The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFairwood Incorporation (2005-2009) Pi' AY. . - 4111 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building, Room 240, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206) 296-6803 • http//www.kingcounty.gov/annexations June 18, 2009 CITY OF RENTON JUN 19 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Joe Giberson ,/ 2C: .7.0fr ga.i. Fairwood Municipal Initiative Incorporation Gam` g-�"� PA4e 17834 SE 196th Drive Renton, WA 98058 RE: CLOSING LETTER FOR RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION File No. 2258 - Propose City of Fairwood-- Fairwood Municipal Initiative Incorporation Dear Mr. Giberson: We are writing to advise you at the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County has now completed the Resolution and Hearing Decision, as specified in RCW 36.93, to approve the above referenced pro.osed action filed with the Board effective: June.17, 2009. The Resolution and Hearing Decision for this action is enclosed for filing as prescribed by RCW 36.93.160(4). An appeal period to Superior Court has been established, as mandated by RCW 36.91160. The appeal period to Superior Court will close on July 17, 2009. In order to finalize the proposed action, the applicant must address the following requirements, where applicable: 1. Compliance with the statutory requirements and procedures specified in the Notice of Intention; 2. Sewer and Water district actions and some other actions are also subject to approval by the Metropolitan King County Council. If the Council makes changes to the proposal, the Board may then be required to hold a public hearing. 3. Filing with King County of franchise application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of this letter. 4. Filing with King County of permit application(s), as required, accompanied by a copy of this letter. .1 T • Page two continued, June 18, 2009 Form HE8 5. Notification to King County Office of Strategic Planning & Performance Management (OSPPM), in writing, of your 'ntended effective date of this action. This notification should be provided as early as possible. Please send this information to Gwen Clemens, Office of Strategic Planning & Perforn ance Management (OSPPM), 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 810, Seattle, Washington 98104, an 6. Filing with King County Council of: (1) one certified copy of your final resolution or ordinance accomplishing thisaction; and (2) a copy of this letter. This document should be filed with the Clerk of the Council (Attn: Ms Anne Noris), King County Courthouse, Room 1025, Seattle, Washington 98104 If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact our office at 206.296.6800. Sincerely, AtulAA2 [ —Q4,4Air Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Attachment: Resolution and Hearing Decision 7 cc: The Honorable King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn The Honorable King County Councilmember Julia Patterson Ms. Anne Noris, Clerk or Council Ms. Hazel Gantz, King County Department of Assessments Ms. Lydia Reynolds-Jones, Manager, Project Support Services Mr. Dave Wilson, Elections Division Mr. Paul Reitenbach, Department of Development & Environmental Services Ms. Gwen Clemens, Office of Strategic Planning & Performance Management Ms. Connie Wong, Facilities Management Division, Real Estate Section Ms. Anne Lockmiller, Facilities Management Division, Real Estate Section King County E-911 Program Cities: Kent and Renton District(s): King County Fire Protection District Nos. 25, 37 and 40; King County Water District No. 90, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District and Cedar River Water and Sewer District; Issaquah School District No. 411, Kent School District No. 415, Renton School District No. 403 and Tahoma School District No. 409 Ca 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY RESOL TION AND HEARING DECISION I IN RE: A NEW CITY OF FAI 1 WOOD FILE NO.2258 Proposed Incorporation King County,Washington I. PUBLIC HEARING OVERVIEW In October of 2007, the Fairwood Mt.nicipal Initiative, the proponent, filed a Notice of Intention with the Boundary Review Board to incorporate a new City of Fairwood (File No. 2258) as prescribed by RCW 36.93 (Local Governmental Organization — Boundaries.) The Fairwood Municipal Initiative proposes to incorporate 4000 acres of land generally located in southeast King County. The application for incorporation was based upon a petition signed by citizens representing at least 10% of the registered voters within the boundaries of the proposed new City (RCW 35.02 — Incorporations.) The Boundary Review Board conducted a Special Meeting/Public Hearing to consider the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood on May 26, 2009, May 27, 2009, and May 28, 2009. The Board closed the Special Meeting/Public Hearing ,on May 28, 2009, and, thereafter, began its deliberations, and came to a preliminary decision/recommendation in the matter of the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood (File No. 2258.). «*. Washington law requires the Board o: (1) examine the record (e.g., application materials; technical studies; fiscal studies; regulatory anelyses; other documents, exhibits, statements and testimony); (2) determine the specific policies and guidelines are applicable to the proposed action; (3) review and weigh these elements; and (4)take title action that best advances those elements. The Board reviewed the record for File No. 2258 as prescribed by RCW 36.93. The Board directed particular attention to RCW 36.93170 (Factors) and RCW 36.93.180 (Objectives.) Additional authorities applicable to File No. 2258 include, but are not limited to: RCW 35.02 (Incorporation of Cities), RCW 36.70A(State Growth Management Act); King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide • Policies, and other applicable state, regional, and local regulations and guidelines. The Board finds that the record for Fh Ie No. 2258 contains sufficient documentation (e.g. Incorporation Study, evidence of community inforation programs, and certification of petitions and/or legislative action)to complete its review of the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood. On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said hearing, and the matters on record in said File No. 2258, it is the decision of the Board to approve the action proposed in said Notice of Intention. The legal description for the proposed new City of Fairwood is attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit I", together with a map showing the boundaries of the area herein marked as"Exhibit II." 1 II. FINDINGS RCW 36.93.170 FACTORS AFFECTING THIS PROPOSAL The Board finds that the following Factors (RCW 36.93.170) are applicable to- the proposed incorporation of the Fairwood Area (approximately 4000 acres). Additional authorities applicable to the proposal include, but are not limited to: RCW 36.70A, King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies. These State and local authorities are intended to ensure reasonable development regulations and adequate public services to local communities. A brief review of key issues related to each applicable element is presented below: RCW 36.93.170(1)POPULATION AND TERRITORY The Board finds the following factors to be applicable to File No. 2258: Population Density/Proximity to Other Populated Areas/Land Area/Land Uses; Comprehensive Land Use Plans; Topography, Natural Boundaries and Drainage Basins; Likelihood of Significant Growth in the Area During the Next Ten Years; and Population Density/Proximity to Other Populated Areas/Land Area/Land Uses. The following is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. , The entire area proposed for incorporation lies within the Urban Growth Area defined by King County. The King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies call for contiguous orderly growth of local jurisdictions (e.g., U-304, U-208, U-301, U-304.) The Comprehensive Plan anticipates transfer of the Fairwood community to a local jurisdiction. Several Countywide policies identify cities as the appropriate providers of local governance and urban services (e.g., FW-13, CO-1, CO-3; LU-31 - LU- 34, LU-36, FW-13, LU-31.) The State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) also supports the incorporation of the Fairwood Area. Incorporation of this area is consistent with RCW 36.70.20 which calls for community planning goals, for urban growth, services and infrastructure, and environmental preservation. If approved, the new City of Fairwood will be required by the State Growth Management Act to develop and implement a comprehensive plan and regulatory controls to administer existing and future land uses for its current and future populace. The City shall also be required to develop and implement a comprehensive plan and regulatory controls for provision of public services and essential public facilities. Further, the City shall be required to develop and implement regulatory controls to protect critical areas. Documentary evidence provided to the Board (e.g., Notice of Intention, the Incorporation Feasibility Study) demonstrates a commitment—both in terms of plans and resources --to govern and serve the Fairwood Area. Plans and resources are based upon the definition of the Fairwood Area as an urban community that will likely experience continuing urban growth over the next ten years. Documentation in File No. 2258 indicates future growth at urban levels of density generally consistent with the existing built environment and the natural environment. At present, the Fairwood Area is essentially unified with respect to its built community. It is substantially developed with single-family homes. There is territory within the proposed incorporation area that is suitable and permitted for redevelopment/new development with residential uses. There is sizeable commercial property within Fairwood Area boundaries. The proposed new City of Fairwood also includes natural features such as open spaces, water bodies, variable topography, and habitat area. The evidence establishes the intention that the new City shall initially adopt King County regulatory authorities — and then develop a specific Fairwood Comprehensive Plan — for land use/zoning• designations and zoning for this community to permit future residential development that will be generally similar to and essentially compatible with existing density/design standards for residential 2 I- uses. Similarly, the new City would develop and implement plans/regulations for commercial uses, public facilities, and open spaces in thle community. Incorporation of the Fairwood Area will create an opportunity to immediately establish consistent and coordinated development standards to serve the local community. The record demonstratessupport for lthe natural environment,within.the Fairwood Area through'King County Comprehensive Plan which would ultimately be followed by a Fairwood Comprehensive Plan. Such plans include guidelines and regulatory controls (e.g., critical areas ordinances; open space preservation; storm water/flood control programs) designed to,protect sensitive areas. The proposed incorporation includes regional facilities such as Gary Grant/Soos Creek Regional Park, Petrovitsky Park, and Lake Youngs. King County has committed to ongoing ownership and maintenance of these facilities. If the new City is formed, its citizens would be provided with a full array of essential public services, facilities and infrastructure either directly by the city or by service contract. Existing improvements would be maintained and additional urban infrastructure and services could be developed as necessary to serve this urban community. • • • , The Board finds that the record for F'le No. 2258 establishes that a new City of Fairwood would have the funding necessary to support basic required and/or expected land use planning, housing, public services, public facilities, and publicamenities. Similarly, funding resources would be sufficient to provide for protection of the natural environment. The Board finds that the proposed lincorporation is likely to achieve the requirements for a viable, vibrant government either at its inception or as it would be expected to grow in the future. Further, provisions for local planning and controls within the City of Fairwood could be expected to result in positive effects to the surrounding built community and the natural environment. RCW 36.93.170(2)MUNICIPAL SERVI�CEs The Board finds the following factors to be applicable: need for municipal services; effects of, ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present_cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; probable future need for such services; costs; effect on the finance, debt strfucture and contractual obligations; and prospects of government services from other sources, and rights of other affected governmental units. Following is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. The record demonstrates that the nllew City of Fairwood will require municipal services and facilities. Service policies are established by the State Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan. For example!, the State Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to plan and provide a full array of public services and facilities to its citizens. King County FW-13 states that cities are the appropriate provider, of local urban services to Urban Areas. ,.FW-29 and FW-30 address the need for jurisdictions to plah for and coordinate services. Additionally, King County/Countywide Policy CO-1 cauls for a jurisdiction to plan for"(a) full range of urban services". The Incorporation Feasibility Study demonstrates that the proposed new City of Fairwood would have necessary basic fiscal resources Ito support local governance. Upon incorporation, the City of Fairwood would assume responsibility for providing — either directly or by contract — basic public services and facilities including: water service, surface water management, sewer service, fire service, police service, emergency medical services, utilities, road maintenance, law and justice services, human services, libraries, and parks and recreation services. The evidence shows that a new City of Fairwood is committed to undertaking all necessary steps to ensure equivalent — or improved -- levels of service for'the community at current development and as the community experiences growth. I - 3 r 1 More specifically, Incorporation Feasibility Study findings indicate that a substantial portion of the costs for governance and services will be essentially offset by property taxes, standard service fees, and other revenues based on population. Fairwood Area citizens would be assessed reasonable taxes and fees for both basic and enhanced services/facilities. These include, but are not limited to property taxes, REET, sales taxes, utilities fees, regular levy rates, and, if approved by the local community, special levy rates for capital facilities and public services. For example, the proposed City of Fairwood will assume responsibility for provision and management of capital facilities (e.g., roadways). Acquisitions and improvements will be identified by means of a priority listing which reflects both necessity (i.e., public health, welfare and safety) and the interests of the citizens. The proposed City of Fairwood will assume responsibility for providing police services through a contract with the Office of the King County Sheriff and will contract with King County Fire Protection District No. 40 and No. 37 to provide fire/emergency services to the Fairwood Area. The proposed City of Fairwood will assume responsibility for providing water services through a contract with King County Water District No. 90. Sewer services would be provided through Soos Creek Water& Sewer District and Cedar River Water&Sewer District. A new City of Fairwood could be expected to initially utilize King County standards —followed by the development of a Fairwood Comprehensive Plan -- for protection of critical areas and for a storm water management system. A new City of Fairwood would have available access to regional parks and recreation facilities, libraries, and law and justice services. The Renton School District and the Kent School District would continue to serve the area in that school district boundaries are unaffected by incorporation. The evidence shows that that the new City would not initially offer a community-based human services program as of the date of incorporation. Future human services programs could be provided if identified by means of a priority listing which reflects both necessity (i.e., public health, welfare and safety) and the interests of the citizens. The Board finds that the Incorporation Feasibility Study contains a thorough examination of revenues and expenditures relating to governance of and service to the Fairwood Area. The Study demonstrates that sufficient funds are available, both at current development and with future growth, to create a logical municipal service area. The Board finds that the availability of fiscal resources would enable the proposed new City to plan for and reliably deliver, at reasonable rates, those basic public services that are required in order to provide for public health, safety, and welfare by the State Growth Management Act, King County Comprehensive Plan, and RCW 36.93. The City can provide unified regulatory authorities administered-by a single local government unit= resulting in more cohesive policies, standards, programs, and services. Thus, services can be anticipated to be more effective, more efficient, and less costly to both government and citizens of the Fairwood Area. RCW 36.93.170(3)EFFECTS OF PROPOSAL The Board considers the factors of mutual economic and social interests, and local government structure effects to be applicable to the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood. Following is a brief review of key issues related to these factors. The Fairwood community shares mutual social and economic links. Citizens of the Fairwood Area utilize community facilities including libraries, schools, parks and recreation programs. Residents , shop in the local community and use local professional services (e.g., medical care, personal care.) Citizens travel local and arterial roads through the Fairwood Area. Utility services are coordinated under the aegis of the above-identified regional service providers. 4 The Incorporation Feasibility Study emphasized fiscal analyses (including an examination of benefits. and costs) attendant to immediate incorporation to provide for._governance and service to the Fairwood Area at levels equivalent to those levels currently provided to the community by King County. . • More specifically, Incorporation Feasibility Study findings showthat•the governance of and service to Fairwood will be funded, in part, through property taxes, standard service fees, and other revenues based on population. The Study indicates that existing and anticipated municipal funds, together with regional funds, and state funds (e.g., sales taxes available pursuant to SSB 6686), will provide sufficient resources to assure governance of the Fairwood Area in a manner that will address impacts on cost and adequacy of services, finances, debt structure, and rights of other governmental units. For example, the evidence demonstrates a commitment to providing community planning and hiring professional staff to ensure equivalent levels of service for the Fairwood Area both at current development and at estimated maximum development. For example, Fairwood Area residents would receive basic services (e.g., policing, fire/emergency services, utilities, infrastructure) immediately upon incorporation... ..The citizens of, Fairwood would continue to benefit=from such amenities'.as, - regional parks and the library system! Improvements to levels of service and addition of new amenities would occur over time to address community interests and as permitted by available resources. - The State Growth Management Act and King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies encourage local governance)of communities. With incorporation, citizens would participate in local governance including land use planning, service planning, fiscal planning and planning for public amenities to serve the community. 1 The evidence supports a finding that.the City is prepared to govern and to provide full services to this community. _ . The Board finds that City -of Fairv'ood would have .sufficient resources available.to provide the . government structure that is necessary to support the social interests and economic interests of the., • community. The proposed new City of Fairwood would unite a greater community which shares mutual social interests and economic interests. • The Board finds that incorporation would enable community leaders and citizens to undertake land use planning, service planning, fiscal planning and planning for public amenities to serve the community. Thus, a new City oflFairwood could successfully promote strong and unified local government providing for coordina ed integration of citizens into the new community, supporting social organization, economic health, and protection of public safety and welfare. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GROWTH.MANAGEMENT ACT Boundary Review Board decisions must be consistent with he following sections of the State Growth Management-Act-(Chapter-3670A RCW):- . ,-• . • - • RCW 36.70A.020 Planning Goals • RCW 36.70A.110 Urban Growth Areas • RCW 36.70A.210 Countywide Planning Policies The key Growth Management policies relevant to the proposed incorporation are: • RCW 36.70A.020 (1) Urban Growth: Encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided efficiently. • RCW 36.70A.020 (2) Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development. • RCW 36.70A.020(10) Environment: Protect and enhance the environment and quality of life. • RCW 36.70A.020 (11) Citizen Participation and coordination in the planning -process and ensure . coordination between communities/jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. 5 • RCW 36.70A.020 (12) Public Facilities and services: Ensures that adequate public services and facilities are available to serve land developments. • RCW 36.70A.110(1/6)calls for each county to designate an urban growth area. • RCW 36.70A.110 (3) directs urban growth to areas with existing or available public services and facilities. • 'RCW 36.70A.110 (4) states that"(in) general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban ...services." • RCW 36.70A.210 (1) calls for cities to be primary providers of governmental services in urban growth areas. The Board finds that the incorporation of a new City of Fairwood meets Growth Management Act criteria for governance of urban areas. The State Growth Management Act supports local jurisdictions as the governing units for urban areas where local jurisdictions can provide citizens with reliable, stable governance and services. The proposed action is supported by RCW 36.70.A which calls for local communities to provide governance — including: goals for urban growth, services and infrastructure, public services, and environmental preservation. The Board finds that a new City of Fairwood would be incorporated with sufficient basic funding resources to meet the Growth Management Act criteria for incorporation of urban areas including the provision of growth management, land use planning, housing, public services/public facilities (e.g., utilities, infrastructure) and public amenities. RCW 36.93.180 OBJECTIVES The Boundary Review Board considered RCW 36.93.180 (Objectives), with respect to the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood as follows: RCW 36.93.180(1)PRESERVATION OF NATURAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES The Board finds that the Fairwood Area is a "neighborhood" as that term is defined by case law, as "either geographically distinct areas or socially... distinct groups of residents". The Fairwood Area, in its entirety, exhibits many features that support its community connections: The community is characterized by similar and linked built environments and natural environments (e.g., Gary Grant/Soos Creek Parks). The citizens of the community share similar demographic, social, and economic profiles. Residents use common community facilities — e.g., schools, roadways, community centers, shopping centers, parks, and recreation facilities. The evidence demonstrates a commitment to provide Fairwood Area citizens with a voice and a vote in planning to effectively govern and serve this area as a part of a unified community. The inclusion of a sizeable area and population serves to create a cohesive community and encourages more effective local governance. Incorporation would permit a new City of Fairwood to guide synchronized . community plans and community development in a manner which considers both built lands and the critical natural areas. Incorporation would permit the new City of Fairwood to provide coordinated public services. King County officials support the incorporation of Fairwood citing that this action would be consistent with state, regional and local guidelines. The County has indicated a preference for immediate transfer of unincorporated urban areas to local jurisdictions to provide uniform governance for citizens. Incorporation of the Fairwood Area would permit citizens to establish local land use designations and zoning standards for residences, businesses, infrastructure, and community amenities. The evidence demonstrates that the Fairwood Area will continue as a predominantly residential community with designations and zoning similar to that existing under King County. A new City of Fairwood would plan to provide and implement plans for development review and 6 environmental review(e.g., protection of slopes, sensitive areas, and stormwater management).to the Fairwood Area based upon local, regional and state regulations to support preservation of this community. . *** The Board finds that incorporation of. a new City of Fairwood advances, RCW 36.93.180(1). Incorporation would preserve connections within the greater neighborhood. "Anew City would provide residents and business owners with' access to a voice and a vote in planning for the cohesive governance of a unified neighborhood and a greater community. RCW 36.93.180 (2) USE OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BODIES OF WATER, HIGHWAYS,AND LAND CONTOURS The proposed Fairwood incorporation area is bordered primarily by the Urban Growth boundary line and the City of Renton. The propos d boundaries of the new City create (or enhance) clear physical borders for the Area. "Social neighborhoods" may also be the basis for boundaries. The evidence shows that the citizens of the Fairwood Area share a social affiliation. As such incorporation of a new City of Fairwood would further the establishment of a cohesive community. The proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan because it achieves progress toward establishment of local governance for the greater unincorporated area in King County. The proposed incorporation is consistent with the planning goals established by the State Growth Management Act for providing local overnance to unincorporated urban territories. *** The Board finds that incorporationf a new City of'Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180(2). The Incorporation of the proposed neyv City of Fairwood provides for a community unified under established physical boundaries. Incorporation would further progress toward coordinated transfer of unincorporated areas into local jurisdictions to provide for effective, coordinated local governance and efficient services to the local commu ity. RCW 36.93.180(3)CREATION AND PESERVATION OF LOGICAL SERVICE AREAS RCW 36.93, RCW 36.70A, et seq., and the King County Comprehensive Plan establish cities as the providers of services for incorporated communities. A new City of Fairwood would have responsibility for providing public services to all ¢f its citizens under city plans and regulations including, but not limited to: a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. The evidence demonstrates that the incorporation of a new City of Fairwood would'create and preserve'logical service areas. All properties would be designated for services' through the local ' government. Incorporation of the Fairwood Area would enable design and implementation of efficient, consistent, consolidated service programs throughout the greater community. More specifically: - The proposed City .of.Fairwood will contract with the King County Sheriff, King County Fire Protection District No. 40, and King County Fire Protection District No. 37 to provide emergency services. Provision of services and management of costs are demonstrated to be feasible based upon currently available municipal funding and future funding as reported in the Incorporation Feasibility Study. . I - The proposed City of Fairwoodlwill provide by contract with King County Water District No. 90 for water service and with Soos'Creek Water & Sewer District and/or Cedar River Water-and Sewer District for wastewater management. 7 c - The proposed City will coordinate stormwater services consistent with King County standards. Specific systems/facilities will be designed to address both the natural environment (e.g., basins, terrain) and the built environment(e.g., structures, roadways). - The proposed City will coordinate through agreements,with King County, provision of access,to, parks, recreation facilities, libraries and other community services for the citizens of the Fairwood Area.. Children would continue their current schools in the Renton School District or the Kent School District. - Roadways (including streets, storm water drains, and other right of way features) meet standards for safe and efficient travel. As reported in the Incorporation Study, funding is planned from various existing taxes and fees as well as anticipated sources (e.g., grants, development impact fees) for routine upgrades and maintenance and for future capital essential improvements. Further enhancements may be provided in accord with the interests of the citizens.' The record demonstrates that provision of public services to the Fairwood Area would be improved by placing the entire area under a single municipal jurisdiction. Synchronized services and facilities (e.g., emergency services, water service, storm water and surface water management systems, wastewater treatment) will promote protection of the built environment and the natural environment. King County strongly supports transition to local governance of unincorporated urban areas such as the Fairwood Area. Countywide Planning policies encourage cities as the appropriate units to govern, develop, and serve Urban Areas to provide citizens with more effective, efficient governance. The County lacks sufficient resources to manage land uses or serve properties in these urban areas. The State Growth Management Act identifies cities as the logical providers of local governance and urban services and supports the creation of government units that possess sufficient resources to govern and serve the citizens. *** The Board finds that incorporation of a new City of Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180(3). The incorporation of a new City of Fairwood will allow the new City to plan and implement coordinated, efficient service programs to provide the essential services necessary to maintain a viable, safe community. Sufficient resources are reported to support basic required and/or improved, public services, public facilities, and public amenities for community members. With incorporation, the Fairwood Area residents would be authorized to consider—and perhaps to seek new sources of income—to provide for additional services and/or community amenities to enhance the built community and natural environment. RCW 36.93.180(4)PREVENTION OF ABNORMALLY IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES Approval of the incorporation of the Fairwood Area will provide a reasonable and regular boundary. The proposed boundaries of the Fairwood Area are not geometric in form; however, these boundaries do provide regularity based upon the fact that the borders of the Fairwood Area coincide with the established Urban Growth Area boundary and with the duly approved incorporated boundaries of the City of Renton. Further, under the King County Comprehensive Plan and the State Growth Management Act, the Fairwood Area, as an unincorporated urban community, is encouraged to achieve transition to a local jurisdiction. The Fairwood Area, as.an unincorporated community, does not benefit from effective governance. With incorporation, a newCity would benefit from cohesive, coordinated governance and services. *** 8 • The Board finds that incorporation sof a new" City of Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180 (4). Incorporation will facilitate uniform governance, coordinated community planning, and provide for more effective, efficient services to the'community. RCW36.93.180(5)DISCOURAGEMENT pF MULTIPLE INCORPORATIONS The State of Washington (RCW 36.70A; RCW 36.93, et seq.) discouragesmultiple incorporations; but supports an incorporation which provides a supportable alternative to retaining lands with unincorporated status or as a supportable alternative to annexation to an existing jurisdiction. The evidence demonstrates that incorporation of a new City of Fairwood could be an appropriate action to achieve a discrete local jurisdiction based upon measures including but not limited to: - Sufficient existing population numbers and planned future growth to support a municipality, - Sufficiently strong community co/nections to support a municipality; - Sufficient funding to support basic required services for a municipality(e.g., land use planning, housing, public services, public facilities, and public amenities for community members.) . The Board finds .that the necessary elements to govern and serve a municipality are achieved by incorporation for a new City of Fairwood. The State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and the King County Comprehensive Plan encourage governance (including incorporation) of urban areas by local jurisdictions. *** Incorporation of a new City of Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180(5). The incorporation of a new City of Fairwood would permit the establishniient of a community which has sufficient resources to govern and serve the local community. Incorporation would be consistent with the State Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Planning Policies. RCW 36.93.180(6)DISSOLUTION OF INACTIVE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS . RCW 36.93.180 (6) is not applicable to File No. 2258 • RCW 36.93.180(7)ADJUSTMENT OF IMPRACTICAL BOUNDARIES A new City of Fairwood would result in incorporation of a large area of unincorporated land. Incorporation would create more reasonable and practical boundaries necessary to achieve the preservation and coordinated governance of the community. More specifically, with incorporation, the Fairwood Area — including the built environment and linked natural environment — will be placed under local jurisdiction, thus creating more practical boundaries for directed planning activities (e.g., establishment of uniform land uses and development standards); preservation of environmentally sensitive areas; and the provision of coordinated public facilitiels and services. *** The proposed incorporation.of a newt City of Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180(7). Creation of a new municipality based upon an established social community with coordinated boundaries will support effective governance of the local community. RCW 36.93.180 (8) INCORPORATION AS CITIES OR ANNEXATION TO CITIES OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS WHICH ARE URBAN IN CHARACTER File No. 2258 finds that incorporation of the Fairwood Area is based upon the location of this territory within the Urban Growth Area designated by the King County Comprehensive Plan. The State Growth Management Act also provides"Urban" designation for the Fairwood Area. Incorporation of a new City of Fairwood is anticipated to promote uniform governance, development, and services appropriate for this urba i territory. 9 • *** The Board finds that incorporation of a new City of Fairwood advances RCW 36.93.180(8). Coordinated governance and services should immediately benefit Fairwood Area citizens. At incorporation, Fairwood Area citizens will be invited to participate in the planning of basic governance plans, public services, and amenities for the community. RCW 36.93.180 (9) PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LANDS FOR LONG TERM PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL/RESOURCE USE The proposed new City of Fairwood does not include or concern any agricultural lands. This entire proposed new City of Fairwood is within the Urban Growth Area as established by King County and approved by the State of Washington. *** The Board finds that RCW 36.93.180 (9) is not applicable to File No. 2258 III. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS AND DECISIONS The Boundary Review Board conducted review and deliberation of File No. 2258 based upon the record of written documents and oral testimony, in keeping with applicable state, regional and local regulations. The Board focused upon RCW 36.93 (Boundary Review Board Enabling Act); RCW 36.70A (Growth Management Act); RCW 35.02 (Incorporation of Cities); King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies; City of Renton Comprehensive Plans, and other relevant regulations and guidelines. The role of the Boundary Review is to implement these existing laws; the Board does not have the authority to make law or policy. As prescribed by statutory mandate, the Boundary Review Board considered the following options: ■ The Board may make a decision to recommend approval of incorporation of a new City of Fairwood as proposed by the Fairwood Municipal Initiative if this action achieves the provisions of RCW 36.93 and other applicable regulations (e.g., RCW 35.02 Incorporation of Cities; RCW 36.70A State Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and other state, regional, and local statutory guidelines. ■ The Board may make a decision to recommend approval of an incorporation of a new City of Fairwood with modifications to corporate boundaries if this action achieves the provisions of RCW 36.93 and other applicable regulations (e.g., RCW 35.02 — Incorporation of Cities; RCW 36.70A State Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and other state, regional, and local statutory guidelines. • The Board may make a recommendation to deny the proposed incorporation of the new City of Fairwood as proposed by the Fairwood Municipal Initiative if this action fails to achieve the provisions of RCW 36.93 and other applicable regulations (e.g., RCW 35.02 — Incorporation of Cities; RCW 36.70A State Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and other state, regional, and local statutory guidelines. _ ■ The Board may make a recommendation to approve the proposed incorporation of the new City of Fairwood with modifications to corporate boundaries if this action achieves the provisions of RCW 36.93 and other applicable regulations (e.g., RCW 35.02— Incorporation of Cities; RCW 36.70A State Growth Management Act, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and other state, regional, and local statutory guidelines. *** The Board finds that the record for File No. 2258 is detailed and extensive. Affected parties have provided considerable materials supporting their positions. The Board reviewed the entire record to reach its decision for the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood. 10 i } i The Board finds that the proposed icorporation of a new City of Fairwood is consistent with the provisions of 36.93 RCW. By way of eample, but not limitation: • The incorporation of a new City Iof Fairwood addresses criteria established in RCW 36.93.170 with respect to population, territory, comprehensive planning, land uses, natural environment, service needs and service capacity, and mutual'social and economic needs. • Additionally, the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood was evaluated according to`the criteria established in RCW 36.93.1180 as follows: RCW 36.93 FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION(4000 ACRES) OBJECTIVE 1 - PRESERVATION! OF NATURAL ADVANCES CRITERION AS ANNEXATION INCLUDES ALL NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES PROPERTIES IN A NATURAL COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE 2-USE OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES ADVANCES CRITERION AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARIES RCW 36.93 FAIRWOOD AREA(4000 ACRES) OBJECTIVE 3 - CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF ADVANCES CRITERION AS FAIRWOOD CAN PROVIDE LOGICAL SERVICE AREAS SERVICES TO THE ENTIRE AREA TO PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE. OBJECTIVE 4 - PREVENTION OF ABNORMALLY ADVANCES CRITERION AS REGULAR BOUNDARIES IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES SUPPORT A UNIFIED COMMUNITY AND STREAMLINE SERVICE PROVISION OBJECTIVE 5 - DISCOURAGEMEry�T 'OF MULTIPLE DOES NOT APPLY INCORPORATIONS I V OBJECTIVE 6 - DISSOLUTION OF I;ACTIVE SPECIAL DOES NOT APPLY PURPOSE DISTRICTS OBJECTIVE 7 - ADJUSTMENT OF IMPRACTICAL ADVANCES CRITERION AS PRACTICAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARIES ARE CREATED TO SUPPORT A UNIFIED COMMUNITY AND TO STREAMLINE SERVICE PROVISION OBJECTIVE 8 - INCORPORATION ..!.OR ANNEXATION ADVANCES CRITERION AS THE ENTIRE DESIGNATED TO CITIES....OF UNINCORPORATED PRBAN AREAS URBAN AREA WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A LOCAL JURISDICTION OBJECTIVE 9 - PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL AND DOES NOT APPLY RURAL LANDS... • The proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood addresses requirements established in Chapter 35.02 RCW (Incorporations) for the administration and review processes for a proposed action to incorporate a new munilcipal jurisdiction. • State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) policies call for logical and orderly growth of urban communities. Incorporation of a new City of Fairwood advances the provisions of RCW 36.70A by providing an opportunity to establish an urban community which has resources to achieve effective local governance. • The King County Comprehensive Plan/Countywide Policies also contemplate logical and orderly growth of communities. The County plans support local governance to assure balanced, sound, cost-effective governance for (this, community. Incorporation of the Fairwood Area would accomplish that balance that the County seeks from transition of urban areas into local communities. 11 A NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the action proposed in the Notice of Intention contained in said File No. 2258 be, and the same is, hereby recommended for approval as described in Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ADOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FORKING COUNTY by a vote of IT in favor , Z in opposition, and abstentions, on this 17th day of June, 2009, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY g&ilf-;" Claudia Hirschey, Chair FILED t is 18th day of Ju 2009 BY: Lenora Blauman, xecutive Secretary 13 EXHIBIT I Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 Attachment B: Legal Description of the boundaries of the proposed City of Fairwood LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD Revised 8/10/2008 • An area encompassing all or parts of Se(tions 21 through 23,and 25 through 28 and 33 through 36,Township 23 North, Range 5 East,Willamette Meridian and Sections 1,3,and 4,Township 22 North,Range 5 East,Willamette Meridian In King County,Washington described as follows: I • Commencing at the point of intersection of the Thread of the Cedar River and the west line of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarte of said Section 22; • Thence in southeasterly and northeasterly directions along the course of said Thread of the Cedar River to an intersection with the thread of Molasses Creek; • Thence in a southeasterly direction along said Thread of Molasses Creek to an intersection with the boundary of a parcel of land deeded to King County by Recording Number 9810304345; • Thence N 23°58'46"W,along said boundary,a distance of 54.29 feet,per said deed; • Thence N 33°26'37"E,along said boundary,a distance of 69.86 feet,per Boundary Line Adjustment No. L01 L0026, Recording No.20010730900003,Records of King County,to an intersection with the south line of Lot"L"of said King County Lot Line Adjustment L01 L0026; • Thence S 68°35'41"E,along said south line,a distance of 18.29 feet; • Thence N 76°45'23"E,along said south line,a distance of 17.35 feet; • Thence N 72°54'52"E,along said south line,a distance of 98.96 feet to an intersection with the boundary line of Lot"J"of said lot line adjustment; • Thence N 83°1 9'42"E,along said boundary,a distance of 38.87 feet; • Thence N 78'32'03"E,along said boundary,a distance of 21.06 feet; • • Thence N 73'36'54"E,along said boundary,a distance of 37.74 feet; • Thence N 78°29'12"E,along skid boundary,a distance of 36.02 feet; • • Thence N 72°58'25"E,along said boundary,a distance of 52.65 feet; • Thence S 01°17'33"W,along said boundary,a distance of 598.94 feet; • Thence S 32°49'04"E,along said boundary,a distance of 956.24 feet; • Thence S 89'08'18"E,along said boundary,a distance of 476.75 feet,to the southwest corner of Lot 31, in the Plat of Maple Ridge Estate&recorded in Volume 134 of Plats,on Page 9,records of King County, Washington; • Thence easterly,along the south line of said plat,to the west line of the plat of Maple Ridge Estates Division No.2,Phase 3,recorded in Vo�ume 163 of Plats,on Page 64,records of King County,Washington; • Thence southerly,along said west line,and the west line of the plat of View Point at Maple Ridge,recorded in Volume 161 of Plats,on Page 32,records of King County,Washington to the south line of said Section 22. • Thence easterly along said south line of said Section 22 and the south line of said plat to an intersection with the westerly right of way margin of 140th Ave SE. • Thence southerly along said westerly right of way margin,a distance of 208.11 feet,to the westerly extension of the south line of said Plat of View Point at Maple Ridge; • Thence easterly,along said westerly extension,crossing 140th Ave SE to the southwest corner of lot 9,of said plat of View Point at Maple Ridge. • Thence easterly along the south line of said plat to the southeast corner of lot 2 of said plat. • Thence northerly along the east line of Lot 2 of said plat,a distance of 208.11 feet to the south line of said Section 22. • Thence easterly along said south line,crossing 140th Way SE,to the easterly right of way margin of said 140th Way SE. • Thence northeasterly,northerly and northwesterly along said easterly right of way margin,to the southwest corner of Tract"E"of the plat of Elliott Farm,recorded in Volume 180 of Plats,pages 4-15,Records of King County,which is also the western most corner of Lot 1 of said plat. • Thence in a northwesterly direction along said right of way margin to an intersection with the northwesterly corner of Tract"E",of said plat of Elliott Farm,which is also a point on the south boundary of Tract"B"of said plat; • Thence N 70°15'39"E,along the boundary of said Tract"E",a distance of 47.81 feet; • Thence S 10°24'04"E,along said boundary,a distance of 41.68 feet; Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 1 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood EXHIBIT I Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 • Thence N 87°13'29"E,along said boundary,a distance of 209.37 feet; • Thence N 10°24'04"W,along said boundary,a distance of 56.37 feet;. • Thence 72.86 feet along said boundary on a non tangential curve,with a central angle of 83'29'11",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence N 86°06'45"E,along said boundary,a distance of 168.88 feet; • Thence N 86°27'18"E,along said boundary,a distance of 141.81 feet; • Thence N 0111'20"E,along said boundary,a distance of 215.81 feet; • Thence N 59°00'49"W,along said boundary,a distance of 19.40 feet; • Thence 27.88 feet along said boundary on a non tangential curve,with a central angle of 31°56'46",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence N 00°57'35"W,along said boundary,a distance of 34.60 feet; • Thence N 21°12'07"W,along said boundary,a distance of 34.66 feet; • Thence N 6519'12"W,along said boundary,a distance of 25.48 feet; • Thence N 38°28'09"E,along said boundary,a distance of 33.00 feet; • Thence S 44°18'37"E,along said boundary,a distance of 10.84 feet; • Thence S 21°12'07"E,along said boundary,a distance of 88.80 feet; • Thence S 42°29'43"E,along said boundary,a distance of 36.31 feet; • Thence S 52°31'19"E,along said boundary,a distance of 14.27 feet; • Thence S 01°11'20"W,along said boundary,a distance of 147.91 feet; • Thence N 74°31'08"E,along said boundary,a distance of 50.97 feet; • Thence S 79°06'31"E,along said boundary,a distance of 106.37 feet; • Thence N 01°41'41"E,along said boundary,a distance of 45.00 feet; • Thence S 89°17'47"E,along said boundary,a distance of 56.14 feet; • Thence S 10°05'37"E,along said boundary,a distance of 58.53 feet; • Thence 63.25 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 728'56",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence S 80°50'23"E,along said boundary,a distance of 24.58 feet; • Thence S 20°54'53"E,along said boundary,a distance of 40.01 feet; • Thence 5.29 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 06°04'00",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence S 26°58'53"E,along said boundary,a distance of 36.61 feet; • Thence 22.37 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 25"38'19",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence S 52°3713"E,along said boundary,a distance of 26.92 feet; • Thence S 08°52'39"E,along said boundary,a distance of 8.73 feet; • Thence S 30'30'16"W,along said boundary,a distance of 14.86 feet; • Thence 101.91 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 116°47'06",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence S 86°16'50"E,along said boundary,a distance of 25.00 feet; • Thence 52.21 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 59°49'52",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence N 33'53'18"E,along said boundary,a distance of 16.12 feet; • Thence N 63°17'17"E,along said boundary,a distance of 41.32 feet; • Thence S 87°03'12"E,along said boundary,a distance of 56.04 feet; • Thence S 64°57'06"E,along said boundary,a distance of 52.86 feet; • Thence 41.41 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 47"26'54",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence N 67°36'01"E,along said boundary,a distance of 30.71 feet; • Thence 57.38 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 65°45'06",and a 50.00 foot radius; • Thence S 891747"E,along said boundary,a distance of 150.01 feet; • Thence S 01°41'41"W,along said boundary,a distance of 692.21 feet to an intersection with the northeasterly boundary of a parcel of land deeded to King County by Recording Number 9708120148; • Thence S 01°41'41"W,along said boundary,a distance of 8.05; • Thence S 57°10'04"E,along said boundary,a distance of 54.87 feet; • Thence S 47°14'54"E,along said boundary,a distance of 59.37 feet; • Thence S 34°26'32"E,along said boundary,a distance of 27.60 feet to an intersection with the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 22; Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 2 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 • • Thence S 89"21'31"E,along said south line,a distance of 261.97 feet to an intersection with the.north line of Tract"H"of said Plat of Elliott Farm; • Thence N 2228'41"E,along said north line,a distance of 80.61 feet; • Thence N 17°38'52"W,along said north line,adistance of 52.25 feet; • Thence N 922'47"E,along said north line;a distance of 45.59 feet; • Thence S 89°21'51"E,along said north line,a distance of 42.46 feet; • Thence S 57°5649"E,along said north line,a distance of 80.73 feet; • Thence N 85°01'18"E,along said north line,a distance of 73.50 feet; • Thence N 54°15'06"E,along said north line,a distance of 73.70 feet; • Thence S 7323'29"E,along said north line,a distance of 27.63 feet; • Thence S 32'53'25"E,along said north line,a distance of 58.82 feet; • Thence S 30'59'21"E,along said north line,a distance of 48.73 feet; • Thence S 48.'07'16"E,along said north line,a distance of 65.22 feet; • Thence S 80°03'07"E,along skid north line,a distance of 70.94 feet; • Thence N 78°04'15"E,along said north line,a distance of 50.75 feet; • Thence S 10°18'40"E,along said north line;a distance of 37.66 feet; • Thence S 8920'16"E,along said north line,a distance of 439.26 feet,to an intersection with the west line of said Section 23; • Thence in a southerly direction along said west line to the south line thereof; • Thence in an easterly direction along said south line to an intersection with the west line of the east half of said Section 23; • Thence in a northerly direction along said west line to an intersection with the north line of Tract"A",Valley Faire Il, recorded in Volume 131 of Plats,Pages 39 through 43,records of King County,Washington; • Thence N 81'54'25"E,along said north line,a distance of 190.00 feet; • Thence S 88°43'54"E,along said north line,a distance of 584.39 feet; • • Thence N 71'0325"E,along paid north line,a distance of 505.00 feet; • Thence N 81°5425"E,along paid north line,a distance of 853.41 feet; • Thence S 81"35'17"E,along said north line,'a distance of 198.04 feet; • -Thence S 012'43"W,along`dald north line;a distance of 50.00 feet; • Thence S 81°35'17"E,along'aid north line,a distance of 350.00 feet to an intersection with the east line of said Section 23; • Thence in a southerly directio along said east line and the east line of said Section 26 to an intersection with the north line of the Plat f Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 5,as recorded in Volume 209 of Plats, Pages 79 through 90,record of King'County,Washington; • Thence S 77°57'56"E,along said north line,a distance of 282.69 feet to an intersection with the boundary of Tract"T"of said Plat; • Thence S 22°04'35"E,along said boundary,a distance of 13.55 feet; • Thence 61.29 feet along said,boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 13'30'21",and a 260.00 foot radius; - • Thence 84.32 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 60'23'17",and a 80.00 foot radius; • Thence S 2048'21"W,along said boundary,a distance of 52.54 feet; • • Thence 25.45 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,witha central angle of 22"26'03",and a 65.00 foot radius; • Thence S 02°2218"W,along said boundary,a distance of 33.30 feet; • • Thence S 87°3742"E,along said boundary,a distance of 20.00 feet; • • Thence N 02°22'18"E,along said boundary,a distance of 33.30 feet; • Thence 17.62 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 22°26'03",and a 45.00 foot radius; • Thence N 24°48'21"E,along said boundary,a distance of 52.54 feet; • Thence 1.04 feet along saidiboundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 00°35'47",and a 100.00 foot radius; • Thence 105.40 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 60°23'17",and a 100.00 foot radius; • Thence 56.57 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 130'21",and a 240.00 foot radius to an intersection with the north line of said plat; - . • Thence S 77°57'56"E,along said north line,a distance of 676.31 feet; • Thence S 45°30'34"W,along said north line,a distance of 132.66 feet; • Thence S 45°54'51"W,along said north line,a distance of 47.39 feet; Fairwood Municipal Initiative; Page 3 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 • Thence S 77°57'56"E,along said north line,a distance of 317.81 feet; • Thence N 12°02'04"E,along said north line,a distance of 150.00 feet; • Thence S 77°57'56"E,along said north line,a distance of 352.10 feet to an intersection with the east line of said plat; • Thence S 22°28'10"W,along said east line,a distance of 1461.11 feet,to an intersection with the east line of the Plat of Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 2,as recorded in Volume 202 of Plats,Pages 41 through 48,records of King County,Washington; • Thence S 67°31'50"E,along said east line,a distance of 222.58 feet; • Thence S 41°49'05"W,along said east line,distance of 215.93 feet to an intersection with the northeast line of the Plat of Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 1,as recorded in Volume 196 of Plats,Pages 86 through 97,records of King County,Washington; • Thence S 57°14'27'"'E,along said northeast line,a distance of 467.55 feet; • Thence N 44°24'03"E,along said east line,a distance of 94.29 feet; • Thence S 67°31'37"E,along said east line,a distance of 269.28 feet to an intersection with the north line of Tract"0"of said plat; • Thence S 60°56'58"W,along said north line,a distance of 182.47 feet; • Thence 111.69 feet along said north line,on a tangential curve,with a central angle of 10°19'18",and a 620.00 foot radius; • Thence S 57"59'33"W,along said north line,a distance of 82.77 feet; • Thence S 50°30'32"W,along said north line,a distance of 140.15 feet; • Thence S 42°41'28"W,along said north line,a distance of 73.69 feet; • Thence S 19°58'53"W,along said north line,a distance of 108.45 feet; • Thence S 00°55'06"E,along said north line,a distance of 214.63 feet; • Thence S 81°47'52"W,along said north line,a distance of 76.18 feet; • Thence S 78°2326"W,along said north line,a distance of 81.88 feet to an intersection with the southwest corner of Lot 1 of said Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 1 plat; • Thence in a westerly direction,perpendicular to the centerline of Parkside Way SE a distance of 56 feet, more or less,to an intersection with the east line of Lot 34 of said plat; • Thence in a southerly direction along said east line to the southeast corner thereof,also being a point on the north line of Tract"T"of said Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 1 plat; • Thence S 83°43'32"W,along said north line,a distance of 361.49 feet; • • Thence N 88'58'35"W along said north line,a distance of 86.85 feet to an intersection with the southwest corner of Lot 40 of said Woodside,at McGarvey Park Division 1.plat; • Thence continuing along the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 40 to an intersection with the • north line of Tract"U",of said Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 1 plat; • Thence N 88°58'35"W along said north line,a distance of 193.00 feet; • Thence N 01'01'25"E,along said north line,a distance of 75.00 feet; • Thence N 88'5825"W,along said north line,distance of 84.93 feet; • Thence N 01°03'32"E,along said north line,a distance of 11.76 feet; • Thence N 17°34'25"W,along said north line,a distance of 32.81 feet; • Thence N 361221"W,along said north line,a distance of 86.20 feet; • Thence N 27°5429"W,along said north line,a distance of 42.24 feet; • Thence N 22°45'30"W,along said north line,a distance of 78.14 feet; • Thence N 3290428"W,along said north line,a distance of 16.30 feet; • • Thence N 41°23'46"W;along said north line,a distance of-81.45 feet; • • Thence N 43°07'15"W,along said north line,a distance of 165.53 feet; • Thence N 87°37'11"W,along said north line,a distance of 25.00 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Section 25; • Thence in a southerly direction along said west line to an intersection with the south line thereof; • Thence in an easterly direction along said south line to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of West Lake Desire Drive Southeast; • Thence in a northeasterly direction along said westerly margin to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of said Section 25; • Thence in a northerly direction,along said west line,a distance of 1,276.59 feet to an intersection with the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 25; • Thence in an easterly direction along said north line to an intersection with the east line of said Section 25; • Thence in a southerly direction along said east line,and the east lines of said Sections 36 and 1 to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way margin of Southeast Petrovitsky Road; • Thence in a northwesterly direction along said southerly margin to an intersection with the northerly right-of- way margin of Southeast 184"'Street(also known as Robert Van Horn Road,County Road Number 1341); Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 4 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood 1 `. Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14,2008 • Thence in a westerly direction along said north margin,to an intersection with the'northerly right-of-way margin of Southeast OldPetrovitsky Road(also known as Peter Grubb,County Road Number 1310); , • Thence in northwesterly,westerly,and southwesterly direction's along said northerly margin to an intersection with the west line of said Section 36; • Thence in a southerly directionlalong said west line to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way margin of said Southeast Old Petrovitsky Road; • Thence in a westerly direction along said southerly margin to an intersection with the north line of the south half of said Section 35; • Thence in a westerly direction along said north line to an intersection with,the west line of said Section 35; • Thence in a southerly direction)along said west line to an intersection with the south line of said Section 35; • Thence in an easterly direction,a distance of 20.00 feet along said south line,to an intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 1481h Avenue SE(also known as Henry Reichling Road,County Road Number 511); • Thence in a southerly direction along said easterly margin to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south line of the Plat of Ruddell's 3rd Addition,as recorded in Vplume,108 of Plats,Pages 25 and 26, records of King County,Washington; • Thence N 89°12'25"W,along said south line,a distance of 1,334.28 feet,more or less,to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the east half of said Section 3; • • Thence S 00°59'17"W,along said west line to an intersection with the south right-of-way margin of Southeast 202nd Street,as conveyed by King County Recording Number 7606150722,records of King County,Washington; • Thence in a westerly direction along said south margin and its westerly extension thereof to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 140'h Avenue Southeast; • Thence N 01'02'10"E,along said westerly margin,a distance of 132.00 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly right-of-way margin of Southeast 204th Way; • Thence in a southwesterly direction along said margin to an intersection with the east line of Tract"A",of the Plat of Jerry's Place,recorder in Volume 207 of Plats,Pages 50'through54,records of King County, Washington; • Thence S 01°02'10"W,along said east line,a distance of 688.88 feet to the south line of said tract; • Thence N 55"21'52"W,along said south line,a distance of 426.21 feet to the west line of said plat; • Thence N 01'02'10"E,along said north line;a distance of 283.00 feet to'an intersection with the south right- of-way marginof said Southeast 204 Way; • Thence in a northwesterly direction'along a line running perpendicular to the centerline of said Southeast • 204th Way to an intersection with the northwesterly margin thereof; • Thence in a southwesterly direction along said northwesterly margin to an intersection with the southwest corner of Tract"C"of the Platt of Forest Glen South,recorded in Volume 129 of Plats,Pages 66 through 67, records of King County,Washington; • Thence N 17°00'00"W,along the west line of said tract,a distance of 108.94 feet to the south line of Tract "B"of said plat; • Thence N 89`09'46"W,along said south line,a distance of 238.15 feet to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of said Section 3; • Thence southerly along said east line to an intersection with the south line of King County Short Plat Number 778109,recording nimber 7904090779,records of King County,Washington; . • Thence;N 89°09'15"W,along said south line,a distance of 660.00 feet to the.west'line of said short plat; • Thence N 01'06'57"E,along said west line,a distance of 920.02 feet to an intersection•with the south line of Tract"B",of the Plat of Forest Trails Division 1,recorded in Volume 129 of Plats, Pages 78 through 80, records of King County,Washington; • Thence N 89°12'13"W,along said south line,a distance of 327.47 feet; • Thence N 41°29'14"W,along said south line,a distance of 487.24 feet to an intersection with the south line of King County Boundary Line Adjustment L97L0075,recording number 9710239010, records of King County,Washington; • Thence N 64°02'58"W,along said south line,a distance of 753.55 feet; • Thence N 49449'58"W,along said south line,a distance of 816.67 feet to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the east half of said Section 4; • Thence N 01'22'24"E,along said west line,a distance of 1,108.26 feet,more or less to the an intersection with the south line of the north half of the north half of Government Lot 2,of said Section 4; • Thence N 89°41'14"W,along said south line,a distance of 657.06 feet to an intersection with,the west line of the east half of said Government Lot 2; Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 5 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 • Thence N 01'22'24"E,along said west line,a distance of 298.63 feet to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way margin of Southeast 192`a Street(also known as Robert Melville Road,County Road Number 1119); • Thence westerly, along said south margin, to an intersection with the southerly extension of a line 422 feet east of and parallel to the west line of the southeast quarter of said Section 33,also being the east line of a portion of the Southeast 192nd Street right-of-way conveyed under King County recording number 19991011001557; • Thence in an northerly direction,along said southerly extension,a distance of 80 feet,more or less,to the northerly right-of-way margin of said Southeast 192nd Street,also being the east line of Boulevard Lane Park as described in said deed to King County recorded under King County recording number 19991011001557; • Thence northerly N 0921'00"E,along said east line,a distance of 300.00 feet; • Thence in a northwesterly direction,along said east line,to a point on the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 52,in the Plat off Boulevard Lane Division 1,recorded in Volume 80 of Plats,Page 89,records of King County,Washington,lying 200.17 feet westerly of the southwest corner of said Lot 52; • Thence in an easterly direction,along said westerly extension,to the southwest corner of said Lot 52; • Thence N 1951'31"E,along the west boundary of said plat,a distance of 286.83 feet; • Thence N 16917'15"E,along the west boundary of said plat,a distance of 45.58 feet to the west boundary of the Plat of Boulevard Lane Division 2,recorded in Volume 82 of Plats, Page 20,records of King County; • Thence N 16917'15"E,along the west boundary of said plat,a distance of 850.71 feet to the west boundary of the Plat of Boulevard Lane Division 5 recorded in Volume 89 of Plats,Page 29,records of King County, • Thence N 16917'15"E,along the west boundary of said plat,a distance of 508.34 feet to the north line of said southeast quarter of Section 33; • Thence S 88905'24"E,along said north line,a distance of 544.79 feet to an intersection with the west line of lot 1,King County Short Plat Number C1077001,recording number 7806080590, records of King County, Washington; • Thence N 44°2324"E,along said west line,a distance of 466.00 feet to the east line of said lot; • Thence S 42°37'47"E,along said east line,a distance of 21.32 feet to an intersection with the west line of the Plat of Fox Estates,recorded in Volume 143 of Plats,Pages 53 through 55,records of King County, Washington; • Thence N 45°10'57"E,along said west line and it's extension thereof,a distance of 544.76 to an intersection with the northeasterly line of.the Puget Sound Power and Light Company Transmission Line Easement,King County Recording Number 7105180453; . • Thence in a northwesterly direction along said northeasterly line to an intersection with the south line of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 33; • Thence in a westerly direction along said south line to an intersection with west line of said subdivision (Excluding any portion of Lot 3,of King County Short Plat Number 779163R,recording number 8105060679, records of King County,Washington); • Thence N 01°53'26"E,along said west line a distance of 1,327.22 feet,more or less,to the north line of said subdivision and the intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 28; • Thence N 02°1922"E,along said west line,a distance of 224.84 feet to an intersection with the west right- of-way margin of 128w'Avenue Southeast; • Thence N 18°17'20"W,along said west margin,a distance of 55.17 feet; • Thence N 01°44'32"E,along said west margin,a distance of 55.17 feet; . • Thence 33.50 feet along said west margin on a tangential curve to the west,with a 25.00 foot radius to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way margin of John Petrovitsky Road Extension, King County Road Number 1401,also known as Southeast Petrovitsky Road; • Thence in southeasterly and northeasterly directions along said southerly margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the westerly right-of-way margin of 134Th Avenue Southeast; • Thence northwesterly perpendicular to the centerline of said SE Petrovitsky Road,a distance of 92.00 feet, more or less,to the northerly right-of-way margin of said Southeast Petrovitsky Road; • Thence northerly along said westerly right-of-way margin of said 1341h Avenue SE,also being on the boundary line of Tract"A", Plat of Fairwood Park Division 7,recorded in Volume 116 of Plats,Pages 88 through 90, records of King County,Washington; • Thence 38.44 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve to the west,with a 25.00 foot radius; • Thence N 06°19'54"W,along said boundary,a distance of 20.83 feet; • Thence 95.75 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve to the east,with a 125.00 foot radius; • Thence N 68°4923"W,along said boundary,a distance of 100.00 feet; • Thence N 15°08'04"E,along said boundary,a distance of 50.00 feet; Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 6 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 • Thence N 03°49'50"W,along s id boundary,a distance of 75.58 feet; • • Thence N 10°54'32"W,along said boundary,a distance of 215.78 feet; • Thence N 01°54'34"W,along said boundary,a distance of 85.00 feet; • Thence N 05°43'52"E,along said boundary,a distance of 222.13 feet; • Thence S 83°01'33"W,along said boundary,a distance of 104.44 feet; • Thence N 06°58'27"W,along said boundary,a distance of 122.00 feet; • Thence N 83°01'33"E,along said boundary,a distance of 200.00 feet; • Thence S 06°58'27"E,along said boundary,a distance of 196.24 feet; • Thence S 05°42'38"W,along said boundary,a distance of 45.52 feet; • • Thence N 83°01'33"E,along said boundary,a distance of 60.00 feet; • Thence N 06058'27"W,along said boundary,a distance of 130.64 feet; • Thence N 83°01'33"E,along said boundary,a distance of 308.72 feet; • Thence N 11°12'47"W,along said boundary,a distance of 286.29 feet; • Thence N 48°10'37"E,along said boundary,a distance of 85.00 feet; • Thence 97.23 feet along•said boundary on a non tangential curve to the east,with a 242.54-foot radius; • Thence N 18°5111"W,along said boundary,a distance of 361.29 feet; • • Thence 114.98 feet along said boundary on a tangential curve to the west,with a 171.00 foot radius; • Thence S 23°45'00"W,along said boundary,a distance of 123.95 feet; • Thence N 67°47'47"W,along said boundary,a distance of 48.26 feet; • Thence S 80°32'16"W,along said boundary,a distance of 57.67 feet; • Thence S 88°51'32"W,along said boundary,a distance of 121.53 feet; • Thence N 71°09'08"W,along said boundary,a distance of 254.14 feet; • Thence N 24°58'50"E,along said boundary,a distance of 127.61 feet; • Thence 111.75 feet along said boundary on a non tangential curve to the'east,with a 329.00 foot radius; • Thence S 44°26'32"W,along said boundary,a distance of 157.76 feet; • Thence N 7435'11"W,along said boundary,a distance of 125.02 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Section 27; • Thence N 0234'20"E,along said west line,a distance of 139'feet,'more or less,to an intersection with the north line of the south half of tl0 said Section 28; • Thence N 01°54'51"E,along the east line of-said section 28,a distance of 1,337.48 feet,'more or less,to an intersection with the north line the south half of the•northeast quarter of said Section 28;" • Thence N 87°50'47"W,along said north line,to an intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 128th Avenue Southeast; • Thence northerly along said east margin to the southerly right-of-way margin of SE 164th Street • Thence northerly along a line ierpendicular to the centerline of Southeast 164th Street,a distance of 60.00 feet,more or less to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of SE 164`h Street; • Thence N 8730'06"W,along said northerly margin,to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the northeast quarter of said Section 28; • Thence N 01"59'35"E,along staid west line,to an-intersection with the south line of said Section 21; • Thence S 8730'06"E,along said south line,to an intersection with west right-of-way margin of the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline; • Thence in a northwesterly direction along said west margin to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 21,also being the City Limits of,Renton as annexed under Ordinance Number 1961; • • Thence in a northerly direction;along said west line and city limits to an intersection with-the north line of said southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 21,also being the City Limits of Renton as annexed under Ordinance Number 3723; • Thence in an easterly direction along said north line and city limits to an intersection with a line 20 feet west of and parallel to the west line Pf said Section 22; • Thence in a northerly direction along said west line and city limits to the thread of the Cedar River; • Thence in a southeasterly direction along the course of said thread of the Cedar River to the west line of said Section 22,and the POINT OF BEGINNING. • TOGETHER WITH the Plat of iWoodside at McGarvey Division 6,recorded in Volume 216 of Plats,Pages 55 through 62,records of King County,Washington, I Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 7 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood Revised Legal Description BRB File#2258 October 14, 2008 ERRATA LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD (July 07,2006) Tract"T"of Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 5(PIN955804-1260)has been completely removed from the legal because it is segregated by the UGBL. This Tract serves Division 5,and therefore would appear logical to include in the incorporation. DNRP-Stormwater(206.296-1900)is the current steward of tract.Preferably,the UGBL , would be adjusted in this area such that Tract T was fully within the urban growth area. Perhaps a companion ordinance to the incorporation ordinance could be introduced which clarifies/corrects the UGBL for the handful of parcels affected by this. However,if not,an interlocal maintenance agreement between the City and County should be considered as part of the incorporation agreements. Woodside at McGarvey Park Division 6:This plat division is designated urban,and is graphically depicted as a peninsula jutting out into an otherwise rural zoned area.The problem is that the"urban connector"to the rest of the urban-zoned area is across a narrow segment of the otherwise,very,large rural open-space tract(PIN955800-1080). No access is available along the urban connector provided for Division 6.'As this rural open-space tract cannot be incorporated. Therefore the legal description includes Division 6 as an island of incorporation. The access to which is provided by two fairly long public roadways crossing a wider section of said rural open-space tract. The responsibility for the maintenance of these roadwaysshould be addressed in the incorporation agreements. Parcel PIN#252305-9026,has a small portion of this parcel is outside of the incorporation area,the result of a 2000 lot line adjustment(KC recording number 20001204900003)leaving a small 12.5'by 48.5'section that is split off by the UGBL. The legal description provided,splits this parcel down the UGBL,leaving the small portion outside the proposed limits of incorporation. If possible,a companion ordinance clarifying/correcting the UGBL for this parcel, and a handful of others,would be the recommended approach. If UGBL is adjusted later,the City could pursue correcting the boundary discrepancy under RCW 35.13.340. Alternatively,the parcel could be entirely excluded.The City feels the intent of UGBL was clearly to include the parcel(we agree),and therefore the legal should include the small portion,:to avoid having to correct it later. RSD staff is unable to make this requested change without a clarification/correction of the UGBL by the responsible authorities. Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 8 of 8 Proposed City of Fairwood ii. r.,AA-il es t., I 3 V..- --....— V r .4414 S. ikusLeyli.LE:::“., ; I • 4-7:,•67. ; ; ' , / , 1, 11 , ,, ...A.... st4:' ,N, . e ..,,,,,e*:,..4,,,,,_ '•,-,. 4,,,,,. !.,•,.„,,, \ I ,'''.. '''' , 4,....• 3 4. e .... : I .: .. .44,44.4 No4, CaNlae ftwar 4 X ? ....., u e.. ----2. /--: f ...- .... ' i %. 44.ns G•801, 56,9E041.3N ' '" • "OLE y,,,, i ....4.. M.110441•1 .4, .........,_,.....- N 't I ,Isetry sr,, -,-.... ......-...•.,.,,,_ ___. ..•t"..4,.... ,,,•••.. , .''t •44.,,,NO "4.t• 1 1 I l. . 1 IS 4an.Sr Renton .44 i f , .se / ,.se 1.44,141.‘ ' 54..ILONA a 4.1. .7:: t 1l3'.n a ....,,, .... 14 ; ' P .— ''' ''' g i f c f 8 .,.N " \ 4:" 1 It ilf•9,44)oi N 1 ..,, se 14•1111,1 4-3...-.44•,,,,,s,,,,i*."---(47 ! N NI.44,1.41 4 ' ''''4,0,0 1"" ? r" ' 1 I 14,....___,..., ' ''...... e DR 144,4444,-, ,14444149 94 14, . S1.... , • • 1,1 et NO, • 1 w e i ,. ,,,,,.. 4 4 , , f 4' • g % :•'' _ .,4414 1 44......•4' f . U 1441••I ST - 4 se`,.'",' i N a a ,.., se lamer W 711::44...r.'' : i / 41.44.1.4Vcco 1.9. \sa,...“, .4. cfP'''' i •— E 1 7 <fr,A. es ' 7 .. 1.., se 44,4 i 11. ''.4 a'""" ''4 14 ,s, vr 1 . ,, $4 ..q ..,,,,M 3, 44,,.4, - - ' „.. 5414,41A .1,..''.., ' .,,,.. ,VI 4, 11 S -' ;' ' .' .4*. :,,,,, ......., 4. i 1 go' - 1 •,,, %', S e 4, "'"" . f 1 4'.1,.. .' 1 1 S 4'‘ ... S., 'i. 4:4. 1 %N.,,.,,N.,i „qt..,•— , ,,,,'''''' ft ' t .:, ,•,,,,,,,,,,.. '5,,, ,,e,N,..„. '''' '''''' , . u v/OrN 41 ' ir '..., .... xtry.:, i .4,.... . ;,. L' ). ‘..,,,_,:.\ E l'N , k 7 SE 14,•011 ‘, 4 a-8\ r ,,,, ao,„,..,_....'—,, ...., i, e 'i f -i, --: \ ''' i ; P e, 4 , •c 41 • 44 10/10 44 ' 1 ••• ...1St. '.'',V.V..' ..1. ' .44 14,N 81. ''T.01 ,,,,,, ZZ In,. al'UN 4, .0,, •.. • . 'MI.', • .431,Pt r".""""'l t,' S, e" .4,,.,„..,, \ • 4.0 „,.. * g SE Whit + if 1447.4 ” * ...4/ 0 • 1404,KW " '/1.. ."',..,''t" , ' <t441.0.• • f ..... ''''.." V 44 100•443,4.'" \, I• 44 WM, SC:10,14i W St,ttfli4 V W.....1 I A: . _•., . 1,--.—...5f.492ND sr — -------- Y it.0114.0 •...., '.4,41,I.4kr 1 4, „„„,,, ... I \-- A e 4.. .„44.43" .. ,:., • 144‘ WM, 7 ...., *",..7,': ..... ../ , 1 p, „.4. VI ,4, ....”..* ---- %. : ' • 1,...4.490A ' . .......00.4, .. ... ,, i4 1i1 , .1L.: J .P.'. Lake Youngst .. "t 7 ;1 -- I 8 e I 3..7, 1 1 „.. 7. rl Proposed City of Fairwood e $ d? * - Municipal Initiative Incorporation e . cJ Proposed City of Fasrvvood 1' . . Parks e ws., I .1.14.1111 . 7 ft 4•444.49 7 a Parcels i Incorporated Areas -- w--MIR 1 .1., V 1 Urban Growth Boundary ; 1 , \ i le)10,131 ---- Arterials -AWN- I I 1, Local Streets I AM., .3.11.4,). I it N 0 0.25 0.5 Mlles ! k / 2 ' 1 Apd 15.2009 sc 40•0 4/ i , 1„,....r.tt•iiff:=:::••.;:;:, V i w s I !AKIN c.00tty i GIS CE _i_ 1YTER --r- pg7.-Eit-zzg.--7-il.:...-.7-F...._ . .GS UT.V 1 —1---1-1----- I---- -- / ..- A._ " EXHIBIT II January 26, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes Page 29 Finance: Telephone System Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Replacement, Qwest concurrence in the staff recommendation to delay the project at this time. Since the project will need to go through the bid process again, this matter will be closed in Committee. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Gambling Tax Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Revenues, Non-Profit concurrence in the staff recommendation to reduce the gambling tax rate by two Organizations and one half percent(2.5%) on bingo and raffles for non-profit organizations, on the gross receipts that exceed $10,000 in a year. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 30 for ordinance.) Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Vice-Chair Parker presented a report recommending Utility: Oversizing concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the request for oversizing Compensation Request, Barbee utilizing the method of cost reimbursement developed jointly by the staff and Mill Townhouses, Conner the developer for the additional work associated with wastewater improvements Homes Company at the plat of Barbee Mill by Conner Homes. The Committee further recommended that staff be authorized to reimburse Conner Homes for actual costs not to exceed the requested$285,385.28. Costs in excess of the requested amount shall be brought back to Council for its consideration. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES ADDED A resolution was read approving the petition for the annexation,by election, of RESOLUTION#3990 contiguous unincorporated territory to the City of Renton and referred to as the Annexation: West Hill West Hill Annexation; stating the number of registered voters residing therein as nearly as may be; and authorizing the City Clerk to file with the King County Boundary Review Board a notice of intention as well as to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of County Commissions of King County and the King County Boundary Review Board. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. ADDED A resolution was read approving the petition for the annexation,by election, of RESOLUTION#3991 contiguous unincorporated territory to the City of Renton and referred to as the Annexation: Greater Fairwood Greater Fairwood Communities Annexation; stating the number of registered Communities — voters residing therein as nearly as may be; and authorizing the City Clerk to file with the King County Boundary Review Board a notice of intention as well as to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of County Commissions of King County and the King County Boundary Review Board. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. RESOLUTION#3992 A resolution was read approving the Phung Final Plat; approximately .49 acres, Plat: Phung, Lynnwood Ave located at 2604 Lynnwood Ave.NE. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NE, FP-08-054 BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. January 26, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes Page 28 Remarking that this matter has been heard as part of the budget process for the City Attorney Office transition to City employment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR WITH AGENDA ITEM 7.i. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Item City Clerk presented Certificate of Sufficiency and submitted for action the 7_b. • - I°. : -.. . •- - . . _ . . Annexation: West Hill election, and transmission of the petition and resolution to King County and the Boundary Review Board. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Separate Consideration Item ' City Clerk presented Certificate of Sufficiency and submitted for action the 7.c. Greater Fairwood Communities 10%petition for annexation, adoption of the Annexation: Greater Fairwood - • • _ • _ - •-•, • . ••• • - •- - • . - . • - Communities to King County and the Boundary Review Board. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Council President Corman removed Agenda Items 7.b. and 7.c. from the agenda explaining that the Committee of the Whole prepared a report accepting both annexation petitions. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ' Council President Corman presented a Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole regarding the West Hill and Greater Fairwood Communities annexations. The Annexation: West Hill & Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to accept Greater Fairwood Notice of Intent to Annex petitions calling for annexation by election of the Communities Greater Fairwood Communities Annexation and the West Hill Annexation. The Committee also recommended that provisions regarding assumption of bonded indebtedness and zoning regulations be determined by Council ata later date, after receipt of Boundary Review Board approval. The Committee further recommended that the resolutions regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to transmit the petitions and resolutions to the Clerk of the King County Council, King County Records and Elections, and the State of Washington Boundary Review Board �i for King County. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PERSSON, • COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Council President Corman stated that after debating the issues Council has decided to accept the annexation petitions. He remarked that he would like to see the debate leave the forum of the Renton City Council and go back to those t communities where it belongs. He acknowledged that Fairwood has to decide whether to incorporate or not first. He noted that although the annexation 4 petitions are under review, Council policy is to remain neutral. Concluding, Council President Corman stated that if it is determined that a large number of residents do not wish to annex to Renton; the City could take steps to revise the Potential Annexation Areas. *MOTION CARRIED. (See page 29 for resolutions.) Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 280150 - 280448 and two wire transfers totaling $4,140,312.40; and approval of 149 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 789 direct deposits totaling$2,837,616.49. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. January 26, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes - Page 25 AUDIENCE COMMENT Gurine Nordby(King County) requested information regarding changes to Citizen Comment: Nordby- public services, including library, fire,police, and utility taxes if the proposed West Hill Annexation West Hill annexation becomes effective. She also requested information regarding Renton's budget. Mayor Law stated that Council will hold additional public meetings regarding the annexation proposal in the next few months. Council President Corman stated that library financing will be discussed at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Citizen Comment: Bartlett - Matt Bartlett(Renton) expressed concern over possible fire service reductions if West Hill Annexation the West Hill annexation becomes effective. He also voiced concern about what the affect of annexing another large area will.be to current Renton residents. Citizen Comment: Berry- Paul Berry(King County) stated that the West Hill annexation petition West Hill Annexation presented to Council does not represent the views of the entire West Hill community and submitted via the City Clerk a petition signed by 260 residents opposing the annexation. Mr. Berry also expressed concern regarding changes to public services, including fire,police, and the library system if the proposed West Hill annexation becomes effective. Citizen Comment: Edwards- Tom Edwards (King County) expressed opposition to the proposed Greater Fairwood Annexation Fairwood Communities annexation. He explained that an attempt in 2006 to incorporate the Fairwood area was narrowly defeated at the polls and that the proponents have continued their efforts towards incorporation. He also expressed frustration with Council's acceptance of the Red Mill annexation petition,which he opined was designed to derail the broader Fairwood incorporation effort. Mr. Edwards stated that the future of Fairwood must be decided solely by its citizens. Citizen Comment: Belenky- Aaron Belenky(Renton) stated that as a president of a local condominium Waste Management Issues Homeowners' Association (HOA), he is frustrated with Waste Management's new trash collection policy. He remarked that Waste Management reported no cost increases for 2009 and later declared an increase of approximately $4,000. He stated that due to this unexpected increase, the HOA is now behind on their budget. Mr. Belenky remarked that this could have been prevented had Waste Management provided accurate information. He also reported that Waste Management delivered an inaccurate amount of new collection bins to the condominium complex. He stated that Waste Management did not know how many units were in the complex and that they will only work with the HOA, and not individual property owners,to solve the problem. Mayor Law requested that Mr. Belenky speak with Public Works Administrator Zimmerman to mediate the issue. Citizen Comment: Correa- Kevin Correa(Renton) expressed concern over the potential loss of fire service West Hill Annexation if the West Hill annexation becomes effective. He explained that an engine company was lost through the recent Benson Hill annexation and voiced concern over the livelihood of the volunteer firefighters, career staff, and administrative support personnel who serve the West Hill area. Citizen Comment: Mathias - Dick Mathias (King County) expressed support for the incorporation of Fairwood Annexation Fairwood. He opined that he would have more assurance that police, fire, land zoning, road construction, planning, maintenance, and recreation services would be locally focused and administrated. Mr. Mathias stated that he would find it troubling if big box stores, high density housing, or unsavory businesses were permitted without a vote and approval of Fairwood residents. January 26, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 Citizen Comment: Sidwell - Kathleen Sidwell (King County) stated that residents have legitimate questions West Hill Annexation regarding the proposed West Hill annexation and remarked that those questions would be answered by letting the annexation process move forward. She also recommended that Renton annex to the King County Library System. Citizen Comment: Shultz- Chris Shultz(King County) opined that Council was receiving only one side of Fairwood Annexation the story regarding business owners in the Fairwood area. He stated that most business owners have not talked to anyone regarding the proposed Fairwood annexation. He expressed opposition to the proposed Red Mill annexation and requested that Council allow Fairwood residents the chance to make their own decision regarding local governance. Citizen Comment: Giberson- Joe Giberson (King County) stated that he represents the Fairwood Municipal Fairwood Annexation Initiative and explained that the group's purpose is to bring the matter of incorporation before the citizens of Fairwood again. He opined that Renton has not hired the amount of staff indicated in studies that was needed for the two most recent annexations. He further remarked that due to current budget deficits, the City could not hire the amount of staff required if the City were to double in size. Citizen Comment: Clemens - Gwendolyn Clemens (Seattle), Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Annexation Efforts Management, King County Executive's Office, expressed appreciation for the City's work towards achieving the County's annexation initiatives over the last five years: She noted that both the West Hill and Fairwood annexations are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area(PAA) as required by the Growth Management Act(GMA) and County-wide planning policies. Ms. Clemens remarked that if Council chooses to allow transmission of the annexation petitions to the Boundary Review Board(BRB), her office looks forward to working with City staff to provide the City, the BRB, and area residents the information they require to make informed decisions. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion.which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmember Persson, item 7.i. was removed for separate consideration. At the request of Council President Corman items 7.b. and 7.c. were removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 1/12/2009. Council concur. 1/12/2009 City Clerk: Quarterly Contract City Clerk submitted quarterly contract list for period of 10/1/2008 through List, 10/1/2008 to 12/31/2008 12/31/2008 and expiration report for agreements expiring 1/1/2009 to 6/30/2009. Information. Streets: SE 192nd St Development Services Division recommended a 12-day temporary road closure Temporary Closure from May 11 through May 22, 2009, of SE 192nd St. from 102nd Ave. SE to 99th P1. S. to correct existing sight distance deficiencies and to regrade approximately 500 feet of the road. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Plat: Phung, Lynnwood Ave. Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the NE, FP-08-054 Phung Final Plat; a two lot subdivision located at 2604 Lynnwood Ave. NE. Council concur. (See page 29 for resolution.) Fire: Injury Prevention Fire and Emergency Services Department recommended approval of a contract Programs Mini-Grant, King with King County to accept$4,500 for injury prevention programs. Council County concur. (See page 30 for resolution.) A 1 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 240, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http//www.kingcounty.gov/annexations CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 4 2008 RECEIVED 13 August 2008 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mayor Denis Law City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Notice of Intention Before the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County for a Proposed New City of Fairwood (File No. 2258) Dear Mayor Law: We write in response to your letter of August 5, 2008 inquiring about the Boundary Review Board process for review of the Notice of Intention submitted by the Fairwood Municipal Initiative (community organization)for a proposed new City of Fairwood. The Boundary Review Board appreciates and shares the interest by the City of Renton in providing for a comprehensive, timely review of the proposed incorporation of a new City of Fairwood. To that end, effective August 1, 2008, the Boundary Review Board established a contract with the firm of Henderson & Young to prepare a Feasibility Study for this Notice of Intention. On August 7, representatives of Henderson & Young met with Lenora Blauman, Executive Director and Project Manager for the Boundary Review Board, to establish a preliminary schedule for the review of the proposed incorporation. A copy of the Preliminary Schedule is attached for your convenience. The Preliminary Schedule anticipates completion of the Feasibility Study by December 31, 2008. Then the proposed incorporation would be presented for the public hearing, as prescribed by statutory mandate (Chapters 35.02 RCW, 36.93 RCW, et seq.), before the entire Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board public hearings and the issuance of a Resolution and Hearing Decision are anticipated to occur in early 2009. RCW 36.93 requires a 30 day appeal period of the Boundary Review Board Resolution & Hearing Decision. The Boundary Review Board will close File No. 2258 following the termination of the appeal period, pursuant to RCW 36.93. Upon closure of File No. 2258, the Fairwood Municipal Initiative will be permitted to begin to work with the King County Council to set an election for the proposed new City of Fairwood. Fairwood Municipal Initiative representatives and King County officials are the parties authorized to set the date for an election in this matter. We appreciate your support for the evaluation of the proposed Fairwood Incorporation in a manner that permits required products and the review schedule to provide for a complete, timely assessment of the planned incorporation to be undertaken by the Boundary Review Board, by various government agencies, and by members of affected communities. i I We invite you to contact Lenora. Blauman to obtain additional information and/or secure progress reports with respect to the Boundary Review Board assessment of the proposed new City of Fairwood. However, we do respectfully request that you not copy Board members in future correspondence because Robert Kaufman, legal counsel, reports that as the matter is pending before the Board, this correspondence could be viewed as a prohibited ex parte communication. We thank you for your consideration. I . Sincerely, Ce"..._e_A. 114.....1b.- oast_46." Claudia Hirschey, Chair ashington State Boundary Review Board for King County \All V- Michael Marchan , Chair Fairwood Incorporation Review Subcommittee Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Attachment Cc: Marcie Palmer,Chair,Renton City Council Members-Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County King County Executive Ron Sims Julia Patterson,Chair,Metropolitan King County Council Members—Metropolitan King County Council Alex Pietsch,City of Renton—,Administrator,Community&Economic Development Elissa Benson,King County Office of Management&Budget WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF A NEW CITY OF FAIRWOOD (FILE NO. 2258) INCORPORATION REVIEW - PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Request ar Proposal Publication of RFP 1131-08 May 22,2008 Pre-Proposal Conference June 02, 2008 Bid Opening May 22, 2008 Bid Closing June 12, 2008 Selection of Consultant June 16- July 20, 2008 Contract with Consultant July 20 31, 2008 Contract implementation Preparation of Feasibility Study August 1 - December 31, 2008 - • - (Note Preparation of study documents to be based upon consultation with Boundary Review Board Project Management Team, Regional and Local Government Agencies, Fairwood Municipal Initiative,i and citizens of local communities) Boundary Review Board Establishes Public Hearing Schedule January 8, 2009 Boundary Review Board Publishes Legal Notice for Hearing January 15, 2009 Boundary Review Board Public Hearings (Up to 3 Hearings) February, 2009 Boundary Review Board Decision/Recommendation March 12, 2009 Boundary Review Board Decision/Recommendation Appeal Period (30 Days) March 13- April 12, 2009 Incorporation Election Date To Be Determined (Please Note The above timeline is a working schedule, All dates are subject to modification.) RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 11, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERM BRIERE;RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; MARTY WINE,Assistant CAO; ZANETTA FONTES, ATTENDANCE Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; IWEN WANG, Finance and Information Services Administrator; PREETI SHRIDAR, Communications Director; EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR DEBORAH NEEDHAM,Fire Department; COMMANDER CHARLES KARLEWICZ, Police Department. AUDIENCE COMMENT Joe Giberson(King County), President,Fairwood Municipal Initiative, stated Citizen Comment: Giberson- that he is seeking a resolution from Council directing staff to refrain from Fairwood Incorporation activities calculated to interfere with or influence the incorporation process of the proposed City of Fairwood. He pointed out that the use of public funds is prohibited for influencing elections, and stated that groups such as Choose Renton should seek funding from non-public sources. Mr. Giberson also stated that additional annexations may not proceed in the Fairwood area until the incorporation process is completed, and that the incorporation election may be scheduled for August 2010. Citizen Comment: Bujanovich Nick Bujanovich(King County)stated that King County has commissioned a -Fairwood Incorporation fiscal feasibility study, and asked that the City of Renton wait until the study is B complete before taking any action on Fairwood annexations. He also stated that he believes a City of Fairwood would be financially feasible. Citizen Comment: Edwards - Tom Edwards (King County) stated that he has been a resident of Fairwood for Fairwood Incorporation 15 years and owns a business in the area. He remarked that he is concerned about the efforts being made to push Fairwood to join Renton. He noted that Fairwood residents are passionate about this issue,and requested that the City of Renton make every effort to show no signs of support either for or against the incorporation effort. Citizen Comment: Rodriguez- Jose Rodriguez(Renton) inquired about the recently-annexed Valley View Valley View Mobile Home Mobile Home Park(that may be sold). Mayor Law encouraged Mr. Rodriguez Park to speak to Alex Pietsch, Community and Economic Development Administrator,for clarification. Citizen Comment: McBeth- Bob McBeth(Auburn) introduced Dr. Sari Pascoe,new Executive Director of Communities in Schools of Communities in Schools of Renton. Dr. Pascoe thanked Council for the Renton opportunity to serve as the new Executive Director and challenged them to participate and get excited about the program. Mayor Law welcomed Dr. Pascoe and noted that many of the Councilmembers have served as mentors in the past. Citizen Comment: Johnson- Arland"Buzz" Johnson(Renton) stated that local shopping centers have started Parking Issues &Bus Service placing time limits on parking stalls. He remarked that the vacant lot on Grady Way S. and Rainier Ave. S. could be used for overflow parking for the Park& Ride lot located on S. 7th St. Mr. Johnson also remarked that people should August 11,2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 continue to,use and be concerned about bus service, even when the price of gas goes down. Citizen Comment: Nelson- Bryce Nelson (King County) stated that he is the spokesperson for Choose Fairwood Incorporation Renton and that the organization is not looking for support from Renton,just asking that information about Renton be provided to citizens living in the Fairwood area. Mr. Nelson remarked that he believes that annexing to Renton is the best option for the future governance of the area. Councilmember Corman stated that he intends to stay neutral on the issue and that the decision to be annexed or to incorporate is up to Fairwood residents. He also pointed out that Fairwood is in Renton's potential annexation area (PAA) and an annexation petition would be accepted the same way as one from any other area inside Renton's PAA. He noted that the City of Renton provides unbiased,non-political City information to anyone who makes such a request. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXTEND THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PERIOD TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Henderson- Paula Henderson(King County) urged Council to allow citizens in Fairwood to Fairwood Incorporation make their own decision regarding their future governance. She also cautioned that any information provided to the public by the City of Renton needs to be accurate. Citizen Comment: Parnell- Greg Parnell (King County) stated that he was disconcerted(during the previous Fairwood Incorporation incorporation effort)to read Mayor Law's response in the Renton Reporter to a letter published by a Fairwood Homeowners'Association. He indicated that he believes the response should have been directed to the Homeowners' Association. Responding to Councilmember Parker's inquiry, Mayor Law stated that the City will provide information to all who make a request. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 8/4/2008. Council concur. 8/4/2008 CED: 2008 Neighborhood Community and Economic Development Department requested authorization to Program Grants,Budget amend the 2008 Budget by transferring$18,700 from the General Fund Amend (000/023) to the Municipal Facilities CIP Fund(316) for the 2008 Neighborhood Program,primarily because of the Benson Hill Communities annexation. Council concur. (See page 260 for ordinance.) Transportation: Airport Layout Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the Plan Design,URS Corporation amount of$40,573.41 with URS Corporation for planning design services to complete the Airport Layout Plan. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 274916-275314 and three wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $4,088,055.39; and approval of 353 Payroll Vouchers,one wire transfer, and 814 direct deposits totaling$2,925,479.77. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. 259 Washington State Boundary Review Board aha For King County Yesler Building,Room 407,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 RECEIVE Phone:(206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 •http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations NOV 01 2007 October 24, 2007 BETON CiTy C4uNcil CITY OFC" DEC 0 38:07.0 1007 The Honorable Reagan Dunn CITYli.ECENED Metropolitan King County Councilmember -ERK S OFFICE Room 1200, King County Courthouse 516 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 RE: NOTIFICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OF PROPOSALS File No. 2258 - City of Fairwood-Municipal Initiative Incoporation Dear Councilmember Dunn: The Boundary Review Board takesi this means of informing all potentially interested parties of Notices of Intention that are filed with the Board. The map on,the reverse indicates the area involved in a presently pending action. If you feel this action should be the subject of a public hearing by the Board, you may request review as provided for in RCW 36.93.100. This office is available to provide you with further information concerning procedure for requesting a hearing. If this notification is for a proposed new city incorporation, a public hearing before the Board will be scheduled in accordance with state law, and it is not necessary to make a request for review. Sincerely, Aebt.) I ` Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary { Page two continued, October 24, 2007 Form 10 cc: King County Water and Land Resources Division, Attn: Richard Rice King County Office of Cultural Resources, Attn: Jim Kelly King County Fire Marshal Division, Attn: John Klopfenstein King County Community &Human Services, Attn: Allan Johnson King County "911" Program Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Puget Sound Regional Council - Environmental Review Cities: City of Kent and Renton District(s): King County Fire Protection District No. 25 and 40, Kent Fire Department (No. 37); King County Water District No. 90; Soos Creek Water!and Sewer District, and Cedar River Water and Sewer District; Issaquah School District No. 411, Kent School District No. 415, Renton School District No. 403 and Tahoma School District No. 409 Notice of Intention to Inl ,orate BRB File#2258 October 21,200i Ecervr 1 OCT 2 2 20x7 F' are 2-Map showing boundary separating Fire Districts - --- ; ? < z . 1,1-17.r.---i''.7 .-7.-77..717-1. rider i,�ti+c•� u , ,fie tra4 - tt � ,q . .1•. ��: ..)tot.. �� ( i •t :, _ _ .� Idle"*" . King :iso N 0,l.r"' .c- % C'� a III ' �z it U ll�,r- Z -. 1 't� • •� , .I q`. ,r i'r `• 4 //Ary r,^ ') i, -- =��,� •7 •• �' �� I ` r �� 1, �s • 1 t� rl At f • ,_ ` 17 Imo\ _ �vtia I 'iil Alp % r Ly. / t E? � •.'0J; ,.. D' r,: -L'"11141 n re.?a_ ``a,J ar i, n y� �atwolk wr. 4. 'kt �` in 1! f! - Ili. .�L'.`I- 4V. al ST_l 71r 4. 1 Ir .1..../%::'..- it '41i � r ii# 4"ff' S'i. , ng 'Inlxn �i :f' INI Thr= t ' ` '..„!•,.., 'j..- _��_ 4, • '_ ;14.4.f. i �4"= x 'A :7ikf' '.r nr drr ♦t+�F �1 ...e!:, t..." .' z.• 'X 141.�„j'i:4`s aT'4- '!! .... _,c: , mi-17•594. tr. in1 a C vi r�M.. •'L • ` � •:-V-7—'01‘,...i.i. .4;it:':, .,--.... . -. - likl____\ 0.!.-\v,,,,- i ., , .Pa tl t4 ,�\ _Ct-�_ _• - r' `v!.!:::; 11111i �� o. 4� ',G•\r ut (:: 1" r --t_ �::r� '-''s1;:-. ►ri- =L fr l _ _ 40X .".7.1.71, 'I 1 I' om'',. Y 14"Trr 24't i •t_ 1 c -� lil ;.',•,, •rr.,l! % 1. } �;i-i.:i n n t - ..•-(......•.-Z- utfr.94si?:.w..,alC i/ .r;"--,,`,.:-,,_ ..e- `-t;;t', ':: ; f9rs .° 1 f Proposed Incorporation 1 ` 911 /��h� T, _ �� aH" r.�-� ?I„ H City of Fairwood --t " "S' t ?! n` ,P a' r tilt•, N - '� �S.•_.•i•;;4- _.„,,!,,,,x..:-.:.--,4_,::7'• '`' '`: ,e� �' _ Ali !1 r L� r Fire District 40 \ • 1 F— r = /s,fstnur I i Jf)f a l - I� tell a-�; cNan s•. i — -! — \... r , -- _ 1 4- 4 i, .,r•- l SE 192nd St e i N Ililll%. r - — � laar°a •_ -i Fire District 40 • j/r ..'' • X:r o — - ��::, Fire District 37 - //_ u ,.• i 'f"a_'rt:_ .. rr,r` •ter` —.:;'::._�� eI - 7111 F •s.. t' i7 t=�� = ~� Proposed Incorpol•ation: 0 King County Proposed Incorporation Name: Fairwood To reclassify certain Real Properly within the Soos Creek Plateau,described as as or portions of Sections 21 through 28 and 33 through 36,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,Willamette Meridian in hang County,Washington,located South of Renton Maple Valley(SR-169)and top of elopes of the valley,West of the East Shores of Lake Desire and Shady Lake,North and West of the Lake Young's Watershed,and East of 128th Ave SE,Renton Park,and Boulevard Lane perk. Fire Districts; Fie D.strict 37 serves the southwestern area of the proposed City of Fairwood.south of SE 192 St. Fire riistn-t 40 serves all of the remaining area of the proposed City of Fairwood. Boundary Review Board File#2258 Roe 1-'onradon ere.Wed on ass man has been comp,b by — Proposed Incorporation K n;cant/ran tort a ranee/of sources and s s,.t lett to Changev.14eut no`ce. King :o.ary trues ro repen^taeons or on-untles e,aress or hrtled, as lo accuracy. ocmalelness tmeiness or r guts to Ow.41 of such/^ronragen. Kmo Cow:r Parcels a J_5 • s-at not oe date ro any ge-etal Herat rd wet mcawzd.or mtroetyr•bI damages Mourn,, out no: Mated to, mat I Wkes raseues Cr btrg et crafts-earfrom»'e use o'nnuee Cl to i Incorporated Areas mum ap- manned on ^Ir mao k-y sone of re mw r .<i-taa.cs.*•.,nar.•,sw.�wa:•-n htynot r en tlrs map 44 xxtbima*sept Sy 7rM 0pames on Cf :,Ain-.frcr•ar.Yr.:]c[cra,w l-:xr3isa., ni_rax-e ie. Kno':curdy Fairwood Municipal Initiative Page 23 of 25 Notice of Intention to Incorporate fiN-i 1 Alii Z0,4 44145-p 011?-04 City of Renton Annexation Strategy Council/Administration Workshop • V September 27, 2006 • Purpose • Review current status of potential annexation areas (PAAs) • "Bigpicture" focus on Renton in the future: growth, funding, timing • Initiate planning for annexation— implementation and impact 1 Policy Direction to Date • Growth Management Act (regional) • Business Plan — Manage growth through sound urban planning: promote annexation where and when it is in the best interest of Renton • Comprehensive Plan — "Actively pursue"thoughtful annexations of the PAAs • Discussion What Does That Mean? • Renton is glad to support citizens interested in becoming part of the City and will welcome any area with the desire to join Renton to start the petition process. • — The City doesn't initiate annexations. • — The request—and the desire—to annex comes from area residents seeking lower taxes,improved services and accessible local government. — City provides information and answers questions. • The City will work with King County to leverage the maximum funding available to annex. • The City will negotiate with special purpose districts to • ensure continuity of services at Renton levels of service after transition. 2 • i Reasons to Annex • What Renton is and how we'll grow — Communities with an affinity to Renton — Room to grow • Urban center concept • PAA residents' current use of city services • Quality;of infrastructure • Ability to influence & affect development and quality of public services in PAAs • Regional influence . • Funding opportunities • • Discussion i :4 ',`s>t'^a . iti .... ' •, City of ,, -- :j %. ,::•art an>.a.� tRentonsy � '' , ,: r . � : �.. I.s' a;: "�,�"=z §�,, a: .y; 'lis ,,,,- PotenttrIltraZi ial �`c Annexat•on .: .:: n3 :. zl YJ3 a'. fl r 3 , Areas - .�� ,', E.: A4gt,p f P w;x-rN,'.. 4; a pM d 3 Maplewood Addition Expansion • Population: 1,330 • 340 acres, 3.06 square miles . • 598 single-family units, zoned R-4 • 22,000 sf retail • Annexation date: Jan. 1, 2007 • Service Issues — SWM — Parks/cultural resources • Agreement with King County needed to transfer properties Maplewood Addition Expansion • Fiscal impact — Estimated by City staff based on per capita spending 2006 Revenues $674,876 2006 Costs $720,025 Year 1 Fiscal Impact ($45,149) 4 East Renton (POPA) • Population: 7,287 • Acreage: 2,126 acres, 3.32 square miles • Election: Feb. 6, 2007 • Effective (if yes): Mar. 1, 2007 • Community open houses in Fall, 2005 •- Survey in August, 2006 • Service, issues: — Zoning and density — Sewer moratorium • — Transportation/traffic — Parks i East Renton (POPA) • Fiscal impact study findings — Berk&Associates'2005 estimate:$263,000 initial cost — Refined estimate for 2007—no impact — Year 2025 impact:$1.9M(2025 dollars) • Area resident desire better-managed growth, preservation of open space • Renton already provides fire/EMS and would lose the FD 25's contract payment 2006 Revenues $2.408M 2006 Costs $2.113M Loss of Revenue—FD 25 ($0.558M) Year 1 Fiscal Impact ($0.263M) 5 Benson Hill Communities • Western half of Soos Creek PAA • Signature-gathering begins Sept. 28 • - Population: 16,000 • 2,696 acres, 4.2 square miles • Service issues: — Fire — Parks/Pool — Zoning/growth — Surface water management Benson Hill Communities • Fiscal impact study findings — Berk 2005 estimate:net costs of serving the area are relatively modest:just over$300K if facility costs are treated as capital — Year 2025 negative impact of$3.8 million(2025 dollars- Mike's analysis based on study) • Police: 1.7 additional patrol districts, 32 additional staff • Fire/EMS: annexation would require addition of one aid car, increased staffing to 5 positions • Parks &Recreation:Neighborhood Center($1.5M) 2006 Revenues $8.038M 2006 Costs $8.360M • Year 1 Fiscal Impact ($0.322M) 6 - - — r — ' West ill • Added to PAA in 2005 • 14,000 residents • 1,958 acres, 3.06 square miles • No active annexation conversations • Service Issues — Police — Library — Fire/EMS — Economic development West Hill • Fiscal Impact Study:costliest of all PAAs to serve:year 1 shortfall of$2.6M • Year 2025 negative impact of$2.3M(2025 dollars) • Two additional police patrol districts • Skyway Fire Station well-positioned to provide fire services to • entire area , • Two parks(Bryn Mawr Park and Skyway Park);would need to extend recreation activities • Skyway Library scheduled for reconstruction in 2011;a focus of negotiation with KCLS 2005 Revenues $7.840M 2005 Costs $10.475M - Year 1 Fiscal Impact ($2.635M) 7 Fairwood • Eastern half of Soos Creek PAA • Population: 23,000 • 6.5 square miles • Election Sept. 19 incorporation appears to be failing(certified Sept. 29) • Proponents may return to the ballot • Service Issues for All-Fairwood PAA — Fire(negotiate with FD 40) — Zoning/Development — Library(acquisition could be costly) — Parks(two neighborhood centers,pool) • If Benson Hill annexes first,would need to refine fiscal impact estimates for Fairwood only Fairwood • Fiscal impact study findings: modest year 1 net costs of annexing the entire area — $820,000 if City does not take on Renton Pool — $100,000 if facility costs are counted as capital — Includes annualized facility costs associated with more employees — Doesn't include fire and library facility costs • • Year 2025 negative impact of$6.9 million (2025 dollars - Mike's analysis based on study) 8 Funding Environment Short-term/Transition Long-term — King County — City General Fund Annexation Initiative — Real Estate Excise • County General Fund Tax • Real Estate Excise Tax — Other fees • County Road Fund — Streamlined Sales — State sales tax credit Tax • 10-year transition window • "Clock"starts with • annexation of 10,000+ King County Annexation'Initiative • Interlocal Agreement(ILA) Discussions • East Renton — $1.75 million — Election February 2007,effective March 2007 • 4-Year"Road Map" — Conceptual agreement about funding and timing, specific ILAs to follow — City works with communities to place issues on ballot — If rejected,City commits to re-place issue before voters;County funding commitment is halved • Renton needs: — Up-front planning dollars. . — County must describe service reductions if areas remain unincorporated 9 Preliminary King County Discussions Funding POPA Benson Hill West Hill Fairwood Total Source Communities Package Gen Fund $0.60M $1.00M $2.00M $0.50M $4.10M REET $1.15M - $035M - $1S0M Road Fund - $0.50M $LOOM $0.725M $2.25M Other - - $2-3M: - - "credits" Total $1.75M $1.50M $3.35M $1.25M $7.85M Preliminary timing discussions: Election Feb 07 Nov 07 Spring 08 Spring 09 Date • Effective Mar 07 Mar 08 Jan 09 Jan 2010 Date Planning Strategically triatbakV:`" ',� ; eson.Hilt ''Vest H'i11 Faar�vootl • • • Election 1ae1707 ' p No.c. 07 Spring 08 r Spring 09 • ,Effective ; Mar 07 {, ,Mar 08 - ' Jan 09 2010 Population 7300 16,000 , 14000 j 23,000 Impact None $(.68 I M) $(2.4 M) $(.823M) State Funds I None ;3 $2.5 M +$2.5 M ' no additional$ County Funds, $1.75M - $1.SM $3.35M• First available state funds come with Benson Hill annexation(up to$2.5 M/year) • Next state funds bump comes with an additional 10,000 population,to max of$5 M • • County funding lag: City would receive %2 at successful election, '/2 at effective date 10 Service & Transition Planning • Interdepartmental annexation team assembled — Address how departments will carry out annexations — Representative from each department as internal and external communicator — Build from 2005 studies to scenario-plan • Identify service delivery challenges • Inventory transition costs (comprehensive plan, • extending services, equipment,negotiation for properties) • Inventory infrastructure needs (capital planning) Service .Transition Planning • Interdepartmental annexation team, continued - Develop'transition templates for each department to identify annexation costs • Berk studies as a starting point for ongoing costs • Create Month 1, Month 6,Year 1 implementation plans — Result • Transition and customer service plan • By,department,by geographic area 11 City Actions with Pending Election • Can the City take a position on annexations? • Elective/appointive staff cannot use public facilities to support or oppose a ballot measure. • Except: — Normal and regular conduct(neutral, factual presentation of impacts) — Elected officials may act at an open public meeting; legislative body may express a collective decision or vote to support or oppose a ballot proposition in certain circumstances. — A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry. What it Means: Annexation Outreach • Active communication with current residents • East Renton — Advisory Task Force on zoning and community • planning — Direct mail: FAQs about City services/impacts • Benson Hill Communities — Open house meetings through February 2006 — Direct mail: FAQs based on service-related questions • Fairwood & West Hill — Advisory committees/to be determined 12 Next Steps • Planning: — Departmental implementation plans — Inventory transition costs — Recruitment and hiring plans • Communication: — Conveying services Renton has to offer — Presence at community meetings • Near-term Council decisions: — Sewer moratorium — King County ILAs — Benson Hill annexation petition 13 9P7/;)ovb Renton Annexation History- ry Since 1998 GROSS I % NAME ANNEX DATE ACRES ORIGINAL AV 8/06 AV I CHANGE East Renton Plateau 2/14/1998 193.6 $7,325,300 $182,243,900 2388% Davis 5/10/1999 3.9 $90,000 $9,847,000 10841% Smith 12/6/1999 11.8 $576,000 $19,351,100 3260% Morrison 2/7/2000 39.9 $277,050 $35,037,000 12546% Knight 12/4/2000 45.6 $3,721,000 . $42,163,000 1033% . Merlino-Empire Estates 2/12/2001 87.5 $9,139,300 $17,121,100 87% Lee 10/24/2001 11.9 $690,100 $7,092,000 928% Piele 12/5/20011 20.0 $4,045,100 $9,864,100 144% Vuong 6/18/2003 2.7 $162,000 $277,000 71% Falk 12/10/2003 6.4 $506,000 $01 -100% Bales 3/24/2004 9.0 $776,000 $1,663,0001 114% Stoneridge 4/28/2004 28.9 $2,720,530 $1,368,400 -50% Carlo 5/22/2004 38.3 $3,756,000 $14,807,000 294% Tydico 9/22/2004 9.6 $776,000 $0 -100% Johnson 11/3/2004 18.2 $1,999,700 $14,533,800 627% Honey Creek East 6/1/20051 27.5 $10,586,700 $12,315,500 16% Maplewood East 6/1/2005 26.1 $2,288,000 $3,603,0001 57% Merritt II(phase I) 6/1/2005 80.7 $9,547,200 $11,483,000 20% Wedgewood Lane 7/4/2005 37.0 $5,761,340 $8,450,00047% Park Terrace 11/7/2005 80.0 $30,951,700 $29,933,6001 -3% Mosier ll 12/1/2005 65.0 $18,828,000 $21,446,000 14% Lindberg 2/10/2006 9.7 $2,364,000 $2,547,000 8% Hoquiam 5/31/2006 20.5 $5,109,000 $5,324,000 4% Falk II 5/31/2006 6.3 $1,221,000 $1,464,000 20% Akers Farms 5/31/2006 13.3 $799,000 $1,039,000 30% Total I 1398.6 $124,016,020 $452,973,5001 265% C'�u/nki,,,,e418-i . , , 0 4/2774b _ . • _ ___________ _. Figure 84_repr-esents the--number;-or-enull-time employees-(FTE)-working for---- —' the City of Renton, as well as the number of employees per every 1,000 Renton citizens. The number of FTEs has increased 12.4 percent between 1995 and 2005, while the population of Renton grew 26.62 percent during that same time period. The number of FTEs per 1,000 Renton citizens remained fairly constant until 2001. The high was in 1998 at 12.21 FTE per 1,000 citizens. Figure 8-1. City of Renton Full-Timl'e Employee (FTE)Staffing Levels per 1,000 Renton Citizens lil Population -.-Emp(FTE)/1,000 Population 60,000 ------ -.--__._---�---_ • 12.5 50,000 - r ;y'; o • 40,000 - . - — 11 5 a° • i :.,,,, o• fti o 30,000 ;; - • M. 20,000 - -- 111.1.1. - 10.50 i` 10,000 - o--- 10.0 E i LI ' • 9.5 1995 1996 1997 ' 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Regular Employees per Total Population Year FfE's 1,000 Population of Renton 1995 541'.0 12.05 44,890 1996 - 549:0 12.15 - 45,170 -;\ 1997 553:0 12.04 45,920 ) 1998 565.0 12.21 46,270 1999 573.7 12.05 47,620 2000 583.7 12.09 48,270 2001 594.7 12.16 48,900 2002 598.7 11.71 51,140 2003 603.7 11.00 54,900 2004 609.2', 11.00 55,360 2005 608.0. 10.70 56,840 Source Population: State of Washington Office of Financial Management All other information:City of Renton Finance Department Appendix 8-5 etu,ortle to-p-k-a-ko-p City of Renton,WA - P�,�i ----Analysis-of Future Annexation Pro-Forma / —As of 2025 Existing Renton in 2025 (w/o lid lifts) Based on 2005 numbers and fiscal analysis Starting point for planning assumptions Drivers Renton Revenues: (2025 dollars) Property Tax 22,076,707 Annual Increase 1% 26,937,778 Assessed Value 5% 19,370,549,320 1 Rate 1.3907 New Construction AV Drivers 5.00% Result 7,300,556,316 Property Tax 37,090,343 Utility tax 3% 18,196,636 Sales Tax 3% 32,579,090 - State Shared Revenue 2% 4,919,611 Loss of FD 25 Revenue Gambling Tax 2% 3,425,109 Permit Fees 2% 5,084,760 - Sales Tax-Criminal Justice . 3% 1,986,722 Fines&Forfeits 3% 1,322,706 Franchise Fees ' 4% 1,621,650 Recreationfees 3% 6,535,594' Other 3% 9,922,956 Total 122,685,176 Expenditures Police Services 4% 39,428,365 Planning, Building, Public Works 3% 20,631,299 Fire Service 4% 30,866,339 Administrative, Judicial&Legal 3% 7,130,662 Community Services • 3% 25,205,915 • f' Finance and Information Services 3% 2,741,693 HR&Risk Management 3% 1,131,986 Economic Development 3% 2,528,079 Legislative 2% 396,375 ' Staff Related Facility Costs 1% 8,933,996 Total 138,994,708 Net Revenues (16,309,532) Population 56,500 Assessed Value 7,300,556,316 Dated: 9/27/2006 Originally presented Spring,2006 i City of Renton, WA _ _ ,Analysis offuture Annexation Pro-Forma As of 2025 2025 Fiscal Analysis(w/o lid lifts) Based on 2005 numbers and fiscal analysis Starting point for planning assumptions 2025 1 Drivers Fairwood Cascade West Hill East Plateau Total Revenues: (2025 dollars) (2025 dollars) (2025 dollars) (2025 dollars) Property Tax 10,567,000 3,685,000 3,800,000 2,260,000 16,627,000 Annual Increase 1% 12,893,748 1% 4,496,400 1% 4,636,722 1% 2,757,629 20,288,100 Assessed Value 5% 9021,212,197 5% 3,183,957,248 5% 3,232,255,224 5% 1,928,155,595 14.181,623,017 Rate 1 1.4293 1.4122 1.4345 1.4302 New Construction AV Drivers 5.00% 5.00% 15.00% 10.00% Result 3,400,000,000 1,200,000,000 3,654,609,000 1,453,403,130 8,508,012,130 I Property Tax 17,753,266 6,191,046 9,879,318 4,836,273 32,468,856 Utility tax 3% 61,697,060 3% 2,505,076 5% 2,913,321 4% 1,358,496 10,968,878 Sales Tax 3% 31353,949 3% 1,504,491 5% 992,333 5% 416,568 4,762,850 State Shared Revenue 2% 2,126,391 2% 811,327 2% 713,255 2% 364,057 3,203,703 Loss of FD 25 Revenue i (908,000) (908,000) Gambling Tax 2% 649,359 2% 592,893 2% 1,545,385 2% - 2,194,744 Permit Fees 2% 1,452 71,088 2% 512,6 '5% 944,574 5% 557,193 2,972,854 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 3% 1,526,164 323,000 280,000 146,000 1,952,164 Fines&Forfeits 3% 937,372 3% 530,997 3% 377,477 3% 133,652 1,448,501 Franchise Fees - 1 4% 786,613 4% 300,184 5% 318,396 5% 164,504 1,269,513 Recreation Fees 3% 238,407 3% 119,203 3% 149,907 3% 97,530 485,844 Business License Fees 1% 47,099 1% 28,064 2% - 2% 3,863 50,963 Total 35,5186,768 13,418,934 18,113,966 7,170,136 60,870,871 •`Expenditures i "'' Police Services 4% 14,415,399 4% 8,168,507 4%. 7,184,693 4% 1,617,049 23,217,141 Planning,Building,Public Works 3% 8,501,366 3% 3,195,011 3% 3,025,236 3% 1,737,479 13,264,081 Fire Service 4% 8,317,503 4% 2,438,720 4% 5,834,961 4% - 14,152,464 Administrative,Judicial&Legal 3% 2,133,479 3% 1,027,413 3% 865,189 3% 290,035 3,288,703 Community Services 3% 5,127 ,550 3% 868,740 3% 2,095,089 3% 1,114,371 8,337,009 Finance and Information Services 3% 1,573,123 3% 615,884 3% 642,976 3% 202,284 2,418,383 HR&Risk Management 3% 335,937 3% 131,846 3% 139,071 3% 43,347 518,354 Economic Development 3% 1,199,258 3% 420,824 3% 135,458 3% 12,643 1,347,359 Legislative 2% 52,008 2% 20,803 2% 22,289 2% 5,944 80,241 Staff Related Facility Costs 1% 888,298 1% 414,865 1% 564,948 1% 179,368 1,632,614 r, Total • 42,543,921 17,302,612 20,509,910 5,202,519 68,256,350 Net Revenues (6,957,153) (3,883,678) (2,395,944) 1,967,617 (7,385,480) :. w. Population 26,100 16,100 13,900 7,287 63,387 Assessed Value 3,400,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,218,203,000 726,701,565 5,344,904,565 State Annexation Assistance Qualifies? Yes Yes Yes No Amount '0.2 0.1 0.1 4,503,118 2,251,559 2,251,559 4,503,118 Note:can only receive up to a maximum of.2 Dated:9/27/2006 Originally Presented Spring 2006 September 11,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 301 CLAWSON,SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/18/2006. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5219 An ordinance was read amending the 2006 Budget by transferring funds in the EDNSP: Hotel/Motel Fund amount of$60,000 from the 2005 undesignated hotel/motel fund,with$50,000 Use for Marketing Campaign, going to Pravda for the purpose of creating a Renton marketing video under the Budget Amend Renton Community Marketing Campaign, and$10,000 to cover contracts with Hamilton/Saunderson and the Chamber of Commerce. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5220 An ordinance was read amending the 2006 Budget to authorize$20,000 from Community Services: the golf course fund balance to appropriate for water rights attorney fees. Maplewood Golf Course MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Reserve Fund Use, Water THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rights Attorney Fees, Budget Amend • Ordinance#5221 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 3 of Title I (Administrative) and Development Services: Chapters 5 and 9 of Title IV(Development Regulations)of City Code by • Nuisance Ordinance, Burned- updating the definitions of unfit, or abandoned structures, and adopting by Out Buildings reference the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW-BUSINESS Councilwoman Briere announced that the Renton High School Excellence in • Community Services: Education Foundation benefit golf tournament scheduled for 9/15/2006 at Maplewood Golf Course, Maplewood Golf Course is still in need of golfers. Benefit Golf Tournament UDIENCE COMMENT Howard McOmber, PO Box 2041, Renton, 98056, indicated that he is looking Citizen Comment: McOmber- forward to working together with the City to improve the Highlands area. He Highlands Area pointed out the need for improvements to the alleys and sidewalks, and the need Redevelopment to be creative in finding solutions. Citizen Comment: Petersen- Inez Petersen,PO Box 2041,Renton, 98056, stated her desire for the Various incorporation of Fairwood. Additionally, she expressed her desire that the Blueberry Farm in the Kennydale area be preserved as a critical area. Ms. Petersen noted that the Highlands Community Association filed a SEPA appeal regarding the Highlands Subarea rezoning proposal, and questioned how the Planning Commission can proceed with the Comprehensive Plan amendments while the appeal is still pending. Citizen Comment: Puckett- Jerry Puckett, 15260 Oak Dr., Renton, 98058,stated that he lives at the Wonderland Estates Mobile Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park on Maple Valley Hwy. He questioned Home Park,2006 Comp Plan -• why the Comprehensive Plan amendment concerning the property was not Amendment discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting even though it was listed on the agenda. Mayor Keolker said the matter will be investigated. Citizen Comment: Snyder- Russell Snyder, 18228 124th Ave. SE, Renton, 98058, stated that there is a Renton Growth great change coming to the spiritual climate in Renton to extend the City's vision to its citizens. He predicted that the people of the community will unite and begin to take responsibility in ways not done so before,which will result in peace and goodness that permeates the City. j\V/ ; -:i TASK F 14201 S.E. Petrovitsky Rd #A3-322, Renton, WA 98058 contact@fairwoodtaSkforce.org CITY OF RENTON i June 1, 2006 JUN 0 5 2006 RECEIVED Mayor Kathy Keolker j CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mayor of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Keolker, As you are aware, the ballot proposition for theincorporation of the proposed City of Fairwood ("Fairwood")will be placed before the voters in the Fall of 2006. At the King County Boundary Review Board proceedings on the proposedl incorporation, the City of Renton actively opposed the incorporation, and promoted the annexation of the area to the City. The Fairwood Task Force has learned that the Economic-Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department has recommended to the City Council that the City of Renton allocate $70,000 "for public relations efforts" related to the East Renton Plateau annexation election and the City of Fairwood incorporation election. According to the Department in its May 9,,2006 memorandum to the City Council, the 26,000 citizens in the proposed City of Fairwood "need to be provided accurate and timely information 'about their governance options." Therefore, the City will be taking a "proactive approach, communicating pertinent information,' which 'will require assistance from outside resources and expertise." This proactive approach, using public relations efforts, will include, among other things, holding an open houses, sending information mailings, issuing press releases, developing a website page, and issuing e-mail surveys. The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention two state statutes that prohibit the City's use of City funds and City facilities, officers and employees to carry out this campaign. The first statute is RCW 35A.14.550, which presumably the City is relying on to justify its expenditure of funds and use of City facilities, officers and employees. That statute authorizes a code city like the City of Renton.to "provide factual public information on the effects of pending annexation proposed for the code city." There is no pending annexation in Fairwood, and there'cannot be a pending annexation in Fairwood until after the incorporation election in the Fall of 2006. We are not aware of any other statute that authorizes a code city to spend taxpayer dollars to disseminate information regarding a pending annexation or a pending incorporation. RCW 42.17.130 specifically'; prohibits the expenditure of any City of Renton funds, or the use of City of Renton facilities, officers and employees, directly.or indirectly, to carry out the proposed public relations efforts relating to the Fairwood incorporation ballot proposition/election. That statute provides in relevant part as follows: No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency: PROVIDED, That the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities: 1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view . . . The City of Renton is actively and openly opposing the Fairwood incorporation. Therefore, the "public relations efforts" proposed by the City of Renton, during the pre-election period for the incorporation election, is in "opposition" to the incorporation ballot proposition, and prohibited by RCW 42.17.130. The City of Renton staff may have thought that the public relations effort is only for the purpose of advising the incorporation voters of the annexation alternative to incorporation. At this point in time, however, there is no annexation alternative to incorporation, because state law precludes any annexation petition to be filed or any annexation resolution to be adopted until the incorporation election has occurred. The City of Renton can distribute annexation information in Fairwood, or regarding the Fairwood area, only after the incorporation election. We trust that the City of Renton, upon consideration of our letter, will reconsider the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the "public relations effort" and stop the campaign. We look forward the termination of the campaign so that the State of Washington Public Disclosure Commission does not have to become involved. Vice resident Board of Directors Fairwood Task Force Cc Marcie Palmer Don Persson Terri Briere Denis Law Dan Clawson Toni Nelson Randy Corman Alex Pietsch May 15,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 159 Dr.Fotinos reported that chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and illness in King County. The more common chronic diseases include cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, and diabetes. She noted that the prevalence of diabetes among adults is increasing,particularly in South King County, and HIV infection has now become a chronic condition(AIDS moved from the 8th to the 14th leading cause of death). Dr. Fotinos further noted that access to care is decreasing, and that excessive alcohol use is higher in King County than the rest of Washington and the nation. Continuing,Dr. Fotinos reviewed the improvements in health,pointing out that mortality is decreasing, smoking is declining,motor vehicle injuries are dropping, firearm deaths are lower, and adolescent births are declining. Additionally, she reviewed the large and persistent disparities in health status and access to health care across racial and ethnic groups, income groups, areas of King County, and sexual orientation. Dr. Fotinos listed what can be done to improve the health of King County, including working towards assuring universal health coverage and access to health care,building homes and communities that support physical activity and provide healthy indoor environments, and addressing social factors that affect health: Dr. Fotinos responded to Councilmember inquiries regarding drinking and driving, asthma, inactivity rates, and population shifts and growth. In conclusion, King County Councilwoman Patterson highlighted the disparity between life expectancy and the various racial and ethnic groups. