HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil 12/12/2011AGENDA
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
December 12, 2011
Monday, 7 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2.ROLL CALL
3.PROCLAMATION
a. King Parker Recognition
4.SPECIAL PRESENTATION
a. Communities In Schools of Renton (CISR) ‐ 2011 in Review
5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6.AUDIENCE COMMENT
(Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The
comment period will be limited to one‐half hour. The second audience comment period later on in
the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please
walk to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST
NAME.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the
recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further
discussion if requested by a Councilmember.
a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 12/5/2011. Council concur.
b. City Clerk reports the 2011 General Election results from King County Elections, as follows:
Mayor Position ‐Denis Law (13,748 ‐ elected); Council Position No. 3 ‐ Marcie Palmer (13,205 ‐
elected), Council Position No. 4 ‐ Greg Taylor (11,149 ‐ elected), Sarah Sanoy‐Wright (4,424);
Council Position No. 5 ‐Ed Prince (8,335 ‐ elected), Robin H. Jones (7,652); Council Position
No. 7 ‐ Don Persson (10,238 ‐ elected), Phyllis Forister (5,635). Information.
c. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the 2012 State
Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions, which serve as guidance for City staff
during the State legislative session. Council concur.
d. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval to waive all
development and mitigation fees for the Renton Housing Authority's Glennwood Townhomes,
an 8‐unit four‐bedroom affordable housing development project in the Sunset Area,
and requests approval to record the related affordable housing unit set aside restrictive
covenant. Refer to Planning and Development Committee.
Page 1 of 178
e. Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of a second
interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 with King County regarding the Renton
Avenue Business District Improvements project in the West Hill/Skyway area, funded by State
and Federal grants. Council concur.
f. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax Grant Distribution
Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington State Transportation Improvement
Board (requiring 20% local match) for the S. Lake Washington Roadway and Intersection
Improvements project. Council concur.
g. Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the reimbursement value and grant two
drainage easements to the Washington State Department of Transportation for the right to
construct, operate, monitor, and maintain habitat improvements as part of the Thunder Hills
Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit project, as required mitigation for the impacts associated
with the replacement of the failed Thunder Hills Creek culvert under I‐405. Council concur.
8.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics
marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held
by the Chair if further review is necessary.
a. Community Services Committee: Municipal Arts Commission Appointments
b. Finance Committee: Lease Addendum with Verizon Wireless; Sub‐grant Agreement with King
County; 2012 Lodging Tax Allocations; Puget Sound Energy Utility Leak Adjustment;
McLaughlin Properties Utility Leak Adjustment
c. Planning & Development Committee: Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket #7*
d. Utilities Committee: Clean Community Initiative; Maintenance of Drainage Facilities*;
Latecomer Agreement with Renton Housing Authority
9.RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Ordinances for first reading and advancement to second and final reading:
a. Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via 12/5/2011 Planning &
Development Committee Report)
b. Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)
c. Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)
d. Plat Revisions ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐74 (See 8.c.)
e. Shopping Carts ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐75 (See 8.c.)
f. Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See 8.c.)
g. Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities (See 8.d.)
Ordinances for second and final reading:
a. Repealing Ordinance No. 5136 regarding shoreline regulations (1st reading 12/5/2011)
b. Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
c. Right‐of‐Way Dedication Procedure Streamlining ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐70 (1st reading
12/5/2011)
Page 2 of 178
d. Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
e. Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
10.NEW BUSINESS
(Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425‐430‐6512 for recorded information.)
11.AUDIENCE COMMENT
12.ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
(Preceding Council Meeting)
CANCELED
• Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk •
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RECABLECAST:
Tues. & Thurs. at 11 AM & 9 PM, Wed. & Fri at 9 AM & 7 PM and Sat. & Sun. at 1 PM & 9 PM
Page 3 of 178
3
a
.
‐
K
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
e
r
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
7
8
3
a
.
‐
K
i
n
g
P
a
r
k
e
r
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
7
8
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Certification of 11/8/2011 General Election
Results by King County Elections
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
Certification by King County - Official Final Results
for 11/8/2011 General Election
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Executive
Staff Contact:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk, x6502
Recommended Action:
Information
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The 2011 General Election results have been canvassed by the King County Canvassing Board of
Election Returns. The certified results are:
Mayor, 4-Year Term: Denis Law 13,748 Elected
Council Position No. 3, 4-Year Term: Marcie Palmer 13,205 Elected
Council Position No. 4, 4-Year Term: Greg Taylor 11,149 Elected
Sarah Sanoy-Wright 4,424
Council Position No. 5, 4-Year Term: Ed Prince 8,335 Elected
Robin H. Jones 7,652
Council Position No. 7, 4-Year Term: Don Persson 10,238 Elected
Phyllis Forister 5,635
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports the 2011 General Election results from King
County Elections, as follows: Mayor Position ‐Denis Law (13,748 ‐ Page 6 of 178
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports the 2011 General Election results from King
County Elections, as follows: Mayor Position ‐Denis Law (13,748 ‐ Page 7 of 178
7b. ‐ City Clerk reports the 2011 General Election results from King
County Elections, as follows: Mayor Position ‐Denis Law (13,748 ‐ Page 8 of 178
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of
Policy Positions
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
2012 State Legislative Agenda
2012 Statement of Policy Positions
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Suzanne Dale Estey x6591
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Prior to each state legislative session, the City Council considers documents which summarize the City’s
positions on state issues. The State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions serve as
guidance for City staff as it works with the Legislature to achieve the City’s goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions as proposed.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 9 of 178
City of Renton 2012
State Legislative Agenda
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 10 of 178
BASIC PREMISES
The City of Renton’s positions on state legislation are guided by basic premises established by the Renton City Council over
many years. These include the need to provide local elected officials maximum flexibility in addressing community needs;
strong opposition to new or expanded mandates on local governments without adequate funding to support these
programs, as required by state law (RCW 43.135.060); and the importance of maintaining local control, especially in areas
such as local government taxation and financing, rights‐of‐way management and land use and zoning matters.
Additionally, during a time of ongoing economic uncertainty, Renton asks lawmakers to maintain basic services such as
public safety and criminal justice, and to be mindful of the impact to local communities of cuts to health and human
services programs such as mental health and health care. With a recognition that the State already addressed a 2011‐2013
Operating Budget shortfall of nearly $6 billion and faces an additional shortfall of up to $2 billion for 2013‐2015, the City is
not making any new funding requests from the State’s operating budget. The City urges lawmakers to protect “state‐
shared revenues” to the maximum extent possible, and to avoid further cuts to programs that are key to public safety,
including auto theft prevention grants and law enforcement academy funding. Renton also asks the Legislature to consider
creative approaches to providing cities with additional efficiencies, cost‐savings and flexibility. Renton will consider support
for regulatory reform, easing liability burdens and legislation to reduce or eliminate unnecessary mandates.
PRIORITY ISSUES
Transportation Solutions
Renton continues to face major challenges with traffic congestion that comes with being at the crossroads of Interstate
405, Highway 167 and several other state highway corridors. This creates slowdowns that stifle the efficient movement of
people and goods through the City, resulting in severe economic, family and quality of life impacts. Addressing these
transportation needs can help not only with enhancing freight movement but also with job creation and economic vitality.
The City asks legislators to remember that the I‐405/SR 167 interchange remains one of the most congested interchanges in
the state and that I‐405 from Renton to Bellevue remains the most congested corridor in the state. Renton supports the
multi‐stakeholder “Transportation Partnership” request that the 2012 Legislature enact a new transportation investment
package. The City requests that the core missions of “fixing the worst first” and finishing started projects such as I‐405 help
guide investment decisions. An investment package should address not only the state highway system but key needs such
as local roadways, freight mobility, transit and incentive‐driven programs such as Commute Trip Reduction (CTR). In the
2012 Legislative Session, the City of Renton will:
Support additional authorization of managed lane approaches to funding I‐405/SR 167 needs from Puyallup to
Lynnwood: The City played a key role in 2011 in helping with the passage of EHB 1382, which authorizes a tolling and
managed lanes program on I‐405, although it had a requirement that the State first commission an independent study
of financing and operational questions before any tolling can be initiated. The City will continue to advocate for
construction of additional toll lanes or managed lanes, as well as the exploration of additional alternative funding
mechanisms, that can help add desperately‐needed capacity to the I‐405 corridor. While the HOT lanes will be north of
Bellevue, Renton will advocate for capacity additions and improvements as soon as possible at the I‐405/SR‐167
“Connector,” as well as the two lanes of additional capacity on I‐405 northbound and southbound between Renton and
Bellevue. It is critical to synchronize tolling implementation specific improvements for those areas about to be tolled.
