0 3 - 3 97.500 3 97.600 2 add.r.ip an.6Mbwheed Nrt.eitlk d W-1 Sln.t 13 W ! 4,361,0W 3 5"N.600 ! 0,640,W0 3 - 3 97.500pmyd.N withbwhoM Palk I uY• aM dw.lp • n.yhbarh.N Mrk wax d IJ65. 13 O 3 4.364.OW S 5 304,0W f t 640.000 S 3 97 500 3 97 5W R.rilrad.M NeithbwheM lrtl .Md.r.Ipa pirhbwhuud pah.axdHm•M prth dth. MgCrtNOr..mr.y. 13 13 7 7256000 f � 3256,0W 3 4,364,W0 3 S30t,000 f 6.MO.ow S - 3 971500 3 97,5W Wart Hit•wldaarlww Pv4 ..M daralep m. aald,bvhew Nh p dMntm A— --- �3 4.W.000 3 5304.000 $ 8,640,001) i - 3 97.500 3 97,500 ta•kit nl Wwdraat hrt A — puk Mh lalaNmt•aevu MN W a. 3aaWl Cp aha 14mA—d-1. dn.d tW2 V.. �12 f 9, po0 ! 13,0%.0W S 1572, ,9 f ,9M,W0 3 - f 4a7,5W S 407.5W S 41f OGO 3 MM 6h�ePuY• Yk.bMnu..ntl u.aiary 12 i 25t,W0 3 ]450W i 3.400 3 96w 3 132W pwaNa rut Pdae1W•qui.RbnnvyaM p.knNvaat. uxbaCy. Wgrp. Mk•M kuntA0.4 w•6 ham lhdp S %1,W0 ! I.V3 WO 3 IM.QW 3 2,52S,0W 3 120,1W 3 - 3 t20,1W 17 r.vn. pq•n6•tyn purpm• axlrRy butdHnF 12 YLpla-eM6etteem —Wain and I—... Wk.prp•rryx 111—.. walla N. Sa.~.dMax.r Wn. b .4 7- WaeShaetnaMMnrlmram, WRlA t,—ta.C.aar Rh.r 4.w Man. capital .W p<rationr tp.x ve 12 nkia d a. Ccmmunay 5amka. hwitat, -Hain an ennmda. hied. � Talbot Nn Marcel, hh Mnera1*11kbl110am Chat dvftm9atl it hem 1-ft Tl— T111", Put, Patmdal—Jm $ 403,000 3 547,000 3 660W0 W 3 tow 0 f 51.700 $ S 51,700 Jn wkh rJud bah 12 _ -S 665 WO _ - f 7M 000 iinlnwPuk YNruw pity. MaWap upaNy. 10 f 40000 7 1292 WO f 12000 7 $ 124,600 It VA."iYb hh PanMld avWXRbun•M•nra p.kuubary •M rkYRry bulb t9..0 10 3 2a3,000 3 379,W0 3 J�4t1,WU 3 7510W 7 30,2W i 3000 3 35,000 Rh.rda-P.k P.kW S1wa6na Ma.nr lrptram, WRA t aM a. Cad. R 6aain Man. Cp ,le—W.l.lkua. 9 i ]36000 3 520000 S $32000 3 1on= 3 1".1100 S - 3 120.500 13 SprintbraN Wnraad-^•- Mmp.d by W.nr litah,riat.maxW. ntM pubYC Upial•M p.ntlp.ram v. pWd.dC Mky .rk•.k 9 20 eterM. MemwW-k C-a .nmaMaW and p.r.n. Wa lahrW.hm.nt Yr[hb.d W a..11 Cant«Man. a 3 4000 S tow $ tO,oW 3 16 W0 3 1.SW S 3 1.5 W 11 TaakW hrk dte makdaln W p•m IwaatW pkvkAft - Inducted W a. CRY cmnr Mm. 7 3 179.wo 3 240,000 3 292,0W 3 �- - - - 550o0 S 470.W0 -- 3 �W 1,1W S �-5 WO $ 6.100 F..e. Park k W"dW-Chy cam, M..adNtmt6aYawMwatld. moudC al,. n xna v a l.t MithbwheM part f 34.000 3 45000 3 go MD 3 420W 3 3 42,W0 21 IaAW th. u-.M. W.I., Protram, W Ra t am Cad. Ricer taaW Man. 6 Milkweed PeadaW brie Cuak..•t.m.YdalnaM epama. WrWdedW aaShw.tn. hYatu Fvpam, WRat.M a. [edv Rher 4aW It 27,000 f 3e.000 _ 3 44,000 It 72,000 i 7,000 3 - 3 7,000 M.n 6 21 Mapl.-ead PVY mirwYdakC vN pemir. MarWdetlW a. [NrCmt. Mx 5 4 f 382.000 3 12.0W 1 465 W0 3 50000 H O f %W f 42,9W f - $ 42.9W 24 SRWPvk $ W000 3 19,OW S �4,W0 S 310o0 ! 32W ! $ 32W S - - - -- - 200 VI. Sbr.l ap.n Sp.. Yweatary aM mmat..Hrtdth./anth.r Geek Watl.M., patenWllw 4n nun.ry 1 S 2.000 f 3.000 W 3 7o S 2W S 25 P—K.G.N4hrul WNdad In EduM PrpertY pnmft plm and managm.nt pima C 0,aa Renn Im W a, ft h,, GeN S 33,000 S H,WO f 53 ON 3 05000 3 2700 S - ! -- —2.7W W.tl.Ma. 1 - 35.400 3 •��.� 15,400 ]i Spa.t Ceert P.k• waaapew Wymr.n.nn,m•Wtaln u.Y laplued bESmxt lYnned amim 1-1k 0 $ S 3 3 S - Note: Totals do not Include Improvements to School District facilities that may result from new partnership opportunities. *Parks that have been provisionally classified even though they do not meet minimum size or other design guidelines. "Boeing EIS Waterfront Park development would only occur if the Boeing Company surplused the Renton facilities. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN I 215 POLICIES, GUIDELINES & PROCESS FOR PRIORITIZING CAPITAL PROJECTS • CONFIRM UPDATED PROCESS AND PRIORITIZING MATRIX • EXISTING PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES • COUNCIL IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT COMMUNITY PROJECTS CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 1- h:\finance\budget\icy\council workshop\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM PROCESS AND PRIORITIZING MATRIX Q Background Renton's residents and businesses own over $500 million in a variety of physical assets ranging from roads, bridges, utility systems, parks, open space, trails to community centers, office buildings, fire stations, museum, conferencing center, and parking garages. These assets are used by the public and by city staff to provide daily services. Therefore, they must be properly planned, designed, constructed, and maintained in order to ensure they are safe, long-lasting, and provide a welcoming and usable space for generations of users. Proper planning, investing, improving, and preservation of these facilities are the responsibility of the City. The Capital Investment Plan (CIP) represents the City's near term investment priorities, its plan to preserve past investments, and provide adequate facilities for the future. I. Capital Investment Program Policy A. Covered Projects: Generally, the City's capital spending includes acquisition, enhancements, and rehabilitation of all long-lived infrastructure and equipment. However, not all of the City's capital spending is included in the six -year CIP. Operating equipment purchases and replacements, such as mobile equipment and computers, are financed through the Equipment Replacement Reserve revolving fund or through systematic replacements in the operating budget. Similarly, small projects for operating facilities, such as fire stations, senior activities center, and the City Hall, have been incorporated into internal service charges and have been funded with operating budget since 2011. It continues to be our goal to provide systematic funding to repair and/or update sports courts, irrigation systems, parking lots, walkways, etc. in our parks using operating budget. While the focus of our CIP is limited to the larger, multi -year projects that require more time and policy discussion to initiate. Until then, the CIP will include projects meeting the following criteria: 1. A useful life greater than 2 years 2. New and expanded physical facilities/assets including the planning, design, and study phases 3. System -wide or subarea studies and planning efforts 4. Large scale renovation and replacement of existing facilities, greater than $25,000 5. The acquisition of capital facilities or assets 6. Major pieces of equipment, which are not identified in the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund or require multi -year financing 7. Equipment purchases associated with newly acquired facilities N CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 2 - h:\finance\budget\1cy\council workshop\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx B. Consistency with Adopted Plans: The Six -Year CIP shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans. C. Process: 1. Financial analysis of future funding sources is conducted for the proposed CIP. 2. Department Heads submit capital project proposals. 3. Each department is responsible for planning and prioritizing all capital project proposals within their scope of operational responsibility (see Capital Investment Project Evaluation Criteria). 4. The Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, and City's Administrators review and evaluate all Capital Investment Project proposals. 5. Upon evaluation and final analysis of all proposed capital investment projects, the Mayor provides the forthcoming year's Capital Investment Program for the City Council review and adoption. 6. The Capital Investment Program is typically prepared, modified and adopted concurrently with citywide budget process. 7. Funding is only committed for the current biennium with the adopted and/or amended budgets. All future resources and expenditures identified for each project beyond current biennium are for planning purpose only. �1 II. Criteria for Evaluating Projects City Council reviewed and adopted updated criteria in evaluating and prioritizing Capital Investments in 2013. The new prioritization matrix considers two dimensions of each project: the importance and the urgency or timing of the project. A. Importance Considerations: 1. Community safety and health Preservation of public health, safety, or mission critical program/operation 2. Compliance with laws and regulations Required/mandated by court, federal, state government laws/regulations 3. Promote economic development Urban and neighborhood renewal, job attraction/protection, and growth in general city revenue 4. Community value Preserve and protect natural resources and the environment, provide fair and equitable access, existing user demand and participation, and improve workforce and customer satisfaction 5. Financial stewardship Return on investment: grants or other resources are leveraged, reduce ongoing cost, and consolidate duplicative/overlapping services and costs, more costly investments avoided, or net revenue is generated 6. Consistency with adopted plans CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 3 - h:\finance\budget\lcy\council workshop\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx Comp plan, business plan, community plan(s), TIP, PRO, and other planning documents, including increase capacity to keep pace with growth B. Urgency/Timing Considerations: 1. UrRent/Immediate safety Includes city services for the protection of community safety and health for persons and property. The city should prioritize those projects that need immediate attention. 2. External resources timing To maximize the impact of city's resources, the city has been actively seeking external grants or private investments for projects. The availability and timing of external funding can influence when the city can implement a project that is important to the community. 3. Coordinate internal resources timing This leverages internal resources and reduces service interruptions during the construction. 4. Maintain service level Under the Growth Management Act, the city is required to provide increased capacity in infrastructure concurrent to growth in order to maintain service levels. We believe this is also an important expectation of the community. 5. Improve service level While improving service level may be the least "urgent", certain projects of higher importance to the community may be implemented sooner than other projects that have high urgency but low community importance. A copy of the matrix is attached to this policy. Ill. Procedure for Capital Investment Program A. Initiation Requesting Department(s): 1. Creates a list of the various capital investment projects to be considered. 2. Verifies that projects meet the definitions of the previously defined CIP Policy. 3. Prepares a Capital Investment Request for each project including impact on operating budget. 4. Prioritizes each proposal using the CIP prioritization matrix. 5. Submits request to the Administrative Services Department. 6. Finance Division submits a preliminary CIP to the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer. B. Review/Approval 1. Mayor / Chief Administrative Officer / Administrative Services Administrator: a. Reviews Capital Investment Requests. b. Prepares a bi-annual Capital Investment Plan recommendation. c. Formulates an updated Capital Investment Plan. CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 4 - h:\finance\budget\1cy\council workshop\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx d. Presents the Budget and Capital Investment Plan to the City Council. 2. City Council: a. Conducts a workshop at mid -year preparatory to the development and submittal of the Mayor's proposed bi-annual budget, to consider any priorities or projects of interest. b. Holds a public hearing to review the recommended CIP as part of the budget process. c. Conducts workshops to review the Mayor's recommendations and make changes as necessary. d. Adopts the Capital Investment Program as part of the bi-annual budget. C. Implementation 1. Department: a. Monitors all Capital Investment Projects approved by the City Council. b. If project costs exceed adopted appropriation, obtain Council approval for updated project cost information. c. Obtain Council approval when cumulative change orders exceed 10% of approved initial contract amount. d. Work in conjunction with Administrative Services Department to provide quarterly progress update to the City Council. 2. Administrative Services Department: a. Responsible for capital project accounting and reporting. b. Generates a quarterly Capital Investment Project Summary Report of expenditures and fund balances for distribution to Mayor, Departments and City Council. D. Closeout 1. Department: a. Submit project completion and obtain authorization to release retainage from the City Council. b. Submit project completion checklist and notification of completion to Administrative Services Department. c. Create budget proposals (decision packages) for impacts on operating budget. 2. Administrative Services Department: a. Reconciles total revenues and expenditures for each Capital Investment Project. b. Capitalize project, as appropriate. c. Obtain approval from all applicable State agencies and process release of retainage/bonds. d. Coordinate project audits. CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 5 - h:\finance\budget\1cy\council works hop\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx CAPITAL PROJECT PRIORITIZATION MATRIX Urgency Urgent/ External Coordinate Maintain Improve Capital Project Prioritization Criteria -� Immediate Resources Internal Service Service safety 'riming Resources Level Level Community safety and health Preservation of public health, safety, or mission critical program/operation _ Compliance with laws/regulations Required/mandated by court, federal, state government laws/regulations Promote economic development Urban and neighborhood renewal, job attraction/protection, growth in general city revenue a Community value U Preserve/protect natural resources and environment, c provide fair and equitable access, user demand and o' participation, improve workforce and customer satisfaction E Financial stewardship Return on investment (grants or other resources leveraged, ongoing cost reduction, consolidate duplicative/overlapping services and costs, more costly Investments avoided, net revenue generated) Consistency with adopted plans Comp plan, business plan, community plan(s), TIP, PRO, and other planning documents, including increase capacity to keep pace with growth CIP Guideline Revised 2014 - 6 - h:\finance\budget\1cy\council works h op\2014\cip policies & prioritization.docx City of Renton Washington 2014 — 2019 Six -Yea r Transportation Improvement Program Mayor Denis Law Gregg Zimmerman Public Works Administrator Hearing: ... , 2013 Adopted: ... , 2013 Resolution: .... CITY OF RENTON - PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 2014-2019 TIP Type TIP Priority Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Six -Year Period Total Total Project Funded Unfunded 1 1 Street Overlay 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 916,000 4,883,000 4,883,000 2 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 46B4O00 468,000 3,296,000 3,296,000 Cd 0 27 3 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Program 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,0001 62,000 372,000 372,000 23 4 Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 175.000 350,000 20 5 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Prog 100,000 100,000 100,000 130.000 130,0001 100,000 660,000 660,000 a` 21 6 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 80,000 _ B0,000 80,000 22 24 7 6 Maple Valley Highway Attenuator Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 15,0003 130,000 15,000 405,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 535,000 105,000 105,000 535,000 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 286,646 206,646 4-A SW 27th St - Loan Repayment 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 450,000 14 S 7th St - Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 _8,593,230 2,391,000 993,230 7,600,000 10 Carr Road improvements 1,670,000 721,000 2,221,000 170,000 3 1 Logan Ave N Improvements 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 7,700,000 800,000 6,900,000 m 7 2 Rainier Ave S - S 3rd St to Airport Way 3,420,000 2,780,000 B,400,000 3,400,000 _ 18,000,0 18,000,000 ; 11 3 NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900 Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 nQ 6 4 Duvall Ave NE - NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 8,590,000 12,050,000 12,050,000 CIL 16 6 Houser Way N - N 8th St to Lake Washington B 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 3,875,000 3,875,000 5 6 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 160,000 8,137,000 124,000 8,013,000. ,0 6 7 Park Ave N Extension 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000E v 8 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 0,875,000 6,505,000 18,300,000 18,300,000` _12 15 8 S Grady Way - Main Ave to West City Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 9 9 116th Ave SE Improvements Lk Washington Blvd N - Park Ave N to Coulon 1,500,000 3,200,000 4,000,000 8,700,000 _ 8,700,000 35 10 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 36 11 Lind Ave SW - SW 16th St to SW 43rd St 250,000 1,350,000 1,900,000 _3,500,000 3,500,000 13 12 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S 50,000 5,300,000 5,350,000 5,350,000 25 1 Intersection Safety & Mobility Program 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,432,000 1,432,000 to 26 2 Traffic Safety Program 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 236,000 236,000 18 1 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail 570,000 685,000 1,255,000 1,255,000 e 17 2 Lake Washington Loop Trail 50,000 300,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 5,000,000 50,000 4,950,000 z o 29 3 Barrier -Free Transition Plan Implementation 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 206,000 206,000 N 19 4 Walkway Program 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,390,000 890,000 500,000 32 1 Arterial Circulation Program 120,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 825,000 825,000 31 2 Project Development & Pre -Design Program 115,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 120,000 690,000 690,000 d 33 3 Environmental Monitoring Program 10,000 10,000 10,000 4 ITS Program 1%for the Arts Program 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 180,000 5 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 90,000 130 6 City Center Community Plan Support Total Sources 6,631,876 14,495,000 18,964,000 38,670,0001 37,520,000 35,222,000 151,502,876 21,054,876 130,448,000 W TW. 3-5 Draft aOAU Boeing 737 -1st Flight from the new Runway 16134 Did You Know? The runway is 200 feet wide and just over a mile long. During the runway 15/33 (now renumbered 16/34) resurfacing project, nearly 12 lane miles of asphalt was milled and paved in just under 160 hours of work. 3 of 45 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Adjusted Estimated Life to Date Thru 2011 Budget 2012 year End 2012 Adopted P r o J e c t e d Project Total fi Projects TYPee 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 1 608 Hangar Expansion D - - - - 305 945 - - 1.050 2 820 BuRding Demolition D 74 34 270 - 637 - - - - 981 3 Wildlife Assessment M - - 89 - - - 89 4 Lower Blast Fence Rwy 34 D - - 40 400 - 440 5 622 Hangar - Rehab:litation D - 120 990 1,100 6 Pavement Management Program M - 170 170 170 165 165 165 5,619 350 6,804 7 Storm Water System Rehabilitation D 2 350 350 76 85 150 1S0 150 ISO 1.113 8 Fire Water System Rehabilitation D 200 200 50 100 25 25 25 25 450 9 Seaplane Launch Ramp Replacement D - - - - 150 400 - - 550 20 Major Facility Maintenance M 517 166 170 230 130 140 140 140 140 1.507 11 Alr Side/Land Side Separation D 10 200 2D0 20 20 20 20 20 20 330 12 Taxlway Bravo Rehabil4ation M ISO 2,975 2,821 9,700 - 12,711 13 Renton Gateway Center Utilities Interfund Loan Repymt D 210 105 105 205 ]OS Jas 525 Total 1,003 4,200 4,286 10,340 1,392 1,045 2,955 6,944 27,650 Adjusted Estimated Life to Dote Thru 2011 Budget 2012 Year End 2012 Adopted P r o J e c t e d Project Total Resources. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 User Fee - - - - - - - BEET- Fue1 Tax - - - - - - - UtditYTax - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - 105 1,055 990 2.150 Operating 833 1.055 1,717 1,530 1,107 430 350 897 685 7,549 Grants/Contribution Received 170 - 225 - - - - 385 Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - - - - Gronts/ContributlonAnticipated 3145 2.354 8,810 285 510 550 5.057 - 17,566 Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - M& Rronsfarspnterfund Loon Interest Income - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance Total Resources 1,003 4,2D0 4,296 10,340 13921 1,0451 1,955 1 6,944 685 27,650 Balance Avoiluble/(Unfunded Needs) * NOTE:A Acquisition,D Deve:opment,M Major Maintenance, R Reg-AatoryC!mp1•ance,T Transfer 4 of 45 C The City's Maplewood Golf Course offers a 30 stall covered -heated driving range, full service pro shop, restaurant, bar and banquet facility. Did You Know? Maplewood's eighteen -hole par 72 layout features two very different nines. The front side has greater length, four holes with elevation changes and water coming into play on six of the nine holes. The back nine, with Maplewood Creek meandering through four holes, has narro tree lined fairways and smaller greens placing a premium on accuracy off the tee. Maplewood achieved designation as a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Golf Course. 