Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council 11/14/2005
AGENDA RENTON CITY COUNCIL *REVISED* REGULAR MEETING November 14, 2005 Monday, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Springbrook Creek Wetlands & Habitat Mitigation Bank Agreement 4. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE INITIATOR: Hudson Annexation - 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for 13.69 acres generally bounded by 107th Ave. SE, 11 Ith Ave. SE, SE 166th St., and SE 169th St. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Proposal to include West Hill in Renton's Potential Annexation Area and to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map to adopt Renton land use designations for this area b. Extension or renewal of moratorium on new development in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan study area c. 2006 City of Renton Revenue Sources and Preliminary Budget 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 7. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 8. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/7/2005. Council concur. b. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department reports submission of grant applications for the 2005 Neighborhood Grant Program (second round) and recommends funding five projects and one newsletter in the total amount of $17,446. Refer to Community Services Committee. c. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits four pre - applications for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment pre -application review process. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. d. Transportation Systems Division submits CAG-04-098, Airport Apron C Utilities Conversion; and requests approval of the project, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $15,132.89 to Potelco, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. e. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $141,039 with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for engineering services for the Renton Village Storm System Improvement project. Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 9. CORRESPONDENCE E-mail from Angelina Laulainen, 314 Garden Ave. N., Renton, 98055, expressing concern regarding the potential increase in truck traffic in the North Renton neighborhood as a result of the development of the Lakeshore Landing project, and suggesting ways to inform truck drivers of the appropriate truck routes. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Committee of the Whole: Boeing Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan b. Community Services Committee: Denise Bisio Appointment to Municipal Arts Commission c. Finance Committee: Vouchers; Business License Fee Reporting Period Changes* 11. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution: Establishing facts and extending a moratorium on new development in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan study area, and establishing a termination date (see 5.b.) Ordinance for first reading: Business license fee reporting period changes (see 10.c.) 12. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 13. AUDIENCE COMMENT 14. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Briefing Regarding West Hill; 2006 Budget Deliberations; Briefing on Transportation Plan Related to Boeing Property Development • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES. & THURS. AT 11:00 AM & 9:00 PM, WED. & FRI. AT 9:00 AM & 7:00 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1:00 PM & 9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 14, 2005 Council Chambers Monday, 7:00 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. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL EXCUSE COUNCILMAN DENIS LAW. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; NICK AFZALI, Planning and Programming Supervisor; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND, Planner Manager; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; LINDA HERZOG, Interim Assistant to the CAO; CHIEF LEE WHEELER, Fire Department; MICHAEL BAILEY, Finance and Information Services Administrator; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Nick Afzali, Planning and Programming Supervisor, introduced Washington WSDOT: Springbrook Creek State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) I-405 Project Manager, Stacy Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Trussler, and I-405 Environmental Project Manager, Allison Ray, who Bank conducted a briefing on the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Ms. Ray described the location of the bank (west of SR-167 and south of 1405), which is within the Green/Duwamish and Cedar/Sammamish watersheds, and noted that all five parcels within the 130-acre bank are currently owned by Renton. Ms. Ray explained that a wetland mitigation bank is wetland restoration set up in advance of project development to compensate for wetland impacts in the service area. The service area is a geographical area where projects can draw from the bank. This banking approach sets aside a larger, connected wetland area with credits that can be sold for wetland mitigation. She pointed out that WSDOT will increase habitat diversity and flood storage capacity at the bank, as well as improve water quality, enhance hydrologic function, and provide educational value. Ms. Trussler reviewed the forthcoming agreements related to the bank between the City and WSDOT, and the terms and timing of the agreements. Additionally, she reviewed agreements needed with other entities, such as King County Drainage District #1. She concluded by detailing the bank project milestones, which indicate construction starting at the end of 2006, and the opening of the bank to the public in the fall of 2008. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Hudson, Benson accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S & SE 168th St public meeting to consider the 10% Notice of Intent petition for the proposed Hudson Annexation; 14.6 acres located west of Benson Rd. S. and south of SE 168th St. November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 391 Don Erickson, Senior Planner, reported that the western portion of the site is relatively flat, and the eastern portion slopes down toward the headwaters of Soos Creek. He noted that staff recommends the use of King County's 2005 Surface Water Design Manual at the time of development. The site contains 19 single-family homes, 152 multi -family units, and at least one vacant parcel. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson indicated that the site is within Fire District #40, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and the Renton School District. Mr. Erickson stated that the site is currently zoned R-8 (eight dwelling units per gross acre), R-12, and R-18 in King County. The Renton Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Single Family and Residential Medium Density, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) and R-10 zoning is proposed. The fiscal impact analysis indicates a deficit of $52,349 at full development due to the area already being significantly developed, and an estimated one-time parks acquisition and development cost of $138,108. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson reported that the annexation proposal is generally consistent with City policies and relevant Boundary Review Board objectives. He pointed out that surface water costs are estimated at $3,258 per year, and the City will be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and other improvements at the intersection of 108th Ave. SE and SE 168th St. Responding to Council President Briere's inquiry regarding the deficit and including more developable land in the annexation area, Mr. Erickson noted that it may be possible to invoke jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board to expand the boundaries of the site to the north, as the parcels in that area appear to be underdeveloped. Public comment was invited. Terri Arnold, 14700 SE Petrovitsky Rd., Renton, 98058, spoke on behalf of Bruce Hudson, a signer of the petition. She relayed that Mr. Hudson wishes to annex to Renton for the following reasons: timely fire and police service, lower taxes, higher property values, efficient building permit process, and his already deep involvement in the Renton community. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE HUDSON 10% ANNEXATION PETITION, AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX SUBJECT TO PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORTING ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN AND ASSUMING A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Comprehensive Plan: 2005 accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Amendments, Inclusion of public hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use West Hill in PAA map to include the approximately 1,930-acre West Hill in Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, reported that Renton's original Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1993, included West Hill in the Renton PAA. The West Hill area was removed from the PAA in 1998 due to uncertainty about the fiscal November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 392 implications of a possible annexation. As a result of the King County Annexation Initiative, King County established the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force to provide citizen input and community dialogue about annexation. She indicated that the task force has asked Renton to consider adding West Hill to its PAA. Ms. Lind stated that King County contracted with Berk and Associates for an analysis of governance options for the West Hill (West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment). The City subsequently contracted with the same consultants to analyze the impacts of a possible annexation of West Hill (Assessment of the Fiscal Impact of'Annexation of West Hill). She pointed out that the information from these reports provides the basis to reconsider the 1998 decision about the PAA boundary. Continuing, Ms. Lind explained that being in Renton's PAA means the City agrees to provide services in the future, and that annexation requests from residents/property owners must be made to Renton and not to another city. Ms. Lind emphasized that adding the area to the PAA is a City decision. Annexation is a property owner and voter decision, and can be conducted via two methods: 60% direct petition or election. She noted that the services and governance of West Hill would remain in King County with the PAA change. In regards to the timing of the proposal, Ms. Lind said the City reviews its Comprehensive Plan once a year per State law, with the only exception being an emergency. If Renton does not act this year, the decision will be delayed for one year. She pointed out that the data from the studies is current to 2005, and no more new data or information will be brought forth over the course of the coming year. Ms. Lind reviewed the fiscal impact study, highlighting the different annexation scenarios of the three areas within West Hill, as well as the long-range fiscal impacts. She stated that staff recommends including the entire West Hill area within Renton's PAA based on information from the studies, which indicate that incorporation of the area is not cost effective, future annexation of a portion of the area is not cost effective, and residents from the entire area identify with Renton. Continuing, Ms. Lind reported that the City made a comparison of the existing King County land use designations to current Renton designations and potential zoning to ensure that the proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan designations are compatible with land use plans currently used for King County governance. She noted that Renton zoning would be determined at the time of annexation. In conclusion, Ms. Lind stated that the addition of West Hill in Renton's PAA can be accommodated within existing land use categories, that designating the area as part of the PAA will allow future discussion of annexation to occur, and that negotiation over future annexation will require additional analysis of funding and level of service requirements. Ms. Lind reported that the Planning Commission received correspondence stating positions on this matter as follows: Oppose: Christopher Sandford, 7535 S. Sunnycrest Rd., Seattle, 98178, and Maxine Woodcock, 7829 S. 112th St., Seattle, 98178; Support: James Fick, 10644 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178, and Brian J. Skaggs, 10932 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178. Entered into the record was correspondence from Philip Martin, 12022 Renton Ave. S., Seattle, 98178 (oppose), and Dorothy L. Streuli, 7235 S. 127th St., November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 393 Seattle, 98178 (support); and a telephone call expressing opposition from Donna Hoffman, 12023 67th Ave. S., Seattle, 98178. Additionally correspondence was read from King County Executive Ron Sims, 701 5th Ave., Suite 3210, Seattle, 98104, expressing support for the proposal. Public comment was invited. The following people spoke in opposition to including West Hill in Renton's PAA: Lorraine A. Knight, 7242 S. 126th St., Seattle, 98178; Steve Brozowski, 8228 S. 134th St., Seattle, 98178; Steve Gray, 8414 S. 115th Pl., Seattle, 98178; Ken Noll, 7731 S. Sunnycrest Rd., Seattle, 98178; Stanley Nanevicz, 8418 S. 134th St., Seattle, 98178; Gurine Nordby, 6234 S. 119th St., Seattle, 98178; James Moe, 8005 S. 117th St., Seattle, 98178; Elaine Chandler, 8207 S. 132nd St., Seattle, 98178; and Michael Coyote, 10608 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178. Comments from opponents included: there is a preference for leaving the area the way it is (in unincorporated King County); annexation to Renton does not have widespread public support; West Hill task force members are not democratically elected and their recommendation is being forced upon area residents; there will be a revenue loss to Renton if the area is annexed, resulting in increased taxes and utilities; there will be a decrease in property and house values due to having a Renton rather than Seattle address; the number of residents surveyed by the consultants only amounted to approximately 3% of the area's population; there is a need for more review of the matter; there is concern regarding the length of time a signature is on an annexation petition; Seattle and Tukwila are shopping destinations, not Renton; there are concerns regarding provision of fire and police service; there are concerns regarding the reduction of library services; there is a lack of knowledge about the task force; inclusion in Renton's PAA precludes West Hill residents from annexing to another city; and West Hill identifies more with Seattle. The following people spoke in support of the proposal: Suzann Lombard, 10637 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, 98178; David Paul Zimmerman, 7003 S. 132nd St., Seattle, 98178; James Routos, owner of a Skyway -area business, 11829 Renton Ave. S., Seattle, 98178; Wally Adams, 10729 Crestwood Dr. S., Seattle, 98178; Senator Margarita Prentice (1 lth District), 6245 S. Langston Rd. Seattle, 98178; Sylvia Bushnell, governance task force co-chair, 7119 S. 129th Pl., Seattle, 98178; Dave Pardey, Skyway Park Bowl owner and member of governance task force, 24932 136th Ave. SE, Kent, 98042; Ann Uhrich, 8420 S. 115th St., Seattle, 98178; Elissa Benson, King County Executive's office, 701 4th Ave., Suite 3200, Seattle, 98104; Kathleen Royer, West Hill unincorporated area council member, 10841 Rustic Rd. S., Seattle, 98178; Sheila Blech, 10832 Lakeridge Dr. S., Seattle, 98178; Kathleen Sidwell, 7034 S. 127th St., Seattle, 98178; Paul Schorr, 8210 S. 114th St., Seattle, 98178; Donald Sorenson, 7126 S. 130th St., Seattle, 98178; and Celeste DaVault, West Hill unincorporated area council president and member of governance task force, 11232 Auburn Ave. S., Seattle, 98178. Comments from proponents included: a proposed pocket park at 10602 Rainier Ave. S. may benefit from Renton's Neighborhood Program and be a positive addition to Renton; there is support for the process but more information is needed for a decision on annexation; the area already identifies with Renton; businesses in Skyway will be better served by Renton and better able to develop a vibrant economy thereby increasing City revenue; Renton is the logical city to annex to; there are concerns regarding infrastructure improvement costs and November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 394 utility providers; the entire area should be annexed together; continued discussions on the matter are encouraged; there are more taxes in Seattle; Sound Transit projects will have a positive impact on land values; there is a desire for the revitalization of the Skyway business district; police and fire service will remain the same or improve; there is a need to think about the future; a survey conducted in 2000 found Renton was the preferred City if the area had to be annexed; Renton's leadership is important in the handling of its PAA; West Hill is within the Renton School District; the library is important to West Hill residents; things are not going to stay the same; police response times in King County are poor; the area should remain in the King County Library System; sewer projects are currently taking place in West Hill; the Skyway Water and Sewer District is on record in favor of annexation to Renton; and there is a need for the involvement of the community in future annexation discussions. Additional comments on the proposal were made by: Doug Silva, 8050 S. 114th St., Seattle, 98178; Jeff Dixon, 6804 S. Langston Rd., Seattle, 98178; and Linda Stewart, 8425 S. 113th St., Seattle, 98178. They remarked on the need for more information to determine the best city to annex to - Seattle or Renton; the top -driven decision making rather than people -driven; the Growth Management Act directive that PAAs be determined by a consultation process with the cities surrounding the areas, the county, and the affected residents; concern that the proposal is being rushed; the need for additional time before a decision is made; and concern regarding the potential change of status of the employees at the Skyway Post Office. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL. RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. A break was taken at 8:58 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers were present except Law, previously excused. Council and staff made the following comments and clarifications in response to the speakers' questions and concerns: — An annexation petition is not pending at this time; however, if annexation is pursued it will most likely be carried out via the election method rather than the petition method. — Petition signatures are only valid for 180 days. — The City would work with the area's fire district regarding fire service provision, and with King County regarding provision of library services. — Property values may be affected more by physical location of dwelling, rather than by the address. — The task force study found that Seattle would close the Bryn Mawr fire station, as well as the Skyway library. — Renton's fire department will be able to serve West Hill with equal or better service without the Bryn Mawr fire station, and will continue to operate the Skyway fire station and use the training facility. — The City has coordinated with the cities of Seattle and Tukwila with regard to the West Hill area. — In regards to the timing of the proposal, Renton is responding to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request by the governance task force, which is one in a package of proposed amendments. The subject amendment can be removed and considered during next year's Comprehensive Plan cycle. November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 395 There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler noted that Committee of the Whole will discuss this matter next Monday at 5:00 p.m. The public is invited to attend; however, comment will not be accepted. Planning: Highlands Sub -Area This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Plan Study Area Moratorium accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider a six-month extension of the moratorium on new development in the R-10 (Residential - ten dwelling units per acre) and RM-F (Residential Multi -Family) zones in the Highlands Sub -Area Plan study area generally located between Aberdeen Ave. NE and Monroe Ave. NE, and between NE 23rd St. and NE 5th Pl. Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, stated that a modification is proposed to properties affected by the original moratorium. She explained that during the last six months, several property owners in the R-10-zoned area on Monroe Ave. NE presented new information regarding the existence of covenants restricting the use of these properties. As a result, staff recommends that the R- 10 area located on Monroe Ave. NE, which is subject to the covenants, be excluded from the extended moratorium. Ms. Lind reported that exclusion is also requested of a R-10-zoned area that is part of a condominium development in the northern portion of the study area. In addition, she indicated that continuance of the exemption from the moratorium is still recommended for Renton School District properties, R-8- zoned single-family neighborhoods, and commercially zoned areas that encourage mixed -use residential and commercial development at higher densities. Continuing, Ms. Lind explained that the moratorium extension will allow time for staff to continue work on the sub -area plan, and to complete the analysis of various land development and zoning options. She noted that an open house will be held on November 15th, where information will be presented regarding existing housing stock and conditions, ownership characteristics, existing infrastructure, and conceptual land use alternatives. Public comment was invited. Keith Thompson, 660 Index Pl. NE, Renton, 98056, reported that he owns three properties in the area, including his residence, and favors increased density in the Highlands. Mr. Thompson expressed concern about the moratorium extension, saying that he is reluctant to make the financial investment to improve his properties, if in a short period of time he will be tearing his buildings down. He stated his plan to retire next year, and noted the financial interest he has in his properties, and his concern as to how he is going to plan for and invest in the development of his properties during this process. Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct., NE, Renton, 98056, expressed her support for the moratorium, noting that planning ultimately leads to more livability. Glenda Johnson, 1216 Monroe Ave. NE., Renton, 98056, stated her agreement with the removal of the properties affected by the restrictive covenants from the moratorium area. November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 396 Councilman Persson and the Mayor sympathized with Mr. Thompson's concerns with regards to planning. Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch noted the future possibility of the upzone of Mr. Thompson's property. Councilwoman Nelson noted the possibility that the moratorium may end prior to the six-month term. Councilman Corman encouraged property owners to continue to maintain and improve their properties. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 399 for resolution.) Budget: 2006 Revenue This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Sources & Preliminary Budget accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider the 2006 revenue sources and preliminary budget. Michael Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, stated that the total 2006 Budget is approximately $171.2 million, and of that, approximately $72 million is the General Government budget provided mostly by taxes. He explained that the property tax limit the City is able to assess is $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; however, the I % increase in total taxes on the existing tax base causes the actual levy amount to drop. Mr. Bailey noted that the City began to control the growth in property taxes prior to State Initiative 747. Mr. Bailey reported that the City's total tax assessed valuation increased by just over 10%, and over the last decade it has increased an average of 9% per year. The City receives 27% of the total property taxes collected within the City, and allocates those taxes to a variety of services. In regards to sales tax, Mr. Bailey stated that the City receives less than 10% of the total sales tax collected within the City, and sales tax receipts have grown 43% over the past ten years. Additionally, he noted that utility taxes have experienced a slow but steady climb over time. Continuing, Mr. Bailey explained that the expenditure of the funds to provide services are tied to Renton's Business Plan. The proposed 2006 Budget maintains existing service levels, contains no new taxes, does not require reserves to balance, and updates user fees. The budget proposal adds the following: three police officers; one fire inspector; one fire support staff; matching funds for a Federal grant for a potential of three additional firefighters; Municipal Court security measures; and costs associated with the new Maplewood Water Treatment Facility, which includes two staff positions. In conclusion, Mr. Bailey stated that in the non -general government areas, user fees are the exclusive source for paying for services. In order to pay for the increased cost of those services, some utility rate increases are proposed. Public comment was invited. Heidi Beckley, 806 Index Ct., NE, Renton, 98056, stated that the Renton public library has been without a director for one and one-half years, and she asked that the position be added to the 2006 Budget. Pointing out that the City has advertised to replace the Museum Supervisor, Ms. Beckley suggested that rather than hiring a Museum Supervisor, the Library Director position be filled first. She expressed her appreciation for the museum, but noted that in a City services survey, citizens rated the importance of the library higher than the November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 397 museum. Ms. Beckley stressed that the importance of the library to the community should take precedence over any favoritism for the museum. Councilmembers Corman and Clawson assured that the matter will be discussed. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, 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 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: The Hassle Free Holiday Bazaar will be held on November 18th and 19th at the Community Center, where a wide variety of handcrafted items will be sold by over 100 vendors. 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 11/7/2005. Council concur. 11/7/2005 EDNSP: 2005 Neighborhood Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Grant Program reported submission of grant applications for the 2005 Neighborhood Grant Program (second round) and recommended funding five projects and one newsletter in the total amount of $17,446. Refer to Community Services Committee. Comprehensive Plan: 2006 Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Amendments, Pre- submitted four pre -applications for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications pre -application review process. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 04-098, Airport Apron Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-04-098, Airport Apron C C Utilities Conversion, Potelco Utilities Conversion; and requested approval of the project, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $15,132.89 to Potelco, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Utility: Renton Village Storm Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the amount of System Improvement, Gray & $141,039 with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for engineering services for the Renton Osborne Village Storm System Improvement project. Council concur. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Angelina Laulainen, 314 Garden Ave. N., Citizen Comment: Laulainen - Renton, 98055, expressing concern regarding the potential increase in truck North Renton Neighborhood, traffic in the North Renton neighborhood as a result of the development of the Truck Traffic Lakeshore Landing project, and suggesting ways to inform truck drivers of the appropriate truck routes. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 398 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Briere presented a Committee of the Whole report Committee of the Whole recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Planning: Boeing Subdistrict conceptual plan proposed by The Boeing Company for the potential 1B Conceptual Plan redevelopment of 50.7 acres of Boeing property in the South Lake Washington area known as Subdistrict 113 with the conditions outlined below. The northern 21.2 acres of property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this initial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for five to ten years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi -family housing anticipated to be sold and reoccupied by other companies, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings. To enhance the plan and its consistency with the vision and policies for the Urban Center -North designation adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions should be imposed on the conceptual plan: 1) Park Ave. N. be designated as a "pedestrian -oriented street," to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the subdistrict and the planned retail/entertainment center expected to be developed to the north, and 2) A transit facility be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and it was developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail and employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned conceptual plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 development agreement with Boeing, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. Pointing out that the committee report pertains only to the conceptual plan, Council President Briere assured that the City will continue to discuss the concerns expressed about the transportation plan for this area. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Councilman Persson announced that the Finance Committee report and Finance: Business License Fee ordinance regarding the business license fee reporting period will be held until Reporting Period November 21st. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 242498 - 243017 and three wire transfers totaling $3,445,995.68; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 60666 - 60884, one wire transfer, and 602 direct deposits totaling $2,003,123.98. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. November 14, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 399 Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of Denise Bisio to the Appointment: Municipal Arts Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term that expires 12/31/2007, Commission replacing Diana Hagen who resigned in 2004. 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 #3781 A resolution was read establishing facts, extending a moratorium on new Planning: Highlands Sub -Area development in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan Plan Study Area Moratorium study area, and establishing a termination date of 5/14/2006 for the moratorium. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 10:16 p.m. ,S �a60 Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann November 14, 2005 10 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 14, 2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP TUES., 11/22 2006 Budget Deliberations 9:00 a.m. *Conferencing Center* COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Briere) COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Persson) MON., 11/21 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 5:00 p.m. Regarding West Hill; 2006 Budget Deliberations PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 11/17 Rosario Ave. SE Street Vacation (briefing (Clawson) 2:00 p.m. only); 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Pre -Applications; 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) MON., 11/21 TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 11/17 (Palmer) 3:30 p.m. CANCELLED SR-167 HOT Lanes & Corridor Study (WSDOT briefing only) UTILITIES THURS., 11/17 I-405 to SR-169 Ramp Alignment (Corman) 4:00 p.m. Concurrence with WSDOT; 2006 System Development Charges & Annexation Fee; Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II Contract with Roth Hill Engineering; Robert West Request for Release of Easement NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. r Springbrook Creek 6-9 Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Renton City Council Briefing November 14, 2005 What is a Wetland' Mitigation Bank? • Wetland restoration set up in advance of project development • Compensates for wetland impacts in the "service area" • Approved by Resource Agencies • BOC: Bank Oversight Committee Agenda Overview ■ Where is the Bank? • What is a Bank? • How does the Bank benefit the environme ■ How is the environmental benefit valued? ■ What are the agreements and terms? ■ What is our schedule? 7+ 2002 Service I Area 1 Banking — an innovative mitigation approach raw+rrr..0 me*h'n �` wYbwWwfaipdb� . T z. jj Agreements ■ Memorandum of Agreement - MOA • The "Umbrella" agreement ■ Instrument — MBI • Creates the "Bank" ■ Conservation Easement • City owns the land ■ Agreement • The City and WSDOT Terms Agreements with Other Entities ■ BNSF • Drainage easement ■ King County Drainage District #1 • Construction easement • Access/maintenance easement What Will We Do? • Increase habitat diversity and flood ' I storage capacity • Improve water quality • Enhance hydrologic function • Provide educational value E 81 The City and WSDOT Terms ■ Land Ownership ■ Design/Construction ■ Credit Share ■ Trail ■ Monitoring/Site Management • Credit Release Schedule S Signature Schedule — MOA, MBI, Agreement, and Conservation Easement December30, 2005 Final Draft MBI to BOC January6, 2006 Submit Agenda Bill to City Clerk January 23, 2006 City Council refers to Utility Committee February 2, 2006 Utility Committee meets February 6, 2006 Utility Committee sends recommendation back to Council and Mayor concurs March 8, 2006 BOC Signs MOA and MBI March 13, 2006 Mayor signs all agreements March 15, 2006 State signs all agreements I 2 Broader Milestones SEPA Complete February 2006 BOG Approval March 2006 ESA Complete July 2006 Permits Complete August 2006 Advertise Contract August 2006 Construction Starts Winter 2006/07 Site Prep / clear d Grub Sp irg 2007 Excavation 6 Reed Canary Gran Removal Summer 2007 Planting FSAVWmter 2007108 B each Site E Berm Summer 2007 Open to Public Fall 2008 ifflllwll� *One Year Plant Establishment Needed* N HUDSON ANNEXATION PUBLIC MEETING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF NNOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS November 14, 2005 The City is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Petition from property owners in the proposed Hudson Annexation area representing more than 10% of the area's $7,482,400 assessed value. The King County Department of Assessments certified the signatures on the petition on September 29, 2005. The 14.6-acre site is located in the City's Potential Annexation Area and is designated Residential Single Family (RS) and Residential Medium Density (RM) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The site currently has King County R-12, which allows up to 18 units per gross acre, and R-18 zoning, which allows up to 27 units per gross acre. It is likely the City would rezone it R-8, eight units per net acre, consistent with the RS land use designation and R-10, 10 units per net acre if the applicants are successful in filing a 60% Petition to annex and Council decides to accept it. The annexation site abuts the City on its northern and a portion of its boundary. A portion of SE 168th Street is proposed to be included in this annexation. The site is relatively flat where it abuts SE 1681h Street but falls off slightly to the east where the eastern portion drains into Soos Creek. Under RCW 35A.14.120, direct petitions to annex are initiated by property owners representing either at least 10% of the annexation areas assessed value. The current Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation petition has signatures representing at least 10% of the area's assessed value. Council is required to hold tonight's public meeting with the applicants in order to decide whether the City wishes to accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation. If the Council decides to accept the proposed annexation it will: 1. Authorize the circulation a 60% Direct Petition to Annex: 2. Decide whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, 3. Decide whether to require property owners within the annexation area to assume their fair share of the City's existing indebtedness. Hearing Handout 08-01-05.doc\ x s 2, a \ \. y c, rS, 10 I, { Hudson Annexation Public Meeting to Consider 10% Notice of Intent and Possible Future Zoning November 14, 2005 Existing Conditions ■ PAA — Within Renton's Potential Annexation Area ■ Location — Southeast portion of City at intersection of Benson Road South and SE 168th Street west of Benson Road South and south of SE 168th Street ■ Size — 14.6-acres (includes streets) ■ Natural Features — Western portion of site is relatively flat whereas eastern portion slopes towards Soos Creek to the east ■ Existing Land Use —19 existing single-family homes, 152 multi -family units, and at least one vacant parcel ■ Boundaries — as shown on next slide Existing Conditions - Structures wry c t � , 19 estimated q`rizZ a t existing SF dwellings k -a , • \. "i 152 Multi -family .' r units t t 3 t hk �i r Structures Map` y 1 Existing Conditions - Topography View looking southeast towards site from intersection of Benson Road South and SE 1681h Street Existing Conditions - Sensitive Areas • Portions of site west - of108wAve SEdrain t�,",>W = to Panther Creek r • Portions of site east of 1081, Ave SE dram =' to Soos Creek Sensitive Areas Map View looking northwest towards portion of site west of 1081" Avenue SE Existing Conditions — Environmental ■ Tow-graphv ■ Gentle slope to the east ■ Environmental Constraints ■ Headwaters of Soos Creek and its ravine lie to the east of the site ■ County's 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow -control standards or greater are recommended 2 Existing Conditions — Public Services R , Fire n ■ Within District#40 . Utilities • Water -within Soos Creek Water & Sewer I District water service area ■ Sewer -within Soos Creek Water & Sewer District sewer service area ■ Schools ■ Within Renton School District Existing County Zoning K.C. Zoning R-8 — Residential 8 \ du/ac* *Bonuses up to 12 du/gr.ac. R-12 - Residential 12 du/ac** ••Bonuses up to 18 du/gr. ac. R-18 — Residential 18 du/ac*** ***Bonuses up to 27 Site du/gr. ac. Community Business King County Zoning Map Comp Plan Annexation Policies Policy LU-36. Encourage Site is located within annexation where availability of City's designated PAA infrastructure and services allow and urban services are for urban densities available to serve site Policy LU-37.3. Annex lands Most of the annexation subject to development pressure areal currently that might benerif from City developed but portions of development standards twill likely redevelop in the future Policy LU-37.6. Priority areas include developed areas where Renton is able to provide basic services and local governance to an existing population Area is currently more than 80% built out but lacks urban services including local governance Existing Land Use Designation K.C. Land Use Map Urban Residential 4-12 du/ac Urban Residential >12 \� du/ac Neighborhood Business Center Site Possible Zoning if Annexed RLD Renton COMD Plan Land Use Map Relevant Boundary Review Board Objectives ■ Preservation of natural This annexation adds on to the neighborhoods and residential area to the north communities ■ Use of physical Existing streets (SE 168th St) and boundaries I City boundaries define the site ■ rrevenuon of dunuirnduy rroposea oounaanes are interim irregular boundaries ■ Annexation of cities of The subject annexation site is unincorporated areas urban in character and is which are urban in located within Renton's character designated PAA 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis is Assumes 19 existing houses w/ average assessed value of $220,000 is Assumes 152 multi -family units ■ Assumes average assessed value of $350,000 for new infill units Conclusion ■ This proposed annexation is generally consistent with City annexation policies and relevant Boundary Review Board objectives for annexation ■ No major impediments to the provision of City services to the area have been identified ■ Surface water costs are estimated at $3,258 per year, and ■ Transportation believes City will be responsible for the cost of a traffic signal and other improvements at the intersection of 108th Avenue SE and SE 168th Street Recommended Motion The Administration recommends that Council: . Accept the 10% Notice of Intent petition to annex for the Hudson Annexation ■ Authorize circulation of a 60% Direct Petition to Annex subject to the following provisions: ■ Property owners shall agree to accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation for the area, and ■ Property owners shall agree to assume their fair share of the City's outstanding indebtedness (currently + 8 cents per $1,000 of assessed value) Fiscal Impact One time parks acquisition and development cost of $138,108 Conclusion, continued ■ This annexation is estimated to cost the City $53,545 in 2005 dollars, if it were to come into the City now ■ Assuming build out in 10 years or so, because it is already significantly developed, this cost would still be $52,349 in 2005 dollars, and ■ The annexation appears to further City Business Goals by encouraging responsible growth and possibly serving as a catalyst for expanding its boundaries to the north to result in a more regular City boundary. 4 Fiscal Impact Revenues Costs Surplus/ Deficit Current Full Development Development $777480 $131 ,025 ($537545) $119,857 $172)205 ($52,349) One time parks acquisition and development cost of $138,108 WEST HILL POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 14, 2005 The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include an area, approximately 1,930 acres in size as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). This area, known as "West Hill" (Exhibit `A'), is located west of the City of Renton in unincorporated King County. Inclusion of an area in a Potential Annexation Area is not an annexation proposal. A city is required to identify areas that it is willing to annex at some point in the future as part of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. This law is implemented through the Countywide Planning Policies, a regionally enacted set of planning goals, ratified by the county and the cities. Inclusion of a community in a city's PAA is a policy statement from the city that it is willing to provide government services to the area at some future point. Actual annexation must be initiated either by property owners or registered voters of an area. In the case of a large developed area, such as the West Hill, the election method of annexation is likely to be used by residents in the future. This method requires a simple majority of the registered voters of the area for approval. PAA designation, however, is the responsibility of cities. The issue before the Renton City Council, at this point, is not annexation, but rather whether the City is willing to provide services and accept future annexation petitions from residents of the West Hill. If an area is included within a PAA, the government continues to be King County and services are still provided by the County. As part of ongoing budget discussions, the County is informing residents that the levels of service it can provide will be reduced in the future. However, the government providing the services does not change. The designation of "PAA" is an agreement on a map and in a set of planning documents. It means that if and when residents or property owners of an area want to pursue annexation to a city, they must make their annexation petition to Renton, rather than to Seattle or any other city. Designation of a PAA by a City also requires adoption of City Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the area. A City is required to plan for areas within its PAA so that property owners will be informed of the land use they might have upon annexation. In addition, in making a commitment to future service, a city can base its analysis of potential service needs on a set of planning assumptions about a community. The City of Renton's initial GMA Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1993, included the West Hill within the Renton Potential Annexation Area. The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Analysis prepared for the 1993 Plan also included the West Hill. In 1998, Renton City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment removing the West Hill from the PAA due to uncertainty about the fiscal implications of a possible future annexation. At the time, the City had preliminary cost of service data about the East Renton and Fairwood/Cascade PAAs, but did not have sufficient information about the West Hill to continue the policy of planning for future urban services to the area. In June 2005, however, as a result of the King County Annexation Initiative, King County established the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force to provide citizen input and community dialogue about annexation through the King County Community Council structure. The Task Force issued the West Hill Governance Report. This study looked at the pros and cons of the following alternatives for West Hill: • Remain an incorporated area in King County, • Incorporate as a new city; • Annex to Seattle, or • Annex to Renton The City of Tukwila has indicated an unwillingness to annex the area, so this alternative was not included in the study. The City of Renton subsequently contracted with the same consultants to analyze the impacts on the City of Renton of a possible annexation of West Hill. The "Assessment of the Fiscal Impact of Annexation of West Hill," September 2005, studied the impacts of annexation of areas or combination of areas. With more information now known, it is appropriate to reconsider the earlier removal and potentially reinstate the West Hill area into Renton's PAA. The West Hill Fiscal Impact study found that if the City of Renton were governing the West Hill in 2005, and maintained current levels of taxes and services, the gap between additional costs and revenues would be $2.4 million dollars. The study evaluated both complete and partial annexation looking at three areas within the proposed PAA. Renton made a comparison of the existing King County Land Use designations with current City designations and potential Renton zoning to ensure that the proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan designations are compatible with land use plans currently used for governance in King County. Renton zoning would not be applicable unless annexation takes place. The Renton land use designations and implementing zoning uses net density calculations rather than gross density. As a general rule, Renton net density numbers are 20 percent higher than their gross density counterparts. The proposed Renton designations compared with King County designations are summarized below. • Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning corresponding to County Urban Residential 4-12 with R-6 zoning • Residential Medium Density with either R-10 (7-10 du/net ac) or R-14 (7-18 du/net ac) zoning corresponding to County Urban Residential 4-12 with R-8 and R-12 zoning • Residential Multi -family with RM-F zoning (7-20 du/net ac) corresponding to County Urban residential greater than 12 du/ac with R-18 zoning • Center Village with CV zoning (25-75 du/net ac) corresponding to portions of County Urban Residential greater than 12 du/ac with R-24 and R-48 zoning. • Commercial Neighborhood corresponding to County Neighborhood Business • Commercial Corridor corresponding to County Community Business • Industrial Medium corresponding to County Industrial. The proposed land use plan achieves the same overall land use capacity and range of uses for the West Hill as currently allowed under County comprehensive planning and zoning. The major difference between the land use plans with respect to uses is that the County approach allows both single family and multi-family/townhouse development in all residential areas, whereas the City's approach excludes multi-family/townhouse development in the Single Family designation, and excludes single family detached uses in the multi -family and mixed use commercial designations. While unit type and style differ, the overall number of units allowed is comparable. It is the intention of the City to subsequently prepare more detailed land use analysis and possibly a West Hill sub -area plan with community involvement upon future annexation Copies of the reports prepared for King County and Renton about the West Hill by the consulting firm, Berk and Associates, are available at the Skyway and Renton libraries and at www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/pcinfo.htm EXHIBIT A city I-imits Unincorporated West Hill Potential Annexation Area ® Economic.x&bpmtnt 0 1200 2400 NVZrb°'s a Row /�/� [8 b—y 2004 1 . 14400 W a'VLd aV1r" tog j�µlollc rind tiva r H1106 SE`i"1 �? \t �i. ?R 1 kW SF . ynt tL urren i ' o ■ est Hil o a cc Task rce R ommen 'o — A the West 'Il a n's PAA d begi anne on disc on ■ County co cted w k d Assoc tes fo analysis of g ernance ti s the Wes ' 1 ■ City contracted 'th Berk d s 'ates — Cost to serve the a from Ren n's r cove ■ Information in these r orts pro ' es a basis to reconsider the 1998 decis' n abo the PAA boundary s es Be re ity ■ ether a d e West 11 n the Po ntial A e ti Area? ■ What nd Use a ignatio to a within th ropose P en 'al Anne tion Area? ■ Countywide P1 ing Po 'ci L -31 — City shall designat AA in c sit tion with adjacent cities, county d res' ent groups. ■ est Hi in-opgtpai co Yl i i as p of P ■ Rem ed in 1 8 — Renton id not ha e s fi ' t info tion about cos o serve ar — Proposed chi es to th Co de Planning Policies would ve ap oundaries within the CPPs — Renton not able to co it to re service t oes e t e in the P ? ■ enton a e t City wi pro ' s ices in a future ■ Anne tion req s fr resident operty rs ust be ade Renton not other 1 u the ea oi�th PAA is n e ame A tion ■ men din th d Use ap a d ' g th rea to t s a city cisi ■ Anne tion is a to a owner oter decision — 60 Percent ' ect Pe h ' n — Election ■ Services and gove nce re in ing County with the PAA ang ■ ut emir ltm Ken n's ntt�l An exation re ■ Incorp tion i o o effective (Go ma, ce Stu ■ Future Anne tion o io of Leea is not cost effec 've ■ Enter into discussio s with ' g County and the community ab t fu re annexation ■ tnt a area h sop'Mnl to Ren n \ ■ Conclusio from t6 ft demonstrate hat inc 3 without area is more Renton I Rent I -ring this men e o ? ■ art of t a u amen ent c the C prehen 'v 1 ■ If Re on doe o c his ye he o is delay for on e — Only exc on is an m ■ Data in the Go emance to d Fiscal Impact Study is n ent 2 5 ■ No new data or info ation uld be available ■ Cons v ated 3 ale" Study) \ Largest co tigu undary — ulation 4 8 Area ■ A2 — Without ea I has co 'gu — Population 10 — Only area with ositive rev t ■ Area 3 — Smaller continguous undary — Population 7,217 — Area with largest service de ■ Annexation of all three areas — 9 d m;n;nn .,ar —t iOS (� Berk ■ u years n o *11 West *111 p ve City t al s 1 r a net a or resourc — 3 Poss1 a positiv c » Growth ercial for " cr ing retail s tax most likely urce of re ue o » Sales tax sours rule chan s s en value of residential neighb oods )> Increased source of u 'ty taxes 2 and e e ■ ma de ' tion req 'res Co rehen 've la Amen ent adopt n of Ian u ignatio for area ■ City's Com ehensiv P nd Use ap would be amen d Use es ons ■ enton ca go 'es a for co reh t p land us only — Co ty zoning ons to get the st fit — Coun land use c go 'es broader Ren — Renton ing woul ed at the ' e of annexation ■ Range of Comm ial uses llo d the density in residential categ 'es is in d to amain the same ■ Differences in developm t stand ds between City and County systems n analyzed prior to zoning ■ y3 l.a s adopfet re ' w com et ■ Prior d use 11 t re —Since 1 3 severa ity were chang ■ Objective of la use re ' N — Provide comparab land use County designations King oun E Land Use ap 14 a' - Land Use 200/ tz „ ' :�' FJ ..• uxrrnamvio. js.i r `` tv rs .�, R ton r �� Propose and Use Map e r y`. k �•'. t J my on C n n Neighb hood es b sood th ar s 'x Business C i use C 8 Office,busin Offs, re '1 Renton u/build g Community C 'dor on bonus Business 18 du Co ercial fo ignated Base 2 u )nixed use Bonus to du corridors unty R ton a ' on Urban R 'de 'al oss le Resider 14-12 gl a 'ly R n R- 1 du/ac Zon R- SF al ws Zones R-6, R- , Resided 'al KC allo R-12 'Medium a ched units in Zo R-10 z \X, ty n C n n Urban Re 'des 'al ento 's Residen I High lts a D igna > 12 du/ac 7-2p u/a comp ble Zoning R-18, Center ' la County 18 d 24, R-48 2 80 du/ac R-48 is otvmodated c Center Village Con us ■ e adds 'on f e West ill in t 's P can b c m odate d ithi sg land a categ 'e ■ The des t ation th as pa f th PAA will ow fu c sion of annexation to cur ■ Negotiation over true ex io will require additional lysis o ding and level of service requir ent I T 0 �kCD C 2 r- _ CL CL�/j D\/ \ a) � omen=§= E G n n . - _ ;gym;=a , - a _• )$// E=»seep== e m G~ e m @ e ®& c E 2 O CL \ (n///\/( �� \k�§ / e22zR0 2 a )§ \27j#J§2 \ a g; a a =_ _\ o f / 2 § ee 7 = k C:) E e g o m= Jo m ' q "CL: CD 3cn _/ CD CD c \® ° _ g$ oa a J \ k' \ f CL \ 0 R C o k %ƒ 2 \ / 7 ED / ( / / y < >=r \Gj ®gE/\ o» oe „ >m> �Ey°�\\\° \\ $]> y) r g g a 5 — 0 a=) t m m e& s eo]\; ; - 0\-0 ten_ =o§ x W CL 9� m&--sE=\ $E§ /3 CD £/�)E®( ==&00 z\ o; _-�cD = r e= X=° 7 � CD ® / e a CD CD § _ ( E � / @ m / / \ } \ o \\ k-0 m 2 D / ®2L - 7 DJ CDz \» 2 ° o /\0 C �§ \\_\CCD % EL /_ t c s 3 > ` CD & _ °D / - < _ _D • >� R° E§ zT § §\ 0CL Ra+ Em /\ k e2=% 2 \a ®$g = z\ \� CD =75= E e \ T. §\E 5 m m k 7 f�� CL �0 �� = E m ; § ° = \ & ƒ 2 x/ D _ f/ 70 e > \ $ § CD 1�ue �� ► I I? I H-ea ri b y Correspondence Received regarding West Hill Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 1 Judith Subia - Potential annexation of West Hill From: Christopher Sandford <sandall_99@yahoo.com> To: <jsubia@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/29/2005 11:04 AM Subject: Potential annexation of West Hill Dear Ms. Subia, I have received the City of Renton's notice of a public hearing in the matter of a possible annexation by the City of the West Hill neighborhood, which includes my property. Alas, I shall be out of the country for the immediate future, and thus unable to attend either the forthcoming workshop or, indeed, the public hearing. However, I should like to make the views of at least one property owner crystal clear. Please incorporate my comments into the appropriate channel that takes note of such things. Under no circumstances will it be possible for my residence to be incorporated into the City of Renton, at least for as long as I continue to own it. My emigration to this country from the United Kingdom, and - more to the point - the nature of my business dealings with a number of entities both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe are specifically contingent on my having a Seattle address. Were my property to be incorporated into another town, I would face an immediate and tangible disruption to my livelihood, compensation for which - while making, I stress, not the slightest threat - I would be forced to pursue as vigorously as the law allows. There is, of course, nothing personal against the City of Renton in any of this; merely the unalterable facts of my business. Please, therefore, register my views very firmly in the No' column when the matter comes to be discussed. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER SANDFORD 7535 SOUTH SUNNYCREST ROAD SEATTLE, WA.98178 (206) 772-7231 sandall-99@y&oo.com Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jwright\Local Settings\Temp\GW)00001.HTM 10/31/2005 0'r� � f, A6t5.s" RECEIVED i �aj� NOV 0 12005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBC-MA- )On4. A AND STRATE ;'uP;G Judith Subia - Annexation bx the Ci of Renton P From: Jim Fick <jpf@cnw.com> To: <jsubia@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 10/30/2005 12:22:36 PM Subject: Annexation by the City of Renton Hello, I received the information about putting the area where I live (Lakeridge) into Renton's Potential Annexation Area. I wanted to provide my feedback that I completely and strongly support this move, and would also strongly support eventual actual annexation by the City of Renton. I would love to be in the City of Renton vs. staying unincorporated. Also, I would not like to be part of Seattle and am happy Renton is interested in potentially annexing our area. I live at: 10644 Rainier Ave S. Seattle, WA 98178 206-772-3725 Regards, James Fick --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Jim Fick jpf@cnw.com Dump IE! Get Firefox - www.mozilla.org --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- 99 percent of politicians give the rest of them a bad name. Page 1 of 1 Judith Subia - West Hill Annexation From: 'Brian J Skaggs, CFP" <bskaggs@skaggsfmancialplanning.com> To: <jsubia@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 11/2/2005 10:57 PM Subject: West Hill Annexation Hello, Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the November meetings. I would like to thank the City of Renton for their interest in West Hill and hope that one day I will be able to say I live Renton. Thank you, Brian J. Skaggs, CFP SKAGGS FINANCIAL PLANNING, LLC 10932 Rainier Ave S Seattle, WA 98178 phone 253.856.0551 fax 206.260.2780 bskaggs(C skaggsfinancialplanning.com file://C:\Documents and Settings\jwright\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GWjOOOO1.HTM 11/3/2005 I 0 g EC.IVE NO V 0 1 2005 M Y pbe t. t Y *� / TYO /If ... ' ID vtr� 1 � �1"~ November 8, 2005 Philip Martin 12022 Renton Avenue South Seattle, WA 98178 Dear Mr. Martin: CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler CITY OF RENTON NOV 0 9 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Thank you for your letter dated October 28, 2005, regarding your opposition to the potential annexation of the West Hill into the City of Renton. Your letter will be added to the official record as correspondence received during the Public Hearing scheduled for November 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 7a' Floor, Renton City Hall. In addition to your letter, you are welcome to attend this meeting to voice your concerns to Council. Please contact Judith Subia of my staff at (425) 430-6575 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Mayor Referral 45-2005 c: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Alex Pietsch, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Administrator er 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523 This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30% post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE From: To: Date: Subject: Bonnie, This citizer neighbonc( Donna Hof 12023 67tt Seattle, W, 206-772-4E Debbie Ev< City Clerk [ 425-430-6; WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES CITY OF RENTON MAY 2005 COMMUNITY FORUM NOV 0 3 2005 ® What I would like to tell the Task Force is... RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE © Other questions I have about a potential governance change are... © Please rank your preferences from most desireable (1) to least desireable (4): 21 Stay Unincorporated 10 Incorporate as a New City m Annex to Renton g Annex to Seattle Because... t� � � .:� � A-1 �1 .'�" � i .:��..