Investments in key state and local projects, freight mobility and transit: As the Legislature and the “Connecting
Washington” Task Force, with the support of the Transportation Partnership, consider a possible comprehensive
transportation revenue package in 2012, Renton asks lawmakers to support key needs, including:
o I‐405/SR 167 Connector and additional lanes northbound and southbound between Bellevue to Renton, as well as
specific upgrades to the I‐405/NE 44th Street interchange
o $3 million for the NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor Improvements Project (SR‐900)
o Dedicated freight mobility funding that would allow the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) to
award $5 million for the SW 27th Street/Strander Boulevard Improvements Project between Renton and Tukwila
o Direct distribution funds for local needs; local funding options; enhanced funding for the Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB) grant programs; and additional funding for transit and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
o Funding for the “Complete Streets” grant program established in ESHB 1071 in 2011. This program helps cities to
make transit‐ and pedestrian‐friendly investments along state corridors that run through local communities.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 11 of 178
City of Renton 2012 State Legislative Agenda
Fiscal Stability
Renton, like many other cities around the state, was forced to make major budget reductions during the economic
recession while still keeping core services intact. Through several cycles of cuts, the City reduced its general fund spending
by millions of dollars, instituted furlough days for employees, and reduced its work force by 14% to balance its 2009‐2012
budgets, despite growing its population by one‐third since 2008 (82% growth from 2000‐2010).Additionally, Renton and
other areas of South King County have faced significant impacts from state budget cuts to human and social service
programs, given the high percentage of families who are at or below the poverty line, have children on reduced or free‐
lunch programs, and are heavy users of state programs for low‐income and vulnerable citizens. With these major fiscal
challenges in mind, Renton asks for the State Legislature’s help in preserving key state revenue sources and current taxing
authorities. In the 2012 Session, the City of Renton will:
Team up with the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), counties and other local governments to protect state‐
shared revenues that are vital to cities: Renton asks legislators to refrain from cutting the very local revenues that help
cities maintain a commitment to public safety and assist with social services needs – which are growing due to state
cutbacks. Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance funds, Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) mitigation payments, auto theft and
sex offender address verification funds, and other state revenues, are critical to cities such as Renton. While the City is
still assessing the impact of the passage of Initiative 1183, the elimination of liquor profits and excise taxes would result
in a reduction to Renton of approximately $1.1 million per year.
Strongly oppose the elimination of or reductions to the Annexation Assistance/Sales Tax Credit program and strongly
support legislation to provide long‐term assurance of this funding: The elimination of the Annexation Sales Tax Credit
program would have severe implications for Renton, causing Renton to address an additional budget gap of $1.4 million
for 2012 and $2.1 million per year for 2013 and beyond for the Cascade‐Benson annexation alone. The City annexed
the Cascade/Benson area based on a 10‐year commitment made by the State to its partners in local government.
Renton believes that in order to carry out the objectives of the state Growth Management Act and to keep making
progress at improving the economic conditions in the area, the annexation sales tax credit program is critical. It is not a
permanent tool, and it only helps with operating costs, and it will only last for the 10‐year period.
Regarding West Hill/Skyway, in August 2010, the Renton City Council voted to place on the February 2012 ballot the
annexation of the West Hill/Skyway area between Renton and Seattle. The West Hill/Skyway area is struggling with
business closures, severe public safety and educational challenges, and deficient infrastructure. Even with the state
sales tax credit, a gap of several million dollars per year must be closed, but the City is continuing to explore ways to
close the gap. The elimination of the state sales tax credit for annexations would make it impossible for the City to
annex this area without impacting service levels to the City’s current residents, regardless of the outcome of the
upcoming election. The City will also strongly support legislation to provide cities additional assurances of sustainability
for the full life of this critical 10‐year program.
Economic Development and Infrastructure Funding
The City of Renton supports policies that help retain and create jobs and increase economic opportunity. Investing in
infrastructure that addresses core community needs, and lays the groundwork for economic development continues to be a
high priority for the City. Renton will work with the Washington Economic Development Association, the Association of
Washington Cities and a coalition of other key stakeholders on options to address community needs and enhance its
business retention and recruitment efforts.
In the 2012 Legislative Session, the City of Renton will seek support for:
Sunset Area Community Investment and Revitalization: Adopted by the Renton City Council in the fall of 2009, the
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy was developed with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), the Renton
School District (RSD) and the community as a roadmap for revitalization of this area, a neighborhood of concentrated
poverty but also significant market potential. The Sunset Area emerged in the early 1940s when over 3,000 modest
homes were built to house workers at manufacturing plants supporting World War II. In recent decades, the economic
health of the area has severely declined. Currently more than one third of the households in the neighborhoods,
primarily elderly individuals and immigrant families, live in poverty. More than two‐thirds of the children enrolled in
Highlands Elementary qualify for the free or reduced lunch program, 40% have limited English proficiency, and violent
crimes have increased in the neighborhood to 2½ times the rate of the rest of Renton. By working together with RHA,
RSD and other partners, the City hopes to revitalize the Sunset Area by making better use of underutilized land,
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 12 of 178
City of Renton 2012 State Legislative Agenda
redeveloping the existing public housing, creating more housing options, upgrading public infrastructure, improving
pedestrian linkages and enhancing community services and amenities.
In 2011, the City Council adopted a Sunset Area Planned Action/Environmental Impact Statement to help facilitate
redevelopment and encourage private and public investment in the Sunset Area. This work specifically supports the
redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community, including the development of new affordable and
market‐rate housing, a new library and other public amenities on the Sunset Terrace property, as well as other public
and private investments elsewhere in the Sunset Area. The City has invested over $1.5 million for infrastructure needs
in the area and is dedicated to working with RHA, RSD and others to secure additional funding to revitalize the area.
The City of Renton strongly supports RHA’s continued pursuit of federal, state and King County funding for the Sunset
Terrace redevelopment project, which will act as a catalyst for further redevelopment in the Sunset Area. The City is
also seeking $3 million in transportation funding for safety and pedestrian improvements for the NE Sunset Boulevard
Corridor Improvements Project (SR‐900), stormwater funding through adopted grant programs; and if a capital budget
“Jobs Package” is developed, the City would pursue $500,000 for the Hillcrest Inclusive Playground, an accessible
playground in this community that will serve the region.
Public Safety
One significant side effect of the State’s recessionary economy is the increased pressure and stress it puts on families, and
the additional public safety challenges this poses. Renton is dealing with these challenges not only in terms of Part I crimes,
but in terms of increased incidences involving potential gang activity. The gang‐induced shootings in Kent in July 2011
amplified the need for new tools to combat the presence of gangs and the criminal activities they perpetrate and moreover,
the need for comprehensive approaches to preventing youth violence. Renton believes a key ingredient in addressing
gangs must lie with intervention and prevention to help troubled young adults and keep them from heading down a path of
gang membership and violence. In the 2012 Session, the City of Renton will:
Support gangs prevention legislation: Renton believes that in addition to penalties, intervention and prevention
strategies must be an integral component of addressing gang violence. Renton will work in coalition with communities
across the state in support of new tools, including reliable and dedicated funding, to combat gang violence.
Strengthening the Aerospace Industry
As the first city to join the Aerospace Futures Alliance (AFA), a founding member of the Washington Aerospace Partnership
(WAP), a founding member of the King County Aerospace Alliance and as a funder of the aerospace competitiveness study
being commissioned by the WAP, Renton strongly supports efforts to strengthen the aerospace industry across Washington
and increase jobs in this important sector. The City is working closely with The Boeing Company on its current increase in
production of the successful 737 Next Generation (NG) jetliner from the current 31.5 planes per month to 42 planes per
month by the second quarter of 2014. Renton is thrilled that Boeing and the Machinists union recently reached a landmark
agreement to ensure that the re‐engined 737 MAX is also built in Renton. Renton’s highest economic development priority
is to make every effort at the local, regional, state and federal levels to ensure the current 737 NG production ramp‐up and
the production of the 737 MAX re‐engined airplane are successful.
Renton appreciates the significant efforts made by the 2011 Legislature to assist The Boeing Company and other key
aerospace companies with workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance reform. Looking ahead, the City strongly
supports aerospace policy and funding efforts that involve expanding and strengthening workforce development, training
and education, including action items following the WAP’s Aerospace Competitiveness Study such as expanding the Launch
Year program and increasing engineering and aerospace mechanic training capacity; tax policies that encourage the growth
and long‐term health of the industry, including the extension of the pre‐production aerospace tax incentive; and improving
transportation infrastructure. Renton has been proud to be the home of The Boeing Company for 70 years. The first
commercial jet, the Boeing 707, was made in Renton, and the best selling jets in history have been assembled in Renton
ever since. Renton is now home to three of the company’s six business units: Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Capital
and Boeing’s Shared Services Group. Boeing’s Renton 737 operations account for nearly $7 billion (2.7%) of Washington’s
Gross State Product, 10.7% of the State’s exports abroad and over 45,000 direct and indirect jobs. Renton is also the home
of a diverse array of aerospace suppliers and a municipal airport that can be utilized to address Boeing’s expansion needs.
