The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003 Council RetreatCOUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 21, 2003 In Attendance: Members of the Renton City Council Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Derek Todd, Assistant to the Chief Administrative Officer Ralph Evans Marge Richter Oscar Halpert, Renton Reporter Wendy Giroux, South County Journal Items To Discuss: • Communications — internal and external (includes Council email, agenda bills, memos, etc.) • Budget — format, information, timing, outcome based, revenues, underlying assumptions on fund balance • Pavilion Building — general leasing policies (Golf Course & Restaurant) • Channel 21 — broadcasting, additional meetings broadcast • Community Marketing Campaign • Property Taxes • Business Plan — deferred to February 51h • Historic Issues • Westhill policies — utilities issues • Boeing/Explore Life • Dalley signs/temporary signs • Roles and Responsibilities and internal operations of Council and Staff) Email Policy: Citywide Policy • Issue: Terri and Don feel they are receiving less email now than they did six months ago. • Councilmembers are perceived as unresponsive by citizens because the citizens' email is not responded to by Councilmembers. • Dan — City Clerk, as keeper of all public records, is not the only solution (used State Legislature as an example) • Issue: Why can't Council receive Clerk's email response via email? • Should emails addressed to Full Council be placed on Council Correspondence under consent with recommendation to refer to committee? • Have email correspondence be automatically via email to each Councilmember. • Items already in committee would be referred to that committee • Items not yet referred would be recommended by Council President and Julia • Council has option to pull an item from the correspondence for specific direction at Council meeting • Clerk continues to follow process of acknowledgement, modified to reflect the above changes Red File: Those items that are last-minute? • KKW and Julia will work on the red file • Issue: last-minute items are a big red flag Email: • Manner in which Council receives and responds to email different for each Council. • Suggestion: City provides internet access • Question: Does this "protect" Councilmembers' PC? Security/Privacy: • Dan — Some information (based on County Council and State) can be withheld from the Administration. Wants to have correspondence held separately. Doesn't have a problem with a policy where the Council would make copies available. • Dan — Wants some opportunity to review and decide what is public and what is not. • Don P. — Asked why Clerk opened Council mail. Was told it's State law, but checked with MRSC, who told him there was no requirement. • Terri — Also checked MRSC, got some info from Whatcom County, where Council can decide whether Administration receives correspondence. • Suggestion: Have ad hoc committee work on the email policy (take Bonnie's draft and Bothell as a starting point). Terri, Dan, and Randy • Don — Suggested written correspondence also be included. Communications: • Perception of defensive responses by Staff and the Mayor when Council asks questions. • Suggestion: Council remind Staff of Council's role to have answers. • Used Renton Hill as recent example of Council trying to follow policy and Administration still acting suspicious. • Don — Feels whenever he asks, he is treated with suspicion. Don and Terri feel it depends on who (on the Council) asks. • Don — Pointed out the dynamic of election year, and three people running makes communications even more important. • Don — Adamantly stated that he is NOT running for Mayor. • Toni — No campaigning on television? • Responding to the question, "What about the Mayor?", consensus seemed to be to let the Mayor be the Mayor (in terms of his style and function) and the Council will focus on their communications and style. • Don — What is the role of Council President pro tem? • Kathy — What are Council's expectations? • No specific requests received from the Council. Randy — "You've done this before." • Council President acts on behalf of Council to represent the Council at ceremonial functions. • King — Incumbent upon Council President to work with Administration to help move business of City forward. • Dan — More than ceremonial, more than communications. It is a leadership position. "I want you to put out fires." Perhaps in the future, choosing Council President could be based on merit. • King — Renton still feels like a small city that is in tune with its citizens. Don't want to lose that. Would not want to see Dan's ideas for Council President interfere. • Kathy — Both Mayor and KKW are working on working collaboratively. • Kathy — If a Councilmember has a question or concern, call. Expects when she calls to get a response. • Is telephone most effective method? Yes (Randy — cell phone, Toni — home, King — work, Don — whatever, Terri — work, Dan — work) Randy — leave voice message. • Toni — Caution about referring items to Committee of the Whole. Be careful not to refer too much due to..... • Continue informal discussion the 1st of the month. • Have sign in front of Council Conference Room requesting public to turn off their cell phones and pagers. Agenda Cover Sheet: • Scans quickly to decide whether to read now or later. • Issue: Veterans Memorial Park Bid Opening expenditure required and amount budgeted. • Council Suggestion: Better, more accurate information on cover sheet "expenditures committed." • Kathy — Staff have repeated to her that they are also frustrated with the current process. • Minutes — Concern over getting minutes in a timely fashion. Concern over what is in the minutes. • Kathy — Now minutes are less like a transcript and more like a summary. Example: KKW made a referral, but no context was included. • Terri — Why can't we get minutes in the agenda packet? • Toni — Ask the Mayor to recognize the motion "maker" and "seconder" to clarify for the minutes. Correspondence Policies: • Current policy did not take email into account. Used Jack Alhadeff example. • Toni — Two pieces of correspondence from seniors outside of city addressed to Toni — she requested that all Council received. • Kathy — For Council correspondence, is Council going to respond, or will the Mayor/ Administration? • Don — Council mail is Council mail and should be handled by Council. • Dan — Council President notifies Committee Chairs and asks for input to the letter response. • All — Response is essential. KKW response was not from Council. • Don — Make it clear that Council policy was and is being followed, but the policy needs to be changed. Historic Preservation: • Kathy — Goal was to bring the item to a discussion level. Terri indicated two developers are interested in working on a proposal. • Kathy — Move slowly and deliberately toward a recommended position. Currently referred to Planning & Development and to Committee of the Whole. • Terri — Wants to hear from the full Council. • Terri — Should be another full meeting. • Randy — Is this the year to take this on? Or should we wait until 2004? • Kathy — We have a Comp Plan deadline for completing policy revisions. • Kathy — Review current and proposed policy. Problem for Staff is that we are in violation of our current policy. • Toni — Let's keep this simple. Have Council identify and declare historic structures, log them, and get ourselves into compliance. • Consensus: King County standards are too strict. • Toni — Ask the community. • Randy — Rather than tie something to permitting, tie it to ownership. Update on Marketing Campaign: • Question on City funds/resources used in summer celebration — no hard GF $$. • Hamilton/Saunderson will seek sponsors. Property Taxes: • Proposal — Committee of the Whole meeting to have property tax "101" with Finance Director. Leasing Policies: • King & Toni — Include in Staff discussion. • Council — What is the criteria? What is our plan for the building? • Don — Council's responsibility is to set the policy on who we'll lease the building to. • Refer to Staff retreat, determine Council's goal and policy toward leasing. What is status of leasing Golf Course and other properties? • Golf Course — Don's concern — A number of people are interested in an RFP, why don't we pick the best one? • Need status report. Boeing Explore Life: • Want to negotiate moratorium away ASAP through Development Agreement, Comp Plan Amendment, etc. Roles & Responsibilities: • Don — See my role as cheerleader for the City. Look for opportunities. • Dan — Arlan Collins inspired him — time for us to start thinking of ourselves as a regional leader and to think of ourselves in a bigger way. • Terri — We don't do enough PR to clarify incorrect info. • Toni — Calendar as a model of what we do correctly. • Budget — Schedule separate discussion on format, process, revenues, etc. Temporary Signs: • Issue: Communications between Staff and Council. Sept. 19`" sent a letter saying we did not intend to renew the permit. New