�-S 1- f - J � � L« •-0--`-t/Y (J � � +"J/' f'f'`'J�-C ' 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Name:'�'lf�'�'� Please contact me with Phone: , updates on the process E-mail: 0 1 attended a March Address: Neighborhood Meeting ? i 3� ;�'�/,.� �r.�./ �` �, ��- � � / ;�- �f 3�� Dorothy Streuli S7235 S 127th Si Seattle, WA 98178 a 1 CITY OF RENTON s NOV 0 3 2005 RECEIVED 6 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 16 . % 61) 0,-� i/- iyaaos King County Ron Sims King County Executive 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3210 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-4040 Fax 206-296-0194 TTY Relay: 711 www.metrokc.gov November 10, 2005 The Honorable Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor The Honorable Terri Briere, Council President The Honorable Randy Corman, Council President Pro -tern The Honorable Toni Nelson, Councilmember The Honorable Don Persson, Councilmember The Honorable Dan Clawson, Councilmember The Honorable Denis Law, Councilmember The Honorable Marcie Palmer, Councilmember City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-3232 RE: Proposed Action to Designate West Hill/Skyway as a Potential Annexation Area Dear Mayor Keolker-Wheeler and Councilmembers Briere, Corman, Nelson, Persson, Clawson, Law and Palmer: I am writing to express my strong support for the proposal that Renton again designate the West Hill/Skyway Area as a Potential Annexation Area (PAA). I recognize this is a major commitment for the city. I reaffirm to you my willingness to offer financial support to Renton from the county's annexation incentive fund for annexation of this area, as well as support in efforts to secure new financial authority from the Washington State Legislature for annexation. My support for this area becoming part of Renton's PAA is based on the express preferences of the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force. It is important that we provide positive support for this grass -roots effort which, after months of study and outreach, has identified a clearly preferred future for the West Hill/Skyway community, namely, becoming part of the City of Renton. The task force has stated its objection to having the West Hill Skyway community split between Seattle and Renton. I am prepared to support the community and Renton in an effort to see this entire area annex to Renton, understanding that actual annexation of the area will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the residents. King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer •®1t0YM and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act The Honorable Denis Law November 10, 2005 Page 2 Should the council designate the area as PAA as an amendment to the Renton Comprehensive Plan, the action provides a solid basis for the city, King County, and the residents to begin more in-depth conversations regarding how to address remaining community questions and service transition issues thoughtfully and collaboratively. Next year, we will support an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies to identify this area as within your PAA. Your potential action represents an important step in the process of annexation, but there are many more ahead for the city, the community, and King County. Renton's leadership on annexation issues is greatly appreciated. I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with you on these efforts to secure a stronger future for all communities in King County. i ely, ims King County Executive Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. r RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: II I y D A / J PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT amen- " krlli/t> K nJ! if h Address: 7 -� -C " Oppose Support l4ame,;� (Z � A J � �_ �� L Z r� �� Oppose Support _ Address: rZ o ci 3 ame: Address: r % ZZ Name: �u'h'�C'S -(Z,3 J�roc+,/_45 Address: Zcl 1� A e ( M- i�i�l �rLc �%, k a i k (L- Ll c6 ) t Name: � /Name:�_� Address: 0 ON 7 v Address: 7 S� �� rvtj (Z 1_6 6 7 ? l (o Cu M c ame: � 1Q�Y�r�S �v� Address:`�1�\ S��,W�L vo, �r �. Name: ��� lC' " �G�l7 � i G Address: ,i. Re� W 0 r,�. .....:... _.....�.. _. .. :. ,. „.,.:.. Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. r RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: j111q11,oDg 0 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT ame: u 0 1 c3z /J,0 v C2 ka y Address: fo 3 �/ = AP Oppose Support Name: Oppose Support Address: �.eG(1-•��-e /tee 14 2 Name: Address: X Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: cz) Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. . RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: w PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT Name: �/�` ��� �J —�,� u Address: �S� �� ��5�cjs�(�/ /� 9' r/ 7 Oppose Support /� Name: Oppose Support Address: Name: r 4 y1 V1 Address: a o', paw Name: Address: ame: YY� es Wide_, Address: 50 0 r;, S, t 17 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: J !ix 0 Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. r RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: Of rr PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT Name: r i Oppose Support Name; Oppose Support Address: Address: Name: DO c., Cr ,- f LVI/ Name: Address: d Sy Wf Sf, , Address: Cl8 e 7 9" Name: I� Name: Address: 3 Address: n s2 e ua V1 Name: Name: Address: Address: ov Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. r RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT Name: ' �pp �� 1 Qe �^ n -�"✓ Address: l 0 n y! S -4 Q,Z S Oppose Support %( Name: Oppose Support Address: 517 U 1 Name: � , �=- i Address: v -t— S _ Name: Address: Name: A�t1.��y('�-i6„�� Address: 2D3 `> 7 fl �Jt Name: Address: sic- iR 0.57 Name: Address: Name: Address: Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area Agenda Item No.: 5.a. RENTON CITY COUNCIL DATE: I IlIq Zoo PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT Name: ,,�__ L. 69 / k�� C_ N #/Q0 L_4�_ Oppose Support Name: Oppose Support Address:—Sr-2-0-2 5 /3 Z_-r1c_0. K-�/ Address: Name: �,-��� l� �y Name: Address: Address: 0�i S- -f� f�C �T � � 47 Name: OfPd Old D Address: l Name: Address: Name: 44 so r 11 Ad ss:�! / ?O IZ Name: Address: Inclusion of West Hill into Renton's Potential Annexation Area DATE: _Jlhqlzoo y RENTON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET PLEASE PRINT Agenda Item No.: 5.a. 4 -1�ame: 11, , 'a U 66 r_ef. - - — I Address: Oppose Support Name: Oppose Support Address: Name: Address: 6_0 Name: Address: - Name: _G-j� S-h-, coq r Address:.._�%;? S. 3 -3-/- qd Name: Address: Name: Name: Address: Address: M W/5f All -Pif ///iV/2006 -1,halenc e �rri rn The City of Seattle Lake a�- ooIgloo .ti 41 Washington PNIA No. 508 Bryn Mawr C:p E�) O Substation 10602 Rainier Ave. S. ;SIC Sr � PMA No. 501 Produced by the City of S eside, L I BSD MES December 16, 2003 Legend O 4 0 y� City Propertyr SubjectProperty *O�O Seattle City Light ( 0� O ` Co �! Tax Parcels City South Boundary Line IT . too o ,m =13 reel O r� TXECITY OZ NZATME. XW Al, ill zz z.: rv.J.d �u.r•ncr .f i )� W^ O .nM:. zzi «�Ii.J, ineld i.�.eeuz.q. I.:Alsposewl ran prokabbmax 5D8 bryn mrr tUMslalbn GtlPsf �i/l �ud/c �eQri�9 Anil Ao4t �# Comments on the proposal to include the West Hill in Renton's Potential Annexation Area, etc, presented on 14 Nov 2005 to the Renton City Council: My name is Ann R. Uhrich and I live at 8420 South 115`h Street, Seattle, Washington. This is in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood, which is a part of West Hill. I have lived at this address since early 1990, and during this time have spent many hours in restaurants, theaters, grocery stores, parks, hardware stores, and the like in downtown Renton. For me, it is the city with which I feel the most affiliation, and I wish to voice my support for the proposal to include West Hill in Renton's Potential Annexation Area. n, 2 06 In the last few years, I was part of the initial group of citizens who volunteered to work with King County and their contractor to study the various ways West Hill could evolve, including staying as part of unincorporated King County, annexing to either Seattle, Tukwila, or Renton, or becoming incorporated as a new city. I imagine your record may already reflect this, but I wish to state that, as part of our efforts, we sent questionnaires to a representative sample of citizens in West Hill and at least two of the questions revolved around what their preference would be for annexation. If they preferred not to annex at all, but to remain part of King County (which many did), we then asked a backup question — if they had to annex to comply with the State's Growth Management Act, then did they have a preference? The majority of responders indicated that Renton would be their choice for annexation, if they had to make such a choice. I have not been involved recently in these efforts, but read with interest the Information Sheet which accompanied the Notice of Public Hearing, and I am looking forward to hearing more about the recent studies and proposals. I thank you for your time, and for your consideration of these remarks. Ann R. Uhrich �Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT INV M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Committee Chair Members of the Committee of the Whole CC: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Members of the Renton City Council Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) SUBJECT: West Hill Comprehensive Plan Amendment Issue Paper The attached memorandum was prepared and distributed to the Planning Commission and Planning and Development Committee as part of the packet for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The West Hill Amendment was referred into the Committee of the Whole last week. As a result, we are forwarding the briefing materials to the entire Council for your review during the briefing Monday the 14`h at the Committee of the Whole, the public hearing at the Council meeting on Monday the 14', and for Committee deliberations on Monday the 21Sc We are also providing copies of all correspondence received to date on this issue. This correspondence will be entered into the public record during the public hearing. h:\ednsp\paa\west hill\issue paper cover memo to council.doc APPLICATION 2005-M-3 LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO ADD AN AREA CURRENTLY LOCATED WEST OF THE CITY OF RENTON, IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY, KNOWN AS "WEST HILL" TO THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA. OWNERS: VARIOUS APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use map to include land approximately 1,930 acres in size as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). This area, known as "West Hill" (Exhibit `A'), is located west of the City of Renton in unincorporated King County. ISSUE SUMMARY Inclusion within the PAA does not affect service delivery or fiscal impacts on either Renton or the potential annexation area, so issues to be considered at this time only relate to the expansion of the PAA. • The primary issue is whether all or a part of the West Hill, not currently within a municipal jurisdiction, should be within the City of Renton's PAA. An approximately 14 acre portion of the West Hill immediately east of Rainier Blvd., at Lake Washington and the Renton city limits, is already included within Renton's PAA. Inclusion in a PAA requires adoption of City Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the area. A comparison of the existing King County Land Use designations with current City designations and potential Renton zoning has been analyzed to ensure that the proposed Renton Comprehensive Plan designations are compatible with current land use. Renton zoning would not be applicable unless annexation takes place. The intent is to provide a translation of the County land use map into the City designations with negligible change in either density or allowed range of uses. • Consistency with King County Countywide Planning Policies is also required. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY The recommendation is to: • Add West Hill within the boundaries indicated on the map included as Exhibit `A' to the City of Renton Potential Annexation Area and • Adopt Land Use Designations as part of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map BACKGROUND Community Description The Potential Annexation Area under consideration consists of long-established residential neighborhoods that have close ties to Renton. The neighborhoods include Earlington, Bryn Mawr, Lake Ridge, and Skyway. Collectively these neighborhoods are known as "West H:\EDNSP\PAA\West Hill\West Hill Map Amendment Issue Paper 02.docLast printed 11/10/2005 11:33 AM Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 2 of 8 Hill." West Hillis an unincorporated "island" within the jurisdiction of King County between Seattle, Tukwila, and Renton. This area is primarily residential, but includes business areas along Renton Avenue South. Current data about the West Hill was compiled in 2005, for the "West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Summary Report" by Berk & Associates (Exhibit `B'). In terms of demographics, West Hill and Renton are similar and compatible. West Hill is included in the Renton School District. Berk and Associates characterizes West Hill as being functionally a part of the City of Renton due to its proximity to the center of Renton more than to other jurisdictions. West Hill residents use Renton as their playground/entertainment and retail/business center. Due to the fact that West Hill developed well after the City of Renton became established, Renton citizens used the resources of West Hill for both pleasure and commerce. View of West Hill from Renton Hill Photograph courtesy of the Museum of History and Industry The following neighborhood sketches illustrate the many ways the West Hill neighborhoods have been connected to Renton through the years. Earlington In the late 1860s, the Renton pioneer Clymer family farmed at the foot of Earlington Hill. Mining for coal on the south side of the Hill, including the Clymer property, was attempted in the 1870s, but unlike the mines across the valley at Talbot and Renton Hills, ceased due to the poor quality of the material. Farm on Earlington Hill Photograph courtesy of the Renton Historical Society Toward the turn of the century, Earlington Hill, which rose from the banks of the Black River and featured views of Mount Rainier and the fertile valley, attracted wealthy Seattleites who built vacation residences there. Map Amendment 2005-M-, West Hill Issue Paper Page 3 of 8 Later, these large estates were platted for development. The palatial Clarence Bagley home became the Earlington Country Club. The Earlington golf course, on the flats below the Hill, was one of the first in the state. Bagley Mansion Photograph courtesy of the Renton Historical Society The Earlington area saw development before other West Hill neighborhoods due to its close proximity to Renton and also because the only land access between Seattle and Renton was through Earlington by road, railroad, and via the Black River to Elliott Bay. A portion of the Earlington neighborhood, from Langston Road south and from Beacon Coal Mine / Monster Road to the east, is within the current Renton corporate boundary. Bryn Mawr Bryn Mawr is located on the east side of the Hill, north of Earlington, and extends down to the edge of Lake Washington. Bryn Mawr, which means "brow of the hill" in Welsh, was probably home to coal miners working in Renton mines. The heavily treed hills provided wood for the lumber and shingle mills that ringed the south end of Lake Washington north of early Renton. In 1907, Bryn Mawr was characterized as a "pleasant town of country houses." Cabin in Bryn Mawr, ca. 1909 Photograph courtesy of the Museum of History and Industry Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 4 of 8 The lake and woods were popular with campers and hunters and excursion boats, like the "Bluebird" docked in Bryn Mawr and plied the waters of the lake. The Bluebird at Bryn Mawr Photograph courtesy of the Renton Historical Society Following subdivision, in about 1890, early Bryn Mawr home sites were large enough to accommodate vegetable gardens and farm animals. This is reflected in the large legal lots remaining (although many underlying parcels were platted at 30 feet wide). The westerly portion of Bryn Mawr was platted into five -acre tracts. Because of good drainage, fertile soil, and many artesian springs, several nurseries were located in Bryn Mawr throughout the twentieth century. One at the foot of West Hill abutted the Bryn Mawr airfield and with the airfield was incorporated into what was to become the Renton Municipal Airport. Lake Ridge Lake Ridge is also located on the east side of the Hill, between Bryn Mawr and Rainier Beach to the north. It was developed later than the other areas due to inaccessibility by land until a road was completed between Seattle and Renton in 1917. In the late 1920s Lake Ridge was designed with curving roads (so that all home sites had views of both lake and distant hills) and strict covenants (minimum house value of the extraordinary sum, for the time, of $2,500.) to ensure that development was of a high quality. Only a few homes were built, however, before the stock market crash and depression brought a temporary end to real estate investment and home building. Development of Lake Ridge did not resume to a significant degree until the 1940s. Unlike other West Hill neighborhoods, Lake Ridge has never had a commercial area and has largely relied on Renton as its business center. First Bryn Mawr and then Lake Ridge have been areas of choice for people who own businesses and work in Renton. Skyway Skyway was the last of the West Hill neighborhoods to see development of the early farms and ranches. In the early 1930s, a county road, Renton Avenue, was constructed as a "short cut" from Seattle and to reduce the volume of traffic on Rainier Avenue. The construction of houses in Skyway coincided with the manufacture of "Defense Worker" housing associated with war armament production at Boeing and Pacific Car and Foundry in Renton. Both sides of Renton Avenue were developed with small houses on small lots and a lively business district grew at the top of the Hill. Businesses were started by veterans returning to the area after the War, some businesses expanded from Renton, opening branches in Skyway, and some moved to Renton, as they grew too large for the Skyway market area. Many houses and Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 5 of 8 commercial buildings from this period remain today. The Skyway Library Board, sponsored by the Skyway Community Club, and the Skyway VFW were responsible for two of the most significant amenities in the neighborhood, the Skyway Library and Skyway Park respectively, although these were later taken over by King County. Governance and Fiscal Back ound The City of Renton's initial GMA Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1993, included the West Hill within the Renton Potential Annexation area. The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Analysis prepared for the 1993 Plan also included the West Hill. In 1998, Renton City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment removing the West Hill from the PAA due to uncertainty about the fiscal implications of a possible future annexation. At the time, the City had preliminary cost of service data about the East Renton and Fairwood/Cascade PAAs, but did not have sufficient information about the West Hill to continue the policy of planning for future urban services to the area. In June 2005, however, as a result of the King County Annexation Initiative, King County established the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force to provide citizen input and community dialogue about annexation through the King County Community Council structure. The Task Force issued the West Hill Governance Report (referenced above, Exhibit `B'). This study looked at the pros and cons of the following alternatives for West Hill: • Remain an incorporated area in King County, • Incorporate as a new city; • Annex to Seattle, or • Annex to Renton Although annexation to Tukwila would be possible, the City of Tukwila has indicated an unwillingness to annex the area, so this alternative was not included in the study. The City of Renton subsequently contracted with the same consultants to analyze the impacts on the City of Renton of a possible annexation of West Hill. The "Assessment of the Fiscal Impact of Annexation of West Hill," September 2005 (Exhibit `C'), studied the impacts of annexation of areas or combination of areas. With more information now known, it is appropriate to reconsider the earlier removal and potentially reinstate the West Hill area into Renton's PAA. The West Hill Governance Alternative Task Force voted on September 28`h to support annexation of the entire community to Renton. This position will be presented to the community October 181h, and it is anticipated that a formal request for annexation will follow. The West Hill Fiscal Impact study found that if the City of Renton were governing the West Hill in 2005, and maintained current levels of taxes and services, the gap between additional costs and revenues would be $2.4 million dollars. The study evaluated both complete and partial annexation looking at three areas within the proposed PAA. These areas include: • Area 1, contiguous to the existing city limit, population 4,388 with net revenue of $430,000, location of one fire station Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 6 of 8 Area 2, also contiguous to the existing city limit, population 7,217, net revenue 2.3 million • Area 3, non-contiguous population 2,310, net revenue $251,000, location of a second fire station. The study concluded that annexation of all three areas would cost the city $2.4 million, but that annexation of Areas 1 and 3 alone might have a net cost of $3.1 million. If Renton were to annex only Areas 1 and 2, but not Area 3 the logistical difficulties of fire protection would be pronounced due to the location of existing fire stations. If Area 1 only were annexed, the existing fire station would likely be closed and service provided would be from existing Renton facilities. If Areas 1 and 3 (with greatest proximity to the exiting city limits) were annexed, the incremental cost of adding Area 2 was not substantial due to incremental cost in police staffing, and the overall fiscal benefit greater than would occur if Areas 2 were excluded. Land Use Back ound The King County Comprehensive Plan Map (Exhibit `D') indicates there are three types of land uses in the West Hill area. They are residential, commercial, and industrial. The primary land use designation on West Hill is Urban Residential, with both medium density (4 to 12 dwelling units/acre) and high density (greater than 12 du/ac). An area south of Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (MLK) is designated Industrial. Two existing commercial areas are designated as "Community Business." Three small commercial areas on Beacon Avenue, Rainier Ave, and MLK have the designation of "Commercial Outside of Centers." The Urban Residential areas are zoned by King County at densities of six, eight, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, and forty-eight dwelling units per acre (Exhibit `D'). The commercial areas are zoned either Community Business or Neighborhood Business for the large or small areas, respectively. ANALYSIS The proposed Renton land use plan for the West Hill is shown in Exhibit `E'. This map was prepared based on consideration of equivalent land use both in respect to density and the range of allowed uses. The intent is to translate the County land use designations into the City equivalents with negligible change in either density or allowed range of uses. The West Hill had a 2000 population of 13,977 people and has 5,780 housing units of which 72 percent are single family. Homeownership was approximately 67 percent in 2000. Median household income was $47,385 in 2000, with 5,579 households. Based on Buildable Land data for 2002, the West Hill has an estimated future capacity of 1,913 units, assuming 167 developable acres. An estimate of employment capacity has not been generated by King County at this time. A summary of demographic, employment, housing, and income characteristics of the West Hill is included in an excerpt from the 2003 King County Growth Report, titled "West Hill Potential Annexation Area" and included herewith as Exhibit `F. The Renton land use designations and implementing zoning use net density calculations rather than gross density. As a general rule Renton net density numbers are 20 percent higher than Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 7 of 8 their gross density counterparts. The proposed Renton designations compared with King County designations are summarized below, and presented in greater detail on Exhibit `G'. • Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning corresponding to County Urban Residential 4-12 with R-6 zoning • Residential Medium Density with either R-10 (7-10 du/net ac) or R-14 (7-18 du/net ac) zoning corresponding to County Urban Residential 4-12 with R-8 and R-12 zoning • Residential Multi -family with RM-F zoning (7-20 du/net ac) corresponding to County Urban residential greater than 12 du/ac with R-18 zoning • Center Village with CV zoning (25-75 du/net ac) corresponding to portions of County Urban Residential greater than 12 du/ac with R-24 and R-48 zoning. • Commercial Neighborhood corresponding to Neighborhood Business • Commercial Corridor corrersponding to County Community Business • Industrial Medium corresponding to County Industrial. The proposed land use plan achieves the same overall land use capacity and range of uses for the West Hill as currently allowed under County comprehensive planning and zoning. The major difference between the land use plans with respect to uses is that the County approach allows both single family and multi-family/townhouse development in all residential areas, whereas the City's approach excludes multi-family/townhouse development in the Single Family designation, and excludes single family detached uses in the multi -family and mixed use commercial designations. While unit type and style differ, the overall number of units allowed is comparable. It is the intention of the City to subsequently prepare more detailed land use analysis and possibly a West Hill sub -area plan with community involvement upon future annexation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The following Renton Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies are the most relevant: Objective LU-A: Plan for future urban development in the Renton Urban Growth Area (UGA) including the existing City and the unincorporated areas identified in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas (PAA). Policy LU-2: Designate Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) as those portions of unincorporated King County outside the existing City limits, but within the Urban Growth Area, where: 1) Renton can logically provide urban services over the planning period; 2) Land use patterns support implementation of Renton 's Urban Center objectives; and, Map Amendment 2005-M West Hill Issue Paper Page 8 of 8 3) Development meets overall standards for quality identified for city neighborhoods. [If annexed, new development would be required to meet City standards] In addition, the following King County Countywide Planning Policy is applicable: LU-31: In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential annexation areas shall not overlap. Within the potential annexation area the city shall adopt criteria for annexation, including conformance with Countywide 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. AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA RMC 4-9-020, Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process requires that a proposal demonstrate that the requested amendment is timely and meets at least one of the following: Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, or 2. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies, or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add the West Hill to Renton's Potential Annexation Area meets one through three of the Review Criteria. ZONING CONCURRENCY A concurrent rezone is not required. Zoning would be determined at the time of future annexation. CONCLUSION The addition of the West Hill to Renton's PAA is consistent with City and County objectives and policies. Therefore, the recommendation is that a map amendment be approved. EXHIBIT `A' il LAKE WASHINGTON Ykl Rainier Ave S SRyon St Taft StN SR R an St � R n S Ruggles St s S r� S. Creston St ° Cres i3 m o c o4pslq $ Bongo St a g r t i $ S Hazel St a°t` +� 4 a4'PR S Haz St !'4r'e Founla' Sl c a a <' EmNoo Dr P /O+L �9 `�� q S� N L t J' �m n S Leo S — L Fanlain St ; i' y, F.� WSJ• J O�J t ` ---'-----'----- L' ----9 S 112th St S Avon St S 113th St S 113th St. 41h St S tUth St S 1141h f. dq,gM ¢ S Au usto y a n ; i S 115th St 5 115th St r$ , ¢ S 1151h PI S 115th S 116th St or ...o --'— 5 1171h St -, - - - 1161h St S 1161h $t S Wallace St S 117th PI - S oh S 17th St S Itlth $t S 1181h St - S 1181h PI R Ala+ _ Ave S 11f3th F7 n/ > c Q S 118th St S 11111, _ x e S 1191h St S Juniper St $ I St — a P 5 1191h t. S 121st St „� ` �, < i l 20th PI n' NN /Oi �, ; S I201h St S 121st Sf S 120th t 5 121st St z a <`^ c S 122nd St 121nd St.S 421st $ 123rd St 123rd St c NW 7th $f: - $ 124th St S 1241h Ave S 4th PI "' g S 123rd P1 - 123rd PI, rn 11 S 241h SI S 124th St 124th St. S 1251ti St rn J — �0�� S\h S\ k k* 6th St. S/ S 25th St Q Q S 125th. St. NW 5th St. 1: S/ 51211h PI S\ s _ S St ,nS 129fh St" S I th, S 1301h St 9! •, i < s z �o' S432nd Sf lath 5 133rd.$l S� � 2nd � S 1 34fh gf Js/ 4' S 132nd St flan 4'a I Ave' $- . \ o S 135th St 7h N Z � SW o"9s q� ..w S /4pS7 Sw 47h A n W 4-d P, 4 s 41h q a' a S 1431d St Sw Cl Cl - S `a\h % g S 14 d PI \Monster Rd SW I S 144th S Unincorporated West Hill ::1 City Limits =; Potential Annexation Area Economic Development, 0 1200 2400 �+ Neighborhoods R Sbategic Planing G. Del Rosario l8 February2004 7 : 14400 ,t 00 EXHIBIT `B' .y f aC lip N 1 p { Presented to the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force October 2005 ® BERK & ASSOCIATES i3ERK ASSOCIATES? 120 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98122 www.berkandassociates.com P (206) 324-8760 "Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures" WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES TASK FORCE: Task Force Co -Chairs Kathleen Royer Task Force Members Paul Berry Celeste DaVault Annie Dukes Dian Ferguson Mark Fitzgerald Elayne Mandra Sandra Oel►ien Sylvia Bushnell Dave Pardey Brian Skaggs Don Sorenson Bonita Thomas Ed Torkelson Kirsten Willhelm Consultant Team Brett Sheckler, Berk & Associates, Inc. Marty Wine, Berk & Associates, Inc. Meghann Glavin, Berk & Associates, Inc. Natasha Fedo, Berk & Associates, Inc. Kapena Pflum, Berk & Associates, Inc. Report prepared by Berk & Associates WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The unincorporated area of West Hill has four choices for provision of local government services: 1. Remain an unincorporated area in King County; 2. Incorporate as a new city; 3. Annex to Seattle; or 4. Annex to Renton In theory, West Hill does have a fifth alternative: Annex to Tukwila, but when approached, the City of Tukwila indicated that they were unwilling to consider annexation. In January 2005, the King County Executive's Office contracted with Berk & Associates (a consulting firm) to provide assistance to the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force. Berk & Associates' role was to assist the Task Force in assessing the four alternatives that are available to the West Hill area. This report summarizes the approach, activities, and findings of that assessment. Berk & Associates' charge in assisting the West Hill Task Force was threefold: Assist the Task Force in collecting information about the governance issues West Hill residents and businesses care about most, and their goals and desires for their community's future; 2. Assist both the Task Force and the public in understanding what governance alternatives would mean in terms of taxes, services, and the ways in which West Hill would relate to its provider of governmental services; and 3. Assist the Task Force in making connections between what West Hill residents and businesses want and what residents would be likely to get if the area were to pursue any of the four governance alternatives. Ultimately, the goal of the Task Force was to arrive at a recommendation about (1) what governance option will best achieve West Hill's goals and desires and (2) what steps the West Hill community should take next, if any, to try to pursue the Task Force's recommended path. WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE WEST HILL COMMUNITY VALUES During the Governance Alternatives Assessment process, Berk & Associates and the Task Force pursued two phases of community outreach. The first phase, which took place during March of 2005, was a series of neighborhood meetings throughout the West Hill community. The goal of these March meetings was to get an understanding, early in the governance study, about what public services are most important to residents. Coming out of these meetings, the understanding gained during the discussions was used to guide analysis and data collection, to ensure that the information provided to the Task Force and West Hill residents directly addressed the issues West Hill cared most deeply about. During the second phase, Berk & Associates and the Task Force hosted a community forum on May 251", at Dimmit Middle School. The goals of the community forum were (1) to provide residents answers to the questions they had posed in the March neighborhood meetings and (2) to solicit additional community feedback regarding community preferences and priorities. These preferences and priorities have been used to inform the Task Force recommendations concerning governance alternatives. What Does the Community Care About? Overall, the West Hill community values the area as both a place and a community. Residents care a great deal about their library and their fire district. They also feel strongly that high quality police services are important, actions that would undermine property values should be avoided, and low taxes are important. Finally, people would like to see West Hill's commercial center improved so that it can offer more services to a larger portion of the community. While many people expressed strong opinions about dollars and cents issues like taxes and property values, at the core of most comments and discussions was a deep-seated affection for their community. An overarching theme in the neighborhood meetings and the community forum was a sense that residents cared about West Hill as a place to live, and they carried with them a sense of loyalty towards their community and a strong interest in preserving its quality -of -life. One manifestation of residents' loyalty and sense of stewardship was their attitude about the Skyway Library. People of all ages were dedicated to Skyway Library because it is their library and because of what it provides: a positive public space for the community. GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES Incorporation Is Incorporating as a New City of West Hill Financially Feasible? The short answer to this question is: probably not. While this alternative would provide the greatest level of local control over future decisions affecting the community, it does not appear to pass the financial feasibility test. As an area with only a modest tax base, and relatively high B E R K 1& ASSOCIATES[, October 2005 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT demands for costly services like public safety, a City of West Hill's revenues would probably not be sufficient to provide necessary services at a level that would meet the community's desires or expectations. To clarify the baseline question about incorporation feasibility, the analytic team asked a hypothetical question: If West Hill were an existing city in 2005, would it have sufficient revenues, given existing tax rates, to pay for the levels of service it now receives? The answer to this question is: No. At current tax rates and current levels of service, revenues for a City of West Hill would fall short of the City's day-to-day costs of service by $1.75 million per year. The principal costs a City of West Hill would face include Public Safety (with an estimated cost of $3.5 million) and General Government, which includes staffing of City Hall for functions like the City Administrator, City Clerk, Finance, and administration of Public Works. The principal sources of day-to-day operating revenue would include property taxes (nearly $2 million); gambling taxes (more than $1 million); and $460,000 in revenues distributed by the state (including local distributions of gas taxes and liquor taxes and profits). By city standards, West Hill supports relatively few businesses, which with the exception of the two casinos, provide little tax base for a proposed city. Businesses in the area generate little in the way of taxable retail sales, and with only 1,000 estimated private sector employees in the area, options for raising revenues via business taxes or business license fees are limited. Remain Unincorporated If the area chooses to remain unincorporated, West Hill residents and businesses would see no change in the providers of governmental service. West Hill would continue to receive the majority of local services from King County. Fire services will continue to be provided by Fire District 20. Library services will continue to be provided by the King County Library System. And water and sewer services will continue to be provided by Skyway Water & Sewer District (for the portion of West Hill that receives sewer service). As a small part of a very large county, West Hill residents have a limited ability to influence governmental decisions that affect most local services. In a given year, King County decisionmakers take many actions that directly or indirectly impact local services in West Hill, including decisions that affect Police, Parks & Recreation, Roads, Land Use & Planning, Stormwater, Human Services and Community Development. As residents of an area that represents less than 1% of the voting population in the county, West Hill residents face barriers when it comes to affecting decisions that directly impact their community. On the other hand, if West Hill were to remain unincorporated, residents would maintain a great deal of local control over Fire and Water & Sewer services. Both Fire District 20 and the Skyway Water & Sewer District have district boundaries that closely coincide with West Hill's boundaries. 0 BERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 iii WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT This means that West Hill residents and businesses make up virtually 100% of the each district's constituency. Taxes As residents of unincorporated King County, the typical West Hill homeowner pays roughly $193 more in taxes and fees for utility services than she would if West Hill was part of Renton, but $281 less than if West Hill was part of Seattle (see Table 1).' In terms of a trend, taxes in unincorporated West Hill have increased faster in recent years than they have in Renton or Seattle. From 2000 to 2005, a selected West Hill homeowner with a house valued at $225,000 (in 2005) saw her total property tax payment increase by 41% (more than $800). An owner of an equivalent home in Renton saw her overall property tax payments increase by 33% and the equivalent homeowner in Seattle saw her payments increase by an even lower 22%. Table 1: Taxes and Costs of Service for a Typical West Hill Homeowner Stay Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Seattle Renton Property Tax* $2,860 $2,710 $2,680 Utility Taxes $60 $288 $236 Cable Franchise Fee $24 $12 $24 Monorail Tax** -- $238 -- TOTAL $2,944 $3,248 $2,940 Difference vs. Increase Decrease Unincorporated $304 ($4) Service Costs Surface Water Fee $91 $122 $65 Water & Sewer Charges $901 $923 $901 Solid Waste Collection Charges $324 $248 $161 TOTAL $1,316 $1,293 $1,127 Difference vs. Unincorporated Decrease Decrease ($23) ($189) GRAND TOTAL $4,260 $4,541 $4,067 TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Increase Decrease $281 ($193) * House assessed at $225,000 "Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 ' The higher tax burden as part of Seattle is based on an assumption that, if annexed to Seattle, West Hill residents would be required to pay the Monorail vehicle excise tax. See the note following Table 9 for discussion of this issue. I$ E R° K& ASSOCIATES! October 2005 iv WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Level of Service What should West Hill residents and businesses expect to happen to service levels if the area remains unincorporated? Unless King County gets authority to increase taxes in unincorporated areas, departments that are providing services that are funded out of King County's general fund will all face significant fiscal pressure to reduce expenditures in urban unincorporated areas like West Hill. (This includes the Sheriff's Office, 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 to 1% plus the value of new construction. The previous limit was 6% and was established through state legislative action. King County's general fund is where most of the revenues are collected by the county to pay for day-to-day operations. From 2002 to 2005, King County expects that general fund revenues will have increased at a rate of 2.7% per year. At the same time, the basic costs of providing services have increased at more than twice that rate. The County estimates that, in order to maintain 2002 staffing levels and levels of service in 2005, King County would have needed an additional $137 million in general fund revenues in 2005 (25% more than the County actually received). It is difficult to say which services may be cut or reduced in unincorporated areas as available revenues continue to lag behind growth in the cost of public services. Those decisions must be made each year through the County's budget adoption process. However, until the County is able to fully address its structural deficit, the County will be forced to make cuts across all of its service areas, including services to local urban unincorporated areas like West Hill. What about other services? For services that are not funded out of King County's general fund, service levels are likely to fare better. Special service districts like the fire and library district have their own property tax levies. In part because of voter approved levy -lid lifts, revenues from these levies have grown in recent years (part of the reason West Hill residents have seen rapid increases in property taxes). ANNEXATION Residents of West Hill cannot simply choose to annex to an adjacent city. Rather, the decision to annex must be mutual; both the annexing City and annexation area residents must actively choose to pursue annexation. Presumably, if the recommendation of the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force is to pursue annexation, an accompanying recommendation will be for West Hill representatives to begin a dialogue with the potential annexing city. West Hill as a Neighborhood in Seattle As part of the City of Seattle, the neighborhood of West Hill would comprise roughly 2% of the City's population of nearly 600,000. West Hill residents would be constituents in the dominant city in Washington State and the Northwest. West Hill is nine to ten miles southeast of downtown Seattle, which would make it the furthest neighborhood from Downtown. Given Seattle's large population, the addition of West Hill would B R K & ASSOCIATES; October 2005 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT do little to change the City's center of gravity, which in terms of population, lies north of downtown in the South Lake Union neighborhood. On the other hand, as a part of the state's largest city, West Hill would have the advantage being a part of a city with substantial resources —where it would compete with 38 other city neighborhoods for neighborhood resource allocations. As a geographically dispersed city, a number of Seattle's outlying neighborhoods fall within the orbit of adjacent cities. With its proximity to Renton, West Hill would be one such neighborhood. West Hill would continue to be part of the Renton School District, and many West Hill residents would continue to shop and play in Renton. West Hill as a Neighborhood in Renton If West Hill were part of the City of Renton, the neighborhood of West Hill would represent 20% of Renton's entire population. With a population of roughly 70,000 (2005), the new, larger City of Renton would jump from the 14th most populous city in the state to the 12th. If West Hill became part of the city, Renton's center of gravity (for population) would shift about a half mile to the northwest. Renton's current center of gravity lies in a residential neighborhood to the east of 1-405 (roughly at the intersection of NE 4th and Edmonds Avenue NE). With a neighborhood of West Hill, the center would shift to the west of 1-405, to the city's commercial center (the PACCAR plant). In effect, annexation of West Hill would more closely align Renton's city boundaries with the practical boundaries that describe how Renton functions as a place. As a neighborhood in Renton, West Hill would strengthen already -established connections with the city. Most of West Hill is part of the Renton School District, and according to information provided by participants in neighborhood forums, many of West Hill's residents already shop and play in Renton on a regular basis. Under annexation to Renton, Renton would leave the Skyway Water & Sewer district in place, which would maintain West Hill's local control of that service. Key Issues Taxes As noted previously, if West Hill was part of Renton in 2005, a typical homeowner in West Hill would have faced $190 less in taxes and utility costs. If West Hill was part of Seattle, that homeowner would have faced tax and utility costs that were roughly $280 higher due largely to the impact of the Monorail tax (see note accompanying Table 9 on page 23 for a discussion of uncertainty regarding application of the Monorail tax to annexed areas). Fire Service If West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton, the Seattle or Renton fire departments will take over provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS) in West Hill. Facilities, equipment, and full time fire district staff would be absorbed into Seattle or Renton's department. B E R K & ASSOCIATES' October 2005 vi WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Unlike Seattle or Renton, Fire District 20 augments its full time staff with part time volunteer staff. These volunteer staff would probably not be absorbed into the Renton or Seattle departments upon annexation. Fire District 20 has two fire stations: Skyway Fire Station and Bryn Mawr Station near Lake Washington. Bryn Mawr Station is old (built in 1942 and never upgraded), is only staffed in the evening by volunteers, and is viewed by both Seattle and Renton as unnecessary for effective provision of fire and EMS services. Both Seattle and Renton would be likely to close Bryn Mawr Station if they were to annex the area, concentrating instead on providing fire and EMS service to the West Hill area from larger and more modern Skyway Station. It is unlikely that West Hill residents would see a dramatic difference in response times if the area were to annex to either Seattle or Renton. Closure of the Bryn Mawr Station would mean that responses would no longer originate out of that station (in the evening when it is staffed), which would result in slightly longer travel times for calls in portions of Bryn Mawr during evening hours. Ultimately, however, the Bryn Mawr and Skyway stations are less than a mile apart, and no part of Bryn Mawr is more than a mile and a half from the Skyway Station. Library Services West Hill currently receives its library services from the King County Library System (KCLS), a district which operates the 5,100 square foot Skyway Library. Skyway's existing library was built in 1970, and as part of KCLS's recently approved capital bond, the district has plans to build a new 8,000 square foot library in Skyway, with construction beginning in 2011. If West Hill were to annex to Seattle or Renton, the annexing city would take over provision of library services in the area. Renton currently has two city libraries and indicates that they would take over operation of the Skyway library, increasing the number of City libraries to three. The City of Seattle has an extensive library system, with the newly constructed Seattle Central Library and 27 neighborhood branches. Seattle Libraries has indicated that they would be likely to close the West Hill library and seek to provide library services to West Hill through the system's other branches (the nearest being the Rainier Beach Branch). The KCLS Bond and Construction of the New Library King County Library System voters recently approved a library capital bond levy. For 2006 through 2011, the new KCLS bond levy will be combined with the 1988 bond levy (which will expire in 2011). Even if West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton and property owners are no longer in the Library District, taxpayers in West Hill must continue paying property taxes for the bond levy through 2022. (The bond levy in 2006 is expected to amount to slightly less than $20 for a $225,000 house.) If West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton, and thus leaves the Library District, KCLS will not be legally required to build the Skyway Library now slated to begin construction in 2011. Since Renton has stated that they would want to provide library services in West Hill (if the City annexed the area), the City indicates that they would try to negotiate an agreement with KCLS to get the new library built. B E R K& ASSOCIATES. October 2005 vi i WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Parks. Recreation, and Community Services Both Renton and Seattle spend a great deal more providing parks, recreation, and community services than does King County. King County reports that it currently spends less than $5 per resident on parks and recreation services in West Hill, while Renton reports that it spends $126 per resident and Seattle reports expenditures of $184. Annexation to either city would result in a substantial increase in parks and recreation services. Both Renton and Seattle would probably increase substantially the level of maintenance of Skyway and Bryn Mawr parks and extend their existing recreation programs to the West Hill. Staff at the City of Renton have indicated that the City would make use of all of West Hill's elementary schools to host a full slate of youth programs and community services activities (a relationship between the City and Renton Schools that is well established now within city boundaries). WHAT DID RESIDENTS SAY ABOUT THEIR PREFERENCES? At the May 25" community forum, after having a brief opportunity to learn about the alternatives, 120 community members completed a comment form. Participants were asked to rank their current governance preferences from 1, most desirable, to 4, least desirable. Overall, 60% of respondents picked annexation as their first choice (favoring Renton over Seattle by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1) 38% preferred remaining unincorporated, and 1 person chose incorporation. Table 2: Governance Alternative Preferences of Respondents Who Indicated a Preference Unincorporated Incorporate Renton Seattle Governance Preferences 43 1 53 15 Percent of Total 38% 1% 47% 13% Average Score 1.37 2.94 1.14 2.31 Source: Community Forum Respondents Among respondents, 79% picked annexation to Renton as their first or second choice, 68% picked remain unincorporated as their first or second choice, and 28% ranked annexation to Seattle in their top two choices. B E It K& A S S O C 1AT E S€ October 2005 vi i i WEST HILL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Table of Contents West Hill Characteristics 1 Public Outreach 5 The Community Outreach Process 5 Publicity 5 Phase 1—Neighborhood Meetings 6 Phase 2 - Community Wide Open House Forum 7 Incorporation 13 Is It Financially Feasible for West Hill to Incorporate as a New City? 13 How Would a City of West Hill Compare to Other Recently Incorporated Cities? 14 What are the Key Factors Affecting Feasibility? 15 Property Tax Revenues Are Likely to Erode Over Time 16 Could a City of West Hill increase taxes? 17 Could a City of West Hill Decrease service levels 18 Annexation 21 Taxes and Costs of Service 22 How Might Tax and Cost Burdens Change Over Time 24 Business Taxes 24 Would Higher Business Taxes Harm West Hill's Prospects for Economic Development? 24 What About West Hill's Casinos? 25 Approach to Service Provision 25 Levels of Service 26 Key Level of Service Issues 27 Relationship to City 27 Fire Protection 27 Library Services 28 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services 29 Police Services 29 Community and Economic Development 30 Remain Unincorporated 33 Taxes and Costs of Service 33 Levels of Service 34 What Is King County's Annexation Initiative? 35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Governance Profiles and Frequently Asked Questions Appendix B: Incorporation Feasibility Assumptions About City Hall Staffing Appendix C: Tax Burden and Level of Service Detail Appendix D: Community Outreach Tools WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT West Hill Characteristics West Hill is an urban unincorporated area at the south end of Lake Washington bordered by the cities of Seattle, Tukwila, and Renton. The area is roughly 2.25 miles from east to west, and slightly more than 2 miles from north to south. West Hill encompasses the neighborhoods of Bryn Mawr, Lakeridge, Skyway, Earlington, Campbell Hill, Panorama, Skycrest, and Hilltop. Figure 1: West Hill Boundary and Neighborhoods Source: Berk & Associates POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS The West Hill population today is estimated to be about 13,900; an increase of 400 persons since the last Census in 2000. The area population has grown annually by about 0.5%, which is slightly lower than the King County average (0.7%) but faster than neighboring Seattle (0.4%). WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Income Figure 2 shows that West hill has a higher proportion of households in middle -income categories (making between $30K and $100K annually) compared to King County and the neighboring cities of Seattle and Renton. West Hill has about the same concentration of lower -income households ($30K or less) as the county average but less than Seattle or Renton. In the highest income category ($100K+), West Hill and Renton have comparable percentages (11-12%) while Seattle and King County have higher proportions of high -income households. Figure 2 : Percentage of Households by Income Category, 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Age In 2000, West Hill had a larger share of older residents and a smaller share of young adults than did King County, Seattle, or Renton. Roughly 15% of West Hill residents were over the age of 65 and 24% were between the ages of 45 and 64 (see Figure 3). B E R K& ASSOCIATES' October 2005 2 •WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Figure 3: Percentage of Population by Age Category, 2000 % of Population 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1-17 18-34 35-44 45-64 65+ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Race West Hill is a racially diverse area, which is reflected in Figure 4. In 2000, the percentages of residents that were black (24%) and Asian (21%) were much higher than the concentrations seen in King County, Seattle, or Renton. In contrast, only 47% of residents in West Hill were white, much lower than the County and neighboring cities that all had percentages around 70% or higher. Figure 4: Percentage of Population by Race, 2000 % of Population 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% IL- 0% White Black Asian Latino Other Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 B€ R K& ASSOCIATES! October 2005 3 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT WHERE RESIDENTS WORK, SHOP, AND PLAY Patterns in the activities of West Hill residents were assessed using data gathered at four neighborhood meetings in March, 2005 (the meetings are described in greater detail in the next section). Meeting attendees were asked to indicate on maps where they worked, shopped, and recreated. These general patterns of activity provide a useful context for considering community cohesion and levels of affinity for neighboring cities. Figure 5 shows the distribution of where West Hill residents shop and play. Overall, shopping and recreation activities were concentrated in a few areas including Renton, West Hill, Tukwila, and Downtown Seattle. A large majority of residents indicated that they do their shopping in Renton with smaller concentrations indicating that they shop in Tukwila and West Hill (attendees were free to indicate as many shopping different shopping destinations as they wanted). The recreation activity patterns are more spread out with concentrations of activity in and along Lake Washington, in Renton, and in Downtown Seattle. Figure 5: Where West Hill Residents Play and Shop a WHERE WEST HILL RESIDENTS PLAY AND SHOP " A. a Where people Flay 6 Wham Peenle Shan Source: West Hill IytERCER'. .� KLNT,%zit'. Meetings, March 2005 ' BERK & ASSOCIATES October 2005 4 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Public Outreach THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROCESS During the Governance Alternatives Assessment process, Berk & Associates and the Task Force pursued two phases of community outreach. The first phase, which occurred during March of 2005, was a series of neighborhood meetings throughout West Hill. The goal of these March meetings was to get an understanding, early in the governance study, about the list of governance issues and public services that are most important to residents. The understanding gained during these meetings was used to direct later analysis and data collection to ensure that the information provided to the Task Force and West Hill residents addressed the things West Hill cared most deeply about. In the second phase, Berk & Associates and the Task Force hosted a community forum to inform residents about the implications of governance alternatives and to solicit feedback regarding community preferences and priorities. Indications of community preferences and priorities helped to steer the Task Force when it came to formulating their recommendations concerning governance alternatives. Publicity The following efforts were made in February and March to advertise the Neighborhood Meetings and again in April and May to advertise the Community Forum: • Task Force members placed signs around the community and distributed fliers in their own neighborhoods. • Berk & Associates staff distributed over 4,000 fliers and posters announcing the meetings throughout the West Hill community, including to businesses in Skyway, Renton and Seattle, community centers, and the Task Force members for distribution. • Fliers were distributed through the Renton School District to students in the West Hill area and Renton High School. • Neighborhood churches were contacted and several pastors included the forum announcement in their services. • Local social service agencies and libraries agreed to have fliers on hand. • The Greater Skyway Business Association was contacted to help with flier distribution. • A press release announcing the meeting dates was distributed to all local media outlets through the King County Executive's media relations office. 