Renton will continue to support legislation that enables Boeing and other aerospace companies to thrive.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 13 of 178
1
City of Renton 2012 State Legislative Agenda
and Statement of Policy Positions
The City of Renton’s 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions are divided as
follows:
1. The 2012 State Legislative Agenda includes PRIORITY ISSUES – items Renton will devote its
highest level of advocacy toward achieving. These are outlined in a separate folio
handout.
2. The 2012 Statement of Policy Positions – SUPPORT/OPPOSE – items Renton considers
important. The City will use time and effort and join others in supporting beneficial
measures or opposing those which would have an adverse impact.
3. The 2012 Statement of Policy Positions – TRACK/MONITOR – issues the City will track and
monitor. As these issues evolve, the City may involve itself to a greater degree if necessary.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 14 of 178
2
City of Renton 2012 Statement of Policy Positions
Criminal Justice/Courts/Jails/Law Enforcement
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Protect criminal justice, law enforcement and courts funding: Renton will work closely with other
local agencies, law enforcement organizations and courts organizations to protect operating budget
funding for key criminal justice, law enforcement and courts priorities. These include municipal
criminal justice, auto theft prevention, law enforcement academy training, sex offender address
verification, public defense and court interpreters.
Traffic Safety Cameras – oppose pre-emption of local authority: Cities may see legislation in 2012 that
would limit the fines a local government may collect as part of any traffic safety camera program – and
could possibly dictate other operational aspects of the programs. Traffic safety cameras have had an
enormous impact on reducing the number of vehicles speeding through school zones. Local trends
show that the number of violations occurring in the City’s three school zones decreased by 30% from
2008 to 2010. Renton will join others in opposing pre-emption of local authority and work with other
jurisdictions on proposing sensible clarifications of existing law.
Vehicle Prowls – Cracking Down on Repeat Offenders: Renton will support SSB 5154 to increase the
penalty for repeat vehicle prowl offenders to a felony. Vehicle prowls are becoming a more significant
issue for Renton, particularly given the success the city and others have had in reducing automobile
theft.
Support legislation to add clarity and certainty for local jurisdictions regulating any future “collective
gardens” for medical marijuana users: Renton will support legislation that clarifies and reinforces local
government authority to condition and ban the establishment of “collective gardens” for medical
marijuana users.
Support legislation to protect public records related to the locations of home-alarm and
neighborhood crime watch information: Renton will support efforts by the Washington Association of
Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to protect the privacy of these sensitive records, which was
attempted through ESHB 1234 in 2011.
Support the establishment of a statewide electronic database for scrap metal transactions, and
strengthened penalties for metal theft: Renton will support legislation that strengthens penalties for
metal theft. Additionally, if 2012 legislation is brought forward to establish an industry-financed
statewide database to track scrap metal transactions, Renton will support such an initiative.
Allowing Municipal Courts to process civil warrant abatements for outdoor public nuisance
violations: Renton will support this legislative initiative being put forth by the City of Spokane.
Funding for medical costs incurred by jail offenders: Renton will support efforts by AWC and others to
obtain assistance.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 15 of 178
3
TRACK/MONITOR
Schools mapping: Renton will track efforts by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
to obtain additional state funding for the mapping of K-12 schools and higher education institutions for
emergency preparedness purposes.
Requiring Municipal Courts to take on Anti-Harassment Orders (AHOs) and Domestic Violence
Protection Orders (DVPOs): If legislation arises to turn this local-discretion authority into a
requirement for Municipal Courts, Renton will track it.
Weapons restrictions: Renton will track efforts to enact state restrictions on weapons usage, sales and
storage.
Economic Development/Infrastructure/Parks & Recreation/Housing/Arts & Culture
SUPPORT/MONITOR
“Jobs” Package within the Capital Budget: Renton is prepared to support a potential jobs-and-
infrastructure package if the 2012 Legislature looks at creating one through the Capital Budget. As
details emerge, Renton will closely review the categories and financing sources of any such proposal.
Tax-Increment Financing (TIF), Local Revitalization Financing (LRF): Renton has been fortunate to
successfully compete for matching state funding of two local economic revitalization projects through
the LRF program. The City will strongly support a legislative initiative to create a more robust and
ongoing “TIF” tool in state law, or, failing that, the reauthorization of the LRF program.
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), Washington Wildlife, Recreation & Parks Program (WWRP): Renton
will support efforts by local governments, contractors, water-sewer districts, and others to ensure the
PWTF is protected to the maximum extent possible. Similarly, the City will join others in working to
protect WWRP funding. WWRP is vital in assisting local parks agencies with funding for local parks and
trails, water access projects, and more.
Funding for Affordable Housing: Renton will support efforts to pass ESHB 2048 to provide stable and
expanded funding for homelessness and low-income housing assistance and efforts to preserve funding
for the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and the Transitional Housing, Ownership and Rental assistance (THOR)
program. The Housing Trust Fund helps construct affordable housing, leverages other resources and
provides a critical catalyst for investment and job creation that helps stimulate the economy.
Impact Fees Waiver for Affordable Housing: Renton will support legislation, including HB 1398/SB
5524, to no longer require waived impact fees for affordable housing development projects to be paid
for from other public funds. Current law has made such waivers too prohibitive.
“Healthy & Sustainable Communities” Initiative: Renton has been involved in the development of a
Healthy & Sustainable Communities initiative among representatives of parks and recreation, Realtors,
cities and counties, public health entities, the American Heart Association, the Obesity Coalition,
environmental groups, farmers market leaders and others. The initiative calls for maintained funding of
several operating, capital and transportation budget programs such as public health, community
recreation, WWRP and Safe Routes to School, food and nutrition programs that help people stay active
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 16 of 178
4
and healthy, make more efficient use of the “built environment,” and hopefully help to reverse the
obesity epidemic that leads to increased heart disease, coronary problems and diabetes.
TRACK/MONITOR
“Harmonizing” the allowable uses of the first and second one-quarter percent for Real Estate Excise
Tax (REET): While it is not expected that any 2012 legislative initiatives will surface in this area, Renton
would support any legislation that allows the same broad set of uses for the second one-quarter
percent of REET that is already authorized under state law for the first one-quarter percent of REET.
Education/Workforce Development
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
The City supports fulfillment of the State’s “paramount duty” to fully fund basic education costs
including transportation, building and utility costs, fully fund six-period high school days so students can
meet graduation requirements within four years, fully fund all-day kindergarten for at risk students,
and begin implementation of funding the prototypical school formula components identified by the
Quality Education Committee. In 2010, the Legislature approved HB 2261, HB 2776 and SB 6696, which
all made important commitments in basic education reform policy. The City supports efforts to follow
through with the scheduled funding, while also protecting current education funding. During these
challenging economic times, the City supports school district leaders’ requests to repeal or delay
unfunded and partially funded mandates that could relieve districts of pressure in order to allow them
to continue to focus on student learning.
The City recognizes that its success increasingly depends on an educated and flexible workforce for all
of its employers, public and private alike. Employers need well educated and highly skilled employees
to grow and thrive. Because all students must be prepared to enter the globally competitive workforce,
the City supports efforts to adequately fund education reform and to preserve funding for higher
education. The State’s investment should:
o Further strengthen accountability – measurable performance should be ensured at all levels of
education.
o Attract and retain quality teachers and address the shortage of educators in the fields of
mathematics, science, special education, early learning and bilingual studies.
o Create a more competitive workforce by expanding funding for FTE enrollment at all levels of
higher education and prioritizing offerings toward jobs and industries of the future and high-
demand fields.
o Maintain state need grants and strive for affordability for all students
o Encourage stronger coordination of workforce development between K-12 and post-secondary
education entities and base targets on employer and economic demands.
Employee Services Issues/LEOFF/PERS
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Oppose pension enhancements that add new costs – and fully fund pension responsibilities: Renton
will follow the lead of the AWC in opposing pension enhancements that would add new costs to local
governments, while at the same time urging the state to fully fund existing pension responsibilities.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 17 of 178
5
Reforms to better manage personnel and labor costs: Renton will support initiatives put forth by AWC
and others to help better manage personnel and labor costs.
“Presumptive disease” for police: If 2012 legislative initiatives are brought forward to expand the
reach of “presumptive disease” laws to police employees and spouses of police employees, it will
present cost impacts and concerns for Renton. The City will work through AWC in this area.
Environmental Issues/Utilities/Water/Stormwater
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
New Municipal Stormwater Permit: The Department of Ecology is preparing a new National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit to be issued in June 2012.
Renton will work with others to ensure any new permit requirements are reasonable and affordable,
and do not conflict with other state goals related to growth management and economic development.