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing.the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: * The City of Renton is hosting the Exhibition of Sacred Art de la Basilica de la Virgin de Talpa de Allende,Jalisco,Mexico at the Renton Community Center from May 21st to 28th. * Washington State Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting at the Renton Community Center on May 23rd to discuss the Tukwila to Renton portion of the I-405 project(I-5 to SR-169). • Last week the Renton Senior Activity Center presented its 27th Annual Senior Stage Revue at Carco Theatre. AJLS: Seattle Seahawks Mayor Keolker announced that the Seattle Seahawks national football team is Headquarter Relocation to moving its headquarters to Renton. Renton AUDIENCE COMMENT J. Paul Blake, 17627 133rd Pl. SE,Renton, 98058,requested the City's support Citizen Comment: Blake- for initiating the petition process to annex the Fairwood area into Renton's Fairwood Incorporation boundaries. He stated that the King County Boundary Review Board(BRB) recently recommended against the incorporation of the proposed City of Fairwood. Mr.Blake pointed out that the BRB determined that incorporation is not financially sustainable, and he noted some of the fiscal problems associated with the potential incorporation. • Mr.Blake reviewed Renton's recent economic developments such as the Seattle Seahawks headquarter relocation and the IKEA store redesign, saying that a greater Renton will make an even better Fairwood. • ley 15,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 160 MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TWO ADDITIONAL MINUTES FOR HIS COMMENTS. CARRIED. Mr. Blake stated that annexation movement supporters intend to organize efforts and collaborate, and he seeks the City's support for initiating the petition process to annex the Fairwood area into Renton. Citizen Comment: Hulten- Bill Hulten, 13836 SE 158th St., Renton, 98058, indicated that he recently Maplewood Estates,Potential spoke with a number of people within the Maplewood Estates development, Annexation to Renton which is'contiguous(southeasterly)to the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and reported that a majority of those he spoke with favored annexation of Maplewood Estates to Renton, and showed a lack of interest in becoming part of the Fairwood Incorporation. Citizen Comment:Petersen- Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd.N.,#3, Renton, 98056, Highlands Area recommended a modified urban village approach for the Highlands area Redevelopment redevelopment,which involves the following: flexible zoning that allows private property owners to decide their own futures; no declaration of blight; zoning that would not create non-conforming property; higher densities that coexist;aesthetically with existing single-family dwellings and duplexes; opportunities for property owners to develop to higher densities,remodel their properties, or voluntarily sell to a developer; creation of low interest loans for property improvement; creation of a neighborhood maintenance covenant; allocation of police patrols commensurate with the population; and review of the City's code enforcement process. Councilman Clawson clarified that what is anticipated with the proposed rezoning is not the creation of non-conforming properties but the creation of legal non-conforming properties. • Citizen Comment: McOmber- Howard McOmber,475 Olympia Ave.NE, Renton, 98056,noted his interest in Highlands Area the outcome of the Council workshop scheduled for May 17th. Pointing out Redevelopment, Council that major decisions are being made regarding the well-established Highlands Workshop neighborhood,he expressed the need for open mindedness about alternative solutions. Additionally,Mr. McOmber indicated his preference that single- family homes and duplexes remain legal and conforming. He urged the City • not to rush the redevelopment process. Council President Corman explained that the meeting on May 17th is a workshop for Council to receive information, and Council will not be making any decisions. He reported that the location of the workshop was changed to the Council Chambers,and it will be taped and cablecast. Mr. Corman noted that although the public is welcome to attend, public testimony will not be taken at the workshop. He also noted that there will be further opportunity for audience comment before Council formally takes any action on the matter. Councilwoman Briere added that the information provided at the workshop will bring all Councilmembers up-to-date on the issues. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. AJLS: Spirit of Washington Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended adoption Dinner Train, Supporting of a resolution supporting efforts to save the Spirit of Washington Dinner Resolution Train. Council concur. (See page 162 for resolution.) ,. . : .`A,'dck•_s,'-, 1(' ) . : , . . , • ' • . . CITY 3F1RENTON - , 46 oaf Economic Development;Neighborhoods and , . ' - - Strategic Planning • , - ' Kathy Keolkei,Mayor '- , . .• , . Alex Pietsch,Administrator , &rrO' - . •, , • • ' • . , , ,., : . , , ' • , . . - . RECEIVEd -:- April 7, 2006 • - APR ii 2 2006 . , RENTON Cily COUNCil. Charles Booth, Chair . C)TY OF RE:N1-0_4 Washington State-BoUndary Review Board for King County 400 Yesler Way,Room 402 , APR 1 3 79053 Seattle; WA98104 , 2 ' , : ., 1 _ RECEIVED --* ,..• ' '' VITY CI..ERK'S OFFICE s • :: " SUBJECT:: ‘..,f AIRWOOD'INCORPORATION',PUBLICHEARING . , , • .., . .. . ' Dear Mr. Boothi , • _ " . . , The City of Renton appreciates the long hom and due diligence the Boardhas shown in , - reviewing the Yaiioni,,rnateiials, prepared in conjunction the :Fairwood•, :: ' , . incorporation, as r-*11;.-.0:li$tenirig to the-,numerous indiVidnalk's,and,':Or8anizations that testified before if last week There were however, some,issues raised during the testimony that warrant our response These"issues and our rOsporiS.Osafe..addressed in the , :. • . attachment. . . ' % ,i . • Thank you in advance for your consideratiO*. s: •-• ' ., : i. Sincerely, _ : •..,, ; , ; , . , . a:.:,,(i:... ......:1 04 .. . . .. . . . . _,... . ‘ .. Alex Pietsch, Adriiinitratar .. . ,.. Attachment • . ,_ .- . cc - _ , . • . , Kathy Keolkdx . •- - - itiaracriCrry-Coir , • . , . , Jay Covington '-• ' . , •.• - . . • •... : -• • - ••• • , . . . , ,...: . • • , , .. •• , .., . HAEDNsP\PAATairwoogRcjiiitt41:1tr.doc . . . , . f, „ • * R- ENTONI 1055 80iithtr • Grady Way•:.Renton,Washington 98055 . • , _ . „ , AN-,-,;i...,-,„,,,-„,,,,•.,,,.gno4 1...-1 + 1 lnoi. 0 0 , ' . CITY OF RENTON REBUTTAL TO ISSUES RAISED AT WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD HEARINGS ON FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION 1. County policy reference in support of incorporation over annexation The King County Executive's Office referenced King County's Comprehensive Plan .Policy U-206.inn regard to incorporation versus annexation to support their argument that incorporation is consistent with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies. The King County Comprehensive Plan,however,is not adopted regional policy. It is a local jurisdiction plan. Regional planning and annexation policy is established in the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). The CPP are ratified by all jurisdictions and are binding on all comprehensive plans. There is a significant difference in meaning between Policy U-206, cited by King County, and CPP Policy LU-34. Policy U-206. "King County shall favor annexation over incorporation as the preferred-method of governance transition. -King County wilyTrot;—_-- support incorporations when the proposed incorporation area is financially infeasible." (emphasis added) --- - - Policy LU-34. "Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. Unincorporated Urban Areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area (PAA) are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered."(emphasis added) Whereas the County's Comprehensive Plan states that it will not support incorporations that are"financially infeasible,"this local jurisdictional policy appears to be at odds with regionally adopted CPP Policy LU-34, which states that incorporation may be considered"where annexation is inappropriate." As Renton has stated, annexation is appropriate for the Fairwood/Cascade area because it is within Renton's PAA and is urban in character. Also, the City has indicated that when the residents are ready to annex, it will welcome them and, if necessary, subsidize the estimated$823,400 cost associated with such an annexation'. The need to do this, however,may be short lived because of recently enacted state legislation. Senate Bill 6686, because it only applies to annexation areas, favors annexation over incorporation. This new legislation authorizes a state sales and use tax credit of up to 0.2 percent to municipalities to "provide,maintain, and operate municipal services" for annexation areas having a population greater than 20,000. This tool is available in Berk&Associates:Fiscal Impact of Renton's Annexation of the Renton Fairwood FAA,December 7, 2005 ( 1 Fairwood Incorporatio]'_,.,,ciblic Hearing Response 2 04/07/2006 July 2007 (see Exhibit A). For Renton,this equates to approximately$4.5 million per year and is expected to grow 4% annually. 2. Comment about Renton closing its parks Mr. Billock incorrectly stated in his testimony that Renton was closing its parks. Renton, unlike King County, has not closed or reduced the hours of operations of any of its parks, nor does it intend to. In fact, development of a 10-acre park in the Renton Highlands is underway, as is the Sam Chastain Trail connecting the Cedar River Trail across the south end of Lake Washington to Gene Coulon Park and trails to the north. The City is also developing a Tri-park Master Plan for its Cedar, Cedar River and Liberty parks that will be impacted by the expansion of I-405. 3. Fiscal impact of an enlarged City of Renton While not directly relevant to the Board's current assignment of evaluating-the Fairwood Incorporation, a'number of people expressed a concern about the future – – fiscal--impact of an enlarged-City of-Renton.--If Renton incorporates all of-its.Potential — .Annexation Area, it is estimated that its population would increase from 56;840 people to become a city of 116,000 people: Unlike Fairwood,Renton has:alarge retail sales, commercial, and industrial tax base that allows it to spend over$3,035 per resident for a whole array of urban services. By comparison,the initial projected budget for a City of Fairwood indicates an expenditure of less than$511 per resident, in 2006 dollars. As noted above, unlike a City of Fairwood, Renton will also benefit from recently adopted legislation(SB 6686),which provides tax credits of up to 0.2 %to cities that annex areas of more 20,000 people and 0.1 %to cities that annex areas with populations of less than 20,000 but more than 10,000 people. 4. Requirement to change their street names within annexation area Renton is currently processing a municipal code amendment to modify its street naming provisions. These changes will allow most residents of Renton's PAA to maintain their existing addresses upon annexation. 5. Costs associated with maintaining SR 169 It was suggested by one of the proponents in response to a question from one of the Board members that a City of Fairwood would assume no cost on taking over that portion of the Renton–Maple Valley Highway(SR 169). This is incorrect. WSDOT requires cities with populations over 22,500 residents to assume the costs of everything except the costs for resurfacing and patching. These costs include those for sidewalks, channelization, streetlights, crosswalks, striping, and regulatory signs (see Exhibit B). Renton estimates these costs at$57,052 per lane mile. The estimated cost for maintaining SR-169 between the Renton city limits on the west and the Urban Growth Boundary at 156th Avenue SE is $237,522 per year. Fairwood Incorporation ,lic Hearing Response 3 04/07/2006 6. Issue of Renton's Existing Fiscal Debt Renton's current estimated debt, as of January 2006,was $29,026,448, or less than $510.67 per resident. The City of Renton is in compliance with all Washington State debt limitation statues and bond indenture agreements and maintains Standard and Poor's A+rating for both its general obligation and revenue bonds. Because these bonds are paid off with property,revenue, and utility taxes, there is little or no liability to residents within the City's PAA. Renton's voter approved indebtedness in January 2006, was $1,440,000, or less than$25.30 per resident. This is anticipated to be paid off, in full,before January 2009. Exhibit A SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6686 Passed Legislature - 2006 Regular Session State of Washington 59th Legislature 2006 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Prentice, Esser, Kastama, Johnson, Kline, Finkbeiner, Weinstein, Keiser, Berkey and McAuliffe) READ FIRST TIME 02/17/06. 1 AN ACT Relating to authorizing a local sales and use tax that is 2 credited against the state sales and use tax; and adding a new section 3 to chapter 82 . 14 RCW. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 82 . 14 RCW 6 to read as follows: 7 (1) The legislative authority of any city with a population less 8 than four hundred thousand and which is located in a county with a 9 population greater than six hundred thousand that annexes an area 10 consistent with its comprehensive plan required by chapter 36.70A RCW, 11 may impose a sales and use tax in accordance with the terms of this 12 chapter. The tax is in addition to other taxes authorized by law and 13 shall be collected from those persons who are taxable by the state 14 under chapters 82 . 08 and 82 . 12 RCW upon the occurrence of any taxable 15 event within the city. The tax may only be imposed by a city if: 16 (a) The city has commenced annexation of an area under chapter 17 35. 13 or 35A. 14 RCW having a population of at least ten thousand people 18 prior to January 1, 2010; and p. 1 SSB 6686.PL 1 (b) The city legislative authority determines by resolution or 2 ordinance that the projected cost to provide municipal services to the 3 annexation area exceeds the projected general revenue that the city 4 would otherwise receive from the annexation area on an annual basis. 5 (2) The tax authorized under this section is a credit against the 6 state tax under chapter 82 .08 or 82 . 12 RCW. The department of revenue 7 shall perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the city at no 8 cost to the city and shall remit the tax to the city as provided in RCW 9 82 . 14 . 060. 10 (3) The maximum rate of tax any city may impose under this section 11 shall be 0.2 percent for the total number of annexed areas the city may 12 annex. The rate of the tax imposed under this section is 0. 1 percent 13 for each annexed area population that is greater than ten thousand and 14 less than twenty thousand. The rate of the tax imposed under this 15 section shall be 0 .2 percent for an annexed area which the population 16 is greater than twenty thousand. 17 (4) The tax imposed by this section shall only be imposed at the 18 beginning of a fiscal year and shall continue for no more than ten 19 years from the date the tax is first imposed. Tax rate increases due 20 to additional annexed areas shall be effective on July 1st of the 21 fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the annexation occurred, 22 provided that notice is given to the department as set forth in 23 subsection (8) of this section. 24 (5) All revenue collected under this section shall be used solely 25 to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for the annexation 26 area. 27 (6) The revenues from the tax authorized in this section may not 28 exceed that which the city deems necessary to generate revenue equal to 29 the difference between the city's cost to provide, maintain, and 30 operate municipal services for the annexation area and the general 31 revenues that the cities would otherwise expect to receive from the 32 annexation during a year. If the revenues from the tax authorized in 33 this section and the revenues from the annexation area exceed the costs 34 to the city to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services for 35 the annexation area during a given year, the city shall notify the 36 department and the tax distributions authorized in this section shall 37 be suspended for the remainder of the year. SSB 6686.PL p. 2 I 1 (7) No tax may be imposed under this section before July 1, 2007 . 2 Before imposing a tax under this section, the legislative authority of 3 a city shall adopt an ordinance that includes the following: 4 (a) The rate of tax under this section that shall be imposed within 5 the city; and 6 (b) The threshold amount for the first fiscal year following the 7 annexation and passage of the ordinance. 8 (8) -The tax shall cease to be distributed to the city for the 9 remainder of the fiscal year once the threshold amount has been 10 reached. No later than March 1st of each year, the city shall provide 11 the department with a new threshold amount for the next fiscal year, 12 and notice of any applicable tax rate changes. Distributions of tax 13 under this section shall begin again on July 1st of the next fiscal 14 year and continue until the new- threshold amount has been reached or 15 June 30th, whichever is sooner. Any revenue generated by the tax in 16 excess :of the threshold amount shall belong to the state of Washington. 17 Any amount resulting from the threshold amount less the total fiscal 18 year distributions, as of June 30th, shall not be carried forward to 19 the next fiscal year. 20 (9) The following definitions apply throughout this section unless 21 the context clearly requires otherwise: 22 (a) "Annexation area" means an area that has been annexed to a city 23 under chapter 35. 13 or 35A. 14 RCW. "Annexation area" includes all 24 territory described in the city resolution. 25 (b) "Department" means the department of revenue. 26 (c) "Municipal services" means those services customarily provided 27 to the public by city government. 28 (d) "Fiscal year" means the year beginning July 1st and ending the 29 following June 30th. 30 (e) "Threshold amount" means the maximum amount of tax 31 distributions as determined by the city in accordance with subsection 32 (6) of this section that the department shall distribute to the city 33 generated from the tax imposed under this section in a fiscal year. 34 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. If any provision of this act or its 35 application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the p. 3 SSB 6686.PL . 1 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other 2 persons or circumstances is not affected. --- END --- SSB 6686.PL p. 4 • - - , _ _ ___. .. . . • Exhibit B - . •• . • . Table 1 City/State Maintenance Responsibilities For City Streets As Part Of The State - Highway System Maintenance Item , Cities Over 22,500 Cities Under 22,500 Roadway Surface State • - State • . . s . Roadway Shoulders State State . . Stability of Cut & Fill Slopes . City State • Sidewalks • City City . • • Curbs State : , State - s .. ,._ - • Parallel Roadside Ditches . City . , . City Road Approach Culverts City City - . _ Cross Culverts - - ---.- _ Snow Plowing . See Note [4) ,: .:' See NcItet43 ...,_,•-:_ „ _ — 7-- , Sanding & De-icing city - . City ----Snow Removal. rity • '.:s. . ' I ' . City .... • ' . - ' --: -..: 7..,"--:! :. . • Sand Removal •- .City . : City , - . • • • . . Channelization City[1] -State _ s - . Crosswalks • City[11 State - Striping City[I] _ _ 'State .. , • - • Directional Signs/Rause Markers State :.: _.L S tiie' ..._. .2„; :::• -... --.: .:-:;T.,..L•1 1 . I.- •- ' Parking Signs . .. City City. - Regulatory Signs - City --.- --- - -State -- .• . . , . : - -- - • - - - Stop Signs - .. (Intersecting Streets) City: . • - Staie I77] 7 - - "" . .', "7-- . Signals city - .State- _ . . Guardtail, Concrete Barrier, . . Impact Attenuators, etc. StateiCitYll, . State/City [2] - . Illumination , City[61 ' ' ' —City [61 ' ':- -' r•-: :- '. -:. Street Cleaning . . ' -City City- - Strut Sweeping City s City . Vegetation City City . . . Noxious weeds City[5) City j5.:i . . . R..(1.7.1.Encroachments City City LW Cleanup City City Utility Franchi .ses City City lindereround Facilities' City City - • • • . .. Finzi Rzport -April 30, 1991 • 5 . . [1) As a part of State reconstructionlresurfacine projects the State will replace in- kind at no cost to the local agency only pavement markings that are damaged or removed as a result of the reconstruction or resurfacing project. This does not apply to durable markings that have exceeded their useful life: installation of higher quality pavement markings will be at the expense of the city. Early - - communication and plan reviews between WSDOT and the city is essential to • - enable local agencies to avoid installation of pavement markings, especially the more durable markings, shortly before the construction activity takes place. [2] Traffic barriers installed on state highways in areas without curbs shall be • maintained by the WSDOT. Traffic barriers installed beyondthe curb shall be maintained by the cities. Curb in the context of RCW.47.24.020(2) refers to a _ standard curb and guttei aiid not to extruded curb such as those placed on- .fill sections for erosion control. Guardrail,.concrete.bai4rs.,ii7;tpaGt.attenuator-s and • - similar devices are all considered to be traffic barriers. - ... [3] Within ail:cities, regardless-of population, the•state shali.,4olely maintain the _ -- - structural integrity of box culverts, multiplates and individual culverts greater than 60,inches in width that are within rights of way and are,not part of an -;._: - enclosed drainage system. These are the size appropriate to identify statural - stream flows. These structures.that are less than 60 iaches..ip width will be y . maintained by the cities. Cities shall maintain all other paralrel roadside ditches and road approach culverts. Grass-lined.swal_es construted.by the state•solely for state highway runoff will-be maintained by the WSDOT. - J _: [4] RCW 4.7.24.020(6) provides that the cities have responsibility for snow removal 1 ._ . - - " _ within their jurisdiction and that the State shall, when riecesiary,:plow the snow on the.roadway. The meaning of"when necessary.'!' is-that the State will plow . _ _snow, with city concurrence, on the traveled lane of the state.lighway on the way through the cities not having adequate snow plpwing.*10.p aert. [5] RCW 47.24.020(2) states the city or town shall exercise null.,tesponsibiiity for - and control over'any such street beyond the curbs and, ifno curb'is installed, beyond that portion of thehighway used for_higbway purposes.and, thus, are responsible for noxious weed control. • .. [6] The state has responsibility for maintenance of iliururiatiot 'systems within fully access-controlled areas. in addition, the State may, with till/'concurrence, maintain and operate luminaries at locations where the electrica; service powers electrical equipment under both State and City responsibility:. . [7) WSDOT, with city concurrence, may install stop signs and ptosis the city's standards or may contract with the city to have them pe~a..tt these installations. • Final Report-April 30; 1997 6 , 31 I / ,.. -,. ,I•i-sl.r. * iii''..-- 1,:* ' . . f * ..i..**.:...,,,‘'Nlq, ,,,t14147 .....'. ' it fir; ..t.% ; '3.. ,•.a. .41 l'. ..,.,:•_•__,. ..1 . IN_ • ' •, "; .,•-... ......• ..:11611 v... t it# .....,: W.- . T. tia V. VOW 1...... -- V. • s ''' ..i". '•-•1 --:11-'bear UM - • . iirooK. mi.J.. • , .. -..' t", 6 1 -6.- - -•-. ,,,i, i . . -,...-4.4 - , , kb:0. __,....., ;. - - tly : 1' • ,$., „i„..,, -. s.N ••. 1. . ,•`, „ ,,Ii.:,-4, •t.- i 1 t ' -til , • ..',... \____• 4414,6;,!• , I , •--.4.,, ,. Elliott Farm Condominiums -•_...,.t•fr -,- :,„1-, i -- . , . 1P- " .-- "..... 0"t- ' ...-..- - . ''• °-• '. ' '11 ir 1 . *7: . . -•-• ,- .., . . . •- 0';':".: ' ' ' c ---..._ „..• !.".. - .. ' - .. . (4 units out of 96 units) , .,.4 ........ .r.+ , . t • ' "-- k -lk .. * i ' r, ,,.. , , er- . -.014. ) . - -.4 ... , --, -, , -,... -90• ...,, ; -..._ -,.. , of. .... .. ,, _,• .. • , _ . It.4-1 • '--3..4'"4_, -• 1 v - • -.31, ot 0.r• - 00 • • ••• 40='f't•Ili t. -''3 $'. vo- ' - •1*/air% i ..,' .17 It,. ... , ,,, 4 tri. ..0•2c 411114k ,, .F . • -/ . ._______.....____. -...., .: ...., /,' ._. , low • .* ......., i ..,. ' •oe II. 4 - 1 •'A le ). . .i.:... $•,,. . • ._ • - . -1---, - ' •"0.: ••.; • s • •••‘• V. •••• . e l',43. " iiiN '•-% * " ..• a i * '• t,- •• . 1 t'...I, • ---,-- kip _lily., . - 1----;--, r -, , - “ , -- ,k •••• * .•es.. S r4 . I A Ai : J.- ,.. ,,,,, , . . - '541 -' As, -- . -•.. . . ' -.".4-1k:.i..7.‘ ,...4" 44..4.:,....7.6,-..coet,s.".I . ..-* .14,...... ,-,,:... .1:141, :...,,, "-:-......7: :...np'-'1'..'. , wiagiu,4 I .• ,-, V' 1 ,- 4 -1,. . 4,,,ii, - • .. . -26,41‘......z.... _ - .........„ -7..._ ,,...... 4.1 • 1'. ., t -- '1.-!,-. .1 4 - -, , -.1 *,-. Ir. -- -._ r•--,,s.: •• a - • V a "Nk li • ,- • ,,, ,'it • 1 -- I. -%. iiit' t• '1 -44'. I A ' •• i la, I J be . . 1 i ' fga,b .... ....... A.. " • t * I., 1 .41I' ; r ". .r, . , ••• ,' 0 ' . .•s: 2ftr A /,. -•-• '‘' . ..,,-- ..., ., •4., .:1•• 4,err...... "f - a .•- b ‘ . ••...0•41. ' ;II se . • 4,44.s- .. . ,J.• _ *1 1.... ,, .%.4•;.,...,1floi 4,• •.•-• -40°. * In- , . ..-00., . " ., ••.• , 1.*. -'7 -1------1 ..1 k _:::71.! ri t ,• , , . i , - 4 -.• .-, , kit - . , L • _ _ , iir,. , .1.1. ., 4,41r.;-'•e:°.# V,*11_,t•- _ 1 f ‘..741r, , 7174.4,•::." its: f• 1.1.$1.1/4 •• , N.., -4,4 - J,te „,•• „,, - ---, .J,..- fr 11 r: • 0,,vt...,,,,,....... ..'" ..s ---e• i. , • ,,_, " „v , ' .',.... • • _ .,- W- "••• '`' '0 •• 0.0r0,.....__-_41. "•10". •c•- • '1.211. -- ••.. ..... ,,. gt_ _ , .. I,,- 1 -6.._ -__A. ••'-''''' _ IP, . P.,14,. ...::, :' '''''' Elliott Farm Single Family Detached 7.. • - 14.4- Z '• .. ' 11:- 3. 14 - XL lr'.1 i ja .... 10 ' r v -fN • Condo Mobile Home Park , e, lit, , ii. -• (-.).6..r. ..=-' „... f -- !..-0/. ,• • ':-.-- 't • - '...• •. ''' -._* • , ., : .• (36 units out of 96 units) * 4.-. * 0'li •* • .N." P' . F ...eve. Cedar River Apartments ,-----N,,,,,,,.-7,,,-.- .. ..17 • - . . -. ...... (0 units out of 95 units) '•01*-um, - fv _ • I . ' •Ynge • 6.0..Kw.--,`, -!.* L g 4- t. + - 4 ' rti;;"It ;IL, .. . _.,c ..„- . ' ‘•i • - (4 units out of 141 units) . -•`•::`, •".•*>•• . , . 11... ,,, - 1 ' - - ' - . • .-"a-- ..... - _ a,_• ..„.. ,ab-••ax _ii‘,..• ,, pitys, I,- - ,. t Valley View Mobile Home Park ,,... . ,.._ 4-fi ..' ..._ -..t. - , - , _ ,, -. ... . . , ", . .11 • - ' .. 4,- ,4y „.‘„,,, - . _ • • ,i -i - _ .. . ,, (0 units out of 50 units) f - `,..,..-_ :.4, -' L_Wi . ' - -,` 4.- ' . - 4 IS * 'a- 4";•Ns.,1 .., '. "+I 't t - 4 * - -... ,114,•; - .,' -:_.-- ..a. _4, '* jit„di I __ . - •-- : '•••- -•• -- , ... ...-","3•--s__ ••• -... --. „ --0.. ...- ,„,,41(.,,,, ,/, . 1. , ,,..„ - 7 ir .' t • - :f' te-r",.,rip, II Wonderland Estates --, . . ', 'try --;-,..._.• ' 3 ' ' ' 13..V3..- ' .* • - { _..., • WA1 4, : -4. r .**, '.- - 4 - --•• -, -'-i-VI Mobile Home Park - 1•,••: r• ••• 1;;,...- '74 0 -•-• ..----__ 13. .•. •-.;.,1:, . 1,,... • Kir . , 4. 1 • ', ,- -..-, .. 0 , • ,,,,,,„ -----II,‘- _1*_'.-.:.,2. -• .4..im.-a a:d...... -rt. 47.4 • •,,,,e,' '‘,..,... 4•` eL.' k 4*".4-f, ., '• (0 units out of 113 units) Li- ,... , -.....,„„ . . .. ...., , ...i _ .. 4,t.,, 4 "Itr't e - l.. - -At-.V' 1. --• , .--is Maple Ridge Estates p*-4,7-.•,, , -- 4-- -..--y` ...- 7 .11 • t- -. - .... ,..,,a, - .,.N..10'le;• - '-% - ••' ., di , v't..1- . .A4...-11. (14 units out of 202 units), .,. .; % ._ . 'eit • a • • •-, • - - . s -• - -*. 1 _ - to 4- , - • r- , ,-- ' niirrsi - ' 4.- - . --,. • 1 --VII- 0 ' - '.---,t 4B... ,. - • r •.%I *. w..C;',L)7 g. „ , ., 1 - _ .. -- 1, . .... - - ., tri . 4., . . . . it- . -14 -• -• - ,-- -- . ...--- ..t '• ..'*_ '. • ,, # : _ ., - iv ..,;.,.,4 - _ -.- - *'-- ,z -if"- - •-- - -- ' -- , -....f. , . .----1P ...4.•,•=- . .,.. .ed ..„.., ...•1 r" ., _ . • •I. I .. ,-i. r •, 4*7.s.,44. „.1..zr-„- • •• .,„ 4-,,; , . "F' , • ,e.t. ...1,Arat 4 It, _ •-• , . . • • • •ti•„' // .,- . - • - -, - 'S4 ' ...':-;• ; .' . '' • -' r-r- .4 ,... ,- /0.-"--4-, MI 4 .. . ••••••-. .4' - , ) 7 - -,• - 4// '11L- • t ,s, I.",. , 41•., A „;.1_ '- .kr s -3 - .. c , --.. • J, yr- j'' " "- --•-•(.., .0.-.0••••• .0• .jr• -- ''X' • ,r•.. eh, . v ' „ A.?t,.. ..- 1 ',1.' .."0-,--0414*41-, .'.%, 4...-4,11 • •,_ -, gr••• -Iv-- • .. „•,,,.. 4 4 . . . . . . , ,- • . p. ., , _ .., 1,,,„,tr „,,._4-44,...p.i.:J.,-ctik....:,4 ,,,-•* --irt._ .. '-; 1.Y• --..... . - . t. v . "g 1* ,',‘illigg--N.--1---'. -,-.-46. Le".;- ' '--, • :"." •--.-:,'- '1.....,- alley Faire No. 3 „...-,.. _ ..,, iv- ..• . -4-.44- ,„„, * 411 %a....--,6 044*" ,..•-•,--` • • ••• , - ea 1•5 .1 V.• ••• -- • -V •• . • - - ., --. ' .'.‘ 19.411Tiodularat.MINIIKW s , i ;-• 'ilk ' ^:. , -, (1 unit out of 113 units) , -14--404.1'. . ; j'.."' -t - - i "* Alialtbit. •,. -• • ' • i - , .*"4 • V F _.;/... , .. ---, ,- --.'•"-.,'-'1V.4...t. ' •.•'61:4'- f• - e - s . 1[4 r-.•-••4 • ' ' 4 -yp• ,_ 1-1i:*7\ ''•di I loyit.4'.• * '1*-: r 0 -/ " .,- - . - , -Y•--...'11 I -: 0 ' i 9 • ,- . ' if _. 1, / :' ' ' ..t ' -. .• - ,114 ..• #..t. - "` i •^ ' - ,. - r.' " "14 --10C'eq, iti. ••gs% • ._ , '4 ." .- . i. - '' ,.! ' „%n11. %.0., .‘. ,, • 0" ie' 11 . ..4I• '!.1L-',->14 - ''' r:- "i• . ' ta---,--. -•x • '•1. ,t":14;41-4 " . •IVF'- - .,:,., . t' Ti. 141;-,. - / - ' n lit 1. .: 4, .. '‘.61'4 .-E .--. .....14•t w =''' .,Is.. .-, -.I_ _ s. 4'''L., 'c k •• -, . il!t. -.., ,.....„,:0" .it„. . A 1400. .. .24...,•._-.7. -.____.,..11 „ -., 1 -... • ' II% - ,.. . ... , ..- %IA - , .. : 144:A.a..41 ..• ‘i.4::•,.air •`.., I*, ..#•;:i. _ , e• 'I" -vs,- -i"-1.-2c • . --,-- , - .- _ -'I-1'1*P.It'..4-'l v'' 4)..,:r:, .rt kart$' '' 4c.- $• .0. 4 V , )41/41 fle-Ilikg•'*. - ' - • .4 *roar ,..73..i.... 4toot. •,.. - - , i - .1** - . i ---.,....--- ..,•• - c'V.- % A -`t . ' - , 1-* A.r2i, r it firiopIDARWIttri - .... .. -4, , .40 i• . • P., -..„, -, .... : - . _ .. ._ .,. . :‘,4% - ok. - ' • 4`," • 40 ,' 4 `...•. •13:: . '- 0`1" •.4".- - 1,- p - N A *- r, . , ,. ic- 11 -... .... . , , . - . „..„ , • -.A.*, - r.,x)..,,,,se-s -,... ,,. 5...,!. ...,- ':Pr=-:00- •-•••-•'1...` I 1,'--6--1 .....• --• • •‘...), ."" . ' , _ 1 , ...., . .-.. 'I.,. , -, ' i '' ._ • . _ . 'W.I.c• - .- ''r.- $ --'-i 14:-ire47‘;-*1 a, "s.: I",, de v . . - - 'ir-k • 44' , p-•- L. •r^op. • 4,;:.4 -,- -s. .. . 4„--- 1 - .-,,K : , .. /, .° L....... • - .1' • " ' ''... ... ., IV 4421 N.,.4010 A --` ..„,_ '. 11 • --- '../..jrfrf, . -kr ,,_,„ .-..A....4 f.• ,-..,- .10LE*01 I 'WI.i, -11 •I a - ' . :. - . .• •-Irk/..„,- " - :-.* Aks,_;.. •--T.: - . / : z, /1, .;/ //..1k--11---F1.4 LI ' .0-V.‘ ,4'.. -C' - 1-'ii 1 i .4 V --' •''', ,,.' .r`-‘, ' ,„,,.'...,' ::' ,t, , ...„---f-: . - ' '* % r Nib,46ii..:1 .-li . *4 CI. I ! ^--. ' 4`..jlir ,, hil' . 1.• .4, /14 " - t'' .F. a '4 ''s ' :. .. . - ' • • • ' '• -: IC • r - -• ! It''T--..,----'`. .- ' -j7". . & • ._-' L' _ - ---t- ' -.. • -\*,, . 1.7 v. ''.2. -70S ' 1. r."--:i '-1-. 74.."":""-•-' *111/ t l' •••:•.44".!: st, _ -1: I gr.v.----• --a ---s% *- i . , - , Nr• ' .0. ,cs•---- '---------__'-'. •------ -- ,--:-.:".. , liK• •:, 4 - ,4.-, , ., .------.:--,,------- ..„,.. .6, 4,.0_7 , 446)/Nr. -- - ::- :4 1/44.4tetbh V...a -"::--' . -..Y4* 1E/ ? 1 +.7'. -A,_VI• ' 4 1°f".1. 11.• . • it • ' • Tr. • • - -,_ .. ••• - ,- •• /t.j.,, . •-• ....'_......, s._ ' ••, , .. , _ .. 0 i th_ f-7 t --- • , .. 4..".4,-.. __.,-. 4Dit'w- .4 *_ ?. - ' - * • LEGEND ,. 4-,• " C -1) , 04, #4• 4.44 ik, 4,. ..., •,1 , - 11 ,_ NI, . A.... 4 . ir--.4. . - .. ,•- - . _ ' . kiitx: -..' 1- • 4 ..r. - . .. ,:.%...,,,,c • . . . .. .,,....,. ‘...1 _ 1 - • Indicates Unit with 10% Incorporation ".../..!•, Irtk 1 4 ,,,- . .1,,,,,'„ _ , , 7 i . , - • .0.-,. r0,-- Petition Si. er ••••• , • „ .,... ,• -I _104 . :2.'444 .. . ‘''. .... ' --1, 7., !•-- F'M. aa" , , 7 --• • ---- - -./ ___ _ _ • i'l '•' .. -/' •; - -1,s, i it lk Ir. h_ • .4.•''' ‘"j ..404 . .,:, ..r.j. vt .. "..`,* ,441 11" RiF- • ,..:1/4 - , ,••., - • 1. • . ,.. - i :- -,- -,zr.:11:4 - , . ' ' ifswil • -ii. • ' , I 1,5 ..-* '. ,.i .'. - _ n" •s i •• 1 ' •••. : S ' •.* e___ • - . , ..- 74•.t.-1.,...41'..t6 ..- ' • * ''-.4.1; ••• % . .' ii.... 1 . No,:-- r A , if,0- - ,• r•_./1 44hit ' 'k 'I I It:.._. 450 'NI_ •*4..4,..-.•,...,,g, '"""1"" • 4 , 1 li 11'''''# f I*11 AMMO& 4, ...Inge_ .... i , g,' _... .„ .4t74- „.. .„,..,-313...44-4ft-341,.0,43.444. Not , • 11.*.'"' ....." J.*. 1L-.11 .'" .C.W"..f."o Zr;I* i __ 01, . , • # Lif;. . tatitsegIL - I. .._. i".t../ , N CITY OF FAIR WOOD INCORPORATION SCALE 1 : 7,659 10% PETITION RESPONDENTS in OPTION 1 AREA - , (excludes Maplewood Addition Annexation) / 500 1,000 1500 FEET From: Julia Medzegian To: Marcie Palmer Date: 3/21/2006 3:34:18 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Public Hearing Thanks, Marcie. I will do so on my end and pass the info along to others who may need it. Julia >>>Marcie Palmer 3/21/06 3:26:58 PNI >>> Julia- - Would you please ad Ulla t&D'ea. -off add o t1�e Otters of co i fo h a a�%u dA thio!ar - yrµ . y � t _ �z harl �... at, r® Ali J� iQ Thanks! Marcie CC: Bonnie Walton; Debra Mikolaizik; Judith Subia; Michele Neumann From: "Matt Conrad"<mattc@westminster.org> To: "Marcie Palmer" <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/21/2006 1:02:38 PM Subject: RE: Public Hearing Thanks Marcie. Our address is 15032 131st Ave SE Renton 98058. Original Message From: Marcie Palmer[mailto:mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:58 AM To: Matt Conrad Cc:Alexander Pietsch; Julia Medzegian :„ 3,y ; ,0.r; ' • Subject: Re: Public Hearing Hi Matt- I won't be able to attend the public hearing this evening because it's Council meeting night but I know Staff will be there and give us a good update tomorrow. I'll pass on that info to you.Why don't you send me your mailing address and I'll have our Council Liason Julia add you to the parties of record so you are notified automatically any time there is a meeting. Let me know if you have questions or concerns. Marcie >>>"Matt Conrad" <mattc@westminster.org>03/19/06 4:12 PM >>> Marcie, Thanks for the information about the public hearing tomorrow night. Unfortunately Deanne and I have another meeting so we won't be able to attend. Can you please let me know if any noteworthy information is discussed/decided upon? Thanks! Matt Conrad L. Renton Annexation Strategy `� ;,, Project Outline Global Initiatives Task Who? When? Cost? Community Outreach , Work with Renton Reporter to Mayor's Office ASAP ??? distribute to PAAs Work with Comcast-to,distribute- Mayes Office ASAP- ???— - - - - -- Channel 21 programming to PAAs Improve Annexation Section on City EDNSP Staff/Consultant? ASAP ??? web site Inter-agency Coordination King County Library District Mayor's Office/EDNSP 2Q 2006 N/A East Renton Plateau (POPA) Sept. or Nov. 2006 Election Spring 2007 Annexation Task Who? When? Cost? Community Outreach - , Coordinate Blue Ribbon Task Force Consultant/EDNSP 2Q 2006 through Annexation ??? (organize meetings, vn ---- i communications, etc) Informational public outreach Consultant ASAP through Election ??? Five Star Rec Programs coord. _ Comm Srvcs 3Q 2006 N/A Process BRB presentation EDNSP 3Q 2006 N/A KC Elections Coordination EDNSP/Clerk's Office Now through Election N/A Determine Optimal Effective Date EDNSP/FIS/Mayor ASAP N/A Inter-agency Coordination King Co. Inter-local Negotiation/ EDNSP/King County By 3Q 2006 N/A Adoption Fire Dist. 25 issues (if any) Mayor's Office/Fire 3Q 2006 N/A Water Dist. 90 issues (if any) Mayor's Office/PBPW 3Q 2006 N/A Internal Planning &Preparation Pre-zoning EDNSP- 3Q 2006 N/A Infrastructure Inventory Consultant and/or Departments 3Q 2006 ??? Staffing Plan Development Consultant and/or Departments By 4Q for'07 Budget Process ??? Remaining East Plateau and Sierra Heights Unincorporated Areas Ongoing Task V Who? When? Cost? Process - Expand petition annexations to EDNSP As necessary N/A assume on,piecemeal basis Inter-agency Coordination King Co. Inter-local Negotiation/ EDNSP/King County Include in POPA discussion N/A Adoption Fire Dist. 25.issues(if any) Mayor's Office/Fire Include in POPA discussion N/A Water Dist. 90 issues (if any) Mayor's Office/PBPW Include in POPA discussion N/A Internal Planning &Preparation Pre-zoning EDNSP As necessary N/A Infrastructure Inventory Consultant and/or Departments Include in POPA analysis ??? Staffing Plan Development Consultant and/or Departments Include in POPA analysis ??? • n t West Hill May 2006 to May 2007 Public Info Campaign Summer/Fall 2007 Petition Drive Spring 2008 Election January 2009 Annexation Task Who? When? Cost? Community Outreach Informational public outreach Consultant Await community engagement ??? 'Process TBD Intel-agency Coordination King Co, Inter-Iocal,Negotiation/ EDNSP/King County 4Q 2006 N/A -- - ---- -- --- --- --- - -------- - - -Adoption — ----- — —----— Fire Dist. 20 assumption Mayor's Office/Fire TBD N/A Skyway Water&Sewer Dist. Mayor's Office/PBPW TBD N/A coordination issues (if any) Internal Planning & Preparation Pre-zoning EDNSP TBD N/A Infrastructure Inventory Consultant and/or Departments TBD ??? Staffing Plan Development Consultant and/or Departments TBD ??? Fairwood Incorporation Area Sept. of Nov. 2006. Election Task Who? When? Cost? Community Outreach Informational public outreach Consultant ASAP through Election ??? (incorporation vs. annexation) Process TBD BRB hearing on Maplewood.Addition EDNSP March 2006 N/A BRB hearing on Fairwood Incorp. EDNSP March 2006 N/A BRB hearing on expanded EDNSP May 2006 N/A Maplewood Addiition (if necessary) , Fairwood/Cascade PAA May 2006 to May 2007 Public Info Campaign Summer/Fall 2007 Petition Drive Spring 2008 Election January 2009 Annexation Task Who? When? Cost? Community'Outreach Informational public outreach Consultant TBD (after incorporation election) ??? Process TBD Inter-agency Coordination King Co. Inter-local Negotiation/ EDNSP/King County 4Q 2006 N/A Adoption Fire Dist. 40 assumption Mayor's Office/Fire TBD N/A Water&Sewer Dists. coordination Mayor's Office/PBPW TBD N/A issues (if any) Internal Planning &Preparation Pre-zoning EDNSP TBD N/A Infrastructure Inventory Consultant and/or Departments TBD ??? Staffing Plan Development Consultant and/or Departments TBD ??? Public Outreach Corhsultant Work Program Task When? Prepare info materials for POPA ASAP Prepare info materials for Fairwood ASAP Incorp. Work with EDNSP to create data for ASAP enhanced Annexation web site Work with EDNSP to establish POPA April 06 through Annexation Blue Ribbon'Task Force and organize_meetings • Community outreach for POPA Summer 06 through Election (mailers, community meetings, etc) Community outreach for Fairwood Summer 06 through Election lncorp. (mailers, community meetings, etc) Prepare info materials for West Hill Summer 2006 Community outreach for West Hill 2007 through Election Prepare info materials for TBD(after incorp. election?) Fairwood/Cascade PAA Community outreach for TBD through Election Fairwood/Cascade PAA Julia Medzegian-postcard 030306 final .doc PaeLejj 1Uflk Join your neighbors to discuss the future of the • All or part of the area could annex to the City of Fairwood Potential Annexation Area,along with Renton;or representatives from King County,the City of • All or part could remain part of King County. Renton,and incorporation and annexation The choice is up to you and your neighbors, as residents and supporters at... voters. Why Now? Community Open Houses Regional policy envisions all urban unincorporated areas being annexed or incorporated by 2012. A petition to incorporate a new City of Fairwood was filed in February 2005 with the King Governance Options Meeting 1 County Boundary Review Board and could go to a public vote Tuesday, March 21 —6:00 to 8:30 pm this year. As an alternative,under county-wide policies,Renton Northwood Middle School, 17007 SE 184th Street agreed to be the future service provider for this area,and made the entire Fairwood and Cascade area part of its "Potential Annexation Area." The City has completed its study of what it Governance Options Meeting 2 would cost the City to annex:the areas. Residents need to understand the options and how they will be affected. Thursday March 23 —6:00 to 8:30 pm Lindbergh High School, 16426 128th Ave SE What Happens After the Meetings? It will depend on where you live. Both meetings have the same informal open house forMat.The same information will be presented at each meeting.Please arrive and leave Meetings are informational, so residents can understand their when convenient for you. options and make well-informed decisions about their community's future. If the question of creating a new city goes What are These Meetings? to the ballot, voters within the proposed city boundaries will make decide that question. If the vote fails or does not go to the King County is hosting informational meetings to provide ballot, residents living in the proposed city can seek to annex to information about governance options and service choices for the City of Renton. Those living outside the proposed city limits the unincorporated area south and east of Renton, and to give also have the option to annex to the City of Renton. residents a chance to discuss the future of the area: Americans with Disabilities Act information:Reasonable • Part of the area could become the new City of accommodations will be provided upon request.Alternate formats Fairwood;or available upon request:(206)296-4167 TTY Relay:711 . 1 i 0 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Yesler Building,Room 402,400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Phone:(206)296-6800 •Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations February 10, 2006 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 IN RE: Notice of Hearing File No. 2194 - Proposed City of Fairwood Incorporation Dear Honorable City Council: This letter is to notify you that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County has received and verified a request for a Public Hearing on the above-referenced proposal. A Public Hearing has been scheduled before the Boundary Review Board as prescribed by RCW36.93.160 and as required in the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Boundary Review Board. We have enclosed a Notice of Hearing. Under the Boundary.Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedures, the Board may request that concerned'parties provide a position statement relative to the Notice of Intention. For this ` proposal, the Board is inviting a position statement from the initiator of the action, from the initiator of the request for public hearing and from other affected governmental units. Written position statements should be provided no later than March 7, 2006 in order to ensure that the Boundary Review Board will have an adequate opportunity to review and consider the Position Statement prior to the Public Hearing. If you wish additional information relative to this proposal, please contact me at 206-296-6800. Sincerely, 4Le ora Blau ma Executive Secretary Enclosure: Notice of Hearing , CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Form HE7 ed: Yna9ifyy zebG 9'4, 6"'fr‘ £,dafvtQr-i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION FILE NO. 2194 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY will hold a public hearing at the hour of 7:00 PM on Monday, March 27, 2006. Continuation dates have been set aside for Wednesday, March 29 and Thursday, March 30, 2006 if required. The hearing will take place eat the Nelsen Middle School, 2403 Jones Avenue South, Renton, WA. The purpose of the hearing is to consider proposed incorporation of the City of Fairwood all in King County, Washington and more generally described as: To reclassify certain Real Property within the Soos Creek Plateau, described as all of Portions of Sections 21 through 28 and 33 through 36, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian and Sections 1, 3 and 4, Township 22 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington, located South of Renton Maple Valley (SR-169), West of the East Shores of Lake Desire and Shady Lake, North and West of the Lake Young's Watershed, and East of 128th Ave SE. A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. The Boundary Review Board conducts all meetings and hearings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Any person requiring other disability accommodations or special assistance should contact the Boundary Review Board staff at least two business days prior to the meeting. The Boundary Review Board telephone is 206-296-6800. For TTY telephone services, please call 206- 296-1024 Each request for accommodations or assistance will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources ;and the financial ability of the Board to provide the requested services or equipment. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 10th day of February 2006. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY Lenora Blauman • Executive Secretary Form HE3 CONTEXT AND PURPOSE Assessment of two areas: Fairwood PAA. (Cascade and Fairwood Incorporation Area) isz y 'xr f� r- Planning-Level Assessment: t. • Goal: Provide information to help the City make strategic choices tit This builds analysis y on similar and related analyses. • West Hill Governance Options Process • Fairwood Incorporation Study :14, • Cascade Annexation Analysis :44:itlAi • East Renton Plateau Annexation Outreach • • • JANUARY 9,2006 r o-' - At pg. ., FRAMEWORK Answer a Hypothetical Question: 4-14 • If Fairwood PM was part of Renton today, and the City wanted to provide current levels of service, how ,, much money would the City need to cover the costs? EF:h k� �� ProvideBaseline 4 a Assessment of Capital Infrastructure .11 11 Needs 0.4 *41 PSA IS:14 Analysis provides a snapshot of ongoing costs, but does not: 1 % w Account for one-time transition costs. r. ��: � o On an on-going basis, things like equipment and facilities costs are included, but the cost of initial purchase of equipment is not included. rA o For example, for annexation of the Cascade area, Public Works estimates that initial equipment purchases would cost roughly $1 million. RIO • Account for potential one-time payments to the City from King County's Annexation Initiative Fund; • Specifically resolve how the City would serve any of the areas: If Renton pursues annexation in the face of constrained resources, the City will need to make many decisions about service levels, staffing, and/or generating additional revenue. a - a 2 JANUARY 9,2006 4_. f t ry GLOBAL ISSUES 1-747 Limits on Property Taxes kaLr • How Renton responds to I-747's 1% limits will determine the attractiveness of annexing any residential neighborhood; If the City chooses to rely on sales tax revenue growth from its commercial areas as the main engine of revenue growth, then all residential areas will become less fiscally attractive over time; If the City were to maintain its existing levy rate through levy lid lifts, then residential areas will become more fiscally attractive over time. 410 Sales Tax Streamlining • Contemplated changes in Washington State "sourcing" rules will make residential areas and commercial uses like offices and hospitals more attractive; • • Longer-term changes in interstate taxation of internet and catalog sales will strengthen that trend; • At the residential level, the value of delivered goods purchased is likely to be driven by disposable income. High income areas are likely to drive higher revenues: If a household purchase $5,000 of delivered goods in a year, those purchases will generate an extra $42 in City revenues. Location of Fire Stations is Key • Fire provision is very lumpy—an area either has a fire station or it doesn't; F" m • Once a fire station is in place, then the incremental costs of providing fire services to another population in the area is often quite small. #3" uq JANUARY 9,2006 . as .f,a•'".cam:°:+_, • . lrw®Od - All ., �ua2 � :... �;`,��":`'.,r 3T.y.,:K �x,..,,asrf,'.';r'f. sfy ,c....-.F,..,,`I....R*.:c dt•W,rc`v,�rxO"•':'O`S�D .*-s:A_r^r:"xiQ oa u.z.. Annexation. ;�•`ti.. s+a n.< na:x'A.'x•..e.,txatrxrete«: soy'. , ANNEXATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY hu Estimated Tax Revenues by Source 074, • Extended property and utility taxes based on City's current tax rates /41°, • Estimated sales tax based on actual collections (reflecting both Berk & Associates and KingCountyanal sis analysis) • Applied business license fee to estimated employees in the area IA Estimated Costs by Department • Asked of CityDepartments: estimate what would it take (staffing) to serve the area? p • Police: planning for patrol districts and statistical forecast of demand bF Fire: estimated staff and engines/aid cars for response • Parks and Community services: park maintenance, extension of recreation and library services it Capital Costs & Revenues 444. • Roads: King County TNR = $66.4 million of potential projects. (May be overstated: includes Benson/Carr Road intersection and 140th Ave improvements) ry, § ir;;;:, • Parks: Need for two neighborhood recreation centers = $3.2 million construction. Even if Renton refuses the • King County Pool, its renovation or replacement may be a long-term issue. �$• • Revenues: Business License Fees, REET, Surface Water Management Fees = just over $3 million annually st JANUARY 9,2006 5 ; k ANNEXATION ANALYSIS - THE BIG PICTURE PICTURE r!',41 Why would annexation of Cascade or Fairwood cost Renton less than annexation of West Hill? • As modeled, per-resident costs of service would be much higher for West Hill than they would be for either - ph;,. .,� or the entire Fairwood PM. West Hill is home to 14,100 people, but annexation is expected to require addition of two full police patrol ., * districts, a fire engine, and an aid car (five full-time firefighter positions). x o Fairwood is home to more than 42,200 people, but annexation is expected to require addition_of only lt three police patrol districts, one fire engine and two aid cars (seven full-time firefighter positions). ' - o As a result, the modeled police and fire service costs for the Fairwood PM are about $150 per resident. For West Hill, police and fire services are estimated to cost $420 per resident. • Ts t 1.6r JANUARY 9,2006 KEY ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Annexations Cascade A7' Renton already staffs a fire station in Cascade PO w • Annexation of Cascade would require addition of one aid car. 440 !,i'AZICascade area excludes Renton Pool and Fairwood�. Library xx As a result, net incremental costs of servingCascade are relatively modest • • $681,000 with facility costs treated as an annual expense, $341 ,000 if facility costs are counted as capital Issues: ,iur • Fire District 40 received voter approval in November 2005 for a bond to build a new headquarters station in Cascade; • If Renton annexes only Cascade, station construction will be an important driver of transition costs associated with Fire District asset transfer. City costs to purchase FD 40 assets are not part of Berk & >04. � Associates' estimates (the amount and nature of costs are uncertain and depend on the status of FD 40's new station at the time of annexation). J • Parks would need to build a new neighborhood community center estimated at $2.0 million (10,000 sf, $200/sf not including land costs). • 7 JANUARY 9,2006 . r: i , ,w :: FINDINGS Annexation: Cascade 1 Net Operating Cost for Renton to Serve Cascade f , r Operating Costs Total , • Cascade would generate slighty less Police Services $3,728,000 annual operating revenue than it would Planning, Building and Public Works $1,769,000 cost Renton to serve it. Fire Services $1,1 13,000 Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services $627,000 • Police: 1 .7 additional patrol districts, 32 Community Services $481,000 of additional staff Finance and Information Services $341,000 • Human Resources & Risk Management $73,000 _ _• Fire: Renton would continue to-have one — -Economic Develo merit $233,000 �� ; p ---station in Cascade area - adding an aid car Legislative $14000 V ; 0 to the existing engine stationed in the area Staff-related Facility Costs' $340,000 (increasing staffing from 3 full-time positions to TOTAL COST $8,719,000 ••*,,, 5 full-time positions) Operating Revenues �� Property Tax $3,685,000 • . 4., • Parks & Community Services: The Cascade Utility Tax $1,387,000 area does not include Renton Pool. County Sales Tax $833,000 ' if• retains ownership of Soos Creek Park. State Shared Revenues $546,000 Gambling Tax $399,000 • Includes annualized facility costs of $340,000 Permit Fees $345,000 associated with increased staffing. If City treated Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $323,000 facility costs as capital invesments (as it does Fines & Forfeits $294,000 in practice now) then net yearly operating costs Cable Franchise Fees $137,000 ` Recreation Fees $66,000 %_ would be reduced by half. Business License Fees 2 $23,000 TOTAL REVENUE $8,038,000 NET REVENUES 0681,000) MI' Notes: 1) Excludes facility costs for fire department, assuming facilities 4 will be handled through asset transfer with the district and, potentially, construction of a new station;2) Fees are 20% of estimated total amount i collected,as 80% is dedicated to road maintenance. • fr ik xi . A JANUARY 9,2006 $ 4.1 -14,1 14 1 KEY ISSUES & SUMMARY FINDINGS Annexation: Fair rood - All rLai FiftaAs a whole, Fairwood has low per resident costs of service for fire, police, and parks services As a result, net costs of annexing entire area are modest: • Net cost of $820,000 if the City does not take on Renton Pool; • Net cost of $100,000 if facility costs to accomodate new staffing are counted as capital rather than operating expenses Issues: • Status of FD 40 and assets would be a point of negotiation and station planning would be needed; ; • Fairwood Library is a large library with a high value and its acquisition of the library from KCLS could be costly; • Parks would need to build two neighborhood community centers: one in Cascade and one in Fairwood; • Renton Pool is relatively old, but is valued by Fairwood community; if the City took it on, its renovation or replacement could be costly. y. JANUARY 9,2006 9 it• $r; F . FINDINGS Annexation: Fairwood - All w:C +Mrfi Pleg Net Operating Cost for Renton to Serve Fairwood PAA ,gip i Operating Costs Total • The entire Fairwood PAA would �, � ��. Police Services $6,579,000 generate slighty less annual operating Planning, Building and Public Works $4,707,000 � `' . revenue than it would cost Renton to Fire Services $3,796,000 airt serve it. . Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services $1,302,000 �, Community Services $2,839,000 ' , • Police: 3 additional patrol districts, 56 Finance and Information Services $871,000 Human Resources-&-Risk-Mana Management_ --- _- - _additional staff g -- - $ 86,000-- - -- - ` Fire: Assume FD 40 is dissolved and 2 Economic Development $664,000 _ Legislative $35,000 06,4,' transfer to Renton; additional 5 Staff-related Facility Costs ' $728,000 staff a n d aid car TOTAL COST $21,707,000 • Parks & Community Services: Renton Operating Revenues would not take on Renton Pool from King Property Tax $10,567,000Utility Tax $3 000 County but would take over Fairwood Sales Tax $1,857,000 • . $1,857,000 •'' Library from KCLS (19 staff added) State Shared Revenues $1,431,000 $437,000 Tax ax • Includes annualized facility costs Gambling Permit Fees $990,000 fit associated with increased staffing (could Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $845,000 41, be leased space or a capital bond). Fines & Forfeits $519,000 Cable Franchise Fees $359,000 q,,,` Recreation Fees 2 $132,000 Business License Fees $38,600 , TOTAL REVENUE $20,883,600 NET REVENUES 0823,400) Notes: 1) Excludes facility costs for fire department and Fairwood Library;2) Fees are 20%of estimated total amount collected,as 80% is dedicated to g• road maintenance. � JANUARY 9,2006 *I•• CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 491 Need For Planning: fir t • King County has historically invested little in park acquisition and development, but more substantially in roads; • All currently-programmed County investments are expected to be completed by 2007 and limited y;1*444i,i information is available about future infrastructure needs; • Data that are available from County CIP and the County's Transportation Needs Report suggest that identified infrastructure needs in the areas are relatively modest. TRANSITION COSTS • AJ Renton would face other ramp-up ramp-upcosts .z • Capital facility assessment planning; 4,14 • Comprehensive plan development and zoning; S • Configuration of parks and other public facilities to extend recreational services; C • Initial equipment purchases (vehicles, road maintenance equipment, computers); • Depending on timing of a Cascade annexation (and planned construction of a new Fire District 40 station in Cascade), annexation of Cascade might require a transfer of funds. JANUARY 9,2006 t,4y d 4� FAIRw00D INCORPORATION STUDY G • Study Questions • Is it financially feasible to incorporate a new City of Fairwood? ,pA • What are the potential implications of incorporation on local taxes and levels of service? 40 • Framework: "same cost, same level of service." Holding tax burdens equal to what residents pay as part of King County, could a City of Fairwood provide equivalent levels of service and have excess revenues? POP Findings- - - - • If Fairwood residents pay the same level of taxes they would pay as part of unincorporated King County, a City of Fairwood would generate enough revenues to provide a slightly higher level of service than Fairwood residents currently receive. (Slightly higher level of service = full FTE patrol officer and a recreation program) • The City would be primarily residential with a weak commercial tax base, solid residentialroe values and a modest level ofpublic services. p p ` ma • As is true of most residential cities, Fairwood would need to take actions to maintain its property tax levy rate to remain sustainable over the long-term. As a newlyincorporating city, Fairwood would be in a better � g P g tY, position than most cities to do this. 4.4JANUARY 9,2006 12� Vitif .r FAIRw0OD_INCORPORATION STUDY dBRB Review & Study Status dt • Requested that Berk & Associates clarify 1) study scope; 2) basis for core feasibility findings; 3) transparency yz � of assumptions; 4) how the report addresses BRB decisionmaking criteria; and 5) relationship of other areas to Fairwood incorporation. '14 • Revised report will be transmitted this week (January 13); tif 4 BRB expects to hold incorporation public hearings in February; p • A vote may occur in mid-2006. ,,,,-0,;0; • Renton is pursuing preservation of the SR-169 Corridor though annexation or removal from incorporation per Council direction. eVF VI 7 1440 'we • JANUARY 9,2006 ��34 Via::-� � radarA ECONOMIC DEVELv 'MENT, * r: ® ♦ NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • N�o MEMORANDUM - , E M R A M - D O N U DATE: January 3, 2006 CITY OF RENTON TO: Randy Corman,Committee Chair Members of the Committee of the Whole JAN 0 4'2006 CC: Kathy Keolker,Mayor RECEIVED Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: Alex Pietsch,Administrator(x6592) SUBJECT: Fairwood Presentation and Policy Direction In a memo dated December 9, 2005, I drafted a cover memo distributing copies of annexation analyses for the Cascade and Fairwood areas of our PAA to members of the City Council. This topic was subsequently referred to the Committee of the Whole for a presentation,which has been scheduled for January 9, 200 . The City's consultant team from Berk&Associates will be on hand to walk you through the analyses and answer any questions you may have. Attached is a meeting announcement regarding a public meeting in the Fairwood area on January 24, 2006. The Administration has been asked to speak at this meeting and provide answers to resident questions about the City's position on potential annexation of all or parts of Fairwood. On August 9,2005, the Committee of the Whole adopted a committee report that, among other things, stated"The Council would dike more information about the long-term fiscal impacts of annexing the Fairwood/Cascade area before any annexation of this area occurs. Staff should not actively promote annexations east of the Benson Rd/108th Ave SE commercial area until the financial analysis is complete."This analysis is now complete. In order to help staff prepare for this meeting, it would be helpful if the Council could provide at the briefing on Jan. 9 explicit direction regarding its position on the following questions: 1) Does the City support the incorporation of Fairwood as a city unto itself? 2) If residents of the area initiated an annexation effort for all or some of the Fairwood PAA,would the City support it? 2a) If not,what would;have to change(i.e., zero fiscal impact, etc.)to make the Council more willing to consider annexation? If you have any questions in advance of the briefing,please feel free to contact me directly. cc: Attachment h:\ednsp\council\issue papers-agenda bills-cttelreports\2006\fairwood cow briefing memo.doc s, K,. _� _ "A Greater Renton -A Better Fairwood a, . � I fl Co ror ion �t.„,„,,,.,, ,,fr, - at o or ,,.,:, :::, -, „...., ,•, ,r,-,,, - �l.. . .> , ,. . , ,,,,, „,„ r --. _ ',.' ,App'., 1 ;tv Annexation ? � { < sb Join frilt, iends and neighbors in discussion on to tt �� Tuesday, January 24th a . �tv, ,„, ,,._ Y F:„..,,,,,,,.„,,, ,,,, � : 7 pm . to 8 :45 p . fr; F .tsar Where: Fairwood Library Meeting Room � '�� 17009 140th S.E. Renton 98058 ify� 43 • ''.��<� � ,.fy N .L� x�� r� What: City of Renton representatives will 5 answer questions on issues regarding ` � �� ` � the proposed City of Fairwood and the "�--„,,,,..t, ,f .fir to Fsjt^` s �� alternative option of annexation to Renton. � � ' Contact: J. Paul Blake �`� jpaulblake@hotmail.corn u A,< NOTE: This meeting was organized by 5•9 1. ,,,;,,, t;!.. .;,.140� i residents open to alI options for e�� Fairwood. Fatyrl RECEIVED DEC 1 2 2005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, tO ,Chy Council 0 4) s NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEG ra • ,� ® + PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON JAN 8 70e6 DATE: December 9, 2005 RECEIVED TO: Terri;Briere, Council President CITY CLF-R:<' 3 CF :C Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch(x6592) SUBJECT: FAIRWOOD AND CASCADE ANNEXATION ANALYSES i Please find attached copies of reports entitled"Fiscal Impacts of Renton's Annexation of the Renton Fairwood PAA" arid"Fiscal Impacts of Renton's Annexation of the Cascade Area."A public policy consultant, Berk&Associates, conducted the Cascade report on behalf of King County. Berk conducted the Fairwood report under a separate contract with the City of Renton. Both reports analyze Renton's expected"cost" of providing a similar level of service to these two annexation areas to that which is currently enjoyed by residents of the existing City. The reports find that providing service to the entire Fairwood PAA would result in a net annual cost of$853,000 per year. Provision of services to the Cascade Area alone(the area remaining if Fairwood successfully incorporates),Renton would face a net annual cost of $681,000. These reports to do not attempt to calculate capital infrastructure costs, other than ongoing mair tenance, or costs associated with ramping up to provide services to these large areas(e.g. purchasing vehicles, etc.). If members of the Council are'interested, staff and/or itsconsultantsare more than happy to provide a briefing to the Committee of the Whole. Attachments cc: Jay Covington Administrators Ben Wolters Rebecca Lind Don Erickson h:\ednsp\paa\fairwood\fairwood memo to council.doc November 7,2005 j Renton City Council Minutes Page 382 Citizen Comment: Blake- Jay Paul Blake, 17627 133rd Pl. SE,Renton,98058,stated that he is a member Fairwood Incorporation of the Fairwood community, and asked the City to consider initiating the, annexation of the proposed Fairwood Incorporation area into Renton's boundaries. Noting that he has attended several meetings organized by the Fairwood Task Force, he expressed his dismay at the inaccuracy of some of the statements made by the speakers. Mr. Blake indicated that he opposes the incorporation for reasons related to the limited financial viability of proposed city. Mr. Blake cited passages from the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study concerting the proposed city's financial viability. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES FOR HIS COMMENTS. CARRIED. Mr. Bl Jke continued with his review of the feasibility study. He concluded that Renton is in a strong financial position,and consequently, the residents of the Fairwood area will be best served by being annexed to the City of Renton. Citizen Comment: Finlayson- Laurie Finlayson, 14224 SE 163rd Pl.,Renton, 98058, supported Mr.,Blake's Fairwood Incorporation request that Renton consider annexing the Fairwood area. She expressed her surprise at some Fairwood residents'negative opinions of Renton,and surmised it may be because they do not relate to Renton since much of the area resides within he Kent School District. Ms.Blake indicated that the analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed city did not convince her that incorporation will work. She stated her desire to be apprised of all the options, including a comparison of both incorporation and annexation to Renton, in order to make an informed decision. Discussion ensued regarding the Fairwood Incorporation effort;Renton's practice to wait for parties to express interest in annexing to the City; regulatilons concerning the allowance of an annexation effort while an incorporation effort is pending; the possibility of an advisory vote on the interest of Fairwood residents annexing to Renton;the unlikelihood that the vote foil the Fairwood Incorporation will occur in February 2006,as the Boundafry Review Board will be conducting hearings in January and February; Fairwood residents'perception of Renton; Council's stance on the annexation of the Fairwood area to Renton; and the provision of information concerning annexation to Renton. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler asked Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch to research the questions that surfaced during the discussion. Councilman Clawson acknowledged the consent of the Councilmembers for the continued conveyance of information regarding annexation to Renton. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/24/2005. Council concur. 10/24/2005 Appointment: Municipal Arts Mayor Keolker-Wheeler appointed Denise Bisio, 1301 W. Newton St., Seattle, Commission 98119,to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term expiring 12/31/2007. Refer to Community Services Committee. WI CONTEXT AND PURPOSE Assessment of Three Areas: West Hill, East Renton Plateau, and Fairwood PAA Planning-Level Assessment: • GOAL - To provide information to help the City make strategic choices A This analysis builds on: W �. • West Hill Governance Options Process • Fairwood Incorporation Study • Cascade Annexation Analysis 44, • East Renton Plateau Annexation Outreach . :; OCTOBER 3,2005 , 14 FRAMEWORK woAAnswer a Hypothetical Question: • If West Hill was part of Renton today, and the City wanted to provide current levels of service, how much 041 money would the City need to cover the costs? 'r t,' :'i,', a Baseline Assessment of CapitalCapInfrastructure :"}wf Needs . •zf - - - This analysis provides an intuitive snapshot of ongoing costs, r but it does not: N '- •• Account for one-time transition costs: o On an on-going basis, things like equipment and facilities costs are included, but the cost of initial 46 11 purchase of equipment is not included. • o For example, for annexation of the Cascade area, Public Works estimates that initial equipment purchases _w would cost roughly $1 million. `w • Account for potential one-time payments to the City from King County's Annexation Initiative Fund; i • Specifically resolve how the City would serve any of the areas: pursues annexation in the face of constrained resources, the City If Renton will need to make many Pa Jdecisions about service levels, staffing, and/or generating additional revenue. 4� g ?i 211 OCTOBER 3,2005 GLOBAL ISSUES Fl Ek y 1-747 Limits on Property Taxes . • How Renton responds to I-747's 1% limits will determine the attractiveness of annexing any residential neighborhood; 1 g o If the City chooses to rely on sales tax revenue growth from its commercial areas as the main engine of 4ti revenue growth, then all residential areas will become less fiscally attractive over time; o If the City were to maintain its existing levy rate through levy lid lifts, then residential areas will become more fiscally attractive over time. Sales Tax Streamlining • Contemplated changes in Washington State "sourcing" rules will make residential areas and commercial uses like offices and hospitals more attractive; r .. • Longer-term changes in interstate taxation of internet and catalog sales will strengthen that trend; . • At the residential level, the value of deliveredgoodspurchased is likelyto be driven byi �� disposable income. P : High income areas are likely to drive higher revenues: tf; If a household purchase $5,000 of delivered goods in a year, those purchases will generate an extra $42 ii r City revenues. 0 , t Location of Fire Stations is Key it , • Fire provision is very lumpy--an area either has a fire station or it doesn't; • Once a fire station is in place, then the incremental costs of providing fire services to another population in s, . � - the area is often quite small. 6:. OCTOBER 3,2005 f:3Y .. . ia . west Hill • ______,_ • • _..,....,___ THE AREA ....._ .,.....,.._. . livest Hill ...„ ...,`.".•.7:1"7-"'.,'471.-1,,.'-',.r`,,-.:',`6:'.""'-"'""''' ABOUT ,,-_,, .-,.,y:„,„.?.,,e,J....::,_'•--:?.;;::-.!„.::,:-.':.,-,...,-:,-;...#A„..=.-.-a.- -- 4:„f::',;.:,!;.,, ,...tz-, _,_------ ,,._ ,,,,,,, ,,,,..-„'.:::•1:;.„„:'!-,,,,, :•.,,,-:'...,;', ..,::.,„„t';', Orv-i-i,:zikf ' - Dy SUBAREAS 900 • - 13, .--,•;.'-`',1"'i'A.`‘'''-'-:14::,:%"-:.""i"* "'I+"'''''.4 '"'";--'-.01:,i1;14,A,O.: 41 :"R% STu rea 1 ationg A***--ilt,41 A 44ek''''W-4' El r ,,,,-;:::.1 popul- 0,kt-tormk',',2-•,,,•,:lt--)7.;i-i,e;d.,:?1,,,,, - -k-irt.-t'tzti*, - r;--:. 44:1vArt.44,,,k0 Li Area 2 . , .iffisr-v , 04-'0., .v A 'dent: . l'fr, 7,>‘; 714,77r-1,0%74',W477;,,,, ,,71., 0 Area 3 4;-i,,,,--,T.I.. .„.' Ar-ezfiaf.ktt.l..-'.. ..c.k,T; • 4i '..\.i.,..-47.7.-:..„--7-77, <'741-‘- .m.'5,71,i 0 Schools sAsr ee as sl e-d.p Value Per Rest 'Al4 i.,,,,-,;,„,•-kir.-„,)-pa,k,, ,,,,.;„,-,..py.,,,, ...,,..,..,/.::;..!„.•er•--, ..•;,„• •,, '1 ,,,, ltr7;k; sc.ho61 '':.1 :,j. : .',. •!.. ',,r,1"•• -------=71;K:,\Vt !,, ,,, .Y!,441.4 oi Fire Stations _ '....,.:",,,Zsi-,!.;3-,-,:',".--: :.';!,t• 1,`';•-=',',,,:. ;.'1::`' ‘, ...c`',.,v.,,,, i0A, 00 ...,,,. ,. \,,,,.., „., ... ,, ..,, ;,.:,,,,,, : ;i: ,, ,„ , , ;,,,, C.V,,,,„,,,,,,/\••••;„:%.„,,,'',...47,""N",,,,,7•,,,,,,tE.,,,, ,••1;,,ig'„-?,;i, ,:,,,,,,,,„,,:"rrn *.tO„ ;• d•93,0 ,,,..,-,•:-.--.4,.,...; -,,J„•,.,„,•...: N-,;--,: i„f. • ,,„,„ le... -.,,,,:;,.., L:artft744,0:114 --'," -7‘::',.,`,-?,..1,.',.-.7-#,,"- •ryo,"iy-;;;;,-sk,-'W,,,„f;,..'*•!,,, '!6' .l',,-,4-;\„"1-*NC', NztitIA ," '' - 7,le . , , A. $135,000 \k„,-.-0,0"., 1 ';',N.,- ">>,,N.t-'-‘ %•,:v- f:,- -4,,--v% ,,,',Z,! *vv.: i",,,A- ,,,V,8'7,K-,,:ft,, , et,,,;,„,,, Area 2 — . t irr;-. ?.,./ /. \- "- ., ----------\::-",oc•riox-‘.. ---ri.W., ...-,:r, • '''''S;A;1J: .: 1.4- 77.7*- „-,--N.,;„ ,,,,, lr 7,,,,-- ,g '1- 3 - $69,000 .!;,...,,.,.4:...f.„,.2-,.t:IL,,_-,r,,.- Li4a,6,,,....-..:1,Li4_ , 7.::: ti\,, ,,.! „ii,t, ,, , Tv ,,,,.,1,.. rElpyirtarY.L::11 .`:,”,-%'''''','T•1:::::: 1,:. '-','h',,,i, .„,:,,, ..,,;',... • Area imb7,,,,•,•T!4..--;',: ,, ..." ''''itT:;t . --0. 7,:f.„',:t. -7,. .V.k,.-- ' .;.., r14, ,.t ,. 4'Ai,....-.•Til'), '-.. geY,:',,,21-34f,.!•",,,40.tt,r7.2.,-%.ryli%., gr-04 54Iff:4-"-.4-1„'' -4,6T-T17.1);.'''f';',` ,5i,'71 :\ ....".' ITF:: 's.,i ';:,; --4, ,:::::',T,' I'i,.--• Type: rifo v,t,:*;', ' , r"--,,t, . ..,,,.,. ,. r„...),...„0,p,,,---7 ''"'-•••••;"--",..., .t'-,...1*".." .- , Piryn.-',•••• •••-'41.- — tz' r. V ••, '"7 '= Housing T,, off1/4'.,"c4A„frf-17F: 4'.1,rv4:',z,..,.;:",.;:t ;'77,7t7:,:i;TI:, S .i r1.1:,,,,.,:::i'-,--;,,,,..,..„- 1,..,.......,,. t,,,-• -;i ..... -.-r- ?.0-r, c,",4m ii 3, ,,,..41.ii* Hou • le Family ,,., .. ,• . ,,. ,TA`01 n' '''. `0.., '. ' .,1''; EIP3 ,., t 73% Single, :1„*".""•,' '"•.",!3 „,• ..",. ""V‘1,'"r"'"4 0- •i•hie•=d ctilf",1•11$'fr:\l'"' •'- '',-''."'''''''.'' ' "'' "ti ' ' t.,",,,s,,•,:""'"tr ‘, s• '...\ . l4'.71".4 i''" 1-‘ *" ••- "'•'1."ri**'!,! \.'9YPerr ,--,. 'p...,---, Area 1 - . '' A\ 1. .."4,=i''F.'r"11'''','4,f Iv'.-`0, ;444,71.7-r- -coi ...-- ... ..r...-i• .' - t•.'.,'. . . ,,,, . Ielt ti!,•,,,..„'', ‘,N, 'r.-1/4"4,:,,,;./.*-trn."17,,r\ 4,. :'t...,"'1 ' p4 fli. 8, ,I 3..r,.. ,:: li V i , ,.:.,,...2 • 87% Single Family .,, ,....-44.,,,..- :„.k.--,,-.,.0-4,,,„e:5,,F,.Tz.40r,..v.,!:, ,.,),t,..,<,;•!.....,:,,Tv,-,4.• •-i,-- -..-‘ ,i,--1 •I:11z:- ' t", ‘ ''..-.: i,..1.t.,,-, ., ;. '.:-.:1(4-:,--..., .„ ii;,. ' , ,i';--;" '14-'' 2 - '11 N, ,::\i'', ,-,2'e '-,,T.*:,--.. , - _,,,..,,„,.. , ; • Area . i Fami▪ly iP-4-9 w.,, .\,,,„•...,. ,,.,,,,,, - 4 c...P'• • . , r-.N\ „,--•,.. ,.1,.,,„...i,„.;?---•••,t,z.- . .. " !tr.., '1,rAtitg )''''!'5"... II. .'" ii::•...:tr''' -'"f"-•'-';:i. L.,,,y-y•4s-•<`:;:"7":"; itacTtitker,.. ,`,. -.4 ,,cpris,ti?ori rZ.., „,,,:t,q,1 i 1 64% single -tf.4 rt ,,,,,,-,,,..,,,, ?:.-77,,, I, ,,,r ,,; ..,iy. in:roi,,,,..::. :-...:•p. , ...A..a.i.!.,.,'NtInt7,..,:ii...,:.?aid,. • Area 3 - - ---$11 A tti4,4,- cl,11,:::”' 5*,•.‘..4.;:,.''',:etr.'"1'.•,,,, 11„ ,r. ,•-'111,F,„19„i . . :'''... ,...--f-V.,:,.,;.1,,,',:.s.,1-,-zgritir-4,..,,,,,t4 WiViVlb;''`: fr ,, '''V 'rr.''4.',' 74, 4''.:"-\• "."" " -'' ...' 4. ; . . •,, 0 - , ,_. , ,,,,.404,, ›.1.pi,v I 4... ',,,,Vi• 1/, 4"'" ''' 'X\ . T.7-1-7‘4,....,..- .--.7:----- „.- .. ;,,..4,.•'--:;•, N7,--.77-7.,../-...r.1',.:5:5I-').• ,•.r.,,n2r' *,,r,.".ii‘P,',N, tr',6..----,i„,,,,,t, „ ,'L.,,,:&Xfr-1--.‘-.., , ,,,.- . r • ,,,,,'''','""`:i i,,;,$ 4.l'Z,-47:','":i..;"'-0•4, :Cd''''''A '''-:'\:''' .7'* 7"r-:::'-'*7`)4"' "`. .L''7i4'7'1,r',7rI -: , ,.. '• 1. L. 1--",Y47c„Ef ,-7'4."'„,,•'. , - 49% Single Family . - - _ b-, --,-,-,v- .. .- ;.., ,, . Renton . . . 'NJ i--7,7,-,.....,1__,,/ -i.. ., -ficl ,-,',.,,, _ , .......1f,,,., . - ,-,,, -.-., ,,4„. '1/4,,,,.•,,,,...,,,',4:2„,,,,,i,7-,--,,..--..- ...lc . -r...!--.1. w-4-54 . , . N-4,;*%lul.:-.____,._,:;,1t,i..., ... .:A,,,,;:t.'„,-;4'„';',':.:'..,,,-.‘,., ./,. '.....„ - . - t- ,.... ,:.-.. ,,, ., -, 1. Pi* ,cti,AteiMe, ,..',,,':-1-",--.."-..,-- . i'-'."'<z`',::: '-i• .4::..,-, -,,,,5:,;:1;.'>;,,:,,,,,,t,; ,441-671a1P-,4 ' niad,r,Rivef•rot,, ., 3,,,, 1 ,•,,,,..„. • „,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„•,.•44: ,,,...„.„7.•,,,„.,..„-„:„. ,ite,,,"•,,,,v,•,,,,r,-.,,,,,,ri'\\ Act4,t.'/...- Alt,.X; , 1,,,,,:\\<::::',7idr, „ :.,:\lic,R;fi,i4,,,. ;;:,:c",':'\--L2.-, 117:11;11$1,LR':,4‘.;;•''7[1.4-;:c47414.411 • .F,:: ;Ft i,..i'l c.t.,-;,.:4 -.. ,-t..:..7:1,„ „, .,:4 :',,,:-.:;-7.-i; Wt., 4=,,,.'' 2.1,2.,..i,,,,,'„,. ,P7,-il '',".1,,,-4 %I ' •C.-At f•f-''.••",--44- N.- :^•;;;,-..m•t, '',;.,*v;It:'f,;.1e:'-7.41,,•:,-, 4.,,:1'..•,.:Ip,:t.3,r,'7; \IF :;',11.1-•%.:4 '0- ' ..•'''' ,/,'';•'(A' ,1 ,,,,, ,,•,v,':.-4}.2.=,1.:-..025 05 4. .As...?:*tV't-, ;,, fi,*41 ziii-,, f;,1:,'I:.Al ,N".,. 1,71',,e,,,:ikatt--A- ” "Fef ,k.,77›,, ,i1,73454,4..".4t.-;#1,,.%:', i, .:. '7- ,-.-„,_, „,,,,,,,, .,,,.. i-44.:4 .t,',4,•11q,,,Iti.',..f''`.'',;:i7-• i ,,i ' '• Ns;,4,74,,-;.,%`. .;::. ,,, .44.. .,,. : - - :::', ', rme..' . $ATA- r,..„,,t- li.;'5:-.:1",,F,t„, ,1 4• -;;Uki.4 .71.c**.M.Y.'"' ,,. ,--,:t.'i. .- . r7.,:,,,,'It rg_,"pat,''01+'*'t:''.:' '. :` .- ':" ':. , ,' ,..."*.i. " -`,;',i• ,, ;t. '4:4'.'4''''' ". ..,, e4 Z;Ta4FL' i :-•",: ,,.7',. ,'',.;`,::'',: ' 14k:''''"'''.4'' 6101-1'-:0 0,0,p.z. -;:-T,K & ASSOCIATES r„.., .,,_ :.-:,,..,1:,..„:.,:::......:r.„., i1;4,4,,,,I.,,,..,u, . 1 ,B t itt,,A' ..1' '*",'",'''" ••"4-1'14,"' 't.,,,poryttel,r*tikr4k1 Or'1.4411'li77:!,'Z',47"%'-''' 'i. ,V,' 7,-tr..4..4., ka-,-,.' „. . . . ,.,. ,.. 44: OCTOBER 3,2005 ra IA . K -1 West Hill Community's Governance Process: to st • A community-focused process to identify West Hill's most promising path for future governance. frxi Two Fire Stations: • Bryn Mawr Station in Area 1 : An older station that is staffed only by volunteers in the evening, and would be closed upon annexation; and It 14 • Skyway Station in Area 3: A newer, modern station that would serve as the West Hill Station upon annexation. Two Parks:' • Bryn Mawr Park in Area 1 : A small, passive park; and lo ;:��:{ ry • Skyway Park in Area 3: A larger, active park of more than 20 acres. j1, Skyway Library: King County Library System has secured bonding authority from district voters and plans to build a new Skyway Library in 2011 . Jr 4 Community center: °2i • Leased from King County by Boys and Girls club through 2018. kip' OCTOBER 3,2005 ," 1:7 wu` SUMMARYOFFINDINGS West H111 P U Annexing all of West Hill would cost Renton $2.45M (2005) 7 ryg II ,t Core Operating Costs Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Total iPolice Services 1,009,000 358,000 1,912,000 3,279,000 �#, Fire Services 538,000 270,000 1,855,000 2,663,000 A4 , Planning, Building and Public Works 557,000 349,000 769,000 1,675,000 1 , E; ;, Community Services 148,000 82,000 930,000 1,160,000 Ag,,, Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services 150,000 62,000 316,000 528,000 1141 Finance and Information Services 92,000 45,000 219,000 356,000 Human Resources & Risk Management 20,000 10,000 47,000 77,000 NA.`, Economic Development 23,000 5,000 47,000 75,000 Legislative 4,000 2,000 9,000 15,000 *4 Staff-related Facility Costs 120,000 58,000 285,000 463,000 4-4 TOTAL COST 2,661,000 1,241,000 6,389,000 10,291,000 t. Core Operating Revenue ��;�li Property Tax $1,280,000 $970,000 $1,550,000 $3,800,000 4 Gambling Tax $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 i Utility Tax $304,000 $155,000 $483,000 $942,000 y State Shared Revenues $153,000 $82,000 $245,000 $480,000 Sales Tax $103,000 $52,000 $219,000 $374,000 1 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $90,000 $50,000 $140,000 $280,000 •t Fines & Forfeits $64,000 $23,000 $122,000 $209,000 fr- Electric Utility Payment $49,000 $28,000 $79,000 $156,000 Recreation Fees $29,000 $21,000 $33,000 $83,000 Permit Fees $120,000 $91,000 $145,000 $356,000 X Cable Franchise Fees $40,000 $20,000 $60,000 $120,000 TOTAL REVENUE $2,232,000 $1,492,000 $4,116,000 $7,840,000 NET REVENUES ($429,000) $251,000 ($2,273,000) ($2,451,000) 6 OCTOBER 3,2005 �' ' ANNEXATION SCENARIOS est Hi Annex a Small Portion of West Hill: • Renton could annex all or part of Area 1, or part of Areas 1 and 2, and provide fire and EMS services from existing City stations; • However, such an annexation would have implications for the viability of Fire District 20. d F =fir Annex All or Most of West Hill: 4r • The preference of many West Hill residents; • Logical from a logistical perspective--Skyway Fire Station is well positioned to provide service for most or all of the West Hill area; and • Once Renton takes the Fire Station, the incremental costs of serving additional portions of West Hill are relatively modest. Annex All but Area 2: g • Seattle appears to be interested in annexing Lakeridge; Due to economies of scale in Fire and Police services, annexing all of West Hill minus Lakeridge, could cost the City much more than annexing the entire area--more than $3.0 million per year versus $2.45 for yF the entire area. • OCTOBER 3,2005 -7• tiii 20-YEAR LOOK . est 11111 , { Long-Term Costs of Annexation - One of Many Possible Futures ' 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 OA4,4 West Hill Population 13,900 14,465 15,053 15,665 16,300 Assumed annual population growth rate 0.8% Assumed General Inflation 3.0% Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Property Tax(net increase in City property tax revenues) $3,835,000 $4,486,462 $5,248,875 $6,141,929 $7,188,000 El Property tax decrease for payers inoxls nngCity $0 ($364,136) ($877,945) ($1,586,636) ($2,547,000) �S'=.a.�a� s >ti 'fr3_`+ %..:;p1'nom'`,.-`a'YS`.^'<C:ua.'",.. -.:zr.}„ r.': s ,,, MF'*'1,,,,Z rril ilit.�-!'�zw `3,r.sS :-s"r�,„:• ,rc:5;:s«t "t-. .r+�i, .; `" Sacu 1� ;,vp4#:,C.., t., r k:': �,"6 v t:;+�7:ie?v;: ,"gro',., ra "4`v, a. ;ing .rop M• ? :t_: '`; .' �a1 ``':J,,�.v?? k:{, ,C,mss. ,..,; +r. a'�a.-.�:;Assumetl-aahual�growthratefor�ezrst/ng,props[ty,�;:�:�;;;;••;�;�,,��;��.�.;_t,:� �.,.�4 ,�.�<�r�.t..�.v:,�..,��.��:.�rk 6.0/0� ,>rdve+�.:",ast t.:,r. t W £ .on t>a w ra•so ".nt" *s. t a4.y :,`G,^Y,. ''e ,�'''�arry,,.1y r tee, .a �t Y,t N 3 5 � r1 `'', acAAviill dRannua),pew,�constrVrot/on Ua a:"Eis 4 ofi: 5 ,,a `+ ,, z S'' 1' a1ytr xi 'n c 12 D'%., 4.e Y: fRenthn#"E'ost ngk,C.,, '- ,.."4"-'',--,,,,,:;.-.:,,.y4, >`" '.,,.. - , ,c' ee... -'t.r,+n - .n.,.r M}.`.,.^ '� a a„'4,,y r"or'fj.. :•J - < r• ,,1'" -s,'et,.3''L rims 7 .E, va s ,-s' .,,' 4 .Assrrrned annual growth-rate foraxlstin propert' * `- - - , 1- 1 x . , s .4 0%• 'i s E X u e --� g xF-tot aa-- � {. ,,,�,,. -n �.` 1w2 °,. �'.r:,;�i��alue of new�gorstrrigtloi�Rerrtoh,.,as�oftota1,,,3,., _� ��: ,�.r,.�,Q/. - Levy Rate __ - - -- - $31484.:43,,_ 3 $2.69492: $230385 - -- $1.96693 $1.67691 '$ Le Rate without West Hill $314843 $2.73603 • $2.37765 $206622 $1.79557 424 Gambling Tax $1,040,000 $1,205,645 $1,397,673 $1,620,286 $1,878,000 ter Utility Tax $942,000 $1,192,670 $1,510,044 $1,911,873 $2,420,000 State Shared Revenues $470,000, $540,009 $620,447 $712,867 $819,000 Sales Tax* $374,000 $687,234 $925,355 $1,246,563 $1,680,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $280,000 $337,790 $407,507 $491,614 $593,000 Fines&Forfeits $209,000 $252,136 $304,175 $366,955 $443,000 ' .. Electric Utility Payment $156,000 _ $197,512 $250,071 $316,616 $401,000 Recreation Fees $83,000 $100,131 $120,797 $145,728 $176,000 ` Permit Fees $356,000 $441,861 $548,429 • $680,700 $844,835 Cable Franchise Fees $120,000 $151,932 $192,362 $243,551 $308,000 'l`Lt Total Revenues $7.87 M $9.59 M $11.53 M $13.88 M $16.75 M .a Core Operating Costs Police Services $3,279,000 $4,119,000 _ $5,173,000 $6,498,000 $8,162,000 z Fire Services $2,663,000 $3,273,000 $4,022,000 $4,942,000 $6,073,000 �'l, Planning,Building and Public Works . . $1,675,000 $2,079,000 $2,580,000 $3,203,000 $3,975,000 Community Services $1,160,000 $1,457,000 $1,830,000 $2,299,000 $2,887,000 , Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services $528,000 $663,000 $833,000 $1,046,000 $1,314,000 ,... IP* Finance and Information Services $356,000 $442,000 $548,000 $681,000 $845,000 Skil Human Resources&Risk Management $77,000 $96,000 $121,000 $151,000 $189,000 .. Economic Development $75,000 $92,000 $113,000 $139,000 $171,000 Legislative $15,000 $18,000 $23,000 $28,000 $34,000 Staff-related Facility Costs $463,000 $552,000 $658,000 $784,000 $935,000 Total Costs $10.29 M $12.79 M $15.90 M $19.77 M $24.59 M r �;"r. ,,, ,.,�te�a .° x x,, e p..s!ti; mi ! a'' t" ' A ,rwma ^ ,g.,, »9 Ek.-' 'O$tq d C '3 I reV a -a'1.>:'. „^ �"' s,F�,y- r, ,r, �" £a .�. :s^ ? , '-'.,-Y .a .�. "'. ,, ' }�,.; ✓ a iriF a,.'?:0+%6. v,, rti,, J ri eY`„ a,c N,,e,. ,', 4, ,k •,'.So-, n �{l„r, C • •tl,1, v"',a F',��y�ry,,7 t44 44 4" ryA.Af f� weFr '4 p, J .,A 9 n 4 4v .l0, �„4 +Stl Y,,, r m ":' 0' ,,,, .,^"F , ). ,l„ \!, y�y��i ° N, ^ ., r�.Y'^r*,"; .a,*r.",rv: ;r,x r� t � ,gym ah. lY y.11w ;,,�...t�u>il�" w,,,�. �«rn,��;"a. �K�,w,,.;��,k,..�r.,s��Fl.,� r ��pw.a,,.;. '�,r..ual?',.1 ua f"rt ,v;at�:,sr7�.,., .cL�, a .',.cc` '' ," '' : in.1 2to o•pe y o r r ,•a,M,xisti�ffi� y t" Y` „Y?✓,.*?'' .r.�e,:,� d, dg'a' g"+ ,,...; •Y••, ,,.,,,,.. <,,,,v... "� +, s.+,n,h,.F •, `.,,� t�t0 � iCn��CI ta-tr-t�D, lit,'+f8k'1 •Ydne01Nn81S=�1y`�t�1�.9JQSt�11�`��rrl�✓�t,S�� l�r��'� a`.,t['�{j�M .'�iur"'~�+��" ',p`�`, x ,` �" `�s;,a tr"i4!"•b'1�s�a�q t�� a1�5;+-��"""}� �1�; Costs 1n-2005 Dollars , ' - "`a` ' - `re. ( irCosttoICity(net revenues $ - _ " $2 M $2.8 M $3 3 M $3.8,M 4 3M Gost;to:Ci -talnn =into account tax Savin s to~roe :owners►n the ezistin 'Ci 4 2`4 M :4 M Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years °' i*- c • . . OCTOBER 3,2005 i,:,e 3 im 41 PATTERNS IN PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES . West �H t�� ,. %�N N ;�" �4� ' N' C v,' '" +" rv[[ a ";r, y c err g� � �lg '> ; ,y; (YES' /,.g' � i Ndlr tyt, � ( (a u� i ;i� 'r� k i i77.: » ' [��1,� ,[ b y( ' 00 ��, r;p a t ✓"¢" 00,7,',4:, y ";. r. A M nw '' r �t ; ,�N, � # 4 ''1.9.7,,,,A^'{, M '� '6 i fi,},rst +-,44,,..4,' . ,4,',' 6 y''v >4 .: ,Xr xi `Yo ° „,,,...1r,),, .„ , { „kr ey , ",At�7 yn� t' * (,.,,,' r 1fi xHwy r J 4 P 9 » ,s,f' z 7#y, ,t. w4» kt-gl x"', t}{ ?Y,,,,, ''• 4,;:i rv, W"t;,gd� .4, Q4 ,' X y".,' r "A.v, 1 , XJ ,. 7 " o4) ”' �'r' ��. m ' r n M w.,, 1. H 4 na »,�'' M AAW X NIX d "A, ,rat p� ; re r 7ai� "14n t Yom" 1 n rw „.,74,r04 wp;_ 1 43nD` m;p X; J w d4 ; �cr, _ >St n Ya { 7y�7y � �t n., '"x � ' ;1 r7' Nd¢4N� N ,..� »' �+ r , - i""`s �2r s 'jc ;PPo, % a 'aA ,X '" LL+ p '�. VOW vyn:g e'?#,w,_ b /��n y Y �+'•"t hir •O', ,.s4.'�y; w x '1„44,_.44*,,;."-., r `4,yy er J. �.�( crpy�,� Th'. � �- g �-er' � •,� tk t�k.f A,^ .y� i' Yt �p �Y •� y. i�i(�GM�G�'��G'�Y4�'G..la+ Y _ € t3sY s t zr 3'z aza 4 iri .e•-,v` P f ,sf� #d �f NY '%4 YCrr�aV { W ,a �. .� ao� try ,t > , }" . r z_ .'7r 5 1`yq r y aX 7 5.7,u.'i'arr� ,rd, f:- ,F "„A y k Sd• "„ lt a '4fr,,14'e,-1"aJ '' 'x.^tt rv'?# ,NI �,� _-i •d A ' �k 9 d i,, lMt l 1 !y, pk t<1'N Y a "S �pw 4 1 4.v� 9 �. L€`" 14 fi 40;11,4, $ f^f { a s'^F"," z"-"s' ,1` yi,' hyge ,� s rro N, r 4t l��f �p,�yS' S3 at,.� r yI t if- hitt-# �"i' ��4 M,,,KK 'o,,'w� r J' `�, Nt'r rr1,y' u„„,,,,Nfa,,,0'Fy,' OT r�h 7 Y ¢m i, .t t t E ,,'teed �� '` `�1. », 7 z'C ter."-Aes yl 4' 1' � �•✓ a. w id' 1 fi k s"' w tYy . � __ "s�h .ri.•3,�y' 't` y�C"' Y4 �, 7Ks Fs ,t' F �§ .ncp [' .. r '*tAF^ 2"4"f'-'}i'a^�9 h. �`""� "' ,is" + a "�nt� �' +��7i+01�1`ItOI�`� , r'p`�"",,y, " `C ,"i „, '"'" .y..'r ,, f _�,,' 4$- „'- .a,. , '�'�"'S'c .. `x d5 4,,.h- a+ , i, -4~3Fti.. a. Cm ,�;' ��ai�. �„x,+n �~; s�'"� - `��` � ,..rr '* '; XPxrcg]s-nate.bBepsold at � t _ �` -c, C a. w�' N _-;s l5. C63�`4e199'�t 1I dfGe y N'[ �" yrs .q `r°3L a�'4w'F ♦.M vv t 9' r..., -�u ,N. lsl'r•+ .,� M i r:,�.xs � fx `` 5� r �Anr [� Over ast ten ears, highest M1 �, w v �s - r,a'k. .wr 4 s+n 'X»aw. { ;' V n"�aa �s`e s�^dar 5+5r.,�, d,�F�'l✓ ",�'....nf'r`-r._� � v� p.1» J�.»�'!N'�,;wPa +{ n'Mdeu N+�au�l�^!w w'd d P / g .R`'# [ - f i �„, ,`,M1 w !,f,,, w. ”'a _ 5 C j'N1 k 5..: wb r Yui R ' 4µ . ; � d;� „:r/1,,,,,— 4” � � .i r � � i. -- -` .,,, densities of rapidly appreciating „3 a=`-3r 1. :4.ir ''„ 1 *:,y*. s,,„ ,- ,�`.` _;fiZ)4,/,'.{e---- �� 7I - +'r . ` a :t , 4 �� housinghas centered on r z YS a am' ,.'a -.4",t71, -,-;-• � rib t! _ r +,°*f ; -#, -ma= sk, -'1, r,L,� 13 A 41 _ p 4 .. d �,. �y` kigatfittitgAL)47 � � � € x� downtown Seattle y,° , v nt< zw,,,,dry r` t.dm ri >di / 'Fn -, 'u W : M y X ''h -f ;�`',3�•,`r'`�#'�z"�--` .,� 2. Y�'. A'�;'S y�,' 3 � "s. rt IX-w -.1-,� _u r� .0411. - x ,F''t€x+�'". a�'-'i 'y' : orci- ;.r�,r� rA -4:1,41: -- 'h.41, -'''rna q. ��, �* w4,„4.14,10,,,,,,,,4,00,,A, p � �a 4 West Hill appears to be in line for VA est < - . u >> -, f 17.1.':,"'"'40,V"" », \ M f41 Ake,.a t y t ; �tµ z3 a �1�,$;'# d.Y"k''�W�'"�''* �• 4',+ I ��„x�d � - �i""'�G X 1s � ��' 9,� y�1..;,,f: i � � x �� N y ,. *� N 'r redevelopment and higher rates of X ` s . 4N c + a, ;, rrg t i s r �a - ,# f va t�, --424.-ti,,,,saS}^ H t b,to ' ` f Vd, h illation.■ 777,„ a .�' •.J A f• �-...0 , rS� �y' , 7,5 . , property appreciation , s, �`c=r``"`t��,'�,`�,�, � d �� >� +S/,� �, � z " � """» ,rid '' -'" �- r,4 3 tr< .ret'.1..4,,.-4 ..m.it ,<#cza`+ ""„rr (.11,, N4-4.' 2 Ad r 5 3 c {t t 3? ,s -' k{^,, wd ,*fir 0i;-4 y*r. 4 est Ll1 f i 6 r4''' M..• °, N t,, d - I ,_atJ ,, e• #41.41' i f.. *., t ';,,. `v/�,., .'� " r4r4 r Y�: �V ' .M irr �' t� VAC faTf `05 t r h z- : '_ >,�" �.�,a° may al'+44 ' '� Sai 4 t4 "e"r, rOff.. -'! ` .t: r % rL ` '�r', -_ x --_ r, `"C S'P�`p A "' ;' . fg .114Fa§ '' ` ' ,. --' ^ - *"_rlpt'S`f'+ .n 4y i'' .7.4 r4 J u i --a- .,rn ' ,� "y r � �k a " " .X� �� ro� '°� �� v_ ''ir � "� ,� d -4'44 " 1 �'�'� "1, �r �,,, fi,� '» s C e °x Y '�,,y .;'6 s, '�h,�'Y�" 9;.;. '» 4" _ n.'' 7 7'M,>'�� '';s,r ,,,t i't rqi $n�w,f . ,}-','. .4 CD'- y; r 'µ``"7r7 X! �$",", k"•4ys `v ° '^Xsk �' Pv 7s- Y fir,a i - . ', iaMM" ; , s. '.: n.w' ,N".'.` ; Y' , , ifor i _i4 J/�d iW r � Y�{tlU1°I�° ' '� Iqd,� ; �� ,14'�� » r P '� Ni r. �jIF d� ,� n�dmti� � [M a fl"4,5'1,14,, �i # w r;N, g , • OCTOBER 3,2005 pm • ,,,„,41 . ,,,,, yEloi 2 0-YEAR LOOK WITH LEVY LID LIFTS West HDU �gg`f'+ V...>......,.......-..u_,�...�..... rr+.......�..r.......+...-e...<.-.- __ -_ _ .mwv....n.,. .v+.+......-..s.......,.._.s._+.�w+..r.a.vsrr...i.r.,+.a.�..�....,.wa..- - _Nr�_..�a.�...�.r..v.......��.w..n.n�wn._ �. -a.. L..-. +,.....cwwvw.....w.u.....��....-.... T 04 Long-Term Costs of Annexing West Hill - iyi Another Possible Outcome That Includes Levy Lid Lifts We 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 West Hill Population 13,900 14,465 15,053 15,665 18,300 Assumed annual population growth rate 0.8% tAssumed General Inflation 3.0% I1t, Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 „4 Property (net increase In City rty Tax property tax revenues) $3,835,000 $5,408,172 $7,625,877 $10,753,050 $18,278,000 wf� • Property tax decrease for payers In existing City $0 ($84, ) ( ) ( ) $0,000 i w:j.'Wes( %tt � rrv`.'?a,La^':?:'Sa"`"'":.!u�`,,�%y°t.`''.;? ;(v..,� .;i�"•, st;>*zca<. �'. :''#�y,�. rr7;i,rs:'�.`�i"". #; _ 606 8236.809 $496.458 �' k'.'.�A " r�..tu...1..r_.-'"-csw�„�>:. -x'Jt,i','`dA';ak,: i�,^ :: �':f,,a irs;r, yq�SW ,.hT' '�Y^^ '"CTte•y�.'',107.•,,,„„^s ,„4, .'M,u:�ef . , r'r,,a ' „t,Assumed annua!growth late for existin roe Y" s` ✓ in r d��n} y C{} . , 0, ='0,1 s x r In ar on oas a oftotr� t r 2r)'o f v ev, ti$4t i s µ80% �, �' 4$sumad 6411 new consNuction4alu9'as° f1ot raw a y £,? z 0%" , r4-% Renfo',Exlst nfftit lk e'x .r ?ia�`� vt' r`" "' r,4, '" 4; -'' Awl - - Assu21.00-110-1V1,J-&-",,,4'76.4M--,-,-Oft; for o istl tb e' i'r M'rt? ,'"e ir",, 3,4 a y *' e a /9P�p Y ,4;4045 +.*.v s 4 0% .Valueiofnei'eoi hltafionRonton as„°h^.4of o t#., '" �+-'� ++t•.✓'�' r, r1 �t+zywkZN ,A,-.'1.'0 Levy Rate $3.14843 $3.05170 $2.95659 $2.86301 33.14843 Le Rate without West Hill $3.14843 33.06126 32.97649 $2.89408 $3.14843 .4 ir4MTA MI 'k'A.0;itv . s_ ail ',P r,7,-':Y` � 4.10t.rt '.''aPA 'r-'n Gambling Tax $1,040,000 $1,205,645 $1,397,673 $1,620,286 $1,878,000 . ;i.1- Utility Tax $942,000 $1,192,670 $1,510,044 $1,911,873 $2,420,000 State Shared Revenues $470,000 $540,009 $620,447 $712,867 $819,000 • Sales Tax* $374,000 $687,234 $925,355 $1,246,563 $1,680,000 • `a Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $280,000 $337,790 $407,507 $491,614 $593,000 ; Fines&Forfeits $209,000 $252,136 $304,175 $366,955 $443,000 Electric Utility Payment $156,000 $197,512 $250,071 $316,616 $401,000 ' Recreation Fees $83,000 $100,131 $120,797 $145,728 $176,000 Permit Fees $356,000 $441,861 $548,429 $680,700 $844,835 • Cable Franchise Fees $120,000 $151,932 $192,362 $243,551 $308,000 tif 471 Total Revenues $7.87 M $10.52 M $13:90 M $18.49 NI $27.84 M 41 41, Core Operating Costs Police Services $3,279,000 $4,119,000 $5,173,000 $6,498,000 $8,162,000 ,° Fire Services $2,663,000 $3,273,000 $4,022,000 $4,942,000 $6,073,000 Planning,Building and Public Works $1,675,000 $2,079,000 $2,580,000 $3,203,000 $3,975,000 riVO Community Services $1,160,000 $1,457,000 $1,830,000 $2,299,000 $2,887,000 Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services $526,000 $663,000 $833,000 $1,046,000 $1,314,000 :-.,...4:- , Finance and Information Services $356,000 $442,000 $548,000 $681,000 $845,000 ib • Human Resources&Risk Management $77,000 $96,000 $121,000 $151,000 $189,000 Y` Development Economic .. $75,000 $92,000 $113,000 $139,000 $171,000 Legislative $15,000 $18,000 $23,000 $28,000 $34,000 t Staff-related Facility Costs $483,000 $552,000 $658,000 $784,000 $935,000 • Total Costs $10.29 M $12.79 NI $15.90 M $19.77 M $24.59 M �pk�.� , ^�F �4 .,. q'J�1'Y Itrv. 1N47 a�x l�'' ✓. 4C ."'d i^r,iw �.0 •+,: lid,� ��4' gr arV,1;�14 JVI '+ 1,.� , � A ? 6,taFCty�d'i'ir$:t itatlxag � thOtr9�� i ,f if4 1.:24.11„5'', OG,i u rN!F P...,.FV..• t'$' ., Costs in 2005 Dollars �` aFM-77_,I7,1: .:71':'':4:;:1-:t7-:'-' 75-75:777-7, _ •= firt4 :cost to C1ty(not revenues} _ - (S2.4=Ni $2 0 Ni ($1.5 ill 0 8.M .2 -; ;,Costto.city=taking into rccounttaxsavings-tolprope`yowne�s`_lnthe'existing;City�:, �� ( 2.4 M},t-- -(Sl.ci M) ..($9 3"M) _ _,.-($p:5•M)' s's� $1.8=M •Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years ,'1 r fi, OCTOBER 3,2005I,0 1 • EY ISSUES . . East Renton Nate*44 = t • Residential Area with Room For Development: 14.114 Development of the area will bring with it one-time revenues from construction sales taxes, impact fees, and rt Real Estate Excise Taxes; • Currently, area has no developed parks; `" • Area residents have a desire for better-managed growth. Fire District 25 Levy: • City receives payment from Fire District 25 equal to $1 .25 per $1 ,000 of assessed value - generating about $900,000 in the East Plateau. Annexing the East Plateau would result in the City continuing to provide fire services to the area, but losing the payment. Nr ' 4.4 k s 5�1 • OCTOBER 3,2005 , ' u SUMMARY OF FINDINGS East Renton Plateau k„ East Plateau has Positive Net Revenues in the Short-term It, Costs Total Police Services 1 $738,000 ~R $0 r�� Fire Services 2 Planning, Building and Public Works $962,000 Community Services $617,000 Administrative,Judicial & Legal Services $177,000 Finance and Information Services $112,000 Human Resources & Risk Management $24,000 eh' Economic Development $7 000 Legislative $4,000 ' Staff-related Facility Costs $142000 TOTAL COST $2,788,000 Operating Revenues Property Tax $2,260,000 k` Gambling Tax $0 Utility Tax $620,000 State Shared Revenues $245,000 �> Sales Tax � . $157,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $146,000 , . Fines & Forfeits $74,000 Recreation Fees $54,000 Permit Fees $210,000 a)4i Cable Franchise Fees $62,000 e' Business License Fees 3 $2,600 �� ': TOTAL REVENUE $3,830,600 Viµ , Loss of revenue from FD 25 4 ($908,000) ,1 NET REVENUES $134,600 sr:i OCTOBER 3,20053' rri::,, . p, jj 20' YEAR LOOK East Renton Plateau :VIS Long-Term Costs of Annexation (no levylid lift) Fal ° 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 4 IA East Hill Population 7,287 8,045 8,883 9,807 10,800 ft,,,," Assumed annual population growth rate 2.0% .,� Assumed General Inflation 3.0% X Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Property Tax(net Increase In City property tax revenues) $2,265,000 $3,061,048 $3,747,701 $4,580,520 $5,590,000 $884,292 $1,238,000 Property tax decrease for payers in existing City - $394,351 $608,170 ' Fire Services(loss of revenues from FD 25 contract) ($908,000) ($1,344,000) .($1,989,000) ($2,942,000) ($4,353,000 " �, Gambling Tax - - - - - 4. Utility Tax $620,000 $832,836 $1,118,734 $1,502,776 $2,013,000 4 State Shared Revenues $245,000 $298,654 $364,057 $443,784 $540,000 girl Sales Tax* $157,000 $606,085 $828,737 $1,134,790 $1,552,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $146,000 $186,870 $239,181 $306,136 $391,000 ' Fines&Forfeits $74,000 $94,715 $121,229 $155,165 $198,000 `-- Recreation Fees $54,000 $69,116 $88,464 $113,228 $145,000 Permit Fees $210,000 $268,530 $343,373 $439,076 $560,718 , Cable Franchise Fees $62,000 $83,284 $111,873 $150,278 $201,000 ,81 Total Revenues $2.93 M $4.16 M $4.97 M $5.88 M $6.84 M fix'+'` Core Operating Costs filrl Police Services $738,000 $972,000 $1,280,000 $1,686,000 $2,217,000 "-' Fire Services(incremental cost of serving East Hill) - - - - o;, Planning,Building and Public Works $962,000 $1,230,000 $1,573,000 $2,011,000 $2,569,000 • '.',' Community Services $617,000 $965,000 $1,440,000 $1,860,000 $2,401,000 k Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services $177,000 $233,000 $307,000 $404,000 $532,000 Finance and Information Services $113,000 $144,000 $185,000 $236,000 - $302,000 - e51,' Human Resources&Risk Management $24,000 $31,000 $41,000 $53,000 $69,000 ,1 y, Economic Development $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $14,000 $17,000 qLegislative $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 41 •'4;1 Staff-related Facility Costs $147,000 $183,000 $227,000 $282,000 $350,000 li p Total Costs $2.79 M $3.77 M $5.07 M $6.56 M $8.47 M , rk' )777--„k,,,-7c.x '4i , � � �p � v' �' >G .' '..0 fi� � � � e^ T � "� h - �r4 Co �tii �- tte ei � r> (, �+Mzei� �, � ,1 ��, 1.0An .� ^ d l�fY ''.^,� � � f " T �x � '''� � '�"Pnk ' , ,�r, „� Nrtf �� n� �, ��.. �- ::�d4� . ,r � �?/ s�#KV��r .� a ,« h � dr � M � .r � 'A:48 w� � 4y�{ �• rf �� r, �� uh �g�K ✓]5 .� lt.0 `„r1h�drGgV4 �0P ,,� � ,� st1MY,V„ ,e..a • �� YJQ ,�rst hY,% t;«ukfi -uM ,��ilf-' 2 ' , a . a . r.::.s; " ad ... ` ' fi x Costs in 2005 Doiiars 7 7 r u- Imo, nCost to City(net revenues) $0.1 M $0 3 M _ -($0 12M) ($0 4 M) ($0 9 M fes.. - - _i FCo t t -:' -eta`in mt ' o t i t fi w i 'nt 'e� - 3 o Cid=_-�k- 9�o aec_�tnf�axsa.;fngs�o.�rop�o ne.s�t�;he�xisfing�CitY��_:�. � � ._�n� $0.1 �t�_��$(} � �..�($0�M}_�.��$1 Q-M�_,�_��$1 6�iVl el . _ *Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years t re OCTOBER 3,2005 �,.„ - _ ;p4, 2®-SEAR LOOK WITH LEVY LID � East Renton Plateau T: Long-Term Costs of Annexation (with . levy lid lifts) _ 1. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 AEast Hill Population 7,287 8,045 8,883 9,807 10,800 Assumed annual population growth rate 2.0% • h Assumed General Inflation 3.0% 00 44, Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 t$, t Property Tax(net increase In City property tax revenues) $2,265,000 $3,556,643 $5,068,532 $7,222,554 $11,953,000 ii Property tax decrease for payers in existing City - $355,026 $543,160 $826,085 $1,099,000 Fire Services(loss of revenues from FD 25 contract) • ($908,000) ($1,344,000) ($1,989,000) • ($2,942,000) ($4,353,000'; i r Gambling Tax � Utility Tax $620,000 , , $832,836 $1,118,734 $1,502,776 $2,013,000 '. State Shared Revenues $245,000 $298,654 $364,057 $443,784 $540,000 ° , Sales Tax* $157,000 $606,085 $828,737 $1,134,790 $1,552,000 }'gi - Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $146,000 $186,870 $239,181 $306,136 $391,000 Fines&Forfeits $74,000 $94,715 $121,229 $155,165 $198,000 = Recreation Fees $54,000 $69,116 $88,464 $113,228 $145,000 • tY Permit Fees . $210,000 $268,530 $343,373 $439,076 $560,718 Cable Franchise Fees . $62,000 $83,284 $111,873 $150,278 $201,000 i- Total Revenues $2.93 M $4.65 M $6.30 M $8.53 M $13.20 M Core Operating Costs Police Services • $738,000 $972,000 $1,280,000 $1,686,000 $2,217,000 Fire Services(incremental cost of serving East Hill) - - - - - Ar=_' Planning,Building and Public Works • $962,000 $1,230,000 $1,573,000 $2,011,000 $2,569,000 pl: Community Services $617,000 $965,000 $1,440,000 • $1,860,000 $2,401,000 Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services • $177,000 $233,000 $307,000 .$404,000 $532,000 Finance and Information Services $113,000 $144,000 $185,000 $236,000 $302,000, Human Resources&Risk Mana ement 9 $24,000 $31,000 $41,000 $53,000 $69,000 » Economic Development $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $14,000 $17,000 '44; Legislative $4,000 $5,000 • $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Staff-related Facility Costs $147,000 $183,000 $227,000 $282,000 $350,000 Total Costs a•_:- • $2.79 M $3.77 M $5.07 M $6.56 M $8.47 M • ��.,: = Sf�.�,� W fi . ., �� rf��+,sga.: `�f01:';;;',S,,,!'r ' „ � � -t� �� ra ✓.� IT�M�..� '1,9,47017-1,040,101 �4'4 „'v /fi �Y I � `s�, .�r�,�,� 47," 0�✓,1000,00040'.°',00P00 r,A z��.t �,�yJ,�f vtr,�,i d . A��o',�>Sr r r ,,a^ s' " v� 4� - � At � mt ; A7 ? ��,� .',p* L��, _ tile,;':_ ��J ;^wF �� bl � "rre,.a r: JoowOA eds . rAl' 7l ✓" "f % C:J ca `Costs in 2005 Dollars - MIA R `Cost to tify(net revenues $0=1 M $0 8 M $0 9 Mn = $1 $ _7 Cost,to:Ci #akin . psacco. . _ .. _ = z 3M. 26�M` r = 4 F..t r�!, 9auto urtta .savi£�n�sto, ro�epertyowriers in the ese►stingCity $0.1 M s$0 5 M � .. g40 5 Mz $0 7 ill $2 O IVf. V "Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years . , OCTOBER 3,2005 t - • • • • ABOUT THE AREA Fairwood - All ' ti Cascade: The Entire .Fairwood PAA: t. , • Population 16,100 in 7 square miles Population 42,200 in 10.6 square miles 41 ��.� ` , ` FAIRWOOD PAA ¢rA„� 4 ,� kT ....,..,,,-;.:-:.,••p:—p "wa 'i r : x •.a ^.-. ,yF r. c- L ,. ,..4-,� .,•ire. q 4 C. s Lx.• C .• j +. r '" r �' 4^`+•r�r .r '" r" ,f It krof '_"` � ' *>x-i":-'2. b \ ^�, - .... ;ti KLr•fi ; ,* r `` r ..r !k p^t'r; tt• t - r r I ,+. f ,+ �. krnkn(ak'+K" •41 .+' S• `'\,, •'±-•'`..';',‘-•••:- t t tr-,,,, Li ae c -•4�T` 04 s`�k. :• ` ; , Renton r I "r^ ,;. µ ti � � ohM • , , =4' "w"''':tri.';a t , n--,. r5• to V rir , ,ra "c �� u' y r r-r;+ r ,d c " :,/4,...,.•''' tL ,u ..,,,,. ` ---„„e„ e4 ..r Yj , 'b ma ' swa� ri��c+ ,y t�� w .o e y;� rS �I�; s4 21• t ;.,dr ,I. • VI ''',..7.-S"1: ate _st,I Z v a . r s` - r 'r'!.,,,,'-,4 'l k Z. " �,.. • } rrw c,.,. �':N 1:....11.`'.17!;'1%,t 1 « 1 ,vwaaawx „W,,,, a. u _ nwt+% t` .(�' r 41:;ti w rr,�,. 1.4.f;', "- task '',,.,knit, ;1+ „ �"�, _ �'{)4 *• + "�:a'�r`,L ,',t +u.,7�,,, -. rt, -a. """w+4tw.. a,u„„m„t, *. �'t'%� r'1' Iii k,1 t¢.r"{ `. , P,y • ` ��w; 'r K r w r p st ,� r+ + t + ry U,In y•,J^r} y*+ tL w r i, A ".,. �a u� Y kc ...,,,FV.-;:- t % y ^,"""r.„.... tri. • 3 r .,tJ" 4 :�tr %. r f r' •--4.:••. 'F-R ..-�„ • ,, a? .•,.rY rfli, 0 -g _,,'x,. • w ' ' 4 -'t4^rr"""- ay s ` ,t•t ' 5,... .,-,- Fairwood 17C "fi y, ati-- VI - s .S ti Nr+ ,rr* ; a �: 6 s j • F •- a.3- t r pF'•t -i ••1 rt x4+ / `u£•'; ,' Incorporation n.'. , t {~•.••0:1 L �S `-,-,1b....•••••'..0-2-...;-;-••••,---`�'{P 'G .r 6,..:.' m 5 '`'•,,,h..,..;.-1..,',1.-vw a s 7• # `, p ,>v .a •• .,v -` • Area -,--.--.--- -..w.),,t w h t co .t-.. r'• L(� t s f .',,r If 1 ti, ., } ` r' � ;'-'.--,..7,•,4"-,•'Y ' • ,'L,. iwf rt '.y 4 . :,+." .. " ^=C 1k I t x f `.LtY K* Y r s.. # r z� r , ? ' • . r r { ifsu r r. t ,q f`, ,r.e •.?' PY 40•r. ,,.. rr�� r i n. e `�i,Cascade�'+.r,++ ). yy'`."`-"' .r�'y :,�,4c �` t ,. ,y, I ' r•-'1,,,,,', `' s -4. Yo IL: , r I r t yArea �. ,{. . ...a�tot� r z ••.�. `tN 1 j,Cyt <{ W (3.;^. M #'.:. " It"''''' 'fRrst as �' tf , ).' + ...,ta x '` r r } r ,k ',� • ��` "7 y,; t. „-,--,---, h: cu r, s. n iI �, y 1 • ,:a.. 4.. .I s •:°.:,-i'-1•, # 3•r 1 7.'..ft'p r .,"•',',' . r �L`,1„ f µ, t: t c, +.5 e arxvw• / •-.., , • t 1» t r,+ e,- .VL1 ,X rt .• t : - 4 1 0-1,:.,..-,,„,_y kr r E M1 ° • , .,y ^' } P ' �r 1 ° ctv .km' •r-.-ti.•.F.. ,.”+SYt � ' ' Vit ! tfie , .,' r� rzr1f i. �; ;a;r � s ,r ,ty, t ; i q'S v f I r �� +L ° " , r :►+1't ,. -f - -.:.1„.-..1„..'-:,-..-,.).. ...,....,d,. ` tI `r d r Le el • • • ' 4' r c -13:5...A0;.:: - ns Tr"v n " t 1 + i N ?� rkkfi 'Fs. iS .x r� ,i etwfgr t• s "•, ft, �;,5'� E , ifs s u )rfi^ t 4 ? 1 r oct K ` 7 I 'Ct•Kild, 7.0,12! t ` ' r art' ? ?t yt' 4'1-- } 4 -4f• Y ., #4 !( : t, 1. 1. " tp • „' r � . r It 1=t �' e Y. '� r^ w p..7:-'.. Y...�rf #'" "1 I ' w 1-'4-•,,� ,, �''�,�,a 1. °r " U d�'JI mY+a; f%t�r 5r "' L ' `• - 't I• + w- •" a3 y ,..o- `., , '� k k 1 " 51 'r 'x a t k S•n Xje}r .v l r n r' k a 5 r -,s k i q 7f �" t ,Y. i `^ r '' . ' ,..-...1 "I '' P u F # C •, r 1 ,i..,:!,,,,,,....: # T4ty t-1.• .r' ,t ..•.W. F„ry. �' •4 .t•.,_. •, + @Ilt 'Y"i✓i tYs .r,..; t art' rct 4 ,,` ,;..-.J.:..,,• •k kt; 1 "- r. �,. ? i* t • tl R1.4.., I G ':".``..3.31.,:;:i:.,,41., nt ! �• +x"r'S '�}! "`."1"..w.,„4,:.:,-11.!,, y x +�Y j " 6t f7ilc�r��.t •e.- -•-,;-,;-:,‘,G:;--•,•1,. 1:,41: 7 x id �f �F '' t SMF" �t :9.� }•, - „�• W YX k'4 .fir lY »6 �t `X R F , G. .2 4, .' 1 - r¢, ,' S} `n';F� i #r a rua fe},it;i a w .,ts �,,, ' t •;‘,.:,..z,,,....' ' __• /-_. ..5 I aosu 1 = x r • + r _ a; w r r ,.C^.--rr..,.le«•v h. ,.�.........�`J ..�f�..•Z m� '.t.• t . :"-�..., ....._ . rP • t `IBERK &:ASSOCIATES, i16 OCTOBER 3,2005 KEY ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Cascade 11 Renton already staffs a fire station in Cascade • Annexation of Cascade would require addition of one.,aid car. A Cascade area excludes Renton Pool and Fairwood Library As a result - Net incremental costs of ' serving Cascade are relatively modest (less than $500,000) y w Issues: • Fire District 40 is seeking voter approval in November for a bond that will allow them to build a new headquarters station in Cascade; :% • If Renton annexes only Cascade, then the status of the fire station construction will be an important driver of transition costs associated with Fire District asset transfer; • Parks would need to build a new neighborhood community center. el • �x4 OCTOBER 3,2005 L7 ' Pk . 419 - KEY ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Fairwood ® AH tre J As a whole, Fairwood has low costs. of service for fire, police, and parks services (on a per resident basis) NA f4 ; As a result, net costs of annexing entire area are modest: 1 • Less than $500,000 if the City does not take on Renton Pool; - Probably slightly-more than $500,000 if the City-does take on operation and maintenance of Renton- Pool. 51 ri Issues: Z : • Fairwood Libraryis a large librarywith a high value; , • Acquisition of the library from KCLS could be costly; ` • Renton Pool is relatively old, but is valued by Fairwood community; F«tib al • Renovation or replacement of Renton Pool could be costly, if the City took it on. iv ,41 OCTOBER 3,2005 ,._.. CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Need For Planning: 1 ; • King County has historically invested little in park development and more substantially in roads; • All County investments are expected to be completed by 2007; • Looking forward, limited capital planning by King County means that little solid information is available about 0„, infrastructure needs; • However, data that are available from County CI Ps and the County's Transportation Needs Report suggest that identified infrastructure needs in the areas are relatively modest. s„, *04 • • �AEJf Yi 41, OCTOBER 3,2005 ��y9 REMINDER OF FRAMEWORK l This anal sis rovides an intuitive -sna shot of on oin costs, Y PP g g but it does not: • • Account for one-time transition costs: o On an on-going basis, things like equipment and facilities costs are included, but the cost of initial oa purchase of equipment is not. For example, for annexation of the Cascade area, Public Works estimates that initial equipment purchases bh would cost roughly $1 million. 4:4, • Account for potential one-time payments from King County's Annexation Initiative Fund; • Specifically resolve how the City would serve any of the areas: r � o If Renton pursues annexation in the face of constrained resources, the City will need to make many „ t decisions about service levels, staffing, and revenue solutions. ; g y,1' ,$✓oe.,fix. . OCTOBER 3,2005 20 1,1 STATUS CHECK West Hill: • The West Hill Governance Task Force recommends pursuing annexation to Renton; ng • Renton could amend its PM to include the area this year. East Renton Plateau: • • King County and Renton have established a Community Advisory Board and are holding open houses this month; a • A 10% petition to hold an election could emerge by the end of the year; �x • The City is discussing terms of an interlocal agreement with King County. Fairwood: 4,6 • The Boundary Review Board expects to hold incorporation public hearings in January; A vote may occur in early 2006; • Renton is pursuing preservation of the SR-169 Corridor though annexation or removal from incorporation foper Council direction. OCTOBER 3,2005 kit..`` ?fixorroll, +��y ECONOPLANNING MIC DEVELOPDEPARTMENTMENT, �, ® * NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC .O MEMORANDUM ,DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Counc. VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayo FROM: Alex Pietsch,Administrator Wi` SUBJECT: Annexation Area Reports Staff has been working with Berk&Associates,a Seattle-based program and policy development consultancy,to prepare fiscal analyses of the East Plateau Potential Annexation Area(PAA) and the West Hill. The same consultant was retained by King County to analyze the feasibility of the proposed Fairwood incorporation. Attached to this memo you will find a number of documents related to these efforts. These include: 1) A bound report entitled"Analysis of the Financial Feasibility of the Proposed City of Fairwood." This report only analyzes the financial feasibility of the. proposed incorporation area. There is only cursory discussion of the remaining unincorporated area in Cascade and no discussion of annexation of any of this area to Renton. Financial analysis of annexation of Cascade and the entire Fairwood PAA will follow in couple weeks. 2) A bound report entitled"Assessment of the Fiscal Impact.of Annexation of the West Hill." This document discusses the fiscalimplications of annexation of all • or portions of the West Hill to Renton. 3) A stapled document entitled"East Highlands Annexation Analysis." This is a less exhaustive illustration of the financial implications of annexation of the majority of the East Highlands PAA. 4) Two large spreadsheets entitled"East Hill Annexation Area with(and without) property tax rate lifts. This analysis shows the long term implications of annexation of the East'Plateau over a 20-year period, one with a continued decrease in the City's property tax rate due to the effects of Initiative 747 and another assuming a four-year schedule of voter adopted levy lid lifts. 5) Two large spreadsheet entitled"West Hill with(and without)property tax rate lifts." This is a similar analysis for the West Hill area. 6) A memorandum entitled"Methods and Comments on West Hill 20-year Fiscal Impact Projections." This document discusses these long-term fiscal analyses and explains the methodology of each and the philosophy behind the levy lid lift H:\EDNSP\Council\City Council\2005\Annexation Area Reports transmittal.doc Annexation Area Reports Page 2 of 2 September 14,2005 , •. 'e strategy. While written with the West Hill in mind, the same methodology applies to the East Plateau analysis. As mentioned, we anticipate further analysis from the consultant regarding annexation of all ora portion of the Fairwood PAA. This analysis will be transmitted as soon as it is available. Additionally, staff is working to schedule a Committee of the Whole briefing to discuss with you all of this analysis and its policy implications for the City. cc: Jay Covington Linda Herzog Department Heads h:\ednsp\council\city council\2005\annexation area reports transmittal.doc I� BERK _& ASSOCIATES , 4 `e'rsi•S,C iipd'1 ,Ji: .11.1WF • i Uhhhc 1,0 }.dp;,:>Irnm...t •id,413'„tion L MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 2005 TO: Alex Pietsch FROM: Brett Sheckler, Berk &Associates RE: Methods and Comments on West Hill 20-Year Fiscal Impact Projections In Winter of 2005, the City of Renton contracted with Berk &Associates to assess the fiscal impact associated with the City of Renton's annexation of the West Hill area. Included in this assessment was a discussion of the possible long-term fiscal effects of West Hill's annexation. The principal message from the discussion of long-term effects was that, if the City of Renton relies on retail sales tax as its primary engine of revenue'growth over the coming decades (allowing the City's property tax levy to bedriven down by 1-747's 1% limits), then West Hill, like any of the City's existing residential neighborhoods, will become a greater fiscal "loser" for the City (in terms of the revenues the area generates versus its costs of service). On the other hand, if the City were to mitigate the effects of 1-747 through levy lid lifts, property value appreciation in West Hill could turn the area into a net fiscal winner for the City in future years. Following delivery of the draft fiscal assessment, and in response to requests from City decision makers, the City asked Berk &Associates to develop a baseline projection of West Hill's costs and revenues 20 years in the future.I The attached spreadsheet summarizes the outcome of that projection. Under the best of conditions, a 20-year projection provides only limited value. Even in stable situations, unforeseen events are inevitable over such an extended period. Over time, a few large events are likely to render the ,projections obsolete. To make matters worse, in 2005, in Washington State, long-term municipal fiscal structures should be viewed as anything but stable. Given the recent spate of state-wide initiatives, many cities in Washington State are facing long- term fiscal imbalances—imbalances that, in the long term, are likely to drive statutory changes in municipal fiscal structures. We are confident that change,s in fiscal structure are coming, what we do not know is When?, What?, and How?. Among other things, how those changes come about will have a direct impact on projected fiscal impacts. Recognizing high levels of uncertainty, we offer the following notes and comments about the assumptions and findings of the 20-year projections: • City of Renton Methods and Comments on West Hill 20-Year Forecasts r � Assumptions • The City will allow 1-747 limits to erode the City's property tax levy. In a scenario where West Hill is part of the City, absent voter-approved levy lid lifts, the City's regular levy rate could drop from $3.15 per $1,000 in assessed value in 2005 to roughly $1.68 per thousand. Under this scenario, one can assume that, as a share of City revenues, property taxes will become a less important share of the City's overall tax base. • Values of existing property in West Hill are assumed to grow at 6% per year, while the value of existing property within the existing City boundaries is assumed to grow at 4%. Differences in property valuation increases between West Hill and the existing city are driven by two factors. First is the mix of residential to commercial property. Recent trends suggest that residential property increases in value faster than commercial property, and West Hill is overwhelmingly residential while a large portion of Renton's assessed value is commercial. The second factor is the area's general position for valuation increases (as an area that is ripe for redevelopment, West Hill is well-positioned to see rapid property valuation increase). • The core components of other revenue streams will grow more rapidly than property taxes (both in Renton as a whole, and in West Hill). We assume that, at some point after 2005, sales tax sourcing rule changes will take effect and West Hill will begin to generate sales taxes from delivered purchases. Beyond sourcing rule changes, we assume that sales tax revenues overall from West Hill will grow at a more than 5% per year (driven by improved performance of the area's existing retail center and driven by long-term increases in the value of delivered goods). We also assume that, on average, per capita utility tax revenues will grow by 4% per year. • On a per unit basis, costs of service will increase by 4% per year. Given the combination of (1) structural forces in labor costs and (2) productivity gains, we assume that the cost of providing service to a given population will increase by 4% per year. On top of these per-unit increases, demand for services will increase with population growth at varying rates. For different services, a 1.0% increase in population is assumed to drive anywhere from a 0.25% to a 0.8% increase in City resources (staffing and equipment). At the extremes, high elasticities (0.8) are assumed for police services, while low elasticities (0.25) are assumed for economic development. Comments on Outcomes • Overall, with no levy lid lifts, the net cost of annexing West Hill will increase over time. In constant, 2005, dollars, the net cost of serving West Hill is projected to grow from $2.4 million in 2005 to $4.3 million in 2025. If one deducts future property tax savings for current City residents and businesses (see next bullet), that $4.3 million net cost in 2025 is reduced to $2.9 million. August 31,2005 Page 2 • City of Renton Methods and Comments on West Hill 20-Year Forecasts ' 7 • More rapid growth in assessed values in West Hill will result in tax savings for property owners within the existing City. Assuming no levy lid lifts, greater property appreciation in West Hill will cause the City's levy rate to fall more rapidly than it would if Renton did not annex West Hill. As modeled, this will result in owners of property within the current City saving paying $2.5 million less in property taxes than they would if West Hill was not part of the City. What this means is that, due to property valuation increases, West Hill property owners will pay a larger share of the City's property tax revenues over time. In a way, this property tax savings for owners in the existing city can be viewed as a reduction in the net cost of annexation in 2025. • If Renton's regular levy rate is maintained at $3.15 per thousand, assumed property appreciation in West Hill turns the area into a fiscal winner for the City. If the City has a levy rate of$3.15 in 2025, West Hill will generate positive net revenues for the City of $2 million (in current, 2005, dollars). Below is a discussion of the issues that revolve around potential levy lid lifts. • Initiative 747 passed in 20011effectively limited the growth in a city's regular property tax levy to 1% per year, excluding add-ons, which include the taxable value of new construction (which increases the city's taxable base) and the value of property that is added in a given year as a result of annexations. If the City of Renton annexed any of the contemplated annexation areas, then the full value of the taxable property in the annexation area would be added to the City's tax base, having no impact on the City's calculated levy rate. After the initial increase to the City's tax base in the first year of annexation, however, the annexed area would become fully integrated into the City's tax base, and from that point forward, would therefore be subject to the same 1-747 limitations that apply to the City currently. For cities, 1-747 limits mean'that in inflation-adjusted terms, the Cityshould expect to see a P ever-decreasing portion of City revenues coming from property taxes. If 1-747 limits remain intact for a number of years, many cities will likely need to seek public votes for periodic "lifts" of the City's levy lid to maintain the levy rate, and therefore the property tax revenue, that can be generated. In terms of what an average existing property-owner pays, under 1-747, a city like Renton should assume real property tax revenues from each existing property will grow by only 1% each year. At the same time, however, the average cost of providing a given level of service to the users of that property will.increase at, perhaps, 4% per year. A difference of 1% to 4% between the growth of costs and the growth of revenues does not seem like much for a given year. Over time, however, the effect of the different growth rates compounds to create a huge gap between costs and revenues. For example, if the costs of serving a household were to continue to grow at a rate of 4% per year, while the property taxes paid by that'household increased by an average of only 1% per year for the same period, then in 20 years, costs will increase by roughly 120% while an important • August 31,2005 Page 3 • ° R City of Renton Methods and Comments on West Hill 20-Year Forecasts r y source of revenues from that household will increase by only 22%. If costs were equal to property tax revenues in the first year, then under this example, at the end of the 20-year period, costs will have grown to exceed revenues by nearly 80%. The Figure below illustrates Renton's tax collections and levy rates with and without periodic increases through a levy lid lift (for a 16-year period spanning 2005 to 2020). Under the no-lid-lift scenario, Renton's levy rate fals from $3.15 per thousand in 2005 to less than $2.00 per thousand in 2020. Over the same period, the City's property tax revenues increase from $25 million to $39 million (with growth stemming from the 1% growth allowed by 1-747 and assumed redevelopment/improvements to property of 2% per year). Under the lid-lift scenario, the City's levy rate is reduced from $3.15 in 2005 to $2.87 in 2008, and is then reset through a lid lift to $3.15 in 2009. The same process of erosion and lid lift occurs on a four-year cycle from 2009 forward. With a maintained levy rate, the City's property tax revenues increase from $25 million in 2005 to $57 million in 2020. Property Tax Revenue and Levy Rate Effects: What if Renton Voters Approved Levy Lid Lifts Every Four Years? $80 M - -$5.00 -$4.50 $70 M - Property Tax Property Tax Revenues with Lid -$4.00 _ $60 M- Revenues without Lid x - $3.50 City Levy Rate with Lid Lifts z $50 M .i=-. . 1 >: 1:-=•_-�,�_ - $3.00 N r N City Levy Rate without Lid Lifts T > $40 M IIII • — - $2.50 > • co _ — - $2.00 m> $30 M - — Is2oM I> $1.00 $10M - I ' $0.50 $O M sr $0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ' Source: Berk&Associates,City of Renton August 31,2005 Page 4 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: East Highlands EAST HIGHLANDS ANNEXATION ANALYSIS Operating Costs Total Police Services 1 $738,000 Fire Services 2 $0 Planning, Building and Public Works $962,000 Community Services $617,000 Administrative,Judicial & Legal Services j $177,000 Finance and Information Services $1 12,000 Human Resources & Risk Management $24,000 Economic Development $7,000 Legislative $4,000 Staff-related Facility Costs $147,000 TOTAL COST $2,788,000 Operating Revenues Property Tax $2,260,000 Gambling Tax $0 Utility Tax j $620,000 State Shared Revenues $245,000 Sales Tax $157,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $146,000 Fines& Forfeits $74,000 Recreation Fees $54,000 Permit Fees $210,000 Cable Franchise•Fees $62,000 Business License Fees 3 $2,600 TOTAL REVENUE $3,830,600 Loss of revenue from FD 25 4 ($908,000) NET REVENUES $134,600 The expenditures for Police Services assume no impact on administrative expenses and Auxiliary Services(jail costs). 2 The Fire Services expenditures for Renton will not change as the City is already providing fire services to East Highlands area under a contract with Fire District 25. Certain services,such as Fire Investigation,Fire Inspection, Plans Review and Public Information are currently provided by King County and will become responsibility of City of Renton if the area were annexed.However,considering very few commercial properties in East Highlands,provision of these services would have a minimal impact on Renton's Fire expenditures and may be absorbed within the current budget and level of staffing. 3 This amount is 20%of estimated total amount collected for business license fees,as 80%is dedicated to road maintenance(capital projects). ' The City of Renton will lose the contract payment from Fire District 25,calculated as$1.25 per thousand of assessed valuation. BERK & ASSOCIATES ; 9/8/2005 • RENTON . PAA : :EA:ST-. HIGHLANDS . ..• • • .. . ... : .. ,..b. . ., • , . . ... I 1 l'• - S. \ .•, 1 . .. • tAT HIGHLANDS AT A GLANCE: . Land'area (acres) 2,091 . , . ,,, ......_. V- East Highlands PAA r:*•-:••,•••1 2005 Estimated Population. f&',..tA.••.. ^ 7,287 ----m;:&*:,•1.--, --- . rii,.,,,•„::::,;- I- • „: : • - ------( s',. -s.. ,.4.1 • .."..e1.4., • ,t,4-.;,6,1 :, • ..,11 I .r'°*.r•;;' 2005 Taxable AV $719,506,500 0,..:p.,:p.:;•: i . .• ii0-&;:t24.-',-,.-r,44 l• - - . . • ,;''.,:'• Parks Residential (square feet) 4,613,207 -"--.•'•--.:,$.i..,,,.„4., ., Vigataitt • i-.14W,k.)',N)..,:;i.Ri. .il Schools • u'•, Commercial (square feet) 0 ,r;•:14./.44,\•;•:-,: : , mia,411 -,2i-g:;;:1;4"1 ; 1 1 - • • tre! Church,government and school 0,ifc...,A, „=;,.:;.:1,,,,:m : ',11 — r 1 .---r--- (2) Fire Stations ,• , tr: .40.4,40.,?...,1 1 . if.g '\.-- •5,,,,,,,,,,,,. i ."..=•''-.."2. structures (square feet) 326,368 1:,,,;;;.•,_,,•,,,r,.,:f.,-;,5IX.e.::;)::.,,i; i - •-•.::,:,••;,.,,;•••:• . if4t,T:`,-,11;24.10-: : i / 1 , •-:,: :;--•., Roads (Lane Miles) 37 F,11"2;;...??,,:-,w':•::-',:mt,P. i • ; . i ... . : , ;„.:.:=4,-,,,,,,..-41,1,1*•i„-e, : : (..-----si ,,...:-...A.1•; sv i I 11 te.,.•,..,-.•••,., r.'..4ii?.7"X'''-''''.''' ' . • - .,..... • I , :21;',',','•'n Parks (undeveloped-acres) 85.93 :(;',-,•-f_,, •:14, • H 1 ; ,,.,: • :, - - -- .-, I . . . . ,:,;-::::;";":•4..., I FAI:lki I •14) / i 't-.7,:r*.r,.•...";;;XJ..-.r.'",'''', .. ,, .-.-,-,--.,-..-,..q-' ..."-i•A' 71'4kAV'14!".1'..,qt."-tt-='.',..%0.',-7,1TV' n't• Pt / 1:•-'1' ,....t it 1 ...<,..•„,:.3..•,,,,4,,,,1•:+•.--,,,.%,•,..r:,.,,.....,...;.-1..?rt-k.....-4.. a.,.:.',..ti'1.1, ".11..-1114•1Ki. : 41:a;itt'itaFP':::,W:4'1•,'.•*::'''''g';','*',44'''',-., 1 >t 1:-':;.2'.. 11.i.F,.41'•'''':'-':';''''''* ''''''''''''341 .-'1'•C---I ".' :4'5..liV;:itt44,'AqS94a1AilgAeire,1 0 arRiV,1305Ptake ; 1---1- ''' I -.,-., , . . -„.,,,,,,r,..,....:,,..,...,,,,J,,j'Vje”,....:1.•,,-....:,r-ijj.J.';', ,, , ,-..,..,-.01;i4.t.2..-ki.„)Aft,',41:,..,,V,,, f-,i'..,-— ''.--ii.....--• ,.,,_I 1.• ! .u_2,,,,,L, j.,„.4 ,,,,,k,„,..4.....„....r...,Sa. mamts trait tte 1 ------1 (1-.2v :..."..- '.. • -• r\,'.'''..1'','.'2....:,.•'''','A l'i',,..E','',424,Z.VYi% l'''"'''''''''''''''''''''''''';11AW'r''..,:4'..f.i .....''....."'.''''''''''''''''.. '''' ''.."'. .''''. ''..*':i:' . ....t:1 ---)-•----•--I ' "r•1 , ... 1 :.:. .-...1 • i -,..„-„,..,..:,•.';;;;;'=,:',:i.i.',•,,,,•'..;',.',:••-`4,x• V2E1,if.'4'2gpM,,,..0.1 • 1,,,..::,;,,,,572;t:YA-.2,7W•4.1i*.:',i,:;W:q: ' 7.ra.f.',..'s'1:6,.',•3••".fv .,,,, ,.,...ii 1 .. .....„ et • .. ' • -•':','!:•••Y•,..,...•',..••;.•,,„....,,.....,:.•-••••;•••;,,,...7„,.. . , ,..:5,..•.k. ..... , p. .,•-•:,...;,:•,:-:,.....14;•-..c•ps..0-...f.-...-- -1- --i .7_2._ ..... .5$4-,-......,.. -st-1 1 1 .11 4 ! 11 `, '. I • ••d 1.7, , SE t3.61-44 Si I .. -- . , — I i . , • i",,..4i,,,.1.,•..,,.....,.....1...,,.-Arz.,-- - 4,... •,,-. i ...,4,--4,24g .;•,,,,,,,,, 1 1 i SE I',"11-1 5/ %:---- --,-; - - •--*, . :. •::.;iii-,,•'.'.1.Z1,1,1.•-. .1';':,:,,14 ,, ..5, •.:YiX j `rj,..'r4., :e ‘IJV..j:' :.'&,e'f-j.,h,'.'''JJ i , i t t i ' .:,W5;*'!, 1 1 'tidiParkl'',,,';,,,m i Agriglatgeilel I [___. I . .. ., : 1 ,, ;„.:,„:. •,-,..;,;,,,,,,,,..,:',',...,,,,,I,,,,,44..,614.,..,..4,i,...0-: • ,_- ,,-*;,.,n;,,, ,I.54...:,4,m4Zz•fiq i , , it...--.t-- ; ', , . . , . ' •.--.: :. i • , .• ...... ...„.....•,„,:„.,..„„,-..,...c„,„„q.,...w0,-,•••••„••• - 1 , .m-,,,vp 1-1---------4' i ', ....., • . i , I 1 1 -.-:••, :,..,, • ;-.J '.,1 .,,,.....•,,,,•.,,,...,....,..i,A1.:..7.•r.,•„4"....„-,..,,,,•.01r.,-,P.•,4,-44, /----r`.-• ••',. ,.,./1 ?A•..*. '•,„ 1 ..-.,....,4„..,.-.1r-,f.,.•.i•.•'....,:•....zo,t.::•,.••,,,...N.,y..,..',1w,. .., '4.......•.-. .• ....A....-.WYN't 1 --"- ,r_.__.--...,.... ....t t i VI ' "h.:.','"''',11;o:4--4,..).,'. '. ' ' '''' ...•.... :' -.---, , Lil 1 '. 1 ..-:: *. .• j "..' • •l :.-,--.' ,S 1 j •,.1 : t.._, i ! :. 1 1 J 1 ,; i i , .,...: • -, , -. I 011,410r74: . .;. ;14.-,' • 1,40' .----c•-• , zrt , i 2.:i • ___--4 ,:,, Wlepiretteiid' '::,,fi.,.#04. .f4 4 1 I ;71 ' I ,, ,,. , 1 , I •, • %4:14-rglf-,''-_,,,,:.,:•', V 5:1 - 1 t ---.4 .,...,i .,,;4•:,i, I_ _t ! SE 1.1'NO SI 'I; 1 , kgrtijrn.Aki J1 r„t'.'4 '. 1 .1 , ,_,..._ I ! I , .. }2.it0,444.4•?4,,..:+:::Aj, ,,.''''.' \,..I ...7.-..' t I i 1 1 i . :. I •-.I 1 g,i4,f0A.-1 ,;',.4 .,.. • . . '.., i r i 1 l'''.r S - I ; f • • , .. - ..,,. . '. . ..., 1.1* ...a.,.. . -, •..,.' -,-.1.-,-.1.--,.-,.....L. j ' ' ------4' I ','".1 1 I SE 1-1..117! S11 ( I ii 1 '' • .,_.,__, i ',!'i f•tq.:1W,rg.hr,,,,,,, ..,i .x.7§..04` 1•131 1`.•,,.. ‘ 1 • i .c....,•011N ,J-',,,,1 I ) ! </.!-,&.---r j , i ! .• i i ,„ , . ... ivtap e. -,.•. . et qp•-• ,.. ,)•-•-,:,, i .,.„,.4, ),N,,:::!•,-.-iz:;s•iw;,,vem.,;47,*1.,t,;•-,0 1 ;',;••-, '7' ..,,,,,,I,Tz;.• ... • •-:..., • '‘.---1.- \ * \?4• 1 1 t --'' 1 I 11 ...... \ , "\e•) i .' •. ; •.„. •,, 4'''''4'i''''''''•"1" 4."'i'''''',V4V•t).WitV.P:47. • -.. •,-• ••••!...•/,,•'!•*-'• '- •••Z'• - '----, ..., , I . •• `.:,.."•:,.'41-•• .::•"-44i'-') ..•,'rni-,tei4•A' %.•'•••,.:'.- .:,.,.• -'-' ,-,'„,,-..:.--,.' ., i ''. 1 1 ..-:.1 . 1 • „,,,,.:.•:;,,,,••..g.,:z..1.,35,4,:t•-5.1.'-,..k.4L.;.,i'•'"'s•..., v•r,., - ''"%••1.--•' 4-...•.&*".-- • '' 51.- .',.• i 1 1i,"'—'• : I i -1 i. i . .`-'• 1 , , . . ._ , . t .. ''' ''',•-'-'''''''-:,,-. .i.“'.',--- oii,...-`,N.-- -.- - ..'.;,-,,-,- • - .• ,, . . ,;,,...-,.•;::",,' ,L,.--L, , , • , -"---1' ,.,.:--1 -5k:%:i.kt,,dtke-epr*-A1-,*;a:544:.-0A-A4, 0.. f1vp,,„',, ei - /--. , ,:= /•,!•.• .• •..,,,.,' . . .. . 1 , ., .... --" ,,, ., • — '-..,.„ •;,: •,..-.1-..-.:M11.5fAka....)-4:04CYlitw.,,..y4,,,V ik,,RXR,W,,,,,. li I. . . , . ,, • . ,. ..,. .- , • . ,. ., ' ,,, '''''-, , !' , 1,.; . ,,, . { , • . . .. .. • • / , ___ . ...'-',r:t-.4,7::.'4'•*' .. • „.. . t ,..., „ .,.....,• ''.... ''.. i I . .. ....' ''' -•••'-•'0,, :' 1".0••••,-.4,,,,, ...1 ...) i,, ;-.....„.,, • kYkOrga,.., . ,........ .... . 0,, .) .±._,....r, ,il,,„, . •,,` •• •,,,,,,,,,,ig....i.t! ...-.; •,,,,TIA*.•....-:4.....„....,,4,-..' ,,,,,,.. • • •.,., f(ts 1'--"--,-f- 4A,, \ ,_;-:,..,19.3t-'7.`-.'., :.., .,:',4,'4';',: ,1 ••-.-. .L‘ :...'''' 40:Matili.-414: ''''''Z'''.:: - , ./: .. '',... ''''''44Z ,';J. --- 0" -.:-.1...•-.4- .. „,.,,,......., ,„,.,.. rrt - -r iif.;----,-,..; :,,e.....„., -,;.,,,,N.P,.,,,,,Ptip„. MAT„'4;sf,..P..,' •:z,„..t.„,.,,,,,I..,,,.,, ,I- ,, ,„ .,, • i --.•,,,;'::^-r-;4.4i,k4.-- ,243,-4.1, , -. .._.,.. _. ,.•:!;••-f_li=4,414.v....1_44;:, ;F,..4ik,:„Eat--g•aiy.f.zia. -\ ',,,...',- . ,. . . ..... . • - •-I g [..., E 1,. L; :, A ,),. I \•I• F. .-' • •• .• . •••—..1 . „ . 0 ii-• f.. ., . 44 . ) City of Renton Annexation Analysis:East Highlands . . All oMd . . ' ' ,.....,.„........ .. . .._ . '-'''''.:''.''''' '.."r'''',.4'..::'''''' :'..'..;4;..,'''1:1'lt!"...14&',"4"':;i4f41041E,A.'.:rr•r11:.'..'1:"..1,,i441. 1Ra,',;- 1-' ,,'''. ',..:;4.,'441.;;„;',:;,',.",':-...1' ,,..../....„.',..•:..,,,'.2.,.,L,';:.;,'";.;•1 i;',:-.1-, . •.1: • ' .-;.4.J.4,, ", : , . .. ' .., ' ,. .'..1,:s1 .,:,.., 1'''.1.1facl...,..:1-mf',??1,..i.":,,...... '•..•,...'.4,:,-t..--'t4-1,-;.. .',..I.1,-..,...:::-":''',1P...;,,',,,,,,1S--I,1:Jaa.......,..-'...-1'.7---•,--4,-.•,,,:ack„..,:11..1i:Ji-,wr.'-i,,-er.,c,^,-,a.....-1,.,...rmA.r.e.;'„1.?-?;:,;,„-,.-,... -.......'74.,..... --... ••..::.......r.,i,;,:.•,\"..!....!-::,'s;,...,,,..,..a:,:,;5,Taa.x..,..,...,,-„...f,'.;;,!,..•,,,,i,....j'::..;,,'-:,-,...,...;;;;',..%P.r.-",-.4"-::,-'-'.,1.-.'„-""'-14''" -.'''''''" '-'• -\''''''"• -''''''' "--'• ''''''''''''..-. ' '' "--''' '''- .`."'• - ' '' ' .' .* -:.:.''''' - "• : -''....---. Cag' . ' ". ' • Legislative • - i .Legislative . , Indirect . .220,100 8 . _8 .. I 0 . 104,000 ' 116,100 3.9% 4,479 0 Administrative.Judicial&Legal 1- • Mayor's Office Indirect 848,900 7 2 I 5 . 310,000 538,900 3.9% 20,791 0 City Clerk Indirect 465,500 5 I 5 465,500 3.9% 17,959 0 CityAttorney Indirect 1,101,300 0 I 0 1,098,000 1,101,300 I 3.99, 42.489 0 Hearing Examinerect141,600 1.5 ' 1.5 141.600 [se,..Poke . 6.1% 8,638 0.1 Court Senaces Direct 1,425,800 14.7 I 14.7 . " 1,425.6-00 iee Poke _ 6.1% 86.974 0.9 _. Economic Development I I I , . Economic Developme_nt Direct 1,294,200 133 1 I 12.3 1... 113,000 10,000. . ,..... . ...1.,1yg_09.. [Commercial SF 0 0.0% 0 0.0 ' Neight;cirhoOiiProiams Direct 50,000 1 I 33,527,46755360 50.000 'Population 7.287 13.2% 6.581 0.1 ' Finance A Intommtion Svs I . Finance Indirect 1,773,700 20.5 5 1 15.5 296,000 I 113,000 1,364,700 I 3.90, 52,651 1 •Information Services Indirect 1,670,700 14.8 I 1 13.8 I 113,000 10,000 1,547,700 I 3.955 59,711 1 Hornet dnRi i:sZlIve°611,11111!si" ---- -620,000- - • . - • r---- •• ---1• • • - --*"-- --- --- I _____ 4.9 ! 4.9 _. - -526,600--r- - _. .. . .. .. . Risk Management Indirect 11,139,600 3 i 3 123,400 11,016,200 'EXCLUDED -----3.9 - 23,951 0 % 0 rr Police 1 Administration Dept Indirect 1,601,100 4 1 ! 3 I 144,000 25,000437,100 995.000 i 0.09, 0 0.0 r° Direct 5,288,500 47 i 47 PP aa tt Patrol 15ervietisDirect 2,411,300 20.8 20.8I ..5,2q8,500 :Police model 6.1% 322,599 2.3 1 • _ _ 2,411,300- Police model -- - Investigations Direct 2,378,700 21 I 21 - 2,378.700 !Police model 6.1% 147,089 1.3 Admin Services Dept Inchect 1,233300 10 10 1 6.1% 145.101 1.3 1,233,300 :Police model 6.1% 75.231 0.6 Staff Services Dept Indirect 786,700 12.4 1 12.4 786,700 'Police model 6.104, 47,989 0.8 Auxiliary Services Dept Indirect 2,257,200 16 I 16 2,257,200 I 0.0% 0 0.0 Fire . 1 f Administration Dept Indirect 873,400 7 1 r 6 144,000729,400 - Emergency Response Direct 10,812.800 99 99 ____. • - - - - 10,812,800 Fire Prevention Direct 919,000 10 10 919,000 : Tora.insitnegr lainaiement ..._Dpeepptt linr:,eecta...,.., 423,300_...... 0 _ .........._. • 423,300 14.300I 0 14,300 - Community Services • . . I Administration Dept Indirect 915,100 9.2 I 9.2 . Facilities Direct 2,885,700 27.3 1 r 14.3 113,000 915,100 : 2,772,700 ISE of city-owned buildings 43,382 0.4 0 0.0% 367,699° 0.0 Parks Direct 3,360,800 35.3 1- - 34.3 -. ,,. 113,000 .......?4_7f82?.° 'Activ-eP.3A ec1. 259 3.9 1 . . . _... Recreation Services Direct 1,898,900 29.9 1.5 ! 28.4 ! 113,000 /58,300 , . . rPaSsiVe park acres 759 86 11.3% 601,600 1,026,000 i Population 55,360 7,287 13.2% 135.057 3.7 Commuitty Center Direct 1.112,100 19.4 I 19.4 1,112,100 I EXCLUDED 0 0 Senior/lane/Center Direct 564.400 6.6 1 6.6 564,400 !EXCLUDED 0 0 Hca.G..'5nic.Ps . . DDirreedct 541.400 2.1 • 1 2.1 I 541,400 1Population 55,360 7,287 13.1% 71,264 0.3 314,500 3.1 3.1 314,500 -ItkillbECI ... 0 0 Library Direct 1.494.700 22.5 I . 21.5 I 113.000 1,000 1,380,700 !EXCLUDED Coll Cou ' rse Direct _. 2,321,200 20.4 20.4 126,100 i 100,000 466.400 1.628.700 I EXCLUDED 0 0 (. -._- rti RI RI,. & .:, ...socIA I I:.(.., 9/7/2005 ... City of Renton Annexation Analysis:East Highlands ' • o-a:..,-.,r;.�.;:.. ....::'rte..�. - _ ._.- .. .. ... -_ ., .. .:.=. .,. .,...-:r,.... .,.�-.,, ,.. . n ~1 , a. ... .. ...1,.. ....�:}..,. ..:'-.v .. .r �.E,.v, ..,� ,:y"1'•SY''T'v�..*,'-','; ''1'.y ,Y'J' ilia:i:",li.'?"1\'i;'.:, - Yin ..�. .. ..,,.,zd.. �.-r� „.. ,..., �S,:s'"P .,s,� "�^:j;r<,. n,.� '� a,.,.•-zv r,�.. .)r , ,, Allocated xy,, _.-..,: y4, ,_•.rµ4r ,...,,,, ,.,..: .:s,• •"4. ,,i, :i4 1 'ywii,'I.,: :.-�, ': ..N4a.t'-'1'. „q%`••t:,:; '' „'may';. -��'�"T 4.. it�•w"•' vlt;,r., yr„�''J:P„ ..�.,. .1 YI'4r�" A'�'.'N "f`. PY ',!.'7r' "�,=. c..��y�y� -d,,,� ,,,k r4 r1,:' '7w. '�7'+;••.'rM]."�'�a',. 'f. y:1• .]'.s' .e ,["� lusts . ,i� ,. ,ter.; , Planning,Building,public Works ' - - ;-^j+•, --:3"."4',,,;%:.'' Administration Dept Indited 363,700 3.9 3.9 I 363,700 i 16,301 0.2 _Development Services Direct 3,200,800 38,2 1 37.2 113.000 3,087,800 AV 6,344,519,649 719,506,500 11.3% 350,175 4.2 Maintenance Services Direct 19,286,900 63 7 62 739,400 113,000 977,800 17,456,700 Isee below Adrritestra60n Dept Indrect 8 I 7 16,000 ' 0 0.5 5iree8/8ndges/Sidemalks D,rea ;896,000 14 l4 i 16,000 _ 2,860,000 iCana miles 460• 37 8.1% 231,884 1.1 Egwpment Direct 3,176,900 8 8 1 16,000 3,160,900 1600.UDED 0 0 Wille: Direct 3,168,100 21 1 21 i 16,000 3,152,100 'EXCLUDED 0 Wastewater Direct 9,362,100 5 1 5 1 16,000 9,346,100 !EXCLUDED 0 0 Surface Water Direct 801,600 6 I 6 I 16,000 785,600 !land area-acres 11,040 2,091 189% 148,794 1.1 Solid Waste Utter Direct 76,900 1 I I I 16,000 60,900 1Po00tonon 55,360 7,287 13.2% 8,016 01 Transportation Systems Direct 4,525,200 29.5 1 285 48,400 I 113.000 885.000 3,478,800 lsae below ' Adnunsuaton Dept Indirect 272.600 3 I I 2 I 113,000 159600 I 19,736 02 Tra:aponason Planning Dnect 541,900_ 5.5 5.5 _ __ _ 541,900 Idnd ared Mres 11,040 2,091 189% 102,637 1 0 .._ __.._ ..,_1 .. Traffic Operations Detect 461,900 4.5 4.5 _ 461,900 lane meds 460 • 37 8,1% 37,190 04 Traffic Maintenance Deed 1,657,800. .