0 I B E R K& ASSOCIATES1 October 2005 5 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT For the Community Forum in May, avenues listed above were augmented through four additional channels: • An advertisement was placed in the Renton Reporter. • All attendees of the neighborhood meetings were called and/or e-mailed with the Forum information. • Skyway Water & Sewer District placed an insert advertising the Forum in each utility bill. • Flyers were distributed to all major apartment complexes in West Hill. PHASE 1—NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Neighborhood meetings were designed to gather information about West Hill residents' wishes, hopes, and dreams for their community and to gather information about their priorities for public services. Four meetings were held, grouping two neighborhoods together for each meeting: Hilltop/Skyway (March 1); Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge (March 3); Campbell Hill/Panorama (March 8) and Skycrest/Earlington (March 10). In total, more than 140 community members participated in the neighborhood meetings and 25 surveys and emails were received commenting on the public services of most concern to the community. The Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge meeting had the highest attendance with 68 community members followed by the Campbell Hill/Panorama meeting with 33 attendees. The Hilltop/Skyway and Skycrest/Earlington meetings had 11 and 12 attendees, respectively. Several task force members and the co-chairs attended each meeting and assisted in facilitating groups and providing information. In addition to gathering input at the meetings, flyers distributed in the community advertising the meeting contained a survey as a means for those not able to attend the meeting to provide input. Over the course of three months 25 surveys were returned. Key Findings Berk & Associates used the following key findings in addition to frequently asked questions to direct the governance analysis. Common concerns and frequently asked questions included: • Changes in levels of taxation under different governance alternatives • Levels of Service from: o Police o Parks o Roads/infrastructure o Economic and Community Development o Planning, Permitting and Zoning • Changes in special district service providers and the implications: o Library o Water & Sewer 0 i RERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 6 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT o Fire o Schools • Legality of casinos in Seattle, Renton, or a possible new city of West Hill • Experiences of other recently incorporated cities • Business taxes and ordinances under different governance alternatives • Other non -governance issues: o Potential for changes in address (City) or zip code with changes in governance o Potential for changes in West Hill's area code o Potential impact on home or car insurance rates PHASE 2 - COMMUNITY WIDE OPEN HOUSE FORUM Overview of Community Forum On May 25", 2005, the West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force hosted a Community Forum. The goals of this forum included: 1. To share with the community results of the governance alternative assessment; 2. To interact with people from the community to continue to gather information about people's priorities, issues, concerns, and desires; and 3. To give attendees the opportunity to provide written feedback through the comment form The information presented at the forum was designed to inform the community about the implications of four governance alternatives —remaining unincorporated, annexing to Seattle or Renton, or incorporating as a new city. Over 190 residents participated in the open house Forum. When they arrived, participants were directed to four informational stations presenting the results of analysis of each governance alternative. Three of the four stations had four posters, each profiling one governance alternative. The fourth station had posters with frequently asked questions from the neighborhood meetings and answers to these questions. Each poster had a corresponding handout. In addition to the forum, Berk & Associates and the Task Force distributed handout packages, including the comment form, at the Skyway Library and at the Skyway Water & Sewer District headquarters. Finally, comment forms were made available for download on the Task Force website, www.westhillcommunity.com. During the Community Forum, people from the West Hill community read the governance profiles, asked the Task Force and Berk & Associates staff questions, conversed with their neighbors, and filled out comment forms. In all, 112 comment forms were collected at the meeting, 6 more were received by mail, and two were received via e-mail for a total of 120 returned forms. Most participants reported that they heard about the meeting through the utility bill or from flyers posted throughout the community. Overview and Summary of Findings Generally, respondents like living in West Hill and are satisfied with most services. One respondent wrote, "I've lived in Skyway for over 20 years and I love this area." Residents' j B E RR K& ASSOCIATES! October 2005 7 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT priorities about a change in governance, which surfaced from the comment forms, include library, fire and police services, tax burden, and property values. In many instances, concerns that respondents raised, or the stated reasons for their preference in governance, were based on misperceptions and/or a lack of accurate information. In summarizing responses, we have tried to point out instances where we believe an assertion is incorrect, or where respondents may be basing their stated preference on inaccurate information. Special District Services. Respondents conveyed overall satisfaction with current levels of service in West Hill. Given possible change, they were concerned about losing King County Library System (KCLS) and Fire District 20 service. Fifteen percent of responses mentioned Skyway Library as a priority and 12% mentioned the Fire District. As a whole, respondents are extremely satisfied with both districts and feel strongly that losing service in either arena would be detrimental to the community. Library. Some respondents said that it was absolutely necessary to keep the library on the hill because it is very important for children, and for the community as a whole. They were clear that the library is a valued community asset because it provides access to information and serves as a safe community gathering place. Also, a few respondents referred to KCLS a "nationally renowned" library system, which some believed compared favorably with other local library systems. Lastly, recognizing that West Hill residents are currently able to access Seattle and Renton public libraries in addition to KCLS, some respondents were concerned about losing access to all of these systems if annexed to Renton or Seattle. (Such a loss of access would not occur.) Fire. Some respondents described the prospect of losing the fire station at Bryn Mawr as "unacceptable." They did not want to lose service or their volunteer staff, and many think their home insurance rates would increase with the possible loss of fire station and an aid car. (Our understanding is that residential insurance rates would not increase. Moreover, both Renton and Seattle have better fire insurance ratings than does Fire District 20.) Taxes. Approximately 17%, 20 forum respondents, expressed some concern over property and other tax increases from a change in governance. Of the 20 respondents, five were specifically unwilling to pay the monorail tax, while two respondents were proponents of the monorail and were inclined to pay the tax. On the other hand, 4% of respondents said they were not especially concerned about tax rates if they were being "used for good community improvements such as park, police, fire, sidewalks, and other activities." Some respondents were concerned with the manner in which King County spends their tax dollars and were also skeptical of King County's revenue shortage. They felt that if King County were more efficient, the budget crisis would be less severe. For example, one resident commented: "King County does not need additional revenue. King County administration needs to rethink the priorities and make more efficient and effective use of the revenues that are available." Property Values. Twelve percent of respondents were concerned that a change in governance may negatively affect their property values. Most believed that annexation to Renton would inevitably hurt their investment. (While this issue is open to debate, it is doubtful that property values ® I BERK & ASSOCIATES! October2005 8 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT would be negatively affected by annexation to either Renton or Seattle. If anything, higher levels of local services, stricter enforcement to land use and building codes, and city investment in economic development in West Hill would tend to increase property values.) Police. Respondents see room for improvement in police services. They agree that police services cannot decrease under a governance change and that the residents of West Hill must remain well -served under any alternative. Respondents' Governance Preferences Residents were asked to rank their current governance preferences from 1, most desirable, to 4, least desirable. If instead, respondents market only one box with a check mark or an 'Y' it was considered a 1. Overall, 60% of respondents preferred annexation to Renton or Seattle over remaining unincorporated. • 53 respondents preferred annexation to Renton; of those, 28 chose to remain unincorporated and 12 chose Seattle as a second choice. 43 respondents preferred to remain unincorporated; of those 28 chose to annex to Renton and 4 chose Seattle as a second choice. • 15 respondents preferred annexation to Seattle; of those 7 chose to annex to Renton and 5 preferred to remain unincorporated as a second choice. • One respondent preferred incorporation as a new city. Table 3: Governance Alternative Preferences of Respondents Who Indicated a Preference Governance Preferences Unincorporated Incorporate Renton Seattle 43 53 15 Percent of Total 38% 1% 47% 13% Average Score 1.37 2.94 1.14 2.31 Source: Community Forum Respondents Among all respondents 79% picked annexation to Renton as their first or second choice, 68% picked remain unincorporated as their first or second choice, and 28% ranked annexation to Seattle in their top two choices. Respondent's Governance Preferences by Neighborhood Figure 6 shows the location of comment form respondents (by their address as written on the comment form) and their preference for governance. 0 [ BERK & ASSOCIATE51 October2005 9 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Figure 6: Respondents' Governance Alternative Preferences by Location Source: Community Forum Respondents Reasoning for Respondents' Governance Preferences by City Unincorporated. Of 43 respondents who preferred to remain unincorporated, 24 felt simply that life in unincorporated King County is fine as it is. They are content with current services and prefer "known versus the unknown." For example, one participant responded, "I am happy the way things are. I don't see a worsening of our condition." Another noted, "don't want to change unless we have to." Respondents are satisfied with their services, and, as noted earlier, are particularly attached to the KCLS Skyway Library, Fire District 20 stations, and the volunteer firefighter force. Respondents also appreciate the "rural feel of the area." One participant commented that she "did not want sidewalks." In general, respondents who preferred to remain unincorporated see no need or reason to change. Table 4: Reasons Respondents Prefer to Remain Unincorporated Reason Participants Prefer Total Remaining Unincorporated Responses Content with current governance/services 24 56% Don't want to be part of Seattle, Renton/Like the rural feel 4 9% Cost 1 2% None 15 35% 43 100% Source: Community Forum Respondents B E R K& ASSOCIATES, October 2005 10 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Renton. Respondents favored Renton for numerous reasons, the leading reason being that they felt Renton is a natural fit for the community, both culturally and geographically (Table 5). They mentioned that they "work," "shop," and "play" in Renton and seven respondents specifically noted that West Hill residents "are already [served by] Renton schools." Some respondents mentioned they felt that their neighborhood was closer to the core of Renton and was already served by the City; for example, "Earlington is already part of Renton," and "most of Bryn Mawr is located just a few blocks from Renton, only a mile from the core of downtown Renton." Five respondents also selected Renton because of the potential decrease in their annual tax bill. Moreover, respondents were impressed with Renton's work in economic development; for example, one resident commented that they need Renton's "leadership on governance [including] economic development, and parks". Many respondents who preferred annexation to Renton were satisfied with their current service but felt that the King County budget problems may make a change in governance inevitable. As one respondent noted, "it appears that West Hill can no longer support itself. We would function more efficiently if annexed to Renton." Another mentioned that "annexing to Renton seems to be the most viable alternative." Table 5: Reasons Respondents Prefer Annexation to Renton Reasons Particpants Prefer Annexation to Renton Total Responses Natural Fit/Community Cohesion 15 28% Liked Renton Services 12 23% Already part of Renton Schools 7 13% Responsible Solution 6 11% Lower Taxes 5 9% Increased Control/Representation 4 8% Default/Only Option 3 6% Economic Development 3 6% Like a Smaller Community 2 4% Property Values 1 2% Source: Community Forum Respondents Seattle. Eight of 15 of respondents who preferred annexation to Seattle said they believed property values would increase, or at least not decrease under that option. Some respondents who preferred Seattle mentioned that they "purchased a home based on it having a Seattle address" and they wanted to keep it. Three respondents noted that they identified with Seattle and felt they were already a part of the City. As one respondent commented: "Seattle is a metropolitan city - Renton is not"; and another one observed: "...there is a stigma associated with Renton in regards to being a less cultural and less valued city." Incorporate as a New City. Forum respondents thought incorporation as a new city was infeasible; however, a few noted that if it was feasible, the amount of local control would be preferable. "Independence" was the main reason for the one participant who preferred incorporating over all other alternatives. Two others ranked incorporation second, calling the alternative "ideal." Local control appears to be something that is a priority to West Hill residents; however, most respondents are not interested in incorporation. 10 !BERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 11 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Remaining Questions from the Community • The most frequently asked questions were "What are the next steps? When will they come?" • Some respondents questioned the accuracy of library portion of the profiles, which they believed did not differentiate between the KCLS capital bond and the operating levy and incorrectly referred to a bond as a levy. (See the Annexation section of the final report for more detailed discussion of the KCLS regular levy versus the bond levy.) • Respondents sought clarification regarding electricity providers under different governance alternatives. (Electric service will continue to be provided by Seattle City Light under all governance scenarios.) • Respondents questioned if West Hill would truly remain the Renton School District in the long term. (School district boundaries are unaffected by changes in city boundaries.) BERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 12 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT I ncorporation IS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR WEST HILL TO INCORPORATE AS A NEW CITY? The short answer to this question is: probably not. As an area with only a modest tax base, and relatively high demands for costly services like public safety, a City of West Hill's revenues would probably not be sufficient to provide necessary services. To clarify the baseline question about incorporation feasibility, this analysis asks a hypothetical question: If West Hill were an existing city in 2005, would it have sufficient revenues, given existing tax rates, to pay for the levels of service it now receives? The answer to this question is: No. At current tax rates and current levels of service, the City's revenues would fall short of the City's day-to-day costs of service by $1.75 million per year (see Table 6). This assessment assumes that an incorporated City of West Hill would not take on provision of fire and EMS services, library services, or water and sewer services. (Those services would continue to be provided by Fire District 20, the King County Library District, Skyway Water & Sewer District, respectively.) This estimate of service costs also assumes that a City of West Hill would contract with King County departments for provision of law and justice services (police, courts, and adult detention), and roads maintenance. Such an arrangement is customary in recently -incorporated cities because it means new cities do not have to make large capital investments in vehicles and equipment. The principal costs a City of West Hill would face include Public Safety (with an estimated cost of $3.5 million) and General Government, which includes staffing of City Hall for functions like the City Administrator, City Clerk, Finance, and administration of Public Works. The principal sources of day-to-day operating revenue include property taxes (nearly $2 million); gambling taxes (more than $1 million); and $460,000 in revenues distributed by the state (including local distributions of gas taxes and liquor taxes and profits). IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 13 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Table 6: Estimates of Core Operating Costs and Revenues for a City of West Hill (2005) 2005 Estimated Population 13,900 Taxable Assessed Value for year 2005 taxes $1,224,293,509 Levy rate per $1,000 of assessed value $1.60 Operation (non -constrained) Revenues Property taxes (Regular Levy) $1,940,000 Gambling Taxes $1,040,000 State Shared Revenues $460,000 Retail Sales tax $372,000 Retail Sales Tax - Criminal Justice $278,000 Non -Electricity Utility tax $280,000 Electric Utility Payment $170,000 Cable TV Franchise Fee $120,000 Permit Fees $130,000 Community Development Block Grant $80,000 State Shared Revenues - by Application $10,000 Total Projected General Fund Revenues $4,880,000 Expenses Public Safety (Police) $3,500,000 General Government $1,470,000 Roads Operation and Maintenance $610,000 Planning/Permitting $320,000 City Attorney and Prosecution Services $180,000 Parks and Recreation $70,000 Compehensive Land Use Plan $90,000 Capital Facilities Plan $90,000 Human Services (Block Grant expenditures) $80,000 Miscellaneous $70,000 Operational Contingency $75,000 Operating Reserve Fund $75,000 Total Projected General Fund Expenses $6,630,000 $1,750,000 Source: Berk & Associates Analysis HOW WOULD A CITY OF WEST HILL COMPARE TO OTHER RECENTLY INCORPORATED CITIES? In the past dozen years, six new cities have incorporated in King County. Compared with these six cities, an incorporated City of West Hill would face substantial financial hurdles. A city's general fund accounts for most of the revenues a city collects and most of the day-to-day operating expenditures a city incurs. The single largest general fund expenditure most cities face is for law enforcement services (including expenditures for police, jail, and courts). One quick way to judge a city's fiscal strength is to compare its general fund revenues per capita with those of other cities. For a more robust comparison, analysts will often look at the difference between cities' general fund revenues and their law enforcement expenditures. s S L R K & A S S O C I AT € S' October 2005 14 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT In the case of West Hill, such a comparison highlights the financial barriers the area would face if it were to pursue incorporation. If West Hill had been an operating city in 2005, it would have collected general fund revenues of roughly $4.7 million (or $340 per resident). At the same time, in order to maintain existing levels of law enforcement, the City would have had to spend roughly $3.5 million (or $250 per resident) on law enforcement alone. It is worth noting that some of the cities that rank above West Hill in Table 7 have faced serious financial challenges. Both Kenmore and Covington have reported that it is a challenge to generate revenues that are sufficient to meet the cities' level -of -service goals. Table 7: General Fund Comparisons with Other Recently Incorporated Cities Sammamish 1999 35,930 $636 $100 $536 Newcastle 1994 8,320 $523 $158 $365 Shoreline 1995 52,730 $499 $167 $332 Kenmore 1998 19,200 $449 $138 $310 Covington 1997 14,850 $418 $140 $278 Maple Valley 1997 15,370 $396 $132 $264 West,Hilt * Based on 2003 revenues and expenditures as summarized by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Estimated 2005 revenues and expenditures assume 3% yearly increases between 2003 and 2005. ** 2004 Figures from Covington Budget inflated by 3%. WHAT ARE THE KEY FACTORS AFFECTING FEASIBILITY? Most cities in Washington State rely heavily on three principal revenue sources: retail sales tax, property tax, and business and utility taxes. Among these important sources, West Hill is poorly positioned to generate significant revenues from either retail sales or business and utility taxes. By city standards, West Hill supports relatively few businesses, which with the exception of the two casinos, provide little tax base for a proposed City. Businesses in the area generate little in the way of taxable retail sales, and with only 1,000 estimated private sector employees in the area, options for raising revenues via business taxes or business license fees are limited.2 Except for the two casinos, West Hill's greatest fiscal asset is the value of its real property. However, with estimated taxable assessed value of $88,000 per capita, West Hill still ranks below most King County cities in that measure (see Table 8). z West Hill is currently home to 334,000 square feet of active commercial buildings (i.e. commercial buildings that support significant private -sector employment. This estimate excludes churches, schools, apartments, and storage warehouses. Typically, in a place like West Hill, one would expect one employee for every 350 square feet of commercial space, which suggests that the area supports fewer than 1,000 employees in the private sector. This estimate is also supported by PSRC estimates of employment by Transportation Analysis Zone. B E R K & ASSOCIATES October 2005 15 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Table 8: Taxable Assessed Value Figures for King County Cities (2004) Taxable Assessed Value Population Assessed Value per Resident Hunts Point 593,456,567 450 $ 1,319,000 Medina 1,979,552,449 2,955 $ 670,000 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 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 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 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 West Hill (2005) 1,224,293,509 13,900 $ 88,000 Maple Valley 1,407,088,460 16,280 $ 86,000 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 Source: Berk & Associates analysis of data from State Department of Revenue and Washington State Office of Financial Management Property Tax Revenues Are Likely to Erode Over Time 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 [MVETI); 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 B E R K & ASSOCIATES October 2005 16 WEST HILT. GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT 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. In inflation -adjusted terms, 1-747 limits cause property tax revenues for most cities to fall over time (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 1-747's erosion of property tax revenues, cities in Washington State are becoming increasingly dependent on sales taxes and other taxes and fees levied on commercial activity. As an area that would have only modest property tax revenues to start with, and little commercial activity to underpin a city's fiscal balance, a City of West Hill would face substantial fiscal hurdles. Another consideration residents should bear in mind is that an incorporated City of West Hill would be heavily dependent on gambling taxes from the area's two casinos. Typically, a city would prefer not to be heavily dependent on taxes stemming from such a concentrated source. COULD A CITY OF WEST HILL INCREASE TAXES? Yes, but the options are limited. A City of West Hill could increase tax rates and generate additional revenues. Beyond the taxes included in the baseline estimate, the City of West Hill would have authority to levy utility taxes of 6% on utilities including telephone, natural gas, water & sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, and cable television service. (Utility taxes beyond 6% are possible with a public vote.) The City would also have the authority to levy business taxes and/or business license fees. Almost all West Hill residents receive their electrical service from Seattle City Light. The City of Seattle already collects a 6% utility tax on that electrical service, which accrues to the City of Seattle. If West Hill became a city (or if the area annexed to Renton) then it is possible that the City of Seattle would agree to share a portion of those revenues. The preceding revenue estimate assumes that Seattle would agree to a 50/50 split of electrical utility tax revenues generated in West Hill. In total, if the City were to raise taxes to the maximum allowed without a public vote, one might expect the City to increase tax revenues by as much as $600,000 to $800,000. I B E R K& A S S O C 1 AT E 51 October 2005 17 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT COULD A CITY OF WEST HILL DECREASE SERVICE LEVELS The expenditures included in the baseline feasibility assessment were designed to reflect what it would cost a City of West Hill to maintain existing levels of local services. The principal day-to- day costs of the City would stem from: • Law enforcement services (police, courts, and legal services): $3.5 million • General government/City Hall (city manager, city council, city clerk, finance, public works, community development, parks administration): $1.5 million (see Figure 7) • Roads maintenance: $610,000 Among the three, roads maintenance and City Hall expenditures probably offer a few, limited opportunities for cost savings. Estimated City Hall expenditures include an assumption that 15 full-time employees would staff City Hall. This is a low number compared to many cities comparable in size to West Hill. However, poorer cities across the State do maintain even leaner staffing levels in City Hall. In regard to road maintenance expenditures, the reality is that reductions in maintenance activities are unlikely to offer long -run savings. The nature of road maintenance is such that reducing maintenance in the short term results in even more costly repairs in the future. The greatest opportunity for cost savings would stem from reductions in police services. This possibility raises two questions: • How much appetite would West Hill residents have for reductions in police service? • How feasible would it be to reduce patrol staffing in the City if that meant reducing safety for residents and officers? SERK & ASSOCIATES!October2005 18 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT ' Figure 7: General Government Assumed Staffing and Cost Estimates Staffing Levels and Salaries Salary Range FTE's * Salary Total High Low City Manager 6,601 8,332 1 100,000 100,000 Director of Admin. & Fin. 5,547 6,876 1 85,000 85,000 Accountant - Senior 3,926 4,828 1 60,000 60,000 Accounting Clerk 2,412 3,001 0 35,000 0 City Engineer 4,949 6,187 1 75,000 75,000 Engineer Tech. 3,190 4,024 1 50,000 50,000 Public Works Director 5,472 6,898 1 85,000 85,000 Community Development Dir. 5,127 6,497 1 80,000 80,000 Computer Support Specialist 3,308 4,226 1 50,000 50,000 City Clerk 3,917 4,987 1 60,000 60,000 Legal Secretary 2,814 3,391 1 40,000 40,000 Administrative Secretary 2,783 3,498 1 45,000 45,000 Receptionist 2,215 2,738 1 35,000 35,000 Senior Planner 4,305 5,451 1 65,000 65,000 Parks Maintenance Supervisor 3,324 4,181 0 50,000 0 Recreation Coordinator 2,742 3,540 0 45,000 0 Miscellanueous FTE's 2 40,000 80,000 Council Members 6 5,400 32,400 Mayor 1 6,000 6,000 Total 15 948,400 Benefits 284,520 Benefits as % of Salaries 30% Facility Costs 56,250 Cost per square foot 15 Square Feet per FTE 250 Operating Supplies 94,840 Supplies as % of Salaries 10% Phone Expenses 15,000 Cost of phone per FTE 1,000 Computers 19,928 Computer cost per FTE per year 1,329 Furniture 10,975 Furniture cost per FTE per year 732 Vehicle Lease 21,464 Number of vehicles 4 Cost per vehicle per year 5,366 Vehicle Operation & Maintenance 16,000 Number of vehicles 4 Vehicle O&M cost per year 4,000 TOTAL COSTS OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1,467,377 * Full-time equivalent positions 1 BERK & ASSOC1ATES1 October2005 19 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Annexation The West Hill Governance Alternatives Task Force worked with King County and the cities of Seattle and Renton to collect information about governance issues to ascertain what governance in West Hill might look like if the area were to annex to either Seattle or Renton. The City of Tukwila declined an invitation to participate, suggesting that the City was not interested in annexation. The Annexation Process There are several ways for unincorporated areas like West Hill to annex to a city. 1) Residents can request consideration by the Council of the annexing city and a subsequent public vote through a ten -percent petition. 2) The Council of the potential annexing city can pass a resolution requesting a vote among residents of the proposed area of annexation. 3) Residents can request annexation without a public referendum by gathering signatures of landowners in the proposed area of incorporation, as long as the combined value of the property owned by the signatories' equals at least 60 percent of the total assessed value of the area. 4) Residents can request consideration by the Council of the annexing city without a public referendum by filing "an intention to commence annexation proceeding" signed by owners of 10% of the acreage of the area. If the city council accepts the initial annexation proposal, the initiating parties must circulate petition including signatures of the owners of a majority of the acreage of the area and a majority of the registered voters For the first and second approaches, once the process has been initiated, the remaining steps are the same. For both, the next step is to submit the resolution/petition to the county's Boundary Review Board. The review board will then hold a hearing where residents and a representative of the annexing city will have the opportunity to be heard. Following this hearing, the Board will approve, disapprove, or suggest a revision to the boundaries of the proposed annexation. If approved, a vote among area residents determines the ultimate success or failure of the proposed annexation. In contrast to two approaches outlined above, the third and fourth approaches to annexation do not ultimately require a public referendum. Under these alternatives, after initiators gather the required signatures, the question of annexation is taken up, first by the City Council, and then in a public hearing by the county's Boundary Review Board. If both bodies find in favor of the city annexing the area, annexation will move forward. I B B R K& ASSOCIATES, October 2005 21 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT As noted previously, Berk & Associates' charge in assisting the West Hill Task Force has been threefold: 1. Assist the Task Force in collecting information from West Hill residents and businesses about the governance issues they care about, and about their goals and desires for the future; 2. Assist the Task Force and the public in understanding what governance alternatives would really mean in terms of taxes, services, and the ways in which West Hill would relate to its provider of governmental services; and 3. Assist the Task Force in making connections between what West Hill residents and businesses want and what residents would be likely to get if the area were to pursue any of the four governance alternatives In the end, the Task Force has made a commitment to make a recommendation about the governance option that will best achieve West Hill's goals and desires. In light of this commitment, regarding annexation, the Task Force collected information from Seattle and Renton on: • Tax burden and costs of services; • Each city's approach to governance (how would the city approach the provision of particular services in West Hill if they were to annex the area?); and • Levels of service that each city has achieved for particular local services. TAXES AND COSTS OF SERVICE In 2005, a typical homeowner in West Hill will pay an estimated $4,260 in taxes and utility fees for stormwater, water and sewer, and garbage collection.3 Reflected in this figure are all taxes that are paid on a regular basis based on where a family lives.° This figure excludes costs of electrical and natural gas services, since these services will not change with a change in governance. Regardless of what residents decide about local governance, West Hill will continue to receive its electrical service from Seattle City Light and natural gas service from Puget Sound Energy. If West Hill was part of Renton in 2005, the typical homeowner would potentially see a slight reduction in taxes and a significant reduction in the costs of utility services. Compared with the taxes and utility fees paid by residents currently, the homeowner would see total savings of $193 per year.' 3 For purposes of estimating costs, the typical homeowner is assumed to have a house valued at $225,000 (the median for houses in West Hill in 2005) and automobiles valued at $17,000 (using the Monorail valuation schedule, which tends to overstate the true value of vehicles). ' Residents pay other local taxes on a regular basis, such as retail sales tax and, indirectly, business & occupation taxes on goods and services purchased in the City of Seattle. However, those taxes are unlikely to change with a change in governance. ' If West Hill were to incorporate or annex, by state law, the garbage collection contract would remain in force for a number of years. As a result, West Hill residents will not realize savings in garbage collection rates until the current franchise contract expires and a new contract is negotiated by the city. s B E R K& ASSOCIATES! October 2005 22 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT If West Hill was part of Seattle, the typical homeowner would pay significantly more in taxes — largely due to Monorail taxes, but would see lower costs of utility services. Combining the two effects, the net result would be an increase in costs of $281. (See the note below Table 9 for a discussion of uncertainty that exists around application of the Monorail tax.) Table 9: Taxes and Costs of Service for a Typical West Hill Homeowner Stay Unincorporated Annex to Seattle Annex to Renton Property Tax* $2,860 $2,710 $2,680 Utility Taxes $60 $288 $236 Cable Franchise Fee $24 $12 $24 Monorail Tax** -- $238 -- TOTAL $2,944 $3,248 $2,940 Difference vs. Increase Decrease Unincorporated $304 ($4) Service Costs Surface Water Fee $91 $122 $65 Water & Sewer Charges $901 $923 $901 Solid Waste Collection Charges $324 $248 $161 TOTAL $1,316 $1,293 $1,127 Difference vs. Unincorporated Decrease Decrease ($23) ($189) GRAND TOTAL $4,260 $4,541 $4,067 TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Increase Decrease $281 ($193) House assessed at $225, 000 ** Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 Note: The City of Seattle reports that it is not clear whether the monorail tax would be extended to annexation areas upon annexation. The City has requested an Attorney General opinion on the issue, with the questions focusing on the state statute that enables the monorail taxing authority (the current statute does explicitly address the question of annexed areas). However, even if the Attorney General was to find that the monorail tax would not be applied to annexed areas under current law, the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) could request clarifying language from the State Legislature authorizing extension of the tax. Given the funding hurdles that SMP faces, if the Monorail project goes forward, and if West Hill were to annex to Seattle, it would be reasonable to expect SMP to seek to extend its tax to West Hill. If the Monorail tax did not apply to annexed areas of Seattle, and the State Legislature did not add statutory language to make it apply, then the estimated cost for Seattle would go from a net increase of $281 to an increase of $43. g ER K& ASSOCIATES! October 2005 23 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Assuming the Monorail tax does apply, annexation to Renton would save the homeowner roughly $475 per year when compared with annexation to Seattle (again, based on 2005 rates). It is important to note that every household in West Hill is different. If a resident owns cars valued at $35,000 (as opposed to the $17,000 assumed for the typical homeowner), then the Monorail tax will more than double, approaching $500. If the value of a house is greater, then the property tax break associated with annexing to Renton or Seattle will be greater. If a homeowner's property values are lower, then the property tax break will also be smaller. How Might Tax and Cost Burdens Change Over Time If one uses recent history as a guide, West Hill residents could expect to see their taxes increase more slowly if they annex to Seattle or Renton than they would if the area remains unincorporated. From 2000 to 2005, a selected West Hill homeowner with a house valued at $225,000 (in 2005) saw her total property tax payment increase by 41%. An owner of an equivalent home in Renton saw her overall property tax payments increase by 33% and the equivalent homeowner in Seattle saw her payments increase by an even lower 22%. Business Taxes According to state law, counties are prohibited from imposing business taxes or business license fees while cities are not. The City of Seattle collects an annual business license fee ($45 or $90 per year, depending on the revenues of the business) and the City also collects Business & Occupation (B&O) taxes on the gross revenues of most businesses (0.415% on Services businesses and 0.215% on Retail and most other business categories). As an example, for a printing business with 20 employees and $1 million in annual sales, Seattle's business taxes and fees would amount to roughly $4,200. The business would also pay utility taxes (which would increase upon annexation to Seattle) and property taxes (which for a business that size might decrease by a few hundred dollars). The City of Renton does not levy a B&O tax, but it does collect annual business license fees ($55 per employee per year). For the same printing business with 20 employees, this translates to $1,100 in business taxes per year —roughly a quarter of what the business would pay to if West Hill was part of Seattle. As was true with Seattle, the business would also pay more in utility taxes but save from reduced property taxes (a reduction of close to $500 if business property is valued at $600,000). Would Higher Business Taxes Harm West Hill's Prospects for Economic Development? Some argue that increasing tax burdens on private firms harms an area's ability to attract or retain businesses. Others argue that businesses are not particularly sensitive to tax burdens, and that instead, businesses base their location decisions on a wide range of characteristics of an area. Most of the available analysis of the issue supports the second argument —that most decisions about locating a business have more to do with the characteristics of the location and mm B E R K & ASSOCIATES October 2005 24 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT not the tax burden. This is particularly true for retail, consumer services, and businesses that are typically found in neighborhood offices. For these types of businesses, the things they care about most are (1) being near their customers and (2) being in a location that is attractive and convenient to their customers. What About West Hill's Casinos? If West Hill were to annex to Renton, then West Hill's casinos would continue to operate and they would be taxed at current rates. If West Hill were to annex to Seattle, the outcome would not be certain; however, chances are good that the area's two casinos would have to close. Seattle city planners confirmed that existing casinos would technically become a non -conforming use in Seattle's zoning code. The State of Washington regulates and licenses gambling, and a city's role is limited to allowing or banning social card game rooms. Seattle has a moratorium on social card game rooms, extended multiple times over the past decade. Historically, a gambling enterprise would be allowed to stay and operate as a non -conforming use, and no new businesses of that type would be allowed to site in Seattle, and current uses would not be allowed to expand. 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. If West Hill annexed to Seattle and Seattle banned gambling, the current West Hill casinos would Likely have their annual licenses revoked when the State Gambling Commission reviewed them for renewal. APPROACH TO SERVICE PROVISION If West Hill were to annex to Renton or Seattle, local services that are now provided by King County departments would be provided by Renton or Seattle, respectively. Some services, including schools and transit services, are unaffected by changes in local governance. No matter what choice West Hill residents make about governance, West Hill will remain part of Renton School District, and West Hill will continue to receive transit services from existing Metro Transit. Other special districts that serve West Hill include Fire District 20, the King County Library District, and the Skyway Water & Sewer District. Among these special districts, both library and fire service would change with annexation to either city. Upon annexation, either Renton or Seattle would take on provision of fire and library services. In terms of water and sewer service, annexation to Seattle would mean that Seattle would take on provision of those services, but if the area annexed to Renton, Skyway Water & Sewer would remain intact and would continue to provide services to West Hill (see Table 10). I B E R K& A S S d C I AT E S 1 October 2005 25 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Table 10: Potential for Changes in Service Provider for Services Districts Service Provided Now By... Annex to Seattle Annex to Renton_ Fire Fire District 20 Seattle Fire Renton Fire Department Department Library King County Library System Seattle Public Library Renton Public Library School Renton School District No Change No Change Water & Sewer Skyway Water & Sewer District Seattle Public No Change Utilities LEVELS OF SERVICE One component of this governance alternatives assessment entailed collection of a wide range of information about what local service providers in West Hill do, and how they do it. The West Hill Task Force and Berk & Associates worked with King County, the cities of Renton and Seattle, and the special service districts in West Hill to collect as much information as possible about: • How the different jurisdictions approached service delivery in West Hill; • What services the jurisdictions provide; • The costs and the level of investment service providers are making in West Hill or their existing service area; and • Plans for future capital investments. Tables providing a detailed summary of information provided by service providers are included in the appendix to this report. The following sections focus on key measures of levels of service, levels of resource commitment, and key issues surrounding how services will be provided. Three key services that West Hill consumes (or would like to consume) include Police, Parks and Recreation, and Economic Development. In West Hill, on these three services combined, King County spends roughly $240 per resident per year. This is slightly more than half of the $440 per resident that Renton spends on the same services, and less than half of the $510 spent by Seattle. Of course, just because Seattle and Renton invest more in providing services to current residents does not automatically mean that West Hill's annexation would translate into the same levels of service being provided in West Hill. A comparison of expenditures does, however, give readers a feeling for the City's overall priorities. j B E R K & ASSOCIATES 1 October 2005 26 . WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Key Level of Service Issues Relationship to City A Neighborhood in Seattle As part of the City of Seattle, the neighborhood of West Hill would comprise roughly 2% of the City's population of nearly 600,000. West Hill residents would be constituents in the dominant city in Washington State and a large portion of the Northwestern United States. West Hill is between nine and ten miles southeast of downtown Seattle, which would make it the furthest neighborhood from Downtown. Given Seattle's large population, the addition of West Hill would do little to change the City's center of gravity for population, which lies north of downtown in the South Lake Union neighborhood. On the other hand, as a part of the state's largest city, West Hill would have the advantage being a part of a city with substantial resources —where it would compete with 38 other city neighborhoods for neighborhood resource allocations. As a geographically dispersed city, a number of Seattle's outlying neighborhoods fall within the orbit of adjacent cities. With its proximity to Renton, West Hill would be one such neighborhood. West Hill would continue to be part of the Renton School District, and many West Hill residents would continue to shop and play in Renton. A Neighborhood in Renton If West Hill were part of the City of Renton, the neighborhood of West Hill would represent 20% of Renton's entire population. With a city population of roughly 70,000 (2005), the new, larger City of Renton would jump from the 14th most populous city in the state to the 12th. If West Hill became part of the city, Renton's center of gravity (for population) would shift about a half mile to the northwest. Renton's current center of gravity lies in a residential neighborhood to the east of 1-405 (roughly at the intersection of NE 4th and Edmonds Avenue NE). With a neighborhood of West Hill, the center would shift to the west of 1-405, to the city's commercial center (the PACCAR plant). In effect, annexation of West Hill would more closely align Renton's city boundaries with the practical boundaries that describe how Renton functions as a place. As a neighborhood in Renton, West Hill would strengthen already well -established connections with the City. Most of West Hill is part of the Renton School District, and according to information provided by participants in neighborhood forums, many of West Hill's residents already shop and play in Renton on a regular basis. Fire Protection If West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton, the Seattle or Renton fire departments will take over provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS) in West Hill. Facilities, equipment, and full time fire district staff would be absorbed into Seattle or Renton's department. Unlike Seattle or Renton, Fire District 20 augments its full time staff with part time volunteer staff. These volunteer staff would probably not be absorbed into the Renton or Seattle departments. BERK & ASSOCIATFS1 October2005 27 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Fire District 20 has two fire stations: Skyway Fire Station, the one station that is manned 24 hours a day, and Bryn Mawr Station near Lake Washington. Bryn Mawr Station is old (built in 1942 and never upgraded), is only staffed in the evening by volunteers, and is viewed by both Seattle and Renton as unnecessary for effective provision of fire and EMS services. Both Seattle and Renton would be likely to close Bryn Mawr Station if they were to annex the area, concentrating instead on providing fire and EMS service to the West Hill area from larger and more modern Skyway Station. Given that both Seattle and Renton would provide fire services to West Hill out of the existing Skyway Station, it is unlikely that West Hill residents would see a dramatic difference in response times if the area were to annex to either city. Closure of the Bryn Mawr Station by Seattle or Renton would mean that responses would no longer originate out of that station (in the evening when it is staffed), which would result in slightly longer travel times for calls in portions of Bryn Mawr during evening hours. It is worth noting, however, that the Bryn Mawr and Skyway stations are less than a mile apart, and no part of Bryn Mawr is more than a mile and a half from the Skyway Station. With only one station in West Hill, Seattle and Renton would both need to draw from their existing systems to respond to simultaneous events. Seattle does not enter mutual aid agreements with neighboring departments; therefore, in terms of bringing backup to West Hill, Seattle would be limited to looking to stations to the northwest. Renton does have mutual aid agreements in place with neighboring departments, and would be in a somewhat better position to access backup. Library Services West Hill currently receives its library services from the King County Library System (KCLS), a district which operates a 5,100 square foot library in Skyway. Skyway's existing library was built in 1970, and as part of KCLS's recently approved capital bond, the district has plans to build a new 8,000 square foot library in Skyway, with construction beginning in 2011. If West Hill were to annex to Seattle or Renton, the annexing city would take over provision of library services in the area. Renton currently has two city libraries and indicates that they would take over operation of the Skyway library, increasing the number of City libraries to three. In terms of operating expenditures, Renton spends significantly less per resident providing library services than does KCLS or Seattle ($22 per resident for Renton versus $62 per resident for Seattle and KCLS). The City of Seattle has an extensive library system, with the newly constructed Seattle Central Library and 27 neighborhood branches. Seattle Libraries is in the midst of an aggressive capital program, funded through its Libraries for All capital levy. Seattle Libraries has indicated that they would be likely to close the West Hill library and seek to provide library services to West Hill through the system's other branches (the nearest being the Rainier Beach Branch). King County Library System voters recently approved a library capital bond levy. For 2006 through 2011, the new KCLS bond levy will be combined with the 1988 bond levy (which will expire in 2011). Even if West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton and are no longer in the Library mm BERK & ASSOCIATESi October2005 28 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT District, taxpayers in West Hill must continue paying property taxes for the bond levy through 2022. In 2005, the total levy paid by taxpayers in the Library District is $0.53 per $1,000 of assessed value. Of that total, $0.48 comes from the operating levy, while the remaining $0.05 goes to paying off the 1988 capital bond. If West Hill was part of Seattle or Renton in 2005, taxpayers would no longer pay the $0.48 per $1,000 for the District's regular operating levy, but they would still pay the $0.05 per $1,000 for the bond levy ($11.25 for a $225,000 house). In 2006, when the new bond levy gets added to the mix, the bond levy component will increase to about $0.08. If West Hill annexes to Seattle or Renton, and thus leaves the Library District, KCLS will not be required, by law, to build the Skyway Library that is now slated to begin construction in 2011. Since Renton has stated that they would want to provide library services in West Hill (if the City annexed the area), the City indicates that they would try to negotiate an agreement with KCLS to get the new library built.6 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Both Renton and Seattle spend a great deal more providing parks, recreation, and community services than does King County. King County reports that it currently spends less than $5 per resident on parks and recreation services in West Hill, while Renton reports that it spends $126 and Seattle reports expenditures of $184 per resident. Annexation to either city would result in a substantial increase in those services. For the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that either Seattle or Renton would build new parks in West Hill, but upon folding Skyway and Bryn Mawr parks into their system, both cities would probably increase the level of maintenance of the parks and extend their existing recreation programs to the West Hill. Staff at the City of Renton say that the City would make use of all of West Hill's elementary schools to host a full slate of youth programs and community services activities. Police Services Both Seattle and Renton spend more per resident providing police services for their existing cities than does the King County Sheriff in West Hill. In terms of results, Renton provides the fastest response times for highest priority calls, responding in an average of 2.9 minutes. This compares favorably with response times of 3.8 minutes reported by the KC Sheriff and 7 minute average response reported by Seattle. In terms of logistics, the Sheriff's Office currently polices West Hill out of a station located in the City of Burien. If Seattle were to police the area out of its South Precinct on Myrtle Street, the station would be slightly more proximate to West Hill. Of the three, Renton's police station in downtown Renton would be closest. 6 Renton staff suggest that a negotiated agreement might entail a transfer of capital funds to Renton for construction of the library. 0 I B E R K& A s S OC I AT E S 1 October 2005 29 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Community and Economic Development West Hill's retail corridor along Renton Avenue has many vacant storefronts and is not heavily developed. Many residents would prefer to shop in West Hill, but due to a lack of options, most residents shop for convenience items in Renton. Residents would like to improve the image of their retail corridor, to attract additional retail, arts and cultural amenities to the neighborhood. Many community members are already active in their pursuit of economic development that provides more local employment opportunities, informal community gathering places, and options to shop locally for everyday needs. When looking at prospects for annexation, the question is: What City resources would be available to support existing community efforts? Seattle's Approach Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods works through the following mechanisms and programs to engage Seattle residents in civic participation, strengthen neighborhood communities, and empower citizens to affect positive change in their neighborhoods. • Seattle's Neighborhood Matching Fund provides money to Seattle neighborhood groups and organizations for a broad array of neighborhood -initiated improvement, organizing or planning projects. Matching funds are available for small projects as well as projects requiring more than $15,000. • The City's Neighborhood Service Centers link City government to Seattle's neighborhoods. The Centers facilitate community networks, assist with neighborhood improvements, make referrals to local human services, and serve as staff to District Councils. Seattle's P-Patch Program provides community garden space in over 1,900 plots for residents of Seattle neighborhoods. The Office of Economic Development's (OED) mission is to provide business assistance and community and workforce development services to businesses, community organizations and residents. OED funds the following major programs to achieve its goals. o Neighborhood and Community Development Programs. OED provides Neighborhood Business District support to Business Improvement Areas, neighborhood associations and Chambers of Commerce. In addition, OED supports Community Development Corporations like Southeast Effective Development (SEED) to help revitalize neighborhoods through community development and real estate development projects. o Business Development Programs. OED works with several entities to ensure business -friendly City policies: Community Capital (which provides technical and financial assistance to small businesses and microenterprises); the Environmental Extension Service (which provides conservation, pollution prevention and environmental clean-up assistance to businesses); and the Seattle/King County JBERK & ASSOCIATES! October2005 30 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Economic Development Council (which works to recruit and retain businesses in the region). o Workforce Development Programs. The Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJ0 partners community -based organizations with community colleges and employers in recruiting, training, placing and retaining low-income residents in living -wage jobs. Renton's Approach Renton takes an integrated approach to community and economic development through its Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department (EDNSP). In recent years Renton has been garnered a great deal of regional attention for its successful efforts to revitalize the City's Downtown district. Renton's Neighborhood Program promotes positive interaction between the City and its residents by administering Neighborhood Grants and sponsoring Neighborhood Picnics. The program is staffed by a team of City employees who serve as volunteer liaisons. The Neighborhood Grant program provides matching funds for a range of neighborhood improvement projects. $50,000 is available for grants annually and individual grants range from less than $100 to several thousand dollars. Typical projects include neighborhood beautification projects (landscaping, signage, public art), safety improvement projects (traffic circles, lighting), and reimbursement for neighborhood newsletters. Neighborhood Picnics. Once a year, recognized neighborhoods can apply for matching funds from the City for an annual picnic. The picnics bring neighborhoods together, strengthen community bonds, and give residents the chance to meet the Mayor and City Council in a relaxed atmosphere. Renton's Strategic Planning Division provides long-range land -use planning for the City, including developing, managing and implementing the City's comprehensive plan, growth management compliance, and sub -area plan development. The Strategic Planning Division also formulates zoning and development standards and processes annexation proposals. The Economic Development Division works in concert with the business community to actively promote and develop economic activity in the City with the goal of strengthening Renton's tax base and providing an even greater variety of job opportunities, housing, and services. ! RERK & ASSOCIATES1 October2005 31 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Remain Unincorporated If West Hill chooses to remain unincorporated, area residents and businesses would see no change in the providers of governmental service. West Hill would continue to receive the majority of local services from King County. Fire services will continue to be provided by Fire District 20. Library services will continue to be provided by the King County Library System. And water and sewer services will continue to be provided by Skyway Water & Sewer District (for the portion of West Hill that receives sewer service). TAXES AND COSTS OF SERVICE As noted in the section discussing Annexation, in 2005, a typical homeowner in West Hill will pay an estimated $4,260 in taxes and utility fees for stormwater, water and sewer, and garbage collection (see Table 9).' Taxes included in this figure reflect all taxes that are paid on a regular basis based on where a family lives." As a resident of unincorporated King County, this hypothetical homeowner pays $193 more than she would if she were part of the City of Renton, but a $281 less than she would as part of the City of Seattle. Given King County's challenges regarding its General Fund (see following section for more discussion), it is likely that the King and other counties will continue to seek additional taxing authority from the State Legislature in an effort to raise additional revenues in unincorporated areas. If counties are successful in establishing additional taxing authority, it is likely that tax burdens in unincorporated King County will increase further. As an example, if counties were given authority to levy utility taxes in unincorporated areas (an authority cities already have within incorporated areas) then King County could implement utility taxes that could raise costs for the hypothetical homeowner by $100 to $200 per year. Another area where unincorporated area costs could increase comes from solid waste collection. Rates for garbage collection in unincorporated areas are relatively high compared to rates for comparable service in most cities. Presumably, one of the reasons for higher collection rates in the unincorporated county is the higher cost of collecting garbage in relatively low -density areas. Looking forward, as urban areas of King County continue to transition to incorporated status, this problem could be expected to worsen. In future years, when garbage collectors negotiate rates for collection in the unincorporated area, an increasing portion of their service areas will be very low density areas with high costs of collection. ' For purposes of estimating costs, the typical homeowner is assumed to have a house valued at $225,000 (the median for houses in West Hill in 2005) and automobiles valued at $17,000 (using the Monorail valuation schedule, which tends to overstate the true value of vehicles). " Residents pay other local taxes on a regular basis, such as retail sales tax and, indirectly, business & occupation taxes on goods and services purchased in the City of Seattle. However, those taxes are unlikely to change with a change in governance. 