Puget Sound Action Agenda/Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan: The City will support efforts by the
Puget Sound Partnership and King County Water Resource Inventory Areas to establish dedicated
funding to implement the Puget Sound Action Agenda and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
Stormwater Funding: Renton will continue to support efforts to help cities more reliably fund National
Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater obligations, very costly
requirements of the Clean Water Act. Funding for stormwater is a key to meeting the federally-
mandated, state-administered requirements. The City will also join AWC and others in working to
ensure that any stormwater monitoring requirements come with adequate funding to implement them.
Water Rights Fees: Renton understands the Department of Ecology’s need for reasonable fee increases
to operate its Water Resources Program and process water rights requests. However, the City will join
others in opposing legislation that goes beyond cost-of-service and does not equitably spread any
proposed charges among all user groups.
TRACK/MONITOR
Extending the current “Product Stewardship” program to prescription and pharmaceutical drug
disposal: The Legislature established the Product Stewardship as a manufacturer-financed program to
allow for the environmentally safe disposal of products such as electronics and lights that contain
mercury. King County Solid Waste and others have been proposing an expansion of the program to
include prescription and pharmaceutical drug disposal. Renton will track these efforts.
Fire Prevention and Emergency Services
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) levy renewals: If Fire Chiefs bring forward 2012 legislation to allow
EMS levies to be renewed with a 50 percent plus one voter-approval threshold (vs. the current 60
percent), Renton will support the effort.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 18 of 178
6
Oppose any budget-balancing proposal that would require new licensing fees for Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMTs): Renton and other fire agencies opposed and headed off this proposed unfunded
mandate when it was proposed in prior legislative sessions. The City would continue to join other local
fire agencies in opposing such a proposal.
TRACK/MONITOR
North Bend Fire Training Academy upgrades: Renton will track any efforts to obtain additional capital
funding for the Fire Training Academy in North Bend.
Technical fixes to “no-man’s land” legislation: Renton will track an expected 2012 technical fix effort
on the “no-man’s land” legislation that specifies how fire agencies will respond to fires and
emergencies in areas that are outside of corporate or Urban Growth Area boundaries.
Fiscal Issues
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Oppose unfunded mandates, legislation that erodes local authority and/or legislation that erodes
local tax revenue: This is an annual staple of the City’s Legislative Agenda and directly relates to the
“basic premises” upon which the annual Legislative Agenda is built.
Legislation to clarify that state and local sales tax exemptions for “local phone service” were not
meant to include cellular phone service: Renton will strongly support an expected legislative fix to this
issue, which has arisen through the Sprint case that is proceeding through the judicial process.
Support legislative changes to help local governments operate more efficiently and reduce costs: The
Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) are
proposing to the Governor and Legislature a series of ideas to help local governments operate more
efficiently, reduce or delay cost impacts or relieve cost burdens altogether. One example is expected
legislation to reduce costly duplication within the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Renton will
support these efficiency and cost-reduction efforts.
Oppose countywide utility tax authority, but support unincorporated area utility tax: For many years,
King County and other counties have been pursuing legislation to provide counties some of the utility
taxing authority that is currently granted only to cities. A countywide utility tax would result in a
“double tax” on city residents who already pay this tax, and Renton would thus oppose it. However,
the City will support any legislative initiative to establish unincorporated area utility tax authority for
counties, particularly if a portion of the revenue is dedicated to assisting with the transition costs for
the annexation of urban unincorporated areas.
TRACK/MONITOR
Efforts to restrict business license authority and “centralize” the collection of municipal B&O taxes at
the state level: Renton joins AWC and others in opposing efforts to restrict the business licensing
authority of cities. Meanwhile, the Governor’s Office may propose a new initiative to centralize the
collection of municipal B&O taxes at the state level. Renton does not impose a local B&O and thus will
simply track this effort.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 19 of 178
7
General Government
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Protecting bidding laws and contracting authority: Renton will join other local governments in
working to protect local government authority in contracting and bidding laws.
Public records cost recovery: Renton strongly supports the public’s right to obtain public records
related to local government operations, and strives to comply with the law in a very transparent
manner. However, the City is concerned about the mounting costs from some voluminous records
requests, especially in areas such as public safety and criminal justice where the City has had to hire
staff dedicated solely to processing these requests. Renton would thus support legislation to better
enable local agencies to recover the costs associated with certain large and complex records requests.
TRACK/MONITOR
Limiting local government liability: Renton will monitor legislative efforts to limit local government
liability, for example, by addressing current “joint and several” liability laws that are far-reaching in
scope.
Growth Management/Land Use and Permitting
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Reduce duplication/overlap within SEPA: Renton will support a 2012 legislative initiative that seeks to
reduce the duplication and overlaps within substantive provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and land use codes that already provide targeted environmental and natural resources
protections.
Pre-emption local siting of small alternative energy facilities: Renton will join AWC, counties and
other local agencies in opposing any legislation that would seek to pre-empt local authority over the
siting of small alternative-energy facilities.
Local zoning control over location of mini-casinos: Renton will support legislation to explicitly clarify
cities’ authority to zone the location of mini-casinos and to grandfather in existing zoning restrictions.
TRACK/MONITOR
Timing of when impact fees are collected: Renton will track legislation likely to be brought forth by the
Master Builders Association which attempts to mandate that impact fees for residential housing
developments be collected at the time of sale or closing on homes, rather than at the time of permit
issuance. While the City generally opposes new mandates or pre-emption of local control, it hopes to
work on provisions that would grandfather any local ordinances that already delay the collection of
impact fees – as Renton is proposing to do (currently under consideration by the City Council).
Changes to Energy Codes: Renton will track any possible legislative effort that looks to slow or revise
current Energy Codes.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 20 of 178
8
Human and Social Services
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Full funding of “2-1-1” system: Renton will support continued efforts to obtain state funds to help fully
fund the new 2-1-1 emergency communications system to help seniors, the disabled and vulnerable
populations within Washington State access social services.
Public health funding: Renton will support efforts to preserve funding for Seattle-King County Public
Health. A strong public health system promotes a healthier community and prevents and protects
against injury and disease.
Energy assistance for low-income residents: During economic down times, the demand for low-
income energy assistance rises dramatically. Renton will support state partnership funding for energy
assistance for low-income residents.
Telecommunications
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Oppose statewide franchise fee authority: In 2009, Verizon approached the Legislature, seeking
enactment of a statewide franchising structure for cable and video services. Had the legislation
succeeded, it would have pre-empted local franchising authority that guides cable service in Renton
and other local markets around the state. While it does not appear that such a legislative initiative is
being pursued in 2012, Renton will join AWC in strongly opposing this attack on local control.
Transportation/Transit
SUPPORT/OPPOSE
Regional Mobility Grant Program: In collaboration with King County/METRO, Renton intends to pursue
a Regional Mobility Grant for the extension of the Bus Rapid Transit “F Line,” which is currently slated
for service from Burien through SeaTac and Tukwila to Renton’s Downtown Transit Center, starting in
2013. The City supported METRO’s recently successful federal funding request for the capital needs for
the F Line. The City is working jointly with METRO on strategies to fund the operational needs of
extending the proposed F Line from the Downtown Transit Center to The Landing and Boeing’s Renton
Plant.
Support legislation to provide cities more authority to set speed limits for state highway segments
running through local communities: Legislation in this area was proposed in 2011, and may resurface
in 2012. Renton will support this initiative.
7c. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of the 2012 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Page 21 of 178
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Fee Waiver Request – Glennwood Townhomes
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Rocale Timmons, x7219
Recommended Action:
Refer to Planning and Development Committee
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $0
Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $0
Total Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ 0
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) has requested a waiver of the development and mitigation fees for
the Glennwood Townhomes, an 8-unit four-bedroom affordable housing development project in the
Sunset Area. The project is located a half-block northwest of Sunset Terrace and is RHA’s first
replacement housing project for the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment. The “Waived Fees - Rental
Housing Incentive,” RMC 4-1-210C, was adopted in August, 2011, in order to encourage new multi-
family rental housing in the Sunset Area. As provided for in RMC 4-1-210C, RHA has requested that the
following fees be waived for the Glennwood Townhomes project: building permits fees; building permit
plan review fees; water, surface water and wastewater system development charges; public works plan
review and inspection fees; and fire, transportation and parks impact mitigation fees. The Glennwood
Townhomes project meets the parameters of RMC 4-1-210C. Since 100% of the units will be set aside
as rental housing for households at or below 60% of the median income, the project is eligible for a
100% fee waiver of the above development and mitigation fees. Per RMC 4-1-210C.6, RHA is required to
record and execute a restrictive covenant regarding the affordable housing unit set aside after the
Council approves the fee waiver and before the project is issued a building permit, unless otherwise
approved by the Council. Since the Council’s action on the fee waiver request will likely occur after the
building permit is issued for the project, staff recommends that the Council allow RHA to establish and
record the restrictive covenant prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Glennwood
Townhomes. The Glennwood Townhomes fee waiver will assist RHA in providing new affordable rental
housing, encourage other capital investment in the area, and support the City’s ongoing redevelopment
efforts in the Sunset Area. The Glennwood Townhomes fee waiver supports the City’s vision as the
“Center of Opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and families thrive”, several 2011-
2016 Business Plan Goals and the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a 100% waiver of the development and mitigation fees for the Renton Housing Authority’s
Glennwood Townhomes, and direct staff to establish and record a restrictive covenant regarding the
affordable housing unit set aside prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project.