__IIS. ._._- U.S _-_ -_- I 1,261,197 596503 lane miles 4-traffic lights a hxn:tunes 460 37 8.1% 115,139 09 Transponawn Design a Construction Direct 506,000 5 I S 506,000 .land area-acres 11540 • 2.091 18.94 95,838 09 U_tility_Systems _ Indirect 22,992.600 _26.7 I ' 10.7 5,604.800 113,000 3,842,000 12,896,600 536,200_!see below Technical Services Direct 977,502 4 4 4]],502 land area-acres 11,040 2091 189% 90,440 0.8 Technical Services•Enterprise Fund 56,698 0 56,698 I Other City Services - I I Other ay Services Indirect 4,911,200 0 0 I 4,911.200 I -_ Limited Tax Gen Obllgahon Bonds Indirect 2,556,500 0 0 I 2,556,500 115,479,800 82,893.700 29 Cost exdudmg SWM,Solid Waste,and Transp.Design 32,641,132 27 Highlighted in blue-capital function - Add 35,000 per FSE for office costs- 8146,590 Highligted in.green-indirect costs _ (annual) Total cost excluding SWM and Solid Waste 82,787,722 27 • 11 I',I ish. ,` ,r\S5C)l' I,VI E5 9/7/2005 of • e' if East Hill Annexation Area (without property tax rate lid lifts) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 East Hill Population 7,287 8,045 8,883 9,807 10,800 Assumed annual population growth rate 2.0% Assumed General Inflation 3.0% Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Property Tax(net increase in City property tax revenues) $2,266,000 $3,061,048 $3,747,701 $4,580,520 $5,590,000 Property tax decrease for payers in existing City - $394,351 $608,170 $884,292 51,238,000 Property Tax payed by East Hill payers $2,265,089 $2,666,697 $3,139,531 $3,696,228 $4,351,665 Uncollected taxes 1% East Hill TAV $726,701,565 $1,075,198,660 $1,590,821,065 $2,353,715,418 $3,482,463,482 East Hill Assumed annual growth rate for existing property 5.0% Assumed annual new construction value as%of total 3.0% 49,708,676 73,546,975 108,817,171 161,001,548 32,255,960 47,724,632 70,611,463 104,473,904 Renton TAV $6,592,796,800 $9,740,917,732 $14,392,295,279 $21,264,748,261 $31,418,860,566 Renton Existing City Assumed annual growth rate for existing property 6.0% Value of new construction Renton--as%of total 2.0% 540,561,472 798,684,533 1,180,063,721 1,743,554,970 194,818,355 287,845,906 425,294,965 628,377,211 Levy Rate $3.14843 $2.50524 $1.99346 $1.58624 $1.26222 Levy growth limit 1% Levy Rate without East Hill $3.14843 $2.49245 $1.97314 $1.56203 $1.23658 4-Year lid lift cycle beginning in 2009(resetting levy to 2005 level) no Lid lift year No Renton City Property Taxes without East Hill $20,549,390 $24,035,947 $28,114,058 $32,884,091 $38,463,441 Renton City Property Taxes with East Hill $22,814,479 $27,096,995 $31,861,759 $37,464,611 $44,053,007 Difference $2,265,089 $3,061,048 $3,747,701 $4,580,520 $5,589,565 Fire Services(loss of revenues from FD 25 contract) ($908,000) ($1,344,000) ($1,989,000) ($2,942,000) ($4,353,000) Levy rate for basis of contract payment(per$1,000 taxable assessed value) $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Gambling Tax - - - - - Assumed rate of increase 3% Utility Tax $620,000 $832,836 $1,118,734 $1,502,776 $2,013,000 Assumed rate of increase(on per resident basis) 4% State Shared Revenues $245,000 $298,664 $364,057 $443,784 $540,000 Assumed rate of increase(on a per resident basis) 2% Sales Tax° $157,000 $606,085 $828,737 $1,134,790 $1,552,000 Local sales tax distributed to City and County 0.99% City share of local tax 85% Retail sales tax revenues under current law $370,260 $497,364 $668,101 $897,448 $1,202,000 Taxable retail sales(under current law) $44,000,000 $59,104,457 $79,394,019 $106,648,645 $142,887,569 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 4.0% New Revenues from Sales Tax Sourcing Rule Channges $73,584 $108,721 $160,637 $237,342 $350,000 Assumed taxable value of delivered goods per resident $1,200 $1,606 $2,149 $2,876 $3,849 Assumed annual growth in taxable value of delivered goods 6.0% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $146,000 $186,870 $239,181 $306,136 $391,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Fines&Forfeits $74,000 $94,715 $121,229 $155,165 $198,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Recreation Fees $54,000 $69,116 $88,464 $113,228 $145,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Permit Fees $210,000 $268,630 $343,373 $439,076 $560,718 Assumed change in cost recovery ratio 0.0% Cable Franchise Fees $62,000 $83,284 $111,873 $150,278 $201,000 Total Revenues $2.93 M $4.16 M $4.97 M $5.88 M $6.84 M Core Operating Costs Police Services $738,000 $972,000 $1,280,000 $1,686,000 $2,217,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Fire Services(incremental cost of serving East Hill) - - - - - Planning,Building and Public Works $962,000 $1,230,000 $1,573,000 $2,011,000 $2,569,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.50% Community Services $617,000 $965,000 $1,440,000 $1,860,000 $2,401,000 Community Services(excluding active park maintenance) $617,000 $813,000 $1,070,000 $1,410,000 $1,853,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Cost of maintaining 1 acre of active parks $12,500 $15,208 $18,503 $22,512 $27,389 Assumed acres of active park development New Acres of Active Parks - 10 20 20 20 Cost of Maintaining New Active Parks - $152,000 $370,000 $450,000 $548,000 Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services $177,000 $233,000 $307,000 $404,000 $532,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Finance and Information Services $113,000 $144,000 $185,000 $236,000 $302,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.50% Human Resources&Risk Management $24,000 $31,000 $41,000 $53,000 $69,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.70% Economic Development $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $14,000 $17,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Legislative $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Staff-related Facility Costs $147,000 $183,000 $227,000 $282,000 $350,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 3.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.70% Total Costs $2.79 M $3.77 M $5.07 M $6.56 M $8.47 M Cost to City(net revenues) $0.1 M $0.4 M ($0.1 M) ($0.7 M) ($1.6 M) Cost to City--taking into account tax savings to property owners in the existing City $0.1 M ($0.0 M) ($0.7 M) ($1.6 M) ($2.9 M) Costs in 2005 Dollars Cost to City(net revenues) $0.1 M $0.3 M ($0.1 M) ($0.4 M) ($0.9 M) Cost to City--taking into account tax savings to property owners in the existing City $0.1 M ($0.0 M) ($0.5 M) ($1.0 M) ($1.6 M) Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years West Hill (with property tax rate lid lifts) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 West Hill Population 13,900 14,465 15,053 15,665 16,300 Assumed annual population growth rate 0.8% Assumed General Inflation 3.0% Core Operating Revenues 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Property Tax(net increase in City property tax revenues) $3,835,000 $5,408,172 $7,625,877 $10,753,050 $18,278,000 Property tax decrease for payers in existing City $0 ($84,606) ($236,809) ($496,458) $0,000 Property Tax payed by West Hill payers $3,835,428 $5,492,778 $7,862,686 $11,249,508 $18,278,251 West Hill TAV $1,218,203,500 $1,799,906,843 $2,659,378,867 $3,929,256,663 $5,805,512,754 West Hill Assumed annual growth rate for existing properly 6.0% Assumed annual new construction value as%of total 2.0% 99,883,843 147,579,293 218,049,759 322,170,519 35,998,137 53,187,577 78,585,133 116,110,255 Renton TAV $6,592,796,800 $8,855,992,614 $11,896,105,333 $15,979,837,413 $21,465,445,757 Renton Existing City Assumed annual growth rate for existing property 4.0% Value of new construction Renton-as%of total 2.0% 333,936,373 448,571,091 602,557,972 809,405,949 177,119,852 237,922,107 319,596,748 429,308,915 Levy Rate $3.14843 $3.05170 $2.95659 $2.86301 $3.14843 Levy growth limit 1% Levy Rate without West Hill $3.14843 $3.06126 $2.97649 $289408 $3.14843 4-Year lid lilt cycle beginning in 2009(resetting levy to 2005 level) yes Lid lift year Yes Renton City Property Taxes without West Hill $20,756,959 $27,110,452 $35,408,684 $46,246,920 $67,582,453 Renton City Property Taxes with West Hill $24,592,388 $32,518,624 $43,034,561 $56,999,970 $85,860,704 Difference $3,835,428 $5,408,172 $7,625,877 $10,753,050 $18,278,251 Gambling Tax $1,040,000 $1,205,645 $1,397,673 $1,620,286 $1,878,000 Assumed rate of increase 3% Utility Tax $942,000 $1,192,670 $1,510,044 $1,911,873 $2,420,000 Assumed rate of increase(on per resident basis) 4% State Shared Revenues $470,000 $540,009 $620,447 $712,867 $819,000 Assumed rate of increase(on a per resident basis) 2% Sales Tax* $374,000 $687,234 $925,355 $1,246,563 $1,680,000 Local sales tax distributed to City and County 0.99% City share of local tax 85% Retail sales tax revenues under current law $370,260 $491,763 $653,138 $867,470 $1,152,000 Taxable retail sales(under current law) $44,000,000 $58,438,873 $77,615,952 $103,086,108 $136,902,526 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 5.0% New Revenues from Sales Tax Sourcing Rule Channges $140,362 $195,471 $272,216 $379,093 $528,000 Assumed taxable value of delivered goods per resident $1,200 $1,606 $2,149 $2,876 $3,849 Assumed annual growth in taxable value of delivered goods 6.0% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $280,000 $337,790 $407,507 $491,614 $593,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Fines&Forfeits $209,000 $252,136 $304,175 $366,955 $443,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Electric Utility Payment $156,000 $197,512 $250,071 $316,616 $401,000 Assumed rate of increase(on per resident basis) 4.0% Recreation Fees $83,000 $100,131 $120,797 $145,728 $176,000 Assumed annual growth rate for current taxable sales(on per resident basis) 3.0% Permit Fees $356,000 $441,861 $548,429 $680,700 $844,835 Assumed change in cost recovery ratio 0.0% Cable Franchise Fees $120,000 $151,932 $192,362 $243,551 $308,000 Total Revenues $7.87 M $10.52 M $13.90 M $18.49 M $27.84 M Core Operating Costs Police Services $3,279,000 $4,119,000 $5,173,000 $6,498,000 $8,162,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Fire Services $2,663,000 $3,273,000 $4,022,000 $4,942,000 $6,073,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Planning,Building and Public Works $1,675,000 $2,079,000 $2,580,000 $3,203,000 $3,975,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.50% Community Services $1,160,000 $1,457,000 $1,830,000 $2,299,000 $2,887,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services $528,000 $663,000 $833,000 $1,046,000 $1,314,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.80% Finance and Information Services $356,000 $442,000 $548,000 $681,000 $845,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.50% Human Resources&Risk Management $77,000 $96,000 $121,000 $151,000 $189,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.70% Economic Development $75,000 $92,000 $113,000 $139,000 $171,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Legislative $15,000 $18,000 $23,000 $28,000 $34,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 4.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.25% Staff-related Facility Costs $463,000 $552,000 $658,000 $784,000 $935,000 Assumed rate of increase(unit costs of service) 3.0% Assumed rate of increase in resources for each 1%increase in population 0.70% Total Costs $10.29 M $12.79 M $15.90 M $19.77 M $24.59 M Cost to City(net revenues) ($2.4 M) ($2.3 M) ($2.0 M) ($1.3 M) $3.3 M Cost to City--taking into account tax savings to property owners in the existing City ($2.4 M) ($2.2 M) ($1.8 M) ($0.8 M) $3.3 M Costs in 2005 Dollars Cost to City(net revenues) ($2.4 M) ($2.0 M) ($1.5 M) ($0.8 M) $1.8 M Cost to City--taking into account tax savings to property owners in the existing City ($2.4 M) ($1.9 M) ($1.3 M) ($0.5 M) $1.8 M 'Assumes that local sales taxes will be levied on delivered goods in future years ..- •- ..---..... ."..-v-,4,-,„":-''N.-41,4.;•',.... .';'-..Y4-_--z..:*;-g-t-- --;-----.::4--.4;.-irf, ..,_._,•., -..N.--.1 .f.2`.: .'''0•W,":"V"...t.-ra't' • .."-'•.;:a.--..--t,'4..'-'- ',..,...•'''.P-4''V---4..f.44n; t-J•'7.‘".....--7'",-'74.-"-•••;.-7"'"'...•:.--‘2:".'›.4 _ ..,„_ -.,......• ....-4.4^,...,--- "..y4t--.444,-.11-.. t..'.-_'''''''''--4•1•4'......*-...Z„Int..."*,----..&,44w. :=4,_;:z.g,& ."'4.4:7.-"4:- .....'"4-•-ti--.-...ttr.•-••‘-_-li..•/..C.-..‹.-A-••=•-*-.7-.--.7_,..• -2_4,,.-:-.--:-;:-",-;,-f,--.; ; ...„,..,,,_-_,. •.-,•-.-...„.-_-:,-,-4_.,,,_.-,--4,--, _ 2t-tt.no-Frtti**,1„-- -., -"r•,‘.- '7'.A.-4----e.-,----:---'„_,_,_,.1-_,-,--••,--t11. -.44,x,,, t,,____.,--f.---,i•-_.-,rs. p•,,,--1-___!-_,-- -,.-ts.„4„_,. -„?..:,•,....---f,-.?".t.. --•,_.,.....--,;-4,17,----••--- -•;-,,"-v 1.'--45F-''-paig4:- 'k.-... .,,,i-- _ - --I, ',--W- •-_.- •-..,,,.;,-,,-,-7•4---. ..- -:Q.;rt;""•-r".•:•-•,:,cw. ----X1'•.-A--=W.-4%0,c' -147'--.,-"-17 '''''--F li.i•-'4,--"`4.'".•-''''''ki-'1-.7 .4.•-.1`- t--:.",....`",-1-..t.. .z•-;-_7.--4- ---,----"•-. 1„,1,,-•••_:-.,;•4 -„,,,..‹,_k-....--y-,-,_••-.t.,-- ..tw„... •-•*.%,,,,,„---....•:=-_-,...--' --t--„,,,...-,..--•,- .......f .1,--).-_,,,,,..-1,..- 1 I..:.."t--.. .,---4._.-------t.a-.:„ '=.--=-'-=-'7-•-,-'klr•-L-.•-- --....„----=T-..-'-'-.,,'---L••=t.-.z''''_s3*-=r-'''W''--------..,-92.r••----r-''`'"f4,-.;,•i--,''''_,-'''Z--.'-7. ...2 -4--4--,--_,,,„•-----*=,--,„>,--1-.--.„,-•- •„•.--z,-z•-=4,-,-,-,_r,--w.,,,,,,R=--.a,...-4-„,,„•-•->,.. *. -...,,,•;'-.. ,..,,„-„,t,......._„ .t.8..,-„,,,,,, - T.4, -,,,,,,,•,:„...,„....._.,,,,..„,....1._,T - _z -1",„_,...,,- --,-,..,.. .n..1-,-......,---410,-,...Lt-- '" -TTT-.1.,,e..-'0.- t.r--.;" ---,g.-.:----.”--' -,--- .1.--"-- , . ..T.F.-,...,T-T---.-1,7t- '.-----,-,* -..t.---7=_T--,.,":„.•7t.--.1-If,-..„,„,...-„rk..e',:,•1.--C„.e,"„.,,,"_-:-...•...:'-1...i I- -,-",-,2*--. .,,....:: .0.4.-•-4- t74"--"'' 4r-,., --._;;.---_------.-t-4--- ,-,.. '''4•.••_*-.4.•!.---,., --.•,.--' -7.,.ka-41;,,-,----,--T47-1 - --T.A.n4w.:-.4.0-,--?_77,0•_,•,,t-"f-,-.4.,::"-1:-...,_-_",-,-,7.4"--..14t,..tt_4•,,g1-__-;4.k-1.-•-A-•..4- '":"I.t-'-:.i,---=_•,31,--.-.----..- 41;4- .4,.;‘,-,..-„,,„P,..f..-_v.'..--... ,.,...."-:-„,-1 144.-.`-V;P:14-•-i--1"),'-4-4:0---.'t=±-1--S. ..--,,-.-4.-f.-1:- .,1,:a..A.-se..4„..-.:-.%-t...--a:,‘F.:1.,..,- -,,z,.i.,;ff-4, ..:--,,,,,W.g.- ilt--.1-gir-'----'-'--:-.A-1. -v_,-,--,,-,f4:;-..-,,,,,-..1.4,-..---.--.-3,7!-_-,-=-:::-..--.1.-4-,A;,-,_7 ;:-----r. -`,- ..ft„,11-v-4.,..,4_,,4w..,,.... ,..,,,-44,_._,-,It.,4,-._ ,,,-.,--:•.--z.m.,izt-_--i---f.e.--e---..f.,,,.-.!F.T.1„E,4,f-,L)r..4.-y,%=-.--„gli;,::ie--4N-t,Aii:-7-4.z-J-ft.-,-,.-,7-•--ii-z..--kr--.iv-':': -3-4-ze:1-..,-Iv: '4.,:-,,•----t--,1-•- k';'.-.."-.1'.:-' -•• '..-: "-•-- -' "----iz- ' . • "''''',N-114,-,..--4'.1F-t:1441.-T-F-IkeAV-;•;,,'-7--- --C-7-7"..LFals- -'.*;•;;Ifs-'••44:'--------'1V---FiX-,:',..„--f-t-,=m4*-4•----v--;•%--k--,1-----'- -: T.:,,•;-.:::•- --..-::'=---•,,...: -.-,., -•,.. .!.'--.7,t.,. .:r;-,,,:,.,---, 7:-.. '''. .--,• 1... ...'",......;„-, '''t '.5"'''''''' '',34$'4""r4V,.,?rt&%‘-`'-',''''',.`.,.1"'"'.1..t'i",7,eil-04,V.t";;E:ra.Z.C.r."*'-f0.Vtaia ,,t'..:111.,--WfQ,..t'l''. ..;,...1:-.*•-•.--1.•it'„-,...-;-.t_'. ,-,-,. ,..,,,.--: 4,'7, ": i.4 'k - ..."......S-t•,.......-s - -tr.-1,- , -„„. * ,,,... ' -..,,.',0;•.---"A.,S1-.!-*Z72:74.•',:..E..":•-----''''="4 :-.11:1-..g.,_- --..V.A.-t-fla'Zi.'..:1•1-':-..t .‘41,444Z,`...-251,;"4:1:7;e'li,174.:,,c;' 4, ,;••".;,'.7?7,-;-:•-•'-it--,..,4,-",:C.IN44';`_•%, *-*'''''I- 7.-`7..!‘•,-:,'1,••r•..4-_-; _•.' .-., --•-•,.,, -• '4.74":"'-.'"'2• '''''''''-;,:t:-..1-%.,:t. :".;!- -41---_7-tr'-•:".-`4- -?.. 4-11;-1W-?:1;.-7-11*:_:-4-1:6-•,"?--.--7-'7,7:41--_,f, -tf. .;;"7.;•Zi'sL4k,t,"•-4'.:;?---T.----3--.....--1"..' .-.,:•ter-.`:: ;-:4_,-." ,-i-''.1- '"!-4''`-:; .- .- .,...,•,,,,,,,,-,„! ,,.,,-:.,._,,,•,..,-_,2-4.,-„--,,r.,„:1--,-,..; ...a.77";e:•345:4`.;e1•"...••4•1.,"•= --24:7.=4-31-,.:".17-----4'-'4••14p,--44-‘,...e."'•`'qf..-7- •.••f.,,,,,-"-‘-_,,. ;:. „,";...."4-.',1 --, ..:,,,,..:•,.-L, , ,: ', ...,:•-..... .,1.1 i..':-.:'•,•• • '... :.- - ' -: _=--1-•-'' .,•-,..?:.:.-._,r_,. .t......:::. ..!..„...2_"2-----••!:-. .,:.',„.,!........-:,..*,44:11:44..S..,.1--4-AY'r0--.17.•i'ZIZ-"Zi.,X...'fiFr:?:=:77.?•;''' :*-''."-•-:-..'..._ ''' -774:•'"'-•'.Pi 4‘.t-......•1:7:'7-,-',.:', -.7._ .....:,' ,__ ...:...".--. ?-4-- ;•.17't-=-7•'-'•:-"."''-A-=.7•: - :...., !"?-'-'.•41. :.:IY"';'/ '7-C-74:-:4;: -.-V-ir'7---li•i' '7r;•.../'''.i. t: -77: '.:-•,,t'..'-".`4...7.,,,7,'. 2-7--,•., _ '. t....,-. 4 3_ i y.''- --,-,_ -,_ '‘,_°- 11 -----..• ••-; e-.',-..--.- , _ 2----' -4',"•,--,•:.•‘1',---.'„:!, •_.:4',_'•,:•-•.'"=-";:-,,.--1-:--„=-:- .4-i-r---_ __zsik---•-•4:-"•`?-"'4----•;;-i--4-4-04-,:z.1_,---2-'t;- ".1. -,--,•„;:t---. -- ; ._--- -- _ r,,,.. ,. v._,-- • -. , . .--:- . . • f , :LI--T;;--':1:-.'''.;'':'-'.-.7.1......':-- e '.. Z-1;7V'--*""A''g.'';,A4c., -f7j,i"2.;:'"rii2tC4 ..t.re:"1, '"'Ic.rt,M;'-ii:'..-':i'''''.7.1 e.=*'",.''.r7'Y.-"• _V...-.. '''ZY:'''.1,. ..,a.''',':', ;. .- t A 1,*-''''- ,* :. i ,^',. ..." -''-: -;_ - - -; 7i-- - ;".-•-,•-:71-"--,--"-<&- •-••1....":4-.;..r--:--- .:-.----7*---"::"-ir--fit,;•--;1-*.t-1,-1-",••3--- - --`'----'----,7 ' :------.--.-.- 't * '„---e •'-: -,:-, - •-,- •__ -,....-• :•4' ,; av,, ...•••-... _ --,, -=-• t,-,- ' —- .•-„,. .--,----t. .,.---,.-.:.--A-k:=,T, ,',,•...•'''-',441::=47.3i4;,;,;''''''''4.-:,'--5"--t-r1..t.7t=''' ''---`'.;.• '-`•• ."'' '' .4, '''..* - ..;, •-. -4 -1-•: , -- . fe'llf"S":4:‘:' ' -• -:'' '•••'' -. -- -'' '"•-."' •A. ;= 5:::-.:4... -4 -.' ..-- -,..r'.''''..4 ''''.4:1"' 711 .P"' '....":',', . ...._ ,.......: _ ..._ „ ---i....;..,-, 4,...., :_ ;- ... .. -..... .-ii..- . :.. .. ,.•, ,,,,.......,-..,... ...,,_- -,.....:4_ ,„ _____ % , .. _.. .._ . .....,, ,..,.,.........,,, ...._.,.,„:,,__ _.• .: ______„.,„1__:. ,,,. s',-.;.;,7...;="„-_,-,4,?3,4--,'.'-..-..?..---.'-,',-..-7:-1----7,-'-.;--':.7----K.:-.-•".,-....'-.:;--.-:.•--:--.''--'''-'-- ' •_','',„----1.--_-•-'_-:'-._:''-',,-' i.•.-s, c_ _.a - " wl _.. - C.. .1,„ .a ..--, : „m.... " ..._ .. . ....,1 ,..,._,... ..,....K.,.... :,A 141 . . nil e ati 0 . , ..... ,, ... „....„,.• ,_____.,;._....__. ......__.:„....0„.,.,, •, „__ .. _ , 1.. ,. -..„ ... .. ,_,,,,i,„.:_k-.. .. , __. „....._:..,;,_:.. ., ,;47,,t...::i. ... , .. % ,__f - . . .:.''-- ,'-; :.i f.":' - '.,:.:- -----,:.-'""---•_ .. -- ':--.t.'1S.t- `1: 1 •• f."...".-.`"-=''';-'4'-'4t-::-4=';'-`•':”-A' -'.1-•7 - •-,:7''' '.1 - .":7:,-- ''''-'7' .7. .-: •`1.--;‘,-......."....•''.1(...:.f-h' .7 ;Z. A:. *'''.ft :-. -' ---‘. -'-`''• l..14 7 - '.,1•., --' _,...,',`,., _•`'''':'•'21:-_,V`'.-' ``•-:--- .: -t•-ie iiared--for-the- ittrof R ton: .,:,_ _ ,, ,_ „...-3-,,.„-, -, _.„- -`7--A-4,5-'2.z ' '•:.J.r- ..:',-;„. - - -`,-.-Z'..,,..1” 1-,.......2-1....'I'. -A 4:"*,----:4.--•• ••• - --.,•-::.,-,,*- - -,f,-*-171.-----.,4::-'•:-.,,•':: - :1 ''. '' : .2.,-.-•";';',..‘-'7.7.-:-:.:.'"1 ", ..-:',.....'".; • -. ....,......,_, -, .''''•--":".4-'''''. •?A:ra; '7'41-:45''-'1.•-•''' ...$ 'r.''' -:•.`" 7 r.,-..f''',.-;=;-',-'`.-.-.1--i-ilt,.,....,---;--. - .--,,,:-„_._ -...,s i:; ,,,, ,,...-3,,•-,,,,,...z,,z..z-.'„Wl......, 4 ' -...--- .,....,-;,,.:,,...`-„ ..,,,_-_,Y,Ts. ,5f•,.',..":„4.7'. ......t•...,4.,,,,--tat-:-. ..„;,-.-Az.1.3--- 1*.,. ,'• •- - '' -,• :** .-!--:-;'_--- ' .• - ---r.•,' " . -- -,_.--, "-.,14- „-4-..!':,.,-.,t•-•••• ,., 4'7."..:' , ,•••,. ,-,t`---t?-iln-•-,,---.1._ -----=,:i-•••••„=.:-4 - , , = - •,. „ . - .- ... -, --.....-.--:-.-- • ''' 7"-:;'. , .. .: ,- „,-_,.,:-..-- „,,......;:.,-"'“'-_-,- ,..-_-..-,7",„0.--, -4 .$7 T.,,-=',...,"„--t",..-.,.., --., ,----V_-,-.N, •- - t - ..... . .. - '-'-'-'-'1-4'''-V-'-';`-''' '----'• --';..Z.". •-• r'•.:-,,-;‘,4...-.-'.-T.,t--e-ks.._ •• .-----.•_:----. --. ----..„ --„,-,- .,•.. , _ _ -e-_-.-••. „_,_-:,- -- • „-._ _ , ,. ,-,-,2=i,:,-„;_,::1-.„..,,-.,•!„! ,=.•••:,---;-:-..---•- ... •--•-•:-t----z.--.;„ --.....:- ...:..-:--___•-------5,- , '- _.:;;•-: *.•co .„7,--'_:.1. - :--:. •'--f.-;---„.•_. . . - . .. - - . = --, • -,•.7, ... -------,-„, - -.:2- „: .,„,,,,„,,,,--.-•.., . -'',4....".-_--;"",..;-„,- 7.-,•".7.2.-.'',...-..::::, '''' '' PI - `''. '' 4'..f..-'..':2, - --N'.,...',.'''',_.,....' . • ... a,, "• , ., -a. . , , ........,„i , "-...:LC..."$-- --= . ,,, ,. .t.-.-.,":":"<.,....;4..._ .„..-_.......'27^."--:,.ti.,V":„.... .-.''' ,"` -,..,.., " .'- - -- ,-",*_,1'...4",...7-".•:••----:1=''..,.'7. . - a - , a.. ... - /'',..-..""^ ,..". •-:...l':-.:•. : , -•••••,..`Z.-- .-.4. ,•,-i' •- -...S4...:,,,c•-,-7.. •-•.--7-,.: -‘_."`•.-*•.:''r,7: .._t4--- . ',... -•• ; .'• ;S..'-•.;. '..2.,...`...1-,.." i',- '• ... .!<-:, .. -. • . -,, -"'''",-..--i",`..,..."...- '.:: " :-,..i• --'--'^-',•‘.....f, -'1'.--,'''S.---%"- .- - '•"''' ' • "' .^- r.''"'t.":'''""-' -`"4-',."."..1'.-:•".--"'' -....',." ,i„."elf„.,.". .....„; I:.' t,. "''.4,,,,..'....,, • '' 7- -,:-....- -7..„s-v; ., *",-;S.- .7.--,-`.-.% -1---''.:- -- - -i: .-'.:7'..:.--`.--.'''It----ti-:...47---*-e-..-:;.- --. :.: -;"-f--;3•-•'-',.. "- . - '''-'''''---:-..- .... ----; -:- 4.-.."5'..:---....,._c __,- -._. ,.,,_ . • ,... -,'...- _ .„,;;_:',.."...":."-;'-'•••44V.-‘Z;-..,"-?.'"I''_•;:- . . 1 -"•-?;.•-e''-i-,---'1-=';-•--"' -...;:e. , r.'".:-' t ;..... ---..:,-.4.;,---->_.:.,----.-...-:-.•,. .. ....-,..-;-.-.:z. ,..3.,...: - =„,-.., -:. . ,c,__-,--:,,,. ---------:x5-----,la",ii,4------. .. -'', -•kt- ''' •:•- i .;,,,,,,-:-.--,,_..z,--_,..:,: 2.7-1.-.'-11--: -., ---,,i,-- ,..,..--;,- tz•!..-,1;-..-• - ---'- , A, , :----'.--.1.4.....'""...-;4.:•'..-..-'ZI'' 4 • -74--.' . _,..Z.-•-+.+.434,..!2- -- -..---:::""....-f044.4,-":....Z- "-.4---r',.:;,-‘..4-.4"....2"'•-."--?. .. . t l'i ' : ....:7-7•'--''-' ."....,=,''''---'•...- -'''''-• g. -- •- '..- .."-.7:`-‘.•_:.Vrt.;‘," ". ,.-_-•-r,----::-.A-1-;.-ct_z•-•.:•:...t.c„,.:-- .._:..-Z..."....,----,-,:,. .„..,--,..1.--,*---r--.„..:--.•=• . -i ; t, .,L; • - • - '-',"--'''' 7--- " - .- " -, , . --- ___„........- 4..7:;.„-„,:t6,....7.17-„i,----•',,,r„.,..."'ty.,...1-1•..A....--3"-•.,_4;',.•.'44-.5.......t"--,..:•.4.--•":-,,,,,,* t. -- ,,7.t...: -,•• Z.',,'":"','N''',„. •-•,-..,;.._,,, - _ ... , ..z•t•-•••'=„...•,..4,•-•"4-_',..V* i-'4"?.4•!....-V1--.41.•4';'±.'.,'",.,..4.11-7---,,,,-T...;,f-•-,!._;-. .,..;;.-. ''.7 --,.... .!• '-' ,,-:,'.7,--,t .7;"•-...:2' .• ..:...":•-.-'..-4 •.'"- %. . •-,:!'f. -/-1-ri =g--------4-"---'-•;-•-i...,--•,.„---- 43.••=.4"-• ,,-='-*-_,_....,„..„-•?_-_-,;...-.. - - . • --...,-.• ---- „•--..:„•_„=„..„,:- -., - -- .-,,.---1.-- •:- ----.---,=---..---4,----.-------."---_,2.--4?„,-;,----.4,•------_,--,---, - ---- ',- - -_---•-•Y • - - , -.._,..'..- . =,--,:-_.•,-----. ...?•••-' - •-,---_-•=7-71-!;r:1-t,-,-.1.1:52:-- -4;•-•"•-e•eZ4----:-'-•='-7--*:-----L----;•• "i .-.7:=•-••-.-:— ----r- -_ = .---- ..,-,-,.-=2,..:-:-.;;:--z-P`g•Z•--- -?, "--,--1-t-----1-,...=--2:----'4•5'•. - ._,-,---.-4- ---.--, --.„•-, -------.-... •-•-•:---•-,_-.;-_-„----•-.-• • -••••---1_,= - 1 ' .--'-- .--••--, - ----1---.-..i,„-,1--.--.--,=-L...=-4,-:-.:-_:„_' .2..--•..--------,--,..- .-=::PA---,-,.=-1,----=__-=,•---_•-:••=„4„,_-_- _- =-;_-.„2--s. ,%•,--2-.-1-' ,--.4t.„ ';-7- , r - : '--,-ks---- .•••• - =••••• . - - -- ---z.--,,,-,0.,---....-•-ex-4,-4-- •••• -ez.4,--v•-- - / t e":;"----`-7-- --;.--,.. ---.-' • -,...--- -- • -...,,,,-•,,.;..-----,--.....":„-,..i...----, -, --;;"--"'-'"-'---------•;;"*--t-;_r----- _,-...,;:-.,--,4' •,-.. - ,_,..- • ,....4---- -7. "',"-.•4. -...,_,....4...:"•,.1..-- -_,-. - 4.,..5‘;' ,,-- ....,-,.... ...„. - - • .",c's...:.`""..., - ...,..--,- .`%" ":-. .....t ...-'‘..e."*I. .: - .:,,"- ' r..A.....-..,4:''- :"---7,---'t.f.'it•:,. -7... ...,,:r"r". '...'-:.",..--,...ta","..--Of,,, - ± „... - .=;21--:.:;,-: f,. ..q, ....:;74:-,:,-,....-t-'.„; •:-,' . .--,--'1',i.,... ....., .-- -7:' .= 4---',:-.-A1::::;'• .,,, .:!,-,,,ti.`;''-;4:;--1..:;,, . '_•'- . .-,-,,,-17-:,1-:::?:4;""=:t--&-rf'-;-: -- .,.. '---:''--*-K:'--1=":----' - f ' . :-Tri-.17,'--- ;,=--7.. .: "Sa- ^.";-. '.'",..; -.-"'": ,-, -1 -_.-- ..":,---'-—1-•.;,z-- A--tiv.s-4,-esz......., -.. - . ,....... .....Z.W'-, ' .."-••.2-•^•-•4-•'-`-'• "-= - -.---- " t. :- ''....-....-.::*-",• 7-...,...;`,.-..","‘,.. . .- -*R•••••.7•1.-.... ..4-• ,,.. •••.... • ..* ,"; ,•-•-..., :--4''...1-$4•7t,•-.....,:g..%w:-'="4 :Att.",........::- ...--•--,••-. ._ .......- -* - - • - '• - .r---",•.:....-...4,••••-:-.5.,• ..•,*••"'... `•••••,-4._ ..1.:Y.....7- ..."•E'-.....-...N.. .. _ -.;-- .. ..,-.5,:;,-.....-.....4.-‘;.:24,..-....'_. ..?-,7,....:— ',...-,... ......n.,,,,.-•.-•-..- -:-. I - . :-‘------:- ,,,,,--,..,•;.-_-_,-..„----„-,...7_•••,t,4.1-. .-_,-;-4.....------•--c-%,„-,;-- -..--z---' - ,-, :.-..;-.L'..:.t.-.-.•:4-•7„-,..-,.-s i'' --..:..---,•--:;"-'---...-;.-.'- :-. -..:;.----t..... _ : .-- " ,..,,...,„,,...,,..„.. -4 .,,,..1,1„. ,..„.._4.,;.,....... ...- - 7-.."" - ....."."4,e.:""7/s f. •— - —,.,,=,-.,7 -., ,...-;L:: •..e ..-; - '..• ..- •,•-••;• •4;•-.......'.. ' P•"•*:_,'"•••----:,'-',"'" I.-""-7•• •"4.= r:-''-4'7:.- t=4.-5.4 "t t-"„',..:••• ..-''.-•-....:•2.',...st.... .1., =•.4 ....,'" -.1.--- . ,, :---k-"F"4.-..7 Z,.. • "•• .'- --"-,. --.-,,,-"-- -;-f:::,•X•••••,-.•=-,---e-'4'S 1,•-?•,';';-",.-?"•-.., " ,- ,... . -- .. 1:----,..-4-...t.--....-:.- t, .:-.9•••:;,.• __-•,.. , , - •,- ,..-- - . ? _ -•- -, , _ - ,..1::•e:i.::-.: ..7-:‘="t .:1 g ---I1-;-Z--_, t-, -.-;',,r- -,..,, ,-,t-.:-'''.15--.--:. '' -'t--t --r•--:-- •--"---.-;•7•ff---", lr.,--.--.7,-7T-1'.-2-•-;,.------•=t--- - '-'''' .•'''" - '''-- 1-:- ',.... • . _- ,- --•,-,,--a.-----j---,:i_.-:-5:„.71-11-,"5„1 ;Iv;.•-•••.. - S":--:.t.:,„:,..'4".„:',.-,.., --:,--""t, ,L."'t,',,••;'_--.-7 --,,••••IT,. -... .:--1- • -•,---.•- -----_--_,-----.2--;-.,,,„4,4..•?...---=--, __ _ - •=-- ..;•-,-r• - -•7, ,,..,-.•- --..--...---- z-.. --t.;:,.:..t., • - '.--•--- -.-s- s, • -•=--;,->----•-•.-..--0- - ,-4- •-".-;-.-ili---.. : ... . ___. --,.=;',,,,-.-,;;k4........-;-,. ----..• - .,•1••=-•,:.-,..::.: -,"- 1-.--•;.----., '_=' -": ,_., _- .. , •,s'.=-14.f,%;---.---,-.:-- :....c..--,"-.4•...". --zi •--. --- -. . - - ..... --- t%-;---"r7---- .- •_...,---. --,--....4.,e•!----;;-"- • •-=`....,'---- ,, - ,,;-,----i=,-----,-..-••-_---.----------- - ,,"=-,. ----.--,.._.,.•.-' ,.....4, -1... -,'‘''': '- -=e--,=,-,--- -- -- ...---_-.----,----..„:- '. --...sa-r-*',,,.. 4--- --1-td,r,-P.,;=%.1--0;-:-.41.t,-,t_5A,:t.:•- .--;;---;,-,-.---- -f--„-..-::•.• - . • ____•- - .• --J.:- ;,--. .-:-..s_.,_..z-----------.-F.;.-,.....--,--"-'--7., f • *4,-'N--.;"''.."-4,,,'!'•-47-'-.0"-,'-`. • '''' ---t-gg--v-.1*--iiiEygt.'----.?•.. -.. .;.-,, , ,,,,-1--J-.,...4',';_,*7.-'40---',..•----- -,-,,-----,--.-------..,,,- — -,.,---1--•-•,.--17W.4-''''..-- ...."-*A 4-7**-••••'-'".."---411--- .. ei- V,45'.1"--:::,t,,,ik,..ti7; ...'.41,,,tz2,-„.-k11:,.1- 2-------1-4, -,,,-,-#-...,,-,ITF*,:.,, .,„2-, -.,-w..,,,..-4A-- ,v.f•-..ttafrv-51-..4,,,,,,z.,--t-,k_----4,i,---,r_,---,---7.7-- . ----4.10r.,-,-i-L.„,-. -e.,...-w- •- :...--."- ---,-,_=. , • , - - •-•-ft.Tgr.e. _*.g.,.. --."---•-i = ',---,,,•--„:45,r„,-.1,3,,,,,- -•-q-Lr.,-z.:-,4; ..,-,-- ---3,4-... -.,--,srtwy.:_4-.7'r ,..-Nift--- „. , ,,,---- ; ',Ns.•,•'-,-. -.„9„,,...,...„.,- „,,,,,.,..,,,--- ., ...._5-..,.,,,,,•‘..z.r., ..10‘.. ,,, .w.., ,11,., '',` '.-'1". ”..,•'" I -7.,...11..iti.,4,...:,-. .,a-- P A,'... ;:c.-1-,',.,.:_. ''''';'• / . . 1. ..-. A76-.‘&11.,o‘riar i. -.' ----1 '1-04:,.:,...,•,--71 la_-.......---- '-''... L__-,t-,tomr--,,----s-r_. e.„, ,-_-_, _____ .„... _ - --''''''..f.. "'' •• .4.• -.-= ?••-- '.-• ifilriz.z--;'. , ,...• .. , Fe - ,..._., ..,., .._,..14_,...., ,„ . _ • .A. .,..._...._ .......,....„ ..... F„,,,...,,, .. ... _ .,„,.,„ ,,.... .,..*, ,,_,,_......... ..... 0,....i.... 1"'"-6.L.,-.._-; ___%,::-':i:::__' V 'S-7...-..-. :"" .',•••*- :-‘,...P-. -1*D"""`-.--.-,,s' • -- ,-'" •••• i j--,..t4 •...-1 •,,,..t.' .„.4-_----..- -,_-,--,.- -:'.-_.-•-7' .:, - -.- -r.. --,- -- -' *--J " 4*-- -''•'-71 1--i.,„.1,.. ...,,_,_ - ,•---q'...? , / t,.:"4,Tt': ,,,T--'''' ''•' - If( ?.--, ''4."A---•-6rtr A .: et,..,-<•,,---, ;;.:.,":75-tcy........„,-.:11,::71-1 . - I , . - t:‘, 54-!:; 4.•!' ---------, - rig' .4- -„, ' -. - • - ,;-‘'-,:,,,,,,,,,. ..,....v,,,,-kiv,;:nitik--,,,t...,,-Iv.,,,-,z,,,-f„,,1„,,,,,,.„,--ti,z‘.....„, 'INT!,'5.''1•1‘4"':':',f.,..,„., !:.-••*, .,•'`'.__ _..__„.__-_,-_ ... --2^.4:-' " 'MF","-,!'--.2-4W'-..4 "•'it-` 1".:44V,,,'''=--XT:-', 4!, ..0$4_-,..L.',-,,--.4-'-.,:'4. •''.,'-'-'Q--..`r---•/-v-,-.7-';:t'';',--;"2----'---71--'.:1',..--;--=`F4 „ 154.4::*:-:-.=„1,-,---'--.;--. if • _t-'"- ='14 ..i"::."..----7.,*". ::. -• :tr:.:'?itr4„;,•„•1\g_ff,-,-i,4„: ,'',;#-,4:",,,,,4-,.,':,;z1-tik., '"''",-,.%,,i,:$3',..',„ ...:.. 2/. ;:-.;.--:.1,44:,,,,. .-4--..:_- --- -:..---.,-,-,'..-...,=.'.--:---vA.$.-.1.:!te.,...'4,-A.:-;1;;;;--...---.--:...-5.--. 2h--. ;-_,— _ 44i,....4.0.-21:-Z-,:':_-!;.,:': ' '1 A';'''44kilSrl4AVA,'":17;-f.,,qi;-:•• ;•7';'':'1.;tj'.-4'1'7..'r''''" '''',:: -,•..;'' .."•-;',4i.;:dft.:•hg,'4..,,.'''''.:17-''-'...-'5.47.';'j'e--1',,:'''''''•17., '1-4.14:7-;-;Zi;177,71:1? -4,„*.V4,14- 1.• :'.7.-777:';''T.I.'''' "_--. ,-,!..,-"V.,,,l'''• ,,,_'''-'!,. i-,.„.1-iii?'‘s ''.7.-..',:tf:.,:!..: 7:;•--,,t5r.j.."4.4,:., ) '2.--:,• ".'' 41•%.4.;:4.41:1.;7"-::t'.;:t-'':. -., -.2,,,--Tal. =-, V .':1,,-7„.7,..,•-.;-.• .;,..:•_-.,..;,:t-,7*---,:;-,: ,,,',,:‘,..' ...,.--ai--L.t.i_7i.;;H• .7i,-.A. .;,-;...-..--_-,--:4.....4......„-,,...7., ,-..:-_-_,. „.- .,-..--2-,'-_,-,:i,r;_,:-....-_-_:-._.---- 1.-:--;.....,-. - : ,,-,....1,...,,.:,,,,,,....-q-_Rft.,-,...-.1,1,:;,.:1,-.-_,A,f,,, 1- PiNrigtwq4i, ,-.49.1.- ...5i4-.24-!..-i't- ,:;•ii•-"',Y,114-;1-"*••." --'4."-1----:i.-;---:___-7,-- . . '' . --!.:_;i:t-^; -f?'.'''' 7-.------:'-- • -'''' - - ' -•' - ' -:-..-:•:,,-..-.. 1'..1'-‘-t-"ki,'-.4 _,•••'-- ,,: r•-•'- '•-•'`-te- ;__ f ,--::'.0'- ..il--; ;'''.W7Z-=•'.,',- -1 rin ts, i L \ \ -, , ( )( 1 • i F - -::::,_-...= e, 1„,.••.- , ., 1•=:?-.1c7._.-` -•, .„"-.7.---- ,-„, -_,.4.-• -----=:1,2--,- .. , ,, ,. ,\ i„ .. -604.-. •i ‘.:'..... 12,„;-„?..-M,..,,,,...„..-=, • •• - - 2.••::„ - ,,•-•.: : •-;--,- - • ' „„,.•-„,--.1-=.-.- September 2005 „..„ .., _ .. Imo ;, ,,, -..,, _ ,,,.._, .. .. .__,,,, -,—.Lt., ..,„.-_-------.k.=c,7%,..z-1---iY-:.-----.,...,;.-.,-,,.'.:...,,...----".":.-C;-7---- .' .."--"-•"". .:---;:f.-,-":";":.`--:,q2'`..-7 '..---- '*"....." :I-;1.---F.?". ....1---- '---Z."-... .-'- . t--,-x-r..,1--1=-;3-i'-;----;/,•''---:,•: -.,---.v. -•-f,-,1....S.,--t-... .1.-.-...1...-. .:-.,.--,--,-':,1--. •--,-,_: , - ..---..--''.--.=,;.-r-:-.1,-,---','-- -:=- ''-'-'-'-'-'-'".-1-''''-'-';'-"---•".."."=!-•"•-•'.?'2.,,,- . , .., , ,,, ,, ., ,„7,,...p....,,,,,, ,,,:-.4.,,,,!-,;,,,,,-,-.--;„_ :',,,-_*.i...;;T„,-„,,,.--,.-„,_,-,--.....„ ..-:,-',-,,,--S---- ..„..,-.,,-,--;,-.7„-s„.,'•-,• ‘ir,T----"'' ,..T.--'.--,;-,;',...-"1"If.,..:-. '-„T'r_-,'",-.".-;'':-.1,--. `.!..Z.TT'i - _,,,- 4.*:S.:A-' .---T ,-7:';,•:-'-'-..-"'.... z..:"1.-:-...t.;,---,,,-,..,!-,i-..,1,3.--4-' .-_-t--7:-.--e..-.,:-- -",-.. -!... -,- T7,-_,`.,,-4,--..,-._:."_-."-,,...;„-,-,„,-: --„, -yr - -,.,..,:i.T.Ti. ,,t-rj:,,_,,-..,, ` • ..,-..-...,. .....-........,-• --:-. •_;!,..„,-.--??..:ft.t-.--4,.,..-,-- - t',..'-'-, - ,' ..C.7,-t.:43.'f.:,r5,t-,=-4r-', • --•.-. - • F. . 1 _ t I • Prepared by: BERK&ASSOCIATES 120 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Seattle,Washington 98122 P(206) 324-8760 www berkandassociates.com "Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures" 1 BERK & ASSOCIATES _ City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Executive Summary Background In response to a 2004 request for assistance from the West Hill Governance Task Force, the King County Office of Management and Budget commissioned a 2005 analysis of the governance options that are available to West Hill. This Governance Alternatives Studyassessed future governance options for the West Hill community, looking at issues and implications from the perspective of West Hill residents and businesses. The Alternatives Study process also included a series of community z meetings that were designed to answer questions that West Hill residents and businesses had in mind when considering their options. The West Hill Governance Alternatives Study included an assessment of three alternative futures: (1) remaining unincorporated, (2) incorporating as a new city, and (3) annexation to Seattle or Renton. Since the study was designed to look at annexation from the perspective of West Hill residents, the analysis largely focused on how taxes and levels of service might change in West Hill with a change in governance. What the Governance Al Studydid notaddress were the fiscal implications that annexation of West Hill would have ion the cities of Seattle or Renton. Given the scope of the West Hill Governance Alternatives Study, and given Renton's desire to more fully understand the fiscal implications of annexation, the City of Renton contracted Berk&Associates to develop a complementary analysis that assesses the fiscal impacts of annexing West Hill from the City of Renton's perspective. In order for the City to better understand strategic issues of annexation, this assessment distinguishes costs and revenues among three sub-areas (Study Areas 1 through 3 on Figure 1).These three study areas, combined, make up the West Hill unincorporated area. There are a number of reasons why Renton might want to annex all or part of West Hill. In terms of • community function, West Hill acts as a part of the City of Renton.West Hill residents play and shop in . Renton. West Hill is part of the Renton School District. West Hill and Renton have similar demographic characteristics. And now and in the future, many of the things that happen (or don't happen) in West Hill have a direct impact on Renton. Recognizing the many reasons Renton has an interest in annexing West Hill, the goal of this analysis is to provide City decision makers with information about what the cost of annexation might be. Study Purpose and Approach The goal of this analysis is to assess three issues: 1. Near-Term Operating Impact's:What new operating costs and revenues would Renton face if it were to annex any of three study areas and provide levels of service similar to current services in existing neighborhoods? I BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 1 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill 2. Capital Needs: What capital needs have been identified in West Hill? What costs would Renton incur to address capital requirements? What new capital revenues would West Hill generate to help cover those costs? 3. How Might Fiscal Impacts Change in the Future: Given that West Hill differs from the City of Renton as a whole (it is more residential in nature, is more directly in the path of residential redevelopment that has pushed southward from Downtown Seattle in recent years, and has a good share of view properties in Lakeridge and Bryn Mawr), how might West Hill's fiscal contribution to the City change in coming decades? • ligj BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Paget 1 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill z Figure 1: Study Areas for Fiscal Analysis of Annexation .`c»a3^;. nar:- r; .,, `�.y.. Cyt i . . • �i,,, `7,1`- ;-,:,r 1 ?,,,,2.,';_k,Cm.,-i? k: :•,:f. i'3L.�- L;]:' „i. ;piss••!t-?pr zi= -:- . r, ..S>S;i`*':'c<'rt."i,f^�. .3.,)" y{'E=•-.�YY.. t,:e '•�.+`s::c'i, kil - t�. t:`{x- +c-I.r �`i'.''t+r*•-� ttF:l`•.n..+ 1r'•,.- -'�J`.. a;{. �.ii:-:.--�, +5�"fes'J...- :1 .t. 5-!s- A� .. ... Y.+4`v ' - a.; Y --R�'' _ :F• _-'�'", tea;:.. - J yr fi• ` o- _• f r � r: - �o '"`, ra .�..� `•-.t":;,,.. ' . . i_`�_ : s'+ /f,- vZr ' �; � .r, L.�� 3 . ) '`'�L 4� i/ " e •':!,-@�:,=.-t.i._ `Lsi ',y•J! - EV": w . ea' Gted- : � ,a.+t+ a 9; ;n .�1Q s7{ ± i. 'n^ '. .t,;: ;%`' 1 ., - • , :' ""C • :t�ys • -s�, . �s;<`-:i�„Gtc4yg ,T' ?gam,>i -�� l - f:`c�eif'000 00oe �5�i9(0'o-e:•,-: 1 =;. .:`i�i�':' - _ -a ^_:- -� nttryA" [o-Yf:° N't='�^.: •�,. � ' ;i.,.:.::;.,;-, •., �:�. i� �,. vhr+4.:,.11qtcv1... .-tr4s? n wl''.iy iom ^_ - �^ Yv ;a' s€^w.2 ',-F '�R.1�1744, " ,G:::�;•< .- �.k�:�i-;� �n,trccyr, .;L,f:'.s � , ,.„d; f'";4p;>?,: si eo t' _��-- �',.,i�llg,�i xrr"1�,: .,, ,1.�sYV+s,-t Y. jl�g ' Y.nI ^• i� R\."'4(11::':f.'':' ?�(;f'ii..KZkr&aigNitt: � �fn } 1: �,:fAr=z ry � 4.f r' `„�g 1ltif1e_ a -s' . , ii - .- 'a.`3 ,tvyi' • .• G �� • ` -tsW `.y'= _?'; a 4Le� � s. ol !tn'vt lFr. , .y �_ . . .r«: ,i: r: ? ? - �, i. ` , :' S -awV � ` � '' .° 'rna.,. •� ! f ik.1. " na- > n:y ,V.`4: c '..= •:y fiN� ✓t6R` °KS-1-7.-74A-:.- -;f.' '-Gz'x - f4; • ixy � f _ hs =5 �� Tr, - 14110,V-,I' r �:.-,,,,,,-.4.4.4,-A.4„,44, � '1,4171 ,-p- `` jr7 i. ,x Y rfokt-: z 7s ,, x�H. �`, *r � K #� >� ` ; $lkiCun `y`a • '.1 W. c < T: .. g- 3`. " > h'rtt..f-t'y:• r t. '� ffex`i � � c & y "" r k\c` -FCry. 8R +� 1 4.• —'Ts"1 waes, 1�^i .,,:t.rv�x�+-�s� ,.x 1 ` .: ..r _c:Uw ai af'-_. -':l'°:„.„.',..:at' y +;' s'xI',,1• . •ri +x-(-...t-yl.?J � 'a.:0 5_.Y.tf`- x t 'res "t' i,a 4 (iis�rl'\ t.,T ( t17 t r T `.41-.' 1 -14,:,,,,14 x # s. .]. , yece r Zr 4`,T"`�.: c--::r7 ar.'_ 1 E # �r a'� - Y,'';37} Y .-4,, ;,•_.- rj .l`'(. '\•1 j ,, �r.- �c,a"-,' .. _14( ; s� F + +�5 ''�,-.6r t . . Sa ` ` } i •• '-'�`•/ {'=\ ‘'..-`:A, � '�- ��xc r F,��"z a-. 1 ze �n .^ s�i z7^� gC :i. 7 �h�F13�`• �}�' ( .'•''Cry'�%Y' i f); �}�'`' elft-r-:-: .t-€xi..o � 4iht'`{1e' A-'ii 7. °"- ;:a..'Ji..o- 1+ 'x,- '' s ! .F T - J L�-._ c: . `. oZ:▪ • '? 'mre,,--,,,e 3-e”4 ..t.. 5x �( -,,,,„,„„y.„,_.„,...,_,,,,,,..„. „,44__„_,. ..\---.r.- •ar 11 y ; } ri 1 1'fi3�.�.,,,,,, i`�< L e. € S f GI`', t " t c mss. .` 5 ero:. ' k.- 'eF 2 n ,fes l r.~ '4.',-,',7 r a. t 1. 0i� 1e- •A> Y€ �.. - rr� f ra A 13 :•'~, 3 1.:. (r's- ? '..,:,g.. -',.,4,7114..v:. x �. - ©ice.,•%: '� ,'� _ 4 -/ 1'; `-`,:•„," 10,7o fr tMj .,y �k4�, L ( t 17:€-''4'4 4 1t- x'"w:»'4;i'S;pv`•' !:-I b'� ' �e..'1« ,.'1614, , b,,A,..• -;-4 t ,0'i} r+r �' , "'L-.".- 1-.".,:To,'� t1;7•j\,'. r7': .,a- •my�,..,;h 4,•.e .ii' '``3=+-�•.> r r�,y( 'r+ , f. + rF$°` +',,, `,. l r";�c e 44.x1"?"'" S�=Y�Zt} C i,?-4,t:,•; „y. t:, Yr 3.f -3 a:\�'y 'x=x S 4t`F,',�1',t'�•• r ti.� r�`',u'%:4>.F tt6Er:'7 .. - E*,..tt,�':-tK_t, t;:t: ,r+;�k.$,� :va ....•s..c»''.r- e .�Pq'., x^t. ~2�. -zi.�,.�:�•,t. !'SS �1'� a• ' �71�t xs�y.r`• �L� F 'e. xu.. ^`' .e, i; -� :z'r,e, ¢t s,:. u.� Yt,,• '4t'A`'',t r'?h�l� ,��:_.- ....t. .5�7 J x�, f -kl�.�~- (-• -,. , :t " 4 mss.1,,.0-.w�gy:,.S:3.4..F'.7P67:-,,,,t tm;k,::�`w iSi tr,, 7,Fr.n,i 2�? ir ..,r : ...'e ♦ F .),f ,.,..,,x' f„.L: .'�u'""'` 3�q,r�nM;;� I s �`it Yn.�C=-"e _{_ �T }., .,S", ti 38" !-f_a•-Y ,JN-k1" .iq3-: - _':�T,- " 91 i.=::�.� i?'i,�l''_ :( 1t.-i: ..��1�sx��;:,r�'e,..:t��'4'."�. risms-z�.':.'�`.��:SC!'r,..:.t's::at7:1:Ewe.�s'�E�F�?i.•-•r--�'�?S''xrxysv'�:k';'`.'-=�.�% Ma D3 Source:Berk&Associates As a baseline assessment, this study looks at the net fiscal gap faced by the new, expanded City of Renton if it were to annex any of the identified annexation areas while trying to maintain current levels of services and current levels of tax'es and fees. To provide intuitive and up-to-date information about estimated impacts, this analysis provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would be if the City were in the position of fully governing IT each study area in 2005. The assessment is based on 2005 budgeted service expenditures and 2005 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Renton 2005 Adopted Budget, and is intended BERK & ASSOCIATES L*, Page 3 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill • to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state operation. In essence, these impacts reflect the ongoing "costs" that the City would face each year, beginning, perhaps, in the third or fourth year after annexation, and extending into the future. • The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to extend current service levels to the study areas is to present decision makers and the public with a picture of the true "cost" of annexation. • Ultimately, of course, any such gap between costs and revenues must be hypothetical. Cities have no choice but to cover their costs of operation. Consequently, if Renton were to annex any of the contemplated annexation areas, any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some combination of (1) stretching City resources through decreased levels of service City-wide;and/or (2) increasing City revenues. The goal of this analysis is to provide an intuitive snapshot of the net cost to the City of annexation. Given that goal, we try as much as possible to simplify the fiscal analysis. Wth the exception of the City's enterprise funds, we treat revenues as revenues and costs as costs. We recognize that the City has current policies in place that direct certain operating revenues to certain uses. However, recognizing that such policies can evolve given changing fiscal conditions within the City, our assessment of operating revenues and costs lumps all operating funds together, excluding enterprise funds. ..1 Facilities in the Study Areas Among the three study areas, Areas 1 and 3 both include fire stations: • Bryn Mawr Fire Station, in Area 1, is old and in need of renovation, and is no longer necessary to provide effective fire protection in West Hill. If the City were to annex Area 1, the Renton Fire Department reports that they would close the Bryn Mawr station. • • Skyway Fire Station, in Area 3, is a large, modern station that would, upon annexation, become the new Renton Fire Station in West Hill. Since the Skyway Fire Station represents Fire District 20's key asset, any attempted annexation that included the fire station but did not take the majority of West Hill would almost certainly face fierce opposition from many directions, including the King County Boundary Review Board. Areas 1 and 3 also each include a single park: • Bryn Mawr Park in Area 1 is an undeveloped park of 4.81 acres. • Skyway Park is an active park of 23.08 acres, with playfields, courts and play areas. Also included in Area 3 is the King County Library System (KCLS) Skyway Library. KCLS currently has plans to build a new 8,000 square foot Skyway Library in 2011. Representatives at King County are currently working with KCLS to ensure that the new library will be completed even if the area annexes to Renton, and the working assumption is that, upon annexation of Area 3, Skyway would become Renton's third library branch. BERK & ASSOCIATES Page4 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Finally, the Skyway Boys& Girls Club is located next to Dimmit Middle School in Area 1.The facility is owned by King County, and leased for 15 years, through the year 2018, to the Boys & Girls Clubs of King County, which maintains and operates the facility. King County would retain ownership of the asset for the life of the lease. At that time, the disposition of this facility would likely be negotiated between the King County and the City of Renton. The assumption for this analysis is that the Boys & Girls Club would continue to operate and would continue to cover its operating costs and maintain the building. The possibility does exist, however, that the Boys & Girls club would be unable to raise sufficient revenues in the long-term to cover its costs of operation. In that event, the City of Renton could choose to participate in operation of the community center. Summary of Findings If the City of Renton were governing West.Hill in 2005 and attempted to maintain current levels of taxes and services, we estimate that the gap between additional costs and revenues would be $2.4 million. If one allocates costs among areas based on each area's relative demand for services, of the $2.4 million cost,the greatest net cost would come from Area 3 ($2.3 million).Of the remaining two areas, Area 2 would generate modest net benefits to the City, introducing net new revenues of $251,000. Area 1 would generate relatively modest net costs ($429,000) as demonstrated in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Operating Costs and Revenues for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 Dollars) Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Total Additional Operating Cost $2,661,000 $1,241,000 $6,389,000 $10,291,000 Additional Operating Revenues $2,232,000 $1,492,000 $4,116,000 $7,840,000 NET REVENUES ($429,000) $251,000 ($2,273,000) ($2,451,000) Source:Berk&Associates analysis Note:For more detailed breakdowns of costs and revenues,and for a discussion of the methods used to estimate each cost and revenue source,see Appendix A. If, instead of using allocated costs, one looks at annexation scenarios, the incremental costs of including or excluding areas will vary. In particular, as noted in the discussion of potential scenarios below, when one looks at the difference between a large annexation with or without Area 2, the sus benefits of including Area 2 are likely to be much larger than the allocated benefit of$251,000. Annexation Scenarios In practical terms, four annexation options are available to the City: 1 • Annexation of all three Areas: This scenario would result in the $2.4 million net cost to the City estimated above. IN IBERK & ASSOCIATES ; Pages City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • Annexation of all or part of Area 1: Area '1 includes the Bryn Mawr Fire Station. If the City were to annex the Area, the Are Department reports that they would seek to close the Bryn Mawr Station and serve the area from existing Renton Are Stations. The more of Area 1 the City annexes, the more challenging it would become for the Department to serve the annexed area. However, if Renton were to annex the entire area and provide fire and emergency medical • services to the area from existing City stations, the net cost of annexation would be the estimated $393,000 cited above. Since a portion of Area 1 overlooks Renton Airport, the City may have a strategic interest in • annexing at least that portion. If Renton were to annex only a portion of Area 1, the net cost of the annexation would certainly be less than $429,000. • Annexation of Areas 1 and 2: If Renton were to annex only Areas 1 and 2, but not annex Area 3, then the logistical difficulties of fire protection noted above would be even more pronounced. In fact, it is unlikely that the City could annex and serve all of Area 2 without locating a fire station in, or close to, Bryn Mawr or Lakeridge. In theory, if Seattle did not annex other portions of West Hill, it would be possible for Renton to . enter into a contract arrangement with Are District 20 and have the Fre District continue to provide services in Areas 1 and 2 in exchange for a City payment Providing fire services through such a contract would add roughly$200,000 to the net cost of annexing Areas 1 and.2 presented s. i f above. Perhaps more important, in the long run, it would be unreasonable to expect that the Fre District could remain in place (given King County's strong desire to have West Hill annexed). If Renton were to Annex Areas 1 and 2, and Seattle eventually annexed remaining portions of West Hill, Renton would be put in a situation where the City would have to provide fire services to the new neighborhoods through a new station. This could dramatically increase the net costs of serving Areas 1 and 2. As noted earlier, it is also unlikely that the City would be allowed to pursue a partial annexation that included the Skyway Are Station but left out any substantial portion of West Hill. The Skyway Station was designed to provide fire and emergency medical services to all of West Hill. To take • the station and only half of West Hill (1) would be cost inefficient for Renton (staffing a full fire station to serve a population of only 7,000 people) and (2) it would make it cost prohibitive for Seattle to annex the remaining area of West Hill (because Seattle would have to build and staff another station in West Hill to serve an equally small population) • Annexation of Areas 1 and 3: In reality, it would cost the City considerably more to annex Areas 1 and 3 than it would to annex the entire area.The allocated cost of annexing Areas 1 and 3 in Table 1 suggest that the two Areas combine to generate $6.3 million'in revenue, but $9.1 million in costs, resulting in a gap of $2.8 million. However, in a scenario where Renton takes Areas 1 and 3, and Seattle takes Area 2, the real cost to the city would exceed $2.8 million. Having annexed Areas 1 and 3, the incremental cost of providing services to Area 2 for services • like police and fire are likely to be small. Once the City has staffed the Skyway Fre Station, the incremental cost of providing fire service to Area 2 will actually be less than Area 2's allocated cost of $270,000 (the cost might be as little as $100,000 or less). It is probably also true that, once 111 ; BERK & ASSOCIATES Page6 y o City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill the Renton Police Department establishes patrol districts in Areas 1 and 3,the incremental cost of providing police services to Are 2 could be much less than the allocated cost of$358,000 (this cost might be as little as $150,000). Overall, on an incremental basis, the costs of serving Area 2 might be roughly $800,000, while the incremental revenues generated by Area 2 would near $1.5 million.This results in net incremental revenues from including Area 2 of$700,000. Looking at it from the other direction, annexation of all three areas would cost the City$2.4 million (net), but annexation of Areas 1 and 3 alone might have a net cost to the City of as much as $3.1 million. The City would bear the cost of staffing a new fire station and two new patrol districts either way,l so if Area 2 is excluded, the cost of the station and the patrol -3 districts will remain (and be spread over a smaller base) but the City will lose all of the revenues • : Area 2 generates. Capital Cost Impacts In addition to the day-to-day operating costs of City programs, the City of Renton must consider the construction and maintenance of existing and new capital facilities that exist in West Hill today. The primary capital costs that Renton would face in West Hill would include transportation (road) improvements, maintenance and replacement of surface water management facilities; responding to runoff and flooding complaints, and potentially, the replacement of future park and recreation facilities. Potential capital liabilities much farther in the future include serving 350 households currently unserved by Skyway Water&Sewer or the City of Renton, and assuming ownership of the community center at the end of the County's long-term lease after 2018. Using King County's current investment in these capital needs as a proxy, Renton could face the following annual demands for capital investment: • Roads: $8.2 million in 6-year capital needs; $358,000 identified as high-priority;about$200,000 annually for roads overlay. • Surface Water Management:.maintenance of current facilities and creation of new ditches and culverts. • Parks: replacement of equipment and upgrading sports courts and fields. The total capital revenues generated in West Hill annually from Real Estate Excise Tax, SWM Fees, and Business License Fees total just over$900,000 annually, which would appear to be sufficient to cover identified high-priority and medium-priority capital needs. In addition to existing capital revenue streams, the Washington State Legislature expects to consider legislation in the coming session that would create a new 0.4% Real Estate Excise Tax that would replace mitigation fees for City's that choose to make the switch. If enacted, the new tax would generate another$400,000 per yea in West Hill, further bolstering the areas' ability to finance capital investments. The capital investment sections below include an inventory of known and needed capital infrastructure as identified by the King CountyCapital Investment Program (CIP). This inventoryis L j BERK & ASSOCIATES : Pagel City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill , r � coupled with an understanding of the City of Renton's investment policies and infrastructure standards, and notes some of the capital investment challenges the City could face in the future. Long-Run Fiscal Impacts As has been established in the discussion of current operating impacts, annexation of West Hill will introduce annual costs to the City of Renton's operating budget. Having clarified short-term costs, the next question is: What is likely to change in the future?If Renton annexes West Hill, looking 20 years into the future, is West Hill's fiscal role likely to be one of improving the City's fiscal sustainability? Or, • is West Hill likely to remain a net absorber of City resources? Given existing fiscal challenges, Renton's strongest fiscal engine for the future is likely to be growth in : • ::; retail sales taxes. Among the City's three major tax sources: (1) property taxes, (2) sales taxes, and (3) utility taxes, only retail sales tax is likely to grow at a rate of 5% or more (a rate of growth the City will probably need in order to maintain current levels of service). If retail sales tax isthe engine of City revenue growth (and if the City does not forestall the eroding effects of 1-747 through levy lid lifts) then a//of the City's residential neighborhoods (including West Hill) are likely to become a greater net cost to the City in the long run. t. One force that will strengthen the contribution of residential neighborhoods as a whole are proposed sales tax sourcing rule changes that will allow cities to collect sales taxes on delivered goods based on r i the point of delivery (as opposed to the current practice of taxing them based on the point of origin). E Looking farther into the future, interstate taxation of delivered goods (purchased through the internet or via catalog) would further strengthen the value of residential neighborhoods. Other factors that are specific to West Hill include: 1. Potential shifts in Renton's ability to collect electric utility taxes in.West Hill (see discussion below); and 2. Potential for improved competitiveness of West Hill's commercial center on Renton Avenue; One large potential risk the City faces revolves around the prospect that at some point in the future, one or both of West Hill's casinos could close, reducing revenues to the City by up to$1 million. While many uncertainties exist, scenarios do exist that would suggest the revenue shortfall in West Hill could narrow by, perhaps, as much as a million dollars in coming years. Such a scenario would include implementation of taxation on interstate purchases (accompanied by trends towards more internet purchase); levy lid lifts to mitigate the eroding effects of 1-747 on the City's property tax levy; and a.change in Renton's ability to tax electric utility revenues in West Hill. Negative scenarios that would result in greater net costs over time would include some combination of no levy lid lifts (resulting in continued erosion of Renton's property tax levy rate), poor property appreciation in West Hill relative to the rest of the City, and/or eventual closure of West Hill's casinos. BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page8 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill t . Table of Contents Executive Summary I 1 } Background 1 Study Purpose and Approach 1 Facilities in the Study Areas 4 • • Summary of Findings 5 Annexation Scenarios 5 Capital Cost Impacts 7 Long-Run Fiscal Impacts 8 Table of Contents g Introduction:Study Purpose and Background 11 Report Organization 13 Key Assumptions 14 Study Area Characteristics 15 Population and Growth 15 Property Values I 15 Retail Sales 15 Summary of Fiscal Operating Impacts 16 Annexation Scenarios 17 • Key Operating Costs and Revenues 19 • Major Revenues 19 Property Tax 1 9 Utility Taxes and Electric Utility Payment 19 Local Sales Tax 20 ' BERK & ASSOCIATES Page9 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Major Costs 21 Police Services 21 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 22 Public Works 22 Community Services 23 Key Capital Costs and Revenues 24 Major Capital Costs 24 Road Facilities 24 Surface Water Management Facilities 27 - Parks&Recreation Facilities 28 Utilities 29 Capital Revenues Generated in West Hill 29 Business License Fee 29 Real Estate Excise Tax 29 Surface Water Management(SWM)Fees 30 Long-Run Fiscal Impacts 31 A Framework for Looking Ahead 32 Potential Shifts in Service Costs 32 Potential Shifts in Revenue Generation 33 West Hill's Impact 34 Retail Sales Taxes 34 Property Taxes 34 Other Potential Impacts 37 Technical Appendix A 39 'III ! BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page 10 • r 7 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Introduction: Study Purpose and Background In response to the requirements of Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA), during the early 1990s King County and the suburban cities worked together to develop a framework of policies to guide jurisdictions as they planned for the future. These policies, referred to as the Countywide Planning Policies, are King County and the suburban cities' interjurisdictional plan for implementing the goals of the Growth Management Act. As directed by the GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies explicitly address the status of unincorporated urban areas.Among other things,the policies call for.: • Elimination of unincorporated urban islands between cities. • The adoption by each city of a Potential Annexation Area, in consultation with residential groups in the affected area. • The annexation or incorporation of all unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundary within a 20-year timeframe (1994—2013). In an effort to advance the discussion of governance options for the West Hill area, the King County Office of Management& Budget commissioned a 2005 analysis of the future governance options for the West Hill community. This Alternatives Study, which was designed to inform West Hill residents and businesses about their governance options, included an assessment of three alternative futures: (1) annexation to a neighboring city, (2) remaining unincorporated, and (3) incorporating as a new city. The City of Renton was interested in taking advantage of analyses developed for the Governance Alternatives Studyto simultaneously develop a complimentary analysis that assesses the fiscal impacts of annexing West Hill from the City's perspective.The City contracted Berk&Associates to assess the full operating costs and capital needs that Renton would face if it were to annex any of three study areas, identified as Areas 1 through 3, or all of West Hill as a whole. Berk&Associates has prepared the following analyses summarized in this report. There are a number of reasons why Renton might want to annex all or part of West Hill. In.terms:'of community function, West Hill actss a part of the City of Renton.West Hill residents playand shop in Renton.West Hill is part of the Renton School District.West Hill and Renton have similar demographic characteristics. And now and in the'future, many of the things that happen (or don't happen) in West Hill have a direct impact on Renton. Recognizing the many reasons Renton has an interest in annexing West Hill, the goal of this analysis is to provide City decision makers with information about what the cost of annexation might be. 111 BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page 11 r. City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill r , 1. Operating Revenue and Operating Cost Assessment • Develop a current snapshot of new revenues that would accrue to the City upon annexation given existing area characteristics and Renton's existing tax and fee structure. • Develop a current snapshot of new operating costs the City would face given existing demand • for service in the West Hill area and given Renton's existing service levels. • Assessment of 20-year revenues and service costs based on current revenue and cost structures and potential future conditions. 2. Capital Needs and Revenue Assessment • Catalog identified infrastructure needs in West Hill for roads, surface water, and parks based on a review of King County's current CIP and identified but unprogrammed needs in the County's Transportation Needs Report. • Identify capital revenues generated in each annexation study area. As a baseline assessment, this study looks at the net fiscal gap the new, expanded City of Renton would face if the City were to annex any of the identified annexation areas, while simultaneously trying to maintain current levels of services and current levels of taxes and fees. To provide intuitive and up-to-date information about estimated impacts, this analysis provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would be if the City were in the position of fully governing each study area in 2005. The assessment is based on 2005 budgeted expenditures and 2005 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Renton 2005 Adopted Budget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state operation. In essence, these steady-state impacts reflect the ongoing "costs" that the City would face each year, beginning, perhaps, in the third or fourth year after annexation and extending into perpetuity. • The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to extend current service levels to the contemplated annexation without increasing taxes is to present decision • makers and the public with a picture of the true "cost"of annexation. • Ultimately, of course, any such gap between costs and revenues is hypothetical. Cities have no choice but to cover their costs of operation. If Renton were to annex any of the contemplated annexation areas, any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some combination of(1) stretching City resources through increased efficiencies or decreased levels of service and/or(2)increasing City revenues. ® BERK & ASSOCIATES . Page12 ' t City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Report Organization This remainder of this report is organized into five sections: • A discussion of some of the Key Assumptions that helped shape the analysis; • A brief discussion of the some of the Study Area Characteristics; • A Summary of Impacts; • A discussion of Key Operating Costs and Revenues, Key Capital Costs and Revenues;and • A brief discussion of Long-Term Fiscal Implications and Strategic Issues regarding annexation. ! BERK & ASSOCIATESj Page 13 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Key Assumptions The analysis that is summarized in this report is shaped by a number of key assumptions: • The three identified annexation areas would receive levels of service similar to those now 0. provided by the City of Renton. • The current level of service, staffing and expenditures in Renton is the benchmark for forecasting comparable levels of service, staffing and costs in the annexation area. This study does not evaluate whether Renton's existing levels of service, staffing or expenditures are acceptable or sustainable with existing resources and staffing. • Cities that have undertaken annexations in the past have found that there is a surge in demand for services after annexation. This study's methodology of directly estimating demand for services that will be introduced upon annexation for key expense categories will produce a more accurate forecast than a simple population-driven forecast, but it does not attempt to address transition or "ramp-up" costs, nor does it address surges in demand that the City might see in the first few months after annexation. • This fiscal analysis includes cost and revenue estimates only for those taxes or services that would change upon annexation. Local services that would not change include water and sewer, schools, regional transit, health services, and regional parks. In other words, after annexation, existing school district boundaries would remain as they are, and regional transit, health and regional parks will continue to be provided by King County. Also, this analysis assumes that Renton would not take over provision of water and sewer service in West Hill upon annexation. Rather, the Skyway Water&Sewer District would remain in place. • To give the clearest possible view of the net operating costs of annexation, this summary of operating costs and revenues combine costs and revenues that accrue to the City's General and Street funds. The costs and revenues of the Surface Water Management and other enterprise funds, however, have been held separate. • The need to support capital investments and infrastructure development is difficult to accurately estimate given the current level of investment by King County, which is minimal today with the exception of roads projects. Over time, the type and quality of capital facilities in West Hill would be aligned with those provided with the rest of the City, but major investments in new capital development would not occur immediately upon annexation. BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page 14 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Study Area Characteristics Population and Growth In total, the three study areas included in this analysis are home to almost 14,000 residents and some businesses, including retailers and service providers.The largest and most populous area is Area 3, with an estimated 2005 population of 7,217. Areas 1 and 2 have estimated 2005 populations of 4,388 and 2,310, respectively. • West Hill is developed, and,there are opportunities for additional, infill development, but few opportunities for large-scale residential developments exist Even with opportunities for infill development, little commercial development has occurred in West Hill in the past decade, and population in the area increased ey less than 400 people from 2000 to 2005, an average annual growth rate of 0.5%. Property Values Combined, the three contemplated annexation areas include slightly more than $1 billion in taxable 4:N property. In per-capita terms, Ara 2, Lakeridge, has relatively high levels of taxable property, $135,000 per resident Area 1 (which includes Bryn Mawr) and Area 3 bring roughly $93,000 and $69,000 of taxable property per resident, respectively. Currently, the City of Renton has $120,000 of taxable property per resident—with a more than 40%of that value coming from commercial property. Retail Sales Combined, the three contemplated annexation areas would generate roughly $370,000 of revenue for the City.As residential areas,thel three study areas would generate sales tax revenues ranging from $23 per capita, for Areas 1 and 2, to $30 per capita for Area 3. These figures compare less-than- favorably with the City of Renton's sales tax revenues,which exceeded $280 per resident in 2004. The average retail sales revenues for all of Washington state cities were roughly$185 per city resident in 2004. • 11, IBERK & ASSOCIATESi Page 15 S City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Summary of Fiscal Operating Impacts As a whole, if the City of Renton were to annex the three contemplated annexation areas, the net operating cost to the City would approach $2.4 million per year (Table 2). (For further discussion of fire service, see discussion of Fire and Emergency Medical Services on page 22.) To put this figure into context, $2.4 million represents approximately 9% of Renton's total General Fund budgeted expenditures for 2005. Of the three study areas, one area would generate positive net operating revenues for the City (Area 2, which is the Lakeridge neighborhood) and the other two areas would generate net costs. Of the total net costs, however, the largest share (approximately $2.3 million) is generated in Study Area 3, the Area with the largest population and the poorest tax fundamentals. In addition to Area 3's relatively low tax base, Area 3 also encompasses almost all of the existing park facilities in the contemplated annexation areas. Our estimates do assume that the populations of Areas 1 and 2 would introduce new demands for recreation services, but it would be the maintenance of the park facilities in Area 3 that would introduce the majority of estimated Parks and Recreation costs, which are included under Community Services division. Area 3 also includes the Skyway Library,which would become Renton's third city library upon annexation of the area. Table 2 summarizes an estimate of the impact that annexation of each of the three study areas would have on the City's operating costs and revenues. In effect, Table 2 summarizes the costs that are distributed based on the distribution of demand for City services, but the incremental costs of annexing a given area will vary by scenario. • To reflect the true cost of annexation to the City, Table 2 includes annualized facility costs that would be associated with an increase in the number of City employees. This cost could be viewed as the annual cost of leasing space for additional City Hall staff, Police and Fire Department employees, maintenance workers, etc. Another way to think of these facilities costs would be in terms of the annual cost of a capital bond that would cover the cost of building new City facilities. For annexation of all three areas,facilities costs are estimated at$463,000. If one were to exclude facilities costs from the operating deficit, which some cities do, then the baseline operating gap associated with annexing all three areas would drop to approximately$2 million. Again, these estimated impacts are based on the assumption that, upon annexation, the City would attempt to extend current levels of services to each contemplated annexation area. These estimates include the combined impacts on the City's General and Street fund, but do not include the operating costs or revenues of the Surface Water Management (SWM) Fund or other enterprise funds. Appendix A provides a more thorough breakdown of the component costs and revenues and a discussion of the methods used to estimate each. • ri BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page16 • • f • i City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • Table 2: Summary of Operating Costs and Revenues for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 Dollars) Operating Costs • ! Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Total Police Services 1,009,000 358,000 1,912,000 3,279,000 $ . Fire Services ; 538,000 270,000 1,855,000 2,663,000 k Planning, Building and Public Works 557,000 349,000 769,000 1,675,000 Community Services I 148,000 82,000 930,000 1,160,000 Administrative,Judicial&Legal Services 150,000 62,000 316,000 528,000 Finance and Information Services 92,000 45,000 219,000 356,000 Human Resources&Risk Management 20,000 10,000 47,000 77,000 s--- Economic Development 1 23,000 5,000 47,000 75,000 Legislative 4,000 2,000 9,000 15,000 Staff-related Facility Costs � 120,006 58,006 285,006 463,000 TOTAL COST 2,661,000 1,241,000 6,389,000 10,291,000 Operating Revenue Property Tax ! $1,280,000 $970,000 $1,550,000 $3,800,000 r Gambling Tax $0 -$0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Utility Tax $304,000 $155,000 $483,000 $942,000 State Shared Revenues $153,000 $82,000 $245,000 $480,000' Sales Tax $103,000 $52,000 $219,000 $374,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $90,000 $50,000 $140,000 $280,000 ,. Fines& Forfeits i $64,000 $23,000 $122,000 $209,000 Electric Utility Payment $49,000 $28,000 $79,000 $156,000 : Recreation Fees $29,000 $21,000 $33,000 $83,000 Permit Fees $120,000 $91,000 $145,000 $356,000 Cable Franchise Fees $40,000 $20,000 $60,000 $120,000 TOTAL REVENUE $2,232,000 $1,492,000 $4,116,000 $7,840,000 NET REVENUES ($429,000) $251,000 ($2,273,000) ($2,451,000) Source:Berk&Associates analysis Note:For more detailed breakdowns of costs and revenues,and for a discussion of the methods used to estimate each cost and revenue source,see Appendix A. If one looks at annexation scenarios, the incremental costs of including or excluding areas will vary. In particular, when one looks at the difference between a large annexation with or without Area 2, the benefits of including Area 2 are likely to be much larger than thea/located benefit of$251,000. Annexation Scenarios Four annexation options are available to City: ' 1. Annexation of all three Areas: This scenario would result in the $2.4 million net cost to the City estimated above. 2. Annexation of all or part of Area 1: Area 1 includes the Bryn Mawr Fire Station. If the City were to annex the Area, the Fire Department reports that they would look to close the Bryn Mawr ti Station and serve the Area from existing Renton Fire Stations. The more of Area 1 the City rg I BERK & ASSOCIATES Page 17 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill annexes, the more challenging it would become for the Department to serve the annexed Area. However, if Renton were to annex the entire Area and provide fire and emergency medical services to the area from existing City stations, the net cost of annexation would be the estimated $429,000 cited above. In this case, the estimated costs of providing fire service are meant to capture the incremental load that would be placed on the City's existing fire stations and staff. 3. Annexation of Areas 1 and 2: If Renton were to annex only Areas 1 and 2, but not annex Area 3, then the logistical difficulties of fire protection noted above would be even more pronounced. In fact, it is unlikely that the City could annex and serve all of Area 2 without locating a fire station in, or close to, Bryn Mawr or Lakeridge. In theory, if Seattle did not annex other portions of West Hill, it would be possible for Renton to enter into a contract arrangement with Fire District 20 and have the Fire District continue to provide services in Areas 1 and 2 in exchange for a City payment Providing fire services through such a contract would add roughly$200,000 to the net cost of annexing Areas 1 and 2 presented above. Perhaps more important, in the long run, it would be unreasonable to expect that the Fire District could remain in place (given King Counts strong desire to have West Hill annexed). If Renton were to annex Areas 1 and 2, and Seattle eventually annexed remaining portions of West Hill, Renton would be put in a situation where the City would have to provide fire services to the new neighborhoods through a new station. This could dramatically increasethe net costs of z :. serving Areas 1 and 2. 4. Annexation of Areas 1 and 3: In reality, it would cost the City considerably more to annex Areas 1 and 3 than it would to annex the entire area. The allocated cost of annexing Areas 1 and 3 in Table 2 suggest that the two areas combine to generate $6.3 million in revenue, but $9.1 million in costs, resulting in a gap of $2.8 million. In fact, however, in a scenario where Renton takes Areas 1 and 3, and Seattle takes Area 2,the real cost to the city would exceed $2.8 million. Having annexed Areas 1 and 3, the incremental cost of providing services to Area 2 for services like police and fire are likely to be small. Once the City has staffed the Skyway Fire Station, the incremental cost of providing fire service to Area 2 will actually be less than Area 2's allocated cost of $270,000 (the cost might be as little as $100,000 or less). It is probably also true that, once the Renton Police Department establishes patrol districts in Areas 1 and 3, the incremental cost of providing police services to Area 2 could be much less than the allocated cost of$358,000 (this cost might be as little as $150,000). Overall, on an incremental basis, the costs of serving Area 2 might be roughly$800,000,while the incremental revenues generated by Area 2 would approach $1.5 million.This results in net incremental revenues from including Area 2 of$700,000. Looking at it from the other direction, annexation of all three areas would cost the City$2.4 million (net), but annexation of Areas 1 and 3 alone might have a net cost to the City of as much as $3.1 million. The City would bear the cost of staffing a new fire station and two new patrol districts either way, so if Area 2 is excluded, the cost of the station and the patrol districts will remain (and be spread over a smaller base) but the City will lose a//of the revenues Area 2 generates. liR I BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page 18 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • Key Operating Costs and Revenues In Renton, as in most cities, the majority of the City's costs are concentrated in a relatively small number of service categories and the majority of revenues accrue from a small number of sources. Following is a brief overview of these central cost and revenue categories and a discussion of the impact that differing service demands and revenue bases in the three study areas have on the overall fiscal impacts of annexation. Major Revenues i • Property Tax Combined, annexation of the three study areas would bring an estimated $1.2 billion of additional taxable property to the City. In peri capita terms, Area 2 (Lakeridge neighborhood) has substantially higher property values than the other two study areas. Assessed value per resident by area is as follows: • Area 1:$93,000; • Area 2: $135,000;and • Area 3:$69,000. Given these values of taxable property, and given Renton's 2005 regular City levy rate of $3.14 per $1,000 of assessed value, if the City had governed the three study areas in 2005, they would have generated roughly$3.8 million in property tax revenues. Utility Taxes and electric Utility Payment The City of Renton currently levies a 6%tax on revenues that are generated in the City from the sale of telephone services (including cell phone services), natural gas, cable television, and garbage and water/sewer services.The City also levies a tax on the sale of electricity in the city. Based on statistical analysis of utility tax revenues and characteristics of other cities, we estimate that, as a whole, the utility taxes would have generated slightly less than $1.0 million in additional City revenues if the study areas had been part of the City in 2005. Of this total: • 32%would come from taxes on telephone services; • 33%would come from the water/sewer/storm drainage tax; • 13%would come from the sale of natural gas; • 16%would come from cable services; and • 7%would come from taxes on garbage fees. All three of the contemplated annexation areas addressed in this study are included in Seattle City Light's service area. Therefore, by State law, they are not subject to the Renton's utility tax on electricity. Rather, the City of Seattle collects electric utility taxes from those residents, and under current law,would continue to do so even if Renton annexed the area. BERK & ASSOCI1ATES Page 19 1 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • If the areas were annexed, however, the City of Renton would have the opportunity to negotiate a payment from the City Light Portions of the City of Burien are also served by City Light, and Burien has negotiated a payment roughly equal to 3% of City Light's gross energy billings in the area in • question.We estimate that if Renton were to negotiate an equivalent payment,the City would receive $156,000 from Seattle City Light. Presumably, City Light negotiates these payments with neighboring cities for two reasons: • 1. It is in Seattle's fiscal interest to ensure that existing State laws do not change.The City of Seattle generates millions of dollars in utility tax payments levied on customers that are not within the City boundaries (and in many cases, are located in other cities). Given that the law appears to be unfair—Burien residents are paying taxes to support City services they don't receive—it seems reasonable that a concerted lobbying effort in Olympia by affected cities could result in a change in the statute or to codify an in-lieu-of payment to neighboring cities. (Tacoma and its neighboring cities would also be affected by a change in the law.) 2. If City Light did not make payments to cities to partially "make up" for lost city utility taxes, and if a change in State law did not occur, the cities in question would have a strong incentive to seek a change in their electrical service provider. To the extent that cities were successful, City Light would see a diminished customer base and the City of Seattle would lose a//of the utility taxes it collects from those customers. Very recently, a watchdog group of Seattle residents sued City Light in an effort to, among other things, end City Light payments to neighboring cities like Burien. In recent years, the same group has successfully sued City Light over a number of uses of City Light revenues. Their argument in this case (and past cases) is that these are inappropriate and illegal uses of utility revenues. If successful, it appears that three potential outcomes are possible: 1. Affected cities could lobby the State Legislature for a change in the law which would allow cities to tax revenues generated City Light and Tacoma Power, or to require in-lieu-of payments from Seattle or Tacoma. 2. Affected cities could seek to change their electric service provider in an attempt to keep the utility taxes generated within the City. 3. The City of Seattle, itself, could negotiate payments to neighboring cities. In effect, this would mean that Seattle would have to split the utility taxes it collects in neighboring cities. Given the choice between splitting revenues and losing them entirely, it would appear that Alternative 3 would be a likely scenario. Faced with the prospect of sharing utility tax revenues or losing them altogether, Seattle would be likely to share the revenues. • Local Sales Tax For many cities in Washington State, tax dollars generated by the local portion of the retail sales and use tax are the single largest source of city revenues. In 2004, cities in Washington received an average of$180 per resident in local sales tax revenues. With many of these dollars concentrated in a II : BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page 20 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill handful of larger cities, however, the median city in the state received a far lower$97 per resident. By comparison, Renton generated approximately$185 in local sales tax dollars per resident in 2004. Retail sales tax is calculated as a percentage of the sale price of tangible personal property (with the exception of groceries and prescription medicine) and many services purchased by consumers. Beyond its application to tangible personal property, sales tax is also applied to items such as telephone service; the installation,1 repair, or cleaning of tangible personal property; and to the construction or improvement of new or existing buildings, including labor and services provided E.- throughout the process. Of the 8.8% sales tax currently collected in the City and the potential annexation areas, a 1% "local" tax accrues to local jurisdictions. Irk the unincorporated area the full 1% local tax accrues to King County (with the exception a small portion that is retained by the State Department of Revenue to cover collection and distribution costs). If the transaction location is within a city like Renton, the city receives 85%of the 1% local tax and the County receives 15%. Combined, the three contemplated annexation areas would generate roughly $374,000 of sales tax revenue for the City. The sales tax revenues would range from $23 per capita, for Areas 1 and 2, to $30 per capita for Area 3. Major Costs Police Services At a total cost of$3.3 million, the provision of police services represents more than a third of the total operating costs the City would incur if it annexed West Hill. Compared to other allocations of service demand (and hence service costs)kwe estimate that police costs will be more heavily concentrated in Study Area 3 (Skyway), which h'as a history of higher demand for police services and higher concentrations of uses that typically drive police service demand (more retail and other commercial activity, casinos, more multifamily housing, and more renter-occupied housing). Based on statistical modeling of hundreds of cities in Washington State (which derives demand for police staffing from the unique mix;of characteristics of each city), and based on Renton's current level of service, Berk& Associates estimates that annexation of all three areas would increase the need for commissioned officers by 17%above current police staffing levels in the City of Renton. With Berk's demand model as a starting point, the Renton Police Department assessed the logistical demands of policing West Hill and estimated that the Department would need to create two additional patrol districts in West Hill.All together, the Department estimates that serving West Hill will require a combined 20% increase in staffing, adding 27 full-time-equivalent positions to the �. : Department. Allocations of costs presented in Table 2 are based on the relative share of demand generated from Berk&Associates' statistical model. In practical terms, however, Area 2 is expected to generate only a small portion of demand for police services. Given this low demand, and given the logistical requirements of policing Area 3, ;it is likely that if the City has committed to policing Area 3, the BERK & ASSOCIATES ( Page21 icy City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill incremental costs of policing Area 2 would be quite small—even smaller than the $358,000 cost included in Table 2. Fire and Emergency Medical Services The estimated costs Renton would incur to provide fire and emergency medical services (EMS) in the contemplated annexation areas is based on the City's 2005 budgeted costs of providing service, multiplied by the estimated additional demand for fire staffing that the contemplated annexation areas would have introduced in the same year. Based on smaller land area, lower population, and close proximity to Renton's current fire stations, if only Study Areas 1 and 2 were annexed to the City, the assumption is that Renton Fire Department would continue to serve these areas out of its existing fire stations, marginally increasing demand for staffing and support services. However, given the distance between the City's existing stations and the far reaches of Area 2, providing fire services to all of Area 2 would be difficult at best This means that, absent annexation of the Skyway Fire Station, it would probably not be feasible for the City to annex and serve a//of Areas 1 and 2. If Renton were to annex all of West Hill, the Fire Department indicates that it would close the Bryn Mawr Station (which is old, small, and not necessary for effective provision of fire and EMS services) and would service the area from the existing Skyway Fire Station. The fire service costs for annexation of Area 3 would be significantly higher as evidenced in Table 2. These expenditures were estimated based on conversations with Renton Fire Department and an assumption that staffing for one engine and one aid car would be located at the Skyway Station. Currently, Fire District 20 staffs West Hill with a small number of full-time firefighters, while rounding out their staffing with volunteers. This means that, depending on the time of day, staffing at the two stations varies from a low of three or four during the day (enough to staff an engine) to higher levels in the evenings (enough to staff one or more engines and an aid car). Renton's approach would be to staff the Skyway Fire Station with five positions 24 hours a day, seven days a week, enough to staff an • engine and an aid car, and rely on the City's other stations for backup. This would typically mean that Renton would bring greater capacity to respond to emergencies during the day, while Fire District 20's staffing levels allow slightly greater capacity in the evenings. (Typically, fire departments might expect to see their greatest demand between 9:00 in the morning and 9:00 at night) It is worth noting that Fire District 20 currently maintains lean staffing during parts of the day (times that are typically considered peak demand hours) and residents of West Hill report that they are very satisfied with the service they receive. As with police services, Area 2 is expected to generate only a small portion of demand for fire and EMS services. Given this low demand, and given the requirements of staffing the Skyway Fire Station, it is likely that, if the City has committed to providing fire and EMS services to Area 3, the incremental costs of serving Area 2 would be quite small—substantially smaller then the $270,000 cost included in Table 2. • Public Works The core public works functions that are included in the summary of operating impacts include those operating functions that are funded out of the City's General and Street funds. In total, provision of BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page22 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill these services in the contemplated annexation areas is estimated to cost the City slightly more than $1.7 million. This Department is comprised of the following divisions and their respective budgets: Development Services ($600,009), Maintenance Services ($627,000), Transportation Systems ($344,000), and Utility Systems ($84,000). Community Services Among the three contemplated annexation areas, only study Areas 1 and 3 (Bryn Mawr and Skyway, respectively), currently include park facilities. Area 1 includes Bryn Mawr Park (4.81 acres), which would be classified as a passive park (Table 3). Area 3 has Skyway Park, consisting of 23.08 acres which offers athletic fields and open play areas and would be classified as an active park. In relation to all three study areas combined, these parks provide the residents of West Hill with 2.0 acres of parks per 1,000 residents,with an emphasis on active parks. King County Library System's Skyway Library is located in Area 3, and Renton indicated that it would transition this branch into its library system if it annexed Area 3. The cost of operating and maintaining the Library would be approximately $350,000 annually. However, if Renton proceeds with annexing Areas 1 and/or 2 only, the City may not have to bear this cost, under the assumption that the residents of these areas will continue to use the KCLS'Skyway Library. The King County Library System is currently planning to build a new 8,000 square foot Skyway Library in 2011. Representatives at King County are currently working with KCLS to ensure that the new library will be completed even if the area annexes to Renton. Skyway Library is highly valued by residents and businesses in West Hill, and ensuring construction of the new library is likely to be a necessary condition for any successful vote for annexation. In total, community services costs would total approximately $1.2 million if all three West Hill study areas were annexed at the same time. Since Area 3 includes the library and most of the park acreage, Area 3 is associated with the majority of community services costs ($930,000). The remaining$230,000 of estimated community services costs is split between study Areas 1 and 2. These costs are mostly driven by 'demand for recreation services, which in turn are driven by the population base. The costs for community services for Area 1 are almost$150,000, accounting for a passive Bryn Mawr park located the're. Table 3: Park Facilities in Study Areas PARK NAME ACRES LOCATION FEATURES Bryn Mawr Park 4.81 Area 1 Open play field Skyway Park 23.08 Area 3 Athletic fields,open play field,play area Total 27.89 Source:King County Pak Community Services reports that they would seek to provide recreation activities at each of the three elementary schools in West Hill (Bryn Mawr Elementary in Area 1, Lakeridge Elementary in Area 2, :r• and Campbell Hill Elementary in Area 3). : BERK & ASSOCIATES ! Page 23 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Key Capital Costs and Revenues Major Capital Costs Road Facilities The table and map below summarize the roads facilities currently maintained by King County in the West Hill area. Overall, West Hill has 50.1 miles of roads whose maintenance would become the responsibility of the City upon annexation. Adding West Hill to the City would increase the City's road miles by almost 26% (increasing the City's inventory from 196 miles now to 246 miles upon annexation). Table 4 Existing West Hill Roads Facilities Area Road Miles' Curb/Gutter Open Ditch Enclosed (linear feet) (linear feet) Pipe(linear feet) t 1 17.3 26,062 17,241 62,250 2 10.4 10,984 13,908 43,59.1 • 3 22.4 80,174 24,460 60,960 Total 50.1 117,220 54,809 116,801 • Source:King County Roads Services Division,Department of•Transportation,Berk&Associates Upon annexation, the City of Renton would be newly responsible for just over 50 paved lane miles in West Hill, including several neighborhood streets with a poor pavement condition rating (below a score of 20, meaning that over 40% of the roadway has cracking). Each City sets different standards for the rating which is explained in Table 5. This score is below the standards set by Renton, and these roads would need to be brought up to Renton's standards through the City's overlay program. Table 5 King County's Pavement Condition Scores Score %Cracking Rating 75+ 0-10% Excellent 50+ 11-25% Good 30+ 26-40% Fair 0+ 41% Poor Source:King County Roads Division,Department of Transportation IBERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page24 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Figure 2 Pavement Conditions on West Hill Roads ,,,---^' '"�: t,. L:!''.i ttf - - _ �4:o- .,,Inti »;€_.,• ''tY., ,,� / .t.0.i'_ -'� Ti.� 3 �Si:L a� '^s' ?µ7r a:K, CfT• r'�L L.`�= ','A:; L�?.-a•' i-., ..�.. .:f sir id",U�='S - r ,� C+.w. R.� t '�S -.r s' a '1,y.,t.-... 1..1••-_ r'x? ..,k.>, r '}' i)" e,q-..: 1 C n- E: 4 < �a:z 3:,.,, .z..,.< :xt a.,�.Y-t i• ^ifi s-.li- i t:..'l1: CSE` r:":,-e.s ?'i%i:.4 .. iL.�r 4:v,. ,"9.• ,- 'W n 5.��':;z>z.=i�'�.•;.t�s;�:a•:=^„�S�a r "9.�:.;t:,.�•-. �4�:..r:n�>x�irt„_S�z;�.•,'.:r...,_h.v.:.r.3ea}. .e.,��.2.two-tzs-e:�-s';,r,,�.��:T�:�.:ar>r::s`.:��$Fl.._.,me''`�_,�.��cc�,:rw'.�s.',.�.L._ .. I •.. vt". `,u•.S� `-_ ,.. '-'S'.�C� ROAD CONDITION RATING r -pMar.f-�t'- v''''?`4=;5,=;i N' y ,.�s 4• sr�'�5 : �® i ., 4 . -• .' :P 4 -4 e15 :i:�" . art • a�q z" '.� fir..._4r`,',; r 76 100 \ , 1 CPQ '' $`x�4i!."'t14.` ht,. ..'-. S1 756111111 �i �f `,,, ,4 r'ri S'4';,-:.1 1.-7,' • C' $ .as•_ tflag �[S.: a.. t, . 1 � �. S51'1y , III ':- 'i�6;,µF- 5 1 18th St , '.' f.:v.. ir,,,, ;7 i ;x:-, + Renton q � � .. - > ;�;k := h S 120th St C\01) Ti , '.1,,,7,,,r,,,,,ett:r'',:lt..,,,13,.;:.,-77,,..„-,,k&tt---‘7,„:„71,1.4kit.g,Itel,„.'.41,f4.:41.1,47,.,,xt:f.,4.! . •—• 31 -50 PRIPI ''',4-..','':- (,, 4111111116L. 1 Izot st h' ,s-...,, .! ,:-..;-,..".W.g..-Igsi, '-- \ ,g."..,. _-5? , P .- _...1 ,,,,i , 4.,.,1,-g,.4--,c 0, `Lj-.-..,.,-..}FF1c 74 .^� 'may, .ON! Q0.,;_c :LiV'f tr lY:,f .-,,,,,,- �'< ks s: rte. _._.: . _w.t -� ,� mac: �; .w"F ,.y�' .dD.i - ,, t k Kz5�'av: tftti,y' :.:( 'i 4'''.3 F iZ. .4 111E, s i wry» - •0.;;;%-c.7.#114' ,:�?A 'i�r0�'`.st lo- �'� ‘,1,,,. �+'�• ��• �'�gg�F�' L Aj.[. `'. .' fix' qtr 4} .. _a 1 Xt -- ,t. �f 'r•�-",. 32hd 5 132n • .. ,j .. f q r- r y..sV:4 • 1 r s rte. ' �`"-..':�"3.� '.':9i� �:Y a'-:<i:�w�'L;e "^".4 • ,' , 44'4'.4,.* "n?,1v..€€V<a4,',",4$211,:x''-:;s..; : -- S 135th St ., - ,jy.' ,�'.,.,,,*�:sr'.;:, 4yes,'" :• :, 4,.i 0 • ap'_ S 1341 '.' i - - Z.?+ • `v: ..s"s,.s,,:S .M;.,1:,"'''''i•;�.t��j=4; a .�R:r�':;'gym:s„a h S ��vv .:c:,,rar >,,:i''r,�v� :-meq" -_ ry'=+r`v _ �-:,. �.:�.; _- ,_ -rad X�.i?.:, Se:. : ,y°S. ----a."`uu�,s,. ,4.:=", ; - xis?`. ',,e e”, �..� r* - _ ti: aye 't },.•`•i: ;='" .,--kAg 0 A . '?.'7.1-_,. ., , ;4y t(' G, �,Ga°� s' -7 f4,: _ ;Fib.,: .,I,,,:RS., - �.'. ��,�.v• ,-_-...4,,,-,,:?:, `+"':' 'mss- y...w� . .Fr,.: a►� ^:> - 4,i-�' z�t`1. `aa✓, '.r. :t;314'c +.., ;.4`" °<'r�'.7.:L, r� 1, - o.y� '" - `' ."''-'tli6`V .':SP:nfY 4,l. w j.'m. '3' J i,t s:}y,4,,,,r;:p ..y R_u i .f G. _ i �j�.�`i"G+::' :.5�w"' .1.':•.,'.. `� fed,""�,.. `�,'"`e:5" 'u'i d„'G:� ,'.F '1,LV.e ;�' z 1 ,,.Kf. ?'._''�`:•i�",..:--.-n.,ip.':�;Mu'eu FL,a\::l.,;X"'i3: `:?c•r-fitr - ..a' tiA.Rln;�X��,�E�:.�.'il--�;,i-r ;i.�si5'.�ra' ,:,. .;s,:ts� �:. _44,44 ,f. -.7.,z._—_,,,,g 4 - � 1 ;,...,-;,;`,._:,...:,-,:7`. £ ' gi d — Ass S T S y z F t .,-,.,`r� -t r- � sV0,4 13 f R F A OC. is I �'L,u�'.#.'wl'r^;�J _-,"u' 'F .ras ::n-.zthf�`'�4tYJ�F�;t:•1^m"�.a -.�'4-k�.f% ;.a.xr,`idr.. ul:✓°�x�':.0 . .',.i.: 1 i Source:King County Roads Division,Department of Transportation Identified Road Facility Needs In addition to the current condition of roads facilities, West Hill residents participated from September £,:� 2000 to March 2001 in a process with King County's Road Services •Division to identify their •transportation priorities. •The Roads Division convened a 14-member citizen advisory group to review and make recommendations about pedestrian, bike and traffic safety improvements in the West Hill area. The study acknowledged the significant change the West Hill area had seen, with increases in BERK & ASSOCIATES Page25 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill population and housing density and sought the perspectives of West Hill residents' priorities. As noted in the table below, a capital project was created from the Division's Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP)for improvements. The group's recommendations for prioritizing these funds were four-fold: 1. Implement King County Road Services Division's recommended solutions in high-priority areas and as suggested by the advisory group (included 11 priority pedestrian walkway projects and four additional projects to be included if funding is available). • 2. Use all available funding sources to extend and expand the number of projects that can be accomplished,with an accompanying list of projects (primarily focused on pedestrian safety). 3. Keep a strong focus on major corridor concerns, sidewalk, drainage ditches and speeding in the neighborhood, particularly on Rainier Avenue south, MLK Boulevard and Renton Avenue. 4. Study five areas to evaluate the feasibility of recommended improvements: Rainier Avenue South, Renton Avenue South, Renton Avenue South Business District, South 129t Street and Interstate Access, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. From this set of recommendations the County's Transportation Needs Report(TNR) was also updated in 2004.The TNR identifies and plans for major capital investment needs for the roadways located in the unincorporated area of King County projected for 2022 and analyzes the County's ability to meet those needs within the revenues projected to be available to fund the County's capital projects over the same time period. It is in annually adopting the Roads Six-Year CIP that decisions are made about which of those projects will be constructed in the near-term six years. For West Hill, the TNR identifies a total need of $8.2 million in roads improvements. Each project is assigned a priority within four levels (high, medium, low, and to-be-determined). Most of the projects are assigned a low priority or "to be determined" priority. High-priority projects total $358,000 for pedestrian and signalization improvements in the following areas: • S 126th St from Renton Ave S to 74th PI S; • 78th Ave S from S 128th to S Langston;and • Rainier Ave S from 57th Ave S to SW Grady Way. Planned and Funded Road Improvements The table below identifies the current King County Capital Improvement Plan roads projects funded for West Hill. Major investments total nearly$700,000 in 2005 and $500,000 in 2006,with a primary focus on "quick response" projects identified in the West Hill Advisory Group Report, South 132nd Street, and pedestrian improvements. At least half of the projects referenced represent the project's share of countywide debt service and do not represent actual capital investments. BERK & ASSOCIATES Page26 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Table 6 King County Planned and Funded Road Improvement Projects, 2005-2006 2005 2006 Fund Project Project Name/Description Funding Planned Fund West Hill Quick Response(based on W. Hill Advisory 3850 300802 Group Report) $600,000 Renton Bldg Bond Debt Retirement(share of 800101 councilmanic bond) $4,292 z.a 800205 Hud Debt Service (share of larger project) $7,288 3850 Total $611,580 • • Fund S 132nd Stl Roundabout $500,000 • 3860 300207 (and 80th Avenue South,high accident location) 4 300505 S 132nd St1 $259,000 700005 Pit Site Improvements $5,506 999386 Cost Model,Contingency-386 $55,671 RDCW04 C/W Guardrail Program • $33,556 RDCW 14 Project Formulation • ($15,973) • RDCW 16 Permit Monitoring&Remediation $9,110 RDCW19 C/W Signals $16,008 RDCW26 C/W Overlay $164,582 3860 Total $527,461 RDCW28 Non-Motorized Improvements $92,716 Total $92,716 Grand Total $1,231,757 Source:King County Transportation Needs Report,Department of Transportation,Berk&Associates These exhibits suggest that the City of Renton would face the$8.2 million in six-year capital road needs, of which $358,000 in projects are identified as high-priority;and about$200,000 annually for roads overlay. Surface Water Management Facilities King County Division of Water and i.,and Resources reports that 18 privately owned drainage facilities, and 11 (County-maintained) residential drainage facilities exist in the West Hill area. Of the publicly- L { BERK & ASSOCIATES : Page27 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • maintained surface water facilities (e.g. retention ponds, tanks or ditches), four are located in Area 1 and six are in Area 3. King County currently manages three types of SWM capital projects in West Hill, with costs that vary up to $100,000 each year depending on the demand for drainage assistance projects. 1. Drainage assistance projects which arise from drainage complaints. These are one-by- one "fixes" that are identified based on a complaint, investigated, and affect three or more properties or are the result of upstream development Project investments could range from $1,000 to$70,000. 2. West Hill Drainage Projects capital project. This is a capital project that contains a small amount of funding to provide new culverts, ditches, and efforts needed to maintain the public right-of-way. Investments made through this project have slowed considerably in recent years because projects are contingent on landowners' acceptance which has not been received. • • 3. Maintenance of three regional retention/detention facility ponds (also known as "R&D" projects by the Division). These three stormwater facilities are located at South 123'd St & 84th Avenue S; South 1 12nd St. & 82nd Avenue South; and inside the boundaries of Skyway f-..' • Park. The County took ownership of these facilities when new developments came on-line, and Renton would be responsible for maintaining them upon annexation. Historically, the Water and Land Resources Division has funded seven neighborhood drainage capital projects, all relatively low-cost(below the threshold level of investment needed to warrant the creation of a capital project). The Division has not identified or funded any critical surface water management needs or projects in the recent past, and none are identified for the future. In addition, King County has no plans to construct curb and gutter storm drain infrastructure, which is considered an urban • service. Likewise, the Utility System Director and Planning/Building/Public Works Department has indicated that Renton does not have plans to construct drainage infrastructure in the City and would maintain existing drainage facilities and respond to complaints and emergent needs by prioritizing and funding projects in keeping with Renton Utilities' prioritization and funding process. Parks&Recreation Facilities King County currently operates and maintains two parks in the West Hill area: • Skyway Park, located at South 1210th and 70th Place South: 23.08 acres including 3 baseball fields, 2 barbecue facilities, a bridge, a football field, a soccer field, restroom, tennis courts and sport courts, open playfields, picnic shelter and play equipment • Bryn Mawr Park, located at 118th & 80th Avenue South: 4.81 acres of open space with no facilities. King County has no planned or historic capital investments in either park, and states that there are no unfunded capital needs for the parks. BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page28 ( City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill In the City of Renton, parks that ,receive high public use, with tennis courts, formal play fields, playgrounds and substantial parking receive larger shares of the budget than those containing only play fields, and require more capital)maintenance. Nearly 28 new acres of park land would be added to Renton's current 1,008 acres, representing slightly less than 3%of Renton's park lands. It is unlikely that the City of Renton would change the classification-of these parks or make major capital f„z investments in either park (except for a future investment in field conditioning or replacement of the play equipment which would likely tie included in the City's parks major maintenance budget). Finally, the community center in West Hill represents a potential capital cost to Renton, but far in the future. Skyway Community Center/Boys &Girls Club facility, located at 12400 80th Avenue South, is - co-located with Dimmitt Middle School.The facility is owned by King County, and leased for 15 years, through the year 2018, to the Boy & Girls Clubs of King County, which maintains and operates the facility. King County would retain ownership of the asset for the life of the lease. At that time, the disposition of this facility would likely be negotiated between the King County and the City of Renton. Upon annexation, it is not expected that this facility would present any capital cost burden to the City of Renton. Utilities Finally, there are roughly 350 households that are in an area of West Hill not currently served by the Skyway Water and Sewer District. the City of Renton has entered into an agreement stating that, in the event of annexation,the City would be the provider who would ultimately extend water and sewer service to these unserved areas. Upon annexation, when the time comes to extend water and sewer service to unserved areas, the City will face the decision of who bears the cost of that extension. The costs could be borne by the owners of the added properties, or the costs could be borne by ratepayers across the city. Capital Revenues Generated in West Hill From three revenue sources, Renton could expect to generate up to $900,000 in annual revenues to support capital projects from three sources: the business license fee, real estate excise tax, and surface water management fees. Business License Fee j The City of Renton's policy is to dedicate business license fee revenues (paid by businesses based on the number of employees) to capital expenditures. Based on the complement of businesses in West Hill today, this revenue source would generate approximately $47,000 in revenues that could support capital projects. Real Estate Excise Tax The three contemplated annexation areas would be expected to generate $504,000 in Real Estate . Excise Tax (REED revenues, as shown below by area. °if BERK & ASSOCIATES; Page29 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Table 7 Estimated Real Estate Excise Tax Revenue from West Hill (2005 dollars) Study Area REET Revenue 1 $146,000 2 $87,000 3 $271,000 Total $504,000 Source:Berk&Associates analysis REET revenues are statutorily restricted in their use to the funding of narrowly defined sets of capital expenditures and are not included in our calculation of operating revenues available to defray the day- to-day costs of providing governmental services, but these revenues would be available for capital projects. Estimated REEF revenues reflect the average value of real estate transactions in each study area over the past five years. In addition to existing REEF authority, the Washington State Legislature expects to consider legislation in the coming session that would create a new 0.4% Real Estate Excise Tax that would replace mitigation fees for cities that choose to make the switch. If enacted, the new tax would generate another $400,000 per year in West Hill, further bolstering the areas' ability to finance capital investments. Surface Water Management(SWM)Fees Based on Renton's surface water utility rates for single family and commercial users, the three study areas combined would generate roughly $387,000 in surface water fees each year; all of these revenues would be used to cover the operating costs of maintaining non-roadway facilities, or for capital or other SWM-related uses. BERK & ASSOCIATES ] Page 30 ( ' City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Long-Run Fiscal Impacts As has been established in the discussion of current operating impacts, annexation of West Hill will introduce annual costs to the City of Renton's operating budget. Having clarified short-term costs, the next question is: What is likely to change in the future?If Renton annexes West Hill, looking 20 years into the future, is West Hill's fiscal role likely to be one of improving the City's fiscal sustainability? Or, is West Hill likely to remain a net absorber of City resources? t . I Given existing fiscal challenges, Reriton's strongest fiscal engine for the future is likely to be growth in retail sales taxes. Among the City'sI three major tax sources: (1) property taxes, (2) sales taxes, and (3) utility taxes, only retail sales tax likely to grow at a rate of 50/0 or more (a rate of growth the City will probably need in order to maintain current levels of service). If retail sales tax isthe engine of City revenue growth (and if the City does not mitigate the eroding effects of 1-747 through levy lid lifts) then a//of the City's residential neighborhoods (including West Hill) are likely to become a greater net cost to the City in the long run. One force that will strengthen the contribution of residential neighborhoods as a whole are proposed sales tax sourcing rule changes that will allow cities to collect sales taxes on delivered goods based on the point of delivery (as opposed to the current practice of taxing them based on the point of origin). Looking farther into the future, interstate taxation of delivered goods (purchased through the internet or via catalog) would further strengthen the value of residential neighborhoods to a city's tax base. s : Other factors that are specific to West Hill include: 1. Potential shifts in Renton's ability to collect electric utility taxes in West Hill (see discussion below); and 2. Potential for improved competi iveness of West Hill's commercial center on Renton Avenue. If Renton does secure levy lid lifts lin future years to mitigate the impacts of 1-747, then higher-than- average property value increases injWest Hill could generate significant revenue growth. One large potential risk the City faces revolves around the prospect that, at some point in the future, one or both of West Hill's casinos could close, reducing revenues to the City by$1 million. While many uncertainties exist, scenarios do exist that would suggest that the revenue shortfall in West Hill could narrow by, perhaps, as much as a million dollars in coming years. Such a scenario would include implementation of taxation on interstate purchases (accompanied by trends towards more internet purchase); levy lid lifts to forestall the eroding effects of 1-747 on the City's property tax levy; above average increases in West Hill property values, and a change in Renton's ability to tax electric utility revenues in West Hill. Negative scenarios would include some combination of no levy lid lifts (resulting in continued erosion in Renton's levy rate), poor property appreciation in West Hill relative to the rest of the City, and/or eventual closure of West Hill's casinos. • BERK & ASSOCIATES ! Page31 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill A Framework for Looking Ahead A 20-year future forecast for a City like Renton will contain a great deal of risk and uncertainty. • On one hand, the City will continue to grow as it annexes areas to the east This growth will introduce new streams of revenue and new sources of cost In most cases, at the time of annexation, new areas will represent service demands, and therefore costs,for the City. On the other hand, the City also expects to undergo massive change through redevelopment over time. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that most of Renton's commercial center will look completely different in twenty years. The assessed value of downtown Renton could easily double in coming decades as entire areas of the City shift from underutilized residential or commercial land to high-value commercial or residential. This redevelopment can be expected to bring with it strong growth in property tax revenues, retail sales taxes, utility taxes, and business license fees. Adding even more to the complexity are questions of tax structure. If left unchecked, 1-747 limits on property taxes could erode Renton's property tax base to the point that property taxes will become a relatively unimportant component of the City's revenue stream. Since property taxes are the.major revenue source that Renton receives from residential neighborhood, this could mean that any residential neighborhood would become a net cost to the City. On the other hand, implementation of Sales Tax Streamlining, changes in sourcing rules, and the potential taxation of interstate internet s '? commerce could increase revenues from residential neighborhoods, particularly high-value housing. With all of these moving parts, we believe that the best way understand how West Hill's fiscal contribution to Renton is likely to change in the future is to (1) look at the likely growth in costs Renton will be facing in coming decades; (2) look at the likely engines of Renton's revenue growth in the future;and (3) look at how a changing West Hill is likely to fit into that picture. • Potential Shifts in Service Costs Over the long term, Renton, like any other city in the country, should expect to see high rates of growth in the costs of providing governmental services. The cost of government services are largely driven by costs of labor, and for the foreseeable future, the costs of labor can be expected to increase faster than the core rate of inflation. The principal drivers of this growth are (1) rapid growth in the cost of health care and health insurance, and (2) productivity increases in the private sector, which drive increases in the marginal value (and cost) of labor. Given trends towards redevelopment of property in areas radiating out from downtown Seattle (including redevelopment in southeastern Seattle), one can expect neighborhoods in West Hill to see increased investment in coming decades. With this increased investment, one could also expect to see decreased levels of demand for services such as police and fire services. Ultimately, however, given the logistics of providing police and fire services to West Hill, it is hard to envision any substantial reduction in the staffing levels in the Skyway Fire Station or in West Hill patrol districts. Demand for services that reflect a community's quality of life, such as parks,would be expected to increase. • IN I BERK & ASSOCIATES ! Page32 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill What all of this means is that West Hill's costs of service are likely to increase at the same rate as costs increase throughout the remainder of the City. This means that the question of whether West Hill continues to be a drain on City resources lies with questions of revenue generation. Potential Shifts in Revenu i Generation Given expected growth in City service costs, if the City of Renton wants to maintain current levels of service it will probably need to generate 5% more in revenues each year (again, not including revenues that come from populatioin growth). Given recent history, revenue growth of 5% or more is possible for the City. I Most of the contributions to Rentonrs revenue growth will need to come from three sources: • Retail sales tax: Over the past 112 years, retail sales tax has been the principal engine of Renton's revenue growth, growing at aril average annual rate of 6%. In order to maintain this level of growth, Renton will need to continue to capture a large portion of retail expenditures in south King County. Although the City faces challenges, potential for redevelopment of key commercial areas offers the City opportunities to continue rapid retail growth. • Property taxes: In a world of 1-747 limits on property tax growth, growth in Renton's property taxes will likely be dictated by (1) the 1% nominal growth allowed under 1-747; (2) the value of renovations and redevelopment (which might average between 1% and 2% of the City's assessed value each year); and (3) added value from City growth—either through construction or annexation:For purposes of this discussion, revenue growth from factors 1 and 2 will drive core revenue growth. Combining the two factors suggests that the City's core property tax growth will probably range between 2%and 30/0 each year. • The one method available to Renton for increasing property tax revenues at higher rates is to commit to seeking "levy lid lifts'from City voters. If voters were to approve a series of levy lid lifts that allowed the City to maintain its current levy rate over the coming years, then property tax revenues from "built" areas of the City could increase at a much faster rate (driven by overall increases in property values). I • Utility taxes: Utility taxes in Renton currently generate roughly $10 million per year, Which represents a little less than 20% of the City's tax revenue. From 1994 through 2003, per-resident utility tax revenues in the City have increased at an average annual rate of 3.6%. This suggests that utility taxes as a share of City revenues are likely to slightly outpace property taxes (absent a levy lid lift) but they are unlikely to keep pace with growth in retail sales taxes. 41 1111 \Tr BERK & ASSOCIATES : Page33 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill West Hill's Impact Retail Sales Taxes West Hill has one.community commercial center on Renton Avenue that currently generates relatively little retail sales tax.This retail center faces a number of challenges: • It is bisected by geography and high-voltage transmission lines,which makes it difficult for the area to generate any critical mass of activity; _ • The commercial center has received little support from any governmental economic development entity;and `= • Its core market area (perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 people) is populated by two different demographic concentrations: (1) relatively affluent households in Lakeridge and Bryn Mawr, and (2) lower-income households in neighborhoods more removed from Lake Washington. Many retail outlets, including grocery stores,find it difficult to simultaneously serve its base market of lower-income households and at the same time, attract higher income households from the ridge. If Renton were to annex West Hill, and if the area were to continue to redevelop, one could expect the performance of West Hill's commercial center to improve in coming years. A combination of local . governmental support from the City and a potential narrowing of the demographic gap in the area ': could be expected to result in a more vibrant community commercial center. • However, even a relatively strong neighborhood commercial center in West Hill will generate only modest sales tax revenues (perhaps in the range of $400,000 [compared with perhaps $150,000 generated in the center currently], or $30 per West Hill resident)]. Moreover,. from Renton's perspective, it is important to bear in mind that many of the people who live in West Hill already do a portion of their shopping in Renton. This means that, as a neighborhood of Renton, a $1 million increase in taxable sales in West Hill does not translate into a $1 million net gain to the City taxable sales as a whole. Under a scenario where West Hill's commercial center was to increase taxable retail sales by $250,000 per year, one could envision that $100,000 of those additional revenues would be new revenues to the City. Property Taxes Given recent redevelopment trends in southeast Seattle, particularly in areas that enjoy views; given worsening congestion on Puget Sound highways;and given the access that West Hill has to centers of employment growth in downtown Seattle and South Lake Union, one could expect West Hill to see substantial redevelopment in years to come. A review of residential property transactions in the past 11 years shows a clear concentration of properties radiating out from downtown Seattle that have seen annual valuation increases of 12% or more between property sales (see Figure 3).These concentrations of rapid valuation growth probably have two causes: BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page34 • • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill • 1. The areas in question have been the areas in the Puget Sound region that have seen the greatest general price appreciation over the past decade; and 2. As older neighborhoods, the areas of rapid value growth have been prime areas for housing renovation and redevelopment In other words, if someone bought a house in 1995, renovated the house, and then resold it in 2002, then one would expect the increase in value to be very high. If one looks at the map in Figure 3, it appears that West Hill in general, and the neighborhoods of Lakeridge and Bryn Mawr in particular are in line to see valuation increases in the coming decade. As has been true in southeast Seattle, these increases in values are likely to be accompanied by renovation and redevelopment of residential neighborhoods. In southeast Seattle neighborhoods around Rainier Beach and Seward Park, recent years of renovation and redevelopment have resulted in "new" assessed value averaging in the range of 1% to 2% of existing assessed value per year. Ifs West Hill were to achieve "new" assessed value equal to 2% of existing value, then that growth, combined with the 1% growth in revenues allowed by 1-747 would result in property tax growth of roughly 3% per year. This level of growth would probably be enough to keep pace with property tax growth in the remainder of Renton, but it would probably not be enough to keep property tax from slowly eroding as a revenue source for the City. If, however, Renton were to pursue a program of securing regular levy lid lifts, then it is possible that strong growth in property values in West Hill would generate substantial increases in net revenues from the area. Many possible scenarios exist, but if existing property in West Hill was to increase in value at an average annual rate of'7% per year, while properties in the remainder of Renton were to increase at a slightly lower rate of 5% or 6% per year, then over time, West Hill would become a much more important source of City property tax revenues (assuming, again, that the City secured levy lid lifts that allowed the City's levy rate to remain at or near current levels). If the City did not secure levy lid lifts, then 1-747 limits would prevent the City from benefiting from property value increases in West Hill. Instead, faster growth in values in West Hill would end up reducing City property taxes for other Renton property owners.An illustrative example: If values of existing properties in West Hill were to increase by 7% per year, while properties in the remainder of Renton increased at 5%, absent levy lid lifts, Renton would still see the same growth in revenues (the growth dictated by 1-747 limits). However, the faster-value growth in West Hill would drive down levy rates more quickly—an additional $0.10 in ten years—and would result in Renton homeowner saving roughly $50 in property taxes (for a house valued at $300,000 now, and $500,000 ten years from now). IA ! BERK & ASSOCIATES Page35 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Figure 3: Property Value Increases for Housing - • [...);L::::. .. ..:-J-:.,...,'1:4613:eritAiz_:-VpitiOtiollYelocreaseifovfM5q 1 C. � ex yip` -..,�.'s.'s,^. , ' �,x mow,y '�t� Y, 1r': ��p a• `.w iglad fi'i'<< - .. . . .. . .. �_:. .:�:t.... ....._... _,..,... .. .d.c .....,..._..,. .. _,.r. .,- :- ::�+:,uw.^d.:xa�-za_trt,.�- z..a�?ri-�.2n•.::.?i @'r::ca,y,.3:?v=•... - :•s:-y,^::'�kt,twtazM;?a:2`.-R..A4:;:-`,z9v,%,'54:4''-'ue;:1:P 5��'`11}'t'-_.,13;Fay;,:.':`,.tiR:.%_'• ---.i'*"t-rk' .r.--.:G K*'' ...-„,,,,.......„7‘4,a., ..44= gam. �. � '��•?�'4.,,0�� y ,J"1�.'� -4,•,,.....4 n`*,ri's ;f� � i�'�.-.4,7.1''!"..".a7,...7''''',','i; ''� r s`. •. ,. .�.'s;. .:.' l.�.. r •� Average Annual :_rr ,e• 5 rx -r,,,-,•17. ,,,,, r...,-7,,...:1.-,:-_ r' T. :r' "! � i• iy. .• Percentage •Increase .A. .. �^ -. • „, ,;..-.'.7: r: r +.y'F;� ._yr,. .. 5.096 or lP_SS k'. ▪ an • y: _ :.;1`r,:7'•"'j;` Fii .r l �S . .. X04 , 'e:."s rv. •i_,,4,. • d*. .= r •• 8.8%-12.0% .V�. _r, «. ,',A,-:',..7140,. • �� ...i�itr 'y {w.';, -T.Dias o •`Ilf.' `'� = c . . • 12.196 or more i•• '..„:9‘. 'y t •'.YC,:`.: • • • j • • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Note:Annual increases in value for each property apply to the period between the first and last transaction for the property in question.For example,if a property first purchase within the timeframe was 1996 and the property's last sale was 1998,the annual growth rate detailed in this graphic applies to the period between 1996 and 1998. Other Potential Impacts Other developments in West Hill or in municipal fiscal structure, could affect West Hill's future M1x contribution to Renton's fiscal strength. • Sales Tax Streamlining/Sourcing Rule Changes: Changes in sales tax sourcing rules that have been proposed by the Washington State Department of Revenue will create winners and losers among cities. The State's current sourcing rules determine the point of sale for many delivered goods to be the origin of delivery. Proposed rule changes (designed to pave the way for taxation of interstate retail sales through the intemet or catalog) would change the point of sale for such delivered goods to the place of delivery. The expected impact of the riule change will be loss of sales tax revenues generated from warehouses, industrial uses, and other originators of delivered goods and an increase in sales tax revenues for recipients of delivered goods (households, most offices, hospitals, etc.). • Current estimated impacts suggest that changes in sourcing rules will have a net negative impact on the City of Renton. However, changes in sourcing will definitely have a positive impact on sales tax revenue generation in West Hill. Looking far into the future,it is hard to forecast what people's purchasing habits might be, but one can imagine that high-income households could become significant generators of sales tax revenues. If a household were to have $10,000 of goods delivered, then that household would generate roughly$85 in additional city sales taxes. • Electric Utility Tax/Payment: As discussed previously, the working assumption of West Hill revenue .estimates is that City Light or the City of Seattle would negotiate an agreement with Renton to, in effect, split the electric utility taxes that Seattle now collects from West Hill residents and would continue to collect upon annexation. If, however, the-current legal challenge to those payments is successful, then a variety of developments are possible. It would appear that two potential paths would strengthen Renton's ability to collect utility tax revenues in West Hill: 1. The State Legislature could change the current statute that allows Seattle and Tacoma to levy utility taxes on electric customers outside Seattle and Tacoma.boundaries and, instead, allow cities like Renton to tax those utility revenues (or receive an in-lieu-of payment from the utility); or 2. The City of Renton could seek to change electric service providers in West Hill, presumably to Puget Sound Energy, which would allow the City to levy its existing 6% tax on electric utility • revenues. Either of these scenarios would probably increase revenues generated in West Hill by roughly $200,000. BERK & ASSOCiATES1 Page37 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • Gambling Taxes: Gambling taxes from West Hill's two casinos are estimated to generate more than $1 million in revenues for the City. If those two casinos were to ever close, then the net cost of extending City services to West Hill would increase by that amount. . • n i BERK & ASSOCIATES ! Page38 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Technical Appendix A Table 8: Summary of Operating Costs for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 r = Dollars) NOTES Operating Costs i Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 TOTAL A Police Services $1,009,000 $358,000 $1,912,000 $3,279,000 B Fire Services $538,000 $270,000 $1,855,000 $2,663,000 C Planning, Building&Public Works $557,000 $349,000 $769,000 $1,675,000 . ' D Development Services $199,000 $151,000 $242,000 $593,000 E Maintenance Services $217,000 $130,000 $282,000 $630,000 F Transportation Systems $104,000 $50,000 $190,000 $344,000 G Utility Systems $28,000 $12,000 $44,000 $84,000 H Community Services $148,000 $82,000 $930,000 $1,160,000 Administrative,Judicial& Legal $150,000 $62,000 $316,000 $528,000 Services 1 Finance and Information Services $92,000 $45,000 $219,000 $356,000 Human Resources&Risk $20,000 $10,000 $47,000 $77,000 Management L Economic Development $23,000 $5,000 $47,000 $75,000 M Legislative $4,000 $2,000 $9,000 $15,000 N Staff-related Facility Costs $120,000 $58,000 $285,000 $463,000 TOTAL COST $2,661,000 $1,241,000 $6,389,000 $10,291,000 Source:Berk&Associates analysis : I J , r , BERK & ASSOCIATES; Page39 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill Table 9: Summary of Operating Revenues for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 Dollars) NOTES Operating Revenue Area A Area B Area C TOTAL O Property Tax $1,280,000 $970,000 $1,550,000 $3,800,000 p Gambling Tax $0 $0 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 . Q Utility Tax $304,000 $155,000 $483,000 $942,000 R Telephone $96,000 $46,000 $159,000 $301,000 S Water/Sewer/Storm Drainage $100,000 $49,000 $157,000 $306,000 • T Gas $39,000 $24,000 $59,000 $123,000 U Cable TV $48,000 $23,000 $75,000 $146,000 ✓ Garbage $21,000 $12,000 $34,000 $67,000 W State Shared Revenues $153,000 $82,000 $245,000 $480,000 X Sales Tax $103,000 $52,000 $219,000 $374,000 Y Fines&Forfeits $90,000 $50,000 $140,000 $280,000 Z Sales Tax-Criminal Justice $64,000 $23,000 $122,000 $209,000 AA Electric Utility Payment $49,000 $28,000 $79,000 $156,000 BB Recreation Fees $29,000 $21,000 $33,000 $83,000 CC Permit Fees $120,000 $91,000 $145,000 $356,000 DD Cable Franchise Fees $40,000 $20,000 $60,000 $120,000 TOTAL REVENUE $2,232,000 $1,492,000 $4,116,000 $7,840,000 Source:Berk&Associates analysis Table 10: Notes on Sources, Methods and Assumptions for Estimated Costs and • • Revenues KEY j Operating Costs • A Estimates of police expenditures represent a combination of(1) discussions with Renton Police Department staff, and (2) Berk&Associates forecasts of the incremental increase in the demand for service that Renton Police should expect given the commercial and demographic characteristics of the areas of analysis. Representatives of the Renton Police Department provided estimates of the staffing that would be required to extend Renton's existing levels of police services to each of the study areas. For assessment of the additional demand for service that Renton Police would see ! upon annexation of each of the study areas, Berk&Associates relied on (1) comparisons of the relative level of commercial activity among the existing City of Renton and each of the three study areas (as measured in terms of non-Services employment [with non-Services employment defined as private-sector employment for all employment sectors except for the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services sector]) and (2) comparisons between the demographic characteristics of the residential bases in Renton and each of the three Uri BERK & ASSOCIATES ; Page40 . • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill populated study areas. ' Among households in each of the study areas, estimates of police demand are based on differences in housing unit type and tenure, distinguishing between households who live in I ` (1) owner-occupied single-family homes, (2) renter-occupied single-family homes, (3) owner-occupied multifamily, (4) renter-occupied multifamily, and (5) mobile homes. Estimates of the relative contribution of each of these segments to police demand is based on a series of statistical analyses in which Berk and Associates assessed the fundamental { characteristics and experiences of more than 100 cities across Washington State to identify the "typical" contribution to police demand driven by each residential category.These "typical" contributions were then scaled to match with Renton's experience. 1 � • As is true for all cost estimates,the cost basis for estimating the costs of extending police ' services is the City of Renton's budgeted 2005 expenditures for Police Services as reported in the City of Renton 2005 Adopted Budget(budgeted at$15,956,800). B I Estimates of fire expenditures represent a combination of(1) discussions with Renton Fire I +; Department staff, and (2) Berk&Associates forecasts of the incremental increase in the demand for service that Renton Fire Department should expect given the 2005 population J j and number of employees of the areas of analysis. C ` Expenditures for the Planning, Building and Public Works(PBPW) are based on the combination of estimates of operating expenditures for the Administration, Development Services, Maintenance,Transportation Systems and Utility Systems Divisions of the Department The estimates of the incremental increase in PBPW activity are based on I I comparisons of various driver values to current City value, as described in notes D through G below. ` I Administrative expenditures are based on the additional demand for services for each study area, multiplied by 2005 budgeted expenditures of$363,700. D Estimated Development Services expenditures represent the pro-rata share of expenditures based on the incremental increase in assessed valuation associated with annexation of each of the three study areas'.This comparison of assessed valuation results in the following • incremental increases by study area. Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 6.5% 4.9% 7.8% L. It is worth noting that,although certain study areas may not introduce substantial demand for community development services in the short term, trends in development activity can change over time. I _ 1 Since a portion of the costs of the Building and Planning divisions of the Department of 1 BERK & ASSOCIATES ! Page 41 ' City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill • R ` Estimated taxes on telephone service (including cell phone service) reflect the findings of I Berk&Associates' statistical regression analysis models of telephone tax revenues generated in 9 King County cities. Based on the findings of statistical analyses, estimates of telephone tax revenues are based on estimates of population and employees in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services sector of the economy. S Water/sewer/storm drainage taxes reflect an estimate of$22.00 of annual revenues per resident, based on the City of Renton's rates for an average household for surface water, water and sewer fees. FT ! Estimated taxes on natural gas reflect the findings of Berk&Associates' statistical regression analysis models of gas tax revenues generated in 9 King County cities. Based on the findings of statistical analyses, estimates of natural gas tax revenues are based on estimates of commercial and residential real estate mix, measured in square feet U Estimates of utility tax revenues on cable services reflect an estimate of$10.50 of annual revenues per resident V Estimated taxes on garbage tax revenues reflect the findings of Berk&Associates' statistical regression analysis models of garbage tax revenues generated in 9 King County cities. Based on the findings of statistical analyses, estimates of garbage tax revenues are based on estimates of commercial and residential real estate mix, measured in square feet W I State-shared revenue projections are based on estimates of statewide per capita distributions of the liquor tax, liquor profits, restricted and unrestricted gas taxes, and criminal justice revenues as reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center.These revenues are distributed to all cities in the state on a per capita basis, and in 2005 they were reported to total$33.20 per capita. Projected revenues,therefore, are arrived at by multiplying this$33.20 by the contemplated annexation areas' respective populations. X Estimates of sales tax revenues are based on actual sales taxes collected in the study areas j in 2004 as reported by King County budget analysts. Y ( Criminal justice sales tax revenues are distributed to cities on a per-capita basis. Estimated revenues reflect an assumed distribution of$20 per resident,which is consistent with both Renton's 2005 budgeted revenues and historical receipts. Z Estimated fines&forfeits reflect an assumed cost recovery of 85%of expenditures for the court services division of Administrative,Judicial & Legal department This level of recovery compares with 2002, 2003 and 2004 recovery levels of 98%, 85%, and 85%, respectively, and budgeted-2005 cost recovery of 81%. AA Estimates of the value of the Seattle City Light payment are based on(1) Berk&Associates' statistical regression analysis model of electricity revenues generated in 9 King County cities based on estimates of commercial and residential real estate mix, measured in square feet; (2) a City Light estimate that the increment to the payment will represent half (3%), of the total electric utility tax of 6%. BB Estimated recreation fees reflect an assumed cost recovery of 40%of the costs of the recreation division of Community Services department expenditures. CC Building and other permit fees reflect an assumed cost recovery of 60%of expenditures for I the Development Services Division of the Department of Planning, Building and Public Works. 1 I BERK & ASSOCIATES : Page46 . City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill DD Estimated cable franchise fee revenues reflect assumed revenues of$8.50 per resident. Business license fees reflect application of the City's license fee structure to estimated number of employees located in each of the study areas.The City's fee structure levies an I annual fee of$55 per employee per year. r.= Technical Appendix B: Supporting Documents z.y PE BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page47 City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill :`.C' ->,r- t - 7 'i '' iia r!; a» vma., u,i' v.. !y,:5a`+ `' R"t1,1,.,:•+- .'.'Sad,`•" .,35 F,'JnS.' ) f 04-44,,,,,A;.'S� .F�' er'1.1 e.FkwsaF'i'';21x,.,.� F";.v�:ii,`r;�'.�6`;',;4�.',M:'ak°.,�'.�s:';1w�R,RP. " :"R�.a,�i:' F_$�i.��. °'&''aFSW.wr g•{Pr9'i'S gfa.F"rr:�A, 72T :,.c 5,.. .��.w �{;.n,•.��: :: +.{. i?�5^•a�P!• ,10,,,,41'tk1�:ve. 1m.�;id':y r..ny ,fit• ..e; °•�•:.".^ .f 7, �.r+ 'f��;�„' .•y,i. .lta, .n,a li :40 . ssMr. T wp r;l \. . , � �av� rt I,.�� " "':. ;$1 Y: :1' •'lfi, '-'l�' 'FI .5 if #x?."� , .rl�`1y.:tx4wy '. �L' ,4.s+w, ,.�>"7J.$ .h „�,t�%,, rx' 'e;�,} s �'' r" ,,q.;. � _ _ r.`.'....--:.,. ..",(4-461;.14.t.gry .�. .�,. a at'� ;t,� '{SQL `�' ..af;. k..il.n�'wf' '�.77f1 r''�f: a.. .,a.,�!!'."Y� � ' T+"i3:.��+Twn�r�°;_ `3Ai:.y t;:.��f:. " `- '1 ,s,. 0,• G br ;ct T 1 . 3�, ,,..,!74 • .,d 0-r T nd�a� i . a,.',''':104 1«i''; .P+ ..i67,, ,.. ,�.,,l.yF 0,,...a,rs , •.�. ,..M, 0' 1} ,z Axr.' .., ;• ,'l ,)a ;1-,;.,y. �"e.. !AI. .,1rc ,:>lrl T. .y„.t;":• Y_ xae ':: T. .•s,.2 S.� RItQi\ `. •�.a. �"� •L'^'- * .v •r .I` .�+'t- ., � r .t �F t:iw4'�;".r fi:>.i ,x,,..�rh „+:'�.., raY`�:., ,. ',•W� ,9,`,, ,l'.•!Altd ,�G s. , e.A . '+ ,40,(4, i ;+ 1. 2+.} sad .:r ',Tri"° .z. ,{- i' .h ;.u,.il, Nu �.��, �st?a.� ..`�y�� `•i'" r r ,�.1�1Wm". .Ft:;( �,t.,, t rw,.e..., +.7d.. r. '•t.`,ei�> ' ..+e„txitsC%;.C�pi",�.r'.�r;��.:'iv`wm, 9i��k�..,.ati`pp,��"�1ifi.'.,�t�z''�..�yv,`��'Y.�i'r �rt��L„av, •t�-r. 'ti ,.,�.u;,�4,fZU.� °�1 .4,rk.�t!, , ..�hN„il.,?�i,"fiv%5'F °�+�..�t ,. �. ..a,,;�:�r;�n,�}r.,s,.^.:.'t;oS,,.,,.,;.cpA :;v�•:,,.,,. r:�rwJ.:, • Legislative Legislative Utdirect .1 '220;100' 8°�� . � '�-g'� �•,-0.;.•_,,.- . .. - �� " Administrative,Judicial&Legal I Mayor's Office indirect 848;900 7 I 2 5 ' 310;000' ` 1 ' 538,900 City Clerk Indirect 465,500 5 I 5 I 465,500 I City Attorney Indirect • 1,101;300 0 '0 -T:098;000 1,101,300 Hearing Examiner Direct 141,600 1,5 1.5 I I 141,600 'see Police " Court Services Direct 1,425,800 14.7 I 14.7 ! 1,425,800 'see Police Economic Development i Economic Development Direct I 1,294,200 _133 I 1 12.3 '! 113,000 10,000 _ 1,171,200 ICommerdal SF Neighborhood Programs Direct I 50.000 I 1 50,000 !Population Finance&Information Svs ' ! I Finance indirect 1,773,700 20.5 5 15.5 296,000 '1 113,000 - ' 1,364;700' 1 ' ' • Information Services Indirect 1,670,700 14:8 '1 • 13.8 • 113,000 10,0001,547,700 I Human Resouces&Risk Mgmt I • J i Administrative 8 Gvil Sys Indirect ' 620;800 a.9 • 4:9 •'` • • P 620;800' Risk Management Indirect 11,139,600 3 i 3 123,400 I ' 11,016,200 ;EXCLUDED Police I _ Administration Dept Indirect I 1,601,100 4 1 3 j 144,000 25,000 437,100 995,000 (based on FTEs from Renton PD Patrol Operations Direct5,288, 0 47 47 5,288,500 ;based on FTEs from Renton PD Patrol Servces iDirect i50 2,41 1,300 20.8 20.8 2,411,300 based on FTEs from Renton PD Investigations Direct I• 2378,700 21 21 2,378,700 based on FTEs from Renton PD Admin Services Dept Indirect 1,233,300 10 10 ; 1,233,300 !based on FTEs from Renton PD _ Staff Services Dept Indirect 786,700 12.4 12.4 I 786,700 !based on FTEs from Renton PD Auxiliary Services Dept Indirect I 2,257,200 16 r 16 i 2,257,200 (based on FTEs from Renton PD Fire I I i Administration Dept Indirect 873,400 7 I 6 144,000 i 729,400 Emergency Response Direct 10,812,800 99 99 i 10,812,800 ;Population+employment Fire Prevention Direct 919,000 10 10 i ' 919,000 'Commercial SF Training__ .. Dept Indirect I . 423,300. 3 _..._..__.... ....... 3 .._. .. _ .. ._ . __ _ _ _ 423,300 _ _1 Disaster Management Dept Indirect 1 14,300 0 0 -- - 14,300 I community.Services _ ...-._..- . _ -. .._ -._ I_ ._..._._. .__. _..._-__--- ! _ _._. .._ ...I _ Administration Dept Indirect _ 915,100 9.2 9.2 915,100 Facilities _ Direct. 2,885,700 273 I 1 14.3 113,000 2,772,700 'SF ofd -owned buildings. Parks Direct I 3,360,800 353 - 1 343 113,000 3,247,800 lActive park acres !Passive park acres Recreation Services Direct I 1,898,900 29.9 1.5 28.4 I 113,000 158,300 I 601,600 1,026,000 !Based on Renton estimate Community Center Direct 1,112,100 19.4 19.4 ! I 1,112,100 'EXCLUDED Senior Activity Center Direct 564,400 6.6 6.6 i 564,400 (EXCLUDED Human Services Direct 541,400 2.1 1 2.1 ! 541,400 'Population GDBG Direct314,500 3.1 I ,•, 3.1 ,._ .. _ _ _ _ 314,500 !EXCLUDED Library Direct I 1,494,700 22.5 1 21.5 I 113,000 1,000 1,380,700 !Library SF or population served Golf Course Direct I 2,321,200 1 20.4 20.4 126,100 I 100,000 _ 466,400 , 1,628,700 !EXCLUDED RI RK & A S S O C I A T 1 S 9/7/2005 . . . . . . v City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill .i. : - ','•r' '=: :=s;n2' .`1 -,'t'405Q,:,":,`Ti. .it, -;bB1Y!!„' ,c ^Ax+;;'.-k§.• ,.rr:A,Fr':o,G',,,,k, ,A4-7i1.•!-' .,,i Lw. ..,4,3,4,v tvv � - Allocated Costs � .' gtt�;�i:�.,.., :{;:: i. . .i - e :tfC;r>¢ •c$ '',1.,. - �� y S � ` ��5 't Fs z��g � '-p" r9. •.:e-:02...: ''''''1*‘' . 2;.: .o.$x::.. " o i " t!" .;.i .'00. a S" .4 � .w ' ' �i s. , .m. Total ,,�D�4�r5�;�. 'r`;� y i " 1',e � ;; '"= .t: t( : ` • ~•. y,.v; : � r, ls •1„ ..,ApfeltRptx. !a. T(o...+243 rkf.. rtg0A . r3 •3ff 4 ?24aArea 1 Area 2 . Area 3 .2. ,�,s3/ ` �feU4vyAr � ' i ; 5�« ` r. `� , -x :0.;m'.+ c2.u , 4,n"' Jt^ . , A .. d'Ur d i la:v '4 � .h.,'1 4.0 .'' �a 4a.", 5,. A� r�' i.,. f ^.,.. .0+2+3f �, Y' i'.;,:';44.4..17'....::•-,' �i.4-',-'''.'s.-4'.•/":;:'..`.1' ` ,.,•,r. Legislative _,Legislative . . ' - "' `8r2W6 l:SWo' "7.SWo "12.2%- - •3,678 __1,789' 8,734 14200 0! Ol 0! 0 Administrative,Judicial&Legal `� - I , Mayor's Office .. ' 3.2% . 1.5%' .7.5% 12.2% 17,070. 8,302 40,539 65,911 0101 01 1 City Clerk • - 3.246 1.5% 7.5% 122% 14,745 7,171 35,018 56,934 01 01 0! 1 Gly Attorney • • 3.2% 1.545• 7.54412.2% 34,884 16,966 82,846 134,697 0; 01 01 0 --„ Hearing Examiner 5.3% 1.9% 10.0% 17.2% 7,491_ 2,659 14,201 24,351 0.11 0.01 0.21 0.3 Court Services 5.3% 1.9% 10.0% 17.2% 75,432 26,770 142,991 245,193 0.8,, 0.31 1.51 2.5 . Economic Development Economic Development 33,527,467 547,379 72,202 1,161,885 1,781,466 1,6% 0"2% 3.5% 53% 19,121 --_2,522 40,588 62,231 _ 0.2 0.01 0.41 0.7 Neighborhood Programs 55,360 4,388 2,310 7,217 13,915 7.9% 4.2% 13.0% 25.1% 3,963 2,086 6,518 12,568 0.1 0.01 0.11 0.3 Finance&Information Svs - --- - - - -- I--- -i- -- - - - --- Finance .. 3.2% 1.5% 7,54'o• 12.2% 43,227 21,024 102,661 166,912 01 01 11 2 Information Services 3.2% 1.5%' ' 715%' 12.20k 49,024 .23,843 116,427 189,295 01 0! 11 2 Human Resouces&Risk Mgmt _ 1 Administrative 8 Gvil Svs - - "3.2%' 1:5% 7.540 . 12.20F:i' 19,664 ' 9,564 . '46,700 • 75,928' '01 0, 01 1 Risk Management _ 0 0 0 0 0_1 01 0' 0 Police I Administration 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65,496 23,244 124,155 212,894 0.0j 0.91. ..0.0 _ 0.0 Patrol Operations "--- •- --- 7.9% 2.8% 14.9% 25.5% 415,398 "--147,419 787,437 1,350,255 3.7, 1.31 7.0 12.0 Patrol Services -„-_. .._._. .._..... . _....._..4.4% ...._. 1.6% • 8.4%,.- 14.4% 106,994-_" 37,971 202,819 347,784 0.9 0.31 1.71 3.0 - Investigations _ 5.9% 2.1% 11.1% 19.0% 139,389 49,467 264,229 453,086 1.2 -• 0.4. 2.31 4.0 Admin Services 6.2% 2.2% 11.7% 20.0% 81,182 28,810 153,890 263,882 0.6 0.21 1.21 2.0 Staff Services 7.4% 2.6% 14.1% 24.2% 51,784 18,378 98,163 168,325 0.91 0.3j 1.71 3.0 Auxiliary Services 5.8% 2.0% 10.9% 18.8% 148,580 52,729 281,651 482,959 0.91 0.31 1.71 3.0 Fire 1 Administration - 30,183 15,080 104,240 149,503 0.2, 0.11 0.41 0.8 Emergency Response 104,180 4,567 2,343 7,850 14,760 4.4% 2.2% 15.6% 22.2% 474,006 243,178 1,685,660 2,402,844 4.3 2.2! 15.41 22.0 Fire Prevention 33,527,467 547,379 72,202 1,161,885 1,781,466 1.6% 0.2% 3.5% 5.3% 15,004 1,979 31,848 48,631 0.2 0.01 0.31 0.5 Training _ 4.4%_ 18,55622% 14.2% 31,896 59,972 0.1 0.11 0.2 0.4 Disaster Management -104,180 4,567 2,343 7,850 14,760 4.4% 2.2% 7.5% 14.2% 627 322 1,078 2,026 0.0 0.Oi •"0.0' 0.0 Community Services Administration • 13,028 8,281 60,456 81,765 0.1 0.'11' _ 0.61 0.8 Facilities 11,449 11,449 ,_...... .... ....... ......_..... 0 0 80,143 80,143 0.0 0.01 0.91 0.0 Parks 259 0 023 23 0.0% 0.04s 8.9% 8.9% 20,582 - 289,418 310,000 0.2 0.01 3.11 3.3 759 5 0- 0 5 0.6%, 0.0% 0.0% 0.640 • Recreation Services 7.0% 5.0% 8.0% 20.0% 71,820 51,300 82,080 205,200 2.01 1.41 2.3: 5.7 Community Center _ 0 0 0 0 01 0! 01 0 Senior Activity Center _ 0 0 0 0 0! 0! 01 0 Human Services 55,360 4,388 2,310 7,217 13,915 7.94'o 4.2% 13.0% 25.1% 42,913 22,591 70,580 136,083 0.2 0.1! 0.31 0.5 GDBG __ __ __ _ 0 OC 01 0 Library 55,360 13,915 13,915 0.046 0.0% 25.14b 25.1% - - 347,046 347,046 0.0 0.01 5.41 5.4 Coll Course 0 0 0 0 0! 01 0; 0 1711 BFRK C ASSOC' IATFS 9/7/2005 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill SICOACOMMuMniattiefti,•••.-."-','-. ---",;, ',-,,,,i,k:4:..-,:`,'7.;-i''''-•-'-'-- --•'- •,•.-,-,...-..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,w'.,,,,,-,:7,,,vj',,c,,,,TFP ',t'. ' fipiriV.9,•?..VaST.1,,,,, ., nagnialttE07.4§ 0. :.:,/,. ,,5,...,--,, •„.".4•1•,,....„,r -.•...r.•• , ... • '',.:.':-:;?•4.'''.4:11°'"ifrs,••:f;'....i41,4;:''''',41.4:4--.W'''''.,••''''''4111`;;..,katw:16'1,11414:Pleig.P'0,144,%0Y44..43.S;,. cHtir",":..,f.;c4;441.444,,,,,.L...0,10.1fa....,:,.:..,..,..';prcii.'wo,,TyingW"'"Irortrt..;14407%,,,IH-64zi .; ,,, •. 4)4'. ' .,,i,.,...,;''''''''11-,:',,.,4h:,;..'"4,:.,-,0,41"•.',.,.•,..„'''''''''',41,r44,.,.......4.it-'11;i:‘,-.'Y'.-zgg''''314':f:•-4...i..":11.3/41.1•4,..it,''s.g4144-151,."-:;;;;•::::.„,..,'",.. ..'.,-..',,...'„?..,,,.....`,::..."n.....:'.....'s. :•' ,4'-lii'10,..,''''''- '''$1;a 'imi'N,V,RA45t.P.rilikt*,T,OPI-4qP,,fraPigi..itNItiglilittgt!-__V'tk rim,F°14!.1.-..11..,q‘11",-3'14,-,-,,, j A'C--,-VI.' • 'WM,- •ZI:i.'.• 'i'',.,Tet.(0'‘....",1.5. ..!-'''.- Z7-`,"*A4.1--i•i•:.t'''',':=:' '.....--;:, kITREgp q •'".F.,--7,-:P-1:3- 1,4.,.,; •^:zIg.,-*,,:•••-- • 44.*":141iidireich-,m06ctiek4i(A.I.IN.,y,- -Ajttx4.-4141,7,4‘,---;..4.,tliitput 6.Wpgilka.Z,' Af:14,MTPA, ,;..%.,1,,,- •.-L'..: ..1-.-,,,,,:;1;. ,.i.,..,-,,,,it,:,,,,-44,-*.t.;!,-q:itlr.:4.giew:.',#': :..ii;';.....;-:;:;:i,r;:;:Fgr.,4cf.:;4S.e:,1;1.5-'....;-:,,..,•.,.?..11-42tgoriiikattSTRetw-atiMPAsmatur.ftk : ' '--''''1.1go.,ftt,•,.....45:+364,.43-41:., ••.,-•.k......'.0--,1-:,,r,,-....,,,.„•-1,,,op.,..-...t.,-,,,, '-,,,,t.k.,,,,,...---..",„.,...,F,---„,,..-4.:,•._.,,..,61,„t,,,,?;...,.„..,„....,....--.:•.„.• -. . . Plannihg,Suildirig,rublic Works . . Administration Dept Indirect 363,700 3.9 1 3.9 363,700 Develppment Services Direct 3,200,800 38.2 1 372 . 113,000 3,097,800 AV ...... . Maintenance Services Direct 19,286,900 63 1 62 739,400 113,000 977,800 17,456,700 ;see below Administration Dept Indirect 8 I 7 16,000 .5treets/Briiges/Sidewalls Direct 2,896,000 14 14 16000 2,880,000 pane miles . . Equipment Direct 3.176.900 8 8 16,000 3,160,900 !EXCLUDED Water Direct 3.168,100 21 21 16.000 3,152.100 !EXCLUDED , Wastewater Direct 9,362,100 5 5 16.000 9,346,100 1EXCLUDED Surface Water Direct 801.600 6 6 • 16,000 . • ' - . 785,600 !Land area-acres Solid Waste Litter ' Direct 76,900 1 I 16,000 i 60,900 !Population Transportation Systems Direct ! 4,525,200 29.5 1 28.5 48,400 113,000 I 885,000 3,478,800 'see below Administration Dept Indirect 272,600 32 113,000 ....______. ...._11. .._ .._ _..... . I ....._ ..... 159,600 I • transpoitalionPla7Mme Direct 541.900 5.5 5.5 541,960 - !Land area-acres Traffic Operations Direct 461,900 4.5 4,5 t .461,900 pane miles Traffic Maintenance Direct 1,857,800 11.5 115 I 1,261,197 596,603 ilane miles Transportation Desig18 Construction Direct 506000 5 5 S0000 land area acres Utihty Systems Indirect I 22,992,600 26.7 I 1 10.7 5,604,800 1 113,000 3,842,000 I 12,896,600 536,200 •see below Technical Services Direct 477,502 4 4 I I 477,502 Land area-acres Technical Services-Enterprise Fund 56698 0 , Other City Services . .. ....__ . _..... i . ._. . .. r . . . ._.. - -- " 4,911,200 i Other diyServices Indirect 4,91.1,200 0 0 I Limited Tax Gen Obligation Bonds Indirect 1 2,556,500 0 I 0 1_ I 2,556,500 I 115,479,800 • • 1 • nig BFRK 8: ASSOCIATF.S 9/7/2005 . - • • • . . - • • . • • • , . ... • r------7-: • ..,.... - --• . . .. • . .. . •___•••• • ,. • . . _....•- • , _smi fgW$1 P ''' • - . . .... _• . ____ • _• , . v City of Renton Annexation Analysis:West Hill ti574;' .,k.. ..4.4,'Cil ' Mal .76.,,i,,,:rdr4F,""-A' IA i0'':o'4"17'",,'laC..-,- .'r. ',., 17,ve,"'740i-;dt;" . . „ .. Allocated Costs ,\;.,,,.:::::•,,i-0.-•.„,:...•. .:..'''.',. ,' 4.,,,201'.4.4.,c, .K444.,4v.,.,40-.0-0.1 k;)mampevanir,,,,,n7,R,,!=,,,,T,-.1p,„mvg,„74„rx.wri,. .-,,,, Twmg1,7-w•-i,g• '.‘••• tr1,1 ,?....-pygoo,:,_;;:p„, ,,:•.....,,,:._'•-• -.„. , .' !it,,,,,,x.,-..-.;...;:-•,..2:-.,i,,,„i:‘,.-„•',.,,,,H,-,-. ,-., 4tax-4:e.,4141.4.`;‘,4:-,..,ti,..e-AW.0.0,04sb.,,,A.,*.4.4r..,44,.......0 2'S:A 4).F 4, ,altc t-_---.4,,v,A10...419,.,,,,,,,,',1.:„1,1t1,4-0 e-,k, tia''.''„g 4.•IA;Orl4..' '.q '51,Prlittktki,14-'fIMII.,*qtt,"412.,04.0,0 104,40.111:, .243) ,,,f,lia,k1fr:A.:410M.,3g,Ikea,ta:v,,,iirrm.,% Area 1 I , Area 2 Area 3 ,..1.7, 4:i..„.:.. •- .•• 4A 1,,t. ,,..4t11-.*.7:,•1:1:,„".::lizc'Fr.,' lw:L,-,4,„4,,,, .,, ,„.,.„,„.AW 0-,,,,',i''. Atodetc144,,M4,40..44,4,A0pfq.11,0.1M3'400#1_,,Cf4,001,0i,'ferik 4t4 •V,,3,4,5rtirYARIVOi. 4, s:„,,,,,,,,.,,,, „ (1+2+3) ,. .,,,B ., , ,„.. ',,,,P9,7,,,,/N.',1•.P.:,.,1 ..4314.' 's,,,,..-:.;-','"o ,,,v.-,..-,,,,gilqm.,':,,,.1‘'.04...',.1.."4,"1c:r;15,-4.7V',...1.,1."^ '":'' ',at, -v e,`,• •' ..'I'''),t Irs ^ •,.•.•,.^!1';,"...e1V4‘,,,,,,•'•'';',• 'glgx^.4:ViY.1,k^'12,:1^.44,,,";'-'-',.'^'^:'•• ' • Plannirg,!Wilding,Public Works 1 Administration 8,198 5,251 11,086 24,666 ( 11- . 0.1i 6.1! 0.3 Development Se:vices 6,344,519,649 409,334,905 311,154,926 497,713,672 1,218,203,504 6.50/0 4.9% 7.8% 19.20/0 199,218 151,435 24Z231 592,885 2.411.812.9 7.1 Maintenance Services I Administration . 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.11 0.31 0.6 Sheets/Bridges/Sidewalks 460 35 21 45 101 7.6% 4.5% 9.8% 21.9% 217,470 130,356 282,021 629,847 1.11 . . . . 0 0 Equipment 0 0 01 01 0. - 0 Water 0 0 0 0 01 0 0. 0 i Wastewater 0 0 0 0 01 0! 0: 0 Surface Water 11,040 642 284 1,012. 1,938 5.B% 2.6% 9.2% 17.6% 45,684 20,209 72,013 137,907 031 0.210.6; 1.1 Solid Waste Litert55,360' 4,388 2,310 7,217 13,915 7.9% -. 4.2% 13.0% 25.1% 4,827 2,541 7,939 15,308 6.11 adi' "o.ir 0.3 - -Transportation Systems 1 - --- ---- Administration 7,930-4.176 -11.31T------23A16 --az-o.11- --al, 0.3 Transportation Planning 11,040 642 284 1,012 1,938 5.8% 2.6% 9.2% _ 17 6% 31,513 13,940 49,674 95,127 0.3 0.11 0.51 1.0 . Traffic Operatons 460 28 17 36 80 6.0% 3.6% 7.8% 17.5% 27,903_ 16,725 36.185 80,813 0.3 0.2: 0.41 0.8 Traffic Maintenance 460 17 10 23 50 3.8% 23% 4.9% 10.9% 36,798 14,802 93,214 144,614 0.4 0.3: 0.6: 1.3 Transportation Design&Construction 11,040 642 284 1,012• "1938 5.8% 2.6% 924's 17.6% 29,425 13,017' 46,383 88,825. .. - 031 011 0.5! 0.9 Utility Systems 1 Technical Services 11,040 642 284 1,012 1,938 5.8% 2.6%. 9.2% 17.6% 27,768_ 12,284 43,771 .._ 83,822 0.2 0.11. 0.41 0.7 Technical Services-Enterprise Fund Other City Services i I 1 . Other City Services Limited Tax Gen Obligation Bonds 1 I . 52,620,575 51,217,703 56,229,840 510,068,249 24 12 57 93 F11,611030 in-'tiliiKaiiiiiVilglibrk,.7,1?*7i::i Cost excluding SWM,Solid Waste,and Transp.Design 82,540,639 81,181,936 $6,103,504 $9826,210 . 11 leglfelitreirg eliWdigitsreak.i,..-4‘.1-,,,S^ Add 85,000 per FTE for office costs= 8120.000 858,000 8285,000 8464,000 (annual) I Total cost exduding SWM and Solid Waste 82,660,639 $1,239,936 86,388,504 810,290,210 . , ,.. i ft MIRK g: ASSOCIATES 9/7/2005 • ,r }^^y�5`• r' fit. n--'fr •,,,•,,,i t '1,, .:1 4 7 .,., y, - .� .X,t �r; �..,- • .,,r, ,Sq .`si-Fgf Cf-r. �s,J .� `�rp, µ. 4r y^r't Y .x 1f r�F { m �. �` }d �` ' r*.1 '1 s Mho iii x j ` ;,-...,37 f �r { b ��iim4+§' ; T , 7+ „ 4 {A:1 ' i " .";:1-:4';-:."`..". u'k. i i , d'+ 1 ,yX 4 L i.,':>:,';. �'..-744,,,,' t J • • X' Y t"tea _L1 1' ti.+"rnx�x J f ` " + , ,'s.,^ ,Ci { q I »ti ,' //1r 1 "^` k F" r+kr� • ' " a•. ,�, �.. (`1 ,r i r`,A ,u. .rt. ;' �r -, + ,, i fix , , *r.;9 °'S' _01_1... Y, �..r x 9 •,...'0' r ' y 4 f 'r ;" '',,,,P4:," Xi 1. i dt'::u rtix, ' } S _ a r'�l C. ° r r>.. },ni ^e ° _ ,-...;,-..•:••.:..'.• `1a 4 ,iw ^+. ,,,.,i,.,:,-Ft.,4an iii Y '" .F 1 ?" `' w r ,t4.•1-'.7-..,,',.: -. y 6t , '"s1�... 0.„:2-, ;,;--::.'-'4.,,''','" t .,. t fir;, -.4,,,,---,,,-;;;..''';''' :?ii.'-f-'-.r.:•''•'- ""'i s r"'- p i�,k'�I.., _k. 4 1 _ ___ ``I ! •,,,-',-,•,'''.•,,-.-- , ' ' - ,.'4', e' • •o.,, , ,t rS. •.4-k,,,..4P ``C,r:L A,4a[i,Vic: ,r.'� � far °Z'* isMn' kk,;s" t s -'k`< }-t }-U ti'Y,' *'" 'c'•. (J ' p �, �"e- •'. Y e g. x l 4$ r • °1 to,'tro� § Wo.,.".,-.1.70.,0 .r, 8'`1'-•.,✓: 'q„4i,*,; 4,x.#" ',,F i x ti' y, ``N, L•;M '' Y.,,'\+•;, .,y :'' :in p,' y /`.� h " ,},' j k t y,A..w ' • • ;r•r l .4 .' '� 4 }"t �• ,\. ....,.„r,,.»._.�..:y;nP ;+ �., l.} ir,. 4} ' ,�1. 0" 5 ,in* 5 • fA64,,' • • '4 S'' v -} 4Z . 'H°`s".4 -i '-••.'s +J j�, it-L.:- 4 , 1�k w .d4#'''�`' ->s, v ;rt s r ,.'fc rt`� w 5 1 * '�-� ,-,4,4„., ' nti 0-i 4kl1 ,41, n. :,.1.,'{�f �,{, f "i,' Yx :( 41�ea' . 4)s g � 4",', %xf"r kV". ' , '4'. I Fl ~qf - :11.dr SC c $4 ,,r{ .„4,. a•'`,=,fs»' ^": s �t` 'Y tl� i • 'a, •• 1 krittr+ ft ; 1 f •: rJ>t3.,� • d" a,; tr': } r' : • • ,a ex + v ."4nit-. +Yep 4 s°,, r xr §• N': F n.F?•+ r{"+ +T'.. ,,l , +kt"S r ;SAer• r.c^ ` "„° ti,i', "af X a w;. -"E • .. ,-y,,,,7 ,*},� ,`r+r r ;r.„�. �-.,•4. '"[uj�u. 9, .��, ^`x'* '. SH� 25rY !._"` 1- ti,i',' '�- J „mak r�4�'F� �,,,f /T�y�y la .�'„'VT�a �i`e.. w #. - x ,.r :mfr_ g ',,,,,,,,,,IN",- a«},1 , r.P',0-4,x,...1.4.1"1ti +' +.' 4.`!: .; 'Ir,'*".:4,0'1:14,44.1.1"; �, 7 " :;§"?. r ,u.�'f. ao r' rr, sa rE3fi, r d x � t {. 1 r� s , ay ,'#,- + -",',"?',...-1.1.40.,.• .. y , e<rs � + .• 4'.,4-';'4-.Z":•-71,11M.;5" ter 1, 1 :a �C " -.4.,-4i. , ;• -�i. »s : " ',�y. 'r.* TY.'4 "a. •=9,..., i?' -„tgiF + tS+ r xh..._. ,a 4!„-�'r "',',.. :jt,rg ;':',,,.-- K,,' ,'`r _ y.. :',.*Ali*, d 4!@ ». ie�' sr,.;,4 C' 3 *1'+�;+"'f`rp,.• ; arr, aa _ ,x�c .L"`'. i sd. , Y .' -eV;h �f to y ,,k p q ( � ,...,. ...„:„..• ..,,,,. .„,,,,,,,,,-,...4:,. ...:.,. ,4'..4 .�. y er.. 3^7' t,L` +rui'5.-i�, � �'�F�G6� 4 , 3v. ” i ': r'' w"r g , x.. Rr' 'y# r1�a. +: 7 ,-"v �,r S ".;;;';:(4'24-e;12111, 1"':'..., -,,5. 4.-, r:1'•j ,, P'`.4- 5L ax -M + :<.. ,+ "H .S > tr k t; r r 1 7+}`' F F 2 ',. +r - ■ • M^R}�' z ;r ,{,d(§sj.�C 'a."P �r 4 h 1 >F'J,. +;', ';',17.44.;...y,4' , �`a 1 t d#•! " €r � r ?dS Y aw 't ''°�' .°F� d4 s" �&r '': ��q+, k .o5�r kA '..'i6 " ' � '�^•��',yr•4.,e 1 F , 'a•'^ ,I� ,"i.. t§;�,�,.t�'r.�f y 41 ,Ph':Yde�� l�Se. �j�'4:,:„�4{}'� } f � Y,f t �y, J re•C °' r >44 , rl7F 4. ,,,xt ';.,t t r ttq r Ea�S, .4,,,s.';‘,',1.' s,t, ,ny yu w"d t t..`4+` ?,1111, .`• '+' ,:4'r J: :d ,-'",01`1"4.4 gym 4. •l� :.t „L«•. +S •t � a4. r.. \'''.'t',..0,4,2 �' .:>r, < s,d,:. ""t"yr„nfrrg-,?•?>�n er ,;. .-•,,''.1-;:7.-.'",..,.;:';''',.: �t^ • • 't, �,„.R,•,,,, "u :•,.,../;;,:" �i �y'' ?/•ttt t, ''1•`a' 1111'14/ Y .�*i`-2;�,�yty,5�•:.c,r j S,� ��., ,i'. u' °4z •• _ ,0,- +..-„-, '' r:;r 1�'y a.4• i •' .•.-w. '"7 r r.(�,FC „� ,.;s q '�,+#�. -,4, ' r "aso,x„,„J,, �`-, ` ;1'.'r: .ry f, K., A,, ;d :''. k, pC. .}: «{n, J A. Fi iG'x �,,. _ -•'t-* "G° .h'4: a 3$ - +`yX. a. •rET. . .r ,q. . .,4 �.:4 .'1.=."` - 'h e}, r,n r }r. '..a 13$1:1; 'rc.. �,.. � y' � 'int �', 1�': e� , 9p '�`F ,�. � .'�„ae, '1.q 9 �+"..,.y':,4' • .x .,I. t E.•I_ �' * r.^ '•1A .. i ^,VI.'3,Ir >$ ,F° ,i•r , -",- .,,..,,t, x A^, ire d r d� +:. , , " ,r 9 ^:j+ 4 ' o f r;.e ti a •' 3a d✓;.Y' k4FA r :'�.,. ��( a t r';�xti"'� , .•.+�" :,M1v d" ,1 .� . d.'ry A.: ..L ^'3°1, 'fi H;�' � �k§/.a+" ^ ,( g, ,4 .!S. ,.: .. xr'. ,�P : p :,,'4 ns`.• `• �' ,',"...01,':',.. b,� ° J r,,, �l4 yy �,,,y°,?., �' M N�` 'a, i'F(',�,3. �,d<V" <•- • .. .. " - ., a55:::,. §L}. ,,yip. L. - - ,s:�:b. y i:,'' ,ti ^+tr%r•..,'kZ^..+r G :;...K ...«.. Jn ;�. Cq �yS 1' ,.fi ?G'i qtp i 1 {' %a .S Y�k ',J+v':_j- =Ff�`�N - - a I +r 4. ,AL-,, ,,,.: ft.x,S ,m.°.. �' ,�yz, ;�? .>. ,.'h, v+s; .s ,u t,.,: w ` '''''-'r•'.'''7,,, r c �, S.i y t:•41,,••$ a 1 : ,'� ai 3 ru ^�'` '• r.,.t,., .r h t. '.# . ,.•-..0 r rS - -•" r �tr i -'"P';';''', fa , r •,,',40,4,-.1,..,..,,,, ,z' °,"�v rt 'a>%rt , � sr y�c :�'i, .4.,:', ,t. .y �� ir�� #: � 4.7;0:;',.,;,. ....,- �� r, ',`' 3 '"�' "� y�`�+'t`� ,�� >? � l', rF ewe,,';: '. . k ...,9,1,-:, -' .' ,Y .r,.,4e .t •<5 W',t, ,r, r 4 „vi, .,, n:lil, a ...-,`C 1: Cti:`,a 'r3` ..y..,., ,t. j '3+."Y+.' :,3,45'.,2} i^„n , :,i„ .�+.b x,,, .tr'd.. r`ry�7 �.' 't r •z,.� ze4 rd5",w .,M .a.,_� •• ;�.,•:�.r,. • 'F,'�-' t. a *?! "'� fhiu"'"h4§f#}�'�"'�` `i-.�k '� �i'A^'3.� --144...-.1.4,;Ekf. t. v� ��' R• r�S+�,, a' -If", i .1 a`?a„ 'R5 e ;, ''`l.,`rs. - ^""7� i r v.En ^X.i"}'. y x'dg t cd,, •3..,, �3".t : w F" ��,p, • ” .. k+ Nw"., ,, f trI^. 0 v ). ,«„ .xM w • � x�„A.,"� ":*•f,1 t'r;'� h°:c"; '-'• f,Y '; art Mr, .3r ,tuYybs -,, , c s"• z ib�+ �� ' ' qr v flora g * t4 % etn ,�' `, .e ' 'a h ��` ", ,: r,r '""r,.� ` ,e^ ,-r• ,:" ,, t, r T. . 1 k ''''O.',r >t '� _.. L ,3;,<.�,'.7,V��`, r', ,, r,�:t'ta? cf,Y*4 ,1.:`h5§,r,�.,,,e t`. ti :, e a91'''' '. V i N'„ '' . k' t •,t � 'r 'kr4 e ,dd 4' ` .:,•=',. . ;'';+4t,.,i'+fy t r ,,," ,;_e:-,' '$'- 4",, ;,,}. :fir ,, r r, .-;r k x.4,% -.r. ,r;•. f:4-7:',,, '4. i v', t *a �r e r as. '$0` r , y:. ,y?a` As h r .t.;41,\ e ,' rad E° i e i s ,. ,tra: ,: m M1 s r e. t r a • .' .` $ �' +," �..: ,,., 4t ta� ; - # 't v4,,, rz x`1 ^d. , 4,re.F,. % ,i ‘t,';‘,„.'`,; �y S ',Aro u+y i:,- F- +4 p`,G:*'rNl�'+;e.,: 2 }, .Y G,w .. �'' ,4, M;n: rr ,,{ ':^3. 'ky t xM '7.4fr I :�.'" n °:.'i4 tai, , '.t^ '"y " i� p j ° gyp{ sp +A,ry Ay '' +," ,• ° ^ .76 tl , -� `i ,T� ar 2 ,1„thy °9`lfllf bC'1 5`'�" ' 1 �`'lr�•f�:TnF 4".^aT. r {y h,P',"+r tk1 ' A r *:Y( �$ {V .t— C• '5 3 ' r .r:' ..r 4,.r a`r' ,r' 's ,„4 ,, ,,,XP„l 3�N' �c '. Y�r 4 .74.1 *•°.r 1�'Fi'—.�Mw- .,,,,,q ,R. , .,,�'r . -. , ; .t -' 2'v`... , ^,r n c is it 1.. fy ...tr'h'c.. atri � Ft ,�r�xio- '� I �"' r. ,€;F,i { zs'' r 's. ta,x ; a�+;" .}, ;, ,i s w :Y' E.p'1 • µ ' `=ernt, r,,.,-; , y*k'w ,.' .J :`F._7, -+a _ �; r..: ,.-0 ;'+ . '.;; 4 . rr�� i r,1 rr,,, • ' ''''*..-',-;t4',:,•,,..- e * ,' t; -.``." :,,.:,.,-_` „ F-1n las :^.. r�`� " ,`' `,c .f.$1',' ',u;- . +,fur .r -4,4..: i €r, - „ "� � r ,x *U,t fF ;G, s,.� 'a tr, n _5,.,x x air ,w� "-^-�"t� ::� e : ut - .,sus. -.• �.- ., , ,,.a , t,¢. ,. '?� r4 ,�iy` �.t 4� =isltr ..Cs, ed'�,�'w,'�: d .€� ;' .>' •�� .�P,.� 5:�'. ,', ;. r x` ,i. ,.:. rw,• .. ;: ., ...,,,0114,..„, .T�": �. .,„ ''z.,� x z��ts.„ r�:'$ 4?< '" t ti' �,£n,. tie E" - � ��+ .'��^ a,• ! a,:'. ', ri oe s,,,� "ttu.r ,u •. �.,,• ,s, �pwMB ;;: .Y .t'- ;o r ,,,, L. a,,: z a. ..', ,� ,t-,---, ,a; , t �eY "� r.^�.,,�e� e: ,.:,. . hr.: s; rs . ..x�' a,.+�.. �S:, �,�' �" as.'.. '�'"�'j � �'� s 3 t �, ., ,•,-. ., ,,. ��++ a.. n . ,.„ :,{' a t., ;0'r'- } f:.`tv, ,Ji .yS .4c.. _ y p yy i; ,,7.,, :e.k.*� ti5,,,. I '.•,.,.,,•r. •. r. t ° S'yaf', s rrr'CFdG".t.xa.wXi+ `n. +; ru c,( 'r.: ^�y :.. ,y.,..a .{,. + ai:, "..n r ' t'.'yi Y�,, s,. ,..'St. _„r, ,. , ' "^ r!, ,4,'^ �'"a,'1 'a�. ,1' _ h -'se : .�+4.. ' r'•�,`�°,ar ;.,,,• .:+ ii"u�,�',..,fir-:�:. "'*��rrt�e. "`u, �y�+,�;�t e ,+� "�.� •'�,r.r.'. M k v 'd"'.�' ` .�":,r �-.".�.�'4r+. as k ��+:;i'. t a .M"*X". --• :' .„E, ,4„ ;c,, ,. a °ar14,0C..",",,<4, t' ,,�1?1 . °`a?x %k'at rti`f' a r 3,14x: .. ,3 n ` 6' 51-t. '. 4. zr-x �, ; :t,,;v. ,r•r: ."t„e: r� . -V,4i44 .r: r r,L .;.':: '•�,' • : v:. �- - w .a n'i+? ;v., • t itis• .-,_..i '' , .'i`Gs "x'd?k' 'g..3:: h” hr p r: • .. A- 4...,:,1'.4,;t;', ,y "•.';"r,L. r.. .5ro3,ue- x 1 #.• I p, `.'' .:a 1• t': r- ,', >e" '0 ,1• ,W:,.. •rc 'J r ' 41-..;',.• F ,. ``�- x * ar° 5 4 r r 4,,t ..h z b • ' �, r L. d J 'S'"a`',` n r.�s 4.",',.:,S, ^4F 'r.' •K' �.'""• ,1y�� ,x,,,,,114,4",,40,11 . fr�lu 4,4��,.,rt' x ;"4" 0,441 , e !3.1 . :`1,.., -,-,�G` 1/� !r(.., ? i., " k ��(' "�C�•t ,j 9r�.,�57��'wp4, Alr. {gR at'' 'i � 41'%"rek r1 N ` dPyre a+^ `�� y/ ,gli,..,,,, � t • H` ,.c J •':§ r 'eV *' # tir '_ , aE"� ��Ry7 -+ "`-�` r d ,t`''' 1 ,let' S'1 5w.e'1 t o r 1 t µj ', S3^d 'r' y'l' . I 3+Z:,, t7„ H} ;„ a 1r s t :-s�. ,o Q f„r` 4;.'' J - 'j' 2:-,,,,-;:z,,..:....' r.ee, :;r n .;4 x a.14'r* ;',,.4..,:t-4-1:,,,'4 't :. t.,• , ,�. t ,A s` .t�$ - 91:.} r r ;,Y r,,.. rn'a ,p, J, ✓,3.,., #4411:14.44.0 .4''M ,.t v S� c.' ,_r ft (N ';'I = r s Y: s�• ' i . d j. F ^4 '':+' 4 j ,75, • �' ..:15 :,,a,.sn- Pa.r l''"or.„‘,- 5 dw' , '*'- ;yk;Y .j 3J ylevel, ,»+ L i y a P. .., • -,,v, Ain ho ��°`"'"•'s'rr�1 - ^,fia,aJ Q^} aX+•" aela ,''"xxt 'E-h 'p't;;,. r s -,~irF.sy" �S1 Ja• sr', rf'S > ' X, ., •^:*.' 'fir fir. nq '' xJ¢k 1 y,'.,'ge ,4 �e 'r °'q..k41'..t"}: i r Yf: v \•! ra°' t �4p, �, G) > Y t ,�f,^r"'',.kl:- : ; a H- i 4,7 J 3S. '".1);4,„';',1 1�' 1 1 1 1 '...,..1-L‘,;:- ......::..." ', 40 Y ,r,-Alt „ +7r0 4 g� .;� M•P't" w. rr,,�� y}�1 t. _..!.,b. t ., �1r .•,,, rr 'j. .,',/03P41.2X 4.:4A.,....,....„, ; �' r # i x t.. C Ef-•n , }. 3 � � ` -� t„ ,,,:),.,•:.f.&...% E : > ' - ,. : de{, kd 31.k Oka 0 . t%y .�+ .a 3 .i.M a, 4 4 '� �t f • J r , +>. ^ �y �Si, „ ,,:•.t J 'fri rF r £ ,., •r j t" k',` ”' r .k t ' " z �;� , t,t s • , n r., x rte" w ." .sem.`' r ?YS,' ^',E`' rtzeaf:�I ' Jro ` ' aCL,) 5 ,. l7 � r' ,: x','S i` 1 • '•» fa;',' ,, .; rs c r'" I S 't cy t '7,'q S 1 `4` d l99' ,§x —1/4:,-- � k`. t JJ fit r' . C' yt A• "•rl{"'# a7�" ur vJ c`V'�*'d+'v 4ti,��"S.,.,;:,„,:''N.,.,..,..„,:4::,.:04.1,0,4.t , • ,h`ut }'x „4, e I ,.-•$ !Sd j'-';'+ky,f- N ' y.'T 4 • '+0 ixcf1 r, . r _ J r y 4-R' ',r 4'.,.,4..`..,'•,; 1$r ! `Cr,/ 'y'.Y' a r ,, i °s f't2r ,,,C.' t?a 'y,y �,•,�y,..a« �.,' s E t r Y ""r' `' •ja ar h+• }41' 'k 4 .:+x § • E` µr,+ ,' r r 'S+,-.-,e Aat a 4„S e ',. • .'t am ,,+," ,$y'"%• 7;5''," .( 4 444,..,4- } 1.h, A". oil,' �r .,tt.1,,1‘,,,,,,,' '";T " N :! ,r t. w a r • . „1,,'�,a E.Y'} ',..,-...;;:..`0'''.':".: "r,� 'h \i', ,dyer (}�: r Ai,"ek- N, ;,L",,If pa,A K,r! ,-.A.‘tdC r r x �4-.' ,„x'' " , 1 '.,j" ,..µ� , , tEE .,t„«y.' J4;: ^M. S r°-: 'r• r "w';.: S F;'-u! ,f ".4 kl,r',,.v 1, s i $ t .,+, .'� •r r- t'.4 t• . '+�.`,� e %�-��d X�"�k� Ggw�'��S'.^-. d�,, .0,,,,..'t3,u,'Ara,�*'f +' u 1,,,,,,,44..,„,f Y. 1.. '^1. '$t 4 57. — - W4 h 4. ,1` •,R. :Fv f 5.. k ,; '..:',.4;,41-, :,y xs " � .. , .. 't., /.4 .•'tie}r+�'"'} .^u , .,n t,^:+e•^, '�: r•, +. t :,r.' � kr t ':x- -”' .a" ,l'-',,,.' ..� . ' .,• ,, :..4..„,,f, t. ,a. . k:. r':r4 .R:1 a n,.-x- i i' .. ='9 ,v ray,. ,=:t •`' uxl y<.,„j ,,t, 4 '; .r ,.. ; , •.-,.. .-t .r i,. •1t' 41 r.. 4, . ; �i'C5'.�.. i- ‘"?''''''..'rt '"1 � _ �. � , te.•uri}riirRr ,sem__ _._—"_, H.. ...m �-. .....e ems— -r,Y� r ----4.1a71&.2-. 'r,e' ..- .1 ter, rs A If,; • Y 1 • If L. Prepared by: BERK&ASSOCIATES 120 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Seattle,Washington 98122 P (206) 324-8760 www.berkandassociates.com "Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures" BERK & ASSOCIATES ! • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' 1-7 Purpose and Mandate of the Analysis This assessment of the financial feasibility of Fairwood incorporation is provided as a reference i1it4p • document for members of the public, both inside and outside of the proposed incorporation area, and for members of the King County Boundary Review Board. The goal of this study is (1) to inform the Boundary Review Board as it considers its recommendation regarding Fairwood incorporation, (2) to inform Fairwood residents as they make a decision whether to vote for or against incorporation, and (3) to inform the broader public. • . . This study answers two straightforward questions: 1. Is if financially feasible to incorporate a new City of Fanwood. 1 2. What are the potential implications of incorporation on local taxes and levels of service? To give residents a meaningful point of comparison, the study seeks to answer the question in the P.° • context of the status quo: How do the financial realities of incorporation compare with the status quo (remaining unincorporated)? The study is designed to clarify what is possible; it is not meant to determine whether residents are better or worse off if they incorporate (compared with remaining part of unincorporated King County, orcompared with an option of annexing to Renton or any other nearby city). Does the Proposed Incorporation of Fairwood Appear Financially Feasible? Yes. Given existing tax rates, a City of Fairwood would generate enough revenues.to provide a slightly higher level of service than Fairwood residents currently receive. Although the proposed City is primarily residential, with a weak commercial tax base,the combination of solid property values and a modest level of existing public services makes the proposed City financially feasible. As modeled for this feasibility assessment, the City of Fairwood would rank among the lowest King County cities in terms of revenues per resident, but the City wouldbe able to provide current services, and a little more,without increasing taxes. vq Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Core Operating Revenues and Costs 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Operating Revenues $8.3 M $8.5 M $8.7 M $9.3 M $9.6 M $9.8 M Operating Costs $7.7 M $8.0 M $8.2 M $8.5 M $8.9 M $9.3 M Residual ;$593,000 $486,000 $521,000 $785,000 $668,000 $543,000 Source:Berk&Associates Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 1 Berk&Associates,Inc. - September.9,2005 „ ` o PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Key Factors Affecting Feasibility • The Effects of Initiative 747 on Property Taxes and the Need for Future Levy Lid Lifts.A series of statewide initiatives have threatened most cities' financial support from taxes and fees. Over time, erosion of property tax revenues from 1-747 limits becomes more pronounced. As an area that would have strong property tax revenues to start with, but less commercial activity to underpin the city's fiscal balance, a City of Fairwood would face substantial fiscal hurdles without regular levy lid lifts. In particular, our analysis suggests that a levy lid lift will be needed in the year 2009 to maintain the property tax levy at$1.60 per thousand assessed valuation (AV). For a city like the proposed City of Fairwood, which will always rely on property taxes, if residents choose to incorporate, they should do so with an expectation and understanding that they will need to vote to maintain the City's property tax levy on a regular basis. An assumption that Fairwood city residents would vote to maintain a City levy rate of $1.60 is consistent with the same-cost/same-level-of-service framework used throughout this study. The rate for the King County Road Levy, which Fairwood's City Levy would replace, has*risen in recent years (from $1.73 per$1,000 of assessed value in 2001 to$1.83 per thousand in 2005).' If one assumes that the County Road Levy rate would continue to increase as it has recently,then if voters approve levy lid lifts that hold Fairwood's City Levy rate steady at $1.60, Fairwood property owners would actually see a decrease in future-year property taxes (compared to what they would have paid if they had remained part of.unincorporated King County). r-f • Weak Retail Sales Tax Revenue.The City of Fairwood will be among the cities with the lowest per-capita sales tax revenues in King County. While Streamlined Sales Tax implementation could improve that picture in the future, the City might consider policy choices that affect sales tax collections. • County Road Levy Replaced by Utility Tax. In order to maintain a baseline of using current tax burdens to assess feasibility, we assume that a new Fairwood City Council will impose a utility tax to make up the difference between the disappearing road tax levy and the new City property tax that is limited by state law. However, the City will retain untapped utility tax authority of roughly$2 million as a cushion for the future. • Implications for Nearby Areas.The proposed City of Fairvvood comprises only part of the City of Renton's existing Fairwood potential annexation area (PM). The remainder of Renton's Fairwood PM lies to the west of the incorporation area, with a 2005 population of 16,100 persons, and is commonly known as the "Cascade” area.An analysis of Renton's ability to annex a more limited PM is now under way, but it is possible that the fiscal challenge of serving the Cascade area would cause it to remain an unincorporated island for years to come if the Fairwood area incorporates. • Contracting for Services with King County. The•costs to the City of contracting with King County for existing service levels are modest The single largest expense category would be police services. With a low crime rate and the level of police services provided now, Fairwood could 'These increases occur, in part, because the King County Road Levy is generally not constrained by 1-747 limits. Fainvood Feasibility Study Page 2 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT contract for police and other services for a modest cost. This analysis assumes that Fairwood would contract with King County for police, roads and surface water management services. • Options for Providing Police Services. The single costliest line item listed in our forecast of r7" expenses is for police services,which will comprise approximately one-third of the entire costs of running the City of Fairwood. Certainly, among residents of Fairwood, there will be differing opinions as to the optimal level of public safety services provided. We assume that a level of • . police services slightly higher than Fairwood residents enjoy today will be possible through a contract with the King County Sheriffs Office. • Phased Implementation of City Hall Services. Staffing City Hall will be one of the largest expenses that Fairwood will face, and choices exist as to how many people are hired, and how soon, to provide City services! Recently, several new cities have deliberately and strategically ' deferred hiring many staff upon incorporation in order to build financial reserves. For a city like s . Fairwood, which should not expect large windfalls of revenue in coming years, a strategy of deferring hiring to build a reserve of a few million dollars will be valuable. • Immediate Need for Capitals•Facilities Planning. King County will complete all of its planned major capital investments in roads, parks and surface water management facility projects prior to incorporation. Fairwood roads projects included in King County's 2004 Transportation Needs Report (TNR), a list of all identified transportation needs not yet included in the CIP, total close to $16 million. The lion's share of this total is the completion of transportation needs on the 140t Avenue SE corridor. Beyond this estimate, a forecast of Fairwood's futurecapital expenditures is difficult However, Fairwood will generate sufficient real estate excise tax (REET) revenues and Surface Water Management fee revenues specifically dedicated to capitalinvestments, to meet identified needs as the new City begins its comprehensive plan. Beginning in 2007, Fairwood's REET revenues can be expected to generate more than $1.7 million per year to help fund capital investments in the City. iI Another way to assess capital funding is to ask the question: In terms of capital investments, would Fairwood be better off itiincorporates than if it were to remain unincorporated? In recent years, King County ihas invested more than $40 million in roads improvements in Fairwood (a level of investment the new City would,be challenged to match). Looking beyond 2006, however, the County has no additional investments planned through 2011. If Fairwood were to incorporate in the latter half of•2006, the City could expect to generate roughly $10 million in capital revenues from real estate excise taxes through 2011. The City would also generate an additional $2 to $3 million in capital revenues to be dedicated for Surface Water Management. These capital revenues substantially exceed what King County plans to spend in Fairwood over the same period'. • Experience of Other Recently Incorporated Cities. In the past dozen years, six new cities have incorporated in King County. New cities such as Kenmore and Covington have reported that it is a significant challenge to generate revenues that are sufficient to meet the cities' level-of- service goals. Measures, such as phasing in the hiring of City Hall staff and delaying and deferring capital projects may need to be taken. Compared with these six cities, an incorporated City of Fairwood will face similar challenges as it tries to meet resident's desires for core services such as public safety services, maintaining and improving city streets, and providing parks and recreation services. Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 3 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 Q PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • The Renton Pool. The Renton Pool, co-located with the Lindbergh High School campus and currently in County ownership, represents a future financial challenge and uncertainty.We assume that the pool will be operated and maintained by a non-profit organization such as the Northwest Center, and that a financial contribution will be made by the new City of Fairwood towards its operation, consistent with agreements that other cities in King County have developed with King County. Inpart, this assumed contribution recognizes that the pool is a community resource and service that current residents use and enjoy. • Potential Effects of Sales Tax Streamlining. If current efforts are successful among states and private industries to create more uniform sales tax structures, referred to as the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement (SSTA), then local taxation of intrastate and interstate sales of delivered goods could bolster sales tax revenues for cities like the proposed City of Fairwood.2 The proposed City of Fairwood would stand to gain in this scenario, even though it has a relatively weak commercial tax base and can expect only modest revenues from store-based retail sales tax.This is particularly true if household buying habits continue to shift towards internet purchases. r. .. Assumptions and Limitations of the Analysis • This study is not a blueprint for how to run the City of Fairwood and does not bind a future City Council to the assumptions included here. This study only addresses the issue of financial feasibility. It analyzes a reasonable range of assumptions about revenues and expenses and concludes that the City would earn enough revenue to meet its core expenses. If the voters . choose to incorporate;they will elect a City Council that will have to make many decisions that will influence the actual revenues and expenses of the City. Nothing presented in this document should in any be interpreted as binding on a future Council. The elected officials in many newly incorporated cities choose to provide additional types and levels of public services to their citizens.The City Council of Fairwood may choose to raise taxes and service levels, keep them the same, or lower them. • Projections of revenues and expenses are estimates; readers should not attach undue significance to individual numbers. Any particular number in this analysis, such as the amount of sales tax expected to be generated by the City of Fairwood, will almost certainly differ from the actual number in that year should the incorporation occur. However, while any specific number will be off, the overall findings reflect the best knowledge available about the fiscal feasibility of the proposed City. The analysis builds an estimate of total revenues by making explicit estimates for each revenue and cost Our goal is to reach an estimate of total revenues by making all of the assumptions explicit, allowing interested readers to push and prod at assumptions to judge for themselves the reasonableness of our findings. • . The basic procedure to incorporate is set out in Chapter 35.02 RCW - Incorporation Proceedings. The process includes a petition requirement, review by a boundary review board, and a vote by Fanwood residents. • z The"source"of the sale determines which jurisdiction will receive the local sales tax,meaning that changes in sourcing rules would shift the"source"of sale to the city of delivery. Fafrwood Feasibility Study Page 4 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 V I PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT If the voters approve incorporation, a primary election to nominate candidates for city council and an election to select the city council must be held. The new city must officially incorporate, at a date set by the initial city council,within 360 days of the incorporation election.This means that if the Boundary Review Board 'hearing was in October 2005, and the incorporation vote was in February, 2006, then new council elections would be held in May or June of 2006 andthe new City would need to be open for business, at the latest, by February, 2007. This analysis assumes for the purposes of financial feasibility that the official incorporation date for the City of Fairwood, if approved by voters,will be September 1, 2006. 1.1 I • . I I Fauwood Feasibility Study I Page 5 Berk&Associates, Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ti j ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD 1. INTRODUCTION AND REPORT ORGANIZATION In urban unincorporated King County, there are currently 10 large areas (including Fairwood; North Highline, Juanita, and West Hill) that have yet to be annexed to a city or incorporate into a new city. There are now about 218,000 residents in these urban 'areas for whom King County currently. provides local services. The Growth Management Act, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the King County Comprehensive Plan encourage all unincorporated areas within King 'County's Urban Growth Boundary to pursue incorporated status through either annexation or incorporation. State law (RCW 36.70A.110) provides the underlying rationale for these policies: "In general, cities are the local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services." In response to the direction of the Growth Management Act (GMA), in the early 1990s, King County and the suburban cities worked together to develop a framework of policies intended to guide jurisdictions as they planned for the future. These policies, referred to as the Countywide Planning Policies, are King County and the suburban cities' interjurisdictional plan for implementing the goals of the Growth Management Act As directed by the GMA, these Countywide Planning Policies explicitly address the status of unincorporated urban areas.Among other things,the policies call for: • Elimination of unincorporated urban islands between cities. • The adoption by each city of a Potential Annexation Area, in consultation with residential groups in the affected area. • The annexation or incorporation of all unincorporated areas within the urban growth boundary within a 20-year timeframe (1993 —2013). In the context of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies, a group of residents in Fairwood have sought to establish a new City of Fairwood. In February 2005, the Fairwood Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) completed signature-gathering for a petition to put the incorporation of the City of Fairwood on the ballot. The group collected nearly 2,300 signatures and filed the Notice of Intent to Incorporate (NOI) with the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB), beginning the process to allow for BRB review and a possible public vote in February, 2006. Context of Analysis: Fiscal and Governance Issues Fairwood residents have three governance options available to them: (1) remain unincorporated, (2) incorporation, or (3) annexation to Renton (an option that requires action• by the City of Renton). When residents consider incorporation, their considerations will take place in the context of those options. This study answers two straightforward questions: 1. Is if financially feasible to incorporate as a new City of Faiiwood? Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 8 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9, 2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2. What are the potential implications of incorporation on local taxes and levels of service? To give residents a meaningful point of comparison, we seek to answer the question in the context of the status quo: How do the financial realities of incorporation compare with the status quo (remaining unincorporated)? It is worth noting that there are implications to remaining unincorporated. Unless King County gets new authority to increase taxes in unincorporated areas, departments that are providing services funded by King County's general find will all face significant fiscal pressure to reduce expenditures in . urban unincorporated areas like Fairwood. (This includes Sheriff, Parks, Human Services, Land Use & Planning, and Economic Development.) The principal factor causing this fiscal pressure is the effect of the 1% limit on property tax revenue growth enacted by voters when they passed Initiative 747 in 2001. The new 1% limit restricts property tax revenue growth for the County's general fund to 1% plus the value of new construction The previous limit was 6% and was established in state legislative action. It is difficult to say which services maybe cut or reduced in unincorporated areas as available County revenues fail to keep up with growth in the cost of public services. Decisions about service cuts must be made each year through the County's budget adoption process. However, until the County is able to fully address its structural deficit, it is clear that the County will be forced to make cuts across all service areas, including services to local urban unincorporated areas like Fairwood. There are many other important questions about incorporation which this study cannot answer.Voters will want to know, "Will my taxes1 go up or down?", "Will.the City provide better, more responsive services than King County?", and 'Will the City slow development in our area?". The answer to these questions depends on who is elected to the new City Council and whom they hire to run the City. This study is not a blueprint for how the City will be run. If Fairwood votes for incorporation, decisions about taxes, service levels, and capital investments will be made by seven citizens elected from the roughly 26,100 people who live in the proposed City, instead of by the County Council and County staff. This study cannot predict what a new City Council would do. We can describe how much . revenue a new City could generate if it maintains current taxing rates and the levels of service it could provide if it does. Voters will need to weigh this information about financial feasibility with their Own perceptions about what forms and structures of government can best provide them public services and represent their positions in matters of public policy. On a broader scale, this feasibility'study does not seek to answer the big question: is incorporation a good idea? The answer to that question will be the subject of much debate over the coming months, and the ultimate answer for each participant in that debate is likely to depend on his or her perspective. t _ The goal of this report is relatively narrow: to assess the financial feasibility of the proposed City. The answer to the question of feasibility will inform the debate about whether incorporation is a good idea, but clearly, it will not settle that debate. This report begins by reviewing the key assumptions used in the revenue and expense forecast and the basic statistical data describing the proposed incorporation area. This section includes information about the market potential and a look to the future for Fairwood's commercial center. It then provides an overview of the revenues and expenses to the City from 2006 through 2010,followed by sections Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 9 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • on each source of revenue and category of expenses for the proposed City. Finally, the report assessed the capital improvement needs of Fairwood and the cost of additional services the City may choose to purchase. The final section reviews City start-up financing and how the City will meet - expenses longer-term. The appendices to the report outline the tax base and fundamental market characteristics of the area. • Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 10 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 • e ` 1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2. KEY ASSUMPTIONS The findings of this feasibility analysis depend upon a wide range of assumptions.We have identified most of these assumptions in our descriptions of specific statistical data, revenues, and expenses. There are, however, a few overriding assumptions that apply to all areas of this study, and are therefore key to understanding the implications of our findings.These assumptions are: Date of Incorporation ' This analysis assumes that the official incorporation date for the City of Fairwood, if approved by voters, will be September 1, 2006.The baseline assessment of feasibility looks at the first six years of `7 full operation (2007 through 2012).The start-up cash flow analysis looks at revenues and costs, on a month-by-month basis for 2006 and 2007. The actual date of incorporation will depend on when the vote is held and the logistical considerations that result from that date. As things currently stand, September of 2006 appears to be the earliest possible date of incorporation. If the date'of incorporation were to be pushed back into 2007, then we expect that the fiscal picture for the proposed City may improve slightly (mostly stemming from an • additional year of appreciation in property values prior to setting the City's initial property tax levy). The basic procedure to incorporate is set out in Chapter 35.02 RCW- Incorporation Proceedings.The process includes a petition requirement, review by a boundary review board, and an election. If the voters approve incorporation, a primary election to nominate candidates for city council and an election to select the city council must be held. The new city must officially incorporate, at a date set by the-initial city council,within 360 days of the incorporation election. The summary table below shows that if the Boundary Review Board hearing was on October 1 and the community group supporting incorporation wanted to hold an election in February, new City elections might be in June, 2006 and the new City of Fairwood would need to be open for business, at the latest,by February, 2007. Exhibit 1 Incorporation Steps • • Timeline Incorporation Step (also see RCW 35.02) 6 months or Organization and Study. A group of citizens organizes and surveys the community to more determine interest in incorporation. The citizens' group commissions a Governance Options Study (for the Fairwood area, a governance options study was conducted for the Petrovitsky Corridor in 1999): I . Open Preliminary-. Boundaries and Notice. If community interest in incorporation exists, the Committee sets the preliminary boundaries for the incorporation area.The Committee submits a preliminary Notice of Proposed Incorporation to the County Clerk who transmits it to the Boundary Review Board. Open Public Information Meeting. The Boundary Review Board sets up a Public Information Meeting where the Committee reports on the proposed incorporation, including service Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 11 Berk&Associates,Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Timeline Incorporation Step(also see RCW 35.02) providers and representatives of surrounding cities, or citizens, in support of or opposition to boundaries;new boundaries may be suggested. Immediately Refine Boundaries, Initiate Petitions. Following the public meeting, if the Committee wishes to go forward with the incorporation efforts, the boundaries are selected. The King County Council Clerk will assign an Identification Number to incorporation proposal petitions. The King County Office of Records and Elections assists in setting requirements for the incorporation petition,and the Committee must administer petitions as set'by State law. Next 180 days Petition Circulation.The Committee may then circulate the petitions. The petitions call for a future election to allow community members to decide if incorporation should occur. The petitions to conduct an election must be signed by ten percent of the registered voters living within the area to be incorporated. Immediately Notice of Intention to Incorporate.Within 180 days from the date of the Public Information upon Meeting the Committee must collect the necessary signatures and submit the petitions to the completing Boundary Review Board with a Notice of Intention to Incorporate (NOI).The NOI should ideally petitions include descriptive information, copies of petitions, maps, demographic and land use information, service analyses, consistency with current laws, and government planning information. 30 days for Verification. The Boundary Review Board submits petitions to the King County Office of validation+5 Records and Elections and the King County Assessor for verification of their validity. for notification maximum 120 Boundary Review Board Assessment.The Boundary Review Board circulates the NOI (and day review staff analysis of that document) to King County offices and other affected governments and period agencies for an initial review and comment period. Maximum 120-day time for BRB actions in response to the NOI, however, is usually requested to be waived as it is not sufficient for incorporations, which generally require several months for required studies, analysis and public review processes. 4-6 months+ Study. An Economic and Fiscal Analysis Study is commissioned to determine the financial 30-45 days for viability of the proposed new city.The study provides conclusions as to the potential viability of public review an incorporation under the various scenarios. This analysis represents such a study for the and comment proposed City of Fairwood. 30 days Boundary Review Board Public Hearing. Under RCW 35 and RCW 36, a public hearing is minimum generally required for an incorporation. In King County, all incorporations go to a public hearing (notification conducted by the Boundary Review Board. At the public hearing, the Board takes testimony must be 30 from all interested parties - the Incorporation Committee, the consultant, citizens who will be days in advance affected by the incorporation, King County staff members,and service providers. of the hearing) within 40 days BRB Recommendation. The Board considers whether the incorporation is consistent with following the Boundary Review Board criteria (RCW 36.93.180); countywide planning and Growth Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 12 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9, 2005 b r • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Timeline Incorporation Step(also see RCW 35.02) public hearing Management Act At the conclusion of the hearing,the Board makes a recommendation on the incorporation. The Board may recommend in favor of the incorporation, against the incorporation or may recommend changing the incorporation boundaries. no less than 60 Incorporation Election. Following the Board recommendation, the Committee decides days following whether to continue with the incorporation process. If so, then an election must be held. The the Boundary election may be held even if the Board recommended against the incorporation. If the Review Board Committee decides to go forward with the election, the Committee works with King County r"� action Records and Elections, to prepare the ballot language and to place the issue on a ballot for election by registered voters in the incorporation area. • 60 days New City Government Elections. If incorporation is approved, then elections are held to following nominate city officials and select city officials. State (RCW 35/35A) sets the time frame for the incorporation elections. Primary elections must be held no less than 60 days following the election for election incorporation.Final selections must be held at least 60 days following primary election. Within 360 days. City Open for Business.The City begins operations -.setting up departments, selecting staff of voter members, adopting interim operating regulations, defining immediate,short term and long term approval of the ' policies,objectives and actions,developing and implementing preliminary budgets,etc. initial incorporation Organization of City Government The organization of the City government will be the Council/City Manager form. Same Cost, Same Level of Service To give residents a meaningful point of comparison for the feasibility assessment, this study assesses how do the financial realities of incorporation compare with the status quo, or remaining unincorporated? Given that point of comparison,the City's modeled taxes, costs, and service levels are designed to be consistent with costs and levels of service as they currently exist in the area. (We refer to this assumption throughout our analysis as a "same cost/same level of service" baseline.) The two exceptions to this assumption are in the area of police services and recreation services, in which our estimates include scenarios to describe the costs and revenues associated with slightly higher levels of service than King County is currently providing. Conservative Estimation The estimates of revenues and expenses should be conservative.This means that,when in doubt, we have attempted to err on the low side for revenues and on the high side for costs. • Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 13 Berk&Associates, Inc September.9,2005 • a PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Property Taxes:1-747 and Levy Lid Lifts In recent years, a series of statewide initiatives have eroded most cities' financial support from taxes and fees. From a city's perspective, the most damaging blows resulted from statewide passage of three initiatives: 1-695 (ending collection of the State's motor vehicle excise tax [MVETJ); 1-747 • • (limiting the growth of property tax levies on a city's existing property to less than the rate of inflation); and 1-776 (ending the collection of vehicle license fees). Combined, these initiatives have resulted in the immediate reduction of millions of dollars of city revenues, and have set up the long-run erosion of cities' property tax bases. If left unchecked, 1-747 limits cause property tax revenues for most cities to fall over time (in inflation- adjusted terms), particularly on a per-resident basis. 1-747 limits the growth of property tax revenues to 1% per year (excluding new construction)—a rate of growth that fails to keep up with inflation. Due to compounding effects over time, erosion of property tax revenues becomes more pronounced over a number of years. Given loss of MVET, the loss of vehicle license fees, and I-747's erosion of property tax revenues, some cities in Washington State are becoming increasingly dependent on sales taxes and other taxes and fees levied on commercial activity. Cities that are not in a position to capture growing sales taxes will (1) have to face continual degradation of local services and/or (2) seek to increase tax revenues through concurrent(voter-approved) levy lid lifts to ensure stable property tax. ;.4 As an area that would have solid property tax revenues to start with but less commercial activity to underpin the city's fiscal balance, a City of Fairwood should expect that levy lid lifts will be a necessary .' component to maintaining long-run fiscal sustainability. If residents vote for incorporation, the City of Fairwood is going to begin its life with relatively low levels of service, with few opportunities for additional cuts in service.This means that, if residents choose to incorporate,they should do so with an understanding and an expectation that they will need to vote to maintain the City's property tax levy on a regular basis. It is worth noting that an assumption that Fairwood city residents would vote to maintain a City levy rate of $1.60 is consistent with the same-cost/same-level-of-service framework used throughout this study. The rate for the King County Road Levy, which Fairwood's City Levy would replace, has actually risen in recent years (from $1.73 per thousand in 2001 to $1.83 per thousand in 2005). These increases occur, in part, because the King County Road Levy is generally not constrained by 1-747 limits. If one assumes that the County Road Levy rate would continue to increase as it has recently, then if voters approve levy lid lifts that hold Fairwood's City Levy rate steady at $1.60, Fairwood property owners would still see a decrease in future year property taxes (compared to what they would have paid if they had remained part of unincorporated King County). Sales Tax Streamlining In recent years, the Washington State Department of Revenue has engaged in a cooperative effort among states and private industries to create more uniform sales tax structures, referred to as the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The Project's mission is to simplify the rules surrounding the levying of Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 14 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 ✓ r PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT sales taxes, with a goal to pave the way for taxation of delivered goods (such as catalog and Internet sales) whose sale originates out-of-state. States participating in the project.;have been changing their sales tax laws to be consistent with provisions of the Streamlined Sale and Use Tax Agreement (SSTA), a set of provisions developed by is participants in the by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The Department of Revenue believes that Washington needs to implement the sourcing rule to comply with the model agreement and to become a member of-the governing board,which will decide the rules for future streamlined sales tax provisions.As a member,Washington State will receive additional sales taxes from remote sellers who r-.. have agreed to voluntarily to comply with the SSTP, in part to benefit from its tax liability protections. { Under the terms of the SSTP, those retailers will collect sales taxes for every member state that has implemented the model agreement. - In 2003, the Washington State Legislature enacted a bill including several provisions of the SSTA, but t ; the new law did not include key provisions that redefine the "sourcing" of delivered retail sales. The "source" of a sale determines the place of sale,which in turn, determines the jurisdiction to which the local portion of sales tax accrues for a given transaction. Under current State law, the "source" of sale for most delivered goods is deemed to be the store or warehouse from which the delivery originates.Thus, the local sales tax on sales of goods is allocated to the jurisdiction of the retail outlet at which,or from which, delivery is made. What this means for Washington cities is that under the sourcing provisions of the agreement, the "source" of most delivered goods would shift local sales taxes to the place of delivery instead, and the potential exists for substantial shifts in revenues from jurisdictions with businesses that involve delivery of goods to customers in other areas (such as software sales and warehouses that deliver goods like furniture to retail customers outside the jurisdiction). For example, under current law,I a mattress' that is delivered to a house in Covington from a warehouse in Tukwila will generate local sales taxes for the City of Tukwila, where the delivery originates. If enacted, the sourcing provisions of SSTA will change the "source" of that sale (and therefore the recipient of the local sales tax dollars) to the destination of the delivery (the City of Covington). Given the potential ifor large losses by certain cities, including Tukwila, Kent, and Woodinville, some local jurisdictions originally objected to legislative passage of the SSTA sourcing provisions,which is why the provisions were left out of the 2003 bill. To assess the revenue implications of SSTA sourcing provisions on local jurisdictions, the State Legislature directed the Department of Revenue (DOR) to conduct a study of the fiscal impacts on jurisdictions. In 2004 and 2005, Streamlined Sales Tax and the implementation of destination-based sourcing was divisive for cities, and the Legislature adjourned without taking action on either of the proposals to implement destination-based sourcing and provide mitigation to impacted jurisdictions. The Association of Washington Cities also convened a group of cities to work with an outside facilitator in an effort to devise an acceptable solution to this controversial issue over the interim. That process began in April 2004, with the assistance of a workgroup that is composed of 12 cities that represent an equal number of positively and negatively impacted jurisdictions. The Department of Revenue released a 2005 sourcing mitigation proposal, but later decided not to submit legislation.The proposal would have dedicated expected revenues from additional sales tax Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 15 Berk&Associates,Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT from remote seller voluntary compliance with the streamlined sales tax model agreement, and provided mitigation for cities, counties, and transits impacted by the implementation of sourcing;to be phased out over 10 years. In addition, the proposal would have provided ongoing backfill funding, based on 2005 distributions, for those cities and counties that were substantially impacted by the repeal of the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET).The Legislature did not take action on any of the four bills before it adjourned for the year. The future City of Fairwood has a relatively weak commercial tax base, and it appears to have few, if any, businesses that generate sales taxes through delivered goods. On the other hand, as a primarily residential city, households in Fairwood certainly purchase delivered goods now. This means is that Fairwood would be likely to benefit from the expected change in sourcing rules. Assuming that the rule change will occur at some point, in addition,to the immediate benefit the City would see from currently delivered goods, a City of Fairwood may also see opportunities to promote purchases of delivered goods to secure financial support for City goals. . t • • • • Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 16 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 a , • • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3. FAIRWOOD AREA CHARACTERISTICS Location of Incorporation Area The Fairwood incorporation area is an urban unincorporated area located southeast of the City of Renton in King County, approximately bounded on the North by SR 169 and the City of Renton, on the West by 128'h Avenue SE, on the South by SE 208th Street, and on the East by the Urban Growth Boundary. Exhibit 2 a ` Fairwood Incorporation Area Urban Growth Boundary, ,:ce,-.:r.R—,:etr-ri--_,w,,, ,l --';:::-:- �^ � .� -}.;;. -a my �' 7.,;;;;!.. .. 7::::-....'.-:c"-1-,,,,, ..- '..--:._., '4+ „`w. ,��, .'7r} f ,,fig ~ ";''; , fFAIRWOOD . _ ` , i. ' INCORPORAT1Ot4 ?` , t 3 mea r t trf rca ,-- --= } i i ` - T • .! 7 ,1r }mo .t.;,.7-17::„.. ..;-- Qftbbf t .0 IY"', ,.. i f f-'w� p F. il„..,, r r , r<_ .yam �,� •t'� .5E;o pfd s} sp t.F .4 1 {q Sy iv ,. .7 -2.11—, . ai v Sr: ? p? a 4. `- 4 - ! ” eta-t _ § Wes i...-. a...ter.` 'a {fi a .�'''% it—k' . The majority of Fairwood's development took place in the late 1960s through the 1980s. Development in the area slowed in the early and mid-1990s, but has picked. up recently. The study r area is roughly 7 square miles in size and is roughly 3.5 miles from north to south, at its longest point,. L and 3.5 miles from east to west, at its widest. i Fairwood Feasibility Study - Page 17 Berk&Associates, Inc. September.9,2005 i PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Description of"Remainder" Annexation Area The proposed incorporation area comprises only a part of the City of Renton's existing Fairwood Potential Annexation Area (PM). The remainder of Renton's Fairwood PM lies to the west of the incorporation area. This "remainder" area, the portion of Renton's Fairwood's PM not included in the incorporation area, has a 2005 population of 16,100 persons, and is bounded on the north and west by the City of Renton, on the south by the City of Kent and the Kent's potential annexation area, and on the east by 128th Avenue SE (the western boundary of the Fairwood incorporation area). The "remainder" area includes the residential areas of Spring Glen, Auria Woods, Chinoaupin, Village Gate, Springfield, Benson Hill, Gainsborough Commons, and Youngs Lake Commons. These areas are not included in the proposed incorporation area. An analysis of Renton's ability to annex the Cascade area is now under way, but it is possible that the fiscal challenge of serving the Cascade area would cause the area to remain an unincorporated island for years to come if the Fairwood area incorporates. • Population Base Population and Growth Rate fl Population growth is an important driver of city costs and revenues. In any city, many of the major revenue sources as well as a large number of expenses depend either directly or indirectly on the city's population. While the proposed City of Fairwood is not growing rapidly, the process of growth itself can generate significant amounts of short-term revenues from taxes levied on new construction. The population of the Fairwood area in 2005 is 26,100. In 2000, the estimated population of the Fairwood area was 23,400,which means that the area has increased by an average 540 residents per year over the past five years. For purposes of assessing feasibility, this study assumes that population growth will slow in coming years, with an expected addition of 275 residents per year through 2012. This estimate is lower recent growth trends (1)to reflect the fact that Fairwood is beginning to approach residential build-out and (2)to ensure that estimates of feasibility are conservative. High rates of construction can serve as a short-term fiscal boon to cities because of sales taxes the city collects on construction, and real estate excise taxes the city collects on initial property sales. By estimating a lower rate of growth for Fairwood for the period of analysis, this feasibility assessment seeks to be conservative in estimating these revenues. Assessed Value of Property Having established our estimates of population, the next important driver of revenue for a residential city like Fairwood is the assessed value (AV) of the taxable property lying within the city's boundaries. It is the assessed value of the City of Fairwood that will provide the basis for all property taxes. Working from King County Assessor's Office data extracts and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) digital maps of boundaries and tax parcels, Berk & Associates estimated the 2005 total assessed property of the proposed City of Fairwood is $2.208 billion. This figure includes an estimated $2.175 billion in taxable rea/property (land and buildings) and an additional $33 million in personal and inter Fai,wood Feasibility Study Page 18 Berk&Associates, Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT county utility property(which includes certain types of equipment and the value of property and equipment in the area that is owned by utilities that have assets in more than one county). I ' In addition to taxable property, Fairwood also includes $66 million in property that is exempt from • taxation. I Overall,in 2005, Fairwood had ro ghly$85,000 of taxable assessed value for each Fairwood resident. Projected Growth in Assessed Value While the taxable assessed value described above provides a base on which to begin assessing the } fiscal viability of the proposed City, two factors will determine growth in the taxable property of the city: (1) the increase in the value of the property associated with existing structures, and (2) the amount of new development over�the period. i x Based on a review of increases in assessed value that the King County Assessors Office has begun to announce from 2005 to 2006, this analysis assumes that average values of existing property in Fairwood will increase by 70/0 fro 2005 to 2006. For 2007 and beyond, we assume that values of existing properties will increase at a rate of 50/0 per year (a rate we believe to be appropriately conservative given recent growth ii values and given the constraints on remaining developable land in the area and in King County as a whole). For increases in assessed value coming from new development, we assume that each new Fairwood resident will be accompanied by a $100,000 increase in assessed value in 2005.This translates to an increase of $300,000 per new 3-person household. Assumed increases for 2006 through 2012 parallel the assumed property value increases noted above: 7%for 2006 and 5%per year thereafter. Beyond new housing, new construction value also comes from commercial development and improvements that are made to eeisting residential and commercial properties. Based on a review of the experiences of other cities in King County over recent years, we assume that these sources will drive additional new property value equal to 0.50/0 of the area's total taxable assessed value in a given year. Exhibit 3 Taxable Assessed Value Estimates • 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Assessed Value ;$2,504 M $2,630 M $2,761 M $2,899 M $3,044 M $3,196 M Assessed Value of Existing Property $2,481 M $2,605 M $2,735 M $2,872 M $3,015 M $3,166 M Assessed Value of New Construction $24 M $25 M $26 M $27 M $29 M $30 M Li Source:Berk&Associates analysis of King County Assessor data extracts. Current Rate of Taxation The owner of every piece of non-exempt real property within the proposed City of Fairwood currently pays property taxes according to a;levy rate applied to every $1,000-of assessed value.This total levy rate is composed of number of elements, ranging from state taxes, to county taxes, to local school { and fire district taxes. Consequently, there is no one property tax rate paid by all potential residents of the new city. Below, we provide a breakdown of the current rates for.one such levy area. Tax rates for Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 19 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT special districts such as fire and schools vary within the incorporation area. The remaining levy rates are consistent for all property owners within the incorporation boundaries. These common elements appear in bold-faced type. Exhibit 4 Sample 2005 Levy Rates for Fairwood Property Owners 2005 Rate per$1,000 of Assessed Value King County Levy $1.38 Port Levy $0.25 State School Fund $2.70 King County Library District $0.53 County Road District Fund $1.83 Emegency Medical Services $0.23, Hospital $0.09 Fire $0.99 School Levy(Kent School District) $4.80 Total - $12.80 Of all the levies currently paid by Fairwood property owners,the only property tax that will cease upon incorporation is the $1.83 levy for the King County Road District. This tax will be replaced by a new City levy, which would be levied for the first full year of the City's existence, which in this analysis is assumed to be 2007).This analysis assumes that the City's 2007 property tax levy rate will be set to $1.60 per$1,000 of taxable assessed property. This $1.60 is the maximum levy rate that can be guaranteed to the City in a given year(based on the assumption that the City will (1) continue to receive fire and emergency medical services from one or • more fire districts, and (2) continue to receive library services from the King County Library System). For a discussion of other options that may be available to the City for securing additional levy capacity, see the Optional Revenues section on page 50. If it was in place today, the City's $1.60 levy rate would not entirely replace the 2005 King County Road District levy of$1.83 per$1,000. Therefore, to be consistent with the study's goal of estimating City revenues based on current rates of taxation, the study assumes that the new City will "make up" the difference in property taxes through a new utility tax. Special Purpose Districts School Districts Residents in the northeastern region of the proposed City of Fairwood would continue to be served by the Renton School District #403, which includes Lindbergh High School and Renton Park Elementary located in the incorporation area. The South and East areas of the new city would be served by the Kent School District, which has the following facilities in the incorporation area: Fairwood Elementary, Fai'wood Feasibility Study Page 20 Berk&Associates, Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Fire Districts Fire and basic life support emergency medical services are currently provided to most of the Fairwood area by Fire District 40, a full service fire district that provides its own stations, apparatus, and personnel. A small portion in the northeast part of the Fairwood study area is served by Fire District 25, which contracts with the City of Renton to provide its fire protection services, so it is already served by the City of Renton. Fire District 37 is responsible for fire protection services to the parts of the Fairwood south of SE 192nd Street. Fire District 37 contracts with the City of Kent to provide its fire and EMS protection. In the event of incorporation, the most likely scenario and most financially feasible for the new City of Fairwood would be to annex to one of the fire districts to continue to provide service, most likely Fire District 40. Advanced life support emergency medical services are currently provided to the Petrovitsky Corridor area by King County Medic One, which is a regional service that will continue to be provided by Medic One post-incorporation. Our assumption is that the proposed City of Fairwood would choose to annex itself to the currently existing King County Fire Protection'Districts. Since these three districts are funded through discrete . levies, the provision of fire and life safety protection will have no direct financial impact on the City's budget. ` a'r • • Fail-wood Feasibility Study S Page 22 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • • } PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 6 Fairwoi d Area Fire Districts and Stations .. ''yap , W i},'" u 4 - y k ,-u.,R = 3•�{ ate- �3 4i` �. ,;y h eyt� :�.� b Y `.i-Renw{wto�w w, �$ ..• .rrz�!3•� 1 ` '+ .y _.�t a .. 41K ,e �'��-- ,, c'?.: }jj .R :i-5-1'17% Y . ' t,y`.-7..444-4'.. i`ht[ ��^t' �j T€� J v+cY ..ti ' t v r w ? ,r J } :..s z 7,,,,_,::: 4w tk ''r ; " .-' +-- is• ��` r� r r4 .� ... J ��„£� t,. 2,`�'�.E -� ---=,--- 3�'. "c _.. S "VA��.,�. �5 Y' r £ # s r i 'r> + te..wl"+mr t m w wef `Y s'-Y.,: .'`.1'.--?;,'''': #y ;p "a-5-v';il .t5, i rpt a 'y` r -„.. t ! ! +� . , i • '_,!„,,U.--7:7-;,:?..', 0 .}b 3 _ i 7:71-„7g,:,>7‘.-..- r t ;• .. % 1 H `r } } ‘-----7-7-----ti- t t f ,,� .o reg : k rht ' ,..F.'-' .� ,F.Y`t - '- ' - - 4 -' .. ,.�' ,t• g - t t V r 149_44;;J 0'� �-`h 571 � t - '• ,�as ”` - � ,. 577 ,. .,. •k. s �r 1 tst h t 1.s N' �t •6 x _ xa,r g. M r e s r Ik a F� -c 6 + ^r k#"-' .s - - i S3.£, .'..: n,',Wit--z -",e„ Y t ,-,,,,,,,,,..--,,,,,,e.7.0 ..� ��- e..� t r ,i t � y t b� - 5 �. � . �'-�.'�2' 'Y;M - .p r'- �F µ4L.'f.',i .�"` 'say' 7 t ,c K, y ., L.:..4,:;.:,-- s , ,, - fi `v rI 4a -ss1 x f ,�d t c s • z= . ., ��'� �`'"`. RP,ks. '_ -tfg i s ,a g.P :r: i -.:'L:-rn , 't_. ' s _ �i" '. M`t-g,t 40, 4 01£�1:4 r.,r '�-+, ' -kre -' „ _ �� e m, t` s ' Aca'Biot kr. t • a ,l is r. m-,,,,,,._: , F �i s t Fire•District Boundarys �414,-7; �• sr�.� ��et4 ��'� � � * �'ra�ti �", t ��t�-�4 . � Urban Growth Boundary (5.-- -.,..?4,-,•;4'.;,n. . .. ,� "' x,,,,, ,i. k1 v i i ,,,!'" ..,Y",�rmr �y -tom -tib � r t r+fix r City Boundary 4,�, Source:King County and Berk&Associate's R , r c. G Faiiwood Feasibility Study Page 23 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9, 2005 t .. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Utility Districts Upon incorporation, residents of the newly incorporated city would continue to receive water and sewer service from two utility districts: in the northern portion of the city, Cedar River Water and Sewer District;and to the south,the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The Cedar River Water and Sewer District, formed in 1960, serves thecommunities of Fairwood (water and sewer service) and Maple Valley (water service only). The District's area has grown today through 38 annexations to approximately 9,420 acres, or 14.5 square miles.The primary water supply for the District is a long-term water supply contract with Seattle Public Utilities from the Lake Youngs reservation. Lake Youngs receives potable water from the Cedar River Watershed. The watershed is a closed area of approximately 96,000 acres lying between Hobart and the crest of the Cascade Mountains. • The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, formed in 193, was created by a merger of Water District 58 and Cascade Sewer District in 1987.The District encompasses over 35 square miles and provides water and sewer services to almost 100,000 people in southeast King County. Water is purchased from Seattle Public Utilities and reaches the District via Lake Youngs, which is adjacent to the District's office. The sanitary sewer system, with 29 lift stations, conveys the wastewater to the King County Department of Natural Resources treatment plant in Renton for treatment and disposal. • Y,3 Fa/iwood Feasibility Study Page 24 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9, 2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 7 Fairwood Area Water and Sewer Districts i - "`'�'s,- •;?-.r;T.- ��., +„w`2;.. _ .:f".»3 .FFs:. :t�'.`'_';?"= cs.3.t;iN'=? 3}�%`<" ,: ,J, ,LTi`.-:::',.. M1 "t__..,,,.;u 4i'. ',....,,%�:. �',, .y> . - y• ,id"C' �r , v '.; '` ' "4. ' `� Y J " i :o Cedar River Water,and Sewer District T ..T•u..{.` r.., .. _,� 4a;i,:� �.r..•- j�:,y.=,-a tYkr,4,4#"4* §3 J r 4 '; s-..,,;,. At:�- .',CoalCree• ',„y'District,. Jy" • a; '''``P"aktti,c xgIIa i r - . ' ,`9, t _ a `: * CreekWater• '• and Sewer thstrtct sYt ;<• .f 2'C5' ; c :;,*�.~i '' L g °";';• Urban GrowthBounda ea,3_ sok= s ,, . _9 X {•, ;;:. entoni ..,,1-: tip'. ^ >., _ .. • , 1. u:: )e 44").;,-,1 'e'ny�"„'"it'btyy.•'• :,�,;. _yk.s'pt, •Clty. . ,.d8ry. • .fj {, :^,...4...✓ .”' :s np,r` y9,f,:;,•a .','4..,:-..":+i:,,,iii-',.: _ozs; .Gs'': .r x=` �dx': '•�;i ,1 � td to 4�I �•. '��,�v -k � r•Jr r,-"'�- I ..„,-”,:',.',.1.' .. \.: ... 't ,.:J'.:. • ruF :., "/', `.,.:., ,,..i, '-�sx r+^ r � ¢ "�}yam; 2 4,ty.. .< „.?„1 �,' Ircs r as -4 r!'-:-,,,, �.kl .'3 Z a 'L sir ,r.,. .., • 2;�• '--1:74.4":_ ate- Q. �'� - .rY C ” tE.0 ,'pan 9 -,$,9 r `r- �-, .rv� � i 3 ate : dei' ac I" 'f>` � t ��y.F� J t 'Z„�"i^§.�,5� '�i.. ,�. 12 �i°1,;F` ! r r:',-..;4-,--,..,.-:-':,._ -', �C#, r-,w: z 3 ,4 1 .Sewera Dis iJL, . t' t i " °s.S.,t:+, .--x, ' k `:rgf.iii +5} t}z -. ,'do- tg�L a. - � iima lyvl�' "{'�y.4.'.�u 'i•s `t-��" ;" @ ''�' s ,4 .=&'Ht s 'i•ri a.p .‘,41.044,-„,..,, -r.,y0�'•y;,-„,,c s'y .� k 'rt",,j`y, .,:_,,,• , ,,,:.,,,..; • ,, TI.,_ Asa -- ' , . ..„. . .,,,,,, ,.„.,,,,„ „..:,,, g 'a' Y s 'F- 'w gs�i :+K A `+s/�s 1,I{l!�-''s�� , �yL'2 - 9 'c - sic= '€ E .`,17 i7 •N- ? M•n-. ,r,. :r;,- Mt t' 4„,qcg.” x2 'J'sf•✓ .xr3- ' a.." �` R} ti ta' 44-''',4,041 x; ' a � t ".,,,,;q0 '"z� k r S tea.er t' +rt-.$�",.� `' 4 T ti_ :. .��`,1 .�'a�•i `7`�' . • 'ice: � • �; -.,,,,,,..--v - t', • .. - � ..-:‘,.''',7-. ..� t • • rt t. • ' 3,w�..3 r4+,i-,a a 4�t, a }� • �'�' :' = - ",,v .,� `: � ,4kfr -SEI 5 r t:-$ � � B afir : $r :.. . krrt,az„,, ` • • --� -u t x r t iza L Jr &S�L'b- :t -EV .� sr,1Qit "'xe` z ,. g�.r - t at .yy„a' v�5 �' a>'w fa - - 2 ,.,_ '-�.`+it, .' x`.1Y`r 'f`°rt v� e ,frk,SYg" .°1p ii4 -4, "��r • a'••- -�-' ^ate ? °' a c t t. rk Wt�j&y at 14 i.."..:., k � ,• ....,-,-,,,,,,,,_,...,,,.,.....s.„,..„.-,a �., ,-'.•4, .. s r. -*� -� u x �a m � •.: ,Ta.#y' - -. iimor . v04 '`b j�j' to5 ,5'f (g `r ; -ny`'tt- ;;Ezaq a J2` ., ha` ?{ N: y�:s Tse.3s z.•'~.'"•tr s,,.. .,+ ;.. �:::k .:`^��Sw:. �i3 ..,..<. ,.4��:3'f i; Source:King County and Berk&Associates • i Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 25 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9,2005 i _ PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Library Services The Fairwood area currently receives library services from the King County Library System (KCLS), a district which operates the large regional Fairwood Library on 140th Avenue SE. We assume that the Fairwood community would annex to the library district after the interim period. Since its opening day, the Fairwood Library has been one of the busiest branches in the King County Library System. It serves as a community_center, providing meeting rooms, programs and general information. As part of King County Library System's recently approved capital bond, the district plans a 5,000 sq. ft. expansion of the current 15,000 sq. ft. library to better serve patrons, including computers and wireless access, and an automated materials-handling system to speed delivery and reduce theft. The proposed start date of the expansion is 2012. 3 Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 26 Berk&Associates, Inc September.9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4. MARKET ASSESSMENT What Will Fairwood Look Like in the Future? If one looks at the cities in King County that have incorporated over the past decade, it is clear that many of those cities look vastly different today compared to what they looked like at the time of u.: incorporation. Cities that have seen some level of transformation include Covington, Woodinville, Newcastle, and Sammamish. The maturation of a city offers city residents and city government two opportunities: • It offers City residents and businesses a chance to achieve their vision of the place they want P' Fairwood to be; and • It offers the City, as provider of local governance, a path to long-term fiscal sustainability. r•a Questions about what Fairwood's commercial center might look like ten or twenty years from now, or about what the City's mix of housing and residents might be, both speak to residents' quality of life and the City's relative fiscal strength. • Overall, Fairwood is likely to remain a primarily residential city, growing slowly and relying on a solid base of residential property as its principal source of City revenues. With its existing commercial center, the City may have opportunities to develop a more vibrant city center, with long-run potential for redevelopment of the center into a mix of retail, residential and/or office uses that (1) could serve as an attractive center of focus for the community and (2) provide a modest boost to the prospective City's tax base. Commercial Development As a residential area close to the cities of Renton,Tukwila, and Kent, commerce in Fairwood is likely to continue to remain community-oriented. As is typical of most community retail centers, activity in Fairwood's center is dominated by convenience-oriented retail and consumer services. These uses include grocery stores, banks, convenience restaurants, video stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, and a variety of other small retail and service outlets. In many ways, Fairwood is similar to the recently-incorporated City of Newcastle. Newcastle is sandwiched between Bellevue and Renton, and is dominated by regional retail centers in Downtown Bellevue, Factoria, Renton, and Tukwila. For a visual comparison of the two areas, see Exhibits 8 and 9 on the following pages. Newcastle's community retail center includes about 150,000 square feet of retail space, and in terms of its convenience-oriented uses, serves a population of about 10,000 people. Fairwood's community retail center is larger (roughly 350,000 square feet of retail) and serves a larger population, but it includes many of the same categories of retail and service uses. Existing commercially-zoned land in Fairwood is largely built out. This means that any expansionof commercial activity in the proposed city would require: Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 27 Berk&Associates, Inc. September.9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1. Rezoning to provide additional commercial land; and/or 2. Increased intensity of use for the area's existing commercial center. Fairwood's two major retail centers, anchored by Safeway, QFC, and Albertson's grocery stores, comprise roughly 30 acres of land. At their existing suburban density, these areas support roughly 300,000 square feet of retail space. With more intense development patterns, these properties could support perhaps twice as much commercial space, or they could offer opportunities for redevelopment in the form of a mix of uses—combining a mix of retail, residential, and/or office uses. Exhibit 8 Retail Square Footage and Multi-Family Housing in Fairwood and Adjoining Centers 2 my -t t vtiw Y "e 3 .r3 $�� 1` o- .. y...„ '' ��. `'� � `,.w s v. �' «s� ''+.ts`'�+�.t! , r,�"` `- �1. yj '' -v��,.'�-,--Y,-'«' ,try ,t-. _ _ - M1,Iultitamily(MF) .#y 1 � _ 5 Building e �� 1,ayK� • ,a b' " e 1-5 unitsvs P:;1 �� £2 'r � h.. r� 0 6 20 units m. i ii 1=, _ ��... 3._ 'w � y f `: 21 or more units r +"' +��i'44-- c :. 4FGs ,x,1..,,22.. I- <. S S % �� ` •• • MF Building Type ;1"* <''r ,t.',•;', ' „h_" } �- 0 Apartments s`,y ? ='�'k � .y4iY'i^.:,:- -.„7,,,t,. : '�♦ k..{ h._ 0 Condominiums ,, hi�Ir � Retail Space(SF), .?} x . 44,,,;,,,..,ia< s� .-ti� ��P i xa t • 90-45,000 ttyz c _,` am , • « ci,P � s A§£ n, -T J zJ 'n- tl'Cr9m a' 45,001 100,000#."� Pr; ,n + • rt °' "_ it < Y _ �' 34$OOD s f F_A I R W O O D 100,001^150 000 r �_ b€'Retaif spaee INCORPORATION dry v' 150,001 or more } '`'" • _: $ - AREA __ - t x_ ;,} •' , 340,000s.f. , ":ems , s t 7."- ., + fi a� � 14, f�t�t P'a,.._ ofRetairSpace ' srt.'', 1- - -' '.-..- ;•1. -- .,--,llifivi,t3 - . t o n„._.._ 3 .i k'i 'p' t v k ,,. j iC K uoT'.t/ . S , e�yonS'3' ,- ,•e. _ "`..,, �,� itt ,'fit t ,,. i r r, t y. l f `''is •' eS 7 .s.'� SAY Source:King County Assessor data extracts and Berk&Associates Faitwood Feasibility Study Page 28 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9, 2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 9 • Retail Square Footage and Multi-Family Housing in Newcastle fi., and Adjoining Centers • . ...--,;„..,,i, £� -'r� "` -..,-4:-.4-;,-,...... y "' .f,.„a s-- F`r '-*_.%....-4...-,,,:.;..:-.4-0----,1. � ',rs �, � 'yam fig . �.5-'' , ,�,. _-'*-rte•' ., 3ti 1; v,� ..,dS,. Y" •, R • z ,�,.Y r ,r• ....t-- - �r1....,,.....-..w.„....,.--. t,..........,4-_... .,.-.- '`s ��ti ., V,: 1%1 : ti `fit .a4`' t k�•".0 .. k' ''.. ,� • c-.-' ' .-,..:.fir a. s i-, -"" r �` a r £• dti tit f' Li' .. `;:....1...„,--_-....„4-v.,,,,, t 3` h'• '.p P rte .�. j,.�,fi �.r' ' S� .Ltt---.---o, ✓5-�`i_ V. �t } } �'* V v�yA.�.,off 2,.5,.„-„ .3rT.�,r'•e,;?' x..,..........`-'.- •?. S 'r F 1p',, �r ..y s. `.5 7C • Y+s`vc.L . ts�"'. r`S `"£h- -- ''">_ {i "`t 5.1i 6 +'G _„ +.•p` °• 4 .�f��psi �c[ S ,fir �•;•�T'Pc. r-�F, . ms' • sfS le «-.a' .i' 5w4.. -.`1;t ZS-" ,-- ... ' ..,,k ;k: ' u , c++z ` t ;• fFCaf � 3• •k'• - hC` Sacr-rS ,,,,,..,.‘',4,. ,.a - 7. "74 OrA . -, "J� .^E- a,,,,,-----A ' � Kr �• � f ,�— . - 4�, .f' ; - ra . ;y.. y} - , 7 -r' ' . 4 , ` ' ,, t 4" "v--y '; - 4LdE,. `Y.; *t" , 1' 4s..-T4--- ' rq r# tR, `4t . .1- a$ {*t 9,� n"Yfu4 Rte ,. .y�`!k: „.„$,..-.,, ,,,41,,r0-1„..,,,,„.-4,-.,..1. iu „ -Y & 4pL •.ir,• •' a �s s Gpd Rd 4_ :'k-s;£ -c :`,,i,. imi '`� -1,, ' • '• r, ,.,i_. +vi- i €',.i.--4-.:::,:-...;....—.-- i\ Of _ z: t '- ” 150,000 s:f` ' 7,,,:::::,...--,„,...___:::,..,...,_ z � K. r of Reay s _ ._ _, f . t a'. ,;'•:•':. --x''`- Multifamily(MF) ' 1 ; 'N 4 e F '" 'Building Sizes �, x c-«fa a\Se _ c s „-• ' -Al. ;x� o 1 -5 units j 0,` ' r �`t NWCAST 6 20 }-� .- �: O units sur , _ • ,..,,,,,, O 21 or more units �� =f02—_,S--,-,f,...,-- ,-.. ',, ... • `` = MF Building Type1 IL ,,--1..',1- 4 Apartments ,• �y�, .—• . +i'c i .;.,.a 0 Condominiums Y+sem' `.„ .1.";';-.:4 e -5 L 4 •; � "t , ” . ' 4+ T = ---.1-- 11 Retail Space(SF) s t,r e I • _ ., . 90-45,000 • { . Y< . ,. €� _ 100,001 -150,000 t x ° 4 ' :,....:::..,,-;_.::;.:1-,,::;„, pt i .. e�, r ,.. , lop 150,001 or more -..1•-x- rk �s Las'-. -- s '" :b. _ BFR.K ciASSO CIAT% � �a ...-..,..:z 1 Source:King County Assessor data extracts and Berk&Associates i Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 29 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9, 2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • Just as Newcastle is dominated by regional retail centers in Bellevue, Renton, and Tukwila, Fairwood is dominated by Renton and Tukwila. For all retail categories combined, Renton and Tukwila combine to capture expenditures from a large portion of south King County—capturing sales equal to the total spending of 250,000 people. Exhibit 10 summarizes Tukwila and Renton's market capture (in terms of the number of typical people's 2004 expenditures, in total sales or by retail category). Exhibit 10 . Historical Retail Capture Rates for Tukwila and Renton (annual 2004 person-expenditures captured by retail category) ,4460 1136,161I+164111 s t . .. **Al? ' Baca i NA* ». . ;z:a11Po:- Ma*' Vila I t:cIg t _, i ,Alaili'i E itte "6i. On )R,i • - t { Total ietail Apparel and Atcessories storm.{ - *Ata 1 . . . . . . c - f ;ri= <. } aha r 4., sail*'. . ' 9 1. Ow; ,tee: , ; iii- iaba'. .;' :; ,.. .. ,Fum1ture anii ii neat: .COierai'and MiscQllaneouS$ertandise aorto, ems., .._. . . "WO . eoo . MOW . ' .ata I . . '" ti's .c;:: r Yix,.'_•__- , � -::,....:a'..� �.'u..s? '. ? "`� .tea'; ft:.... �..,A,fi. ,pt $116 _izi• 416.` .- 1111 . Groceries Restaurants Source:Washington State Department of Revenue,Washington State Office of Financial Management,and Berk&Associates Fai wood Feasibility Study Page 30 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9, 2005 I PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 10 summarizes capture rates for Renton and Tukwila (1)for all retail categories combined and (2) for selected categories of retail! sales. What Exhibit 9 shows is that Renton and Tukwila dominate the market in categories like aparel and accessories, furniture and equipment, and general and miscellaneous merchandise—retail categories that are typically dominated by so-called regional or super-regional retail centers. (As the largest mall in the Puget Sound region, Southcenter Mall is categorized as a super-regional center.) a,: What Exhibit 10 also shows, however, is that Renton and Tukwila are far less dominant in other categories of retail, including categories like grocery stores and restaurants. These categories, other convenience uses, and targeted categories like bookstores and pet stores are likely to offer a City of Fairwood the greatest opportunity to develop a vibrant commercial center. If developed, such a city center will (1) offer Fairwood residents an attractive central place that will provide a center of focus for the.community and (2) offer opportunities to modestly expand the City's retail tax base. If Fairwood's ultimate goal is to foster a higher-amenity center with a mix of retail, office, and residential uses, then the area's lirpited supply of commercial land could serve as an advantage. All else being equal, a constrained supply of commercial and mixed use land will tend to increase the value of the commercial land that how exists. These higher values, in turn, will give property owners and developers an incentive to make more intense use of Fairwood's existing center. As Fairwood's retail market matures, one possible scenario would be that Fairwood would not see a net increase in its square footage of grocery stores, but would see some shifting towards higher-end retail outlets over time. Redevelopment of the commercial center in a mixed-use town-center style t might bring a combination of a slight increase in retail square footage, an increase in sales volumes per square foot, and additional uses like residential and office uses to the area that will support the overall level of activity in the center. If the City wanted to go in another direction—one of trying to maximize retail development in a more traditional suburban style—City decision makers could consider creating additional commercial land through rezoning. If Fairwood residents vote in favor of incorporation, at some point after the City is established, and after the City government gains solid footing, the City would then be in a position to evaluate what efforts the City can take to focus and encourage development in the commercial center in a manner that helps achieve the City's long-term goals. Housing In its early years of development, Fairwood represented an outlying residential area in the region. In 6.1 current terms, however, with residential development extending deep into Pierce and Snohomish counties, Fairwood can be viewed almost as a close-in community, with driving distances of 18 miles or less to the region's largest employment centers. Fairwood's housingstock is dominated o Hated by single family housing—representing a little more than 70/o of the area's total housing. Almostlall of Fairwood's housing was built over the last 40 years, with construction booms in the late 1960s, the late 1970s to about 1990, and the late 1990s to the present (see Exhibit 11). Faiiwood Feasibility Study Page 31 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT In broad terms, Fairwood appears to be approaching build-out--at least in terms of large-scale, greenfield development. Few large, developable properties still exist within the boundaries of the proposed city. Some of the larger developable properties are located relatively close to Fairwood's commercial center and are zoned for housing at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 11 • Fairwood Area Housing Construction 800- 700 • - r' Condominium Units 600- Apartment 500 Units } k m 400- • Q 3t' Single Family 3 Units 00- 200- =I1:- t �If�n.,.,ra�1 /Ili mt�._.fal®[K�C�91Ri IS3I'�l[,�f3a R1 -3 111111 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source:King County Assessor data extracts and Berk&Associates On average, the type of housing that is being developed in Fairwood now is consistent with what has been built in the area for the last 20 years. Developers are building a mix of single family and multi- family housing, and within multi-family housing stock the area is seeing the addition of both apartments and condominiums. Within the single family category, new housing in Fairwood is of slightly higher value than housing built in the 1980s. The average single family house built from 2000 through 2004 in Fairwood is currently valued at $315,000. For houses built in 1985 through 1989, the average current value is roughly $275,000. Exhibit 12 shows how values of houses change in Fairwood and recently incorporated cities depending on the year when the house was built. All values in the exhibit reflect current values of houses (2005 assessed values), sorted by the year the houses were built. What Exhibit 11 shows is Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 32 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 { PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 'tl that one city, Newcastle, has seen dramatic increases in the values of new housing since the City's incorporation. Other cities, including Sammamish and Kenmore, have seen marked swings in values depending on the year and, presumably, depending on the specific developments under way in a given year. • Fairwood; by contrast, has seen relatively stable housing values, with values of new housing that are consistently greater than those of Covington. Exhibit 12 *;v Housing Construction Trends for Fairwood and Other Recently Incorporated Cities (Average House Value in 2005 by Year of Construction) $1,000,000 $900,000 „rt Newcastle $800�000 $700,000 ft $600,000 - Sammamish $800,000 $400,000 +••-� vp, Fanwood P f f $200,000 i . Covington' $100,000 . i �. 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source:King County Assessor's data extracts,and Berk&Associates The reason that trends in housing values matter to a city is because, particularly for residential cities, a city's housing stock is the principal source of city tax base. g} � G i Faiiwood Feasibility Study Page 33 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 _I PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5. OVERVIEW OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Is a City of Fairwood financially feasible? Yes. Given existing tax rates, a City of Fairwood would generate enough revenues to provide a slightly higher level of service than Fairwood residents currently receive. The margin by which the City is feasible is slim, but if residents commit to maintaining the City's property tax levy over time, then the City should have sufficient revenues to cover costs of service now and in the future. Exhibit 13 summarizes projected costs and revenues for a City of Fairwood for 2007 throughtn 2012. (See for a month-by-month assessment of start-up cash flows from the assumed incorporation date of September 1, 2006 through the start of 2007.) Exhibit 13 :...!1 Summary of Core City Costs and Revenues 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Operation(non-constrained) ' Revenues Property taxes(Regular Levy) 83,970,000 $4,049,000 84,129,000 $4,592,000 $4,684,000 $4,776,000 Retail Sales tax 1,147,000 1,187,000 1,230,000 1,275,000 1,321,000 1,370,000 State Shared Revenues 1,022,000 1,033,000 1,043,000 1,054,000 1,064,000 1,075,000 Retail Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 576,000 606,000 636,000 669,000 702,000 738,000 s' Utility Tax 541,000 557,000 574,000 591,000 609,000 627,000 k,:;_' Permit Fees 487,000 506,000 526,000 547,000 569,000 592,000 Cable TV Franchise Fee 240,000 250,000 260,000 271,000 282,000 293,000 r.m Community Development Block Grant 166,000 171,000 176,000 182,000 187,000 193,000 Interest Income 90,000 93,000 95,000 98,000 101,000 104,000 • Gambling Taxes 41,000 42,000 43,000 45,000 46,000 48,000 Total Projeded Core Revenues $8,281,000 $8,494,000 $8,715,000 39,323,000 $9,566,000 $9,816,000 Expenses General Government $2,574,000 $2,677,000 $2,784,000 $2,896,000 83,01 1,000 $3,132,000 Public Safety(Criminal Justice) 2,304,000 2,415,000 2,530,000 2,652,000 2,778,000 2,911,000 Poke Services 2,057,000 2,156,000 2259,000 1,367,000 2,480,006 2,599,006 Jaill/Court/Pub/icDefense Services 243,000 253,000 263,000 274,000 285,006 296,006 Roads Operation and Maintenance 1,088,000 1,140,000 1,195,000 1,252,000 1,312,000 1,374,000 • Parks and Recreation 143,000 153,000 163,000 169,000 176,000 183,000 Planning/Permitting(Permitting and Land Use Desk) 541,000 562,000 585,000 608,000 633,000 658,000 City Attorney and Prosecution Services 412,000 424,000 437,000 450,000 464,000 478,000 Compehensive Land Use Plan 150,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Capital Facilities Plan 150,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Human Services(Block Grant expenditures) 166,000 171,000 176,000 182,000 187,000 193,000 • Miscellaneous 52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 61,000 63,000 Operational Contingency 108,000 112,000 117,000 122,000 127,000 132,000 Total Projected Core Expenses $7,688,000 $8,009,000 $8,194,000 $8,539,000 $8,898,000 $9,273,000 $593,000 $486,000 $521,000 $785,000 $668,000 $543,000 Surface Water Management Revenues $898,000 8934,000 $972,000 $1,011,000 81,052,000 $1,094,000 Operating expenses $379,000 $394,000 $409,000 $426,000 $443,000 $461,000 Revenues available for SWM Capital Projects $519,000 $540,000 $563,000 $585,000 $609,000 $633,000 Capital Revenues Total $2,436,000 $2,551,000 $2,672,000 $2,798,000 $2,931,000 $3,069,000 Real Estate ExoseTax(REET) $1,729,000 $1,816,006 $1,907,006 82,002,006 $2102,006 82,207,006 Grants 8707,006 8736,000 8765,006 $796,000 8828,000 $862,000 Notes: Property tax revenues for 2010,2011,and 2012 assume voter approval of a levy lid lift in 2009,which will restore the City property tax levy to$1.60(compared with a rate of$1.50 in 2009). Includes day-to-day operating costs and revenues for the City's general and street fund, including gas tax revenue distributions that must be spent on road maintenance or capital improvements. Source:Berk&Associates analysis Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 34 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9,2005 •s,.: PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT As a residential city, the City of Fairwood would generate roughly half of its revenues from property taxes,with retail sales taxes and state revenue distributions also serving as important,contributors. City expenses will be dominated by public safety, roads operation and maintenance,•and the cost of general government (City Hall staffing), where 25 staff positions will cover the City's legislative and administrative functions as well as the highest-level City staff in planning, parks and recreation, public works,and the City engineer. This analysis assumes that, as a City that contracts for key services like police, roads maintenance, and surface water maintenance,the City will be able to operate on a relatively lean City Hall staff. Key Issues Related to Feasibility .9 Although the proposed City is primarily residential with a weak commercial tax base, the combination of solid residential property values and a modest level of existing public services makes the proposed City financially feasible.The City is fiscally sound over a range of reasonable assumptions about future y�y growth and tax revenues, but under the most conservative assumptions about future revenues and costs, the proposed City could provide public services -at levels that are equivalent to those now P provided by King County. In terms of sales tax revenues per resident, we project that Fairwood would generate roughly$38 per resident in 2005,with would rank the lowest of all cities in King County(Exhibit 14). • ff a • r i;. • k 1 F r i Fairwood Feasibility Study , Page 35 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 f PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT " Exhibit 14 Regular Sales Tax Revenues per City Resident (King County Cities) Sales Tax Sales Tax Revenues Population per Resident • Tukwila 16,111,783 17,240 $935 Issaquah 9,270,674 15,510 $598 Woodinville 5,205,442 9,915 $525 Medina 1,226,415 2,955 $415 Skykomish 81,677 210 $389 Redmond 16,418,571 46,900 $350 • SeaTac 8,217,417 25,130 $327 Bellevue 37,173,969 116,500 $319 Auburn 14,294,011 46,135 $310 Renton 16,653,825 55,360 $301 North Bend • 1,398,183 4,660 $300 Kirkland 12,703,978 - 45,800 $277 Bothell 7,604,654 30,930 $246 - Kent 20,102,888 8.4,560 $238 Snoqualmie 1,159,174 5,110 $227 Seattle 116,278,663 572,600 $203 Enumclaw 1,784,913 . 11,160 $160 • ``' Hunts Point 70,608 450 $157 • Carnation 291,811 1,895 $154 Burien 4,050,601 31,130 $130 _ - - Federal Way 10,536,298 83,590 $126 Milton 682,683 6,025 $113 Shoreline 5,744,116 52,740 $109 Maple Valley 1,704,386 16,280 $105 Newcastle 868,597 8,375 $104 Covington 1,524,899 15,190 $100 Mercer Island 2,179,712 21,830 $100 - Algona 253,787 2,605 $97 Beaux Arts 28,649 300 $95 Yarrow Point 93,741 990 $95 Duvall 516,390 5,545 $93 Clyde Hill 234,258 2,790 $84 Kenmore 1,425,462 19,170 $74 Sammamish 2,274,117 36,560 $62 Des Moines 1,715,690 29,020 $59 Black Diamond 230,263 4,000 $58 Normandy Park 306,916 6,400 $48 Lake Forest Park 515,579 12,770 $40 • Fairwood 1,000,000 26,100 $38 Source:Municipal Research&Services Center and Berk&Associates Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 36 Berk&Associates,Inc- September 9,2005 r,- . I, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT r . In terms of assessed value per resident, Fairwood would rank close to Maple Valley; higher than six 1 other cities in King County(Exhibit 15). . Exhibit 15 . Taxable Property Value per City Resident (King County Cities) Taxable Assessed Value � Assessed Value Population per Resident • • Hunts Point 593,456,567 450 $ 1,319,000 • Medina ! 1,979,552,449 2,955 $670,000 n Yarrow Point 523,297,996 990 . $529,000 • Clyde Hill 994,149,235 2,790 $356,000 • Mercer Island 6,345,660,937 21,830 $291,000 Beaux Arts j 70,753,648 300 $236,000 . • Tukwila 3,373,231,785 17,240 $ 196,000 Issaquah 3,026,104,987 15,510 $ 195,000 • Redmond 8,787,158,266 46,900• $ 187,000 Bellevue 21,209,960,837 116,500 $ 182,000 Woodinville 1,769,120,872 9,915 $ 178,000 Kirkland 7,422,139,375 45,800 $ 162,000 Sammamish 5,912,313,518 36,560 $ 162;000 t .- Snoqualmie 820,409,120 5,110 $ 161,000 Newcastle 1,288,048,148 8,375 .$ 154,000 . . ' Seattle 83,480,019,346 572,600 $ 146,000 , Normandy Park 910,982,746 6,400 • $ 142,000 Bothell 4,195,710,134 30,930 $ 136,000 SeaTac 3,274,008,104 25,130 $ 130,000 Lake Forest Park 1,618,292,987 12,770 ' $ 127,000 u_ Algona 299,327,957 2,605 $ 115,000 Renton 6,344,519,649 55,360 $ 115,000 • North Bend - 524,048,214 4,660 $ 112,000 Duvall 584,187,844 5,545 $ 105,000 Kenmore 1,984,768,702 19,170 $ 104,000 Black Diamond 403,441,518 4,000 $ 101,000 Shoreline 5,290,466,808 52,740 $ 100,000 . Kent 8,449,061,721 84,560 $ 100,000 Auburn 4,495,617,693 46,135 $ 97,000 Skykomish 19,881,724 210 $ 95,000 Burien 2,766,091,483 31,130 $ 89,000 Maple Valley i 1,407,088,460 16,280 $ 86,000 . Fairwood(2005) 2,208,000,000 26,100 $ 85,000 e-- Carnation 151,163,978 1,895 $ 80,000 Covington % 1,188,347,421 15,190 $ 78,000 • Federal Way 6,262,874,389 83,590 $75,000 Milton 444,167,578 6,025 $74,000 • Des Moines 2,085,218,819 29,020 $72,000 • Enumclaw 766,585,951 11,160 $ 69,000 1 Source:Municipal Research&Services Center and Berk&Associates Fairwood Feasibility study Page 37 LBerk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • The Importance of Maintaining the City's Property Tax Levy Rate The passage of 1-747 by Washington voters means that, absent positive action, most cities should expect the value of their property tax base to erode over time. Under 1-747, absent a public vote to increase a city's levy, the revenues a city is allowed to collect from property taxes cannot grow by more than 1% per year(excluding the effects of new construction). At the same time that 1-747 limits the growth of a city's core property tax base, cities face rapidly increasing costs of doing business. Personnel costs (the principal cost of providing city services) are growing at a rate that exceeds inflation. These costs are driven.by 1) large annual increases in the costs of health care and 2) wage increases that exceed the rate of general inflation (driven by long- run increases in worker productivity in the private sector). Due to compounding effects, the gap between cost and revenue growth can easily erode a city's ability to maintain public services. For example, if the costs of serving a given population increase at a rate of 4% per year,while property taxes revenues increase.at only 10/0 per year, over a period of ten years, a city's property tax base would fall 33%short of being able to cover costs of service. For a city like the proposed City of Fairwood, which will always rely on property taxes to provide city services, such erosion would be very difficult to overcome. Given this reality, if area, residents choose to incorporate,they should do so with an expectation and understanding that they will need to vote.to maintain the City's property tax levy on a regular basis. The modeled revenues in Exhibit 13 assume that in 2009, three years after incorporation, City (.- residents will approve a levy lid lift that will restore the City's property tax levy to its original $1.60. As noted previously, an assumption that Fairwood city residents would vote to maintain a City levy rate of $1.60 is consistent with the same-cost/same-level-of-service framework used throughout this study.The rate for the King County Road Levy,which Fairwood's City Levy would replace;has risen in recent years (from $1.73 per thousand in 2001 to $1.83 per thousand in 2005). These increases occur, in part, because the King County Road Levy is generally not constrained by I-747 limits. If one assumes that the County Road Levy rate would continue to increase as it has recently, then if voters approve levy lid lifts and hold Fairwood's City Levy rate steady at $1.60, Fairwood property owners would still see a decrease in future-year property taxes (compared to what they would have paid if they had remained part of unincorporated King County). Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 38 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1 6. REVENUES Property Tax - Regular Levy For a residential city like the proposed City of Fairwood, one of the largest sources of annual revenue r, ,is property tax. The property tax levy rate is set annually by a jurisdiction's legislative body (the City :.= Council, school board, etc.) and is generally applied uniformly to all taxable property within the 3w=;7 boundaries of the jurisdiction. Many taxing jurisdictions, like school or fire districts, have boundaries that cut through the proposed incorporation area, and as a result, different areas of Fairwood are, and will continue to be, subject to different levy'rates. The levy for the proposed City,.however, will apply to all taxable property within the city boundaries. State law delineates what types of property are and are not subject to property taxes. Those properties subject to taxation include "real" property (land, structures, and specific equipment affixed 7 to structures) and some forms of personal property (some types of mobile homes, business related • . machinery, and supplies). While all of these types of property within a city's jurisdiction are assessed, some are exempt from taxation. These exemptions generally apply to properties owned by government, schools, churches, or property with other usesthat provide public benefits. !.Y According to state. law, the levy citycan applyis constrained according to.the services the city provides. If a city delivers its own fire and library services, it is allowed a maximum levy of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. If a city does not provide either of these two services, state law generally • •restricts the maximum levy to $1.60 per$1,000 assessed value (while the fire district and the library districts are allowed to levy $1.50 and $0:50 respectively).3 The working assumption of this feasibility study is that the proposed City of Fairwood will not provide either fire protection or library services, so the$1.60 maximum levy rate will apply. This analysis assumes that the City;will assess$1.60 per$1,000 AV,which is $0.23 per thousand less than what households paid in property taxes in 2005 compared to what they would be paying upon ._; incorporation. In order to maintain the existing tax burden, we assume that these revenues are exactly "made up" through some form of new utility taxes. This assumption will be discussed further in the section entitled "Utility Taxes." Of course, the simple levying of a tax does not guarantee full and immediate payment by all households. In any city,there will be some taxes that are due but go unpaid. Fortunately for the City's finances, however,when it comes to property taxes, sooner or later almost all taxes that are levied are paid in full. Property tax estimates included in Exhibit 13 assumes that, in any given year, the City will receive property tax revenues equal to.99%of the City levy. FXV 3 Example: If no fire district serving the city levies more than $1.40, the $0.10 that the districts are not currently using is available to the city. However, if one fire district changes their levy in a subsequent year, the city loses its ability to levy anything more than$1.60. • ' Fain vood Feasibility Study Page 39 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1-747 Limits and a Levy Lid Lift As noted in the Overview of Revenues and Expenses, 1-747 limitations on the growth of property tax are a challenge to many cities across the state. In particular, 1-747 poses the largest challenges to residential cities like Fairwood,where property taxes are the big source of city.revenues. Based on estimated taxable assessed value summarized earlier,we forecast City property tax revenues of$3.97 million in 2007, growing to $4.78 million in 2012 (Exhibit 16). This assumes that in 2009, three years after incorporation,.City residents will approve a levy lid lift that will reset the City's property tax levy to its original $1.60.We would expect that, absent a windfall of revenue from another source, as long as 1-747 limits are in effect, levy lid lifts will be required on a three-or four-year rotating basis. Exhibit 16 Fairwood Property Tax Revenues and Assessed Values by Year 2007 2008 2009 . 2010 2011 ' 2012 Property,taxes(Regular Levy) $3.97 M $4.05 M $4.13 M $4.59 M $4.68 M $4.78 M Assessed Value $2,504 M $2,630 M $2,761 M $2,899 M $3,044 M $3,196 M Assessed Value of Existing Property $2,481 M $2,605 M $2,735 M $2,872 M $3,015 M $3,166 M Assessed Value of New Construction $24 M $25 M $26 M $27 M $29 M $30 M _ Levy Rate 1.6000 1.5398 1.4955 . 1.6000 1.5386 1.4944 Source:King County Assessor and Berk&Associates Based on a review of increases in assessed value that the King County Assessors Office has begun to announce from 2005 to 2006, the analysis assumesthat average values of existing property in Fairwood will increase by 7% from 2005 to 2006. For 2007 and beyond, we assume that values of existing properties will increase at a rate of 5% per year (a rate we' believe to be appropriately conservative given recent growth in values and given the constraints on remaining developable land in the area and in King County as a whole): For increases in assessed value coming from new development, we assume that each new Fairwood resident will be accompanied by a $100,000 increase in assessed value in 2005.This translates to an increase of $300,000 per new 3-person household. Assumed increases for 2006 through 2012 parallel the assumed property value increases noted above:7%for 2006 and 5% per year thereafter. Beyond new housing, new construction value also comes from commercial development and improvements made to existing residential and commercial stock. Based on a review of the experiences of other cities in King County over recent years, we assume that these sources will drive additional new property value equal to 0.5% of the area's total taxable assessed value in a given year. Sales Taxes - Regular Retail sales tax is added on a percentage basis to the sale price'of tangible personal property (with the exception of groceries and prescription medicine) and to 'many services purchased by consumers. Beyond its application to tangible personal property, sales tax is also applied to things like telephone service; the installation, repair, or cleaning of tangible personal property; and to the construction or improvement of new or existing buildings (including labor and services provided throughout the process, under RCW 82.04.050). Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 40 Berk&Associates,Inc September.9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT According.to state law, a city's maximum sales tax rate is set at 1%, which is the same rate that King County currently collects in the planned incorporation area. Of this 1%, Washington State's Department of Revenue (DOR) receives 1%. (That is, the DOR retains 1% of 1%, or 0.01% of the <-• purchase price.) Beyond the small portion retained by the DOR, by state law, a county is eligible to . ; receive 15%of the city's 10/0.The City of Fairwood,thus, receives roughly 84%of its 10/0 sales tax. » The City's 1% sales tax is split int I two halves: a base half and an optional second.half which a city could choose not to levy if it so desired. Since King County currently levies both halves, and since, if the City of Fairwood were to choose not to levy the second half the funds would accrue to King County anyway,we have assumed that the full one percent will be levied by the City of Fairwood. • QS Both Berk &Associates and King County staff at the Office of Management & Budget analyzed sales tax revenues in Fairwood and arrived at similar revenue estimates. King County invested substantial effort in a "top-down" estimate of'sales taxes in unincorporated areas, starting with the entire pot of taxable sales in the unincorporated county and allocating all of those sales to'sub-areas like the v Fairwood incorporation area.To achieve this, County staff needed to (1) identify the location of every , business in the unincorporated area and (2) identify and allocate contributions made by construction and other contracting activities, and (3) identify and allocate contributions made by households and businesses for expenditures like vehicle purchases (between individuals and monthly leases) and sales taxes on things like telephone services or computers. We approached our analysis using a similar framework, identifying retail outlets in Fairwood,estimating construction expenditures in the area (based on our assumptions about residential growth) and estimating sales tax revenues geneiated by household and-business purchases. Our analysis suggests that, in 2005, roughly$500,000 of Fairwood's sales tax revenues are generated by retail activity in commercial spaces, including the area's commercial center and the Fairwood Golf Course and Country Club. Based on.our assumptions about housing growth and other development in Fairwood,we project that, under!our growth scenarios, construction in Fairwood would generate an •. additional $160,000 in sales tax, revenues. Finally, we estimate that a remaining $340,000 in revenues is generated through resident and business purchases of goods or services [e.g. new carpets • or floors, house or yard-maintenance, landscaping, telephone services, or computer purchases (Dell computers pays sales taxes to virtually every local jurisdiction in Washington State)]. Growth in sales tax revenues is driven by: 1. Growth in retail square footage: Currently, a new drug store and a new auto parts store are under construction, which should add an additional 20,000 square feet of retail space to Fairwood's commercial center.)Given the size of the property under development, it would be reasonable to expect an additional 20,000 square feet of retail on the same site as the property builds out The analysis assumes the first 20,000 square feet will be added by 2006, and the second 20,000 square feet will be added by 2007. Given that Fairwood's commercial center is largely built out after this latest development, the analysis assumes that retail square footage will 3 not grow from 2007 through 2012. [There are policy choices a city can make to influence private investment, so the statement that the commercial center is built out is true only barring (1) a more intense redevelopment of the center or (2) potential zoning changes to provide more retail ER, 2. Growth in sales at existing retail outlets: Given a lack of immediate options for more retail $�• . development, and given typical growth in retail spending, we project 5% annual growth in sales per square feet for retail space in Fairwood. Fa/iwood Feasibility Study Page 41 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3. Growth in direct expenditures by households and businesses:We project that households and businesses in the Fairwood area will increase their purchases of delivered goods and services that are subject to taxable retail sales by 3% annually (as a contributor to total retail tax revenue). : Under current law, home-based taxable activities include, among other things, construction/renovation activities, (e.g. remodel construction, carpet or floor installation, and landscaping); expenditures for telephone services, interstate purchases of most computers, and automobile lease payments. 4. Growth in value of new construction: As the value of new construction increases, the taxable sales associated with the construction increase as well. Assumptions of the value of new construction mirror the assumptions about new construction used in calculating new assessed value (7% increase from 2005 to 2006 and 5% per year thereafter). Sales Tax Streamlining Sales tax streamlining is not yet in place, but looking to the future, streamlining offers two sources of new revenues to cities: 1. Deliveries from within Washington State: Proposed changes to the "sourcing" of deliveries x within the state will from the place where the delivery originates to the point where the good is delivered For example, under current sourcing rules, when a mattress is delivered to a house in Fairwood from a warehouse in Tukwila, sales tax on a mattress sales tax on the mattress accrue to Tukwila. With the proposed change in sourcing rules, local sales tax for that delivery will shift to Fairwood. 2. Interstate purchases: The long-run goal of the Sales Tax Streamlining Task Force is to position states for a change in federal laws regarding interstate sales (through the internet or catalog). When or if the federal government allows such taxation, local jurisdictions in Washington State stand to benefitgreatly, particularly if personal buying habits continue to shift towards internet purchases. While the first change is more likely to happen in the immediatefuture, both effects of Sales Tax < ' Streamlining offer opportunities for residential cities like Fairwood to increase sales tax revenues. Some modeling of likely effects exists, but without hard data, it is difficult to accurately predict what kind of revenues a city might expect tosee. Hypothetically, though, if a household were-to spend $5,000 per year on delivered goods (pizza, furniture, electronics, appliances, books, tools, etc.) then that would translate to an additional $42 in sales tax per year for the city in which they reside. No revenues from sales tax streamlining are included in modeled City revenues for this analysis.- Retail Sales Tax — Criminal Justice In 1992, voters in King County approved a one-tenth of one percent sales tax levy specifically for the purpose of raising revenue to support criminal justice expenditures.This 0.1%sales tax is collected by the state's Department of Revenue and is distributed, through them, to the county which in turn passes-90% on to cities on a per capita basis. The county retains 10% to provide regional criminal justice services. • From 1994 to 1999, criminal justice sales tax revenues were increasing rapidly, growing from about $14 per resident in 1994 to $23 per resident in 1999. Since 1999, distributions have generally hovered around $20 per resident. Estimates of criminal justice sales taxes used in this analysis Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 42 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT assume a distribution of $20 per resident in 2005, with future distributions growing at a rate of 4% , per year thereafter. State-Shared Revenues All cities and towns in Washington State are eligible to receive certain "shared" revenues on the basis • of their population.These state-collected revenues derive from liquor receipts (both profits from liquor sales and liquor taxes and from the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax(the gas tax).As a group, Washington cities and towns receive a fixed percentage of these source revenues, and that fixed percentage is then ql allocated to the individual cities on a per capita basis. (For shared profits from liquor sales, as an • example, Washington cities and tiowns as a group receive 40% of the total profits. This lump of money is then distributed to the individual municipalities according to their respective populations.) Shared revenue sources include: • Liquor Excise Tax; 9 • Liquor Profits; • Unrestricted Gas Tax;and • A • Criminal Justice Revenues—General Estimates of state-shared revenues in 2006 and 2007 are based on projections published by the Municipal Research & Services Center in their publication Budget Suggestions for 2006, recognizing a slight dilution effect on allocations from the addition of Fairwood to the distribution pool. Future year revenues assume no growth in per-resident distributions. Certainly, an assumption ofno growth in revenues will not turn out to be strictly accurate; there will doubtless be some variation in each of the per capita funding levels from year to year. However, y .. historical trends suggest that per resident distributions have grown little, if at all. u.:. Liquor Excise Tax • According to Washington State law, a share of the state collected excise tax on liquor is distributed r directly to cities on a per capita basis. In order to receive both liquor excise tax distributions as well as liquor profit distributions, a city is required to spend at least 20/0 of those distributions to support an approved alcoholism or drug addiction program. We have provided for this required expenditure in our projected miscellaneous expenditures. Liquor excise tax distributions are made on a quarterly basis, on the last day of January; April, July, and October. Currently the consultants at the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) project the per capita distributions for liquor excise taxes to be I : $3.93 in 2006 and $4.13 in 2007. Accounting for the dilution effect of adding Fairwood to the distribution pool, we estimate distributions of$3.90 and $4.10 for 2006 and 2007, respectively. We than assume distributions of$4.10 per resident for years 2008 though 2012. LA Liquor Profits • Revenues Like liquor excise tax distributions, liquor profit distributions are made to cities on a quarterly basis. Liquor profits, however, are distributed in different months. Specifically, they are distributed on the last day of March, June, September, and December. The MRSC currently projects liquor profits Fainvood Feasibility Study Page 43 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT distribution of $7.41 in 2006 and $8.06 in 2007. Accounting for the dilution effect, we estimate distributions of$7.36 and $8.00 for 2006 and 2007,and $8.00 for 2008 through 2012. Motor Vehide Fuel(Gas) Tax A portion of the state-collected gas tax is shared directly with municipalities which bear a substantial portion of the overall costs of road maintenance and construction.The gasoline and diesel tax is a flat amount levied per gallon (rather than a percentage of the price at the pump), so even with increasing fuel prices, the state distributions may decrease if the number of gallons sold is decreasing by a greater percentage amount. Prior to 2005, gas taxes weredistributed in two parts: an "unrestricted" portion of these funds was disbursed to help defray the costs of street maintenance and a "restricted" portion was distributed to cities to maintain an "arterial" fund. However, with the passage of SB 5969 in 2005, all gas tax funds • are now "unrestricted" for all cities, and beginning with September 2005 distributions,.cities will receive only a single distribution. Cities with a population of 15,000 or more no longer have to spend a portion of their gas tax on capital expenditures and can spend any portion on maintenance (of course, all the gas tax monies must still be spent for street purposes). With the passage of the statewide 9-cent gas tax by the State Legislature in 2005, one penny of the f_„ gas tax increase will be split between cities and counties and will be phased in with one-half cent in 2005-2006, and the second one-half cent in 2006-2007. This means a one-quarter cent distribution to cities the first year and a one-quarter cent the second year. Cities can expect new distributions beginning at the end of September 2005. Based on these changes to the law, MRSC estimates per-capita distributions of the gas tax for cities to be $23.69 in 2006 and $25.44 in 2007.Accounting for the dilution effect, we estimate distributions of$23.53 for 2006 and $25.27 for 2007 and beyond. A potential risk to the stability of this revenue source is Initiative 912, which at this writing is likely to qualify for the November, 2005 ballot and would repeal the motor vehicle fuel tax (gas tax) increases passed by the legislature during the 2005 session. Cities would stand to lose future revenue from this source. Of the $23.53 estimated distribution in 2006, $2.12 comes from the new gas tax. Of the $25.27 distribution for 2007 and beyond, $4.27 is based on the new tax. A repeal of this tax would represent a very small portion of total revenue, perhaps $100,000, and would not affect the overall finding of feasibility. Criminal Justice Revenues With the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, the only city distributions for criminal justice come from portions of proceeds of revenues collected under state statutes RCW 82.14.320 and 82.14.330. Seventy percent of revenues under RCW 82.14.330 are distributed on a per-capita basis, distributed under two headings: (1) Criminal Justice — Former CTED Programs and (2) Criminal Justice Population Based.Although the names of the distributions suggest that only the latter is distributed on a per capita basis, in fact, state law dictates that funds under both headings be distributed to cities on a per-resident basis. Municipal Research & Services estimates that these distributions will sum to $0.97 per resident in 2006 and $0.99 in 2007. Accounting for dilution effects, we estimate distributions of$0.96 in 2006 and $0.98 for 2007 and beyond. Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 44 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 fr• • , PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Summary of State Shared Revenues . Applying the above estimated distribution levels to our baseline population estimates, we have arrived . - at the following projections for State Shared Revenues: r . , Exhibit 17 •. • Projected Per-Reident Distributions of State-Shared Revenues ' 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 New Unrestricted Gas Tax I$23.53 $25.27 $25.27. $25.27 $25.27 $25.27 $25.27 p,, Liquor Excise Taxes $3.90 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 i • Liquor Profits I $7.36 . $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 • $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 L. Criminal Justice Revenues-General I $0.96 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 Total I$35.75 $38.35 $38.35 $38.35 $38.35 $38.35 $38.35 9 Source:Municipal Research&Services Center and Berk&Associates G Utility Taxes - Unlike counties in Washington State, cities are allowed to impose taxes on many of the utility services provided within the'city boundaries. According to statute, cities in Washington State are allowed to tax private utilities such as telephone natural gas, water, sewer, stormwater, and electricity up to a rate of `, six percent. This rate can be exceeded upon voter approval. No such.statutory maximum applies to taxes/franchise fees on cable television, although cable television does enjoy certain protections i. against "discrimination" under current Federal statute. (King County currently imposes a 50/0 cable ' , television franchise fee, and as we will outline later,we have assumed the City will continue this levy.) In Washington State as a whole, and in King County, roughly 80% of all cities imposed a utility tax of i, some form in 2003. The list of cities levying utility taxes has grown in recent years, and given current fiscal pressures on manycities, one can expect that the list will continue to grow in years to come. P i . • City administrations have a great deal of flexibility in how they levy utility taxes. A city council can choose structures ranging from the imposition of a single tax on a single utility, to the imposition of different tax rates on all qualifying utilities. In general, however, the two largest sources of utility 4 revenues to cities in Washington State are electricity and telephone taxes. As a largely residential city, the City of Normandy Park serves as a good benchmark for the level of ri. utility tax revenues the City of Fairwood might expect to generate if the City was to take full advantage i;. of its default utility tax authority (see Exhibit 18). 1.. li I. . 1: Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 45 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 vj, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT In total, we project REET revenues of roughly $1.65 million in 2006, growing to $2.21 million by 2012. Bond Issuance Another option that cities have to raise capital revenues is through the issuing of municipal bonds. In effect,the city takes out a loan for a lump-sum of capital revenues and agrees to repay that loan over an extended period (often a period of 20 years). If Fairwood were to issue a bond with the expectation that it would use $1 million of REEF revenues to repay that bond, then at current bond rates,the City could expect to generate more than $11 million. (At a bond rate of 6.0%, sale of a 20- year bond with an annual service payment of$1 million would generate about$11.5 million). It is important to note that bond revenues must be repaid and do not represent "new money" to a city. Rather, bonds allow cities to access funds today,to cover the costs of an immediate need, at the cost of handing over a set amount of future revenues. i State and Federal Grants Most cities in Washington State seek to leverage existing capital dollars by pursuing,grants from Washington Stateand from the federal government Success in competing for grant revenues is hit- and-miss,which means that grant revenues tend to fluctuate wildly from year to year. However, based on historical analysis of cities between 20,000 and 35,000 people in Washington State, we estimate that, on average, Fairwood will gamer state and federal grant revenues equal to $25 per city resident Looking to future years, we assume that these per-resident revenues will grow at a rate of 3% per year. Transportation Impact Fees To mitigate the increased demand on transportation networks accompanying development, cities can impose transportation impact fees. In order to do this, however, a new city must have a comprehensive plan which includes, among other things, assessments of the current transportation system, projected transportation facilities needs, and projections of the costs of addressing developmental impacts in specific areas. When considering impact fees, the City of Fairwood will have a choice between participating in King County's Mitigation Payment System or creating its own impact fee system. Given the time it takes to develop a city Comprehensive Plan, however,the latter path will take some time to implement This analysis does not include estimates of impact fees, but depending on how the City chooses to proceed,such fees may be available to defray costs of transportation investments. Optional Revenues In the previoussection, we have examined the revenues we would expect the City of Fairwood to receive if the City were to pursue a policy of maintaining taxes at their current rates. This does not mean, however,that the City of Fairwood could not choose to increase its revenues. If the City desired to raise additional revenues, it could do so through, among other means, such as a property tax — excess levy, additional utility taxes, business and occupations taxes, or, potentially, a gambling tax. For Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 50 Berk&Associates,Inc. September.9,2005 • ti _ ` PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT a complete discussion of revenue mechanisms available to cities, the Municipal Research and Services Center(MRSC) has a useful revenue guide and website available to cities as a resource. Property Tax—Excess Levy E As a newly incorporated city, the proposed City of Fairwood would not have any excess levy upon incorporation, and would probably not seek one within the horizon of this analysis. State law, however, does provide room for excess levies approved by the voters within the city. A city can present a ballot measure to voters for the approval of an excess levy under two conditions: for a special purpose, or for general government purposes with the stipulation that the approved . excess levy must be limited to one year. For the latter, it is not necessary for the city to specifically identify the proposed use or uses of the excess funds. In order for excess levies to be accepted, however, the ballot must be approved by sixty percent of the total votes cast, and there must be a • voter turnout of at least forty percent of the last general election. With the passage of Initiative 747, there only two vvays for a jurisdiction to increase property taxes by F ; more than one percent Some jurisdictions have taken lessthan the maximum increase they could have in the past and have "banked" capacity that they can use. The other way to increase property taxes by more than this amount is to do a levy lid lift under RCW 84.55.050. During the 2003 legislative session,that statute was amended to allow a lid lift for multiple years. Property Tax—Levy Capacity from Fire District Annexation In the event of incorporation,the most likely.scenario and most financially feasible for the new City of Fairwood would be to annex to one of the fire districts to continue to provide service, most likely Are • District 40. By annexing to a fire district, the new City of Fairwood would be making essentially a long-term decision by the City not to provide its own fire protection services. The City would annex to a district. $ through an election as outlined in the fire expenses section, above. If the City annexes to a fire district, - the annual property tax imposed by the district would apply throughout the district, including within the City. Fire District 40's 2005 levy rate is $0.99 per thousand AV, and the maximum regular levy that a district may impose is$1.50,per one thousand dollars of assessed value. Recall that the maximum levy that la city may impose,which is $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value when a city is annexed to a district, is reduced by the amount of the fire district levy, which commonly is the entire $1.50 that could be levied. The shift in financing and responsibility for fire protection from the City to the fire protection district that comes from annexing to a fire district can be viewed as a potential benefit This is because remaining fire district levy capacity can then be made available in future years for City services with voter approval. In effect, by annexing to the fire district, the new City would create the property tax capacity to increase their levy to $2.10 with voter approval, and with the caveat that if Are District 40 were to end its benefit charge, that levy capacity would not be available to the City of Fairwood. Fai wood Feasibility Study Page 51 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Additional Utility Revenues For our baseline analysis,we have anticipated that the City of Fairwood would levy a small utility tax to make up the difference between the.existing King County Road levy and the City property tax levy that would replace it. If the City chose to do so, however, it could increase utility taxes above the level we have anticipated. In fact, residents of many other cities do pay substantially higher utility taxes per person than we have projected for Fairwood. Business and Occupation Taxes While King County does not have the legal authority to impose business and occupation (B&O) taxes, the City of Fairwood could impose a variety of such taxes. As a.Washington State city, the City of • Fairwood would have the authority to impose a tax of up to 0.2% on the gross receipts of all businesses located within its boundaries. Most cities in King County choose not to impose this tax.As an alternative,the City has the option of developing some form of business licensing program. Such a licensing program might require all businesses to register with the City, whether as a one-time event or on an annual basis.As part of this registration process,the City could then impose a licensing fee. >-; Gambling Taxes State statute provides that cities and towns that choose to allow gambling activities within their • boundaries may tax the revenues generated by those activities. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently not major gambling establishments within the proposed,boundaries of the City of Fairwood, but a small amount of revenue would be available from punch-cards and pull-tabs based in current County revenues from gambling taxes in the incorporation area. The State of Washington regulates and licenses gambling, and a city's role is limited to allowing or banning social card game rooms. Some cities have placed moratoria on social card game rooms, but recent court cases concerning the status of card rooms in Kenmore and Edmonds will probably force all cities with moratoria to either ban or allow gambling in their cities. Ultimately the choice to allow or ban gambling activities in the City will be a policy choice of the City Council. If gambling were to be allowed, however, it would be a potential source of revenues for the City. • • Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 52 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 7. OPERATING.EXPENSES General Administration • One of.the single largest expenses the City of Fairwood would face upon incorporation is the cost of administering the City.With salaries to be paid and benefits to be provided, along with all of the costs of facilities,supplies, and equipment,the administration of a city meeting various service demands will • come with associated costs. • 4-ya Other recent incorporations in King County are instructive about the costs of administration. In practically every case,-when we compare the costs of administration as projected by the feasibility study with the costs actually incurred by the cities after they incorporate, the actual costs exceed the analysts' forecasts by a substantial margin. Of course, having noted this discrepancy, we need to remember that the goal of this feasibility analysis is not to predict what the City of Fairwood might choose to spend on administration, but rather, to estimate the level of expenditures that would be • consistent with providing a level of service equal to, or slightly greater than,that which residents of the area are currently receiving. Estimates of salaries for specific positions by taking the 85th percentile of the actual salary range as reported by the Association of Washington Cities' Salary Survey and then rounding the number up to the nearest$5,000.City Hall staffing includes 25 staff positions that will cover the city's legislative and administrative functions as well as the highest-level City staff positions in planning, parks and recreation, public works, and the City engineer. • ., City Council . Assuming that the City of Fairwood chooses to incorporate as a Council/City Manager government, the City will have a seven member Council elected by voters living within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City. We have assumed that the members of the Council and the Mayor will serve part- time.The Mayor would be elected by the Council as directed under 35A.13.030 RCW. Upon election, the Mayor will preside over Meetings of the Council, and serve as the ceremonial leader of the City. By statute, upon incorporation the City of Fairwood will be required to compensate the members of the Council at a rate of$5,400 per year and the Mayor at a rate of $6,000 per year:For our analysis, we have assumed these salary rates. City Manager's Office and General Administration In the Council/City Manager form of government it is assumed that the City Council has only one employee: the City Manager. The City Manager, then, is ultimately responsible for hiring, supervising, and the dismissal of all further staff.We have projected staffing for the administration of the City of 25 full time employees in the base year. This staffing level, as outlined in the following table, includes staffing for the City Manager's Office, for the City Clerk's Office, Finance, Engineering, Planning, Information Systems, and for oversight of Parks and Recreation. As discussed in the examination of Start-Up Financing (Chapter 8), we envision that a.new City of Fairwood would be deliberate in its hiring of City staff. Such a go-slow approach will allow the City to Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 53 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT build up a reserve to serve as a financial cushion in years to come. This means that, although the baseline assessment of feasibility estimates general government costs of nearly$2.5 million, the City could (and perhaps should) see costs that are significantly lower than that as it slowly ramps up. Exhibit 19 summarizes estimated staffing for a base year,with costs estimates that are consistent with 2005 costs. For future years, general government costs are assumed to grow at a rate of 4%per year. • : • • ;r Fai'wood Feasibility Study - Page 54 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 . • t PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • Exhibit 19 • 1 Staffing and Cost Assumptions for City Hall Staffing (Base Year) . Staffing Levels and Salaries 1 • Salary Range FTE's* Salary Total "" Low High • City Manager 7,177 8,840 1 105,000 105,000 Management Assistant 6,354 8,253 1 100,000 100,000 • • Director of Admin.&Fin. 5,946 • 7,428. 1 90,000 90,000 Accountant-Senior 3,747 4,662 1 55,000 55,000 Accounting Clerk 2,883 3,607 1 45,000 45,000 City Engineer 5,532 7,007 1 85,000 85,000 . Engineer Tech 3,297 4,120 2 50,000 100,000 • Public Works Director 6,140 7,688 1 90,000 90,000 Community Development Dir. 5,651 7,081 1 85,000 85,000 Computer Support Specialist 3,101 3,849 1 45,000 45,000 _ City Clerk 3,868 4,845 1 60,000 60,000 Legal Secretary 2,928 3,587 1 45,000 45,000 . Administrative Secretary • 2,918 3,636 2 45,000 90,000 Receptionist 2,330 2,846 1 • 35,000 35,000 Senior Planner 4,246 5,383 1 65,000 65,000 Parks Maintenance Supervisor 3,764 4,692 1 55,000 55,000 Recreation Coordinator 3,066 3,833 1 45,000 45,000 Miscellanueous FTE's 6 50,000 300,000 Council Members 6 5,400 32,400 Mayor j 1 6,000 6,000 Total 25 1,533,400 • Benefits I • 460,020 • Benefits as%of Salaries 30% • Facility Costs 106,250 , . Cost per square foot 17 Square Feet per FTE 250 Operating Supplies , 153,340 ! Supplies as%of Salaries 10% • Phone Expenses 25,000 Cost of phone per FTE 1,000 ' Computers 33,213 i Computer cost per FTE per year 1,329 . Furniture • 18,292 Furniture cost per FTE per year 732 i Vehicle Lease 30,000 Number of vehicles ' 5 Cost per vehicle per year 6,000 s.: Vehicle Operation&Maintenance 20,000 Number of vehicles 5 Vehicle O&M cost per year 4,000 • 11- TOTAL COSTS OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2,379,515 F�: R"7 *Full-time equivalent positions s Fairwood Feasibility Study I Page 55 a Berk&Associates,Inc. • September.9,2005 • t PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT r, As shown in the chart above, we have included six full-time equivalent (FTE) positions designated only as "Miscellaneous FTEs," compensated at a rate of $50,000. Clearly, the new City Manager will have his or her own ideas about appropriate City Hall staffing levels. Our intention here is only to • estimate a reasonable headcount that slightly exceeds current levels of services Fairwood residents receive as an unincorporated area in King County. Salaries and Benefits • We arrived at the above salary assumptions,first by calculating the 85th percentile of the salary range reported in the Association of Washington Cities' Salary Survey for each position, and then, by rounding that figure up to the nearest $5,000. Our projected total cost of salaries in the first full year of incorporation comes to slightly more than $1.5 million. We assume that the cost of benefits will be equal to 300/0 of salaries. Supplies and Equipment For costs associated with phones, office furniture, and computers, we have derived projected expenses on an annual per-employee basis. For phone expenses we have estimated annual costs of $1,000 per FTE. For furniture,we assume an annualized cost of$732 per year.This figure was arrived at, first, by estimating furniture costs of $3,000 per employee, and second, by assuming that the useful life of this furniture would be five years. Given these figures, we annualized the costs by 5; amortizing the $3,000 over 5 years at a 7% interest rate. For computers, we estimated annual costs per full time employee of$1,329. This figure assumes computer costs of $4,500 per employee and an average useful life of computers of 4 years. On top of the projected costs of phones,furniture, and. computers, we added an expense category for general supplies. We estimate supply costs equal to 10% of salary costs. Vehicles For many of the positions identified in our administration staffing, an integral part of their job will require at least the part-time use of a vehicle. We project that the City will want to lease five vehicles, at an annual cost of$6,000 per vehicle. For operation and maintenance of the vehicles, we estimate annual expenses of $4,000, each. The total costs of having a vehicle at the City's disposal is then $10,000 per year. Facilities Projections of the costs of City Administration facilities have been directly tied to our estimates of staffing levels. We have assumed that the City will need 250 square feet of office space for each full time employee it hires. We have also assumed an annual lease rate of$17 per square foot, which is consistent with the going rate in the area. Given our staffing projections, we have therefore estimated facilities costs of about$106,000 per year. Of course, if the members of the City Council saw fit, they could choose at some point to purchase land and construct a new City Hall. If they were to take this step,then the above funds could be viewed as expenditures to cover debt service on City bonds. Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 56 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 • � 1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT City Attorney and Prosecution Services The City of Fairwood would likely contract with local firms for City Attorney services and prosecution • services. Estimated costs of City iAttomey services are based on comparisons with the cities of Kenmore and Sammamish,which currently contract for City Attorney services, and bear annual cost of $400,000 and $425,000, respectively. ?3 The actual costs the City will bear will depend heavily on the level of services the City requires. If the City wishes to have an attorney preserit at meetings every night of the week, then the costs of these services would be greater than if the attorney's services were only required a few days a week. Law firms indicate that the_City will need to contract for City Attorney services at least four or five months prior to the official date of incorporation to help with the drawing up of the interlocal agreements needed upon start-up. • Future-year costs assume 3%annual growth in the City Attorney contract. • Public Safety Sl . Police • The second largest line item listed in our projection of expenses is for Public Safety. The costs of providing this service represent a little more than one quarter of the entire costs of running the City of Fairwood. Certainly, among residents of Fairwood, there will be differing opinions on what would be the optimal level of public safety services•pr4ided. As with all other services, however, our goal here is not to recommend an optimal level of service, but rather to estimate the costs the proposed City could expect to incur were it to provide the same, or slightly higher, level of service than currently prevails in the area. From this baseline level, given the available funds, a City of Fairwood might choose to expand and extend its public safet'services. In our estimates of public safety expenses, we assumed that the City of Fairwood will contract with King County for all service areas. At some point in the future,the Fairwood City Council might weigh the benefits and costs of having the City provide its own Public Safety services, but presumably they would only do so if they believed that the move would improve the City's position. Therefore, our contract assumption remains a reasonable baseline from which to work. As a municipality, the proposed City of Fairwood would be required to provide for the protection of people and property within the City boundaries. Currently, as part of unincorporated King County, Fairwood receives its police services from the King County Sheriff's Office. As part of the County's larger cooperative effort for this analysis, King County Sheriffs Office has provided us with examples of different contracting options might look like for the City of Fairwood. 4 : Given the variety of contracting options available, upon annexation the Sheriff would be willing to negotiate with Fairwood for thel provision of a wide range of service options. To inform this assessment of fiscal feasibility, the Sheriffs Office provided examples of what a contract might look like given alternative levels of service. Fainwood Feasibility Study Page 57 1,1 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT. Exhibit 20 summarizes four representative contracts that are based on current service levels in the proposed incorporation area. The status quo option attempts to reflect existing service levels, with the addition of a City Police Chief. Alternatives A, B, and C provide alternative approaches to staffing, including dedicated patrols for the City. The examples retain all services currently being provided, including those that are optional under the contract An explanation of the contract program and terms follows the chart. The city may choose not to purchase some optional services, and use the savings elsewhere in the budget or to purchase different police services such as additional patrol staffing. Please note that these examples are provided as a point of reference only based on our.current interlocal agreements. Sheriff's Office police contracts are developed through lengthy discussions with • city officials about the needs of the community and their vision of police service. For further explanation of differences between alternatives and other considerations surrounding police contracts, please see Appendix 1. . All four representative contracts summarized in Exhibit 20'include a City Police Chief. We believe that inclusion of a chief represents an increased level of service over what Fairwood currently receives, and therefore, a departure from our same-cost/same-level-of-service baseline. However, we also believe that is not realistic to assume that a City like Fairwood could operate without having a Police Chief. Having the chief allows the City to secure grants, establish City police priorities (with the city council and manager), work on mandated plans such as emergency operations protocols, act as department head accountable to the City and its citizens, and ensure local representation in decision making. The �..z chief can also help the City determine the appropriate staffing levels once the city is up and running. Given our goal of assessing feasibility based on current tax burdens and existing or slightly improved levels of service, our cost estimates are based on the Status Quo alternative, with estimated costs of $1.87 million. For 2006 through 2012, baseline costs are assumed to grow at a rate of 40/o. In addition, police service costs are assumed to grow with population growth, under the assumption that 250/0 of the cost is independent of population growth. This suggests.that, as population in Fairwood slowly increases over time, certain core functions will remain relatively stable. Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 58 Berk&Associates,Inc. September.9, 2005 • - PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • • Exhibit 20 . Representative Alternative Contracts for Provision of Police Services ¢-- ;§ 4" asMsFAA `., - g " u ,1�rg-„-" .. 3: � a i >, .A - r � <� t Status Quo with M 5 ft • loCi ' _ 40040det Eaii. eseCity aeAi Example B i�iEi"' et' r ' , 4to{2 Q fOes VA�:e®„ FTE Cosi' � gA x�„;,,..CoIN. FTE Costr-`F1d WS�€ pWiSe tWat% 7 rent at" 3�.�b"i� ?snit � "Mail aktrat aZ-,SOM Shared Major 0.1' $17,384 0.1 $17,384 0.1 $17,384 0.1 $17,384 • City Chief(Captain) 1 I $160,883 1 $160,883 1 $160,883 1 $160,883 Shared Captains 0.2 $32,092 0.2 $32,092 0.2 $32,092 0.2 $32,092 Sergeants 0 I 1 $137,129 1 $137,129 . 1 $137,129 : Shared,Sergeants . . 0.9 $126,359 0.72 $101,030 0.72 $101,030 .0.72 . $101,030 ' Patrol Deputies 0 I . 6 . 8742,663 9 $1,113,994 12 $1,485,326 • Shared Patrol Deputies 6.44 $796,661 2.15 8265,554 0 0 • Detective Units 0.87 $106,858 0.87 $106,858 0.87 8106,858 0.87 $106,858 • Precinct Facility I $25,865 $25,865 825,865 $25,865 Major Crimes Unit 0.58 $96,746 0.58 $96,746 0.58 $96,746 0.58 $96,746 • Communications(6-911) • 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 Tactical Unit 01 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 • Subtotal,Required Services 12.38 $1,599,204 14.91 $1,922,559 15.76 $2,028,336 18.76 $2,399,668 Senrlces^itiit.are.iiiftnied btlt,cl eectit ose?vitietti fa-i y u'firiont Or irliiSCa° V"alit •'c,>'`Ki : ':r�-r"=.,"°i' x K-9 0.34 $52,696 0.34 $52,696 0.34 $52,696 0.34 $52,696 . Hostage Negotiation o! $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 ' $0 Major Accident Response Unit 0.09 $8,491 0.09 $8,491 0.09 88,491 0.09 $8,491 • ,, Subtotal,Other Required Services 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 Qjitioa' E�Setiiices,(rejirt0etiOrgiirteiit ser,;iiiee l*Vi ther<service ar'e:available)�"� ii,:x-; ;'.r "':riVW i ,.° ' '•..'"^` `M. . . Storefront Officers 1, $123,777 1 8123,777 1 8123,777 1 8123,777 • Domestic Violence Intervention Unit 0.28 $48,287 0.28 $48,287 0.28, $48,287 0.28 848,287 Fraud,Forgery,Organized Crime 0.23 839,543 . 0.23 $39,543 0.23 $39,543 0.23 $39,543 Subtotal,Optional Services 1:51 $211,607 1.51 $211,607 1.51 $211,607 1.51 $211,607 Total Staff/Cost(2005 Figures) 14.3 $1,871,997 16.9 $2,195,352 17.7 $2,301,130 20.7 $2,672,461 Population:26,000 Sworn per Thousand 0.4 0.5 0.6 • 0.7 Cost per Capita I 872 $84 $89 $103 , r - Calls per Patrol Deputy 620.55 490.34 443.78 332.83 Minimum staffing per shift(assumes 3 shifts/day,365 days a year) , n/a 1 1.5 2 Source:King County Sheriff If the City chooses to contract with the County for police services, the County has indicated that the first two months of that service will be provided without charge. This assumption is included in estimates of start-up financing in the discussion to come. • Court Services, Public Defense, and Jail Costs Cost.estimates for court services, public defense, and jail costs are based on a review of costs incurred i..., by other cities. , i We assume that the City would opt, at least initially,to contract with King County for these services. Li, Between March 2004 and April 2005, representatives from the King County Executive, the King County Council, the King County District Court, Contracting Cities and other stakeholders engaged in 5. ,, an intensive strategic and operational planning effort for the King County District Court The process f Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 59 Berk&Associates,.Inc. September 9,2005 4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT resulted in a careful and in depth assessment of the District Court's operations, services and role in the criminal justice system now and in the future.There are no court start-up costs when contracting with District Court KCDC already has use of the statewide computer system, courtroom space and staff.The cities pay for the services by sharing the revenue received on city cases. Based on Berk & Associates' modeling of demand for law enforcement.services in Fairwood, we anticipate that the City would see levels of demand that are similar to the City"of Kenmore. In 2004, Kenmore paid court services, public defense, and jail costs of roughly $180,000. Growth rates for these costs are expected to mirror growth in police services. Overall, we estimate 2007 courts, public defense, and jail costs of$234,000, growing to$296,000 by 2012. Fire and Life Safety Protection Our assumption is that the proposed City of Fairwood would choose to annex itself to the currently existing King County Fire Protection Districts. Since these three districts are funded through discrete levies,we assume the provision of fire and life safety protection will have no direct financial impact on the City's budget Road Maintenance and Operation If voters within the proposed area of incorporation choose to incorporate, the new City of Fairwood will take over responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of public rights-of-way. For our analysis, we have assumed that the City will contract with the County for provision of these services. King County reports that the current estimated cost of maintaining current levels of roads and traffic maintenance in Fairwood would be roughly $986,000 in 2005. Of this total, $885,000 would cover roads maintenance and the remaining$101,000 would cover costs of engineering,signage, and traffic signals. It is important to note that these represent current estimates of toad maintenance. For 2006 through 2012, baseline costs are assumed to grow at a rate of 4%. In addition, a portion of roads service costs are assumed to grow with population growth, under the assumption that new development will introduce new streets and new infrastructure. Recognizing that much of the City's road system is already set, however, we assume that a 1% increase in population will result in only a 0.75%increase in costs of roads maintenance. Parks and Recreation Currently, the public parks and parklands in the Fairwood area are owned, maintained, and improved by King County Division of Parks and Recreation. According to County policy, upon incorporation, facilities defined as local parks by the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan could be transferred immediately to the newly incorporated City. King County expects that, under the above policy, two parks and one facility currently within the proposed City of Fairwood would transfer to the City: Renton Park (19.09 acres), Lake Youngs Park (4.81 acres), and Renton Pool (0.88 acres). The Spring Lake, Lake Desire, McGarvey Open Space, Soos Creek Trail Sites, and Petrovitsky Parks, which are classified as regional county parks,would continue to be owned and maintained by King County. By law,.the new city is not mandated to accept the parks, but if they do not take them, King County would "mothball"the park facilities, or conduct only minimal safety-related maintenance on the parks. Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 60 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 , • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT It is worth noting that, while the City of Fairwood could acquire responsibility for a relatively few acres of local parks, residents of the area will have these other regional parks and open space at their disposal. In or adjacent to the plroposed City are the 500-acre Soos Creek Park; Petrovitsky Park (nearly 100 acres including sports fields) the Lake Youngs Reservoir,trailhead and trail site; and Spring Lake and Lake Desire, all of which King County will maintain as regional facilities;. These facilities will M allow Fairwood residents to enjoy recreation opportunities and pristine areas within the proposed city and just outside the urban growth boundary. r, Exhibit 21 Fairwood Area Parks and Open Space ': t , •# t 4-°" 4 °.1Wilk; {.•-,4-...-t--.-1-i:-,--i,....1- ; --/-:-4,-,..:1 • City of'Renton Park V ry1 ah Park •.,. C .. ... ; - r ? Regional King County Park 4:,4 «.'-'s> : 'j i !..,1P .iap[ev-• -u ,r{ `` 7. 11,-,,,,,. - -, °+ : ; - i h heal King County Park •,t`s>.�+3z.: '= '>- .c-::�.+. ,t a i q -•:r,... 9.. C.!:,%';:,..•",�a,,:r.,s-F.i.,,;. .. .s; z�, 0 e�wo.y. '.:.Ar"-.,': , ..s..A :..' �: ,1..- l.,--1,.:1._ Trail ;s:,, :11JW:,��:_: ;,;fv<,;;r°*tix: 's^!'i-• <.' ) I Urban Growth Boundary r;-Renton. $ <-=' <,,•r= nl-:-- . ,_:y 14"''' c'1 - ;: -_a«C� .,..„-°•^i.' .. ::,,,,, 4:,.J.r.. ".:ti`;i.N,,`V .d'-,',7,',.7,„i„,,i' - ,_;, :-. '� `:� ,.R.� � _ eg�gn�IP�rI�. r�`, `:_:'� "� • >City:Botiiidaiy:: �. ;r�.. , d ' ,�` `' Mature!° a. .. I'q T tA°M.,•� Wvan�SrghPond `r, '....'6:;':,Y..-. .os. c� �}��,, p� Jell p .._-44...' t:; ...-..',,-7,,b-,-;.., z r« Amp ' "f"i`"'. t rv.,&a .t L t{-,+'}?TJX ,,,,, *�.a�• ,,4:1.1/..r,1„ • rk P.'V; 1 �k�'� `,,4 ':!.' `^'•%t e� t '',i,;-..g'-.:go,? h.811 s -,41`,•:.i ------ ..'l < e t ar Iver i t� y '",�•--;:..,. ,.,--.54/... .,-„:-[-:—f ---:-.„- :'.3 ::� hTEai1 Ski Ff"f CC do b (3 . {. I i r :,.5.•...5,' S ,} a :s-„,'4 ^ .'x•--�I,,,� . , ! . tat 1=F . `*-t;` Vis' .+',t •.`i`t'"`&e,..1 ?.-�i'rr *'!.' f� • z^.-..k-x^ t k ,lK 7'x • ''''''''-1.71117(.11,-=.7:1-::;' A:il L_”• ''',4!,=..:, 1Fairw�pyon{1��` .f I i, =•_ r -i park J t ° • .,....„,-,•-_-,..-,,:::ll \‘.4„' :s. '6' 761hilt 4.4� ``1'li z \'0. "1.• �`y..' .``,.. : , .e�''�(a-,, tz'✓e,'- � • - 4 t Jq.`r f-,104,g 4.-1r4,7- .:44.: 6.,..-::1i---.7,..-4.:,..4:., ....—:44'-'-7.----'--%5!-P `ttet. '•ti `-• -Std f�+'1.. \'i l `Z - ,it,;.-,-,•.ss. '� r.°' SOLS fi`_` l '`�7. - i.. fir, t.� rLye,,..t '' .:k,T^f x ' 1 :tTrail . F a.4:j_ Q /1J ft if '"� c ti 3FPew}v e3' "; ,� Souleva 1 ( • • ; ; i, ;x Cane ar fr- Y , ._”",I.. ' oaks `,n e _ %...-.4,,0'.5`. .:',. .l ' ` •Yuurigs• k�. a$ ..:...1-se•i aisi — ,-, Trailhe'atl _ �z.1: :` .,.1. } 5k W g • ...-4\.414 s;yA.. 3.:.,_,...m o is i.... /.J ch. i ; to P;-,,,,%,;(.-•,,— F,,.a42',tgr4`, .., ° ^t, 'E f fM':�1.;t .`3,,;; .41 n '.-C.• .. 7fr >. a 5t '° :.g: x ..r s x;` ...t''',./e•r. I `Ytear-1-'ft e s, t 'z . -r•..� 1 43t4ALa '4 y4a'i'r' ' c5` i41,4 ' q..-• - SrZOSth 5i ,i.• t .� i `g : �i"tf .i,- S a . -a. y.,;- ,f -__. F tom` `. Source:Berk&Associates Faiiwood Feasibility Study • Page 61 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9, 2005 I PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Should the new city opt to take the King County Parks, our estimates of parks and recreation expenses are broken into three components: (1) park maintenance, (2) recreation, and (3) expenditures for operation of Renton Pool. Park Maintenance Estimates of park maintenance costs are based on experiences of other cities and counties. Cities we have worked with in the past estimate that passive parks like Renton Park and Lake Youngs Park cost relatively little to maintain on a per-acre basis (often less than $100 per acre per year). However, given the few acres that the City of Fairwood would take on, we assume maintenance costs of$420 per acre. Combined, Renton Park and Lake Youngs Park encompass almost 24 acres of passive parkland, resulting in estimated maintenance costs of$10,000 per year. Estimates of future-years expenditures assume 4%annual growth in maintenance costs per acre. Recreation Although King County does not currently provide recreation services in Fairwood area parks, we did include modest recreation expenses for the City. Recreational programming could be done through a partnership with King County, making use of the County's regional facilities in the City (similar to the County's agreement with the City of Enumclaw). Like the creation of a City Police Chief, we believe it is difficult to envision a City of Fairwood that did not provide some level of recreation services. In addition to a recreation coordinator position, which is included in City Hall staffing, we assume net recreation expenditures of roughly$80,000 in 2005 (excluding the cost of the Renton Pool). This net cost reflects the cost to the City of recreation services after accounting for recreational fees. We assume that recreation expenditures will begin in 2007, and since the services will be new services to the City, the full cost of recreation services will be born by the City of Fairwood. As with park maintenance,we assume that net recreation costs will increase at an annual rate of 4%. Renton Pool ; rt The passage of the 1968 Forward Thrust capital improvement bond initiative by Seattle and King County voters placed an emphasis on acquisition of park sites and construction of facilities, particularly swimming pools. This included the construction of the Renton Pool, which is part of the Lindbergh High School campus and currently in County ownership. Currently, King County has a lease with the Renton School District to operate the pool. Both the lease agreement and Forward Thrust bond covenants end in May, 2010. As long as King County satisfies the bond covenants, it can convey the pool to another owner and operator at any time, and has taken steps to do so with most remaining pools. Most recently, King County has entered into agreements with the Northwest Center, a non- profit organization,to own and operate several pools in the region. Although the City of Fairwood would acquire local parklands and facilities at its discretion, this study assumes, based on conversations with cities like Kenmore, that the Renton Pool will be operated and maintained by a non-profit organization such as the Northwest Center, and that the new City of Fairwood will make some financial contribution ($50,000 per year in 2005 dollars) towards its operation. The total governmental contribution to a pool operated by the Northwest Center is in the Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 62 Berk&Associates, Inc September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT range Of $100,000. Therefore, if the City of Fairwood were to take over responsibility for the Renton Pool, and if the City were shoulder the full public cost of the pool, pool operating costs would be in the range of$100,000. We assume that Fairwood's estimated contribution of $50,000 will begin in 2007 and the cost will grow at an annual rate of 4%. Even if the new city chose not to own the pool, the assumption that the City would provide some financial contribution toward its operation is consistent with agreements • that other cities in King County have developed with King County, recognizing that the pool is a community resource and service that current residents value. Building Permit and Land Use Desk Aswe indicated in our analysis of'projected building permit revenues, we have assumed that the City of Fairwood will have a building permit and land use desk that will recover 90% of its costs through fees. Given assumptions about City growth, we assume permit fee revenues of $450,000 and, therefore, building and land use desk costs of $500,000. We assume that both costs and revenues f ? will grow by 4% per year, which translates into a cost of$541,000 in 2007, growing to $658,000 in 2012. Based on the experiences of other recently-incorporated cities, we believe a 90% cost-recovery kms? assumption is conservative. The experience of most new cities is that permit revenues more-than cover city costs. Policymakers should be aware that there is likely to be some degree of pent-up demand among residents to consult someone at the permit office. Officials at other recently incorporated cities advise that the City may want to recruit al highly experienced building permit official early in the formation of • the new City. . Comprehensive Land Use and Capital Facilities Plan According to the 'Washington State Growth Management Act, soon after the City of Fairwood incorporates, it will need to begin the process of developing a comprehensive land use plan and a capital facilities plan.The manner in which the City approaches this process, of course, will be a policy decision. In theory, the City could) contract with consultants who would develop a package of plans consistent with requirements of the Growth Management Act for two or three hundred thousand dollars. In practice, however, the experience of other recently incorporated cities has been that, when $ all is said and done, these plans cost a great deal more. Most cities spend well over $1 million developing their comprehensive and capital facilities plan. Given the experiences of other cities, we have allocated $1.2 million, over a period of six years for development of a comprehensive land use plan and a capital facilities plan. Of this total figure, we project expenditures of$300,000 per year for the first two full years after incorporation on the two plans, and $150,000 per year for the four years thereafter. Human Services r : The King County Department of Human Services (DHS) reports that the major service areas using L, County funds in the Community Services Division are regional, and most of the non-county funded • Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 63 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • services are also regional services. From the Department's perspective, the impact of incorporation of Fairwood on CSD services is minimal. Only local services in the Executive budget were included in the analysis. The vast majority of the approximately $670,000 that CSD directs to human services in the Fairwood area will not be affected by a change in governance, and all regional services and state.or federal flow-through funding willbe maintained at King County as in the past. The Community Services Division appropriation unit in the Children and Family Services fund is the only one of the divisions that uses county funds for local services. These local services provided with County funds by the Community Services Division are for the senior center and adult day health for the aging and prevention services for youth. Both are currently targeted to unincorporated area populations. . • The Fairwood annexation will not impact any of the youth prevention services which are targeted to the Snoqualmie Valley,West Hill and North Highline. . • Fairwood is in the catchment area of the Kent and Renton Senior Centers.The current funding policy for senior centers provides funding to a historical set of senior centers. Kent and Renton Senior Centers are not included in the current funding policy and,therefore,would not be affected by the Fairwood incorporation. • There is no Adult Day Health program serving Fairwood. • One local service contract that would be reduced is Pacific Science Center reduced admissions for disabled and elderly.The population targeted is county-wide and data is not available on a geographic.basis.The reduction is based on Fairwood as a prorated portion of total county population. Reduction in number of admission would be approximately 84. • The second is Community Voice Mail a service provided to low income,frequently homeless populations countywide.While Fairwood is a relatively middle-class area,the assumption that there are homeless in all areas of the county was used. Fairwood costs were derived using Fairwood as a percent of total population. Reduction in numbers served would be eight. Having noted minimal impact on the County's provision of human services,this analysis assumes that Fairwood would become a pass-through city for Community Development .Block Grants. Estimated expenditures for human services mirror those estimated Block Grant revenues. Miscellaneous Non-Departmental Services When the City incorporates in 2006, we estimate that the City will face miscellaneous costs for insurance, association dues, and contributions to a chemical dependency program.The latter chemical dependency expense is a requirement that cities face in order to be eligible for receipt of state-shared liquor profits and liquor taxes. Included in miscellaneous costs is a small cost for insurance. Estimated insurance costs are based on interviews with cities and the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. All lines of liability insurance plus property and crime fidelity insurance would be needed, at an initial annual cost of $5,000-$7,000. Association of Washington Cities' Insurance Authority is another possible insurer. Post-incorporation, coverage is given through a rating system based on the number of city worker hours and historic losses. If there are few staff (which would be the case with a City of Fairwood that would contract for many of its services), and there is no loss rating, insurance is low-cost and would Fai'wood Feasibility Study Page 64 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT only increase based on city workers' compensation claims, the land use hearings process, and whether public safety functions (fire and police) are provided directly by the city. Losses are attributed and assessed to cities through premiums, based on a complex actuarial formula. Most cities do not pay very high premiums even after.5-10 years. • Operational Contingency • c n No matter how thoroughly a. city plans, there will always be unanticipated events requiring discretionary funds. To meet these unforeseen needs,we .have anticipated an annual allocation of $100,000 (in 2005 dollars), which the City administration would be free to spend at its discretion. <'3 We assume contingency funding will increase at a rate of 4% per year. Surface Water Management Upon incorporation, the new City of Fairwood will take over the responsibility of surface Water management within City boundaries. Because there are certain binding constraints on how SWM. revenues can be spent,we separate this fund from our core operating costs and revenues throughout the analysis. As indicated previously, the three categories of legitimate SWM expenditures are: 1) day to day costs of surface water program services, 2) capital investment in SWM facilities, and 3) transfers to the Street Fund for roads expenses directly related to surface water management. For this analysis, we have not assumed any transfer of SWM revenues to the City's Street Fund. In terms of operating costs, we estimate that,.in 2005, a City of Fairwood would spend $350,000 to operate and maintain its existing SWM facilities. This estimate is based on per acre SWM expenditures that the City of Sammamish plans for 2005. SWM operating and maintenance expenditures are expected to grow by 4Io per year. . I t._ Fai'wood Feasibility Study Page 65 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • 8. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital improvements are investments that a city makes in its physical infrastructure that allow a city of improve its overall position for the future. These improvements could include the repair and construction.of road, acquisition and development of parklands, or development of structures .to enhance surface water management. For a city like Fairwood, these physical investments are just as important as-day-to-day city operations. Because the returns on capital improvements are generally received over a long period, and because the costs of improvements are substantial, it is important to plan carefully for the investments. As a city that will prepare a comprehensive plan under the State's Growth Management Act, Fairwood will be required to adopt and fund a six-year capital improvement plan (CIP)that conforms to the policies outlined in its comprehensive plan. There is no way to know today what the composition.of Fairwood's comprehensive plan will be, but current King County investments are inventoried here and no future capital investments by King County are anticipated to carry into the period after annexation (2007 through 2010). The City of Fairwood will need a capital facilities assessment very soon after incorporation in order-to understand the City's future capital needs. . Surface Water Management According to data provided to us by.King County's Department of Water and Land Resources, from 2001 to the present, King County will have invested more than $3.6 million in surface water capital facilities within the proposed incorporation area, primarily for drainage issues in the Madsen Creek area. (A detailed description of investments is provided as an appendix to this report.) Today, the Water and Land Resources Division has no projects planned for construction past 2006 (through 2010), aside from completing the six capital projects identified in the list below. • Exhibit 22 • Surface Water Capital Projects in the Fairwood Area, 1999-2006 Project Name Year Started Year Completed Est.Project Cost Madsen Creek R/D Pond 1999 2005-06 $ .2,200,000 Madsen Creek East Wetland overflow 1999 2001 $ 350,000 Madsen Creek-Bell Diversion Modification 1999 2001 $ 1,000 Madsen Creek LWD/Boulder Placement 1999 2003 $ 740,000 Madsen Creek Drainage Conveyance Improvement to West Trib 1999 2003 $ 350,000 Madsen Creek Northwest Tributary Stabilization(same as LWD) 1999 2004 Total $ 3,641,000 Source:King County Water and Land Resources Division,Berk&Associates • Roads Construction Exhibit 23 below details nearly$16 million in Fairwood roads projects included in King County's 2004 Transportation Needs Report (TNR). The TNR is intended to be a list of all identified transportation needs that have not yet (and in some cases, may never be) included in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), subject to need and funding..There is a single project, related to Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 66 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 ` jPUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • • improvements to 140th Avenue SE, which makes up the largest share of future transportation needs that could be phased over time. It should also be noted that this list includes projects that, at least in part, fall within the incorporation boundary or run along the boundary. However, some portions of a s. given project may extend beyond the study boundary. i Exhibit 23 r3 Transportation Needs in the Fairwood Area,2004 5-:i King County Category of TNR Cost Project# ; Location Need Priority ($000) GR-20 Petrovitsky Rd from 108th Ave SE to SE 184th St Safety High $69 SIG-41 140th Way SE/140th St SElfrom SR-169 to SE Petrovitsky Rd Operations High $133 HARS-21 140th Ave SE from SE 177th St to SE 180th St Safety High $316 SPP-4016 Fairwood Blvd from @ 148th Ave SE Nonmotorized Low $25 3P-9966 Lake Youngs Pipeline Pathway from vicinity of 155th PI SE Nonmotorized Low $30 SPP-4035 SE 184th St from SE Petrovitsky Rd east to crosswalk Nonmotorized Low $55 s"; 3P-9956 SE 176th St from 147th Ave SE to 152nd PI SE Nonmotorized Low $185 3P-9965 SE 183rd St from 142nd Ave SE to 147th Ave SE Non motorized Low $190 "' ' GR-51 SE 192nd St from SR 515 to 148th Ave SE Safety Medium $28 HARS-17 140th Ave SE from SE 188iWy to SE 190 St Safety Medium ' $663 _' ITS-1 SR 169 from 1-405 to 140th Way SE Operations Medium 401195 140th Ave SE from SE 177Ito SE 197 Capacity Major Medium SC-55.22 140/132 Ave SE Ph II @ from SE 196 St to SE 208th St Non motorized TBD $408 Recon-3 Petrovitsky Rd from 128th Ave SE to 143rd Ave SE Reconstruction TBD $2,006 400197 140th Ave SE @ Petrovitsky Rd Operations TBD $11,750 SC-202 140th Ave SE @ SE 181 St Operations TBD Future Road Projects-Estimated Need $15,858 • • Source:King County Roads Division,Department of Transportation,Berk&Associates In addition, upon incorporation, the City of Fairwood would be newly responsible for just over 73 - road miles of streets, including several streets which today have a poor pavement condition rating ,,.. (below a score of 20, meaning that over 40% of the roadway has cracking). The map below shows the pavement condition of Fairwood roads. Each City sets different standards for the pavement condition rating(King County's standards are outlined within the legend of Exhibit 24), so the City of • Fairwood would need, in its initial capital assessment, to determine the appropriate standards for these roads through the City's overlay program. I i Faiiwood Feasibility Study Page 67 I Berk&Associates, Inc September 9,2005 i PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 24 Fairwood Area Pavement Condition (King County Road Condition Ratings) . . k k-;• Y - C' z„ 4..fi ' 2 . '4.,T= €1','t",aa,;P „,....,-.2.„.,,,,,,,,;„,,• ▪�r ,„„ - ,,?„ -s . y Win' {Based�►F CouI%t� tra ct SP" tcid� "t L Sir,i ftrEs1 � "'SZ . Y + E �1 I� ddag it ',ROM- t i 4+1 .,�.c-z5- -i s8t.ik rs"' 1�"�ise� - ^r kJ+�a - '.:nvw'i. .:4. • . air .-f �, th i f "i 1i k} auk. A 1 t^f re n.i4 ,rif =�w*„ � , 4c'` ,„,z - 2• s,,l,t, ,.. `r�'', ,,S' r Y, ..k ?...a,•,.`r` si.4. k r:,a--c=-�" �.�r�1! E7tSL'�ERk s a .` • `r .c .�. ar,• rni 'R' kr1"' -2w.tr�- At.;pus h i`4 d amt}A s•, , >' ". siFK�r�x N.c: 13 SUS »3�9b Good ,; -�.j 4;tY t � � R t .' - _ ° �''4> ,ir,,,sc, s Ste" ;!•;..''.:0 ,:,?-..4.5..1r,' ur t j �r k- 30t 25 �o Fait r 4fa•ti ` fad k1 ti Ar' d 4- c^✓"q -,, {-- -`_ 'S ,7.,- ,'�., �` �5- > S i' gi n+` -r^ t� a.c•7;,, x,w-Vii-:iz`z -:s:� � � r -Ac',,....' -,,, 4, &?v,•: A ' i L'r c•1p.,e,t,4',,,„q x.ti, ,r_'ri t,. Sir xt-.•xiR - :�..; ;,af"` 'r"- —•,..- ,ir .� �'.� ,,1,--40., ;i'#M 1?% 3 '9 t �_i,jk^y;%Aprs 3;^r et.�:" 1<�ip,,�Cz�`?rcF�,'i :1.'' '�,...1-1,1129,,,,,'%V,r�- �' „k-_,3_,,,a„... ..,' ` 'fi k� fr t $ 34 > e▪ xsro.Ka `i W'wr :4i?tea °_,- . � r l 1 f.,i,'`� }))) p ▪A�,f+ a l t,y+cF'.x rte, - -: .�. c x1� 2i. lA .�i•�> � .y�'2' ''�`�7t limit Y�'�rt�7�1{sr 71 i L X` � r"�"'^4i`a�- �{•Y -4'�'`� • -L '1,fat ry>; 1 ,� F5 v c x” p,. S - - ,.c 1> .•r3'-"w + ` < riE A�� 1L z. L. a v xz r,t r Yy F Ft r� �' s,'e•. _a. 3 ,Y � .*- }�-sa ' -a'. "t e,i::e ,.r�'ri+3,i ti - &y,. _i- asig e.-v k '-_-.,_". }Af.."-V� .I k. '3 a �'rt a"F.. _ a p. _ rN�SkEh Lv # # i -• x h+" d 7v t ..-....%: --_-;•.,-. .,,,,,-;3,4,--4-,-,!,_‘,..:: K v* s ' ^ ? ,a. ,,, rr � t$ vj .3e'.-",y'4 E`:" ,. tin` c,a- •:i i �;v .. ` ' �.e ^'a, q f h <..0 fry ri �, '3l ->.. 4�-� �,L' -• a t ,;,.:.;y ,ra`s ,R t .1C:t `'�+i'.:"�'f S£ '.-r-S f '' T'• � •,.v,: -, ,. ter,'. i - F , t.,. 2 _, :+,.. y"1,- s:,•,r t'r. �'..r %°y ..< ;.i3•A s ;r"..:'•.,�:';','.r:,;,V.: "+T� Fr.Z.`i •k,. d '* # t_., gs { +� w'w'S= '4„Z-�"b'�� Y11c2� � ,cY iii �X" ` . . x x-r- , to �LL s �k�, _ y �h k ��,A � .v �� u` >'�" "� e�� .,s� 's "t r r s 1 t ,'.,� Z.:2 ��. ,3' 0" T��'O : . " - ;G�"w w�, ,.+''j�µ�.,4� '"w ('d',` ,$ ``y,.E� -�' ic�i��r�.^s_,4 ""��i �Sx �;, >n' F�.� t,�ry�� l � �s.� ",�'.�' _,� :--�s'3' : b �� . a i ,„ z ail t' r o x1, ,4L `� -rz uf' ,, r. 3d. '� ▪ ;b�E�,p;a^' da lk . M1} r°.z-` zR � x�F a",+ +4FyP 2.x^. ' - t's> ,r. F xr' ,t1 -„;z..Y � �y �..,„ ,te t. 4 ' f --. - f ---.,...--„,-4,;:.:„.4.,.... s.,a esu <`�..-` '4-a t `a_ i c>� i Y • m• ow:,.A ' .▪ .g _ $ .--.J•--_ ,,,,,,:-:. t �c by ' _ 5 r 4i., ;,n'rfao .Yd ., - `�"'45'4/ 1-:-.. €' ` ”,- r.j �e . t Q r .0 , � i 1 ,9,z. h '�Y ti t,, t ft.. 'S t'1` kf 9 r . ri4�° i ,,t r ess.-- .1.1 0 fi t S • �t -1';`•rte€=Z.- r,.. , - 4 .... 4,..c.,,,.1- .��._.� __ I'i3��+� �r �11'...- - _._.•° �. • 3< ¢ice . .,. T.�.,s^,.c.•r..5�, �."`,,�..x•;.><=c`-=i�,%s�a x-� �� Source:King County Roads Division,Department of Transportation and Berk&Associates According to King County Roads Services Division, prior investments in road design and construction Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects in Fairwood have totaled over $40 million over the last six years, with nearly $400,000 in projects to be completed this year in the incorporation area. Between the years 2006-2010, no further capital expenditures are planned. Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 68 Berk&Associates, Inc. September 9,2005 . . PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 25 • King County Road Construction Projects in the Fairwood Area, 1999-2006 1 . rPlanned Z,-.: 2005 through Project Name Location Prior Years Budget 2010 Total prT 5:.f, 140th Way SE Petrovitsky Rd to SR- 169 $19,829,986 $0 $0 $19,829,985 140th Ave SE SE 177th St to SE 197th St $20,275,523 $291,202 $0 $20,566,726 140th Ave SE-ITS Petrovitsky Rd to SE,,192nd St $1,932 $98,068 $0 $100,000. :° Total $40,107,441 $389,270 $0 $40,496,711 Source:King County Roads Division,Berk&Associates If a city incorporates in the middle of. a given year, the County's policy is to complete road i construction, design or other Improvement projects programmed for_that year, by either actually finishing the project or providing funds to the city for transportation purposes. Based on an {r incorporation date of September 1, 2006, the County would finance all construction and design planned for 2005 and 2006. Because these projects are anticipated to be completed prior to 2007, we do not have a reliable estimate of future annual expenses for construction of roads in the City of 1_ Fairwood. Parks Capital Improvements The King County Parks & Recreation Division reports the following locally-classified King County facilities which could become part of the City of Fairwood at the City's option (see Exhibit 26).Among the five listed parks, King County would seek to transfer the three local park facilities to the City: Renton Park, Lake Youngs Park, and Renton Pool. King County has not made any recent capital investments in any of the parks within the incorporation " area, nor are any investments planned for the future. The two local parks, Lake Youngs and Renton . Parks, have few facilities, and we assume that the Renton Pool would be operated and maintained by a non-profitprovider, so the most likely capital investments that may be needed in the future would be upgrades or additions to the City's limited stock of local parks. t" Li sz; 0 Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 69 U.. Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 L PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Exhibit 26 Existing King County Park Facilities in the Fairwood Area Field/ Picnic/ Play Rest- Park Facility Classification Acres Court BBQ Equip room Address Renton Park Local 19.09 No facilities 130th Place SE and SE 172nd Renton Pool Local 0.88 16740 128th Ave SE Lake Youngs Park Local 4.81 1 1 SE 200th and 148th Ave SE Soos Creek Trail Site Regional 203.02 No facilities SE 184th St and 124th Ave SE to 140th Wy SE and Hwy 169 Petrovitsky Park Regional 92.66 7 1 1 1 16400 Petrovitsky Rd SE Total 320.46 8 2 1 1 Source:King County Parks,Berk&Associates Estimating Capital Improvement Expenses While the County assumes no future-year projected countywide project investments, Road Services Division has provided us with a detailed list of such investments that were made in Petrovitsky from 1995 through 1999. The prior governance study estimated countywide project expenditures over these years averaged roughly$135,000 per year. Municipalities use a number of strategies for financing capital investments.Which strategy they choose is often based on their assessment of the city's long-term capital needs. For instance, if a city believes that it needs to make substantial investments in the near-term, but once those needs have been met, it will face fewer needs in the future, that city could issue bonds and effectively spread the near-term costs out over a longer period of time. If, however, a city expects that it will need to make a steady stream of investments over the both the near- and long-term, it will ultimately need to be able to finance a given year's investments with that same given year's revenues. We do not estimate an average annual level of capital improvement expenses because, given King County's recent funding constraints and recent historic investment in parks, surface water management, and roads, the anticipated capital facility needs in the Fairwood area would tend to be understated and not reflective of an urban level of service for capital investment. In addition, the fact that King County estimates no projected capital improvements for roads, parks or surface water management facilities in the near future means that the best predictor of capital expenses for Fairwood will be the on-site assessments that the new City would undertake when it created its capital facilities plan. Estimated capital revenues, as noted above in the revenue section, are likely to equal roughly $2.9 million in 2007, stemming from real estate excise tax (REET) ($1.7 million); from Surface Water Management (SWM) ($520,000); and from various state and federal grant sources, which could average roughly $700,000 per year if the City of Fairwood enjoys success in obtaining those grants that is in line with what similar sized cities have achieved across the state.These dedicated sources for capital will assist the new City in addressing future capital needs. Fanwood Feasibility Study Page 70 Berk&Associates,Inc. September.9, 2005 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 9. PROJECTED START-UP FINANCING • As part of the creation of the new city, the interim staff at the City of Fairwood will need to contact a local lending institution to set up a line of credit to tide the city over until substantial revenues begin to flow in. Flows-of the various sources of revenues outlined in earlier sections will depend on both the speed with which the:City is able to implement its projected fees and the ease with which the City handles its transition period. Policymakers at the City should contact the Municipal Research and Services Center as early as possible, and they should also obtain copies of the MRSC's "The New City Guide" and "A Revenue Guide for Washington's Cities and Towns." r ; On the following page;we provide'la general overview of the monthly revenues and expenses the.City can expect. While some categories may look like they represent a smooth flow of funds, the reality of ( revenues and expenses is much "lumpier" by nature. The exact amount of debt the City will incur depends on how the City approaches its start-up. Governing factors include how quickly staff is hired (or not hired); the furniture, computer systems r and supplies that purchased by interim staff, and the choice to buy or lease vehicles. We have assumed a level of spending on pre-incorporation administrative overhead that includes the purchase r-> of a facility (6,000 sq ft at $18/sqft), and the purchase of computers and supplies for three interim staffers (at$8,000 per staffer). Because these persons will be serving in interim roles, we assume that those 3 staffers will be paid towards the higher end of the salary range for 4 months. ry Once Fairwood is incorporated,we:assume that City Hall will be staffed with 8 full-time employees for its first year of existence (similar to Kenmore's start-up staffing model), and that those employees will also initially need supplies and computers at the rate of$8,000 per staffer. Finally, we have assumed that the City will lease its vehicles, leading to expenses that are spread throughout the year. It is instructive to reflect on the experience of two cities, Kenmore and Edgewood, in their choice to defer or delay hiring permanent full-time staff for City Hall. In both cases, the choice to begin with a very small City Hall staff, and increase staffing costs slowly and in partial positions or on a contract basis (based only on increased service demands), allowed each City to establish significant cash reserves in the first few years.This go-slow approach placed the cities on sound financial footing. • • As noted in the expense section, above, the City of Kenmore incorporated in 1998 with a complement of eight staff positions, including the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Senior Planner, Community Development Director, Receptionist, Administrative Assistant, Accounting Tech, and City Clerk. Today, the City has 16 staff: a Street/Storm/Public Works Superintendent, City Clerk, Office Assistant, City'Engineer, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, two Administrative Assistants,. Director of Community Development, Code Compliance Officer, Building Inspector, Senior Planner, Associate Planner, Permit Technician, Finance Account Technician, and Finance • Director. • The City of Edgewood (Pierce County, population 9,405) incorporated in 1999 and staffed City Hall with just under 11 positions: 0.8 FTE City Manager, 1.75 Finance staff, 1 City Clerk, 1.9 Central Services staff, 2.925 City Planning staff, 1.775 Building Office staff, 0.538 Street Maintenance staff, and 0.638 Surface Water Management staff.Today, five years later, only partial Fain vood Feasibility Study . Page 71 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9, 2005 L PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • staff positions in planning, parks, street maintenance and surface water management have been added, bringing 2004 City Hall staffing levels to 13 FTE. After the initial start-up period,the City should expect to see a somewhat more even flow of revenues and expenses. Some revenues are distributed quarterly, and for some revenues, there is a substantial delay before collection. Half of annual property tax revenues, for instance, are due on April 30. Some of those revenues accrue to the City in March, April, and May, but a large portion of those revenues will not accrue until June or later. For the City's expenses,we have estimated monthly payments by simply dividing yearly expenses into 12 equal monthly payments, and for many of the larger expenses (e.g. road maintenance and public safety contract payments) this estimation really does reflect the way outflows will occur. For other expenses, like parks and recreation, costs arising from one month to the next are not so easily • predicted. For these smaller outflows,then, our monthly estimates should be viewed only as a general indicator of the kinds of expenses the City will face. Fairwood should count on accumulating short-term debt in its early stages as-it absorbs the costs associated with incorporation and start-up (attorney fees, interim staffing, purchase of facility and supplies). In mid-November, Fairwood will receive its first large revenue receipt in the form of road levy revenues from King County (the City should contact King County Finance well ahead of mid- f` November to work out the details of the fund transfer). By statute,these revenues must ultimately be dedicated to roads maintenance and construction, but the City is allowed to borrow against this fund as long as the loan is paid back, with interest, within 3. years. We anticipate that the city will indeed use the road funds received from King County in November to repay its short-term debt and to help finance continued operations through the remainder of 2006. Given our projections of revenues and expenses, we expect that Fairwood will have no difficulty repaying this loan within the required three years. We anticipate that after November, 2006 the city will maintain a positive overallcash position. The road funds received from King County in November will tide the City over until May,when it receives its first substantial influx of property tax revenue. Contingent upon the policy decisions of Fairwood's administration,we expect the City's cash position to remain positive into the future. • • Fainvood Feasibility Study Page 72 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9,2005 , . z r . • .., . . . . . .1 • • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT . I . • . ' i . . • Exhibit 27: Proposed City of Fairwood Cash Flows for First Year (Not Including . . SWM Revenues) • - 1 pl,,,,,:(-gatriaArK4,'Vil 2007 Inflows(In Thousands) RidAheeitpl,z<7S. elitlA(Vtirl&idiridl-'.".1A-411 Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Road Tax . , - . - 2,010 - - - - - - Property taxes(Regular Levy) - - - - 29 89 987 979 19 12 State Shared Revenues ' - - 187 - 49 202 - 53 202 - 53 202 - I ' Unrestricted Gas Tax - - 155 - 168 - - 168 - - 168 . - I M . Liquor Excise Taxes ' - 26 - - 27 - - 27 - - . 27 p.. Liquor Profits . 1- - - - ' 49 - 53 - - 53 - - 1tia ea . .a Criminal Justice Revenues-General - - 6 7 - - 7 - Retail Sales Tax ' I- - - 90 90 90 96 96 96 • 96 96 96 • Retail Sales Tax-Criminal Justice ,- - - 137 46 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Utility Tax - - - 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 R, , Cable IV Franchise Fee ' .- - 19 ' 19 -19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 \,› TOTAL '- •- 206 2,166 203 405 203 291 500 1,196 -1,241 430 221 i.,..•,;.:13 . I • • pmemo,lionct.R wit ",„ . 2007 ' • Outflows(In Thousands) , ikli0-1fic8IPMSePWA:itktIiti.4. 'Aftee".,..11 Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Public Safety(Criminal Justice) • I- - 183 183 - - 1,152 192 192 General Government 240 108 . 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 &..l • Salaries and Benefits ;- 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 . 63 Administradon Overhead 132 42 2 2 - 2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 . 2 2 !Wenn;Staffing " 108 - - - - - - Vehide Lease and Operation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 . Roads Operation and Maintenance I' - 86 86 51 91 91 91 91 91 91 . 91 . . City Attorney and Prosecution Services 56 19 19 19 19 34 34 34 34 . 34 34 34 34 , . . • • • Parks andRecreation 3 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 . Compehensive Land Use Plan - - - - .13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Capital Facilities Plan - - - - 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 • Miscellaneous I_ 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ' Operational Contingency - 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 •. , r TOTAL 295 132 92 364 364 243 243 243 • 243 243 1,395 435 435 ' 1 . Llxli:K•rs\AW. A'l•II:3901.., Vgkti4.00,191 2007 (In Thousands) Ore'llielSrPi ..li&Pt.i.iA.:1:/ctW,NNiiiik:;,:=1/edilri.i Feb. Jan. Mar .AprMayJun Jul Aug . . Cash Inflows-Cash Outflows (295) (132) 114 1,802 (161) 162 (41) 48 256 952 (155) (5) (214) Accumulated Cash Position. (295) (427) (313) 1,489 1,328 1,490 1,449 1,497 1,753 2,705 2,551 2,546 2,331 I • F.1741,.4s,v,77-,...7Z7:-.i7V—o-g7„ 1:7717';i7. 2007 . • - • Capital Inflows(In Thousands) r?i'frkilit4oltkik, Sellf,F•i;P,13;.0e,i,l3i,;(44,fec-ri,) Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Real Estate Excise Tax I- - 146 146 146 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 . I . • . . . . . • " . , . . • . . . • - , , . k.,.., 1 • ;-. . . ' . CI,* .c- . Fairwood Feasibility Study . • Page 73 i-- Berk&Associates,Inc . September 9,2005 , • . . • • • • PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Startup Financing Assumptions Inflows • Road Tax: Assessed value times the King County levy rate of 1.832 times 46%, which is • historically the proportion received in September-December. • Property taxes(Regular Levy): None collected in 2006. In 2007, total yearly times historical distribution for each month. • Unrestricted Gas Tax: Quarterly payout, so Fairwood receives 1/4 of the 2006 total amount and 3/4 of the 2007 total amount. • • Liquor Excise Taxes: Quarterly payout,so Fairvvood receives 1/4 of the 2006 total amount and • 3/4 of the 2007 total amount • Liquor Profits: Quarterly payout, so Fairwood receives 1/4 of the 2006 total amount and 3/4 of the 2007 total amount • Criminal Justice •Revenues — General: _Quarterly payout so Fairwood receives 1/4 of the 2006 total amount and 3/4 of the 2007 total amount • Retail Sales Tax: Two-month lag between levy and collection, then an even monthly payout - after that • Retail Sales Tax - Criminal Justice: Two-month lag-between levy and first collection leads to payout of 3-month's-worth in November 2006. After that, even monthly payouts. • Utility Tax: Not levied until January 2007,then even monthly inflows. • Cable TV Franchise Fee: Part of "Permit Fees" in yearly summary. Even monthly inflows beginning in October. Outflows • Public Safety (Police): Two months free service from King County. Because the King County contract states that cities get billed based on the lower of the two cost books, the first bills don't generally go out until May of each year (budget has to be finalized first). So, the cities have that money from January to May..After May, assumed costs reflect a lump sum payment for the first half of the year and equal monthly payouts for the latter half. • General Government: Yearly summary includes fully staffed city hall, does not include interim staffing costs for 2006. • • Salaries and Benefits: Eight employees (City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Senior Planner, Community Development Director, Receptionist, Admin Asst, Accounting Tech, City Clerk) + '6-person council +a mayor for the first year, paid out in even monthly outflows. • Administration Overhead: Pre-Incorporation costs of 6,000 sq ft * $18/sq ft, as well as $8,000/interim FTE * 3 interim FTEs. Initial costs (in September 2006) include $8,000/FTE and 5 additional FTEs, as well as costs of$20,000/month for Supplies, Phones, Insurance. • Fairwood Feasibility Study Page 74 Berk&Associates,Inc. September 9, 2005 • f, • 4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • Interim Staffing: Three interim employees (City Manager, Asst City Manager, Administrative Assistant) at high pay scales for four months (September-December). • Vehicle Lease and Operation: Five vehicles in the first year, at a cost of$6,000/year to lease and $4,000/year for operation and maintenance. • Roads Operation and Maintenance: Two months free service from King County, followed by even monthly outflows. "-' • City Attorney and Prosecution Services: Paying a total of 1/3 of full year in 2006,spread more in pre-incorporation time than in subsequent incorporated months. In 2007, even monthly ,.4 outflows. • Parks and Recreation: City pays $5,000 per month in 2005, assumed to begin in November 2006. The City then fully funds park maintenance, recreation, and a $50,000 annual contribution to pool operation in equal monthly payments through 2007. • Compehensive Land Use Plan: No outflows in 2006, followed by even monthly outflows in 2007. • Capital Facilities Plan: No outflows in 2006,followed by even monthly outflows in 2007. • Miscellaneous: Even monthly outflows beginning in September 2006. • • Operational Contingency: No outflows in 2006,followed by even monthly outflows in 2007. • • 1/41,4 Fafrwood Feasibility Study Page 75 Berk&Associates,Inc September 9,2005 • . S REVIEW DRAFT • ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF FAIRWOOD . REPORT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 : FAIRWOOD POLICE CONTRACT OPTIONS • •I • I • • • • • 1. • • s I - Fairwood Feasibility Study REVIEW DRAFT Berk&Associates, Inc August 5,2005 Provided August 4,2005 to Berk and Associates for the Fairwood Governance Study • .� • • Fairwood Police Services If Fairwood incorporates,the new city would have the option of providing police services through a contract with the King County Sheriffs Office.Under the Sheriffs Model,the new city would be able to select from a variety of services-and service levels to meet its needs.The model can easily be changed • as the city matures and adjusts its priorities. The following examples are based on current service levels in the proposed incorporation area,with the addition of a city chief and other local dedicated personnel.The examples retain all services currently being provided, including those that are optional under the contract.An explanation of the contract program and terms follows the chart. Please note that these examples are provided as a point of reference only based on our current Interlocal agreements. Sheriffs Office police contracts are developed through lengthy discussions with city officials about the needs of the community and their vision of police service. Explanations: Under each model,supervision of patrol personnel is shared with King County,and other contract cities. Specialized units, detectives,and support personnel also are shared.The primary difference between the examples is the degree to which the city uses shared(flex)and dedicated patrol staff. Status Quo with City Chief:This model retains"flex"patrol services and a community storefront..A city chief is added to provide greater local presence and assistance with developing city laws and ordinances. The Sheriffs deputies in the area would provide patrol and emergency response services to the city. Example A: This model adds 6 dedicated patrol officers to the status quo model.These individuals would wear city uniforms and drive vehicles with city insignia, and work exclusively within city boundaries.One shift, however,would be covered with"flex"patrol services.A sergeant is added to provide supervision of those deputies. Example B: This model increases the number of dedicated patrol officers to 9 and eliminates the flex patrol.The city could choose to retain flex, but that is not represented here. Example C: This model increases the number of dedicated patrol officers to 12. ":;--r.� "?,rpt,-i�`�z'',",7."°,;;_•ix-^*.g i ,�•;,; � - Statue..Quo with -ry s -z,s�$h:.-,,..:��<r,. -,3 "'�«:<..'=•4..a�<" oriel E�[a nlest.: .t .>s.;.... ;. ,_ « »._.. ,�. .; ��... :� ��;»;�.:�fi� City Chief K:�� Eiraiti',°�e•��'�^m�.:}� Example B' a, ;-,,,,(2005#igurOsj, :,, ,,: ,, . • : . FTE Cost ��F :E� ^,Cdst:�-�:��t FTE Cost _ J.<F'CE.S=: 4nkm:crt^v.:°r 1• ,4^.q.zxax„ wo> ,�# .��-� p' � .; N`- .. w�� ev-`"_°•^rv�a'r '.,me„ >.�;mt. ,� 3vta :}�e±y,T,- ., a. Shared Major 0.10 $17,384 0.10 $17,384 0:10 $17,384 0.10 $17,384 City Chief(Captain) 1.00. $160,883 1.00 $160;883 1.00 $160,883 1.00 $160,883 Shared Captains 0.20 $32,092 0.20 $32,092 0.20 $32,092 0.20 $32,092 Sergeants _ 0.00 1.00 $137,129 1.00 $137,129 1.00 $137,129 Shared Sergeants 0.90 $126,359 0.72 $101,0300.72 $101,030 0.72 $101,030 Patrol Deputies 0.00 6.00 $742,663 9.00 $1,113,994 12.00 $1,485,326 Shared Patrol Deputies 6.44 $796,661 2.15 $265,554 0.00 0.00 Detective Units 0.87 $106,858 0.87 $106,858 0.87 $106,858 0.87 $106,858 Precinct Facility $25,865 $25,865 $25,865 $25,865 Major Crimes Unit 0.58 $96,746 0.58 $96,746 0.58 $96;746 0.58 $96,746 • Communications(E-911) _ 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 2.29 $236,357 Tactical Unit 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 Subtotal,Required Services 12.38 $1,599,204 14.91 $1,922,559 15.76 $2,028,336 18.76 $2,399,668 • . l / ,Provided August 4,2005 to Berk and Associates for the Fairwood Governance Study :l,3,'r.. *.ip,°,>,>a- �J°"c-"4.'':' ;3.... ,i'a,= x;? <x,�:ra.' i:rr»^:Y-:a e'.'-�'>'3a -3 ,-- °=a:.'3•y:.•. f. <SerrriCOS.Mat`.ate r`egUir..eiRO tit cries-choose whet00.17 Q,,PA: ;u ftronVO a use.' V q ' � , ' K-9 0.34 $52,696 0.34 . $52,696 0.34 $52,696 0.34 $52,696 Hostage Negotiation 0.00 • $0 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 ;. Major Accident Response Unit 0.09 $8,491 0.09 $8,491 0.09 •$8,491 0.09 $8,491 Subtotal,Other Required Services 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 0.43 $61,187 cyi,- r.Ai re :nom ,h,;rn«,,, %x *n fx: ; fM„°+ i ., :'E"•^u'S'Y„v,'�Y� ^;F3`:-SY`:"<. `N€f,Ya"=' -'�3 %.",x:•, $$ k:»..;.,< �Z.. �'�`�`��`''':�l'a` ',�,�...,_ $^°a- S 'i$ -,.d-.�:x<,c< a ,fib.r 3p oteb:1 s.=red'resenfi ailfren c, lit$0,a er rices a to ava ieit „ ' -„ Storefront Officers 1.00 $123,777 1.00 $123,777 1.00 $123,777 1.00 $123,777 • Domestic Violence Intervention Unit 0.28 $48,287 0.28 $48,287 028 $48,287 0.28 $48,287 L.: Fraud,Forgery,Organized Crime 0.23 • .$39,543 0.23 $39,543 0.23 $39,543 0.23 $39,543 Subtotal,Optional Services 1.51 $211,607 1.51 $211,607 1.51 $211,607 1.51 • $211,607 t" ;`1. •„ Total Staff/Cost(2005 Figures) 14.3 $1,871,997 16.9 $2,195,352 17.7 $2,301,130 20.7 $2,672,461 Population:26,000 • Sworn per Thousand 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Cost per Capita $72 $84 $89 $103 • Calls per Patrol Deputy 620.55 490.34 443.78 332.83 • Minimum staffing per shift(assumes 3 shifts/day,365 days a year) n/a 1 • 1.5 2.0 . Additional Notes: I • Under a contract,the city would have the option to add dedicated sergeants,detectives,motorcycle officers,and/or school resources officers.This can be done at any time. • •• The city will not need to provide clerical support. Precinct clerical staff and evidence/supply specialist costs are embedded in staff costs. • The city will not need to provide a police facility;officers will have access to the precinct facilities. • The Sheriffs Office includes all central support costs(personnel, payroll,crime analysis, records, etc.)in staff costs.Vehicles, and insurance also are included. • The Sheriffs Office covers liability for police actions. -w • • The police chief may determine that additional shifts are necessary to cover local concerns (e.g., increased traffic)and can adjust schedules accordingly,within labor agreements. • f • Figures represent best available data,and may be updated at a later date. • About the Sheriffs Office Contract Program The Sheriffs Office offers three contract models,and then allows the cities to choose which services they want under that model (some, such as patrol or 911 communications are mandatory). Each model offers a different balance of cost effectiveness and local control.All costs include the uniform, equipment, vehicles,insurance,administration, and support. Fs�:x #.- i x ad .l ' 'Sliared.)s .'ervt'sosi,,-"oriel s e;:c:,: .G e :. , We respond to 911 calls and patrol Under our most popular model,the Under this model,every position ` the area as if the city were another city has dedicated patrol officers and serving the city is dedicated to the • '�g unincorporated district.Because all a dedicated city chief who Work only city.They essentially operate as a services are shared,deputies wear , in the city.We call it shared stand-alone city police department county rather than city uniforms. . supervision because the precinct They share specialized services command staff(sergeants,captains, such as major investigations with the • major)supervise the city officers county and other partners to who are on patrol as well as the significantly reduce costs. unincorporated deputies. q f • • , • • • REVIEW . DRAFT • • • • • . • • • • • • 1 . : APPENDIX 2: KING COUNTY ROADS DIVISION INVENTORY AND • PAVEMENT CONDITION DATA • • • ,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r.-17 • • • • • • Faliwood Feasibility Study REVIEW DRAFT ;, • Berk&Associates, Inc. August 5,2005 f, • • • • • Fairwood Incorporation Study with bond roads - 2005 Total Road Surface Area 953,091.20 Square Yards • Total Road Miles-All Road Types 73.7 Road Miles . Lane Miles-All Paved Road Surface 147.6 Lane Miles Lane Miles-Light Bituminous 9.1 Lane Miles Lane Miles-Gravel Road • 0 Lane Miles Lane Miles-NC and Concrete 138.3 Lane Miles Lane Miles-NC Only 138.3 Lane Miles " Road Miles-NC Road Surface 69.1 Road Miles Road Miles-NC and Light Bituminous 73.7 Road Miles Lane Miles-Light Bituminous and Gravel 9.1 Lane Miles Square Yards-Concrete Road Surface 0 Square Yards Curb and Gutter-Linear Feet 556,270.00 Linear Feet Total Catch Basins and Manholes-Each 3,121.00 Each Paved Ditch and Gutter-Linear Feet 1,112.00 Linear Feet • Open Ditch-Linear Feet 79,777.00 Linear Feet Enclosed Pipe System-Linear Feet 292,550.00 Linear Feet Total Cross Culverts and Access Tiles 1,759:00 Each Cross Culverts Only 1,370.00 Each Curb&Gutter and Thickened Edge-Road Miles 109.2 Road Miles Gravel Shoulders-Road Miles 19.2 Road Miles Gravel Shoulders-Lane Miles 102,481.00 Linear Feet Planter Strips-Square Yards 4,212.90 Square Yards Total Shoulder Miles-All Types 30.3 Road Miles Total Shoulder Feet-Liner Feet 161,211.00 Linear Feet' Paved Shoulders-Road Miles 11 Road Miles NC Walkways-Linear Feet 7,530.00 Linear Feet Concrete Walkways-Square Yards 249,673.20 Square Yards NC Walkways-Square Yards 4,183.30 Square Yards Mowable Slopes-Square Yards 42,293.20 Square Yards Mowable Slopes-Pass Miles 36 Pass Miles Mowable Slopes-Lane Miles 11.9 Lane Miles Jersey Barriers-Linear Feet 909 Linear Feet Retaining Walls-Linear Feet. 1,935.00 Linear Feet Guardrails-Linear Feet 4,058.00 Linear Feet Retaining Walls-Cubic Yards . 3,439.90 Cubic Yards Retaining Walls-Square Yards 1,289.90 Square Yards Bridges 0 Each Bridge Drains 0 Each Bridge Surface-Linear Feet 0 Linear Feet Fencing-Linear Feet 1,284.00 Linear Feet Auxiliary Pipe-Linear Feet 1,349.00 Linear Feet Planter Boxes 11 Each • Trash Racks 1 Each Headwalls 0 Each Brick Road Surface-Lane Miles 0 Lane Miles Road•Surface Bulb • 4 Each Cul-De-Sac 29 Each Speed Bumps 7 Each Crossing Enclosed Pipe 2,069.00 Linear Feet Box Culverts 0 Each R/D Facilities 1 Each ,. ...... '•- ' "-, r'''73 a,,,,,,,!,-1 t.I.,,-,,,:,,,A4 . -R--- r"". .• . . .. ...... , .._ • • • Fairwood Incorporation Area:King County Roads Division Pavement Condition Ratings FUNCTIONAL CLASS BEGINNING ENDING CPAVEMENT PAVEMENT ENTERLINE OVERLAY(1999 ROAD NUMBER ROAD NAME FROM TO (ARTERIAL/ CONDITION MILE POST MILE POST MILE TO 2004) COLLECTOR ONLY) SCORE CONDITIONS .CORE YAR 13320 0.000 0.132 SE 192 ST at 148 AVE SE at 146 AVE SE 16 0.132 50 2003 NO 13320 0.132 0.185 SE 192 ST at 146 AVE SE at SURFACE CHANGE 16 0.053 50• 2003 NO 13320 0.185 0.351. SE 192 ST at SURFACE CHANGE at 142 PL SE 16 0.166 50 •2003 NO 13320 0.351 0.420 SE 192 ST at 142 PL SE 365 ft W of 142 PL SE 16 0.069 50 2003 NO 13320 0.420 0.508 SE 192 ST 365 ft W of 142 PL SE . at 140 AVE SE - 16 0.088 50 2003 NO 13320 0.508 0.608 SE 192 ST at 140 AVE SE at SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.100 12 2003 NO 13320 0.608 0.638 SE 192 ST at SURFACE CHANGE at 138 AVE SE 14 0.030 12 2003 NO .13320 0.638 0.734 SE 192 ST at 138 AVE SE at 136 PL SE . .14 0.096 12 2003 NO 13320 0.734 0.766 SE 192 ST at 136 PL SE 170 ft W of 136 PL SE 14 • 0.032 12 2003 NO 13320 0.766 0.806 SE 192 ST 170 ft W of 136 PL SE at 135 AVE SE 14 0.040 12 2003 NO 13320 0.806 0.882 SE 196 ST at 135 AVE SE at 134 AVE SE 14 0.076 12 2003 NO 13320 0.882 0.990 SE 192 ST at 134 AVE SE 25 ft E of 133 AVE SE 14 0.1013 12 2003 NO ,. 13320 0.990 1.015 SE 192 ST 25 ft E of 133 AVE SE 105 ft W of 133 AVE SE 14 • 0.025 17 2003 NO 13320 1.015 1.174 SE 192 ST 105 ft W of 133 AVE SE at 129 PL SE . 14 0.159 17 2003. NO c- 13320 1.174 1.305 SE 192 ST at 129 PL SE .131 rnI W of 129 PL SE 14 0.131 I 17 2003 NO 13320 1.305 1.310 SE 192 ST .131 mi W of 129 PL SE .136 mIW of 129 PL SE 14 0.005 17 2003 NO 13320 1.310 1.372 SE 192 ST .136 ml W of 129 PL SE _1.157 ml E of 124 AVE SE 14 • 0.062 _ 17 _ _ .2003_ '.. NO - - - 13320 - 1:372 t443-SE 192 ST- - - .157 Mi E of 124 AVE SE _1455 ft E of 124 AVE SE _ _ 14 0.071 17 2003 NO ____ 16300 0.000 0.050 128 AVE SE at SE PETROVITSKY RD 1265 ft N of SE PETROVITSKY RD ,_ 17 0.050 39 2003 NO 16300 0.050 0.180 128 AVE SE 265 ft N of SE PETROVITSKY RD lat SE 172 ST 17 0.130 39 2003 NO 16300 0.180 0.280 128 AVE SE at SE 172 ST at SE 170 ST 17 0.100 39 2003 NO 16300 0.280 0.330 128 AVE SE at SE 170 ST at SE 169 PL 17 0.050 39 2003 NO 16300 0.330 0.380 128 AVE SE at SE 169 PL at SE 169 ST • 17 0.050 39 . 2003 NO 16300 0.380 0.430 128 AVE SE at SE 169 ST at SE-168 ST 17 0.050 . 39 • 2003 NO 16300 0.430 0.480 128 AVE SE at SE 168 ST 265 ft N of SE 168 ST 17 0.050 I 80 2003 NO 16300 0.480 0.570 128 AVE SE 265 ft N of SE 168 ST . at SE 167 ST 17 0.090 80 2003 NO 16300 0.570 0.620 128 AVE SE at SE 167 ST at SE 166 ST 17 0.050 80 2003 NO 16300 0.620 0.710 128 AVE SE at SE 166 ST at SE 164 ST . 17 0.090 80 2003 NO 16960 0.185 0.211 SE 164 ST at 128 AVE SE at 128TH PL SE 17 . 0.026 49 2003 NO 16960 0.211 0.258 SE 164 ST at 128TH PL SE at 129TH AVE SE • 17 0.047 49 2003 NO 16960 0.258 0.305 SE 164 ST at 129TH AVE SE at 130TH AVE SE 17 0.047 49 2003 NO ' 16960 0.305 0.385 SE 164 ST at 130TH AVE SE at 131ST.AVE SE 17 0.080 . 49 2003 NO 16960 0.385 0.473 SE 164 ST at 131ST AVE SE at SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 17 0.088 49 2003 NO 18500 2.710 2.820 148 AVE SE at SE 198 ST at SE 195 PL 17 0.110 85 • 2003 NO 18500 2.820 3.120 148 AVE SE at SE 195 PL at SE 192 ST 17 0.300 85 2003 NO 19820 0.000 0.033 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD at 140 AVE SE 175 ft W of 140 AVE SE 17 0.033 100 2004 NO 19820 0.033 0.061 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 175 ft W of 140 AVE SE 320 ftW of 140 AVE SE 17 0.028 i 100 2004 NO 19820 0.061 0.171 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 320 ft W of 140 AVE SE .171 ml W of 140 AVE SE 17 0.110 23 2003 NO 19820 0.171 0.372 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD .171 mi W of 140 AVE SE .128 ml N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 17 0.201 L 23 - 2003 NO 19820 0.372 0.421 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD .128 mi N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 415 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL ST 17 0.049 23 2003 NO . _ 19820 0.421 0.450 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 415 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 265 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 17 0.029 23 2003 NO 19820 0.450 0.490 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 265 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE -155 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 17 • 0.040 23 2003 NO 19820 0.490 0.500 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 55 ft N of SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 1st SE FAIRWOOD BLVD/132 PL SE 17 0.010 23 2003 NO 91568 1.260 1.320 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 128 AVE SE at 129 AVE SE I 14 0.060 22 2003 NO 91568 1.320 1.420 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 129 AVE SE I at PVT RD 14 ' 0.100 22 2003 NO 91568 1.420 1.520 SE PETROVITSKY RD at PVT RD at PVT RD 14 0.100 22 2003 NO 91568 1.520 1.580 SE PETROVITSKY RD at PVT RD 315 ft E of PVT RD 14 0.060 22 2003 NO 91568 1.580 1.680 SE PETROVITSKY RD 315 ft E of PVT RD jat 134 AVE SE 14 0.100 22 2003 NO • 91568 1.680 2.040 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 134 AVE SE Iat 140 AVE SE 14 0.360 22 ' 2003 NO 91568 2.040 2.076 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 140 AVE SE at SURFACE CHANGE I 14 0.036 22 2003 NO 91568 2.076 2.186 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE at SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.110 22 2003 NO 91568 2.186 2.220 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE . at 143 AVE SE/SE 176 ST 14 0.034 22 2003 NO 91568 2.220 2.460 SE PETROVITSKY RD 1at 143 AVE SE/SE 176 ST at PIPE RDjPVT RD) 14 0.240 1 100 2003 NO 91568 2.460 2.613 SE PETROVITSKY RD I at PIPE RD(PVT RD) 1.153 ml SE of PIPE RD(PVT RD)_ 't 14 0.153 I 100 2003 NO 91568 2.613 2.699 SE PETROVITSKY RD 1.153 ml SE of PIPE RD(PVT RD) 410 ft SE of 151 AVE SE I_____ 14 0.086 100 2003 NO 91568 2.699 2.777 SE PETROVITSKY RD 1410 ft SE of 151 AVE SE lat 151 AVE SE __T__I 14 0.078 100 2003 I NO . . . PAGE 1 OF 3 ' • • 8/5/2005 ' . . • • . . • Fairwood Incorporation Area:King County Roads Division Pavement Condition Ratings! _ j . 1• � I I FUNCTIONAL CLASS PAVEMENT PAVEMENT BEGINNING ENDING CENTERLINE OVERLAY(1999 ROAD NUMBER ROAD NAME FROM TO (ARTERIAU CONDITION CONDITION ) MILE POST MILE POST _ COLLECTOR ONLY) MILE SCORE SCORE YEAR T02004 91568 2.777 2.831• SE PETROVITSKY RD at 151 AVE SE 1285 ft NW of 151 AVE SE 14 0.054 69 2003 NO 91568 2.831 3.159 SE PETROVITSKY RD 285 ft NW of 151 AVE SE ' at 156 AVE SE ' 14 0.328 69 2003 NO 91568 3.159 3.196 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 156 AVE SE _ 195 ft NW of 156 AVE SE -H 14 0.037 69 2003 NO 91568 3.196 3.282 SE PETROVITSKY RD 195 ft NW of 156 AVE SE _ at 157 AVE SE 1 14 0.086 69 . 2003 NO 91568 3.282 3.367 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 157 AVE SE at 160 AVE SE l 14 0.085 69 2003 NO 91568 3.367 3.427 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 160 AVE SE at OLD PETROVITSKY RD • 14 0.060 69 2003 NO 91568 3.427 3.505 'SE PETROVITSKY RD at OLD PETROVITSKY RD lat SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.078 69 2003 NO 91568 3.505 3.550 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE _Iat 162 PL SE ! 14 0.045 69 2003 NO 91568 3.550 3.725 SE PETROVITSKY RD at 162 PL SE at PARKSIDE WAY SE - 14 0.175 69 2003 NO , 91568 3.725 3.741 SE PETROVITSKY RD at PARKSIDE WAY SE lat SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.016 78 2003 NO 91568 3.741 3.926 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE at SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.185 78 2003 NO 91568 3.926 3.982 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE at SE 184 ST 14 0.056 78 2003 NO 91568 3.982 4.041 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SE 184 ST 310 ft S of SE 184 ST 14 0.059 _ 79 2003 NO 91568 4.041 4.210 SE PETROVITSKY RD 310 ft S of SE 184 ST at SE 188 ST l 14 0.169 •79 • 2003 NO 91568 4.210 4.303 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SE 188 ST • at SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.093 79 2003 NO 91568 4.303 4.539 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SURFACE CHANGE lat SE 192 DR . 14 0236 79 2003 NO 91568 4.539 4.795 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SE 192 DR at SE 196 DR • I 14 0.256 79 2003 NO 91568 4.795 5.295 SE PETROVITSKY RD at SE 196 DR at SE PETROVITSKY/SE 200 ST 14 0.500 85 2003 NO 91577 ) 7.660 7.680 140 AVE SE at SE LK YOUNG WAY/140 AVE SE at SE 200 ST .14 0.020 45 2003 NO 91577 7.680 7.750 140 AVE SE at SE 200 ST at SE 198 ST 14 0.070 45 2003 NO 91577 7.750 7.800 140 AVE SE at SE 198 ST 1185 ft S of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) 14 0.050 45 2003 NO 91577 7.800 7.835 140 AVE SE 185 ft S of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) lat SE 197 PL(PVT RD) .l 14 0.035 45 2003 • . NO 91577 7.835 . 7.870 140 AVE SE at SE 197 PL(PVT RD) 185 ft N of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) 14 0.035 45 2003 NO . 91577 7.870 7.910 140 AVE SE 185 ft N of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) • 395 ft N of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) 14 0.040 45 2003 NO 91577 7.910 7.980 140 AVE SE 395 ft N of SE 197 PL(PVT RD) 210 ftS of SE 194 ST 14 • 0.070 45 2003 NO 91577 7.980 ' 7.990 140 AVE SE 210 ft S of SE 194 ST 160 ftS of SE 194 ST I 14 0.010_ 45 2003 NO 91577 7.990 8.020 140 AVE SE 160 ft S of SE 194 ST at SE 194 ST 14 0.030 45 2003 NO 91577 8.020 8.046 140 AVE SE at SE 194 ST 135 ft N of SE 194 ST •'14 0.026 100 2003 NO 91577 8.046 8.100 140 AVE SE 135 ftN of SE 194 ST 370 ftS of SE 192 ST • 14 0.054 I 100 2003 NO 91577 8.100 8.170 140 AVE SE 370 ft S of SE 192 ST at SE 192 ST >'14 0.070 1 100_ 2003 NO 91577 8.170 8.240 140 AVE SE at SE 192 ST 370 ft N of SE 192 ST I 1_14 0.070 100 2003 NO 91577 8.240 8.348 140 AVE SE 370 ft N of SE 192 ST __ 1485 ft S of SE 190 ST(PVT RD) X14 0.108 100 2003 NO 91577 8.348 8.440 140 AVE SE 485 ft S of SE 190 ST(PVT RD) at SE 190 ST(PVT RD) 14 0.092 100 2003 NO 91577 I 8.440 8.456 140 AVE SE at SE 190 ST(PVT RD) lat SE 188 WAY 14 • 0.016 1 100 2003 NO 91577 8.456 8.460 140 AVE SE at SE 188 WAY _ `at SE 187 ST(PVT RD) I 14 0.004 100 2003 NO 91577 8.460 8.550 140 AVE SE at SE 187 ST(PVT RD) -lat SE 186 ST . 14 _0.090 100 2003 NO 91577 8.550 8.590 140 AVE SE - at SE 186 ST fat SE 185 ST(PVT RD) i 14 0.040 100 . 2003 NO 91577 8.590 8.660 140 AVE•SE at SE 185 ST(PVT RD) 3�ft N of SE 185 ST(PVT RD) 14 0.070 100 2003 NO 91577 8.660 8.818 140 AVE SE 370 ft N of SE 185 ST(PVT RD) 195 ft S of SE 181 ST . 14 0.158 100 2003' NO 91577 8.818 8.855 140 AVE SE 195 ft S of SE 181 ST lat SE 181 ST I 14 0.037 100 2003 NO 91577 , 8.855 8,930 140 AVE SE at SE 181 ST at SE 180 ST _ _� 14 0.075 100 2003 NO 91577 8.930 8.950 140 AVE SE Jat SE 180 ST at SE 179 PL - 14 0.020 64 2003 NO 91577 8.950 9.110 140 AVE SE at SE 179 PL Iat SE 177 ST 14 0.160 64 2003 NO 91577 9.110 9.150 140 AVE SE at SE 177 ST r210 ft N of SE 177 ST 14 0.040 64 2003 NO 91577 9.150 9.220 140 AVE SE 210 ft N of SE 177 ST lat SE PETROVITSKY RD 14 0.070 64 2003 NO 91577 9.220 9.300 140 AVE SE at SE PETROVITSKY RD lat SE 173 PL 14 0.080 64 2003 NO 91577 9.300 9.380 140 AVE SE at SE 173 PL • 1420 ft N of SE 173 PL ! 14 • 0.080 64 2003 NO ' 91577 9.380 9.450 140 AVE SE 420 ft N of SE 173 PL160 ft N of TUNNEL RD SE 14 0.070 64 2003 NO 91577 9.450 9.480 140 AVE SE 160 ft N of TUNNEL RD SE lat TUNNEL RD SE 14 0.030 64 2003 NO 91577 9.480 9.522 140 AVE SE at TUNNEL RD SE 1220 ft S of TUNNEL RD SE i 14 0.042 64 2003 NO 91577 9.522 9.606' 140 AVE SE 220 ft S of TUNNEL RD SE ,126 m1 S of TUNNEL RD SE _ I 14 0.084 64 ' 2003 NO 91577 9.606 9.654 140 AVE SE 126 mi S of TUNNEL RD SE .174 mI S of TUNNEL RD SE 14 0.048 64 2003 NO 91577 9.654 9.946 140 AVE SE .174 ml S of TUNNEL RD SE at SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 1 14 0.292 64 2003 NO 91577 9.946 10.445 140 WAY SE at SE FAIRWOOD BLVD at SURFACE CHANGE 114 0.499 100 2003 NO 91577 10.445 10.506 1140 WAY SE at SURFACE CHANGE at SE 158 ST __ 14 0.061 100 2003 NO 91577 10.506 10.534 ,140 WAY SE • lat SE 158 ST ,at SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.028 100 1 2003 NO PAGE 2 OF 3 8/5/2005 c' F=.'7q R015.1`1 • Fairwood Incorporation Area:King County Roads Division Pavement Condition Ratings FUNCTIONAL CLASS BEGINNING ENDING CENTERLINE PAVEMENT PAVEMENT OVERLAY 0999 MILE POST MILE POST ROAD NUMBER ROAD NAME FROM TO (ARTERIAL/ CONDITION CONDITION MILE COLLECTOR ONLY) 'SCORE SCORE YEAR 'Tr, 2004) 91577 10.534 10.550 140 WAY SE at SURFACE CHANGE 185 ft after SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.016 100 2003 NO 91577 10.550 107749 140 WAY SE 85 ft after SURFACE CHANGE at SE 156 ST I 14 0.199 100 2003 NO 91577 10.749 10.944 140 WAY SE at SE 156 ST at SE 154 PL 14 0.195 100 2003 NO 91577 10.944 11.205 140 WAY SE at SE 154 PL — 175 ft before SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.261 100 2003 NO 91577 11.205 11.219 140 WAY SE 75 ftbefore SURFACE CHANGE lat SURFACE CHANGE 14 0.014 100 2003 NO 91577 11.219 11.250 140 WAY SE at SURFACE CHANGE lat SR 169 14 0.031 100 2003 NO 'TOTAL CENTERLINE MILE: 10.976 . • — — - • • • • • • • PAGE 3 OF 3 8/5/2005 • • REVIEW, DRAFT • 5 •` . APPENDIX 3: KING COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES . ` HISTORIC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS. • f • • . • . • f• • • • • • • • • F'7 • • • • • • • • • • is 4tc Fairwood Feasibility Study REVIEW DRAFT Berk&Associates, Inc August 5,2005 • Project Descriptions — King County Water and Land Resources Division Surface Water Management Capital Projects,2001-2006 1. Madsen Creek R/D Pond—Project 86313F,TB 656J6.(about$2.2.million) Construct a 27.6 acre-foot flow control and water quality.facility to reduce sediment mobilization of the West and Northwest Tributaries sub-basins which suffered years of habitat degradation. • 2. Madsen Creek East Wetland Overflow— Project 86314F,TB 657A6 (about$350,000) Installed approximately 500 feet of pipe to convey wetland overflows down the East Fork ravine in order to reduce slides,of the East Tributary.. • 3. Madsen Creek Bell Diversion Modification—Project 86315F,TB 657A6 (about$1,000) •Two existing catch basins were retrofitted with adjustable weirs to reduce interception of the stream's baseflow.Also installed were logs and boulders to improve fish passage. 4. Madsen Creek LWD/Boulder Placement—.Project 86316F,TB 656J5 and J6 (about$740,000) Log-boulder complexes were placed in the Mainstem to stabilize banks adjacent to the sewer line. The complexes also served to develop scour pools and slack water areas in.order to improve spawning habitat and rearing and refuge habitat. • . 5. Madsen Creek Drainage Conveyance Improvement— Project 86317F,TB 656J6 (about $350,000) Approximately 1200 feet of pipe was installed to redirect storm runoff away from the West Tributary to the Northwest Tributary. The flows will be directed into the Madsen pond for water quality and flow control prior to discharge to the Northwest Tributary. 6. Madsen Creek Northwest Tributary Stabilization — Project 86316F,TB 656J5, part of LWD/Boulder • Placement project costs • • Wood and boulder material were placed along 1500 feet of ravine to armor the stream channel in order to reduce erosion. ,.. ...... ,. ..., ''Zi ' pft:FA .-0 --; , . . .. . -- . . - .____.......... , „ ., r..-„,..,..r---,. „. .. .. „._„....._ .... ... . _ , , ....... ,..,:.„....„..A Il ‘, Tfq,... t4I II I MI 11.61 . .C.. Al to a _____,n__ .. Ny..1 Ci 11. • \\ 1111 . 0 1 I 54. Al . j 111 • I ..-„, MEM :17-4, ...,::—ill I MA"I 6.111111101 i i Ar4.1111111111r: ' — —, — . , i iii•N4I4. \ 1 r-- - • I !Al • milir-- ii• iliwil ---7-\ ,,.___ filing] 1 , , . i j__K __,...s.,, •,„•••ge - 1 ,,...-.44. • ..,,w-.. ,-,‘ - t..L.-,, ---/-' -'- '\ - .\\\ 0 , '' iVillii;;',4tr .2_ htt. vit 111111Vt'' A A •,-":,_„:NIIIIr911111P"*ot ---- II \•,. 1 le . h 1.- -„,,,t\II:..t.'reek-Bell Diverso:71r :.;•,tion IIIMIEN ', ( -14 b.. jilla ifillir T---- ill t_. 11111 --c-7-1. 1 MarIcen Creek LWD/Boulder Place JJ ...,,,,„ .a. ..; b'Creek Rt./b.;P.on._ •Ma.::: reekpEoracintalt:etlanttcvenrrclo. L.....jo I Mx 1 . "- III e Ccn 0‘*11 ., . 7 Ar‘illtlipe . dis .c\KNN3cr \-- libr .. - ' 3... \ ...,..„, I , ,7111 '',_ 1 .,._,.-- , 4' .. si A oi fop v - i .... . _ , „. __„---7 if . 4 ,. , . ..,.4„,-.dd ion-hose 2 do, n . ..._ ........, :11.4qacii ....1 „. . t__ 1 ..L1 e h min i _ ... ..,,,,., .. / inasseL. 1._ -_Tr _ . ;;;;%,,,,i-**2,Tv0,---, : •*:;,:v_hv t _. -21 ---i -1.--. -,-,,,i---t,,,,,,,v 44-4 is,4 r.c: 1.-4,. ,.,!,..• :::!:::9:::!:L':7:::::::::::;41y• ...... i_. :1:11- ,,,,,,,,,..t.v.ta-vfogo frg.-R.4,,-,,,K,,5A,,,,,,,•. , I I 1 6f•ftr/iiiiiii 1ill lit ii.T. .41 ,_ir q ;;Oh er.--6.Mq'IliZ,- •Cii352M,3 II' — -1- - .. _ la ' '''' 1 iii .111.11,:"!_briltillitliiiillealiC . . Li 41- :-.11,) Ilif in , g.,-„mb.,„:63..„,,,,,x,..,...„-41,..,A..0!„-A,A,...1.,....,..:.:„.„•-..„0...„*.i.„-„,„..,,. . bilPrjelr,: 7:11-41iiriik -;SY1-,:kth'gt.'' "- W.VO, - . - , , r4,,,,,,„,...g„„..-.. . • _ ' .041:_111. 1,.- „„.. . .: .. _.. .. .. .. . „. .La ga CIPa fri!'Falhafoo.d'In6orptirationArela —1 ' '' — ' ——'—"---- — '"' &AnaexationArea I; ' .704. -,Tit f.--:7A4,41:-'''':Vi. q-„. ,...,c.- 1 r -10.41,,,,,,,,&,„1„.-4:0,,,,I,,,„,,o-yr...y-,4;i,,,,,„,,:;,„K:___j_._______jc 1 _-+- , I j tar I lit , A„,t,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,„0,..,„...„,„,„„„„,,.,,,,,,,,,,„ "0:,1,7,,,Y34,14',...,?44,....ikt.44:5:,'- ,t..%.,442;';',4i4,41 ,,,,f.C‘r, ,,,-.:''',*',....,',,,,97.'1'.,..,67,,,,k,'0;.,,,t.....k.'ltiN,. i I 1 1 1 g .1-1-1 II _--1,6 d"4""ZtA:11 IA'Ritr-.r:(--211ccs"..1-: -.2: `i(!" Deciding Fairwood's courser_ Page 1 of 4 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/230467_ncenterpiece29.html Deciding Fairwood's course, Community struggles with whether to incorporate Wednesday, June 29, 2005 By GORDY HOLT SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER FAIRWOOD --You can still hear the echo. NOT RENTON! NOT RENTON... Not Renton ... The cry was voiced first in these Fairwood hills back in 1987,when annexation by Jet City was thought possible. It wasn't. A subsequent community su.vey determined that nobody wanted to sign up, and by 1990, what had been little more than an ember had flickered and gone out. Now in this era of state-mandated growth-management rules, it appears that this community of 26,000 could decide as soon as the Nov. 8 election whether to try another tack. Should it fish in the currents of municipal independence or simply cut bait and remain in unincorporated , King County? Rising south from the Cedar River to a plateau east of Renton's city limits, Fairwood remains the last chunk of ground on King County's map of potential city sites, a community of swell homes,nice people and a members-only golf course that bears its name. Developer George Bell launched it in 1967 and watched the 6,306-yard,par-71 course put a little swagger into what had once been a rural,blue-collar area. At 88 and recovering from a stroke,Bell lives with his wife,Mary, in the same log house he built 25 years ago, at the edge of a ravine opposite the 15th tee. J� He was among the developers and builders who, in the years after World War II, transformed the region's berry patches and forests into suburbia. Fairwood was of Bell's own doing,but he joined with the late Ted Valdez as Bell &Valdez,helping to create much of what eventually became postwar Bellevue. Their projects included Lake Hills and the Lake Hills Shopping Center, Tam O'Shanter,parts of Medina and residential sections of Eastgate. "I'm the only one left of all those builders I started out with," Bell said recently. • http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2%Iindex.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.c... 6/29/2005 -.Deciding Fairwood's course Page 2 of 4 Bell said he has yet to decide whether'incorporation would be a good thing. "Mmmmm, I don't know," he said. But there was no mincing from Mary Bell. "We like it the way it is," she said. Incorporation could only bring "more bureaucracy." Whether"bureaucracy" is to blame orinot, incorporation is no guarantee of success. A few examples: • Newcastle (incorporated in 1994) still reverberates from a scandal over health insurance for its City Council. It also spent a chunk of its income on a first-rate but expensive expansion of Coal Creek Boulevard. • Sammamish(1999) got caught in a squeeze between King County and waterfront property owners over the transformation of an old railroad bed into the East Lake Sammamish Trail. • Kenmore (1998)has gone nose-to-nose with itself over gambling issues. Aaron McLuen is not unfamiliar with the risks. So the newly elected, quiet-spoken president of the Fairwood Task Force is taking the incorporation process one step at a time. "The way we look at it," McLuen said, "all the cities and governments around us are struggling, largely due to those recent tax initiatives. So our take is,we'll be struggling whether we remain an unincorporated part of King County, go with Renton or do it ourselves. "If we can do it ourselves, at least we'll have local control. My wife grew up here. Her mother still lives here. And we like it here a lot," he said. McLuen said the task force aims to have all its ducks lined up by this fall, so the community can vote Nov. 8. Fairwood's goal is the same as King County's, said Michael Thomas, senior policy analyst at the county's Office of Management and Budget in Seattle. The office is paying for a study, launched in March by Seattle consultants Berk&Associates, that will determine if Fairwood can stand on its own fiscal feet. While its residential property values appear to be consistent with other upscale neighborhoods, its commercial base also has a lot going for it. Centered on the intersection of Southeast Petrovitsky Road and 140th Avenue Southeast, it contains, in the space of a block and a half, a"square," a"center" and a "plaza," altogether offering a Safeway; a QFC and an Albertsons, as well as Ace Hardware and a dozen or more smaller storefront businesses that include banks, investment offices and pizza and hamburger joints. Brett Sheckler,who is leading the study for Berk, said governance issues also are being assessed. "The area does have a choice," he said. "They still are part of Renton's annexation area." There could be some jiggering of lines in Fairwood's future. Take one northwest neighborhood, known as the Maplewood Addition, in particular. Located across a bend in the Cedar River from Fairwood http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/,index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.c... 6/29/2005 .Deciding Fairwood's course Page 3 of 4 proper, it is a divided neighborhood. About one-third of its residents were annexed by Renton in the 1960s, and now the rest say they want Renton, too. Under a formula that counts an area's assessed value, not the votes of its registered voters, a 60 percent majority in March petitioned Renton to take them in. It will be up to the Boundary Review Board for King County to hear that request, and in a separate hearing, to consider Fairwood's incorporation. Those hearings have not yet been scheduled. In a far east corner of the proposed city,Petrovitsky Park was bathed in sunshine as Susan Mantilla rode cleanup over a herd of little ones, ages 2, 2 and 4,while indicating that she pays attention to the issues. "King County has already told us they're going to cut services out here," she said. "But they've also told us that our taxes won't go down. So do we really have a choice (but to vote for incorporation)?" Mantilla had just joined two of her pal's and their children for a romp on the park's collection of big toys. Among them was Susie Vashro,who bounced 18-month-old Alaina on a hip, saying she likes the prospect of self-determination but is "nervous about taxes." For Shirley Mouen, 2-year-old daughter Rachel in tow, incorporation could be a glass half-empty. "Things never seem to turn out the way they're promised," she said. FAIRWOOD AT A GLANCE Population: 26,000 Size: 7 square miles Tax base: Under study Business area: Fairwood Square,Fairwood Center,Fairwood Plaza, clustered at or near the corner of 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast Petrovitsky Road INCORPORATIONS SINCE 1990 SeaTac, 1990 Newcastle, 1994 Shoreline, 1995 Maple Valley, 1997 Covington, 1997 Kenmore, 1998 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/;index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.c... 6/29/2005 Deciding Fairwood's course Page 4 of 4 Sammamish, 1999 P-I reporter Gordy Holt can be reached at 425-646-7900 or gordyholt@seattlepi.corn ©1998-2005 Seattle Post Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.c... 6/29/2005 April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 111 Citizen Comment: Hough- William Hough, 16114 SE 132nd St.,Renton,98059, stated that he and his Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane family enjoy watching boat racing, and he is also a boat driver. Expressing his Race support for the Renton boat race,he noted that many people may not attend the event if there is a charge. Citizen Comment: Nguyen- Viet Nguyen,425 Vine St.,#416, Seattle, 98121, stated that he is the District King County Councilmember Director for Metropolitan King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn (District Dunn District Office, 6), and announced the opening of the council district office in the Renton Maplewood Addition Highlands at 2806 NE Sunset Blvd. Referring to the previous discussion Annexation regarding the Maplewood Addition Annexation,Mr. Nguyen acknowledged faCiAnej that the Fairwood Incorporation and Maplewood Addition Annexation issue is very complex and his office welcomes questions from the public about the issue in efforts to help clear up any misinformation. Citizen Comment: Mann- David Mann, 1424 4th Ave.,#1015, Seattle, 98101, spoke on behalf of Herons Sunset Bluff Preliminary Plat Forever regarding Council's decision on 3/21/2005 concerning the Sunset Bluff Appeal, SR 900 LLC& Preliminary Plat. Pointing out that Council has before them correspondence Herons Forever,PP-04-002 from SR 900 LLC representative David Halinen requesting reconsideration of that decision,Mr. Mann asked that Council not take any action to reconsider its decision. He noted that Council did not deny the plat as Herons Forever recommended,and instead adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and conclusions. While he appreciates Mr. Halinen's suggestion to change the construction season, he stated that the change will adversely affect the herons. Mr. Mann indicated that Herons Forever is prepared to move forward with an appeal to Superior Court. (See page 113 for further discussion on thismatter.) Citizen Comment: Baker- Lenny Baker, 20224 81st Ave. W.,Edmonds, 98026, stated that he was Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane surprised at the costs submitted by the City for his organization to hold a Race hydroplane race at Gene Coulon Park. He noted that other cities in which boat races are held have not asked for reimbursement, and many cities use these events as training sessions. Mr. Baker described the safety measures that are employed during the event, expressed his pleasure with holding the boat race in Renton, and pointed out that boat race spectators patronize Renton businesses. He asked that the City reduce or waive the costs associated with the boat race event. In response to Council President Briere's inquiry,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that Council made a decision during budget deliberations to charge full cost for this event. Ms. Briere noted that many of the speakers indicated that the event does not need all the services that the City is charging for. Councilman Clawson explained that Renton is not experiencing budget problems as many other cities are because the City makes sure it is compensated for events such as this. He stated that he stands by his decision to obtain compensation. Councilman Persson expressed his concern regarding the shutting down of the boat launch for the weekend-long boat race event, and noted the impact on residents who want to launch their boats. He also noted that the loss of those boat launch fees is not included in the City's costs. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THE REVIEW OF THE COSTS AND POSSIBLE SERVICES DUPLICATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOAT RACE EVENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION.* April'4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 107. Public comment was invited. Michael Luna, Sadler/Barnard &Assoc., Inc., 12714 Valley Ave.E., Sumner, 98390,stated that he represents the petitioner and is available to answer questions. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. CARRIED. Annexation: Maplewood This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Addition,Maple Valley Hwaccordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Utepublic hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition and R-8 14t1GrifrftV zoning for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation; 60.5 acres, including the abutting SR-169 right-of-way,bounded on the north by Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169), and on the west, south, and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the annexation area contains 161 single-family homes and abuts Renton on its north, west, and a portion of its southern boundary. He pointed out that the area is included in the proposed Fairwood Incorporation, and explained that Fairwood proponents filed their 10% incorporation petition on 2/1/2005, which creates a 90-day window(until 5/1/2005)to file the Notice of Intent to annex package with the Boundary Review)Board(BRB). Mr. Erickson stated that filing of the Notice of Intent to annex package will allow the BRB to conduct a joint review of the proposed annexation and incorporation. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes future annexation to Renton if the Fairwood Incorporation is successful. Continuing,Mr.Erickson explained that the topography of the site is essentially flat above the Cedar River bank and virtually the entire site, with the exception of the lots north of SE 149th St.,is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: • Fire District#25 provides fire service and will continue to do so if the area is annexed. However, water pressure is an issue. • Maplewood Water Cooperative provides water service and will continue to do so if the area is annexed. • The area is not currently served by sewer but is located within Renton's designative sewer service area. Residents are not required to convert from septic to sewer upon annexation. • The area is within the Renton School District. Mr. Erickson indicated that the annexation site is zoned R-6 (six dwelling units per gross acre)under King County. Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Family,for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre)zoning is proposed. He noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density, for which concurrent zoning is R-4(four dwelling units per net acre). April`4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 108 Mr.Erickson reviewed the fiscal impact analysis assuming 161 single-family homes in the area, and pointed out that the annual estimated cost to the City is $40,304. If all property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual estimated City cost would be$35,386. Mr.Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is consistent with BRB objectives and with City annexation policies. He noted the adequate level of parks, the costly and ongoing flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy In conclusion, he reported that staff recommends the petition be accepted and that staff be authorized to invoke the BRB's jurisdiction in order to consider possible expansion of the proposed annexation area's boundaries if this is justified in terms of creating more reasonable service areas and reducing the City's cost in servicing the area. Public comment was invited. Bob Johnson, 15016 131st Ave. SE,Renton, 98058,expressed his disappointment with the method of processing the 60% petition. His concerns included the turning in of documents beyond the petition deadline, the proponent's access to letters rescinding signatures, the method of signature collection, and the delay in the availability of the petition and rescind letters to others. In response to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding his position on the annexation,Mr. Johnson stated that he favors whatever the majority of the community wants, and he felt the majority wants to remain in unincorporated King County. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that unfortunately due to State laws regarding growth;management, it is unlikely the area will remain unincorporated. Mr. Erickson pointed out that under State law,the proponents have as long as it takes to gather signatures; however, any signature older than six months must be removed from the petition. He explained that a tentative deadline had been established for the submittal of the petition to allow the City time to process the annexation within the 90-day window, as the City must submit the intent to annex package to the BRB by May 1st. Brian Lowery, 13112 SE 150th St.,Renton, 98058,relayed Lenora Blauman's (BRB Executive Secretary)comments at a recent Fairwood Task Force meeting regarding the BRB's simultaneous review of the annexation and incorporation petitions, and the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study. He indicated that due to a lack of information,people may not have understood the purpose of the 60%petition. Mr.Lowery concluded that the whole process has been confusing and it has divided the community. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry as to his position,Mr. Lowery stated that he prefers to stay within King County and expressed his displeasure with the land value based petition. Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch explained that if the City did not accept the 60% petition and the Fairwood Incorporation was successful, this area will be included in the City of Fairwood. He opined that it is unlikely that the Maplewood community can convince the BRB to exclude it from the City of Fairwood if the annexation petition is denied. Mr. Pietsch acknowledged that the process is very complicated, and reiterated that the only way the annexation proposal can be reviewed by the BRB in conjunction with April'4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 109 the incorporation proposal is if the 60% petition is accepted and staff is authorized to ask the BRB to invoke its jurisdiction. Tom Judd, 13004 SE 151st St.,Renton, 98058,pointed out that even if the Maplewood area is incorporated or stays within King County, Renton will still provide the public services. Mr. Judd expressed his support for the annexation, noting that there will be additional benefits to the area if annexed to Renton. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, stated that she is against annexation to Renton and wants to stay in King County. She expressed her disappointment in the process used to acquire signatures, and noted the need for more time to clear up the negative information that has been circulated throughout the community. Additionally she stated that the Department of Health verified the soundness of the area's water system,and verified that the area does not have any more problems with its septic systems than any other location. Stephanie Lorenz, 13515 SE Maple Valley Rd.,Renton, 98058, stated that she is a proponent of the annexation effort, and submitted documentation showing what information the proponents have been circulating. In response to speaker Bob Johnson's comments, she explained that she acquired her knowledge about • the rescinded petition signatures before the petition was filed. In response to the inquiry from Dave Alexander, 15036 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058,regarding the subject area's options,Mr. Pietsch explained that if Council asks the BRB to invoke jurisdiction, the BRB will conduct an in-depth review of the boundaries to determine what is best for the Maplewood area. He pointed,out that the review will include the Fairwood Incorporation feasibility study, and that citizens can testify before the BRB. Responding to Mr. Alexander's inquiry regarding whether the annexation can be stopped, Mr. Pietsch stated that it can be stopped by Council not accepting the petition. However, if the petition is forwarded to the BRB, it is impossible to predict what action that body will take. In response to the Mayor's question regarding the possibility of a special election for the Maplewood Area,Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes stated ' that the BRB does not have a procedure in place by which that can be accomplished. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding his position on the annexation proposal,Mr. Alexander stated that he wants to know which option is best for the neighborhood. Mr. Pietsch reported that he met one time with the Fairwood Incorporation Taskforce, and relayed that he had suggested that the Maplewood area be removed from the incorporation boundary. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler stated that it is frustrating to have something outside of the City's jurisdiction and the Maplewood area's jurisdiction driving this process. Judy Anders, 13133 SE 149th St.,Renton, 98058, noted that she is a proponent of the annexation, and thanked City staff for their help throughout this process. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. . April 4,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 110 MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION 60%DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX; AUTHORJ7E THE ADMINISTRATION TO FORWARD THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD; AUTHORJ7F THE ADMINISTRATION TO INVOKE THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD'S JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA'S BOUNDARIES IF THIS IS JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF CREATING MORE REASONABLE SERVICE AREAS AND REDUCING THE CITY'S COST IN SERVICING THE AREA;AND AUTHORI7F.THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE ORDINANCES FOR FUTURE ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * Last week, the City of Renton hosted its annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet with over 200 volunteers in attendance. In 2004, nearly 1,900 volunteers contributed nearly 62,000 hours of service. The value of these hours total over$1 million to the City and residents. * Henry Moses Aquatic Center season pass card sales and canopy rental reservations begin on April 11th at the Renton Community Center. The aquatic center opens on June 18th. * The City is seeking volunteers from neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and service clubs to work together on Saturday,April 23rd, to beautify a portion of NE 4th St. in recognition of Arbor Day and Earth Day. AUDIENCE COMMENT Jim Codling,American Power Boat Association Regional Manager, 1123 4th Citizen Comment: Codling- Ave.N.,Kent, 98032, indicated that he is a member of the not-for-profit Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane sponsoring club of the hydroplane races at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Race He described the public safety measures the event organizers have in place for this free event,and noted that the services of the City's public safety personnel are not needed except in the case of an emergency. Since the event organizers are able to provide these services,Mr. Codling requested that the City review its costs associated with the event and provide mitigation. Citizen Comment: Laing- Bill Laing-Malcolmson, 13824 171st Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, stated that he Malcolmson-Gene Coulon and his family enjoy watching the boat races at Gene Coulon Park, appreciates Park Hydroplane Race the fact that the event is free, and wants the event to continue to be held in Renton. Citizen Comment: Crestanello Jim Crestanello,404 Grandey Way NE,Renton, 98056,reported that he has -Gene Coulon Park been associated with boat racing for a long time, and he enjoys watching the Hydroplane Race free boat race event at Gene Coulon Park. Citizen Comment: Langlois- Karl Langlois, 10403 126th Ave. SE,Renton, 98056, said Renton is a beautiful Gene Coulon Park Hydroplane elevated venue for a boat race and pointed out that he knows many people who Race enjoy attending the free event. Mr.Langlois stressed that people will find something else to do if they have to pay to attend. II � � v • MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF 60% PETITION TO ANNEX,FUTURE ZONING,AND TRANSMITTAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY April 4, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex from property owners in the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation area. This petition has been certified by the King County Department of Assessments as having signatures representing 60% or more of the area's assessed value. The subject 60.5-acre site is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and is bounded on the north by the Renton—Maple Valley Road (SR-169), and on the west, south and east by the Cedar River. Renton abuts the annexation site on its north, west and a portion of its southern boundary, and unincorporated King County abuts it on its eastern, and a portion of its southern, boundary (see back of this handout). There currently are 161 single-family detached dwellings within it. Tonight's public hearing is first of two required to consider zoning on the site if it is annexed into the City. Currently, the subject site has King County's R-4 zoning and, upon annexation, would likely be zoned Renton's R-8 zone, consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The City, however, is processing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this year, that would) change the land use map designation for this area from RS, Residential Single Family to RLD, Residential Low Density. If this amendment is successful later this year, R-4 zoning, which is more consistent with the area's existing density of approximately 3.3 units per net acre,would be applied to the annexation site. A previous public meeting on this proposed annexation was held on December 20, 2004 to consider the 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation petition. Reviewing departments of the City, at that time,while not opposing this annexation did raise concerns about deficiencies in infrastructure that will eventually have to be addressed by the area's residents. If the Council decides to accept the 60%Petition to Annex,it will typically: 1. Authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of Intent package to the Boundary Review Board for King County; and, 2. Authorize the Administration .to begin preparing ordinances for future zoning and effectuation of the annexation. The Administration is recommending that Council accept the certified 60% Petition to Annex and authorize it to transmit the Notice of Intent Package to the Boundary Review Board. It is also asking for the authority to begin preparing ordinances for future zoning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and for acceptance of the annexation itself. Council Hearing Handout 01-12-04.doc\ • :.s .: .:Y.rf:,^ rr•'r n::! .. .v{>�«Y.Yv:::w+y: v'Xr3 ]i3 ..... - ....... ,K.-- :..KF ','bb'I"'!52T ."M. 0 ..'K•r`:G, - `..".K. > /S:i'r21..k,.•.:x<5f:,r�if,4Rifi6"d�:Y!'b '>3:...:.n.�_ \ o .r..§`.• ,/,,:- ; r:. x , .,-...;q217 ,- Y. ," :E < •'•,41t ` g am? ••7g+ r,P; �. ' i `meq _, '`'';`"4t, '`t7 t �l C •'t , •'17,-'4sv,r Wr•-•/."a •r i..* - Y li - .. it M, I�..,._ • �" 4 u S ., I r si ,w'< '& ! k' "ggrn 'r {1 v,4 y Cx .,-` .€k,t:.r- "�,. •' •..zcei", a �r Y,:1. �' i ♦ `i`'+;. aV = •.,•1,,,.',-P4,,,'2 '` ,.., 'a... to L\. -.*. r7. \, la Ii ______,.....,..a.,,, (. yt �co 'y'' •° a, - ��,,�°-�ep'•. .?: ?a c• �3 'yF- i x ��." ,� r,, " z�a,�y, 4�F�j� #t�; .,4 ?":,z.` m'+'�„ 'k•„,t", a x T ° x!r. . 4A.}'i"`. r'. ke.If'^ 'z,3'"'.''`itr,'\.`, .r ��,. '�iy Jtt� ff fo y.'Y rt'. ` v; sant' .4t.. 4*;‘,.\2,., V k i ," '2},,: - ,pt A, ;r� 1'4 Lrf� 'iWi '..^'y�ex. {. .._r , .1� I J ��tqqyy## JJ 1. ..cc • .•y ♦ 3i,ji.�y�y*RB�f"- mak 7; tx M. ,4 .,„,w w _'. N ` h /" +. :?'ty 'n'C .j.R'�SYk ,l.r .'sf', ~- „,„ �tf Ai4'-' t1:/<-. �� -N` 'f y4Y .F t ri : .00 A. �b "Vi:rr >v ;,' 1 A>, ... \..,.,„.101r.‘,. itrt �w :'_". ;i. ,:,'L: —'-;!..44-.--7, .++" yl IA. •Y, if;:r, .A, . .�L.. \ i 4�yY 7 ��` '':n�. <�°'t`:i�i��^d,�"�•' t � ;lSxriY:.`�. ; a:�...S.!, N. aT 1 '.T:s:'�'i,...,`.r.,. Qy,,3 ��S,r��*:•,Y3�,� t]' Ai N-•" cyE• Rt,i y-v 4(-,-..,v \'AR ;y; " ,,.rsi& y .�yM1 ',...'...'4",Y...'• k. <r. �,'j• l�,r' .� >�..:'a. "1 .y.+,.1ax. K:i'. O � x 'k#"a2:C� 'i-+' A ,. 'd' , A4';:+'i t:'� �""",°a N •s' _I�< • f:' �F` n.» ;x n 4f G?.:3: A .# O Y.. VY, F :1,t�S$W. ';CI''q[yF �. *'5‘1'.'6`;;-•Y'''' 1 X13.:F '''' '. ,i ,y '$ ._t." t]1 �..':"••• o s ,� •x3 'ir3 '••z?8 ia, �.. :. r :t�",{ �•Sa�atati t>r,,,. \ +,i[. ,LrTlrY4 's * R.f„i '` �'�;4 ,• 7, '� 3>»'` * �,, -j' r 1D4;V t5 i r Rr. '� ';;:'', " • • +, y4•a.,, t 4,,,0' r. �' '=F 4,� .r ras cr'. .:r �#� a y^.r ,i!L».:�. '>^,',x,.,�x"`?'""''r?r N iA ': :sx #. c yV�''•k, rr 4•�.,, w ''• ASL ," r 'i� '!� . s s } t} ',, ,-,I.;,... , , .t1,4:-.,..' SAF ,, ,0 y i� �iy�..�,�.'h�d4 t: "�t,;. �-..� ii.t„"� p�' n��•s?}' t��..p� y. ^�''+ p 1 t }, ,� ,0.`'.:,4-:.:-,,:, rP:' . A �4 i•-r4x t,` .fir. 1 t J 99 , « , 4,°��u '.sv'= P•:••14 - µ 1'� }!� ..;,f "X pa"'" Yy+t \ !' aa'F >tl "a'_-";;5 `� /�, .( <'-51:114.. �, *pss ...n it TV `:?� .:` :.�...,.....-4,'",...,,,e-G4I.1„--.4:$`� . ,�' .;�, • �3. _ xax:,.f;, ,eS ,S'� Yt ,k " . -,.Rfi] ryt�• .41X$4.,04,..1,14p,,, . t13" v."� f Yr ,',4 1 t1-• , 111�� ,. x i b • y` <; i Y.t "'1t ti• .:�°v '6 �},�,,' d ''' .�r k1 s", '6, ' +'.: ;xp�Y .y p W-�F' Ora^ �•+'d:' "? d g,s. *„ ,01,2f ib t"+Yt "0� Ai�j: "6. '. }r� F° Vete lyy P ' 0.i �+ ° ' 01. r r t .1,a‹.:°.4'(::41''?,:!..'•„"•,::,' ':Sf+; .o,_: -q".k''?r , ; ti� .a t�{Olr rt y}'r-tt �`�' 4T'" ° 0,0 «a'ii. 4°P *Y8." 'e , .'.S"*t°i `,„ ,g'..-: J -.. f, .'r`'. .; i Zi��a•111 ,r. ( �, `,t 14 :+.�'3- a;„.�a ��m.� d'�'\,. p r+_ `'S�- � tri,,En t r 'Ile�'`�': �< a'Q.i l, .",vfit'sill, o-s ',}n s-'i. q B Y �' l"" ,,,�g � g ' :x zi a ,: aite!:„ s,., cats, " r :It f� �Srl r J lit , slid SP 's 4� y `at• }:r%' A ,:.c.%;= ' `k1 re;t.;;a'•''��,V' ',-Y ', YX In �R' 'r' ,7t' •4r�' x n'.' •4 d "' $e�-f' '?` y 'r C;'L',K*�+�_ ".`,;a 4 IN .t t5.1 ..t m .r•'' t J + ''i ",' ;'."t•fROPP4ktfi.,,„, < �`r •s,= "` s;, •`` ' ,, .''/p ..,.,`jjI(( ,ti 1: r. p t ,[rd.4)).' p> ,y .4 'li«�3 u, +�_ , �k....i's,^_.' n t` r f4,, .((4_17., *a; G (;+`F i,g +t `4� v ,�, } •S, N t ,e-,r,,4.;� � '_ro,"r`"' t+ -••.s.' -•�_.,r3 ` ,'�i, \ may`�,.r l..t x. \� [i ,� 'k'" "�' .r �Q +Y -'�,: v, h• ,�• .; ;�'�:,,:';1 ,,,A,,,,-,:,„,.• .r�•� ; '., kokv'''. 1.400..,-471,,,4,11/4.. .„,. `i, i`` .}'rt ':. . ' t`,; � '� j AT. iAar >,� `i"?c a:.N...''%-:•9"'2',,,'''s `''.. $$�+�1 ,:., 4 l sk� Sk� q t'�i p. t4 a p }r;y r Y ,. s ;J''-'';, o.�". + 1... rf;�j y Y ''';ter'''=n.� ^�%'�°� • ..t?f 1t W i 4x\.d +' 1t t 'Cjv:�r 4y o^.�,d,A� -"` � , u "i { r •�z" y°-`a: ''r S? •: 'r �.• ','A" ,s .i:,;,;.;,15. t v`'k.t w ` t Z Yl {� P, �'` t t`.`,+�f�++�' t"0. ,Ey� r`., r I, ;._ ,,,..,,,„....r.„. ,;�,.nr„ ,','t +s "" .F. S`if- `1y: i ti 4,z r ,. t , , yr;".. *a, ,{t•� \ ,v),. �,At x 'gj �# �e ..i.4. 1�J, ei> °'z ,.` "F1v:y3�\ :' t ^t '�, `„t `a,'`,.`5 y'``2 }�" ; 1�.. N. l ii.:a,� i;' A t ,i.; tij - .ri :'9,:.... �,. • a,.._ 7 `.,'I �.,. r .r e- «•�, �yl�i#�,-F.,... ,,a,, ° r, n �5i(�,r,,,,D '-�p,4#+ r s�.' <•;y: , w�G��O�''.�,'gy�yy 4; a ��Y�'' L i ��x; J } fi I ' .,k 1' Y:kS :+.""•m,""•n a�,m•.•,f.:,e,,.: i7!.; i, ii,:,,v, i :'��$6,*``, , _ ,(4,,,,,�'biiY t r+ s 4. f Kik, x,, r.. .. •,.' .r, _4+- Y «� ••=�r r c+ /11' Y i4.+ i+ { 11 r' ,0.l� ,r �V i°r i Y. t: - �` 3�+• .,• ,k' ia y+_.. 1 a:- > ^.� `i is Ips dr �� r't�c! to YtrrflYift '.4:1•,',•,;•-,;.'',`‘'`i4,...,.40,(7. � �3a• 1 Elr� .oar„ `s,; 'cl • • • l ,'� ti5 tk ” ,'Yar 'S+�'} 'r-\'\ \ "•�" `� ?s .,� a,•p i� .c , ••. :"�n•, r, `4 :.,r,„...,..�,r4::,,,,.,,,,,,,,-r `. `Sy Vti Ci�tN'j f Gds>•��y 't. ��'-`"', 4•• ,'.. _ •:' 1 ' ot�' f.. �''' ;.. . 4'R' 'r i ;vF"', w i,,,, fwctoik y t 4->t,11 {*'-' irkt'f,t'Lj X�;trilt-7-.: ,S4 • 'a ".^� ./A.',YY,g " ' r'' ,lj:j't' h..,,*'"''. , .',t° ,.' ..to ,:•:,..•./,,i",•F.,. Ri `, �7,/t°St�'""' �{y�, ah• f.«.may K a7rg :.xt Y v__•, 4 .' c�... ,:4,tpr. x,,I /',3�, ,,ip .:, ,n,. .:, ,,,•.,A, ✓"`. \.,, A,, 71 '�"•#+ /.rte` � .y, ,i,11 ,,,..--,Se.,,4 :.` `,:, ,',e4‘� Sk •U Jrv"• � t'ry'`',", ''''4•",...- ...}.-a '�.,.j a . :.. ';' nA�`b� ` i 1- { ^o• : � t Y4tl�'�P .. ;, ,r„ . a br °t.,„1:,0,,: *w,,,ct jy a• ` '4--0. Y� �+ -. '�':'�Xa. .1 ir�,q f`q',vrX a}�.'wfi;2�a'r4 lt,il�� ii';• ✓ � .. � y�., ,y � ��a�ri•\�`"w _ .�- "$ :i}t^AC ` >:+w' .,,'" :=:.�:.=..�..• p #,..eau... ri : :' ../k�� l�ttd k "i,x' ! ,l � 'r> �j2tf d' #�y� d' f� ` f � � yL' ��bZ�e"I ¢u•""vl�:. r' r`N`i d:�rx A �SWt '��i ��, � _.e $ ♦ t'zS�. i 1 f }Yii .,�t9r^ rf~��ar>`g a '•.�.. .+` r� '., ;. �q Sy '^*•, ,• a tl k t b.. ,t r '''f ''' :'„\ t�' - ;r'p t/.4 °y1, -C.4`::,3" ,1 • 0 Y'�e*_ . � � X�d i r f t :=r' �/�}t `t 4 'a mrpr R i r 4`«J pP et,'} \i yg�C Ji v .4 3 �' - "lam I tit. aVnt (I r�J�II, ^„,, •j�7,•.9",.. :4. d)i-•: ,47) '" 1. 5 yr._,,,.�,�,rtd `E •r 74 ,,41• :�y,,",�..i, t1',4,d ' } u'^° -e R .91 lYI� " rY,•,•`;� '°�Y� �,1� .�,�+"-�,�P1y t * `•�y,t� ^��T, �"!,I&t -v�. �+,�,r.. +' t�'�7{;. +�� Jir...r«}r .'SV;k. �,h�'tayA�`L`''`, �t�' ' I, Eek. �q1 i -4 i+.o,y ff�. N v '�, / VVI,,,,i �4.,� Y „``9 x .