0! B E R K& A S S oC I AT E S 1 October 2005 33 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT LEVELS OF SERVICE As a small part of a very large county, West Hill residents can expect to have limited ability to influence governmental decisions that affect most local services. In a given year, King County decisionmakers take many actions that directly or indirectly impact local services in West Hill, including Police, Parks & Recreation, Roads, Land Use & Planning, Stormwater, Human Services and Community Development. As residents of an area that represents less than 1% of the voting population in the county, West Hill residents face barriers when it comes to affecting decisions that directly impact their community. On the other hand, if West Hill were to remain unincorporated, residents would maintain a great share of local control over fire and water & sewer services. Both Fire District 20 and the Skyway Water & Sewer District have district boundaries that closely coincide with West Hill's boundaries. This means that West Hill residents and businesses make up virtually 100% of the each district's constituency. (Under annexation to Renton, Renton would leave the Skyway Water & Sewer district in place, which would maintain West Hill's local control of that service.) In addition to the political challenges of being a small community in a big county, West Hill will also be impacted by King County's proposed redistricting plan. Under new district boundaries, West Hill will switch from being at the center of a single district (representing 10% of the district's population base) to portions of West Hill being a small edge of three different districts. WHAT SHOULD WEST HILL RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES EXPECT TO HAPPEN TO SERVICE LEVELS IF THE AREA REMAINS UNINCORPORATED? The short answer is that, unless King County gets authority to increase taxes in unincorporated areas, services that are provided out of King County's general fund will all be under pressure to reduce expenditures in urban unincorporated areas like West Hill for years to come. (This includes Sheriff, Parks, Land Use & Planning, and Economic Development.) Like all County residents, West Hill residents receive public services from King County that are regional in nature, including most criminal justice, public health, sewage treatment, transit, emergency medical, mental health, and assessor services. Most are mandated by state law or are a service obligation approved by County voters. Given the combination for demands for County services and limited authority to generate general fund revenue, resources that are available for provision of local services are limited. King County's general fund is where most of the revenues are collected by the county to pay for day-to-day operations. From 2002 to 2005, King County expects that general fund revenues will have increased at a rate of 2.7% per year. At the same time, the basic costs of providing services have increased at more than twice that rate. The County estimates that, in order to maintain 2002 staffing levels and levels of service in 2005, King County would have needed an additional $137 million in general fund revenues in 2005 (25% more than the County actually received). Without an increase in tax rates, the County's structural deficit will continue to erode its effective resources. This means that, for the foreseeable future, the County will have to make difficult ® I R E R K & ASSOCIATES!, October 2005 34 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT choices when it comes to the provision of local government services. The County is in a position where it must first fund state -mandated services (criminal justice and public health) and regional services (sewer and courts) before it provides local services (such as parks, human services, and police services). It is difficult to say which services may be cut or reduced in unincorporated areas as available revenues continue to decline. Those decisions must be made each year through the County's budget adoption process. However, until the County is able to fully address its structural deficit, the County will be forced to make cuts across all of its service areas, including services to local urban unincorporated areas such as West Hill. What Is King County's Annexation Initiative? 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 urban unincorporated King County, there are currently 10 large areas (including West Hill, Fairwood, North Highline and Juanita) 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. In 2003, the Executive's Budget Advisory Task Force suggested that annexation of the remaining urban unincorporated areas not only helps accomplish the region's land use vision but it also "may be the single most important step the County can take to address its fiscal challenges." From this the Executive established the 3-year Annexation Initiative. The Annexation Initiative is meant to serve as encouragement for potential annexing cities and for unincorporated areas, through funding and other resources, to discuss and plan changes in governance to incorporated status. The Initiative is intended to be a positive step toward assisting communities to determine their own future. I B R K& A S S O C I AT E S I October 2005 35 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Appendix A Governance Profiles and Frequently Asked Questions ✓ , if West Hill were to... .What n y 4 ", x SEATTLE � f �v 3 STAY UNINCORPORATED r%trrr©rporated West Hill If the area chooses to remain unincorporated, West Hill residents and businesses would see no change in the providers of governmental service. West Hill would continue to receive the majority of local services from King County. Fire services will continue to be provided by Fire District 20. Library services will continue to be provided by the King County Library System. And water and sewer services will continue to be provided by Skyway Water & Sewer District (for the portion of West Hill that receive sewer service). As a small part of a very large county, West Hill residents would have limited ability to influence governmental decisions that affect most local services. In a given year, King County decisionmakers take many actions that directly or indirectly impact local services in West Hill, including Police, Parks & Recreation, Roads, Land Use & Planning, Stormwater, Human Services and Community Development. As residents of an area that represents less than 1% of the voting population in the county, West Hill residents face barriers when it comes to affecting decisions that directly impact their community. On the other hand, if West Hill were to remain unincorporated, residents would maintain a great share of local control over Fire and Water & Sewer x services. Both Fire District 20 and the Skyway Water & Sewer District have district r boundaries that closely coincide with West Hill's boundaries. This means that West Hill residents and businesses make § County Council Redistricting up virtually 100% of the each district's constituency. (Under annexation 9281'3 �--f to Renton, Renton would leave the ,. Skyway Water & Sewer district in mow.„ place, which would maintain West Hill's local control of that service.) Beyond the political challenges of being a small community in a big county, West Hill will also be impacted by King County's proposed redistricting plan. Under new district boundaries, West Hill will switch from being at the center of a single district (representing 10% of the district's population base) to being a small edge of three different districts. j xg I N VMM 40`5 o�y , • ,BfRK & ASSGGtATES N\, 5 . 3 i J i � .: .. Sri e ... ,3•` k \F Tax Burden In 2005, as an unincorporated area, the typical Annual Taxes Paid by Typical Homeowner homeowner in West Hill pays $167 less in taxes and fees than they would if West Hill were part of staynincorpnEatea Annex to wattle Seattle, but $279 more than they would if West Property Tax* 2,860 2.710 SDKs Hill were part of Renton. Utility razes f .. Cable Franchise Fee Most of the savings related to being part of Seattle comes from not having to pay the Monorail excise Monorail Tax** $7t3 5+:248 tax on motor vehicles. Most additional costs the TOTAL ii?::rE;d5P. homeowner pays related to being part of Renton Difference vs. comes from higher fees for services. unincorporated + ut Looking to the future (using recent history as an indicator), West Hill residents could expect to see their taxes increase faster if they remain unincorporated than if the area annexes to Seattle or Renton. From 2000 to 2005, a selected homeowner with a house valued at $225,000 saw their total property tax payment increase by 41%. Equivalent homeowners saw their property taxes increase by 33% in Renton, and an even lower 22% in Seattle. Annex to Renton r. s P41 Service Costs S#ay�UrnticorpoTrafd Annex to Seattle Annex to Renton Surface Water Fee $tll' ?• 1 % 'E Water & Sewer r$9U $`. , i, Charges Solid Waste Collection Charges $324 t" TOTAL $i 3I6 $1.293 351.127 Difference vs. Unincorporated _ ($231 ($18911 GRAND TOTAL $426E7 $4 540,v�i TOTAL COSTIrnrrease Decrease DIFFERENCE $28, �::,3i King County currently does not have authority ' House assessed at $225,000 to levy utility and most ; Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 ,r business taxes, while both Renton and Seattle do levy both utility taxes and some form of business tax. What this means is that, for most West Hill businesses, annual tax burdens would increase with annexation. Some argue that increasing tax burdens on businesses harms an area's ability to attract or retain businesses. Others argue that businesses are not particularly sensitive to tax burdens. Most of the available analysis of the issue supports the idea that most decisions about locating a business have more to do with the characteristics of the location and not the tax burden. This is particularly true for retail, consumer services, and businesses that are typically found in neighborhood offices. vice What should West Hill residents and businesses expect to happen to service levels if the area remains unincorporated? The short answer is that, services that are provided out of King County's general fund will all be under pressure to reduce expenditures in urban unincorporated areas like West Hill for years to come. (This includes Sheriff, Parks, Land Use & Planning, and Economic Development.) For a discussion of the underlying reasons behind this reality, see page 4. Service & Provider Service Provider: KC The Sheriff's Office budget relies on funding from the King County general fund. Resources will be Sheriff increasingly constrained. Service Provider: King Funded from sources other than the County general fund, so resources will be less constrained to County, provide road maintenance. Service Provider: Fire FD 20's two stations would continue to be under the control of the Fire District. District 20 ServiceProvider: King • King County currently provides a relatively low level of maintenance at Skyway and Bryn Mawr Park. County • As a result of constraints on the County's general fund, parks and recreation expenditures have been scaled back in recent years. In some instances, active maintenance of local parks in unincorporated King County has ceased altogether. it,,..a.144�.�5..., .. T„`rY,. i'J;tHyMfF,:,,. Service Provider: King King County Library System voters recently approved a library levy to replace and upgrade facilities, County Library System and to augment operation of the Library System's buildings. With funding from this levy, KCLS would construct a new 8,000 square foot library in West Hill (estimate: $3.9 million, planned for 2011). Service Providen Skyway Water & Sewer District has embarked on an aggressive capital program to upgrade sewer Skyway Water & Sewer systems and address long-term system maintenance issues. District Renton Scho©l district West Hill youth now attend Renton School District schools. This will not change in any scenario. Like all County residents, West Hill residents receive public services from King County that are regional in nature, including most criminal justice, public health, sewage treatment, transit, emergency medical, mental health, and assessor services. Most are mandated by state law or are a service obligation approved by County voters. U. Given the combination for demands for County services and limited authority to generate general fund revenue, resources that are available for provision of local services are limited. Three key services that West Hill consumes (or would like to consume) include Police, Parks, and Economic Development. In West Hill, on these three services combined, King County spends $240 per resident per year. This is a little more than half of what Renton spends on the $200 same services ($440) and less than half of Seattle's expenditure of $510. Expenditures per capita for selected local services 2 Community Development $o ; SEATTLE RENTON King County's general fund is where most of the revenues are collected by the county to pay for day-to-day operations. From 2002 to 2005, King County expects that general fund revenues will have incri at a rate of 2.7% per year. At the same time, the basic costs of providing services hz increased at more than twice that rate. The County estimates that, in order to maintair 2002 staffing levels and levels of service in 2005, King County would have needed an additional $137 million in general fund revenues in 2005 (25% more than the County actually received). Without an increase in tax rates, the County's structural deficit will continue to erode its effective resources. This means that, for the foreseeable future, the County will have to make difficult choices when it comes to the provision of local government services. The County is in a position where it must first fund state -mandated services (crimin� justice and public health) and regional services (sewer and courts) before it provides Ic services (such as parks, human services, and police services). , difficult to say which services may be cut or reduced in unincorporated areas as available avenues continue to decline. Those decisions must be made each year through the County's budget adoption process. However, until the County is able to fully address its structural deficit, the County will be forced to make cuts across all of its service areas, including services to local urban unincorporated areas such as West Hill. In urban unincorporated King County, there are 10 large areas (West Hill, Fairwood, North Highline and Juanita) that have yet to be annexed to a city or incorporate into a new ty. There are now about 218,000 residents in these urban areas for whom King County ently provides local services. Due to the budgetary issues described above, in 2004, the King County Executive created the County's Annexation Initiative. The Initiative is a 3-year encouragement for these areas, through funding and other resources, to discuss and plan changes in governance to incorporated status. The Initiative is intended to be a positive step toward assisting communities to determine their own future. The County cannot compel a community to annex or incorporate. At the same time, it is clear that the level of service provided by the County will begin to erode in those communities that don't transition to incorporated status over the next few years. This also assumes that the state legislature will not provide counties with additional funding and/or taxing authority that has been requested in the past. ��'� £ J94� rd✓Q 9 � y 21, What if West Hill were to... ANNEX TO RENTON C� of R enton` Including West Hill . :,Ya k�lgfb0->t'h04d of West HIII If West Hill were part of the City of Renton, the neighborhood of West Hill would represent 20% of Renton's entire population. r s With a city population of roughly 70,000 (2005), the new, larger City of Renton would jump from the 14th most populous city in the state to the 12th. . ♦ I '`r e2+,��d 'fix lif West Hill became part of the city, Renton's center of gravity (for population) would shift about a half mile to the northwest. Renton's current center of gravity lies in a residential J j R? W Total neighborhood to the east of 1-405 (roughly at the intersection of NE 4th and Edmonds Avenue NE). With a neighborhood of West Hill, the center would shift to the west of 1-405, to the city's commercial center (the PACCAR plant). In effect, annexation of West Hill would more closely align Renton's city boundaries with the practical boundaries that describe how Renton functions as a place. As a neighborhood in Renton, West Hill would strengthen already well -established connections with the City. Most of West Hill is part of the Renton School District, and according to information provided by participants in neighborhood forums, a many of West Hill's residents already shop and play in Renton on a regular basis. West Hill has a similar distribution of incomes to that of Renton, but slightly weighted to the higher income ranges. West Hill has a slightly smaller portion of households with incomes less than $30,000 (based on 2000 census data) and slightly larger shares with incomes of $60,000 or more. Household Income in Renton and West Hill, 2000 Where West Hill Residents Shop and Play Source: West Hill Neighborhood Meetings, March 2005 -BERK & ASSOCIATES Tax Burden If West Hill were annexed to Renton, the typical homeowner would see a slight reduction in taxes and a significant reduction in the costs of utility services. Compared with the taxes and utility fees paid by residents currently, the homeowner would see total savings of nearly $280 per year. Compared with annexing to Seattle, annexation to Renton would save residents roughly $450. In terms of utility services, Renton households face substantially lower costs in surface water fees (which =� are billed on residents' property taxes) and for solid waste collection. If one uses recent history as a guide, West Hill residents could expect to see their taxes increase more slowly if they annex to Renton than they would if the area remains unincorporated. From 2000 to 2005, a selected West Hill homeowner with a house valued at $225,000 (in 2005) saw her total property tax payment increase by 41%. An owner of an equivalent homeowner in Renton saw her overall property tax payments increase by °T 33%. Annual Taxes Paid by Tvnical Homeowner Stay Unincorporated Annex to Seattle Annex to Renton Property Tax* $,',fsFi(i I': $2,680 Utility Taxes ,bO : 28 $236. Cable Franchise Fee T24 `: F $24' Monorail Tax** - 12.38 TOTAL 11;`id4 i,:'. in $2,940 Difference vs. Unincorporated In^rrase; $2U4 Decrease Service Costs Stay Unincorporated Annex to Seattle 'Annex, to Rentcn1-- Surface Water Fee ?i i_ $65 Water & Sewer Charges Solid Waste Collection Charges g 71 729r: �llr1= TOTAL 13116 $1,'92 $112 Difference vs. Unincorporated DCiCre& . "$? i t Decreaser ,f$189) GRAND TOTAL $4.260 $4.54C $4,06:7- TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Increase 1 i3CYds ($I93 House assessed at $225,000 Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 F. r x Level of Service Expenditures per capita for Three key services that West Hill consumes (or would like selected local services community to consume) include Police, Parks and Recreation, and s Development Economic Development. In West Hill, for these three E services combined, King County spends roughly $240 per resident per year. This is a little more than half of the $440 "00 ' per capita that Renton currently spends on the same services. Renton probably already provides Parks & Recreation Services to nearby West Hill residents. It is also true that, as an employment center, and as a center for local retail activity, Renton's police services are driven not only by people who live in the City, but $200 also by people who come to the city to work, shop and play. v Overall, when comparing levels of service, it is not possible to predict exactly how a given service will change if West Hill were to annex to Renton. However, by looking at indicators like expenditures per resident, it is possible for West Hill residents to PSI` get a feeling for the City's overall priorities, and how the City does what it does. $o T T SEATTLE RENTON KING COUNTY ps �p i `�.�. - �Ea Y ''¢�� Y$,s'+�'i,,� 3 'y�x � pS` _ �. ry �. 4 r .ral r��,3 •`°<"e �R'a ... .�,�, T x.z „�,..... ,,.. -. �', i .. .ram ✓.., _. :.. - }Y ,,,; ...i_..,.., ., �',.__. „ ,.e a., .,: _.. _`v>,.. „ �a'.,.- F' LeVe"t,'61 ervite, Service & Provider Police Now, KC Sheriff Response Time. Renton's response time is about 1 minute faster for highest priority emergency With Renton: calls (roughly 3 minutes versus 4 minutes for King County) Renton Police Dept. Roads Now: King County Road maintenance cost per capita is significantly lower in Renton ($14) than in King County With Renton: ($70.50). Renton Public Works Resurfacing. On average there are 10 to 20 years between arterial resurfacing in Renton and 17 to 20 years on local streets. These figures are roughly consistent with figures King County has reported in the past (7- to 15-year cycles for arterials and 15- to 20-year cycles for local streets). Fire Now: Fire District 20 0 Response Time. RFD has average response times about I minute faster than FD 20, but given operating conditions in West Hill, annexation is unlikely to bring significant changes in response With Renton: Renton time. Fire Department 0 Staff. Full-time FD 20 staff would likely be absorbed into RFD. However, Renton does not have a volunteer program. If West Hill is annexed, RFD will not retain the 54 FD 20 volunteers. 0 Stations. FD 20's two stations would become the property of RFD. The Skyway station would likely be kept in service, but the older Bryn Mawr station near Lake Washington would probably not be necessary within Renton's response area, and would be closed. Parks Now: King County 0 Park Space. Renton provides significantly more active and passive park space, trail miles, and athletic fields per capita than King County. With Renton: 0 Recreation Services. King County constructed a community center that is operated by the Boys Renton Parks & & Girls Club through a 25-year lease agreement. If annexed, building ownership would need to be Community Services negotiated, but the operation of the facility would remain with the Boys & Girls Club. 0 Fees. Renton residents pay smaller fees than non-residents to access Renton Parks & Community Services various programs which include a pool, golf course, organized athletics, and more. 0 Renton provides over $1 million in general fund and Community Development Block Grant funding for human services (for seniors, at -risk youth, and the homeless). Library 4 Now: King County 0 Renton Libraries. Renton has two library branches: Downtown Renton and the Highlands. Renton Library System has lower collection, circulation, operating costs per capita, reflecting its much smaller size. 0 KCLS Library Levy. King County Library System voters recently approved a library levy that will fund With Renton: a new West Hill library in 2011. West Hill residents must continue paying property taxes for the Renton Parks & levy through 2022, even if the area annexes. Community Services 0 Possible Futures for the Skyway Library. By law, KCLS is not required to build the new library if West Hill annexes to Renton. Renton suggests that their approach would be to try to negotiate with KCLS for funding of the new Library and to keep the West Hill Library open as a third branch. utilltlesN Now. Skyway Water & Capital Investments. SWWSD has embarked on an aggressive capital program to upgrade sewer Sewer District systems and address long-term system maintenance issues, which leads per -capita operating and With Renton: Skyway capital costs to be higher than Renton and Seattle. Water & Sewer District Future Organization. Annexation to Renton would not affect the status of the District. P, Renton School District West Hill youth now attend Renton School District schools. This will not change in any scenario. c - , WP�t Nrii f'nr�r►e� �r A�`C:'LAL iyv iiiun� y ai di Economic Development West Hill's retail corridor along Renton Avenue has many vacant storefronts and is not heavily developed. Many residents would prefer to shop in West Hill, but due to a lack of options, most residents shop for convenience items in Renton. Residents would like to improve the image of r their retail corridor, to attract additional retail, arts and cultural amenities. Many community members are already active in their pursuit of economic development that provides more local employment opportunities, informal community gathering places, and options to shop locally for everyday needs. When looking at prospects for annexation, the question is: What City resources would be available to support existing community efforts? Renton Approach to Comm u n q,t to Economic Development Renton takes an integrated approach to community and economic development through its Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department (EDNSP). In recent years Renton has been garnered a great deal of regional attention for its successful efforts to revitalize the City's Downtown district. Renton's Neighborhood Program promotes positive interaction between the City and its residents by administering Neighborhood Grants and sponsoring Neighborhood Picnics. The program is staffed by a taam of City employees who serve as volunteer liaisons. o The Neighborhood Grant program provides matching funds for a range of neighborhood improvement projects. $50,000 is available for grants annually and individual grants range from less than $100 to several thousand dollars. Typical projects include neighborhood beautification projects (landscaping, signage, public art), safety improvement projects (traffic circles, lighting), and reimbursement for neighborhood newsletters. o Neighborhood Picnics. Once a year, recognized neighborhoods can apply for matching funds from the City for an annual picnic. The picnics bring neighborhoods together, strengthen community bonds, and give residents the cha to meet the Mayor and City Council in a relaxed atmosphere. Renton's Strategic Planning Division provides long-range land -use planning for the City, including developing, managing and implementing the City's comprehensive plan, growth management compliance, and sub -area plan development. The Strategic Planning Division also formulates zoning and development standards and processes annexation proposals How:IVl� (n�•tthe West HiI Community k Work rich Renton EDNSP? The Economic Development Division works in concert with the business community to actively promote and develop economic activity in the City with the goal of strengthening Renton's tax base and providing an even greater variety of job opportunities, housing, and services. fr If the West Hill neighborhood wanted to take steps to revitalize its commercial corridor, proponents would first approach the Neighborhood Program and take advantage of� possible Neighborhood Grants. The City's Economic Development Division would be s called in to work with the community to help identify potentially viable commercial uses�� g and financing mechanisms. One possible outcome is that the Strategic Planning Division ' p would work with proponents to propose development standards that would make the=�. commercial area more attractive for businesses and shoppers. k 4 R f v a l k What if West Hill were to.. � I NCORPORATE ,���1fiin'ancially Feasible for West Hill to 1���� I,ncarirate as a New City? Sa7LEIs it financially feasible for West Hill to incorporate? y' The short answer to this question is: probably not. As an area with only a modest tax base, and relatively high demands for costly services like public safety, a City of West Hill's revenues would probably not be sufficient to provide necessary services. To clarify the baseline question about incorporation feasibility, this analysis asks a hypothetical question: At current tax rates and current levels of service, the City's revenues would fall short of the City's day -to- day costs of service by $1.75 million per year. If we use other cities' experiences Retail Sales Tax - as aguide, this initial shortfall Criminallustica Retail Sales tax Mon -Electricity Total Revenues: would be likely to worsen over time.Mo Utility tax $4.9 Million Most cities in Washington State rely 372,00 t ,; State Shared heavily on three principal revenue R°Ye0°ea44, sources: retail sales tax, property. Electric Utility Payment tax, and business and utility taxes. Among these important sources, West' cable ry Franchise Fee, Hill is poorly positioned to generate Permit Fees significant revenues from either retail 2 t Community Development sales or business and utility taxes.; xr Block Grant Another consideration residents shouldMy,u bear in mind is that an incorporated , 3 City of West Hill would be heavily Roads Operation and Maintenance Total Expenses. dependent on gambling taxes from City Attorney and $6.6 Million the area's two casinos. Typically, a Prosecution citywould refer not to be heavily p y�tk r ssio ttoo Planning/ v dependent on taxes stemming from ~ anal Parka and Recreation s such a concentrated source. x, ����� � �xz � ������� °� � wt. empeeansha land Use Plan s_'aic Saistj y _ Capital Facilities Plan A final barrier to incorporation revolves77777777777 iPo)tra around the start-up costs of creating Pq 3 h Human Services r a new city. Many newly incorporated F r Miscellaneous cities find that it is necessary to have � perstinxReaervaFand some financial cushion in place to cover one-time start-up costs like filling new positions, procuring space fora new City Hall, and initial purchases of capital equipment. Y �, e M , f 3. >!e �yl„ "- . rfsi "" .' �ii�, `�C' h `'�a .t� l ItMa rf a 'r _ K 13ERK & ASSOCIATES Iornrgll�tould,V esf Hill Compare -with Other Newly Incorporated Cities? .,�.. In the past dozen years, six new cities have incorporated in King County. Compared with these six cities, an incorporated City of West Hill would face substantial financial hurdles. A city's general fund accounts for most of the revenues a city collects and most of the day-to-day operating expenditures a city incurs. The single largest general fund expenditure most cities face is for law enforcement services (including expenditures for police, jail, and courts). One quick way to judge a city's fiscal strength is to compare its general fund revenues per capita with those of other cities. For a more robust comparison, analysts will often look at the difference between cities' general fund revenues and their law enforcement expenditures. In the case of West Hill, such a comparison highlights the financial barriers the area would face if it were to pursue incorporation. If West Hill had been an operating city in 2005, it would have generated general fund revenues of roughly $4.7 million (or $340 per resident). At the same time, in order to maintain existing levels of law enforcement, the City would have had to spend roughly $3.5 million (or $250 per resident) on law enforcement alone. It is worth noting that some of the s, cities that rank above West Hill in the table to the right have faced serious financial challenges. Both Kenmore and Covington have a reported that it is a challenge to t' generate revenues that are sufficient to meet the cities' level - of -service. sammamish 1999 3 ;,93$63-3 11:00 $J36 Newcastle 1994 8.?20 $n;�3 S:i 58 ' $_s6`_� Shoreline 995 �i?,; i� $499 S;c/ $ 32 Kenmore 998 'Q,.. $4 4 9 S, 1 8 $ :� Covington 199T 4.8 ) $418 Maple Valley 99I _ 3!0 $39b 13r722 R $2}}64/� .$f�:J \iYx *:'Based on 2fl03 re enues acid exp mditures as aurr►m r zed by340:V as6ington State Rtidit `s 0#face Est►'mated 205 revenues and:expenditures'rssi 396 years} increases between.2QE}3 ancf 2005,' F ** 2004 Figures frbrrl Govtnan Bridget ittftated by 3% Because a City of West Hill does not appear feasible, it is not possible to assess the tax burden of residents in the hypothetical city. As residents of unincorporated King County, a typical West Hill homeowner currently pays more in taxes and fees than they would if West Hill was part of Renton ($279 more per year), but less than they would pay if West Hill were part of Seattle ($167 less per year). As noted previously, this assessment of feasibility is based on a hypothetical question: If West Hill were an existing city in 2005, would it have sufficient revenues, given existing tax rates, to pay for the levels of service it now receives? Given the way this question is framed, the tax burden used to assess feasibility is the same tax burden that the West Hill homeowner currently faces as an unincorporated area resident. We can say two things about the tax burden that would be necessary to allow a City of West Hill to be feasible: 1. The proposed City would not have legal authority to levy tax rates at the level necessary to achieve feasibility. 2. If the City did have authority, tax burdens on households would have to increase dramatically to bridge the funding gap. Because few opportunities exist to increase tax revenues from businesses in the area, virtually all of the revenue gap would need to come from taxes on househr,'�'c A typical homeowner West Hill would need to pay hundreds of dollars more in taxes each year to ensure a feasible City of West Hill. t Tax Burden Annual Taxes Paid by Typical Homeowner „Taffies at Annex to Seattle Annex to Renton Existing Rates,. Property Tax* $2,860 S2.71 i Utility Taxes $60 _, <6 Cable Franchise Fee $24 i% z;'_4 Monorail Tax**'"; TOTAL $2,944 :-3 24k 12,940 Difference vs. Unincorporated ; =< Do,r use i$4) Service Costs Annex to Seattle I Annex to Renton Surface Water Fee W, Water & Sewer $90 i Charges Solid WasteG36 x7 Ir $1: Collection Charges TOTAL $1,428 :S i . _)92 ,j 2 i Difference vs. (-: caso Dc:crease Unincorporated (:13c.; E$274) GRAND TOTAL $4,; 7 ; 54;5; TOTAL COST I rease L-C! ase DIFFERENCE ($279} * House assessed at $225,000 ** Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 As with the tax burden, the fact that incorporation is not feasible makes it difficult to theorize about the service levels that an incorporated City of West Hill might provide. Again, the assessment of feasibility summarized in this profile is based on one basic question: If West Hill were an existing city in 2005, would it have sufficient revenues, given existing tax rates, to pay for the levels of service it now receives? In fact, the feasibility assessment assumes that a new City of West Hill would contract directly with King County to continue providing certain services, including police, roads, and surface water services. To say that incorporation is not feasible also means that the proposed City would be unable to provide even the levels of local services that exist in the area today. 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); 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. 0 C+�sIU1d the City Raise Taxes? �� t Yes, a City of West Hill could increase tax rates and generate additional revenues. Beyond the taxes included in the baseline estimate, the City of West Hill would have authority to levy utility taxes of 6% on utilities including telephone, natural gas, water & sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, and cable television service. (Utility taxes beyond 6% are possible with a public vote.) The City would also have the authority to levy business taxes and/or business license fees. Almost all West Hill residents receive their electrical service from Seattle City Light. The City of Seattle already collects a 6% utility tax on that electrical service, which accrues to the City of Seattle. If West Hill became a city (or if the area 9 an to Renton) then it is possible that the City of Seattle would agree to share a portion of those revenues The preceding revenue estimate assumes that Seattle would agree to a 50/50 split of electrical utility tax revenues generated u in West Hill. In total, if the City were to raise taxes to the maximum allowed without a public vote, one might expect the City to increase tax revenues by as much as $600,000 to $800,000. \ k � � 'Coui�c the G11ty .Reduce Levels of Service? 5 The expenditures included in the baseline feasibility assessment were designed to reflect what it would cost a City of West Hill to maintain existing levels of local services. The principal day-to-day costs of the City would stem from: o Law enforcement services (police, courts, and legal services): $3.5 million o General government/City Hall (public works, community development, parks, administration): $1.5 million o Roads maintenance: $610,000 ,,P,,�,M Among the three, roads maintenance and City Hall expenditures probably offer a few, limited opportunities for cost savings. Y" Estimated City Hall expenditures include an assumption that 15 full-time employees would staff City Hall. This is a low -, number compared to many cities comparable in size to West Hill. However, poorer cities across the State do maintain = even leaner staffing levels in City Hall. In regard to road maintenance expenditures, the reality is that reductions in maintenance activities are unlikely to offer long -run savings. The nature of road maintenance is such that reducing maintenance short results in even more costly -I r repairs in the future. ' The greatest op portunity pportunity for cost savings would stem from reductions in police services. This possibility raises two questions: o How much appetite would West Hill residents have for reductions in police service? o How feasible would it be to reduce patrol staffing in the City if that meant lowering community safety for r: residents and officers? �3 4 s , h What if West Hill were to... City of ,Se s Including, We-st Hill 3 "16, � \ I }ift � L 'Btu (.. �8° 1 N+�jd n� F s - }�7f a4i T'ir s.� r '? West H a Share:tr t.argel� �, 2% West Hilr 98% Seattle WEST- HILL: y POPULATION) , 13t9,, O ��p- ANNEX TO SEATTLE hborhood of West Hill As part of the City of Seattle, the neighborhood of West Hill would comprise roughly 2% of the City's population of nearly 600,000. West Hill is between nine and ten miles southeast of downtown Seattle, which would make it the furthest neighborhood from Downtown. Given Seattle's large population, the addition of West Hill would do little to change the City's center of gravity for population, which lies north of downtown in the South Lake Union neighborhood. On the other hand, as a part of the state's largest city, West Hill would have the advantage being a part of a city with substantial resources —where it would compete with 38 other city neighborhoods for neighborhood resource allocations. As a geographically dispersed city, a number of Seattle's outlying neighborhoods fall within the orbit of adjacent cities. With its proximity to Renton, West Hill would be one such neighborhood. West Hill would continue to be part of the Renton School District, and many West Hill residents would continue to shop and play in Renton. Overall, residents are likely to continue to be oriented as much to the commercial centers of Renton and Tukwila as they are to centers in Seattle. s _` ` In terms of income distribution, West Hill would align with other �� outlying Seattle neighborhoods. Seattle has relatively large -% 50 shares of households with very low and very high incomes, NA while West Hill households are more concentrated in middle l income ranges. Household Income in Seattle and West Hill, 2000 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 101(or 15-20K 25-30K 35-40K 45-SOK 60-ISK 100.125K 150-200K Less Household Income (Dollars) Source: 2000 U.S. Census Where West Hill Residents Shop and Play Source: West Hill Neighborhood Meetings, March 2005 BERK & ASSOCIATES �? s Tax Burden h If West Hill were annexed to Seattle, the typical homeowner would face a tax increase of nearly $280 per year (based on 2005 tax rates). As part of Seattle, however, utility service costs would be somewhat lower than what West Hill residents currently pay. The end result would be a total out- of-pocket increase of $167 per year for all taxes 4 and services. Seattle levies relatively high utility taxes and Seattle residents also pay a Monorail excise tax on vehicles. For a household that owns a vehicle valued at $17,000, this Monorail tax would amount to $238 n per year. These taxes are partially offset by a property tax levy that is lower than what West Hill residents currently pay. Virtually all of West Hill residents receive their electrical services from Seattle City Light. By State law, the City of Seattle is authorized to collect utility tax on all revenues generated by City Light, regardless of where the customer lives. This arrangement would continue even if West Hill were to incorporate or annex to the City of Renton. Annual Taxes Paid by Typical Homeowner Stay Unincorporated Annex to ,Seattle Annex to Renton Property Tax" $2,710 `2 6 8r) Utility Taxes $i>.- $288 $23:: Cable Franchise Fee 124 $12. $?- Monorail Tax" $238 TOTAL $2, 944 - $3,248 Difference vs. Unincorporated Increase: $304 Decre "e ! 4; Service Costs Stay Unincorporated' Annex to Seattle; Annex to Renton Surface Water Fee $:fi;. $122 Water & Sewer `961 $923' 3Ci1 Charges Solid Waste ;324 $248' Collection Charges TOTAL 3_�1,316 $1,2923 $1,1_9i Difference vs. Decrease Deaerse Unincorporated ($23}, ($189, GRAND TOTAL $4,260 "` " ",;�� ;$4";540. $4,0E TOTAL COST DIFFERENCE Increase $28"1' Decrease _;$1'93; House assessed at $225,000 Assumes total vehicle value of $17,000 s of .Service Three key services that West Hill consumes (orwould like to consume) include Police, Parks and Recreation, and Economic Development. In West Hill, on these three services combined, King County spends roughly $240 per resident per year. This is less than half of the $510 per capita that Seattle currently spends on the same $400 services. As the Northwest's largest City, Seattle's parks facilities serve people from across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. Likewise, as the region's dominant employment center, demand for Seattle's police services is driven not only by people who live in the City, but also by tens of thousands of people who come to the city to work, shop and play. $200 Just because Seattle spends a great deal on Police and Park Services does not automatically mean that West Hill's annexation would translate into more parks and recreation services and more police. It does, however, give readers a feeling for the City's overall priorities. :o Expenditures per capita for selected local services ;z2 Community Development W4' Police RENTON KING COUNTY i 'mow x'ff, �p� # 4� r Levels of S Service & Provider Police Now: KC Sheriff Response Time. Seattle's response time is about 3 minutes slower for highest priority emergency With Seattle: Seattle calls (roughly 7 minutes versus 4 minutes for King County). Police Department Roads. Now: King County Road maintenance expenditures per capita is significantly lower in Seattle ($23.77) than in King With Seattle: Seattle County ($70.50). Department of • Resurfacing. Seattle is much less proactive than King County when it comes to major roadway Transportation (SDOT) maintenance. On average, Seattle resurfaces arterials every 39 years, 11 years on local chipseal streets and much longer (400 years) for local asphalt streets. • Traffic congestion in Seattle varies widely, however the City rates congestion at a "Y for intersections during peak evening hours, compared to King County's congestion standard of "E". (Scale: A-F) 1=lre y Now: • Response Time. SFD's average response times are 1 minute faster than FD 20, but given operating Fire District 20 conditions in West Hill, annexation is unlikely to bring significant changes in response time. • Staff. Full-time FD 20 staff would likely be absorbed into SFD. However, Seattle does not have a With Seattle: volunteer program. If West Hill annexes, SFD will not retain the 54 FD 20 volunteers. Seattle Fire District . Stations. FD 20's two stations would become the property of SFD. The Skyway station would likely be (SFD) kept in service, but the older Bryn Mawr station near Lake Washington would be closed. Parks Now: King County • Seattle invests substantial City resources in Parks and Recreation —spending $184 per resident With Seattle: Seattle Citywide. King County provides only minimal maintenance of West Hill's one active park, Skyway Parks and Recreation Park —spending less than $5 per West Hill resident. • Recreation Services. King County constructed a community center that is operated by the Boys & Girls Club through a 25-year lease agreement. If annexed, building ownership would need to be negotiated, but the operation of the facility would remain with the Boys & Girls Club. Library ......` Now: Seattle Libraries. Seattle has 27 library branches. Seattle has similar collection and operating costs King County Library per capita compared with KCLS, smaller circulation and significantly more square footage per capita. System • Current SPL Capital Improvement Bond. West Hill residents would not be liable for taxes from the 1998 voter approved Libraries for All levy, which funded recent capital improvements. With Seattle: . KCLS Library Levy. King County Library System voters recently approved a library levy that will fund a Seattle Public Library new West Hill library in 2011. West Hill residents must continue paying property taxes for the levy through 2022, even if the area annexes. • Possible Futures for the Skyway Library. By law, KCLS is not required to build the new library if Seattle annexes West Hill. Seattle could close the Skyway Library and provide residents with Library Services through other branches in the system (the nearest branch is Rainier Beach). -d 11� Now: Skyway Water & • Skyway Water & Sewer District has service boundaries that closely match West Hill's boundaries — Sewer District which means that West Hill residents currently have a great deal of control over how their water and With Seattle: sewer resources are used. Seattle Public Utilities . Seattle Public Utilities has greater resources, but a transition would reduce West Hill's local control. Sohools4,Y Renton School District • West Hill youth now attend Renton School District schools. This will not change in any scenario. r 04 �`,r.w.w.0 -;41 .... C'.+ ■���� 11�z�r%r✓vuL %.VVIR �,iinity a��ii �a.�ii3 itiilC eweia West Hill's retail corridoralong Renton Avenue has manyvacant storefronts and is not heavily developed. Many residents would prefer to shop in West Hill, but due to a + lack of options, most residents shop for convenience items in Renton. Residents would like to improve the image of their retail corridor, to attract additional retail, p g arts and cultural amenities to the neighborhood. Many community members are already active in their pursuit of economic development that provides more local employment opportunities, informal community gathering places, ' and options to shop locally for everyday needs. When looking at prospects for annexation, the question is: What City resources would be available to support existing community efforts? Seattte Approach to Community and>Econoimlc Development nt� Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods works through the following mechanisms and programs to engage Seattle residents in civic participation, strengthen neighborhood communities, and empower citizens to affect positive change in their neighborhoods. • Seattle's Neighborhood Matching Fund provides money to Seattle neighborhood groups and organizations for a broad array of neighborhood -initiated improvement, organizing or planning projects. Matching funds are available for small projects as well as projects requiring more than $15,000. • The City's Neighborhood Service Centers link City government to Seattle's neighborhoods. The Centers facilitate community networks, assist with neighborhood improvements, make referrals to local human services, and serve as staff to District Councils. • Seattle's P-Patch Program provides community garden space in over 1,900 plots for residents of Seattle neighborhoods. The Office of Economic Development's (OED) mission is to provide business assistance and community and workforce fi development services to businesses, community organizations and residents. OED funds the following major programs to achieve its goals. • Neighborhood and Community Development Programs. OED provides Neighborhood Business District support to Business Improvement Areas, neighborhood associations and Chambers of Commerce. In addition, OED supports Community Development Corporations like Southeast Effective Development (SEED) to help revitalize neighborhoods through community development and real estate r development projects. • Business Development Programs. OED works with several entities to ensure business -friendly City policies: Community Capital (which provides technical and financial assistance to small businesses and microenterprises); the Environmental Extension Service (which provides conservation, pollution prevention and environmental clean-up assistance to businesses); and the Seattle/King County Economic Development Council (which works to recruit and retain businesses in the region). • Workforce Development Programs. The Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) partners community -based organizations with community colleges and employers in recruiting, training, placing and retaining low-income residents in living -wage jobs. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about West Hill Governance Options: May 2005 Q. Are casinos allowed in... • King County? Yes • Renton? Yes • New city? That depends on the future decisions of a government running the city. • Seattle? Seattle ordinances state that social card games are not allowed, but Seattle does,allow punch cards and other minor types of gambling, which are taxed. • If West Hill were annexed by Seattle, would current casinos be grandfathered in? City planners confirmed that existing casinos would technically become a non -conforming use in Seattle's zoning code. The State of Washington regulates and licenses gambling, and a city's role is limited to allowing or banning social card game rooms. Seattle has a moratorium on social card game rooms, extended multiple times over the past decade. Historically, a gambling enterprise would be allowed to stay and operate as a non- conforming use, and no new businesses of that type would be allowed to site in Seattle, and current uses would not be allowed to expand. Recent court cases concerning the status of card rooms in Kenmore and Edmonds will likely, soon, force all cities with moratoria to either ban or allow gambling in their cities. If West Hill annexed to Seattle and Seattle banned gambling, the current West Hill casinos would likely have their annual licenses revoked when the State Gambling Commission reviewed them for renewal. Source: 117 Wn. App. 344, Edmonds Shopping Ctr. Assocs. v City of Edmonds, local ordinances, interviews with City of Kenmore and City of Seattle staff Q. What would happen with special districts if governance changed? A. Generally the status of a special district would not change with a change in governance unless the service was provided by the new government and the special district is dissolved. Service Provided Now Stay Incorporate Annex to Annex to By... Unincorporated Seattle Renton Fire Fire District 20 No Change No Change Seattle Fire Renton Fire (special district) Department Department Library King County No Change No Change Seattle Public Renton Public Library System Library Library (special district) School Renton School No Change No Change No Change No Change District (special District) Water & Skyway Water & No Change No Change Seattle Public No Change Sewer Sewer District Utilities (special district) West Hill Governance Task Force Page 1 May 2005 FA Qs wvna.westhillcommunity.com Prepared by Berk & Associates Q. Community and Economic Development • How can we improve our community image? • What would attract businesses to the corridor? • What are economic development efforts that we could undertake? • What grants are available? A. Please see governance profiles for more information about how Seattle, Renton and King County each approach economic development. The public sector has a relatively limited role in the economic development of communities. Most drivers of the economy rely on the actions of private businesses. Cities and counties are financial partners in economic development and can invest public funds in a limited manner to promote industrial and commercial growth, through infrastructure improvements and/or increasing the industrial and commercial property development through zoning. Economic development is carried out through partnership agreements of state, local governments, small business development centers, port districts, community and technical colleges, private industry councils, and other development organizations. Recently an economic development element of local comprehensive planning became required (previously it was optional), meaning that cities and counties now spend more focus on economic development. Cities are relatively are well -positioned to address economic development issues, with more organizational and funding mechanisms and leverage than unincorporated areas. Listed below are state laws and local government tools to spur economic development. Whatever governance option West Hill residents may choose, different options will be available. The associate development organization (ADO) is defined in RCW 43.330.010 and is the lead economic development agency in each county. In King County, that organization is formerly known as the economic development council of Seattle -King County, and now known as enterpriseSeattle (see www.edc-sea.org). King County's economic development efforts are primarily in business development, to retain, expand, create and recruit businesses within industry clusters that are core to the region's economic base and offer the greatest potential for growth. See www.metrokc.goy/exec/bred/business/business.htm. In partnership with cities, generally, chambers of commerce are the leaders of business attraction efforts. Parking and business improvement areas (PBIAs) aid general economic development and facilitate merchant and business cooperation by establishing a special assessment district. Chapter 35.87A RCW Community Renewal Areas (Ch. 35.81 RCW) improve the ability of cities, towns, and counties to implement economic development projects in blighted areas. The law provides a limited form of tax increment financing, allowing a city to pledge excess local excise taxes generated by business activity within the boundaries of the community renewal area to pay for bonds issued to finance public improvements in that area. Downtown and Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Ch. 35.100 RCW) allow cities over 100,000 population to designate certain areas as "downtown" or "neighborhood commercial districts," to undertake certain kinds of revitalization activities, measure the increase in its local sales tax West Hill Governance Task Force Page 2 May 2005 FAQs www. westhillcommunity.com Prepared by Berk & Associates revenue in the areas, and spend that increase on revitalization costs, debt service on bonds issued for projects in these districts. Seattle's Department of Planning and Development has a Downtown Business District program underway. Industrial Redevelopment Bonds (Ch. 39.84 RCW) can be issued through city or county ordinances creating public corporations "for the purpose of facilitating economic development and employment opportunities in the state of Washington through the financing of the project costs of industrial development facilities" separate from the municipality that created them. The definition of "industrial development facilities" is quite broad, and even includes public sports facilities and parking facilities. Seattle has an active Seattle Industrial Development Corporation authorized by Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 3.116 Industrial Development Corporation, and King County Economic Enterprise Corporation, King County Code, Section 2.32.210 is permitted but not active. Source: Municipal Research and Services Council. See http://Www.mrsc.or /�Subiects/Econ/ed- tech.asax for links to technical assistance sources for economic development. Q. Community Identity: If the area is annexed to Seattle or Renton, will West Hill be a part of another neighborhood or will it be a neighborhood with its own identity? What kind of influence would West Hill residents have on public decisions? A. The answer to this question depends on residents' engagement and the approach and receptivity of each local government to public involvement. A perception exists that residents would have the most control and influence over public decisions as a city of 14,000 residents run by a city council of their own choosing, which is supported by the experience of other newly incorporated cities. If annexed, West Hill's place in Seattle or Renton might look like: Seattle: If West Hill became part of Seattle, West Hill neighborhoods would be a part of the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods' Southeast District. That district includes all neighborhoods south of 1-90 to the city limits and east of 1-5. West Hill would probably not become a part of the Rainier Beach neighborhood for neighborhood planning purposes, but would be identified by its historical name (such as Skyway and Bryn Mawr). The Southeast District is one of 13 serving on Seattle's City Neighborhood Council (CNC), a citizen -led advisory group, to provide city-wide coordination for the Neighborhood Matching Fund, Neighborhood Budget Prioritization, and Neighborhood Planning programs. West Hill neighborhoods would have access to these programs if annexed. • Renton: Has 23 officially recognized neighborhoods. West Hill would be able to apply and follow an established process to create a neighborhood association. The City supports the neighborhoods through two programs (Neighborhood Picnic and Neighborhood Grant). Q. How could water, sewer, sidewalks, and streetlights be extended into my neighborhood if West Hill annexed to a city? A. It depends on the type of improvement and how much capital investment is needed. West Hill Governance Task Force Page 3 May 2005 FA Qs www. westhillcommunitv.com Prepared by Berk & Associates It is very rare for a city to make major capital investments of any kind in a newly annexed area all at once. It is more likely that over time, through the annual budget and 6-year capital improvement program (CIP), that a city would plan and save to set aside funds, or issue debt to build and maintain sidewalks and paths or utility system improvements would be made through rate increases. A financing tool that can be used to pay for capital improvements is the creation of a Local Improvement District (LID). Both cities and counties can create LIDs. Neighbors who gather and petition a city or utility district to extend utilities or sidewalk/street improvements form a special assessment district to finance and pay for needed capital improvements. Assessments are paid by "benefitted properties," which receive direct benefit from the improvements (essentially a specific group of neighbors elects to receive the benefits of an improvement to their property). LID creation leads to the sale of bonds to investors and the retirement of those bonds through annual payments of the property owners. LIDs have two goals: assess property owners fairly in relation to the special benefit they will receive, and offer an attractive bond portfolio to investors. State law says that the cost or assessment per parcel cannot be more than the benefit of the improvement to that parcel. For example if the appraised value of a sewer system, would only increase a property's value by $1,500, then only an assessment up to $1,500 on that property would be considered in forming an LID. LIDs can be formed by initiation by a city council, or by petition by property owners to initiate an LID. The city must gauge citizen support; hold informational meetings; advertise the formation of the district; allow for protest periods and options for deferral for low-income and senior citizens; and ultimately, approve the LID creation through city ordinance. A Utility LID (ULID) is similar to an LID for a utility improvement such as water or sewer projects. The difference between ULIDs and LIDs is that, in addition to the assessments on the benefitting properties, utility revenues are also pledged to the repayment of the ULID debt. Source: Municipal Research Services Council and Skyway Water and Sewer District Q. What was the recent experience of other cities with incorporation? Covington. The City of Covington incorporated in 1997. The population at incorporation was 12,500, and is currently 15,190 (approximately 22% growth). • The city incorporated because: (1) City of Kent was steadily annexing and residents did not identify closely with Kent; (2) residents were frustrated by recent commercial developments permitted by King County; and (3) residents wanted more control over commercial and residential development in the area. The incorporation was approved with an overwhelming vote; however, immediately thereafter the new city had to deal with two moratoriums: Covington Water District imposed a moratorium on new connections and was not issuing new certificates of water availability, and the City Council imposed a moratorium on development until the zoning codes were refined. • After the moratoriums were lifted, commercial and residential development within the city limits exploded. Most of the growth in population came from new residential development (1,042 new residential units built since incorporation through 2004, representing 25% increase), but significant West Hill Governance Task Force Page 4 May 2005 FA Qs www. westhillcommunitycom Prepared by Berk & Associates commercial development also occurred (new retail, office buildings, apartments, Walgreen, Wal- Mart, and a proposed new Costco). • Covington still contracts with King County for most services, including police and street maintenance. • Number of City Hall staff increased from approximately 6 at incorporation to about 28 current full time positions today. • Most important lesson learned: newly incorporated cities should pass the usual "set" of allowed property taxes at incorporation, in order for funding to remain adequate in the future. Covington had enough revenues from the development boom in the area and did not impose a utility tax. However, when the development subsided, the revenues diminished as well. The city passed an ordinance instituting a 3.5% utility tax, however, the citizens collected signatures on petitions opposing the tax and requiring the issue to be placed on the ballot. Utility tax collection has been suspended pending the outcome of an election on May 17, 2005, which could result in the loss of potential revenue for the city. Source: Covington website and City Attorney Kenmore. Incorporated 1998, incorporation committee formed in 1995 • Population in 1998 was 16,874 ; population today 19,170 (14% growth) • Key issues driving incorporation were better municipal services, more local control over zoning including control over adult entertainment, improved municipal services, perceived threat of annexation by Bothell, Lake Forest Park or Kirkland • Kenmore is a mostly residential community; King County Annual Growth report shows 383 businesses and 4,280 jobs • In 1998, Kenmore contracted with King County for police, surface water, road maintenance, traffic, animal control, business license, district court services. Contracted with private company planning, building inspection, traffic & City engineering, Building Official, city attorney, prosecution, public defense. Services the city did in-house included planning (supplemented by contracts), administration and finance. The City didn't do: code enforcement, parks maintenance (didn't have parks transferred for several years), or recreation. Today, Kenmore still contracts with King County for police, surface water, minimal road maintenance, traffic maintenance, animal control, and district court services. Contracts with the city of Lake Forest Park for road maintenance, parks maintenance. Most 1998 contracts for planning, administration, engineering and legal support are still in place. Now done in-house: administration and finance, code enforcement, building inspection, city engineer. • Number of City Hall staff at incorporation was 8 (City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Senior Planner, Community Development Director, Receptionist, Administrative Assistant, Accounting Tech, City Clerk). Today, the City has 16 staff (added Public Works Superintendent, Engineer, Administrative Assistant, Code Compliance Officer, Building Inspector, and planning and finance support staff). * Surprising or unexpected issues City since incorporation? Incorporation study is considered a public commitment to operate based on the assumptions made by a private consultant, even though later elected officials have policy making authority. The world has drastically changed since incorporation, affecting underlying assumptions for the financial health of Kenmore (property tax initiatives, elimination of sales tax equalization). This resulted in a changed vision about growth and development very soon after incorporation. This change in vision appears to the public to be the result of incorporation, but not really. 