7d. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval to waive all development and mitigation fees for the Renton Page 22 of 178
7d. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval to waive all development and mitigation fees for the Renton Page 23 of 178
c:\users\msantosjohnson\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet
files\content.outlook\4axel9ih\glennwood townhomes waiver issue paper.doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:November 28, 2011
TO:Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Alex Pietsch, Administrator (x 6592)
STAFF CONTACT:Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner (x7219)
SUBJECT:Request for Fee Waiver – Glennwood Townhomes
ISSUE:
Should the City waive certain development and mitigation fees for the Renton Housing
Authority’s Glennwood Townhomes?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a 100% waiver of the development and mitigation fees as provided for in RMC
4-1-210C for the Renton Housing Authority’s Glennwood Townhomes, a 8-unit
affordable housing development in the Sunset Area, and direct staff to establish and
record a restrictive covenant regarding the affordable housing unit set aside prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the project.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) has requested a waiver of the development and
mitigation fees for the Glennwood Townhomes, a 8-unit four-bedroom affordable
housing development project in the Sunset Area. (Exhibit 1). The project is located a
half-block northwest of Sunset Terrace and is RHA’s first replacement housing project
for the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment. The Glennwood Townhomes is one of
many community enhancements envisioned by the City of Renton’s Sunset Area
Community Investment Strategy which was adopted by the Council in fall 2009. The
project has received site plan approval for construction at 1139 and 1147 Glennwood
Ave NE and is scheduled to start construction shortly. RHA has made a commitment to
use all eight units as affordable housing for households at or below 60% of median
income (i.e., five of the units will be set aside for households at or below 50% of the
median income and three units will be set aside for households at or below 30% of the
median income).
The “Waived Fees - Rental Housing Incentive,” RMC 4-1-201C, was adopted on August 1,
2011, in order to encourage new rental housing in the CV, RM-F, and R-14 zones within
the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation (Exhibit 3). The Sunset Area
7d. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval to waive all development and mitigation fees for the Renton Page 24 of 178
Don Persson, Council President
Page 2 of 3
November 28, 2011
c:\users\msantosjohnson\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet
files\content.outlook\4axel9ih\glennwood townhomes waiver issue paper.doc
Community Investment Strategy directed staff to implement the recommendations and
prioritization of projects therein as resources become available. The fee waiver is
intended to provide an incentive for redevelopment in the Sunset Area and encourage
new multi-family rental housing.
As provided for in RMC 4-1-210C, RHA has requested that the following fees be waived
for the Glennwood Townhomes project: building permits fees; building permit plan
review fees; water, surface water and wastewater system development charges; public
works plan review and inspection fees; and fire, transportation and parks impact
mitigation fees.
The Glennwood Townhomes project meets the parameters of RMC 4-1-210C, “Waived
Fees,” in that it is a minimum of eight units, is new construction affordable rental
housing, and is within the Residential-14 du/ac (R-14) zoning classification. (Exhibit 2)
Since 100% of the units in the Glennwood Townhomes will be used as rental housing for
households at or below 60% of the median income, the project is eligible for a 100% fee
waiver of the above development and mitigation fees.
The projected total fees for the Glennwood Townhomes are $64,976. If waived, these
fees would represent a savings of $8,122 per unit for the developer. (Exhibit 4)
Per RMC 4-1-210C5, a fee waiver request for an eligible project must be made prior to or
by the administrative site plan review period unless otherwise approved by the Council.
Since the Council’s adoption of the fee waiver did not occur until after the
administrative site plan review period for the Glennwood Townhomes, staff
recommends that the Council accept the delayed request from RHA and approve the
project for the eligible development and mitigation fees. Since RHA has already paid
some of the applicable fees, staff will need to refund such fees if the Council approves
the fee waiver as recommended.
Per RMC 4-1-210C6, RHA is required to execute and record a restrictive covenant
regarding the affordable housing unit set aside after the Council approves the fee waiver
and before the project is issued a building permit, unless otherwise approved by the
Council. RHA held a groundbreaking for the Glennwood Townhomes on October 17,
2011, and plans to start construction on the project shortly. Since the Council’s action
on the fee waiver request will likely occur after the building permit is issued for the
project, staff recommends that the Council allow RHA to establish and record the
restrictive covenant prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the
Glennwood Townhomes.
CONCLUSION:
RHA’s Glennwood Townhomes, a new 8-unitaffordable rental housing development in
the Sunset Area, meet the criteria for waiver of certain development and mitigation fees
as provided for in RMC 4-1-210C. The fee waiver will assist RHA in providing new
affordable rental housing, encourage other capital investment in the area, and support
7d. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval to waive all development and mitigation fees for the Renton Page 25 of 178
Don Persson, Council President
Page 3 of 3
November 28, 2011
c:\users\msantosjohnson\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet
files\content.outlook\4axel9ih\glennwood townhomes waiver issue paper.doc
the City’s ongoing redevelopment efforts in the Sunset Area. The Glennwood
Townhomes fee waiver supports the City’s vision as the “Center of Opportunity in the
Puget Sound region where businesses and families thrive”, several 2011-2016 Business
Plan Goals and the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy.
cc: C. E. “Chip” Vincent, Planning Director
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Suzanne Dale Estey, Economic Development Director
Mark Santos-Johnson, Senior Economic Development Specialist
7d. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval to waive all development and mitigation fees for the Renton Page 26 of 178
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Second Interagency Agreement with King County
for Renton Avenue Business District
Improvements Project in West Hill/Skyway
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
Interagency Agreement
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Community and Economic Development
Staff Contact:
Suzanne Dale Estey x6591
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ $727,000 Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $$727,000
Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The West Hill/Skyway area of unincorporated King County is part of Renton's potential annexation area,
and is currently scheduled for an annexation vote in November 2012. West Hill has areas of neglected
infrastructure, significant housing and human services needs, crime, and social and public health
challenges that require many resources to address – more than any single organization has been able to
provide. The Renton Avenue Business District Improvements Project will help revitalize the Renton
Avenue South corridor through streetscape and drainage improvements, bicycle lanes and pedestrian
enhancements to help create a more safe, attractive, walkable business district along Renton Avenue
between 75th Avenue South and 76th Avenue South and will create a streetscape that it is hoped will
help stimulate development, and ultimately create an area that is alive with activity and vibrant with a
mix of commercial uses including healthy small, neighborhood businesses.
As part of its pursuit of funding for the West Hill, in 2010 the City requested $2 million and the
Washington State Legislature appropriated $250,000 for the West Hill/Skyway Business District
Improvements Project. In 2011, the City again requested $2 million and the State Legislature
appropriated $750,000 for the project. This funding is being coupled with an additional $182,495 in
federal CDBG funding obtained by the King County Department of Transportation (KCDOT). King County
is the lead agency on the project and is responsible for final design and construction, as well as
maintenance. The County and the City entered into a first interagency agreement April 29, 2011 for
$243,750 ($250,000 minus an administrative fee paid to the State). This second interagency agreement
allows for the transfer of the second state grant of $727,000 ($750,000 minus an administrative fee
paid to the State) to King County. Both agreements require collaborative design and community
engagement work between the County and the City. The community design workshops were
already jointly conducted by King County and the City, and all public communications about the
project have been well coordinated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a second Interagency Agreement with King County for the Renton Avenue Business District
Improvements Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign it. 7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 27 of 178
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 28 of 178
1
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RENTON
REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO
RENTON AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN 75TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 76TH AVENUE
SOUTH – Phase 1A
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between King County, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington (“the County"), and the City of Renton (“the City"), a
non-charter code city under RCW 35A.03, and a municipal corporation in the State of
Washington, regarding improvements to Renton Avenue South in unincorporated King County.
The County and the City are collectively referred to as “the Parties.”
RECITALS
A.The County has a capital improvement project (CIP #M56321) to design and construct
pedestrian improvements (“the Project”), in unincorporated King County.
B.The Project is located on the east side of Renton Avenue South between 75th Avenue South
and 76th Avenue South in the City’s West Hill Potential Annexation Area (the “PAA”).
C.The County and the City entered into an agreement April 29, 2011 regarding improvements to
Renton Avenue South between 75th Avenue South and 76th Avenue South. As required by
this agreement, the County and the City developed and implemented a joint public information
and involvement process. Citizen input from the joint public involvement process resulted in
an expanded scope of work for the Project. The new scope of work is described in Section 2
of this Agreement.
D.The King County Department of Housing and Community Development awarded the King
County Road Services an $182,495 Community Development Block Grant for design and
partial funding of the improvements.