permit issued on November 1st, Council not notified until December 19''. Why was Council first told permit would not be renewed, then renewed without notifying Council? And why was Council not told until December 19''? What happened to change? • Kathy — Unacceptable communications glitch. West Hill: • Dan — Interested in learning history of policies and decisions made with regard to West Hill. • Terri — Utility issues • Kathy — need to "true up" utility service area with PAA. • King — Cost of infrastructure is an issue. • Don — Should we review our position on the West Hill this year? • Refer to Committee of the Whole for review. Channel 21 Issue: • New recording system. • Clip -on microphones for speakers who make presentations. • Toni — Develop guidelines to give presenters. • Additional broadcasting • Policies for municipal channel Red Folders: • Don — Don gets his packet on Thursday and again on Monday afternoon. No packets. • Consensus: No surprises and no last-minute issues. Meeting Notes for Council Workshop 1 / 21 / 2003 The entire Renton City Council met on January 21, 2003 for a four-hour workshop. The Council has met annually in sessions called "Council only" during the course of two-day retreats with City staff. This year, at the first Committee of the Whole meeting in January, the Council decided to try a different format. The goal was to work through some of the issues that required a lot of discussion by the Council in advance of the Council/Staff Retreat. This would allow time for staff to prepare responses to Council issues for discussion at the larger group retreat and time for Council to work through the process -oriented issues. It appears that there may have been some misinformation being circulated about this meeting. Like all meetings of the City Council, this meeting was open to the public and in fact attended by two citizens, two reporters and two members of the Mayor's staff. No public comment was taken because this was a workshop session and the intent was for Council -only discussions. In preparation for this workshop, the Council President compiled a list of issues or concerns expressed by all the Councilmembers and wrote those general topics on a flip chart. Then the Council prioritized the items for discussion as follows: • E-mail and other Internal Communications Issues • Historic Issues • Leasing Policies — Pavilion and Golf Course • Boeing Update • Roles and Responsibilities • Budget • Temporary Signage Issues • West Hill Issues • Channel21 • Property Taxes and Community Marketing Campaign — quick briefing only Council also decided that the Business Plan would be discussed at the Council/Staff Retreat. At the end of the workshop, the Council President re -capped the afternoon's discussion as follows and all Councilmembers agreed that the following summary is an accurate description of each issue. Email Council wants all e-mails that are sent to the full Council forwarded to Councilmembers individually as soon as they are received by the Council Liaison or City Clerk. Council agreed to consider recommending a new correspondence consent agenda for e-mail similar to our current consent agenda. The agenda would state the name of the person sending it, the general topic and a recommendation for the disposition of the correspondence such as: info only, refer to a specific committee, refer to administration, etc. Council agreed that the City website should have a notice advising the public about our new process. Council agreed that internal processing could remain the same unless the City Clerk and Council Liaison wish to change something for efficiency reasons. Council agreed to look into the idea of having some type of checklists on the website for tracking purposes. Council agreed that we would like to explore getting new e-mail addresses that we can access from home or work sites that would be on the City server and would comply with the need for keeping public records. Finally, Council agreed that there were more complexities in this issue that needed further study and three members volunteered to continue working on the issue. In accordance with policy 800-05, section 4.4, which authorizes the Council President to recommend to the full Council the establishment of special, temporary or ad hoc committees, a written recommendation will follow this report. Communications Council requests agenda cover sheets be discussed at the Council/ Staff Retreat. The concern is that the information needs to be as accurate as possible and truly reflect the total project budget including what has already been spent as well as what has been committed. Council requests that the minutes of the previous week's meeting be included in the packet that is distributed on Thursday afternoon. There will be further discussion of this and other observations about the minutes at the Council/Staff retreat. Council wants its mail to go to the Council Liaison since she is in the best position to know whether there is something critical that an individual member needs to know about. Council wants to respond to its own mail and recognizes that some changes to existing correspondence policies will be necessary to facilitate this change. This item will also be worked on by the sub -committee referenced under e- mail policies. Historic Issues There is a disconnect between the current comprehensive plan policies and the proposed new policies and the issue must be resolved due to state deadlines for comprehensive plan revisions. This item will be discussed at the Council/ Staff retreat. The item is currently in Planning and Development Committee and Committee of the Whole. The goal is to move slowly and deliberately toward a recommended position. Leasing Council wants the Administration to know that our goal is to lease the Pavilion building as soon as possible. Our leasing policy needs to be discussed and perhaps refined with regard to this site as well as the Golf Course Restaurant. Council requests briefing and status report at the Council/Staff retreat. Clarity is needed. Boeing and Explore Life Council's intent is to negotiate moratorium issues as soon as possible and requests that the Administration work quickly to resolve the issues so the moratorium can be lifted. Refer to Council/ Staff retreat. Roles and Responsibilities Most of this discussion took place under correspondence and e-mail. The Council wants to be cheerleaders and advocates for Renton and Renton issues. In order to be effective, we need to know what is going on in the community and we would like to be aware of opportunities where we can promote Renton. Council affirmed that the Council President should represent the Council at all functions. If the Council President is not available, Council President Pro- tem should be the spokesperson. If that person is not available, the next choice is Past Council President, then Chair of the appropriate Council Committee, then whoever is available. Council President has the authority to designate another Councilmember if there is a special interest in the particular issue. Council President agreed to review all Council Policies and to recommend necessary changes to accomplish goals of the Council. Council President also agreed to maintain open lines of communication with the Administration and to notify Council as needed. Budget Refer to Council/Staff retreat Temporary Signage Council was concerned about lack of notification on temporary sign permits in the downtown area. Since Councilmembers receive complaint calls from citizens and businesspeople, we need to know when these administrative decisions are made so we can have the information when we are asked. Refer to Council/Staff retreat West Hill Council discussed whether to review the issues concerning the decision to take West Hill out of Renton's potential annexation area. Currently there are some issues regarding sewer service that the Utilities Committee is working on. Three of the current Councilmembers were not on the Council when these discussions and the decision took place. In order that the full Council has the benefit of understanding the history of policies and decisions made regarding West Hill, the Council recommends referral of this item to Committee of the Whole for further discussion. Channel 21 Council is interested in tracking the experience of the Municipal Court with their new digital recording system to see if that application would work in the Council chambers. Council also wants to explore the cost of clip -on microphones for presenters and speakers and developing some guidelines to assist speakers in making their presentations. Council would like to explore the cost of broadcasting Planning Commission meetings and Hearing Examiner hearings and would like to review the general policies for the Municipal channel at the retreat or at a Committee of the Whole meeting. Property Taxes Council is interested in having a briefing on the history of our City's property taxes and how they are calculated in a workshop setting with the Finance Director. Update on Marketing Campaign There will be a full presentation on January 27 during the regular meeting. Refer to Council/Staff Retreat There are several things that Council would like to communicate to the staff and will do so in more depth during the Council/Staff retreat. Following is a summary of those items. Items for Council's red file should be emergent issues only. Councilmembers want to have time to read and understand an issue before voting on it. Council wants to get our own e-mails and correspondence and be able to respond to our constituents in a legal and timely manner. Councilmembers ask questions because we are interested in knowing what's happening, not because we have a hidden agenda. We want to make sure we all understand how Council is supposed to interact with staff and how to get answers to questions citizens ask us. We also want to clarify staff's role when an item is in Committee. We want to know about things before we read about it in the paper. We want the earliest possible notification of meetings and special events even if the dates and times are tentative so we can get them on our calendars. We want to talk about the name of the new Aquatics Center. We want to know more about the sculpture garden that was referenced in the Municipal Arts Commission meeting minutes. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Council President January 27, 2003 Council Planning Workshop February 5-6 Hilton Garden Inn Wednesday: 7:30-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast 8:00-8:15 a.m. Welcome and Orientation/Ground Rules 8:15-9:50 a.m. Emerging Issues (Report out from city staff workshop) 9:50-10:00 a.m. Break 10:00-11:00 a.m. Explore Life Update (Maura O'Neil & Norm Rice) 11:05-12:00 noon Update on Moratorium, Comprehensive Plan Update process 12:00-1:00 p.m. Working lunch (continue emerging issues) 1:00- 3:00 p.m. Business Plan Update 3:00-3:15 p.m. Break 3:15-6:00 p.m. Report & discussion on 1 /21 Council -only workshop Thursday: 8:00-9:50 a.m. Council -only time 9:50-10:00 a.m. Break 10:00-11:30 a.m. Report out and continued discussion about Council -only workshop topics - Internal Communications Issues - Roles and Responsibilities - Direction on Leasing - Agenda Bill clarifications 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Break for Lunch (Rotary meeting for some) 1:30-4:00 p.m. Fund Balance/Other Issues Discussion - Year End Financial Report - Historic Issues - Budget Issues for 2004 4:00-5:30 p.m. Regional Issues and other items 5:30-6:00 p.m. Wrap-up Emerging Issues These items were compiled as part of the Administrative Staff Annual Planning Workshop that took place at Renton Technical College on January 16 — 17, 2003. Staff will be prepared to provide additional discussion detail on each of the following topics. Financial issues - Down Economy/declining revenues - Point of sale vs. point of delivery tax collection - Internet sales - Utility wheeling - Boeing employment reductions - Gambling/slots - "Death by a thousand wounds" - Sustaining City services Economic Development - "Delivering on the promise" - Next phase of strategy - Downtown celebration - Role of retail - Highlands redevelopment - Comprehensive Plan/Boeing property/south Lake Washington - Paccar - Renton Housing Authority - Participation in Highlands Redevelopment project - Expansion of affordable housing units - Code enforcement Regional Issues - King County issues - Parks levy - Brightwater - Jail management - ESA - Shorelines regulations - Stormwater regulations - Human Services - Transportation issues (also, local traffic signal synchronization) - Homeland Security (regional agreements) - Emergency management issues (County, State, Federal; mutual aid, equipment, training) - Fire district mergers - Increasing use of/need for interlocal agreements Other Issues - Annexations - Neighborhood program, volunteer liaisons - Emerging City facility issues - Parks maintenance facility - North Highlands Community Center - Fire Station #15 CITY OF RENTON LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 2003 TO: Renton City Council ,1 ' � N FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council Presiden SUBJECT: Council Planning Workshop As you all know, we will be holding our Annual Council/Staff Workshop on February 5 & 6 at the Hilton Garden Inn. Attached is the agenda, a list of Emerging Issues that came from the Staff Retreat, recommendations from staff on a revised Business Plan, a copy of the meeting report from our January 21 Council -only Workshop, and a draft of the 2002 Year-end Financial report Victoria will present at the workshop. Please bring this packet and the Council Policies and Procedures from the January 21" meeting to this workshop. We have tried to allow plenty of time for interactive discussions and issues that may emerge during the Workshop. If any of you have additional topics you wish to discuss, please let me (or Julia) know as soon as possible. We have, tentatively, scheduled our discussion on Property Tax 101 for Committee of the Whole on February loth with the possibility of scheduling an extended time of 1 % - 2 hours. The discussion about West Hill is, tentatively, scheduled for Committee of the Whole on February 2601 . It's going to be a busy two days, so be prepared to do a lot of listening and a lot of talking about what we all envision for Renton's future. Dress code is business / business casual on Wednesday when we have guest speakers and whatever is comfortable on Thursday. cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington Bonnie Walton ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES Boeing CPA/Planned Action ' Boeing CPA/Planned Action (Mac{vr5 I�e�erevlce) Development Agreement Development Agreement Subarea Plan Subarea Plan w/EIS w/City Decision w/Boeing Decision Time Frame 6 months 8 months 10 months 18 - 23 months Cost $100,000 $150,000 - $200,000 $1,000,000 (Boeing) $1,000,000 (Boeing) New zoning New zoning New comprehensive plan (map & text) New comprehensive plan (map only) Policies by geographical area Policies by geographical area New zoning Project -level EIS for PA (sketchy) Larger planning area Larger planning area Project -level EIS for P.A. with 3 Development agreement Vision for districts Vision for districts alternatives - Capital facilities Identified capital facilities & Identified capital facilities & Vision (some) - Design Positive implementation policy implementation policy Development agreement - Thresholds Results Public outreach Public outreach - Capital facilities - Mitigation document Design guidelines Design guidelines - Design guidelines Boeing dollars SEPA expanded checklist Comprehensive plan - Phasing w/consultants reports EIS review (programmatic review) - Threshold - Mitigation document Boeing dollars No comprehensive plan designations No comprehensive plan designations Less public outreach No zoning No project EIS review No project EIS review No phasing No planned action No planned action No public outreach Negative No development agreement No development agreement No City certainty Results No Boeing dollars No Boeing dollars No alternatives No alternatives Less public outreach February 4, 2003 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON JAN 3 p 2003 ECONOMIC NEIGHBORHOODS, ANDEVELSTR T GIC PLANNINGCmCOONCIL MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Acting Administrator (x 6592) SUBJECT: 2003 Legislation Attached you will find a list of proposed legislation concerning the City. You will find bills and issues that the Administration supports and opposes, as well as those that are continuing to develop and require further monitoring. We will be taking an updated and dressed up version of this document to our meetings with legislators February 181h in conjunction with Association of Washington Cities conference. For your convenience, I've also attached a copy of the 2003 Legislative Priorities adopted by the Council last fall. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments and/or concerns. Attachments: 2003 Legislation Support/Oppose document 2003 Legislative Priorities cc: Jay Covington Department Administrators & Directors H:\EDNSP\Legis\2003\Info\Support-Oppose memo.do6p City of Renton 2003 Legislation SUPPORT HB 1032 (SB 5363) CERB Funding Specifies that this act provides a partial funding solution by directing that beginning July 1, 2005, the interest earnings generated by the public works assistance account shall be used to fund the community economic revitalization board's financial assistance programs. (Sponsors: Representatives Veloria, Rickmeyer, Linville, et al) HB1034 Technology Department Provides technology product development tax incentives. Provides that the technology product development credit and deferral created by this act shall be reviewed under chapter 43.131 RCW before July 1, 2013. The department of revenue shall provide the information necessary for the joint legislative audit and review committee to provide the required review. (Sponsors: Representatives Morris, Linville, Anderson, et a/) HB 1118 Local -Option Legislation on Alcohol Violations Provides that, as an alternative penalty for the offense provided by this section, the legislative body of a county or city may enact an ordinance providing for a misdemeanor penalty for this offense when it occurs in a business district or an alcohol impact area recognized by the board under chapter 314-12 WAC. (Sponsors: Representatives O'Brien, Darneille, Lovick, et al) HB 1231 (SB 5409) Annexation Recognizes that on March 14, 2002, the Washington state supreme court decided in Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002), that the petition method of annexation authorized by RCW 35.13.125 through 35.13.160 and 35A.14.120 through 35A.14.150 is unconstitutional. Recognizes that on October 11, 2002, the Washington state supreme court granted a motion for reconsideration of this decision. Declares an intent to provide a new method of direct petition annexation that enables property owners and registered voters to participate in an annexation process without the constitutional defect identified by the court. HB 1281 (SB 5364) Tax -Increment Financing "EDGE" Recognizes that the state as a whole benefits from investment in public infrastructure because it promotes community and economic development. Public investment stimulates business activity and helps create jobs; stimulates the redevelopment of brownfields and blighted areas in the inner city; lowers the cost of housing; and promotes efficient land use. Finds that these activities generate revenue for the state and that it is in the public interest to invest in these projects through a credit against the state sales and use tax to those local governments that can demonstrate the expected returns to the state. HB 1305 (SB 5388) Limiting Employer Liability for Background Checks Provides that an employer who discloses information about a former or current employee's job performance, conduct, or other work -related information to a prospective employer, or employment agency as defined by RCW 49.60.040, at the specific request of that individual employer or employment agency, is presumed to be acting in good faith and is immune from civil liability for such disclosure or its consequences. (Sponsors: Johnson, T. Sheldon, Sheahan, et al) HB 1338 (SB 5331) Governor's Municipal Water Rights Declares an intent to provide additional certainty for municipal water rights, in conjunction with establishing clear requirements for the efficient use of the state's water resources. Intends that municipal water suppliers with water rights, the sources of which are located within watershed planning areas, be allowed under certain conditions to: (1) Change or transfer unperfected amounts of water under such rights; (2) Develop new rights or change or transfer existing rights that would impact stream flows if appropriate mitigation is provided; and (3) Enter into contracts with the department of ecology to assist in implementing the objectives of watershed plans, basin plans, or regional water management plans. Declares an intent that: (1) Water resources be managed to ensure the safe supply of water for drinking and sanitation needs for all citizens of the state; (2) Valid rights to the use of water, both for instream and out -of -stream purposes be protected; (3) Water resources be managed to ensure preservation of environmental values, including instream resources; (4) Water supplies be managed to meet planned growth, and growth must be planned to responsibly address water supplies; (5) Water resources be managed to ensure both efficient use of water and efficient use of financial resources to secure affordable supplies; and (6) Water resource management decisions be made within a broad context of local community and state interests. (Sponsors: Representatives Linville, Kirby, Lantz, Rockefeller, et al) HB 1397 Gambling -Land Use Declares that nothing in chapter 9.46 RCW limits the authority of any city, town, city -county, or county to exercise its land use and zoning powers granted or recognized under the law with respect to any land uses involving gambling activities authorized under this chapter. (Sponsors: Representatives Hankins, Lantz, Delvin, et al) SB 5023 Relocate Groundwater Wells Revises RCW 90.44.100 relating to the use of public ground water for municipal or domestic supply. (Sponsors: Senators Honeyford & Hale) SB 5024 Good "Place of Use" Water Legislation Provides that, for a public water system, the maximum number of service connections, or maximum population to be served, or size or location of the place of use, as described or specified on a water right application, permit, certificate, or claim or as described or specified in related supporting documents may not be an attribute limiting exercise of the water right if an annual quantity limit can be determined from the permit, certificate, or claim. Provides, however, if a water system plan is required to be approved for the public water system under chapter 43.20 RCW or as part of a coordinated water system plan under chapter 70.116 RCW, the number of service connections or population served under the water right may be further expanded only during such time as the public water system is in compliance with the requirements of its approved water system plan. (Sponsors: Senators Honeyford & Hale) SB 5028 Inhibits DOE from Categorizing Diversion of Water Under Existing Rights as "Pollution" Designates the state's authority to regulate water pollution. (Sponsors: Senators Morton & Hale) SB 5161 (SB 5015) Repealing Ergonomics Rules Provides that rules dealing with musculoskeletal disorders, filed on May 26, 2000, by the director, and codified as WAC 296-62-05101 through 296-62-05176, are repealed. The director shall not adopt any new or amended rules dealing with musculoskeletal disorders that are substantially the same as these rules until and unless required by congress or the federal occupational safety and health administration. If enacted, these rules will have a crippling fiscal impact to the City, as a major employer, as well as virtually every business in the state. (Sponsors: Senators Hewitt, Rasmussen, Honeyford, et al) Constitutional Amendment Allowing a Cap on Non -Economic Damages Per Liability Reform Coalition: In 1986, a bipartisan legislature and a Democrat Governor enacted legislation allowing for a cap on non -economic damages (for example, pain and suffering). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled this legislation as unconstitutional. The constitutional amendment will provide the legislature the authority to enact caps on non -economic damages. Gas & Electricity Taxes (Electricity Wheeling) Bill anticipated from Rep. Kirby that will mitigate the out-of-state energy purchases by allowing a simple "use tax." International Building Codes These codes would replace the currently adopted and out-of-date Uniform Building Codes. The International Building Code will provide greater efficiency, flexibility and safety as the City directs its built environment. Joint & Several Liability Reform Per Liability Reform Coalition: Under current law, one party in a multi -party lawsuit can be required to pay 100 percent of all damages even if they have been found legally responsible for only 10 percent (or less). The proposal will protect injury victims and consumers by typing money awards to actual fault. Seatbelt Defense Per Liability Reform Coalition: Under current law, in auto accident litigation is not allowed to enter into evidence whether a plaintiff was wearing his/her seatbelt at the time of the accident. We support legislation which will simply allow this information to be presented to a jury. Stormwater Tort Judgment Interest Rate Per Liability Reform Coalition: This sensible proposal would simply revise old statutory language that has defendants currently paying tort judgment interest rates of at least 12 percent when they lose an appeal. The language was written in the 1970s as an attempt to cap then skyrocketing interest rates in the appeals process. Today, interest rates are much lower, and this proposal would tie tort judgment interest rates to a rate two - percentage points about the 26-week Treasury Bill rate (as of December 2001, the "T-Bill" rate was 1.893 percent). "Tri-Association" Package Provides new taxing options. OPPOSE HB 1000 (SB 5078) "Brightwater" Bill Declares that a metropolitan municipal corporation shall not condemn lands for an essential public facility, provided for in RCW 36.70A.200, at a location outside its component county boundaries without first completing the city or county siting process for an essential public facility where the proposed facility is to be located, consistent with RCW 36.70A.200. (Sponsors: Representatives Sullivan, Cooper, Chase et al; Senators Shin, Farley, Schmidt, et al) HB 1007 Permitting Bill of Rights Finds that citizens of the state of Washington have the following rights when asked for a permit, license, or permission to engage in a lawful activity: (1) Right to a specific date in time for a yes or no decision on permits; (2) Right to a defined amount of information required to award permit by permitting authority before any application for permits can be accepted; (3) Right to know the exact maximum amount of costs in fees, studies, or public processes that will be incurred by the permit applicant; (4) Right to recover all costs and time lost in permitting processes from permitting authorities for transgressions or violations or abuse of authority in the rights set forth in this act, through civil process. Declares that these rights apply to permits, licenses, or other legal activity granting devices from all government entities chartered in the state of Washington for all laws or rules adopted after August 1, 2003, or all laws or rules changed or amended after August 1, 2003. (Sponsors: Representatives Morris, Linville, Conway, et al) HB 1048 National Fire Protection Association 5000 Codes (NFPA 5000) Revises certain state building codes that are adopted by reference in RCW 19.27.031. This code is too restrictive and does not have the flexibility provided by the International Building Codes. (Sponsor Representative Cooper) HB 1141 (SB 5114) Public Works Trust Fund Makes the construction, development, or major rehabilitation of public parks eligible for loans or guarantees through the public works assistance account. The City is concerned about the dilution of money from this vital funding source by addition of another scope of projects. (Sponsors: Representatives McIntire, Dunshee & Cooper; Senators Oke, Jacobsen, Sheehan, et al) SB 5047 Limits Siting of SCTFs in Industrial Use Zones Finds that the siting of secure community transition facilities in residential neighborhoods presents unacceptable dangers and stresses to families. Finds that the goals of the growth management act to preserve and protect the rural character of our agricultural lands need reinforcement to preserve farming and that secure community transition facilities threaten its efforts to preserve agriculture. Declares an intent to protect families from disproportionate fear and stress and the goals of the growth management act by limiting the siting of secure community transition facilities to sites previously zoned for industrial use. Renton has already enacted this provision in its code and is concerned that changes in the current law would reopen the siting issue. (Sponsor. • Senators Roach, Ride, Sheldon & Keiser) MONITOR HB 1047 (SB 5069) Water -Sewer Assumption Declares that, when a city assumes less than all of the territory of a water -sewer district under chapter 35.13A RCW, the city shall install and maintain, at its cost and expense, a water consumption meter on every line providing water between the district and the city. Each meter shall be located at the boundary between the city and district or as close thereto as physically possible, or as agreed to by the city and district. Provides that, if a city desires to impose a utility business and occupation tax on water delivered to or sewer service provided in territory assumed under chapter 35.13A RCW, it shall pass an ordinance specifically imposing the tax on the delivery or service, even if it has passed a general ordinance imposing the tax. (Sponsors: Representatives Miloscia, Bush & Dunshee; Senators Haugen, Mulliken, Kline, et al) HB 1053 (SB 5311) "Accountability" Creates the citizen accountability and progress board to guide and assist agencies in developing data -driven, valid, and reliable performance standards, measures, outcomes, and goals, designed to manage the money agencies spend, the services they provide, the employees and processes they control, and the businesses, people, and resources they regulate. The board shall seek, review, and recommend best practices for all agencies. Directs the state auditor, with advice from the citizen accountability and progress board, to develop and implement a plan for conducting recurring performance audits of government systems and operations. An amended version of this bill removes requirements of local governments, however, additional monitoring is necessary. (Sponsors: Representatives Miloscia, Armstrong, Haigh, et al) HB 1099 Adds Public/Private Youth Camps to List of Facilities Where SCTFS May Not Be Sited Prohibits secure community transition facilities from being sited near public and private youth camps. (Sponsor. • Representative O'Brien, Nixon, Kagi, et al) HB 1103 Remove State's Authority to Preempt Local Laws/Ordinances in Siting of SCTF's Revises rules for siting of secure community transition facilities. Repeals RCW 71.09.342. (Sponsor. • Representative Priest, Shabro, Roach, et al) HB 1107 SCTF Siting Provisions Provides that, in no case may a secure community transition facility be sited: (1) Adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration; or (2) Within twenty-five hundred feet of a public or private campground or youth camp. Declares that "within the line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. Does not apply to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(1). (Sponsor. Representative Nixon) HB 1207 (SB 5092) Public Employee Death Benefit Provides a death benefit for certain public employees. Not seen as a tremendous issue due to the rarity of job -related City employee deaths. (Sponsors: Senators Jacobsen, Winsley, Carlson, et al) HB 1302 (SB 5116) Adds Home -Based Instruction to List of Facilities Where SCTFS May Not Be Sited Finds that home -based instruction is no more compatible with the immediate proximity of secure community transition facilities than a public or private school. Declares that homes in which children receive home -based instruction deserve protection as risk potential activities or facilities. Provides that, when the department seeks to site a secure community transition facility, the department shall request the locations of known home -based instruction from the superintendent of public instruction or the school district in which a potential site for a secure community transition facility is located. (Sponsors: Senators Ride, Keiser & Sheldon) SB 5045 Emergency Worker Registration Declares that a registrant becomes a registered emergency worker upon his or her receipt of the state emergency worker registration card. All emergency workers who hold an identification card that was issued prior to the effective date of this act shall reregister prior to January 1, 2007. After January 1, 2007, only those persons holding a valid state emergency worker registration card are emergency workers as defined by chapter 38.52 RCW. (Sponsors: Senators Roach, Winsley & Haugen) SB 5151 Open Public Meetings Revises provisions relating to open public meetings. May bring about some minor changes in the way the Clerk announces and holds public meetings. (Sponsors: Senators Benton, Reardon & Mulliken) Building Lands Funding Prohibits SCTF Siting in Zoned Residential or Commercial Use Areas Shorelines, Municipal Water Rights & Stormwater Streamlined Sales Tax Project "Street Utility" Bill CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: November 25, 2002 TO: Toni Nelson, Committee Chair Members of the Committee of the Whole VIA: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Sue Carlson, EDNSP Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Director, x 6592 SUBJECT: Committee of the Whole 2003 Legislative Priorities INTRODUCTION: At the beginning of each legislative session, the City Council approves a list of legislative priorities. In preparing a list for Council's consideration, the Administration has attempted to incorporate the adopted legislative priorities of the Association of Washington Cities, as well as input from previous Council meetings and legislative priorities carried forward from previous years. This document addresses issues in three levels of priority: 1.) Basic Legislative Premises, 2.) Major Issues —those the Administration and staff have identified as potentially significant and may warrant active pursuit and/or action in support or opposition, and 3.) Issues to Watch —those that should be monitored and supported or opposed if the opportunity or necessity arises. As the legislative session moves forward, of course, other issues may emerge that the City will need to address. The Administration will provide updates to Council on a regular basis when the session begins in January. In general, the legislative priorities emphasize Renton's concerns regarding additional unfunded mandates and highlight the need for laws that allow for greater flexibility and control at the local level. BASIC LEGISLATIVE PREMISES: Legislation will be tracked that reflects the following premises established by Council over the past legislative sessions. These premises include: • All proposed legislation should provide local elected officials maximum flexibility in addressing the different needs and desires of their communities and allow cities to have a voice in determining the nature, scope and funding of local programs and services. • Strongly oppose any imposition of new or expanded programs on local governments without additional ongoing direct funding to support these programs, as required by State law chapter 3.135.060 RCW and Section 5 of Initiative 601. • Refrain from imposing or increasing fees on municipal services to fund state regulatory activities. • Maintain local control especially in areas of rights -of -way management, zoning, land use and taxation. Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 2 December 10, 2001 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2003 SESSION: MAJOR ISSUES: Transportation Funding: The failure of Referendum 51 leaves serious questions about the future of transportation funding in the State of Washington. For years, the Renton City Council has argued that a successful transportation system requires a long-term solution to our transportation funding needs through a balanced transportation revenue package that keeps pace with inflation and provides additional revenue to cities for local transportation projects. Increasing congestion on Interstate 405, throughout the Renton area and throughout the Central Puget Sound, is seriously compromising the ability of our transportation system to move people and goods and reducing the competitiveness of the Puget Sound region and the State of Washington. The buildup of vehicles and traffic is exacerbated by a lack of funding from the State to address mobility and capacity needs on our major freeways, arterial roads and key transportation corridors. Just as it did in years past, Renton again urges the Legislature to take meaningful, comprehensive action in Olympia to address what continues to be a growing transportation crisis. In particular, the City asks that the Legislature: • Enact funding options proposed by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation, to look at comprehensive and long-term transportation needs in our State; • Support funding packages that provide sufficient revenues to increase local government's ability to adequately fund maintenance, preservation and improvements to city streets; • Take a "corridor" approach to solving problems, by rewarding multi jurisdictional efforts to improve these corridors and by expanding the City and County Corridor Programs established in 2000; • Fund transportation needs in a way that provides "equity" between taxes paid and level of investment returned — so that the dollars are steered toward the congestion and capacity problems and King County and the Central Puget Sound are not asked to heavily subsidize other areas of the State; • Reward projects that foster economic development and, in effect, offer the State a "return on investment" of its transportation dollars; and • Continue its significant commitment to "freight mobility" projects, including those put forth by the "FAST Corridor" coalition in Puget Sound. In 2002, the Legislature empowered King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties to form a Regional Transportation Improvement District as a funding mechanism for transportation improvement projects in the Greater Puget Sound region. The City of Renton will monitor actions of this group, holding it to the priorities identified above. It will also work to ensure that regional projects of local significance (Interstate 405 expansion, Interstate 405/State Route 167 interchange improvements, State Route 167/Strander Boulevard, increased local transit service, etc.) are those that receive funding if such a mechanism is crafted and approved by the voters. Additionally, the City opposes changes to the proposed Regional Transportation Improvement District plan that would provide additional funding mechanisms for Sound Transit at the expense of roadway improvement projects. Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 3 December 10, 2001 Economic Development Tools: The recent economic slowdown has revealed weaknesses in what until recently was seen as Washington's unstoppable economy over the last several years. The rapid decline highlights the lack of economic development tools provided to cities. Specifically, there are few if any tools or funding mechanisms that allow for urban redevelopment, reclamation of brownfields, innovative contracting approaches to large public works projects and advance planning of "smart growth" developments. Tools should be available to all communities with a menu of choices cities can make to address local circumstances to enhance economic development and revitalization efforts. Renton supports efforts to provide cities with additional tools to foster economic development in urban areas. Some of these could include: • Allowing cities to use certain taxes to offset development costs; and impose state -shared local sales taxes to fund capital facilities; • Providing other innovative tax incentives to enhance economic development; • Lifting the population lid on current economic development tools that are available only to larger cities; • Supporting sales and excise tax based method of the "Tax Increment Financing" that is used successfully in 45 other states. The "Community Revitalization" and "Urban Stabilization" legislation of past sessions has had strong support but has not passed, for various reasons. This legislation will be promoted again in 2003; and • Providing a special account for sales taxes generated by large projects that will foster significant economic development and job opportunities and using those taxes to address infrastructure needs associated with those large projects. The City of Renton also supports the initiatives outlined in the Governor's Council on Competitiveness, a committee of business leaders that has been working on a list of recommendations that may improve the economic climate in the State. Some of these proposals would be beneficial to Renton. Additionally, staff will be closely watching actions of the newly appointed Economic Development Commission. This committee was appointed by the Governor to help guide Washington's economic development policy and provide continuity to the state's economic strategy. Municipal Finance: The State of Washington should provide and protect adequate, flexible revenue sources for cities so they can meet the needs of their citizens. Renton, again, strongly urges the Legislature to refrain from any actions that impose unfunded mandates on cities, usurp local control or change state tax policy in a manner that negatively impacts local revenues. Additionally and more specifically, there are a number of issues in the local revenue protection/local control areas, that the City will watch closely to: • Provide permanent funding mechanisms for public safety, criminal justice, public health and other important government services taken away by the Legislature in the wake of the passage of Initiative 695; • Oppose imposition of special fees on development to fund state mandated programs, such as those being proposed to offset costs of the State's Buildable Lands program; • Protect the City's Business Tax and Licensing Authority by providing cities with the local option to either use a business license or sales tax funding mechanism; • Support statewide efforts to make business tax and licenses simpler and more uniformed to ensure against multiple taxation of the same gross receipts; and • Support adequate funding to local governments for state and federally mandated programs. Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 4 December 10, 2001 Annexation Reform: The decision of the State Supreme Court in 2002 declaring the petition form of annexation unconstitutional left the City of Renton and many property owners and residents wishing to annex to the City in the lurch. Even though the Court has agreed to rehear the case, the City of Renton urges the Legislature to provide constitutional alternatives to the petition method of annexation in the upcoming session. ISSUES TO WATCH: Protection of Water Rights: Renton, along with many other cities, PUD's and water districts that operate municipal water utilities, is increasingly concerned about recent state agency interpretations of water law that threaten the ability of water purveyors to use their existing water rights to address current and projected population growth under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Protect local water rights by: • Adding explicit language that recognizes the needs of "growing communities;" and • Supporting clarification of applicable statutes, rules or policies that better define and describe the nature and duration of municipal water rights, including assurances that if water is conserved, cities will not lose rights to that water through regulatory or judicial action and can thus meet the mandates of the Growth Management Act. Endangered Species Act (ESA): The federal listing of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon as a threatened species, and a series of requirements and guidelines being evaluated by the State in response to the ESA listing, is seriously