'Scarcely a day passes without some striking evidence of the delays and perplexities springing merely from the want of precedents." (Representative James Madison, May 31, 1789, First Federal Congress). This quote is inscribed along the top trim board at the National Archives above the Constitution. In other words, everything is harder and takes longer, because it's never been done before. Source: Kenmore website and Assistant City Manager West Hill Governance Task Force Page 5 May 2005 FAQs www. westhillcommuni , .com Prepared by Berk & Associates Q. What are differences in city and county ordinances for business regulations? A. West Hill businesses could potentially face more regulation and taxes with a change in governance. All persons engaging in business activity in the City of Seattle and the City of Renton must obtain a business license and pay taxes. Only those businesses located in unincorporated King County engaging in a regulated activity must license their business. King County: • King County business licenses are required for businesses engaged in specific regulated activities within unincorporated King County (outside of any city limits). Regulated activities are amusement parks and places, amusement devices, bowling alleys, carnivals, go-cart tracks, skating rinks, video games, pool tables, outdoor and indoor entertainment, dances, adult entertainment establishments, massage and bathhouse businesses, process servers, secondhand dealers, pawnshops, charitable organizations, taxicabs and drivers, pet shops, kennels, grooming businesses, or theaters. Otherwise, King County does not require a general business license. However, businesses must be in compliance with zoning code regulations. • See http://www.metrokc.gov/lars/business/obtain.htm and http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/business/index.shtm Seattle: Renton: Anyone engaging in business within the Seattle city limits needs a business license and may have to pay business taxes as well. Any business whose annual taxable gross revenue (gross receipts less allowable deductions) is less than $50,000 is not required to remit a tax payment or a return even if no tax is due. The business license tax is levied on all gross receipts, with some deductions and exemptions are provided by the Seattle Municipal Code. A two-tier business license fee is also in place with fees based on the entity's projected worldwide annual gross income and/or value of products, and a business license fee of $90 and $10 for each additional branch. Business & Occupation Tax (B&O) is calculated on the gross income of the business multiplied by 0.215%; 0.415% for service -related industries. For more information please visit: http://www.seattle.gov/rca/taxes/Taxmain.htm and http://www.cityofseattle.net/rca/licenses/Licmain.htm Businesses operating in Renton need a business license from the City of Renton. Over 80% of funds are used to improve and expand City streets. All applicants must have a Uniform Business Identification Number (UB0. Home -based businesses must apply for a home occupation license, and have permission from the landlord to conduct business out of an apartment. Commercially zoned businesses must have a commercial business license. City of Renton Business Licenses fees are based on person -hours worked in a quarter by all personnel multiplied by rate per hour (.029). This includes all corporate officers, partners, family etc. regardless if a salary is paid or not, billed quarterly. Businesses located outside the City limits and coming into the City to do business must have a license for business conducted in the city. For more information please visit: http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/ West Hill Governance Task Force Page 6 May 2005 FAQs www. westhillcommunity.com Prepared by Berk & Associates Source: city and county websites, interviews with local government staff Q. What about non -governance issues? Would these things change? Address and zip code? Currently, West Hill residents' city and zip code is Seattle, 98178. The Berk & Associates team assumes the following: • If the area annexed to Seattle or remained unincorporated, neither city name nor zip code in the address would change. • If the area annexed to Renton or incorporated as a new city, the city name would change but the zip code would remain the same. The U.S. Postal Service was unwilling to speculate about their response to a change in governance for either city name or zip code. Occasionally the US Postal Service will add new or realign existing ZIP Code areas to accommodate population growth. New ZIP Codes are released by the District Office approximately 30 days before the ZIP Code change goes into effect, and mail with the old ZIP Code will continue to be delivered for one year. • Area code/phone number? Berk & Associates assumes that area codes would not change. Area codes are determined by the telephone companies and regulated by the state. An area code only changes when an area runs out of prefixes. Area codes are not determined by urban boundaries. Insurance rates? The insurance rates might or might not change — there is no clear indicator as to what would happen. Special risk assessment organizations determine the risk ratings of a particular area, which then leads the insurance providers to assign different risk premiums based on these risk ratings. These risk ratings depend on a number of items: which fire or police department serves the area, the response times, distance from the fire hydrant, geographic location (proximity to lake, woods, etc.), crime rates, number of accidents. Source: Inquiries to U.S. Postal Service, local telephone and insurance providers Q. So When Do We Vote? A. There are several mechanisms for a city to annex an area or for an area to incorporate as a new city. All annexation methods require city consent, and residents can initiate the process but can't compel the city to annex. Concerted resident opposition can stop annexation. The options are listed below. "Old" Petition Method: RCW 35A.14.120 (reinstated Supreme Court Feb.'04) is most - often -used form of annexation. • Petition to annex with signatures of property owners owning at least 10% of area • Petition presented to city council; council decides whether or not accept petition • Petition is circulated with signatures of property owners representing 60% of assessed value • Subject to BRB process; city must pass an ordinance effecting the annexation. "New" Petition Method: RCW 35A.14.420 (laws of 2003) West Hill Governance Task Force Page 7 May 2005 FA Qs www. westhillcommuniby com Prepared by Berk & Associates • Residents may petition to be annexed to a city by filing "an intention to commence annexation proceeding" signed by owners of 10% of the acreage of the area • City council decides whether to accept annexation proposal (accept, modify or reject) • Circulation of petition including signatures of the owners of a majority of the acreage of the area and a majority of the registered voters • Council passes ordinance annexing subject area subject to BRB process. • Petition may set forth zoning and whether area will assume existing bonded indebtedness Election Method: RCW 35A.14.015 • Petition with signatures equal to 10% of votes cast in last state general election OR city may pass a resolution expressing its intent to annex • Subject to BRB approval process • Election held — simple majority needed • City can choose to reject even if election vote is favorable • Voters vote for/against annexation and bonded indebtedness "New Island" Method: RCW 35.14.460 laws of 2003 • Unincorporated island, with 60% of area must be surrounded by one or more cities • Annexing city and county develop an interlocal agreement that sets forth the conditions and timing of annexation • City and county councils adopt interlocal agreement following public hearings; city passes ordinance annexing the area. • Action is subject to 45 day referendum — a petition signed by 15% of registered voters will put the question of annexation before the voters. Simple majority required. • Subject to BRB process Incorporation: RCW 35.02 • Petition requirement: 10% of registered voters residing within boundaries 180 days after proposed incorporation public meeting is held • Review by BRB: May approve, modify boundaries (may not add or remove more than 10% of total area), or recommend against the proposal. Determine division of assets and liabilities between two governments. Present proposal and modified proposal for election. • Election: At next special election date, 60+ days after the final public hearing by the BRB. If vote in favor of incorporation gets 40% or less of the total, no new election on incorporation for the area or any portion may be held for 3 years from the failed election • If the voters approve the proposed incorporation, a primary election to nominate candidates for city council (and, in mayor -council cities, a mayor) and then an election to select the city council must be held. • New city must officially incorporate, at a date set by the initial city council, within 360 days of the incorporation election. West Hill Governance Task Force Page 8 May 2005 FAQs www. westhillcommunitv.com Prepared by Berk & Associates WEST HILL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Appendix B Incorporation Feasibility Assumptions about City Hall Staffing APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INCORPORATION TABLE Table B-1: General Government Staff ine Levels and Salaries Salary Range FTE's * Salary Total High Low (Annual) City Manager 6,601 8,332 1 100,000 100,000 Director of Admin. & Fin. 5,547 6,876 1 85,000 85,000 Accountant - Senior 3,926 4,828 1 60,000 60,000 Accounting Clerk 2,412 3,001 0 35,000 0 City Engineer 4,949 6,187 1 75,000 75,000 Engineer Tech. 3,190 4,024 1 50,000 50,000 Public Works Director 5,472 6,898 1 85,000 85,000 Community Development Dir. 5,127 6,497 1 80,000 80,000 Computer Support Specialist 3,308 4,226 1 50,000 50,000 City Clerk 3,917 4,987 1 60,000 60,000 Legal Secretary 2,814 3,391 1 40,000 40,000 Administrative Secretary 2,783 3,498 1 45,000 45,000 Receptionist 2,215 2,738 1 35,000 35,000 Senior Planner 4,305 5,451 1 65,000 65,000 Parks Maintenance Supervisor 3,324 4,181 0 50,000 0 Recreation Coordinator 2,742 3,540 0 45,000 0 Miscellaneous FTE's 2 40,000 80,000 Council Members 6 5,400 32,400 Mayor 1 6,000 6,000 Total 15 $948,400 Benefits 284,520 Benefits as % of Salaries 30% Facility Costs 56,250 Cost per square foot 15 Square Feet per FTE 250 Operating Supplies 94,840 Supplies as % of Salaries 10% Phone Expenses 15,000 Cost of phone per FTE 1,000 Computers 19,928 Computer cost per FTE per year 1,329 Furniture 10,975 Furniture cost per FTE per year 732 Vehicle Lease 21,464 Number of vehicles 4 Cost per vehicle per year 5,366 Vehicle Operation & Maintenance 16,000 Number of vehicles 4 Vehicle 0&M cost per year 4,000 TOTAL COSTS OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION $1,467,377 * Full-time equivalent positions Source: Berk & Associates West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix B October 2005 B-1 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Appendix C Tax Burden and Level of Service Detail APPENDIX C TECHNICAL TAX AND LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES Attachment C contains technical analysis concerning annexation alternatives. Tables C-1 and C-2 detail the property tax levy and utility taxes. Table C-1: Property Tax Levy Structure Levy Description Uninc. King County Seattle Renton Consolidated 4.32501 4.32501 4.32501 Roads 1.83168 0 0 City 0 3.35344 3.22704 School District 3.9925 3.9925 3.9925 Fire 1.72621 0 Hospital 0.09039 0.09039 0.09039 Library 0.53255 0.04955 0.04955 EMS 0.23182 0.23182 0.23182 Total Levy 12.73016 12.04271 11.91631 Source: Berk & Associates analysis of Assessor King County Assessor Summary of Codes and Levies, 2005 Table C-2: Utility Tax Detail Levy Description Uninc. King County Seattle Renton Telephone -- 6% x 960 = $57.60 6% x 960 = $57.60 Gas -- 6% x 360 = $21.60 6% x 360 = $21.60 Electricity 6% x 1000 = 6% x 1100 = $60.00 6% x 1000 = $60.00 $60.00 Water & Sewer -- 10% x 720 = $72 6% X 620 = $37.20 Storm Drain -- $12.17 $3.88 Cable TV -- 8.2% x $40 basic x 6% x $40 basic x 12 12 months = $39.36 months = $28.80 Solid Waste -- 10% x $248 = 6% x $161 = $9.68 $24.80 Total Utility Taxes $60 $288 $236 Source: Berk & Associates analysis of cities of Seattle and Renton and King County data Tables C-3 through C-19 are data complied from a request to King County and the cities of Seattle and Renton. West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-1 Table C-3 Library Services Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Who would provide service... King County Library Renton Library Seattle Public Library System Collection Size (Books) per capita 3.27 3.39 3.48 Circulation (items) per capita 14.90 9.25 10.96 Library Square Footage per capita 0.44 0.52 0.99 Operating Cost per capita $62.87 $21.93 $62.61 Planned Annual Average Capital not ansered $6.05 $3.39 Expenditure per capita (6 years) Historical Annual Average Capital not ansered $5.42 $72.46 Expenditure per capita (5 years) Collection size not ansered not ansered 575,000 Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-4 Law Enforcement Remain Unincorporated Annex to Renton Annex to Seattle Who would provide service... King County Renton Police Seattle Police Sheriff Department Department Dispatched Calls for Service per 3,971 1,236.87 415.11 Officer Response Time (minutes): Highest 3.84 2.93 7 Priority Emergency Calls Response Time (minutes): 2"d 6.31 7.76 N/A Priority Emergency Calls Response Time (minutes): 3`d 12.19 11.23 10.4 Priority Calls Response Time (minutes): 0 35.84 22.48 20.9 Priority Calls Criminal Investigations per 1,000 43.66 87.26 81.37 Population (Part 1 Crimes) Operating Cost per capita not ansered $286.80 $304.37 Planned Annual Average Capital N/A 0 N/A Expenditure per capita (6 years) Historical Annual Average Capital N/A 0 N/A Expenditure per capita (5 years) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment October 2005 Appendix C C-2 Table C-5 Roads/Streets Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Who would provide service... King County City of Renton City of Seattle Traffic Congestion Standard (at "E" is adopted No LOS Standard evening rush hour): scale = A — F, standard; except for based on A-F scale. with A best, F worst •Level of those projects City LOS Standard = service standard (i.e., lowest identified in King 42 (sum of the travel "D" acceptable ratio of volume to County Code distance in 30 capacity) 14.70.285 that are minutes from the applied a LOS "F" City in all directions) Years Between Overlays or not ansered 10 to 20 39 year for arterial Resurfacing: Arterials resurfacing Years Between Overlays or Chipseal streets:11 Resurfacing: Local Streets not ansered 17 to 25 years; asphalt streets: 400 years Traffic: $16.19 Road Maintenance Cost per capita Maintenance: $14 $23.77 $70.50 Planned Annual Average Capital $157 $98 $188 Expenditure per capita (6 years) Historical Annual Average Capital $195 $101 $86 Expenditure per capita (5 years) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-6 Sewer Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle ERU = 7.5 CCF ERU= 5.2 CCF ERU = 7.5 CCF Average mommy Uost or newer $13.6Collection LKU=o.Z LLr: Service per Equivalent Residential $46.24 .60 $25Treatment $34.20 i i.,i+ €RU-9.2 CCF: Operating Cost per Equivalent $435.78 (relatively $40.15 $32.50 Residential Unit small # of ERUs) ERU=7.5 CCF: ItnF ua Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per capita (6 years) $337.75 $43.35 $207 Historical Annual Average Capital $21.50 $36.13 $185 Expenditure per capita (5 years) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-3 Table C-7 Solid Waste Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Frequency of Service — Garbage Weekly Weekly Weekly Frequency of Service — Recycle Bi-weekly Weekly Bi-weekly Frequency of Service — Yard Waste Frequency of Service — Yard Waste (December — February) Monthly Cost — Garbage (One Can) and Recycle Monthly Average Cost — Yard Waste (60 — 64 gal.) Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per capita (6 years) Bi-weekly Weekly Bi-weekly Monthly Weekly Bi-weekly $26.46 $13.44 $16.35 $9.00 (96 gal cart: Included in base $9.85) solid waste rates $4.30 N/A No CIP $260 Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per capita (5 years) N/A No CIP $36 Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-8 Water Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Who would provide service... SWWSD ERU=6.2 CCF ERU=7.5CCF Average Water Pressure (PSI) per Equivalent Residential Unit Average Monthly Cost of Water per Equivalent Residential Unit Operating Cost per Equivalent Residential Unit 80-85 psi 40 psi 60 110 psi 30 psi tKU=b.L LLr: $28.85 $13.05 $23.83 €pu-01'2 CCF' $328.32 (relatively $156.68 $12.60 small # of ERUs) �P11-7 1; r(P. Planned Annual Average Capital $174 $69 $738 Expenditure per capita (6 years) Historical Annual Average Capital $512 $83 $651 Expenditure per capita (5 years) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment October 2005 Appendix C C-4 • Table C-9 Gambling Tax Rates Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Amusement Games (net) not ansered $30 per machine/qtr 2% of the net gambling receipts Punch Boards and Pull Tabs — for 5% gross/gtr (pull 5% of gross receipts profit (gross) not ansered tabs) Punch Boards and Pull Tabs — non not ansered 10% net/qtr (pull 10% of net receipts profit (net) tabs) Bingo (net) 5% net/gtr 10% of net gambling not ansered receipts Raffles (net) 5% net/gtr 10% of net gambling not ansered receipts Card Games (gross) not ansered 10% gross/gtr n/a Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-11 Utility Tax Rates Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Natural Gas not ansered 6% 6% Electricity not ansered 6% 6% Telephone not ansered 6% 6% Cellular Phones not ansered 6% 6% Pay Phones not ansered 6% B&0 local rates Pagers not ansered 6% 6% Cable TV not ansered 6% 10% Garbage not ansered 6% 10% Water not ansered 6% 10% Sewer not ansered 6% 10% Storm Drain not ansered 6% 10% Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-5 Table C-12 Rates of Other Taxes and Fees Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle 5-16-TUr5FVr 0.215% for retail/wholesale, Business and Occupation (B&O) None N/A man ufacturing/extracti Local Tax Rates ng, printing/publishing; 0.0215% for wheat whnlaVjtYd/41jgd'-161 businesses with gross income greater than Business License Rates None $55 per employee/yr $20k annually; $45 per year for businesses with gross income below $20k ---11" Utility Tax Rates Franchise Fee Rates: Cable TV Development Fees — Permit, Inspection, Review (2,500 sq. ft. home with 500 sq. ft. garage) None 6% 5% 5% $3,389 Zone 194 Transportation Mitigation or $166/householdZone 195 $75 per daily trip Impact Fees • per single family generated plus site - house $137/household specific mitigation Zone 196 $262/household Park Mitigation or Impact Fees • per single family house Fire Mitigation or Impact Fees • per single family house Vary 3.50% $2,827 (for construction cost estimate of $230k) N/A $0.00 NOTE: Parks Levy Fund, rate of $531 N/A .049/$1,000 AV in place 2004-2007 not ansered $488 N/A Tax Rate on Taxable Retail Sales not ansered 8.80% 0.85% Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment October 2005 Appendix C C-6 Table C-13 Planning and Land Use Regulation Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle 0.60 for whole dept. 0.05 including prof Employees per 1,000 population not ansered 0.29 urban designers and long-range planners; not including land use project review staff Major Permit Processing not ansered Turnaround Time (days) 84 120 48 hours and 6 week Minor Permit Processing not ansered 42 goals "to initial Turnaround Time (days) review;" not tracked to "final disposition" 150 per inspector, not Code Enforcement Cases per Code not ansered 4115 including 2 Enforcement Officer . supervisors who also do some inspections Operating Cost per capita not ansered $25 $95 vvnn uIe uedun uui Land Use Project the Economic Review: Development, Neighborhood Neighborhoods and meetings for design Description of planning Strategic Planning review, and at request department's approach to working Department in 1997, the City of neighborhoods. with neighborhoods and not answered integrated Long -Range Planning: neighborhood commercial neighborhood Various community districts. services, long-range meetings, focus group strategic planning, discussions, work with and economic advisory groups, etc. development into depending on ___ A___-__.. planning project. Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-7 ' Table C-14 Parks Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Active Park Land Acres per 1,000 1.6027 8.66 Total park acres: Population 10.83 Passive Park Land Acres per 0.334 12.01 N/A 1,000 Population Trail Miles per 1,000 Population None 0.189 N/A Athletic Fields per 1,000 0.416 0.975 0.36 Population Operating Cost per capita 4.74 $125.94 $187.00 Operating Costs per capita N/A N/A N/A (Special) Total Operating Cost per capita 4.74 $125.94 $187.00 Planned Annual Average Capital 5,218.M = $94,255 05/06 CIP: Expenditure per capita (6 years) $0.00 per 1,000 $97/capita. Projections for '07-' 10 Historical Annual Average Capital $0.00 $22M = $36,488 $62.00 Expenditure per capita (5 years) per 1,000 Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-15 Corrections Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Who would provide service... Correctional Facility Beds per not answered 0.9 0.47 1,000 Population Operating Cost per Incarcerated not answered $47.05 $103 Person per Day Operating Cost per Home not answered $24.34 $13.43 Detention Person per Day Operating Cost per capita not answered $40.77 $18.32 per person (NOTE: not per capita) Planned Annual Average Capital N/A (Seattle currently Expenditure per Capita (6 years) not answered $0.00 contracts for jail services) Historical Annual Average Capital N/A (Seattle currently Expenditure per Capita (5 years not answered $0.00 contracts for jail services) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-8 Table C-16 Courts Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle _ Who would provide service... 1,876 criminal filings per judge (i14L Annual Cases per Judge not answered 12,251 including non -criminal infractions and parking violations) Operating Cost per capita not answered $23.41 $33.28 per person (NOTE: not per capita) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-17 Fire & Emergency Medical Services Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Renton Fire Seattle Fire Who would provide service... FD 20 Department Department Average Response Time (Structure 4.62 5.78 4.62 Fire) - minutes Insurance Fire Rating (Scale = 1, 5 3 2 best to 10, worst) Average Response Time (BLS) 4.79 5.18 4.09 Percent of BLS Responses In Less ° 84/° ° 77 /° ° 97/° Than 6 Minutes Percent of ALS Responses In Less 93 /° 87.40% 100% Than 12 Minutes Uniformed Personnel per 1,000 4.7 1.6 2.8 population Operating Cost per capita $123.87 $197.29 $2,130 Planned Annual Average Capital $53.96 $23.55 Fleets & Facilities Expenditure per capita (6 years) Department Historical Annual Average Capital $164.92 $26.13 Fleets & Facilities Expenditure per capita (5 years) Department Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-9 Table C-18 Animal Control Remain Annex to Annex to Unincorporated Renton Seattle Who would provide service... Animal Control Complaints and Calls for Service per 1,000 Population • Total animal control not answered 115.3 31.5 complaints and calls divided by population (times 1,000) Operating Cost per capita • Annual cost (excluding capital) divided by not answered $2.72 $4.52 population Planned Annual Average Capital Expenditure per capita (6 years) • not answered 0 0 6-year future CIP divided by 6 years (divided by population) Historical Annual Average Capital Expenditure per capita (5 years) • most recent 5 years actual capital not answered 0 0 expenditures divided by 5 years (divided by population) Source: Cities of Renton and Seattle and King County Table C-19 Human Services (Local, Excluding Regional) Remain Annex to Unincorporated Renton Annex to Seattle Who would provide service... At Risk Senior Program Cost per $89.63 capita Basic Needs/Survival Cost per $27.63 capita Youth Services Cost per capita $14.67 Family Support/Child Development $13.03 Cost per capita Information and Referral Cost per $3.65 capita Sexual Assault Cost per capita $1.62 Domestic Violence Program Cost $3.46 per capita Administration Cost per capita $13.95 Total Human Services Cost per $167.64 capita West Hill Governance Alternatives Assessment Appendix C October 2005 C-10 WEST HILL GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Appendix D Community Outreach Tools . Public Services __.._ ................... • Economic Development Community .Development/Image ....... ............... .._................ ........ Neighborhood Programs .._.............. :Parks & Recreation „Planning: Permitting, Zoning, Design Standards - ----._..................._................._......... Police 'Streets, Roads, :Sidewalks 'Ability to Pay for Capital Projects Overall Tax Rates Public Transportation .Social & Housing Library Fire & Emergency Medical Services Utilities: Water, Sewer, Drainage - What public :s are important to .......................................................... _..__....._ __....... Status of Today's Service: Assessment (A to F) What our group most wants to know about a change in governance is... What's needed in West Hill as a community? WEST HILL GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES MAY 2005 COMMUNITY FORUM r ® What I would like to tell the Task Force is... QOther questions I have about a potential governance change are... ® Please rank your preferences from most desireable (1) to least desireable (4): EJ Stay Unincorporated ❑ Incorporate as a New City ❑ Annex to Renton ❑ Annex to Seattle Because... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Name: ❑ Please contact me with Phone: updates on the process E-mail: ❑ 1 attended a March Address: Neighborhood Meeting Iv . ""s _ T-:? 'L*'+'w 4JT'L' `f'.'i t S' 'S •S. ,rr. .,.�. `a-`-tx -WO VOW- '"`>� ✓ �� �F .�?"�= ..� e i , .- +�.�""-a' �� K �d' �} �t Bata s' ,��1 1` /• g-.k 4 1E �' �E� � w Y ta.5 � �� NO S �3 1 Sit 1e , , ' - -emu � a 'r, � f �"t.rv�^n t'P &�•.S S .g � dab � y i .s. - K J x w 'N Y "• t n ..j.•J .bb. `v'i1� � 5�epf � _-_. � C. n ¢ t � e k �y' 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" 0 IBERK & ASSOC(ATES1 . 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 Govemance Alternatives Study assessed 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 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 Altematives Study did not address were the fiscal implications that annexation of West Hill would have on the cities of Seattle or Renton. Given the scope of the West Hill Govemance Altematives 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 costof annexation might be. Study Purpose and Approach The goal of this analysis is to assess three issues: 1. Near -Term Operating Impacts: 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? 0 1 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? BERK & ASSOCiATES1 Page2 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Figure 1: Study Areas for Fiscal Analysis of Annexation R "r ..,1 .1d z Poiule3gii z."ibt' Net Rave1jue, St tl(ft 3 ,`� t����'1E t t r a Papulattoir 4, 8� � �] ry Q7 y �. Net Revenuetz tPolrl�tl0ri /,I% iL ., �` y` ,n{1M'RK,,Q�i1,) AMj �44, r , a urf �gE, - t,p •y,{ `b. zc�g r s � ti y�it i " r7} zn : � .. � ��f f � , f ««� �� " . yea �! % r �,.+ .C;��� •+.`�,t-� :�--» r G� 4�� �`-�Ti i �`83 1. ,�'t '; a 7 t S {' AT i .1 +! *• p t t t � l l 7 r x ¢ , 'kB f 5^ ?� y x vim' d" -JU ^ °' �BERK & ASSOCIATESI 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 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 service expenditures and 2005 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Renton 2005 Adopted Budget, and is intended � BERK & ASSOCIATESI Page 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 hypothetica/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. With 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. 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 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 $4,1 16,000 $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 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: • Annexation of all three Areas: This scenario would result in the $2.4 million net cost to the City estimated above. 0 I B£RK & 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 Fire Department reports that they would seek to close the Bryn Mawr Station and serve the area from existing Renton Fire 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 fad, 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 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 Fire 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 sere 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 Fire Station, the incremental cost of providing fire service to Area 2 will actually be less than Area 2's allocatedcost of $270,000 (the cost might be as little as $100,000 or less). it is probably also true that, once 0 JBERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 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 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 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, 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. Capita/ 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 year 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 County Capital Investment Program (CIP). This inventory is 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Pagel City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill , 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. LonpRun 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 & 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 is the engine of City revenue growth (and if the City does not forestall the eroding effects of 1-747 through levy lid lifts) then all 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. 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page a City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background.............................................................................................................................................................................1 StudyPurpose and Approach.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Facilitiesin the Study Areas..............................................................................................................................................4 Summaryof Findings.......................................................................................................................................................... 5 AnnexationScenarios.................................................................................................................................................... 5 capitalcostImpacts ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Long -Run Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Tableof Contents...................................................................................................................................................................9 Introduction: Study Purpose and Background.......................................................................................................11 ReportOrganization...........................................................................................................................................................13 KeyAssumptions................................................................................................................................................................14 StudyArea Characteristics................................................................................................................................................15 Populationand Growth....................................................................................................................................................15 PropertyValues...................................................................................................................................................................15 RetailSales............................................................................................................................................................................15 Summaryof Fiscal Operating Impacts.......................................................................................................................16 AnnexationScenarios..................................................................................................................................................17 KeyOperating Costs and Revenues............................................................................................................................19 MajorRevenues..................................................................................................................................................................19 PropertyTax.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Utility Taxes and Electric Utility Payment........................................................................................................ 19 LocalSales Tax...............................................................................................................................................................20 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill . MajorCosts...........................................................................................................................................................................21 PoliceSeN%CeS................................................................................................................................................................21 Fire and Emergency Medical Seivices...................................................................................................................22 PublicWorks....................................................................................................................................................................22 CommunityServices....................................................................................................................................................23 KeyCapital Costs and Revenues..................................................................................................................................24 MajorCapital Costs............................................................................................................................................................24 RoadFacilities.................................................................................................................................................................24 SurfaceWater Management Facilities....................................................................................................................27 Parks& Recreation Facilities......................................................................................................................................28 Utilities. .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . .. . . . .... .. .. .. ... . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . . ... . . . .. .. ..... . . .. .. . . .. .. ... .. . ... . ... . .. . .. . . . . ... . . ... ... . . .... .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . 29 Capital Revenues Generated in West Hill.................................................................................................................29 BusinessLicense Fee...................................................................................................................................................29 RealEstate Excise Tax..................................................................................................................................................29 Surface Water Management (SWM) Fees...........................................................................................................30 Long -Run Fiscal Impacts...................................................................................................................................................31 AFramework for Looking Ahead..................................................................................................................................32 PotentialShifts in Service Costs....................................................................................................................................32 Potential Shifts in Revenue Generation.....................................................................................................................33 WestHill's Impact..........................................................................................................................................................34 RetailSales Taxes....................................................................................................................................................34 PropertyTaxes..........................................................................................................................................................34 OtherPotentialImpacts ........................................................................................................................................37 Technical Appendix A....................................................................................................................................................... 39 0 I BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 10 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 A/tematives 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 Aitematives 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 opelating costs and capita/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 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 costof annexation might be. 0 I BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 11 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill 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. 0 j BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 12 • 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES) Page13 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 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page14 • 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 by 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 property. In per -capita terms, Area 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, the 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 15 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. I J BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 16 Citv of Renton Annexation Analvsis: West Hill Table 2: Summary of Operating Costs and Revenues for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 Dollars) Operating Costs Area I 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 Planning, Building and Public Works 557,000 349,000 769,000 1,675,000 Community Services 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 Economic Development 23,000 5,000 47,000 75,000 Legislative 4,000 2,000 9,000 15,000 Staff -related Facility Costs 720,000 58,000 285,000 463,000 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 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 $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 NErREVENLIES ($429,000) ,f2S1,000 (,f2,273,000) ($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 the allocated 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 Station and serve the Area from existing Renton Fire Stations. The more of Area 1 the City I BERK & ASSOCIATES1 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 allof 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 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. 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 all of the revenues Area 2 generates. 0 J BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 18 It 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 Property Tax Combined, annexation of the three study areas would bring an estimated $1.2 billion of additional taxable property to the City. In per 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. N (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 19 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 Lights 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: 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 all 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 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES) Page20 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, 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. Of the 8.8% sales tax currently collected in the City and the potential annexation areas, a 1 % "local" tax accrues to local jurisdictions. In 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 Po/ice 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) we estimate that police costs will be more heavily concentrated in Study Area 3 (Skyway), which has 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 0 I BERK & ASSOCIATES) Page21 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill . Im 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 al/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 0 (BERK & ASSOCIAT£S1 Page22 m 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 ($600,000), 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 there. 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 Parks 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, and Campbell Hill Elementary in Area 3). 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page23 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill. r�, 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 (linear feet) Open Ditch (linear feet) Enclosed Pipe (linear feet) 1 17.3 26,062 17,241 62,250 2 10.4 10,984 13,908 43,591 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 Coun s Pavement Condition Scores Score % Cracking Rating 75+ 0-100/0 Excellent 50+ 11-25% Good 30+ 26-40% Fair 0+ 41 % Poor Source: King County Roads Division, Department of Transportation 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATESI Page24 • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Figure 2 Pavement Conditions on West Hill Roads -4 ..cl - S T 1$t� St � e Rent AV'¢� t .. a 51 S 120th 3 1201 St s g 3 Y cat @ 1 � v ;URK & ASSOCIATESI 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 & ASSOCIATESI Page25 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill, #1, 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 129" 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 projects share of countywide debt service and do not represent actual capital investments. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page26 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Table 6 King County Planned and Funded Road Improvement Projects, 2005-2006 Fund Project Project Name/Description 2005 Funding 2006 Planned Fund 3850 300802 West Hill Quick Response (based on W. Hill Advisory Group Report) $600,000 800101 Renton Bldg Bond Debt Retirement (share of councilmanic bond) $4,292 800205 Hud Debt Service (share of larger project) $7,288 3850 Total $61 1,580 Fund 3860 300207 S 132nd St Roundabout (and 80th Avenue South, high accident location) $500,000 300505 S 132nd St $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 $9,1 10 RDCW 19 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 Land Resources reports that 18 privately owned drainage facilities, and 11 (County -maintained) residential drainage facilities exist in the West Hill area. Of the publicly- E F BERK & ASSOCIATES Page 27 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. 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`' St. & 84" Avenue S; South 1 12nd St. & 82nd Avenue South; and inside the boundaries of Skyway 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 1 18th & 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. 0 J 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 investments in either park (except for a future investment in field conditioning or replacement of the play equipment which would likely be 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 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. 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 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 (REET) revenues, as shown below by area. 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 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 REET revenues reflect the average value of real estate transactions in each study area over the past five years. In addition to existing REET 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. 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page30 • 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 Citys 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 &the engine of City revenue growth (and if the City does not mitigate the eroding effects of 1-747 through levy lid lifts) then all 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. 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. If Renton does secure levy lid lifts in future years to mitigate the impacts of 1-747, then higher -than - average property value increases in West 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. M IBERK & ASSOCIATES) Page31 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill r, 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 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. IBERK & ASSOCIATES) Page32 N 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 Revenue 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 population growth). Given recent history, revenue growth of 5% or more is possible for the City. Most of the contributions to Renton's revenue growth will need to come from three sources: • Retail sales tax: Over the past 12 years, retail sales tax has been the principal engine of Renton's revenue growth, growing at an 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 3% 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). 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. 0 J BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 33 of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill, M 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. Properfy 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: E (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page34 of Renton Annexation Analvsis: 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. If 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). 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page35 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill E Figure 3: Property Value Increases for Housing Average Annual Percentage Increase 4;,,1 t 5.0'Ya or less 8,798 i f Source: King County Assessors Office, Berk & Associates IBERK & ASSOCIATES: Page36 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 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 internet or catalog) would change the point of sale for such delivered goods to the place of delivery. The expected impact of the rule 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. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES) Page37 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill . 2 • 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. 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES Page38 0 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Technical Appendix A Table 8: Summary of Operating Costs for Contemplated Annexation Areas (2005 Dollars) NOTES Operating Costs 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 $277,,000 $730,000 $282,000 $630,000 F Transportation Systems $704,000 $50,000 $190,000 $344,000 G Utility Systems $28,000 $72,000 $44,000 $84,000 H Community Services $148,000 $82,000 $930,000 $1,160,000 Administrative, Judicial & Legal Services $150,000 $62,000 $316,000 $528,000 i Finance and Information Services $92,000 $45,000 $219,000 $356,000 K Human Resources & Risk Management $20,000 $10,000 $47,000 $77,000 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 (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 $759,000 $307,000 S Water/Sewer/Storrn Drainage $100,000 $49,000 $757,000 $306,000 T Gas $39, 000 $24, 000 $59, 000 $723, 000 U Cable TV $48, 000 $23, 000 $75, 000 $146, 000 V Garbage $27,000 $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 I KEY I ftel'atine Costs I 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 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 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 (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. 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). j B Estimates of fire expenditures represent a combination of (1) discussions with Renton Fire 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 and number of employees of the areas of analysis. C ' Expenditures for the Planning, Building and Public Works (PBPW) are based on the I 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 comparisons of various driver values to current City value, as described in notes D through G below. 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% 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. Since a portion of the costs of the Building and Planning divisions of the Department of N IBERK & ASSOCIATES) Page41 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Community Development are partially covered by building and planning fees, any over- or understatement of planning and building service costs would be mitigated by a proportionate, parallel shift in fee revenues. E Since Maintenance Services division encompasses Streets/Bridges/Sidewalks maintenance, the costs are based on the comparisons of study area lane miles to current City lane miles, implying the following incremental increases in expenditures by study area: Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 7.6% 4.5% 9.8% F i Transportation Systems division is responsible for transportation planning, traffic operations, traffic maintenance and transportation design & construction functions. These functions were examined separately and the following drivers were used in estimating the costs for i each study area: land area and lane miles. Additionally, the expense of maintenance and i ! electricity for West Hill traffic lights and luminaires was included in the total cost estimate for each study area. The following is an inventory of traffic lights and luminaires by area: y Traffic Lights Luminaires j Area 1 1 43 Area 2 0 5 I Area 3 8 151 Total 9 199 Source: King County and City of Renton i I I ' Transportation design and construction function is financed by capital funds as well as federal and state grants, thus it is excluded from the estimate of Transportation Systems s ' I costs. G Utility Systems division is mostly an internal service fund, with costs already loaded in the other departments' budgets, and as such, it is excluded from the operating cost estimates. However, Technical Services function (property management services for the City, as well as mapping, GIS, surveying and data management services, etc.) of the division is almost completely financed from the General Fund and is budgeted at $477,502 in the City of Renton 2005 Adopted Budget. The operating costs of this function are estimated based on the increase in overall land area that would be introduced by annexation of each of the three study areas. The remaining budget for Technical Services, $56,698, comes from the utility enterprise funds and is excluded from this analysis. 0 I BERK & ASSOCIATESI Page42 rs • City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill H Estimated Community Services expenditures represent the (1) anticipated expenditures for maintaining 27.89 acres of neighborhood parks in Study Areas 1 and 3 and providing recreation services to residents of the three study areas; (2) anticipated cost of providing library service if 3 were annexed; (3) costs of development and management of City's facilities; and (4) forecasted expenditures for provision of human services. Parks maintenance expenditures are driven by the assumed increase in active and passive park acres that would be introduced by annexation of each of the three study areas. As mentioned before, Area 1 contains 4.81-acre Bryn Mawr park, which has been classified as passive by King County; and Area 3 includes 23.08 acre Skyway park, which has playground equipment and athletic fields and is classified for active use. Area 2 does not contain any parks or open spaces. Recreation costs represent estimated 20% of the budgeted 2005 City of Renton expenditures of $1,297,300 ($1,898,900 for the Recreation Services division less $601,600 for Aquatic Center), based on conversation with Renton's Recreation Services staff. It is logical to use estimated incremental demand based on population of the study areas as compared to the City of Renton, which would total approximately 25% for all of West Hill. However, since according to the Recreation Services division, recreational services are already being extensively used by the West Hill population, applying 20% of incremental demand was more reflective of the true expenditures Renton would encounter should it annex the study areas. Estimates of parks, recreation and cultural service expenditures assume that the Community Center, Senior Center, and Maplewood Golf course would see no fiscal impact from annexation given that they already serve the populations of the three study areas. Estimates of library costs are based on population served, but are assumed to only take effect if the City annexes Area 3 and, therefore, takes over the Skyway Library. Estimates of facility costs are based on square footage of City -owned buildings, which is assumed to be 11,500 square feet for Skyway Library and the Skyway Fire Station. The expenditures for Human Services division of Community services are estimated by allocating Renton's 2005 budgeted costs to each city resident and assuming that those costs will increase proportionally with increases in the City's population base. This study excluded any assessment of impacts on the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. If the City were to pursue annexation of any of the West Hill study areas, that annexation would increase the City's share of CDBG allocations, and the City would put those additional revenues to work much as it uses current Block Grants. Presumably, however, these changes would have no impact on the City's General Fund obligations. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page 43 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill .4 I The City of Renton's Administrative, Judicial and Legal services expenditures include expenditures for public -safety -related activities, including hearing examiner and court services. Another portion of Administrative, Judicial and Legal services expenditures go to general city activities including city attorney services, city clerk and mayors office. Estimated expenditures for the public -safety -related legal expenditures (with a 2005 budgeted costs basis of $1,567,400) are allocated to the study areas based on estimates of the additional police service demand that will be introduced by each area (see Note A). These additions to demand for the five study areas are as follows: Study Area t Study Area 2 Study Area 3 5.3% 1.9% 10.0% Expenditures for the non -public -safety -related expenditures (budgeted at $2,415,700) are estimated based on the estimated overall increase in City staffing levels. iy Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 3.2% 1.5% 7.5% Estimated finance and information services expenditures represent the pro-rata share of expenditures based on based on the estimated overall increase in City staffing levels. I Estimated finance and information services expenditures represent 2005 budgeted expenditures of $3,444,400 multiplied by the incremental demand in each study area documented in Note I above. K Like the non -public -safety -related component of Administrative, Judicial and Legal services, estimates of additional expenditures for human resources and risk management services are estimated to increase based on the estimated overall increase in City staffing levels. L Estimated expenditures for economic development services are driven by the incremental increase in economic development activity based on comparisons of study area commercial square footage to current City commercial square footage, implying the following incremental increases in expenditures by study area. Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 1.6% 0.2% 3.5% Another component of economic development expenditures is Neighborhood programs, currently budgeted at $50,000 per year for the City of Renton. It is appropriate to allocate Renton's 2005 budgeted costs to each city resident and assume that those costs will increase proportionally with increases in the City s population base. Jy Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 7.9% 4.2% 13.0% 0 I BERK & ASSOCIATES1 Page44 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill M Estimated expenditures for legislative department are based on 2005 budgeted expenditures of $220,100. This estimate is assumes that a portion of the Legislative Department will be unaffected by annexation, but costs of remaining support functions will increase with the estimated overall increase in City staffing levels. N Staff -related facility costs reflect the annualized cost of City Hall, maintenance facilities, and other City facilities that will be needed to house additional staff. For cities who own their facilities, it is unusual to think of facilities costs in terms of an annual cost, but these costs are included in the analysis in an attempt to capture the full costs of services. The City may have excess capacity in existing facilities, or the City could choose to capitalize these costs by assuming greater capital expenditures up front. In that case, many if not all of the costs could be eliminated from the annual cost estimate. Estimated costs assume annual costs of $5,000 per employee. For office staff, this might translate into a need for 250 square feet of additional space per employee at an average lease cost of $20 per square foot. Alternatively, the $5,000 cost could be viewed as the cost of servicing City bonds that would be necessary to cover the capital cost of building new facilities. For maintenance workers, $5,000 per employee might translate into 625 square feet per employee at a cost of $8 per square foot. Operating Revenues O ! Estimated property tax revenues reflect estimated taxable assessed value of real and j personal property (identified through Berk & Associates spatial analysis of data extracts from the King County Assessor's Office) multiplied by Renton's 2005 levy rate of $3.14813 per $1,000 of assessed value. 2005 taxable assessed value (in millions of dollars) is as follows. Taxable Assessed Value in Millions Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 $409.3 $311.2 $497.7 P Given the similarity between Renton and King County's schedules of gambling tax rates, estimated gambling tax revenues reflect the gambling taxes paid to King County in the most recent calendar year by gambling establishments in Study Area 3, as reported by King County budget analysts. Q Utility tax revenues represent the combined value of telephone, water/sewer/storm drainage, gas, cable TV, and garbage tax revenues as detailed in notes R through V. All of these taxes have been assumed to equal to 6% of gross revenue receipts by utility companies. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATES) Page 45 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill 0 R Estimated taxes on telephone service (including cell phone service) reflect the findings of 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. I S Water/sewer/storm drainage taxes reflect an estimate of $22.00 of annual revenues per I resident, based on the City of Renton's rates for an average household for surface water, water and sewer fees. T 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 State -shared revenue projections are based on estimates of statewide per capita ' Idistributions of the liquor tax, liquor profits, restricted and unrestricted gas taxes, and i 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 j were reported to total $33.20 per capita. Projected revenues, therefore, are arrived at by l i 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 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 I i 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 (30/o), 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 the Development Services Division of the Department of Planning, Building and Public Works. 0 (BERK & ASSOCIATESi Page46 +r, 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 i number of employees located in each of the study areas. The City's fee structure levies an annual fee of $55 per employee per year. Technical Appendix B: Supporting Documents 0 IBERK & ASSOCIATES) Page 47 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill atiw C la6oe Indrrea: ;:220100 ; ,; 8 8 0 104,= 116100 Admfnistratiltra, Judicial iLng Indirect;;: :848,900 :,.�..: 7.-, :3.. - -.5 - - 310;000 538,900 gedt IndifEGt,'2 i65:500' - 5 5 465,500 ' Attom Irdirecf';: IIo1300 " 0': 0 14098,000 1,101,300, Hearing Emminer Direct 141,600 1.5 15 141,600 seePo✓ke Court Services Direct 1,425,800 14.7 14.7 1,425,800 see Police Economic Dit"lopment Economic Development Direct 1,294,200 133 1 123 113000 10,000 1,171,200 Commercial 5F Nei botlood Pmwwm Direct 50000 1 1 50000 Population Finance A krformatkm Svs Ernance ',.:: Irdj ' ?: ...:I,TY.3,7L10'.-:.. 7R J': s 5 15,5 - 296,000 t13,000....,. - '1,364,700 lnformationSerJires Indirect t'6J0700`- .; 14.8 3 13:8 113000 10000 1547700 Human Resouces JI: Risk M Adini*trati4e & 04 Svs IndrceGr 620,800,' ' . ' 4.4 4.9 620,800 Risk Management Indirect 11,139,600 3 3 1 123,400 11,016,200 EXCLUDED Polka Administration Dept Indirect 1,601,100 4 1 3 144,000 25,000 437,100 995,000 based on FtEs from Renton PD Patrol Operations Direct 5,288,500 47 47 5,288,500 based on FTEs from Renton PD Patrol Services Direct 2,411,300 20.8 20.8 2.411,300 based on FTEs from Renton PD krvestiations Direct 2,378,700 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 1 12A 12.4 786,700 1 based on FTEs from Renton PD ALPdRary Services Dept Indirect 2,257,200 16 16 1 2,257,200 based on FTEs from Renton PD Fire Administration Dept Indirect 873,400 7 1 6 144,000 729,400 E Direct 10,812,800 99 99 10,812,800 Populabon+employment Fire Prevention Direct 919,000 10 10 919,000 Commercial SF Training Indirect 423,300 3 3 423,300 Disaster Management Dept Indeed 14,300 0 0 14,300 Community Services Administration Dept Indirect 915,100 9.2 9.2 915,100 Facilities Direct 7,885,700 273 1 143 113,000 2,772,700 1 SF of d ed buildings Parks Direct 3,360,800 353 1 343 113,000 3,247,800 Active park acres Passive park acres Recreation Services Direct 1,898,900 29.9 1.5 28.4 113,000 158,300 601,600 1,026,000 Based on Renton estimate Commun' Center Direct 1,11 100 19.4 19.4 1,112,100 EXCLUDED Senior Center Direct 564,400 6.6 6.6 564,400 EXCLUDED Human Services Direct 541,400 2.1 2.1 541,400 Population GDBG Direct 314500 3.I 3.1 314,500 EXCLUDED Library Direct 1,494,700 225 1 21.5 113,000 1,000 1,380,700 Library SF or population served Golf Course Direct 2,321,200 20A 20.4 1 1 126100 100000 466400 1 1628,700 1EXCLUDED ® BERR cat ASSdCIACE5! 9/7/2005 A Gry of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill Department/Division Oliver Values City Area I Area 2 Area 3 Total (1 +2+3) Incremental Demand Area I Area 2 Area 3 Total Allocated Costs Area I Area 2 Area 3 Total FTE's Total le ' lades ltill Administrative, Judidal 4 Le al 3.2% 1.5% 7.5% 12.2%- 3678 1789- 8734 14200 0MOD 0 0 Wyo 5 - -- - - 3.2% - 1.5% - 7.5%:' . 12.20)b 17,070 _ 8,302 40,539 65,911 00 1 3.29b 1.5% 7.5% 122%: 14,745 7,171 35,018 56,934 O0 1 Hea" Examiner 3.2%, 1.5% 7.5% 12.2%- 34,884'. 16,966-- 82,846 134,697 00 0 Court Services 53% 1.9% 10.0% 17.2% 7,491 2,659 14,201 24,351 0.10.2 0.3 Davet MEconomc 53% 1.9% 10.0% 17.2% 75,43226,770 142 991 245,193 0.81.5 2.5Economic ment 33527,467 547,379 72,202 1161,885 1,781,466 1.6% 0.2% 3.5% 5.3% 19,121 2,522 40,588 62,231 0.20.4 0.7 Neighbodiclod 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 0.0 0.1 0.3 Finanm 6 Infomadon Sw Fnartce , ' i ;; 3.2% ' 1.5% 7.5% - 12.2% -.122% 43,227 -. 21,024 102,661 166,912 0 0 1 2 Human Resouces i Risk M '3.29b k5% :,.7.5% ;::--49024 - 23843 116427 189395 � 0 0.�- 1 2 &Svs Risk Management -•:- 12:2%:: - 19,664M7,"4307 6.200 75;928 0: . 0 0 I POUZ 00 0 0 o O O Administration 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65,4964, 155 212,894 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Patrol Patrol Sevices 7.9% 2.8% 14.9% 25.5% 415,3987,437 1,350,255 3.7 1.3 7.0 12.0 4.4% 1.6% 8.4% 14A% 106,9942,819 347,784 0.9 0.3 1.7 3.0 5.9% 2.1% 11.1% 19.0% 139,38964,229 453,0861.2 0.4 2.36.2% Staff Services 2.2% 11.7% 20.0% 81,18253,890 263,882 0.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 Auxu'Na Services 7.4% 2.6% 14.1% 242% 51,784 18,378 98,163 168,325 0.9 0.3 1.7 3.0 Pin 5.8% 2.0% 10.9% 18.8% 148 580 52,729 281,6511 482,959 0.9 0.3 1.7 3.0 Administration 30,183 15,080 104,240 149,503 0.2 0.1 0.4 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 22 15.4 22.0 Fse 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 48,831 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 Training 4.4% 2.2% 7.5% 14.2% 18,556 9,520 31,896 59,972 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Disaster Manaeement 104.180 4,567 2,343 7,85 14,760 4.4% 2.2% 7.5% 14.2% 627 322 1,078 2,026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Comm Seniors- Administration 13,028 8,281 60,456 81,765 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 Facilities 11,449 11,449 0 0 80,143 80,143 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks 259 0 0 23 23 0.0% 0.0% 8.9%1 8.9% 20,582 289,418 310,000 0.2 0.0 3.1 3.3 759 5 0 0 5 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% Recreation Services 7.0% 5.0% 8.0% 20.0% 71,820 51,300 82,080 205,200 2.0 1.4 2.3 5.7 Community Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Senior Activity Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Human Services 55,360 4388 Z310 7,217 13,915 7.9% 4.2% 13.0% 25.1% 42,913 22,591 70,580 136,083 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 GDBG 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ubrary 55,360 13,915 13,915 0.0% 0.0% 25.1% 25.1% 347,046 347,046 0.0 0.0 5.4 5.4 God Course 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ ; BERK & AS5Ucta-rEs 9/7/2005 City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill OepartmerNj0ivision Direct or Indirect Total 2005 Budgeted Zoos Budgeted FTEs FTEs subject Non- to annex- Contracted Intertund allocable FTEs related Costs Payments increases a Excluded 20D5 Director Costs Costs Capita! Outlay _ Debt Service Other Excluded - costs Allocable, Cost, Driver D,4/V,aW ® I BERK & ASSOCIATES! 9/7j2005 1 i City of Renton Annexation Analysis: West Hill It Department/Dimion Plannin Buildin Public Works Administration city Area I -, Driver values Area 2 At" 3 Total (1 +2+3) Area I incremental Area 2 Demand Area 3 Total Area I Allocated Area 2 Costs Area 3 Total (1+2+3) Area I FTE's Area 2 Area 3 Total ntServices Maintenance Services A& wWa6on 6,344,519,6491 409,334,905 311,154,929 497,713,672 1,218,203,504 6.5% 4.9% 7.8% 19.2% 8,198 199,218 5,251 151,435 11,086 242,231 24,666 592,885 0.1 2.4 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.9 0.3 7.1 5 4601 35 21 45 101 7.6% 4S% 9.8% 2I.9% 0 217,470 0 130,356 0 282,021 0 629,847 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.6 3.1 Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wastewater 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 Swim " - Surf Water - 91,040 55;360 i 642 - 4,388 284 2,310 1,012 7,217 1,938 13,915 5.8% 7.9% - 2.6% 4.2% 9.2% 13.04b 17.6% 25.1% 0 45,684 4,827 0 2Q2 99 2,541 0 72,0131 7,9391 0 137,907 15,308 0 03 0.1 0 0.2 0.0 G 0.6 0.1 0 1.1 0.3 Solid waste tiller - Tran lion S AdTav$V tion T Tra(fio 11,040 460 460 .- -11,040 642 28 17 642 284 17 10 - 264 1,012 36 23 - 1,012 1,938 80 50 - 1,938 5.8% 6.0% 3.8% 5.8% 2.6% 3.6% 23% 16% 9.2% 7.8% 4.94b 91% 17.6% 17.5% 10.9% 17.6% 7,930 31,513 27,903 36,798 29,425 4,176 13,940 16,725 14,802 13,01 11,311 49,674 36,185 93,214 446,383 23,416 95,127 80,813 14a,814 88,825 0.1 03 0.3 0.4 03 0.1 0.1 0.2 03 0 i 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.8 13 0,9 T� Mdnte� T a Comtrucu0n 5 Tedlncal 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 0.1 0.4 0.7 -. Technical Services- EnWprw- and- Oth4rCity Servkw Other Uty Services Umited Tax Gen Obli'on Bonds Highlighted in blue capital function Cost exduding SWM, Solid Waste, and Transp. Design $2,620,575 $2,540,639 $1,217,703 $1,181,936 $6,229,440 $10,068,249 24 12 57 93 $6,103,504 $9,826,210 Hi`$Mighttdin g(cr 'flditCdtosts Add $5,000 per FTE for office costs. (annual) $120,000 $58,000 $285,000 $464,000 Total cost excluding SWM and Solid Waste $2,660,639 $1,239,936 16,388,504 $10,290,210 0 1 BERK & ASSOCIATES 9/7/2005 EXHIBIT `D' 4.4 WEST HILL Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations King County Comprehensive Plan Map Key - Land Use 2004 Unincorporated Activity Center I Agriculture Community Business Commercial Outside of Centers Forestry GreenbeklUrban Separator industrial Mining Neighborhood Business Center i� Rural Neighborhood Rural Residential Rural Town DIM Rural City Urban Growth Area Urban Residential, high, > 12dulac• Urban Residential, low. 1 du/acl Urban Residential, medium, 4-12 dulac' Urban Ptan Development King County Owned M Open SpacelRecreation Other Parks/Wilderness Incorporated City 0 Trbal Lands ram. Urban Growth Area Boundary Forest Production District Boundary ��. Agricultural Production District Boundary Municipal Watershed Boundary King County Zoning Map (2004) Key Zoning 2004 RM A-10 - Agricultural, one DU per 10 acres A-35 - Agricuihxal, one DU per 35 acres F - Forest M - Mineral RA-2.5 - Rural Area, one DU per 5 acres RA-5 - Rural Area, one DU per 5 acres RA-10 - Rural Area, one DU per 10 acres UR - Urban Reserve, one DU per 5 acres R-1 - Residential, one DU per acre R-4 - Residential, 4 DU per acre R-6 - Residential, 6 DU per acre R-8 - Residential, 8 DU per acre R-12 - Residential, 12 DU per acre R-18 - Residential, 18 DU per acre R-24 - Residential, 24 DU per acre R-48 - Residential, 48 DU per acre NB - Neighborhood Business CB - Community Business RB - Regional Business O - Office I - Iridustrial, Incorporated City ® Tribal Lands Urban Growth Area Boundary H:\EDNSP\PAA\West Hill\West Hill Issue Paper Exhibit'D'AocLast printed 11/10/2005 11:34 AM EXHIBIT `F' West Hill Potential Annexation Area West Hill is an unincorporated island bordering the southern end of Lake Washington, surrounded by the cities of Seattle, Renton and Tukwila. It is comprised of the neighborhoods of Bryn Mawr, Lakeridge, Skyway, and Earlington. The area is primarily residential and is supported by older and increasingly fewer commercial establishments. West Hill is one of the few unincorp- orated Urban areas that lacks a PAA designation. TAN INFO 2003 Assessed Valuation: $953 million Uninc. Area Levy ($1.745 per 1,000) $1,662,800 2002 Real Estate Sales: $63.7 million Local Option REET Revenue (0.5%): $318,300 2002 Taxable Retail Sales: $34.2 million Local Option Sales Tax Revenue (1.0%):$341,700 DEMOGBam 2000 Census Population: 13 Pop. Per Sq. Mile: 4,570 Median Age: 38.0 Age Structure: 17 and under 3,190 (22.8%) 18 — 64 8,850 (63.3%) 65 and over 1,940 (13,* Race Categories: Non -hispanic White 5,960 (43,�) Black or African Am.: 3,500 Asian and Pacific Is: 3,100 (2 }. Native Am. and other: 100 (1° Hispanic or Latino: 620 Two or more race: 700 ( . ChaptervIl. Unincorporated King County 131 QUICK FACTS Land Area: 1,958.08 Acres or 3.06 Square Miles King County Council District: 5 (Dwight Pelz) School District: 403 Renton Water District: Bryn Mawr, Skyway Sewer District: Bryn Mawr, Skyway Fire District: 20 Annexing City: Unclaimed by any adjacent city Annexation Status: FLOYIMENT Business Units: 190 1,490 50 40 320 500 480 100 WA Employment Security DepY HOUSING Total Housing Units: 5,780 Single Family: 4,190 (72.5%) Multifamily: 1,390 (24%) Mobile Homes: 200 (3.5%) Percent Homeowners: 66.7% Average Household Size: 2.50 Median House Value: $ 181,400 Median 2 Bedroom Rental: $ 742 Source: 2000 US Census INCOME Median Household Income: $47,385 Number of Households: 5,570 Household by Income Category: 0 — 80% 2,430 (44%) 80 —140% 1,810 (32%) 140%+ 1,330 (24%) Source: 2000 US Census I;«II II11 2002 New Residential Permits: 22 Single Family: 22 Multifamily: 0 / 0 2002 Formal Plats/Lots: Applications: 0 / 0 Recordings: 0 / 0 2002 Land Capacity: Residential In Acres: 167.04 In Units: 1,913 Commercial In Acres: n a In Jobs: 2003 King County Annual Growth Report WEST HILL PA.A, - King County/Renton Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Comparison for Uses & Density ' 32 j: FI�nCD.�s>.gna'�4� ' �; t r •D na � � '�',t # R-6, 6 du/acre SF detached, townhouse 6-9 du/ac �� R-8 8 du/net ac, SF detached, flats or townhouses 4-8 du/net ac apartment, day care, I1Iillt semi -attached dwelling, adult family home, group homes, ^" um R-8, 8 du/acre SF detached, townhouse, apartment, day care, 8-12 du/ac :: �� a ` R-10, 10 du/net as SF detached, flats or townhouses, semi attached dwelling, attached 4-10 du/net ac -_gro dwellings, adult family home, homes R-12,12 du/acre SF detached, townhouse, 12-18 du/ac x ? R 14, 14 du/net ac. SF detached, semi -attached 8-18 du/net ac - apartment, mobile home park, dwelling, attached dwellings, adult x' comm. residential, senior asst family home, group homes, t housing, day care t' R 18, 18 du/acre SF detached, townhouse, 18-27 du/ac RM-F, Residential Semi -attached dwelling, flats or 7-20 du/net apartment, mobile home park,'_ Multi -Family townhouses, attached dwellings, ac. ' comet. residential, senior asst �$ adult family home, group homes, housing,day care, R 24, 24 du/acre SF detached, townhouse, 24-36 du/ac7 CV, Center Village Semi -attached dwelling, flats or 25-80 du/net : apartment, mobile home park, townhouses, attached dwellings, ac. t� comet, residential, senior asst. � .� � t � adult family home, group homes, housing, day care""' 8 Y R-48, 48 du/acre SF detached, townhouse, 48-72 du/ac CV, Center Village Semi -attached dwelling, flats or 25-80 du/net apartment, mobile home park, .. townhouses, attached dwellings, ac. comet. residential, senior asst. adult family home, group homes, F housing,day care R 11 � Mffl��s.. Neigh. Bus. Townhouse, apartment, Comm. 8 du/ac as : " Neighborhood Flats or townhouses, attached 4 dwelling residential, senior asst housing, part of r =' Commercial dwellings, adult family home, units per bldg. t�]<o day care, church, artist studio, outpatient clinic, public agency, mixed use developments �'�fbii+dtit group homes, medical/dental offices, general offices, restaurants, as part of mixed -use commuter parking lot, general = N �, � :w ,� , . , � retail sales, churches, adult/child development P r? business, professional office. day care CB, Comm. Bus. Townhouse, apartment, comm. 18 du/ac as, w "' CA -Commercial Attached dwellings, schools, 0-20 du/net residential, senior asst. housing, part of `' Arterial studios, arts & crafts, conference ac. Up to 60 day care, church, artist studio, mixed use = centers, medical/dental offices, du/net ac for outpatient clinic, public agency, development "! '6 general offices, restaurants, retail mixed -use in commuter parking lot, self- 4 ��1►` sales, vehicle sales, card rooms, designated service storage, general business, - dance halls, movie theaters, sports corridors =f professional office, auto leasing, facilities, hotel, motel, small bldg. and garden materials, dept. ' vehicle rental, comm'1 or public stores, food stores, gas stations, - parking, gas stations, laboratories restaurants': Industrial Misc. equipment rental, auto IM-Industrial Misc. vehicle rental, warehousing, leasing, automobile parking, R & Mediqjm vehicle fueling stations, large D, heavy equipment rental and IhdllSti'I�I vehicle service and repair, hotel, truck repair, restaurants taurants motel, res HIGHLANDS MORATORIUM EXTENSION PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 14, 2005 The City enacted a moratorium on redevelopment in the Highlands in May 2005 to allow time to develop policies and new development standards and begin a public outreach program to gain property owner, business owner, and resident input and support for a new subarea plan for this area. The sub -area plan will result in land use actions and densities needed as an incentive for redevelopment in line with the City's adopted Business Plan. The existing moratorium expires on November 16, 2005, unless extended by the City Council. The original moratorium was intended to reduce development pressure on properties in the Highlands study area while the City prepared the subarea plan and new zoning. The current zoning does not allow the higher densities needed to simulate a larger redevelopment effort. While many properties are built out with older housing stock, some existing lots are large enough to subdivide at lower densities that perpetuate a land use pattern inconsistent with the adopted City goals and vision for the Center Village Land Use Designation. The current R-10 zoning in the study area allows single-family detached uses in areas that will be evaluated for higher density as part of the Highlands Subarea Plan. The RM-F zoning allows stacked flats and lower density multi -family development. Recent project applications are vesting at a lower density than the zoning currently allows. The City currently has no tools available to discourage these low -density subdivisions and building permits. Additional time is needed to analyze zoning options and present an overall strategy to the City Council for decision making. Extension of the moratorium for an additional six months allows continued progress toward completion of a redevelopment strategy. It is recommended that the moratorium be extended for an second six-month period to allow work to continue on the subarea plan and implementation strategies. Staff further recommends that the R-10 zoned area located on Monroe Avenue, that is subject to single family covenants, be excluded from the extended moratorium. In addition, public school properties, single family zoned properties, and commercially zoned areas that encourage mixed -use residential/commercial development at higher densities, were exempted from the original moratorium and these exemptions would continue. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area Plans\Highlands\Moratotium\Council Hearing Handout 11-14-05.doc W @OJ S ID ►A ,� on ,•I 0.1 r k r57 € I € I { - 4 i N I 3 r E F y +ttk; Qc m Tf cn o 1 -u 0<.OrmC/)ma_.I n. N a s m° <n fll c a_i o'o * 0 3 CD� N c=p CD D N C (n n. n (O O CD < S- 0 tyl - l< to (ll o Ch C1 - CD N CD c m v O o o tD O CD O CD CD C O D 3 0 w _ ? Q Tao k N O CD p a 3 (D � CD (n �oo � CD ?� (D p (D O_ � CD (n � a O 0 N a O CC m 5 p O O 0 CD (D Sv �, to Q ° O y ° Q cQ : o cD m (n O 3 CD O C 5- (n O N (p N C (n (Q (n B w m_ o aam CD -11 = (n cD =7 n (D CD w (D o r-n— 0 a rn v oc C 8- � gr a 3 (D CQ D m' C (o a: (0 (o (no@ s CD0 (Dy � �? @toO _ n 73 CL CD (o N w (v c m a U) a CD n m CD CD m m cod o�� �°' En'O co Zx m x -� �- (o d °: CD �' > ? 0 �� �< v0mC_� :3a°_�o > �� 0 0 (D (D Co N '� N i1 w °' o O= N CD CD CD (D F N m' (D n> c .a o I y CD CO (7 C N to 'l7 O= q� p �� C a. �. NN O (J N 3 O (�D C_ 3 N O Q (D �' o CO ?. z` N C p C=�D ti Cu CD �. `G (Q CD v � a ^� (i N < O N 0 0CL o O< D O a m o m �, o CD v, m T, o -O CL O o �' a� m >(' v o m rn?a v O os 3 3CD 4l o o CCD CD _ CD (D _6 Q LJ U) �S N O [1 CD O Q d O 3 L C1 _ p < Cfl N a m a)CD O y m z 4i CDCD a n» CD O N O CD _ CD 0 N 3 a (v CD CD �u' a CD � m ° � sli ,�.� [A Q CD D �, 0 FA", CD CD Q O O O M. L C: in Q) rum P E O U Q� 7 Q U) c G c 0 n /1 E 00 W O CD co O C a O CD m �a � OU y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, U �, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC , '1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Z-� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 9, 2005 CA TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council NOV 10 2005 VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator .Rentals City Council STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) SUBJECT: Moratorium on Residential Development in the Highlands Study Area ISSUE: Should the City continue the existing moratorium on redevelopment within the Highlands Study Area during preparation of the Highlands Sub -Area Plan? RECOMMENDATION: • Adopt a resolution extending the moratorium on new development including grading permits, land clearing and tree cutting permits, building permits, plats, lot line adjustments, and site plan review entitlements in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the area shown on Exhibit 1 Highlands Sub -Area Plan Moratorium Map. • Modify the moratorium area by excluding R-10 zoned properties located on Monroe Avenue that are encumbered by covenants restricting uses and lot sizes supporting medium density single family land use. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City Council adopted two policies in the 2005 Business Plan that directly address priorities for the Highlands. Goal #2 states, "Promote Neighborhood Revitalization. " Strategy #3 states, "Create opportunities for new investment in the Highlands and South Renton neighborhoods. " The City enacted a moratorium on redevelopment in the Highlands in May 2005 (Resolution No. 3754, 5-16-2005) to allow time to develop policies and new development Terri Brier, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 2 of 3 November 9, 2005 standards and begin a public outreach program to gain property owner, business owner, and resident input and support for a new sub -area plan for this area. The sub -area plan will result in land use actions and densities needed as an incentive for redevelopment in line with the Business Plan. The existing moratorium expires on November 16, 2005, unless extended by the City Council. The original moratorium was intended to reduce development pressure on properties in the Highlands study area while the City prepared the sub -area plan and new zoning. The current zoning does not allow the higher densities needed to stimulate a larger redevelopment effort. While many properties are built out with older housing stock, some existing lots are large enough to subdivide at lower densities that perpetuate a land use pattern inconsistent with the adopted City goals and vision for the Center Village Land Use Designation. The current R-10 zoning in the Highlands Study Area allows single-family detached uses in areas that will be evaluated for higher density as part of the Highlands Sub -area Plan. The RM-F zoning allows stacked flats and lower density multi -family development. Recent project applications are vesting at a lower density than the zoning currently allows. The City currently has no tools available to discourage these low -density subdivisions and building permits. Work is progressing on the Plan, with the first community open house scheduled for the evening of November 15, 2005. The City staff anticipates working with the Planning Commission and the public for the next six months to further refine zoning and infrastructure investment strategies. Additional time is needed to analyze zoning options and present an overall strategy to the City Council for decision -making. The original work program for this project assumed adoption of an interim zoning to guide development in the short term. However, upon further research and analysis, the staff recommendation is to proceed with the final zoning and redevelopment solution rather than using time to develop an interim strategy. Such an interim strategy could result in more piecemeal development and would not achieve the vision for this area. Extension of the moratorium for an additional six months allows continued progress toward completion of a redevelopment strategy. During the last six months, several property owners in the R-10 zoned area on Monroe Avenue (in the eastern portion of the original moratorium area) presented new information to the City about existing covenants restricting the use of these properties to single family residential with a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. Land use in these areas will not be changed by any new plan or policies of the City calling for higher density development. As a result, staff recommends that the R-10 area located on Monroe Avenue, subject to these covenants, be excluded from the extended moratorium. In addition, public school properties, R-8 zoned single-family neighborhoods, and commercially zoned areas that encourage mixed -use residential/commercial development Terri Brier, Council President Members of the Renton City Council Page 3 of 3 November 9, 2005 at higher densities were exempted from the original moratorium and these exemptions would continue. CONCLUSION: An extended moratorium in the Highlands is needed to relieve pressure from immediate development in the area. The City needs additional time to develop new standards that reflect the City's vision for the Highlands, and to work with property owners to implement its goals. Implementation of interim standards at this time would undermine the City's longer -term effort and would result in piecemeal development that would not meet the goals of the Center Village Land Use Designation. �'`jMIT41, _ , I AN re v I LTA 19. re Revenue — By Type — General Government Property Miseellansous 30% 9% Charge for Service 5% Saba Texas 79% OtherGovemnients 4% License I Perm Ss 5% OtharT as Gambling 3% Utility ax 14% The Numbers ,* Total Budget - $171.2 million Internal Funds General Gov't Community 42% Services Streets 19% 9% city General Services Enterprise - Government !ij !111 23% 31% ire 19% Debt Police 61/. Capital Special 25% Pits Revenue 14% 1% ��i��IJU3 A OA Property Taxes • Limits: • $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value • 1% increase on amount for existing tax base (plus annexations, new construction) • Note: Implicit price deflator limit still applies • Who • County assessor verifies tax role • County treasurer assesses the tax Invactina in Renton's Future Property Taxes • Assessed Value times • Levy Rate equals • Property Tax • Subject to 1% increase (on tax) • Plus new construction 3 Property Taxes — Total Tax Base your cobtrol :." Policy decision Assessed Value - - Levy Rate $ 6.5 billion $3.15/$1,000 Taxes -- p ❑ Collected consequence M Property Taxes — Total Tax Base yp E couirol..`� - -- ' Policy decision 1 % growth Assessed Value Levy Rate $ 6.5 billion no change Taxes rC L 0Collected sequence r levy rate 2 5 Property Taxes — your house compared to your neighbor Was $ 235,000 Now $ 235,000 i 8,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 Taxes _ Collected Was $740 — now $721 2.5% decrease Property Taxes Assessed Value Trends Changes in Assessed Valuation Levy Rate $3.07/$ 1,00ff L lower levy rate / Higher value 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 Property Taxes Where does the Property Tax Go? 34% ® County ■ State-School City ❑ School Dist. 27% ❑ City -Gen. 23%Ojj ■ City -EMS 12% 4% Property Taxes Total and City Property Tax Rates in Selected King County Cities Levy Bates 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 Total razes 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 7 0 Property Taxes Allocations to other Funds _ _ 2004 %u 2005 % 2006. General Fund $ 8,838,650 4512% $ 9,869, 700 47.62% $ 9,597;388 43:57( Parks 4,806,200 24.6R, 5,135,400 24.78% 6,976,976 .... SUeets _... 3,014,566 15 39% ., 3 221,000 ...... _ o ....... 1b 54/0. 3,676,378 .._.:..... ;Library" 1,893;800 967%; 1;455200. 7. 0 T/ol ...... . 1,768;712 Debt Service m 1,036,100 529%, m 1,043,100 5.030/o!gym^ 1,007,253 Total $ 19,589,250 100.00%a $ 20,724;400 100.00% $ 22,026;707 Sales Taxes • .85% of total cost of taxable goods Rate ® State 6.50% ■ City .85% O County .15% © Metro .609/6 ■ Transit .901/6 ■ RTA .40% ® Crnninal Justice .101/6 O Stadiums .33% i 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 81000,000 1997 Sales Taxes Total Sales Tax Receipts 1998 1999 2000 mm 2002 = 20M m 2006 m f 12,000,000 10,0010,000 8,000;000 6,000,000 4,000,000. 2,000,000 0 Utility Taxes Utility Tax 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Investil ■ Natural Gas ® City Utilities ■ Cellular Phone ❑ Telephone ❑ TV Cable ■ Transfer Station ® Electricity Total General Government Revenue Taxes ... Property .... 22,027 Sales 18,038 Uti lity 10,075 i Gambling,,, 2,305 Other Taxes 3,902 Total Taxes _ ! 56,347 License / Permits 3,421 Other Governments 2,849 Charge for Service i 3,619 Miscellaneous i 6,226 Total Revenue 72,461 10 Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the Community This Budget: • Maintains existing service levels • Contains no new taxes • Uses no reserves to balance • Keeps user fees up to date 11 Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the Community This Budget: • Adds 3 police officers • Addresses work load for REACT and RenStat • Adds 1 fire inspector • Emphasis on fire prevention and safety • Adds 1 fire support staff •Protect our iivestmwnt i taI inf rmati�n s em nvesfln qin en on sfuture Meet Service Demands that Contribute to the Livability of the Community This Budget: • Adds the local matching funds for a "SAFER" grant • Potential for 3 additional firefighters • Adds court security measures for our 3rd floor • Uses equipment and personnel to protect city staff and patrons • Add costs associated with the new Maplewood water trQatment p jn (2 staff sitio s an� of r c sts) Ila es i �q iKeniun sfuture 12 f 4 The Numbers The City provides a wide variety of services We have focused on General Government The utility accounts and golf courses pay for their services through user fees User fees need to keep pace with costs The Numbers Utility Systems • Add 2 employees to operate the new plant • Comprehensive review of rates this winter • Moderate rate increases proposed for 2006 13 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION • A special edition of CitySource, the City's newsletter to citizens and businesses, will be included in the November 16th issue of The Renton Reporter and will feature general information about the 2006 proposed budget. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Shoppers, make Renton Community Center your first stop for those special holiday buys! Come to the Hassle Free Holiday Bazaar Friday, November 18th, and Saturday, November 19th, where over 100 vendors will present a wide variety of handcrafted items just in time for your holiday decorating. Shop from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Refreshments will be available. For more information call Shirley Anderson or Bonnie Rerecich at 425-430-6700. • Volunteers will serve a Thanksgiving meal to senior citizens at the Renton Senior Activity Center on Thursday, November 24th. The Center will be open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for senior citizens to enjoy a day of social and recreational activities. A free holiday meal will be served at 11:45 a.m. Seniors must pick up a free ticket prior to Tuesday, November 23rd, for their meal reservation and transportation request. For additional information, call 425-430-6633. • The Winter/Spring Recreation Brochure, "What's Happening," will be available to the community on December 1st. The brochure lists all our winter cross country and snowshoe trips, preschool classes, and much more! • The 12th annual Clam Lights festivities will be held Friday, December 2nd at Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Don't miss this fabulous event, with the Dickens Carolers, train rides, and a sing -a -long at the north shelter. Entertainment begins at 6:30 p.m., with the official lighting ceremony at 7:20 p.m. The parade of boats will cruise by at 7:30 p.m. The Clam Lights will shine nightly through January 1st. • The Rainier Yacht Club's lighted boat parade will make an appearance at Coulon Memorial Beach Park on Saturday, December 3rd at 7:30 p.m. • The Argosy Christmas Ship will arrive at Coulon Memorial Beach Park on Sunday, December 4th at 6:00 p.m. The ship will have a choir on board to entertain the crowd onshore. Transit Center (for Administrator's Report 11/14/05) On November 3rd the Mayor hosted a second meeting of the (so called) "Solutions Work Group" focusing on Transit Center security. This collaborative group is made up of representatives of the Renton School District, the King County Sheriff, Metro Transit Police, KC Metro Operations, owners and managers of nearby businesses, and interested citizens, as well as staff of several City Departments -- Police, Community Services, Economic Development & Neighborhood Services, Public Works, and the City Attorney's office. A Community Program Coordinator from the Renton Police Dept is now conducting a thorough study of the Transit Center environment — carefully observing behavior at different times and on different days — to give the Work Group an accurate assessment of activities in and around the Transit Center. The Work Group is already developing solutions that can be implemented in the very near term — like minor changes in the design of Transit Center facilities, posting signs, and broadcasting selected music to discourage loitering. Longer - term modifications now in the planning and discussion stages will involve the full range of agencies and individuals participating on the "Solutions Work Group." CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: a Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Staff Contact...... Norma McQuiller X6595 Subject: Second Round of 2005 Neighborhood Grants Exhibits: ■ Issue Paper ■ 2005 Second Round Grant Funding Request Descriptions Recommended Action: Refer to Community Services Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required Amount Budgeted...... Total $17,446 $18,127 (remaining in budget from first round) For Agenda of. 11/14/05 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information......... Approvals: Legal Dept .... X.... Finance Dept .... X... Other ............... Transfer/Amendment....... Revenue Generated......... Share Total Project.. 1/ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Six project applications and one newsletter application were submitted for the second round of neighborhood program funding. Staff evaluated each request against established criteria. Five project grants and one newsletter grant are recommended for funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve five 2005 Neighborhood Grant project applications and one newsletter application totaling $17,446. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh �-I T Y OF REN TON 'Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,-NOV 0 f; ♦ NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGI� RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CLERK'S OFFICE M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 2, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council A VIA:,,i Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor i FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator f V STAFF CONTACT: Norma McQuiller, ext. 6595 SUBJECT: 2005 Second Round Grant Applications ISSUE: Do the seven grant project applications submitted, which includes one newsletter grant, comply with the City of Renton's Neighborhood Program objectives and should they be approved? BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City Council appropriated $50,000 in the 2005 Budget for the Neighborhood Grant Program. From this budget, $31,873 was allocated in the first round of applicants earlier this year, leaving $18,127 to be allocated. The seven grant applications received in the second round total $17,492 and are shown in the attached table. The following criteria were used to evaluate projects to determine if the objectives of the Neighborhood Program are met: o Project size and complexity is appropriate for neighborhood group. o Location of project is appropriate. o Project documentation shows neighborhood participation and adequate volunteer labor reflecting community support for the project. o Maintenance is accounted for after completion. o Project is visible and benefits the public. o Sufficient matching funds exist through sweat equity, cash, or donated labor/materials. o Physical improvements benefit a larger area of a community. o Project facilitates other neighborhood program objectives including neighborhood networking, stimulating self-help, and neighborhood organization. o Project has realistic budget. Neighborhood Requested Amount Recommended Amount Project Grants Earlington Neighborhood Association $2,360 $2,360 Emerald Garden Homeowners' Association $3,971 $3,971 Maplewood Gardens Neighborhood Association $2,700 $2,700 Summerwind Homeowners' Association $136 $136 Summerwind Homeowners' Association $46 N/A Winsper Homeowners' Association $8,000 $8,000 Newsletter Grants Summerwind Homeowners' Association $279 $279 Totals $17,492 $17,446 Note: The above amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar RECOMMENDATION: Approve five project applications and one newsletter application totaling $17,446. cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Ben Wolters, Director Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Coordinator Michael Bailey, Administrator Neighborhood Grant Total Project Meets objectives of Neighborhood Request Project Cost Program arlington $2,360 $4,720 Kiosk & Landscape to Neighborhood Park Yes Neighborhood includes Residents will install a kiosk in their neighborhood park with Association sweat landscaping around the kiosk. Modifications will be made to e uit original design under the direction of the Parks Department. Emerald Gardens $3,971 $7,942 Detention Pond Landscaping Phase II Yes omeowneW includes Association sweat Detention pond is located on the corner of Dayton Ave NE and NE equity 20th St. Continue improvements with a neighborhood identity sign, arbors for climbing plants, and drought resistant evergreen ground over. Maplewood $2,700 $5,400 Right of Way Improvement Yes Gardens includes Continue with Phase II of landscaping by adding a fence to protect Neighborhood sweat the park from encroachment of blackberries from the neighboring Association equity ro ert. Location is at SE 1 lth St on City right of way ro ert. ummerwind $136 $272 Park Improvements Yes Homeowners' includes Landscape by adding dwarf laurels and remove diseased photina Association sweat bushes. equity No ummerwind $46 N/A Plastic Coating for Neighborhood Signs Homeowners' Replacement of plastic coating for A -frame signs funded from the Ongoing maintenance is the Association 004 Neighborhood Grant Program responsibility of the neighborhood. Some responsibility and commitment must be shown from he HOA or neighborhood in these afters. insper $8,000 $16,000 Main Entrance Landscaping Yes Homeowners' includes Landscape the main entrance by preserving 20 feet of grass, add a Association sweat barked border, and replace the remaining grass with evergreen and equity eciduous trees, shrubs, and groundcover. ummerwind $279 N/A Newsletter Yes Homeowners' Annual printing and postal expenses for a quarterly newsletter. Association otal 1 $17,492 1 $34,334 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: 0 Submitting Data: For Agenda of. November 14, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. EDNSP Department Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Rebecca Lind, Planner Mgr (x6588) Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Pre -Application Review Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: 1. Issue Paper Study Sessions...... 2. Applications 2006- Pre 01, 2006-Pre-02, 2006-Pre- Information......... 03, and 2006-Pre-04 with project descriptions Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning & Development Committee Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... I Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Four applications were received for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Pre -Application review cycle. The request is to refer these applications to the Planning and Development Committee to begin the review process. After Committee review, if an application meets review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments stipulated in RMC 4-9-020, it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the applicant will be required to file the full application. Staff analysis will be prepared for the Planning & Development Committee agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council consideration of these land use applications as part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh �y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 3, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: _Y',Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator " 0 STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, ext. 6588 SUBJECT: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Pre -Application ISSUE: Should the City Council initiate the 2006 annual Comprehensive Plan Pre -Application amendment review process? RECOMMENDATION: Refer the following amendments package to the Planning and Development Committee: 1. Pre -application 2006—Pre-01: Tony Chee and Tammy Chee, 1315 N 30th St., Request for a Land Use Map amendment from Single -Family Residential (Residential-8 Zoning) to Commercial Neighborhood (Commercial Neighborhood Zoning). The map included with the application is incorrect. The new designation and zoning for this area to Commercial Neighborhood was adopted in November 2004. 2. Pre -application 2006-Pre-02: Darrell Kinzer and Susan Larson Kinzer, Kennydale Blueberry Farm, 1733 NE 20th St., Request for a Land Use Map amendment from Low Density Residential (Resource Conservation Zoning) to Single Family Residential (Residential-8 Zoning). 3. Pre -application 2006-Pre 03: Glenn and Janetta Perkins, 9623 132nd Ave. SE., Request for a Land Use Map amendment from Low Density Residential (Residential-4 Zoning) to Single Family Residential (Residential-8 Zoning). 4. Application 2006-Pre-04: Springbrook Associates, Parcel No 3023059111, Request for a Land Use Map amendment from Residential Medium Density (Residential-10 Zoning) to Commercial Corridor (Commercial Office zoning). h:\ednsp\comp plan\amendments\2006\pre-applications\referral issue paper pre-applications.doc November 3, 2005 Page 2 of 2 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Growth Management Act limits processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments to an annual review cycle. The Renton Municipal Code allows a Pre -Application process prior to filing a complete application by December 15`h for consideration in the annual cycle. The purpose of the pre -application review is to provide a policy screening of applications by the Planning and Development Committee prior to filing and payment of fees. Criteria in the Renton Municipal Code are used to screen applications and provide property owners policy direction. The Council reviews whether proposed amendments are timely and satisfy one of the following review criteria: 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The request supports adopted Business Plan goals, 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing policies, and 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the Council. The four applications received this year and project justifications are attached for Council review. A separate issue paper and analysis of how each proposal complies with review criteria will be prepared for Planning and Development Committee review. c: Jay Covington h:\ednsp\comp plan\amendments\2006\pre-applications\referral issue paper pre-applications.doc City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATIC PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME. ADDRESS: l b �H�in�An�iSl-f PG4-C6 SE CITY:�Ar�rnISH ZIP: 9667-g- TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425_: - 4.z7- 9 $C b APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if apPficable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAM: COMPANY ('if apocaw): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: I ►E( QED SEP 2 9 2005 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: 14 A PROJECTIADDRESS(SpLOCATION AND ZIP CODE: /312,�—Al _5o 77T s772C--7E7_ R.r,wra/v , IV,4 96056 MNG COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER($): 3342. (o — 3 z-7a — 56 EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CdMMCAC/AL eIZj�Ajrt4L_ PROPOSEDCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION ( )' G6/Cal/ENCE d6MMEy2c1,9L_ EXISTING ZONING: CC IA$ PROPOSED ZONING (N applicable): CC � SITE AREA on "um feet): % 9 5 -7 S F SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (lf applicable): PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if*Wic"): lvlq NUMBER PROPOSED LOTS (of applicable): NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Aj JL. cv GVV✓ 1"••J•t PROJECT INFORMA TwN (continues NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (d applicable): /V, ZA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable), IV SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (d applicable): jV A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (d applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (i applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if appliicable): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE ('d applicable): . O AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE O AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO O FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. O GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. O HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. O SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. O WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri 'on on s Grate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION . TOWNSHIP _, RANGE , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied tor. 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print NOMA) �'iyl�! C //FEE dedam OW 1 am (please check one) P Ins current owner of the property involved In this applicalton or the authorized repromdaGre to act for a corporation (piame aboh proof of authorization) and that be foregoing statements and anwm a herein contained old tits kft.,Mm herewlth are in all respects true and correct to tits beet of my IknOWNdgs and belief. 1 certify that 1 know or have sadsfadary eviden t 4/4-r✓ ; - �' Iff signed thk Instrument and admawledged It to bid0w0t telr free and voluntary act for Me uses and purposes mentioned in the Inetrumw t. I (Signature of 6*Yw Represe►ktative) ,���e�ea��r�x•1�r ,. .••` Q E T TF co No .m y Notary Public in and for ft State of Washington (Signature of Omw/Reprewfafty) ' 20 •' * •• ®-� 1/JN �b 1; 0e841.�4k ASw SSS Notary Pkt) VP_d-��� ' My appokbrwnt expires: ," (�1 .. .. _.. .._.%. .._...a... 09/26r03 TOTAL P.03 Primary Owner: CHEE,WAN T Secondary Owner. Mail Address: 1605 E LAKE SAMMAMISH PL SE SAMMAMISH, WA 98075 Site Address: 1315 N 30TH ST RENTON, WA 98056 Telephone Number: APN: 3342103270 Reference APN: Census Traces 253.002 Housing Tract Number: Lot Number. 41 Page Grid Old: Page Grid New: 626434 Legal Description: 41 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 1 W 112 OF W 112 THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. HILLMANIS LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, RECORDS OF RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF RING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Wan T. Chee 1605 E Lake Sammamish PL SE Sammamish, WA 98075 Ms. Rebecca Lind Planning Manager City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 September 25, 2005 Subject: Pre -application meeting for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Ms. Lind: The undersigned is the owner of the property located at 1315 — N 30th Street, Renton, WA, 98056. The Tax Account # is 334210-3270-06. The size of the property is approximately 64' x 304'. Under the current zoning, the front half of the property is zoned Convenience Commercial (CC) while the other half is zoned Single Family (SF). The adjoining property on the east side with approximately the same size has only one zoning which is Convenience Commercial (CC). The adjoining property on the west side is also (CC). The adjoining property on the south is either (R8) or (SF). It is apparent that a mistake has been made on the zoning map. We, therefore, request the City to consider granting us one Convenience Commercial (CC) zoning for the entire property. You can imagine that without the zoning change, it will be very difficult to develop the property for proper use. Due to an over -seas assignment, the undersigned will be out of the country from September 28, 2005 to November 4, 2005. Please schedule a Pre -application meeting to review our preliminary proposal after November 7, 2005. Sincerely, t 4an T. Chee Attachments: 5 copies of this letter 5 copies of the vicinity map 1" = 200' 1 SO i It 110111 1911111 _I 31 S N 30 TH ST . -RENrON , WA 98056 31: Renton 1315 -- Renton City Limits Parcels Zoning ;Resource Conv... ! Residential 1 du/... Residential 5du/... Residential 8du/... Residential Man... Residential 10d... Residential 14d... Residential Mult... Residential Mult... Residential Mult... Residential Mult... „Center Neighbo... '///Center Suburban Urban Center N... Urban Center N... Center Downtown Center Office R... JI'Residential Mult... f Commercial Art... Commercial Off... Convenience C... Industrial - Heavy Industrial - Medi... Industrial - Light ® Renton Aerial SCALE 1 : 3,374 200 0 200 400 600 FEET M TH S-1 REFT- Ittp://rentonweb.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf Tuesday. Auaust 24.2004 11:25 PM -Pnc City of Renton "ft I j' J LAND USE PERMIT S' - 2W5 MASTER r:;i,)i�DimG�;�L:.��u� APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: C i'"/'G !/ t . n 2 Cr S ADDRESS: Lo'"^ S 4 CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: fr 032 �y APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: - COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: ADDRESS;;; 1 733��- CITY: ZIP: c! so g 1 CLEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 4%>s 2_27 03el S rs o n k ) h L � /a M5 /1 , cvrr, PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: J,,cc I /AuuHLSS(S)/LOCATION AND -MP CODE: / 73 3 X f• �. p o`` S �-- RC,_1 4-e� , cvv,+ . 91fo c- �0 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 33�390 — 3.7 ya o s EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVEN MAP DESIGNATION: Ji.Go !v ,� C zrc PROPOSED COMPR�SIV�P DESIGNATI N (if applicable): l �,,ca.c�G EXISTING ZONING: 2 C PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): �_� o� 4/ F E AREA (in square feet):UARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE ICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Q: web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc l 07/28/OS Legal Description: Situate in the East %2 Quarter of Section 5, Township 23, Range5, in the city of Renton, King County, Washington Tract 285, C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Division No. 4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Vol. 11 of Plats, page 82 in King County Washington. (}ZVOfMc TGd SEP 3 0 2005 Sept. 29, 2005 Attention: EDNSP Regarding the property known as The Kennydale Blueberry Farm, located at 1733 NE 20`h st., Renton, WA 98056. I wish to request that the city initiate and consider a rezone to R-8 or R-4 on said property - Brief history: The farm was planted in the late 1940's and has continued to operate as a U-Pick farm since that time. We have owned and operated the farm for 21 years. In 1992, at the suggestion of a former city planner, we wrote to the city requesting consideration of our property for the newly created Resource Conservation zoning. My intention was to keep the property taxes lower then they would be at the highest and best use. We also liked the wording in the zoning: "protection of agricultural operations from adjacent property activities". (Words which I can no longer find in the zoning definition.) We never received a response from the city. Much to our surprise we were at city hall months later and saw a zoning map. We had RC zoning! Since that time the RC zoning has had many changes. As of the 2004 changes we no longer qualify for RC zoning. We are too small at, +/- 3 1 /2 acres. We are spot zoned. All other parcels in the area are R-8. City council review criteria for comprehensive plan amendments: 1. The vision appears to be to build homes to maximum density. This change of zoning would allow that. 2. Supports business plan goals. N/A 3. There is conflict with adjacent zoning and land use. 4. Request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the city council. Decision criteria for change of zone classification: 1. The land was previously zoned what is now R-8. 