E.The City obtained a grant for $243,750 from the Washington State Department of Commerce
(WSDOC) to construct the first phase of the Project, as described in the Agreement of April
29, 2011.
F.The City has obtained additional funding from WSDOC to construct the expanded scope of
work for the Project. The total grant amount the City has obtained for Phase 1A is $727,000.
A cost estimate for the expanded scope is attached in Exhibit A. Exhibit A also shows
available funding from these grants to complete the Project.
G.It is in the best interest of the County and the City to establish a lead agency to coordinate the
Project and to provide for the design, construction and contract administration for the Project.
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 29 of 178
2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions, the Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1.PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the Parties' respective rights, roles and
responsibilities relating to the Project.
2.SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for the Project includes an eight foot wide pervious concrete sidewalk,
a five foot wide landscaping strip, an eight foot parking lane, and a gateway community
identification feature. The Project length is 1,200 feet.
3 GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 All improvements related to the Project shall be consistent with the King County
Road Standards and all applicable requirements including but not limited to King County
Code Titles 14 and 21A.
3.2 The County shall be the lead agency for the Project with regard to plans,
specifications, estimates (PS&E), environmental review and permitting and construction.
3.2.1 The County shall submit a Project schedule to the City after the preferred
alternative has been selected. This schedule will identify major milestones and timelines,
including but not limited to the following: 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% design documents,
environmental review, project permitting, advertisement for bid and award of bid,
construction duration, and final acceptance of the Project. The County and the City's tasks
shall be identified in the Project schedule. The City shall review this schedule, and the
schedule may be periodically amended with the approval of the Parties.
3.2.1.1 After the County produces the 30 percent design documents, the
City shall notify the County of any variances it may request from the 2007 King County
Road Design and Construction Standards for the design of the Project.
3.2.1.2 Any variance from King County Road Standards shall be reviewed
by the County Road Engineer in accordance with the variance requirements of Section
1.12 of the King County Road Standards.
3.2.1.3 The City shall be responsible for all additional costs related to
City-requested variances that exceed the Project budget.
3.2.1.4 The County will process design variances during the 30 to 70
percent design phases. Approval of such variances shall remain the sole discretion of the
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 30 of 178
3
County Road Engineer. The County shall provide the City with a written explanation for
any variance decision.
3.3 The County shall update the City on its progress in designing and constructing the
Project at a joint meeting that shall occur no less frequently than every 30 days.
3.4 The County hereby grants the City right of entry into the jurisdiction of the County
for the purpose of performing any and all tasks necessary to implement this Agreement.
3.5 The County Road Services Division Director or designee and the City Public
Works Administrator or designee shall serve as liaison for the purpose of this Agreement.
The designated contact persons shall meet on an “as needed” basis to provide guidance
for the Project and serve as a coordination body between the Parties.
4.CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BIDDING
4.1 The County shall provide the City a minimum of one copy of the plans and
specifications advertised for bid, and an electronic file of the contract documents.
4.2 The County shall advertise the contract in the official legal publication for the
County and if necessary other publications to provide the widest possible coverage
commensurate with the size of the Project.
4.3 The County shall open the bids and shall notify the City of the time and date of
the bid opening, which is typically two to three weeks after the Project is advertised. The
City may attend the opening of the bids.
4.4 The County shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder for the total
Project subject to applicable laws and regulations.
4.5 The County shall require that the City is included as an additional insured on the
contractor(s) insurance policy(s), and that the City is included in the contract(s)
indemnification provisions and receives the same protection as received by the County.
4.6 The County shall be responsible for following all applicable Federal, State and
local laws, rules and regulations in the expenditure of the funds to be paid by the City to
the County in connection with the Project. The County assures the City that its
procedures are consistent with applicable laws relating to public contract bidding
procedures, and the City neither incurs nor assumes any responsibility for the County’s
bid, award or contracting process.
4.7 In connection with this Agreement, neither the County nor any Party contracting
or subcontracting in connection with the Project shall discriminate on the basis of race,
color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age or the
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in employment or application for
employment or in the administration of the delivery of services or any other benefits
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 31 of 178
4
under this Agreement. The County shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State,
and local laws, ordinances, executive orders and regulations that prohibit such
discrimination.
5.CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
5.1 The County shall provide the necessary engineering, administrative, inspection,
clerical and other services necessary for the completion of the Project.
5.2 The City may furnish an inspector (at the City’s expense) to monitor compliance
with requirements during the construction of the Project. The City’s inspector shall advise
the County of any deficiencies noted. The County shall take any necessary action to
resolve the deficiencies noted by the City’s inspector. The City’s inspector shall not
communicate directly with or instruct the Project contractor directly on any matters.
5.3 Prior to the Project completion, the Parties shall perform a mutual final inspection
of the Project. The City may provide a written deficiency list to the County within ten
working days after the final inspection. The list shall contain only construction
deficiencies that are out of compliance with the contract specifications and shall cite the
specification that it considers to be at issue in the deficiency. Final acceptance of the
Project shall be by the County Road Engineer or designee.
5.4 The County represents to the City that it has or will have adequate supervision for
those participating in the Project and that all applicable rules, regulations, statutes and
ordinances will be complied with in their entirety.
6.PAYMENT
6.1 The City’s total financial contribution to the County to fund the Project shall not
exceed the amount of the City’s WSDOC grants with the exception of additional costs the
City agrees to contribute in accordance with Section 3.2. The City’s WSDOC grants of
$243,750 and $727,000 total $970,750.
6.2 The County shall bill the City on no more than a monthly basis. All costs shall be
due within 30 days of the billing date.
6.3 Billings shall be based on the County’s progress payment request to the
contractor. The County shall include a copy of this progress payment request with their
billing.
6.4 The County shall include in the billing any additional costs to the City associated
with the provisions of Section 3.2.
6.5 The County shall expend the City’s contribution in accordance with the funding
requirements of the City’s WSDOC grants.
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 32 of 178
5
6.6 The County shall provide the City with all necessary documentation that the City
requires to meet its grant obligation to WSDOC.
6.7 The City shall provide the County with funding requirements as described in the
City’s WSDOC grants.
7.DURATION/TERMINATION
7.1 This Agreement shall remain in effect until final acceptance of the Project and
payment by the City of all monies due from the City to the County.
7.2 If the grants awarded to the City are withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way, or
if Federal funding requirements affect the Project, prior to the completion of the Project,
either Party may, with thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party, terminate this
Agreement.
7.3 In the event of termination prior to completion of the Project, the Party requesting
termination shall pay any outstanding contractual obligations at the time of termination.
Payable termination costs shall not exceed the actual costs incurred as a result of
termination of this Agreement.
7.4 Either Party may terminate this Agreement for default in the event the other Party
materially breaches this Agreement. Termination shall be effected by serving a Notice of
Termination by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the other Party setting forth the
manner in which said Party is in default and the effective date of termination, which shall
not be less than fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the notice; provided,
however, such termination shall not take effect if the default has been cured within seven
(7) calendar days after the date of the notice of termination. Neither Party may serve a
Notice of Termination until they have exhausted the dispute resolution provisions set
forth in Section 9.1.
8.LIABILITY
Each Party shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the other Party, its officers,
officials, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their employment as
such, from any and all suits, costs, claims, actions, losses, penalties, judgments, and/or
awards of damages, of whatsoever kind arising out of, or in connection with, or incident
to the services associated with this Contract caused by or resulting from each Party's own
negligent acts or omissions. Each Party agrees that it is fully responsible for the acts and
omissions of its own subcontractors, their employees and agents, acting within the scope
of their employment as such, as it is for the acts and omissions of its own employees and
agents. Each Party agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim,
demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or
agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a
waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title
51, as respects the other Party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 33 of 178
6
indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor’s
employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated
and agreed upon by them.
9.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
9.1 In the event of a contractual dispute between the Parties regarding this
Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the matter informally. If the Parties are
unable to resolve the matter informally, the matter shall be forwarded for discussions to
the Director of King County’s Road Services Division, and the City Manager, or their
respective designee(s). If this process fails to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days
after such referral, a Party may pursue any legal remedy available or the Parties may
agree to submit the matter to mediation or other alternate dispute resolution.
9.2 If the Parties submit the matter to alternate dispute resolution and the matter is not
resolved, a Party shall be entitled to pursue any legal remedy available in a court of law.
In the event that any of the parties deem it necessary to institute legal actions or
proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties hereto
agree that any such action shall be initiated in King County Superior Court of the State of
Washington. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Washington. The City hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of
the King County Superior Court of the State of Washington.
9.3 Unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the Parties in writing, both the City and
the County shall continue to perform all their respective obligations under this Agreement
during the resolution of the dispute.
10.AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
10.1 The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement
shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County or the City during the term
of this Agreement and three years after termination.