impacting urban centers such a Renton and has already resulted in significant unfunded mandates. The City believes the best way to protect the species is to work on the factors of decline at the watershed level. Currently Renton is actively involved at both the policy and technical level in Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 and 9. Support legislation that provides: • Ongoing evaluation of the actions of federal, state and local agencies to address ESA issues, so there is confidence among those responsible for managing recovery efforts, that fish are being recovered and economic development, especially in urban areas, is considered in such efforts; • Inclusion of habitat enhancement efforts performed by cities along with larger state and federal efforts that clearly show actions by others addressing impacts from harvest, hatcheries and hydropower; • Coordination of regional and sub -regional efforts to respond to ESA, as needed, to minimize duplication in funding requests and develop action plans of an appropriate scale; and • Flexibility to allow jurisdictions to craft reasonable response programs that balance environmental protection with the goals of GMA and economic development responsibilities. Utility Tax Revenues: The City of Renton has seen a reduction in its utility tax revenue due to a Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission decision in 2001 to allow large customers (including and most notably for Renton, The Boeing Company) to shop for electric power on the open market. If those customers enter into agreements to purchase power from an out-of-state company, those power purchases are not subject to the city utility tax. A similar problem with brokered natural gas was addressed by the Legislature in Legislative Report to Committee of the Whole Page 5 December 10, 2001 the 1980s by placing a use tax on that power purchase at the same rate as the utility tax. The City of Renton would support a similar fix or some other legislation that restores the City's utility tax revenue. Building Codes: In 2002, the State Association of Fire Marshals with support of the State Association of Fire Chiefs asked the Legislature unsuccessfully to adopt the International Building Codes as the state standard. The City of Renton believes this action would go along way to improve firefighter safety as well as ensure construction of safe, modern buildings. Liability Reform: Support legislation advancing a number of tort reforms, including: Immunity from civil liability for employers who disclose information in good faith in reference checks; Protection of the Public Duty Doctrine that shields police officers from personal liability for actions performed in the line of duty; and Exempt cities from joint and several liability for the acts of other persons at fault. Gambling Activities: Support legislation that confirms local governments' authority to exercise their planning and zoning authority with respect to gambling activities. Affordable Housing: Support legislation providing a permanent, stable funding source for affordable housing (e.g. emergency, transitional and permanent affordable) and first-time homebuyers assistance that is acceptable to all participants in the system including developers, realtors, state and local governments, non -profits, economic development agencies, housing authorities and financial institutions and allows the use of such funding to be determined by local communities and tailored to local needs. Human & Social Services: The economic slowdown has resulted layoffs, budget cuts at all levels of government and a decline in donations to non -profits. In these conditions the need for a stable environment for families has never been greater. The City of Renton supports funding provisions and policy steps on the state level which will: • Provide supportive services for parents exiting welfare, health care assistance, day care assistance, energy assistance and transitional and emergency shelter programs; • Address the problems of homelessness and homelessness prevention through funding for such things as overnight shelters, food banks and other emergency services; and • As domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness, funding must also be directed to stop this problem as well. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that Council approve the following Legislative priorities for the 2003 Legislative Session: Transportation Funding, Economic Development Tools, Annexation Reform, Municipal Finance, Protection of Water Rights; Endangered Species Act, Utility Tax Revenues, Building Codes, Liability Reform, Gambling Activities, Affordable Housing and Social and Human Services. cc: Jay Covington Derek Todd Bonnie Walton Conceptual Plans Comparison Summary Concept Plan Plan Office Retail Industrial Total Dwelling Parking Total Area Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Units Spaces Roads Sasaki 242.95 A 21,201 659 309 22,169 4,707 23,718 3,110,074 Heartland 227.12 A 13,124 1,930 2,120 17,174 4,010 18,489 1,403,624 Renton 280.52 A` 5,150 2,041 2,803 9,994 4,162 16,984 1,053,549 "includes: off/lab/R&D schools 14 A civic bidgs 9 A Sheetl ITY ISION Renton: Aworld-class city where people choose to live, work, and play jMIS SIGN The City of Renton, in partnership with residents, = businesses, and schools is dedicated to: Providing a healthy atmosphere to live and raise families Encouraging responsible growth and promoting economic vitality • Creating a positive community work environment • Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to (1 Crq excellence MESS PLAN[ GOALS Promote citywide economic development • Continue aggressive redevelopment efforts downtown • Facilitate Npquaal ty�eveloppn a s land • Reci u4r nusinesses toy employment base • Tr-A445 t w`t SI%P�S I-w Tf11=I p- VR&ti_5T- Mb $.EST USE Promote neighborhood revitalization • Create a more viable business district in the Highlands • Support the vitality of neighborhoods through community involvement and improved infrastructure • Ensure qualityTevelopment in South Renton Promote the City's image in the community and region • Broaden the City's marketing efforts through expanded partnerships • Encourage all City employees to promote Renton's image through service delivery • Build physical amenities that enhance quality of life Meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community • Maintain quality City infrastructure, amenities, and services • Provide services more efficiently through partnering, innovation, and outcome management • Support productivity through training, tools, and technology Influence regional decisions Oat impact the City • AAA re si ely pursue transportationAimprovements ene it Renton and the region - • Respond to transfer of service responsibilities, annexation requests, and other agreements in $ RENTO wa�that benefit Revtt n J � � • Actively oppose s _ E State, --a City of Renton Business Plan As finalized at the 2002 Renton City Council Annual Planning Workshop February 28 — March 1. 2002 Vision Renton: A world -class city where people choose to live, work, and play Mission The City of Renton, in partnership with residents, ate -businesses, and schools is dedicated to: • Providing a healthy atmosphere to live and raise families • Enee .-agine Encouraging responsible growth and promoting economic vitality • Creating a positive community work environment • Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to excellence Business Plan Goals Promote and citywide economic development and der} • Continue aggressive redevelopment efforts downtown • Facilitate quality development of waterfront land • Recruit new businesses to diversify employment base ; ;eeoi-ag 3 Promote and revitalization • Create a more viable business district in the Highlands as a eatalyst to neighbOr-hOOd f-evi tali zatieft • Support the vitality of neighborhoods through community involvement and improved fleighboi-he infrastructure • Ensure quality development in South Renton Promote the City's image in the community and region • Broaden the City's marketing efforts through expanded partnerships • Encourage all City employees to promote Renton's image through service delivery • Build Dhvsical amenities that enhance auality of life Meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community • Maintain quality City infrastructure, amenities, and services • Provide services more efficiently b-�through *f partnering, or- shaiing resources with ^*"eior- ationsinnovation, and outcome mana -ement rg, • Support productivity and innevati through training, tools, and technology Influence regional decisions that impact the City • Aggressively pursue transportation improvements that benefit Renton and the region • Respond to transfer of service responsibilities, annexation requests, and other agreements in a way that benefits Renton • Actively oppose unfunded mandates from County, State. and Federal Government City of Renton „� n �.