� ti '' d _ , ��tt R-++79/ +\A '�],�(y.1rf'e��{ +�}Yti"1 � i'� '}pyj',t.y�r. �=Z' �2..�'+ �'"'"'�,,," /r f?;.rr,.,,,^'-r+�, �f � j >.�;�t �1,t� ''�Hm � 2 �c'P = "VO te.AA'-0 V't::V.4"• �•k�� vW{k tf,F4; At'k ii* `r Y� i t,..A4 {j ,�.r•-•= E �t (`X, i Ali 3 4.AA' �Ek^A'St,$i`< } .A.;.Q. t z lila . ' �, z, , •+;: � , i 5 4 P'Cr ( \ y a t •k.}�`.•/ !� 1 � '`t 5'; ''S }yam..��.'�� \ u€i: � +tr-t 5� �,`�,r ..�. i ri ! r p r r ��^fri, � } y ° yet p�� ,•"� &, F 5` h'1��,,\; '•ytf `' '!t~ ��}t �4,. *,w` v • a 'Si(�Y ° (�e .�1 Cr'` ry'!"`Ytrr�k yP"M},"�+J '�i -��, "`fir . .t. .. ''� :,�titi..t'e �.1'ii+,}r„�h+,' ;'„ • n t. . rry �' "td .^ ^ �;.�«"]1(°%i iii Y'"{i'•; , ,E,''�-.-i,✓"""a` ;�4;,.i•#`^.��,. rr�Y4 �,ky.,.'1ry,, ', , 4r ,t. t ''}�-.¢.. c> ,i3. .,� q�.�{ r ),' II,21.ty�`t r `i px tF' `�'is Y ij:,, /•e`Y'-F;is,4 '±! it'._4•,4. s'4 r •1,44, ',b.,4-:to:rS e 4. y.-'ik"'`::-w._�. . t ber ,;,p<: `^"iTi�1. - ,szry N• e� "*-4 •' .N't• :. •nl'i. ,•,^,:'`+•r, r �.X,tt. 1"f i x fa=r., �:t,..,�eQ�>Scl,- �.:.•,'+i LE.a.,,,,v'.., ';:�:c: X .r ,e>P"�°>•„',. '' i t 7"'': t,4„..,03,,,,,,::1 l.: ,•hyx \ -;•,. {,ty - .ted it:'S{�. «,. >,� -+t,^ms .�r��}'j§.:iw', 'ly, .1.,,,5E �*,cci "° 4,-` ",,c .,'Y d a 4 /1 .1 e r•.r.' •Y,r: k�,} " f,-n. R:' i, X5+"4, �T "... `i:J 'cry •x 4T.r',• 5, ?�.i,.P }.t+; , z.,, t 7) •r fa'`'1t $ .;X.fi°'.7, .,..� ,'x.l:. ,44;w:i. 7i+`^� n %`?'6'at a A, d1 u.•},+.4 ..1. 4 �?,t`Y�, .,<Z1Z,Z 1,;�..,yt` Y�' ,, 0.>t.��•. • .£-'..tri,'' ;5'€kai"�'C�'. ��'rj P' �' a 4�"e t'k",,yc i. y �_ � es_ � tt,,� •.«�� yi-. ,�p ,/pi,r. �:y =x y..�r� tt "Si'S • .kP t. t .7FXi.�"y.Y+a+�` ''tv'..,, ` ,tYf'e,t,s «-� -^'.•. ,�'t �`'' „ 4r iY, .• �. i1. t� .,t }x ,14. r '. ! '3,•f ... ,�°lN Y . u} r" 1 -i' , 1X x #t t: v411:2 i\ �y ,,y, µ t, .r ?'�, .p,+r�., H� � ��•'t�i�-�s.�l p.14'I, ��y.: F.,i?,r,.&,NJ...,"',40,01;..4v..�\ �•, s. i,�y"'r..� 11r:v }�r `ilis.�r x,.!)Q111�+, �R•di, ��'#' ,rdlt �i�.2t r`,.�-5°.i��-rz�,' .:vim - .g �' fi {y s} ''x. �'4•'"•-s„�,ya�. '''� n !�'�Sia ,' .}v ""^•.. 'k. -'° $r I,f• x,'' .";,�•c"'"'�'s✓« '1,iy 'rte' Yrs &tib _44;t'ir4,i i l4S , �.. a ,t`.'-' �„ {1 �t.. 1,'ig 4 i '" .-'. •((•,s• t�}° { 'h -4'Mr' \.., ,�� ' li a i (ii SA. 1 i,7`, ,,\ w - ��..3 ,+�'}'. `vc � ``i: -,. .: ,�.s. Yn a.r1��3► �.xl(£[i ' . 4ti' '� .k�`S 1A t�', \� ti ff:SfJt"4s rr^il�i�il " �'4r�x i`y y:� i'SC.�'�"i i�a'r?`t 1 "�ii,��=rG�Cei µ,... c nn r.c.,sy w ;' u r, n n,...r .1 H .�i;x !. r� ..;".. ,.•i ': ' ,".. •�ix vr•. a•t °:r 't'y" �S,�};:�'. ... .... ... rt`tb°ij�.... / t yt.!•!„•,,-!-..4.,......-2.,.....:. }iia •' :e !,,,,..,V0,,,..,�'t�LtiN:...,.... .„,,,i.,..,.,,..., °l=, - .. tr:� hu. >L� .r,... ._e': ^�re.. all: :, �� 11 .r ..,.-.. .L'I.:(' •..., '�Ysyt"!."'dS... '' '+..,#ECq) �,#.[•a,-'YSYb•N:.t•. :' Y �. . Vy y...�'j rs� .. .w.iii:%.•:-..-' :9CT7~d.1�.=SGS6Z C'�,�,,;I;;t' �0.",.s�x`x� riVvyll�;l$c. �., '': ,:dam,. . .,......-• _ '0 ,_t� L. Maplewood Addition !' t Annexation ,,, mow- . „ Public Hearing to Consider 60% ., p .- Petition to Annex and Future Zoning April 4,2005 ."A 741-01-714C'- ,:s","'4 1 t•1 ti 1 oney Creek Eaa 7:L i..ni-.4_,,, Z75x .: ='' '0`:; " Rrn" . — Background i,Z:Ky -'- w ate., • Residents submit 10%petition to commence '�'-��_7-9A.•,- )1-;`-'7‘,.-1-1 BM ; annexation proceedings on.December 8,2004 • it •, .9 j 2 4 • Council held public meeting with proponents and. 1' Park Te-e _ ,= East authorized circulation of a 60%Direct Petition to 7 ' n' Annex on January 10,2005 `sd�q�.i_ fineie L 7m,Z� ri1;,•oai ti j+ 1 • City received 60%Direct Petition to Annex on March ' j., Masl II . �r r, 7,2005 ,,.._..y ' i.,.........-41•_,.. • City received notice that County Dept of Assessments .. 4trz,eat �; """°° `'r"` had certified the petition on March 10,2005 -_ ,.'n7 605. Maplewood• `- � 6a5 vc tenant �,�,..Fi "t • 4pm..' 9..„ �• • At tonight's meeting Council must decide whether to `'�'{ Ak;nx°""'' accept the 60%Direct Petition to Annex,and if it • :if'.ir _ ;kn �-il ii-tc. ' does,whether to authorize the Administration to 'yY af•; •ro�nne,asan forward the Notice of Intent package to the BRB Existing Conditions Existing Conditions • PAA-Within Renton's Potential Annexation • Annexation area included in proposed Fairwood Area Incorporation • Location—South of Maplewood Golf Course • Fairwood proponents file 10%incorporation on between SE Renton—Maple Valley Highway petition on February 1,2005 and the Cedar River • 90-day window to file Notice of Intent Package to • Size—60.5 acres,including abutting SR 169 Annex with the BRB closes May 1,2005 ROW • Failure to meet 90-day window would preclude • Uses- 161 single-family dwellings future annexation to Renton if Fairwood • Boundaries-site abuts Renton on its north,west incorporation is successful and portion of it's southern boundary . 1 • • 4,,, ,----/ s / \ .. 1 vlii,_ t I , .,,,,,,,,,„;„ _-. ` . • ,.''''..,\, .♦yyYif`�J'iTi --6,,,,,,,,,.,- Inr \t ,t,,,s-nI r >{' � _ e 4 O%1. a. ".;e ,,..' .eoo0-` Atii. 4"t °fiez,,,,,V,, ~`�':i ,,,),•,,..„4/... ^ , -- I � ��✓:"' may innc.DC. ✓— '''''r'44.4 PA'. ' A4 a 'ppg�6pa(f < +aa Hk � F -' � . �Lo,�:®i6`d4 ` n Y • (// ' ~ � •oR46a� Af. » f `IIfaI (! i,'�,� • 7. '- n, t` i ' ;t/4 ,�, :�!L �.�ei•/0; I�S�t a/ / Alb \ \,Cjd �Ai" I"� ..^r a , tiPV4* i $ J --�eAL0,;'?5. zfreT'4*2*#a n • t M - z 4` � �'� a;°�r. ' 1 • P .trid " i" ii3e"121111 Il,�_Cld,,OU TIM9 ' '^c1.yJf ` f r4W , jy,p-f 1iU7{ if ^ ' 4 i4 r L . " 'atit F e> ' _ IKI Frrf , Cw4 .rtLa-tefitC-..3i. iv..,,,,i,c...t.a. iir-47,,,sp...' j:.Vii :Ifilf.*:iiri..":1, ��1� ,u ^ v'\ A Akk v. • •r000sed Maplewood Addition Annexation ( �— P o no KY Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation o 500 woo 1,R rte'- •m,.r— —,.....w I:fMO „�,---,- """.w.—. 1 �. 1:6000 • 1 �4 1s ^t`-`2' -t.f 41a ,�r `yt 5c. y � x i t� �`itf iw�4°-�i� �� 7. Nltih r i'a.vt7:4;r y*a `� l t ...... r t'. r,;N7rfi?r� yS�✓ �" ,� zr •• i t A?r,:'-r.. , r n:t R SiT',Y�r rl'y',�`.'p;,`-;'i t` t• •{• s a, �,.. `•.+4". ' 1.G f*,*Ft3 la n. '" ...w-�� 1`a3_i _ C �,y '_ S' Lar_ "__ r, i '- re ac r '„•wxw s •,4-•,, rxt:•tto : H Figure 3-Vie,looking north along 134'^Avenue SE hp',a-View of homes along north side of SE 151'Street '.,.' —..- Niii,.lim...vi-t., 1. Existing Conditions - : : = t, ..., .` Environmental / .; t 1 • Topo2raphy-essentially zl ! `I�a"D��ia•'•'��'�'+ flat above Cedar River bank itS r ' �•u1 i-�' 4.144 4,4*40.. V i, • Environmental constraints c 44, b1.,,,-+ p a 'e �f' l �, �mlo" 4 —\virtually whole site,with " ,I4„i. ,,x, ,,, , �� ; i l �` the exception of lots north ti :S r.••••4441 iii s of SE 149i1 Strzet,is located aP `" ":: t' ��sb11n:. . a ��'. • ., within the flood hazard - S ?}•.Ks' :::::.to ii a ', >�s boundary . , +Su. i,;, ..., A:.h.F.E%te' I, • 1k. t Figure S Vier looking southwest J1* A t• L ri._ll•1 ,'• \1•.„, Avo. from 134'^Ave SE and SE I 1•1 •roposed Maplewood Addition Annexation o sop woo Street towards Cedar River e"°'`s`"'>'°„r"V''°,.,r,w. — � •�. nim . ....d. --=i,... I 0600 •R+ 2 Existing Conditions - Public Services • Fire-Fire service through District 25 Issues Related to Public Services under contract with City , ,lai • Utilities 111._ Nea -- i -Area is not in Renton's designated Water Utility -Water service is provided by the Service Area so City water service is not required Maplewood Water Cooperative,an independent water district -Maplewood Water Cooperative is designated -Site is not currently served by sewer but , Ili service provider for area.Like District No.90 it is located within Renton's designated can continue to operate within City. Sewer Service Area e -No change of service is required I ;I -Fire service would not change since Renton is the because of annexation Zl current provider of these services for District 25. • Schools .... -Within Renton School District f -Adequate water pressure is an issue,however. -Boundaries would not change nem`7 • Issues Related to Public Services County Land Use Designation and Existing Zoning -There are no known septic issues in the annexation area at this time.County Health Dept, "_' I d King County Comp Plan � not the City,makes this determination. Desi&nation-Urban - ~ �- --: 'I . -Although Renton is the designated sewer service Residential 4-12 du/ac _'_ ;mow is-„ provider there is nothing that requires residents to Kin;County Zoning R-6; .W- , :'r- `• convert from septic to sewer upon annexation. • F •, - -n--,mit 6 du/gross acre(9 du/ac max.) K-'3,. , ,., :,i -If residents eventually choose to convert to City .,,,,:-104,--, :• 4 utilities City could assist them in the formation of Site - f e ��' , LIDs and,possibly,in obtaining grant monies. Figure 6-King County Zoning Map Renton Land Use Designation Renton.Land Use Designation and Potential Zoning Site and Potential Zoning Site 1 - WA i�V ' - Renton Zoning upon IL: w ,P,�` '"rJ` annexation '- i" aerba't Renton Comp Plan Land rNib!, �iiLLL f t. �'-, :�: sr} tr t 1 id + R-8 (8 du/net acre) s '`d- a't l Use Map-Residential r� lam' •-x > 'e ` 4h, �t, Consistent with current a Single Family MO- t_ -,• r",....,,;;;24.+ " `"'i �t�� v_,�- Comprehensive Plan Land � ;� (R-y,8 du'net ac) /V 5 jl�: Use Map designation `.i. .- City currently looking at possible , i~�I •1•I` Possible future Renton .- t.%.•'''..1,94 3..et',„ ;�. i"moi„ • change in designation �'' Zoning " i_ Residential Low Density �" ii `'ter ,-t R-4 (4 todnet acre) 1 .'''':77,2- °. ..,..,...,,...;.- to (R-a,a du net acl � � 'j Closer to existing density ..nom''iat�•,- yam.<% �INWI IF.s,_ Fri'''�.a.t.1 of 3.1 dumet acre if_; �'-7x 51' x'4r—,,,, Figure 7—Renton Comp Plan Land Use Map Figure 8-Renton Zoning Map 3 Relevant Boundary Review Fiscal Impact Analysis Board Objectives • General Fund cost and revenue implication's • Preservation of natural neighborhoods and —Assumes 161 existing single-family homes in area communities—no change to neighborhood remain • Use of physical boundaries,including but not limited —Assumes current average assessed value of$191,560 to bodies of water,highways,and land contours—uses both Cedar River and Maple Valley Highway —Annual Estimated Fiscal Impact-$40,304 cost to City per year in 2005 dollars • Creation and preservation of logical service areas— does not change existing service areas'boundaries • If all property owners decide to upgrade to sewer e.g. water district,,school district,sewerservice —Average assessed value likely increases to+$207,000 district or fire prevention service.provider —Annual Estimated Fiscal Impact to City after upgrade • Prevention of abnonnally irregular boundaries— is reduced to S35,386 cost per year boundaries are regular and consistent with Renton's PAA Conclusion Conclusion, continued • Located within Renton's designated Potential • Adequate level of parks already exist in vicinity Annexation Area • Flood control likely to be costly and ongoing • Generally consistent with City policies for annexation challenge • Probable R-8 zoning is consistent with current Comp • Aging infrastructure poises a challenge for Plan's RS land use designation residents • • Larger than normal annual subsidy required to Proposed Comp Plan Amendment would change RS designation to RLD. (R-4 zoning would be more serve area upon annexation i.e.not revenue neutral consistent with area's existing lower density) • However,addressing these shared issues through • annexation is in the City's best interest • Relevant Boundary Review Board criteria is met • Recommendation c • Accept the 60%Direct Petition to Annex for the Maplewood Addition Annexation • Authorize the Administration to forward the Notice of • �• Intent Package to the Boundary Review Board J. , • Authorize the Administration to invoke the Board's ha, Jurisdiction in order to consider possible expansion of , -- the proposed annexation area's boundaries if this is �, justified in tenns creating more reasonable service areas and reducing the City's cost in servicingthe area �4' ". • Authorize the Administration to begin preparing .KV3 `5mk ordinances for future annexation and zoning .. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • 4 MAPLEWOOD ADDITION INFORMATION COMMITTEE 4G" ANNEXATION PROCESS The Petition processing method was unfair to the home-owners. The Maplewood Information committee was informed that the petition deadline for completion was Friday,March 4th(the end of the first week of March) , and that as soon as it was turned in to the City Clerk it would become public information and copies`would be available upon request. The actual turn-in was on Monday; March 7th Seven valid letters to rescind signatures from the petition were received by the committee and turned in to the City Clerk on Friday, March 4th. The copy of the petition and letters should have been public information and available on Monday, but the City Clerk would not release them until Wednesday,March 9th. On Friday,March 4th;(the preset deadline),the petition fell short of the required 60% to pass:The deadline extension allowed the petitioners more time to collect an additional fifteen (15) signatures after the cut-off date. What methods were used to get these add on signatures? Although the petition and letters to rescind were not"public information"and not available until Wednesday,March 9th, all copies of the rescind letters were issued to the petitioner on Friday,March 4th. On Saturday, March 5th the petitioner used the rescind lettersIto follow-up and reinstate five homeowners,which were required to achieve they 60%. These were turned in on Monday,March 7th. Previously, the committee had been told by City officials that we would have three days to follow-up after the petition was turned in,but no days were allowed for follow-up.' Don Erickson told me he gave the rescind letters to, Stephanie Lorenz before they became public information because he had to treat her"like a contractor" since she is the petitioner. This appears to be unfair tactics,when one person can receive advance information before it becomes official. ._ 4"411 WOC Prepared by Bob J 'son Reviewed and approved by the Maplewood Addition Information Committee /50/G; /3/5 f Ave Se Rein-in,' W6 58 �- PhunI'eLorei -wtnle , 5 • ' 1 At the Community Meeting on 2/23/05, fTlie Boun=dary Review Boardrelearly stated°that Uthe�~;' X60°7o Rendon Annexation Petition must be submittedlo-k_ -both ofDur-options , L(becoming paw enton_or par:tof Fair_woo l)1on:_the-table_The Boundary_Review (Board makes the final-decision-based-on-the-options)presented=to-them:- OPTION 1: Fairwood Incorporation • Maplewood Addition is included=in.,fiie Fairw*Incorporation_boundary,:The Fairwood Task;For:_ce submitted their petition to thbsBoundaryi eview.Board-and-is currently wor'kin on themnext`ste 'rofitl e Lprocess � OPTION 2: City of . "Annexa tionoth467.City-of Renton wiki:be'presented to the-Bounidary-Review-Board ascan,option ONLY'IF1 t-'the 60%Lpetition is submitted-by March 4. Would' to you like petition? sign the petition? • . Do you have questions? • Would you like to helpgather signatures? g natures? Contact Us = Eric & Judy Anders 425-226-4166 Teresa Vay 425-228-1808 Stephanie Lorenz • 206-686-1025 Jack Lyons 425-255-7808 Dennis Kennedy 425-226-1085 Clint Arney • , 425-226-0323 Gary Lester ' 206-898-2048 The City of Renton Annexation Petition must be successful in order for our neighborhood to have more than one option (becoming part of Fairwood) in the eyes of the Boundary Review Board. Original Message From:Blauman,Lenora[mailto:Lenora.Blauman@METROKC.GOV] Sent:Thursday,March 03,2005 5:50 PMi To: 'Stephanie Lorenz' i Subject: Information for Tomorrow Hello Stephanie I will have a complete handout ready for tomorrow evening. For this evening, I can offer you the following: Both State law and King County policies call for unincorporated urban areas to transfer to "local governance" - which means "city" - either through annexation or incorporation. There are no deadlines for the transfer. But: • . All policies support annexation!or incorporation when one (or more)cities can govern a community. , k^ No policies support unincorporated areas when one (or more)cities can govern a community. i • • In order to remain unincorporated, Maplewood citizens would have to demonstrate that no city can govern or jtj L- serve the community. • Renton has already demonstrated capacity to govern. Information on Fairwood capacity to govern is pending. King County has stated that its government services will diminish to this area. I • Historically, the Board has transferred unincorporated islands to cities. Examples are: City of Redmond-NE Rose Hills;City of Issaquah-Providence Point/Hans Jensen;City of Renton-Merlino Annexation; City of Renton-Merritt II. • The Board will not predict a decision in this matter. Its decision will be based on the law and the facts presented to the Board during the review process. _ ,` ) J Original Message I From:Blauman,Lenora[mailto:Lenora.Blauman@METROKC.GOV] Sent:Friday,March 04,2005 9:40 AM • To:'Stephanie Lorenz' Subject:RE:Information for Tomorrow Here is a quick response to your questions- I will also address those questions this evening. The Board can simultaneously review incorporation, annexation (if there is an annexation application on file with the Board), and a request to remain unincorporated. The Board will make its decision for the future form of government for Maplewood Addition based upon numerous legal standards found in state law and county policy. Examples of those criteria are the State laws and County regulations that call for local jurisdictions((cities)to govern unincorporated urban areas. State laws also establish approximately 50 factors and nine objectives that the Board must consider in making a decision. These criteria include (but are clear`y not limited to): consistency with comprehensive plans; geographic boundaries; current ands future needs for municipal services; and adjustment of practical boundaries. Supporters of incorporation must use all applicable standards to demonstrate that incorporation /- better meets the criteria than annexation or remaining in King County. 7. • Supporters of annexation (if an annexation application is on file with the Board) must use all applicable standards to demonstrate that annexation better meets the criteria than incorporation i \, or remaining in King County. I "; Supporters,of remaining unincorporated must use all applicable standards to demoate^that the status qu&better-meets the criteria than incorporation or annexation._ 1 05 08:05a WSBRB fors KC 206-296-6803 p.2 .111111(11‘1111111111111111111111111111111.111.111111111111.11111.11111111111.111111.111111111111111111. Title 36 RCW: Counties 36.93.160 to compel the production by him of any records.books, (1) Population and territory; population density; land documents,public records or public papers. area and land uses: comprehensive plans and zoning, as (4)Within forty days after the conclusion of the final adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63.or 36.70 RCW: per hearing on the proposal, the board shall file its written capita assessed valuation;topography,natural boundaries and decision,setting forth the reasons therefor,with the board of drainage basins. proximity to other populated areas; the county commissioners and the clerk of each governmental existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate productive agricultural uses: the likelihood of significant whether the proposed change is approved.rejected or growth in-the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor modified and.if modified, the terms of such modification, pointed areas during the next ten years; location and most The written decision need not include specific data on every desirable future location of community facilities; factor required to be considered by the hoard, but shall (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- effect of ordinances, governmental codes.regulations and ing members of the board shall have the right to have their resolutions an existing uses; present cost and adequacy of written dissents included as part ofthe decision. governmental services and controls In area; prospects of (5)Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a governmental services from other sources;probable future decision of a majority of the members of the board shall needs for such services and controls; probable effect of constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- proposal or alternative an cost and adequacy of services and able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be controls in area and adjacent area;the effect on the finances, appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all be on the record,which shall be fumishedlby the appellant, affected governmental units; and but the board may.in its sole discretion,permit the introduc- (3)The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent don of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be areas, on mutual economic and social interests,and on the final and conclusive unless within ten days from the date of local governmental structure of the county. ' said action a governmental unit affected by the decision or The provisions of chapter 43.210 RCW.State Environ- any person owning real property or residing in the area mental Policy. shall not apply to incorporation proceedings affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84§ 5; 1986 c 234 of appeal. 1 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s.c 142 § 1; 1967 c 189 § The filing of such notice of appeal within such time 17.] limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board Sererabnit7-1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100. until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or lnaarporonion proceedings exempt front store environmental policy act: withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any 7 w RCW$3,21C.220. _} - evidence other than that contained in the record of the F " ' —_ hearing before the board. \ 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. (6)The superior court may affirm the decision of the pie decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to I board or remand the case for further proceedings;or it may achieve the following objectives: E reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been { \ (1)Preservation of natural neighborhoods and corn:tutni- prejudiced because the administrative findings,inferences. t1eS' \ L(12)conclusions,or decisions are: Use of physical boundaries,including but not limited (a)In violation of constitutional provisions ,or dies of water,highways,and land contours; (b)In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of d (3)Creation and preservation of logical service areas; the board,or (4)Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; ,, (c)Made upon unlawful procedure.or (5)Discouragement of multiple Incorporations of small 1' (d)Affected by other error of law;or cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess b (e)Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in pf len thousand population in heavily:populated urban areas: IIIJ view of the entire record as submitted.0r 1 (6)Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (f)Arbitrary or capricious. , (7)Adjustment of impractical boundaries; • An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final } (g) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to 1 judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in law as in other civil cases. (1988 c 202§40; 1987 c 477 § /character;and , 8:1971 c 81 §97; 1969 ex.s.c 1 I 1 § 9; 1967 c 189§ 16.] I (9)Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are Save sbtuty-1985 c 202: See now following RCW 2.24.050. idesignated for long term productive agricultural and resource I, ,, General corporate powers—Towns, retrrictions as to arra; RCW I use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legisla- ; i 35.21.010. tive authority. [1989 c 84§ 6; 1981 c 332§ 10; 1979 ex.s. .1,!:: '. cl42 § 2; 1967c189 § 18.1 j, i 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board— a 332: see note following RCW 35.13.165. '1, Incorporation proceedings exempt front State environ- LSeverabigity-1981 .�_ -- --- mental policy act. In reaching a decision on a proposal or 36.93.185' Objectives of boundary review board— = an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting Water,sewer district annexations, mergers—Territory such proposal, which shall include,but not be limited to the not adjacent to district. The proposal by a water district or following: sewer district to annex territory that is not adjacent to the district shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives (1992.ELL) fIltk 36 RCW--page 2231 I RECEIVED 2005-FEB-28 07:4TAM FROM-206 296 6806 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE 002 1 • 'ROM 01 daj asoold 'inq a)i1ou iaoys,sji ,,:,:i:.:,1,,,, I,.,`tP4:2 i:cs7:::i,,,,i';ii of An asdaid 'inq qIou jaoys sm •..oj paIinui aanoA 'pioo8 mouta)J Aaapuno8 aye jo ilogoq up 1 A Round Table Discussion You're invited to attend,ask your questions and discuss the �t with • future of the neighborhood at a small round table discussion Lenora Blauman from the with Lenora Blauman from the Boundary Review Board this Boundary Review Board Friday. Friday, March 4, 2005 With so much confusion in the neighborhood,the level of frustration is rising and it is difficult to know what the true 6:30 -7:15 PM facts are. Session One Considering that the final decision regarding the future governance of our neighborhood rests in the hands of the The buck stops with the BRB. 1 Boundary Review Board,Lenora Blauman has offered her No Hype. No Rhetoric. Yp time to meet with residents in a small round table format. Just accurate answers. It is Ms.Blauman's intention to provide unbiased explanations &clear,concise answers to your questions. Anders Residence j This is your best opportunity to get reliable answers to your 13133 SE 149th Street questions from the source and thus insure that you are taking Directions: From the pump the position that you believe will be in your best interest. house,go west on 149 and 13133 • is on the left. • Please RSVP ASAP. If you would like to bring a Please RSVP ASAP to : neighbor,please let us know when you RSVP. Judy Anders 425-226-4166 Or • Each session is limited to 12 people. Stephanie Lorenz 425-917-11025 Signatures representing more than 60%of ownership of the neighborhood have been certified by King County. Your vote in favor of annexation tonight will allow for simultaneous review of annexation v.incorporation by the Boundary Review Board. The facts on the rescission issue 8 signed the original rescission. Of this 8: 5 rescinded their rescission when presented with documented fact. 1 didn't sign the petition in the first place. 1,who signed after the community meeting on 2/23,indeed rescinded his signature. 1 rescinded in favor of remaining unincorporated. City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • March 5, 2005 This letter is intended to serve as notice that I rescind my rescission of the Maplewood Addition annexation petition. I support annexation. Signature Printed Name Renton, WA 98058 Address Tax ID Number • • • ' CITY ' -3F RENTON .,u} µ., Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator February 28, 2005 Residents of Maplewood Additior_ do Ms. Stephanie Lorenz 13515 SE Maple Valley Road Renton,Washington 98058 Dear Resident: This letter is to clarify, once again the realities regarding water service in Maplewood Addition should the community elect to annex to the City of Renton. Stating it most simply, water servbe in your community will not change if the community annexes.to Renton. Renton will nct make any changes to the water system—including the installation of any metering devics—as long as the system remains in the ownership of the Maplewood Addition Water Cooperative(MAWC). If the community would like Renton to extend water service to the area,it would be the decision of the MAWC board and shareholders to request service subject to approval from the Boundary Review Board and King County. I hope this provides you with the information you need to make an informed decision regarding your governance future. Please feel free to call my staff or me(425-430-6592)if the City can be of further assistance. ineer-ely, lex Pie ch I t 1055 South Grady Way I-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON �:� This p aper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE �', ! CITY )F RENTON • Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Keolker-Wheeler, Greggimmerman P.E. Administrator Keo Kathy hlMayor gg March 2, 2005 • i Stephanie Lorenz 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 • SUBJECT: LID FOR SEWERS INSTALLED TO SERVE THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION Dear Ms. Lorenz: . The question has been asked whether a property in an LID that is located on the corner of two streets would be assessed street frOntage fees based upon both frontages. The answer to the question is almost assuredly not. The scenario that would prompt such a circumstance would be if the City used a simple front footage assessment method and applied that frontage along both the front yard and side yard of a lot where sewer was extended across both. In most instances this would not occur because the benefit to the corner lot of a developed parcel will most likely not be any greater than for an interior lot, and an LID assessment has to be equivalent to the benefit. An instance where this may occur would be for a larger lot where future subdivision may be benefited by the extensions of sewer that would serve future lots. In the Maplewood area,most of the lots are of similar size, so they would all have similar amounts for their assessments, except for those lots,that have the ability to further subdivide. Larger lots that have large undeveloped portions that could be subdivided would pay an amount roughly equivalent to their benefit, This scenario seems highly unlikely, however, because of the flood plain, and the likelihood that the City will change the land use designation on its . Comprehensive Plan for this area from Residential Single Family,which allows up to 8 units per net acre,to Residential Low Density,which allows up to a.maximum of 4 units per net acre. The latter is closer to the area's current density of approximately 3.1 units per net acre. When the City determines assessment value,we look at all potential methods of distributing costs and look to the method that most closely equitably shares the costs of the LID, and in some cases, combines those methods to assure ijust that. { One additional point that I would like to make once again, is that sewer service,when desired(or required by a determination of the'King County Health Department)to this area will be by Renton regardless of - •-r the area annexes to Renton, is.incorporated by Fairwood, or remains in uninco •orated 'ing County. Sanitary Sewer Service Boundaries will not change based .son an, of the aboscenarios. . ;/ S. c: ely, ' :iii , , • I • M. ' "stensen Wastewater Engineering Supervisor 1 cc: Don Erickson,Senior Planner 1 H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-03-0009 Correspondence-Wastewater\davec\Lorenz Letter.doc\DMC\tb 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R E N T O N :w paper per contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD O F T H L CURVE • .. Original Message From: David Christensen[mailto:Dchristen@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent:Friday,March 04,2005 8:16 AM To: slorenz@johnlscott.com Cc:Donald Erickson Subject:Re: FW: Sanitary sewer Service to,Maplewood Annexation Area Stephanie, The point of connection for the Maplewood Subdivision will be to the.KC Metro Line, in fact,the City has already installed a stub into 131st Avenue SE to serve this area. However,all portions of the City system connect at some point to the KC Metro system,as they are the major conveyance and treatment agency for sewer. That said, it makes no difference where a local connection is relative to a KC Metro line in regards to how the City bills. The City of Renton is the billing agency for all connections within our system. The County does not bill for sewer service. Finally, the City, by ordinance,does charge at 1.5 times the City portion of the rate for customers outside our City limits: The important note is that it is only the City portion of the bill that we collect for that has this fee,currently$13.43 for in City and $20.15 for outside City limits. The County portion of the bill,collected by Renton remains at$25.60 whether in or out of the City. This was shown on the handout prepared by Don Erickson regarding differential of costs. Hopefully this answers your question. Dave Christensen 425.430.7212 • >>> "Stephanie Lorenz" <slorenz@johniscott.com> 03/03/2005 5:21:01 PM >>> Dave, Thank you for sending such an informative letter. It is really helpful. As I mentioned in my vm message, I need one last piece of info clarified. Apparently we have a neighborhood resident whom is related to one of the employees at water dist. 90. Said employee hays stated that should our neighborhood hook up to sewer, Renton cannot charge 1.5 times the resident rate because the sewer is owned by KC metro. Can you clarify the cost of sewer for non city residents? Thanks in advance. Stephanie . , . Tt a r as ',v> Rrc fix:+.to- x,,,w \ • � k # .„ r. .+fi^" :kr:"VM. n`:�'i`•.-.;�"'sn?:f;s';a-.c?,�•,,,,,,X. >r;..:. i:�;i3:yi,»::P^:?:c,?•� m;.r ;.:+.ri+ z. '0 r., �°,''"{ ,rte .V.Ik s 't'+"`^":;',"r:^•';-..•."`i"5`" 'r:.^,<.: <r s,1� �` >dip..,:�.c 4� 7,,,. ..Y:;.., {s r;m?� .3. .X r-t �'s. ,� :�W��eS �1, * ..,Z •1 $ r 4 3"• 51 • h a t K �na';•:�''e''w:r;'•1::,^"''.R`='.i�uaz:,r.=>..a:,:s:tz.T.��3'rt.�fa>. w' 2.'u»;,'•'k.>'�;�r.2�+::n�;��.;:r�°"ss.:.� l�.(•.'4Y'�''14..ka'fa;�3.:,'a.'.ti+✓,.»°':T:!ui;,.,z�;::''i�. ::�•` 'y'�^> � ��,y.y,:t :iet'.z w > d F« - 33 y� p p,�y<� jjyy..�� .{yyy �y{ {{gyp ..:.::::.:::::::-ii . . . ��. :...:: . .:r...... :: A��.: .:�IF..�.k.V..�SA.��.F .. ..��.�im:�::'�:.: �� ..: ..� �..A.�.�:FT:.Tr�:::44AX:;�...>[ ��'a.. },',iU" u�'��,. .y�,�.. .. :iii:r:.;i�r • .........:.... Will the total amount of No Yes Unknown tax that I pay go down? After adding RentOn's 6% utility tax,the total on a • $250,000 taxable valued • • property would be about $227 less in 2005. • •. I currently have a senior No Change No Change No Change tax exemption; Will I still qualify? Will my current address No Yes Yes change? , . (As of yet undetermined) If,in the future,the Contracted service from Cedar City of Renton at same rate as Unknown neighborhood needs a River Water District or The other residents. (but likely to be contracted different source of City of Renton. * City rates services from Cedar River water,where will the are 1.5 times higher for non- Water District) water come from? residents. • Can I keep my septic Yes Yes *Yes • . system? I *not yet confirmed Will my yard be . ' No No *No disturbed to Renton only requires sidewalks *not yet confirmed accommodate future for new developments: sidewalks? _ Will street lights Yes Yes Unknown continue to be paid for because it is currently being , . , by MAWC? billed through the water district. How will services,such •Most services are contracted. •Renton is considered a full- Unknown as library,schools,and • School district would not service city with no 3rd party (most services are expected to fire,etc.be affected? change. contracting. be contracted out to County ■ Continued access to County • School district would not and/or other 3rd party library system. change. providers) ■Residents would have access 1 to both County and Renton libraries. If I call 911,who will KC Sheriff but the response Renton Fire and/or Renton ` Unknown come? times will be longer as Police. Estimated response (proposed contract service • outlined in the service time is 3-6 minutes. - with KC Sheriff) reduction plan for unincorporated KC. • Will I get a discount at No , • Yes No Renton's new Aquatic A Summer Season Family A Summer Season Family Pass A Summer Season Family Center? Pass for non-residents in 2004 for City residents in 2004 was Pass for non-residents in 2004 was$280.00 $140.00 was$280.00 Will I get a discount at No , Yes No the boat launch? Non-residents pay!$10 per day Residents pay$5 a day to use Non-residents pay$10 per day . to use the Coulon Park boat the Coulon Park boat launch. to use Coulon Park boat launch'. launch. How will zoning change? King County zoning is R6SO. Renton zoning would be R-8. , Unknown This zone allows between 6 to The City is currently looking at (as of yet undetermined) 9 units per gross acre. It also changing this to R-4. allows attached units such 'townhouses. 808L-99Z-9Ztr suo ti>{oer 9802-9ZZ-9Z1Icpauua l siuua !'> •••pxe u s a.e y M 8tOZ-686-90Z Jalse1 tie0 •u o!wad�e d u o i�exe u u e 99TV-9ZZ-9Zb sJapuv,lpn�pg ou3 ;` jo09 ayl to saanleuis woo'aoaop{setpooMJ! JMmwt eq pa!Jmeo � lunoO aoao3�selpoonvie� u i)i 410T u Oa e w up sn'envuowerio@uosmopap ao Z859-0Eti-5217 uo;uej j.o Alio'uosmoia3 uoa • 1 na•omoataw@uewnejq•eaouai JO 0089-96Z-90Z pieo8 maina8 Ampuno8 a els'uewne1g eioua3 • :loe}uoo eseald'uon.ewaolui wow J03 lsseoong B sl uolll}ad uol}exeuud uoweti%09 aril `. ISS03311g a si UORRed. .a uol4exauud uo4uaa %09 aLl -1111 i, _ • • w: **According to the State Boundary Review With the annexation petition Board: In order to remain unincorporated, certified,the process continues in the Maplewood citizens would have to - following order: demonstrate that no city can govern or serve (completing these next steps will take months:) the community. 1. The City of Renton will hold a public hearing • All policies support annexation or and the City Council will vote to accept or incorporation when one (or more) cities reject the annexation petition. can govern a community. • No policies support unincorporated areas 2. If the Council votes to accept the petition,it when one (or more) cities can govern a • will then be forwarded to the State Boundary community. Review Board(BRB). i • The Board will not predict a decision on 3. The BRB will then simultaneously review this matter. Its decision will be based on the law and the facts presented to the information on Fairwood Incorporation, Board during the review process. Renton Annexation,and the possibility of remaining unincorporated.** 4. After formal review of all of the information In the months to come,we will continue to &a public hearing,the BRB will determine update you as new information becomes the future governance of our neighborhood. available. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 26 IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAKESHORE LANDING DEVELOPMENT,AND APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A TURNBACK AGREEMENT BY WSDOT. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: * The Renton Community Center will host a Preschool Information Night on February 2nd,from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. * Free tax assistance will be provided for low and moderate-income taxpayers (income less that$50,000)by AARP in cooperation with the IRS. Appointments at the Renton Community Center are available beginning February 2nd and ending April 13th. The Neighborhood Program will host a "Neighbor to Neighbor"Leadership meeting on February 5th. AUDIENCE COMMENT Keith Jolin, 14048 SE 158th St.,Renton, 98058, inquired as to the City's intent Citizen Comment: Joslin- or vision on annexations in relation to the Fairwood incorporation effort. Annexations Mayor Keolker-Wheeler explained that the Fairwood area has been in Renton's • potential annexation area for a long time, and if it were to annex to Renton, the size of the City would double. She expressed her concerns regarding the maintenance of a certain level of service for City residents, and the generation of revenues by the annexation area. The Mayor further explained that the City is accepting of those interested in annexing to Renton; however, the City generally does not initiate annexation. Councilman Corman stated his belief that if Fairwood residents were to inquire as to what it would be like to annex to Renton,perhaps as a comparison to the Fairwood incorporation,the City would respond. Citizen Comment: Smith- Hilton Smith, 809 Fairview Pl. N.,Seattle, 98109, spoke on behalf of Waterways Cruises,Moorage Waterways Cruises, which operates dinner vessels and offers catering services. at Southport He relayed that his company has been in discussion with Southport(SECO Development)regarding locating one or more vessels and an event center in the Renton area that would involve permanent moorage. Mr. Smith noted that a 300 to 400 passenger vessel could draw numerous visitors to Renton. He explained that Waterways Cruises needs a five-year commitment,including parking, from Southport for permanent moorage, and he pointed out that currently only a two-year parking commitment is allowed. Responding to Councilman Corman's and the Mayor's inquiries,Mr. Pietsch noted that the City received a multi-faceted proposal from SECO Development late last week in regards to some outstanding issues between SECO and the City pertaining to the Southport project. He explained that the Southport project was permitted under an adopted planned action, and current zoning does not allow surface parking as a stand-alone use. Mr. Pietsch stated that parking is possible via a temporary use permit, which is valid for two years with possibly a one-year extension. He noted that the City will meet with the concerned parties to discuss accommodating SECO's short-term needs and other outstanding issues. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting January 24, 2005 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER;DON PERSSON; COUNCILMEMBERS RANDY'CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON;DENIS LAW. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer;LAWRENCE J.WARREN, City Attorney;BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator;ABDOUL GAFOUR,Water Utility Supervisor; KAREN MCFARLAND,Engineering Specialist;ALEX PIETSCH,Economic Development Administrator; BEN WOLTERS, Economic Development Director; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER TIM TROXEL, Police Department. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Maplewood accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Addition,Maple Valley Hwy public meeting to consider the 10%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the irtri proposed 60.5-acre Maplewood Addition Annexation, which is bounded on the (71k'fW north by1Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169), and on the west, south, and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the subject site is within Renton's potential annexation area, and contains 161 single-family dwellings. He • explained that the site is also included in the proposed Fairwood incorporation area. Once Fairwood proponents file their 10%petition, there is a 90-day window'to file the notice of intent package to annex with the Boundary Review Board. For example, to allow processing time, the annexation proponents must file their 60%petition by the first week of March if Fairwood proponents file their 10% petition in January. He noted that failure to meet the 90-day window precludes the area's future annexation to Renton if the Fairwood incorporation is successful. Mr. Ericicson reported that the topography of the site is essentially flat above the Cedar River bank and the entire site, with the exception of the lots north of SE 149th St., is located within the flood hazard boundary. He reviewed the existing public services as follows: • Fire service is provided by Fire District#25. This stays the same if annexed; however, adequate water pressure is an issue. • Water service is provided by the Maplewood Water Cooperative. If annexed, the water cooperative can continue to operate within the City. • The site is not currently served by sewer but is located within Renton's sewer service area. There are no known septic issues at this time, and residents are not required to convert from septic to sewer if annexed. Septic systems are under the purview of the King County Health Department. • The site is within the Renton School District. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 21 • If annexed, and residents choose to convert to City utilities, the City can assist them in the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). Continuing;Mr. Erickson stated that existing King County zoning for the site is R-6 (six units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Single Family, and concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). He noted that the City is reviewing a possible change in designation to Residential Low Density, for which concurrent zoning is R-4 (four units per net acre). Reviewing the fiscal impact analysis,Mr. Erickson indicated that the annual estimated cost to the City for the annexation is $40,304. If property owners decide to upgrade to sewer, the annual estimated City cost would be $35,386 due to the likely increase of property values. In conclusion,Mr.Erickson stated that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with City policies for annexation and relevant Boundary Review Board criteria. He noted the adequate level of parks in the area, the likely ongoing and costly flood control challenge, the aging infrastructure, and the larger than normal annual subsidy required to serve the area. Public comment was invited. Eric Anders, 13133 SE 149th St.,Renton, 98058, stated that he is a proponent of the annexation, and noted that a community meeting was recently held at which City of Renton staff provided information. Mr. Anders pointed out that the Maplewood Water Cooperative cannot support R-8 zoning, and he stated his preference for R-4 zoning. Despite the costs associated with upgrading the water and sewer systems if necessary or desired,Mr. Anders indicated his support for annexation to Renton rather than incorporation by Fairwood. In response to questions posed by Richard Hall, 13111 SE Maple Valley Hwy., Renton, 98058,Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch stated that grant monies may be available for flood protection. Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman stated that the assessment for installing the water and sewer is estimated at$15,000 per household per utility. He noted that if residents formed an LID for these improvements,the assessment would be paid over a period of time. Bev Spears, 13111 SE 151st St.,Renton,98058, stated that many residents feel they do not have enough information about the costs to the community and individual homeowners for both the Fairwood incorporation and the proposed annexation. Noting the aging infrastructure, she expressed concern that the site will never meet City standards. Ms. Spears indicated that a resident questionnaire has been submitted to Mr. Erickson for more information. Mr. Pietsch noted that the recently received resident questionnaire will be responded to by the end of the week. Discussion ensued regarding the gathering of information and approximating costs; Council policy regarding annexation areas meeting City standards; current practice of annexing areas as they are; upgrading areas only as they are requested, systems fail, or redevelopment occurs; existing substandard areas in the City; the timeline for the annexation and for the Fairwood incorporation; consequences if annexation proponents fail to meet the deadline or obtain the 60%petition; the City's option of requesting the Boundary Review Board to amend the boundaries of the incorporated area if annexation fails; and King County's decision not to serve pockets of unincorporated areas. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 22 City Attorney Larry Warren stated that there is no legal authority for the City to condition the annexation upon the signing of an LID or a commitment to improve water or sewer systems. Outside of the bonded indebtedness and the zoning requirement, the City cannot add additional conditions to annexation petitions. Stephanie Lorenz, 13515 SE Maple Valley Rd.,Renton, 98058, stated that the proponents of the Fairwood incorporation effort are unable to provide affected residents with much information, which results in the inability of the residents to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two efforts. If the 10% petition is accepted this evening,Ms.Lorenze asked if the 60% petition deadline can be extended. Mr. Pietsch explained that the time cannot be extended as long as the Fairwood incorporationproponents file their petition to incorporate within the assumed timeframe. The longer the filing of the petition for the Fairwood incorporation is delayed, the more time the subject annexation will have. Mayor Keolker- Wheeler stressed that the City strives to provide accurate and timely information, and a number of concerns will be addressed when the City responds to the resident questionnaire. Linda Gibson, 15031 135th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, expressed concern regarding all of the misinformation being circulated about the annexation. She also pointed out that with an LID, a lien is placed on the property. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that residents must ask for the formation of an LID; the City will not impose an LID on the community. Further discussion commenced regarding septic system failure, costs related to utility systems, misinformation, and the benefit of more representation by elected officials if the area is annexed or incorporated. Ray Griffen, 14405 SE 143rd Pl.,Renton, 98055, reported that Renton's Aquifer Protection Ordinance states that any homes in Aquifer Protection Zones 1 and 2 must connect to the sewer. Mr. Zimmerman explained that the ordinance only requires mandatory sewer connection in Zone 1. The annexation area is located in Zone 2; therefore,mandatory hook-up is not required. Dennis Wood, 14934 134th Ave. SE,Renton, 98058, opposed the annexation proposal,pointing out that new road and house numbers will be assigned if the area is annexed. Mr. Wood expressed his disapproval with the City's addressing system, and stated that the address scheme makes it difficult to find places. Additionally,Mr.Wood acknowledged the area's aging water system, and noted Maplewood Water Cooperative's policy to keep the water system within local control. He also noted the need for a pamphlet, similar to the voters pamphlet, which states the for and against positions of the various interests. Brian Lowrey, 13112 SE 150th St.,Renton, 98058,inquired about the bonded indebtedness and the loss to the City if the area is annexed. Mr.Pietsch explained that the bonded indebtedness refers to the park and senior housing Renton voted debt, which equates to$8 a year for a$100,000 valued property. He pointed out that the overall tax burden of property owners will be reduced if the area is annexed to Renton. January 24,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 23 • Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation area(PAA), Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. Mr.Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexation proposal,proceeds to the 60% petition level. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX,WHICH REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.;roll was called; all Councilmembers present. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Anthone',Talbot accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S &S 55th St public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone'Annexation consisting of 4.84 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of S. 55th St. and Talbot Rd. S. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling, and has a three percent upward slope from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Reviewing the public services,Mr.Erickson indicated that Fire District#37, Renton water and sewer, and the Kent School District serve the site.' He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6 (six units per gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density,for which R-4(four units per net acre)zoning is proposed. Mr. Erickson noted that the City is reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to Residential Single Family,for which concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Mr.Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation area and the limitation of future development to approximately 16 lots, the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the south, and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. He reported that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of$465 at current development, and a surplus of$875 at full development. The estimated one- time parks acquisition and development cost is$8,528. Mr.Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies except for size, and is consistent with Boundary Review (Y MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING CONSIDERATION OF 10% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS January 24, 2005 The City is in receipt of a 10%Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation area. This petition has signatures representing 10% or more of the area's assessed value, having been certified by King County's Department of Assessments. The subject 60.5 acre site is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential! Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The subject site is bounded on the north by the Renton — Maple Valley Road (SR- 169), and on the west, south and east by the north shore of the Cedar River. Renton abuts the annexation site on its north,west and a portion of its southern boundary and unincorporated King County abuts it on its eastern and a portion of its southern boundary(see back of this handout). The subject site currently has King County's R-4 zoning and there are 161 single-family detached dwellings on it. Proposed future zoning would likely be Renton's R-8 zone unless the City amends its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from RS, Residential Single Family to RLD, Residential Low Density. The latter would allow R-4 zoning, which would be more consistent with the existing!built out level of development. The site currently has a net density of approximately 3.3 units per acre. Under state law direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing at least 10%of the annexation area's assessed value. Upon receipt of a 10%Notice of Intent Petition the Council is required to hold a public meeting with the proponents within 60 days to decide whether it will accept , reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. Reviewing departments of the City while not opposing this annexation have raised concerns about deficiencies in infrastructure that will eventually have to be addressed by the area's residents. If the Council decides to accept this proposed 10% Notice of Intent Petition to Commence Annexation, it will typically: 1. Authorize the circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex based upon petitioners achieving signatures representing 60% of the area's assessed value; 2. Decide whether to require the simultaneious adoption of zoning upon annexation consistent with the City' Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their proportional share of the City's existing indebtedness. The Administration is recommending that Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent Petition and authorize circulation of a 60%Direct Petition to Annex. Council Hearing Handout 01-12-04.doc\ lits,*4, MA{� VALLEY Gb1..¢ CoomSE 114, sothi i0 SIVE' 4104.... VI 010*•>\, ,sv,:s\p-* 144., 110,-- viAtev> 0,--. ,4,?,,,,.-::„...„.„,,,,,,, w 40 _NV.....*,,,T-i, ,g; a ,,,,,4 , ,,,:,,,,,,:_ „,„ � 1?.‘' .0?4\fAt\>,01-4 ,3;fw,74,itios.;; ;,)„,.. ,c").9 � . ,� :•.f . AO iikipa GIW,,,...:?,,,-Pi0, 744-1;140. 4',:,,,,,ift. : ; - .-it.r.,,,_ - iite. , , Iciity>11iIrit<94itt4V4Za ,( 1.:) . . rir0-• }',-'4k491,e,,2r-"iriszt i tii:*"141 .°>,;94;/:41;11;r41709f/I,N. ,41417' hei /IIIP: , V4.1 . '\01b,•' 4414tr,*::. ,.r. 4011/7', ,„: -i r. ' '%''44ctit4OS:tV,ip,_4P1,4jrriWitl E R 4',.,,,. +741,°44".„0,44,,Acqr), fq, tO Mt° 4. :.„, , 0 03 zei.11 ” ),,,,,,,0541.4-„,::,. ,,:: .„ )_ ..t. 0 Ala, si. sloi. ' ii6/4,-* ' ' - ro*ral '� � N Iw� i nal AVIW V'i' CItt `mss. V” AO 1 9 Itillt Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation 0 500 1000 Figure 3: Existing Structures Map — — Current City Limits :>::>:::_»>::m;:;:::::>;::::;:::: :: ; :;:; o Annexation Area "'`'' ""`'' ti ,t Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning 1 : 6000 . i . ♦ Alex Pietsch,Administrator Structure v■■-..y. G.Del Rosario .rcr 21 December 2004 , /" / f/ eft ,,; , :b ,,.,;' Maplewood Addition Y� 1z, i 4' Annexation 7 rt! moi.. # t ,` �_ ,. e..„.,,,,,...‘,,,,,,,,,, Public Meeting ' 10%Notice of Intent Petition _. ,' 24,2005 A'T : January City of Renton 's:: `".e .E`—' v -�. r'• :. Current Annexations „.t y275 eo t tl -„ —. c'C." �glik "`5b R. mitt 11 --:::-=-:,___ •�' 0- ttF,:9-, f 133.3ac He driekaon Background. .... F .{,It.„..05...A.4 .05...x, o 23.1 ac. f '� .- ti• `a').... i Wedgewood --.7..s. ��' a' '� � Lea Residents submitted a petition to commence t �zsax annexation proceedings to the City on 1, _ . ri1 Id s:3 rt[T�ylu° t+ ,S� � December 8;2001 ti r' .,� - {• %'.^ l� eeee • Under state law Council has 60 days to have t� + • �'a�x'-z 1 e t petition certified and hold tonight's meeting ' r..... ,1 xr• - vr� Lindberg f b 4° .x m.. ii y .". ",1" �"? :3''1--—`��.I ii tqw.&€ us 82-1 • At tonight'smeetingCouncilmustdecidewhether , ,i,-"-.. "'-!, ` r* B -t!.s`/ ` 7it wishes to accept,reject,or geographically f .w Mos er ... .. !,i4..-,-!..7...-:!.-.4,4•141,- -,.0- i " yip L, 31 g as t o 4�r""t gra , , r 14. �3, /ix ,rglt"^ modify this proposed annexation l' t�� Maplewood(, �� ;e" ai Y , bMaplewood� 't85larde • If Council decides to accept the 10%Notice of f"E_G' ��eif y, {r 60 Sac I. lementa —t1� .t.j Intent petition tonight,it must approve circulation 11� i. 4,-,7;7%;tt eea° it of a 60%Direct Petition to Annex before ;iR l b o its , ¢a. a proponents are allowed to proceed �PID'- hill. :: ,:Ze, mg riot e66 ' hi..; Existing Conditions Existing Conditions • PAA-Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area Included in proposed Fairwood Incorporation • Location South of Maplewood Golf Course • 90-day window to file Notice of Intent Package to p Annex with the BRB once Fairwood proponents between SE Renton-Maple Valley Highway and file their 10%petition the Cedar River • Would require annexation proponents to file their • Size-60.5 acres,including abutting SR 169 ROW 60%Direct Petition by first week of March if ' Fairwood files in January • Uses-161 single-family dwellings , • Failure to meet,90-day window would preclude . • Boundaries-site abuts Renton on its north,westfuture annexation to Renton if Fairwood , and portion of it's southern boundary incorporation is successful i • 1 f-X �� .� d�t `7-)pie y�� 1r cs .'41:04:74,1V-14 �tzU.;', , � ) U � v,,iia* r...,'. :17344-•,,,,,_,41;/.01114r.0 s 9 fl 1� d f}f ^� ,� �` S�� .0 `4r.0 P ya.iit,, " �. tri ,7 ' i f z� i .- '*.1f. SL113 tSl 90—ri�yg c,U: ..4 t P::; q l��sx�r . Wri �.uCt.� �f.e by b �y a. . �✓ ,,,,-;,c,,,;,:.2.-,,-.,-, � '�' %r� 1 mtit. "v' f"*F � oCr0 W x.11 �yc � 'try i::3.75>' - , . 70 ^'\ ..of t • 4 t. ^z'[ J� • z-, -1 I • • •i. \ "kvv+'te �rtt`�� 6 vtls Pr 'K` 7+•k u% � 4 .,EGA .\#1)..1413P-� * l eft c k> I+ .)t,,,,, '�,�'�k • rS"` 7,y yG �, ,V11. 1 k' �4 yt�" ratra`tkjf.' a� "3'sL+ c � 5'.° a ;r- ,�flr 4 C^�S iiiii- 1�Y ry t +� a "i'r '+ tom 1!�� S if 1 s.. _, �'�,` " -a SLE: ^, , �V a-AL' ^e'4" 'f� LkY��. `�-7,11,4,,,,,,..,--,,,-„„- tale % ,�,�.•c�.•� I i a;-:3li‘ i Eft....;•�?c� v-.s..'1 3...- .:,' f....A.e.,.*` �aO.j ;� 'MI 111,701..4;.-:;3 Maplewood Addition Annexation_ o sop 1000 Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation JIB � ;Ia.:— I:6000 .. 6 S a+..,.d...� r.. ��1:6000 �j ` • r .y.., -,u -Fe-r: »•�.t `k l 7 O y .fie Q x ;+I y>`,' 'Ybk �'�° ecslr f � `°a k K n • •• +� l.. s y k -$-'yw.„•x i�,'..: ..'� S �� [ r r,:7^'�o`trs'3 F i t � y 3'3 z--.,z r,-;'`:„. + $ t � ^;,�`;,:v;�i.Jt' 1t:j 4 #'-j1; i 5y.,�cr, Pt x r . e -`� e ii”' . ,. '.; v >;"sti r4rr� .1...4.3.F....(,-33, . '" if _1- fog �.. sem-s-.� ' !t\ � ,, -: l5t s lS 't w -n Lty'y '.f+r ., _ne 1 figure?-\'icw looking north alone Goat Avenue SE Figure 4-Vico of homes along north side or SE 151.Street 7,41�,41 Existing Conditions - ~ 1 � 1ti ��/'-'t � Environmental z" ***441111141 • 'hopoRraph\'-essential h' Fw rn' 'G 5'." '0,, a P $ osti,$`"4,'.4. 41. 1 IP ,i 1t�*****4►Al!ti,�jT <t ! ♦♦ ♦4,',r flat above Cedar Ricer bank •..E."-.-ax�sr � 2` ,r9 ;I I 414P .,4.4,,t,'%,1 , • Environmental constraints .,, ''u' "'}- `it, ,,,, ,s s, �ow 0, Q" P t '� ,Joie' 1 101-+ -eexcllpt\hole site,,. - -.." ..-t,! ,d _, Otti��v Y I 1 \.IIII Via the exception of lots north .1-i2..„,...„4-,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,, , • _ T'''' 1' .iw� `,;r,4 1 of SE 149th Street,is located `>`"'c -- ' ',`1gU` ��'1. ;' =;' Y4� ti."'-.N. r within theflood hazard a ' �71•i , 1' , 1 i e k boundaryr_ . ' s 7T, ♦ �r r' F., . • ..-:fit ....,11?- Furore 5-View looking southoi t 11111+,,N10, ,iJ��i::_ •, tit` p > from 134th Ave SE and SE I51'. Proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation o _ s_ oo x,000 Street towards Cedar Riser ...,..,,,,•„�, m M 7...-:d 44 u 1.6000 2 Existing Conditions -Public Services I Issues Related to Public Services • Fire-Fire service through District 25 under contract with City t'z...:...-.,, -Area is not in Renton's designated Water Utility • Utilities :--1 Service Area so City water service is not required -Water service is provided by the Maplewood Water Cooperative,an -Maplewood Water Cooperative is designated independent water district i Pi service provider for area.Water Cooperative can -Site is not currently served by sewer but continue to operate within City. is located within Renton's designated Sewer Service Area i� -Fire service would not change since Renton is the -No change of service is required because ,..Lf current provider of these services for District 25. of annexation Adequate water pressure is an issue,however. • Schools -Within Renton School Districtt• -Boundaries would not change l Issues Related to Public Services County Land Use Designation and Existing Zoning -There are no known septic issues in the • annexation area at this time.County Health Dept makes this determination • --*' iiiirga �': - abat Kine County Comp Plan -• 90•,ix -Although Renton is the designated sewer service Designation-Urban '`e--'-="fin'+� ` provider there is nothing that requires residents to ' Residential 4-t2 du/ac • `_'/-y,j � ::- convert from septic to sewer }� $_ King County Zoning-R-6, l 6 du/gross acre p -It residents eventually choose to convert to City Site `'4."` utilities City could assist them in the formation of e � a -., �A'x. ere?>�� .,.�,;.;a LiDs and,possibly,in obtaining grant monies. lriit - Figure 6-King County Zoning Nap Renton Land Use Designation Renton Land Use Designation and Potential Zoning and Potential Zoning Site 'Site • r rietar:' , Renton Zoning upon 4 Y �� %A4- t g annexation t-dgr4` T Renton Comp Plan Land f �Q, `-jam t �. •r.X114 g R-8 (8 du/net acre) MAX Use Map-Residential _ yv,�1 P t.c'�F'' � ';i t ' f �l t Consistent with current , �t,N a � Single Family i ,r;t Comprehensive Plan Land °�- � (R-8.8 dunct ac) ,..-;\11, " �t, \4 4 Use Map designation `taste' ,' Citycurrentlylooking atpossible , 1..+ j Possible future Renton �- Chan m designation iti -`-� i Zoning �: v to Residential Low Density 11� _i f R-4 (4 du/net acre) I = +' ••t (R-4,4 du nct ac) IPkTa d.F A6. P n Closlydumetto sacreting density s �. .,.` et Figure 7-Renton Comp Plan Laud Use Map • Figure 8-.Renton Zoning Nap 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis Relevant Boundary Review P Y Board Objectives i • General Fund cost and revenue implications • Preservation of natural neighborhoods and —Assumes 161 existing single-family homes in area communities no change remain • Use of physical boundaries,including but not limited Assumes current average assessed value of S191,560 to bodies of water,highways,and land contours—uses — Cedar River and Maple`Valley Highway —Annual Estimated Fiscal impact-S40,304 cost to City • Creation and preservation of logical service areas— per yr. does nor change existing service areas'boundaries • if property owners decided to upgrade to sewer e.g. water district,.fire,school district,sewer service district —Average assessed value likely increases to+S207,000 • Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries- -Annual Estimated Fiscal Impact to City after upgrade boundarie.s are regular and consistent with Renton's -S35,386 cost per year PAA Conclusion Conclusion, continued • Located within Renton's designated • Adequate level of parks in area Potential Annexation.Area • Flood control a costly and likely ongoing • Generally consistent with City policies for challenge annexation • Aging infrastructure poises a challenge for • Probable R-8 zoning consistent with Comp residents Plan's RS designation and single-family land • Larger than normal annual subsidy required use policies to serve area • Relevant Boundary Review Board criteria • Addressing issues through annexation in met City's interest Recommendation ,;,., k47+,c Accept the l0%Notice of Intent Petition for the ,,. � "`• ,...;:":4,4-•&0- • ;.. Maplewood Addition Annexations,=3` v?,`'"'1Ft, •,44-„.A•40.!,>'' t • Authorize the circulation of a 60%Direct Petition to \ "i .+ Annex with the following provisions: �; , '' _, S' —Property owners within the annexation shall agree trF.T to support the adoption of future City zoning g � ' consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land s , e:,,,..'"•.,, use designation upon annexation;and, , h s > } ` �:. —Property owners within the annexation shall agree '' tiA,4.t �'ry to assume their proportional share of the City's - - -.0,',.,.- .,,r;existing outstanding indebtedness 4 December 20,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 457 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted included: * The 3r Annual Canine Candy Cane 5k Run or Walk was held on December 11th, with 175 dogs and masters participating in the activities. * Currently, there is a problem at Boeing Field created by small glass beads embedded in painted runway markings coming loose and lodging in the engines of some Boeing aircraft. There will be some additional landings and departures of 737 aircraft at the Renton Airport over the next several days chile this problem is being resolved at Boeing Field. AUDIENCE COMMENT Jeff Davis, 10012 64th Ave. S., Seattle, 98178, stated that he represents the Citizen Comment: Davis - Aircraft Owners' and Pilots'Association on Renton's Airport Advisory Airport Runway Protection Committe i, and commended the City for its land use actions pertaining to the Zones Airport. e reported that the Airport community is taking active steps to be a better co unity member, and the City and Airport community are working together i that regard. Mr. Davis pointed out that the Airport is a valuable City asset, and despite a recent tragedy, the Airport has an excellent safety record. H encouraged the City to address runway protection zones, especially on the sou h end of the field, so as to enhance the safety of the Airport and enhance e onomic growth and development of the City. Citizen Comment: Johnson- Brian Joh son, 14509 SE 167th St.,Renton, 98058, spoke on the topic of the Fairwood Incorporation proposed I airwood incorporation,noting the adversarial quotes in the newspape He expressed his wish to be within a city, due to the decrease of services fr m King County, and said discussions with affected community members 1 d to the determination that there was support for incorporation. Mr. Johnson requested that the City review the information on the Fairwood incorporation website(www.fairwoodtaskforce.org), and emphasized his desire to be within a city, such as Renton, if the feasibility study proves that incorporat_on is not viable. Citizen Comment: Carras- Greg Carras, 15944 SE 177th St.,Renton, 98058, said he is a member of the Fairwood Incorporation Fairwood incorporation task force, and noted that information was gathered and public metings were held on the incorporation effort. Mr. Carras reported that the comm1nity supports incorporation if financially viable, and explained how the proposed incorporation boundary was determined. He noted the issues surrounding the Cascade Vista area, which was not included in the incorporation area,and proposed that the City and the task force work together to address the deficiencies in this area. Citizen Comment: Mandt- Marleen Mandt, 1408 N. 26th St.,Renton, 98055,reported there is a lack of Gene Coulon Park,Allowing safe places to walk dogs in the lower Kennydale area,due to the presence of Pets traffic and bicycles. She requested that on-leash dogs be allowed on the walking paths at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and at Kennydale Beach, and proposed a trial period during the winter months. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval 9f Council meeting minutes of December 13, 2004. Council concur. December 13, 2004 J December 20,2004 Renton City Council Minutes — Page 456 Renton policies. Noting some potential flooding in the area, Mr.Erickson suggested mitigation with future development. Public comment was invited. There being none,it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. • MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE LINDBERG ANNEXATION 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60%DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX, SPECIFYING THAT PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORT FUTURE.ZONING CONSISTENT WITH RENTON'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Park Terrace,NE accordance with local and State laws,Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the 8th St&Duvall Ave NE public hearing to consider the 60%Notice of Intent petition to annex and R-8 zoning for the proposed 7.65-acre Park Terrace Annexation,including the abutting street right-of-way, located east of Duvall Ave.NE and south of NE 8th St.,if extended. Senior Planner Don Erickson explained that the subject site slopes upward from the southeast corner to the northeast corner at a three percent slope, and contains 17 single-family dwellings on an existing 23-lot plat. He noted that roadway improvements are likely in the future. Regarding the public services, he stated that the site is served by Fire District#25,Water District#90,Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Continuing,Mr. Erickson pointed out that existing King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Residential Single Family,and concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre). He indicated that the fiscal analysis revealed a deficit of$2,646 at full development,assuming a potential of 23 single-family homes and an assessed new home value of$350,000. The estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost is$19,477. Mr.Erickson reported that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with Renton policies and Boundary Review Board criteria. Some potential flooding is possible in the area, and he suggested mitigation with future development.' In conclusion,he stated that the proposal serves the best interests and general welfare of the City. Public comment was invited. There being none,'it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PARK TERRACE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX,AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AND PREPARE A REZONE ORDINANCE FROM KING COUNTY'S R-4 ZONE TO RENTON'S R-8 ZONE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION. CARRIED. . ,_ -. CI' I OF RENTON Mayor '¢" Kathy Keolker-Wheeler December 14, 2004 James Benton, Chairman Washington State Boundary R view Board for King County 400 Yesler Way, Room 402 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: ISSUES RELATIING TO THE PROPOSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION Dear Chairman Benton: As Mayor and City Council Pr sident of the City of Renton, we are writing to express this City's concern about the proposed inc rporation of a portion of the City's Fairwood Potential Annexation Area(PAA). We elieve this proposal is in direct conflict with the Growth Management Act (GMA), Kin County Countywide Planning Policies, Boundary Review Board objectives, and is not in the bes interest of the residents within the proposed boundary. The greater Fairwood/Cascade Area has been in Renton's PAA since creation of the potential annexation areas in 1993. The rea was designated as a PAA following the recommendations of a community-based task force t at considered all the areas with longstanding associations with Renton. It was anticipated that the area ould become part of Renton by the end of the first GMA planning period in 2012. We st 11 believe this could be achieved through development of a partnership between King Cou ty, Renton, and local residents through interlocal agreements addressing service deficits. Re ton has always viewed the entire Fairwood PAA as one community that should remain hole. Regardless of which governance option the people of the PAA eventually select, it is theity of Renton's position that the area should not be divided, particularly along socio-econo is lines. The proposed incorporation divides the community, leaving the less-advantaged and more service-dependent Cascade Vista area as an urban unincorporated area that would e difficult for Renton to serve without the higher assessed values and commercial tax base of the eastern portion of the PAA. A governance study conducted for this PAA in 1999 reached the conclusion that incorporation of the entire area was not fiscally feasible. Since no new formal fiscal analysis has been conducted for the smaller proposed incorporation, it is difficult to speculate about the feasibility of the proposal. The fiscal realities of incorporation are just one of the many governance issues facing this area that have yet to be identified and resolved. • Substantial transportation, surface water, and growth-related issues affect the neighborhoods in the PA , and the City of Renton. For example, the area alone has existing infrastructure deficiencies, including unfunded transportation projects as identified in King County's Proposed 2004 Transportation Needs Report estimated at more than $63.9 million. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 R E lr 1 O lel aalr„.:_ ._:__r, AHEAD OF THE CURVE ISSUES RELATING TO THIt . .OPOSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORATIOT, 2 12/14/2004 • • The PAA as a whole has a substantial growth target. What would the new proposed city's portion of that growth be, and how would it apportion the responsibility for affordable housing? . • How would the area provide parks and recreation service without depending on City of Renton and King County facilities? • In all practical reality, portions of the area along the Maple Valley Highway will continue to be serviced by Renton Fire Department on first response. • Portions of the area have failing water and septic systems and are in the Renton water and sewer service areas. Additionally,the proposed incorporation is inconsistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. CPP Policy LU-31 states in part: "Within the potential annexation area the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with County Wide Planning Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between cities. " The City of Renton would be supportive of a governance.solution that addresses the entire PAA, whether it is annexation or incorporation. At this time, Renton is not interested in annexing the remaining Cascade Vista area by itself Aphased, deliberative governance package is preferred to address the entire PAA and provide responsible approaches to identified service deficits that affect the entire area. LU- 34 states: "Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. Unincorporated Urban Areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area.are.encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Whereannexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered " Annexation to Renton has not yet been determined to be inappropriate. The City of Renton asks the Boundary Review Board not to support this incorporation in its current form as it also contradicts Boundary.Review Board review objectives as follows: 1) It creates an unincorporated urban island; 2) Divides a community and,more specifically, divides the Lindberg High School attendance area with the majority of the attendance area outside the proposed city; 3) Perpetuates proliferation of special districts; 4) Undercuts the fiscal basis of a service delivery program needed for all the neighborhoods in the PAA; and ISSUES RELATING TO ii-LL,PR POSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION 3 12/14/2004 5) Creates irrational service boundaries where portions of the community would still rely on Renton Fire and Parks services. Renton further requests that tl1te Boundary Review Board use its authority to revise and rationalize the boundary of the proposed incorporation if it is determined that the filing is complete and the election wil proceed. At the very minimum, it is requested that the Board add • the remaining Kent School District area east of 124th Avenue SE and along the Soos Creek Greenway into the proposed i1corporation boundary. Additionally, please ensure that the final boundary proposal includes tle entire rights of way along boundary streets to eliminate future • confusion about maintenance fesponsibilities. . In closing, the City of Renton feels that the current proposal for incorporation lacks sufficient credibility and runs counter to established GMA and King County policies. As we understand, King County is about to embark on a new governance study for the proposed incorporation and the remaining PAA. The City of Renton encourages the Boundary Review Board and the proponents of this incorporati n to await the results of this study before making any final • decisions regarding future go ernance of this-area. Without this analysis, the City of Renton believes that this proposed inc rporation is premature and cannot be supported. You may contact Rebecca Lin , Planning Manager, at 425-430-6588, if you have any questions or need additional information. • • Sincerely, 4-4 0.47,,_ ,o.L.,..„0„ . . . . ' ... CSS.. _.......,...,„,------______ Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Don Persson . . • Mayor City Council President cc: Renton City Council • Honorable Ron Sims,King County Executive ' . • • King.County Council . • Mike Thomas,King County Budg t Office Lenora Blauman,King County Boundary Review Board • Jay Covington,Chief Administrati I e Officer . . • Alex Pietsch,EDNSP Administrat•r . . - • . Rebecca Lind,Planning Manager . •• . • „ volAmat .k LJ c , 3 2004 Washington State Boundary Review- : • PIEN OUted. s L For Kg unt Yesler Building,Room 402, 400 Yesler Way,Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206)296-6800 • Fax: (206)296-6803 • http://www.metrokc.gov/annexations 1 December 2004 = DEC 9 200 4 Alex Pietsch r Administrator City of Renton Department of Economic Develop ent, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 Subject: Proposed Fairwood Incorp.ration Dear Mr. Pietsch: On behalf of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, we are writing to inform you that our agency has been notified .f a proposed incorporation, described as the City of Fairwood. The incorporation as now proposed (and/or with territory which may potentially be included in the incorporation area) comprises terri ory located within the potential jurisdiction of the City of Renton. A map of the preliminary incorporatio boundaries is enclosed for your information. As prescribed by RCW 35.02 and 'CW 36.93, the Boundary Review Board will be conducting a Public Information Meeting for the purpos: of providing information on the preliminary proposal for the Fairwood Incorporation. Residents and pro•erty owners throughout the greater Unincorporated Urban Area are invited to attend this meeting to he-r presentations from the Fairwood Incorporation Team, King County, and Special Purpose Districts (e.g., fire, police,water, and sewer) that serve the community. Washington State Boundary Review Board repr:sentatives will describe incorporation laws and procedures. Opportunity will be provided for res dents and property owners to provide comments and ask questions of the presenters. This meeting provides informatio I necessary for future government plans and programs including appropriate jurisdictional boundarie I$, form of government, and service provision. This meeting is required as a precursor to the gathering of citizen petitions to permit a formal Notice of Intention to the Boundary Review Board and to conduct the election necessary to determine citizen support for the proposed City of Fairwood. The Boundary Review Board has cheduled the Public Information Meeting to take place on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at Renton Technical Institute, 3000 NE Fourth Street, Renton, Washington. The meeting will be conducted in Buildi �g H, Room 102, from 6:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. A Preliminary Agenda is attached for your information. At this time, we are inviting you as Administrator of the Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Pla ping for the City of Renton, to be present at the Public Information Meeting so that you may obtain i formation about the proposed incorporation and so that youmay comment upon this action to the F irwood Citizen Incorporation Task Force: A formal Notice, Meeting Agenda, and Organization Rules are attached for your information. . 1 You may also learn more about the Fairwood Incorporation proposal on the Fairwood Citizen Task Force site at contact@fairwoodtaskforce.com. We look forward to seeing you at the Public Information Meeting. If you have questions or would like additional information at this time, please contact me at 206.296.6800. Sinc rely, AS 0 Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary 2 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY YESLER BUILDING 400 YESLER WAY—Room 402 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 296-6800 FAX (206)296-6803 SPECIAL MEETING PROPOSED FAIRWOOD NCORPORATION: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY DECEMBER 16,2004 6:30 P.M. MENTON TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 3000 N FOURTH STREET BUILDING H ROOM 102 RENTON,WASHINGTON The Washington State Bound ry Review Board for King County is conducting this Public Information Meeting, as pres ribed by state law (RCW 35.02; RCW 36.93)for the purpose of providing information on te preliminary proposal for the Fairwood Incorporation. Residents and property ownrs throughout the greater Unincorporated Urban Area are invited to attend this meeting to hear presentations from the Fairwood Incorporation Team, King County, and Special Purpose Districts (e.g.,fire, police,water, and sewer)that serve the community. Washington State Boundary Review Board representatives will describe incorporation laws and procedures. Residents, property owners, and government units may comment and ask questions of the presenters. There will be an opportunity to offer support, opposition, or requests for addition or deletion of specifi areas to the proposed incorporation. (Note:A Roster is provided at the entryway to the meeting facility. Persons wishing to speak must sign the roster. All speakers will be called from the roster.) I CALL TO ORDER 6:30 P.M. A.J.Culver(Boundary Review Board)—Moderator II PROGRAM A. PURPOSE OF E MEETING 6:35 P.M. A.J. Culver (Boundary Review Board)—Moderator B. INTRODUCTIO S 6:40 P.M. Fairwood Inc rporation Team Washington State Boundary Review Board King County Fire District No.40; Fire District No.37;Fire District No.25 Soos Creek Water&Sewer District Cedar River Vtlater&Sewer District King County Sheriffs Department (Representatives of these agencies will be responding to questions from citizens, Boundary Review Board members, and other government officials) C. INCORPORATION: THE ROLE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 6:45 P.M. Lenora Blauman, Executive Secretary Robert C. Kaufman,Special Assistant Attorney General D. INCORPORATION; KING COUNTY POLICIES AND PRACTICES 7:00 P.M. Michael Thomas,Senior Policy Analyst,Office of Management and Budget IV FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION—PROPONENT PRESENTATION 7:10 P.M. Ron Billock; Brian Johnson—Fairwood Incorporation Team V FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION—OPPONENT PRESENTATION 7:25 P.M. (Note: You may contact the Executive Secretary of the Boundary Review Board concerning recognition as an organized opposition group authorized to utilize this time) VI COMMENTS: INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 7:40 P.M. NOTE: Persons wishing to speak shall be required to sign the Speakers Roster and shall be recognized in order. Each government unit shall be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes for presentation. VII COMMENTS: INTERESTED CITIZENS 8:00 P.M. NOTE: Persons wishing to speak shall be required to sign the Speakers Roster and shall be recognized in order. Speakers shall be heard one at a time and shall be allowed a maximum comment period of three (3) minutes. After each registered speaker has provided testimony, the moderator, at his sole discretion, may allow persons to register to speak a second time. VIII SUMMARY: FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION PROPONENTS 9:25 P.M. (*) Ron Billock ; Brian Johnson IX ADJOURNMENT A. J.Culver 9:30 P.M.(*) (4) The Public Information Meeting may continue until 10:20 P.M. if necessary to accommodate those persons who wish to speak to the proposed incorporation. WASHINGTON STATE OUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY ORGANIZATION and RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Public Meeting Prior to Circulation of Incorporation Petitions In accordance with state law requiring that the Boundary Review Board hold a public meeting wi 30 days after the King County Council receives notification of proposed circ tion of incorporation petitions, the Boundary Review Board shall make arrangements for the required public meeting as follows: a. The Executive retary shall inform the Board Chair by telephone as soon as notice of the proposed incorporation is received from the King County Council. The Executive Secretary shall obtain the concurrence of the Board Chair, or anoth r Board member designated by the Chair, on arrangements for the required p blic meeting. b. The Executive Secretary shall arrange an appropriate meeting facility in or near the proposed new city for a date within 30 days of County Council receipt of notice of the proposal. Timing shall be coordinated with the proponent(s) ho filed notice of the incorporation in order to ensure availability to articipate in the meeting. c. The Executive ecretary shall publish notice once at least ten days prior to the public meeting as required by state law, in the newspaper designated by the King County uncil as the official newspaper for King County notifications. If there is a local community newspaper in the area of the proposed incorporation, notice shall also be published once in the local newspaper, if feasible in ligh of time constraints. At the same time that the official notice is sent to the n wspaper for publication, mailed notice of the meeting shall be sent to water, sewer, fire and school districts with jurisdiction within the proposed incorporatioa area, to existing cities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed incorporation, to the Metropolitan King County Councilmember(s) representing the proposed incorporation area, and to one or more appropriate members of th King County Executive staff. In addition, to the extent feasible in light of time and staff constraints, the news media shall be 1/4 contacted in an ffort to obtain publicity for the meeting. d. The primary p of the public meeting shall be the exchange of information between the proponent(s)who filed notice of the incorporation and members of tl le proposed incorporation community. The exchange of information shall include the following: 1) The proponent(s) who filed notice of the incorporation shall have the opportunity to inform the community concerning the proposed incorporation petition. 2) Residents, property owners,and affected governmental units shall have the apportwuty to :Inform the proponent(s) of their support for or opposition to the proposed incorporation. 4. 3) :_sidents and property owners shall I .._ the opportunity to inform the • proponent(s) of their desire to be included in the incorporation or excluded fron the incorporation_ 4) Residents, property owners, and affected governmental units shall have the opportunity to offer to . the proponent(s) comments and recommendations concerning content of the incorporation petition, including incorporation area boundaries, the proposed new city form of government, and the name of the proposed new city. e. A secondary purpose of the public meeting shall be the dissemination of information concerning the incorporation process, including Boundary Review • • Board procedure for review of incorporation propos 1) The Executive Secretary or another staff representative of the Boundary Review Board shall be available at the public meeting to outline Board procedure related to new city incorporation and answer questions. 2) King County shall be invited to send one or more representatives to provide information on County involvement in new city incorporations and answer questions. f. The Boundary Review Board shall conduct the meeting as follows: 1) The meeting shall be held in the evening at a location in the vicinity of the proposed new city incorporation The meeting shall commence at 7:30 P.M., unless the Boundary Review Board decides to start the meeting earlier, and shall continue until no later than 10:30 P.M. 2) The Boundary Review Board Chair,or another Board member designated by the Chair, shall serve as moderator of the meeting. 3) A quorum of the Boundary Review Board shall not be necessary for the meeting. Board members who are available to attend and choose to do so shall attend as observers only of the exchange of information among members of the proposed incorporation community. 4) The initiator(s) signing the notice of the proposed incorporation shall be allowed ten minutes at the beginning of the meeting to present the proposed incorporation petition. 5) Those wishing to speak shall be requiredto sign in and shall be recognized in the order in which they signed in. Speakers shall be heard one at a time and shall be allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes to speak, until such time as all those who signed in have been heard once. • The moderator, at his or her sole discretion, may allow speakers to be heard a second time after all those who signed in have been heard once. 6) In order to facilitate input into the content of the incorporation petition, the moderator, at his or her sole discretion, may allow discussion, questioning or exchange of information involving the proponent(s) signing the notice of the incorporation and other meeting participants. - NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING • WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY YESLER BUILDING 400 YESLER WAY—ROOM 402 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 (206) i 96-6800 FAX (206) 296-6803 _ PROPOSAL FOR CIRCULATION OF PETITIONS FOR A CITY OF FAIRWOOD INCORPORATION: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY will host a Public Information Meeting, as prescribed by state law (RCW 35.02; RCW 36.93) for the purpose of providing information on the preliminary proposal for the incorporation of a City of Fairwood all in King County,Washington and generally described as: _ "Certain Real Property within the Sops Creek Plateau, described as all of Portions of Sections 21 -- 28 and 33 — 36, Township 23 North, Rarjge 5 East, Willamette Meridian & Section 1, 3 and 4, Township 22 North, Range 5 East Willamette Menidian in King County, Washington located South of Renton Maple Valley Road (SR-169), West of East Shores of Lake Desire and Shady Lake, North & West of the Lake Young's Watershed, &East of 1281"Avenue SE." A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD. •• ,,:.: ,' L$n'=Brit: . .`.:: :. ^ `?w titis-- °`Ea^ f `#''-f c Aar:. :•; `ipi y,, +� 1>'` k�:H�;:i:;•`�''':a ;�:1'`{a„ - 'ta:i ms ` s . i,\ F Y:q :VNI'-ycs:... :..a:kt �':ice��;�•,S V,t,t4:4.'flit 2t I' + ii': , :.s.i,<`;;^;gig.Inc nIpoEatloD` - :Bo AI :.�::'`tom:{�Y,.• <S�J� _ _`-J: `,"ti.`• �j-�- �..u`."` '.._� ' ,.Fe,-iii`"'-- _,`..,t 'VC4;t '* * `:FAL`"'•-•.lit: `6:�.:'�.;•!�..1:.±,7 .Cf.{ '�'�r`3a fir! `J�G -,.��L:�t".t �__...,i�'�. �.•:� .�.:�'. i t.y<� „fie •f, k _ .. '•i"1t` .illi ik `91cJ'S!-?,4 f:: /� :V >� �;;::;1-?.•dd5,,1,. Z r�: �t'[v�:•-mom'- i�.`=��fo- "-r.�..4.' :'�s+.0 'Z _. 1451. „P ��.�, : ti { ``:•.!tom: `F��?i`�r`•IZ,� 2- --,.-,_pr--..ipt Residents, property owners, and representatives of government agencies from the greater • Unincorporated Urban Area are invited to hear presentations, to comment and to ask questions of the presenters. There will be an opportunity to offer support, opposition, or requests for addition or deletion of specific areas to the proposed inc rporation. The Public Informationlv'leeting will take place on: •• • •._. _• THURSDAY DECEMBER 16, 2004 6:30 P.M.—9:30 P.M.- ... RENTON TECHNICAL INSTITUTE • • 3000 NE FOURTH STREET BUILDING H ROOM 102 RENTON,WASHINGTON ADA: The Boundary Review Board conducts all meetings and hearings in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Any person requiring other special assistance should contact the Boundary Review Board at least two business days prior to the meeting. The Board will make every reasonable effort to provide accommodations. For assistance,please contact the Boundary Review Board at 206.296.6800. For TTY services please call 206.296.1024. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, DATED AT SEATTLE,WASHINGTON THIS DAY OF DECEMBER,2004 7) ;speakers and discussion shall end n iter.than 10:25 P.M., and the • _..proponent(s) wha.filed..notice of.the incorporation shall be allowed the - final five(5)minutes of the meeting to summarize his/her/their intentions concerning circulation of the petition or further consideration of options. 8) The King. County Executive shall be requested to have his/her staff provide a map of the proposed incorporation area and vicinity far use at the meeting to facilitate discussion of incorporation boundaries. ; ../ ., ,.,•yl.' '�� r' -, pt: K�*, ,v, r��,^ --A-1,-;21)C-5.� �7r., 6Y�"' 4C�y'`,. -:.u�,, •c:: -, I ,\ 7)`` 1 • •-4, • t'pd++ aY'Eu p4,' .i[..m ' no, G}y. '''' - ' .- 1 I 1 !I I 'jl�{ '.43,�� 'j1 yr• 2^' f +�h ;' � ' fis n y k E a�j $ A o 'i 1.=,i I 11 In f I, _; .�.,.;,-\:I,-. S' ,,.w , *- y;�r<<.,,, •,,r'V'`ii' 't - :i%ti li, .'li{ _. - •O Q t ' I '.•:4�,1+.•.Y 1`R` a+i'7:.Ta,H•' .rt'W ' j 5, 'I) -...... ;,. ..../ .� aa Q �J(lf�il r .., �..gr; .r;.a� Al „ -,;.,,,','..--,:-:1'..,,Y ;,, ;.,,.i,. �; c ilf i!E 1r• „r • A N vW i ,��?� :9.;-: i fir'' z lt { _._, -.. 4 r• . Y:r, e $¢. rs , ," ` 3.': "` "ti: r: rtfs4iiliir! .....-._.i.J:. `.X" , ,r.,0IJN+`�i-:X'tt '.A+rZRC INN �:, •;��:., f,,.,;i '.tii":' •- ::f.....,..., �::•L� `.,., {� • 1}<, `l�.,N 'r+'�l J�t s,;t::'�.,b ..,`,?dy:(:1-1:. � ` s r'15.:- !:; ! p .ri"r` , , \" ^•_'i� �•; z;.)d;rjU.`. rl!.• :;•t: a> •;• :``.;.:.,> p, e yy,�, ' Tti.�:, ;y� nL" , Aa;''$N.l,'v s4"1„' f:,t Q:! C -th to ,/l3/Zoo !'L December 9,2004 �DRAf James Benton, Chairman Washington State Boundary 'eview Board for King County 400 Yesler Way,Room 402 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: ISSUES RELA ING TO THE PROPOSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORA ION Dear Chairman Benton: • As Mayor of the City of Renton,I am writing to express this City's concern about the proposed incorporation of a portion of the City's Fairwood Potential Annexation Area(PAA).We believe this proposal is in direct conflict with the Growth Management Act(GMA)and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, d is not in the best interest of the residents within the proposed boundary. The entire greater Fairwood/Cas ade Area has been in Renton's PAA since creation of the potential annexation areas in 1993. The area was designated as a PAA following the recommendations of a community based task force that considered all the areas with longstanding networks and associations withenton. It was anticipated that the area ould become part ofRenton by the end of the first GMA planning period in 2012.We still believe this could be achieved through development of a partnership between King Coun ,Renton,and local residents and interlocal agreements addressing service deficits for th entire area.Renton has always viewed the entire Fairwood PAA as one community that sho d remain whole.Regardless of which governance option the people of the PAA eventually select,it is the City of Renton's position that the area should not be divided,particularly along socio-economic lines. The proposed incorporation divides the . community and leaves the less-advantaged and more service-dependent Cascade Vista area as an urban unincorporated area that lould be difficult for Renton to serve without the higher assessed values and commercial tax base of the eastern portion of the PAA. A Governance Study conducted for this PAA in 1999 reached the conclusion that incorporation of the entire area was not fiscally fasible. Since no new fiscal analysis has been conducted for the smaller area that is proposed to i corporate,it is difficult to speculate about the feasibility of the proposal. The fiscal realities of incorporati n of this area are just one of the many governance issues facing this PAA that have yet to be identified and resolved. ISSUES RELATING TG /-/��PROPOSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORATE. 2 12/13/2004 • Substantial transportation, surface water, and growth related issues affect the neighborhoods in the PAA,and the City of Renton. For example,the Cascade Vista area alone has existing deficiencies,including an existing unfunded annual transportation maintenance and operations cost of$175,000 and more than$52 million in unfunded transportation projects identified in King County's Proposed 2004 Transportation Needs Report(TNR). • The PAA as a whole has a substantial growth target. What would the new proposed city's portion of that growth be,and how would it apportion the responsibility for affordable housing? • How would the area provide parks and recreation service without depending on City of Renton and King County facilities? • Portions of the area along the Maple Valley Highway will continue to be serviced by Renton Fire on first response. • Portions of the area have failing water and septic systems and are in the Renton water and sewer service areas. Additionally,the proposed incorporation is inconsistentwith the Countywide Planning Policies. LU-34 states: Several unincorporated areas are currently considering local governance options. "Unincorporated Urban Areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered." Annexation to Renton has not yet been determined to be inappropriate. CPP Policy LU 31 states in part: "Within the potential annexation area the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with County Wide Planning Policies, and a schedule for providing urban services and facilities within the potential annexation area. This process shall ensure that unincorporated urban islands of King County are not created between cities and strive to eliminate existing islands between cities". The City of Renton would be supportive of a governance solution that addresses the entire PAA, whether it is annexation or incorporation.At this time,Renton is not interested in annexing the remaining Cascade Vista area by itself. A phased,deliberative governance package is preferred to address the entire PAA and provide responsible approaches to identified service deficits that affect the entire area. The City asks the Boundary Review Board not tosupport this incorporation as it contradicts the Boundary Review Board review objectives as follows: 1) It creates an unincorporated urban island; 2) divides a community,and divides the Lindberg High School attendance area with the majority of the attendance area outside the proposed City; 3) perpetuates proliferation of special districts; ISSUES RELATING TL, ,IE PROPOSED FAIRWOOD INCORPORA') ,..L 3 12/13/2004 4) undercuts the fiscal ba is of a service delivery program needed for all the neighborhoods in the PAA;and 5) creates irrational servi e boundaries where portions of the community would still rely on Renton Fire and Parks services. Renton requests that the Boun ary Review Board use its authority to revise and rationalize the boundary of the proposed anne ation if it is determined that the filing is complete and the election will proceed.At the very minimum,iit is requested that the Board add the remaining Kent school district area east of 124th Averue SE and along the Soos Creek Greenway into the proposed incorporation boundary.Additilonally,please ensure the final boundary proposal includes the entire rights of way along bo 'day streets to eliminate future confusion about maintenance responsibilities. In closing,the City of Renton -els that the current proposal for incorporation lacks sufficient credibility and runs counter to -stablished GMA and King County policies. As we understand, King County is about to embar on a new governance study for the entire PAA.The City of Renton encourages the Bound: ,Review Board and the proponents of this incorporation to await the results of this study before - makes any fmal decisions regarding the governance of this area. Without this analysis,the City *f Renton believes that this proposed incorporation is premature and cannot be supported at this time. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler 0°C1 Mayor cc: Renton City Council Ron Sims King County Council • Mike Thomas,King Co ty Budget Office Jay Covington Alex Pietsch • Y. - : • • ''o ' �CITY' -7F:;RANTON :Planning/B:ixilding/PublicWorks;Depar>6riie, ,t�. "' Kath KeolkerGregg Zimmerman:P:E.,Administrator. April 3,2007 : Mr;>Russell.Millard:•- Property Manager -•'''';*;Le•is•ure Estates•Manufactured Housin. Comiriuni • �UN - ' ��QT' - g .tY. - -• 201..Uniori.Avenue;SE'• • CITY OF:..R•ENTON' Renton,WA:98059: PUBLIC.WO RKS:/ADMIT • .•. SUBJECT: LETTER OF- , ERSTANDING;.=RESOLUTION:O 'DRAINAGE. ` ..' :PROBLEIVI3`D TWEEN I )ItITAGE•PARK AND LEJSURE':ESTATES.'. Dear'Mr.Millardt •.Tl i `letter-docume is the Ci of`i enton' findin s re. ardin 'a d r i. • �r ty g. g. g r�.naga,prolilerrr="that has" - occurred between Renton e ' sH rr e:Park d.Lrr'i iire��$stat The le er� g. an s ,e� tt also•"rci oses`ari' +� ..P. P. a •.:eement between',`ou and the,.Gi```,of Re toil.re -ard i. .a-:means off resolvins. . gr .Y, tY n g g. g.tliis:proli'lem.:If. . ou a ee:to the rovisi 'ns::of:this: o bsal ".lease`ex•'cute'a�•'d return thi`:' e Y P.., o Px P' ;.l� e. n. a rs agre m•eet•t.:lie' :,.' ; : :'undersi ed:: We uvp\.the riio e forward;with` •''orrec ' e'. . : • • gn • -- • i n Y c trv. aetions;.:'� ` , • Bac round= a C f'Renton.s He ita`e Park•and�the•L'eisure�'Estate's 1�1an 'fa red' �. ,tY x .g u ctu _ Housi 'G o muni'' 'h' • n� a are'a�co, - on. dr:.:n•eartheaouthwest�coriie 'fahe` ;: • -:,. g. nn , ty,. �. .-9.1:.,.-. r;o City`Park.. .A.`� , na tural de a ession and d• ra'na'a a. ex''�ts.b '.-,-•-...,...-' � he'�tw'' :;�. pr� x. g y. rs etw epi o�arljaceit`.:properties tlat.cgnveys•: •: , " " : :::::''..,....:t.'uno;ff.water''from: ainevents:'four:the`Herita "e„,.._,.;....,,6,,e, Par '`,'ro e" x,, Heritage _ 13.rhto;alie Leisure.Estates'property.', i .There:'are'two:•LeisureEstates.mnapufactured.housin .-units on the easts de•:of.Cedar,Drive that'ar,J.:,.,..:::...,,,',.::-.:..,...:::::::,....._:,.:...,...,:•,:%; ' g„. int e`locatio h n oftlis natural'd'r'ma e:course: �Ysorixe time•ir 'the,'cast'ari unknown`' :installed':withou•t•G•``` ” •e• • a'.'` atY.p rinifi,.. rough'inlef structure'and plastic' ipe froth the..H'eri'tage;Park. - ro`a -on.the ea t,. e' �',;�� s sid. .of,tlie-fe ce,thatse.arates;.T;eisure' states:froh 'I�Ierita-e.;'P•ar �Tliis,�` `e: _ �P .p �Y E . �:�.. p. _ .g ��., p.p -is' artially,buried,'and conveys..d'raina g efrom herita'e`Park'`between' .e sub'ect'housin unit$•' Here•if da 7i hts ad'acent:to-Ced r.D;' w y g, J nve `Thepurpose.ofal.e' i `e`is to'corive' drainage'alpn the natural drainage coursehf,.. eritage Park:to Cedar'.Drive,;where'.:it flows.across:the.street and enters•an:•ex•istu catch bas 1'•This'catch basin and' i `i g cone s.the.#low throw the :.: • g- P P:,.g, Y .. • . . 'Leisure Es t ates to rivate drains`e's�.stern ivliicli•c0 sists:of a series::o:'draina� e swales'and P g.. � n f. g cuhrertc The flog*�'is carded to:a�'draina e.'channefivest of Leisure;Estates:'-•This dr1 nae, channel carries'flow toa Malew.00d.Cree <T1ie Ci o f Rent ' ' ' '•:-'. ' ' ty., £ on`'is_- n�the rocess:of'developing`.I3erit�•e;Pfirk.inxo,a.reereationaLfacili ::This : ..:'• ro"ect;involves some gradin ;work;and''re•moval.of-trees,and installation of waIking.pathS!.`'. P' J g :::;:"..:1'....'''1.:•;....,.:;.-•:.,:: :yStatetuiept of Issue::The'Pu �et:sound,re` ion'ex a ienced:Fl es'rainiest,lNovember':on.recordin +a4 y: " • •...: : .,. ':. ••November 2006:, Tis included,a�`stoi'atom'. lit very t16• 6 to•the'.1�b.0-year'storm;eve it;:.(storm' ,. : . 2 'ex'`ectedt h : . P.: o.,happen:onc every:hundred•years):in magnitude of r-airifall`:As:A insult of tills record. = -_ -.: rainfall,localized flooding oecurred'in many places in t`he Puget Sound:Region a�nd'•in-Renttin :•.•:.-.- 1.'1 ...;••;;..••• '•.,;.:,•••. -.1•••':•:-''..'.•..•:•:-::'.-:'.'1'•;•:;1,-:•::'•:'''':;:'--;.•,:.•':.•;:,:..-:.r. - ; ;; 'orals .•E Althoughthe C'..'".:lielievesahat�it'shares• no'fai�Itii�•ahe.floodin th t'was�ex eriericed , - ,at:L'eisure Etates,:we;.are.:of the:;o•inibn that it vould:be:to our<common.benefit to:'work'.to::- resolve•the.problem;and to'forestai claims:or litigation now:or•-in the..future:'.-Therefor'e'the City: ' '• ..wishes'to'make:the following proposal::' _ ' .:C:\Documents and'Settings\gzimmerman-6esktop\eisure_estates.drainage'revised•& delivered.doc • • 1055'South;Grady'Way--:Renton;Washington.`98057,. AI-i•EAD OF'.THE:_C-U'RV,.. :;: "' .,: 'Thispapercontains50%recycledmateria1,30/postconsumer - - . y e,. - - 4 ..i As art:of the Herit a Parkproject,,and at no co t to:Leisure•Estates .the:Ci :will,install'•... ' ' - an.,engineered drains ;e:convP. ,-*'.,nce s stem'deli ' g _ � designed�or;the`1;Ui�=year'sto• evEnt `e: •H e i e' ar -a d' 'e ;T : terr wi'l co`'s`st of an`inlet-':and a > . ty.een H .ritag. , d n Leisure•1✓st t.s.,.., .. ...sYs_ ,.: n �:,, ::..' . system;of culverts,and dram:pipes and�or swal'es that will-carry runoff from Heritage'Park•,: . to a suitable portion of the'Leisure Estates°private',dirainage system:..The':installation.will e-m.e e be§4itall:''acetI table,to.Renfozi<and"the Leisure;•ri'i;s'1Va`kii m nt.; :T;eisur Estates•.'.'... , Management wi 1 rovide:neededtempora' construction easements'or'ri t'of eia"' ........'::::•... .)...'.•:•••:',.....-:'....':••••:, -,"".'<:.: , •. , c'...e at'.-: `.f"r' .o$.to':ins a•l'thesim rove,'ents`witliin• .eisure Estate,..•••• `r0 e do uric► nta ion q .dent t st l pr, m • tJ p p, .rty: . he duration ofttheai`ht,ofen will-`not be'more:tha 2'six 6' iiionths:. 2 . ,Leisure Etat'-s: ai a ement ;,6i-.a cept `ainte' e'r"esyonsibilities for the new, . -) z e M $.,: ,i r p •' *-'•:. ......'':'::•'-':...-d on its,eom letion:'.:' .. rairiag�systetii:looted on:>Jeisure Estates:property;up p - 3 Du•'- .the investi- ation of thee floodm ;eyent',ttwas discovered;that.catch basins:, `;,d':.:' g • g •• g drain luies:withiit:�eistire."'Estaes`:are< ai�tiatl-'.'flled•witli:.silt;ard geed'tq:lie cleaned: Letsure' states.,Mana erne«t cgmmttsao ci$arim out.lie s'stein atithis:time aiid: e` `"t e, u •c o am4that.wi,l$ 'au-f iei t'to revert h build . - ;implemeritirig'�a�:•ro tine natitt, t),aXl e:fir gr 1 ,e #� �? p t •• u of•silt t the:existii•i'`"relraina e s.,'s"teiirC:�.' .p g Y. . 7. • -' a.�.. :m: ,.:••,....,',;,•,-"...'.,••• •5,,.::: -2. - mar" eg. ...,,..::„.:.:z,:=:1.-2„.!".:.:.:4 . .The`costs"°for�:eonst=upctili �'�this.>ui ro'veirier�tallat.are.�Q b' ;�eiifon�wiil:riofi'bepassed • : .R' :,iF., Y . ,:aloe•as:extra-`costs to,Leisur ,tEstate residents:: - r. n 'J. s :1: ;:t.- "e;.C' :due t =1-1.---•-.u--!:„••••••;: t a'ms,ora"� , ,u tsY a' sins th l ``L :, '`tates, ` 'ori"''errien��' `of i�'e' 1 t +s 5' tsareEs. • M a t will;;n f .,an, aW g,. o,` =ori: 'da'�a� es that:ma:"�lhve��een�ex rfenced`due�to,th�"�ub`ect:�flootln events 6' .,Leisure Estates Mann'einerit.:4 0.04Poii-'theft's" royal Qf thex'riew>clraiii's::stem aril the .. , p ..a ;,' '. .� .• 4::-,'��, ^':'" -. ;e :'.: -.--:-:-1114.41.1449 tem b .. :. •••'•••:'•:-....'',..'-'1.''.i,'. ', �: mstallation'oft�te¢s: s. l�entonto:�%tiaive.an`� e'afr"sins'�e',5laims're �ardir�`=ru off�:`:'--:;> �: ;��:;. �.-` :`tt .d. ‘1:',;; ."•:;.::;:::-:::. fro ertta a pa I{ •..: • m, r l•i ,..0‘:-::.'-',.-1'.',i'; '4 v Lava v 'I: a femerit� `o, c'r�r'" ce:�. e'sure. =s:� a. C n u re 'f- y`e L ton':C' ricu 'e ce� '1✓ n fi`. i;;i `'f w. , : / „k a Kere iri 1 ' c .x i -*:".-, Gre ' rrterm m:Admiri' trator- ' '": ' Gregg , •to la i' 'n: l'e.` .o. ''s'.1-560t...•' Ren ;)? n iri u d i n n r 1 > 'b W lG u ccs Iota or" Keol e r': , - KathyY Y i Ja. Covin ton Y g -• . Te' ,:a ... • Hi`ash ma:. i?Y g Y Leslie Betlach ys.Hornsby ``.Bopnie'Walfon tion"Straka -. . , .RieN;Mars6all: ' • � ...• �. • � - .. \Documents'and,Settings\giimmerman\Desktoplleisure_estates drainage^revised_&_de-.. ', d:dgc • ': June 18,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 210 In response to Council inquiries, Mr. Erickson indicated that private roads will remainp rivate if the area is annexed, and they are not eligible for resurfacing by the City He confirmed that the existing CPA business would be grandfathered in as a non-conforming use, and the site cannot be redeveloped until it is rezoned. Public comment was invited. Charles Grass said he owns the CPA firm property at 10733 138th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, which has been vacant since November. Reporting that he intends to redevelop the property as an office building, Mr. Grass stated his belief tllat the property should be commercial as it abuts commercial activity to the Bout a and has been used in commercial activities in the past. He encouraged Council to annex and rezone the property into a commercial activity. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRI D. MOVE BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE MARSHALL ANNEXATION 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX; AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT THE NOTICE OF INTENT PACKAGE TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, AND CONSIDER R-8 ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION IF THE AREA SUBSEQUENTLY ANNEXES. CARRIED. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and the non iconforming legal use status of the existing structure on Mr. Grass's property,. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted,as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: The Coulon Family Concert Series will be held every Wednesday, from June 27 through August 15,with the Renton City Concert Band kicking off this;summer's entertainment schedule. The City of Renton Clean Sweep! Program continues, with participating neighborhood organizations taking part in the Neighborhood Cleanup event on June 23. On June 30, occupants of all single-family residences can place a variety of unwanted materials at their curbside for free pickup during the Load Zone Neighbor-to-Neighbor Curbside Cleanup event. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mike OjHalloran,4420 SE 4th St., Renton, 98059, said the dedication of Citizen Comment: O'Halloran- Heritage Park located on Union Ave.NE occurred last Saturday, and he thanked Heritage Park the City for funding the new park. Mayor Keolker expressed her appreciation to Mr. O'Halloran and the other Municipal Arts Commission members for commissioning a piece of artwork for the park. Citizen Comment: Aquino - Tarron Aquino,4317 SE 4th Pl., Renton, 98059, stated that she also attended Heritage Park i the Heritage Park dedication. She pointed out that on that day, she noticed many people walking and playing outside, and expressed her hope that the trend Ij continues. Ms.Aquino voiced her appreciation for the park. Citizen Comment: Clifford- Chris Clifford, 2721 Talbot Rd. S., Renton, 98055, expressed concern regarding Renton Transit Center Safety the continuing and escalating problems with violence and unacceptable behavior at the Renton Transit Center. Stating that the Renton police are doing f-- CITY OF RENTON TO DEDICATEkHERITGE P�ARK,j WHO: Mayor Kathy Keolker, City Council President Toni Nelson, City Councilmembers, over 250 people including community leaders, neighborhood residents, the Municipal Arts Commission, Board of Park Commissioners, Starbucks, McLendon's Hardware, LDS mission volunteers, and more WHAT: The City of Renton will join over 250 people including community leaders to dedicate the new Heritage Park. Identified as a toii priority in the City of Renton's Long Range Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails Plan of 1993, this park transforms the area into a place for children and families to play, congregate, learn and enjoy.The park features a children's playground, trails, climbing boulders, forested areas, a multi-use playfield, picnic shelter and more. Extensive community involvement including a$15,000 grant and volunteer time from Starbucks,a volunteer trailer and tools, "Tools on Wheels" donated by McLendon's Hardware, and over 975 hours of time contributed by volunteers helped create a neighborhood park that meets the ne ds of the community. WHEN &WHERE: Saturday, June 16, 2007, 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Heritage Park, 233 Union Avenue N. ., Renton, Washington CONTACT: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director at 425-430-6619 or Ibetlach(a�ci.renton.wa.us February 26,2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 63 Community Services: Library Comm,nit Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Master Plan, Miriam Pollack+ amount of$117,210 with Miriam Pollack+Associates to develop the Library Associates Master Plan. Council concur. Community Services: Heritage Community Services Department requested approval to name the new park Park Naming located'at 233 Union Ave. NE "Heritage Park." Council concur. Comprehensive Plan: 2007 Econorri�ic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Amendments submit ed proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments (seven map amendments and one text amendment). Refer to Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission. Utility: Sewer Moratorium in Economy is Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department East Renton Plateau PAA recommended approval to rescind the moratorium on sewer availability for new subdivisions within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. Council concur. (See page 65 for resolution.) Plat: Laurelhurst Division 3, Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Laurelhurst Bremerton Ave NE, PP-06-131 Division 3 Preliminary Plat; 14 single-family lots on 2.4 acres located at 272 Bremer-on Ave. NE. Council concur. Human Services: Ten-Year Human Services Division recommended endorsement of the Committee to End Plan to End Homelessness Homelessness in King County's plan entitled "A Roof Over Every Bed in King Endorsement County Our Community's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness." Refer to Committee of the Whole. Public Works: Pavement Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommended approval of a sole Grinder Purchase,Northwest source purchase of an Asphalt Zipper Model 550 pavement grinder from Grinding Equipment Northwest Grinding Equipment, Inc. in the amount of$102,000: Council concur. Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the Consulting Engineers, VAC- vacation of portion of Field Ave. NE, north of NE 2nd St. (VAC-06-004; 06-004 petitioner ESM Consulting Engineers), and requested Council accept the appraisu1 and set compensation at$6,850 for the right-of-way. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Walkway, NW 6th Techni9al Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the St&Rainier Ave N,JDA vacation of portion of walkway between.NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave.N. (VAC- Group, VAC-05-002 05-002;,petitioner Jack Alhadeff), and requested that Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at$7,500 for the right-of-way. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the St&Rainier Ave N,AHBL, vacation of portion of walkway between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N. (VAC- VAC-06-001 06-001;',Jack Alhadeff), and requested that Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at$12,250 for the right-of-way. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Utility: Benson Rd S Water Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Line Relocation, WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation in the amount of$100,000 for the design of the relocation of the water line at Benson Rd. S. and the I-405 overpass. WSDOT will reimburse the City $50,000. Council concur. (See page 65 for resolution.) SAD: Central Plateau Utility Systems Division requested authorization to establish the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Interceptor Phase II Special Assessment District in the estimated amount of $1,941,352.55 to ensure that project costs are equitably distributed to those who benefit. Refer to Utilities Committee. • (� ( O RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,;-._e[LL p r Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services Department February 26, 2007 Staff Contact Terry Higashiyama,X6606 Agenda Status Consent XX Subject: Public Hearing.. Naming of New Park Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business • Issue Paper • Memorandum to Park Board from Sub-Committee • Information regarding proposed art work • City naming facilities policy • Previous correspondence regarding naming Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Input from the community through public meetings, discussion involving the public at Park Board meetings, and after conducting extensive research of the area, a name for the park at 233 Union Avenue NE is to be selected that will celebrate the community and reflect the past, present and future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the recommendation from the Board of Park Commissioners and staff to propose naming the new park on Union Avenue "Heritage Park". Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh rcY 0 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT i �,,. :, MEMORANDUM '`'‘N ,q DATE: February 20, 2007 TO: Ton Nelson, Council President Me i bers of the Renton City Council FROM: ,1r Ka y Keolker, Mayor I' VIA Terr HigashiyamaCommunity Services Administrator SUBJECT: Naming of New Park on Union Avenue I PURPOSE: To update the Council on suggested naming of the new park on Union Avenue. BACKGROUND: The Park Board solicited sug estions for names for the new park on Union Avenue (as per attached City Policy 600-04) during the public meeting process conducted during the design phase of the new park. The most requested names were 1) Barfield Park 2) Heritage Park and 3) Heather Downs Park. These names were brought forward to the Board in November 2005, without action being taken. At the December 2005 meeting another name was submitted for consideration"Bev Barfield Park", named after a respected, elected school-board member. The Board of Park Commissioners voted three to one to recommend the name to the Mayor for consideration. In May of 2006 the Community Services Administrator met with all interested parties to review the process that had talentplace. A Sub-Committee was established to review the previous information and met several times to do further research on the area and its history. Upon further investigation into the history of the area and in consideration of the current and future diverse culture of the community the name the Sub-Committee opted recommending to the Board o Park Commissioners was "Heritage Park". l' This name was submitted to the Board at the December 2006 meeting. CONCLUSION: After review of the extensive research of the area and in order to meet the goal of celebrating the community with a name that reflects the past,present and future, it is the recommendation to name the riew park on Union Avenue, "Heritage Park." h:\terry h 2007\issuepaper.doc Toni Nelson Page 2 of 2 February 20,2007 A bench will be installed by the Barfield family in memory of Clyde Barfield,who originally owned the land. A second bench will be dedicated to Bev and John Barfield, who were active in the community and devoted their time to children. Additionally a storyboard, with markers on the trail,will recognize the heritage of all. C: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Park Board h:\terry h 2007\issuepaper.doc ;IMMUNITY SERVICES F,PARTMENT ru seP MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11,2006 TO: Park Board Chair, Tim Searing Park Board Members FROM: Park Board Sub-Committee Tarron Aquino, Cynthia Burns, Kandace Talley,Al Talley Bill Rasmussen, Liz Stewart, Lavelle Weathers SUBJECT: New Park I PURPOSE This memorandum advises the Park Board of the recommendation and fmdings of the Park Board Sub-Committee revt"ewing the naming of Renton's New Park. BACKGROUND • City Facilities Naming Policy,Number 600-04, dated March 8, 1999, governs park naming. This policy states that the Park Board shall, following review and consideration of public and staff input, select a name and then forward the name through the Mayor's office to the Renton City Council for final approval and adoption. • City Policy further state that, in circumstances where a person's name is being considered as the park name,the approval process requires a six-month waiting period before final acceptance. Finally, the policy does not prevent the Mayor from recommending another park name,nor does it limit the City Council from considering other names before a final decision is made. • . At the public meetings held during the design process for the new park on Union Avenue, citizens in attendance were asked to identify appropriate names for the . park temporarily called Heather Downs. The most requested names were: (1) Barfield Park; (2)Heritage Park; and(3)Heather Downs Park. • Staff brought these three names forward to the Park Board on November 8, 2005, for consideration. After lengthy discussion,without consensus, the Park Board felt they wanted additional citizen input before deciding on a recommendation. • An additional mailing was sent to all residents who left addresses at the public meetings as well as all residents living within 300 feet of the park's perimeter. A total of 89 letters were sent. • Forty-two (42)responses were returned with the tally evenly split among the three names. Staff, in considering the citizen input,recommended to the Park Board the name"Heritage Park"in order(1)to honor all groups having historical ties to the neighborhood and(2)to recognize these other groups with suitable features i:\2006 park board\parknaming.doc Park Board Members Page,2 of 2 ,' December 11,2006 (art,markers, etc.) under the umbrella of the name "Heritage Park" (see attached agenda for the staff rationale). • At the December 13, 2005,park board meeting, the Superintendent of the Renton School District attended and introduced another name for the park. Her choice was"Bev Barfield Park",named after a respected, elected school-board member who contributed much to the youth of the community and whose family lived for some time in the area of the park. • After some discussion,the Park Board voted three to one to recommend the name "Bev Barfield Park"(see attached minutes for the detailed recommendation of the Park Board). • The support for the choice of this park name is contained in the correspondence from the Superintendent of Schools (copy attached).. New Administrator met with all parties involved in naming process,commencing in May of 2006. 4 rt./4- erb Ce55 a da°h`c'"`� • Letter submitted from school district on naming(see attached).-}p SJoi gest' • Sub-Committee established to review past Park Board work on new park. They have met several times to do research and make a recommendation to park board on the next step. CONCLUSION The Park Board, as outlined in the December 13,2005,minutes, elected to recommend the name of Bev Barfield Park for the new park. After further review the Sub-Committee recommends the name"Heritage Park". This name celebrates the African American families who settled in the area and also the current and future diversity of the Renton Community. There will be a bench installed in memory of Clyde Barfield and also a bench to honor Bev and John Barfield and their contributions to the community. A celebration and dedication will be coordinated with each family. Storyboards will also be installed at the entrance of the park to share the history of the community. Markers along the trail in the park will help visitors to understand how the land was used in the past. The new artwork will greet visitors with the word"home"in 48 different languages. The dedication and official opening will occur in May of 2007. Attachment i:\2006 park board\parknaming.doc . •<0( O\ 0 •, ® COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ♦ : ♦I MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kath Keolker, Mayor FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Peter enner, Facilities Director,Ext. 6605 SUBJECT: Art ' Proec � t for the New Neighborhood Park Issue: Should the Council approve the total expenditure of$10,000 from Fund 125 for the art project proposed by the Munici al Arts Commission for the neighborhood park currently under construction? Recommendation: Approve the expenditure of$10,000 from Fund 125 for the proposed art project. Background: • The City of Renton funds art for its municipal building projects through a 1% for Art Program. • Construction of the new area park will generate$13,400 through 1%for Art. • The Municipal Arts Commission(MAC),which is trusted with assessing public art and making related recommendations to the Mayor, developed, reviewed, and discussed a number of concepts for public art for the new park. • The MAC focused on projects that would incorporate the City theme that"Renton is a great place to live, work, and play". Reflecting the diversity of the neighborhood was also an important project component for the Commission. • Beside visual appeal,potentialart concepts were also evaluated for their scale, durability, safety,maintainability, vandal resistance, and relative ease of installation. • Various placement options and methods of production and installation were considered. • The Municipal Arts Commission is proposing inset etched stainless steel panels around the 72' circumference of a concrete seating wall that surrounds a prime feature of the park,a landscaped berm. Attached exhibits are provided to show the scale and location of the work in the park. The word"Home"will be replicated in the 48 languages spoken in the Renton School District. More h:\peter renner 2006\newparkartissuepaper.doc Page 2 of 2 September 11,2006 detailed conceptual representations will be available for review when the project is considered in the Community Services Committee. • The MAC is seeking approval for the project now because funding is needed for the translation service. • The total budget for this project is $10,000 and includes Washington State Sales Tax. The dollars for this project are available in Fund 125. • Presented to Park Board on July 11,2006. Conclusion: The public art that has been developed and proposed by the Municipal Arts Commission will enhance the quality and appearance of the park and serve as an open invitation for all neighborhood and City residents to feel welcome to use and enjoy it. Attachments as stated cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Michael Bailey,Finance Director Michael O'Halloran,RMAC Chairman h:lpeterrenner 2006\newparkartissuepaper.doc ` 1 s\ 1/ Subject: City Facilities Naming Policy • POLICY & PROCEDURE Index: Community Services Number: 600-04 Effective Date Supersedes Page Staff Con a Approved By 3/8/99 8/18/97 1 of 3 Jim Shen g d c:7-$14.ft,A.c.n—,..."_ 1.0 PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to outline the procedures and criteria for the official naming of parks, recreation and public facilities. 2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFF ,CTED: All departments/divisions. 3.0 REFERENCES: None. • • 4.0 POLICY: It is the policy of the City Of Renton that the selection of commemorative names for City owned facilities will be accomplished in accordance with this procedure. 5.0 DEFINITIONS None. 6.0 PROCEDURES: 6.1 The naming of parks and facilities should be approached with caution, patience and deliberation. 6.2 A name, once adopted, should be bestowed with the intention that it will be permanent. • 6.3 Suggestions for names for any park, or public facility may be solicited from individuals and/or organiations. All suggestions, solicited or not, shall be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate Board or department for review and consideration. . (E.g. names recommended for a Park would go to Park Board, a Library would go to the Library Board, or the name for another city facility would go to the Facilities Division of the Community Services Department.) 6.4 Staff may review suggestions for names and make a recommendations) to the appropriate Board or department for consideration. 6.5 The Board or Department, following such review and consideration of public and staff input, shall select a name. 6.6 Selected name shall be approved and accepted by the Board or Department,and then forwarded through the Mayor's office to the Renton city Councillor final approval and adoption. 6.7 Following adoption of the facility name by the City Council,the Community Services Department shall identify the specific facility with appropriate signage, specifying the name. Names will be considered to be unique to a specific facility, and will not be transferred to a new or replacement facility in the future. 6.8 Existing facility names shall be reviewed in order to avoid duplication,confusing similarity and/or inappropriateness. • 6.9 In naming a facility or park the following criteria should be considered: 6.9.1 Neighborhood or geographical identification(e.g.,Highlands Neighborhood Center, Kennydale Park). 6.9.2 A natural or geological feature(e.g., Cedar River Trail,Black River Riparian Forest). 6.9.3 Historical or Cultural Significance(e.g., Henry Moses Pool, Liberty Park). 6.9.4 An individual or family who has made a significant land and/or monetary contribution to the park system(e.g.,Jones Park, Monahan Wing in the Renton Community Center). 6.9.5 An individual or family who has performed significant public service which made a tangible contribution to the welfare of the City and its citizens or otherwise demonstrated some form of civic achievement that is worthy of a permanent memorial(e.g.,Teasdale Park, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park). Length of service,in and of itself,-does not meet this threshold. Elected/appointed City of Renton officials and currently employed City staff shall not be eligible for consideration'until they are no longer in office or have retired from city service. • 7.0 The final recommendation shall include a narrative describing or quantifying in some detail, the personal contribution. The qualifying achievement should be the result of extraordinary dedication to the City, over and above the satisfactory performance of no al duties. 8.0 In circumstances wh a the selection of a name for a park or public facility considers a person's name, there shall be a time lapse of at least six monthsbetween receipt of a name proposal and the final recommendation on its adoption. t � Or clock OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT dtTy 300 SW Seventh St. 403 Renton, WA 98055 425.204.2340 www.renton.wednet.edu - June 6, 2006 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Terry: Thank you for taking time to meet with us this week regarding the naming of the new park on Union in the Highlands neighborhood. It is always a joy to welcome a new neighborhood park into the already strong park system in Renton. After our conversation, and the understanding that a fitting memorial plaque or picnic area would be dedicated to Bev and John Barfield at the new park, we are willing to withdraw our earlier request that the park be named for the family. We are pleased to support the memorial area, to be created in consultation with the children of Bev and John and with the input of Al Talley, in lieu of naming the park. Sincerely, INV A I alley, L res'• - Dolores Gibbon , uperintendent Renton School Board Renton School District jl _ i City of Renton Board of Park Commissioners S,SY0 C.)"4 Meeting Minutes December 12, 2006 4:30 p.m. —City Hall--7th Floor Conferencing Center I. CALL TO ORDER Tim Searing, Chair, called to order the regular meeting of the City of Renton Park Board at 4:30 p.m. on December 12, 2006, in the 7 floor Conferencing Center of City Hall. In Attendance The following person were present: Staff: Terry Higashiy�ma, Kris Stimpson, Dave Perkins, Jerry Rerecich, Karen Bergsvik, Katie McClincy, Terry Flatley, Kelly Beymer, Sandy Pilat Park Board membershh Tim Searing, Larry Reymann, Al Dieckman, Ron Regis, Troy Wigestra I d, and Cynthia Burns Absent Board members: Michael O'Donin Guests: Tarron Aquino, Katie Wigestrand, Bob Elliot II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Terry Higashiyama requested to move item #9 up to 2. Request approved. III. Approval of Minutes Cynthia Bums made motion seconded by Larry Reymann to approve the November minutes as written. All were in favor, motion carried, minutes approved. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATION/PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Terry updated the Board on the accreditation process and thanked Jerry Rerecich and Kim Dodds for their efforts on a successful outcome. It is very difficult to meet and comply with 155 standards. In February Terry, Leslie, and Jerry will go to Washington D.C. City of Renton Park Board Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 2 of 3 VI. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Terry Higashiyama lave the Board an update on the budget, which passed December 11. We did not sustain any cuts this year and will get a new Project Manager for capital projects, some temporary support, a library position, and parks worker.. We will invite Michael Bailey, Finance Administrator, to attend a future meeting. VII. CONSENT ITEMS 4.. New Park Terry Higashiyama g ve an overview on the history and background of the naming of the new p rk. She explained how she met with all parties involved in May of 20106 and a Sub-Committee was formed and conducted extensive research of the history of the area. The goal was to identify and celebrate the community and research an appropriate name to reflect the past, present, and future. A bench will be installed by the Barfield family in memory of Clyde Barfield, who originally owned the land. A second bench would be dedicated to Bev and John Barfield, who were so active in the community and devoted their time to children. A storyboard, with markers on the trail, will recognize the heritage of everyone. Terry thanked the members of the Sub-Committee for their time and involvement. Tarron and Cynthia both thanked Terry for the opportunity to be involved and preserve the history of the area. Cynthia Burns made a motion to recommend a second name for consideration to the Mayor and Council for the new park on Union Avenue. Upon further investigation into the history of the area, and in consideration of the current and future diverse culture of the community, the Park Board Sub-Committee believes "Heritage Park' would best represent an appropriate name for the park. Troy Wigestrand seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion carried. VIII. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS Homeless Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager, reviewed homelessness facts and explained domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness. Many people identify homeless as adult males who are alcoholic or drug dependent, but there are many women and families who also are homeless. Renton will participate this year in the One Night Count, which includes a street count and a survey of homeless shelters and transitional programs. Katie McClincy, Police Commander, sees another side of the homeless population. She recommended any negative encounters should be directed to 911 and let the police manage the problem. • City of Renton • Park Board Minutes l`-- - December 12, 2006 Page 3 of 3 IX. OLD BUSINESS Aquatics update Jerry Rerecich, Kris Stimpson, and Dave Perkins provided information on the 2006 season at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Reports outlining attendance, numbers'of passcards sold, and swim lessons were distributed. Future aileas for consideration include parking, pool tiles, and future amenities. A cost analysis of expenditures, personnel costs and revenues was provided. On January 8, 2007, the Council will review the pool fees. X. NEW BUSINESS Change of February meeti ig date from February 13 to February 20, 2007. Sandy will email reminders. XI. CORRESPONDENCE Bonnie Stevens Ebling and family wrote to thank staff for assistance in a purchase of a memorial bench for Bonnie's mother. XII. INFORMATION Status report XIII. ADJOURNMENT Troy Wigestrand made a motion seconded by Cynthia Bums to adjourn the meeting. All present were in favor, motion carried, meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. 'ilii.',,Pt'' , .' .;rsm x�r .'" '£$ , si.tP:,3 ,.`,....tit^` ''z'•s4- -eahMli .' Li e>^, :s 44 • -`v a `}'`'T y s, , �:i.X`a,.:i' ;.?gds., �' ; s f ? qt ` 4r '''' 'eq,:' xrm.S:;+,74,t:y�,aF;',, ' `'. 2.�•.iz� �Yr�J „=-.d+;�� h..aFro..d`a.,.x- MM; .d 'C ��°,..<, � � .!,wY y>t+n+s�"�...a, d M r �, Y�.. X,,Y^;��„1",na.!r.=:si y'.^•�� ;`,� w..>t 2 :o-� E4��y c� ..f.•y Z1E,�.;r l,�' `t^r P".# .�1•s t„4°i,Y`d.Sia!i�k,S;a Zi1�:e`,;,,N.7:!tl� '}:.,n,•T'v�p, .i,yP zY-r';'!.� 'tnxn xt.�"s i.o-s �. ,s,. �.S2r.^x'�hr,.a r�.Y;�...,n .s� ..>r.}s is .i'*.-� ` '4 ;44.'y' "a,i"?rkfte. --..'.' 0,7�,':a'.`...:l..ant. .-Pn ry'” . n �'t4',. " �a ,sa,1:- r£i;' �i �*?»k'4 :>` 9 -,=="0.4 -R33ix,:$`-c `Fi f,4;a2"•?.xa.. 1- .. : F ^t+` v`'' tr gip. .._�. ,. +• �iS-7.".` ti"'. a�o-:t :�•-. a ,,a°t < �R qrY =='r.. r :• 3tn >', i ut r«� 5� Ff � ,'s #3 :, ,.n8, :`' `wn`:-4'"�:+�its: ::i;; i ;'� Q*`r'`�" �,r. J ;tL°uK?,*"r'ta s �,. � t s�i; ^ra:; „ :„ti' f,.,; 5 .A. z. .1S �r- '4 ''.§.4' ..%C, �.�y� t+ dim:, .:f,-.,a6�, 'A'. a::. '•nl�:f3wr-.�s:a .r�^;.t ..n' :., .,�,,+4�,t: ew. ,c�,�.; r �'« 71',4 "3k� f, �a,.�- �':>..;7.-:#,=r:-;,+�-� ej sY �:�- gg�� 7 i!. Yxv inn �� i%+ ' ':ac.*•, , .t3:`: ;��'d'n e;� S«��j- 44:4,i C`', •"�P ''d ,�_ '�:.y.^ -. " ,:.;t' '`;+}i ' »•Yi j '; :.:;,*...,°'$F':a Z";#3;'=.w`� ^"'% j ? ;+,,% �} I 5'* 9,, ikt 5f'Y �, A'.'�.«.r YB',P,�V4, `,1*--',>; at;',A - YI -iv',l 1,"Ws '-a, ' t��)o S q •'Y ' Y, • E ' l 3 .n4:w r ;``a' Mr'`-`. r,.t�t,� tea 'mss v �t,w� '� `;4`-`, ;`�-z�...• � Yr y: y.x ry4"* '�i f . i?• d . "'o �,,�.te r,tig.c-° Rz t 4: T4 t ,( ', ,'s � `" ` Az't,v,51,-,.N�ir V i„v'�°'.' i..^;,y,�=t,;, ; r� .4i 71" ji t , i s fir..,-.... y? 4 t'� .',,,,i,y.,-.r'l,,0„ ,: ,, 5s,\-„`a,r,,:t ;.„ ...! + ,# >..E;'�`7 a�r,04: 7.; „� .} 4 'air.,`:("}y�?;F,&',>#�''e;Y,,':s �e�'{"74 q i,.�� Ss,? '�.:?tl;. �,..�q(, m� .z?� ''Sj( ::,-f#"" rte+ 3842'' h'r't d i ",�r” .'� • �.�� 41Ap„,,�.:,w if vi`5tY C"gC + . hM'a' ,:::f,,,,1 • 0 ;' 3{`'�is7. 7`' + •J „ '+' .'+k ey. MI„d d k vbt�. t Y ;� 4{ • l� ,1;•YF J i, 7,:'.7.7.,,,.1,:. -*"fly "w •4 k..t x >• 2.rai"Y�?�3P�. ti'd 5.�,i.�z'rx`^�—�.i i "b.J �*i'�', „ sF.`j?',,•�i,}''�'>':t7•{•`,' �#' ^"'vb.#+. St�,3 S.F' `'�' ". Mk. x.:`r .-.?w:.x'..�°3..::,t.ii �'"t .$u-}x.J'a.``+�.��"tgi, .y._,Ps a 1,;;W i M l:C:''f r^ :ii :2�, -I. �.. u_ .'2.,>,-: s.. u.t;*. j • • City of Renton Park Board Minutes City Hall 1055 South Grady Way 5th Floor December 13, 2005--4:30 p.m. In Attendance: Members Staff Others Michael O'Donin, Chair Leslie Betlach Tarron Aquino Cynthia Burns Kelly Beymer Dolores Gibbons Ralph Evans Dennis Culp Bill Hulten Ron Regis Terry Flatley Al Talley Troy Wigestrand Sandy Pilat Jerry Rerecich Absent: Marge Richter Tim Searing. CALL TO ORDER The December 13, 2005, meeting was called to order at 4:31 p.m. by Chair, Michael O'Donin. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Tarron Aquino noted she believed the minutes did not reflect some of the discussion at the last meeting. It was explained all conversation and discussion cannot be incorporatedinto the minutes; the minutes are to primarily record action items, voting, etc. She further commented she felt the letter/ballot mailed out was biased, because it mentioned Heather Downs numerous times throughout the correspondence and the sample ballot selected Heather Downs for its choice. . Ron Regis made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, Ralph Evans seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried, minutes approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT Ralph Evans made.a.motion to excuse the following absent members: Cynthia Burns, Tim Searing and Marge Richter. (Note: Cynthia Burns arrived later, at City of Renton Park Board Minutes December 13,2005 Page 2 of 4 5:10 p.m.) There was a question if a motion and vote was needed. A motion was made and seconded to excuse the absent members, all were in favor, motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE Dennis Culp, Administrator Community Services, reviewed two letters thanking us for the use of our facilities. CONSENT Cast for Kids requested to hold their annual fundraiser on June 3`d and 4th in 200.6 at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and to reserve 100 parking stalls. Staff recommended approval contingent on payment of parking fees and completion of insurance requirements. After lengthy discussion Ralph Evans made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented, Troy Wigestrand seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS if Naming of New Park Dennis Culp reviewed the history of the process we were utilizing to come to a ) consensus on a name to recommend to the Administration and Council for consideration. After a spirited discussion at the November meeting he reviewed the three suggestions for names. The submittals included Barfield, Heather Downs and Heritage Park (or variations of). Staff had suggested to the Arts Commission that 1% for Art dollars could be used to incorporate some artwork into the park that would recognize the cultural aspects of the area, perhaps by trail markers or artwork on the facade of one of the buildings, etc. Additionally, a bench and plaque would be installed at the park in memory of Clyde Barfield by a fir tree Beverly Barfield planted. Following last month's meeting a letter was sent out to 89 residents comprised of those living within 300 feet of the perimeter of the park, and those who attended the public meetings held during the design process. The information returned was divided equally among the three names. Staffs recommendation to the Board was the name Heritage Park, which would recognize all people connected to that area and would more closely coincide with our City policy, to Administration and Council for consideration. Tarron Aquino asked to speak and share information she had researched on the Internet. By doing a Google search she turned up several local Barfields that could fit in the category of"contributing"to the community, therefore, being within the guidelines of the policy. There was a Bev Barfield who served on the Renton School Board and another in law enforcement. Al Talley has been acquainted with the family for 50 years, and clarified the various names being discussed, One of the names mentioned was from a different family altogether and not related. There are two Barfields with the first name of Beverly and they were City of Renton r Park Board Minutes • December 13,2005 Page 3 of 4 sisters-in-law. The deceased Bev Barfield served on the School Board and died in a car accident in 1999. The other one is Beverly Barfield and is living and the daughter of Clyde Barfield. Dolores Gibbons, Renton School Superintendent, read a letter sent to the Council outlining the many contributions Bev Barfield made to improve the lives of children. She served on the School Board, worked for an adoption agency and Child Protective Services. She encouraged considering honoring Bev for her work on behalf of children by naming this park after her. Tarron submitted a petition with signatures gathered at Renton High School. She stated she felt it was important for teens to be aware of who is recognized and it would be good to honor someone involved in the education of kids. Ron Regis made.a motion seconded by Cynthia Burns to recommend naming the park after the Barfields. There was further discussion regarding the policy and perhaps naming the park after an entire family was not appropriate, since they all may not have been positive influences in the community. It was noted that naming the park after Bev Barfield would meet the terms of the City policy, but '� naming it after the entire family would not. Staff indicated at the time of negotiating the purchase of the land, Beverly Barfield-Lucas received fair market value for the property and no commitment on naming rights of the area had been made. It was agreed a bench would be put in place as a memorial. Michael O'Donin reminded everyone we did not accept naming the Piazza after the Dobson family based on their history and involvement in the community. Instead we named it Piazza, as a gathering place for all to meet, and there is a need to be consistent. Cynthia Burns commented the Dobson's didn't sell us the property, the Barfields did. Dennis reminded everyone this is a 10-acre park and only four acres was purchased from the Barfields. At Talley stated that the Ms. Barfield that served on the School Board was always Y known as "Bev" Barfield while her sister-in-law was known as Beverly Barfield- Lucas. So the naming of the Ipark should be Bev Barfield Park. Ron Regis made a motion to recommend to Administration and Council the name of Bev Barfield Park. Cynthia!Burns seconded the motion. Three were in favor, one opposed. Motion carried! Leslie Betlach noted the policy dictates that if the selection of a name for a park considers a person's name, there shall be a time lapse of at least six months before the final recommendation on its adoption. City of Renton Park Board Minutes December 13,2005 Page 4 of 4 • ADJOURNMENT Troy Wigestrand made a motion seconded by Ralph Evans to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor, meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. / Sign: re [opaL ^ s as a ,A4, . x. '� .y ,' Riw� fi s ` s r � ; t x.S x1 _ •d-3'u i 6.146.1 4:% -E f @F , a�s" a. -1 44047:0 tri amour r r s `� , ^ W-- $`,.,•'ciar"y -,7,440141047. 'ff�, � w„ "s.• ". ""i"-�x' 1 }1y l�.3'" h.,4�. -".g -'.4 k, Y �r.51` .r.'y.'eE's-•. til.x'uY4.ny*""' i'3`' ` res r e P v rUh��'bY`r��li"��e�'1��4ir� • „,.. .04-- 2 . i3,N. • • C\13 . . . - ' 0-1/Vilte iti t//'•Zoo-1 . ' .. . . ,,.. .„ ,..•. --. - , . . - .•..,”. . . . Park Context New Park , .. .. h 7 .4,,,,,... ,:,-..,,_..„,,,,,..v-c-o':, . . . Neighborhood with 7,P.--e441.-ik,,,a.,..if,:-::14•1-!::. _......:-.-•, ,, ...-%,.,-••.%"• '; 1••-.1•"4."'-',,,-''',- •••••,-*,-;,;.,. . , Single Family and . ' . .r Multi Family housing „.-,,N, . ,r4 ,.,. - , -•. . . , .--.0..•,• ,..;-i-n,,•,•;.,,,c.,,..,-.=.7-'1•,. - Diverse culture . - Committee of the Whole ' . .. .. -,, - • Dense population I pre' ),.y..*\.' ,.4•ftlafieNrilFJi apiA'iNq 'I Presentation ' , ' — .. , ,,,o- 1,,..„..±„,0:49sp.. ,. _ - • -• - '"'W—T•71.4.....Q 1 , ' ' .,.i.'41:-.' do::-":7q. .,..1.P.,1:',._'•''- . . . 1w .., . ..:.:,-.,--,,- .47.-.*A7.1*-1 : .„,.._. . ,... .._ y41-47,745, - , . , February 26",2007 -, •-..• • ' • 1- ' . - . • . 4,, „,..6.,..4_ti.,,,,,,,k...,;:,..,?....,,,,,...0.,,,-_,,,,F.1,-..k.:nza,77,,,,,,,,t,_ • ,•, ' ':-.. ' ' . .. . . ,,,,.,,,, ,,,,,.3,7ely,r,,,:,,k..0•0•-"t•'.;r1.k,..-..k-,...;,•,-„,:: „ • .. . . . . - ' • .--..:—...7.;-.--,t,•, ,-A.,.Y,,,,;.-i v ..., :11,..(.........: ... - ' '. 3 • ' - - • 1 . ..-.. • . . . . . ,, -.N..,,,,........._ •:g.•-;.,),,,.. ?.'v,,z'•,Y,,,..., •,v,',;;:7:;,VF.NM..rril lii.;- ',,,. ' I • t,.;,:e•..'-r-i , 'J.•-. ' „,.'"r"---.-.6.i.-', ..IF:y:1;',, IY[7t'•'.:t.,'"i:17-,:l.,,',„`:7t'it i.::ri,3."-.,,,,.' ;ttl'i 1„ I ' :I '''',,,7.,::-..---•:,,%.- zs-- . LA .."-:',:,1.,k;t I,'!"..,;,', - ,„‘.ct i',,,•,,,:,--,., InStal.._.,-- -''I'';''',----....--YP''1:'''' '' _ -",""'-'--,..y.-- -,..`.;4"'.'d,....i",,, '•' " .:-.,,,....,,,, &'.:% .';.??X:."%•P'''';:•f:'-'"4 "•';i,:e,,:„,+1'5.,,0 =..':.p.'''ZI , . " •',-7,7,••,' :....,,, ''Iltict ,,,l," __,14...;.7,1•0=-,... ....-,-• ...,- idkl, 2.t.. ie $...,... .,,,,. ---"jkk -•••••' -- ---"'—'"51'.•-. = .04.••••••"t.,.. .....- ,,i.•.,..--2.1 k.,r••• .- -.v.••' ' . ,t4‘iir.: xsrart.. "-y._,,,, ,;,,, : ,i,,.. ';'',''--.'•1 -rit.•!?*,. ..fl.:, '- .:"'•,'`.,C,V.-V".i tit'"- • I, 'i.:''''. "i:":- '-.,fhl t,ite' .','..',.;;',1"'A`.`,- ''''''-'''•jrf' -'4','1 . .-'---1"-••; -•.':,'--Yef:,:.'"'-'%'-,---;.'f2V-Y,• -1q..k.034 lia4:tr'''-il." t:j" • ' -f,r. \,•'.'0-',,,,•.b.,F'•,'V.-a. k,;.. ... t P , !t.i.'. i -•-pc1,-ii.....Eyy.4.1.Vt-erezi:‘,,,,W,5,2-...,-1,„t•ti A..t,:c.1,. rt,,,7-,'-.--.'...r, _ L •i.. ' ,fi'it i---''N..A -...it, t-i.•-ktv.......-- :'".--,11 f,.%,` ,1 •• 06 14-, '''-,--.'-ir-1114 '7;:••• -, .',., ,- : .i ' ' . 'I„,....., F•x'./IP,4,, ,.'"4"1"'.'":,.,. ' ',..,"•.,''-. 'i 77:::•-: 14W'r;•;.,• - ' .!E.,V, ,,, :''VA,,,,,,,,,_,„, ,ILr.ceia,--2 „",..'`,"%,,,ALL",2t.4.•`. -.s:Lf•1,,. uza._,E.,,,,.!.-..7.--.4-- - :-.----.--- .,-;;,...----- - - •t---,....1 -.-_,,VA— . IN 11 Surrounding neighborhood .'7,:.'* it"?. 3.214 1-.2,,,,Fi, kitti"..r. ''''.j. ' V,'." ., ,t .., ,....41-•,... ..4.1 ' 1 • ''''''''''7.7'''.."-''-76*-k,i' -.-'. - , ,25,,,.C.z.....1-: .,- ,.— .' , . View Looking Southwest to Undeveloped Property . (2005 Photo) , -- . . . • . 1 , . { • , , Project Summary ,� - - .Public,Participation Process, ; •,First parcels(6.7.acres)were acquired in the early 1980's. F _ Final acquisition'was completed in 2003 for total park• . . c ,'w U ,:--,f acreage of 9,18 acres, ,'V t, 'F ''e, ` a`� .-' ; • This location was identified as the#1 priority for i ,,1 - neighborhood park development in the Comprehensive' - ,, -1,,5 1) } ,, ,4c x 4 , Park Recreation;'Open Space and Trails Plan adopted 1, ,<d t 5 f ,` r_ ^ �, f by Council in 1993., ., v4- M • Consultant retained February 2005 to develop Master ,---„ifis,„- � �_ 'Y, .4 " Planthrorigh•Constiuction Contract Bid pocument, I i tki t:1 'r-� 1+! _ : package - i ( LLL ,,.. ..1 . . ,. Park Goals7 . . . . . Issues and Opportunities .e. ,Park,Intejration K.i.�.e,gam °q 1 . -= Neighborhood Enrichment i r*t.7 .e " 1 i ` :F• N4xr- s�-,-}� • Recreation . :ii ,,�'r ,I'll 4."4111`.g . ", v'" nennn,en DOWNS 1 164...I.,„*.*' i p3rg uh - vow • EnvironmentalStewardship { ° ' - 1,, 'rim -.,` .- ""o.4I "'_1 Imo '[[-� Eti ,�. 2 --i" I ,-- • 1 . • • k, ,• , , •-----7- ,,,. ....7-----,--------.--,----, ,' , , Program-Elements , g . .. , - u-7--- ois '-,iffts,:13f.1-1 , __,.. • , . . . . • - ----,r---. 0 .7 . . • • - • .--il ff'°.-:-•le,24=-1:. ... •'V- I'd;-1 I i• Signage L . ,1 4,111*-L!,...c4,46-''',)_...,', ,..,,tir____:;';'•'-- • Sculptural Elements ' : • , . , ,. LL , .4- S' Ly- ••',",t: ••'1 e• ,!---,Ntit`rz,— ' ' '•: Picnic r. ette Sft .andjiidividual Falnily:1?icnic Argas, ,, ,"'".. - ' •,,..•• 4.• '-'qL.P1.....[MR `3 ,',,'.':'''t a tr• 1...-.. - ., -;',.Cliildrreh's Playground/Children's Climbing Boulder Play • ---.77-2'.._•r=1 Ik.'iv'','-'-il 0 i•-ts.4015-. t," Area' . . fll '' r • 1-41•''- •li e-::;',-...'A h c• -,,,,Q1-72,3:7- • • .. . . • ,-Soft Surface Trails(nature trails) . • Wan)Surface Trails ,.. ' ,- G. \,•',?....,r. , ,,.41 "..7'N---•''''''-. 5.S.,-w:\mi 1.,, . ; Informal ball field/Multi-use Playfield • Basketball(Half Court) • : CD',-+'.- .. f„,.,..:_:":";:.:._,'.‘'4.1f;(,',17,-„ . . ' „Restrooms • r ' < -.1,h-RI (S- el‘"&11:--:2 • Parking . •c--7 • Forested Areas '• • Adopted Master Plan-September 26;2005 . • •- , ; ._ ..... .. -.., . .-• . — , • • . . . -.1 Co m ritin ity Participation . , Forested 'ldulti-purpose Field •• I . ., .•.-:. ..-,''L;,'j-...•''i•.4•,.k.:.'•e_4,4.ii:te1Me'c1f,„'.".r‘l.,O;3.i.-I0,;?,'%.:''4'':'-..'1i'4A.',1,',,:^ ./•(,Vt.-.a.-'V',° .'.1,,,.',11,'.4k-.,:-N1Fr;Yi3.,W.'•,A,03!•.1'•1i.t•,l,.)-4"i,-.,4•,;..k.Y,::,-':'A',fi1,'.k-'.,:1.r`40.,.,0'...'..7.,'v4'„..''-",J40'i4....'i`''4iv,'0)t.I..,4,i-•c,',.4• -S4••..,.•'f.; nn''1.bg tEoe.:Rm13er_,--h--orp5ocPl-oo-krd'ysoejaee'ncs-dt' N-',' a'q.t;,..-.Lu:r.a.1'IrlAr.-,,--,ei,T..4.r,11a )1; Partnership with Renton -.--V,-Picnic . Climbing rKiwanis Club Play AreaShelter\ Rocks $15 000 Starbucks Grant i k;7I, Restrooms Planter with Art Paved Walk , 1 t : e . .. . , Feature Bike Rack near 0Proposed interpretive .-':-t.:?.•I'_P.,7.,.,...,_, . 11I1II.i,I . . . . ,. '' . Kiosk Location .. 31141j New Park Under Construction i . • .,. -,-..---- - _ , . 1 . , ..., . , . r. . , .; ,-..” • _.,,,,, .. , , • • , . 3 \, , . • ,:,-..-•",:, '•:-- .-, ",,". . I,- .-,•s•-•.'' I::....,.7-—-,.,.•.•.,•:- -'.,,,,,•:,t,, -,-'..-.,..-:••••':f i.' s ',7- - ".•-'.; '• '''',-..'..,..,',t,"',,,...',',-,•''': i' ,•' z.,;77-7--7, . . •.r.P.Y... r/ ,,,.41111,,,a4111."-, , ---— ':.. .. k •0Zthi, - . , A : ' ::. . .. .. - .. ...-II..." ,-''••prIA.4 . wa...,,,,,..„,• •v..,•-,..•4z...-e v.d.g.,.g,:•,„ . .1.F.iOak.'ekT.-411--•- -.,••• -:t:414-• . Vi•--,,,-,..1;-• • .,.• , . .. ;v4 • ,"•,ke.,' -- - , -:.'' ••••.'rk, . ' . 4 ,i. ., .•.-;-.- ..;i.,-, S'c'-:.-,-,`•.', ••• t• t•-,$‘',OrA••• :••1•;-:• 11 ,i•' "'' ''' ', '.''"r",;-!jk-•., -:t:ii "•4,,_‘ •-',-. ••-•,•,,:,t ,.j,„1.,.,,„4,••,.-;-„,•••:',,,.Z.:._4 t.,....' ..-.1.• ' ,.e r...^ " , ,,,,,,,,;,,,-, .,:e I •ar,,,••:,•:"..,•?..,41,,r,...• ..,.- _ ..mi.e_,_ ,....., „ -,..- ' - :EA,,,,.• t•)-/:•-;e'....4 -.•-.4•ri,,...';'-:ei5.V.';•4-'....,'...- •:;-•AgEtr---‘.0,t-!•••,'''•. ,;-, - . •• •,?. ',v.,">—4-' •••••!',..;;4'''.-ii 4.'?'"L.' ; ' `q 5410,i•'A'' ',, r••filsnil,t';':'- `,4 r'''',3::1`.43-•ii5.,-11-:.;:,N,• ' .',"---'f,',";-. 7ififi'l1/4-•,?I''',4.4fn-:... ..;-,,',z..„‘,4h ' - z,_}: -,,.'• • '• ••''' .•••:-. '' ....„40 . ,........7r•-- .4,,,,,,...1.•,,--••••V..-i.r...,•,,-,,..„4,7,„,,t.„...,-..1 :!7::::,,•.7: 7.!..:7::....!:.....„..-.7:::172:::: ..- ,:::,,p,:,z.,,I.,_ •, , ,i,,wc.10.3 t.„.: --, ,"7'r- si• --..-- 4, . „ . , .. View to Clyde Barfield Memorial Bench(looking south) ,. ... - "l' `•,1'lk•'' . r'''.16 P004 411. ' l,tl,,-1,• ,: . - ..k...,:-1,,,t4 . -L..,z, •,.t..bt ' at . :t..- .,,, 14.,.tileJR. ?•?,.'filo "A"Fki44 - - ilifda---4--- --,-:-.1------ ---_t-t. ---=_,•7- -',v-,,-.t.'t,!7!--.7,-Y-',- ' - ,...k',,i,,,. , , , )-_____„__ MLA ail ,,,,,,, 47_,,,:vi„,-;,„,;„,,i,,„;;-,..„1-4;-,-:2- ..,.,! ,!• Q„, ,-.„...!--..-,,,,..„; - .A, :6,4, --,4 - IpA,,._,. ,_-----,.. —mmi- i-e* ,....,_..-,...--:;,k7.,-ti,..,%il„,0,-,,g-r,..Z.-;-•yi ,•'''': ! ,r,,, ..fs•v,4-41.....:1., ,-• ..a.„,,,,,t i *I -7, 'irri taw'--ns,,„ ,„.„.\,.. , ,,,,,„_•.,...,,,,....„7:, ..„, Vie, :•;a44";,•,, IP• I ,....:••.'e .. ••••:,15-rs-.-7,•.-P"--$7 ,4.1 414,, -, • ,. • • 1 ., 1:.,,,--;, i •-••-•.•'-'14,,o.....-- --ff,•-•,-45'4„,q,.-, --.1-,0-„;••••„;,,•'-1 • ' . • • ,---•:4- 4,4.-..•/•,•:,-,,,,--,44.4-114,,;--1,•:•-:.•71.,, ,,,74.1.,, .,,..20;••-.,k• „.• • -!•• :11_.:.:--:-1.7 - -4,-.:" _-..2.-_-,:-.--"'--a:141,ilta-,4w-.!4...'.1 ,_,,,,,4 I - • I,:'; '-`-,••iii-',0----It•1--,,t•••••4".-----•,--,...,A'r2";,i•.,'.4,-•",,i-_,,-44,- -/•-•.•••:,,,,,••••••,4,-,,,_1/44,'.-6..,:•,. f , - .„-,•-•-•,----, --,?-„.--•-•,- . —.7- --".„,'' . . , • ' Picnic Shelter and Play Area'' , • . , View from Clyde Barfield Memorial Bench to the West and ,. , ,. -, - . . - • i___, . .. . .. .., ,... - • ..-A.---,,,,-----71,•.11,,,,, , , ) .. -.y.5f,,.,'p .. ' , • , ,•-.-. , - ,•..•!•"•.;'?..- ' - ..• -I:l '.• Ii , , , •N. NI ., '. '.. - , '.,?:•,,,,..., ,„,k, ••••'2'•'- --•\"! ' • ! 1.•,,,,„4,,ftr,,,.,4,f4,i ,...., . .. .. -I, '•-•„I's'AO f ':' ,, . :. , ,ft.r, , ,z1--„,.-1 ,, , ,,,, 4', . .- - .-_--,,,.t•,- ,, it . , ' . , . , : „, , .er-,,, .. *---,, , .,...,, -....::.. Ilrit,K:N . • - .tes,A,. • --- ,:thr.....4,:,-...,--4.z. w- ., . • . ..... te.......„._ s; . --,,,,--Itk?:4-''7-.;-•.,--ii.g .a' .:,I ••.. ,,..,•..,..*14,.1....,_ ... , , . __. ,__. ..... .______,_,.__— _ • View to Bev and John Barfield Memorial Bench(looking north). .. . . . `.• '1441P,i,..,1 t.F.,,,61,T,,,;.,4,.,..:,!:,,,,,,,,.„4,,,,S,., , .,5.,,,,,,..-.,,L, , _,_ . , .•id'',•'-",' ",,'.!"i'l-a-ge,-,-;:*:N.,,7-,-,,',‘;,,,`P.W:,*i'74s^:1-,Tik,s'--r-"'“"`A:'''r. ' - . ..I.,,',','''.1- Ligit'll,;',,7R:1,)^13t,,,,,,',,,,,4,,,,,,,,, _ ;,,,, .4'•...ii , : .:, ,,.:,,,,f.::,•-.'• ----...,;-,.,0--kr;,i',.,,,,,t',--:.(1.'!-,;ev.-•- •,(-;:y,-;';;z'''f'.,:ft , ' ' - 4, o; ••,• •. 11.1.—_,,,-,r,z,,,,,:-...••,k.o.,,,,,..:J ,-,-;.,:p.F..--...%%-:-. .z.,f , , .:--,,,,,,,,,,,, . .. .. . .3-.....-, „,,,,itg,,... =,,,•••...,i-i•- ..- . ,?„6.y.4„-,- ..-, ,,,,,,,•,,,-.., „1:a--.,‘,',''''"••••••,'",''''''-• ; ..=.,.•,•;:•..,14f-4,..---•.-.,,'' . , ' - ''-'1' -4t.'',-1.'-.'-'• - It ,2%.•.1,,,,Atre.,,,,;,- , „„4„••‘,14,,,,I, ,_,,. I, -------,7---:-::,„:, ...sz„..-....-. ,—x--1-------'--..1.::::-_-„ ,..-:,--.,_., , , -,,,,.-,•,-, -,.,,j,,Ahv, ,-„•,->r,k,4,....•• ,.•,...••,,-.•-•i,,,-7•,,,,,,,-1.-.*-e.- 7,--n-"*:.., -1 " ;,, „...4..-- ,""... - ...;--;f,,....y.. -",'4- . :__—„P--,,---..--.1e- - •-.4.....,.._-.....„....,..,........,•- 4.,, -pt.-4,-',',.v., ,,,-i -;,..4--...., ,,,......1-..-7...-:,,,,o-,f,,,A..,.;,... r,,,.....-,...-„,,i , ..,..„ ., .,...„,,,v.,.,..,„„:,. ,,,..,—,...-„, ._,. ....,....,,t'•3•.,, " . • ' , Climbing Rocks • . • ' . '. --,-'- • - ".A2.•-nis..41-•••,,,----. ._. ._........, !" • -•• •v..'':;• "View from Bev and John Barfield Memorial Bench(west&south) , • ., . •• ... •. •, - , - ,• ..... .. .......... ... .... . ............ .... . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .... .V 4 r • • ,. i . . History-at the Heart of the f • Community r , :Park name,interpretive panels,benches,'and '-�•••r • -. .'4 + art,'alkcommemoratingcommunity -, . -: ' History experiences , Is:: ,°i=_==;�'- X raj y ._;ri ; � ,.. ., ., il_E-f-fitl:finEra--:-T .. , ,Alatayied'...-'f.,:'- ' 1 54 ?F 1c f -1.-1!••• •y� 4.y{ It j' i� i, r�� Iy iy r -tit; } • The Hilltop". ��" " p" / "The Country" '� � .,1,ust-some of the Hilltop Families... .1 • Weathers • • African Americans settled in the New Park ' : Sarfields NEW PARK/UNION ST _' neighborhood as early as 1910 Graysons d-` • Harts y • More families came in the 1930s and • smiths '"'��.,, 1940s - Hardings �, Y ,,f . .l " t it. Simms e 1 9 „t • Wards j aka ¢ Wiotens �''0 . ;iii 1*v r " , ' ^ I. :r �J AJ s'y fr_._ x' Jones t. y J �� • r im a s , r Upshaws -,,t,- ,-..-....--..', i.. ' ,,'. 4• • i x k N -10.0, • Shropshires ri i� , - f ;T X 14 ",J` fill # Simpsons • J .. " 4a ` ` !1t ,_ i 1 Warflelds 9 .- • L -• - --.—_� - - — 5 1 • yNew Park"- a Model for the -•• 'Recommen'dation- Inclusion of History_ - , • In accordance with City Facilities naming Policy#600-04 ? Incorporating history to capture,the community's •, `Park Board voted on December 13,2005 to submit"Bev spirit and experiences Barfield Park"to Council' . t T sc �•` �+ ' Formed Sub-committee • :If '..- riyd �C `ti.: . , Park Board voted'on December 12,2006 to submit M1#� �,,,....4z,-........ ...40:,' 8 ,i "Heritage Park"to Council o i� , I;�r :eft i�� = `' g� wt. , . - , fl 14,. ,- t y. • Recommend"Heritage Park"as this name celebrates the ;1 i .� k"-.1M, s �1' a ,•41'.., „..4 `` African American families who settled in the area and ' also the,1 4,r.r p-w x-. _�'4-.•-,-s. .. tT_ j Communicurrent and future diversity of the Renton r . - - . - 1 '(------V. se •., _NIT 0 6 October 2,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 333 CAG: 05=078, S 4th St& _Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-05-078, S. 4th St. and Burnett Burnett Ave S Traffic Ave. S. Traffic Improvements; and requested approval of the project, Improvements, Valley Electric authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$2,084.30, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of$10,128.38 to Valley Electric, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Community Services recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Committee Keolker's appointment of Al Dieckman to the Parks Commission for a term - Appointment: Parks expiring on 6/1/2010, and Larry Reymann for a term,previously held by • Commission Marjorie Richter, expiring on 6/1/2008. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: New Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Park, 233 Union Ave NE, 1% recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve etched for Art Project stainless steel curved panels as a public 1% for Art project at the new City park located jat Union Ave. NE (in the Heather Downs neighborhood), and approve the total budget of$10,000 from Fund 125. MOVED BY NELSON, • SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE • REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3836 A resolution was read setting a public hearing date on 11/6/2006 to vacate a 30- Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM foot by 60-foot portion of 140th Ave. SE(Field Ave. NE), north of NE.2nd St. Consulting Engineers, VAC- (ESM Consulting Engineers). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, 06-004 COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE Transportation: BNSF SUBJECT OF THE SEVERING OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN Railroad Track, Severing at SANTA FE RAILROAD TRACK AT WILBURTON TO THE Wilburton TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Community Services: 1% for MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE Art from Transportation • TOPIC,OF 1%FOR ART FROM TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO THE Projects COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. School District: Activities Councilwoman Nelson reviewed Renton School District announcements and activities,which included: the recognition of Hazen High School social studies teacher and department chair Brett Crueger as a recipient of the Washington State University "Educators in Excellence" award, and the recognition of Renton High School's Family, Career and Community Leaders of America program students as recipients of a silver medal from a national competition. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:55 p.m. NiefelVitte; 1 )o% v Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann • October 2, 2006 APPROVED By 1 prir COUNCIL Date /04-a006 _ . COMMUNITY SERVICES' COMMITTEE REPORT . October 2, 2006 Art Project for New City Park . (September 11, 2006) . . ' The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve etched stainless steelcurved panels as a 1% for Public Arts Proj ect at the new City park, located at NE Union St. and tit Street NE,;and.approved.the total budget of$10,000 from-Fund 125. Toni Nelson;Chair • GLS 14 Marcie.Palmer,:Vice Chair Not in Attendance Dan Clawson,Member • ee TerryAi yams • Pdzr Renner• A?1 ell4el :£.4i1ey September 11,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 298 MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL GRANT • THE SPEAKER FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES. CARRIED. Ms. Petersen thanked Council for the additional time to speak. She asked that Council consider her comments, and emphasized that the HCA is working hard for the'community. Citizen Comment: Devine- Matthew D. Devine, 527 S. 28th Pl., Renton, 98055, spoke as president of the Airport-Related Noise Victoria Park Homeowners Association. He noted that his neighborhood is in the noisy flight path of Renton Municipal Airport,which experienced an increase in aircraft traffic and different types of aircraft as a result of runway repairs'at Boeing Airport during August. Mr. Devine pointed out that in addition to the aircraft noise,his neighborhood endures noise from SR-167 and illegal street racing in the Valley. Noting that twin engine jets emit a substantial amount of noise, he requested that Renton not make any changes to the airport that alters the mix of aircraft that currently uses the airport. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 8/21/2006. Council concur. 8/21/2006 Appointment: Parks Mayor Keolker appointed the following individuals to the Parks Commission: Commission Al Dieckman, 1837 NE 29th Ct., Renton, 98056, for a four-year term expiring 6/1/2010, and Larry Reymann, 1313 N. 38th St., Renton, 98056, for a four-year term expiring on 6/1/2008. Refer to Community Services Committee. Appointment: Parks Mayor Keolker reappointed Cynthia Bums,2007 NE 12th St., Renton, 98056, Commission and Michael O'Donin,423 Pelly Ave. N.,Renton, 98055, each to.the Parks Commission for four-year term expiring 10/1/2010. Council concur. Public Safety: Citizen Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval Initiative,Fireworks Ordinance of a resolution transmitting the fireworks initiative ballot title to King County and requesting a special election on 11/7/2006. Council concur. (See page 300 for resolution.) WSDOT: 2006 State Highway City Clerk submitted annual Washington State Department of Transportation Routes Certification certification of State Highway Routes within the limits of incorporated cities and towns as of 7/1/2006 (required by RCW 47.24.010). Information. CAG: 06-141,May Creek City Clerk reported bid opening on 8/30/2006 for CAG-06-141,May Creek Bank Stabilization Edmonds Bank Stabilization: Edmonds Ave. Outfall Replacement; ten bids; engineer's Ave Outfall Replacement,Fury estimate$169,337.40; and submitted staff recommendation to award the Construction contract to low bidder, Fury Construction, LLC, in the amount of$139,060. Council concur. CAG: 06-159, Renton Ave S/S City Clerk reported bid opening on 9/6/2006 for CAG-06-159,Renton Ave. 3rd St Storm System Outfall S./S. 3rd St. Storm System Outfall Relocation; two bids; engineer's estimate Relocation, Gary Merlino $23,516; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low Const Co bidder, Gary Merlino Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of$53,940. Council concur. Community Services: New Community Services Department requested approval of a 1%for Art project Park,233 Union Ave NE, 1% consisting of etched stainless curved panels for the new park currently under for Art Project construction in the Heather Downs neighborhood(233 Union Ave.NE), and approval of the expenditure of$10,000 from Fund 125. Refer to Community Services Committee. Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND'�_FILL • AI#: Submitting Data: Community Services For Agenda of: Facilities/Municipal Arts Commission September 11, 2006 Dept/Div/Board.. Staff Contact Peter Renner, Facilities Director Ext. 6605 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Approval of 1% for Arts project for New Park. Correspondence Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper with Attachment. Study Sessions Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Community Services Committee. Legal Dept Finance Dept X Other • Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $9,800.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $10,000.00 Revenue Generated , Total Project Budget $14,320.00 available City Share Total Project • SUMMARY OF ACTION: The City is building a new park in the Heather Downs neighborhood. 1% for Arts funds generated by this construction project can be used toplace public art in the new park. The Municipal Arts Commission has reviewed a wide variety of alternatives and is recommending the project described in the attached Issue Paper. This was presented to Park Board on July 11, 2006. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project as presented and approve the total project budget of$10,000. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh U COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUMbilk DATE: September 11, 2006 TO: Randy Corman, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker, Ma or -0/ FROM: Terry Higashiyama, Community.Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Peter,Renner, Facilities Director, Ext. 6605 v SUBJECT: Art Project for the New Neighborhood Park Issue: Should the Council approve the total expenditure of$10,000 from Fund 125 for the art project proposed by the Municipal Arts Commission for the neighborhood park currently under construction? Recommendation: Approve the expenditure of$10,000 from Fund 125 for the proposed art project. Background: • The City of Renton funds art for its municipal building projects through a 1% for Art Program. • Construction of the new area park will generate $13,400 through 1% for Art. • The Municipal Arts Commission(MAC), which is trusted with assessing public art and making related recommendations to the Mayor, developed,reviewed, and discussed a number of concepts for public art for the new park. • The MAC focused on projects that would incorporate the City theme that"Renton is a great place to live, ork, and play". Reflecting the diversity of the neighborhood was also an important project component for the Commission. • Beside visual appeal,potential art concepts were also evaluated for their scale, durability, safety,maintainability, vandal resistance, and relative ease of installation. • Various placement options and methods of production and installation were considered. • The Municipal Arts Commission is proposing inset etched stainless steel panels around the 72' circumference of a concrete seating wall that surrounds a prime feature of the park, a landscaped berm. Attached exhibits are provided to show the scale andlocation of the work in the park. The word"Home"will be replicated in the 48 languages spoken in the Renton School District. More h:\peter renner 2006\newparkartissuepaper.doc Page 2 of 2 September 11,2006 detailed conceptual representations will be available for review when the project is considered in the Community Services Committee. • The MAC is seeking approval for the project now because funding is needed for the translation service. • The total budget for this project is$10,000 and includes Washington State Sales Tax. The dollars for this project are available in Fund 125. • Presented to Park Board on July 11, 2006. Conclusion: The public art that has been developed and proposed by the Municipal Arts Commission will enhance the quality and appearance of the park and serve as an open invitation for all neighborhood and City residents to feel welcome to use and enjoy it. Attachments as stated cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Michael Bailey,Finance Director Michael O'Halloran,RMAC Chairman • h:\peter renner 2006\newparkartissuepaper.doc A . / "No Name" Park .;. 1% PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL June 9, 2006 Prepared by Dawn Murin I The Municipal Arts Commission is submitting the following public art proposal for the new park that is being constructed in the Heather Downs neighborhood. Budget: $10,000 Project Objective: To provide a piece of art that is functional and also representative of the diversity of this Renton neighborhood. Project Concept: The City of Renton's theme is: "Renton—a great place to live, work and play. " The Heather Downs community is rich in cultural diversity. The concept for the art piece attempts to incorporate these ideas cohesively by addressing the City's theme that Renton is a great place to live(it is our"Home") and play(the art is in the park), and the art will reflect the diversity of the neighborhood. Within the new park, there will be a large seat wall to provide an additional seating area in the park piazza. The seat wall will encircle a landscaped berm. On hot summer days, this seating area will be especially inviting, as the trees planted within the berm will provide a cooling shade. The "art part"of the seat wall would incorporate a series of stainless steel sheets installed around the seat wall. Each sheet would have the word"Home" etched into its surface, translated into the dozens of languages currently spoken in Renton as per the Renton School District. Project placement: The placement would be in the approximate center of Piazza just off the parking lot between the restrooms and picnic shelter(see last page map). Project specifics: The seat wall will be concrete, circular, 18" tall, and 72 feet in circumference. The seat wall will have an 11"high recess around its entirety for placement of the metal sheets. The recess is for the safety of the people sitting on the wall (so they don't scrape their legs on the edge of the metal), and to reduce the risk of vandalism. Sixteen stainless steel metal sheets will encircle the seat wall within the 11"tall recess, spaced six inches apart, fastened with 1/4"screws. The sheets are to be .063 stainless steel; 10"tall by 48"wide, with a stock color paint fill in the"home" etchings, and finished with a protective coating. For ease of installation, the metal fabricator will roll the sheets slightly to match the radius of the seat wall. Current quotes (tax not included): Metal Sheets: $5,680 Language Translation:I $2,700 Why do we propose using a translation service for such a simple word as "home"? In researching this project, the MAC discovered that some languages have many words for"home", even more than English. There are translation companies that specialize in making sure the word chosen to describe "home" will accurately represent the word as intended and not another concept. We do not have this kind of collective language expertise available locally. It was discussed with the Renton School District using students to assistance with translation but in some cases, the grasp of English is not sufficient. Coordination was also problematic. Furthermore, the translation service will also provide the words in a format acceptable for production, that is, with an appropriate font for each language with the necessary accent marks and digital-scanner-ready. This is part of the expense of the project regardless of the production process we use: As with the art project at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center, etched stainless steel is an ideal art medium. It is very attractive, durable, vandal-resistant, and requires little maintenance. The installation;method will not be overly complicated. The project will be located in an area in the Park with relatively high visibility and prominence. I . II II fI fI Iil - • �i .. . . . . . r, , . , , . • i • : r � e it i , . PICNIC _._. • I SHELTER PLAZA• 11 il • / 1i BERM - I _' i v • Proposed Seat wall N —- around Berth. --_ — i ._.- • • il il S .._.,. _._ . _: . PARKING _ \ }1O'/ RESTROOM — 1. i° �1 (-- . ,; s 1.• I ' i I I G t / ♦' From: Bonnie WE' e / To: City Clerk Date: 5/17/2006 5:08:19 PM • Subject: Fwd: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-"New Park" Groundbreaking Announced. FYI... bw >>>Alexander Pietsch 05/17/06 5:01 FM >>> Renton, WA-The City of Renton is scheduled to begin constructing the "New" Park located on the northwest corner of NE 3rd Court and Union Avenue NE. On Friday, June 9, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., the City of Renton will host a groundbreaking ceremony to formally begin construction on our newest park addition. The general public is enthusiastically encouraged to attend this event! History of the "New" Park Development: The"New" Park site is located southeast of the Highlands Neighborhood in the Leisure Estates neighborhood in the City of Renton. A's part of the City of Renton's Long Range Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, development of this site was identified in 1992 as a priority. The final acquisition of the third parcel of land occurred in 2003,which allowed expansion of the park area from 6.7 acres to 9.18 acres. A gently sloping topography and a well-established forest structure offer valuable resources for park development of the site. The site offers both passive and active recreational opportunities as well as neighborhood gathering spaces for group events. The surrounding neighborhood will be well served by a park for all ages. Four public meetings and one on-site open house were held, providing the public with an opportunity to participate in the planning phase of the park, creating both a vision and set of priorities reflected in the final design. The general construction contract was awarded to Ohno Construction Company, Inc., with an anticipated completion timeframe of late 2006. A site plan of the planned "New" Park is attached. • Alex Pietsch Administrator Dept. of Economic Development, Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning City of Renton 425.430.6592 voice 425.430.7300 fax www.rentonmarket.com www.ci.renton.wa.us • i CONFORMED COPY • RETURN ADDRESS: . 20060505000303 Puget Sound Energy, Inc: Attn: ROW Department,WRC PUGET SOUND ENR 32.00 PO BOX 90868, EST-06W PAGE001 OF 001 05/05/2006 10:39 Bellevue,WA.98009-0868 KING COUNTY, WA • • • • • • RELEASE OF EASEMENT REFERENCE#: ' : 5199748 GRANTOR: ' Puget Sound Energy, INC GRANTEE: . Barfield SHORT LEGAL: NE 1/4 of Section 16,Township 23 North, Range 05 E.W.M. ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: 162305-9030; 162305-9109; 162305-9099 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a.Was Kington corporation, is the owner of an easement acquired from Clyde IC. Barfield and Bernice Barfield dated 16 day.of August 1960 recorded. under Auditor's File No.5199748 records of King County,over the real property described therein as follows:' THE NORTH 5 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE:SOUTH%OF THE NORTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 05 'EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. • Said Company does hereby abandon and release all rights acquired under said easement: IN WITNESS WHEREOF,said corpor-tion has caused this instrument to be executed April 24,2006 • PUGET'SOUND ENERGY, INC. • Byt Jennif r Mai . • • Real Estate Representative • STATE OFlWASHINGTON ) COUNTY()EKING ) • ss On this 24th day of April.2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in .and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Jennifer Mai, to.me known to'be the person who signed as Real Estate Representative, of Puget Sound Energy, Ind. the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowledged said instrument to be her free and voluntary act and deed and the free and voluntary act and deed of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; and on oath stated that she was authorized toexecute the said instruction on behalf of said Puget Sound Energy, Inc. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official se. - .. - . year first above written. 0011111/1110,-4 \\ WI!!‘�0 3" • 0V'I9fld (Signature of Notary) �— i d William Ray Craven %2 \p 4utliOO $o:s (Print or stamp name of Notary) :44:f�O,Sg��;; � NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, /''6i'•-•• ••• y�'�\` residing at Seattle 4' 3 'fid' 41`\` My Appointment Expires: March 3rd,2007 Notary seal,text and all notations must be I�rittailM'Intins • • • • Page 1 of 1 ' OITY OF RENTON DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING MAY 1 1 2006 KING COUNTY RECORDS &ELECTIONS DIVISION CITY CLERKS OFFICE TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: 5" I I-c.) FROM: I l c 1n. a e,di.e.,and ex Ons, se c. C •L L6J K C 5 e Nu i c C C J BILLING ACCOUNT NUMBER: (xxx/xxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxx): IS REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FORM REQUIRED? No [ Yes ❑ (attach form) (Account will be charged$2.00 filing fee) INDEXING NOTES:ktitC./ fl ew l c C/ r O cin s CSW a.33 ONO,. NC. 1°C e..;r0 h Loci. 9105, SPECIAL RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS: Vyks koee+^ 'eorcQ.-e�D DATE ACQUIRED: GRANTOR: PURPOSE: R. �,,,� �.�ri YI u Sd KD &e N �.�e.r�►.,.� �[ Y COMMON DESCRIPTION: r\e (kr ADDRESS: .1� 3 V v,► e > er AA 5• �>O V' 6 5 P.I.D. S-T-R: CROSS STREETS: iv c:0 On,1 ovi CURRENT USE: jJ vu,c6::, 0 di,i 1(1?-4.eC7, MANAGING DEPARTMENT: C a 44r1' a ( Sepu 1 c-c% DEPT. FILE# RECORDING NO# an o 0 SOS-60 0303 P:\Administrative\Forms\Recording\recording.doc 7/97 TS/REC_DOC.DOT/bh April 24,2006 1 Renton City Council Minutes Page 132 CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. CAG: 06-044,New Park City Clerk reported bid opening on 4/5/2006 for CAG-06-044,New Park Construction at 233 Union- Construction at 233 Union Ave.NE; three bids; engineer's estimate$1,134,000; Ave NE, Ohno Construction and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Ohno Construction, in the amount of$994,990.14. Council concur. Community Services: City Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Hall Mechanical Maintenance, amount of$63,509 annually with McKinstry Company for heating, ventilating, McKinstry Company and air'conditioning systems services at City Hall. Council concur. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Veldyke Short Plat, ROW dedication for additional right-of-way at NE 19th St. to fulfill a requirement of Dedication,NE 19th St the Veldyke Short Plat(SHP-05-065). Council concur. Transportation: Rainier Ave& Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the Hardie Ave SW Improvements amount of$2,736,425 with KPG, Inc. for design of the Rainier Ave. Design, KPG Inc Improvements (S.4th Pl. to S. 2nd St.) and Hardie Ave. SW Transit/Multimodal Improvements projects. Council concur. Transportation: South Lake Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement for a WA Infrastructure $5 million grant from Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Improvement, CTED Grant Economic Development for utility improvements for the South Lake Washington Infrastructure Improvement project. Council concur. (See page 134 for resolution.) Transportation: Limited Term Transportation Systems Division requested authorization to use approved Positions Hire, Construction project.funding for three limited term employees to provide construction Management&Inspection management and inspection services for the SR-169 HOV Improvements and Services Duvall Ave. NE projects in the amount of$279,500. Refer to Finance Committee. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Added Correspondence was read from Dave S. Nguyen, 1422 Jefferson Ave.NE, CORRESPONDENCE Renton 98056,and Nen Kim Phan, 1420 Jefferson Ave.NE,Renton, 98056, Citizen Comment: Various - expressing agreement with the City's Highlands Subarea rezoning proposal. Highlands Subarea, Zoning Text&Zoning Map Amendments UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Corman presented a Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole regarding The Landing project infrastructure agreement. The Committee Planning: The Landing Public concurred with the recommendation of the Administration to approve and Infrastructure, Transwestern authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an agreement with Transwestern Harvest Lakeshore Harvest Lakeshore LLC outlining the coordination and timing of the roadway and utility improvements necessary to facilitate development of The Landing. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Mr. Corman indicated that the City is going forward with approximately$19 million in road improvements at the former Boeing property to support The Landing project. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 247523 -248017 and two wire transfers totaling $3,090,801.03; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 63025 -63191, one wire April 24,2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 131 Transit joint ballot, and capital budget funding for the Chastain Trail (federal funding will also be pursued). In conclusion, Mr. Levy emphasized the following: legislative tracking, • lobbying, and advocating has become a year-round-business; it is important to monitor State initiatives, which can change and undo legislative action; and Renton's strategy to focus on a few issues has:been a successful formula. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: * The Mayor's Planting Day on April 22nd was a success with over 60 volunteers planting trees and flowers in the downtown business district. * The Second Annual Community Garage Sale will be held at the Renton Community Center on April 29th. * The 2006 Summer What's Happening recreation brochure will be available beginning May 1st, with registration opening May 2nd for Renton residents, and May 4th for non-residents. AUDIENCE COMMENT Sandel DeMastus,Highlands Community Association(HCA)Vice President, Citizen Comment: DeMastus - 1137 Harrington Ave. NE,Renton, 98056, claimed that false information was Highlands Community given by a speaker regarding the association at the last Council meeting. Ms. Association DeMastus named the nine HCA board members, and shared their professional backgrounds. She stated that the HCA is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization, who, like other neighborhood associations, left Renton's Neighborhood Program due to its rules. Ms.DeMastus emphasized that the HCA has done a lot for the Highlands area, and she is very proud of the association. Citizen Comment: Petersen- Inez Petersen, 3306 Lake Washington Blvd.N.,#3,Renton, 98056, stated that Highlands Subarea Plan although she is excited about The Landing project as discussed during Committee of the Whole, the Highlands Community Association (HCA) is concerned about the related traffic issues. Ms. Petersen announced that HCA filed an appeal on the Environmental Review Committee's SEPA determination regarding the Highlands Subarea rezoning proposal. Ms.Petersen recommended that existing single-family dwellings and duplexes in the Highlands not become non-conforming. Property owners unwilling to upgrade the dwellings should be encouraged to sell to someone who will upgrade, and if they do not, she supports the City's enforcement of laws to acquire the property for development. Additionally, she recommended increased police presence, sidewalk repair and installation, and review of low- interest loans and non-profit assistance availability for low-income citizens. Ms. Petersen encouraged the City to consider a compromise between the area's current situation and high density development. Citizen Comment: McOmber- Howard McOmber,475 Olympia Ave.NE, Renton, 98056, said he favors Highlands Subarea Plan upgrading the Highlands area. He agreed that upgrades to the zoning are also needed; however, the proposed zoning text still needs substantial revision. Emphasizing that the moratorium has stopped residents from upgrading their property, Mr. McOmber pointed out that residents should be allowed the freedom to improve the area. He stated that he wants to continue to improve the Highlands with the City's help, and stressed that time is needed to do it right and to work things out. ,I OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENI ALL ( AI#: e a. . Submitting Data: For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk April 24, 2006 Staff Contact Bonnie Walton Agenda Status Consent X Subject: ! Public Hearing.. Bid opening on 4/5/2006 for CAG-06-044, Correspondence.. New Park Construction at 233 Union Ave. NE Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: I New Business Staff Recommendation Study Sessions Bid Tabulation Sheet(three bids) Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept Council concur Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $ 994,990.14 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,519,000.00 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Engineers Estimate: $1,134,000 (including Alternatives 1 through 5) In accordance with Council procedure, bids submitted at the subject bid opening met the following three criteria: There was more than one bid, the low bid was within the project budget, and there were no irregularities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the low bid submitted by Ohno Construction in the amount of$994,990.14 (including Alternatives 1 through 5). C.) �•et> COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ef. ' MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19,2006 TO: Bonnie Walton, Cit Clerk FROM: Terry Higashiyama, ommunity Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Leslie Betlachrks Director(ext. 6619) SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bid for New Park at 223 Union Ave.NE CAG 06-044 A bid opening was held Wednesday,April 5,2006, for the New Park Construction at 233 Union Ave.NE. The scope of work for this project includes construction of a new park with restroom,picnic shelter,utilities, clearing and grading,paths, irrigation,and landscaping. The engineer's estimate was$1,134,000.00. A total of three bids were received,with Ohno Construction of Seattle,WA as the low bidder, submitting a bid of$994,990.14(including Washington State Sales Tax). The project budget amount is$1,432,000.00 for Park Development and$87,000.00 for bulb- out design and construction of traffic calming items,for a total overall budget of $1,519,000.00. Primary funding for this project comes from the Capital Improvement Plan fund(316.000000.020.5940.0076.62.020051), with an additional$87,000.00 coming from Traffic Safety(317.012115.016.5950.0000.67.000000). J. A. Brennan and Associates was contracted to provide professional design services for the project in the amount of$167,1148.00 for park development,with an additional $9,000.00 for traffic calming items (Addendum#1)and another$2,950.00 for conditional use permits (Addendum#2)for a total of$179,098.00. With$21,318.00 of the overall budget allocated to Pace Engineers for site surveying and delineation of the wetlands,and$10,193.30 allocated for advertising, call for bids,permits and debris removal,there are $1,308,390.70 in remaining construction funds. We have conducted a reference check on Ohno Construction. References were provided by Seattle Public Utilities and D.A. Hogan&Associates. Both references confirmed all work was done well and according to specification. Our Architectural firm, J.A. Brennan and Associates, has also worked with Ohno Construction, and gives them a high recommendation. We are now requesting that Council award the bid to Ohno Construction for the amount of $994,990.14. H:\Kim\Bi1l\CIP\New Park 233 Union Ave NE\Bonnie Walton Memo New Park 41006.doc RECEIVED :.� } t .. FEB 0 6 206 ti(C 0 , COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENtWoli City Council 'e‘Nrvo• • MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON FEB a f) ;7006 DATE: February 6,2006 .��, flE C IVI �FFIC TO: Randy Corman, Council President Memhers of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker,Mayor4J FROM: Dennis Culp,Administrator Community Services SUBJECT: StatuI Report—Naming of City's new park PURPOSE: To inform the City Council of the current status regarding the naming of the City's newest park. BACKGROUND: • In accordance with City Policy Number 600-04, City Facilities Naming Policy, dated March 8, 1999, the Park Board has forwarded the name"Bev Barfield"for consideration by the Mayor and City Council. • This Park Board recommendation was forwarded to the Mayor from the Community Services Department on January 3,2006. A copy of the forwarding memorandum is attached. • The policy also states that there will be a time lapse of at least six months between the receipt of a name proposal and the final recommendation on its adoption. The Bev Barfield Park name was submitted by the School District Superintendent on December 15, 2005. • As part of the naming process the Park Board asked that additional information be gathered from park site neighbors to assist the Board in reaching a recommendation. Attached is a copy of the letter sent to all neighbors who lived within 300 feet of the park boundary. • The Administration is considering the Park Board proposed name but has not yet completed its review leading to a recommendation to City Council. This review will be completed by the end of May 2006. • The park construction is planned for completion in September 2006. Attachments C: Jay Covington q:\data_center\templates\communityservices\memo_not yet_in_committee.doc MEMORANDUM ru CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Kathy Ki olker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator(x6606) SUBJECT: Park Board Recommendation: Naming Renton's New Park DATE: January 3, 2006 PURPOSE: This memo forwards the draft minutes of the Park Board meeting on December 13, 2005, where the Park Board members in attendance voted three to one to recommend naming the new park, "Bev Barfield Park". BACKGROUND: • City Facilities Naming Policy Number 600-04, dated March 8, 1999, governs Park naming. This policy states that the Park Board shall, following review and consideration of public and staff input, select a name and then forward the name through the Mayor's office to the Renton City Council for final approval and adoption. • City Policy further states that, in circumstances where a person's name is being considered as the park name, the approval process requires a six-month waiting period before final acceptance. Finally,the policy does not prevent the Mayor from recommending another park name,nor does it limit the City Council from considering other names before a final decision is made. • At the public meetings held during the design process for the new park on Union Avenue, citizens in attendance were asked to identify appropriate names for the park temporarily called Heather Downs. The most requested names were: (1) Barfield Park; (2) Heritage Park; and(3)Heather Downs Park. • Staff brought these three names forward to the Park Board on November 8, 2005, for consideration of a recommendation. After lengthy discussion,without • City of Renton Memorandum-Park Naminb-- January 3,2006 Page 2 of 2 consensus,the Park Board felt they wanted additional citizen input before deciding on a recommendation. • An additional mailing was sent to all residents who left addresses at the public meetings as well as all was living within 300 feet of the park's perimeter. A total of 89 letters were sent. • Forty-two (42)responses were returned with the tally evenly split among the three names. Staff, in considering the citizen input,recommended to the Park Board the name"Heritage Park"in order(1) to honor all groups having historical ties to the neighborhood and(2)to recognize these other groups with suitable features(art, markers, etc.)under the umbrella of the name"Heritage Park"(see attached agenda for the staff rationale). • At the December 13,2005, Park Board meeting,the Superintendent of Schools attended and introduced another name for the park. Her choice was"Bev Barfield Park",named after a respected, elected school-board member who contributed much to the youth of the community and whose family lived for some time in the area of the park. • After some discussion,the Park Board voted three-to-one to recommend the name "Bev Barfield Park"(see attached minutes for the detailed recommendation of the Park Board). • The support for the choice of this park name is contained in the correspondence from the Superintendent of Schools (copy attached). CONCLUSIONS The Park Board has fulfilled its;obligations and via Park Board minutes has forwarded its recommended name to the Mayor's office for further consideration. The City Policy provides for a six-month waiting period before final adoption of park name in instances where a person's name is being considered. Therefore by policy the name"Bev Barfield Park"cannot be approved until after mid-June,2006. The Mayor and Council may consider other names for the park if they so desire. Attachments ..LL POLICY & PROCEDURE Subject: Index: Community Services City Facilities Naming Policy Number: 600-04 Effective Date Supersedes Page Staff Cont; Approved By 3/8/99 8/18/97 1 of 3 Jim Shep eg, _ 1.0 PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to outline the procedures and criteria for the official naming of parks,recreation and public facilities. 2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED: All departments/divisions. 3.0 REFERENCES: None. ' • 4.0 POLICY: It is the policy of the City Of Renton that the selection of commemorative names for City owned facilities will be accomplished in accordance with this procedure. 5.0 DEFINITIONS None. 6.0 PROCEDURES: 6.1 The naming of parks and facilities should be approached with caution, patience and deliberation. 6.2 A name, once adopted, should be bestowed with the intention that it will be permanent. 6.3 Suggestions for names for any park, or public facility may be solicited from individuals and/or organizations. All suggestions, solicited or not, shall be recorded and forwarded to the appropriate Board or department for review and consideration. (E.g. names recommended for a Park would go to Park Board, a Library would go 1 to the Library Board, or the name for another city facility would go to the Facilities Division of the Community Services Department.) 6.4 Staff may review suggestions for names and make a recommendation(s) to the appropriate Board or department for consideration. 6.5 The Board or Department, following such review and consideration of public and staff input, shall select a name. 6.6 Selected name shall be approved and accepted by the Board or Department, and then forwarded through the Mayor's office to the Renton City Council for final approval and adoption. 6.7 Following adoption of the facility name by the City Council,the Community Services Department shall identify the specific facility with appropriate signage, specifying the name. Names will be considered to be unique to a specific facility, and will not be transferred to a new or replacement facility in the future. 6.8 Existing facility names shall be reviewed in order to avoid duplication, confusing similarity and/or inappropriateness. 6.9 In naming a facility or park the following criteria should be considered: 6.9.1 Neighborhood or geographical identification(e.g.,Highlands Neighborhood Center, Kennydale Park). 6.9.2 A natural or geological feature(e.g., Cedar River Trail,Black River Riparian Forest). 6.9.3 Historical or Cultural Significance(e.g., Henry Moses Pool, Liberty Park). 6.9.4 An individual or family who has made a significant land and/or monetary contribution to the park system(e.g., Jones Park,Monahan Wing in the Renton Community Center). 6.9.5 An individual or family who has performed significant public service which made a tangible contribution to the welfare of the City and its citizens or otherwise demonstrated some form of civic achievement that is worthy of a • permanent memorial (e.g., Teasdale Park, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park). Length of service, in and of itself, does not meet this threshold. Elected/appointed City of Renton officials and currently employed City staff shall not be eligible for consideratioduntil they are no longer in office or have retired from city service. 7.0 The final recommendation shall include a narrative describing or quantifying in {~ some detail, the personal contribution. The qualifying achievement should be the . . result of extraordinary dedication to the City, over and above the satisfactory performance of normal duties. 8.0 In circumstances where the selection of a name for a park or public facility considers a person's name,there shall be a time lapse of at least six months between receipt of a name proposal and the final recommendation on its adoption. " I , City of Renton ® Park Board Minutes City Hall 1055 South Grady Way 5th Floor December 13, 2005-4 -30 p.m. In Attendance: Members Staff � ies Michael O'Donin, Chair 'Leslie Betlach l arron Aquino Cynthia Burns Kelly Beymer Dolores Gibbons Ralph Evans Dennis Cul . .. •ill Hulten _Ron Ron Regis Terry Flatl� Al Talley Troy Wigestrand ,Sandy Pilo Jerry :,-r ice: • Absent: Marge Richter x. Tim Searing CALL TO ORDEx ' .3 The December 11&10005, mee is-07 as called to order at 4:31 p.m. by Chair, Michael O Don, , APPROVAL OF MIND ,' Tarron Aquino noted shed `i;ped the minutes did not reflect some of the discussion at the last meetiNT meet . It was explained all conversation and discussion cannot be incorporated into the minutes; the minutes are to mainly record action items, voting, etc. She further commented she felt the letter/ballot mailed out was biased, because it mentioned Heather Downs numerous times throughout the correspondence and the sample ballot selected Heather Downs for its choice. • Ron Regis made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, Ralph Evans seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried, minutes approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT Ralph Evans made a motion to excuse the following absent members: Cynthia Burns, Tim Searing and Marge Richter. (Note: Cynthia Burns arrived later, at 5:10 p.m.) There was a question if a motion and vote was needed. A motion ' • City of Renton Park Board Minutes December 13,2005 Page 2 of 4 was made and seconded to excuse the absent members, all were in favor, motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE � Dennis Culp, Administrator Community Services, reviewed two letters thanking us for the use of our facilities. CONSENT Cast for Kids requested to hold their annual fundraiser on June 3`d and 4th in 2006 at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and t, -sme 100 parking stalls. Staff recommended approval contingent on p. 4' i `arking fees and completion of insurance req irements. Aftgthssion Ralph Evans **ion Wigestrand made a motion to approve the consent age� ,;.'a,_ �- ese4t;,_r:;�_ro �F seconded the motion. All were in favor, mote. ' red. `< OLD BUSINESS Naming of New Park Dennis Culp reviewed the history of th-x: oc ,, ,,ere utilizing to come to a consensus on a name to recommend em ;Ation and Council for consideration. After a spirited dis �s on - e , o ember meetinghe reviewed the three suggestions for name ,..' e sub a`". = included Barfield, Heather Downs and Heritage Park (or: . sons of). to had suggested to the Arts Commission that 1% forArtFdolla ''4.1d be used to incorporate some artwork into the park that w 0.#1:4 g ski,e the : al aspects of the area, perhaps by trail markers or a; �°.orC on the :'.7gde o he of the buildings, etc. Additionally, a bench and plaq.,' `�ould be ins d at the park in memory of Clyde Barfield by a fir tree Beverly m Vii,,=,d gplanted. .;`owing last month's meeting a letter was sent out to 89 residents m r-ised RIOse living within 300 feet of the perimeter of theark, and those wht p �e. �the public meetings held during the design process. The information re r ied was divided equally among the three names. Staffs recommendation to the Board was to forward the name Heritage Park, which would recognize all people connected to that area and would more closely coincide with our City policy, to Administration and Council for consideration. Tarron Aquino asked to speak and share information she had researched on the internet. By doing a Google search she turned up several local Barfields that could fit in the category of "contributing" to the'community, therefore, being within the guidelines of the policy. There was a Bev Barfield who served on the Renton School Board and another in law enforcement. Al Talley has been acquainted with the family for 50 years, and clarified the various names being discussed, One of the names mentioned was from a different family altogether and not related. There are two Barfields with the first name of Beverly and they were sisters-in-law. The deceased Bev Barfield served on the School Board and died ' , • • City of Renton Park Board Minutes - - December 13,2005 Page 3 of 4 in a car accident in 1999. The other one is Beverly Barfield and is living and the daughter of Clyde Barfield. Dolores Gibbons, Renton School Superintendent, read a letter sent to the Council outlining the many contributions Bev Barfield made to improve the lives of children. She served on the School Board, worked for an adoption agency and Child Protective Services. She encouraged considering honoring Bev for her work on behalf of children by naming this park after her. Terron submitted a petition with signatures gathee� aRenton High School. She stated she felt it was important for teens to b- w: ': ! ho is recognized and it would be good to honor someone involved i 'e -@ X^,of kids. Vgio Ron Regis made a motion seconded by Cynt. p ` ms to rem end naming the park after the Barfields. There was further di-' `. `n -garding the policy and perhaps naming the park after an entire f. .... was not �propriate, since they all may not have been positive influences i ,, . � , muniit it was noted that naming the park after Bev Barfield woi l e t t te,ms of the City policy, but naming it after the entire family would "of Staff is ted at the time of negotiating the purchase of the land, B ve arld-Lucas received fair market property ng rights of the area had been value for theand no coat n ffment ��ti j.,;,-Ing__`� made. It was agreed a bench would a put i place as a memorial. 4;11'.,_... Michael O'Donin reMi. . ,eryone` `�`` not accept naming the Piazza after the Dobson famil y ved on tfiristory=and involvement in the community. Instead we names itPiazza,,as`� thering place for all to meet, and there is a need to be conS ''w;$', Cynthia Bis commented the Dobson's didn't sell us the property, the Barfrefd i p . -' everyone Qe reminded this is a 10-acre park and onlyfour acres was peed:.;gym the Barfields. Al Talley stated that the Ms.Barfield that served on the School Board was always known as "Bev" Barfield while her sister-in-law was known as Beverly Barfield- Lucas. So the naming of the park should be Bev Barfield Park. Ron Regis made a motion to recommend to Administration and Council the name of Bev Barfield Park. Cynthia Burns seconded the motion. Three were in favor, one opposed. Motion carried. Leslie Betlach noted the policy dictates that if the selection of a name for a park considers a person's name, there shall be a time lapse of at least six months before the final recommendation on its adoption. ' ,..4• • City of Renton �\ Park Board Minutes December 13,2005 Page 4 of 4 ADJOURNMENT Troy Wigestrand made a motion seconded by Ralph. Evans to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor, meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 1 4. w Ar. �p `, y ,fid- ° fk .. Amy a, 2r* C� � RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 CITY OF RENTON Superintendent's Office 300 Southwest Seventh Street DEC 1 5 2005 d► �+ Renton,WA 98055 425.204.2340(voice) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 403 425.204.2456(fax) December 6, 2005 Renton City Council 1055 Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Dear Council Members: Please replace this letter with an earlier one I recently sent in support of naming the new city park on Union in memory of Bev Barfield. Apparently there are two women in the Barfield family named 'Beverly! To avoid confusion, the person I am supporting who was a Renton School District Board member is most commonly and well known as "Bev" Barfield. I have corrected my letter(attached)to avoid any misunderstanding. The original letter was dated December 6, 2005. Thank you. Regards, I i t : 1 i Dolores Gibbons Superintendent JI c: Dennis Culp, City of Renton Administrator ad! mar- - iditeze C� I� RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 ZSuperintendent's Office 300 Southwest Seventh Street Renton,WA 98055 tT 425.204.2340(voice) 403 425.204.2456(fax) e-mail address: www.renton.wednet.edu December 6, 2005 Renton City Council 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 It is my understanding that the name of Bev Barfield is being considered for the new city park being built on Union Ave. in the Highlands neighborhood. I can not think of a more fitting memorial to a person who dedicated her life to children. Please give careful consideration to the name of Bev Barfield for our new city park. Bev was an elected member of the Renton School Board. She served from 1993 to her death in a tragic car accident in October, 1999. In addition to her work on the school board, she was the program director for Children and Family Services in South King County. Her career and her volunteer service were centered around children and democratic ideals. Bev earned her degree in sociology from Washington State University. She took her degree and applied it skillfully to her career and her volunteer work. Bev's passion for children and community started long before her election to the school board. She worked for an adoption agency in Okinawa, Japan in the early years of her marriage to John Barfield. Upon returning home, Bev worked for the Washington State Child Protective Services in Kent for a number of years. The Barfield's raised their children,Aaron and Belinda, in Renton. This area was their home and they were proud and contributing citizens. As a school board member, Bev was a very stable, strong member. She had clear opinions that always put children first. She had a particularly big heart for kids that were at-risk in some way. She was a warm, giving, generous person. She had a strong voice in school policies and led district campaigns for the essential and successful levy and bond measures. I believe Renton's children of today would have a special spirit watching over them at the Bev Barfield Memorial Park! Please give careful consideration to honoring Bev for her enormous work on be =i' of children in Renton by naming the park after her. Regards, �I , I 4 , Dolores Gibbons Superintendent ,u :Cti�Y 0� CETT a, o OF RENTON .•u Community Services-Dennis K.Culp,Administrator • Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Nationally Accredited Agency . . NTO ovember 18,2005 RE: Participation in Park Nanning Process for Property Referred to as Heather Downs Dear Neighboring Residents: • We seek your voice at.this critical phase of determining a name for the City property currently referred to as Heather Downs. The 9.18-acre site is an assemblage of several parcels located north of the Cedar rover Corridor'at 812 Union Avenue NE. The Master Plan for park development was adopted by the City Council and we'anticipate a bid date in'February Of 2006 with park construction to begin in the spring.. Construction completion is expected in late summer or early fall;2006: • As an involved community member, we ask you to consider one of three proposed names: Heather Downs Park; Barfield Neighborhood Park or Heritage Pdrk. The Cityof Renton Park Board will review your input and discuss a recommendation at their"December 13,2005 meeting. The Park Board will make a final recomrnendation to.the City Council-at a later date. This land has a rich history worthylof consideration.. Heather Downs is a single-family development near the future park site and comprises an area widely known as theHeather Downs ,iTh neighborhood. Because of this development'.s proximity to the future park site,Heather Downs - ' Park has often been'associated with this City property. ;r In considering the name.Barfield Neighborhood Park,tribute would be paid to the family that sold land to the City inanticipation of the park.development. The Barfield family lived at.this • location and has a long history in this area. The Citypaid fair Market value for this acquisition. Whatever park name is selected, the,City's design consultant has identified an area in the park for a'memorial bench and plaque dedicated to Clyde C.Barfield. The third. suggestion is Heritage Park . hi naming the future park.site Heritage Park, the'rich - diversity of early Renton residents living in this neighborhood,as well-as throughout the City would'be recognized.. • Enclosed is a self-addressed, stamped enVelope ch name you prefer. The votes will abulated with the results presentehallot for your used to n letting Park Board'atltheir . December 13th meeting. As such,please return the ballot by December 7,2005. Should you have any questions, feel'free to contact our office at 425-430-6600. • Sincerely yours, • . t.''. 4:e(-a-C.,/ Leslie A. Betlach, Director Parks Division 1 Enclosure • 1055 South Grady Way-Rento Washington n, htngton 98055RENTON " This paper contains 50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer. AHEAD OF THE CURVE _., • .,, (---- , PARK NAM!N4 FOR PROPFR-Ty ReFFR-Rer) , ) TO AS 1--f- ATH-FR- DOWNS • :, i 1 • .....,— -__=_Th- ---,--- I. 1 1: --- —— • • ,------; L_i 'I J jiir 11. ____I L. -ti -1 --- • :. , • . --___•/-1. - • ,...------- - .- --- imr-4----1 ..fir\./--,-. ., NE _31R1).__..cCIOAT.;4--:, - :,;1' 1.1___ • • -•-r------=,_ -:-:_,..------ \— ——-— ---\. . . • • - -,- "'W..; .--.: :--•-'''''''''-t-'.=":"•-=,--"s;....,::-----;-. "Ill i'7..I • . • N •••'' "•:-,•:.:i.. .'-:::4%,eli•in44;7; !• =1,••-• r'7-;•••;,.."L'"'-'1Pi: '-- • • • --'-•---St:1.7.•: .---)•-'':.'N,'-'-''',Ng.`j-1,410.7111110 ,•t-',.'•s ir•Igiglit 11F-I•*N';!4 i • • ,‘,_.:i;...,1, . ..,...;8,4,-,:rm.Nur,_ 74.",_:..0.1„............_ ,,swiNommlamone4.---.. . ..ligkil k' • • p.....1 1'''..'•!'' ••• , 7.- -•=- ',-'•7-',.-..--*-"..,;,.,.,4•-,:...1611A•-;-.,r„,-.. '''•.-•”-.--."-•".•--•-•--.—..".:›1-1--.r,-.-•-.,-i ,.-N,0•-:%..4-.V.. . - ...-..•'N-- •i-.r..s'i '•41e7n1';',,.;'•11 1$':1 i1 ,1 ••• --.4.4. i ' 'r '- 71`` ----- ( 1 :--1-1 • • K A i I 1 'I • • • °. '' '''- - 4#76-=',`A, -L. ' goi I • ,, -••,%• •: • I I •, -VA; ,I • • ' • • • • ,....... i';'.-7.• .... _:%•,-,.,y4 .-7-"`"•• - - ' '40 -c- ''' )11,,,-14 , . . ‘-.. 1 ..,,a.i..‘k, :01.0. - E\l,,' , ! • • ,, . -... : • , ,,,,-..„-x...tri \ -.. ''.4.-1 :40eji 4 1 . • 1'1-',,,-ziz....:, • * \ 440 A i ! I . . .,:.„ .t.,,,, - ,..,..z, , c:: , - , -•.",J4 •;1.•;›,-.'-'" I , , I - I will ..0 ",i I i . . 1 q..-,,-..1 • •, "1- -----'t-.:-... , --I - .1iFzl'IV j,1::- - 1 ,! . I, • • ----- . - - - :•:.-•'-i t • *, :••::45-oHi:t.4..&"., . . ....... -.. .-• --7,,.'',,,r • -- ---•':-.•1 ' ,;,-..y- ..77----41 ' 1-• E • • ..,.., 7,., .X.', .Vs"..,M1,1 -.- I . 1- 1.'t' I • • 1 :,, . - _'-.,1. 'L'':::;-.2.;:>;' I --- 1.19..iik,' II ' i • . — >. 52 -..:"...:).1 \ • 1 1,1msniiiiiii 1 , ALI • • I I) ' , _. . ; .,,,t Rti -- 1 1 I , .,I N\ _. • .-----..„,„ 0., ___.: . . 1 . ..-,-41 • 1 . . . ,___,___,. .,_,., _ ...,... ...„1 A°IL - 1 A . fill . .:- fl-N.::..."..- ". 6...,;..r 4P-,'1 1 • • — ). '''4". ' ''''--:'‘" '.4'. ''''''' Milli.„4.., ---',, L7u'dikt... •" ' ' -- • , : ...„-.....5-,.-. ..,-,.:-..,..i1/4 10.-,-. -,,...7. • 2.csi...,,,-,- .e. ;1;,-:?;____, i , .. • .---- ( I • • • n'st. - ,4,,.. _...,--1 _,. II., (I • ‘ . . ---- I-II ''. '-.-‘:N. •.'--;,-.,.-,--%.--7,;,-- :.-.4t.'''-', 4 . - ' 1 I 1 : _J- i ,. ..; ,a. s4t,t tJ.I.;11. . ---,LA...-.,-..si-.--1".',11%-4....‘...-• ;:---- - ); ; • • ._../ • • • •--, 1-'--1 '--.... _..,..i::.I.",/:-''!;:"•!A-;•-.7"-N"•-•, ,,'...?,;,_-; ifs=.--,,i,.. ......iiii •, i . . .... ..,...( ...,,,,,...,.. . f..---.Pi.',Le,.-)". •' •• - ''4 4---''''''''''11‘,-.'• -, ---.-, ..',n . - ' -.'—'-' - -'. "N - • • i -,..-- --s.,..-,,,, ...,.......ct :::.- . -..-.,, --„.....,,-.4, ,..,.. .., -:,---..61,-4,:„.• . , . — 1• --_,- -. ---. - :,...- -.--....e.,-..-- .. . . „.., ---, s....„•t„,--!.i...:.....,: —,....—....,-..--.41 F y. .t NE r'' --,--.',•" -,:::..•• --- -:•-•-;': . . -.:X";4''':--!;-::'$", •t• -,- ; - I $ t NE-I • • • _--- tt....1_ •.,....,:-'.....iifiera' '.-;'-':-.,.:41.6.-Y'-..adidilki r,..-',,,:,•:1....,,1:1-,.`.<.•5'-•• _ •.7 . • • --. t', ' • .' I / . , --- -77.7P.P_IEDPat,..:1".....3-• t.1_ • • • • .._.-' 1..._ ,„,...\i- ---------'-'7,--.-- 1----- --7, , • j<," \1\-1 ,_.-1,V r-- 1 r--1 • • -, - • • I • PlOase place an"X" in the box for the name you select. Return— :. • ballot in envelope provided. . - . .-. - - -,---:-..':--•-•,,. • ' • --- •.-1 -:-,.."••;''\•-'-: .'.1."7{1Y-;71,5r-'1-7,1'-, ,I.)-;r7(I -; - , --'-' . '''.t. • • .1;,----!: 2 t',I.•,I.''$),'1',. ;t.K.,-L.,t,'.=:.-' $$`..<4.'i•C'',`-r)V-'4$2tii4-,;';:t-'.-' '•S''''`' ',-2 ,A-''`.tt lw ' "..... • • ,, ,. , ., -. ',-L.-4:e'...';7"4' L-:;-4ft -'4.1XVA'Alg-,!`,'$:.-"4'':,-!:....'','''.,-4-f''-'''':I.--'0'.•-:'-t.. -'-':.•.'.''. • • ' ' '.-.''' 7.-"'":.';''''.P.....1''AP:V'4*-1.04414:44:rtiO ;$00:4T r,T.,,:':0 ::."-;•-'';,-,•"-:-.:,,,Z ,' - ': ,. • --:,-i-NA.1,744tak.•41L-1 r-t• - - •1-.., '-', -,- i, • • .,:,..._..__:.• ..,12-,-- .,--,- :,ia-- -.:4-4,-,-,-;,7A-.1.-zar-45.15,s94-70,m-11:-.-4' '-':::4;-,1.4-...,,,,:•;4.-.---:!-::-• ,4:, • . :.;' ,• '1,,l 7L41.1.:'?'-'v-7.t.44;-- -lk.-T-klt-)-:,44.,-'V-0--e---Vz--• Le --,iW%:--,fe,-i ,---:;‘,.,-:-,,-,-1•,,,,:;?...,.1/4, •,-;n•-;.,,,-..,. . • ,, ,- .:•-:1'..,:,T4t,;11,--_,,,t,:'_.-7.__;-, ---4--4.. -.4_,A,;,,41,TA__:-., ..1.. .„.1A?g,--.:•.-r:,:-.1!--.0--, -.7,;•-,•-•-,.,:iti-- -_'-z-•,,,-`:! • • , :,- • - '--3,-, ,.5„-,fr.----A-_—_,i,--;-,- ---nt.---.:441-12.1v§-_-,,,,,,,fti8v1,0.,,,,,T-,:f-,----:,,- ,i•--,-:0:2,--,,,A-..,- ., -- ,. • • • -. :-,,,--.; ;,.•--,,,F,4•,.:.:,.,-„4-- ..-4.3:-.,*--•7.,:-'.-reulr-47,•.-1,,...9 $4,TS It---•ir''''` --,...i..}.1.-:tyt;"',T.:.7.:-...'t I'. '''-.2. ''.=''' • • ''.' --,•741.-;$We4,-'-'iti,-.;-'"•;t,.,7''.* :;;,3.1.:"'t'111,41447•44,43*:‘,L'Xi-Z,-,t1.X.41A;,1*,:,','•..,,,t,..',:,',",V'''":";.--`':-' '..4 • • :-..;; ' ''' :i''-`i'l:'-Wir441,'5-741tti'rq't$$%V.4:4;':4'6"=t-'-iit,4". ...4".ir.•...",,- t_---$-- . '...,...'s - - ., •. ....•••••';•—•'•••• :S•0000000000000•••••••••••00000.••••o•.... SAMPLE Heather Downs Barfield Heritage I X 0 1 HAKim\Bill\Heather Downs ParlaBid form for HD Park Naming.doc .September 26,2005 I Renton City Council Minutes Page 326 CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/19/2005. Council concur. 9/19/2005 CAG: 05-144,Benson Rd S, City Clerk reported bid opening on 9/13/2005 for CAG-05-144,Benson Rd. S. Dennis R Craig Construction (Main Ave. S. to S..26th St.); eight bids; engineer's estimate$514,045.10; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc., in the amount of$459,508.35. Council concur. Vacation: Aberdeen Ave NE, City Clerk submitted petition for street vacation for portion of unopened Dohrn,VAC-05-003 Aberdeen Ave. NE, south of NE 40th St. at Monterey Pl. NE; petitioner Ron G. Dohrn, 31767 Monterey Pl.NE,Renton, 98056 (VAC-05-003). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 10/17/201 5 to consider the petition. (See page 328 for resolution.) Community Services: Heather Community Services Department recommended adoption of the Heather Downs Downs Park Development, Park Master Plan; 9.18-acre site located on Union Ave. SE, south of NE 4th St. Master Plan Council concur. Annexation: Leitch, SE 136th Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department St& 140th Ave SE submitted 10% Notice of.Intent to annex petition for the proposed Leitch Annexation, and recommended a public meeting be set on 10/10/2005 to consider the petition; 14.6 acres bounded by SE 136th St., 140th Ave. SE, SE 138th St., if extended, and 143rd Ave. SE. Council concur. Finance: Business License Fee Finance land Information Services Department recommended approval of Reporting Period changes Ito the business license fee reporting period. Refer to Finance Committee. Plat: Wedgewood Lane Hearing!Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Wedgewood Division 1,Hoquiam Ave NE, Lane Division 1 Preliminary Plat; 18 single-family lots on 3.07 acres located at PP-03-053 980 Hoquiam Ave. NE(PP-03-053). ,Council concur. Plat: Kristen Woods,Benson HearingjExaminer recommended approval, with conditions, of the Kristen Dr S,PP-05-056 Woods Preliminary Plat; 20 single-family lots on 3.84 acres located at 3200 block of Benson Dr. S. (PP-05-056). Council concur. Transportation: Maple Valley Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Hwy Improvements,TIB Grant the Transportation Improvement Board to accept a$2,208,000 grant for the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169)Improvements Project. Council concur. (See page 328 for resolution.) MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Maureen and Kelly Goodwin, 1102 N. 30th St., Citizen Comment: Goodwin - Renton, 98056,concerning public safety at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, Gene Coulon Park,Public lack of enforcement of City ordinances, lost City revenue due to the broken pay Safety,Broken Pay Box box at the park's boat launch, and the refunding of money due to the broken pay box. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that the issue regarding the broken pay box has already been handled by the Administration. Councilman Law recommended that the issues concerning public safety be reviewed during budget deliberations. _X OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,. <ILL f AI#: io n Submitting Data: Community Services For Agenda of: September 26, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Parks Division Staff Contact Leslie Betlach, ext. 6619 Agenda Status Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Heather Downs Park Master Plan Correspondence.. Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions Heather Downs Park Master Plan, cross sections and Information detailed concepts _ I Recommended Action: ! Approvals: Council concur ! Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... I Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A Statement of Qualifications(SOQ) was published in December 2004, and design consultant JA Brennan Associates was selected to develop the master plan and design and construction documents for Heather Downs Park. As part of the master plan process, four public meetings and an on-site open house were conducted to gather community input and feedback regarding park features. In addition,presentations to solicit feedback from the Park Board and Council were completed, with feedback incorporated into the Draft Final Master Plan. The Draft Final Master Plan was approved by the Park Board on September 13, 2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Heather Downs Park Master Plan as per Park Board recommendation to Council. 2005-155aa Y ti 0 Uti � COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy5-:1") Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor FROM: ,cU Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Leslie Betlach, Parks Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Heather Downs Park Master Plan ISSUE: Should Renton City Council adopt the master plan for Heather Downs Park? RECOMMENDATION: Parks staff recommends that City Council adopt the master plan for Heather Downs Park, as per the September 13, 2005 Park Board approval and recommendation. BACKGROUND: The 9.18-acre site of Heather Downs Park is situated on three parcels of land on Union Ave SE,just south of NE 4th Street. The two outer parcels were acquired in the 1980s, and the final acquisition of the center parcel was completed in 2003. The property is all City-owned, with some portions managed by Planning/Building/Public Works and some managed by the Parks Division. All portions will be incorporated into park use with limitations (no permanent structures) on the Planning/Building/Public Works areas. A Statement of Qualifications was published in December 2004,requesting firms to submit a proposal for design services by January 12, 2005. Firms responding were required to have experience in neighborhood park development including site inventory and analysis, community meetings,master planning, design development drawings, construction drawings, and bid documents. After reviewing proposals from thirteen firms and selecting four consulting firms to be interviewed,JA Brennan Associates was selected in February 2005, and the contract was awarded in March 2005. Community input is vital to successful park development;therefore, four public meetings and an open house, as well as two presentations to Park Board and the City Council were scheduled. The first meeting, held on June 1, 2005,at Highlands Neighborhood Center, attracted over 60 citizens. Attendees were encouraged to complete a survey, indicating prioritized park program features; e.g., basketball court, climbing rocks, play equipment, walking trails, etc. There was also a presentation by JA Brennan Associates, showing 2005-153aa Terri Briere,Council Pre;., ,Lt Page 2 of 2 September 16,2005 draft concepts of the park layout, in addition to audience participation regarding park features the neighborhood would like incorporated into the master plan. The second public meeting was held on June 28, 2005 at Highlands Neighborhood Center. JA Brennan Associates compiled all the data from the surveys and audience input, and presented two draft park concepts. Audience participation was encouraged with the attendees commenting on the concepts. An on-site open house was conducted on June 30th , so people could j`walk the park," discuss the concepts, ask questions, and express concerns to Parks Division staff and JA Brennan Associates who were in attendance. A Preferred Alternative was identified. Minor revisions, including a path alignment similar to the concept that was not selected, were incorporated into the Draft Final Master Plan, and presented at the third public meeting July 26th . The last public meeting was held August 16, 2005,where JA Brennan Associates presented the Draft Final Master Plan to the community. The attendees fully supported the Draft Final Master Plan including Park Board and Council recommendations,with one revision regarding trail lighting as noted below. A briefing was made to Park Board on June 14, 2005, and to City Council on July 11, 2005. The recommendation for a basketball court was incorporated into the Draft Final Master Plan. The recommendation to include trail lighting was not embraced by the Community and an informal survey of neighboring cities confirmed that trail lighting is not typically incorporated into neighborhood parks. However,the park will be designed and constructed to accommodate for future installation of trail lighting and cameras. The Draft Final Master Plan was presented to the Park Board at their regular meeting on September 13, 2005. The Park Board approved the Master Plan and further recommended that the plan be presented to Council for adoption. 2005-153aa Heather Downs Park Development Master Plan , , I 1(r � ___-..._ _ ____, L MASTER PLAN LEGEND E-7., , n - t I ' �• 0.PICNIC PLAZA / L iI je'�-r."'' -_rJ k1ZI:::77:1''.7:7f3- ------ B.PICNIC SHELTER ,1 __ � l• -3 _ _ C.RESTROOM .':**./.72.--- . --,-_--,,,,rim --..NE. COU' _ 11 �. D.PLAYGROUND(2-5) ( _ •r� 7---- E PLAYGROUND(5-12) .' r -i...,-...70;-,11,,,,,,,. 'y �� 1 I F.ROCK CLIMBING PLAY AREA G.PARKING AREA i {17-4 L f/,f Q. . y --4,..-.-a-1-....00i ii V�.. �-- M.BASKETBALL HALF COURT @�I(�n,�.e�+ .,. ^ "• i` '�^ ) L-_f I.PRIMARY PATH I'x011`}'"�'�I'� �} '' � /,V i J.SECONDARY PATH piARD SURFACE IF WIDE LOOP) LEWOD I 5 ) ..p�.,t k..(ri,'w'..7 .'�,1,k :20��-''' - .R J,i .�1-I 111111111111. �' K.PLAY MEADOW(SOFT SURFACE 56'WIDE) 4 LL \\ PARI '` l 4•17-',Y ' 6 I '_ M MULTI-USE FIELD (MI LT)F ILY) '', (\\) /1:.:'...7,.,kf Ce,;:' y�, yP .�@��i ,,, I� M INFORMAL BASEBALL FlELD ly �r /-/ : ` ~'— •h. f �i t '-�P. '( ��: ,t i ■� N.BACKSTOP 11 O.ENTRY PLAZA �5' ,., a, �r �+ _ •\ Ta N �. SI,' ■ ti AMIL P.TRAFFIC BULB OUT [ il ) 1 t ,+•.:%.4q` • 4 � R:SIDENiIAL Q-EXISTING DOUGLAS RR -Z—= I� \�= >' r , �+II I + R.EXISTING CEDAR GROVE f• / \:`; a^y`' /� 3^x9��)d I S.EXISTING MAPLE Is 3 �--� q[ I____ ,_ r LiI ? id . k` ,,:(_^I ;; ,tel.,. -= -7 i'.il''tm. egi*Ati: 1-1 1- c t 0 60 1.03 -�, -- .o:�<t1a i• ffier f�1, ...�' •• ai'i' L t HEATHER DOWNS 1 --�j—I-' f \\ .....!.. -1%(0.,,,-11.: i I = - PARK MASTER ` j, ' 1 f ,,,,-;:.1,,,,,,,,,,. gym :, ` �: i NE f • .. PLAN -„ --` ' I' --9 - � CITY OF R ENTON .'-, _eL_J - ' 1 NE 1STPU{CE � �� -- �Z. l--__•-=:d' aY.! ;,, •.� � - COMMUNITY SERVICES mai �' I LE) — - C-- ] ---1 r11 -- .i llr DATE:8-10.05 I FIGURE: City of Renton Community Services j,a.brennari. Heather Downs Park Development Plaza Detail-Picnic Shelter, Restrooms, Playground t , r ,, , ,, ,, , i VP' Ir f S^T,4 ate,..,..,....„.„..„,.., v j 'a` .c` e..' T.. , fit Acer„ h:4 s( r�i� N na y.:-..,::,,-=7;i. !9 L a;. r ill F r gyp. _ } 7 r y ? r,,' '! ,... ,\ ' : F .",...;,;i;-'„„t..,;,P:( : i _tf F' t,..,1:1,.k fil 1.,8 rsnit .F r` ! � ..,:---;;;..4.: om 1.'S3 'a'. :::,,..t.:711,75....._........;',"01 � Y e •C ". .14 Z .r x,'.S.� �.r y a�.w it 11 ii i1'TCXZWfaitr:odegaltilalWa fa 11 � k � � iiritj�iM:ll4ia17��'I�IA a 4 (iiF ! F,`t_N, 11 �e' s i a i1 f 'a1�±"� ,r1 mir 111 ' a �h'r F IT #i #a,,xl.. ,r W-e" . `i sa i. 4 y*,,..., ary ', 9 ''� y f'i.11' �.s!"�. h`p' .'� y s k tilt hi�` ,1 R ' h+",fe'.': i) �'• rk, , x� ).�� ° R'aIIfiRtE�I +k•,-,411,la,*; 0' Mit a' •,,e1''f .•., ,z1., • ,,,a w AI:.- „ ,t Alaserit, � - - .r,.; y,I . i 11,,,.:11'.' u x "_•. , " !'tjitJ%jIjft 1. - etiv'". ,t+v>3' r i - �.1;.-',4„,:e0;er ,,,,,,,4:41/4,..f _.. ,son .i, 1 it - ..itt ig* 4 . il -, { ,�'tAj.3., moi.. o f i"'...r`l?..i.',:.$4..". lsYi.'t _._ - ♦ r it, yolei .. 1 , i v` II I Rf ; ` rj �.R``, { tifA�l j ' 1/ 1 6 r31� 9 ' `' �', *1 i i' rt.','Z, 4••.th �., 'I ,Fes' r( . - '�f.• i� • "%'.�. . �', 3 . "_;.="rte City of Renton Community Services j.a.brennan ) • Heather Downs Park Development r' Section 1--Picnic Plaza N-S :d- ir" ,a.*I P3 r�' 31ti e c �,'4 ' s.,�{ t t;' RA ,�.' )-"`•,t 'p `°I}�;,' '4 '+ --. a 1 ti Y Pj14, ,--7:7:1i41,-'.g"' A Y ,- •.'.', 's ix-d7$ A `' 1 i .. It S• -` ;';';',V,*'a -i:=,,.,: %.'�� 5. -:mac "X.'��k',k• �..f4c yt i''4^x A.-.� . -,--,,,,,,..,-,„ • s,{ \Ls fi t I°e Iiiinfier EXISTING DOUGLAS FIR RESTROOM PROPOSED KATSURA TREES PICNIC SHELTER ~�^ ��CONCRETE PATH EXISTING MAPLES BASKETBALL COURT and SEATING WALL Section 2--Picnic Plaza E-W �' 4 « -- ,•r. \. 1 Jt Jam'. xyx3+, j''-- 3,t , '-ghl,/ + J . _ ap 6' p �, e/ _ -- o , ° - q �r<• Hxemm sema a` s> v' v + ra i 1 e.Fsxt ). a t4 k 44. .. CONCRETE PATH PLAYGROUND PICNIC SHELTER and PLAZA PARKING CONCRETE PATH - • City of Renton Community Services j.a,brenna � t Heather Downs Park Development Section 3--NE Entry Plaza ri",, • o- }may..4. .. ,4 *' ; • fig, . X ' O. V 4/4 ,,,, ;,t. ''..4-,_V.4...,'I-4',,' 7..7'.'`E'.., ''':'''‘''''',..L.': Illk-''-:.•7,l '!,-.',;,',7, i ,'. . / i e ' i'..,,,445' 7, ISM ' )01'1::6"70 '`..IX''4',;',.V, ,,,/,..,,,,:',i,',.1:,'. ;://'77',.'l',4;,7' , , , a .4, , ,i s,,e1, n�a 4,.{ ,7 ,,' �� 47, ,QE 1. lof ,' 4 °L`t j �a+ • !..j 7 r: y ,f ay T f! v ++., a7 i1� ^-�t; _ e 'ii- �, ., -r, 1( r . r1 ", Mr i„,l(!,... .,.;,.-.;.6, ,. A. frta +—. , ra Gli*Nht_A!1.';ify.?,tt,I. _. . c%. -. A *�..` 4 i ] ; 'f • • ”( f .• q+'� yam. rf ( . . if; '—. Ot •� vFide 1 2 3a,, fa A. . `, w: ' ;_ _ 4 h + : . trr "`1 ,.a ai ds .�., X\ t akL" t4` ({ }ir SOX-- if .725,�TA 4.xK}.`rMh. Y. ,,,,21,,-.2a,„ r.; �. , r .,•,,.,..7.-- ..,414't.u ..a � .,, _. C,i,x. ( �t�. :0--,aim—r Ja1S62. >„„,,. " ..? UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING CEDARS ENTRY PLAZA PROPOSED TREES NE 3rd COURT and PROPOSED TREE City of Renton Community Services j.a,brenna>�� Heather Downs Park Development Section 4--Loop Path/Forest Area 'P.�3 r � r : ''�l a V. .�, ✓ } s t al t} a� has �u i , '. J v_ Cyt" ,i grg '10',VIM ,� f', "�r,� . /a Ls di 'f; t �r ,Y--\' firt;Y u _� .;,'..,%,:, ,„d "�,ti�, f a` Qo" . '1 2 �. dfi Y n,) .� :::is. SYv �,u i. i "s a, .. Spm :t'4 it 9y_,..o-1., 4t a. ,,��qq '. Ast'"�}�L t ♦�F; �.•_?• --...,;4' 9 �' t t;� � Yr'f.FL�t. f 'ss • '531 }^y'4' i` ' 1 Ari t_ {f f r7'474.-', t' , , v ,.. if z T ::,,,/,`",-,":1,yr , 4py # ,i�}. ,-L....) 1` s w ti. a .,� • .✓ •l yy °� a ,ee "' r 1 r ti6;77 1 4 mom" f; i! rf ♦ sy M ''.1";f15"--3"' t :°�a� k ' ' s sa a "u�'�a ''''-'• 4 ' ,U,{�,;7 rk `� p ../Blit. yl. r� '1 it'd `1 _ :1.:-.-- ",,,,..1..A,1-4.%:„..: �-y,1a"-'� Ii: iy 4 .w lU.nl: i rei.`• Tali ti\i# . ':+. S.; :. ' '" •: '.. _ PROPOSED MULTI-USE FIELD ""t`',,- ill a y ?: ,P.:;',....,,, , ;t,st#z P`.i ' yx �`7'% ''''.".11'''6 '7''.".1ss nr . ➢ie:`" r ,�F.k . .,. �" �t: w.tv'�u .,.r Ldi,,.,cn,�w r , w EXISTING TREES and PROPOSED PROPOSED NEW TREES UNDERSTORY VEGETATION CONCRETE PATH RESTORATION PATCH SWALE City of Renton Community Services j.a.brennan I' - - . Onvrii,,atizz CQ. Vitew 7/0/2.0 •0 1 PRE EI REDa tizz CQ. V— --- 1 �- �-__---_---'_-___-_ ALTERNATIVE 'Based on Public input f o - CONCEPT ONE 'June 28t4,X005 Public ing. I _ I �_� �� ;' 1, LEGEND _.. - - A — ~-�-- --� __ , B.Restroom Picnic Shelter —> �1' Air.1 1 C.Parking Area 7,7----.. -_ = .._NE 3RD COURT .1i""'1•-'-`�` - —— — — •i�� (5 Cars with one load unload) ,� r i�i� - . 4 1 D.Playground Ages 2-5) `"3. �1 l�,� �;�'�" _ l I ' _ o E.Playground(Ages 5-12) r l' , -_3."�' v. - • F -'a f •• 1 F.Rock Climbing Structure tel; ��, - i 7 j i G.Half Court Basketball R"� i • Ilk: H. Informal Volleyball MAPLEWOOD I. Picnic Plaza PARK ^� ` ., ,„..,,p.4,q 3` ,� 7 jl . J.Picnic Meadow (MULTI FAMILY) fl <_ .�.Ar T, l--'--I - K. Primary Path(Hard Surface) i - '� �' ?: 1 ■ - L.Secondary Path(Soft Surface) I "�: i \�:' J > J SI6IGCE AMILY M. Traffic Bulb-Out I' l, mr L. { �� f ' RESIDENTIAL N. Existing Significant Trees l r 'gbt_ � _ '..4. , �, � O. Guardrail R- ; sit.-;-,... low., . -.-- - . .-" -...5 i ' i el �4r ,� S t_ I Ili .r., qr. .:.. L ---FIE- 2nd KACE A Y ii k • 0 la-\� \ �t� I A�'n•� ' --_ 1 A 1 SCM:r-50.0. I I I /rI ~� IW -- 1 ' 0 50 100 Ir " Iv �� I I ditt,..11/7a � o t; L HEATHER DOWNS ,t \-,,,, . i--- e, .. PARK MASTER .. ii illtill ..........i � _ p�^,',��sj i.l��`.. �_ .� A �rI I NI fl r !1,„.."-_,.....0, . i 11 i I PiE sr '' CITY OF RENTON _. +• s :_ ,..� _ _ _ COMMUNITY SERVICES m Will i it \ 4 Elm am it4.• a el. r--, - AI i L.p --`-- -- - - ,r- ■ ♦ -• ;- I -T -ice-, r.------t--c--i--r t `r-i DATE:6-27-05 FIGURE: 1 _1 . , ----------------- i::2__2_ ALTERNATIVE T �_1pH • .... 4� —,s— friwiliii CONCEPT TWO .._ . �, LEGEND jr___if__ � A.Picnic Shelter dilipiiii � l� B.Restroom �� .,. o C.Parking Area - - �'- - NE _3RD_COU- _� unload) 5 Cars with one load �� _� ,, - -�_ '` Tom. �, =4411 F. c� D.Playground(Ages 2-5) _■ I E.Playground(Ages 5-12) �� . ��r�.`�\�� is �� F.Rock Climbing Structure l //d _ �• r -'�, G.Half Court Basketball I .e ..� ,� • Q H.Informal Volleyball ::_�- Filiri �� I. Picnic Plaza %:;,. I� ---,z,L .s\\ t W, i;.. J.Small Entry Plaza MAPLEWOOD 1 ► , PARK `4� �"-rI A r T. ` K.Low Plantings 1 1 -rte lift ,(MULTI FAMILY) i4. • -- 1 -� 1 c �� ;I!- am. 1 1 L.Picnic Meadow / M. Primary Path(Hard Surface) #' to -r1 ?F,i - � �)��L E Al I SI__jI LE MILY N.Secunda Path Soft Surface b� 12f� :,::I:� '- `��i;'I! RESIDENTIAL O. Traffic Bulb-Out L. I "t? 4 r-�li:rin,- ��4 I Q. Existing Significant Trees r i ,, I ' . ->r ccu a �y ♦ I �� I I 'lair . Ej �� y I / I I Ir`' rE 2nd PLACE F ll v , 1 II II / h S -�I., I `` I i 1 I awe r.soa 1‘ s 1• • �� I' \ I? 1 1 o so uo a 411011! �` NFORt�.�- I Q�b a L l. - u ,?, o o 11T-1-1 HEATHER DOWNS J1,►i�. Ver -��---` I �' ;. �' ; • = PARK MASTER Pa a t� ;'� - ; ', .1”:47-... .t�, PLA ill 116411100,A . ....„,,,, --- ri -- -- ,. - _ „. �III° 11111 L�'�sP `�� •C; �'!`�:,,;r,� ,7"v I j` `� gin_ . C�)--11— CITY OF RENTON ., !. ■ �. 1 •, ._r �-.._ r - �,�9 HE 1ST PLACE COMMUNITY SERVICES • ---- --:-- -4-a- \ 1 24111 lb r , ,� " - � oal in _ • ■ • u ' `�—' 1 '" - ' f ( r DATE:6-27-05 I FIGURE: Heather Downs Park Development Public Meeting No. 2 June 28, 2005 ' ..461111111111111111" •+siws^� A ,y; . -tel ,,ti ina `�•-1� a... ..�-*.~r` `as •%F' 0,4.', ' .ii:,- ii 1 rJ _. 1 City of Renton Community Services j.a.brennan* Heather Downs Park Development _`l�,,..../ w■�'TT ` '..• '-,� • kip r� , . N,..,„;,...„_;_„,, F . -AI= •' .:.' ''''.- - ,'--:• ' vs.:-..—\t:• ', ,.:'..-• . . N‘-ri ,.....\\1,.,\., N : . ....„.„.__ „ A. , :_. ,.. ., ...--. . 4.7_ - Park Context T °r � n t. r b. ti `mom �'��' ,.ti ▪ s e ., ) ,. \\, I �• 7-:----t-S... In� \• y .,... , r . .,,,„ , . N. • Neighborhood with ,,,:�:,�: �i,,,..„ martir • • g : ,, ‘; -gip:F V•J - :: Single-Family and ..,� � -� �:� ., • • J'*" , \- � 7.r v iii: • r;: 7 \ _* '' -71\- .. Multi-family housing • ,�• . ` 7. viiii...: A - " i- c ! iIl{- • Diverse culture •1. 'prim.m�� .\:�i�:a,loilli[ ltIi ,1! �tl+ . Ili,• •:� • , ■ .\ `; \( R...• 1■►/.li IL •• Ir OWN: dl _€� 1 `►•kik �� d� .r • population • .,y A . t, ha M • - Dense �� r - �., . nu �, .i 140-11, r 42 - `��,�1��®�.�. is -, y, '• '1 :. •r .4' )1111111 IL'----%;•;-,*-!111 .T;;J.-.1 . AV_ _ .:. ...L. ,� . N • Bike and li �ER4��/ 4.m ._.; it . L ti pedestrian . .... access ' : �... ( 1,., �i _��L' - _ , ...\,.,,„ t� / may �.�,,,, _ . - -I jl l , -•- " $. 1', „-? �1111111 •_„ak��' 4 ri/ 440 ~ . - ' .s' ;, (. � „ , :'71/7' ��i/r „,,.....„,,,.....„... ® �'N ; a } ,� ;%fir !/��'��ill 21n .11��1� �a •► k.\*t^ 111,,e..,• . .�r alr.& v \13 I.�r/ 4` b :1 7, i �i f °� t. ' 9 F '-,, iP • t _ * -f t'` r it, +l,) •p !+ �L` \ 'a.,. c +�`.:Cre "'� ”• . • +ate. In L irit—M. 1 1�� rig t �1 r ) "•T�\i. ` .. 'moi•J• /.'��ti��i�1��4^i:�!ils■1��..�I�['1111L.��m�. n� s '( ."ice-, City of Renton Community Services ;.a.brennan / .., t..--... ;;-,;*-. i...r„.,,,_:...-.1!......f CITY OF RENTON , :FI vu : Ns • ,SCHOOLS II1 ; .,,, r:,-%,..,";,;,ii ;‘,.i. ...y,••••_ Heather Downs Park Development PARKSAND TRAILS MmISMiM DEVELOPED PARKS . 1 ' II,- ' , ' •••• 111111111•11111 OPEN SPACES . - - -PEDESTMAN ONLY TRAILS -/ . .--. ;.T.'.:-:4.-, ...., Ina ...-.-.MUOID USE TRAIL -BIKE ROUTE(SNARED ROADWAY) ......SCHOOLS ....•... -_. .• i MY LIMITS • '-1-1.".t... NIEWCA$ * lit...n..mx-p..s roan S.....d....z...... ,:l...,. t.:.' ;i . " • " • . w .„..4. . "•=crs..... (.. .. / . ... \ 1 Renton Parks Map :........, _ • •_ i...,.:::i.-. , i :... ..„.. .,.... , _ 4.,... ., ''',, walIAMOKIR111 ••• -''• 1 1 1111h.. - ...,. „; ... 1 ,...._•;,... .- • •-• ..,,;• . •......_,,,-...44:: .-t!..il:'-• --:-%-.. ,_ . ; ._.i.--,-:_-. le -- --- --- if ...LI- ' ,-•T' .;._%I_ 1..• i,..1' . .. 11 j 1 ' 1 - .'s,.......,_-_,;-....,,i; '.::larrIP :•J ' \ Xict,s. •. I i . Nil-e i• ri.._. .- i r 4i is.....•-L.:::..;7,:i:ti 1;,:..1 i'l, .11-..,..:,.1 ::; 1 7 ' -14- ." iil!-1 -- \ ..::: ----::: 1 • '3 • - , ar, , - 1.,...-- -." 3. ,11---4141. I ,, 1r...Pl.! • - -,..,..-: .' ..• •A :•-- -• • \-95-1. '•-• •••••,i / ,•• - .-.` illi .., ,.-.-. . -- .•i: _...-•• . ........... - • ., — ,_. m`'.... \ ‘ ,-T••',,,___,..,ry, )P1; 4,- =.- 1 i. \.. 4,,, ,,._____ 1°.' alk - .-. ,....,, '— •-• .. \ •:: f_.%. ,-; .-14i I; 4.*. -- ••-•r • 1.j 10, ..-.'' • -.., , i % • \ ' \ •••'T' kl• ---- , ••••• ' ••• .'- tz-A . - *--41-....-s.... * ' •.:. . IL _ ._. .._. c. • II 1 i t.. =: , . ; ;;; .......: „.....7. , ... — , -s- . . ,,,,- .. 1 . ..., -.: ....-.. ; . I ; -40.0“..111 • I•I I '.7.:. V., . , .• 4 ' ••••• ' ......,.. 4,.......„...1:4...... "11(7(Y=. , • ' •--,, , ---,vim:- 1 I 1 r i i . , , •-..i'•444, , s • . .... • , • .... •'•••• Kk .. I 1,....,..,-.....,3„..4 ...•• " - It: ; •t •-•;''.. ... ,_ -. ; • • •— • rr - !um ....7.--= .• -,. . . •-.. :-,:.i . , .. . , I, ;.... ; ; ..4. i . . — I. . ." ; •- ._. i ISENT •—.:---- wt.., t •-• •-• •-:1 • % ;i; i ;; •' ; ! i ; i ._ i IP*.:•-. ._. .. .7. ::..- . — • • City of Renton Community Services — .. . . . • i ... i I .... ,... . . .....-;4 - _ ._. - .. ,.. .. . . ._.-!._.ak, - ..... .....---...,• , ; Heather Downs Park Development V�Es To o�Y SLS �, To Ne-�}-*3--Act__. SITE rG{[• 11,.locA L • - 1[3 if. ). ANALYSIS PLAN t 1 ; DUJ41 ' 14j T `�1 -�i _ LEGEND 1 +L________Ins � - nom�. — i v },� `,' /ID? Gtr .tNCT ion • a •p .,r' % Ali MB aini 110/011),.rN 411. 11\t MI' ii 1 .44..1°LI I I El'1 4 1 1"1. • - '' . - DUE ''.:1 s •* rte, ' �I fol4 `'�► �• ii � EXISTI►•1�:�C) iii, 4.04 1 ;pr.',_,Li % ,' i rACT1Vlt4 ;— � !ei° 44111 , – . IV` d % limp 7 a .11411114 \iu ire , , .. . ,,,'‘.. iltkcz. 'fib .. ...`'... .sr''''''_ IP-#.7 7—ti,..!bio•,, : – I , y 7 ‘is Zit . mg .., , ,..A k v,.\ L4 k,....a 0E4 * 111111 a .: v 1 _'� f1110114 !Iff,. IPS a , , F , 1 iG.F 1'.q0' IV 4111 0 40 10 INS ri��i. . ,� • _ aa. i �� ``�� `''�� 1,.: IACL- o 1: ° ut".; 'o;� / liur.. b..-,°'� s . . r` -`-1 �6 HEATHER DOWNS a . ' �__ `y► 4f'r y �' �.! _,H4 r It PARK MASTER i - ' IF 4 , ��.1111 a ` I— PLAN �' rRi!'�►� III■ _.■ ` t� 7` ,, -- - - CITY OF RENTON y 1,'-•.: --.''' PARKS DEPT. - . . " ••t Iii Ion• im! A., S • ,--,) • ' AP VIIPI,' iii.L.,. 1'40 i i ..... r..... -,---- ,....__ -—1 i. ' 0 a AO_ IL! ipurTuirf EL - Filipir,r-- 1 _I �r ,.r-- [1 y • Mt.&'MOO DATE:5-31-05 FIGURE:A Heather Downs Park Development '.'r-a. •• •• r. Neighborhood context --�— . • ; J I III' Vh ill '' '96t. ..1I•1111 I I'4114 . A i ILL' i fill I 01114{{{i •c,..../........ y11\ _ __ • Apj' I .�,.$11111111W111111W I�11.. w . ._... ...•. l`SII.....- ... City of Renton Community Services ;,a. r� ; lfr , Heather Downs Park Development .. - ... PS .... .,.. _ • • - % • ..• .. ' • .•, xf,.:it ,-_ - .0 ..".r ....4,. ,,,T-• -g, •;-....,;:-..-14 4- ., .. -• -7-i !-71,.....---r-i ' ": Ar..•, ..e.-...- - .7-. .,...II -, ••/..1., . '''.',. • - 44. ,. ... : , .... ..: -;4.' -- f .. ....-•• s 1 -Plit *i; ., . -.„. . ., - •-. -,. ..•--)A 4 :; ..- " . 4:e • _ 1 , . 4 ' 4 .. 41.4,' ' '' ''' :f*.t‹! ; S 4. .4;"... 714.0',/.,. .''9 '' Y ' r ' •,..".. • '-"k . ' •1‘ lie ' ....-.' s • ... i'• , . •P.'44- ' ,. " -.11'.0%' -41.A., :, - '''•.,. , I .... ':ZP.:•4''11',: 'Y '' • ' C- " V .....v.I..-N. sr . • 2r:- ,.. ' , - Wx4 • ' ... . .• '.-'..;; ... ,ar* d .... .. . • • 4 r t• r . •, , -,. .a.. . . V.- . ''• ,.. .4._. : ......t.;.0 ,MAO•.4 • ' ,. .,, "'I •, ,,,,,„„4',;.% ',-0.,,,:**,•/ - • •,-. ....r4"IP ,,A.:1. .1.1 .".*T ; ...' ,•.' ..- / .;•, ;.e5, . . ' ,' '' n. ;-A* , . "..-... . • ... 4.,.... -:. ' •'.p..-... , _. , , . . . ,. • co. , ,---4,,,*- . i -. , _.,,- , - :0,.,.. .. . ..., - 1, ...••••••m.-.......-....... 1 '.., '' Mai, ...•,,, . ii Fill. - I..• .... ___.- --..- -.44... . ..,.. . .... -ii.....t ..- ... _t. '. ,.... --- ,...m... oe0Z.----- 4 ..:41=2.- . ... --. ••••• lel -X - ------ - • - F16 0 ',.• .4,1" Slope challenges .,• -. -, ---- , .- istitiki..' . .. . . .- • ,...... . .• .N. ...• •• " • • .;..-•:-. s. Sidewalk on Union City of Renton Community Services J,a-brgnclan,_ ':,"':As1,'4tA,.,—• s.-.... ----.:.4,-. :. Heather Downs Park Development I,,\:.s : : ' t ' k , it ►*_7> LA t • 'I.:.,.1:2 : \' • v.:, '!ts BGG • __ -y.,, lite;• ` 1., 0., , t 1 . a • t , F. �.-C . .etc , ....'../1..•• 4,iti ., ♦ ° ilk. Jlt t rt5 . -1*-,` i 10 � y aI� i- " .t t ,.� et r�r,� e �r �l�S4 '.r ! t s '. �j 1# �i it Z • j ' 5• •1 ,�•r�.t;f. ; , j�7al- .} f+:iii•.�t.. , [• `.I�• // 1 i•. 1• �.7� ",7' {yam '.4' ti+, , • .. ty 1.7.'j ,17-re.'„,"tw• ,,,,P.'i w t k.,- �.. M1y^ k+Ma ,T� r!!7.1_ -. a• _`,�r / _�.• _ 1•.+1• w£ •t -07 iti , :111r".1 Protectin site resources ~ 4! r., � • ` , r '-'�'f- City of Renton Community Services ;..,. 4.,,,,,,,�yv 1 '.tial'k -_>. I fit: y+F"� ' y 1 ,\ . „•••t , '•`i. i• t �.C,y. • 1- c a- e '-' • • .• .'' " - • • • • S '� I '•%11.1;•....m.........!" yam:..y':•-;,•, -"""*".., s c "y�(�i.• ♦ I+..✓'. ,./, tpyam,, _ •-•''',.... ��" i. •w f,TY.- �.•,+I• 1. - L �.f _ •t , ♦ ' •` �✓. • .��_ •••- r'474. t•`� y.t+' ♦.`r� 8' X'J�r: `• t •. / •. � - •f .` .t...�•:s • e —1 • _ • t r --rL s •,-2,,e.....7-4,i4- .4.0.,._.i; s Ti ,•F w .per-._�� • ONiawnas' =� ,r # '.. . -• '104stailhitio...:,, . • �.• ! : � •.• r • • • ,Ar'� '•M +V . ♦ • •^. ♦.- �f . 4. + x..Y * • •�At. ��y .•� `.� /� ` •. ,y F' •' • ^� A h 'fir�••�. • •fi` ' . t r J.- • 1 • - ..i14‘`."4‘‘ — 7 .,...,...,.......s,.,.. .. 74- ,..•, ..'.....:....,,...,:"...,.7;•,.i rt.... -„-•,...::-4-.. 1-1':"'...4."-' :mo •�yY .�/.• • '- - -� „f..— ' ' �. I ilit P • w • • • t 4. .. • 1 1 '4 , + • P. '.„�S, rrt/ „• b..”11 �\ • Y t tf; y �. r a >.. rl G t `�` �,s'/ii1t��,4�� 4i itprP • i -irO� •'Iv .�, ... • -.• I,,' J .� t t .;:, , r (fffJ` ji. 'I,/ I!lk'.�-agvi'l. gD ,e p '� I ;ly '::s' ,yl;^i ' 4t�.. .1%,..,..' lne.4 ! ,'`4,, (i, ?gift ‘'‘,.‘• '..,.. :,•...1. 'lc. iiiii 4 mo II . , <, ,4 ,:,, a� ii jj`�loli, 1 A ` -,----,,,,,,,e,t�•s •JAS;; ` , _ /A !r �,�I rf(" „,..z.."::._. .. ))1/4, +,fi :,.`.0:z..1,:,,,,iltlflry. Jy.s ti, y ' �, t�` .. . •1, Heather Downs Park Development Vision Statement Create a neighborhood park that meets the neighborhood's active and , passive recreation needs while being : � = ,; ' .: _... _ . :44-4 .... _., ..- sensitive to significant environmental 1.1.1---- features and adjacent property ownership. :=�- , �. ...�;e_. r ` j i..fi r+ '. 1 ,„ , 'l Ads liEd•lir I •A• e111L� Cdr _ .. _.�. - , �� i • • , , „ ;11011111k - ' . - • 1M1' • ,�. i/7/ ti t!• I City of Renton Community Services j,a.bccEiRe I • Heather Downs Park Development Park Goals Park Integration • Link park to surrounding neighborhood • Buffer parking lot views • Encourage pedestrian access L. _ • Create neighborhood entries • Enable views to the site to : ,, 0, A AO �� enhance park safety • Work with OPTED (Crime ,,_ Prevention Through Environmental Design) ideas to .-: . i, remove illegal activity on site City of Renton Community Services ;,a,brunl/ • Heather Downs Park Development Park Goals Recreation • Create multi-use recreational facilities • Develop facilities that respond to the needs of the neighborhood • Provide recreation appropriate to the site • Provide active and passive recreation activities • Provide summer youth programming opportunities Environmental Stewardship `; 4 • 7 7. • Enhance native vegetation " 44;"~ • Preserve existing significant trees. • Eliminate on-site dumping City of Renton Community Services j Brennan / • Heather Downs Park Development Park Goals Neighborhood Enrichment • Consider neighborhood gathering areas • Create sense of neighborhood ownership VsfikeNNE 4•15711 p parkpp • Consider adopt a opportunities =�. (Volunteer plantings and maintenance) Anna Aesthetics * ' • Enhance existing vegetation. s • Utilize naturalistic landforms ,G j a , • Improve the visual quality into the park site S. • Enhance or maintain framed views east and west Maintenance • Balance park improvements with maintenance resources. City of Renton Community Services j,a.br IP Number of • Heather Downs Park Development attendees ranking this Program Element Yes No Maybe element Active Recreation I Dog Off-Leash Area 9 31 3 7 Skate Park 8 28 2 4 Children's Playground 43 (1) 2 31 Chld's Climb.Boulder 28 (7) 2 10 15 Ranking of Informal ball field. 14 10 12 5 Multi-use Playfield 26(9) 10 5 11 Basketball(Half Court) 11 10 17 5 Program Elements Basketball (full Court) 13 18 5 3 Running Trail 21 4 6 8 Tennis Courts 14 17 5 1 Volleyball Court 9 14 12 1 Passive Recreation 0 Individual Family Picnic Areas 36(3) 1 2 16 Picnic Shelter 32(5) 1 7 13 Passive Lawn Area 27(8) 4 12 "P-patch"Community Garden 10 16 10 _ 5 Barbeque(s) 18 8 9 3 Trails 0 Soft Surface Trails(nature trails) 34(4) 2 5 23 Hard Surface Trails 29(6) 3 7 17 Support Facilities 0 Restrooms 41 (2) 2 2 18 Parking 22 2 9 5 Park Identscation 0 Park Signage 26(9) 4 0 Sculptural Elements 24(10) 2 6 2 Environmental Restoration .....amieb..\16.....A Forested Areas 32 (5) 2 5 Understory Planting 21 1 9 1 Sum 220 Key �j City of Renton Community Services U Top ten yes items j,azln � Tnn tan Rankari itamc Heather Downs Park Development Final Park Programming Elements • Children's Playground Passive 'Lawn Area • Children's Climbing Barbeque(s) • Boulder—Play—Are— -- • S- oftSurface Trails _ ._ • Informal ball field (nature trails); • Multi.-use Playfield. • Hard Surface Trails • • Basketball (Half Courts) • Park Signage • • Running Trail – Sculptural Elements pedestrian/bike trails • ForestedAreas • Volleyball Court UnderstoryPlanting • • • Individual Family Picnic Restrooms Areas Parking: • Picnic Shelter City of Rentorr:Community Services ,�.b�e, • • , (�, [� -- -__r__ _____ ALTERNATIVE --?' ' CONCEPT ONE 1 fte- nalr-ryIl �1 E�, I _i_ LEGEND '1 ' - '� ter A Picnic Shelter 'IC — -` - _ Co B.Restroom „- - • NE 3RD COURT— i--•_- f C.Parking Area _, • _ ____ - `4 • s•, _ti (5 Cars with one load unload) TTS t � •=1=` �� D.Playground(Ages 2-5) { 4I � E.Playground(Ages 5-12) _� ' 7 • 4st 1 4 F.Rock Climbing Structure ili. �K�s -.1 ,-.--'-`- .' r`o i i H-� ,' N G.Half Court Basketball L •�� +- H.Informal Volleyball LEWOOD ~a , ,-% fit I ��'��y,.j'�� !C• I Picnic Plaza n ;• f - Y .��-/ J.Picnic Meadow �IIPARK ••,, •.. 1 • .�Af, :1 j i _ (MULTI FA ILY) i/ y` —`-',4:7„...77, F i I Y ;T r r K. Primary Path(Hard Surface) —- L.Secondary (Soft Surface) t++� I � -�- Path J' 1 ° .`k ,.J- I �t- ,54,...e7..7� J > SI LE FAMILY M. Traffic Bulb-Out j �, • R SIDENTULL N. Existing Significant Trees _..r� %Li. J ,`►. 3 ,1_�� _.� 0. Guardrail 11 �- F - I [I li _, ;, ;,1 \) rpt- �'; 9 ;y ' dl it y41 I ' Iiii ik, iZ t3, ' o w wu •• Ii / �� ' )- °p3') ! ' ,�' ---- �I ` HEATHER DOWNS 1, •�A I It f��% _.. \y' .T T., -_- . PARK MASTER ,, i : -, __,_, PLAN r i --- 1 • .o ` �► T N..: I 1 — ,t_jc " r ,,,,,, ..�.`,,,..e"--•�z'�-.•mac =�`1�.�.= �` _ -( .. �___,_a CITY OF RENTON _A ., !_ __ COMMUNITY SERVICES :i - I II r: ;— - 1� W DATE:6-27-05 FIGURE: City of Renton Community Services ; 5nnI Heather Downs Park Development Alternative One: Picnic Plaza Iiiiii r I \-- A .:. 1.I P 1 .1 11\ t 1 • - _ '• foal ti - 1 .ip)-7- - ' .i -'''N -.:' " ' Ito. aey . I,f -4 r"''1l'i : 3 \ Liiiiiw , ` 4_ ,4p.--- y- -44 -. ' _ ."-- atikimm - . 1-,• ..., - - 4 l . giro—V:71g: - , A r r 1 . 'or .v -: - I -asp* • I . , 1 yolk _ir..... -.alk. ril : I 4 ` . 1 . ritrob4c . . I I i - Y--r-v- -... /.170 , ! tric ,j ii I' : VN- 16 • 11' -- 1 ti �` s . 1, City of Renton Community Servicesjbrenn Heather Downs Park Development Alternative One: p,; Y; '-�� • • ....►_ ,-- - Path with planter strip on D 1.4%, • 1 .Lu Union Ave. III d - • W __ - -- 41) I• • \ A 7 , iL: , ,.rl • 1 EDRIVE I= , , City of Renton Community Services ;,j.l�rennan# • • E ALTERNATIVE AllternativligsVS- --liiiftoLI::ILImlL---:1--- Triio,n ; CONCEPT TWO r � ' L.EGEND A. --7/ , .,• — f' - __-1q B.RPicnic troomelter T -. c� C.Parking Area —'—"— "_1---' 3RD COIRT•--\,7" ��' •i oo (5 Cars with one load unload) • --r _ - - -�:—,�•►�.T• ` '. ' t----- D.Playground(Ages 2-5) �s+ R`7* ,;ala E.Playground(Ages 5 12) 'V�� .71: `� „4„ , F.Rock Climbing Structure �� " - l G.Half Court Basketball r 1. . i I� , \.{- _— '. Q , � H.Informal Volleyball �.`' -.--7v;17.7%..%1-'.;*'.' (' y �� I. Picnic Plaza �yy p , , > �^� ' � I J.Small Entry Plaza PAR 4t,•� ^3 -r( r _ I 7!AnilP '(• �e'4_;,� K.Low Plantings (M TIF ILY) • {, �;' 11 '•/'"- L.Picnic Meadow AWIq t / _ LI �i1 ' i 1 u ' ��`l+ ; 1111."---- M. Primary Path(Hard Surface) ( � e VIK. . .` SI LE FAMILY N.Secondary Path(Soft Surface) I' '`' R•SIDENTIAL O. Traffic Bulb-Out Iy •t•;, +t�m,�� Q. Existing Significant Trees a— . VQ , ...6 ..si, ,..,._____ , „ • . ;„,....„ .4 .. 11,_, 1 1 , $.011/4.• . . .. .•, I , . V* I 0 50 100 �f•._; it' `t) t . _ ,T• ,4.9 • I� o r- �,��-1 HEATHER DOWNS w ■ X01 ►� R -t-_ i�I�� 2 _ 21� . �� ...1111. � ��,ya- PARK MAT! ` 11 ', i► PLAN ��4-°�� `...,,i'-' .,,a' '► '�l °w��_a I ■ CITY OF RENTON lial girl . • ' NE 1ST RACE it a f�� — �iyb _- MEI -------\ COMMUNITY SERVICES -,,i----- -r. - �{ p c — . . \ / "-T T �- _ �rtN�11I.YIX1Y 1•4.I•._ \ lip • • /um Z- LEI*R - i _. —Irollirlli ESTA ES _ O 0 J , t_ r t ��■ j a brcR(19f1 • __-- -'-'. � ' 1 H l-,-11-1- `t-1 i 3--, 1--1 I `r- DATE:6-27-05 I_ FIGURE: City of Renton Community Servicesj,a.brennan Heather Downs Park Development Alternative Two: Picnic Plaza vcsneI _ 'r ir , , . ( Al onillas, F-, A _ I IiIIiusr8■1L. An. ''61111 �� tt • R R.` .1 I (rz,, .��1. r w City of Renton Community Services �. I • Heather Downs Park Development Alternative Two: Traffic Bulb Out 3rd Court and Union 4-,-.....J _ ___ ' )..; i.", . ---I r ,::‘. . . - r • .• , 1 ,, V .. -- f\k ' i 41111 ,• . i ,.. , , ,, .,.„ :„..: , ,.....„., , , ....,„,. _. / . . • . - - - I i• �' __, -- `moi 914 i • • i ."' • . , , Al t . , , . . ________ i City of Renton Community Services j,a:brennnI March 21,2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 97 Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 14, 2005. Council concur. March 14, 2005 Appeal: Ridgeview Court City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Preliminary Plat, Cliff Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat(PP-04-131); appeal filed by Sean K. Howe, Williams,PP-04-131 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98104,representing Cliff Williams of Ridgeview Court,LLC on 3/7/2005,accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Vacation: Walkway,NW 6th City Clerk submitted petition for vacation of portion of unimproved road St&Rainier Ave N,VAC-05- (walkway)between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave.N.;petitioner Jack D. 002 Alhadeff,95 S.Tobin St.,#201,Renton,98055 (VAC-05-002). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 4/18/2005 to consider the petition. (See page 99 for resolution setting public hearing.) Community Services: Henry Community Services Department recommended approval of an ordinance Moses Aquatic Center Fees setting ew fees and increasing fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Council concur. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Community Services: Heather Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Downs Park Develo ment amount of$167,148 with J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC for Heather Downs c ura ervices,JA Park development architectural design services. Council concur. Brennan Associates Lease: Eoscene,200 Mill Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Building(4th&6th Floors), the lease with Eoscene Corporation(LAG-02-003)for space of the 4th and 6th LAG-02-003 floor of the 200 Mill Building for additional space and a lease term extension through 6/30/2010. Refer to Finance Committee. Plat:Laurelhurst Phase 1, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions,of the Duvall Ave NE,FP-04-160 Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; 69 single-family lots on 15.7 acres located on the west side of Duvall Ave.NE at NE 2nd St. (FP-04-160). Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Planning: 2004 Countywide Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Planning Policies Amendments recommended adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Annexation: Maplewood Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Addition,Maple Valley Hwy submitted 60%Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 4/4/2005 to consider the petition and R-8 zoning; 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley Hwy. and the Cedar River. Council concur. Plat: Barbee Mill,Lake Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions,of the Barbee Mill Washington Blvd N,PP-02- Preliminary Plat; 115-lot subdivision on 23 acres intended for townhouse units 040 located at 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (PP-02-040). Council concur. Solid Waste: Garbage Legal Division recommended approval of revisions to the garbage ordinance to Ordinance Revisions clarify and add definitions, to make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, to add and clarify violations, and to criminalize violations. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. C OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND'_ [LL AI#: ca 13. Submitting Data: Community Services For Agenda of: 3/21/05 Dept/Div/Board.. Parks Division l Staff Contact Leslie Betlach (ext. 6619) Agenda Status Bill Rasmussen (ext. 6617) Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Heather Downs Park Development Award of Correspondence.. Contract for Design Phase to J.A. Brennan Associates Ordinance Resolution Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions J.A. Brennan Associates Proposal Information Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept Finance Dept Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $167,148.00 Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $187,500.00 Revenue Generated Total Project Budget $1,250,000.00 City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: A Statement of Qualifications was published for master planning and architectural engineering services for development of a 9.18-acre park. From the seventeen submittals received, four firms were selected for interviews. J.A. Brennan Associates received the highest rating based on the interview criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract for architectural design services for the Heather Downs Park Development to J.A. Brennan Associates and authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. 2005-057aa MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: >Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor FROM: kti Dennis Culp, Community Services Administratsr Leslie Betlach, Parks Director(ext. 6619 Y J; STAFF CONTACT: Bill Rasmussen, Capital Project Coordinator(ext. 6617) SUBJECT: Heather Downs Park Development Project—Award of Contract to J.A. Brennan Associates DATE: March 7, 2005 Issue: Should the Council award a contract in the amount of$167,148 for master planning and architectural design services for the Heather Downs Park Development Project to J.A. Brennan Associates? Recommendation: Council award the contract to J.A. Brennan Associates and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. Background: A Statement of Qualifications'was published for master planning and • architectural/design services for development of Heather Downs Park, a 9.18-acre park located at 233 Union Avenue SE, Renton, WA. From the seventeen submittals received, four firms were selected for interviews. The four firms were interviewed and evaluated using the following criteria: team experience in park projects, team experience in neighborhood facilities, working with multiple concerns, knowledge of project site, and process used'to accomplish the site survey, public meetings, park 2005-058aa Terri Briere,Council Pres. March 14,2005 Page 2 of 2 concept, adopted plan, and construction documents. J.A. Brennan Associates received the highest rating based on the interview criteria. J.A. Brennan Associates will hold three public meetings, provide presentation materials, and develop a Master Plan to be adopted by the Council. Once the Master Plan is adopted, J.A. Brennan Associates will develop construction documents and specifications for public bid. Once construction commences, J.A. Brennan will assist • in weekly inspections. Conclusion: J.A. Brennan should be awarded the contract in the amount of$167,148.00 for architectural design services for Heather Downs Park Development Project. c: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer 2005-058aa 1 January 12,2005 , • J,a. Brennan „=r associates PLLC • Bill Rasmussen . . , Community Services Department . - - - City of Renton,City Hall—5th Floor . 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 • . ?.• Dear Bill: l • • J.A.Brennan Associates,PLLC is pleased to present our team's qualifications to provide park master planning , . . and design.implementation services for the Heather Downs Park project. We welcome.the opportunity to assist in' the master planning.of this exciting neighborhood park project that will provide social'and recreation opportunities for residents. We believe that by working together with you and the public,we will develop a master plan for a t ' park'that meets your vision for this public space. The park's recreational opportunities will create a healthy,life- . sustaining place for residents and visitors. Planning and Design Experience . J.A.Brennan Associates has extensive el xperience•in developing master plans for public parks. We understand the . public participation process and enjoy working collaboratively to develop feasible master plans,supported by • 5...i , accurate cost estimates. Our design services include:master planning,public involvement facilitation,park • . • • programming,,final design,construction documents,cost estimating,and construction administration for the development of parks,sports fields,playgrounds,trail systems,and habitat restoration and enhancement. - . • . I . As planners and landscape architects,we combine our knowledge of natural systems with our expertise in designing a:°- recreational park features to create special places for people. Among our examples of public-park master plans with . passive and'active recreation elements are the North Ambaum Park and Mathison Park Conceptual Plans in- • Burien;the Scriber Lake Master Plan iri Lynnwood,the Sumas Ball Fields Master Plan in Sumas,and the Bitter Lake Open Space Development Plan it Seattle.' Exceptional Plans and Specifications We have the ability to bring projects from conceptual design all the way to detail plans,specifications,and cost - ss g estimates. We'are familiar with CSI arid APWA specification formats. Our construction document drafting ct c • abilities are of high quality,both CAD land manual,and we have an extensive base of standard details as well as 0 o G the ability to create custom•site details that respond to micro-site conditions. Our capabilities include AutoCAD i- C w • 2002 and LandCAD. Our thorough analysis and construction administration experience prevents the surprise of 0 - hidden costs. I - . ti _ y 2 Project Team N N • fi • Jim Brennan will serve as principal-in-charge,project manager and primary contact for the team. MAKERS - • 1 .j Architecture+Urban Design will provide architectural design services. OFF will provide civil engineering . services and Shannon&Wilson will provide geotechnical engineering services,as needed. • cil • Availability • • J.A.Brennan Associates is actively seeking project opportunities and is able to begin project coordination immediately. The firm has`an enviable record for completing projects to the full satisfaction of clients and team o members. We are confident that the J.A.Brennan Team can provide excellent consultant services for the Heather Downs roject 'Thank ou for your time in reviewing the following submittal. We look forward to.talking with • i. 4 . I: c you in the near future. , Sincerely, �y � J.A.Brenn ssoci tes PLLC f'. l • / . . . . , 8 Jame . rennan,A LA Pri ipal • c.L ,. c'. -P .. . - :'-. , - . 1 ....,. c, City of Renton .., . . Community Services Department Heather Downs Park January 12, 2005 1 ',‘, P i , ` M1 1, ‘sa�� R 1 I 4.- --- r 1 a .4‘ 1: , :i c } Neighborhood parks enrich and enhance quality of life for residents, providing opportunities to enjoy healthy activities and the outdoor environment. 1 _ & i / 3 ' 1 , t `. F, :,',i— r f? lti C' _ . y t rii P7:--Y- v Lor 2 I ' • 0 . ,,aobrennan • associates rttc Contents Contents • • Project Understanding 1 Firm Backgrounds 2 Team Chart 3 :;- Team Expertise 5 Preferred Process 9 ' Project Examples 13 Resumes 22 r.. Summary 32 j.a.brennan associates,pllc < • J J/ \ • ___ .._ Introduction i. Project Understanding • J.A. Brennan believes that recreational activities _. `f = Neighborhood parks improve the mental flit provide opportunities for... w' and physical health of .;, communities. Active recreation opportunities '- ...healthy outdoor activities, social provide youth and adults - ' ` E � " -Y opportunities, sports activities,picnicking, E. chances to be challenged, ' to gain new skills,to gathering, exploring, strolling, and playing. R_ socialize, and to expend ‹... P �: � energy. These places can \ also bring joy to adults. '.;1''',;rA well-designed park will have connections between By adding accessible, the activity zones and integrate amenities such as picnic passive park elements areas and seating. These features will help express the - the needs of elderly or character of this neighborhood. By selecting appropriate t,;.; disabled neighbors can and accessible play amenities and creating connections '; also be addressed. i to the surroundingneighborhood,thepark will bringnew �, + g energy and safe play to the neighborhood and create more K_.,. Developing Heather Downs Park creates opportunities for proximate recreation opportunities than Kiwanis Park. residents of the Leisure Estates neighborhood to participate in healthy outdoor activities. This park will bye a place The J.A.Brennan team will develop a master plan and r to play and to gather. Residents of this multi family and cost estimates for a feasible design that moves the City single family dwelling neighborhood will ha�e a green forward towards implementation of this park. We will space that allows for play,exploration,and dilscovery. review existing data including the wetland reconnaissance (by others)and provide valuable input about site i. Potential park elements include a ball field, soccer conditions and development potential. By working with field overlay,and play area. Other active recreation the City,Park Board,and community,we will design a opportunities can be explored, such as a basketball park that meets the community's needs. court. Neighborhood park elements, such as a restroom, picnic tables,benches,and an accessible path system for Places where people gather to recreate are places that ' strolling will help define the new park and satisfy the provide meaning and sustenance in life,improving the area's need for public open space. The new park will be mental and physical health of the community. J.A. a place to safely celebrate community in a neighborhood Brennan believes that well-designed public spaces help setting. The master plan will respond to the requirement communities develop a strong sense of place. We will ;; that the northwest corner remain available for future water work with you to develop your vision for this special place. tower development. .3. ;-•-`y I I .j-`' "-` -F.-°.j,r ,; - :tit 'k`--°r<}'. s , ,i° ,. 3 f5 R �: # f ¢� / Y t ,- it r ' ' (, • • y F _ „-i--42.-,,l 'tom+ w rJ ,; a { �: ',� '^ Y _. R 'S+' 4 `4+ Li fix ' f. .'z.: z.: z .. 1.+i_ , '! ,�; , 'r 1!1-,-,,,, !i�j ,� - - d 4 ft' !,,,, a.,,,,-,.- 4---.11-----,-. '»+z:.,-,. t.-1* i ',� nom' ,,,, • ..44', r` ic � '';',,....,7"0 . r�M Yui r •�- .'"rFeri a:.Kla.L •t '.r :'rY;_..-.�"'+ .iN< <.1'=;;i:::.- uw?'.•i:lrI'F•1..��,"�'..Xi ..� � .I�n° �l�. `�' '"x�' ;i�# .a4.5' ....� r.E.s�... ‘,7 :17z a„a _ ,. - .. i 1 j.a.Brennan associates,pllc 1 1 1 The Team The Team J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, Landscape Architects Jim Brennan,Project Manager J.A. Brennan Associates, landscape architects and Jim Brennan,Landscape Architect,will serve as project planners,has served U.S. and Asian clients in planning and manager. Jim is a Registered Landscape Architect,with design since 1988. J.A.Brennan's office is located in the a degree in landscape architecture from the University historic Pioneer Square District of Seattle. The firm's six of Washington. His 20 years of experience include professionals meet client requirements in many different award winning open space design,neighborhood park capacities. We offer distinctive master planning services design,circulation systems,and athletic field design. for neighborhood and community parks, athletic fields, Jim's neighborhood park design projects include the and pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. City of Burien's North Ambaum and Mathison Parks, Site inventory and analysis, land use planning, Groundswell NW's Webster Park,The City of Seattle's environmental support,public involvement,feasibility Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Project, and the City analysis, schematic and final design,circulation system of Bothell's Cedar Grove Park. Recent master planning planning, cost estimating, and construction documents are experience includes City of Bellingham Squalicum among our team's general professional qualifications. The Fields Master Plan,the City of Langley s Boat Harbor and Environs Master Plan,the City of Lynnwood's Scriber combination of our experience in open space planning, neighborhood park design, and sustainable design makes Lake Park Master Plan and the City of Sumas'Ball Fields J.A. Brennan uniquely qualified to complete the design Master Plan. and implementation of Heather Downs Park. Drew Coombs,Landscape Designer Integrity,imagination, and creative interaction between Drew Coombs, landscape designer, is responsible for client and consultant are factors in our approach to a diverse range of landscape architectural design and project development. This approach, combined with a planning projects. Drew has a Bachelor of Landscape commitment to conservation and restoration,leads J.A. Architecture degree from the University of British Brennan to the completion of successful projects of all Columbia in Vancouver,B.C. Drew's project experience sizes. We work with our clients to create people places includes the design details for trails and parks. His that respect the community's diversity and the landscape. responsibilities at J.A. Brennan include specification Our expertise in public involvement and our ability to writing,cost-estimating,construction documents, enhance environmentally sensitive or under-utilized areas coordinating team meetings,CAD,and graphics results in successful park projects. production. Drew recently completed design work on the City of Bellingham's Squalicum Fields and City of Sumas' J.A.Brennan Associates'Philosophy Ball Fields Master Planning projects. J.A.Brennan provides the highest level of service to meet our client's needs. We listen to our clients,responding to needs and meeting demanding time frames and other E„d e ” ' 5 � Sts "F v J A�Brennan$ e Center �� ,}1 project constraints. We integrate our team members' - v '"`.�. �r •� �.J ,L�n� 71`5,.L�un j4�.-z r r y4 �• k :i Sports ParNrra , work in a collaborative approach, incorporating review �' }a !� ' "` tt '}x = £ ��h ' and design input,to ensure that the final product meets ,bf:• ,>d,r P r,aI regulatory standards. Drawing on our technical expertise, "` we achieve the most suitable product for our client. By working collaboratively with our client,we achieve project a= goals and meet client expectations. �' _ x1' (` "h G�y , `. T J.A. Brennan has chosen key personnel who have the li•n � ;;13 , nw >;„.,•b. experience and qualifications needed to successfully µ f �r. complete this project. As designers of complex projects, � �� 's„� •# "" we are adept at leading multi-disciplinary teams. 2 j.a.brennan associates,pllc The Team MAKERS Founded in 1972,MAKERS has planned and designed Weare designers ofarks that numerous park/recreational facilities in a variety of p settings ranging from downtown parks to waterfront sites connect people to place and and natural sites. Because of our urban design orientation, we view parks and recreational facilities as more than create life-sustaining, safe, single-purpose recreational amenities. Our park and recreational facility projects typically: and healthy opportunities for • Combine a broad range of activities and serve a variety of users. recreational activities. • Play an important role in upgrading the local community and accomplishing civic revitalization objectives. Shannon and Wilson • Enhance the special character of the site and Since 1954 Shannon&Wilson,Inc. has been providing creatively explore the special design opportunities geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting inherent in each situation. from its Seattle office. The firm employs around 100 • • Plan strategically to effectively use available professionals locally, including geotechnical engineers, funding and deal with long-term operations and geologists,seismic experts,hydrogeologists,natural maintenance issues. resources and environmental scientists and engineers. • Shannon&Wilson has been working area parks and . recreation departments since the 1960s, on a variety of ", projects and sites state-wide. From five decades of local di risk "' � reconnaissance and exploration, Shannon&Wilson J-- :;;atm y k ,. has a keen understanding of the subsurface conditions -"'" - ` "``" - 44x°_ - "� throughout the Puget Sound region. With pre-existing � _1 '` ---- information in an in-house library and project files, . - ;c:,.... .