2. a. To my knowledge the land was not looked at during the last area land use analysis. b. A gravity flow sewer line was installed to the north replacing a sewer lift station that had been located in the middle of the creek This lowered our water table .A large development has been built that drains storm water into the existing creek/ditch. Further development next to the farm is about to happen. De -watering in the summer of 2004 had a huge impact on our farm. All of these activities have had an impact on our ability to continue to farm. We seem to be either flooded or drained depending on what the city is currently allowing. In order to grow blueberries you need stable conditions. We are being forced out of business. We would like to sell and move on. We would like a fair price for our property. That price would be substantially less with RC zoning. We understand that we have wetlands on our property. The exact percentage of wetlands has not been determined. To our knowledge the wetlands have never been delineated. In our opinion the city has some real problems in this area. Land owners to the north of us wish to develop. They have the same creek/ditch to content with. The city continues to allow developers to direct their storm water into the ditch which is on private property. It does not have the capacity to handle the flow in its current condition. It is entirely man made in this area. Recently there was a blow-out of the new retention system on this stream at Jones Avenue and NE 24''- It was the first rain of the season. Last September I saw the mouth of the creek at Coulon Park had to be completely redone because of erosion. Please take a look at the bigger picture and realize that the city needs to step up to the plate. The drainage problems in this area need to be addressed. In closing we wish to say that we would like to work with the city to resolve these issues. Thank You, Darrell Kinzer Susan Larson -Kinzer Sept. 29, 2005 Attention: EDNSP SEP Regarding the property known as The Kennydale Blueberry Farm, located at 1733 NE 20th st., Renton, WA 98056. I wish to request that the city initiate and consider a rezone to R-8 or R-4 on said property. Brief history: The farm was planted in the late 1940's and has continued to operate as a U-Pick farm since that time. We have owned and operated the farm for 21 years. In 1992, at the suggestion of a former city planner, we wrote to the city requesting consideration of our property for the newly created Resource Conservation zoning. My intention was to keep the property taxes lower then they would be at the highest and best use. We also liked the wording in the zoning: "protection of agricultural operations from adjacent property activities". (Words which I can no longer find in the zoning definition.) We never received a response from the city. Much to our surprise we were at city hall months later and saw a zoning map. We had RC zoning! Since that time the RC zoning has had many changes. As of the 2004 changes we no longer qualify for RC zoning. We are too small at, +/- 3 1/2 acres. We are spot zoned. All etherparcels in -the -area -are R- . - City council review criteria for comprehensive plan amendments: 1. The vision appears to be to build homes to maximum density. This change of zoning would allow that. 2. Supports business plan goals. N/A 3. There is conflict with adjacent zoning and land use. 4. Request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the city council. Decision criteria for change of zone classification: 1. The land was previously zoned what is now R-8. 2. a. To my knowledge the land was not looked at during the last area land use analysis. b. A gravity flow sewer line was installed to the north replacing a sewer lift station that had been located in the middle of the creek This lowered our water table .A large development has been built that drains storm water into the existing creek/ditch. Further development next to the farm is about to happen. De -watering in the summer of 2004 had a huge impact on our farm. All of these activities have had an impact on our ability to continue to farm. We seem to be either flooded or drained depending on what the city is currently allowing. In order to grow blueberries you need stable conditions. We are being forced out of business. We would like to sell and move on. We would like a fair price for our property. That price would be substantially less with RC zoning. We understand that we have wetlands on our property. The exact percentage of wetlands has not been determined. To our knowledge the wetlands have never been delineated. In our opinion the city has some real problems in this area. Land owners to the north of us wish to develop. They have the same creek/ditch to content with. The city continues to allow developers to direct their storm water into the ditch which is on private property. It does not have the capacity to handle the flow in its current condition. It is entirely man made in this area. Recently there was a blow-out of the new retention system on this stream at Jones Avenue and NE 240- It was the first rain of the season. Last September I saw the mouth of the creek at Coulon Park had to be completely redone because of erosion. Please take a look at the bigger picture and realize that the city needs to step up to the plate. The drainage problems in this area need to be addressed. In closing we wish to say that we would like to work with the city to resolve these issues. Thank You, Darrell Kinzer Susan Larson -Kinzer 400 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: [ADDRESS:s�.: 41'l� ZIP: 9 US9 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 5 S1+3 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Lb C;UMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): EXISTING LAND USE(S): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CITY:O J ZIP: Or� J PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION TELEPHONE NUMBER 4'Zl4 ftaw7, ,ta 7 70, (if applicable): 3 ro 9 (o EXISTING ZONING: CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: � 'o�i� �, Lo tSG. SITE AREA (in square feet): COMPANY (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: =ADDRESS: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: a� PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY�rI ZIP: w ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): TEL__r'HONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: _3 ,�O L 4 (o1,4q (, � NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Q: weWpw/de-erv/forms/planning/masterapp.da 07/28/05 PROJECT INFORMA TION (continued NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION _ sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION , TOWNSHIP , RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Names) �L�/Viy 9L d)0/i6 %`%/4 Arll declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 6// !/? signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the !T�/.uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument (Signature of er/Representative) OAF (Signature of Owner/Representative) ,Ft. POOH Notary Public In and for the State of Washington ���� �i�eioiv sxA •F�(- ��� • r1OTAq ; ft.e Y _ Notary (Print) /�/(!'�`L / ' �` r'r d�, • �'o °e My appointment expires: O:web/ow/devserv/formdnlannine/mastcmnn Mr. October 1, 2005 Council Members City of Renton Renton City Hall — 74h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Council Members; On Sept. 20 I submitted a petition for annexation on two properties totaling 14.54 acres on Union Ave NE and also requested a reconsideration of the R-8 zoning which prevailed on recent annexations in that area. I have now been informed that I must present my request for the R-8 zoning in the form of an amendment to the master zoning plan. I would like to do so at this time. I believe this request meets both the review criterion of the council as well as the decision criteria for change from the "default" zoning on annexation of R-4 to R-8. It is my understanding that at least two of the stated reasons that the council had for imposing a blanket R4 zoning on new annexations to the city were: 1. To encourage more high value housing on future annexations to the city, and 2. Enhance quality of life issues normally associated with larger home sites. 1. With regards to encouraging high value housing, I would ask you to consider at least three factors that are relevant to this annexation: 1)The first is that in the last year alone, the cost of developed lots in the city (and elsewhere) has doubled! As a result, the economics of developing high value homes is very different today than it was a year ago. 2)High value can in some cases be more easily achieved with tighter (R-8) zoning than it can be with larger (R4) lots. I was the developer and builder of the plat of Caledon directly across the street from this proposed annexation. If you are not familiar with Caledon I would encourage you to look at that project where I believe I was very successful in achieving your stated goal of building high value housing. From beginning to end Caledon was one of the highest value projects then currently on the market in the city of Renton. Today, appraisals for these homes would likely be in the $575,000 to $800,000 range. We were not only able to create these values on R-8 zoning, but I would argue that we were uniquely able to do so because it was R-8 zoning. Both Caledon and the properties in this proposed amendment are characterized by steep terrain. In building high value housing, it is necessary to balance the quality that goes into lots, the landscaping, and outdoor spaces with the quality that goes into the home itself. The cost of development and construction is higher on steep lots, but with the smaller lots it was and is feasible to do more intense landscaping with underground irrigation front and rear where landscape screening and handscaping" such as deck trellises creates outdoor "rooms". You often hear people who have never lived in a small lot environment complain about living "too close to your neighbors", but I have never heard people who actually live in this type of environment voice this complaint. Done well, the reality is very different than the initial perception. If you think this argument might be less than sincere, consider that I gambled several hundred thousand dollars that I was right every time I built a home in Caledon. 3)Another factor having to do with creating high value housing in this area has to do with creating a transition in values. As I stated above, lot costs in Renton have doubled (and in some cases more that doubled) just in the past year. To build this site with R-8 zoning will already justify home values up to $800,000, which I proved with Caledon could be done- even though it is adjacent to existing housing valued at least $200,000 to $300,000 less. To jump directly to R- 4 zoning would likely necessitate housing valued at over $1,000,000 if a reasonable balance is maintained between the cost of the lot and the cost of the home (necessary to maintain perceived value in the eyes of potential buyers). That is simply too great a transition from the value of the existing surrounding housing (with the sole exception of Caledon). I believe it makes sense to allow this property to help make that transition to even higher value homes on future annexations to the north on the more level terrain found to the north of this site. 2. Quality of Life: If the quality of life you were looking for is associated with large lawns and yards for children to play in, those are not practical on sites that are characterized by steep terrain. Large lots with steep side and rear yards are impractical for lawns. These slopes, even when planted with ground cover tend to be hard for homeowners to maintain. When the weeds start to get ahead of the homeowners the end result is the look of these communities often deteriorates after a year or so. In summary, I think the properties in this proposed ammendment offer an excellent opportunity to offer high value housing while providing a reasonable transition to even higher value housing on the flatter terrain to the north. Respectfully, John M. Long Long Classic Homes Ltd. 4214 NE 27a' Place Renton Wa. 98059 rA 4-* -41 i, u 04:14/2005 08:37 FAX 253 471 tj 538 FATCO SALES [a 006 y 10.03?' TRA 9w rr % sTOPM o AGE 1 � 30 i 8t7 0 .�� 1,07 AC � 4 � 'o Q, KI1�5 ;Q NZ �• a/ �ppg 4 ioo mho,► om 5Q � r r .fI 1V f tU r' Ito'% %IN '9268# 4%00# y IA On mo L� t 9142 om cg 49 1.2A S � o T'AkCi? King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 2 King County By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Taxpayer PERKINS GLENN J Parcel Number 0423059114 Account Number 0.42305911408 Tax Year 2004 Levy Code 4370 Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason NONE OR i wKiunwii Appraised Land Value $98,000 Taxable Land Value $98,000 Appraised Improvement $28,000 Taxable Improvement Value $28,000 Taxpayer PERKINS GLENN J Parcel Number, 0423069114 Account Number 042305911408 Tax Year 2005 Levy Code 4370 Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason NONE OR i wixiunwN Appraised Land Value $101,000 Taxable Land Value .,$101,000 Valueised Improvement $28,000 Taxable Improvement Value $28,000 Assessor Parcel Rpr_nrriw District Name KING COUNTY Property Name Property RESIDENTIAL Type Plat Name Present Vacant Use (Single-family) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer PRIVATE System Lot Area 46,609 SgFt (1.07 acres) Access PUBLIC Section/Township/Range NE 4 23 5 ]Surface Street PAVED Assessor Legal Description Records: Account Number 042305911408 Record 01 Number Legal Description 042305114 PP ACT 39913397 MOBILE HOME S 292 FT OF IN 300 FT OF E 190 FT OF NE 1/4 LESS CO RD This rpnnrt wag nAnwratAd- R/7sonns 11.13-A9 AM h4: //www5. metrokc. gov/reports/property_report- asp?PIN=0423059114 8/25/2005 00/28/05 WED 07:46 FAX 258 471 5546 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Q 004 r] 70 a0 � I �rN ■ i I I I � VA I�,� I � AG r a�a IA. do N bb 1 172E Y. I d } 1 u � 7 4 ]ems 1i 1 Ii into er am00.11 Map a® T 1all s MAP 116. �.a s �\ am aoa w tW IF1!&t ss ModK,C.L.I.A. 18<023 8ro5020�+45 \ ''1b 00� 0� 067D 00.� a a4 f,aee 1 f]fit Lam s a o` 9,, 8 778W ooeo m�aa IFoswt 11r ow or {qs uao i31aa 0! fame foon Ta ,o flt f10a0 Om OaID tlpaa wo o0e 'dflf]>o ufa°s aoo fa 1n a Y 29-t0 r A �1? 3a 1p - °,� . _. +�>:j.,�, i er s SFwe ar fSM r � s � ,I ,gyp ^ OEp am M3 COM a ydir�i .o p. ,1fa ,000e er ag, � �, �2 aJ.10aiG.fL R ,woo s ,°,r +.+ �` d oOOo ;S + o I,em ge 12.00 s ,3am s fise : 1fg30 s P r+ �p am ow OEO ae6 1oa s ° b� , YCb CON ON ells s ene 1s 1s3e s 90 r oO0 EIIO 011a aap aEa O/D ]ou: King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 4 0 King minty 11100llg�= C •t- By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Taxpayer VANDERMAY Parcel Number 0423069142 MARION Account Number 042305914204 Tax Year 2005 Levy Code 4370 Tax TAXABLE Taxable Value NONE OR Status Reason UNKNOWN Appraised Land Value $334,000 Taxable Land Value $334,000 Appraised Improvement $135,000 Taxable Improvement Value $1359000 Value I 1 Taxpayer VANDERMAY Parcel Number 0423059142 MARION Account Number 042305914204 Tax Year 2006 Levy Code 4370 Tax Taxable Value NONE OR Status TAXABLE Reason UNKNOWN Appraised Land Value $357,000 Taxable Land Value $357,000 Appraised Improvement $142,000 Taxable Improvement Value $142,000 Value Assessor Parcel Records: District Name KING COUNTY Property Name Type Property RESIDENTIAL Present Single Family Plat Name Use (Res Use/Zone) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT http://www5.metrokc.gov/reports/property_report.asp?PIN=0423059142 9/27/2005 King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 2 of 4 r "Lot Sewer System PRIVATE 586,753 Lot Area SgF47 Access PUBLIC acres) Section/Township/Range NE 4 23 5 Street Surface PAVED Assessor Legal Description Records: Account 042305914204 Record 01 - Number I Number 02 042305 142 N 112 OF FOLG E 1/2 OF NE Legal 114 LESS S 1320 FT LESS E 190 FT OF N Description 300 FT & LESS CO RD SUBJ TO TRAN LN R/W ESMT Assessor Residential Buildinq Records: Address 9639132ND AV SE 98056 Building Grade Low Average Building number 1 Condition Good Bedrooms 4 Year Built 1954 Baths 2 Year Renovated 0 1/2 Baths 1 Total Living SgFt 2590 3/4 Baths 0 1st Floor SgFt 1480 Stories 1 Half Floor SgFt 0 Single Story Fireplace 0 2nd Floor SgFt 0 Multi Story Fireplace 1 Upper Floor SgFt 0 Free Standing Fireplace 0 Total Basement S ': 1360 Basement Garage SgFt 250 Total Finished Basement SgFt 1110 1SqFt Attached Garage 0 http://www5.metrokc.gov/reports/property_report.asp?PIN=0423059142 9/27/2005 460 46.; f-- Ai ;dim r Of .� , �s .,�t� ,..� � it � •. � � �`.. AWL uolund `00,81d MLZ aa; F; .. .. ,�' •, �.. : � , •. yr Tom, W .tea '. .. - t ` • � •.. ,KIM _ _ 3 _ '� .i���� �t ilan � • - r i ,ems•. �:' ._,�� � '�� Sep 30 2005 2:54PM Lighthouse Properties 206-283-4845 p.2 SEP-30-2005 14:47 FRU-The Andover Company ♦209-246-1220 T-264 P.004/004 F-2650 q 40 wjWvAvL , pft, w City of Renton I �� LAND USE PERMIT sersamos MASTER APPLICATION — --- PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Springbrook Associates ADORM. PO Box 978 CITY: Mercer Island ZIP: 9M0 TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Sob Wenz) COMPANY (if applicable): Vineyard%: ConsVueAian, LLC ADDRESS: P O Box 2401 cITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98083 TELEPHONE NUMBER 206 714-6707 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Cliff Williams COMPANY (if applicable): Vineyard3 Construction. LLC ADDtEss: PO Box 2401 CITY: Kirkland ZIP: s8083 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 206 714-7161; cili*beimm#wm*swa.,rom F ROJECT INFORMATION RDEVELOPMENT NAME: Springbrook Off" Complex PROJECT/ADDRESS(SyLOCATION AM ZIP CODE: 4XX S 30 CT, Renton, WA 98056 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(Sy 302305 9111 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant land PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ONica Suikting EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applioabia�- Commerial Corridor EXISTING ZONING: R-10 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Commercial Office SITE AREA (in square feet): 244,907 SOUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (11 applicable): PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Q�reb/pr/dev►Qv/fo a vpbmniwmmneiaw,40-- 09/27/OS Se'p 30 2005 2:54PM Lighthouse Properties 206-283-4845 p.3 SER-10-2005 14:4T FAN -The Andover Company 4206-246-0221 PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 7-264 P.0081004 F-255 -• . awars vial t am fptease check one) tilt current owner of the pmpany kwaived in this appocavon or fie audwdzed representative to act for a corporation (pl♦ssa Mach proof at aug"jeaow) ane Ihat the tangoing statements and answer; twojn contained anti the infortnat)ot► herewith are in all respects true and oornct to the 1)tftt of nyy knowledge &W belief. I CmIfy that 1 kraw or haw tabsfaciory evidente that G%PM this instnraell and acknowledged it fo be hisfrwilt eir free and voluntary as for fie uses and purpose's memened in the insinarm t. (Slgniture of 4wner/Representativej Gzltioa6c ey (Signature of avMWAepresenlative) Public to a d for 1ha.St Notary My appointrnat 0:welb/pwldewv"Fv1fnrfn//plaw*WrARKtT -dac 09/27/OS �neyards Construction, LLC P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland WA, 98083 September 27, 2005 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Revisions to Land Use Map Parcel No. 302305 9111 The above noted parcel is presently designated as Residential Medium Density under the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The existing zoning is R-10. This property was only recently rezoned residential from Commercial Corridor. The action was taken to allow for a retirement residence on the site. The previous owner has subsequent) abandoned plans for residential. We propose proceeding with developing the site as an office complex. We wish to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to rezone this property back to to Commercial Corridor on the Land Use Map and Commercial Office on the Zoning Map in conformance with the adjoining properties immediately to the east and south of the site. This proposal meets the decision criteria for a change of zoning because the circumstances warranting the recent zoning change no longer applies. We believe, the original zoning, Commercial Corridor best fits the existing uses and demands of the properties surrounding the Valley Medical Center. We recognize that there are development constraints on this property due to the stream crossing and steep slopes located in the southern portion of the site and a 40-foot BSBL along the northern frontage. The actual developable area may be less than 1.5 acres of the 5-6-acre lot. We believe an office building would be the best usage of this property considering these site constraints, and the fact that an office complex would support the adjoining land uses. Prepared by: Cliff Williams, PE VP, Manager of Engineering Vineyards Construction, LLC I r f I 1 i � a i f v , z:iprinprOOK Associates (2002-M-07) Topography Map 0 150 300 Economic Developm�-eighborhood3 AtSaute& Planning Study Area • G-D=R — 1m Interval Contour 36 JWy 2003 Rd�1 : 11K 1 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board. . Staff Contact...... Subject: Planning/Building/Public Works Transportation Systems Ryan Zulauf, x7471 Renton Municipal Airport Apron C Utilities Project - Potelco, Inc. Contract Closeout, CAG 04-098 Exhibits: Issue Paper Final Pay Estimate Notice of Completi Recommended Action: Council Concur Al #: For Agenda of: November 14, 2005 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution........... . Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... M Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $ 0.00 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... $360,372.69 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $778,593.00 City Share Total Project.. $329,291.51 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Apron C Utilities Project was established to separate City -owned facilities at the Airport from The Boeing Company's utility system (power, hire water, potable water, gas, compressed air). The Apron C Utilities Project began on September 27, 2004, with substantial completion on December 15, 2004. The original contract amount was $360,372.69 with the final contract amount being $329,291.51. The decrease in the total contract balance was due to a reduction of materials installed. Change order #1 was to remove Schedule D (gas line installation) from the contract and was in the amount of a credit for $25,562.02 (material reduction). This work item was removed from the construction contract as PSE was unable to provide a design for the gas system. Change order #2 was for removal of extra concrete and trenching in the amount of $20,283.75. Change order #3 was for additional electrical labor and materials costs of $13,633.47. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the closeout of the Apron C Utilities Installation Construction Contract CAG 04-098 for Potelco, Inc. and release the retainage in the amount of $15,132.89 after sixty (60) days, subject to the required authorization. H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TAT\ADMIN\Agenda 2005\Apron C Utilities Project Closeout.DOC r_Y�rn PLANNING/BUILDING/E, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 14, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: _�athy Keolker-Wheel , Mayor FROM: k Gregg Zimmerma Wdministrator STAFF CONTACT: Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager, x7471 SUBJECT: Renton Municipal Airport Apron C Utilities Project — Potelco, Inc. Contract Closeout, CAG 04-098 ISSUE: Should Council approve the closeout of the Apron C Utilities Installation Construction Contract CAG 04-098 for Potelco, Inc. and release the retainage? RECOMMENDATION: Approve the closeout of the Apron C Utilities Installation Construction Contract CAG 04- 098 for Potelco, Inc. and release the retainage in the amount of $15,132.89 after sixty (60) days, subject to the required authorization. BACKGROUND: The Apron C Utilities Project was established to separate City -owned facilities at the Airport from The Boeing Company's utility system (power, fire water, potable water, gas, compressed air). The Apron C Utilities Project began on September 27, 2004, with substantial completion on December 15, 2004. The original contract amount was $360,372.69, with the final contract amount being $329,291.51. The decrease in the total contract balance was due to a reduction of materials installed. Change order #1 was to remove Schedule D (gas line installation) from the contract and was in the amount of a $25,562.02 credit (material reduction). This work item was removed from the construction contract as PSE was unable to provide a design for the gas system. Change order #2 was for removal of extra concrete and trenching in the amount of $20,283.75. Change order #3 was for additional electrical labor and materials costs of $13,633.47. cc: Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Director Ryan Zulauf, Airport Manager Leslie Lahndt, Transportation Design Supervisor Susan Campbell-Hehr, Airport Secretary h:\division.s\transpor.tat\admin\agenda 2005\apron c utilities project closeout issue paper.doc TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIRECTOR CONTRACTOR: Potelco, Inc. CONTRACT NO.: CAG 04-098 PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport Apron C Utilities Project ESTIMATE NO. 003 FINAL 1. CONTRACTOR EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE 2. $ SALES TAX AT 8.8% 12,530.76 3. $ TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT THIS ESTIMATE 1,102.71 $13,633.47 4. EARNINGS PREVIOUSLY PAID CONTRACTOR 5. EARNINGS DUE CONTRACTOR THIS ESTIMATE (95% x LINE 1) $275,620.53 6. SUBTOTAL - CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS $11,904 22 $287,524.75 7. RETAINAGE ON PREVIOUS EARNINGS 8. RETAINAGE ON EARNINGS THIS ESTIMATE (RETAINAGE: 5% x LINE 1) $14,506.35 9. SUBTOTAL - RETAINAGE $626.54 $16,132.89 10. SALES TAX PREVIOUSLY PAID 11. SALES TAX DUE THIS ESTIMATE $25.531.16 12. $ SUBTOTAL - SALES TAX 1,102.71 $26,633.87 GRAND TOTAL: $329,291.61 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTION: PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR (Lines 5 & 11): ACCOUNT # 402.012028.016.5460.0020.63.000112 25069/5460 RETAINED AMOUNT (Line 8): ACCOUNT 0 402.012028.016.5460.0020.63.000112 26069/6460 CHARTER 116, LAWS OF 1965 CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATION I, THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF r PERJURY, THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE LABOR PERFORMED AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND THAT THE CLAIM IS A JUST, DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATION AGAINST THE CITY X RENTON, AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO A D CEI3;i�t�' TO SAID CLAIM SIGNED: / $13,006.93 #3 $13.006.93 $626.64 #3 $626.54 $13,633.47 Printed On: 5/6/2005 3:42 PM City of Renton Public Works Department Page 1 RENT( INICIPAL AIRPORT 2003 A UMIes Protect - Electrical Conversion CAG 04-M$ Base Bid Schedule A - Utility Improvements Al A2 1-07 1-07 Temporary Water Pollution Control Utility Potholing A3 A4 1.07 1-09 Resolution of Utility Conflicts Mobilization A5 A6 2-02 2-03 Removal of Structures and Obstructions Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul A7 A8 2-03 Unsuitable Excavation Incl. Haul A9 2-09 5-04 PSE Vault Excavation Incidental Asphalt Concrete Pavement A10 All 5-05 8-20 Cl. B Cement Concrete Pavement - Including Dowels Vehicle Roadway Trenching Backfill Al2 A13 8-20 8,20 and Airside and Misc. Pavement Trenching and Backflll Non -Paved Area Trenching and Backflll A14 A15 8-20 8-20 4" Schedule 80 Conduit, P.V.C. A16 8-20 4" Rigid Galvanized Steel Conduit Service Panel, NEMA 3R A17 A18 8-20 8-20 Handhole #4, 600V, THHN/TWHN Wire A19 A20 8-20 8-20 #6, 800V, G Wire #10, 600V, THHN/TWHN Wire A21 A22 8-20 8-20 #10. 600V, G Wire #8, 600V, THHN/TWHN Wire A23 A24 8-20 8-20 #8, 600V, G Wire #2, 600V, THHN/THWN Wire A25 A26 8-20 8-20 50A Circuit Breaker 20A Circuit Breaker A27 A28 8-20 8-20 60A Disconnect 100A Disconnect A29 A30 8-20 8-20 Service Meter Electrical Connections and Grounding A31 8-22 Paint Line A32 A33 8-30 8-31 Phone Conduit in Buildings Install Bollards A34 A35 8-32 8.33 Gas Line Trenching Gas Service Connection A36 A37 Telephone Conduit Proofing A38 Blast Fence Concrete Removal A39 - Abandoned Gas Line Removal A40 Trenching Between Poles C6/7 and C7/8 A41 - Re -Key Building 820 A42 Disconnects for Building 820 A43 - Disconnect for MOP-710 - 820 Building Electrical Improvements PAY ES I iMATE: #3 - Final CONTRACTOR: PERIOD ENDING: Poteloo, Inc Page 1 of 2 4/30/2005 Original Contract; $360 3602. 372.69 Change Order #1: ,3769 02 Change Order #2: , $20,283.75 Change Order#3: $13,633.47 Total Contract: $368,727.89 QTY UNIT UNIT CURRENT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL QUANTITY CURRENT TOTAL COMPL. PAYMENT PAYMENT 1 1 LS FA $1,000.00 $5,000.00 0% 0% e 100% 100.0% $0.00 1 1 FA $10,000.00 0% 0a° 0.0% $0.00 $1,000.00 48 LS LS $20,000.00 $19,$32.20 0% 10% 10.3% 100.0% $0.00 $1,030.00 CY 532.20 0% 0 100% 100.0% $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 75 1 CY $3450 48 0 100.0% S0'00 $19,000.00 $1.545.60 40 LS TON $7,038.00 5138.00 e0 0 100% 0.0% 100.0% 00 $0.00 27 27 CY $454,25 0 40.00 100.0% $O 0 $0.00 $7,038.00 425 LF LF $54.25 $33.00 0 30 442 ° 111.1 /e $0.00 $5,520.00 $13,627.50 1,05 LF $18.00 0 246 104.0% 73.4% $0.00 $0.00 $14,586.00 3,040 ,90 LF LF $3.00 0 0 4931 89.5% $0.00 $7,380.00 $16,758.00 1 EA $60.00 515,000.00 0 0 90 103.9/ 90.0% 50.00 $0.00 $15,218.10 3 2,055 EA LF $950.00 0 1 3 100.0% 135.9% $0.00 $5,400.00 $15,000.00 625 LF $2.00 $1.80 0 0 793 ° 135.9 /o $0.00 $0.00 $2,850.00 3,420 1,140 LF LF $1.25 0 931 149.0% 50.00 $1,675.80 51,675.80 2,100 LF $1.25 $1.40 0 1511 1511 128.3% 132.5% $0.00 $0.00 $5,486.25 1'� 900 LF $1.40 0 0 2073 1128 98.7% $0.00 $1,888.75 $2,902.20 1 LF EA $2.30 $850.00 0 1128 189.7% 125.3% $0.00 $0.00 $2,375,80 4 EA $850.00 0 0 1 4 100.0% $0.00 $2,594.40 $850.00 2 2 EA $950.00 2 100.0% $0.00 3,400.00 4 4 EA 51,000.00 0 2 100.0% $0.00 $1,900.00 1 EA $2,000.00 0 4 100.0% $0.00 $2,000.00 LS0 LF $$2,000.00 ° 100% 100.0% 100.0% $0.00 $8,000.00 325 LF $3.00 $20.00 p 155.7% $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $150.00 1 395 LS LF $5,750.00 0% 81 100% 0% ° 55.7% 100.0% $0.00 $3,820.00 3 EA $30.00 $852.00 0 0 0 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 $5,750.00 $0.00 1 LS $339.41 0 0 1 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 1 LS $5,461.41 0 1 100.0% $0.00 $339.41 1 LS $5,461.41 0 1 100.0% $0.00 $5,461.41 1 LS $10,411.35 0 1 100.0% $0.00 $2,525.36 1 LS -594.38 0 1 100.0% $0.00 $10,411.35 1 LS $2,785.73 1 1 100.0°Ye $0.00 ($94.38) 1 LS $4,000.00 1 100.0% $2,785.73 $2,785.73 1 LS $,000.0 1 1 100.0% $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100.0% $5,745.03 $5,745.03 Total Schedule A: $12,530.76 E245,308.31 IAProjects%Port of Anacortes1836862\OfficelExcellPay Estimate 3.xls 1 of 2 5/1/2005 RENTOP .ICIPAL AIRPORT 2003 Apron C Utilities Project - Electrical Conversion CAG 04-098 ITEM Additive Bid Schedule B - Parking Lot Reconstruction B1 2-03 Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul B2 2-03 Unsuitable Excavation Incl. Haul B3 4-04 Crushed Surfacing Top Course B4 5-04 Incidental Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cl. B BS 7-01 Underdrain Be 7-04 8" DI Storm Pipe 67 7-05 Catch Basin Type 1 88 7-12 Adjust Water Valve Box to Grade 69 7-15 Adjust Water Meter and Box to Grade B10 7-17 Adjust Cleanout B11 8-22 Paint Line Additive Bid Schedule C: Contaminated Soil Excavation C1 2-03 Contaminated Soil Excavation PAY ESTIMATE: #3 - Final CONTRACTOR: Potelco, Inc PERIOD ENDING: 4/30/2005 PA Page 2 of 2 172 18 CY CY $32.20 $34.60 p p 172 100.0% $0.00 $ 375 TON $40.25 0.00 183.69 149.0% $0.00 $621.00 $621.00 225 TON $80.50 0.0 225.0 49.00° $0.00 $7,393.52 56 LF $70.15 p 56 100.0% $0•00 $18,112.50 160 LF $46.00 0 160 100.0% $0.00 $3,928.40 2 EA $1,285.00 0 2 100.0% $0.00 $7,360.00 6 EA $230.00 0 6 100.0% $0.00 $2,530.00 2 EA $402.50 0 2 100.0% $0.00 $1.380.00 1 EA $287.50 0 1 100.0% $0.00 $805.00 280 LF $2.75 0 280 100.0% $00 100.0% $0.00 $770. 70.00 Total Schedule B: $0.00 $48,726.32 1 DAY $5.750.00 0% 150% 150.0% $0.00 $8,625.00 I hereby artitY that Me faegcing statement Is correct and that the matedals supplied and work performed 10 date have been in w oroance with the terms of this contract and that prevailing wages have been Paid in accordance with the Contract Documents. APPROVED: P Inc. ate APPROVED: 2 OS 2ftic, . Date APPROVED: Dat Total Schedule C: $0.00 $8,625.00 Subtotal $12,530.76 $302,657.63 Materials On Hand $0.00 $0.00 Materials Used $0.00 $0.00 Total to Date Less Paving Penalty $12,530.76 $302,657.63 Add Sales Tax $0.00 8.8% $1,102.71 $0.00 $26,633.87 Less Retainage Less Liquidated Damages 5.0% ($626.54) ($15,132.88) Less Previous Estimates $0.00 $0.00 Total Progress Payment ($301,151.69) ON-$13 006 93 I:\Projects\Port of Anacortes\836662\Office\Excel\Pay Estimate 3.xls 2 of 2 S STArE 0 State of Washington Reg.No.: o4 Department of Revenue x Audit Procedures & Administration Date: F v"3 PO Box 47474 Olympia, Washington 98504-7474 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT From: DEPARTMENT USE ONLY City of Renton Assigned To Tracy Schuld 1055 South Grady Way Date Assigned Renton, WA 98055 Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below. Description of Contract Renton Municipal Airport Apron C Utilities Project— Electrical Conversion CAG 04-098 Contractor's Name Potelco, Inc. Telephone No. 253-863-0484 Contractor's Address 14103 — 8th Street East Sumner, WA 98390 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed Date Work Accepted September 27, 2004 December 15, 2004 May 27, 2005 Surety or Bonding Co. Federal Insurance Co. P.O. Box 1615 Warren, NJ. 07061-1615 Agent's Address HRH of Colorado 720 South Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO. 80246 Attn: Dilynn Guern Contract Amount: Additions or Reductions: Sales Tax: Total $ 331,224.90 $-28,567.26 $ 26,633.87 $ 329,291.51 Amount Disbursed: $ 314,158.62 Amount Retained: $ 15,132.89 Total: $ 329,291.51 (Disbursing Officer) Phone No: 425.430.6918 The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, Olympia, Washington 98504- 7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUND until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. FORM REV 310020 (12-92) DC: CTY31 0020 11/99 bh CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/ Surface Water Utility Staff Contact...... Ron Straka (ext. 7248) Daniel Carey (ext. 7293) Subject: Engineering Consultant Contract — Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project SWP-27-2711 Exhibits: Issue Paper Consultant Scope of Work, Schedule, B Al #: , For Agenda of. November 14, 2005 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance ............. Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Study Sessions...... Information........ . 0 Recommended Action: Approvals: Council Concur Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... X Other. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $141,039 Transfer/Amendment....... fAmount Budgeted....... $141,039 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $300,000 City Share Total Project.. $141,039 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Renton Village Storm System Improvement project will replace about 530 feet of existing 42- and 48-inch pipe with a new, larger, stormwater pipe system capable of carrying the peak design flow from the drainage basin. The project will replace part of the existing storm system that is in poor physical condition, and is intended to reduce the amount of flooding that occurs in the Renton Village area during prolonged storms. The consultant contract with Gray & Osborne, Inc. will provide surveying, geotechnical investigation, permitting assistance, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, preliminary engineering, and final engineering, plans and specifications for the new stormwater system. Gray & Osborne, Inc. is listed on the Utility Systems' Annual Consultant Roster. The project is funded from the Surface Water Utility Renton Village Storm System Improvement, account number 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065425. The approved 2005 Capital Improvement Program budget is $300,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the proposed Engineering Consultant Contract with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for the Renton Village Storm System Improvement project, in the amount of $141,039. H:\FileSys\SWP -Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 -Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\051 101- AgendaBill-Final.doc\DWCtp PLANNING/BUILDING/ - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 2, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: . _�Aathy Keolker-Whee�e�, Mayor FROM: GreggimmermJ, Administrator gg , STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7248) SUBJECT: Engineering Consultant Contract Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project ISM TF.- Should an Engineering Consultant Contract be executed for engineering design and permitting process services related to the Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project, in order to meet the timetable for construction during the dry -season in 2006? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Engineering Consultant Contract with Gray & Osborne, for the analysis and design of the Renton Village Storm System Improvement project, in the amount of $141,039. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The project is located at the end of the Rolling Hills Drainage Sub -basin, which consists of approximately 900 acres (see attached Figure 2, area P5). Drainage from several different storm systems and creeks in the basin is directed into a 72-inch diameter storm pipe in the Renton Village area (Figure 1). The 72-inch pipe is connected to a 42-inch pipe, which increases to 48-inches, then discharges to an open channel just north of I- 405. The open channel flows to the west and goes under I-405 in a 48-inch and a 132- inch culvert. Renton Village experiences frequent flooding during intense or prolonged storm events. The primary cause of flooding appears to be inadequate storm system capacity where the existing 72-inch pipe connects to the 42-inch pipe. When the capacity of the 42-inch pipe is exceeded, stormwater overflows out of the lowest manhole in the parking lot, and out of the manhole where the two pipes are connected. During large rainfall events, water Council/Renton Village November 2, 2005 Page 2 of 2 backs -up in the entire storm system causing flooding in large areas of the Renton Village parking lots (see attached photo). The backwater in the storm system has also extended to South Grady Way and Talbot Road South causing flooding in the streets. In May 2005, a 20' section of the 48-inch CMP near the outlet collapsed. The Surface Water Utility, in cooperation with the property owner, made an emergency repair by removing the collapsed section of pipe. The 48-inch CMP is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. The Renton Village Storm System improvement project will increase the capacity of the stormwater system by replacing the existing 42-inch and 48-inch pipe with a larger stormwater system. The Engineering Consultant Contract with Gray & Osborne, Inc. will provide surveying, geotechnical investigation, permitting assistance, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, preliminary engineering, final engineering, and plans specifications for the new stormwater system. Gray & Osborne, Inc. is listed on the Utility Systems' Annual Consultant Roster. CONCLUSION: The Renton Village Storm System Improvement project is in the Surface Water Utilities 2005 and proposed 2006 CIP for design and construction. The engineering Consultant Contract with Gray & Osborne, Inc. is needed to provide the engineering services to analyze, design, and provide construction plans and specifications for the project Attachments cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-271 I Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\051101-issue Paper- Final. doc\DMCtp � J �r EVERGREEN BLDG 8-4 1 CINEMA h A OPEN CHANNEL N11RTH I' 0' 100' -2eOT— 300' THRIFTWAY Z-405 E y Vault r TWO RENTON PL CD �1� C � 72-Inch D ------o— 4001, —-- S RENTON VILLAGE PL PROJECT AREA ONE RENTON PL \ 7] W Iliir RENTON VILLAGE AREA City of Renton Surface Water Utilty Existing Drainage System October 2005 Figure 1 Black River — Pump Station . - vice nt,n wuo not included in the HSPF model was subsequently found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number 0 River reach number SCALE Miles 1/2 0 1 northwest hydraulic consultants Re t7 to h ViHayr. East Side Green River Watershed HSPF Sub —basins Figure 2 'J Div Mi !M TIT FAIN r !1 SSA � ',1A V� � �• ��� !� r '�� � - _ r1-• � � � �•a tom. �� - ♦ � - � r �` _ � ' �' � .> Via. , ', ii � L r — —�rU•11� • �.,� ilom cx --a- s c EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK RENTON VILLAGE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — SWP-27-2711 PURPOSE: The purpose of the project is to replace about 530 feet of the existing stormwater drainage system in Renton Village with a new storm system capable of carrying the peak design flow with the goal of eliminating as much surcharge as possible. Stormwater runoff comes into the Renton Village area from the east in a 42-inch pipe and a 72-inch pipe. The two pipes meet at a junction and only the 42-inch pipe continues onward to discharge to an open channel. The 42-inch pipe should be replaced with one or several pipes, or box culverts, to provide the flow capacity needed. The new storm system will be an underground system capable of carrying traffic loading from the streets and parking lots above it. The Consultant will perform the tasks and work needed to design the project, and develop the plans and specifications for project bidding and construction. The project tasks may include surveying, geotechnical investigation, utility potholing, hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, permit assistance, preliminary design, final design plans and specifications, and construction assistance and observation. DESIGN CRITERIA: The City will determine the basic premises and criteria for the design. Reports and plans shall be developed in accordance with the latest adopted or approved edition of the following: 1. Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association (WSDOT/APWA), Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2004 edition 2. City of Renton — Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, 1997, and Supplemental Specifications (May 19, 1997). 3. King County Surface Water Design Manual (1990). 4. City of Renton Survey Control Network (May 2000) and Surveying Standards (1997). 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2004. Autocad Drawings shall be in Autodesk Map 2004 (preferred), or Autocad 2002 and up. The City uses a metric model space. However, drawing contours, elevations, and dimensions shall be in English units. All surveying shall be tied into the City's Survey Control Network. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK Task 1 Surveying, Base Map Perform a site survey to identify and map the surface features and existing utilities in the project area (see attached figure). The City topographic map and Autocad layers may be used for the initial base map. The survey will be used to supplement, clarify, correct, and add the details needed for design and construction to the City base map. The surveying work will include the following: a. Contours, spot elevations, and surface features in the potential project area. b. Locating pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveways, landscaping, vaults, building footprints, light and power poles. HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton vllage12006 CIP Pipe Rp1cmt11101b Consult Prop-Drafts\Renton Scope-Final-10-31-05.doc Page 1 of 6 c. Existing City utilities such as water, sewer and storm systems including: Water valve rim and nut elevations, water meter locations, water vault locations. Sewer and storm manhole and catch basin rim elevations, pipe sizes and invert elevations of all pipes in manholes and catch basins. d. The existing stormwater drainage system will be surveyed for the hydraulic analysis and design. The survey will include the following features: (1) The 96-inch and 144-inch manholes east of the Thriftway building. (2) The outfall of the 48-inch pipe, the riprap channel and channel bank south of the outfall. (3) Several cross -sections along the open channel along the south side of the parking lot. (4) The inverts of the 132-inch, 48-inch, 24-inch pipes, and sill southwest of the cinema. (5) Other catch basin and pipes that connect or may connect to the project storm system. (6) Catch basins in the parking lot that connect to the open channel. e. The exact location and alignment of the 96-inch and 144-inch manholes east of the Thriftway grocery store will be determined to design the new storm system connecting to the structures. There may be a knockout in the 144-inch manhole for future expansion. Confined space entry will probably be needed to fully locate and survey these structures. f. Private Utility locations, obtained from visible surface locations, existing site plans, utility location markings, and information gathered by the surveyor from the private utilities companies. g. Establish stationing lines for project design and construction. Stationing lines will be marked and easily located so the construction contractor's surveyor can re-establish them. One line may be along the centerline of S. Renton Village PL ROW. There does not appear to be centerline monuments for the street. The location of the ROW centerline may need to be established by the surveyor from City benchmarks and plat maps. A second stationing line will be established later, when the location of the new system is finalized. h. Surveying for site investigations such as soil borings, test pits, and utility potholing. Reports and plans, to the extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations, guidelines, and specifications, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Draft GeoSpatial Positioning Accuracy Standards for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure by the Federal Geographic Data Subcommittee, December 1996. 2. All pertinent Washington State legislation, e.g. Chapter 58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RC W). 3. All pertinent sections of the Washington State Administrative Code (WAC), e.g. Chapters 332 WAC. The base map and design plans will meet the requirements of the 2004 City of Renton Drafting Standards. The City layering system will be used. The Surveyor shall provide a draft copy (24"x 36") and electronic file (AutoDesk Map 2004, or approved other) of the base map survey for review and comment by the City. After approval, a final paper copy at 1 "=20' scale and an electronic copy will be provided. The paper copy will be stamped and signed by a Surveyor (PLS) registered in the State of Washington. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt11101b Consult Prop-Drafts\Renton Scope-Final-10-31-05.doc Page 2 of 6 Task 2 Geotechnical Investigation Determine and perform the geotechnical investigations needed for project design. The project may be located in an area with poor subsurface soils. The geotechnical work will include the following: a. Investigate and review existing regional and local geologic information, reports, and studies relevant to the project design. b. Perform onsite geologic investigations to identify subsurface conditions that may affect project design and construction. The investigations will include four (4) hollow -stem auger borings to depths of 25 to 35 feet maximum, installation of two (2) piezometers for ground water monitoring, standard penetration tests, soil samples, and soil analysis. The consultant shall provide all necessary equipment and operators for the geotechnical investigation. Ground elevation will be surveyed at boring locations. All surfaces shall be restored following geotechnical investigations. Permanent pavement shall be used in existing paved areas. c. Geotechnical Report. The results of the Geotechnical Investigation will be provided in a bound report. The Consultant will submit an unbound draft copy for City review and comments. The Geotechnical Report will include the following: (1) A summary of the regional geologic information. (2) A description of the onsite geologic investigation, equipment, methods, and testing performed. (3) Site specific geologic information such as site map, boring locations, boring logs, water elevations, soil samples, and soil analysis results. (4) Analysis of the geologic information and recommendations for project construction. (5) Recommendations for dewatering, soil stability, shoring, bearing strength, trench excavation, pipe foundation and support, pipe bedding, and trench backfill. The Geotechnical Report will be available to bidders, and all or part of the Geotechnical Report may be included in the project bid document. d. The Consultant will provide two bound copies of the final Geotechnical Report and one unbound copy. The Consultant will provide an electronic copy (MS Word 2000) of the final report, all graphs and tables, and any other information contained in the final report. Task 3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis and Report Review existing hydrologic information and perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling needed to design the new storm system. The City's goal is for the new storm system to convey the future conditions peak flow from the 25-year, 24-hour storm without overflowing, and to convey the peak flow from the 100-year, 24-hour storm with any overflow contained within the local parking area. Renton Village is located in a FEMA Flood Map Flood Hazard Zone, so it may not be possible to completely meet the project goal for the 100-year storm. The hydrologic and hydraulic work will include the following: a. Review existing hydrologic reports for the area, and develop a King County KCRTS hydrologic model for existing and future flow conditions that will be used for hydraulic modeling. Peak flows for existing and future conditions for the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year storm will be developed. Renton Village is located at the bottom of the Rolling Hills Drainage Sub -basin (P5). The sub - basin was analyzed using the HSPF model as part of the East Side Green River Water Shed HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-2711 Renton ViIlage\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt11101b Consult Prop-Drafts\Renton Scope-Final-10-31-05.doc Page 3 of 6 Hydraulic Analysis in March 1996 (NHC). The work will use basin information from the existing report as a basis to develop a model that will have similar results to the existing report. b. Develop a hydraulic model for the existing and proposed drainage system using XP-SWMM. The model will provide the flow and backwater results for the existing drainage system for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events for existing basin conditions, and for the proposed drainage system for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events for existing and future basin conditions. c. At a minimum, hydraulic modeling will be performed from the 132- and 48-inch culverts at the southwest corner of the area to the 96- and 144-inch manholes east of the Thriftway building. This scope assumes existing hydrologic/hydraulic analysis completed for the Springbrook Creek basin can be used for the downstream backwater boundary conditions. Any additional modeling for the system downstream of the I-405/SR167 interchange shall be considered additional work. d. A draft Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the project describing the modeling performed and the results will be submitted during the first half of the project design. The draft report will be used to evaluate the existing conditions, and help evaluate and select the new stormwater system design. f. A Final Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report for the project will be submitted during the second half of the project design. The Final Report will include the existing conditions analysis and the analysis for the new stormwater system design. The Final Report will contain the analysis, methodology, figures, graphs, tables, and computer program results (in the Appendix). The consultant will provide a draft report for City review and comment before finalizing the report. The Final Report will be signed and stamped by a PE licensed in the State of Washington. g. The Consultant will provide one bound copy of the final Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report and one unbound copy. The Consultant will provide an electronic copy (MS Word 2000) of the final report, all graphs and tables, and electronic versions of any other information contained in the Final Report. The Consultant will provide an electronic copy of all computer modeling files used in the analysis including input and output files. Task 4 Permit Assistance Permitting is expected to occur early in the first half of the project. The permitting work will include the following: a. Determine what States and Federal Permits (if any) may be needed for the project. b. Provide assistance to the City by preparing drafts of a Washington State HPA, and other State and Federal permit applications as needed. Provide expert analysis and figures/information as needed for the permits. All permit applications will be reviewed and submitted by the City. c. The City will prepare the Environmental Checklist to submit for the City's Development Review process. The consultant will review and supplement the environmental sections of the Environmental Checklist, if needed. This scope includes a wetland delineation of the area in the immediate vicinity of the outfall Task 5 Storm System Design, Construction Plans and Specifications Using the results from the Surveying, Geotechnical, and Hydraulic Tasks the Consultant will develop the design for the new storm system. The City anticipates that the new storm system will discharge at or near the existing discharge point. The Scope of Work assumes that standard open trench methods and pipe support within an excavated trench will be used during construction. If poor sub -surface HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1101b Consult Prop-Drafts\Renton Scope-Final-I0-31-05.doc Page 4 of 6 soils that require special engineering design (e.g. pile caps) are discovered in the project area, an addendum to the Engineering Agreement will be negotiated. The design work will include the following: a. Review the physical and hydraulic information and evaluate design alternatives for a replacement storm system from the 144-inch and 96-inch manholes to the open channel. Meet with City to discuss design alternatives and choose the preferred alternative. b. The location of public and private utilities, and potential utility conflicts, will be investigated for the design. The Consultant will determine what locations/utilities need to be potholed, and pothole and survey the utility locations and elevations. The pothole information will be added to the base map and new storm system design. The Scope of Work anticipates excavating up to six (6) potholes. c. Provide a preliminary design (approx. 30%) for the recommended storm system. The consultant will work with the City to determine the recommended storm system design. The preliminary design should include the proposed storm system location, size, capacity, hydraulic performance, potential utility conflicts and resolutions, and other relevant considerations. Meet with the City to review the 30% design. d. Perform final design for the new storm system. Develop construction plans, details, and specifications for bidding. The work includes the bid item list and cost estimate. Construction plans, details, and specification will follow the standard City format for Bid Documents. Several drafts of the plans and specs will be submitted to the City for review and approval as the project proceeds (e.g. 70%, 90%, 95%). Meet with the City at the 70% design level. e. The Consultant will submit one paper copy of each draft plan, and an electronic Autocad copy of the plans via the City's Autodesk Buzzsaw system. f. Final Construction Plans will consist of 34 x 17 paper drawings stamped and signed by a PE licensed in Washington State. The bid document (unbound) will follow the standard City format and will be stamped and signed by the PE. g. The City will be responsible for copying the bid document and plans, advertising the project for bids, and distributing the bid document to the bidders. Task 6 Construction Assistance and Observation Provide assistance to the City during bidding and project construction. The Scope of Work assumes that standard open trench methods and pipe support within an excavated trench will be used during construction. The work will include the following: a. All questions from bidders will be directed to the City. The City may ask the consultant to provide answers to technical questions, provide additional information or clarifications, or prepare Addendums for any changes needed to the plans or specifications during the bid process. The City will distribute any Addenda needed. b. The consultant will attend a pre -construction conference with the City and the winning bidder. The City will issue the Notice to Proceed when all City requirements have been met and material submittals have been approved. c. The consultant will review material submittals by the bidder in conjunction with the City. During construction the City may ask the consultant to evaluate technical questions, provide additional information or clarifications to the design plans, and prepare Change Orders for any changes needed to the plans or specifications. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton vllage\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1101 b Consult Prop-Drafts\Renton Scope-Final-10-31-05.doc Page 5 of 6 d. The City will provide a part-time construction inspector for daily inspection of the project. The consultant will perform occasional inspections as needed to monitor overall project progress and adherence to the project design. Inspections will include checking actual soil and groundwater conditions with the Geotechnical investigations results and recommendations. Approximately six (6) site visits (one per week during construction period) are included. A memo documenting each inspection, items and conditions observed, and any recommendations will be sent to the City after each inspection. An Addendum to the Engineering Agreement will be negotiated if conditions requiring special engineering and inspection are encountered, such as poor sub -surface soils, additional soil inspections and testing, unusual dewatering requirements, pile caps or special pipe supports, structural rebar inspection and concrete pours. e. The City will processes simple Change Orders and procedural changes, construction project records (e.g. work days, inspector logs), progress estimates for bid items, and pay estimates. f. As -built surveying will be performed by the contractor as part of the Survey bid item. The City will review the as -built survey information and update the design drawings with the as -built information. Task 7 Project Management Project Management will include internal management and procedures needed by the Consultant for the project. PM includes personnel management, internal meetings, record keeping, monitoring the design progress and schedule, and the contract billing. Design review meetings with the City are included in the design task they are associated with. H:1File Sys\,SWP - Surface Water Projects\,SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)t27-2711 Renton ViIlage12006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1101b Consult Prop-DraftslRenton Scope-Final-10-31-05.doc Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT B CITY OF RENTON RENTON VILLAGE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SWP-27-2711 SCHEDULE . .Notice ! to Proceed (assume November 212005) MM in i !A. Data cathering .--- !! .. --.-.---..�-MMMMMMMMMMMMMMn B2. Survey (subtask f - private utility locate) mmmm RIMMMMMMMM QA/QC for survey portion M MMMMIMMMM Field work �B&C. Hydraulic model -existing, proposed MM Moo !D. Draft H&H analysis re M :Permit Assistance 01 QA1QC for permits © ----------------- ■ _ • small . . . ..---. .i ..------..-. - _ • . ' . • • --------------- ie ■ • - . • : • • ---------------- e♦ no ! ■QA/QC design alt- - - ------- .-- °• •• .