5 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Life to Adjusted Estimate Date Budget Year End Adopted P r o j e c t a d Project 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 # Projects Type• Thru 2011 Total 1 Maintenance Building and Pump House D - - - - - 300 2.500 - - 2.800 2 Reconstruction of the 13th and 15th Greens D - - - - 130 - - - 130 3 Reconstruction of the loth and 161h Greens D - - - - - - - - 130 130 4 Irrigation Ill Replacement D - - - - - - 850 - - 850 5 Go1 Course Major Maintenance M 423 145 - 50 50 50 150 150 100 673 Total 123 145 50 50 480 3,500 150 230 4,583 • Life to Adjusted Estimate Date Budget Yoar End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Resources: Thru 2011 Total User Fee - - - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - Operating 123 145 - 50 50 480 3 500 150 230 4.583 GrentwContnbudon Received - - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - GranI&Contribubon Anliopated - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Antcipated - - - - - - - - - - Msc/Transfers - - - - - - - - - - fnterest Income - - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance Total i 1231 145 1 50 i 50 1 480 1 3,5001 1501 2301 4.583 Balance Availablel(Unfunded Needs) NOTE A - Acquisition . D - Develr pmenl- M - Major Maintenance, R - Regulatory Compliance, T - Transfer NOTE B - Maior Maintenance is only for current year. 6 of 45 7N I 2013 through 2018 (in thousands of dollars) SUMMARY Estimated Life to Date 2011 Year end 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total # I Projects Type' 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 Highlands 435-Zone Reservoirs D - 400 800 1,600 1,600 1,600 2,000 2,000 10 000 2 Blackriver 196 Zone Reservoir A 302 20 - - 100 100 100 100 722 3 Primary Disinfection Improvements R 8 1,200 200 1.408 4 Rainier Avenue South Utility Improvements D - 1,600 400 2.000 5 Water Main Replacement M 2,788 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 9.788 6 Transmission Main Replacement M 815 - - 500 500 500 50n 500 3.315 7 Water Main Oversizing D 60 100 100 100 100 100 10n 100 760 8 Automatic Meter Reading Conversion M 1,082 1,555 500 515 515 515 115 '15 4,912 9 Reservoir Recoating M 657 50 50 175 50 100 100 100 1,282 10 Telemetry Improvements M 203 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 703 11 Emergency Power to Water Facilities M 2,835 200 150 50 - - - - 3,235 12 Maplewood Equipment Access & H2S M - 130 50 - - - - - 180 13 Maplewood Filter Media Replacement M - 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 400 14 Water Conservation Program R 185 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,585 15 Water System Security M 62 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 182 16 Aquifer Monitoring and Management R - 100 50 - - - - - 150 17 Emergency Response Projects M 212 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 562 18 Water System Plan Update R 312 150 - 100 200 762 19 Hydraulic Model of Water System R 36 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 116 20 Water Qua!:ty Monitoring R 55 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 175 21 Water System GIS I M 1 131 10 51 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 53 Total Six -Year Project Costs 19,6251 7,0451 3,7451 4,385 1 4,260 1 4,3101 4,4101 4,510 42,290 Estimated Life to Date 2011 Year end 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total Resources: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 User Fee 279 141 74 87 84 85 87 89 926 REET - - - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - Utility Tax - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 480 1,355 1,835 Operating 8.779 6,835 3.634 4.255 4,134 4,182 3,799 3,022 38,639 Grants/ContribuGon Received - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received Grants/Contribution Anticipated Mitigation Funds Anticipated Misc/Transfers 200 200 Interest Income 367 69 37 43 42 43 44 45 689 Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - - Total Resources 9,624 7,045 3,745 4,385 4,260 4,310 4,410 4,510 42,289 Balance Available/Unfunded Needs ' A - Acquisition , D - Development, M - Major Maintenance, R - Regu!atory Compliance, T - Transfer 8 of 45 /EMM" i�lra •w+a /lO+CTJ,R cslaananaarrs�va -e. Did You Know? The Wastewater Utility owns, operates, and maintains over 219 miles of gravity sewer main, over 4100 sewer manholes, and 20 sewage lift stations with force mains. City Maintenance Crews clean and inspect over 45,000 linear feet of sewer main annually. 9 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Life to Actual Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Date Thru 2011 Yearend 2012 Total # Projects Type 2013 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 Heather Downs Interceptor Capacity Improvements D 63 - - - - - 1,200 - 1,263 2 S 132nd St. Sewef Extenslons D - - 225 - - - - - 225 3 M'sce:aneous Emergency Projects M 64 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 764 4 Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model M 303 i 00 200 - - - 300 - 903 5 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan R 85 100 185 6 Deve:op Access Road - Aberdeen Apt D - 50 100 - 150 7 Liberty Lift Station Installation Project D 400 100 - 500 8 Telemetry Upgrade M 150 150 300 9 Renton Hill Deep Manhole D - 100 100 10 Falcon Ridge Lift Station Rehabilitation M - - 150 500 650 11 Lind Avenue Lift Station Replacement M 150 600 - - 750 12 Wastewater Operation Master Plan R 53 100 50 50 25 25 303 13 Airport Lift Station Rehabilitation M - 150 350 700 - 1,200 14 East Renton Lift Station Elimination M 259 500 25 25 25 834 15 Misty Cove Lift Station Replacement M 273 150 300 300 - 1,023 16 Lake WA Blvd Repair M - - - - 200 200 17 Thunder Hlll Interceptor Repl/Rehab M 2 300 1,000 500 1,802 18 Central Renton Interceptor Reline/Upsize M - 400 - - 400 19 2013 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl / Rehab D 1,000 - 1,000 20 2014 Sanitary Sewer Main Rep] / Rehab D - 1,275 - 1,275 21 2015 Sanitary Sewer Main Rep] / Rehab D - 1,650 - 1,650 22 2016 Sanitary Sewer Main Rep] / Rehab D - 2,125 - 2,125 23 2017 Sanitary Sewer Main Rep] / Rehab D - 1,650 - 1,650 24 2018 Sanitary Sewer Main Rep] / Rehab D 3,150 3,150 Total 1 1,1021 1,800 1 3,260 1 3,250 1 3,250 1 3,250 1 3,260 1 3,250 1 22,402 Life to Actual Date Thru 2011 Year end 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total Resources: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 User Fee 330 54 98 98 98 98 163 163 1,099 REET - - - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - Utility Tax - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - Operating 748 1,692 3,055 3,055 3,023 3, -,23 2,958 2,958 20.510 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received Grants/Contribution Anticipated Mitigation Funds Anticipated Misc/Transfers - - - - - Interest Income 24 54 98 98 130 130 130 130 793 Beginning Fund Balance - - Total Resources 1 1,1021 1,8001 3,2501 3,2501 3,2501 3,2501 3,2501 3,250 22,402 Balance Available / (Unfunded Needs) - NOTE: A - Acquisition , D - Development. M - Major Maintenance R - Regulatory Compliance, T - Transfer C 11 10 of 45 Iff M 2 MoriAn F Lake Ave. S / Rainier Ave S Storm System Replacement Project The Lake Ave. S/Rainier Ave S Storm System Replacement Project was completed in 2012. The project installed 432 L.F. of 34-inch storm pipe using an auger boring machine to minimize excavation and impacts to business. A total of 746 L.F. of 42-inch to 18-inch storm pipe was installed by the project. The project replaced an existing 24-inch storm system that was undersized, which was causing upstream flooding problems and had structural problems. The project was located between the intersections of S 2nd St and Lake Ave S and S 3rd St and Rainier Ave S through the Safeway and Walker's Renton Subaru parking lots. Did You Know? he Surface Water Utility provides management, lanning, engineering, and customer service to iinimize flood hazards, comply with regulatory :quirements and enhance environmental resources 3 contribute to the safety and livability of the ommunity. 11 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 2013 through 2018 (in thousonds of dollars) SUMMARY LI a to Estimated Date Thru2011 Year end Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total ($ JProjects Type* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 Springbrnok Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank D 396 200 150 150 140 150 150 150 1,486 2 NE 5th St. and Edmonds Ave. NE Storm System Improvements D - 1,040 760 - - - - - 1,800 3 Stormwater Facility Fencing M - 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 4 Monroe Ave- NE & NE 2nd Street Infiltration System Improvements D - - - 100 300 1,000 - - 1,400 5 Hardie Ave SW -SW 7th St Storm System Improvement D 115 1,000 119 4,981 1,300 350 2,050 - 9,915 6 East Valley Road Storm System Improvements D - - - - - - - 300 300 7 SW 43rd Street/Lind Ave SW Storm Sys Impr D - - 270 500 770 8 NE loth St & Anacortes Av NE Detention Pond Retrofit D - 60 215 - - 275 9 Oakesdale/SW 41st St. Culvert Replacement D - - 320 320 10 Maplewood Creek Basin Storm Improvements D - 200 780 - 980 11 NE Sunset Blvd & Union Ave NE Storm System Improvement D - - - 200 700 900 12 Small Drainage Projects Program M 836 360 200 200 200 200 200 200 2,396 13 Miscellaneous/Emergency Storm Projects M 36 50 SO 50 50 50 50 50 386 14 Lower Cedar River Sediment Management M 829 600 750 2,050 2,250 210 220 220 7,129 15 Maplewood Creek Sedimentation Facility Maint M 214 60 100 - 100 - 100 - 574 16 Madsen Creek Sedimentation Cleaning M 127 100 50 50 SO 50 50 50 527 17 Surface Water Utility System Plan R 501 53 - - - - - 200 754 18 Talbot Hill Area Mosquito Abatement Program R 164 50 75 100 100 100 100 100 789 19 Stream Flow and Water Quality Monitoring Pgm R 28 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 98 20 Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility D - - 325 985 - - - - 1,310 21 Surface Water Utility GIS R 355 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,055 22 Harrington Green Connection D - 100 340 940 - - 1,380 Total Six -Year Project Costs 1 3,6001 3,923 1 3,189 1 10,0311 4,7001 3,1001 3,6001 3,000 1 35,143 Life to Estimated Date Thru Year end Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Resources: 2011 2,012 2,013 2,014 2,015 2,016 2,017 2,018 Total User Fee 478 235 140 479 147 173 203 167 2,022 REET - - - - - - - - - Fuel Tax Utility Tax Bond Proceeds Operating 2,951 3,501 1,562 5,157 2,202 2,548 3,016 2,472 23,408 Gran ts/ContrrbutionReceived 48 69 618 2,106 3 3 3 3 2,853 Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated 38 - 800 2,050 2,250 260 220 220 5,838 Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - Interestlncvme 85 118 70 239 98 116 158 138 1,022 Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - Total Resources / Unfunded Needs 1 3,6001 3,923 1 3,189 10,0311 4,700 3,100 3,600 3,000 35,143 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - * NOTE: A- Acquisition, 1)- Development, M- Major Maintenance. R- Regulatory Compliance, T- Transfer 12 of 45 2013 Capital Project Prioritization Criteria Review Urgency Urgent/ External Coordinate Maintain Improve Immediate Resources Internal Service Service Proposed safety Timing Resources Level Level Community safety and health Preservation of public health, safety, or mission critical program/operation Compliance with laws/regulations Required/mandated by court, federal, state government laws/regulations Promote economic development (v Urban and neighborhood renewal, job m attraction/protection, growth in general city revenue 0 0 Community value a E Preserve/protect natural resources and environment, provide fair and equitable access, user demand and participation, improve workforce and customer Financial stewardship Return on investment (grants or other resources leveraged, ongoing cost reduction, consolidate duplicative/overlapping services and costs, more costly investments avoided, net revenue generated) Consistency with adopted plans Comp plan, business plan, community plan(s), TIP, PRO, and other planning documents, including increase capacity to keep pace with growth 13 of 45 H:\Finance\Budget\ICY\CIP\criteria.xlsxversion 2 01/27/2014 General Government Volunteers planting street trees in North Renton for Arbor Day/Earth Day Event Did You Know? The City of Renton website is nationally recognized for its design, content and ease of use. www.rentonwa.gov 14 of 45 n SUMMARY Life to Estimated Date Year End Adopted P r o J e c t e d Project Page Priority Projects Type Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 16 KC Proposition 2 Cap Exps Levy I'd A 787 160 5 - - - 952 17 North Highlands Community Center D - - 2,000 - - 2,000 18 Black River Riparian Forest D 90 100 200 2,000 2,390 19 Maplewood Community Park D - 225 4,000 225 4,450 20 Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion D 94 280 300 4,400 - 350 4,400 9,824 21 Springbrook Trail Missing Link D 650 - 100 2,000 - - 2,750 22 Accessible Playground D - 750 750 - - - - 1,500 23 Sunset EIS Park D - 280 - 100 3,000 - - - 3,380 24 Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan P 213 225 - - 438 25 Park Master Planning P - 90 90 90 90 360 26 Integrated Pest Management Program P - 100 - - - 100 27 Security Upgrades M 125 160 90 60 90 90 - - 615 28 Henry Moses Aquatic Center M 580 177 120 60 120 120 - - 1,177 29 Community Services Maintenance Shops Rehab M - 100 - - - - - 100 30 Urban Forestry M 145 86 - - 110 110 110 110 671 31 Parks General Major Maintenance M 1,037 429 00 190 475 485 440 2,360 5,685 32 Irrigation Renovation & Conservation M 352 - - 425 250 250 250 1,527 33 Irrig Automation and Consery M 137 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 265 34 Parking Lot and Drive Repairs M 49 10 50 50 90 50 309 60 409 35 Ball Field Renovation Program M 55 16 s0 50 75 50 296 36 Pathway, Sidewalk, Brdwk Repairs M 429 10 75 75 65 40 40 40 771 37 Sports Court Repairs M 20 20 40 20 150 80 20 20 375 38 Leased Facilities M 500 - 120 120 - 740 39 Highlands Library Natural Area M - 10 - - 10 10 30 10 50 40 Tree Maintenance M 337 183 232 100 250 250 250 250 2,055 41 Coulon Park Repairs and Maintenance M 645 431 330 175 385 270 160 2,307 42 Riverview Park Bridge Reconstruction M 250 - 253 43 Grant Matching Program X - 239 21 - - 260 44 Capital Project Coordination X 186 72 74 75 78 80 - - 565 45 Contract Coordination X - 131 139 147 155 572 Total Projected Costs 4,909 4,184 2,843 1,500 12,014 4,794 6,576 10,195 69,841 Life to Estimated Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Resources Thru 2011 1012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total User Fee - - - - - - - - - REET 175 250 500 550 550 550 550 550 3,675 Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax 425 425 438 451 464 478 2,681 Bond Proceeds. - - - - 800 Business License Fee 400 400 412 424 437 450 Operating 1,521 520 120 120 124 127 131 135 2,798 Grants/Contribution Received 500 361 - - - - - - 861 Mitigation Funds Received 650 400 750 - 1,800 Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - 250 - - 250 Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - Misc/Tronsfers 1,742 1,158 - 2,900 Interest Income - - - - - - - KClevy transfer 627 160 160 5 - 952 Beginning Fund Balance 560 469 238 - - - - 1,267 Total Resources Available 5,775 3,318 2,843 1,500 1,523 1,553 1 1,583 1,614 17,985 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) 1 867 1 (866) (10,491) (3,241) (4,993) (8,581) (51,856) A - Acquisition, D - Development/Redevelopment, M - Maintenance/Preservation, P - Planning, X - Cross Categories 15 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Importance UrgencV Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Project Title: KC Proposition 2 Capital Expenditures Levy Fund Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332029.020.594.76.61.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 952 Current LOS % Growth % Project Description King County voters approved a six -year levy for open space and trail acquisition and development through 2014. The funds may specifically include local trails in underserved areas linking to city or county trails that connect regional trails and for open space acquisition in areas where the City is trying to acquire missing parcels as part of a larger network of open spaces. The funding will be allocated to appropriate eligible projects and the M&O cost will be incorporated in these projects when funded. ary of Progress: During 2012, the Tiffany/Cascade Park Connector property was acquired using a 50% grant match which will be received `n Grant money received will reimburse the K.C. Proposition 2 Capital Expenditures Levy Fund. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - - - Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction 787 160 5 - - 952 Inspection - - - - - Project Management - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - Total CIP Expenses - 787 160 5 - - 952 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Operating - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - - - - KC levy transfer 627 160 160 5 - - - - 952 Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 1 627 160 160 5 - - - - 952 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - I - I - I - - I - - Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impacti - - - - - 16 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 2013 throughI Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: North Highlands Community Center Development and Major Maintenance 316.220002.020.594.18.62.000 $ 2,000 Importance Ureencv Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description The North Highlands Neighborhood Center is near the end of its useful life. Major work has been performed in the last two years to maintain the (building. Ongoing citizen -initiated neighborhood development plans should prescribe a replacement within a few years. vary of Progress: The City has placed much focus on North Highlands redevelopment. The North Highlands Community Center will be a inent feature of the redevelopment. Facility replacement costs range in the area of $2,000,000 and is tentatively set to take place in 2015 or depending on funding of voter approved bond levy. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - Major Maintenance - Construction 2,000 2,000 Inspection - - Project Management Equipment Acquisition - Contingencies - - - Total CIP Expenses - 2,000 - 2,000 Resources: User Fee - REET - Fuel Tax Utility Tax - - Business License Fee Bond Proceeds - - Operating - Gronts/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - Misc/Transfers - Interest Income - - - - KC levy transfer Beginning Fund Balance - Total CIP Resources - - - Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) 1 (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000) (2,0007) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - Net ImpactI - - - - 17 of 45 I I • I • I L2013 through 2018 (in tholusondsofdollors) Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Black River Riparian Forest Development and Major Maintenance 316.332002.020.594.76.63.000 $ 2,390 Im2—Ortance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: I- - I Current LOS % Growth % Project Description The Black River Riparian Forest contains an active heron colony, an estimated 75 species of avifauna, and numerous mammals. As the site will allow, future long range plans for this facility includes an interpretive learning center, soft surface paths to view wildlife, and sensitive habitat enhancement. (This project was first introduced as a CIP project in 2004.) Impacts to the operating budget might include utilities, office supply and equipment and labor for the learning center and surrounding amenities. of Progress: The first phase of this project is being re -scheduled to 2015 and will include a wildlife/habitat inventory/assessment. The it will be utilized to determine the suitability and feasibility of a future interpretive learning center and associated amenities. The it will take one year to complete and be utilized to develop a Master Plan in 2016. Construction documents will be prepared In 2017 with Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition Consultant Services - - Major Maintenance - - Construction - 90 100 200 2,000 2,390 Inspection - - Project Management Equipment Acquisition - Contingencies - - - - Total CIP Expenses - - - 90 100 200 2,000 2,390 Resources: User Fee - - REET - - Fuel Tax - - Utility Tax - Business License Fee Bond Proceeds Operating - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - Misc/Transfers - - Interest Income - - - - - - KClevy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - Total CIP Resources - - - - - Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - (90) (190) (390) (2,390) (2,3907) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue In crease/Decrease Expenditure lncrease/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - 15 15 Net ImpactlI 1- - 15 1 15 18 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 2013 through 2018 (in thousunds ofdollors) Project Title: Maplewood Community Park Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 4,450 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % roject Description his 40-acre site, located adjacent to Maplewood Heights Elementary School and Maplewood Neighborhood Park, is currently owned by ing County and will be transferred to the City of Renton for future use as a park site. The area is experiencing rapid residential growth nd possibly, annexation to the City. Long term development plans call for a mixed -use community park that includes both active and assive uses. Consultant selection and master planning is scheduled for 2016, design development, construction document preparation, nd bidding in 2017, with phase one development proposed for 2017 at a cost of $4,000,000. Phase 2 design development, construction ocument preparation, and bidding in 2018. (This CIP project was first introduced in 2002.) Impacts include labor, equipment, supplies nd utility costs dependant upon the final design of the facility. ummary of Progress: The City and King County are delaying negotiations to transfer the 40-acre undeveloped parcel and the 5-acre eveloped Maplewood Park until some time in the future. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 1016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - Consultant Services - 225 225 450 Major Maintenance - - - - Construction - 4,000 4,000 Inspection - - Project Management - - - Equipment Acquisition - - Contingencies - Total CIP Expenses - - 225 4,000 225 4,450 Resources: User Fee REET - Fuel Tax - Utility Tax - - Business License Fee - - Bond Proceeds - Operating Grants/Contribution Received - Mitigation Funds Received - Grants/Contribution Anticipate Mitigation Funds Anticipated Misc/Transfers - - Interest Income - - KC levy transfer - - Beginning Fund Balance-------------- - - Total CIP Resources - - Balance Available /(Unfunded Needs) 1 (225) (4,225) (4,450) (4,450) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - 250 - 250 Net Impactl I I 1 250 1 250 19 of 45 2013 through 2018 (in rhousonds of dollars) Project Title: Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332003.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 9,824 'moortance U-.Pmy Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking:-� Current LOS % Growth % oject Description is project will occur in three phases. Phase I consisted of design and construction of the lighted soccer field and softball field, lighted basketball urt, phase one parking, and entry drive and bridge over Madsen Creek. Phase II includes design and construction documents in 2014 and in 2015 II expand the capacity and provide greater programming flexibility by improving the existing all-weather (dirt) soccer Feld with synthetic turf, nstructing a second lighted synthetic turf soccer field, expand the existing parking lot, add restroom facilities, a children's play area, picnic elter, and sewer and extend domestic water to the site for dr}nking and fire flow purposes. Phase III will convert the existing natural turf softball Id to synthetic turf and develop a second lighted synthetic turf ball field. Impacts include labor, supplies, equipment and utilities to operate the :ility, dependent upon the final design. (First introduced in 1998.) mmary of Progress: Phase I was completed in 2000. This project is being re -programmed to the future. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Consultant Services - - 300 350 650 Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction 94 280 4,400 4,400 9,174 Inspection - - - - - Project Management - - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 94 280 - 300 4,400 350 4,400 9,824 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - 300 300 Fuel Tax - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Operating - - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - Misc/Transfers 94 - - - 94 Interest Income - - - - - KClevy transfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - 280 - 280 Total CIP Resources 94 280 - 300 674 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) -1 (4,400) (4,400) (4,750) (9,150) (9,150) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - 20 137 25 140 30 145 35 180 110 602 Net Impact I I 1 157 165 175 215 1 712 20 of 45 U O AL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Springbrook Trail Missing Link Development and Major Maintenance 316.332014.020.594.76.63.000 $ 2,750 Importance Untency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % roject Description its project will construct remaining missing links in the existing system between SW 43rd Street and SW Grady Way. The Springbrook Trail is linked to countywide regional trail system including the Interurban Trail, and extends to the City of Pacific to the south, and north to South Seattle. Impacts clude maintenance of the trail and utilities, if any, such as irrigation. ✓ of Progress: The boardwalk trail was completed in 2010. Funding is derived from the Parks Mitigation Fund. $50,000 in revenue was from Hunter/Douglas property sale and development agreement with funding dedicated for trail development. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - Consultant Services - 100 - - 100 Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction 650 - 2,000 2,650 Inspection - - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 650 - 100 2,000 - 2,750 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - Business License Fee - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Operating - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - Mitigation Funds Received 650 - - - - 650 Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - Misc/Transfers - - - Interest Income - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - Total CIP Resources 650 - - - - - - 650 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - (100) (2,100) (2,100) (2,100) (2,100) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 12 Net Impactl -1 3 3 3 3 12 21 of 45 :APITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM! through i (in thousondsofdollar-5) Project Title: Accessible Playground Project Type: Development Project Account Number: 316.332035.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 1,500 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + = Priority Ranking: Current LOS Growth 100% Project Description Design and construct a new playground with accessible structures for all ages and abilities. Design will include various play elements such as slides, swings and sensory equipment as well as rubberized safety surfacing, benches and drinking fountains. Public/private partnerships will be coordinated to raise matching funds. The site will be located on the North Highlands Neighborhood Center and Hilicrest Early Childhood Center properties. Impacts include labor, supplies, materials and utilities for the safe operation of the playground and restroom facilities. Summary of Progress: A partnership project with the Renton School District (RSD), Renton Rotary, other service clubs and individuals. In 2011, a Memorandum of Understanding with RSD was signed and in 2012 an interlocal agreement with RSD and the City was completed. Design for the playground began in 2012 is expected to be completed by year's end. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction 750 750 - - - - 1,500 Inspection - - - - - - - Project Management - - - - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses - 750 750 - - - - 1,500 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Operating - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - 350 - - - - 350 Mitigat'on Funds Received - 400 750 - - - - 1,150 Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 750 7501 - - 1,500 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - - - - - - - Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 72 Net Impactl 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 1 72 22 of 45 4 a, A mlm� 2013 through 2018 (In thousands of dollars) Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Sunset EIS Park Development 316.332043.020.594.76.63.000 $ 3,380 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS Growth 100% roject Description he Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program will redevelop the area with new public housing and encourage development and Ifrastructure improvements, creating opportunities for affordable housing and retail investment. As part of the redevelopment, park and regional :orm water facilities will be integrated into a park master planning process in 2013. Design and construction drawings are planned in two phases eginning in 2013 and completed in 2014. Construction of the park will occur in 2015. This park was identified in the adopted Parks, Recreation rid Natural Areas Plan. Impacts include labor, utilities, equipment and supplies to operate and maintain the park. mmary of Progress: The Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility, integrated into the park design, will be constructed during 2014. The Irmwater facility has to be completed by June of 2015 using a separate funding soul ce supplemented by a Department of Ecology grant obtained the Surface Water Utility Division in 2012. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Consultant Services 280 100 3,000 3,380 Major Maintenance - - - - Construction - - Inspection - - Project Management - - Equipment Acquisition - - - Contingencies - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 280 100 3,000 - 3,380 Resources: User Fee - - - - - REET - - - Fuel Tax - - Utility Tax - - - Business License Fee 100 - 100 Bond Proceeds - - Operating Grants/Contribution Received Mitigation Funds Received Grants/Contribution Anticipated Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - Misc/Transfers 280 - 280 Interest Income - - - KC levy transfer - - - Beginning Fund Balance - Total CIP Resources 280 100 - - 380 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) 1 (3,000) (3,000) (3,000) (3,000) (3,000) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 1017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure In - - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impact - - - 23 of 45 / I � ROOM-, 2013 though 2018 (in thousands of dollars) Project Title: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332002.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 438 Importance UtKen Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan Is an implementation document including a strategic plan, inventory of existing facilities, service levels, needs assessment, user demands, and surveys to develop recommendations for the City's future needs (intro 1999). A habitat component also comprises this planning document. A Trails and Bicycle Plan will be incorporated into the Plan and was completed in partnership with the Transportation Division; this plan was adopted by City Council in 2009. The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Plan should be updated every five years to continue meeting State requirements for grant program eligibility. of Progress: The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Plan was completed and adopted by City Council in 2011. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services 213 225 438 Major Maintenance - - - Construction Inspection - - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition - Contingencies - - - - Total CIP Expenses 213 - 225 438 Resources: User Fee - - - - REET 175 - 175 Fuel Tax - - - - Utility Tax - - Business License Fee - - - Bond Proceeds - Operating - - Grants/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - Misc/Transfers - - - Interest Income - - - KC levy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 38 - - - 38 Total CIP Resources 213 - - - - - 213 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - - -1 (225) (225) (225) (225) Impact on Operating funds Lie to Date Thru 2011 Estimate Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - Net Impact - - - - 24 of 45 G :APITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM throtigh 2018 (in thou5cindsofdollars) Project Title: Park Master Planning Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 360 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % !ct Description master planning is needed for undeveloped parks, under -developed park areas, and for developed parks that are becoming outdated. Assessing recreation, and open space needs of the community, and translating that information into a framework for meeting the physical, spatial, and ty requirements to satisfy those needs, describes the goals of the park master planning process. Park master planning is done at the individual level and guides park development in subsequent years. of Progress: This is an item introduced in 2008. Implementation of the Plan, and funding of projects is being re -programmed to the future.) Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction - - - 90 90 90 90 360 Inspection - - - - - - - - Project Management - - - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses - - 90 90 90 90 360 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - - - - - Fuel Tax - - Utility Tax - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Operating - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - Total CIP Resources - - - - Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - - 1 (90) (180) (270) (360) (360) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impacti - - - - - - 25 of 45 AL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Integrated Pest Management Program Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 100 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking:' Current LOS % Growth % Project Description Integrated pest management (IPM) is the concept of managing pests through a hierarchy of choices, the first being the least toxic approach in an effort to reduce the use of chemical controls. While the Community Services Department is practicing IPM, the department has no formal program to date. A formal program will bring effectiveness of IPM practices to the department and demonstrate leadership to the public in the control of weeds and other pests using the least toxic alternatives available. mary of Progress: This is being re -programmed to 2015 at which time a consultant will be hired to work with staff in developing an Integrated Management Program plan. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - - Consultant Services - - - 100 - - 100 Major Maintenance - - - - - - - Construction - - - - Inspection - - - - - - - - Project Management - - - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - Total CIP Expenses - - - 100 - 100 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - REET - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Operating - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - - Misc/Tronsfers - - - - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - Total CIP Resources - - - - - Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - I - I - 1 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - Net Impact Ee 26 of 45 U CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: City-wide Security System Upgrades Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.220031.020.594.18.62.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 615 Imaortance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: 00001 Current LOS 100% Growth % Project Description Because vandalism and graffiti repairs are a major drain on City resources, considerable cross -departmental effort has been made to reduce these property crimes. High -quality surveilance cameras and recording equipment is essential to efforts to prevent, discourage, and prosecute crimes of these types. Cameras are also important to the security of the transit center area downtown. The coordination of departmental efforts needs to also extend to equipment and software specification, placement, and replacement. Because video equipment continues to improve and fall in price, it will be possible to continue to upgrade the City's equipment without corresponding increases in cost. Many of the older surveilance cameras already in place are degraded and in need of replacement. Summary of Progress: The City purchased and placed a number of solar powered FlashCams in 2009 that have been very effective in detering vandalism and graffiti. These are moved around the City in response to graffiti hot spots. A web -based access program for the Police Department to access all video cameras via their laptops was tested and put in place. Some high -pixel cameras have been placed at Coulon and the transit center; these are capable of facial recognition at considerable distances. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - Major Maintenance - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - - Project Management - - - - - - - Equipment Acquisition 125 160 90 60 90 90 615 Contingencies - - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 125 160 90 60 90 90 615 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - Business License Fee - - 90 60 - 150 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Operating 125 99 - - 235 Grants/Contribution Received - 11 - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - Misc/Transfers - 50 - - - 50 Interest Income - - - - - KClevy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - I - - - Total CIP Resources 1 125 1 160 1 90 60 - I - - - 435 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - I - I - 1 (90) (180) (180) (180) (180) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - 14 - 14 - 14 - 14 - 14 - 14 83 Net Impactl 14 14 14 14 14 14 83 27 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 2013 through/ o Project Title: Henry Moses Aquatic Center Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.250003.020.594.18.62.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 1,177 imoortancc r nc Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS 100% Growth % The 5.2 million Henry Moses Aquatic Center opened for the sumrner season :n 2004. It contains a lap pool, a lazy river, sides, and water features, as well as a toddler area. Not all water features that were part of the original design were put in at the time of construction. Each year, if pool revenues exceed expenses by $120,000, that excess revenue will be used towards fully developing the initially planned features, and update equipment and decor. Currently, expenses have not been exceeding revenues, but other repairs and improvements have been made. In 2010, roughly $50,000 was spent on drain alterations to meet the requirements of the Virginia Graham Baker Act, which was developed to limit the force of suction at the recirculation intake grates. Summary of Progress: The Henry Moses Aquatic Center opens after the Memorial Day weekend, and runs through Labor Day. The lap pool developed some cracks two years ago which caused concern. Any crack in a pool can allow water to penetrate, which in turn can create oxidation of the pool's rebar. This causes expansion, which can cause further cracks and concrete spalls. The cure for this condition will require a substantial repair before the start of the 2013 swim season, estimated between $60 and $80K. Future improvements that are closer to the original intent of this account will include a waiting area cover (customers lineup for long periods in full sunlight), and the replacement of the children's play structure in 2013 (est. $120,000). In 2014, the intention is to replace the pool furniture, components of which degrade in the Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - Consultant Services Major Maintenance - - - - Construction 580 177 120 60 120 120 1,177 Inspection - - - - - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition Contingencies - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 580 177 120 60 120 120 - 1.177 Resources: User Fee - - REET - 85 60 - - 145 Fuel Tax - - - Utility Tax - - - - Business License Fee - 35 - 35 Bond Proceeds - - - - Operating 580 177 757 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - Misc/Transfers - Interest Income - KC levy transfer - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 5801 1771 120 1 60 1 1 - 937 Balance Available /(UnfundedNeeds) I I - I - (120) (240) (240) (240) (240) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 1013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - Net Impact 28 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Importance Urgency Combined 2013 • • I . . . Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: ■ Project Title: Community Services Maintenance Shops Rehab Project: 4 Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.220034.020.594.18.62.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 100 Current LOS 100% Growth 0% Previous projections included replacement by now of the three existing maintenance shops with a new combined Maintenance Shop, so maintenance of the existing shops was deferred. As it now appears that we will be using these shops for some time, the maintenance needs to be caught up. This work involves the roofs, HVAC equipment, inefficient lighting replacement, furnishings, flooring and finishes. The energy -related portions of this work will qualify for partial funding by PSE grants. Summary of Progress: The list of improvements that would make the facility compliant with zoning includes: painting the building in more than one color to break up the mass (which runs tight to the sidewalk), installing some windows on the large, flat CMU wall on the Park Avenue side, providing nominal landscaping at the front corner, and establishing a small yard fence setback along Park Avenue. There was not sufficient funding in 2011 or 2012 to carry these out. That is why we're asking for funding for this building - we intend, after a period of years, to have completed the upgrades so that we are in compliance with our own regulations. Altogether the Bronson Way facility improvements are estimated between $80 and $100K. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition Consultant Services - - - Major Maintenance - Construction 100 - - 100 Inspection - - - - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition - - Contingencies - - - - Total CIP Expenses 100 - 100 Resources., User Fee - - - - REET - - - - Fuel Tax - Utility Tax - - - - Business License Fee 100 - - 100 Bond Proceeds - - - Operating - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - Misc/Transfers - Interest Income - - - KC levy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - Total CIP Resources 100 100 Balance Available /(UnfundedNeeds) I I - - - I - Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - Net Impact - 29 of 45 )U013 through 2018 (in timusandsofdouars) ! =--. W-— - � - - Project Title: Urban Forestry Program Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332017.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 671 Importance Ureencv Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: 11 Current LOS % Growth Project Description The interdepartmental Urban and Community Forestry Development Plan was approved in 2009 and lays the foundation for the urban forestry program using the Plan's implementation schedule. Some of the goals of the Plan include a forestry ordinance, formal tree planting program, environmental partnerships, Tree City USA recertification, tree inventory and others. In 2013, funds are budgeted to begin a tree planting program for adding and replacing street trees, to perform a tree inventory of public lands using tree maintenance software purchased in 2012 and to prepare management plans for natural areas. Tree planting and natural area management plans continue in 2014. Impacts include labor, equipment and supplies beginning in 2014. Identified projects are listed below: Life to Estimated Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Project Thru 2011 2012 Total Tree Planting Program 145 20 - 60 60 60 60 405 Natural Area Management - 30 50 50 50 50 230 Tree Inventory - 36 - - - - 36 Total 145 86 110 110 110 110 671 Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition Consultant Services - - 50 50 50 50 200 Major Maintenance 145 86 60 60 60 60 471 Construction - - - - Inspection Project Management Equipment Acquisition - Contingencies - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 145 86 110 110 110 110 671 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET Fuel Tax Utility Tax Bond Proceeds Operating 86 86 Grants/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - Business License Fee Grants/Contribution Anticipated - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - Misc/Transfers 145 - 145 Interest Income - - - KClevy transfer - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - Total CIP Resources 145 86 - - 231 Balance Available /(UnfundedNeeds) (110) (220) (330) (440) (1,100) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditurelncreose/Decrease - - - - - 120 - 120 - 130 - 130 - 500 Net Impact 120 1201 130 1 130 500 30 of 45 2013 through 2018 (m thousands of doliar5) Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Importance Urizency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Parks General Major Maintenance Development and Major Maintenance 316.332022.020.594.76.63.000 - 316.332028.020.594.76.63.000 $ 5,685 Current LOS % Growth Project Description Major maintenance projects are necessary to maintain parks in a safe working order. Identified projects are listed below: • Playgrounds, Kiosks and Interpretive Signs - 2013 Liberty Park Playground; 2014 Kennydale Lions Kiosk and Cedar River Trail Playground • Light System Upgrades - 2013 Highlands Park walkway and Senior Center parking lot • Shoreline and Bank Stabilization - • Boundary, Topographic and Site Surveys - Kennydale Beach Park seawall • Fencing, Guardrails, Bullrails, Railings • Landscape Renovation and Repairs - 2014 Heritage Park drainage • Structural Reviews and Repairs - 2013 Trestle Bridge review Life to Estimated Project Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Playgrounds, Kiosks and Intepretive Signs - 12 150 120 120 110 120 120 747 Light System Upgrades 914 297 150 - 75 110 - 110 1,641 Shoreline and Bank Stabilization 61 100 - - 45 100 200 2,000 2,406 Boundary, Topographic & Site Surveys 28 20 20 60 90 100 120 438 Fencing, Guardrails, Bullrails, Railings 33 - - - - - - 33 Landscape Renovation & Repairs - 50 75 75 - - 200 Structural Reviews and Repairs - - - 100 - 20 10 219 Total 1,037 1 429 1 3001 1901 475 485 4401 2,360 1 5,685 Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - Consultant Services - - - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 1,037 429 300 190 475 485 440 2,360 5,685 Construction - - - - - - - Inspection Project Management Equipment Acquisition Contingencies - Total CIP Expenses 1,037 429 300 190 475 485 440 2,360 5,685 Resources: User Fee - - - - REET 250 300 190 888 Fuel Tax - - - - Utility Tax Bond Proceeds Business License Fee Operating Grants/Contribution Received Mitigation Funds Received Grants/Contribution Anticipated Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - Misc/Tronsfers 1,026 1,026 Interest Income - - KC levy transfer - Beginning Fund Balance 11 1 179 11 Total CIP Resources 1,037 429 300 190 1,925 Balance Available /(UnfundedNeeds) (475) (960) (1,400) (3,760) Life to Estimated Impact on Operating Funds Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Revenuelncrease/Decrease - - - - - - - - Expenditure Increase/Decrease 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 Net Impact 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 31 of 45 AL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Project Description Irrigation Renovation and Conservation Development and Major Maintenance 316.332006.020.594.76.63.000 $ 1,527 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Many irrigation systems are 30 years old or more. Upgrading outdated park irrigation systems will Improve irrigation coverage and reduce the amount of water and energy used per park. This will also increase the recreational value to Renton citizens. This is part of the Community Services Department's Water Conservation Plan and Strategy. of Progress: In 2009, irrigation design and construction was scheduled for Cedar River Park. This project has been rescheduled to occur in 2015. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 352 - - 425 250 250 250 1,527 Construction - - - - - - Inspection - - - - Project Management - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 352 - - - 425 250 250 250 1,527 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - Operating 352 - - - - - 352 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - - Interestlncome - - - - - - - - KClevy transfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 352 - - - - - - 352 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - - -1 (425) (675) (925) (1,175) Impact on Operating Funds Lie to Date Thru 2011 Estimate Year End 2012 Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - I - - - - - - - - (2) - (2) - (2) - (2) (8) Net Impact - i - - (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 32 of 45 c AL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Irrigation Automation and Conservation Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332010.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 265 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description Replacement of existing solid state and battery operated irrigation controllers with computerized irrigation controllers and water saving devices will reduce water costs, conserve water, and provide more effective water delivery to parks, boulevards and public building grounds. In 2013 and 2014, irrigation automation is planned for City building locations and contract landscape maintenance locations. This is part of the Community Services Department's Water Conservation Plan and strategy. Summary of Progress: In 2010, irrigation automation was completed in Coulon Park. In 2011, irrigation automation was completed at Liberty, Earlington and Glencoe Parks as well as several contract landscape maintenance locations. In 2012 irrigation automation is planned for the Transit Center, Burnett Avenue, Main Street parking lot and several contract landscape maintenance locations. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 137 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 265 Construction - - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - - - - - Project Management - - - - - - - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 137 30 30 15 15 1 15 1 15 15 265 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - 15 - - - - 15 Business License Fee - - 30 - - 30 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Operating 81 30 - - - - - 104 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 56 1 - - - - - - 56 Total CIP Resources 137 30 30 15 - - - - 2 55 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - - (15) (30) (45) (60) (60) Impact on Operating Funds Life toEstimated Date Thru 2011 Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - (3) - (3) - (3) - (3) - (3) - (3) - (18) Net Impact - (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (18) 33 of 45 2013 through 2018 (in thousands of dollors) Project Title: Parking Lots and Drive Repairs Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332008.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 409 Importance Unxencv Combined Project Priority Score: + _ if Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description Pavement resurface, reconstruction, sealcoat, patch, repair curb, improve drainage, and re -stripe existing asphalt drives and parking areas throughout the City's parks and municipal sites (e.g. Fire Stations and recreation centers). The program is intended to repair and generally extend the life of the existing pavement. Repairs are planned for Teasdale Park parking lot in 2013 and Coulon in 2014. of Progress: Funding in 2011 was delayed to 2012. Liberty Park parking lot repairs are scheduled in 2012. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 49 10 50 50 90 50 50 60 409 Construction - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - - Project Management - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - Contingencies - - - - Total CIP Expenses 49 10 50 50 90 50 50 60 409 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - - Business License Fee - 50 50 - - 100 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Operating 49 10 - - - - 59 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - KClevytransfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 49 1 10 1 501 50 11 1 159 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - I - (90) (140) (190) (250) (250) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure In - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impactl I- - - 34 of 45 2013 through 2018 (in tilousnnds of dollors) Project Title: Ball field Renovation Program Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332030.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 296 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS 100% Growth % Project Description Ball fields require major renovations periodically to increase playability and decrease staff time in field preparation. The scope generally includes field improvements such as drainage, grading, sodding or seeding, material replacement, backstop repairs, and upgrades, player bench area repairs and upgrades, and bleacher area repairs and upgrades. Impacts include a potential increase in revenue for demand to play on higher quality fields and for playability during foul weather. This project is being re -programmed to 2015. of Progress: In 2011, funds were used to provide safety upgrades to existing ballfield bleachers throughout the system. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - Consultant Services - - - - - Major Maintenance 55 16 - 50 50 75 50 296 Construction - - - - - Inspection - - - - Project Management - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 55 16 - 50 50 75 50 296 Resources: User Fee - - - - - REET - - - Fuel Tax - - - Utility Tax - - - Business License Fee - Bond Proceeds - - - - Operating 50 16 - - 66 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - Misc/Transfers - - - Interest Income - - KC levy transfer - - - Beginning Fund Balance 5 - - 5 Total CIP Resources 1 55 16 - - - - 71 Balance Available/ (Unfunded Needs) 1 (50) (100) (175) (225) (225) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 8 Net Impact - - 2 2 2 2 8 35 of 45 ;APITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM I I i Project Title: Paths, Walks, Patios and Boardwalks Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332009.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 771 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % roject Description epair and replace heaving, broken, and settling pathways, trails, sidewalks, patios and boardwalks with asphalt, concrete, pavers, wood, or other iaterials. In 2013, new sidewalk will be installed from the parking lot to the shelter at Teasdale Park as an ADA upgrade. Sidewalk repair near the enior Activity Center along the Cedar River Trail will repair some heaved sidewalk. In 2014, repairs are anticipated to occur at Philip Arnold Park for n ADA upgrade to the shelter and at City Hall around the entrance on the lobby level. of Progress: In 2012, sidewalk installation at Cedar River Park will connect the drive with the storage building. Carry forward unspent Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 429 10 75 75 65 40 40 40 771 Construction - - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - Project Management - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 429 10 75 75 65 1 40 40 40 771 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - - REET - - 75 - - - 75 Fuel Tax - - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - 75 - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Operating - - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - Misc/Transfers 260 - - - 260 Interest Income - - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 169 10 - - - - 176 Total CIP Resources 1 429 10 1 75 1 75 - - - 511 Balance Available/ (Unfunded Needs) - - - (65) (105) (145) (185) (185) Impact on Operating Funds Lie to Date Thru 2011 Estimate Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - Net Impact - - - 36 of 45 0 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Sports Court Repairs Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332007.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 375 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % t Description replace, resurface, reconstruction, seal -coat, patch, improve drainage and re -stripe existing surfaces including soft surface courts such as the ball court at the Renton Senior Activity Center. The program is intended to repair safety problems and generally extends the life of the existing as. Basketball courts at Kiwanis Park and Regis Park will receive repairs in 2013 with repairs anticipated at Earlington Park in 2014. ry of Progress: In 2009 and 2010, repairs at Ron Regis Park and Teasdale Park were rescheduled. Regis Park court repairs have been re- ed to 2013. Future court repair projects have been moved out in time. In 2011, court repairs were completed at Tiffany and Kiwanis Parks. to courts at Highlands Park and at Liberty Park are planned for 2012. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 20 20 40 20 150 80 20 20 375 Construction - - - - Inspection - - - - - Project Management - - Equipment Acquisition - - Contingencies - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 20 20 40 20 150 80 20 20 375 Resources: User Fee - - - REET - 40 - - - - 40 Fuel Tax - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - - Business License Fee - - 20 - - 20 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Operating - 20 - 25 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - Interest Income - - - KClevytransfer - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 20 - - - 20 Total CIP Resources 1 20 1 20 1 40 1 20 - - 105 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - - 1 (150) (230) (250) (270) (270) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 7 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - Net Impactl I- - 37 of 45 TAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Leased Facilities Development and Major Maintenance 108.220010.020.594.19.62.000 $ 740 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + _ re 1UJ ILY nai fining. Current LOS % Growth % Project Description The recent history of this account is this: we completed an architectural, energy, structural, seismic, and mechanical review of the 200 Mill Building (Old City Hall) in 2008. Costs were high relative to the market value of the building, so we w4i continue to lease space in the building and make improvements and updates as necessary, using grant money'wherever possible. In 2009, we used a Federal (EECBG) grant and a PSE energy grant that provided all of the funding to make the substantial HVAC upgrade that was indicated in the 2008 review. In fact the original system was nearing collapse. Our occupancy rate has fallen in the meanwhile, and we have not replaced the tenants. The building has been marketed and shown quite a bit. Our failure to land new tenants may be partly attributed to a cluttered appearance of the available suites as they were abandoned intact; outdated bathrooms, which are not ADA compliant; and lobbies with worn carpet and finishes on those floors having vacancies. We also know that the roof needs to be replaced ($180,000 est.) but that will have to wait until the performance of this account improves. Summary of Progress: In addition to the improvements shown above, in 2009, the first floor lobby and restrooms were updated to ADA standards and Ito meet the needs of the first floor tenant. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Yearend Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - - Major Maintenance 500 - 120 120 - - 740 Construction - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - Project Management - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 500 - 120 1 120 - - - 740 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Operating - - 120 120 - - - 240 Grants/Contribution Received 500 - - - - - - 500 Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - - Interestincome - - - - - - - KClevy transfer - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - Total CIP Resources 500 - 120 120 - - - - 740 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - - - - - - Life to Estimated Impact on Operating Funds Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Revenue Increase/Decrease - - - - - - Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - 11 38 of 45 Ci CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Highlands Library Natural Area Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332036.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 50 Importance Ur enc Combined Project Priority Score: _ Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description Highlands Library Natural Area was an overgrown 0.7 acre on the north and east side of the library. Volunteers cleared brush from the site during 2007 in an attempt to reduce encroachment problems, increase visibility, and expand usability. The area has a concrete pathway connecting NE 13 Street to the north witb NE 12 Street to the south, making for a neighborhood pass through for walkers. Design and construction drawings will be needed to bring concepts of use for approval followed by development of the final plan. of Progress: Library to KCLS; City is responsible for fencing and safety repairs. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Thru 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - Major Maintenance - 10 - 10 10 10 10 50 Construction - - - - - - - - - Inspection - - - - - - Project Management - - - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses - 10 - - 10 10 10 10 50 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - Operating - 10 - - - 10 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - - - Total CIP Resources - 1 10 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - -1 (10) (20) (30) (40) (40) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impact -I I- - - - 39 of 45 AL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Importance urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Project Title: Tree Maintenance Project Type: Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332012.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 1,622 Current LOS % Growth Project Description The Community Services Department regularly maintains over 6,000 street trees, 20,370 park trees, and 106,000 natural area trees citywide. Regular maintenance improves sight lines to traffic signals, traffic signs, and business advertising; creates clearance over streets for vehicles and pedestrians; enhances street light illumination; eliminates poor growth characteristics for greater longevity; reduces infrastructure costs and; corrects potential tree problems, including branch or tree failure. In 2013 and 2014, funds will be used citywide to remove dangerous trees and prune trees that threaten public safety. Special Projects are defined as tree and sidewalk conflicts apart from regular maintenance. In 2013, sidewalks and trees along Liberty Park and the K.C. Main Library are scheduled for repair with similar treatment in 2014 for Logan and Burnett Avenues in downtown. Identified projects are Life to Estimated Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 2018 Project Thru 2011 2012 Total Tree Maintenance 337 33 100 100 100 100 100 100 870 Tree Maintenance Special Projects - 150 132 - 150 150 150 150 752 Total 337 183 232 100 250 250 250 250 1,622 Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Yearend Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - Consultant Services - - - - - - - - - Major Maintenance 337 183 232 100 250 250 250 250 1,872 Construction - - - - - - - - - Inspection - - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - - - TotalCIP Expenses 337 183 232 100 250 250 250 250 2,055 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - - - REET - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - - 15 100 115 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Operating 98 - - - 301 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - - - Business License Fee - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - Misc/Tronsfers 117 183 - 117 Interestlncome - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance 122 - 217 - 339 Total CIP Resources 337 183 232 100 - 872 Balance Available /(UnfundedNeeds) - (250) (500) (750) (1,000)1 (1,000) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - - - Net Impact - I - - - - - - 40 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 2013 through 2018 (if, aiausctids of donors) Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Coulon Park Repairs and Maintenance Major Maintenance 316.332045.020.594.76.63.01 * $ 2,307 Imoortance Umency Co.bined Project Priority Score: + - ni�ncy nm mnig.� Current LOS % Growth Project Description Major maintenance projects are necessary to maintain parks in a safe working order. With the age of Coulon Park, there are five project types that are directly relate to Coulon Park: * Coulon Park Structural Repairs * Coulon Park Lighting-2014 Waterwalk * Coulon Park Turf Replacement - 2013 and 2014 South beach area * Coulon Park Shoreline Erosion - 2013 Survey; 2014 Study (2015 Repairs) * Coulon Park Five Year Structural Review Coulon Park Maintenance includes the above five projects. Coulon Park is over 30 years old. With heavy use of the park and age of facilities, repairs, renovations and maintenance is required to replace many of the aging structures and systems. Reviews of structures is conducted on a 5-year schedule. A review was Project Life to Estimate Date Year End Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Thru2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Coulon Park Structural Repairs 346 120 65 20S 100 100 936 Coulon Park Lighting Repairs - 75 - - 110 - 185 Coulon Park Turf Replacement 55 55 55 55 60 60 340 Coulon Park Shoreline Erosion 30 80 55 - - - 165 Coulon Park 5-Year Structural Review - - - 125 125 Coulon Park Structure Painting* - - Structural Reviews & Repairs 645 - - 556 Total 645 1 4311 330 1 175 1 385 1 2701 1601 2,307 Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - Consultant Services - - - - - Major Maintenance 64S 431 330 175 385 270 160 2,307 Construction - - Inspection - Project Management Equipment Acquisition Contingencies Total CIP Expenses 645 431 330 175 385 270 160 2,307 Resources: User Fee - - - - REET Fuel Tax - - Utility Tax 336 235 571 Business License Fee 95 95 190 Bond Proceeds - - - Operating 556 Grants/Contribution Received - Mitigation Funds Received - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - Mitigation Funds Anticipated Misc/Tronsfers 645 Interest Income KC levy transfer Beginning Fund Balance Total CIP Resources 645 431 330 1,317 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) (175) (560) (830) (990) (990) Life to Estimate Impact on Operating Funds Date Year End Adopted P r a j e c t e d Project Thru2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Revenuelncrease/Decrease - - - - - - - - Expenditure Increase/Decrease 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 Net Impact 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 *$27,000 is budgeted in Fund 504 for 2013 and 2014 41 of 45 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Importance Ur¢encv Combined 2013 through • Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Project Title: Riverview Park Bridge Reconstruction Project Type: Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.332041.020.594.76.63.000 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 253 Current LOS Growth 100% Project Description Riverview Park bridge connects the parking lot along Sit 169 with the remainder of the park by spanning the Cedar River. The bridge was constructed using timber piles driven into the north and sound banks and into the middle of the river. The bridge piles have sustained flood damage over the years. Shifting piles, weather and high use have impacted the understructure of the bridge, the decking and the wooden handrails. This project removes the entire bridge and replaces it with a single -span metal bridge, eliminating the creosote -treated piles in the water and improving the aquatic ecosystem. Recreation and Conservation Office grants are currently being pursued to offset the costs of the design and construction. The Custer Fund would also be utilized to partially fund the project. Impacts would be the elimination of significant repa costs every few years for the existing bridge. Summary of Progress: A structural review and assessment of the Riverview Park bridge was completed in 2012. The report indicates further decay to treated support timbers and displaced piles. Staff is submitting for state and federal grants through the RCO in 2012. $110,000 would be utilized from the Custer Fund and, upon grant award from the RCO, $990,000 would become available to fund construction of the bridge. Approximately $150,000 is required for design and construction documents using the anticipated RCO grants to cover those costs, otherwise the City would need to fund the design and construction documents portion. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - 3 Consultant Services - - Major Maintenance - Construction 250 250 Inspection - - - Project Management Equipment Acquisition Contingencies - Total CIP Expenses 250 253 Resources: User Fee - - REET - - Fuel Tax Utillty Tax Business License Fee Bond Proceeds Operating 3 Grants/Contribution Received - Mitigation Funds Received - Gran ts/ContributionAnticipated 250 - 250 Mitigation Funds Anticipated - Misc/Tronsfers - Interest Income KC levy transfer Beginning Fund Balance - - Total CIP Resources 250 - 253 Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncreose/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - Net Impact - 42 of 45 = P =E=W� 2013 through 2018 (it) thousands of dollars) Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Grant Matching Program Development and Major Maintenance 316.332011.020.594.76.61.000 $ 260 Importance Urgency Combined Project Priority Score: + Priority Ranking: Current LOS % Growth % Project Description The City annually appropriates funds to be available for unforeseen park and/or trail development or acquisition opportunities, or to be available to leverage grant monies from agencies such as King County Conservation Futures, Washington Recreation and Wildlife Program (WWRP), or Washington Department of Natural Resources. Expenditure of these monies must have specific Council approval. Summary of Progress: The City applied for a Conservation Futures Grants (KCCF) and received notification for award of a $350,000 grant towards the purchase of a 3.28 acre parcel along Panther Creek but the property owner decided not to sell and the City did not enter into the grant contract to receive the funding. In 2012, $10,000 were used to leverage a Washington Department of Natural Resources grant for tree planting in the North Renton Neighborhood; additionally, $10,000 was spent for prelimnary acquisition costs for a parcel along May Creek, for the Scott property, the former Sub Shop and for the Riverview Park bridge replacement. Proposals for RCO grants were submitted to renovate the Riverview Park bridge. Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - - - - Consultant Services - - - Major Maintenance - 239 21 260 Construction - - - Inspection - Project Management - Equipment Acquisition - - - - Con tingencies - - Total CIP Expenses 239 21 - 260 Resources: User Fee - - - REET - - Fuel Tax Utility Tax - Business License Fee - Bond Proceeds - - Operating - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - Grants/ContributionAnticipated - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - Misc/Transfers 100 - 100 Interest Income - - - - KC levy transfer - - - Beginning Fund Balance 139 21 160 Total CIP Resources 239 21 Balance Available/ (Unfunded Needs) 1 239 - Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenue Increase/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - - Net Impact - 43 of 45 :APITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM I ,013 through/ Project Title: Capital Project Coordination Project Type: Development and Major Maintenance Project Account Number: 316.000000.020.594.76.91.010 Total Anticipated Project Cost: $ 565 Project Priority Score: Priority Ranking:, Project Description To reimburse Parks capital project planning, coordination, and management costs paid by Fund 001. of Progress: Importance Urgency Combined Current LOS % Growth % Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - Consultant Services - - - - Major Maintenance - - - - - Construction - - - - - Inspection - - - - Project Management 186 72 74 75 78 80 - - 565 Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses 186 72 74 75 78 80 - - 565 Resources: User Fee - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - - Utility Tax 74 75 - - 149 Business License Fee - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Operating 186 72 - - - - 258 Grants/Contribution Received - - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - - MitigationFundsAnticipated - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - - Interest Income - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - - Beginning Fund Balance I - - - - - - - Total CIP Resources 1 186 1 72 1 74 1 75 1 - - - 1 407 Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) I I - I - I - 1 (78) (158) (158) (158) (158) Impact on Operating Funds Lie to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - - - - - Net Impactl I I I- 44 of 45 N CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM Project Title: Project Type: Project Account Number: Total Anticipated Project Cost: Contract Coordination 316.000000.020.576.80.41.000 $ 572 Importance Umencv Combined Project Priority Score: + _ Priority Ranking:' Current LOS Growth 100% Project Description New contract position that assists staff with design, construction coordination and supervision of CIP projects. Impacts include supplies and materials to process contracts. of Progress: Life to Estimated CIP Expenditures & Resources Date Year End Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thru 2011 2012 Total Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - Consultant Services - - - Major Maintenance - - Construction - - - - Inspection - - - - - Project Management 131 139 147 155 572 Equipment Acquisition - - - - - - Contingencies - - - - - - - Total CIP Expenses - - 131 139 147 155 572 Resources: User Fee - - - REET - - - - Fuel Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - Business License Fee - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Operating - - - - Grants/Contribution Received - - - - Mitigation Funds Received - - - - - Grants/Contribution Anticipated - - - Mitigation Funds Anticipated - - - - - Misc/Transfers - - - - Interest Income - - - - - KC levy transfer - - - - Beginning Fund Balance - - - Total CIP Resources - - - - - - Balance Available/(Unfunded Needs) - -1 (131) (270) (417) (572) (572) Impact on Operating Funds Life to Date Thru 2011 Estimated Year End 2012 Adopted P r o j e c t e d Project Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenuelncrease/Decrease Expenditure Increase/Decrease - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 3 Net Impact - 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 45 of 45 Fund 504 - Facilities Fund 2013 2014 Total Anticipated Projects Cost: $518,877 $358,877 Operational Facilities Major Maintenance Projects: Fire Station No. 11(Built 1978): 13,000 13,000 Seismic, energy, accessibility and operational upgrades were completed in 2010 so, ongoing maintenance issues are lower than typical for an older station. An emergency power generation system capacity upgrade is planned Fire Station 12: 15,000 15,000 A building pressurization issue was corrected in 2010 and a retro-commissioning of the mechanical system was completed. Sealing the building interior envelope membrane and carpet replacement are planned for 2013. The equipment and backup systems for the Emergency Control Center are important to maintain at the schedules recommended in the O&M Manual. Fire Station No. 13: 10,000 10,000 This new station, with administration offices, will be $10,000 in a typical year. Fire Station No. 14: 10,000 10,000 Interior painting in training and admin areas and Fall restraint system install on roof. Fire Station No. 16: 12,000 12,000 Exterior and interior painting, carpet replacement, replace old insulated glass windows, and replace apparatus bay ceiling fans. Fire Station No. 17: 5,000 5,000 HVAC equipment upgrades. City Shops 20,000 20,000 Exterior painting structures, doors and frames. Public Facility Projects: Carco Theatre: Major maintenance that includes ADA upgrades (including handrails and lift) and interior painting. 12,000 12,000 City Hall: Major maintenance that includes: replacement of 2 original hot water boilers, and seal and paint roof and 70,000 70,000 mechanical penthouse. Improvements to the 4th floor of City Hall to accommodate the City Attorney's office. 160,000 - Senior Center: 94,877 94,877 Major maintenance that includes: exterior painting, replace ceiling tiles in auditorium, and other appearance upgrades. Enterprise System Improvements: 27,000 27,000 Exterior Painting of all buildings. Citywide Exercise Equipment Replacement 10,000 10,000 Replacement of cardio equipment. North Highlands Neighborhood Center 16,000 16,000 Exterior painting of the Highlands building. Liberty Park Stadium 5,000 5,000 Repair newly bird damaged roof beam assemblies, Exterior painting, Concrete crack and spall repair. Liberty Park Community Building 5,000 5,000 Install vapor barrier in crawl space and enhance rodent control measures. Renton Community Center 24,000 24,000 Replace carpet throughout with resilient product (Marmoleum). Highlands Library 10,000 10,000 Major HVAC system failure maintenance. Total: $ 518,877 $ 358,877 ONE PERCENT FOR THE ARTS Background The Renton Municipal Arts Commission was established in 1965 as an advisory body to provide recommendations to the City on the development of a public art collection. Operating funds are provided to the RMAC through the City of Renton Annual Budget. The RMAC also applies for arts grants. This year, the RMAC will distribute the second half of a 2013-2014 $22,000 King County 4 Culture grant to local arts and culture groups. In January, the RMAC submitted an application for a $95,000 National Endowment for the Arts "Our Town" grant. In addition, the City of Renton's One Percent for the Arts Program was established in 1975 as the Municipal Arts Fund, for the purpose of including art in City of Renton public works projects. One Percent for the Arts Current Procedures The process outlined in this report is based on the current City of Renton regulations as they pertain to the Arts Commission and the One Percent for the Arts Program. Renton's public art funding mechanism is an appropriation of a minimum of one percent from the actual total project cost for municipal construction projects. The following is the currently adopted process for "designating and spending" for public art: • The relevant vision, goals, objectives, and policies of the City, as they pertain to public art, are delineated in the Arts and Culture Master Plan ("Master Plan," adopted in 2010). • The Master Plan is reviewed annually by the Administration and City Council. • During the RMAC annual review of the Master Plan, the Administration proposes, for Council review and approval, which Master Plan elements should receive funding from the One Percent for Arts Program. • During the annual budget review, the RMAC reviews with the Administration all capital improvement projects anticipated to be constructed within the next two years to determine which projects are appropriate for inclusion of works of art and to estimate the amount to be allocated for each. • The Administration, with appropriate budgetary authorization from the Council, may establish the amount to be provided for the projects. • If the Administration decides no funds will be expended on municipal construction projects, and the Council agrees, the funds may be spent for other works of art or as otherwise determined by the City Council. • For works of art to be funded by One Percent for the Arts, the RMAC selects the work and makes a recommendation to the City Council. • The City Council considers the recommendation and either approves or refuses to approve the recommendation. • If the Council does not approve the recommendation, the RMAC makes another recommendation to the Council. • If the Council approves the recommendation, the Administration contracts with the artist. The contract is managed by City staff. ONE PERCENT FOR THE ARTS PROGRAM Clarifications "Municipal Construction Projects" to be considered for inclusion of art are defined as, construction, renovation, or remodeling of any public building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking facility or any portion thereof. Public art can be attached to, within, or outside projects, or be placed in, on, or about other public facilities. Originally, art was to be placed in, on, or about the public facilities from which the one percent was derived. This allowed art to be placed throughout the City as appropriate, regardless of the location of the project generating the funds. Capital projects of the water and sewer utility are excluded. All utility projects were originally included. Later, when art still had to be located at the site of the capital improvement project water and sewer utilities were excluded, unless they were accessible to the public or could be viewed by the public. Finally, water and sewer utility projects were excluded altogether. They are still excluded, even though public art no longer must be located at the site of the capital improvement project. The amount transferred to the One Percent for Arts Fund is based on the project's budget cost used for planning purposes, then is adjusted up or down from that amount, based on the actual total project cost after the project has been completed. If funding of art and art works is not allowed due to not being considered a proper expenditure, then the funds from that source are excluded when computing the one percent amount of the total project cost. For example, the State Transportation Department may consider a decorative bench an appropriate expenditure of state funds, but not a piece of sculpture. Some federal projects, however, require up to four percent of the total project cost be dedicated to art. Next Steps • Review of municipal construction projects designated to contribute to the One percent for the Arts Fund — Currently, of all capital projects, only transportation projects contribute to the fund. • Determination of excluded funding —Are state and federal funding for the arts guidelines being met? • Criteria for designation of sites appropriate for public art — Locational criteria should be adopted so that artworks are sited appropriately within the context of the site. • Procedure for selection of artists — Should selection be based on "Request for Qualifications" (RFQ), rather than "Request for Proposals" (RFP)? • Should preference be given to local artists? — Would it be appropriate to designate a given percentage of commissioned work to "Renton" artists? • Develop criteria for selection of projects — The process has varied, including acquisition of non -site specific art (prefabricated, and ordered as completed work). • Process following selection of artist and project — How can the City Council become more involved in the process not only early -on, but as the project progresses so that the Council is aware of changes and can monitor revisions that occur? DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT in the Context of City Center Community Plan Background: • The City Center blends single-family neighborhoods, multi -family housing, major industrial employers like Boeing and PACCAR, small locally owned businesses in the downtown business district, The Landing a new mixed -use shopping center, many civic uses like City Hall and our main library, and the natural environment like the Cedar River and Lake Washington, all within an approximately 2.6 square mile area. • There are an estimated 11,250 jobs in City Center with workers at major employers like Boeing's 737 manufacturing plant and the PACCAR production facility, but also at over 1,000 other businesses. The City Center is also home to an estimated 7,300 residents who live in the oldest single family neighborhoods in the City, apartments, and condominiums. • The City developed its first ever community plan with the City Center Community Planning Area to ensure the change the area has experienced and is anticipated to continue to experience results in the highest quality livable and workable environment possible, as well as to balance the unique perspectives and needs of the varied land uses. • The downtown business district comprises a significant portion of the City Center and many of the goals and strategies of the Community Plan are specifically targeted at improving the downtown business district as a more vibrant and thriving pedestrian friendly area of the city. Many other goals and strategies, although targeted at the entire City Center area will make positive changes in downtown too. • To date, the Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown Area is $87.7 M (see attached). Current Work: • Implementation of the Community Plan is overseen by the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board. They are charged with making recommendations for work program items and ensuring the plan is fulfilled. • The Advisory Board recommended and prioritized 6 strategies for current city work programs and Council directed staff to work on all 6 priorities, those strategies are listed below. All of them are being worked on and directly impact Downtown by working towards making positive changes in downtown. o Update building design standards to ensure new development fulfills the vision. o Create design standards for gateways, wayfinding, street trees, street lighting, pedestrian -scaled lighting, landscaping, street furniture, utilities, and public art. o Initiate a sidewalk cafe case study and develop regulations to encourage sidewalk cafes in downtown. o Consider rezoning the intact, single-family area of South Renton. o Complete a conceptual plan for the civic node. o Establish bicycle improvements consistent with the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan within City Center. Next Steps: • With the economy improving and development interest returning, now is the time to reestablish momentum in downtown Renton and turn plans into action. o Mayor Law is convening a meeting of key stakeholders on March 3rd at the Renton Pavilion Event Center. This group will be asked to help drive action in the downtown business district based on the following: What can we learn from the experiences of other cities? How can downtown businesses work together to strengthen their bottom lines? What public investments/actions are needed downtown and will these investments motivate private property owners to invest in or redevelop their holdings? • This is a positive step in advancing the Council's vision of "creating a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly downtown Renton where people and businesses thrive." To fulfill this vision, based on the work and direction of the City Council, the Administration is aggressively moving forward under key guidelines. (see attached) • The City Center Plan identifies specific goals and strategies that will help improve the downtown business district. Implementation of these goals will make a significant contribution to making the district a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly place where people and businesses thrive. Goals and strategies in the City Center Plan that are directly about the downtown district are shown on the attachment. (see attached) • Many other goals and strategies in the City Center plan are supportive of the entire City Center area, but when implemented will have a direct and positive impact on the success of downtown. • The proposed Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown Area is $54.9 M (see attached). DOWNTOWN RENTON BUSINESS DISTRICT —SPECIFIC PROJECTS • Update on key sites that are vacant and underutilized buildings and sites 710 South 3'd Street, former Renton Western Wear Building. The owners of Memory Box Inc. (package and sell craft supplies such as stamps, paper, dies, stencils, high -end stationary etc.) have the site under contract. They are bullish on Downtown Renton and want to locate their internet and wholesale business on the second floor (12 FTE plus seasonal temps) and lease the ground level, preferably for a restaurant or brew pub. Memory Box Inc. products are available in stores in the United States and 40 countries. http://memoryboxco.com 710 South 2"d Street, former McLendon's Hardware. The Cugini Family is contemplating different scenarios for the future of this site, including a potential partnership with Wallace Properties to develop a mixed use development featuring multi -family units at densities of 100+ du/acre. The Cugini family would retain the ownership of the property. Another option being considered by the Cugini family is an educational facility related to Renton Technical College that would rely on reuse of the existing building. 207 Main Ave South, aka: 2"d and Main, former Jet City Espresso site. The site has been purchased by Cosmos Development Company which intends to develop the site with a mixed use development comparable to the 2"d and Main project that was previously approved on the site, and has since expired. Preliminary concepts include roughly 100 dwelling units and commercial on the ground floor, with parking under the building. ■ 205 Logan Ave South, aka: 2"d and Logan, former Cooper Tires site. Under option by Cosmos Development of Bellevue and in the due diligence phase through the end of February. 0 N PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p ^City0f�O� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: REVISED: City Priority Areas: Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments Summary This is a revised summary table showing the summed CIP investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas between 2007-2014 (one 1998 water improvement project in the downtown was also included). See the attached project list. Summary: —� Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. Utilities $13.2 M $15.3 M $3 M Transportation $74.5 M* $26.6 M** $3 M Total $87.7 M $ 41.9 M $6 M *Includes the Landing Infrastructure improvement project ($27 M) which is not included in the attached project list. **Includes the 2009 Jones Ave. sidewalk project ($750 K) which is not included in the attached list. Total Public Works CIP investment in these three areas over these 8 years 2007-2014 (excluding street overlays and sidewalk repair projects) is $135.6 M. The Airport $19.4 M CIP investment between 2008-2013 is not included in this number. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas cip investments.doc UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET LOCATION :DOWNTOWN. AREA STATUS 2007 Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project $1,688,212 Renton Village Place Completed 2010 Shattuck Avenue South Storm System Improvement Project $753,605 Shattuck Avenue - South 7th Street to South 4th Place Completed 2012 Lake Avenue South/Rainier Avenue South Storm Replacement $1,990,816 South 2nd Street & South 3rd Street -Safeway Parking lot Completed 2013 Rainier Avenue Stormwater Retrofit Project $858,667 Grady Way to South 3rd Street Construction 2014 2012-2013 Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Rainier Avenue Water Main $5,894,730 $1,500,000 SW 7th Street - Naches to Lind Avenue SW Design Completed 1998 Downtown Water Main Improvements $500,000 South 2nd, Morris Avenue, Logan Avenue (1,800 feet) TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $13,186,030 `HIGHLANDS AREA NE 5th Place, Edmonds Avenue NE, Camas Avenue NE, NE 6th Place Construction 2013 NE 5th Place/Edmonds Avenue NE Storm Improvement $1,795,394 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Storm System Improvements $1,253,180 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility $1,310,667 Sunset Terrace Site Design 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Phase 2 Storm System Improvements $120,000 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Monroe Ave NE & NE 2nd Street Infiltration Facility $100,000 Monroe Avenue NE & NE 2nd Street Design 2013 Master Site Plan Highlands 435 Reservoir Site $350,000 Multimillion Construction 2016-2020 study 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Water Main $200,000 Design 2007-2009 Hazen Reservoir $6,000,000 Completed 2008-2009 Highlands Water Main Improvements $1,100,000 Completed 2008 Duvall Water Main $450,000 Completed 2007 Sunset Interceptor Phase II $2,500,000 Completed 2011 Isunset TOTAL HIGHLANDS at Pierce AREA $90,000 $15,269,241 lCompleted UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECO, LAKE WASHINGTON BLV❑ AREA 2011 Hawks Landing Storm System Improvement Project Gypsy Subbasin/Ripley Lane Storm System 2008 Improvement Project 2011 Hawks Landing Water Main 2007 Baxter Lift Station Replacement TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS MIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS Lk Wa $1,632,356 Ri $300,000 $180,000 $3,013,794 Blvd & NE 44th Street Exit lCompleted Lane - Seahawks Training Center Completed Completed Completed Year jProject Name Cost/Budget Location Status Downtown Area 2008 Rainier Avenue South Phase 1 (BNSF Bridges) 10,500,000 Hardie to Shattuck Avene Complete 2008 Houser Way S RailRoad Panel Replacements 1,100,000 Main Ave S to Burnett Ave S Complete 2010 Rainier Avenue South Phase 2 (Stormwater Rypass) 2,200,000 4th Place - 7th Ave Complete 2014 Intersection Improvements 1,200,000 7th & Shattuck Design/Construction 2011 Intersection Improvements 650,000 3rd & Shattuck, Complete 2013 Rainier Avenue South Phase 3 31,800,000 Grady Way - SR 900 Complete 47,450,000 Highlands Area 2007 Intersection Improvement 600,000 NE Sunset & Hoquium Complete 2007 Intersection Improvement 400,000 NE4th & Hoquium Complete 2009 Duvall Ave N 16,000,000 SR-900 to CL Complete 2013 NE 3rd/4th Coordior Intersection Improvement Phase 1 4,000,000 Union Ave - Whitman Ct Complete 2014 NE Sunset Corridor Improvements 2,400,000 Bounded by NE21st,Edmonds Ave NE, NE7th St & Monroe Ave NE Design 2014 Highlands to Landing Pedestrian Connection 2,400,000 Along Park Ave N betw Highlands and Coulon Park Design/Construction 25,800,000 Lake Washington Blvd Area 2008 Ripley Lane N 50,000 Seahhawks to LWB Completed 2013 ISouth Lake Washington Roadway Improvements 3,000,000 loth Street to N Park Completed j,u5u,uuu Airport - CIP Totals 2008-2013 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Project Major Maintenance Airport Layout Plan Update Completed Major Maintenance Apron B Redevelopment Runway 16/34 Rehabilitation Major Maintenance Cedar River Hangars - Roof replacement 750 Site - Pad Ready Utilities Major Maintenance Mower Replacement Major Maintenance Airport Sustainability Study Major Maintenance Taxiway Bravo Rehabilitation Overlay East GA Apron — Cedar River Hangars SE Corner Water Line Upgrade 760 Building Parking Lot Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (2007-2013 Permitting) Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (Construction) Snow Removal Equipment Purchase Surface Water Rehab �o Actual expenditures $122,243 $99,910 $131,843 $119,841 $4,444,978 $106,526 $100,000 $367,750 $126,173 $75,000 $126,933 $159,155 $76,329 $11,401,280 $195,758 $31,840 $379,513 $488,092 $576,000 $65,000 $229,931 2008-2013 Total $19,424,095 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman ()- SUBJECT: City Priority Areas: Future (2015-2018) Planned Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments This summary table shows the summed CIP investments proposed to be made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas in 2015-2018. Summary: Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. Utilities* $11.0 M $13.8 M $1.2 M Transportation** $43.9 M $64.9 M $6 M Total $54.9 M $78.7 M $7.2 M *Utility Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as AMR meter replacement, pipeline replacement projects, etc. **Transportation Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as overlay, arterial rehabilitation, walkways, etc. Also, most of the funding for these projects has not yet been secured. Total Public Works CIP projects proposed in these three areas between 2015-2018 is $140.8 M. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas future cip investments.doc TRANSPORTATION CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET ILOCATION D.O.-U4 KT011S N AA -- 2015-2018 Logan Avenue Improvements $7,700,000 Cedar River to North 8th Street 2015-2018 Rainier Avenue South 3rd to Airport Way $18,000,000 South 3rd to Airport Way 2015-2018 Park Avenue North Extension $1,600,000 North of Logan Avenue 2015-2018 South 7th Street $8,600,000 Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South 2015-2018 South Grady Way $3,000,000 Main Avenue to West City Limits 2015-2018 Lake Washington Loop Trail $5,000,000 Airport Way, Rainier Avenue TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $43,900.000 HMIHL I:0S .AREA - - 2015-2018 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Improvements $8,100,000 Sunset Blvd. North to East City Limits 2015-2018 2015-2018 Duvall Avenue NE NE Sunset Blvd. $12,500,000 $26,000,000 NE 7th Street to Sunset Blvd NE North Park Drive to Monroe Avenue NE 2015-2018 Sunset Area Green Connections $18,300,000 Sunset Area Community Planned Action TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $64,900,000 LAKE WASHINGTON SLVD AREA 2015-2018 Houser Way North $3,900,000 North 8th Street to Lake Washington Blvd 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd North $2,000,000 Park Avenue North to Gene Coulon Park 2015-2018 NE 31st Street Culvert Repair $80,000 NE 31st Street TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $5,980,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $114,780,000 02/24/2014 UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET DOWNTOWN AREA 2015-2018 Lower Ceder River Sediment Management (Dredging) $6,300,000 2015-2018 Blackriver Reservoir $722,000 2015-2018 Hardie Avenue SW/SW 7th Storm Water Improvements $4,000,000 TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $11,022,000 HIGHLANDS AREA 2015-2018 Highlands Reservoirs $10,000,000 2015-2018 Monroe Avenue NE/NE 2nd Street Infiltration Project $1,400,000 2015-2018 NE Sunset Blvd/Union Avenue NE Storm Improvements $900,000 2015-2018 Heather Downs Interceptor Capacity Improvements $1,200,000 2015-2018 NE 10th Street and Anacortes Detention Pond Retrofit $275,000 TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $13,775,000 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA _ 2015-2018 Misty Cove Lift Station Replacement $1,023,000 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd. Repair $200,000 TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $1,223,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $26,020,000 02/24/20' DO WNTOW W PERM'VER RD Feel 0 195 390 Reference Scab:1E.- 2 O h W C L i� ` N 3RD ST w '¢ z 1 g ¢ w z 3 a z a N 2ND ST 2� J'T J't 2ND ST 4 NTONTCAC D lu rn ¢ ^?_ g TUJ aS 3RD ST r ¢ 3 w `z 3 m y ¢ S 4TH ST Parcels Parks Downtown Renton Projects 1 -FORMER RENTON WESTERN WEAR - 2 - FORMER MCLENDON'S HARDWARE - 3 - FORMER JET CITY ESPRESSO SITE 4 - FORMER COOPER TIRES SITE V s 5TH ST ¢ W ti 3'J', it Path:H:ICEDWanninglGISIGIS1xa,'rclstCout)ORN.rea020141MxdslDahn;oxn Renton Spec'Ec Prorcls_11x17 Feb2014 mxd Printed Date: 02124/2014 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD CORRIDOR Background: Activity within the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor has been steady. Over the course of the last decade, significant change from new development has occurred with The Landing and associate development. Transportation infrastructure has been maximized as a result. To date, the Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Lake Washington Blvd Area is $6 M (see attached). Current Work: • Consideration of traffic impacts requires that each project or proposal 'do no harm' with regard to increasing traffic and impacts to the road system. Therefore, each project must mitigate for the impacts created as a result of that project. • Public Works has retained KPG, a transportation consultant, to develop a baseline transportation study for the entire Lake Washington Boulevard corridor from Park Avenue to NE 44th Street. • Public Works has also contracted with a consultant to do an origin/destination traffic study to ascertain where the trips on the corridor are coming from. Key Development Sites (see attached map): • 1 - Gibson/ITF Development Property. 20 acre site bounded by North 81h Street on the north, Park Avenue North on the east, and Logan Ave North on the west; located south of The Landing. Former site of the Boeing office buildings and parking lot zoned UCN-1. • 2 - PSE Property, 920 Lake Washington Blvd. 7.7 acre parcel owned by Puget Sound Energy. Washington Department of Ecology Facility/Site 82611157 has gone through environmental clean up. Zoned UCN-2. • 3 - Southport. Approximate 10 acre waterfront property located between Boeing Plant and Southport residential buildings on the shore of Lake Washington. Proposal for a 4- star hotel, conference facility, and surface parking lot to begin construction in November 2014. Proposed height of 10 stories and 125 feet (see attached). Zoned UCN-2. • 4 - Puget Western. 2 acre site located east of Southport on Lake Washington Boulevard. Zoned UCN-2. • 5 - Legacy, 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard (aka: Schumsky site). 1.26 acre site proposed for Legacy project (Hampton Inn). The project is a 125-room hotel, 6 stories in height, with 55,000 square feet of development, and 131 parking stalls. Zoned UCN-2. • 6 - Quendall Terminals. Located between Barbee Mill residential development and VMAC (Seahawks) on the shore of Lake Washington. The proposal consists of 21,600 SF retail and 9,000 SF restaurant and 692 residential units in the preferred alternative. The maximum building height would be 64 feet. There are anticipated to be employees and s 1,108 residents. Final EIS for mixed use development to be issued in the next few weeks. US EPA has oversight for remedy and cleanup of contamination resulting from industrial use of site. Record of Decision expected in 2015. Zoned COR. • 7 - Pan Abode (Hawk's Landing), 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. 7 acre site located west of 1-405 and north of May Creek, at Exit 7 (NE 44th Street) of 1-405. Approved for hotel which was not constructed. The approved Master Site Plan will expire on September 10, 2014. No active development plans. Zoned COR. • 8 - Veterinary Clinic, 1700 Lake Washington Blvd NE. 1.9 acre site being developed with a new 10,000 square feet veterinary clinic and surface parking. Zoned CA. • 9-Seelig Property. 4.8 acre site approved for 230 multi -family apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. In addition, a 40,000 square feet artist/incubator building has been approved on the western portion of the site. Project has not proceeded due to lack of interest from a lender. • 10 - Pugh/Ting Mixed Use, 4401 NE 43'd Street. 0.9 acre site located at the southwest corner of NE 43rd Street and Lincoln Ave NE. In pre -development for an office or mixed use building. Site is constrained by wetlands and streams. Zoned CA. ^ Next Steps: • Re-evaluation of zoning and development standards as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update in consideration of Transportation capacity. • Application and use of discretionary permitting authority. • The proposed Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Lake Washington Blvd Area is $7.2 M (see attached). u PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT pCity of M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: REVISED: City Priority Areas: Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments Summary This is a revised summary table showing the summed CIP investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas between 2007-2014 (one 1998 water improvement project in the downtown was also included). See the attached project list. Summary: Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. Utilities $13.2 M $15.3 M $3 M Transportation $74.5 M* $26.6 M** $3 M Total $87.7 M $ 41.9 M $6 M *Includes the Landing Infrastructure improvement project ($27 M) which is not included in the attached project list. **Includes the 2009 Jones Ave. sidewalk project ($750 K) which is not included in the attached list. Total Public Works CIP investment in these three areas over these 8 years 2007-2014 (excluding street overlays and sidewalk repair projects) is $135.6 M. The Airport $19.4 M CIP investment between 2008-2013 is not included in this number. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas cip investments.doc UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR I PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET LOCATION STATUS `DOWNTOWN AREA Completed 2007 Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project $1,688,212 Renton Village Place 2010 Shattuck Avenue South Storm System Improvement Project $753,605 Shattuck Avenue - South 7th Street to South 4th Place Completed 2012 Lake Avenue South/Rainier Avenue South Storm Replacement $1,990,816 South 2nd Street & South 3rd Street -Safeway Parking lot Completed 2013 Rainier Avenue Stormwater Retrofit Project $858,667 Grady Way to South 3rd Street Construction 2014 Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project $5,894,730 SW 7th Street - Naches to Lind Avenue SW Design 2012-2013 Rainier Avenue Water Main $1,500,000 Completed 1998 Downtown Water Main Improvements $500,000 South 2nd, Morris Avenue, Logan Avenue (1,800 feet) TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $13,186,030 HIGHLANDS AREA NE 5th Place, Edmonds Avenue NE, Camas Avenue NE, NE 6th Place Construction 2013 NE 5th Place/Edmonds Avenue NE Storm Improvement $1,795,394 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Storm System Improvements $1,253,180 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility $1,310,667 Sunset Terrace Site Design 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Phase 2 Storm System Improvements $120,000 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Monroe Ave NE & NE 2nd Street Infiltration Facility $100,000 Monroe Avenue NE & NE 2nd Street Design 2013 Master Site Plan Highlands 435 Reservoir Site $350,000 Multimillion Construction 2016-2020 study 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Water Main $200,000 Design 2007-2009 Hazen Reservoir $6,000,000 Completed 2008-2009 Highlands Water Main Improvements $1,100,000 Completed 2008 Duvall Water Main $450,000 Completed 2007 Sunset Interceptor Phase II $2,500,000 Completed 2011 ISunset at Pierce $90,000 Completed TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $15,269,241 UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECO(^VIIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS I A VC ►A1ACU1ft1/_TPUU Mi Vn AQFA 2011 Hawks Landing Storm System Improvement Project $901,438 Lk Washington Blvd & NE 44th Street Exit Completed 2008 Gypsy Subbasin/Ripley Lane Storm System Improvement Project $1,632,356 Ripley Lane - Seahawks Training Center Completed 2011 2007 Hawks Landing Water Main Baxter Lift Station Replacement $300,000 $180,000 Completed Completed TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $3,013,794 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $31,469,065 Tr—n—tatinn rip Prniartc in ritv,c Frnnnmir ❑avalnnmant Prinrity Areas Year jProject Name Cost/Budget Location Status Downtown Area 2008 Rainier Avenue South Phase 1 (BNSF Bridges) 10,500,000 Hardie to Shattuck Avene Complete 2008 Houser Way S RailRoad Panel Replacements 1,100,000 Main Ave S to Burnett Ave 5 Complete 2010 Rainier Avenue South Phase 2 (Stormwatrr Bypass) 2,200,000 4th Place - 7th Ave Complete 2014 Intersection Improvements 1,200,000 7th & Shattuck Design/Construction 2011 Intersection Improvements 650,000 3rd & Shattuck, Complete 2013 Rainier Avenue South Phase 3 31,800,000 Grady Way -SR 900 Complete 47,450,000 Highlands Area 2007 Intersection Improvement 600,000 NE Sunset & Hoquium Complete 2007 Intersection Improvement 400,000 NE4th & Hoquium Complete 2009 Duvall Ave N 16,000,000 SR-900 to CL Complete 2013 NE 3rd/4th Coordior Intersection Improvement Phase 1 4,000,000 Union Ave - Whitman Ct Complete 2014 NE Sunset Corridor Improvements 2,400,000 Bounded by NE21st,Edmonds Ave NE, NE7th St & Monroe Ave NE Design 2014 Highlands to Landing Pedestrian Connection 2,400,000 Along Park Ave N betw Highlands and Coulon Park Design/Construction 25,800,000 Lake Washington Blvd Area 2008 Ripley Lane N 50,000 Seahhawks to LWB Completed 2013 South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements 3,000,000 loth Street to N Park Completed 3,050,000 Airport - CIP Totals 2008-2013 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Project Major Maintenance Airport Layout Plan Update Completed Major Maintenance Apron B Redevelopment Runway 16/34 Rehabilitation Major Maintenance Cedar River Hangars - Roof replacement 750 Site - Pad Ready Utilities Major Maintenance Mower Replacement Major Maintenance Airport Sustainability Study Major Maintenance Taxiway Bravo Rehabilitation Overlay East GA Apron — Cedar River Hangars SE Corner Water Line Upgrade 760 Building Parking Lot Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (2007-2013 Permitting) Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (Construction) Snow Removal Equipment Purchase Surface Water Rehab O Actual expenditures $122,243 $99,910 $131,843 $119,841 $4,444,978 $106,526 $100,000 $367,750 $126,173 $75,000 $126,933 $159,155 $76,329 $11,401, 280 $195,758 $31,840 $379,513 $488,092 $576,000 $ 65,000 $229,931 2008-2013 Total $19,424,095 Path. H.SCEDTiommnglGISIGISjx*ctslCoarxit Rotreafl2014lMxds" KA SWAroo KoyProperties ar)dP4ect Proposo!;-llxl7 Feh2014 mxd Printed Dale:021 • �6e Nil 4 PIZ tn� IW PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT c�ryoE M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman V SUBJECT: City Priority Areas: Future (2015-2018) Planned Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments This summary table shows the summed CIP investments proposed to be made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas in 2015-2018. Summary: Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. Utilities* $11.0 M $13.8 M $1.2 M Transportation** $43.9 M $64.9 M $6 M Total $54.9 M $78.7 M $7.2 M *Utility Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as AMR meter replacement, pipeline replacement projects, etc. **Transportation Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as overlay, arterial rehabilitation, walkways, etc. Also, most of the funding for these projects has not yet been secured. Total Public Works CIP projects proposed in these three areas between 2015-2018 is $140.8 M. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas future cip investments.doc TRANSPORTATION CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET LOCATION DOWNTOWN AREA 2015-2018 Logan Avenue Improvements $7,700,000 Cedar River to North 8th Street 2015-2018 Rainier Avenue South 3rd to Airport Way $18,000,000 South 3rd to Airport Way 2015-2018 Park Avenue North Extension $1,600,000 North of Logan Avenue 2015-2018 South 7th Street $8,600,000 Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South 2015-2018 ISouth Grady Way $3,000,000 Main Avenue to West City Limits 2015-2018 Lake Washington Loop Trail $5,000,000 Airport Way, Rainier Avenue TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $43,900,000 HIGHLANDS AREA _.-- - 2015-2018 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Improvements $8,100,000 Sunset Blvd. North to East City Limits 2015-2018 Duvall Avenue NE $12,500,000 NE 7th Street to Sunset Blvd NE 2015-2018 NE Sunset Blvd. $26,000,000 North Park Drive to Monroe Avenue NE 2015-2018 Sunset Area Green Connections $18,300,000 Sunset Area Community Planned Action TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $64,900,000 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA 2015-2018 Houser Way North $3,900,000 North 8th Street to Lake Washington Blvd 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd North $2,000,000 Park Avenue North to Gene Coulon Park 2015-2018 NE 31st Street Culvert Repair $80,000 NE 31st Street TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $5,980,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $114,780,000 02/24/2014 UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR I PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET DOWNTOWN AREA 2015-2018 Lower Ceder River Sediment Management (Dredging) $6,300,000 2015-2018 Blackriver Reservoir $722,000 2015-2018 Hardie Avenue SW/SW 7th Storm Water Improvements $4,000,000 TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $11,022,000 HIGHLANDS AREA 2015-2018 Highlands Reservoirs $10,000,000 2015-2018 Monroe Avenue NE/NE 2nd Street Infiltration Project $1,400,000 2015-2018 NE Sunset Blvd/Union Avenue NE Storm Improvements $900,000 2015-2018 Heather Downs Interceptor Capacity Improvements $1,200,000 2015-2 1; N 10th Street and Anacortes Detention Pond Retrofit $275,000 TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $13,775,000 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA 2015-2018 Misty Cove Lift Station Replacement $1,023,000 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd. Repair $200,000 TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $1,223,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $26,020,000 02/24/201, HIGHLANDS/SUNSET AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND REDEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Sunset Area Background: • 2006 Highlands Task Force on Zoning makes recommendations. • 2007 Council adopts Comprehensive Plan and development regulation changes to increase density, strengthen design standards, and provide incentives for redevelopment. • 2008 Highlands Phase II Task Force recommends quality of life improvements that can be supported through City action. • 2009 Council adopts the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy with a nine point plan for making public investments to support neighborhood revitalization. The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment is the highest priority community investment strategy. • 2011 Council adopts the Sunset Area Planned Action and EIS, completing a comprehensive environmental review of area revitalization that streamlines project - specific review for projects under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace public housing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). • 2011 Neighborhood Program helps to fund a community garden. • 2012 Renton Housing Authority receives federal approval to demolish and dispose of Phase I of the Sunset Terrace public housing site for land that will be used by the City and the King County Library System to build the new Highlands Library and by the Colpitts Development to build approximately 111 market -rate apartments. • 2012 Renton Housing Authority completes the Glennwood Townhomes (see attachment), eight four -bedroom townhomes to provide replacement housing for the largest families from Sunset Terrace public housing. • To date, the Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Highlands Area is $41.9 M (see attached). Current Plans: • The Meadow Crest Early Learning Center, a Renton School District state-of-the-art $30 million early childhood facility, opened in the fall 2014. • Construction is underway on an "Accessible Playground" located adjacent to the Meadow Crest Early Learning Center that provides a multi -sensory play environment for all ages and abilities. The Meadow Crest Playground grand opening ceremony is scheduled for May 17, 2014. • The Renton Housing Authority's Kirkland Avenue Townhomes (see attachment), 18 modular -constructed units, is under construction and will provide two- and three - bedroom townhomes as replacement housing for Sunset Terrace families. The project is scheduled to be completed in summer 2014. • The $2 million Highlands to Boeing/Landing Pedestrian Connection Project (see attachment), which will reconnect the Sunset Area with the City west of 1-405, is currently out to bid. It is anticipated the construction will occur from March to July 2014. • The plans for the new King County Highlands Branch Library are currently being considered by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner following a public hearing on February 18, 2014. A decision is expected at the end of February. KCLS hopes to start construction later this spring and to complete the project in late 2015. • Colpitts Development is currently in the planning stage for a 111-unit market -rate apartment building on the Phase I property in Sunset Terrace. It is anticipated plans will be submitted for review in the spring of this year. In January.2014, Renton Housing Authority submitted to HUD a request to demolish and dispose of the remainder of Sunset Terrace (Phase II). This area will be used for the 3- acre City park and stormwater facility (see attachment), and multi -income housing (market -rate, affordable, and public). Renton's Stormwater Utility received a $1.9 million grant to design and build both a sub - regional stormwater facility on the Sunset Terrace site and the first phase of the Harrington Avenue "green connections" low -impact stormwater system (see attachment). The projects must be completed by July 2015. Parks Planning and Natural Resources is in the master planning phase for the 3-acre neighborhood park on the Sunset Terrace site, which will coincide with designs for the sub -regional stormwater facility (see attachment). The approximately $3 million needed to build the park is unfunded. A series of public meetings to discuss the park program and planning will occur in spring/summer 2014 What is next for the Sunset Area? • Continue to advance the Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program by leveraging public and private partnerships to implement the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (see attachment). • The Renton School District was awarded a $300K "Race to the Top Deep Dive 3 Investment Fund" grant to improve student achievement at Highlands Elementary and Honey Dew Elementary Schools. • A "Community Needs Assessment" for the City, plus a separate analysis for the Sunset Area, is currently underway. The Renton Housing Authority also plans an additional survey for residents of the Sunset Terrace public housing to better understand their specific needs. • It is anticipated that an announcement of the HUD 2014 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Grant (CNI) will be made in May. The CNI is a successor program to HUD's Hope VI award programs, designed to -help replace substandard public housing projects nationally. The City has partnered with the Renton Housing Authority, Neighborhood House, the Renton School District and others to work on the CNI effort (see attachment). All departments of the City will work together to present a "Transformation Plan" for the Sunset Area with strategies in the areas not only of housing, but also "people" and "neighborhood." • CED is working with the National Development Council to try to secure a New Markets Tax Credit allocation for the new Highlands Library. If successful, the financing would potentially free up about $2.5 million to benefit the new Sunset Park. • Completion of the park and stormwater facility will require funding to purchase the underlying land (in whole or in part if the City trades Sunset Court Park to Renton Housing Authority), and funds to build the park. Estimates range from $4.8 to $5.5 million for land and construction. • Renton Housing Authority has a five year (or more) pipeline of public and affordable housing projects that will likely need and seek fee waivers and additional Housing Opportunity Fund support from the City. Future projects include Sunset Terrace Apartments, Sunset Terrace Townhomes, Piha Townhomes and Apartments, Edmonds Apartments, and Sunset Court Apartments. • The proposed Capital Infrastructure Investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Highlands Area is $78.7 M (see attached). - fill 11� �`` 1 fill �■ ii ■r rn ii i fill� 7 Ilil fill - .. oil 1 �� �� b i E •_ -. ..A ,-W �- •. �i dkFv, .y.r' �r�' • t }� � r �• jr�r 'f.. 1 �j • S I 4;k4 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p City of M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: REVISED: City Priority Areas: Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments Summary This is a revised summary table showing the summed CIP investments made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas between 2007-2014 (one 1998 water improvement project in the downtown was also included). See the attached project list. Summary: Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. Utilities $13.2 M $15.3 M $3 M Transportation $74.5 M* $26.6 M** $3 M Total $87.7 M $ 41.9 M $6 M *Includes the Landing Infrastructure improvement project ($27 M) which is not included in the attached project list. **Includes the 2009 Jones Ave. sidewalk project ($750 K) which is not included in the attached list. Total Public Works CIP investment in these three areas over these 8 years 2007-2014 (excluding street overlays and sidewalk repair projects) is $135.6 M. The Airport $19.4 M CIP investment between 2008-2013 is not included in this number. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas cip investments.doc UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET LOCATION DOWNTOWN AREA STATUS Completed 2007 Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project $1,688,212 Renton Village Place 2010 Shattuck Avenue South Storm System Improvement Project $753,605 Shattuck Avenue - South 7th Street to South 4th Place Completed 2012 Lake Avenue South/Rainier Avenue South Storm Replacement $1,990,816 South 2nd Street & South 3rd Street -Safeway Parking lot Completed 2013 Rainier Avenue Stormwater Retrofit Project $858,667 Grady Way to South 3rd Street Construction 2014 Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project $5,894,730 SW 7th Street - Naches to Lind Avenue SW Design 2012-2013 Rainier Avenue Water Main $1,500,000 Completed 1998 Downtown Water Main Improvements TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA HIGHLANDS AREA $500,000 $13,186,030 $1,795,394 South 2nd, Morris Avenue, Logan Avenue (1,800 feet) NE 5th Place, Edmonds Avenue NE, Camas Avenue NE, NE 6th Place Construction 2013 NE 5th Place/Edmonds Avenue NE Storm Improvement 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Storm System Improvements $1,253,180 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility $1,310,667 Sunset Terrace Site Design 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Green Connections Phase 2 Storm System Improvements $120,000 Harrington Avenue NE -NE 16th Street to NE 10th Street Design 2014 Monroe Ave NE & NE 2nd Street Infiltration Facility $100,000 Monroe Avenue NE & NE 2nd Street Design 2013 Master Site Plan Highlands 435 Reservoir Site $350,000 Multimillion Construction 2016-2020 study 2014 Harrington Avenue NE Water Main $200,000 Design 2007-2009 Hazen Reservoir $6,000,000 Completed 2008-2009 Highlands Water Main Improvements $1,100,000 Completed 2008 Duvall Water Main $450,000 Completed 2007 Sunset Interceptor Phase II $2,500,000 Completed 2011 Sunset at Pierce $90,0001 lCompleted TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $15,269,241 UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECO MIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS LAKE WASHI"YON BLVD All 2011 Hawks Landing Storm System Improvement Proj Gypsy Subbasin/Ripley Lane Storm System 2008 Improvement Project 2011 Hawks Landing Water Main 2007 Baxter Lift Station Replacement TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $901,438 Lk Washington Blvd & NE 44th Street Exit $1,632,356 Ripley Lane - Seahawks Training Center $300,000 $180,000 $3,013,794 Com eted eted •- Year project Name Cost/Budget Location Status Downtown Area 2008 Rainier Avenue South Phase 1 (BNSF Bridges) 10500,000 Hardie to Shattuck Avene Complete 2008 Houser Way S RailRoad Panel Replacements 1,100,000 Main Ave S to Burnett Avr S Complete 2010 Rainier Avenue South Phase 2 (Stormwatrr Rypass) 2,200,000 4th Place - 7th Ave Complete 2014 Intersection Improvements 1,200,000 7th & Shattuck Design/Construction 2011 Intersection Improvements 650,000 3rd & Shattuck, Complete 2013 Rainier Avenue South Phase 3 31,800,000 Grady Way - SR 900 Complete 47,450,000 Highlands Area 2007 Intersection Improvement 600,000 NE Sunset & Hoquium Complete 2007 Intersection Improvement 400,000 NE4th & Hoquium Complete 2009 Duvall Ave N 16,000,000 SR-900 to CL Complete 2013 NE 3rd/4th Coordior Intersection Improvement Phase 1 4,000,000 Union Ave - Whitman Ct Complete 2014 NE Sunset Corridor Improvements 2,400,000 Bounded by NE21st,Edmonds Ave NE, NE7th St & Monroe Ave NE Design 2014 Highlands to Landing Pedestrian Connection 2,400,000 Along Park Ave N betw Highlands and Coulon Park Design/Construction 25,800,000 Lake Washington Blvd Area 2008 Ripley Lane N 50,000 Seahhawks to LWB Completed 2013 South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements 3,000,000 1 loth Street to N Park Completed 3,uSU,uuu Airport - CIP Totals 2008-2013 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Project Major Maintenance Airport Layout Plan Update Completed Major Maintenance Apron B Redevelopment Runway 16/34 Rehabilitation Major Maintenance Cedar River Hangars - Roof replacement 750 Site - Pad Ready Utilities Major Maintenance Mower Replacement Major Maintenance Airport Sustainability Study Major Maintenance Taxiway Bravo Rehabilitation Overlay East GA Apron — Cedar River Hangars SE Corner Water Line Upgrade 760 Building Parking Lot Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (2007-2013 Permitting) Seaplane Base Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation (Construction) Snow Removal Equipment Purchase Surface Water Rehab Actual expenditures $122,243 $99,910 $131,843 $119,841 $4,444,978 $106,526 $100,000 $367,750 $126,173 $75,000 $126,933 $159,155 $76,329 $11,401,280 $195,758 $31,840 $379,513 $488,092 $576,000 $65,000 $229,931 2008-2013 Total $19,424,095 ` r r y LL TO 4b e� r--" + , > J eft p. GAM +ti r F t Mail I r U�bI� Harrington Avenue NE + Green Connection Stormwater Project d 'IN,�O www.cl.renton.wa.us PROJECT OVERVIEW Atayust 2013 Clean Water - Safe Sidewalks - Green Streets Project Summary Harrington Avenue Green Connection Is a stormwater management project that will demonstrate how bioretention stormwater facilities provide enhanced water quality treatment to pollutant generating streets in Renton's Sunset Community. The project Is funded through a Department of Ecology grant and by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Street improvements will also include new pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, street trees, and crosswalks to make this a safer walkable street, ultimately connecting schools, homes, parks, and the library. Project Goals Capture stormwater runoff and mimic natural hydrology, Including aquifer recharge. Protect Renton's beaches and fish habitats by reducing pollution entering Johns Creek at Coulon Park and Lake Washington. Provide Improved stormwater conveyance infrastructure. Demonstrate best stormwater management practices. Provide these improvements with minimal construction Impacts to the neighborhood. t Improve pedestrian safety and provide a walkable route between schools, the public library, and parks. Project Schedule 2013 el, Fc yr44 �Of PERMITTING c� City of Renton Project Contact: Hebb C. Bemardo, Project Manager Public Works Department, Surface Water Utility 1055 S Grady Way. 5th FI. Renton, WA 98057 hbemardo@renlonwa.gov 425.4307264 r ^cJia�r, Bioretention with Underdrain SIDEWALK VARIES IWBIORETENTIGN SOIL MIX YCOMPOST Bioretention Facilities HARRINGTON AVE NE 31 UNDERDRAiN BEDDING The existing drainage system at Harrington Avenue collects stormwater runoff from the street and discharges It, untreated, directly Into Johns Creek and Lake Washington. The bioretention facilities will collect the stormwater runoff from the street and provide water quality treatment to remove pollutants. Bioretention facilities provide a low cost, visually attractive alternative to conventional stormwater management that can alleviate the problems associated with those systems. Planted swales capture and slow stormwater runoff from the roadway. Sediment and pollutants are filtered by plants and soil. The filtered stormwater runoff soaks back into the native soil or flows Into the city's existing stormwater system. A series of planted bloretention stormwater facilities with underground perforated pipes will be constructed along Harrison Avenue NE to capture stormwater runoff. These installations will provide enhanced basic water quality treatment and will improve street aesthetics. The project was Included as part of the Sunset Area Planned Action EIS and Master Drainage Plan that was adopted by the City Council. - . --me IN, e . NO tN p j"�7�1f�\,7/��fr'J1 T",i-+...;\•, lij,.^�7 fA_.,.yv.re'Y;•� r�'`' �1}�Y'T� t� ��;- %,L�•',/'r' _t• T IT Example Photos YLOZ'6L AMJCRj P'm OVZ �d :Snar ., 0", 3"" fs - ywod mot \, y i �i QOOH2108H"J13N ♦�� q 135NnS St q= dew AeN uoge}uawnooa-ojogd ueld J91seW MJed poot4aogg6i9N jasung SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROGRAM The Sunset Area of Renton is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the City, with the notable exception of economic diversity. Although the 2012 Sunset Area population of 2,780 residents is within the age group of the highest -wage-earning years (25 to 60), the average annual household income is $17,000 lower than the rest of the City. There is a corresponding deficiency in social services and housing. Since the late 1990s, the City of Renton has focused attention on the Sunset Area for physical improvements and financial investment. That effort has, in recent years, become more dependent upon formation of partnerships to achieve the goals necessary to effect real change. Leveraging Investment The Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program is intended to leverage a combination of private and public investment to promote commercial and residential development (both market -rate and affordable housing). Community improvements planned, initiated, and/or completed include: • Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace public housing to include new subsidized, affordable, and market -rate residential (Renton Housing Authority) • Completed 20-year plan for significant redevelopment of existing housing to accompany development of new commercial/retail space (City of Renton) • New Meadow Crest Early Learning Center (Renton School District) • New Highlands Public Library (with King County Library System) • Infrastructure upgrades to meet sustainability standards (City of Renton) • New and rehabilitated parks and recreation facilities (City of Renton) • Improved connections to support services needed by public housing residents • Surface water control and water quality systems upgrades (with Department of Ecology) • Transportation upgrades to the Sunset Area primary arterial, NE Sunset Boulevard, and other local streets throughout the area (City of Renton) • Creation of bicycle and walking paths (City of Renton) Private Development The advantage of partnering with the City of Renton has been recognized and private development is currently underway in the Sunset Area, most notably the Colpitts Development Company's planned mixed -use project (408 residential units and 6,000-8,000 sf of commercial space). Momentum for other private development is expected to build as the neighborhood evolves and the economy continues to experience steady recovery. Partnerships In addition to the Renton Housing Authority and Colpitts Development, and partnerships listed above, other partners working with the City to generate investment in the Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program include Neighborhood House, Shelter Resources Inc., Renton Technical College, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), King County, Seattle -King County Department of Health, Enterprise Community Partners, and Puget Sound Energy. Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program Funding Goal The anticipated fiscal need for this community revitalization effort is $235 million. To date, $57 million has been secured through a variety of sources. Additional funds are being sought to finance other projects. SUNSET AREA TRANSFORMATION - CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE Background Residential development of the Sunset Area dates from the early 1940s, when hundreds of duplex -style units were built within a few months' time, in what was then an outlying rural area of Renton, as part of the "temporary housing" for Renton -based war defense industry workers. In spite of their temporary nature, most of these houses remain today. The Sunset Area is also home to the majority of Renton's public housing, including the 100-unit Sunset Terrace. Over the years, the physical condition and economic health of the 268-acre Sunset Area have steadily declined. Due to a lack of contemporary development, infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with other areas of the City. There are pronounced disparities in access to education, social services, health care, and economic and employment opportunities, including: 27 percent of Sunset Area households live in poverty • The average annual income is $17,000 less than elsewhere in the City • 75 percent of students in the elementary school qualify for free or reduced lunch programs • Violent crime is 2.5 times higher than the City as a whole • 70 percent of housing is rated "substandard" (King County Assessor records) • Homeownership is below 40 percent, as compared to 55 percent in the City as a whole, and a The area has been identified by the Seattle -King County Public Health Department as having "high potential" for indoor environmental hazards such as mold, lead -based paint, and asbestos. Transforming the Neighborhood The magnitude of the problems is such that an effort built on a foundation of collaboration with many partners has been deemed the only viable solution. The revitalization of the Sunset Area requires the commitment of the entire community and utilization of a wide range of private, as well as local, regional, and federal resources. The advantage of collaboration with many entities is that resources can be leveraged to bring both significant immediate improvements and meaningful long-term changes to the area. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced funding for plans that result in the transformation of neighborhoods that include public housing. The "Choice Neighborhoods Initiative" funding is available to cities that demonstrate both need and ability to transform a distressed area into a healthier, safer, more economically equitable neighborhood. Choice Neighborhoods, as HUD's signature place -based initiative, is intended to support the Obama administration's goal to build "Ladders of Opportunity" to the middle class. The City of Renton, with the Renton Housing Authority and Neighborhood House, is coordinating the effort to submit an application in 2014 for a Choice Neighborhoods grant of approximately $25 to $30 million. The rewards of a Choice Neighborhoods Initiative grant would be many. It would mean acceleration of the Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program so that the Renton Housing Authority's redevelopment goals can be accomplished within years, instead of decades. The education and job initiatives would result in reducing deficiencies in educational opportunities and narrowing the income gap that are inherent in the Sunset Area A key component of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is assurance that targeted outcomes are not only attained, but tracked and measured so that corrective measures may be taken, if necessary. This comprehensive approach requires cooperation to create a lasting plan that will truly transform the Sunset Area well into the future. The City of Renton and its partners believe implementation of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative would lead to an improved quality of life for not only the residents of Sunset Terrace public housing and their neighbors, but all of the City of Renton as well. 2.24.2014 �SY �ENTON HODS_.Nc C * . W AurHoam rentonwa.gov/sunsetarea Summary Sunset Area Community Revitalization OVERVIEW Spring �J13 Investing in Housing • Jobs • Education • Health • Environment • Transportation The Sunset Area Community Revitalization Program will leverage public investment to catalyze private property development and create opportunities for market -rate and affordable housing, plus retail investment. Planned improvements will benefit the en- tire community: DComplete Streets upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets (see back page) Improvements to stormwater drainage systems 13 New and rehabilitated parks and recre- ation facilities ■ New public library ■ New early childhood learning center ■ Better connections to support services for public housing residents wSustainable infrastrucure ■ Bike and walking paths ■Sunset Terrace public housing will rede- velop to include new residential units with a mix of public, affordable, and market - rate homes © Potential capacity for an additional 2,300 new dwelling units and 1.25 million square feet of service/retail space in the 269-acre neighborhood over the next 20 years Partnerships We have formed public and private partnerships to generate investment in facilities and infrastructure that will support a vibrant and highly livable community. Additional partnerships are desired. �r w �aPplAENTo,06 J�ZED Stq�S City of Renton t Health & Services r o 1055 S. Grady Way King County ""' °` LAB1N DEVE 4rq[ ppOSE� Renton WA 98055 rG COLPITTS 425.430.6595 DEVELOPMENTS ON HOUS City of o= RA Lpnton l- r, nl o�TM�r +urHoe�r ,.�... .ram --- -- Sunset Area Community Revitalization Projects and Investment Opportunities Sunset Area Community Revitalization Projects/Elements MIXED USE CATALYST PROJECTS Livability Principles* Investment Opportunity Timing P, SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT Market -Rate Housing Q 0 $78,000,000 Short and Mid Term Col itts Development Sunset Terrace Affordable Housing 00 0 0 0 $14,230,000 Mid Term RHA Providence Senior Housing and Healthcare Q_0 0 0 0 $14,000,000 Mid Term RHA, Providence Health and Sen Library 0 0 0 $11,757,000 2014 King County Library System, City Neighborhood Park $3,000,000 Short Term City of Renton Regional Stormwater Facility $1,311,000 2014 City of Renton, State of Washing HILLCREST "SUPERBLOCK" Meadow Crest Early Childhood Center 0 0 $30,000,000 2013 Renton School District North Highlands Park 0 ❑ $2,231,000 Mid Term City of Renton Multigenerational Housing Q 0 Q 0 0 TBD Long Term RHA Accessible Playground 0 0 0 $2,154,000 2013 City of Renton, Renton School DI SUNSET TERRACE OFF -SITE REPLACEMENT HOUSING Glennwood Avenue Townhomes Q 0 Q ❑ $3,600,000 Completed 2012 RHA, King County, WCRA, City of Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Q 0 0 Q $4,360,000 2013 RHA, King County, State of Wash Edmonds Avenue Apartments Q 0 Q 0 $23,670,000 Mid Term RHA Sunset Court Townhomes Q 0 Q TBD Mid Term RHA TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Sunset Boulevard NE Improvements 0 0 0 0 $22,500,000 Short and Mid Term City of Renton NE 10` Street 0 0 0 $1,118,000 Short and Mid Term City of Renton Sunset Lane Loop $936,000 Short and Mid Term City of Renton, RHA NE 12 Street/Edmonds Avenue $170,000 Lon Term City of Renton, Private Developn NE 12 thStreet/Harrington Avenue $180,000 Long Term City of Renton, Private Develo n WATER FACILITIES 12 Inch main, North of NE 12 Street Q Q 0 Q $1,375,000 Long Term City of Renton, Private Developn 12 Inch main, South of NE le Street Q 0 Q $1,368,000 Short and Mid Term City of Renton, Private Developn WASTEWATER FACILITIES Sunset Boulevard NE Capacity Upgrades Q 0 Q Q $150,000 Completed 2012 City of Renton, Private)— elopn Harrington Avenue NE Capacity Upgrades 0 0 ❑ Q $276,000 Long Term City of Renton, Private Developn Kirkland Ave NE Capacity Upgrades Q 0 0 0 $230,000 Long Term City of Renton, Private Developn Edmonds Ave NE Capacity Upgrades Q 0 0 0 $118,000 Long Term City of Renton, Private Developn GREENINFRASTRUCTURE GREEN COLLECTOR ARTERIAL NE 12 Street 0 0 0 0 $4,111,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn Edmonds Avenue NE ❑ Q 0 0 $4,367,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn GREEN ACCESS LOCAL COLLECTOR Harrington Avenue NE 0 ❑ 0 0 $5,050,000 Short Term Phase I: 2013 City of Renton, State of Washing Jefferson Avenue NE 0 0 0 0 $1,557,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn WOONERF/GREEN ALLEY Harrington & Jefferson Alley Q 0 Q 0 $698,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn STORM DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS Kirkland Avenue NE Q Q 0 0 $1,355,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn Glenwood Avenue NE 0 0 0 ❑ $740,000 Development Driven City of Renton, Private Developn *Livability Principles ... Six "Livability Principles" as set forth by the Federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities Provide more transportation choices 0 Promote equitable, affordable housing © Enhance economic competitiveness 0 Support existing communities 0 Coordinate and leverage state and local, and federal policies and investment 0 Value communities and neighborhoods rW^� B. Renderings of the Accessible Playground {Co -located on the site of the Hillcrest School and North Highlands Park in Area B on the Framework above to the right) FEIST Sunset Area Preferred Community Framework 7P Lod- s q, °j� • I J ' ill[' 1r x Qaa 1— .