10.2 Audits and inspections shall be the responsibility of the County. The City shall
support the County in meeting audit and inspection requirements.
11.OTHER PROVISIONS
11.1 Severability. A determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that any
provision of this Agreement or any part thereof is illegal or unenforceable shall not
cancel or invalidate the remainder of such provision of this Agreement, which shall
remain in full force and effect.
11.2 Interpretation. The captions of the Sections or Paragraphs of this Agreement are
not a part of the terms or provisions of this Agreement. Whenever required by the
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 34 of 178
7
context of this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include
the singular. The masculine, feminine and neuter genders shall each include the other.
11.3 Waivers. All waivers shall be in writing and signed by the waiving Party. Either
Party’s failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver and shall
not prevent either Party from enforcing that provision or any other provision of this
Agreement in the future.
11.4 Waiver of breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of any prior or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification
of the terms of this Agreement.
11.5 Force Majeure. If either Party cannot perform any of its obligations due to events
beyond its reasonable control (other than the payment of money), the time provided for
performing such obligations shall be extended by a period of time equal to the duration of
such events. Events beyond a Party’s reasonable control include, but are not limited to,
acts of God, war, civil commotion, labor disputes, strikes, fire, flood or other casualty,
shortages of labor or materials, government regulations or restrictions and weather
conditions.
11.6.Joint Drafting Effort. This Contract shall be considered for all purposes as
prepared by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one Party or
the other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of
negotiation, drafting or execution hereof.
11.7 Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits in the Agreement to anyone other than the City
and the County, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement
will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City and the County and not for the
benefit of any other Party
11.8 This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any
representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not incorporated herein are
excluded.
11.9 This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing, duly executed
by both Parties.
12.INSURANCE
12.1 Each Party shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
or self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which
may arise from or in connection with performance of the work hereunder by each
Party, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
12.2 No Limitation. Neither Party’s maintenance of insurance as required by the
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 35 of 178
8
Agreement shall not be construed to limit that Party’s liability to the amount of
coverage required by this Agreement.
12.3 Minimum Scope and limit of Insurance. Each Party shall obtain insurance of the
types and at the limits described below:
12.3.1 Automobile Liability insurance at $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per
occurrence.
12.3.2 Commercial General Liability insurance at $1,000,000 per occurrence and
$2,000,000 aggregate, including Employers Liability at $1,000,000 per
occurrence.
12.3.3 Workers’ Compensation coverage at statutory limits.
12.4 Verification of Coverage
12.4.1 Each Party shall furnish the other with certificates and a copy of the
amendatory endorsements if any.
12.4.2 King County, a charter county government under the constitution of the
State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “County,” maintains a
fully funded Self-Insurance program as defined in King County Code 4.12
for the protection and handling of the County’s liabilities including
injuries to persons and damage to property.
The City acknowledges, agrees and understands that the County is
self-funded for all of its liability exposures. The County agrees, at its own
expense, to maintain, through its self-funded program, coverage for all of
its liability exposures for this Agreement. The County agrees to provide
the City with at least 30 days prior written notice of any material change in
the County’s self-funded program and will provide the City with a
certificate of self-insurance as adequate proof of coverage. The City
further acknowledges, agrees and understands that the County does not
purchase Commercial General Liability insurance and is a self-insured
governmental entity; therefore the County does not have the ability to add
the City as an additional insured.
Should the County elect to cease self-insuring its liability exposures and
purchase Commercial General Liability insurance, County agrees to add
the City as an additional insured.
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 36 of 178
9
12.4.2 It is agreed that the City of Renton’s participation in a governmental
self-insured risk pool, with Washington Cities Insurance Authority will
meet the requirements of Section 12.3.
The County acknowledges, agrees and understands that the City of Renton
is self-funded for all of its liability exposures. The City of Renton agrees, at
its own expense, to maintain, through its self-funded program, coverage for
all of its liability exposures for this Agreement. The City of Renton agrees
to provide the County with at least 30 days prior written notice of any
material change in the City’s self-funded program and will provide the
County with an evidence of coverage letter as adequate proof of coverage.
The County further acknowledges, agrees and understands that the City of
Renton does not purchase Commercial General Liability insurance and is
with a self-insured pool; therefore the City of Renton does not have the
ability to add the County as an additional insured. The City of Renton is
Self Insured for worker compensation
Should the City of Renton elect to cease self-insuring its liability exposures
and purchase Commercial General Liability insurance, the City agrees to
add the County as an additional insured.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effective as of the date
last written below.
KING COUNTY
CITY OF RENTON
Paulette Norman
Interim King County Road Services Division
Director
Insert signatory’s name and title
Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney
Date Date
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 37 of 178
10
EXHIBIT A
7e. ‐ Community and Economic Development Department recommends
approval of a second interagency agreement in the amount of $727,000 Page 38 of 178
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement for the
South Lake Washington Roadway and Intersection
Improvements
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
Grant Agreement with the Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Juliana Fries, Program Development
Coordinator, Extension 7232
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $
Amount Budgeted: $ $200,000 (2011-2012)Revenue Generated: $$1,755,500
Total Project Budget: $ $2,194,370 (construction)City Share Total Project: $ 0
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The South Lake Washington Roadway and Intersection Improvements Project was selected under the
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Rapid Action Program for a grant of $1,755,500,
with a 20 percent match required. Match will be provided by remaining project funds and by
reallocating funds from: a) Project Development and Pre-design Program ($100K); b) Arterial Circulation
Program ($160K); c) Bike Route Program ($40K); and, d) WSDOT Coordination Program ($20K). The
reallocation will be done as part of the 2012 carryforward budget adjustment.
The project will construct roadway improvements at the intersection of Garden Avenue North/Logan
Avenue North/Lake Washington Blvd/North Park Drive and the widening of Garden Avenue North from
the referenced intersection to North 10th Street. The project will improve traffic safety, accessibility,
connectivity and level of service at this major intersection. The project will also improve truck and
freight mobility by widening Garden Avenue North.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the
Transportation Improvement Board for the obligation of grant funding and all subsequent agreements
necessary to accomplish construction of this project
7f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax
Grant Distribution Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington Page 39 of 178
7f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax
Grant Distribution Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington Page 40 of 178
7f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax
Grant Distribution Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington Page 41 of 178
7f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax
Grant Distribution Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington Page 42 of 178
7f. ‐ Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a Fuel Tax
Grant Distribution Agreement to accept $1,755,500 from the Washington Page 43 of 178
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
Subject/Title:
Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier
Retrofit Project – Drainage Easements
Meeting:
Regular Council - 12 Dec 2011
Exhibits:
Issue Paper
Drainage Easement for Tax Parcel No. 302305-
9026-03
Drainage Easement for Tax Parcel No. 302305-
9002-01
Exhibit A - Channel Relocation
Exhibit B – Culvert Passage with Fish Passable
Culvert
Vicinity Map
Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
Public Works
Staff Contact:
Ron Straka (ext. 7248), Allen Quynn (ext. 7247)
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $N/A
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Surface Water Utility is requesting the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign two
drainage easements, granting the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) the right to
construct, operate, monitor, and maintain drainage facilities as part of the Thunder Hills Creek
Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project. These drainage facilities are habitat improvements identified by
WSDOT and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) as required mitigation for impacts associated with the
replacement of the failed Thunder Hills Creek culvert under I-405 in December 2007. The failed culvert
resulted in slope instability and the development of a sink hole, endangering the I-405 southbound
mainline just east of City Hall and Benson Road South. As a condition of the permit issued by the US
Army Corps of Engineers to repair the failed culvert, WSDOT is required to provide fish habitat
comparable to what was existing prior to the construction of the Thunder Hills Creek culvert. Since it
was determined that the replaced culvert could not be made fish passable, WSDOT and MIT identified
equivalent mitigation in the Panther Creek Wetlands east of SR-167. WSDOT’s proposed mitigation
improvements include the relocation of a channel section of Panther Creek along the east side of SR-
167 and the replacement of an existing 72-inch culvert with a fish passable culvert across SR-167.
WSDOT anticipates advertising for bids on February 27, 2012 with construction occurring during
summer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign two drainage easements granting WSDOT the right to
construct, operate, monitor, and maintain habitat improvements as part of the Thunder Hills Creek
Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project and waive reimbursement for the easement area value. 7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 44 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 45 of 178
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 2, 2011
TO:Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7248)
Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility Engineer (ext. 7247)
SUBJECT:Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project –
Drainage Easements
ISSUE:
Should the Council authorize the Mayor to sign two drainage easements granting the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) the right to construct, operate,
monitor, and maintain habitat improvements as part of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish
Barrier Retrofit Project?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign two drainage easements granting WSDOT the right to construct,
operate, monitor, and maintain habitat improvements as part of the Thunder Hills Creek
Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project and waive reimbursement for the easement area values.