- .f .. !. - e NA. Bid questions and addenda MMMMMMWMMMM immmm ;D. Construction inspections • • - ee •- -N'C. --- os i• a! ee !♦ Ro !! ♦o b♦ io i♦ ii ss •i !! e. s B. Monthly Proqress Reports- Staff - - • MAdvertise for• . 1 . ------------------- ---.-. ■ 1 . 1 . ---------------.... Award Contract 1. AWN WWWWWWWWWO NOW� Notice to Proceed 1 . ..--------------.-. wConstruction• • • 1 . MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 0 City Review ------------------- J EXHIBIT C COST ESTIMATE (To be filled in per tasks to be completed for Scope of Work) Task 1. Surveying, Base Map $12,089 Task 2. Geotechnical Analysis (by HWA Geosciences) see below Task 3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis and Report $15,956 Task 4. Permit Assistance $6,078 Task 5. Design, Plans, and Specifications $44,309 Task 6. Construction Assistance and Observation $10,260 Task 7. Project Management $4,947 Total Labor Costs $93,639 Fee (15%) $14,046 Subtotal, Labor and Fees $107,685 Direct Non -Salary Costs (mileage) $288 Subconsultants Task 1 - APS (Utility Locate) $2,965 Task 2 - HWA Geosciences (Geotechnical Invest.) $17,117 Task 4 - Jones & Stokes (Wetland Delineation) $9,978 Subconsultant Overhead (10%) $3,006 Total Cost $141,039 HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\l101 Corrspd Consult\051031-Contract-Final.doc\ cor 10 Piazza/Data—Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2000 Consultant.doc bh EXIH' ENGINEERING SERVICES SCOPE AND ESTIMATED COST Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project SWP-27-2711 TASKS -R7 P rincip Hours p roje'ct N19r. Hours Pi6j, E, Project Hours 'Specialist Hours Q A' DD Tech., Hours" Hours -T —3 7TT PLSiHours 7 "Crew"', SurveySubtotal Hours -N by T aslc` (Labor only) Task 1. Surveying, Base Map A. Data Gathering 4 B. Survey (subtasks a - d) 4 B L Survey (subtasks e - detailed survey of Thriftway ME)_ 24 4 B2. Survey (subtask f - private utility locate) 2 8 B3. Survey (subtask g - stationing) B4. Survey (subtask h - geotech, potholing, etc. support) --- 2 4 8 C. Prepare Base Map (metric and layers) QA/QC for survey portion 2 4 2 32 8 Subtotal: Task Labor (includes162% Indirect) 2 $252 is -T1,65 —1 - 0 $0 0 $0 32 $2,012 0 18 44 0 $1,603 $6,571 $12,089 Task 2. Geotechnical Analysis Performed by HWA Geosciences Subtotal: Task 3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis and Report A. Review existing hydrologic reports 2 4 32 B, C. Hydraulic model -existing, proposed. 2 4 80 D. Draft H&H Analysis Report 2 6 36 F&G. Final H&H Analysis Report 2 2 16 QA/QC for model- and analysis Subtotal: Task Labor (includes162% Indirect) 2 10 $1,258 2 18 - — -$1,651 2 166 $13,048 $0 $0— $0- $o $0 -$15,95-6 Task 4. Permit Assistance A. Determine permit requirements 8 8 B. Prepare permit drafts incl. Figures, analysis 12 40 QA/QC for permits 4 4 8 D. Wetland Delineation (Jones & Stokes) Subtotal: Task Labor (includes162% Indirect) 4 $503 24 $2,201 0 $0 56 $3,375 $0 $o $0 $o $6,078 Task S. Design, Plans and Specifications A. Desi n alternatives A. Meeting small. group8 B. Determine pothole locations B1. Surveypothole locations see Task 1 B2. Utility Potholin(performed by APS B3. Add Potholeinformation to base map4 C. Preliminarydesign C 1. Meeting laze group D. Final Design, P&S (City review at 70%, 90%, 95%) 4 4 4 4 4 16 4 16 4 30 24 82 8 4 4 96 96 8 96 96 D1. Meeting laze group QA/QC Design alternatives, P&S Subtotal: Task Labor (includes162% Indirect) q 4 28 $3,521 4 4 80 $7,336 g 4 256 $20,122 4 0 $0 212 $13,331 0 $0 Task 6. Construction Assistance and Observation A. Bid Questions and addenda B. Pre -construction conference C. Submittal Review / Change Orders D. Construction inspections Subtotal: Task Labor (includesl62% Indirect) 2 2 $252 8 4 4 4 20 $1 834 16 8 40 40 104 $8,174 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Task 7. Project Management t6 32 Subtotal: Task Labor (includes162% Indirect) 16 $2,012 32 $2,934 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Hour Estimate: Estimated Hourly Rates: Direct Labor Cost 62 $48 $2,976 192 $35 $6,720 526 $30 $15,780 56 $23 $1,288 244 0 $24 $24 $5,856 $0 Subtotal Direct Labor: Indirect Costs (162%): Total Labor Cost: Fee (15%): $35,740 $57,899 $93,639 $14,046 Subtotal Labor & Fees: $107,685 Direct Non -Salary Cost: Mileage & Expenses (Mileage @ $0.48/mile) $288 Printing Subconsultant: HWA Geosciences $17,117 APS (Utility Locate) $2,965 Jones & Stokes (Wetland Delineation) $9,978 Subconsultant Overhead (10%) $3,006.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $141,039 Total Labor Cost: Fee (15%): $93,639 $14,046 Subtotal Labor & Fees: $107,685 Direct Non -Salary Cost: Mileage & Expenses (Mileage @ $0.48/mile) $288 Printing (included) Subconsultants: HWA Geosciences $17 117 APS (Utility Locate) $2,965 Jones & Stokes (Wetland Delineations) $9,978 Subconsultant Overhead (10%) $3,006 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: e' "1,039 EXHIBIT C (cont.) SUMMARY OF FEE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BREAKDOWN OF OVERHEAD COST ProfitSharing............................................................ FICA.......................................................................... Unemployment Compensation .................................. Medical Aid and Industrial Insurance ....................... Company Insurance and Medical .............................. Vacation, Holiday and Sick Leave ............................ State B & O Tax & Other Business Tax .................... Insurance.................................................................... Administration and Time Unassignable ..................... Printing, Stationery and Supplies ............................... Travel Not Assignable ................................................ Telephone and Telegraph Not Assignable ................. Fees, Dues, Professional Meetings ............................ Utilities and Maintenance .......................................... Rent............................................................................ RentalEquipment........................................................ Office Miscellaneous, Postage .................................... Professional Services .................................................. TOTAL SEE ATTACHED GRAY & OSBORNE EXHIBIT "C^ ............................................. % ............................................... % ............................................... % ............................................... % ............................................... % ............................................. % ............................................. % ............................................ % ............................................ % ............................................ % .............................................. % ............................................ % ............................................ % ............................................ % ............................................ % ............................................ % .......................................... I ... % .............................................. % SUMMARY OF COSTS Project No. _C_wP 27_2731 Name of Project Renton V;1 lage St-Qrm System Improvement Project DirectSalary Cost.....................................................................................................................$ 3S, C Overhead Cost (including a payrolladditives......................................................................... 162 % $TI Sub -Total $ 3 6aq NetFee........................................................................................................... 1.5 % $ �, © `tb Direct Non -Salary Costs: a. Travel and per diem ................................................ $ 288 b. Reproduction expenses ........................................... $ 0 C. Computer expense .................................................. $ 0 d. Outside consultants ................................................ $ 3 3, obb e. Other (specify)........................................................ $ Total $ 33 3St( Sub Total $ 10 -7i 6 VS - GRAND TOTAL $ 14 I o 3 HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rpicmt\1101 Corrspd Consult\051005-Draft Contract.doc\ cor 12 Piazza/Data _Center/Fomis/City/Contracts COST PLUS NET FEE DETERMINATION DIRECT SALARY COST: Personnel Principal Engineer Chief Engineer Engineer Surveyor (PIS) Surveyor (crew) Environmental Specialist Bookkeeper Executive Secretary CADD Operator/Drafter Clerical Net Fee 15 % of direct salary cost plus overhead DIRECT NON -SALARY COST: Travel and Per Diem Cars at $ 0.48 /mile Per Diem Actual Cost Office and Equipment Computer $ NA /hour Hourly Rates of Pay $48 $35 $30 $34 $57 $23 NA NA $24 NA Reproduction Expenses @ $ /copy.............................................................$ Included Communications.......................................................................................................$ Included HAFde Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1101 Corrspd Consult\051005-Draft Contract.doc\ cor 11 Piazza/Data-Center/Forms/City/Contracts /2000 Consultant dnc hh EXHIBIT `'C" GRAY & OSBORNE COMPUTATION OF OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER PayrollTaxes....................................................................................................17.40% Insurance& Medical........................................................................................14.08% Vacations & Holidays ....................12.84% .................................................................. State& City Taxes.............................................................................................6.47% Insurance............................................................................................................5.07% Administration (Typing, CADD, GIS, Computer)**.......................................46.92% OfficeExpenses.................................................................................................7.78% Travel................................................................................................................. 2.3 7% Telephone...........................................................................................................3.17% Fees, Dues & Meetings......................................................................................1.42% Utilities & Maintenance.....................................................................................1.33% Rent.................................................................................................................... 8.3 7 % Depreciation.......................................................................................................3.36% Recruiting...........................................................................................................0.77% ProfessionalServices.........................................................................................1.23% PayIncentive & Retirement.............................................................................29.02% --------Facilities CostofCapital...................................... .............. __....... .......................... 0.38% TOTAL: ................................................................................................ 162% PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE PAYROLL RATES THROUGH JUNE 16, 2006* Employee Classification Payroll Rates Draftsman/Technician/Engineering Intern $15.00 to $27.00 Design Civil Engineers 18.00 to 34.00 Electrical Engineers 24.00 to 44.00 Project Engineers 25.00 to 45.50 Principal Engineers/Project Managers 32.00 to 52.00 Field Inspectors/Resident Engineers 18.00 to 39.00 Field Survey Crew 43.00 to 78.50 Professional Land Surveyor 33.00 to 38.00 Secretary/Word Processor N/A** * Updated annually, together with the overhead. All actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly on the project are added to the billing. The billing is based on direct out-of-pocket expenses; meals, lodging, laboratory testing and transportation. The transportation rate is $0.48 per mile or the current maximum IRS rate without receipt IRS Section 162(a). ** Secretarial and clerical fees are not billed but are included in the overhead multiplier listed. The same is true for the costs of grant and loan applications, general attendance of council and commissioner's meetings, computer programming, modeling, and CADD equipment time, word processing, typing, administrative costs, fax, telephone, and printing costs up to $150. Page 1 of 1 iva. / / 7 Y r. z October 18, 2UU5 APS PROJECT # 713VAC Applied Professional Services Inc www.vslocate,.g.com Gray Osborne, Inc. ATTN: NANCYLOCKE.TT 701 Dexter Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 284-0860 (206) 283-3206 South Renton Ndlage Place, Renton, WA (Vacuum Excavation) APS, Inc. is pleased to submit a cost estimate for the project named above. SCOPE OIi WORK• All test holes will be executed using our Air/Vacuum excavation system. Gray Osborne has chosen approximately 6, test hole locations on various utilities, for the above prgjcct. APS, Inc. will not be held liable for final restoration (i.e. overlay/mew sidewalk panel, etc.) As this cost has not been accounted for in this estimate. Each test hole opening under asphalt or concrete will be repaired with a permanent asphalt patch. Each test hole will carry a 2-year warranty against failure from the date of execution. APS, Inc, shall provide the standard of care to repair each test hole as close as possible to the existing surface condition. All information gathered on utilities will include top, bottom, width, general soil %conditions and asphalt/concrete thickness. Information collected on utilities will be returned to Nancy Loctet! with Gray Osborne,lna in an excel format. At the completion of each test hole APS, Inc. will place a utility marker at &Tade showing the location and depth of utilities, or structures found. 1-3 SERVICE PROVIDED i VACTIUMS'Y,'MX fo puma# PROJECT 00ORPM77ON ('irPrev&w, pffnAv, one -mg eta) ASMMLT REPAIR FL4CGINC PERMIT FhW TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 6wi&I IVV. TOTAL CAST $ 200.00 8 $ 1,600.00 $ 75.00 3 $ 225.00 $ 190.00 6 $ 1,M.00 COST COST COST COST CAST COST Is 2,965.00 NOT TO EXCEF,D WIT)EIOUT WRITTEN CLIENT APPROVAL: The project estimate is based on the estimated number of hours it will take to perform the Scope Of Work.. If the work is completed in less time then the above estimate, then the final invoice will reflect the lower cost. If however,the project requires additional time of costs to coniplete the Scope of Work then written .approval to exceed #hc ot7�ictal cost estimate is required ^ TERMS: We invoice incrementally on a monthly basis and at the end of the Job_ Net 30 days on all billing. Please cal l if you have any questions or comments regarding this estimate. APS, Inc. will require it written notice to proceed upon acceptance of this proposal or sign on the signature block below prior to any project Stu rt- uP- Respectfully Submitted, Chris Dunham Applied Professional Services, Inc. S.11.E. Division Manager 206.571.1867-Cell ChrisdCa &locates com ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED The undersigned herby acknowledges the terms and conditions of this agreement and authorizes APS, Inc. to proceed according to the scope of services, fees, and schedule contained herein. By: 1'or_ Gray Osborne, Inc. A,TTN: Darrell Nance Dale: A PS PROTECT # 713 VAC 2-3 Tasks inciuded in the Utility Potholing service .... , "I / e Initiate "One -Call" request & interface with locators and Utility companies. Submit traffic control plans to the City, State or County as required. Y Obtain Right of Way use permits as required. Open test hole in asphalt or concrete no larger then 8"x 8", by inethod of jackhammer or coring. y F,xpose utilities at each test hole location. ➢ Obtain top, bottom and width of utility or structure measurements as required. Return native soil or select fill to the test hole as required. Restore test hole in appropriate lifts using pneumatic compactor. ➢ Place a polymer asphalt patch or concrete over each test hole as required. % Place washer or hub at each test hole location designating test hole number and pertinent utility information. %= Provide utility information on an Excel spreadsheet and / or test hole data sheet. _APS Project# 713 VAC 33-3 ,oject Cost Estimate :otechnical Investigation Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project Renton, Washington HWA Ref: P5503 Date: 17-Oct-05 Revised: LAB Scope of Work: Undertake four (4 ) hollow -stem auger borings to depths of 25 to 35 feet maximum; install two (2) piezometers for ground water monitoring and slug testing, perform laboratory testing to determine relevant engineering and hydraulic properties, undertake engineering analayses, and prepare a detailed engineering report of recommendations to satisfy the work scope detailed in Task 2 of the fax transmittal from Gray & Osborne dated October 14, 2005. ESTIMATED HWA LABOR: PERSONNEL & 2005 HOURLY RATES WORK TASK Principal Proj. Mgr. k Hydrogeologi4 Proj. Geol. I CAD Admin. TOTAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION 165.00 95.00 151.00 86.00 70.00 56.00 HOURS AMOUNT Utility Locate; Coordination I 1 8 10 $934 Field Borings/Sampling 4 10 14 $1,240 Piezo. Monitoring/Slug Tests 1 8 9 $839 Prepare Logs/Profiles 1 4 2 7 $579 Geotech./Hydro. Analyses 1 8 6 1 16 $1,917 Report Preparation 3 12 3 4 4 28 $.2,824 A-leetings & Discussions 4 4 1 1 10 $1,277 Project Management 1 4 - $545 'Pl1T A r 7 A Rl1D. n ORATORY TEST SUMMARY: ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES: r Est. No. Unit I Total Drilling $6 008 Test Tests Cost Cost ODCs $50 Moisture Content 40 $12 $480 Mileage@$0.485/mile $58 Grain Size Analysis 12 $70 $840 Laboratory Testing $1,830 Consolidation Analysis 0 $425 $0 Atterberg Limit 2 silo $220 vlodified Proctor 2 s 145 $290 r: Al6QRA 1€ RY T±Q AI _ $1,830 PROJECT TOTALS: Total Labor Cost $9,221 Direct Expenses $7,896 T. $17,117 Assumed Conditions: 1. Right of entry to all drilling sites will be arranged by the Client/Owner. 2. Geotechnical evaluation includes physical soil properties only; does not include evaluation of potentially contaminated soils, fill, or ground water, or the identification of wetland areas. 3. All hours and items are estimated, and may be increased or decreased within the limits of the budget at the discretion of HWA's project manager to suit overall project requirements. 4. Utilities at boring locations will be organized by HWA and cleared by the Client/Owner. Gray & Osborne City of Renton Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project (SWP-27-2711) PROJECT STATEMENT This Scope and Budget is for the delineation of wetlands and preparation of a wetlands report associated with the City of Renton — Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project (SWP- 27-2711). Gray & Osborne has requested Jones & Stokes prepare this scope of work in support of the environmental permitting for this project. The tasks, each of which are discussed in more detail below, include: • Task 1 Wetland Delineation • Task 2 Wetland Delineation Report • Task 3 Assistance with Permitting • Task 4 Project Meetings (Mitigation Discussion) • Task 5 Project Management SCOPE OF WORK Jones & Stokes will perform a wetland delineation, prepare a wetland delineation report and assist Gray & Osborne with permitting associated with the project. Task 1 — Wetland Delineation Jones & Stokes will perform a routine -level wetland delineation on the Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project area using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the DOE's Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). Field time for two biologists is expected to require a portion of one day to complete the delineation. Sample plot data will be collected within and immediately adjacent to every identified wetland or other water, and the appropriate field forms will be used to document the delineation results. Jones & Stokes will stake and/or flag these boundaries for future surveying by Gray & Osborne or a Gray & Osborne - subcontractor, and for field verification if requested by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). These data will be provided to Gray & Osborne for use in preparing a base map depicting wetland/water locations. Data for the wetland functions and values assessment and the wetland buffer rating will also be collected at this time. A'aa Jones & Stokes Gray & Osborne 10/27/05 City of Renton Renton village Storm System Improvement Project (SWP-27-2711) This task includes the completion of a wetland functions and values assessment using the Semi - Quantitative Assessment Methodology (Cook 2000), and rating the wetlands and associated buffers according to the Washington State Wetland Rating System (DOE 2004) and the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance. Task 2 — Wetland Delineation Report Jones & Stokes will prepare a wetland delineation report, which is required for the purposes of the JARPA submittal for Section 404 permitting, and Section 401 permitting and an HPA. Jones & Stokes will prepare a wetland report that will describe the wetlands delineated in the project vicinity (fifty feet upstream and fifty feet downstream of project location). A brief summary of wetland and wetland buffer conditions will be included. A map showing the delineated and surveyed boundaries of the wetlands will also be included. The wetland report will include the following elements: • summary of site conditions • description of wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology • classification and categorization of wetlands per City of Renton and Ecology rating systems • qualitative evaluation of wetland functions • indicate the appropriate mitigation ratio required per City of Renton and Ecology 2004 guidelines • summary of delineation methods used • wetland field data forms Product. Jones & Stokes will provide Gray & Osborne and the City of Renton a draft wetland delineation report for review and comment. Comments will be incorporated into the final wetland delineation report. Copies of the final report will be provided to Gray & Osborne and the City of Renton for their records. Task 3 — Assistance with Permitting Jones & Stokes will assist Gray & Osborne with project permitting. Assistance will include review of the JARPA prepared by Gray & Osborne for the project, to ensure the JARPA is complete and meets agency requirements for level of detail generally required to expedite review by the permitting agencies. This task does not guarantee agency issuance of permits. Task 4 — Project Meetings (Mitigation Discussion) Jones & Stokes 10/27/05 2 Gray & Osborne City of Renton Renton Village Stortn System Improvement Project (SWP-2 7-2 711) Jones & Stokes will attend up to two, four-hour meetings (eight hours total) to discuss the impacts to wetlands, recommend avoidance and minimization measures, and develop an approach to mitigation, should mitigation be required as part of the project. This task will support development of a scope and cost estimate for the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan. Task 004 — Project Management The project management task will include contracting, invoicing/progress reports, record keeping, and staff coordination. Jones & Stokes will prepare a progress report with each monthly invoice. ASSUMPTIONS The tasks described above will be completed with the following assumptions: ■ Jones & Stokes will delineate wetlands in the vicinity of the project (fifty feet upstream and fifty feet downstream, hanging flags indicating the boundary and provide Gray & Osborne with a sketch map of the delineation. Gray & Osborne will survey the wetland boundaries and provide Jones & Stokes with a map of the surveyed boundary. ■ Jones & Stokes will not develop a mitigation plan as part of the project, but will identify the classification of wetlands potentially impacted, the amount of wetland impact and the Potential mitigation that will likely be required by the permitting agencies. BUDGET Jones & Stokes can complete the above work for an estimated cost of $9,978.00. Costs will be invoiced on a time -and -materials basis. Jones & Stokes may move resources between tasks within the contract amount. -000- Jones & Stokes Gray & Osborne 10/27/05 City of Renton Renton Village Storm System Improvement Project (SWP-27-2711) Table 1. Cost Estimate for Gray & Osborne: Renton Village Stormwater Improvements Consulting Staff Ives J Soncarty C VanDehey E Higgins B Fiedor B Task Task 1 - Wetland Delineation .................... Proj Dir Env Spec III Env S ec IV Env Spec III Env Spec I 6 , Task 2 Prepare Wetland Report ............................ ......... ------• -.................................. g.�........ Task 3_ Assistance with"Permitting ..........}._.........r-•--.....4..; ............ s ........................ -........4 Task4 -Pro ect ........................................... .............. __,_- - j- Meetings"(Mitigation Discussion) ......... '-•-...... - -- - -- -•- --•---... _ . .......... ...................$-:........................�.......... .. ------- .. ... .................. Task 5 - Project Management ""'"'""''--........ 1 ' Total hours 2 ; Bellevue billing rates 126 46 8 6 Subtotal $150 $95 $110 $95 $85 s $150 $2,660 D$5,280 $760 $510 Direct Expenses 523.01 Computer/Faxes 523.02 Reproductions 523.04 Postage and Delivery 523.05 Travel, Auto, incld. Mileage 523.06 GIS/CAD/MAC _Mark up on all non -labor costs and subcontractors: 9.5% Direct expense subtotal Total price Production Staff Hours Tech Admin Labor Direct Subtotal - $1'640 Editor Tech Subtotal Total __ .... $1 640 .. $0 , ...... ...... - $0 .$0 $6 240 ......... ............. $420 ..._.. $6 660 ._..._ , $380 ......... ......................... $380 .... 0 , ..... . , .................$0 .. $810 0 ...............:......... 0 ....$340 ..... $g $340 1 ••--.... $70 $50 360 $420 $50 $470 $10 $25 $25 $13 148 Total Price 978 Date printed 10/27/2005 3:45 PM Approved by Finance { sh } g:\2002 cost\Gray Osbome-PB216.05 Renton Cost-1 0-27-05(client)l -JSA From: Citizens to Council Via Clerk To: Angela Laulainen Date: Mon, Nov 7, 2005 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Please read this evening Dear Ms. Laulainen: Thank you for your e-mail to the Renton City Council. Copy has been forwarded to all Councilmembers for review. Since no Council action was taken on this matter at tonight's meeting, and since your email was not entered into the record tonight due to the late receipt and the early meeting, your email correspondence will be placed on the next Council agenda, 11/14. In the meantime, Council has received a copy for their consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 >>> "Laulainen, Angela" <ALaulainen@lwsd.org> 11/07/05 3:38 PM >>> I am submitting the email below to be read at the City Council meeting this afternoon. I am unable to attend for the audience comment portion so request that this email be read at tonight's meeting: Dear City Council Members and those persons involved in the Boeing Subdistrict 1 B Conceptual Plan and the Lakeshore Landing Development, My name is Angela Laulainen. I reside at 314 Garden Avenue North in the North Renton Neighborhood and I am sending this letter in regards to the development of the Lakeshore Landing. My neighborhood is in a residential area which is surrounded on all sides by commercial activity. Being such, we are a walking community and enjoy our close proximity to the park, the community center, the river, and look forward to being able to walk to Lakeshore Landing when it is completed. As a neighborhood with lots of young families and people who like to walk, we are very aware of traffic issues and any large vehicle traffic that comes through. Most of the streets in the North Renton Neighborhood are actually not truck routes (not for vehicles over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). In order to preserve the residential nature of our neighborhood, we have made great efforts, working with the City of Renton and Officer Goodman of the Renton Police Department, to get information out to current business in our neighborhood regarding which streets are truck routes and which are not. As citizens, we take time to monitor truck traffic, contact businesses, and get out the truck route information to them. We often observe oversize vehicles on N. 3rd Street, N. 4th Street, and on Garden Avenue which are all residential streets and not truck routes. Because of our efforts, over the past year the large vehicle traffic on these streets has been has been greatly reduced. I would like to request that City Council and the Lakeshore Landing Developers take some simple steps to prevent a sudden impact of large vehicle traffic on our North Renton Neighborhood streets due to construction and the new businesses going in at Lakeshore Landing. Here are some specific suggestions: 1) Distribute the truck route map to all of the construction companies involved in this development. This may sound like it can't be done but the Kenworth Truck Company, for example, has been emailing the truck routes out to all of their distributors in order to help with this problem 2) Put up signage to direct traffic to Lakeshore Landing. This would be especially helpful at Bronson Way to show that traffic can easily get to Lakeshore Landing by taking the "House Way Bypass" rather than going West on 4th . This suggestion actually was brought up at the last meeting regarding truck traffic in the North Renton Neighborhood. 3) Provide new businesses that go in at Lakeshore Landing with the truck route map and have these businesses pass it on to their suppliers/distributors. Without these preventative steps, we will surely see many large vehicles drive through on our neighborhood streets because they are unfamiliar with the area and the proper truck routes. This is a real problem that can be easily avoided. As an example, when the demolition of Boeing Subdistrict 1 B was taking place, the big Rhine demolition trucks drove down N. 3rd Street until they were given the truck route information. It is just a matter of getting the truck route information to the people who drive these large vehicles. Thank you for taking the time to consider my suggestions. Sincerely, Angela Laulainen 314 Garden Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 (425) 227-7905 AP.-M,OWED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CCTV CO COMMITTEE REPORT Date November 14, 2005 Boeing Subdistrict 1B Conceptual Plan (Referred October 17, 2005) The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence with the staff recommendation to adopt the Conceptual Plan proposed by The Boeing Company for the potential redevelopment of 50.7-acres of Boeing property in the South Lake Washington area known as Subdistrict 113 with the conditions outlined below. The northern 21.2 acres of the property is expected to become surplus and brought forward for redevelopment in the immediate future. This property is under a "right of first refusal" agreement with Harvest Partners, the owner and developer of the 46 acres of property formerly owned by Boeing immediately adjacent to this property to the north. Boeing proposes that this intial parcel be developed with as much as 270,000 square feet of retail. The remaining property is expected to be retained by Boeing for five to 10 years. However, upon redevelopment, as much as 900,000 square feet of lab and/or office, as well as some additional retail and multi -family housing, could be developed in and around the 660,000 square feet of existing office buildings, which are anticipated to be sold and re- occupied by other companies. To enhance the plan and its consistency with the Vision and Policies for the Urban Center —North adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions should be imposed on the Conceptual Plan: 1) That Park Avenue be designated a "Pedestrian -oriented Street," "to ensure an urban form of development and provide pedestrian linkages between the subdistrict and the planned retail/entertainment center expected to be developed to the north, and 2) That a transit facility would be an allowed use in the immediately available property, if funding for such a facility emerged and it could be developed in a way that was supportive of surrounding redevelopment and supported by the property owner(s). The envisioned retail and employment center resulting from the redevelopment proposed under the conditioned Conceptual Plan will have positive economic and social impacts for the City as a whole. As outlined in the 2003 Development Agreement with The Boeing Company, all subsequent land use applications related to this property will be checked against this document for consistency prior to approval. �Vtti Terri Briere, Council President cc: Alex Pietsch Gregg Zimmerman Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Nancy Weil FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT November 14, 2005 APPROVE D BY CITY COUNCIL Date APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND PAYROLL VOUCHERS The Finance Committee approves for payment on November 14, 2005, claim vouchers 242498- 243017 and 3 wire transfers, totaling $3,445,995.68 , and 602 direct deposits, payroll vouchers 60666-60884, and 1 wire transfer, totaling $2,003,123.98 . r� Don Persson, Chair Toni Nelson, Vice -Char 1 " ��� tw, Me�}ber A '�'1"nI'F:70 By C t u 00111MCIL Date. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT November 14, 2005 Municipal Arts Commission Appointment (November 7, 2005) The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of Denise Bisio to the Municipal Arts Commission for a three-year term that expires December 31, 200,8, replacing Diana Hagen who resigned in 2004. L� Toni Nelson, Chair Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair t Dan Clawson, Member cc: Dennis Culp, Administrator, Community Services hqted 11-14-aDoS CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 178/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING FACTS, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE R 10 AND RM-F ZONES WITHIN THE HIGHLANDS SUB -AREA PLAN STUDY AREA, AND ESTABLISHING A TERMINATION DATE FOR THE MORATORIUM. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has previously declared a moratorium on new development in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan Study Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has expended substantial time and energy on its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and associated policies, and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has identified a study area for refinement of the Comprehensive Plan, with a Sub -Area Plan in the Renton Highlands to further its economic development objectives; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has expended substantial funds developing a preliminary vision and evaluating market factors for redevelopment in the Highlands Study Area; and WHEREAS, the R-10 and RM-F zones are currently mapped on a number of properties within the Highlands Sub -Area Study Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has continued to expend time and money in drafting a redevelopment plan for the Highlands Study Area to achieve higher density, quality infill development, and integrated development; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to extend the moratorium to provide adequate time for the City staff to prepare and present the proposed changes to the Sub -Area Plan and zoning, and present such changes to the City Council for review and adoption; and 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, it is necessary to perform environmental review of changes to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and development regulations, which review has not yet taken place, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION YJL There is hereby declared an extended moratorium on the permitting or construction of residential development, including grading permits, land clearing and tree cutting permits, building permits, plats, lot line adjustments, and site plan review entitlements in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan Study Area, with the exception of portable buildings for the Renton School District, which are not covered by this moratorium. The area of the continued moratorium has been modified from the original moratorium. The area of the extended moratorium is shown on the attached map. The purpose of this extended moratorium is to provide adequate time for staff to draft, review and present to the City Council, and for the City Council to review and adopt changes to the Comprehensive Plan Policies concerning the appropriate density and use of land within the Highlands Sub -Area Plan Study Area. The moratorium shall be in place for a period not to exceed six months, unless otherwise modified by the City Council, which period may be extended or renewed for one or more additional periods, but only if a subsequent public hearing is held, and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal, to support such renewal. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES. I 142:11 / 10/0 5 : ma Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 2005. 91 t�cd-l�ne�i version t/-io-aoos CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 5-5-2 AND 5-5-3 OF CHAPTER 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES) OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY REVISING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS LICENSES IN THE CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. A new definition in Section 5-5-2, Definitions, of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby added, to read as follows: Reporting Period: The full previous twelve months, starting from the first day of the quarter within which the anniversary date of Application for City of Renton Business License falls. SECTION II. Section 5-5-3 of Chapter 5, Business Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 5-5-3 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE: f4—,GeneralA. _General Business License Required: Every business enterprise, including those with a temporary or portable sales location, shall first obtain -from. the FjRanGe Dire- obtain. froni the Fiscal Services Division a general business license for the current calendar year or unexpired portion thereof. The license shall be nontransferable. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8.---1&st4anGeB. Issuance of License: All general business licenses shall be issued by the Finance 9#ec4Gr & Information Senjces Administrator. The Finance 9*eGW& lnfonnation Serviccs Administrator shall keep a register thereof. Each license shall be numbered, and -shall show the name, place and character of business and such other information as the Finance DireGto Administrator shall deem necessary. 2. The license shall at all times be posted in the place of business for which it is issued, or in the case of a business enterprise with a temporary or portable sales location, be carried on the person of the holder thereof at all times during business hours or while such business is being carried on, and shall be displayed at the request of any interested person. 3. When the place of business of a business enterprise is changed, the business enterprise shall return the license to the Finance DkecAor& hlfonnation Services Adniiiiisti ator and a new license shall be issued for the new place of business free of charge. No business enterprise holding a license shall allow any other business enterprise, for whom a separate license is required, to operate under or to display its license. (Ard: G. UG8nseC. License Fee: The general business license fee shall be determined by the number of employees in the City of Renton during the snrrer}t salepAar-year-of4g4a� poFtbn--t#erao€Reporting,Period as follows: . The a^RUa11. New License Application Fees: The new license fee shall be calculated by estimating the number of hours to be worked during the upcoming year and then multipiying that figure by $0.029 per hour. For those businesses relocating 2 ORDINANCE NO. to Renton and- ptic_i.pating an e ui_alent narnber of'einplovee hours in the tip corn' ear the fee may be based on the prior year's hours. 2 There shall be a minimum fee for any annual license of fifty five dollars($5LQQ 3. Renewal Fees: The annual license renewal fee shall be calculated by multiplying the number of hours %per-te"-urirag-that-Gatendar-yearor4-##e-quarter y-State-Gf Washington--.-abor---and-4r4du6V4es--4epeftsworked during the Reporting Period and then multiplying that figure by $.029 per hour. This figure will be approximately fifty five dollars ($55.00) per full time equivalent employee per calendar year when based upon one thousand nine hundred twenty (1,920) hours of employment per calendar year. At any tifRe dering._t#e year - that- +t -appears t-hat_ the number o#--employees -#as been -under -reported-; -an additi©na!-liserfse-fee-s#a!t-be--due.-It, a4-arry-tirne it appear-s--t#at the--Rumber of employees -for -the year -has-been The annual license renewal !ee may also be calculated by multiplying the number of Full -Time Equivalent Employees reported by fifty-five dollars ($55.00). under reported by twenty PeFGeRt 0 ) or more, there shall be a Penalty appked to any--additional-€ee-owed; equal-to-twenty-perr {28%I per-annurn-o€t#e-additiefrat #ee,-plus any-asset�r�tirtg-legal-er adr�airristrative expen��i^e�=rred-by-t#e-Gtty-in deter -reining t#e under -reporting; i#e arr}cant of the t+nder-reporting or -in solaesting the4a�and,any-pena4y: �:--€as#--besir�ess--#isenee--holder--s#ali -file-iar+t#--t#e-{�+ty--�#-�entoraj-eapies-o#--its q+� ante+ ly - repertso t#e-�ta#e employee-heurs worked. The b—i-6--es that d;d not We the report GaR We aR with the 4y--fepor44ng4�-wortuber—of &P:4 yees . 3. _ T#ere s#ail be --a minimum -fee -for any -annual Neense-of-fifty-five-dotlars 45"4. I-arterly, five (5) days the-a#er� t s#afl be aseor panied by-strb+ aissioaa of-t#e Labo�andndusiries report. The first- Uarter tieense-fee-4-d-is -basa Pies- report -for the4ast-quar-tef of the prier year. 3 ORDINANCE NO. �.-a-:--Presu�ptio+�:-F-or-ta�ar-poses-et--t#+s-Ordfr�a+ace--,ar-�y-bt�si+�ess--operating--vwt#i+� the-Gity-tina+ts-of. tie fit o€er�tera �#all be -beeped -do- knave all of its enaptayees sking-w 4h4n-# e,-QIty-tirnits of the-City-of-F efater . is -wit ri #he-Git-y-fimits--of -the -,City—of Renton all- hours --will- be. -presumed to be worked -within} the City and subject to this-€ee: Arry -employee regularly-reporting-4o work within -the-city- lirnits--shall--have -all of --that. employee's time sob*A-to 4-his--€ee; even- the -,City -of -Renters -for example,_ a realtor--or -outside salesper-son For -an employee normally- employed within the City of Renton who for ex -tended periods -of -time report-- to work -outside the -City of Benton, for exarnple-a-eorrtraotors-ereployees reporting directly to -job sites;- then- the -empleyer-+,nay-by-a€fidav4-report-the nurxaber of hours-aetuaily worked within -the -City -or the -percentage -o€-time-within-the_Gity--based -upon-one-thousand. nine hundred-twenty-{� ,�) hours -annually and pay the annual license -fee based example ORDINANCE NO. the Urlder-reportimg, the amount at the under -reporting or in collectin the tax and any pcil salty. 6. Each business license holder may be required by the Finance and Infornnation Services Administrator or his/her designee, to file with the City of Renton, copies of its quarterly reports to the State Department of Labor and Industries repogm' employee hours worked. The businesses that did not file the report may be required to file an affidavit with the City reporting hours worked or the equivalent number_of employes. 1. Due Dates: Business License Fees are due one day after the last day of the quarter of the anniversary date of original City application for Business License. rting Periods: Business License Fees are calculated for the Reporting Period. _The _Finance & Information Services Administrator may set quarterly payment schedules and due dates for business license fees on an exceptional basis. Rcporting Periods are as follows: Reporting Period 1: Anniversary date of the business's Original Application fora City Business License falls within January I" through March 31" Reporting Period 2: Anniversary date of the business's Original Aplication for a City Business License falls within April 1" through June 30'1' Leportin�� P riod 3: Anniversary date of the business's_ Original Application for a City Business License falls within July I" through September 30`n ORDINANCE NO. Reportinb Period 4: Anniversary date of the business's Original Application for a City Business License falls within. October l'` through December. ) 1 st. 9. Expiration: Unless otherwise established by the Finance and hlformation Services Adrninistrator, a business license shall expire on the last date of its reL)oT in period. 10. t,oeation of Business and Employees: a. Presumption: For purposes of this Ordinance any business operating within the City limits of the City of Renton. shall be deemed to have all of' its employees working within the City limits of the City of Renton. b. Working Outside City: For any employees whose nominal place of business is within the City limits of the City of Renton all hours will be presumed to be worked within the City and subject to this fee. Any etrnployee regular] �Lreportin<g to work v.ithin the City limits shall have all of tliat employee's time subject to this fee even iportions of the employees time are spent outside the Citv of Renton for example, a realtor or outside salesperson. For an employee normally employed within the City of Renton who for extended periods of time reports to work outside the City of Renton, for example a contractor's employees reporting directly to job sites, them the employer ma by affidavit report the number of hours actually worked within the City or the percentage of time within the City based upon one thousand nine hundred twenty (1,920) hours annually and-pAy the annual license fee based upotl those figures. C. Shout Tenn Employment Within City: A Temporarynnety_ (90) clay license may be purchased for twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per FTE. The expiration date of the license shall be ninety (90) days from date o' issuance. The ORDINANCE NO. 1_ctnpx�rar} Bt,isiness 1_iccnse im\ only b� �lurcliasc�l b� busiileSSCS y�itli 50 or IC\kcr FTE. l lie liceansc mav_bc renewed at the seine lec of uwei�-live dollars 25.-(1(ier F"I;E- for successi- c ninety (90) day periods. Renewal forms will not be sent to Licensees. Renewals must be at the rec nest of Licensee. All late fees and penalties apply-, 6:--Any payment -not fxaade within#+#teen-{1-5}l l . Any payment-_ not made within seventyfiye (75_) days of the due date as defined herein shall be cause for the automatic revocation of the business license. There shall be a penalty of not less than twenty dollars ($20.00) to reinstate any license revoked through nonpayment. There shall further be a penalty of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) for failure to obtain a business license, plus payment of all license fee amounts still owing for the last three (3) years fl4 a gef}aity--of twenty---percent--{2E %)- per anr{um--plt+s-any---a nting - tegat -or -administrative expenses incurred by the City in determining the noweporting; -or the_ufapaid -portion sver the last -three {ayyeafs-orXears, 1)1us a penaltlty-of twentyj)crcent .(20%per annunl. for all amounts owing, plus an�r accoentin Ie�al or adlninsttatti�c --_st - - c.k �enscs i_ncwzed by the City in in collecting the tax and/ef the penalty. addition there shall- be an interest charge of ten percent anflum or} any businesS 4GenSe €eepaid-+Fere -tKfaf4 fifteen {�5}d�s t# ate f . 44 , 42-2 t-97 ) 7--- This Ordinance -shall be--fn--full fom aeffect-44ri l--otberwise- amended -by ordinance:-(©rd:-4335, 42-1A5-91) D. *ewptions= The provisiens4-this Chapter shall net apply tom: 1.-Anybu-siness-enterprise, #iren or -corporation whisk the-tty+s#orbidden to tax -by law, 2. Translators, expert ,,;itne�, and ceur-t reporters who have a busiffe&& license in-ansther-ittrisdietien-and who have a-btl&if ss leGated eutside ity-wheR their ter. used in anengoing fudis+al-preseeding,-er 3: Attorneys who bave-a business license -in another-fu4s icAion--and -whe-#cave-a business -located eutside the -City -a} when they are represefatln" clie+at who--ls doing--business-with -or-seeking a perrm4 -from-the City- b} when their services are used by -a de#endant in Rentort u-nlsipal- Qourt car -by -a -party In- an-adfeinistrative hearing-, 4 when their services- are -used -as--a +ff -Rine n Municipal GeuFt; of- d}when th�.e, perils inv4o- e representatiea e# a-cA -and their presence in- 4 is liffiited to participation In 2 reeet+ng ; depos+tion er witf ess +ffterview-that -is_related to an-erageing -or-anticipated -legal matter. {Ord.-5824; 19-29-83) €.-Renewat.-T-he--Finance-Director- s authorized, but--not--required; to mail to- -business, enterprises-ferms for.application for but -failure of the business enterprise to -receive any -such #orra skaall -no*-eaFsuse-the-bE+s terprlse--from--mak+ng applc-ation--for- and sesurang t#ae licefase -fegUk-,G nd payment -of- the license -fee when- and -as -due hereunder. 7 ORDINANCE NO. F. Overpayment of _-UGenee- --Fee— Whenever - a . business eatefp++se +makes --are overpayment; and vvit#in two-42)- years after date of sue# everpayMent, makes appliGation-#or a-re€end- or creel Et e€ the- Overpayment, its- -Gia m shah -be- alkmed and be repaid #Fern t#e-general -fend, when- approved by tip F4naRGo G+reGter. G---Penalties: 1. Monetary- Penalty-. Failure --to pay -the license fee witNrt thirty (-� days -after the day e- which --it i—s4ue--an4 payable seant to SeGtioq 5-6 3.C7 shall render t#e business enterprise subfec-t to -a -penalty -of 4ve- percent {5-144 t#e- the keRGe gee #or -the tfirst-rnonth-ef-the dekRgUenGy and an- additional penalty- of five percent (5 ) fbr eacA-sG ceedin -Fp nth of delinquency; but not exceeding-a4otat penalty -of tWeRty five perGent-k25%-eFthe4n449uat o€ see# license fee4 any event, 2:- Collection Any license -gee -or -tax due and unpaid and detingeeRt ender this Chapter;- and -all penalties--thereon-rnay. be- Gollected by civil action; w#ich remedy shall -be in -addition -to any and all other existing -remedies and -penalties. 4 t mGense--T#&-€inane DireGtor-rnay revoke aRy-liGense issued pursuant to--h46-Chapter to-any-businessnnterprise-er-o bw-person vv#asis in default in any payrraent e€ any t, wee hereunder, or-vvha s#all fail-ie-comply with any of the- provisions 4-thin GhaAter, € Otice of t ae NGense holder b)f-t#e-Finance-Director-and en -and after-thedate -thereof anysuG# business enterprise w#o-to- engage- in-besiness-s#all-be -deemed- to- be Operating without-a-license--and--shalt be--subfeGt to any -and all -penalties herein provided- {Ord 3773; .t;z-19-83, e€ 1-1-�4; a+ dOrd 4257 4-22-W 4.--P-enalties Penalties fer-any vialatfera of any of the pFevisiens 4 t#is Chapter sha4-be-+n accord with-SeGtion a-3-2_(Grd: 4361, 5.4-52; amd. CW4. 4 r2-3 5-114)3 ) 5. Nuisance-;dete_rninin:; the- nonreporting,. or the unpaid portiop of er the Mist tlu•ee Qj /ears cr- in cull-ectim the tax _amt,otthe penalty. D. Exernptioils:=1_heprovisions of'this CtWter shall not_�l_�, to_ 1. Any- husincss enterprise1 firm or curporati�n which the City is forbidden to tax by law, 2. Translators, expert _ witnesses, and court reporters wllo have a business license in another jurisdiction. and who have a business located outside the City when their services are used in an on oim-, judicial proceeding; or �. Attorneys who have a business license in another jurisdiction and who have a business located outside the City a when they are representing; a client who is doim4 usiness with or seekin-aperntit from the City; b) when their services are used by a ORDINANCE NO. defendant in. Renton Municipal Court or by a party in an administrative hearing; c) when their ser vices are used as a judge pro-tempore in Renton Municipal Court: or (4) when their services involve representation of a client and their presence in the City is limited to participation in a unecting, negotiation, arbitration, deposition or witness interview that is related to an ongoing or anticipated legal matter. E. Renewal: The Finance & Information Services Administrator is authorized, but not required, to mail to business enterprises fonns for application for licenses, but failure of the business enterprise to receive any such tbrni shall not excuse the bllslness enteq)rise from making application for and securing the license required and payment of the license fee when and as due hereunder. Overt)avment of l-icense Fee: Whenever a bLLSmcss enterprise makes an overpayment,_and within two (2) years after date of such overpayment, makes application for a refund or credit of the overpayment, its claim shall be allowed and be repaid from. the general fund, when approved by the Finance & Infonnation Services Administrator, G. Penalties: I. Monetary Penalty: Failure to pay the license fee within thirty(30 days after the day on which it is due and payable pursuant to Section 5-5-3.C.7 sliall render the business enterin•ise subject to a penalty of' five percent (5%) of the amount of the license fee for the first month of the delinquency and an additional penalty of five percent f5°o for each_ succeeding month of delinquency, but not exceeding a total penalty of twenty five percent (25%) of the amount of such license fee ORDINANCE NO. 2. Collection: Any license fee or tax due and unpaid and delinquent under. this Chanter. and all penalties thereon may be collected by civil action, which remcdv shall be in addition to anv and all other existing; remedies and penalties. 3. Revocation of License: The Finance & Infonnation. Services Administrator may revoke anv license issued pursuant to this Chapter to any business enterprise or other oerson_wlio is in default in any payment of aiiv license fee hereunder, or who shall fail to comply \vith any of the provisions of' this Cliapte_r. Notice of such revocation shall be mailed to the license holder by the Finance & Information Services Administrator and on and after the date thereof anv such business enterprise who continues to engage in business shall be deemed to be operating without a license and shall be subject to any and all penalties herein provided. 4. Penalties: Penalties for any violation of� any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be a civil infraction in accord with Section 1-3-2 RMC, Nuisance: Any business enterprise failing to obtain or maintain a business license and yet conducting business within the City limits of the City is hereby declared to be public nuisance. designee 6. Order To Close Business And Appeal: Any Renton police oflicer or any designee of the Finance & Information Services Administrator may serve a notice ordering a business to close and discontinue operation of any business in the City which has failed to obtain or maintain a business license. That notice may be served in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall indicate that the business is ordered to close until it obtains a currently valid business license. The notice shall also state that the business owner or operator shall have the right to appeal the notice 10 ORDINANCE NO. to the Finance &_Infornlation DirectorServIces Administrator or his designee by serving a written notice of appeal on the Finance Director& Mformation Services Administrator or his designee within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of a served notice of closure, or within thirteen (13) days of mailing of a mailed notice of closure. The written notice of appeal shall state the reasons why the closed business need not obtain a business license or proof that the business has a business license. The FinanceDk-, s- or -or the-Direetor's& Information Services Administrator or the Administrator's designee shall then determine whether or not the business is exempt from the City's licensing requirement or has a currently valid business license. If the Finance Direster-- or---floe-DirestoFs& Information Services Administrator or tlic Administrator's designee cannot make these findings, then there shall be an order entered affirming the order to close the business. Any appeal decision shall be reduced to writing and a copy provided to the appellant either in person or by mail. Any further appeal of the appeal decision shall be by writ of certiorari to the King County Superior Court made within twenty (20) days of the appeal decision. 7. Prior7. Prior to issuing a license all back fees and penalties must be paid. (9rd-4333 14-2-5-944 k1—GeRe4!aiH. General Business License Application; Public Record: 1. General]. General business license applications made to the Finance Direetor& lnfbrmation Services Administrator pursuant to this Chapter shall be public information subject to inspection by all persons except to the extent those records may be deemed to be private or would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to such a business enterprise if disclosed as more particularly defined in Chapter 42.17 RCW. 11 ORDINANCE NO. 2-42. It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor punishable under PMC 1-3- 1 for any business enterprise which is required to maintain a general business license to fail or refuse to secure such license or to pay the general business license fee or any part thereof when due, or for any business enterprise to make any false or fraudulent application or false statement or representation in or in connection with any such application, or to aid or abet another in any attempt to evade payment of the fee or any part thereof, or in any manner to hinder or delay the City or any of its officers in carrying out the provisions of this Chapter. Rules And Rulings: 1. The Finance & Information Services Admi_nistratoi- shall have the power and it shall be his duty from time to time to adopt, publish and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Chapter or with the law for the purpose of carrying out the provisions hereof, and it shall be unlawful for any business enterprise to violate or fail to comply with any such rules or regulations. '. A2. Arty business enterprise aggrieved by the amount of the fee or tax found by the Finance Di%—er&_Information Services Administrator to be required under the provisions of this Chapter may appeal to the City Council from such finding by filing a written notice of appeal with the Finance & Information D#eoterServiccs Administrator within five (5) days from the time such business enterprise was given notice of such amount. The Finance DireGteF& Information Services Administrator shall, as soon as practicable, fix a time and place for the hearing of such appeal, which time shall be not more than thirty (30) days after the filing of the notice of appeal. He shall cause a notice of the time and place thereof to be mailed to the appellant. At the hearing the business 12 ORDINANCE NO. enterprise shall be entitled to be heard and to introduce evidence in its own behalf. The City Council shall thereupon ascertain the correct amount of the fee or tax by resolution. The Finance & D*esterinforrnation Scevrices Administrator shall immediately notify the appellant thereof by mail, which amount, together with costs of the appeal if appellant is unsuccessful therein, must be paid within three (3) days after the notice is given. The Mayor, the President of the Council, or the chairman of any committee thereof before which the appeal is to be heard may, by subpoena, require the attendance of any person and may also require him or her to produce any pertinent books and records. Any person served with such subpoena shall appear at the time and place therein stated and produce the books and records required, if any, and shall testify truthfully under oath administered by the chairman in charge of the hearing on appeal as to any matter required of him pertinent to the appeal, and it shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor punishable under RMC 1-;-1, for him or her to fail or refuse so to do. SECTION III. 30 days after publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 92005. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2005. Approved as to form: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor 13 ORDINANCE NO. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: ORD. 1209:10/10/05:ma 14