� bhy 1 L 9 a FY I • , l•. "" I L r' Sunset Area Funding �I$ R ,� �r I Goal: $235 Million �9 `. ��� � 1 I �� �" Yam ' •SI' AJ{] ! I'• e a 4 �. 9 _&'`ui� _ALL+ -a 017' ' Pj- Ia n � - she R�r a• e - _1 —1 a o � b LEGEND YI I �i P"yl.+� Y o• Pedestrian Intersection Pedestrian Connections Sunset BLVD Improvements 0" Green Collector Arterial Green Access Local Collector Woonerf / Green alley Permeable Sidewalk School / Civic • Mixed Use Residential r i 0 Parks "s CommunityGarden %! s. se EIS Boundary ENOS MEADOW CREST EARLY LEARNING CENTER 4 !•-.�3.►Vp�` -: ..I de :-LaLIrJ.l.:Trl•S+L]!_ 'S!+'� :. - C•• - - - A. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept B. Renton School District's New Early Childhood Learning Center En a ge ant of Area A n the Fr work above to the right) Located on the site of the Hlllcresl School n Area 8 on the Framework above) rentonwa.gov/sunsetarea Complete Streets Concepts Sunset Boulevard / SR 900 - State Highway Sunset Area Community Vision Developed by the public and adopted by the Renton City Council in December 2008. ■ The Sunset Area is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond ■ The neighbors and businesses here are en- gaged and involved in the community ■ Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable ■ The neighborhood feels safe and secure ■ Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life ■ The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business ■ The neighborhood is affordable to many in- comes ■ The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity .PP=maetYl311(19__ I Sunset Lane - Residential Street Community Need for Revitalization Revitalization is needed to improve housing, social, educational, employment, and health outcomes for the residents of this area. In 2012: ■ 27% of households live in poverty ■ Average income is $17,000 less than the city as a whole ■ 75% of the students at the neighborhood elementary school qualify for free or reduced lunch ■ Violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the city as a whole * 35% of the students at the neighborhood elementary school have limited English proficiency ■ 70% of neighborhood housing is substandard, based on King County Assessor's records ■ Homeownership has dropped below 40%, compared to 55% in the city as a whole E Area identified by King County Public Health as high potential for indoor air hazards such as mold, lead based paints, and asbestos Altogether, we believe the City of Renton has developed a Planned Action that should achieve the FEIS's predicted long-term benefits - neighborhood revitalization, increased opportunities for healthy active lifestyles and local employment, net stormwater treatment improvements, increased aesthetic appeal, and, reductions in regional energy use and GHG emissions. We support full implementation of this Planned Action and look forward to learning from the City of Renton's efforts to redevelop the Sunset Area into a healthy, livable, affordable, viable and green community." Christine B. Reichgott, Unit Manager, Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rentonwa.gov/su nsetare 0067ty of PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT p M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 17, 2014 TO: Jay Covington Terry Higashiyama Chip Vincent Iwen Wang FROM: Gregg Zimmerman 6 SUBJECT: City Priority Areas: Future (2015-2018) Planned Public Works Capital Infrastructure Investments This summary table shows the summed CIP investments proposed to be made by Renton's Utilities and Transportation Systems divisions in the Downtown, Highlands/Sunset, and Lake Washington corridor areas in 2015-2018. Summary: Downtown Highlands Lk. Wa. Blvd. _ Utilities* $11.0 M $13.8 M $1.2 M Transportation** $43.9 M $64.9 M $6 M Total $54.9 M $78.7 M $7.2 M *Utility Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as AMR meter replacement, pipeline replacement projects, etc. **Transportation Improvements does not include citywide improvements such as overlay, arterial rehabilitation, walkways, etc. Also, most of the funding for these projects has not yet been secured. Total Public Works CIP projects proposed in these three areas between 2015-2018 is $140.8 M. h:\division.s\admin\gregg\city priority areas future cip investments.doc TRANSPORTATION CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET LOCATION E3OW JAW- AAA: -- - 2015-2018 Logan Avenue Improvements $7,700,000 Cedar River to North 8th Street 2015-2018 2015-2018 Rainier Avenue South 3rd to Airport Way Park Avenue North Extension $18,000,000 $1,600,000 South 3rd to Airport Way North of Logan Avenue 2015-2018 South 7th Street $8,600,000 Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South 2015-2018 South Grady Way $3,000,000 Main Avenue to West City Limits 2015-2018 Lake Washington Loop Trail $5,000,000 Airport Way, Rainier Avenue TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $43,900,000 HIGHLANDS AREA 2015-2018 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Improvements $8,100,000 Sunset Blvd. North to East City Limits 2015-2018 Duvall Avenue NE $12,500,000 NE 7th Street to Sunset Blvd NE 2015-2018 NE Sunset Blvd. $26,000,000 North Park Drive to Monroe Avenue NE 2015-2018 Sunset Area Green Connections $18,300,000 Sunset Area Community Planned Action TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA LAKE WASHiNGTO'N BLVD AREA - 2015-2018 Houser Way North $64,900,000 $3,900,000 North 8th Street to Lake Washington Blvd 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd North $2,000,000 Park Avenue North to Gene Coulon Park 2015-2018 NE 31st Street Culvert Repair $80,000 NE 31st Street TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $5,980,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $114,780,000 02/24/2014 UTILITY CIP PROJECTS IN CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY AREAS YEAR PROJECT NAME COST/BUDGET DOWNTOWN AREA 2015-2018 Lower Ceder River Sediment Management (Dredging) $6,300,000 2015-2018 Blackriver Reservoir $722,000 2015-2018 Hardie Avenue SW/SW 7th Storm Water Improvements $4,000,000 TOTAL DOWNTOWN AREA $11,022,000 HIGHLANDS AREA 2015-2018 Highlands Reservoirs $10,000,000 2015-2018 Monroe Avenue NE/NE 2nd Street Infiltration Project $1,400,000 2015-2018 NE Sunset Blvd/Union Avenue NE Storm Improvements $900,000 2015-2018 Heather Downs Interceptor Capacity Improvements $1,200,000 2015-2018 1 NE 10th Street and Anacortes Detention Pond Retrofit $275,000 TOTAL HIGHLANDS AREA $13,775,000 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA 2015-2018 Misty Cove Lift Station Replacement $1,023,000 2015-2018 Lake Washington Blvd. Repair $200,000 TOTAL LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD AREA $1,223,000 TOTAL ALL 3 PROJECTS $26,020,000 02/24/20 Building an inclusive city 2014 Renton City Council Retreat Preeti Shridhar Renton is one of the most diverse cities in the greater Seattle/Puget Sound area. Q� [A %Ai I P��W Renton is committed to being an inclusive city with opportunities for al'I1 and building connections with All communities, especially limited or non-English speaking residents and ethnic groups. 11 Our Goals Build connections and partnerships with ALL communities. Make the city's programs and services more accessible. Help our communities ha"ea better prepared fo r Ite rge c i an Our Goals --v Encourage participation and engagement in civic process. Promote understanding and appreciation of cultural differences through celebrations and festivals. i Our Accomplishments Created network of community liaisons representing various community groups. Promoted and facilitated conversations and dialogue on race by offering free workshops and access to attend exhibit — Race: Are we so different to all city employees. Nearly 1/3 of all employees attended A n U Our Accomplishments Distributed emergency preparedness kits to community liaisons. Provided emergency preparedness training and workshops to various community members. Created Speaker's Bureau training community liaisons. Translated emergency preparedness video intojour languages and distributed over 1,000 DVDs. Our Accomplishments Provided free blood sugar and blood pressure screenings to members of our diverse communities as part of Renton's Heart 4.t Month. Nearly 1,500 people from our diverse communities had their blood pressure and blood sugar checked through these screenings. Our Accomplishments To address homelessness in our city partnered with REACH to create a Center of Hope, a day shelter for women and children in the former jail at City Hall. • 554 Residents Served • 986 meals • 557 Care packages given • 467 loads of laundry • 722 bus tokens • 406 donations given out • 3768 Day volunteer hours • 2313 Night volunteer hours • 651 bed nights • The residents from Center of Hope washed all of the blankets daily for the Overnight Cold weather shelter. EAMWORK The:,e is no such thing as a self -Houle ream. You will reach your goals md—o with dw Delp of others. T ILI ri.• . �y� v u r p►cco m r o homel*essvd�sifl costo �a�g},health,.. � wome lagel reading mammograms ors "dam MOOR e d � � 0 � Wrro �streetsARy cent WSW ��� r income g� ;::Y: a ''°.24 Our Accomplishments The Senior Activity Center serves approximately 250 adults 50 years of age and older everyday. We provide quality recreation, social, health, educational, and nutritional",[" services for allF� �� '�� � wx A - �. d Our Accomplishments Our special recreation program offers basketball, track & field, soccer, cycling, softball, golf, flag football, bocce ball and bowling. ` We also have trips, art programs and a social program. • The social program has approximately 70 participants each week. . Q 0 OP, OF Ift Our Accomplishments Scholarships for Recreation Programs • Each year approximately 300 �! individuals from preschool a g e =-f �� through senior citizens assistance. receive • The number of recipients awarded funding is limited byth amount of funds available. WAD, • Qualifications are based on the =� current Housing and Urban Development Federal Income Guidelines. 67 1 .� A ` ,. ►'1 11 Our Accomplishments Worked with the Renton school district to provide free summer lunch to children from minority groups, non-English speaking communities and low-income families. Xr;4 i Our Accomplishments • The Museum regularly offers programs educating the public about Renton's diverse cultures, including Black History Month programs and a Coast Salish / Duwamish classroom curriculum that is free for Renton schools. � , a 11 Our Accomplishments The Renton History Museum showcases work of students from Renton Technical College's ESL and Renton School District's ELL programs. The Museum collaborates with Renton High students on exhibits that share their diverse viewpoints on history. e Renton' Our Accomplishments • Sought community liaisons to serve on key citizen task forces such as the Budget Advisory Group, Parks Task Force, and SIFF Host Committee. �1 Dur ACCOMr WHO'S Pl is l Y-.—M r YIYY.Y sto Y10 6w0Y YHWHY TM asian,v..e V %%30 NO 23 "F.4-MW 10. 2011 HtM nYG�. YOl1R%V= OartlaGyw � Y i .YYr`... �7..'""r,r*w.�.ri t;•RIMY* ;a �� I 4:i ni»• YRYM,Y"'{y,R•w+!j+t�,rwtiy'�,µ +r ..- �pt'+M �I -�•tu1 tIHY7iR.�,M+�YYIi�;�i�i:iaea's�~ t• .tNMMIN1�4wtOR�M! Woo IN RENTON �dW� YIYRYYIY MIr� IYYY,�,r�My �Ybr ��M1 �friT�T� ww�Y�r� �y��~rr rY�wY rr�.YA�r...IC�tlw ..v y`P�IP•H�� yR.rIr.n'r"rYiu.l.+ � i �/.. �. ti Our Accomplishments • Celebrated and showcased the city's diversity with celebrations in festivals and parades. 14:1- =�_::� IL . Our Accomplishments Community Forums • Building connections • Emergency Preparedness • Crime Prevention • Public Sector Careers WMI Questions? Renton RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA REGULATIONS Background: • Washington and Colorado have legalized recreational marijuana and have taken different approaches to the legalization process and rules regarding marijuana. (See attached) • In November 2013, Council adopted a moratorium on accepting applications for medical and/or recreational marijuana business licenses or permits. • Since then, staff in conjunction with the Planning Commission has been engaged in a work program that has helped the City to: 0 Develop an understanding of Liquor Control Board rules and implications of those rules. o Study potential impacts of the new land uses, evaluate and consider how other jurisdictions are regulating. 0 Determine how Renton wishes to regulate recreational marijuana businesses. • The process has also allowed the City to adequately provide public participation. Currently: • The Planning Commission has had two work sessions and held the public hearing regarding regulations for recreational marijuana. Their deliberations and recommendation are scheduled for March 5, 2014. • Regulations under considerations by Planning Commission include: 0 Permitting marijuana producers and processors outright in the Industrial Heavy zone. (Map attached) ■ The Liquor Control Board will allow people to hold both a producer and a processor license and those who hold both licenses will not be required to pay a 25% tax for sales between producers and processors. Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that these two uses will, in practice, be one business. For processors, marijuana extraction requires the use of solvents and gases and for producers there is typically an odor that may extend beyond the site. This makes a producer and processor businesses most similar to an industrial or manufacturing use. ■ Industrial Heavy is defined as processing using raw materials that have externalities, such as odor and noise that pose a hazard to public health and safety. o Require marijuana producers to be indoors. ■ Given the incentivized pairing of marijuana producers and processors, with no requirement to pay 25% tax for sales between the two if both licenses are held by one person/entity, it is appropriate to require marijuana producers to be indoors. 0 Consider marijuana retailers to be a similar use to taverns and allow in the same zones taverns are allowed in. (Map attached) 0 Taverns are very comparable to the way in which marijuana retailers will function. Both taverns and marijuana retailers must hold a license issued by the State. Additionally, people under the age of 21 are not allowed to enter either type of business. Not adopt the footnote associated with taverns in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone for marijuana retail. The footnote currently does not allow the use within the Northeast Sunset, Northeast Fourth (4th), and South Puget Drive Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Additional or alternate regulations under consideration by Planning Commission: o Require marijuana businesses to be located 500 to 1,000 feet away from chemical dependency centers. (Map attached) ■ Some Commissioners have strong concerns about the potential negative impact marijuana retailers, especially if located in close proximity to treatment facilities, may have on members of the public who have drug dependencies. o Require marijuana businesses to be located 500 to 1,000 feet away from the RC, R-1, R- 4, R-8, R-10, and R-14 zones. (Map attached) o An alternative to this is to not allow marijuana retailers to be located on any parcel that abuts a property zoned RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, or R-10. (Map attached) • Many Commissioners wish to protect single family residential neighborhoods from potential negative impacts of marijuana retailers. While many of the negative impacts are only anticipated at this point in time, without direct knowledge and experience of what the negative impacts are, Commissioners wish to mitigate potential impacts by not allowing marijuana retailers to locate in close proximity to neighborhoods. Some concerns expressed include: children living next door to a marijuana retailer, frequent and high traffic volumes in parking areas located near neighborhoods, and noise of customers congregating in and around store parking areas. Es Colorado i Broncos ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CiiiES 40 Possession —1 oz. of useable for residents, Y4 oz. for non-residents Age limit — 21 Recreational marijuana Public use — not allowed Trade — residents 21 or older can give 1 oz. to another 21 year old as long as there is no remuneration. Recreational Residents 21 and older can grow up to 6 home grow plants (3 flowering). Can possess yield of the plants where the plants are grown. Recreational Recreational stores — Can sell medical stores marijuana as well as retail marijuana Cities can ban medical or retail marijuana - related businesses. City authority 73 of 271 cities prohibit medical marijuana shops, 83 cities prohibit retail marijuana. Washington Seahawks ,Possession — 1oz. usable, 16oz. infused, 72oz. liquid Age limit — 21 Public use — not allowed NONE Recreational stores — Can only sell marijuana and marijuana -infused products grown by state licensed producers. Cities retain all traditional local regulatory authority over licensing and land use. Possession — qualifying patient or provider can Medical have 24oz. of useable cannabis. Can possess marijuana Possession — able to purchase up to 2oz. double if they are qualifying patient and provider for one other patient. Can be authorized to possess more if medically necessary. Medical home 6 plants per person over 21, no more than 12 Qualifying patient or provider can have 15 plants. grow plants per residence. Must be enclosed. Can possess double if they are qualifying patient and provider for one other patient Medical stores — Can only sell medical marijuana. Medical Must be licensed at the state and local level stores Local jurisdiction can set additional fees to cover costs of administration and enforcement. Retail marijuana and medical marijuana are subject to state and local sales tax and an excise tax. Taxes/Fees Local jurisdictions can additionally levy a 5% excise tax on medical marijuana. Fees — local jurisdictions get half of application fees for both retail and medical marijuana stores ($250-$2500) 15% of gross retail and medical marijuana Funding for retail tax revenues go to local government — local distributed to counties and cities based on government number of retail establishments within their boundaries No state licensing or regulatory structure in place. Collective gardens — No more than 10 qualifying patients and a max of 45 plants. No more than 24oz. per patient. Medical marijuana — Subject to current sales and B&O taxes. Recreational marijuana — Three tiered system taxing 25% at the point of sale for a producer, processor and retailer. If licensee is both producer and processor, they are exempt from one of the 25% taxes. Subject to existing state and local sales tax. NONE Map 9 LCB 1,000 Ft Buffer, Heavy Industrial B E L L E V U E MERCER ISLAND NEWC T I1F A S � L "V W P-P"Y. ftk J, c Q- -EATTLE flu % J 13 Pad ceft TX* RiYw Pat Park I Pow ftk le Cm J T U K ILA fy li I Y V.—L. "T' 4' II I P-A • wbwftd LegeWJ; Note: V. iasloe tsi�—.gMs refers to—ecwd 100Fedf.ye�-nLywsMschool, pLyg-nd —alan CWar . Ifily cN]d cam Mai, pubic W Nbk kant MWYbry. 411 g— -.da 1K.1 W. ­r,; to M. K f City Limits L. , PAA Boundary Community & Economic Development Combined 1000 Feet buffer- All restrictions c. It -cw vl--t A*Ii%n* Adam Wt* Industrial Zones Admrnetmrar W 11-1-Industrial High Park Parcel In the City GIs A-i�t --aaaaail to -al Developed Park Undeveloped Park .1. !:LF,:.71kPLANN NCIF,q,!:! I Wr" - -, 1, r', - 143p.') - 1-7 ":.;- , . . — -'.. — . ,fir.Map 5 - LCB 1,000 Ft Buffer, Chemical Dependency centers, Industrial and Specified Zoning Designation, (IH-IM-CA-CV- MERR CD-COR-UC-N1-UNC-N2) & 500 Ft Buffer from Residential Zones CE ISLAND L , Z.c NEWCAS L E C' E " L _j N, rto E e. 4 is _41 T U K N lz9.d link j Nt. �W pioducl-ciucupmomwjscarelenlc TO rbct.iay el=� ar cvccodycdea!, *r.-W. —d.., cerrter m facility, chid care mlar public park, public tmsd ccriltir)btary, cr ga^e arce-M that aim mk*m io wilir, [= SOOFt from RC-R1 -R4-R8.Rl 0 R14 [=3 1,000 Ft Buffer from Chemical Dependency Services City Limits PAA Boundary Chemical Dependency Services S ;a-, U ii� Combined 1,000 Feet buffer -All restrictions Industrial Zones 11111111 III -Industrial High DIM -Industrial Medium Specified Zones CA -Commercial Arterial CO -Center Downtown COR-Commercial-Office-Residential Community & Economic Development CV -Center Village C E -cWp- YheW Adirkm Ahnnneirich nRUC-NI-Urban Center North 1 p �tr'O_-Tcl ICIUC-N2.Urban Center North 2 Park Parcel in the City Jr�w_:r:T, 'A =1 Developed Park K E N T EM Undeveloped Park Map 11 -Parcels that Abut (Share a Segment) to M M E R C,E R Il,N.l. Parcels in CA-CD-COR-CV-UC-N1 and UC-N2 I S L A N D ` Not considered Residential Parcels in RC-R4-R8-R10 nor R-14 - fir:: •!' lY , or Parcels Zoned RC in the EAV Land Use Designation 'b :L ). of tl .F rrfP a�'• w Li ,y .G. � ,� J •'F ry j NEWCASTLE e �B•+1., mot+-•r - F'° � - ~ '•w S - r: A,x F s E•Nti: I. •1 And aH l 12 r� £d'i•LI i KING Fr P,V-i (COUNTY i NF'MJ SIIM'. V i - .i•'/ '% •'E+ r €i A{ - i.dl:t r 1j • ' � W 4h• S,1kf :,I 'ar — i K'fiN :a'I b w MT Y � rY:L l-• SYfO op wi `� C9 •� z�N a I,!LLti •,' 3esLLreAE _.w, T• Y I� � !•1- hri, •_v.�aW r f6gf4 A:ryx w,'< ,kHa%,tl F r 01r, he d 4 qa­ I � l� �:Y,k151 _ —Gua! SCTM1H x L'1ti51 :i :E IAYI,'J 9E •'S P .>i,. J•r� •.� ` _� _ 4wY r 4 T •• f < U �i Aw.. '� i. q� ` Ii :E ;0.TH !yu �! s:0 an� "!rv" s3EI:, :e;�` aliuea 3 �• Legend f.li k L_J City limits [�PAA Boundary s xuna a c:at.s ei K:rx:a i�Combined 1,008 Feet buffer- All restrictions s c c s y r specified Zones sE .cca $ c y�—�. ®CA-CortmerdaAdenal s ;;a " Community &Economic Development ��»P- ��� f ®CD -Center Downtown GE -ChIp' Vincent Add ma Abramovkh KEN ® COR-CommercialOffice•Residential Administrator GLS Analyst®CV-Cenler Village UC-147•Urban Center North 1 ®UC-N2-Urban Center North 2 v K Owr_. r sE:::ua sc. `� w% Abutting to RC (not in FAV), R1-R4-R8•R10 but not R-14 •.,., sl ar.z-., EE-xfa Path IN lFdesiPLANNINGIProlect FolrlersiMa/or01/,col:"ar9uanaLm:'Ih".xrisl61ap 12 tbuthng parce's to res.denh.i. RCR:R8R10 zones 11e 17 F..b201 , Ma d MERCER ISLAND gs zz 'E no- C. S, L A Map 2- LCB 1,000 Ft Buffer & Specified Zones (CA, CV, CD, COR, UC-N1 & UC-N2) NE WCASTLE K. 4V CV1 CA C" M!4 5.:an 5t Taw 0 1 raw Ow C S Y Eft '-P's T U ILA [:;cl Legend JZRestrictions to retail store, production site or processing site refers t Fast of any elementary or secondary school, playgrou nd, recreation 1 suing center or facility chidca re center public park, pubic transit center library. s. or game arcade that allows minors to enter City Limits PAA Boundary Combined 1,000 Feet buffer -All restrictions L' V&lhd e 5 P.% Specified Zones Zone ELI CA -Commercial Arterial CO -Center Downtown 4 K ENT COR-Commercial-Office Residential CV -Center Vil. age Community & Economic Development RUC-N1 -Urban Center North 1 C L V*- K—W AM— AbmxwWgk GGS UC-N2-Urban Center North 2 r Developed Park 'V7rto Undeveloped Park RIM CITY OF RENTON ACTIVE REGULAR EMPLOYEES Number of Employees Per Age Group Age as of February 24, 2014 Age Group Number of Employees 65 or Older 20 62 - 64 28 60 - 61 28 55 - 59 90 50 - 54 114 40 - 49 191 29 - 39 146 28 or Younger 30 Total Employees: 647 H:\CRYSTAL REPORTS\Employee Data - EEO, Address, Age, Yrs of Svc,Union\Age_AII Regular Employees_Count.rpt ;age 1 of 1