-7 ,c _ Shannon&Wilson has information to provide initial s insight into the geologic conditions and the geotechnical 1issues involved in this project. This knowledge provides the firm an ability to approach this project with a thorough understanding of both the project conditions and the City of Renton's expectations. J.A.Brennan developed a master plan for Donkey Creek Park in Gig Harbor. MAKERS designed the restroom and picnic shelter structures. William Laprade,Licensed Engineering Geologist Bill Laprade is a licensed engineering geologist in • Washington with 31 years'experience. He has spent his Eric Anderson,Architect entire professional career with Shannon&Wilson,where he is presently a vice president and manages a technical group Eric Anderson will provide technical and production of geologists and geotechnical engineers. Through his work support and will serve as designer of the architectural on large public works projects in glacial soils in the Seattle elements on the project.As a lead architect at MAKERS, area,Bill has become one of the leading experts in glacial Eric has designed over 20 shelters and support buildings history,distribution of glacial deposits,and the behavior of for park districts throughout the Northwest. Eric glacial soils in the Puget Sound region. His publication, specializes in small scale parks structures and is very "The Geology of Seattle,Washington,"co-authored with knowledgeable regarding low maintenance design. He has Dick Galster,has been a staple for the understanding of the designed picnic shelters and service buildings for parks in engineering geology and engineering properties of Puget Skamokawa,Des Moines,Bremerton, La Conner, Seattle, Lowland soils since its publication in 1991. Olympia,Port Angeles, and Port Townsend,Washington. 4 j.a.brennan associates,pile Expertise Team Expertise Neighborhood Park Planning and Design The Public Involvement Process J.A. Brennan's expertise includes the design and Public agencies represent the majority of J.A. Brennan's implementation of both passive and active park programs, clients. As a result,most of our projects include with a focus on working in sensitive environments. The involvement with community groups, stakeholders, and J.A. Brennan team has a depth of experience in the steering committees. This background has allowed us to development of master plans for neighborhood parks develop excellent communication skills and negotiation similar to Heather Downs Park. experience. We are experienced listeners, interested ' in responding to the community and stakeholders with Our methodology includes site inventory and analysis appropriate design development. to document the character of the site and sensitive areas, along with development of an issues and oppoIrtunities Many of our past park master planning projects have plan that documents the site's potentials and col nstraints. required assisting clients with the development of a public Our expertise lies in working with you to develop a involvement plan. We believe it is critical to solicit input design program for recreational facilities and landscape early in the programming and design process,to ensure development. We will work with you to link programs that needs are met and ideas are incorporated at a time • elements to the most suitable location on the site. when the master plan is most flexible. We would begin the public outreach process by working with the City Our method on past projects is to develop several and public to identify project issues and opportunities. alternative design concepts that each meet the We will encourage a process of inquiry and dialogue so requirements of the program and the client. These can be that the best decisions can emerge from the collective evaluated to consider the advantages and disadvantages of knowledge of the City and the Park Board. each. Investigation of the site conditions,numerous interview We have a proven track record in developing master plan sessions with the Parks staff, public agencies and designs and documents for the preferred alternative which public participants means we will spend a considerable satisfy both site and client requirements. Marty of our amount of time on the site and in the community during projects include the development of detail plans for the the beginning of the project. We will spend time if implementation of the master plan. communicating with all involved, culminating with an , inventory and analysis public meeting, where we will In the early stages of project planning we also consider inform and solicit input from users. Subsequently, we maintenance and management goals,integrating solutions will encourage ongoing communication throughout the _L into our designs. project's life to monitor the status of the project, and to :=.syyi f�:':r:r- ;`.4�'�•..•.� ;-;.-�.ff3'„-f: }T,�Lr f'� • :'i. . �:f,h.r : ii,�::�`• :rr•.�.�f: 4C-7 respond to new ideas t „-Y ": je^ �,q, .til:lA., - IYYf C^kru;.ak'; ,"„ �;- ,4; , ` =l '�' :�,'�. and needs as the y , y •7. r - ;`-. ,- "r ; . � ,... ' _ ' ¢ emerge. We have v e . 3- p� :!. y .i#,„ , .: , :t ;� ,y� tgx ,I , :1+ kfY ::� d ± f �•;ura `.� found this process s _ =i ,- i,; '.:s ,;.`Y ' - ,f ,Yt. .,^Wn, - . .• s & „15:?;':.. ;:.v , 'i '? . .YJJ f.. „4 ,r .r, ,:5k': ��.>iSt- h - Z tt:54 :'. ,s < r �}i�M�4 . � a ,r ,:5,' = r y rr4 ' ''e-Qrewardingandth the ar/'- =;t.' �',r a: r{ r'” r4` fmr ' . 4, - ..✓' 's?; ;'-'. '' '<� y : = Y'.:„>, t:.• rx , results successful & � , Ae t r Z . , }'r rk -g -:! EXIST GST' ETTRE,E,j ,-•s . � • ° ,$ _ +C { r , ':.':,;:,,14:: vx I ; �ii '�` c'•ka • aFf tZi.s.f. ;iL'Y ' when the project's s; ' , y '°• a . dk r a x" Vmanaging staff is a ' •Tr . a, K, informed and involved G " �° ` ' _, on a regular basis. 1''I ,:a �F R a� !CHAINLINK FENC ,,�" ''' -- ,k,-:- izoi ---t . 7--__ it',,,,-.. . 11.1:11.v,. - .--,\" ---,1 p:::-:::'""--,-:# ".'i 66 J.A.Brennan developed a conceptual plan for a neighborhood park on North Ambaum for the City of Burien. j.a.brennan associates,pllc ! 5 Expertise -- Active Recreation Design Designing to Complement Natural Site Attributes Active recreation facilities need to be carefully sized J.A.Brennan Associates applies a systems approach to site and sited to minimize impacts in sensitive environments. analysis and site suitability mapping on natural resource Our experience includes working with parks that contain and park projects. Our experience with site suitability both active and passive recreation elements. By creating mapping has led to design products that are well integrated separate but connected activity zones we are able to design into the site,work with the topography,vegetation,and features for parks that offer recreation opportunities for all preserve and enhance these special site attributes. age groups. At Heather Downs Park, it will be important to find a solution for creating accessible connections Designing People Places between active play areas and passive recreation elements. Dedicated to creating dynamic urban spaces,J.A. Brennan designs places where all people gather to enjoy Good drainage of recreation fields is imperative. As sports community. We believe in connecting people to place and field designers,we are familiar with all of the various that aesthetic improvements relate to quality of life. We available sports surfaces and their diverse performance create places that give the public access to experiences and characteristics. generate social involvement. By considering community needs and aesthetics,we design successful spaces for Our team has a depth of experience in playground design. reflection, enjoyment,pedestrian and bicycle access, We approach playground design with the playfulness public transportation access, and gathering. By selecting t of the children we are designing for,while considering technical issues such as stages of child development, 1 Y / t�'^f ,., r/ '°1' ,�� , :3 a •, `"- f } '''1 40' ' 7 '�r}' "1y rvq�: '- • .' 1,'N\, .rr if ` St'x..:i,.:;"' ;* fes+ j:J� !I= �� , lxj r �f it .� J ti--*is x ;. q.1".r,:.;4-,,.: - - a• ' •";;;;P;;‘ .� .".'..4-k:4,, i �I �:�►, `1 -,- ms's - .,'" c*"¢."^jr=.'� s i F.� �;:`L4 `<sf'��-""_ ••-moi/ ,. ,...,-r1 r,. ,.ter .�4 , �i -1 e n it'C� a ti. �'•.1,, :?'--,• 'f,f"yb�. 7µ '.. • i Fo 4 - ,,y,,, �.� fir• ..,.r, Squalicum Fields Master Plan^ � �4 � �"' �"=�' - City of Bellingham -- _ <... r appropriate seating, --, _ —planters,shelters,walls, '�`' benches,lighting and bollards, community demographics and - �— these urban people-places function well. interests, spatial complexity, and site opportunities and constraints. Our experience includes Programming,Site Planning,and ADA Accessibility designing play environments with a diversity of play J.A.Brennan plans and programs projects to meet elements and equipment types. In addition,we utilize the visitor requirements and needs. We assimilate data to most current consumer product safety guidelines. Fall characterize visitor use patterns and to analyze seasonal protection, equipment spacing, and ADA standards are peaks and daily use. We identify site carrying capacity, incorporated into our playground design in a way that which is helpful in identifying the limit of possible visitor promotes safety and enables challenging fun play. numbers to maintain the desired visitor experience. Our park projects meet A.D.A. accessibility requirements and We look forward to providing a design that will best make the visitor experience enjoyable for all. meet your programming needs,budget limitations,and maintenance resources. 6 j.a.brennan associates,pllc ,�, r Expertise Pedestrian Circulation and Trail Connections ' We design paths to lead visitors through a variety of you to insure that your safety concerns are addressed during habitats and spaces within each site,while building the design process. linkages-to the surrounding community. Our designs link educational areas, Y*' , ., # - r `_••4:1 Sustainable Design Principles • events/activity areas, `'t' ` 'x , : s ,r Throughout the development of our projects we consider and passive recreation `' -. . ; established sustainability policies and LEED design areas in an easily ' ,•�� `° •'°;`� �� ,� , standards. Whenever feasible,we use materials requiring understandable pattern. 4' \ , the least amount of energy to produce;we utilize on- Our designers can . , r z. . °` :.,• •' site materials;we incorporate adaptive reuse of existing developpaths to serve n � ° ,'�`�; '�� structures; and we use recycled materials for site furniture. a variety of user groups _ 1' including joggers and F_.; ,• ;y Other principles of sustainable design that J.A. Brennan il strollers. We recognize :;3f y � = incorporates into designs include surface storm water • that conflict between • . - -- -- - systems that limit or eliminate culverts,bio-swales that user groups may arise; --d i,n-: _- ';�� ,��:�� =sprovide water parking filtration in arkin areas,on-site detention we can address these .. - _ - or retention for flood control,filtration and ground water • issues in the public - recharge. participation process Eureka's Waterfront Park by and in the physical J.A.Brennan Our designs maximize habitat for wildlife,provide native design of the circulation plants for food and habitat,diminish construction impacts, • system. We bring our extensive experience in pedestrian provide biodiversity,encourage non-motorized circulation circulation system design for parks to the project. routes,consider existing and future links between the site I and surrounding community, and often incorporate solar Access and Parking energy sources. Significant design considerations in the development Maintenance and Operations of parks include access and circulation. Typical issues A great deal of consideration is given to future park • include peak recreational use, site carrying opacity, maintenance,the life span,and life cycle cost of selected adjacent land uses,and neighborhood context. We materials. The J.A.Brennan team has recent experience can evaluate anticipated traffic volumes and routes in relationship to existing and future road capacity, in preparing maintenance and operations plans for alongwithpeak traffic impacts as well as hours of use. parks,campuses,theme gardens, campgrounds, and trail p systems. We have developed task plans,procedures,and Potential access points need to be evaluated for impact projected annual Maintenance and Operation costs. We to the adjacent community,road network,and safety. have worked directly with management and maintenance Additionally, siting parking in a safe manner that also ,� „�, liminimizes impacts to the site and considers site lines «:J A, .Brennan s park ng'designfor Wliite x 1,3,r�j ;,'4 i• for access will also be a design consideration. Access ''Center Sorts Pati% ':',-� (' ` 4V5 c,r' U`j.. >, .. e h for small maintenance vehicles is also often a design , kc' r 4t G`;• •t '` '� ';' `• , T;• ' consideration. • ,F , Park Safety ti !-,LL_ _ Safety concerns will be considered key in the design ;. ;-•:, �_:, +,<- • , . : • development of the Heather Downs Park Master Plan. J.A. • . : - . ` Brennan utilizes principles of Crime Prevention Through :',%'...,7,•, .^-S ; Environmental Design (CPTED) when planning and _- • I{. developing parks and open space. We design with CPTED A*,-;-....t.,, w = 4 P gp P g a � { principles in mind, maximizing natural surveillance, r r - -: ' - implementing access controls,reinforcing terrttonahty,and ; t_ --,•-••-- ..- encouraging natural activities. We will work closely with ` j.a.brennan associates,plic 7 Expertise personnel in numerous agencies to determine which We believe in creating healthy type of improvement or modifications will work given maintenance resources available. We have carefully environments for people to tailored all of our projects to insure the design proposal can be maintained given available resources. enjoy recreational activities.. Multi-Faceted Design Solutions ' J.A.Brennan's designs consider existing site conditions — 'I 'y'k'‘: and use nature to solve stormwater issues. Working : i Preferred Process Preferred Process - ' -----r- ------ �t��%1.i�""'�F;4 ,,4;! ::'i% 'H 'i..}.. --.,.._":>.fi Z 1 .#QRS. Indeveloping Heather Downs Park,our team will work • ' ```l" ,- °„-, = ,.r p' = ,',?:,-," �� '>>` �,rs- °"'.,;�a ;>:<,, p get ;=W �;.,. h ., � :;y; .�.:. �z,� -,r:; _:, ' closelywith the City of Renton throughout the idesign �'•":;•� vii':+4:11,, N Q:, `!,'.t; -- �t. -:444.6,P:,'4:::,:',,�4:_' �"". 0,,,411;t::::.,,„?:;41 • r� . � t� +C�E .-k �,�•, L,�t,r3 .s z '�� ' y3P'q.�';.-' ^ �' process to ensure that the plan reflects the City's vision � ;� :2 , = , ;= for the park. Our reputation is based upon capturing :At. x A14, � �� " the client's vision for the project and responding to site b� <: � �,, � b f conditions and our client's needs. I h {,,�� T =``'``• -'-!•"y .: fol ili.;, C't 7,,'4Phase 1 -Inventory and Site Assessment ril:40eacv t - 44 Development of a Park Master Plan �;yy�"��F , •qt __y{4x�„�� yrt, _� �. � �.�.;�:,� �f:=x Project Administration/Coordination/Communications , ,t, A �, The keyto success iim developing master laps is v � - „,4„,4,,C- 41'n. developing a project team,including the client team.and uf �a _ x., �t ' project stakeholders,that jointly develops the waster plan. w ,: •I Erb� , r ; This team approach provides a setting for the',efficient e l ,1 ' � , exchange and evaluation of information and provides a ., ,• {' s �� :44�, ” forum for effective and clear project communications. ;--,!;:i:•.,.t - ; �..- .' -, Our project manager,Jim Brennan,will work closely with ,:•`•-�. . �. the City's project manager,Bill Rasmussen,to manage k " the project process,schedule and budget. The project !' �' • ' • , �' administration,coordination and communications effort will include the following: • Coordinate all administrative work pertaining to the master plan including correspondence, ,, 3 ;J , ,. *.•0;,.:::-a.... . ; ,.4v5.:;, ' `•, fr �..7 ''V. 4' .'1,iicm r9F a, i,;:,m ..', ,4r.---- "s. , scheduling and billing. • Provide updates to the Community Services Public Involvement Department and project manager on the project Our team will assist the City,Park Board,and City schedule, consultant progress,and discuss critical Council with community meetings throughout the ' issues. planning process. At the outset of the project we will • Provide decision makers with projeci updates as meet with you to determine the appropriate meeting required. format and schedule for the stakeholder and community involvement process. Site Inventory and Analysis Following the preliminary project team meeting,where Our approach is to focus discussions on the issues, the community involvement strategies will be reviewed opportunities, and challenges of the project site,and then (see below),our team will begin to collect and analyze discuss practical solutions that become public resources. site information. The analysis process will include Our goal in community involvement is to ensure that definition of use patterns,impacts of surrounding land all parties get a chance to be heard,provide meaningful uses, and natural system patterns. This analysis step will input, and realize they are a part of the public process generally focus on existing published site information and are a vital part of their community. We will provide ' (provided by the City)and extensive site visits. The site graphics and meeting facilitation as needed in support of visits will include on-site meetings with Community City staff. Services staff. A base map will be prepared that identifies and locates natural and man-made features. j.a.brennan associates,pllc 9 Preferred Process Capture the Vision/Identify Potential Uses Future Park Facility and Use Program Definition Our team will assist Community Services in articulating During the analysis phase our team will work with the shared vision for Heather Downs Park. We will Community Services staff to define an initial park facility document the project vision, goals, and potential park and use program. This program analysis will include elements. This step will assure that the Master Plan meets existing uses as well as a range of other potential uses that the needs of users and the community. A design program have been defined. The use program will be fine-tuned will be developed for improvements that meet funding during the community involvement process. requirements, client,public input,and recreation design criteria. In addition,criteria will be developed that guide Developing and discussing the potential park use program the conservation and stewardship of resources and natural while the site analysis process is going on ensures that the system enhancement process. future program under consideration is in balance with the site conditions. By limiting site program elements to those Public Meeting No. 1— that are appropriate to the site,the potential for unsuitable Informational Meeting and Vision Discussion uses that may be defined during the community process J.A. Brennan Associates endorses a user based planning can be reduced. process. The first meeting will be informational and will solicit ideas on the overall project vision,uses,issues, Based on the results of the site analysis,technical input facts,and concerns. We will bring a base map explaining and public workshops,we will develop a preliminary the existing features of the project area. At the meeting Park Design Program that details proposed park uses, and we will gather information from participants and discuss design character. The final report will be presented to the passive and active recreation programming,key planning City Council. issues,and the greater vision for the site in an open and forward moving environment. This initial meeting will also be used to discuss site suitability and an initial Alternative Development recreation development program. Our team will develop two schematic design alternatives based on the site analysis and the approved Park Design Subsequent to the public meeting,and a meeting with Program. The alternatives will include recreation and the City and the Park Board in which a detailed design trail development,access and circulation,parking,natural program and park vision are established,a meeting with systems enhancement,and storm water treatment. A range the advisory team will be held to review and verify the of opportunities will be considered, so that no good ideas design program. A final report summarizing the proposed are left unexplored. park uses,design character,and design criteria will be produced for final approval of the City Council. The two alternatives will reflect variations of the theme defined in the vision and preliminary program phase. The visioning process assists in setting the long-term The alternatives will be analyzed to assess the assets and direction for the project and allows the community to liabilities of each,including program compliance and site express its vision for the park's identity. fit. A narrative that summarizes the evaluation process for each alternative will be developed that summarizes the Development of an Issues and Opportunities Graphic existing conditions, design alternatives,cost implications The site analysis information will be summarized with and regulatory criteria and identifies issues that require the issues and opportunities map. This site map will further study at the next state of project development. provide the foundation for testing where the most suitable locations for park program elements(ball field,trails, parking,restroom)on the site will be.A memorandum Regulatory Considerations will be prepared that summarizes the identified issues and Regulatory requirements are critical to consider opportunities. in the development of a Master Plan for the project Earlyagency involvement 141101' • x r g Y . �., is critical to identifying the critical steps needed to keep the project on track and � � ,„ 1 0 j.a.brennan associates,pile • ( ' , Preferred Process to focus the planning process on design concepts that are - :. �..� . , , ', ‘,:id��R "1.. 'fOil --.j..- � 1j �' ...,o, a ..,k<,q „14•f '4�. feasible from a permitting perspective. We will develop K t. µ ,z p, T 3 4 an implementation schedule that considers the timing �.. c 4.4.',..7.00%- '-,= ;t r ' '1--. considerations of the permitting process. _ , , : ,., Our approach to regulatory requirements is to include �,.r,�yit', -^9, F i -.,014,701.-_�• ,, , the reviewing agencies as a part of our team by involving 4 ,;��, `,r. ,,., .1, `i I the agencies early in the planning process. We have had : -,`: :�s µ great success in arranging a specific site visit and meeting - r. f g g P g ,. ,.6, ' x . 4 1p�, f. z. for agency staff to introduce the Master Plan alternatives. 1 A .: }. 1;h.ji. ., •flThis allows the agencies to provide input early in the �'ie0'-tet > ' ; ° .. d • �, process so that we can identify any permitting challenges. � ,";. ..' .`t /' ,r: . ' The greatest benefit with this approach is that it generates �'„..4.74.,. � ;f.. •>! • Preferred Process Products will include preparation of a stormwater Bidding Phase management plan. Establishing appropriate new We will assist the City in preparing and distributing stormwater management methods will be critical to the addenda, including supplementary drawings, project as the design development phase is completed. specifications, instructions and notices of changes in the bidding schedule and procedure. We will participate in Construction Documents pre-bid conferences,and assist in evaluating bids. We Plans,specifications and preliminary cost estimates will have extensive experience in completing bidding and be prepared. The final cost estimate will be based on construction observation services,and will bring this extensive past project experience,backed up by current past experience to the project to ensure that the bidders cost research. Costs will be tracked on a continuing basis receive the information required in a timely manner and so that any impacts to the overall budget can be identified the bids come in within the allotted Maximum Allowable early and adjustments to the design made in a timely Construction Cost(MACC). manner. At the completion of the design development phase,we will recommend additive or deductive alternate Construction Phase Services bid items to maximize the utilization of construction Lastly,we will closely manage and oversee construction funds. for compliance with construction documentation. The services of each discipline will be available to ensure that Construction documents will be submitted at 50%, all project elements are implemented per code and per 90%,and 100%completion to allow for adequate City the plans and specifications. Drew Coombs will attend review of all aspects of the project and by all relevant weekly construction meetings. Additional construction departments. Work between the team members will be surveillance visits are recommended at key landscape closely coordinated to allow for timely submittals of and building construction stages. The J.A. Brennan the construction documents as established early in the team will communicate with the contractor through the construction document phase together with the City's City's Project Specialist and will review and approve or project manager,Bill Rasmussen. disapprove all contractor submittals in a timely manner. ♦ " n ' ;4ip ^ix�w :1-, ,,,*:,“ it ,,,„,.. „.-:___„ . „,:,,,,,,,,.,.......,„*„ .,,, „,,,.„ ...,,, , h, s -5 x \ ' g , 43.,,,,,,A ,=.4\. ' a ^� tit.- ,PR, ? z4t `�r rA �„'F `A - ` . n�fi • } . if 4q_ jY • 1yF r ` J3C � 4i � ` r � . Ya .* . id 7—�t _fie x < , � �t` vii a , � , K' . 'n p , Z t , Az}} M� � t ' . a.. 4 y , ". t 9 S f. e a a' ,-8.1Yr _^ , y '14Xi x444t„ ii i .' x r 'k ,•,„« –% }* ...1 S ” 'kC\`' 4 i i:i S fit+` +,` .Iir�' •xr • S ,',"I'-' .4 �'U' • 1;t+ 'C�'\•��a'�� ''r4 \ '+� stry 'i 4f �,t ttr CNy" _ • 4,y `-•'`°„:z fit,• 6 % ,,,. .,,,,,,-,,,<:,: k. .V _,*A_ x,$'41 "�"c_.1.4 0 l ' .4.1),..c.,%.:•4;, Y, ;,ratf . • l F� 1 ee>a a f is ,, ,,,,,, ‘,.,..,...,4 „, . to.., ....,-.•.• — Ao.., 4-0 - l.- c tom,«*r,-4.0ig 'e"�-T e .1 a 3 at. -11 , � w��, ac d ''�,- r r',�, � 91F, . 6'ttL�" ' �� ...,� ---t55.•• � sss:J� �1�'�L � �ft \L �.' �� 9�• d€"�� h.�+" 'S' 3s''� -�-,, :� " �� ► ��''� .per^' '��"=�,y,,. �k � s.� a + �* '`� '�• s • ,. i k fir' ' `s:� :..i a � t h +�^.,..,i s z VZFI.`' , z ft ,+T� ` � � K�2.1 �,rt�e•,t,"gt�c+.^ =°�+w ,g � !, t �d�'�- � "a. �' � ,�.j�•'� ^w *0�`� �'�.. ,t1�.-14^*»' '� .g� w• '' " '" yrs.t—. `t 7.0.-t�.�!a.,q�-", r4 r,a t , ': �;44;x44' r� r rt �Fr3� '42�� k�}"i4 "��li€a� „}II--Ivor ' . i\,q�.� Ti� 'L"{.� j"4 ay � 4 ^ tis. � � /•t � ^t4".". � ,�, -��"' �� n 3� ea '� • WA4f,� � iti� r t b �C' t �. � 'a'�s +€' .;.1.4.,:: `•4t4• c % ?� ;r. �. -v:". -.. ,.:.:��.St ��.�«�!`Scx : -• '..40.,4..-4C'�1F,..:..°,�. �i�i...6�iT!#�.,� 0� - a :"r,�°.a& . ti,s�3�'�+„�. `�,�",��t'. a r,,r'�"'• j«.'3�s ,tz.+'� 12 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Project Examples • _ :.�f -4- ••' --.4-••••••,::,,-I.,..---,{ ~ ./ �t Cedar Grove Park e - ;*ay, a� Z t'` g z '! ..,--5;:4-t.::::‘,.: t, , z `� /:Y N F,;• City of Bothell, Bothell,Washington c. !� * • � • �� , r 1 .� '. td � ,, > ��•- currently under construction • �. `, r Pt` !:-:.,,,,,i-. r �lSt .... r •u' 1�`, �'&`' � - .��i�, Y a >-a�'�f l�� cY,,;v•,� yam" rf:� s :'!'.� ,!•��^ �--''I�`., S : k'�: Yv, f ' z .1;., I;.z, X L Vin! r" i;'y ! rt ity f f --, •'":,:t. v'• ti, a""� `r'} ,-, - w s r•7 o-1 ,. w ti ¢" i j i3,�,` , Z ,. .z'�",' ry l.-s� '�'\ ''''''''''''''' -'"•• T "' /> 1 :P t r �' e SMy�}zr. /.�y�t � �� '�,�',<--",t- r,"� :F,--:--_ 4 ��' ..----=-= -'4°2:--- L-a-� ��>�'�;:, •„= �t �1.�&�,�)•� ��+:F �'�-'i:� 4 �""F�. a .',A ez g'� .. t 1✓ I L.,. .....,M'At,,•".' I 'J' (I:•t. 1 44 .,9,`„„,`,- Y'1 • `1} °�� rt rydMa f � •J'', ._14. ��'�., lil�tfa'd1 %1 t, �- ' >!„I �., i �,'�.�'�„.,•. ��+ } � � y I e .,I' j.., t I �� ,.,,,,,f1-::::-.,, tet 47 n • fC , ` h • p 541 t 1�`' i f r 4i"-.4'1,::,-;4>'• ”- L4 . r T r� 4 �V. rns' '- .j'`-I'6-.. - - - q� M., i• t 4,4;: :0, ,,,, ' J� •.,'t' c a`y 'r , .1,1i-14:t$..�, tt'' ''''',-5'- -G' I - . 14 `_'' I. itl''y Ii`i ty� �• Ii>.. ltv* t 1 ,' i•' ✓ 1F! C'Y x'7;I, y'j , _ �'•i �-.'i hti ff1'I`I -t .�i 1X->4 ` �- ,} ,,1 I,yt .0 �t'4 +d toe j6�c' ri-S '-LT- :,:d; .:-l %�" •,, • ,j� ' r•4.. Cg� p' a • ,/ -�- .s 4;' r.) `�>. i' § ',,.4.(` koNtg!1 ,- ..�h y'1 re.I I . r \ ya;',10, e. ) ,�l 9 t� :; , r 3zr,. 'A. br ,�'�vi_.--,,aXti ire, b I e a .. .,1 '' �, �4 4. a-•-•••• --4'a• , ., ..,'I'$r® f '..747.r• y_, li� ,�• -",?"4°,77i ,, it...,:f ,-. ,•r 't 1 . ,,G',,-.-..,—...e..\... ...-:„...,,.....,;0. 1 t i.£.-:N, *�jT,,Q 1,4.,�..kt r *��y •A M.' k::.i e-if,,-„r r'.• 1 ., c.• �e'a'` � �•,, �` "",, 7.14 •• �' r =1.'4z , r �"�0.i .),,e,.......•1 �i 1C .104,9-4,-.4w44. u y f , 1 t i r ,,, i .�.� ar'• irs, 1 s `�''jfl 5._ 1,4-,\''.•'N;" '.` ° '( sR ,',:.:-.?..1.,,,a44,,,,..,, t r,{ rs{.t�,� I , 3'. 4...,•y. i* t I , t + ' f !v '4`9"i5 c ' rx f:,,:.,, end z!1/,(�4�\pm(4� ! 1`'�� yf.. tt J DA,'? +''+'- - b2, .M1sy �,. t n•,-t,:',. .:2'1./.614;,,,,,, ;,. . u 14,1 i1-," l ;(9`� �0,�b+Y4/.41g ,2 7iy}• zN i _ .(r i •-, i(fir ! I ',,::,,\.,„-.??,..,i . , [n, ./.61;iz,y .c Fr of t v�l N:-./1".W-.1: i" -- + ,r • aionittiAlciN:ik r '...1.,`-.--;.?:1 - +._ a ,.F.- /' 'moi ..5• ,�� ..n1F ' -. a •`' • f • - , ��'�•> +-� yttt � t�`tl>5".fr!'`'i„ o R � ��,�� •� I � ',Jt, v '�y . ,i`` ,. ✓�. ii,,.(g s `V.,4' `V I n.. y,. v J;i;t199 q. ,ewe �9 4`is.rf! ` �t`1 ; Y �j{{ , C 4y(il '�r. y�' d°+S i'�1 �• �"J��•F. �d!y .L}✓'�f�X'- 7; �, 1 .�4ZL.�'.��1.\��y\\�yL • • •1 y ti\ u . ... .,,z,L-�ri ,ffffv i R. ,1 - v. s,40 f', X15 R 11 \R'4- .'1`-:6-- �J I - r .,sl �"..r ...,:..---,.-1.1-4'11,""l7� � �� ,. 'S`�1C,�! .4 L.. 2714 �i��'1�� --1, t om. 1 4 i� � 141 lt, } T 'l�. r' s ! ��• tastes 2 -e•••,,.'_ �_., „..ii -- -Iz * • t r• D� '#i •,, _ `' -"`4 .„----,- --,=.-,:-...,_' . .-psi,«-n,t.. _.a s.'�.. - ,.. - t",3.- -.-4.— .�,�+-., , Fy -_ .'''-',:.;;•:•-,..,:.-4-;•''• ; �- J.A.Brennan's design for Cedar Grove Park protected existing stands `" �- x of cedar trees and created a children's play area and gathering space • 1P, • . - - ,••,..i,,,,- - ,--ti; for parents in a safe, well lighted area. . - -:7. 1 T.A. Brennan Associates executed design development and picnic tables among the grove, and by the boardwalk and developed construction documents for Cedar Grove and viewdeck(made mostly of salvaged wood)across Park. The site of a former small mink farm;the new the stream and wetland complex. Park recreation park maintains the site's exceptional natural character by elements such as a ball field,basketball court, and 02 protecting the site's namesake and by enhancing Perry children's play area, are situated conveniently and in less • Creek and its associated wetlands. environmentally-sensitive locations. ADA accessible trails connect the diverse spaces with the park, enabling The design utilizes these natural amenities for passive all residents to enjoy both active and passive recreation I. recreational purposes as showcased in the picnic shelter opportunities. j.a. brennan associates,pllc 13 Project Examples North Ambaum Park Development Plan �, E �w 2., City of Burien, Burien, Washington °- - ` - {4 ' a Si,' • 40, `.{ IA-N,,6,, * .e''.4 r�t'��``�� d;:z'F.':,:,Ar Jo�r..fa��Pr,,w�. fs ¢svd�A r w ,...L-,;,-,1,E�� , .10.$,W,-,. S l ,`w _ r s 5 F 4 'x ' ,r , '4,- i '. - /Tii ' { ',kw, a rJ p*.�� d7 4 eqs h !.'''..,-.,-,,,.,,,,,..3. 3 \ r 1e 1�� ter ,h 11i .. ,$�r(i '" Hi •s it -Nome ♦ s 1 i .. ,:,,o n EwanUosm r�'„&lz.m,. t. mN HSE 'r Z ''`'A P te`?0` 1.: �"'. �`,4, -°, ' s ,t +� ®o�, `� ; ..''.1--- --,.:,:' '.1--- .y � CIWNUNI(FEN `t i`yY 'lib'. � yf l.,T - #16��`fii� 'SIM I `° ,. Y+ -DAq^� ,43 3 y ,1'' '4 E dx d i?j AI . PLAYGROUND .--- -IT xeuee SIDEWALCONCK allB BOULEVARD SWTRACK AROUND '!ai` ,,'r 4.,,,2-4-2.1� if •i ,o, IX CONDOG F •'� PERJURER SAFETY PENCE ♦ 1 . Fr- _ d e� e f.1...,..,. > .171.-.4...1t....4...a;, k-- f,' t"� Date Concept Design Completed:August 2004 /!% - ,g �Y'„ 4:%.,..4. Fes, h p Design Development and Construction Documents, E;'ea f a,` -4",' 'N;,`1' t' Spring 2005 ,,`;-.• -k rt M a'' `� �` ; 7'yr-'k e t I � , 1'1 ff 1 a.14t iig� �.,---,0,.(;,,,,, .. r1 c 1 —�� N r n . . 4`�, � kip/ ld.�. f IN L_.dz• JA. Brennan developed a conceptual design for a As the northern entrance into Burien,North Ambaum neighborhood park along North Ambaum Avenue in Park has the opportunity to function as a City gateway; the City of Burien. The one-acre vacant site sits amid a the view into the park will be defined by a green canopy commercial use district and multi-family housing within above and below,by an attractive inward-facing seat a highly developed section of Burien. The neighborhood wall with lettering on the street side announcing the park. , is under served from a park standpoint, so J.A. Brennan Gateway structures along the pedestrian and vehicular developed a program that would accommodate a variety entrances will further define the gateway idea. of activities and attract a user group widely ranging in age. The park's recreation space will include a children's Other design elements include lawn for casual group play area and basketball court, along with a plaza space activity and picnics,berming for spectators and for community gathering. parking lot screening, and porous pavement. Design issues include safety considerations, security lighting, Responding to the L-shaped lot,J.A. Brennan pursued a maintenance expense,stormwater detention,and theme of age-group activity separation,with a common arranging park elements to provide visibility form the ground, or Hub,to serve as the base for large groups. street and parking lot. Thus,two half-court basketball courts are located at the opposite side of the L as the play equipment. The Hub is _ anchored by a restroom building,plaza,picnic area,and a large existing Willow tree. "EffIdY�j ' ti " tee_ All,/ . Vit+- 0, ` �, - - -. tL i, PARKING s _ ,e 1 v w• ..� Fn.-icn�4' �.... ../,�� '.:. Icy L I r�_ .,,,,„s_,„,..,„„ 1 A_____ - MBAUM SIDEWALK BERM CENTRAL PLAZA RESTROOM BUFFER PLANTINGS BLVD. SEAT WALL SEAT ROCKS FENCE SW PARK SIGN 14 j.a.brennan associates,pltc F Project Examples e Hauge Homestead Park City of Everett Parks and Recreation JBrennan Associates assisted the City or Everett .A.arks and Recreation in the design development - ` • . .. • ` . : and contract documents for this popular neighborhood = _ waterfront park on Silver Lake. The park provides . . -w`" -- i waterfront access for fishing and wadding,play meadows, ;. =�'._= r a playground,picnic areas,and a gathering plaza. j 1 1; - - ` ' T - Biofiltration swales were included in the ' toprotect . . - ,_ - _ ,t , r 1 projectI .'Ash r -- _-._ -. • _ r, water quality in Silver Lake and to enhance wildlife • - - , habitat. The planting concept included the protection of �;. • - - { existing trees and the provision of large specimen tree , plantings. Low maintenance native and naturalized shrubs ' T „w ... ,,g.: � l and groundcovers were recommended to enhance buffers, •T , _ ,' and provide spatial definition. Wetland plantings were __ , - - -r -�°- : provided in swales,ponds,and the lake. '° € �• _; Webster Park and Playground Groundswell NW, Seattle, Washington L-. "• `- i °?1::,il '' .A.Brennan Associates,in coordination with 4:),�i x • Groundswell NW,developed the organization's , � ; t. schematic plans into construction documents for a •. i3 •._ neighborhood park and associated playground area. J.A. -,' . ,, Brennan coordinated with an artist for integration of art `• ,, ' - i '' ! •; .,i ;' �; features into the park. Concrete and tile walls create an u t.' *.7' . . 'r "=-",�_ 1_-____ _ edge between the walkways,plaza, and landscape open ,.. ,.� t space. Active recreation elements include a children's �1 dk.14 � • - • play area,an informal play meadow,and basketball courts. �. k • , , �� :� Grading and irrigation design were also part of the project. r.;%....-;:',.';',:::-.-::.� i.v +3r') ., ' tl" '. k The neighborhood park provides opportunities for residents to safely ... .k.. , ,BY `3%.1..3 Y� i1., v,•:3`-I,„5 z+, a ,VA,-4',:1441 •- participate in healthy activities. k' "001",,,fY'�i.Jd ti MAERTAT PLANTINGS ' iT _ _ A- 0 :. WATER i WNTA31- r->'z ' - Zt't' '� ' .,r�74P�� _ {'� I `��. :, tU floe', ` I 1 �� , 0 .!. 11:, 'L , �+�' ^` {S j 3r*:. -j - CONCRETE PLAZA rre _ ";� !}{(I:- 7 f ! - "w•.' SUN 0/AL- ;15: A ._ I "h ��`' '3Y'"" �.+r. L"t".4•••4••• ,ita .'f,'- ..r'�— 71 4 •• < 't� _ � y common.MOSAIC- 1il, y• I * te i, - . TRASH RECEPTACLE - �R fir' '�,''r:;.: a _. PL4YFlEL0 ;r q �' - ila . r ,,,,,-.1) 2J -: R J - 1 .. tI 4r ' rsE xs `� i J.RASKETB a COURTS :..- ' 1 f F1 1., I - lv-IL IL"f I i `'-' I �\ _ i rte T•4> ' r .�- ` - 4. I I1 1 .. _ ice.. ii t€ ' i"A'''''' 0: I ".'YtrY- f I i _il-.:it 3 i 4 ,,,•,-j tF �� {BASKQTBALL BACKBOARD b Ti!? .-..---- • BOLLARDS �' j.a. brennan associates,pile - 15 r:. Project Examples Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Development Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, Seattle, Washington � n A. Brennan Associates worked with Seattle Parks I. 'W-1.(4440, 6 > }� ,., Jto develop a park at Bitter Lake Reservoir and F i 's• q' "tR t'"tSIiS�+T3L+_i II ilia , +4 create a sense of place for the Bitter Lake Community. r• �i � � �,{ `� � Sj r�� r" �tlu,�r,�'�� T Improvements to the reservoir s open space seek to express 1 � #114,- h, tp ,.,, L .' the community's identitywhile also improving drainage :�3.+'` ��``' ��. ' ,, t' • Taw � , w •. s�� m n; conditions around the reservoir. 1 w : 4 i z\ ,[ ` •:**0 F71 �A :' € The park celebrates the reservoir's connection to Seattle's e=I Y, % ,, 45,4 _` f; = water system and utilizes sustainable design principles. �1 f ,��,� ! F ,�� , � • We believe the space serves as a catalyst for future �. community development. Design features include a small pitst ' € ;; v , .' t�rf ' � f' ' �} 4 4 T�'t if t: gatheringspace; a focal point that is unique,memorable, > .4.4",:•,s., `,1 and identifiable with the Bitter Lake neighborhood; 4 A, ,i Vr,, vet� , fw {J rt connections to the Interurban Greenway Trail system; and drainage improvements that address stormwater runoff in ,- -i5`, , : ,,, a naturalistic,creative, educational,and environmentally -- * �.t-r`. ,-,;;.;:f---7,- sustainable way. ;ry�� j` '_;.`' =' The project,jointly supported by Seattle Public Utilities .. `' -?* - (SPU)and Seattle Parks,required extensive coordination ;', . Q x . ;* :-, •• -:'., between the agencies. Safety of the water supply was a " --,—.•-•:,-,-,*:'-• ".. ' primary criterion at all times. J.A. Brennan worked with ,; '`' - T " : SPU to develop a design that met security requirements and b; & _ .. r,. development restrictions. ��..• -4:..W_,.1.,- ` •, �� .i...7, ` ' _ p a ,-.4.a-4R,�� ass .•3 o ,�''4s. . .wax Lake Hills Greenbelt Backyard Wildlife Habitat Garden Enhancements City of Bellevue Parks and Community Services Department, Bellevue,WA . ^rM The Ranger Station serves as demonstration project 7 s ‘-r.' ' 1 showcasing sustainable building materials,the reuse r<:� •'t / of rainwater, and native plantings. J.A. Brennan designed �� $ . ,� it _ „.,./1_' the pedestrian circulation system, crushed rock trails, and A`1 'K ,•<.'; ::`` a deck,made entirely of recycled plastic,overlooking the 4�` •. adjacent p-patch. Custom-designed benches and planters _ - -- are also made of recycled plastic. Ott i{I itt t 7! t n.. r - ,T.,.,...--, �4, >,� ;-- , A series of new gardens attract wildlife and present an ?,_ 4 . --- opportunity to show native and ornamental plantings 7' - = . , that are low maintenance,drought tolerant, and disease k ' '' • .� � ,� .- resistant. The Butterfly Garden,the Woodland Edge, and ' � • . •-�. � �..�.�- - the Habitat Pond are organized by function or ecosystem, ' ' • • ' :s `” 4. and serve to inform park users of native plants and their environments. In conjunction with energy-saving building ' . .. v ..3:.;'''''' ' :; ; :.?fi yw''''ABY.. . : improvements,J.A. Brennan designed a green roof at the gateway entrance to the garden, a bold statement about the potential for green design. 16 j.a.brennan associates,pllc r Project Examples Squalicum Fields Master Plan ;.:; :, . BIRO WOOD 1--,1"..Z0115 City of Bellingham,Washington TM�,, -k 2--,--,- =-- - _ -.- .4 ; ft � „,,.., }SEs r. ,Za ..<c= i , 4 A. Brennan Associates worked with the City of r : -ç`�”-`' 1, ' L' � " TT�� " ,- ! ' Bellingham and stakeholders to developa masterplan• -'- ';;;.s� _WV ' ' '' d g I----�s �G 4( `, 74 age \; "4.4`. L nne - for a community park and sports field complex at the —-'--hi.:. j , 5~ •� �. ;. . .ci! J 4� ',, ir � _si site of a former gravel pit. Park facilities incorporated .;��r___i s, i, t, '"6 � ,�, 1 4/� ' =fj-�.+i . cf, •�\ .„-y— ?a .. `-.....•f id !/• /A .. `' into the master plan includes ort fields and su ortin „--. .;.c. �� facilities such as restrooms and concession stands. Other — '� ,/, \ hh�'�� *�4'�,,�- - �,''�,: �r7! r'i; ' `-�-_ ark elements include connections to the conununi and �. tt1 b v -, 5G/ •� p unity f-,..-. i • existing trail systems, an off-leash dog area,playgrounds, -J�,: • r,', _- . 4,01‘-4-=:$ .,a $ ' ,„i,. Q',TN' F' `'`'� t : access and parking,lighting trail, and storm water ,,,�_a hip; . , rq Z• '- +� , .� '- -:i 4It '`} "i i t A. ,-,..4., ,,-�1 i!' 1' mac—:.._::,,,-. . . —Al-. y "sew, rp ice. /� .. measures. Passive recreation,picnic areas and vehicular F�, ,:�� ` °°°n � � , and pedestrian access and circulation,park maintenance �� i t. � �% � .,�., -�r. <� :2„-'i /— �, ' areas,and natural enhancement areas are also included in � 'I. „a„;„.„, ,,;,y kilr, ' *� : Protect Examples Herring's House Park , `�`.� „ r- Y Seattle Parks and Recreation, Seattle,Washington h „__ .....„1 .t.r - I �• �: Y Ch^. ➢1.; •".'t ._, . �a4r. -ate• 5 ^ t_...1. T.A.Brennan Associates won the Waterfront Center's -, ,+Tl� ;� ` -, _ -... . international 2002 Top Honor Award for this exciting , t'I -'...° 4 i,,, 1.4. ` park and habitat restoration project. The firm planned ^,� `': �, r..-,ie {n '^-:. .1. •: ±.li,N,.. and designed enhanced wildlife habitat and passive park , ' r i facilities for the 15-acre site on the Duwamish Waterway ;� •, - , .'•l I.1 in Seattle. Services included a feasibility study,detail ` ` - design,contract documents, and construction observation p .+ for the park and inter-tidal aquatic habitat creation. The -{ µ` q US Fish and Wildlife Service considers the project a model ,.< (1 • for salmonid habitat restoration. Recreational development Tt ,, includes a parkingarea, accessible paths,trails, and picnic ,,, _.-„,,,,,,E.;,,,...,,,.;....,',,..--,..1,..„.--, 41:4;V-` , t .: ' ” `�., :! _. areas,including interpretive signage and outdoor classroom .,„ :.�T - Y - areas. - . .. . 1- :_— Ir. y • Ls _ Jim Brennan led a multi-disciplinary team throughout f;',,,(;:-a` `” ..,--,..,--1-0v-' vier the development of this project,from feasibility study to 4 T,_ ...-•••-•-••-`,""'-`,.. - ,' construction observation. ' ', , "� .sM . ,•,--.i':.-,-..., « • "`5. ., , „;;;; ;31-.-„,•:,.._•,,,,,•,--:,5 �'t' / c _i-•,:,;,24,---,.-7,--„„r � r `-."'":"._44, • Duwamish River Park Port of Seattle, Seattle,Washington R:_1- :z,; Project Examples • Sumas Ball Fields Master Plan City of Sumas,Washington x. LL _ ,'.•__. avid Evans and J.A. Brennan developed a phased ;; ' master plan for athletic facilities at the Sumas Ball `�:-�-. Fields site that includes community gathering space, „1,,,-;:„-......„ � v _ sports fields and supporting facilities such as access and 'G ,,' eo, ,, ,, F _ parking, lighting, storm water measures,concessions and " rit' 1 ( '' TMs'` •"'` • restrooms. Other park amenities beingconsidered include .• ; '�,••- el! & ",11 r. ,-'..N. - �' ' !•d r + irmi � �� -.,.. .,,,,,2-4-7� � k' ! .. 1 4 .• / passive recreation,playgrounds,picnic areas, shelters,a ` . y ,idip.,- .f,x41; �/ All ; I< skate park,vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, Ask ��n" ti IC ,-r; - 7 'W 1 1'p and enhancement of natural areas. ' it ..N -:'�, � ' nJ ' ;f „r ,",• ; ; lif �� '��1W Am-rte 1 �: �S H4. g..ltm r :ii"� ..„ -.: ,...,,,,,,,..„,,,,,.,,.1:„;-‘,,,.:s:„.„7,•„,,,,,z -a` .,1 .�.y 'x;l r"r, i, I ♦'+k",'1 t.(' "�fS•t,,,.a, .z „,.p, '" ` ,,, .. ,`.,- 71 rn� _ !,,'' ,'..:wip .. ,. , . tip` '♦ °S �' •;e`n '' 4.r4 x.' 0,Y h14. .c`wm N.'4 AAA' ff iO�. :3 l �-*� ~h ' - , "t' f .i&. s ;.:t.•" : p ' \ / ....4 —" I. '' di . :: A 'T. — kT v�..`y ',='f,ict,,,t-,,•,,,`•-.fy ,a-!:r-31.,-.01FAzg'a_10,,-fin ' pt,f,,,,..,-,..., ,. .1 ,.„ , . 1. ,,,t,..., p ,..„., ,.., ,, ,o,... ,,,,, ...-.4 'il' ''.. 1 Poulsbo's Fish Park Master Plan City of Poulsbo,Washington - /BAKERS and J A Brennan developed a master plan - for Poulsbo's Fish Park. The site,located at the Sr' head of Liberty Bay,has especially high environmental niouna a ' a heapeint , JAM/? ., r 1 .f , '41�. enhancement potential and will be the City s primary .,Y X' '� ' ` y�*, ' natural and passive park. The team worked with a steering ',i:; a i ,• committee to prepare a site plan and detailed elements • Pe.de.", " ' T' `:. y 6 ti`mo, including extensive stream/estuary restoration with ...„, ? ,, ,�t t 1, :•:• oi interpretive trails,passive recreation and educational u •, �N l ` r fn 4„,...-i. tF . ,0. ''' ....*:•••:.,,,,,,N \� i aimfacilities. Besides the intensive work sessions with <,•�e1, ;`- I'' ;• .. .. �t , ,, committee members,the team conducted two public 1 . � - f _:-- � :e? k, r�._ . open houses to establish goals, evaluate options and se r V , >w. h..}'`, Gt'm-',6 'Ai , priorities. '`-1'T� .. y 't• 1t '� Y l ?epi R. J. i Sii e=m7.2t. 4 w' ..ei' 't( ,r P 1 k. sre i. '♦t`�C S�+'J'A ' 7A'S #. '`' , 4-0 �a + l/S+` „,-,:q vati 'F "'�•. ''' 7(�'l'p"'"�'`" Dog,Il OVA t'''';'1" if . 1 j.a.brennan associates,pllc 19 - i Project Examples Donkey Creek Park (Gig Harbor City Park) - ?-- a 1 , City of Gig Harbor,Washington - s:,. J . �` rar1,,,zap, f f. ��h 4 w!' T.A. Brennan Associates'design for Donkey Creek Park /l ��,P�, ,. _•,,,,i'-',"•''-'...;, . e ,4T� ,.. ':. �. ,F; reflects the city's desire for a gateway entrance to the fes,{ ,,,...\W45.11:4-.._30...Y "' � community and restores and enhances salmon bearing �� ,-:;4;{ ' t, - ,�. , Donkey Creek. Interpretive elements tell the story of / " ` iy ^ �� r� c�� ; the area's history of shipbuilding and Native American ;�y��,. ��- r 1-:t '4, z�J� k C9'„ .�,,C S IOW ,-4:,-6,•,-,r • �1, v�0„,,,,,,,P 7Y�. settlements. J.A.Brennan initially developed three 1r,�,S a, �� a� =,Y *ZAP-` 0 ,< 'r - O ._ alternative concepts showing potential development of r j'N\ ��'t� £a7� it '14.-• - the site. Through an involved public process,the final % *�•1� `'^,.` � 4s;.ha conceptual plan was developed. `.,: °. '`• \ . €1 ' Hli ~� i-,- •• - i'-. '1IJ ` ,' Project responsibilities include master planning,conceptual _ k .y-- design of the preferred alternative and coordinating public ;,-:„,.,, , ... ,`, ,-.-- ./"' ..,.3,}. ` , :r `�. , involvement. Project goals include passive recreation, 4<<=., interpretive and educational opportunities,enhancing � ��.� auto and pedestrian circulation,and linking to the future },. e 0 , '• : may,• ----.- Gig Harbor Peninsula Historical Museum. Recreational s , "N development includes accessible paths and trails, a --- k/!� °�s :;41,---) .--,''''\ boardwalk,pedestrian bridge,restroom,picnic shelter and 4�,,o.-- .,r� �--�.,., �.f�-. �;�� .�v,, -, r '�' \ , x,414{ . \ `. ,4. interpretive display. ;-(40 _`/., \ �, n ,� `� i" ,,, .. u''�IA ` � ; /...d --3-i ' ; 1f A'a'.`k S ;-;,*1.1 .4 MAKERS developed conceptual plans for the restroom, ; �' 1/ , C5 <a 3. '' ' 7o- r.� i,, \. .'' picnic shelter,and interpretive display area. F -., l'4 r -.t _" ill + wa T ky r, �1�`J -`\ .ed di White Center Park - Phases I - IV King County,Washington T.A.Brennan Associates'work was part of a series of efforts to upgrade and rehabilitate this well used WPA era park. F� �y *; _ -" '' - ,4 ✓ Q ' Work included four phases;the initial phases involved the S- vf"K "% �A: +Xk ;; 5Y"''''''-:1,* F p,-,,,,,,:, rL � w1. redesign of parking,increased safety lighting and related • . . ---.t` • plantings. The scope of work also included the rehabilitation `"' . � ; , ; _am•u t of tennis courts,ball fields,backstops,sidewalks and slope - - :•! :.- - '� "r =W;-.-,.„-4-�.° ` t- improvements. The final phases of work involved the design of an entry plaza,picnic shelter,lighting,and circulation through the park. Rehabilitation of existing buildings - - • included foundations,roofing and painting. q2� 4 \ -- a 4. ti r h`� .�, 1 } r+-t a.2,4 "--.1‘,41,_:;','a '¢ c• 3 ,' '"',';',,,f1,,,&,"..i 1_ _ �r��`� t` r,•> 7-1".-,a4.-, p. g tts�,'^i.'K^t � J r.. Y � �� ti c.' i� tA+ z tirlik. =47'.....V. �r -11_•.--.1-.: �� x .=.+�,: -rte � "-�- '+ ��j� �E � I'V ''P r6'Ta". d` .#..rix 3 1 -�-.-.. 20 j.a.brennan associates,plic Project Examples I Scriber Lake Park Master Plan City of Lynnwood,Washington 1 _ ' 1 JA.Brennan Associates is working with the City of G' °' ® ...., v ' Lynnwood and the community to develop a master „7,1 Q;"4' 1 0'LL �;ri , -” plan for the renovation of the Scriber Lake Park. Scriber 'i 141/ I , ; Lake Park is primarily comprised of sensitive bo lake �►-s ' "r � ;9 s --`*� P Y P g, J ='� systems,and natural areas. Park elements,proposed in the1,. -; �4C+ 1� _ y ' master plan include picnic areas,playgrounds,connection "i;:1241:-; r ` , r, ^'� 5.� to a proposed community center,revised park entries, � ; ,r L vehicular access and parking revisions and trail and �o --"%--..,..4,5;1,-,-'1- '� I t' view point enhancement. Stream and lake water quality :--,,V,04-61',...:z . r : '1 . ,t;:=' "•'=m i` enhancement, improvement of park safety usmg CPTED s ai ,� °�- ��, ,,• ,, principles,wildlife habitat enhancement,connections , •-�'�'"`"`'. `': .i; ;.,,. ,yq f to the community and existing trails,floating docks and development of wa din and interpretive signage are ., • ° �, , P wayfinding tPa , .'..,. I -.• } .1: also important elements of the master plan. Jim Brennan is ,• . i t" : .. . ' l�" ��_ �=° the project manager for the landscape architectural portion ,,; �' , � , . 5 . of the project. ' �, 1 ' C-1 4 1'`' • Steven J. Underwood Memorial Park (formerly Des Moines Sports Park) Des Moines,Washington KrinFF provided civil engineering for a 15i acre heavily wooded site,which includes two softball fields and parking Phase 1.The ultimate buildout will include three softball fields,two soccer fields,a central restroom,and a play r; court area. Services include water quality,detention,and utility connections for the restroom facility. I Trillium Ball Park— Mill Creek Ball Fields Mill Creek,Washington provided civil and structural enginering for a 4.8-acre sports park and recreation area. Amenities included a IcPFF little league ball field and small soccer field with artificial turf,a skate park,and supporting parking and walkways, and a restroom building with changing rooms. Civil design included water and sewer connections for the building, storm drainage,detention,water quality, and;parking lot grading and paving. Structural design included design of an underground reinforced concrete detention vault,a single-story brick/masonry storage shed, and a two-story brick/ masonry concessions building with announcer's booth on second floor. 4L,' 4,-, Stipek Park Master Plan, Bothell, Washington :122 I KPFF provided civil engineering services to support the landscape architects in master planning and final design of Phase I park improvements. Services also included development of the park play areas and fields.Park design consisted of drainage collection to intercept hillside seepage and route the drainage to an existing drainage ditch along the roadway. Designed frontage improvements: street widening, storm drainage,curb and gutter, sidewalk, and EN detention. i I j.a.brennan associates,pltc21 I I I Resumes j.a. brennan associates eLtc James A. Brennan,ASLA Jim Brennan, as principal of J.A.Brennan Associates, is responsible for Principal a diverse range of landscape architectural design and planning Landscape Architect projects. Jim's experience includes site selection and master planning through design development, construction documents, and construction observation. Jim is committed to providing imaginative solutions that produce the best fit between the project objectives and excellence in site Education planning and design. Jim has a particular interest in the development Bachelor of Landscape of open space for public enjoyment. Architecture,University of Washington,Seattle,WA,1983 Park Master Planning and Design :. Jim specializes in park master planning and has developed a depth of experience in park developments ranging from active to passive Professional recreation facilities,educational trail systems,urban parks,and the Licenses/Registration preservation and enhancement of sensitive natural areas. Jim has 20 Bachelor of Landscape years of experience with projects in the USA and Asia,including over Architecture,University of 25 large-scale recreational developments and community parks. Washington,Seattle,WA,1983 Recreation Facility Programming Experience Jim is an expert in working with client groups,educators,the 20 years community,and recreational user groups in developing programs for park master plans. Programming skills include identification of site carrying capacity,an understanding of recreation and educational Joined Firm activities and their associated physical requirements. 1985 Public Involvement Jim has focused his career on projects that are of current interest to the Relevant Expertise community or in sensitive environments where communication and involvement with public groups and individuals is critical to the Park Planning&Design project's success. Facilitation of public meetings,working with stakeholder groups,and resolving critical community issues are all areas of Jim's expertise. Environmental Enhancement Project Examples Public Involvement Cedar Grove Park—Bothell,WA Jim served as landscape architectural project manager for the Recreation&Education implementation of a neighborhood park master plan. Responsibilities Programming included design development services through construction documents for the park,which provides active and passive recreation opportunities. Mathison Park Development Plan—Burien,WA Principal-in-charge for the schematic design of a neighborhood park that provides diverse uses including active uses in the open area,a play area,picnic shelter,restroom,and informal field. Webster Park and Playground—Groundswell NW,Seattle,WA Jim worked with the Groundswell NW community group to design a neighborhood park,Webster Park and Playground. He assisted in coordinating with Seattle Parks and Recreation,project permitting,and completing construction documents for the park. 22 j.a.brennan associates,plic Resumes 4i,7#. j.a.brennanasociates Rll C James A.Brennan,ASLA Principal 1Sumas Balifields Master Plan—Sumas,WA Landscape Architect Landscape architectural project manager for the development of sport fields and supporting facilities such as: access and parking,lighting, storm water measures,concessions,and restrooms. North Ambaum Park Development Plan—Burien,WA Honors and Awards .I Prncipal-in-charge for the conceptual design of North Ambaum Park,a V" Herring's House Park,The I neighborhood park that features active recreation elements such as a Waterfront Center's I basket ball court and a children's play area. Additional park elements International Top Honor Award, I include restroom and limited parking area. Jim also provided public 2002involvement facilitation services and prepared cost estimates for state grant applications. City of Eureka Inner Channel • Dock and Boardwalk 1 Renton Waterfront Trail and Shoreline Restoration—Burien,WA Revitalization,Distinguished Principal-in-charge for the development of a waterfront trail and Project of the Year,North I shoreline restoration project on Lake Washington's southern end. Jim Coast(California)Region 2002, 1 developed a conceptual plan for the trail that includes habitat American Public Works 1 restoration elements and pedestrian amenities such as seating. Jim Association I coordinated with adjacent land owners to ensure that the design fits • • i aesthetically and functionally with future development in the area. 1 Carkeek Park Improvement Project,Seattle Department of 1 White Center Sports Park Phases I-IV—King County,WA Parks and Recreation,Honor 1 Project landscape architect responsible from master planning through Award,American Society of 1 construction support for improvements to three baseball fields,and the Landscape Architecture, 1999 I design for renovation of a sports park,which included rehabilitation and reorganization of the parking area,ball fields,tennis courts,irrigation,and • City of Ping Tung,Civic Park I existing buildings. Jim designed the plaza and picnic area including Design,First place in lighting,sidewalk and paving,grading and drainage improvements. international design competition Squalicum Fields Master Plan—City of Bellingham,WA As principal-in-charge,Jim Brennan led a team of five subconsultants City of Bellevue,Lake Hills to complete a master plan for a community park and sports filed Greenbelt Art Project: I Received first place with artist complex at the site of a reclaimed concrete production facility. Jim for design facilitated the public involvement process and developed a master plan that includes sport fields and supporting facilities such as restrooms, concession stands,picnic areas,park maintenance areas,and natural Terminal 105 Viewpoint Park, enhancement areas are also included in the plan. American Society of Landscape Architects Merit Award Wonderwood Park Master Plan Redesign—Lacey,WA Project landscape architect responsible for coordination with the tE; ' community and parks department,refinement of project program and goals,and master planning for increased active and passive recreational ' opportunities while preserving mature woodlands and renovating existing facilities. Lam. Juanita Beach Park Master Plan,Kirkland,WA iPrincipal in charge for the development of a park master plan to ° rejuvenate Juanita Beach Park. Opportunities include improving water quality at the swimming beach,creating better connections to the surrounding community,enhancing linkages between separate park I segments,and improving active recreation features of the park. j.a.brennan associates,pllc 23 Resumes - ).a. brenna 1, asvariates James A.Brennan,ASLA Principal i Darrington Recreation Fields Feasibility Study—Darrington,WA Landscape Architect Project manager responsible for agency and public involvement • permit peit coordination,IAC funding process,and alternative active and passive recreation design concepts. Critical to the project was balancing site use with protection of wetlands and forest ecosystems. The forty-acre site accommodates recreational fields,camping areas,a picnic area,and passive recreation. Presentations I Published Herring's House Park—Seattle,WA Articles Managed a twelve member multi-disciplinary team for this award "Cultural Landscapes," winning park design,soils remediation and intertidal marsh creation. Presented to the Washington Project elements included shoreline design,grading design,planting State Department of Parks and design,agency and tribal coordination,cost estimating and Recreation,2003 environmental planning. Carkeek Park Improvement Project—Seattle,WA "Telling the Story in the Land," Project manager responsible for coordinating with Seattle Department of Daily Journal of Commerce, Parks and Recreation and community groups to enhance a salmon stream Seattle,April 10,2003and associated wetlands for improved fish habitat and educational opportunities. Work included design and construction documents for `Public Art in Overall Campus boardwalks,bridges,picnic nodes,fish habitat structures,trail systems, Planning,"Presented at the wetland ponds,and park plaza. 2002 International Public Art Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan Duwamish River Park Master Plan—Seattle,WA Project manager responsible for coordination of multi-disciplinary team "Native Plantings and for a large-scale shoreline park including archaeological resources and Vegetating Steep Slopes art incorporation into the passive park design. Completion of site Around Puget Sound," ( analysis,alternative design development and evaluation,master plan Presented at the 2001 development,detail design and cost estimating. Jim was also Biotechnical and Soil responsible for project permitting support. Bioengineering Methods for Slope Stabilization and Erosion Taylor Avenue Dock—Bellingham,WA Control Seminar Project landscape architect for a waterfront park and connecting pedestrian dock on Bellingham's waterfront. Jim's responsibilities include for master plan development and design detailing of the waterfront park and dock amenities including railings,lighting,seating, and other site furniture. Swan Creek Park Master Plan—Tacoma,WA Project manager responsible for developing a management plan, phasing plan and cost estimate for a 230-acre regional park in Tacoma. Issues included recreation program,stream enhancement,forest resources,and education potentials. Lake Hills Ranger Station--Bellevue,WA Principal-in-charge of a demonstration garden that applies LEED principles. The project modified existing plantings to create more sustainable garden displays that attract wildlife and showcase native and ornamental plantings that are low maintenance,drought tolerant, and disease resistant. 24 j.a.brennan associates,pllc Y 1 Resumes e,fr j.a. breSnnan,4LC . • Drew Coombs Drew Coombs, as a landscape designer at J.A. Brennan Associates, is Landscape Designer responsible for a diverse range of landscape architectural design and planning projects. Drew's interests include urban design,park planning and design, and restoration and preservation of the natural •' Education envi 1 onment. Initial planning sketches, coordinating team meetings, `„ Bachelor of Landscape AutoCAD drafting, cost estimating, and preparing construction Architecture,University of 1 documents and reports are all areas of Drew's expertise. .W:. British Columbia,Vancouver, B.C.,and Malaspina University- I Neighborhood Park Planning and Design '- College,1997 9 Drew's expertise includes recreation programming for neighborhood park and open spaces. He has worked as a team member on many of J.A.Brennan's park projects. His work has included the design of t Experience recreation,educational,and restoration elements in sensitive natural and Seven years cultural park developments. He recently completed construction observation services for the development of Bitter Lake Reservoir Open .. Joined Firm Space,a neighborhood park in North Seattle. tli2000 1 Project Examples Relevant Expertise Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Plan—Seattle,Washington Drew developed construction documents,cost estimates,and specifications for this community open space project's trails,plaza,and Park Planning&Design1 drainage improvements. Drew performed construction observation services,including preparation of meeting notes,review of submittals, Urban&Streetscape Design ' pay requests and modification proposals. Drew worked closely with j Seattle Parks and the contractor to ensure the unique paving design was • Waterfront Design installed successfully. Renton Waterfront Trail—City of Renton,WA �: Sustainable Design Drew was involved in landscape design services for the development of a conceptual plan for the Renton Waterfront Trail. Drew's responsibilities included assisting with park programming,graphic production,coordinating stakeholder meetings,and cost estimating 4'` services. Sumas Ballfields—City of Sumas,WA Drew prepared graphics and cost estimates for a master plan to renovate :, an existing community park. Park upgrades included the addition of two new baseball fields with additional parking and a concession €r facility with restroom. Drew prepared analysis graphics and presentation graphics for public meetings as well as the IAC Grant application materials for the City of Sumas. . : Squalicum Creek Park Master Plan—Bellingham,WA : . 1 Landscape designer for the development of a park master plan at the site of a formal gravel pit. Park elements include active and passive .., I features including ballfields,walking paths,off-leash dog park,picnic 1 I areas and children's play area. Drew prepared alternative graphics and final'master plan graphics for this project. Drew also provided support i to develop an estimated water use schedule for the park facility that would be fed by an available on site natural spring. j.a.brennan associates,pllc 25 Resumes j.a.brennan:� Drew Coombs Scriber Lake Park Master Plan—Lynnwood,WA Landscape Designer Drew is providing landscape design services for the development of a master plan for Lynnwood's Scriber Lake Park. Drew's responsibilities include assisting with park programming and graphics production. Tacoma Chinese Reconciliation Park—Tacoma,WA Landscape Designer responsible for preparing details and graphics for public involvement presentations for a five million dollar traditional Chinese garden that will tell the story of the expulsion of the Chinese Community from Tacoma in the late 1800's. The project design includes waterfront enhancement,a traditional Chinese garden, environmental art,and interpretive elements. Port of Seattle Bike Path—Seattle,WA Drew provided CAD Production assistance and construction observation services for this Bike Trail along Port property. Issues include irrigation design,plant selection,and design continuity. Morris Street Improvement Project—La Conner,WA Drew prepared alternative option graphics and assisted in a design charrette for the City of La Conner's Morris Street Improvement Project. The process allowed the community to participate in the design and planning of the project at a key decision making point. Burien 4th Avenue Streetscape—Burien,WA Drew prepared the planting design and irrigation plans,along with providing construction observation services for this redesign of the City of Burien's 4th Avenue. The project involved designing an innovative drip irrigation system that insures low water use by deep watering trees and plants. South 180th Street Grade Separation Project—Tukwila,WA Drew prepared contract documents for this two acre wetland project. ' The concept for the wetland design draws on the historical landscape of the Springbrook Creek flood plain. Elements of a river ox-bow have been incorporated to strengthen the connection to the natural setting. The restored wetland incorporates raised hummocks to enable conifer planting within the wetland. Newport Creek Improvements—City of Bellevue,WA Drew,as landscape designer,provided design services and developed construction documents for irrigation,vegetation enhancements,and drainage improvements to Sear's Creek's degraded urban watershed system. Seattle Public Utilities Tank Remediation Project,Seattle,WA Project landscape designer for this residential landscape redesign project necessary due to soil contamination. New soil was brought in to replace contaminated soil at residences adjacent to four water tanks in Seattle. Drew also provided construction observation services for this project,reporting progress on a regular basis to Seattle Public Utilities. 26 j.a.brennan associates,pile L . L , Resumes it,j.a. brennan associates P1,LC Tanja Wilcox j Tanja Wilcox has a wide range of experience in planning and design, Senior Associate j including recreation planning,site selection and feasibility,shoreline design, master planning, and campus planning. Her responsibilities at Landscape Architect J.A.Brennan Associates include parks and open space planning and IF ! design, recreational facilities development,public participation, Education meeting facilitation, specification writing, cost-estimating, construction B.S.Landscape Architecture, documents, and project management. . Cornell University,1989 ; Project Management f:: 1 9 `. Danish International Studies Tanja has over five years of experience in project management. She , Program,Architecture&Design has managed numerous projects that have required the coordination of Studies,University of large'consultant teams,public agencies,community groups,and Copenhagen,1988 extensive public involvement. li ParkiPlanningand Design Professional Tanja has worked as a key team member on many of J.A.Brennan's f Licenses/Registration park'projects. Her work has included the design of recreation, Landscape Architect educational,and restoration elements in sensitive natural and cultural �, State of Washington,2001 park iprojects. Y.. Recreation/Trail Planning and Design ExperienceTanja has developed a number of trail systems and recreation master 14 years plans,including the Darrington trail system and campground project. While working for Bridger-Teton National Forest in Jackson, Joined Firm Wyoming,she developed a recreation master plan for a 25-mile portion 1991 of the Snake River Corridor,including site analysis,site selection and recommendations for future development and management. I Relevant Expertise Public Participation Tanja has gained a depth of experience in public participation,agency coordination and public workshop facilitation. She has provided Park Planning&Design support in community planning and environmental analysis for many community based projects Environmental Enhancement Project Examples Public Involvement Facilitation Bitter Lake Reservoir Open Space Development—Seattle,WA Project Manager for the design of a plaza adjacent to Seattle's Bitter A: Lake;Reservoir. Project goals included creating a community gathering space and focal point. Tanja conceived the aesthetic design of the space,selecting forms,colors,and materials that work together to create '1:, a space that invites people in and symbolizes the use of water and characterizes its properties. Carkeek Park Improvement Project—Seattle,WA �- Project landscape designer,developed design and contract documents to enhance a salmon stream and associated wetlands for improved fish habitat and educational opportunities. Work included design and construction documents for boardwalks,bridges,picnic nodes,fish habitat structures,trail systems,wetland ponds,and park plaza. s j.a.brennan associates,plic , 27 <; 1 Resumes - j.a. brennan associates eLLc Tanja Wilcox Renton Waterfront Trail—Renton,WA Senior Associate Tanja served as project landscape architect for the design of a new Landscape Architect urban waterfront trail that transects both private and public property along Lake Washington. Tanja worked on the conceptual design and permitting services Squalicum Creek Park Master Plan—Bellingham,WA As project landscape architect Tanja is working with the City of Bellingham and stakeholders to develop a master plan for a community Urban Design and park and sports filed complex at the site of a former gravel pit. Her Streetscape responsibilities include park programming,conceptual design,graphics Tanja has experience working production and development of the master plan report. • on challenging projects in the urban realm. She has been Chambers Creek Master Site Plan Implementation—Pierce County,WA involved in the aesthetic design Landscape architect for the conceptual design and development of of a bridge in Japan,design of alternatives for a 40-acre waterfront redevelopment of a reclaimed urban plazas and waterfront gravel mine,adjacent to the Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment gathering spaces,integration of Plant. art into the landscape,design of boardwalk detailing and Donkey Creek Park Master Plan—Gig Harbor,WA enhancement of an historic Olmsted Boulevard,in addition Project landscape architect for the design of a historic park with stream to the landscape design of enhancement.Tanja's responsibilities include conceptual design,master bicycle trails and streetscapes. planning,conducting stake holder meetings and assisting in public presentations and client co-ordination. Summit Trails—Bellevue,WA Honors and Awards Project landscape architect responsible for design of pedestrian trail links and trailheads for the Summit Trails neighborhood in Bellevue. Herring's House Park,The Tanja is familiar with trail design standards,particularly for recreation Waterfront Center's trails through greenbelts. Tanja presented at several community International Top Honor Award, 2002 meetings. Taylor Avenue Dock&Public Waterfront Park—Bellingham,WA Presentations I Published Tanja was a key member of the design team retained by the City of Articles Bellingham to design a pedestrian dock and community park connecting neighborhood and parks on Bellingham's waterfront. Tanja Bridge in Flight:Harmony of developed conceptual plans and assisted in the design detailing of the Style and Structure," park and dock amenities including dock gateway,pavilion,lighting, Presented at the FIB 2002 Osaka Congress,Japan railings,upland plaza and waterfront promenade. "Environmental Metamorphosis Darrington Trail System Master Plan—Darrington,WA on the Duwamish," Responsibilities included coordinating public involvement,agency Daily Journal of Commerce, coordination,and trail and campground design for this 15,000-acre Seattle,July 12,2001 mountainous site on DNR and Forest Service Land. Extensive site analysis resulted in a zoning/site suitability plan for wildlife and sensitive area reserves,and zoning of low to high intensity recreational activity areas. Herring's House Park—Seattle,WA Tanja was assistant project manager and lead landscape architect working with a twelve member multi-disciplinary team to enhance this waterfront site. 28 j.a.brennan associates,plic • n Resumes • Eric Anderson /MAKERS partner architecture+urban design Experience MAKERS, 22 years Other firms, 9 years Education Master of Architecture, University of Washington, 1968 Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois, 1966 Registration Architect: Illinois, 1970 Oregon, 1976 Washington, 1976 • Experience and Qualifications Eric has over 30 years of architectural design and facility master planning experience. His background includes site master planning and commercial and institutional architecture, and he has designed several award-winning public projects. Much of his recent work has involved the predesign programming of new governmental facilities 'and the total refurbishment of public buildings, including fire stations, public safety buildings, and community centers. Eric has also specialized in the design of retail commercial and special-needs residential projects in recent years, and is familiar with public design procedures and requirements. His projects have included many of MAKERS' more technically challenging projects, including simultaneous building refits on multiple-building campuses and complete renovations of Historic Register structures for new uses as well as free-standing new architecture. Project examples include: Architectural Design Projects ■ Fire Station 18 and 41: total refit of ■ Architect for Seattle Parks refits at two brick and concrete 1930's fire Magnolia, Lake City, and Rainier stations in the neighborhoods of Community Centers. Ballard and Magnolia, Seattle. • Edmonds Marine Center Buildings are Station 18 became a restaurant and two mixed-use water-related commercial office building; Station 41 was and office buildings designed for the refitted for 40 more years' service as Port of Edmonds, Wash. The total a fire station. project cost was $3.9 million and was • Research and archival addition to the second phase of the Port's 15-year Makah Cultural and Research Center, Marina redevelopment plan. Neah Bay, WA. This 12,000 s.f. ■ Architect for three consecutive refits facility was designed to provide a of Highline Community Centerifor King permanent repository and study facility County Parks Department: 1988 shell for the 100,000 artifacts found at the refits, 1992 ADA compliance refits, Tribe's Ozette and Hoko River F and. archeological sites.{:, • Visiting Nurses Services: total refit • Predesign scoping for Ellensburg for of 45,000 s.f. 1930's 3-story bakery its new city hall, for Seattle Parks building as new corporate headquarters Dept. for its interpretive center at plus all VNS tenant improvements Discovery Park, for Puget Power for its new interpretive centers at Snoqualmie ■ Eastbay Marina, Olympia, Wash., is an Falls, and for over $200 million of all-new 1,100-boat marina. MAKERS' Coast Guard facilities construction and master plan called for a 4,800-foot refits. Most Coast Guard projects public esplanade, transient moorage involved developing functional 3 for 50 boats, a 110,000 sf mixed-use programs, schematic site plans, commercial center, 330 units of building designs, and cost estimates condominium housing and a public boat for congressional funding purposes. launch ramp. • Architect for Article 93 Code Retrofit of the historic Smith Tower j.a.brennan associates,pllc 29 Resumes David E. Schwartz, PE, LEEDTM AP Civil Associate-in-Charge David Schwartz has 22 years of experience in planning,designing,and coordinating site developments,and public improvements for parks,trails,and waterfront sites.He has designed drainage systems,sanitary sewer and water systems,fire protection systems,streets and highways.His work includes utility analysis and relocations,stormwater detention,water quality enhancements,water storage and distribution,as well as construction support. He is familiar with the permitting processes required for both private and • public works projects. Steven J.Underwood Memorial Park(Des Moines Sport Park),Des Moines,WA Civil Associate-in-Charge for a heavily wooded 15-acre site.Phase I Education includes two softball fields and parking.The ultimate build out includes BS Civil Engineering/Oregon State • three softball fields,two soccer fields,a central restroom,and a play court University area.Services include water quality,detention,and utility connections for the restroom facility. Registration Trillium Park—Mill Creek Ball Fields,Snohomish County,WA Civil Engineer in Washington,Nevada,and Civil Associate-in-Charge for development of a four-acre sports park and Oregon,Colorado,and Maryland recreation area.Amenities include a little league ball field,a soccer field with Professional Affiliations artificial turf,a skate park,an announcer's platform,a restroom building with changing rooms,and supporting parking and walkways.Design included American Society of Civil Engineers water and sewer connections for the building,storm drainage,detention,water Society of American Military Engineers quality,and parking lot grading and paving.The underground detention vault Consulting Engineering Council of has approximately 39,700 cubic feet(300,000 gallons)of detention storage. Washington Stipek Park,Bothell,WA LEEDT"'Accredited Professional Civil Project Manager for master planning and final design of Phase I park improvements. Services included development of the park play areas and fields.Park design consisted of drainage collection to intercept hillside seepage'and route the drainage to an existing drainage ditch along the roadway. Designed frontage improvements:street widening,storm drainage, curb and gutter,sidewalk,and detention. East Hill Park, Kent,WA Civil Project Manager for development of a five-acre community park with picnic shelters,restrooms,trails,play areas,parking lot,and a water amenity. Tambark Creek Park Master Plan,Snohomish County,WA Civil Project Manager for a park master plan including storm drainage, parking lot layout,grading,water and sanitary sewer for two restrooms and drinking fountains,ballfield irrigation,and access roads. 30 j.a.brennan associates,pile • - Resumes r '®PSHANNON&WILSON,EL INC.,T WILLIAM T. LAPRADE, LEG I VICE PRESIDENT Geotechnical Principal in Charge B.S.,Geological Sciences,University of Washington,1981 M.A.,Geography,Arizona State University,1973 Post-Graduate Studies,Engineering. Licensed Engineering Geologist: Washington 2001 t . Bill Laprade is a licensed engineering geologist in Washington with 31 years'experience. He has spent his entire professional career with Shannon&Wilson,where he is presently a vice president and manages a technical group of geologists and geotechnical engineers. Through his work on large public works projects in glacial soils in the Seattle area,Bill has become one of the leading experts in glacial history,distribution of glacial deposits,and the behavior of glacial soils in the Puget Sound region. His publication,"The Geology of Seattle,Washington,"co-authored with Dick Galster,has been a staple for the understanding of the engineering,geology and engineering properties of Puget Lowland soils since its publication in 1991. State of Washington,Heritage PI rk Development,Olympia,WA Bill served as Project Engineering Geologist for geotechnical feasibility studies for the proposed Capitol Green(Heritage Park) development at the State's Capitol Campus. Directed geologic studies to assist the client in developing three concept plans for the proposed park-like area,including steep,unstable slope. Cheasty Boulevard,Seattle,WA Bill managed the geotechnical portion of this redesign of a parking road where seepage was ubiquitous and slope stability ad damaged or threatened the roadway.He performed a geologic reconnaissance,made recommendations,and attended public meetings to explain the geotechnical portions(drainage and retaining walls). Seattle Chinese Garden Stability Evaluation and Analyses,Seattle,WA As Project Manager,Bill reviewed previous geologic and geotechnical work performed at the filled site that borders on unstable slopes,and supervised geologic studies and slope stability analyses for the proposed building sand lake. Eagle Landing Park,Burien,WA Bill evaluated mass wasting characteristics of very steep,unstable shoreline slope to determine the modes of sediment delivery to the shoreline environment. Performed geologic reconnaissance and obtained subsurface information with hand explorations,to xx;: interpret the thickness of landslide debris on the hillside,and assessed the relative risk of future instability. Quail Run,Des Moines,WA Bill served as Engineering Geologist for feasibility studies and recommendations for a foot trail system in a geological sensitive area at Quail Run,on the slopes of Joe's Creek in Des Moines. j.a.brennan associates,plIc 31 Summary -"' Summary Experienced Designers Collaborative Approach J.A.Brennan Associates would like the opportunity to Our designs provide communities with new opportunities provide consulting services for this exciting neighborhood for exploration,discovery,and connection. In addition, park master planning project. Our past experience makes we know the importance of being good listeners.We enjoy us uniquely qualified to provide the City of Renton with a working with the public, stakeholders,municipalities, and master plan for a park that invigorates the neighborhood permitting agencies in order to create successful projects. and creates a place for gathering and playing. We are ' confident that our collaborative design process will result Efficient Design Process in the creation of a place where the community can enjoy Working together with you,we will develop the master healthy outdoor activities and a beautiful open space. plan,detail design,and construction documents for Heather Downs Park. The new neighborhood park will respond to Creative Design the needs of the community and meet funding development A team of creative designers insures that a wide range of standards. We will capture your vision and express it in possibilities will be considered. Through an exploration of design. We also understand the process required to keep the ideas and our understanding of the site and community we project on track,on schedule,and on budget. will unlock the possibilities of this unique and special site. t ® i-oEXI'TINGCON,OMINIMUM � �� - --ir ,,,,t,,,4,..4,„6._, .„,„,,e4,,, 0., �, I 4 FENCE n , 0 Xv rd it c 5,' \gip 'Ed r !r . _ ` p, atm'=ittae � n�ms � 1 + ... : t :i?1e '31 r.'5 A 11.E=f 4.**;' i BERM , BUFFER PLANTINGS SPECTATOR SPORT COURT SPECTATOR PARKING LAWN PLAZA RAMP CITY OF BURIEN 3132".1 NORTH AMBAUM PARK 16' SECTION C-C' 32 j.a.brennan associates,pllc December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 449 The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance#5108 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the alley running north to south, Vacation: Alley between south of S. 2nd St.between Williams Ave. S. to the west and Wells Ave. S.to Williams &Wells Ayes S, the east(Savren Service Corporation;VAC-03-002). MOVED BY BRIERE, Savren Service Corp,VAC-03- SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS 002 READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance#5109 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the unimproved alley located south Vacation: Alley,NE 30th St& of NE 30th St.,west of Kennewick Pl.NE, and north of the abandoned Pacific Kennewick PINE,Renton Coast Railroad right-of-way(Kennydale Elementary School-Renton School School District,VAC-04-003 District; VAC-04-003). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059,thanked Council for its Citizen Comment: O'Halloran- action on the Heather Downs Park development. Heather Downs Park _ Development ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10:08 p.m. GdQzfo Bonnie;I.Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann December 13,2004 December 13,2004 _ Renton City Council Minutes Page 443 Planning: Medical Institution Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Definition, City Code recommended an amendment to the definition of"Medical Definition" in City Amendment Code to allow a wider range of medical practices to occur on-site as accessory functions to the hospital,clinic, or sanitarium use. Refer to Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission. Comp Plan: 2005 Amendment Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Pre-Application,4915 NE submitted pre-application for 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change Sunset Blvd land use designation for property located at 4915 NE Sunset Blvd. from Single Family i(R-8 zoned)to Corridor Commercial(Commercial Arterial zoned). Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Comp Plan: 2005 Amendment Econornic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Filing Deadline Extension recommended approval to extend the filing deadline for Comprehensive Plan Amendments from 12/15/2004 to 1/14/2005,for the next annual review cycle. Council concur. Fire: Haz Mat Equipment, Fire Department recommended approval of three subgrant agreements with King County Grants King Clounty(acting as pass through agency for the U.S.Depaftment of Homeland Security)for receipt of funding in the total amount of$77,798 for Haz Mat(hazardous materials)equipment. Council concur. (See page 447 for resolution.) MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Michael Modl, 103 Monterey P1.NE,Renton, Citizen Comment: Modl- 98056,noting the noise disturbances created by vehicles with modified Modified Vehicle Noise mufflers,and requesting adoption of an ordinance regulating this type of noise Disturbances disturbance or enforcement of the noise level laws if already regulated. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Added The following e-mail was read requesting that the development of Heather Citizen Comment: Various- Downs Park not be delayed: Terri &Joseph Zurra,4507 SE 4th St.,Renton, Heather Downs Park 98059;Kevin Schrock,413 Chelan Ave. SE,Renton, 98059; Sandel DeMastus, Development 1137 Harrington Ave.NE,Renton, 98056;Valerie O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St., Renton,98059;Ken&Anne Miller,4415 SE 4th St.,Renton,98059;Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton,98059;Lori Foster,4413 SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059;Bob&Cindy Ensley,4108 SE 4th St.,Renton,98059; and Vic Bloomfield&Jeni Skuk,4418 SE 3rd Pl.,Renton, 98059. Comments included: residents have waited a long time for the park;funds have already been allocated for this purpose; and children need a place to play away from traffic. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole regarding adoption of the 2005 Budget ordinances. Budget: 2005 Annual City of 2005 Budget. The Committee recommended adoption of the 2005 Budget, Renton&Related Ordinances including the following changes recommended by the Executive: • Convert a.4 Parking Enforcement Officer position into a Police Specialist Or the RENSTAT program. • Add a Police Specialist for the RENSTAT program-$69,000. • Eliminate the vacant position of Finance Analyst Supervisor,Finance and Information Services Department-$89,000. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather Downs Park Page 1 added 49, From: <WildAngell2@aol.com> /a/8-0V To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> 1'em 8 Date: 12/13/2004 5:05:11 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler and Council Members, I'm writing this email to express our concern over finding out that the Heather Downs Park might not go through as planned. My family and I have lived in the Heather Downs area for 6 years(Renton for 24 years). We had been expecting the Park to be built for several years. Finding out that 2005 would begin the process, made us very happy. Recently finding out that the money to develop it might be frozen is NOT acceptable to us:We are requesting that you as Mayor and the Council continue with development of the Park as soon as possible. Being a community activist/volunteer with many different organizations in Renton, I understand the value of a promise. If you need to do any focus group meeting or surveys, please feel free tP contact me. I will help with whatever I can. Sincerely, Terri Zura, Joseph Zura, Stephanie Zura (21) & Nicholas Zura (18) g507 SE. q'H`Si- Ren+an IWS9 CC: <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>, <dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>, <dclawson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <tnelson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us> • • Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather Downs park. Page 1 /40/1,00 I From: "Kevin Schrock" <kevins224@comcast.net> To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 5:40:57 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Dear Mayor, My wife and I moved to Renton with our 3-1/2 year old son in 1998 from Bellevue. I have coached Little League here in Renton for 5 seasons. There is not a park within 2 miles from our neighborhood that could be used for a father and son to play catch', a family to ride bikes to safely or even a neighborhood picnic. One of the things that we have sorely missed is the neighborhood park system that Bellevue has become known for. It was for this reason that we were so pleased to hear that Heather Downs was selected to receive a neighborhood park that would not require a car ride or crossing major thoroughfares on bicycles to reach from our neighborhood. Those of us parents in the neighborhood have waited in anticipation for over 18 months since the site was cleared of the derelict housing for construction to begin on the new park. Please consider this when you discuss the options at hand at tonight's city council meeting. Thank you for your time. Respectfully yours, Kevin Schrock 413 Chelan Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 425 430-1213 kevins224@comcast.net Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- RE: Heather" is Park/URGENT Page 1 • Ai&tdAilda ealeAfendiAct From: <AngelSandel@aol.com> To: <Kwheeler@ci.rentop.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 5:07:34 PM Subject: RE: Heather Downs'Park/URGENT Please bill Heather Downs Park Right'Away. We don't want to loose this money for Heather Downs. It's been promised to the citizens for 25 years to have a park. And slated for 2005. Cities always seem to break promises to the citizens once elections are over Please reconsider. Sandel DeMastus Chair Human Rights Commission Producer Channel 77 Public Access Station 11.37 Harringf►K 4ti NC ken-b0A go S!v [Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather Downs Park Page 1 Aida eimay-ntlfAixt From: <Mvohall@aol.com> I q(3/ wol To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 5:23:33 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Madam Mayor- I have lived in Heather Downs since 1996. I have heard about the city's intention to build a park in our neighborhood and became quite excited when found out it was coming sooner than later. It would be so nice to be able to walk to a park, rather than having to get in the car to drive to one. I now understand there is a proposal to delay the building of the park for various reasons. I wish to express my disappointment, for the money has been ear-marked and the wait has been long. Renton rightly prides itself on the quantity and quality of recreation • opportunities for its citizens. Please let this be another example of that pride by reconsidering this proposal. Respectfully, Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Kathy Keo Iker_Wheeler- Heather Dowr rk Funding Page 1 • ad &s ,i • From: KEN MILLER <kmiller@connectexpress.com> !qr A0oLt To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 5:24:55 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Funding Dear Mayor, • It has come to our attention that the 1 million dollars allocated for the 2005 development of the long awaited Heather Downs Park may be delayed or diverted by the Renton City Council. This would be a grave error. This park has been "in development"for over 20 years. When we moved into our home in 1980 and started our family, we spoke with Director John Webley regarding the timeline for park's development. We were hoping our young children would have the opportunity to utilize this. . much needed play area. Unfortunately',, they never had the chance to enjoy such an area, and are now adults. • Since we moved to the Heather Downs area, there has been a tremendous amount of housing growth. The nearest park is Kiwanis, which is over 1-1/2 miles away and across 2 of the busiest streets on the east hill, Union and NE 4th Street. The amount of young children in our area is phenomenal. When we watch the school bus load on the same corner where the park would be developed, there are at least 35 elementary age children. THIS IS ONLY ONE BUS! This does not take into account the numerous other stops in our dead end/area. This park would become one of the most highly used in the Renton system,just by virtue of the location. We need this park! The ultimate reason for the development of this park is the safety of our children. There is no access to an acceptable play area for the population of the Heather Downs area. Many of the streets in the area do not have sidewalks. Four of the major streets in the area carry Metro bus service several times everyday. Children who live in apartments and very small home often play in the street. The undeveloped park does not provide a positive experience for growing families. We have be waiting a generation for this park. If you divert the dollars to another project(i.e,.. a park maintenance building), it is unlikely that we will ever!have the opportunity to see • this park built. Don't take away this opportunity to serve the youth of our city. They need a positive place',to grow and play. Our children cannot wait any longer foi-a park. Don't delay the development of Heather Downs Park, even for one more year. Sincerely, Ken and Anne Miller 4415 SE 4th St. Reh,10n 959 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather Downs Perk-please build _ Page 1 AMt441zadt4 etc/A4/9ithA From: <Mvohall@aol.com> I 141.3// 61)11 To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 4:55:38 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park-please build Dear Madam Mayor- The residents of the Heather Downs neighborhood want Heather Downs Park built as soon as possible. The money has been allocated and we have been patiently waiting for over 25 years for the park to be developed. Please do not make us wait any longer. Best regards, Mike O'Halloran 425-271=6973 OW S£ 9 ' SI. dQe�c�n 9re)S1 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather DowrJcrirk ; Page 1 • vow eoAtrulin4 From: "Lori Foster" <jobiesmom@comcast.net> Iq! ,i2®1 To: <kwheeler@ci.rentori.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 4:53:55 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Dear Mayor, Please do not delay Heather Downs Park. It is very much needed in the neiborhood. Thank you, Lori Foster 4413 SE 3rd PI Reit-fon !' O7 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler- Heather Downs park Page 1 Mded NAMY41141/Atet. From: <CindyEnsley@aol.com> `�! D 11 To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 5:40:57 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Dear Madam Mayor, In the best interest of the neighbors of the Heather Downs community, it is pertinent to continue the plans of the park with the appropriated funds. Having lived in this area for 14 years it is time we are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of a park. My husband and I have three small Grandchildren and I'm sure you can understand the disappointment we would face if the property was used for another reason or sold to a developer.We have enough homes, WE NEED THIS PARK. Thank you in advance for making the correct decision to continue with the park development. Sincerely, Bob and Cindy Ensley Heather Downs Residents 1Io * SE OnSf Rin gSos? Kathy Keolker_Wheeler- Heather DowrQ phrk Page 1 • O to From: "Vic, Jeni and Jae Bli omfield/Skuk" <vic-jeni@juno.com> /2,//3/Z0 To: <kwheeler@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 12/13/2004 6:53:54 PM Subject: Heather Downs Park Mayor Wheeler, We were just informed that the Council is considering to take allocated money away from the construction of Heather Downs Park. We strongly oppose this. With the growth of the neighborhood, we feel that it is important to have a place for our children to play and forleveryone to enjoy the outdoors. We have a 3 and a half year old son who would benefit greatly from a park close to our house. As parents, we feel that having a safe place for children is vital. Much our neighborhood does not have sidewalks and children often play in the street. A nearby park would reduce this problem. The rapid growth in the Highlands neighborhood would support a park. The existing parks are already highly used;and we believe that Heather Downs Park would help to reduce overcrowding. After careful consideration, the city has already approved the funds and removing them is inappropriate. Furthermore, it does not speak well of the Council to suddenly attempt to reverse the existing decision without sufficient thought and notice. In conclusion, please do not allow the park that we were looking forward to using be taken away. Thank you, Vic Bloomfield Jeni Skuk • Jae(Age 3) 4418 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-2805 December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 443 J ' Planning: Medical Institution Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Definition,City Code recommended an amendment to the definition of"Medical Definition" in City Amendment Code to allow a wider range of medical practices to occur on-site as accessory functions to the hospital,clinic, or sanitarium use. Refer to Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission. Comp Plan: 2005 Amendment Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Pre-Application,4915 NE submitted pre-application for 2005 Comprehensive.Plan Amendment to change Sunset Blvd land use designation for property located at 4915 NE Sunset Blvd. from Single Family(R-8 zoned)to Corridor Commercial(Commercial Arterial zoned). Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Comp Plan: 2005 Amendment Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Filing Deadline Extension recommended approval to extend the filing deadline for Comprehensive Plan Amendments from 12/15/2004 to 1/14/2005,for the next annual review cycle. Council concur. Fire: Haz Mat Equipment, Fire Department recommended approval of three subgrant agreements with King County Grants King County(acting as pass through agency for the U.S.Department of Homeland Security)for receipt of funding in the total amount of$77,798 for Haz Mat(hazardous materials)equipment. Council concur. (See page 447 for resolution.) MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Michael Modl, 103 Monterey Pl. NE,Renton, Citizen Comment: Modl- 98056,noting the noise disturbances created by vehicles with modified Modified Vehicle Noise mufflers,and requesting adoption of an ordinance regulating this type of noise Disturbances disturbance or enforcement of the noise level laws if already regulated. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Added The following e-mail was read requesting that the development of Heather Citizen Comment: Various- Downs Park not be delayed: Terri &Joseph Zurra,4507 SE 4th St.,Renton, Heather Downs Park 98059; Kevin Schrock,413 Chelan Ave. SE,Renton, 98059; Sandel DeMastus, Development 1137 Harrington Ave.NE,Renton,98056;Valerie O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St., Renton,98059; Ken&Anne Miller,4415 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059;Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton,98059;Lori Foster,4413 SE 3rd Pl., Renton,98059;Bob&Cindy Ensley,4108 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059; and Vic Bloomfield&Jeni Skuk,4418 SE 3rd P1.,Renton, 98059. Comments included: residents have waited a long time for the park; funds have already been allocated for this purpose; and children need a place to play away from traffic. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole regarding adoption of the 2005 Budget ordinances. Budget: 2005 Annual City of 2005 Budget. The Committee recommended adoption of the 2005 Budget, Renton&Related Ordinances including the following changes recommended by the Executive: • Convert a.4 Parking Enforcement Officer position into a Police Specialist for the RENSTAT program. • Add a Police Specialist for the RENSTAT program-$69,000. • Eliminate the vacant position of Finance Analyst Supervisor,Finance and Information Services Department-$89,000. ti December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 444 • Eliminate the vacant position of Human Resources Analyst,Human Resources and Risk Management Department, and other department cost reductions in training and recruitment-$42,000. • Eliminate a vacant Judicial Specialist position,Administrative,Judicial and Legal Services Department-$55,000. • Reduce temporary help in the Development Services Division-$22,000. This reduction will impact developers especially in the high construction period. • ReIduce temporary help in the Transportation Division-$30,000. • Turn off approximately 500 City lights along various arterials with the exi eption of the Central Business District and neighborhoods -$60,000. • Reduce various Fire Department line items -$50,000. • Eliminate the vacant position of Assistant Library Director, Community Services Department-$100,000. • Eliminate the position of Capital Projects Manager, Community Services Department-$87,000. • Eliminate the community calendar, Other City Services Budget-$30,000. • Eliminate various recreation programs, Community Services Department- $29,900. The Committee further recommended the following changes to the proposed 2005 Budget: • The LEOFF I retiree long-term care costs'of$260,000 are moved from the General Fund to Fund 522. • The Parks Fund is decreased by$158,300. • The Parks Fund is increased by$35,000 for lifeguards at Kennydale Beach. • The General Fund is increased by$80,000 to add a Code Compliance Officer for the Police Department to implement the first element of the REACT program. • The Code Enforcement Officers in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department will not be transferred to the Police Department,but remain in the Development Services Division of the PBPW Department. • Should a limited hydroplane race event return to Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park in 2005,the City will be reimbursed for all costs,estimated at approximately$9,540,in 2005 dollars. Property Tax Levy. To meet the costs of this budget, the City's property tax levy will increase by one percent,plus new construction, and any annexations as defined by the King County Assessor. Various General Fees. Various general fees will also be increased. These include photocopies,audio and video recording copies, and facsimile copies. December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 445 Jail Booking Fees. The City shall increase the jail booking fees between government agencies and individuals to capture full cost recovery(currently $64.83 per day)per RCW 70.48.390. City Center Garage Monthly Rates. A rate structure for monthly parking fees at the City Center Parking garage for minimum lease periods shall be adopted as recommended. Water,Sewer,and King County Water Treatment Rates. To meet the City's CIP(Capital Improvement Program)requirements as proposed in the 2005 Budget,the Committee concurred with increasing the 2005 water rates by two percent, and increasing the sewer rates by three percent. King County is increasing the water treatment rate by 9.4 percent. The Council reluctantly adopts the pass through rate. CIP Changes. The$250,000 appropriated in the 2005 Budget for Heather Downs Park development shall be decreased to$100,000 for clean up purposes, and the balance along with the$116,000 in reserve for the Cedar River Trail,be dedicated to the Parks Maintenance Facility Reserve. Thereby,making the Parks Maintenance Facility Reserve a total of$2,266,000 at this time. The total 2005 Budget is$149,349,200. The Committee further recommended that the ordinances regarding these matters be presented for first_reading.* Council President Persson explained that the 9.4 percent water treatment rate increase is a pass-through increase imposed by King County. *MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Discussion occurred, and the issues and concerns raised included: the appropriation of the$250,000 for Heather Downs Park development in the 2005 Budget; the use of$100,000 to clean up the Heather Downs Park property;the$1 million set aside in the 2004 Budget for this project; the three phases of the park development project and the push to develop all phases at once; decisions made at the Council retreat in January regarding funding the park project; the issuance of the request for qualification for Heather Downs Park architectural/engineering professional services; the ability to move forward with construction of the park if funding discussion delayed until Council's retreat in March 2005; the total cost of the park development project; and the conflicting information about the importance,timing,and cost of the Parks Maintenance Facility. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL AMEND THE MOTION AND CHANGE THE CIP CHANGES PARAGRAPH AND THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "CIP Changes: The$116,000 in reserve for the Cedar River Trail shall be dedicated to the Parks Maintenance Facility Reserve. Thereby,making the Parks Maintenance Facility Reserve a total of$2,116,000 at this time. The total 2005 Budget is $149,499,200." CARRIED. *MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED. CARRIED. (See page 447 for ordinances.) In response to questions from Council,Victoria Runkle,Finance and Information Services Administrator,explained that$1 million is currently •I December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 446 appropriated for the Heather Downs Park development project, and the funds have not yet been appropriated in the 2005 Budget. The$1 million can be re- appropriated via a carry forward ordinance. Finance Committee Finance'Committee Vice Chair Law presented a report recommending Community Services: Edlund concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the three-year lease, at an Property Lease&Caretaker annual lease rate of one dollar,for the City-owned Edlund property house Agreement,Vision House located at 10130 SE Carr Rd. with Vision House, a social service agency that provides drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs for homeless single men. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the lease with Vision House. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Vice Chair Law presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 232510-233147 and three wire transfers totaling $3,637,993.72; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 54657-54877, one wire transfer.and 574 direct deposits totaling$1,799,228.45. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. I Human Resources: Finance Committee Vice Chair.Law presented a report recommending Reclassification of 18 concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the reclassification of Positions positions and pay ranges that do not require additional 2004 Budget appropriations as follows: Effective 1/1/2003: Building Inspector/Combination,grade a18 to a21,2004 Budget change is $44,149; and Building Inspector/Electrical,grade a18 to a21,$14,927. Effective 1/1/2004: Finance Analyst III-New Title: Business Systems Analyst,grade n16 to a23, 2004 Budget change is $4,452; Judicial Specialist-New Title: Judicial Specialist/Trainer,grade a08 to al0, $2,196; Golf Course Manager,m26 to m32,$6,293; Facilities Manager,m26 to m28,$3,516; Recreation Manager,m26 to m28,$3,516; Park Maintenance Manager,m26 to m28,$3,516; Secretary I-New Title: Secretary II, a05 to a07,$1,014; Secretary I-New Title: Administrative Secretary/Risk Management Assistant, n05 to nl 1,$2,040; and Assistant Human Resources Analyst-New Title: Benefits Analyst,n11 to m20, $3,888. Effective 7/1/2004: Executive Secretary, n13 to m17, 2004 Budget change is $2,372; Librarian, all to a22, $6,282; Library Supervisor, a12 to a17, $3,612; Library Assistant I-New Title: Library Assistant II, a03 to a09, $966; Facilities Supervisor, a20 to a21, $738; Assistant Human Resources Analyst-New Title: Human Resources Analyst, nll to m20, $1,944; and Human Resources Systems Technician,n09 to nll, $1,146. � � qp-^sem A: L`i'e'C .LL) DV COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE er:Tv COUNC L COMMITTEE REPORT QS ante„den �' Date M.l3-aoo�f December 13,2004 ADOPTION OF THE 2005 BUDGET ORDINANCES,AS FOLLOWS: 2005 BUDGET PROPERTY TAX LEVY VARIOUS GENERAL FEES JAIL BOOKING FEES CITY-CENTER GARAGE MONTHLY RATES WATER, SEWER, AICD KING COUNTY WATER TREATMENT RATES Referred October 25, 2004 2005 Budget. The Committee of the Whole recommends adoption of the,2005 Budget, including the following changes recommended by the Executive: • . Convert a .4 Parking Enforcement Officer position into a Police Specialist position for the RENSTAT program. ■ Add a Police Specialist position for the RENSTAT program-$69,000. • Eliminate the vacant position'of.Finance Analyst Supervisor., Finance & Information Services Department- $89,000. '. • Eliminate the vacant position of'Hyman .Resources Analyst, Human Resources & Risk Management Department,;,and”other department cost reductions in training and recruitment $42,000. ■ Eliminate a vacant Judicial Specialist:?;position, Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department-$55,000. ; .. .;,.; ■ Reduce Temporary help,in the Development'Services Division - $22,000. This reduction will impact developers especiallyin.the high construction period:. ■ Reduce Temporary Help in the Transportation Division- $$0,000. ■ Turn off.approximately 500Icity lights along.various arterials with the exception of the Central Business District and neighborhoods-$60,000. • Reduce various Fire Department:.line items-$50,000., • Eliminate the-vacant position.of Assistant•Library Director,;Community Services Department - $100,000. • Eliminate the position-of Capital Projects Manager,,Community Services Department-.$87,000. ' ■ Eliminate the Community Calendar; Otliertify'Services Budget-$30,000. • Eliminate various Recreation)Programs, Community Services Department $29,900. • The Committee further recommends the following changes to the Proposed Budget: •. The.LEOFF I retiree long-term care costs of$260,000 are moved from the General Fund to Fund 522. , • The Parks Fund is decreasedlby$158,300. - • The Parks Fund is increased by$35,000 for lifeguards at Kennydale Beach. • The General Fund is increased by $80,000 to add a Code Compliance Officer for the Police Department to implement the first element of the REACT program. • The Code Enforcement Officers in the PBPW Department will not be transferred to the Police Department, but remain in thle Development Services Division of the PBPW Department. • Should a limited hydroplane race event return to Coulon Park in 2005, the City will be reimbursed for all costs, estimated at approximately$9,540, in 2005 dollars. Property Tax Levy. To meet the costs of this budget, the City's property tax levy will increase by one percent(1%), plus new construction,and any annexations as defined by the King County Assessor. , COMMITTEE OF THE WHO]1 COMMITTEE REPORT ADOPTION OF THE 2005 BUDGET ORDINANCES December 13,2004 Page 2 Various General Fees. Various general fees will also be increased. These include photocopies, audio or video recording copies, and facsimile copies. Jail Booking Fees. The City shall increase in Jail Booking Fees between government agencies and individuals to capture full cost recovery(currently $64.83/day); per-revised Washington State Law RCW 70.48.390. . City Center Garage Monthly Rates.. A rate structure formonthly parking fees at the City Center Parking Garage for minimum lease periods shall be adopted as recommended. . Water, Sewer, and King County Water Treatment Rates. To meet the City's CIP requirements as proposed in the 2005 Budget,the Committee concurs with increasing the 2005 water rates by two percent (2%), sewer rates by three percent (3%). King County is increasing the water treatment rate by 9.4 percent. The Council reluctantly adopts the pss through rate: :CIP Changes. The $250,000 appropriated ache 2005 bud_et:for Heather Downs Park Development shall -_ ___ _.__, ; :, !! !!It • �.: :_ ., • ,._.- • _':= -• •` he $116,000inreserve`for the•Cedar River Trail ededicated to the Parks Maintenance Facilitj'Reserve. Thereby, making the Parks Maintenance Facility Reserve;atotal of$2 CCr9A9.,at this time: ` # fugt 4Rg foo. `a;A i;t,7a ooi� 1'he total budget is :.< ' The Committee further recommends=;that:.the Ordinances,regarding these matters be presented for first reading. 4:. . • • Don Persson,City Council President's'.:., '• , • ' • cc: Victoria Runkle,Finance&Information Services Administrator . . . Sylvia Doerschel,Finance Analyst Supervisor-Budget ' J December 13,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 441 careful to protect May Creek by installing a retention pond when he built in the past,Mr.Blayden noted the need to be able to cross the Urban Separator for sewer and stormwater retention and secondary access for emergency vehicles in order to develop the property. Debra Rogers,5326 NE 22nd Ct.,Renton, 98058,representing the Stonegate Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the 50% open space retention requirement, as well as developing away from critical areas. She pointed out that the Stonegate neighborhood contains Greens Creek and a portion of the Urban Separator, emphasizing that residents want the May Creek area protected. Correspondence was read from Larry Phillips,Metropolitan King County Council!Chair,516 3rd Ave. Room 1200, Seattle, 98104,recommending that Renton use the 50% open space requirement within Urban Separators as allowed in King County's R-1 zone. The following e-mail was read into the record in support of the 50% open space requirement in the Urban Separators: Connie Marsh, 1175 NW Gilman Blvd., #B11,Issaquah, 98027; Jodi &John Mackey, 5301 NE 23rd Ct.,Renton, 98059;Jan Fohrell,2400 Lyons Ave.NE,Renton, 98059;Wayde Watters, 11608 SE 286th St.,Kent, 98030;David Kappler, 255 SE Andrews St., Issaquah, 98027; Betsy Reamy, 2502 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton, 98059;Kevin F. Schulzi 2202 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton,98059;Bruce Christopherson,5502 NE 24th C4,Renton, 98059; Paul &Tracy Ficca,5306 NE 23rd Ct.,Renton, , 98059;il.on&Leda Stewart, 2217 Lyons Ave. NE,Renton,98059;Li-Meng& Sandy Yu, 5405 NE 24th Ct.,Renton,98059; Susan Old,2406 Lyons Ave. NE, Renton 98059;and Melissa&Tad Willoughby, 5512 NE 26th St.,Renton, 98059. There being no further public comment,it was MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2004 and beyond. Items noted includid: * Over 360 children and parents enjoyed Breakfast with Santa on December 1 lth at the Renton Senior Activity Center, where volunteers assisted with the breakfast and program. * Winter weather conditions may impact curbside collection services of Renton residents. If weather or road conditions prevent regular pick up, collection will be one week late. Residents are asked to store their materials until the following week when the Waste Management Rainier truck driver can safely collect two weeks worth of materials. In such cases, residents will not be billed for an extra garbage collection. AUDIENCE COMMENT Mike O'Halloran,4420 SE 4th St.,Renton, 98059, stated that he is a Heather Citizen Comment: O'Halloran- Downs neighborhood resident, and asked Council not to delay the development Heather Downs Park of Heather Downs Park, which has been slated as a proposed park for Development approximately 20 years. Citizen Comment: Grassi- Rosemary Grassi,422 Cedar Ave. S.,Renton, 98055, deferred her time to Cedar Ave S Speeding Traffic Becky Lemke to speak on the subject of speeding traffic on Cedar Ave. S. December 6,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 Committee for further review and recommendation on these implementation issues. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution#3723 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Finance: Sales Tax Sourcing interlocal agreement with the City of Kent for payment and supervision of sales Lobbyist Services (Sales Tax tax sourcing lobbyist services. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY' Streamlining),City of Kent CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3724 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an CAG: 02-099, Yakima County interlocal agreement amending certain terms of prior interlocal agreements Jail Services, King County between the City of Renton and Yakima County regarding the housing of Cities inmates in Yakima County jail facilities. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3725 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Maple Valley interlocal agreement between the City and the Washington State Department of Hwy Phase I Improvements, Transportation for funding of construction of the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169) WSDOT Grant HOV Lanes and Queue Jump Improvements. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ: CARRIED. Resolution#3726 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into Police: Jail Booking Services interlocal agreements with government agencies for the City of Renton to Interlocal Agreements provide jail booking services on a space-available basis. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 12/13/2004 for second and final reading: Vacation: Alley between An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the alley running north to south, Williams &Wells Ayes S, south of S. 2nd St.between Williams Avenue S. to the west and Wells Ave. S. Savren Service Corp,VAC-03- to the east(Savren Service Corporation;VAC-03-002). MOVED BY BRIERE, 002 SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/13/2004. CARRIED. I Vacation: Alley,NE 30th St& An ordinance was read vacating a portion of the unimproved alley located south Kennewick P1 NE,Renton of NE 30th St.,west of Kennewick Pl.NE, and north of the abandoned Pacific School District,VAC-04-003 Coast Railroad right-of-way(Kennydale Elementary School-Renton School District; VAC-04-003). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/13/2004. CARRIED. • NEW BUSINESS Discussion ensued regarding budget priorities related to the Heather Downs Budget: Priorities (Heather park development,the Parks Maintenance Facility replacement,and the Downs Park,Park RENSTAT and REACT programs. Maintenance Facility, Issues and concerns raised included the assumption that Heather Downs was RENSTAT&REACT) Council's first priority; the lack of property for the Parks Maintenance Facility; Heather Downs area residents'expectation for a park;the suggestion to set money aside but postpone decision until March 2005 on whether to use money for Heather Downs or Parks Maintenance Facility; lack of information about the Parks Maintenance Facility; the delay of Heather Downs park development December 6,2004 Renton City Council Minutes Page 433 if the funding decision is postponed; future budget cuts and the maintenance and operation of City parks; the priority level of the RENSTAT and REACT programs and funding cuts to the programs; and capital expenditures versus on- going personnel expenditures. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:50 p.m. �,t-€/J 6i1a Bonnie T.Walton,CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann December 6, 2004 • May 5,2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 166 inventory,level of service, and long-range planning elements have been updated based upon community involvement, a random household survey, and staff participation. This plan will be in effect for six years from the date of adoption. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 167 for resolution.) Community Services: Edlund Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Property Purchase,King recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the County Conservation Futures amendment to the Conservation Futures Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Funding,CAG-90-029 (CAG-90-029)between King County and the City of Renton for the Edlund Property Open Space Acquisition Project(18 acres located on the northeast corner of Carr Rd. and 103rd Ave.)to accept$250,000 for this acquisition. The City's required 50%match will be funded from the Parks Mitigation Fund. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the interlocal cooperation agreement. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTER REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 167 for resolution.) Community Services,Heatbeer Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Downs Property,IAC Grant recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to apply to the Resolution Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation for funding assistance in the 4..mpa 4(zq) amount of$500,000 for the Heather Downs property acquisition(five acres located at Union Ave. SE and NE 3rd St.). The City's 50%match will be funded from the Parks Mitigation Fund. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption to authorize the Mayor to make formal application for funding assistance. MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 167 for resolution.) Community Services:Edlund Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Property,IAC Grant recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to applyto the Resolution Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation for funding assistance in the amount'of$500,000 for the Edlund property acquisition(18 acres located on the northeast corner of Can Rd. and 103rd Ave.). The City's 50%match will be funded from the Parks Mitigation Fund($250,000)and King County Conservation Futures grant($250,000). The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption to authorize the Mayor to make formal application for funding assistance. MOVED BY NELSON,SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 167 for resolution.) Community Services: Ivar's Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report regarding Contract Unforecasted Ivar's Inc. unforecasted revenue allocation. Currently,the Ivar's contract calls Revenue Allocation for an additional 12% of revenue to be paid to the City when gross sales exceed $1.1 million per year. In 2002,this amounted to$20,380. APPROVED BY Community Services Committee CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT ®ate 5%5 a0 May 5, 2003 €y .rs".;'.ag5nt�;i o , eia Yig sou�ii; .=a ` �wiWid :w oP <i{�,S:p� wu vs coiiVre� ��;2• e4F: =,a.s.. ,„�N•sR,;�. r�R, �g;{��•,-4 .:�o eov'r .,.303-" €,r,:;:,;,4,1.4.4,4-4,:;,,,,,,, 3s . Ef°.,, <4e:�w. .. ,. �a a .nfr -r�.4,d4rvr,: ,...4.74‘,:o: + q'.m;3` : .,i� F�eer�ptl t4�28tf3�14nk>a-: ,� �,i"��,MW�_' - ,m�t8:", �;'.�.�„.jez„tp: «'t , �« �beW� o&4�s<% t-.r.�; , t� . v: m,.. _ u»x�r..:a„o.f,;;> z:�maa;4;`} wii,-4v.fz ::: u' e'.°u`z,.1 9; The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the staff • recommendation to apply to.the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation for • funding assistance in the amount of$500,000 for the Heather Downs property acquisition (five acres located at:Union Ave. SE and NE 3rd St.). The City's 50% match . will be funded from the Parks Mitigation Fund. The Committee further recomMen4,,,,,:that'Affeittqlutipp regarding this matter be. presented for reading and. adoption°osaufl fie the Mayor to make formal.application ' for funding assistance.• -• �4P`' 7. �, .y ,,34,333.--:'N :*” ,. f _ , yL C ° ' • ai, rgp r3w °yuynV� xR g •441 "tom, w,p` ti;��s�4�x �s� King Parker, Vice-Chair - .---- 5 . ' '.1:,,,t.w' L 4k '4. 4-.P.' R ey : ar^, '"'er �v.7R'' ` ndy orman, Member • • • C: Leslie Betlach • Jon Jainga • April 28,2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 154 Gregg Zimmerman stated that the City tests its water supply on a weekly basis, and certain tests are performed on a daily basis. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of April 21,2003. Council concur. April 21,2003 Community Services:2003 Community Services Department recommended approval and adoption of the Park,Recreation and Open 2003 Long-Range Park,Recreation,and Open Space Plan. Refer to Space Plan Community Services Committee. Community Services:!toil= Community Services Department recommended adoption of an Interagency Downs Property,IAC Grant Committee for Outdoor Recreation grant resolution needed as part of the grant e o n application process for obtaining up to$500,000 for the Heather Downs property acquisition(five acres located at Union Ave.SE and NE 3rd St.). Refer to Community Services Committee. Community Services:Edlund Community Services Department recommended adoption of an Interagency Property,IAC Grant Committee for Outdoor Recreation grant resolution needed as part of the grant Resolution application process for obtaining$500,000 for the Edlund property acquisition (18 acres located on the northeast corner of Carr Rd. and 103rd Ave.). Refer to Community Services Committee. Community Services:Edlund Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to Property Purchase,King the Conservation Futures interlocal agreement with King County(CAG-90- County Funding 029)for open space funding to accept$250,000 in matching funds for the Edlund property acquisition(18 acres located on the northeast corner of Carr Rd.and 103rd Ave.). Refer to Community Services Committee. Streets:Main Ave S Closure, Community Services Department requested authorization for a one-day closure Veterans Memorial Park of Main Ave.S.between S.2nd St.and S. 3rd St.on May 26,2003,for the Dedication(5/26/2003) Veterans Memorial Park dedication ceremony. Refer to Community Services Committee. Community Services: City Community Services Department requested approval of a three-year contract in Hall Mechanical Maintenance the annual amount of$55,733 for mechanical maintenance services at Renton Services,McKinstry Company City Hall. Council concur. Plat:Honey Crest,NE 9th P1 Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions,of the &Vashon P1 NE,FP-03-011 Honey Crest Final Plat; 19 single-family lots on 3.12 acres located at NE 9th Pl. , and Vashon Pl.NE(FP-03-011). Council concur. (See page 155 for resolution.) Fire:Records Management Fire Department recommended approval of a contract with FDM Software,Ltd. System,FDM Software in the amount of$332,223 to supply,install,and train City staff in the use of its computer software,which is the final component of the Fire Department's computerized integrated records management system project. Refer to Public. Safety Committee. Police:Valley Special Police Department recommended approval of the Valley Special Response Response Team Interlocal Team interlocal agreement which creates a multi jurisdictional team to Agreement effectively respond to serious criminal occurrences. Refer to Public Safety Committee. C_ - OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,-> LILL AI#: la' V Submitting Data: For Agenda of: April 28, 2003 Dept/Div/Board.. Community Services/Parks Division Staff Contact Jon Jainga Agenda Status Capital Project Coordinator (ext. 6602) Consent X Subject: Public Hearing.. Heather Downs property acquisition — Interagency Correspondence.. Ordinance Committee for Outdoor Recreation l(IAC) Grant Application Resolution Format Old Business Exhibits: New Business Issue Paper Study Sessions IAC Grant Resolution Information Memo from City Attorney Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to the Community Services Committee Legal Dept X Finance Dept X Other Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $500,000.00(Parks Mit. Fees) Transfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $500,000.00(Parks Mit. Fees) Revenue Generated $500,000.00(IAC grant) Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. $500,000.00 SUMMARY OF ACTION: In 2002, during Executive Session, City Council approved the property acquisition of the Heather Downs property ($934,000). The property is approximately five acres and located at Union Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Currently, staff is preparing a grant application for the Heather Downs property acquisition. The grant will be submitted to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) under the IAC Local Parks category. If successful, IAC would fund up to 50% (or $500,000) of the Heather Downs property acquisition. IAC requires all local agencies to submit a completed State Grant Application. One of the submittals is the grant resolution. Council must approve the resolution with no changes to the text. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the IAC Grant Resolution for the Heather Downs Property and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the IAC Grant Resolution. 2003-087aa • MEMORANDUM 414, ru CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 i DATE: April 21, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President City Council Members Via: ` Jesse Tanner,(Mayor FROM: James Shepherd, Community Services Administrat Staff Contact: Leslie Betlach,Parks Director(6619) Jon Jainga, Capital Project Coordinator(6602) SUBJECT: Heather Downs Property Acquisition—Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recrl ation(IAC) Grant Resolution ISSUE: In 2002, during the Executive Section, City Council approved the property acquisition for the Heather Downs property. The property is approximately five acres and located at Union Avenue and NE 3rd Street. Currently, staff is preparing a grant application for the Heather Downs property acquisition. The grant will be submitted to Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation(IAC)under the IAC Local Parks category. If successful, IAC would fund up to 50% (or$500,000) of the Heather Downs property acquisition. RECOMMEMDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the IAC Grant Resolution for the Heather Downs property and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the IAC Grant Resolution. - BACKGROUND SUMMARY: IAC requires all local agencies to submit a completed state grant application. One of the submittals is the grant resolution. Council must approve the resolution with no changes to the text. As part of the grant application process,the City Attorney has reviewed the IAC Grant Resolution and indicates the resolution for IAC financial assistance is approved as to legal format and since IAC will allow no changes to the text of the resolution,there is no reason to reformat into City format. 2003-087aa The IAC Grant process is as follows: • May 1, 2003: Grant applications due to IAC office. • June 11,2003: City of Renton adopted 2003 Long-Range Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan due to IAC staff. • June-August 2003: IAC staff reviews all grant applications for technical completion. • September 11,2003: IAC staff recommends their ranked list of successful grant applicants to the Legislature's and Governor's offices. • February-March 2004: Governor approves the IAC ranked list of successful grant applicants. 2003-087aa M ?r IAC MANUAL.5w JANUARY 27,2003 19 Y V:' APPLICATION 2003^-WWPJ' )CAL PARKS • • 11. WWRP: Authorizing Resolution Local Agencies only-You may reproduce on your own paper,text may not change. Organization Name City of Renton Resolution No. Project Name(s) Heather Downs Property Acquisition A resolution authorizing application(s)for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program(WWRP) project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation(IAC)as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW,Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands. WHEREAS,our organization has approved a comprehensive plan that includes this project area;and WHEREAS,under the provisions of WWRP,state funding assistance is requested to aid in financing the cost of land acquisition and/or facility development;and _ WHEREAS,our organization considers it in the best public interest to complete the land acquisition project described in the application; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that: 1. The Mayor [MAYOR,DIRECTOR,PRESIDENT,ETC]be authorized to make formal application to IAC for funding assistance; 2. Any fund assistance received be used for implementation of the project referenced above; 3. Our organization hereby certifies that its share of project funding is committed and will be derived from Park Mitigation Funds [SPONSOR MATCHING RESOURCES]; 4. We acknowledge that we are responsible for supporting all non-cash commitments to the sponsor share should they not materialize; [if applicable 5. We acknowledge that any property acquired or facility developed with IAC financial aid must be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by our organization and IAC(generally,IAC approves removing facilities from the perpetuity requirement when the facilities have reached their designed life expectancy,or because of extraordinary vandalism,acts of nature,fire,etc.); 6. This resolution becomes part of a formal application to IAC;and 7. We provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. This resolution was adopted by our organization during the meeting held: Location Date Signed and approved by the following authorized representative: Signed Title Date Attest: Approved as to form • ;,1-4—'s: CITY CITY 7F RENTON ; LL Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J.Warren Jesse Tanner,Mayor V i MEMORANDUM To: Jon Jainga, CIP Coordinator From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: April 15, 2003 Subject: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation(IAC) Grant Submittals The resolutions for IAC financial assistance are approved as to legal form. Since IAC will allow no changes to the text of the resolutions,there is no reaso eformat them into the City format. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:tmj cc: Jay Covington Jim Shepherd Leslie Betlach April Alexander Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 REN T ® N .(a I AHEAD OF THE CURVE