BACKGROUND:
In early December 2007, the 48-inch WSDOT culvert which conveys Thunder Hills Creek under
I-405, collapsed due to a significant rainfall event. The culvert collapse resulted in slope failure
and the formation of a large sinkhole along the southbound shoulder of I-405 in the vicinity of
the 48-inch cross culvert. The location of the sinkhole threatened the I-405 southbound
mainline and the culvert failure prevented Thunder Hills Creek upstream of I-405 from being
safely conveyed under I-405. WSDOT installed an emergency bypass system to route Thunder
Hills Creek around the failed culvert and in late 2008, the failed culvert was replaced with a new
48-inch culvert.
As a condition of the US Army Corps of Engineers permit issued for the replaced culvert,
WSDOT, with the approval of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), was required to provide fish
habitat similar to that blocked by the existing I-405 Thunder Hills Creek culvert within 3 years of
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 46 of 178
Terri Briere, Council President
December 2, 2011
Page 2 of 3
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP 27-Transporation Projects (TIP)\SWP 27-3543 I-405 Thunder Hills Culvert Repair Mitigation
Project\Agenda Bill Process\Easement Issue Paper.doc \AQtp
the issuance of the permit. WSDOT and the MIT determined that it was not feasible to make
the replaced culvert fish passable and instead identified alternate locations in the I-405 Renton
Nickel project area that drains to the Springbrook Creek subbasin, as required by the permit.
WSDOT and the MIT identified two mitigation locations in the Panther Creek wetlands, east of
SR-167, where fish habitat could be created that would be equivalent to that lost by the
Thunder Hills Creek culvert.
Both easements are located on City owned property that was purchased by the Surface Water
Utility as part of the Panther Creek Wetland Acquisition program that was initiated in the late
80s and early 90s. One easement is located at the southerly end of the wetlands and just north
of the Valley Medical Center where Panther Creek enters the Panther Creek wetlands. This
improvement involves plugging two culverts across SR-167 and relocating and enhancing 700
feet of existing channel along the east side of SR-167. Panther Creek would no longer cross
SR-167 and enter the East Valley Road storm system through an open ditch, but would be
diverted into the new channel where it will flow north through the Panther Creek wetlands.
The other easement is located approximately one mile north in the vicinity of the SW 23rd Street
drainage channel. At this location, WSDOT proposes to construct a fish passable culvert to
replace an existing fish ladder and culvert that conveys Panther Creek across SR-167. This
crossing will convey the diverted Panther Creek flows from the new channel proposed above.
While much of this mitigation will be constructed within WSDOT owned property, two drainage
easements are required from the City of Renton for WSDOT to construct portions of the
proposed improvements that extend outside of the existing SR-167 right-of-way to the east and
into the two undeveloped City owned properties within the Panther Creek wetlands. For the
improvements just north of Valley Medical Center, WSDOT requires a 65,088-square foot
easement to construct, operate, monitor, and maintain the 700-foot relocated channel of
Panther Creek. For the improvements near the SW 23rd Street Drainage Channel, a
13,148-square foot easement is required for the removal of the existing fish ladder and to
construct, operate, monitor, and maintain the proposed fish passable culvert.
These improvements will be constructed in and adjacent to the environmentally sensitive
Panther Creek and Panther Creek wetlands and have been designed to minimize or avoid
impacts to these sensitive areas when future phases of the I-405 Master Plan are implemented.
WSDOT has offered the City a total of $22,900 as compensation for granting these easements.
However, because of the flood hazard reduction and fish habitat benefits this project provides
to the City, it is the Surface Water Utility’s recommendation that these easements be granted to
WSDOT without compensation. This mitigation project addresses several of the elements
identified in the City’s East Side Green River Watershed Project. In 1998, the Surface Water
Utility completed the East Side Green River Watershed Plan, which was a comprehensive study
to develop flood hazard reduction and habitat improvements within the Renton valley portion
of the Springbrook Creek Basin. The plan specifically identified plugging the culverts across
SR-167 and the construction of a new channel to divert Panther Creek to the north to address
existing flooding problems on the west side of SR-167 including chronic flooding near the
Clarion Hotel and along East Valley Road. The plan also included replacement of the culvert
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 47 of 178
Terri Briere, Council President
December 2, 2011
Page 3 of 3
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP 27-Transporation Projects (TIP)\SWP 27-3543 I-405 Thunder Hills Culvert Repair Mitigation
Project\Agenda Bill Process\Easement Issue Paper.doc \AQtp
crossing at SW 23rd Street with a fish passable culvert to aid salmon as they migrate between
the wetlands and Springbrook Creek. The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit
Project will be constructing improvements that reduce flooding along the west side of SR-167
and improve salmon habitat in the Panther Creek wetlands. WSDOT is constructing
improvements that the Surface Water Utility had previously identified as being needed to
reduce flooding problems and improve habitat which is beneficial to the City. Therefore, it is
recommended that WSDOT not be required to reimburse the City for the appraised value of the
easement.
WSDOT anticipates advertising for bids on February 27, 2012 with construction occur during
summer 2012.
CONCLUSION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign two drainage easements granting the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) the right to construct, operate, monitor, and maintain
habitat improvements as part of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project
and waive reimbursement for the easement area values.
cc:Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
File
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 48 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 49 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 50 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 51 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 52 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 53 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 54 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 55 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 56 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 57 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 58 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 59 of 178
7g. ‐ Utility Systems Division requests approval to waive the
reimbursement value and grant two drainage easements to the
Page 60 of 178
9a. ‐ Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via
12/5/2011 Planning & Development Committee Report)Page 61 of 178
9a. ‐ Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via
12/5/2011 Planning & Development Committee Report)Page 62 of 178
9a. ‐ Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via
12/5/2011 Planning & Development Committee Report)Page 63 of 178
9a. ‐ Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via
12/5/2011 Planning & Development Committee Report)Page 64 of 178
9a. ‐ Auto Repair and Sales ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐69 (Approved via
12/5/2011 Planning & Development Committee Report)Page 65 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 66 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 67 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 68 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 69 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 70 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 71 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 72 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 73 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 74 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 75 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 76 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 77 of 178
9b. ‐ Food System Sustainability ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐68 (See 8.c.)Page 78 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 79 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 80 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 81 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 82 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 83 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 84 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 85 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 86 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 87 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 88 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 89 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 90 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 91 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 92 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 93 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 94 of 178
9c. ‐ Site Plan Review ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐73 (See 8.c.)Page 95 of 178
9d. ‐ Plat Revisions ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐74 (See 8.c.)Page 96 of 178
9d. ‐ Plat Revisions ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐74 (See 8.c.)Page 97 of 178
9d. ‐ Plat Revisions ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐74 (See 8.c.)Page 98 of 178
9d. ‐ Plat Revisions ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐74 (See 8.c.)Page 99 of 178
9e. ‐ Shopping Carts ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐75 (See 8.c.)Page 100 of 178
9e. ‐ Shopping Carts ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐75 (See 8.c.)Page 101 of 178
9e. ‐ Shopping Carts ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐75 (See 8.c.)Page 102 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 103 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 104 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 105 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 106 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 107 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 108 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 109 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 110 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 111 of 178
9f. ‐ Conditional Use Permit Regulations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐79 (See
8.c.)Page 112 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 113 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 114 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 115 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 116 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 117 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 118 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 119 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 120 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 121 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 122 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 123 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 124 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 125 of 178
9g. ‐ Clarifying regulations regarding maintenance of drainage facilities
(See 8.d.)Page 126 of 178
9a. ‐ Repealing Ordinance No. 5136 regarding shoreline regulations (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 127 of 178
9a. ‐ Repealing Ordinance No. 5136 regarding shoreline regulations (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 128 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 129 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 130 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 131 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 132 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 133 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 134 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 135 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 136 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 137 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 138 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 139 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 140 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 141 of 178
9b. ‐ Rebuild Approval Permit ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐67 (1st reading
12/5/2011)Page 142 of 178
9c. ‐ Right‐of‐Way Dedication Procedure Streamlining ‐ Title IV Docket
#D‐70 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
Page 143 of 178
9c. ‐ Right‐of‐Way Dedication Procedure Streamlining ‐ Title IV Docket
#D‐70 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
Page 144 of 178
9c. ‐ Right‐of‐Way Dedication Procedure Streamlining ‐ Title IV Docket
#D‐70 (1st reading 12/5/2011)
Page 145 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 146 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 147 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 148 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 149 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 150 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 151 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 152 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 153 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 154 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 155 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 156 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 157 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 158 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 159 of 178
9d. ‐ Miscellaneous Residential Standards ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐71 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 160 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 161 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 162 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 163 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 164 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 165 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 166 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 167 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 168 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 169 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 170 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 171 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 172 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 173 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 174 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 175 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 176 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 177 of 178
9e. ‐ Administrative Code Interpretations ‐ Title IV Docket #D‐77 (1st
reading 12/5/2011)Page 178 of 178