�Y Community Services MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President City Council Members VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner \ -W J FROM: James Shepherd, Administrator rr� Community Services Department SUBJECT: Edlund Property Site Develgpment The Community Services Department has been analyzing the development potential of a proposed park site located on Carr Road adjacent to the City's southern boundary. Alternately referred to as the Edlund site or the Carr Road property, it is approximately 18 acres in size. The former farmland includes several structures and open pastures. This property was identified in an earlier parks comprehensive plan as a "farmstead" site. In 2000 the property owners, Jerry Edlund and Bill Korum, approached city staff about going ahead with the actual purchase. Authorization to proceed was given by council in executive session. Through the normal "due diligence" process the wetlands on the site were found to be more extensive than previously thought. The large wetlands, combined with legislation passed over the years to protect wetlands and streams, has a considerable impact on the potential for both development and operation of this property. The attached information lays out three possible development schemes. Because the site was originally proposed as a farmstead and because there is apparently still some interest in this kind of development, it is included as one of the proposals. Actual costs for Kelsey Creek Farm in Bellevue are added for reference. It is important to point out that the costs presented were developed without the benefit of having any firm program. They represent a level of intensity in development rather then some specific design. They could possibly be somewhat lower. Of course, they could easily be higher, depending on any final design elements, but they should remain fairly constant relative to each other. Should the City decide to proceed with the purchase, Development Option B, Passive Park, appears to be the most reasonable and is the department recommendation. While the development costs of the three options aren't as different as many of us expected them to be, the operating cost differences are substantial. The additional impact of various regulations tend to make the working farm option impractical. If there is any additional information you desire, please let me know. Attachment C: Jay Covington Leslie Betlach CITY OF RENTON Community Services MEMORANDUM Date: January 28, 2003 To: Jim Shepherd, Community Services dministrator From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Directo 4lp Re: Development Cost Options — Edlund Property Attached are detailed cost estimates for three (3) alternative development scenarios for the Edlund property. Also attached are detailed cost estimates for the annual maintenance, operations and programming of each alternative, one time costs, and potential annual revenues. The Kelsey Creek Farm, located in Bellevue and operated by the City of Bellevue, is included for comparison purposes. In general the Kelsey Creek Farm is a much larger facility at 150 acres, 70 acres of which are active farmland. This farm includes the following amenities: 2 Barns Animal Sheds Farm House Historic Cabin 1 Picnic Shelter 75 Stall parking lot Playground Trails —1 mile Animal Stock includes: 5 ponies 1 cow 1 pig 8 sheep 6 goats 36 (total) rabbits, chickens and ducks Development Cost Options - Edlund Prop. Page 2 1 /28/03 Programming includes: Summer Day Camps Pony Camps Riding Lessons Group Tours School Programs Workshops for Children Special events — Farm Fair and Seep Shear Rentals — Birthday parities, picnic shelter and meetings Kelsey Creek Farm has a total annual operating budget of $642,000 and receives approximately $115,000 in revenues. In comparison, the Edlund Property has a total of 17.87 acres, with 3.5 acres of useable land. The remaining 14.37 acres is classified as a wetland or wetland buffer. The appraised value as of October 12, 2000 is $855,000. An update appraisal will be required. In addition, we recommend the house located on Carr road and approximately 1 acre surrounding this house be excluded from this acquisition, reducing the total property acquisition costs to approximately $700,000 - $750,000. Due to the wetlands and wetland buffer areas, development of this property of any type is very limited. This site was identified as a Farmstead in the Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Trails Master Plan adopted by the Council in 1993. However, since 1993 the Endangered Species Act has been enacted and wetland and stream issues have been brought to the forefront. In addition to the wetlands, this property contains Class II and Class III streams. While a very limited number of animals could be allowed on this site, all wetlands and stream setback areas will be required to be fenced. Following are brief descriptions for three (3) potential development options: Option A — Passive Park/interpretive Facility Demolish occupied house, house with asbestos, chicken coop, shed, collapsed stables, and 'h of second stable area, re -construct picnic shelter in stable area, re -model existing barn into interpretive center/meeting space, install restrooms, play structure, 2 miles paved trails, 36 parking stalls. Program elements could include interpretive opportunities and shelter reservations. Edlund Cost Memo doc Development Cost Options - Edlund Prop. Page 3 1 /28/03 Development Costs - $2,258,770 Annual Operating/Programming Costs - $93,000 One Time Costs - $108,000 Revenue - $8,000 Option B — Passive Park Demolish occupied house, house with asbestos, chicken coop, shed, collapsed stables, and entire second stable area, re -construct existing barn to become a picnic shelter, install restrooms, play structure, 2 miles paved trails, 36 parking stalls. Program elements include interpretive opportunities and shelter reservations. Development Costs - $2,074,533 Annual Operating/Programming Costs - $78,000 One Time Costs - $82,000 Revenue - $5,000 Option C — Working Farm Demolish occupied house, house with asbestos, chicken coop, shed, collapsed stables, re -construct 1h of existing second stable area into new stable area, re -furbish existing barn into barn use, install restrooms, new interpretive/office/meeting space, 2 miles paved trails, 36 parking stalls. Program elements include interpretive opportunities, shelter reservations, riding lessons, group tours, school programs, and workshops for children. Maximum number of animals allowed: 2 Cows or Horses, 8 Sheep, 1 flock of chickens Development Costs - $2,552,097 Annual Operating/Programming Costs - $280,000 One Time Costs - $117,000 Revenue - $10,000 Lastly, attached is the schedule for grant applications with the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). To date the City has been notified that it has been selected to receive a $250,000 King County Conservation Futures Grant. This County grant can be utilized as a match for the IAC grant. The City can apply for up to $500,000 in grant matching funds from the IAC; a 50% grant match is required. Please let me know if you have any questions and/or require additional information. Edhind Cost Memo doc Option A Option B Option C Passive Park/interpretive Center Passive Park Working Farm Option A Demo occupied house; half sized picnic shelter; Re-model/re-furbish barn as interpretative center Option B Demo occupied house; re-model/re-furbish barn as picnic shelter; demo stables; Option C Demo occ. house; build new interpretative center; re -furbish barn as barn; re -furbish stables as stables E.DJ'17ND PROPERTY- (Sewer Service) Length Width Height Stables 111 28 14 Shed demo 23 15 12 Covered bridge 11 17 11 Barn 46 49 25 House Demo 24 17 11 House Demo (asbestos) 28 32 15 Stables 72 30 collapsed Occupied House 36 40 25 Statement of Probable Cost Created I0-Dec-02 Preliminary Estimate SPEC TEM QUAN. UNIT COST SUB TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 1000 Mobilization 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 2110 DEMOLITION $128,269 $143,530 $113,005 House(dilapitated) 408SF $20 $8,160 House w/ asbestos 896 SF $40 $35,840 Shed 345 SF $5 $1,725 Stables (collapsed) 2160 SF $3 $6,480 Dump Fees, Hauling I SF $3,200 $3,200 Occupied House Demo 1440 SF $40 $57,600 Stables (demo 1/2, Option A) 3053 SF $10 $15,263 Stables (demo entire, Option B) 3053 SF $10 $30,525 2000 SITE WORK $1,013,327 $1,013,327 $1,047,827 Drainage 1 LS $240 $240 Side Sewer 850 LF $120 $102,000 Side sewer lift station 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Domestic Water 850 LF $15 $15.450 Fire mains (2 hydrants, permit fees + LF pipe) 850 LF $100 $136,486 Roads 500 LF $750 $375,000 Parking 36 Stalls $3.000 $108,000 Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Trails (2 miles paved, 8' wide) 84,480 SF 1.44 $121,651 Play Structure I LS $100,000 $100,000 Picnic Tables 10 EA $500 $5,000 Benches 5 EA $300 $1,500 Wood Fencing(Options A & B) 1,200 LF $15 $18,000 Wood Fencing (Option C) 3,500 LF $15 $52,500 6000 WOOD AND PLASTICS (Barn) $25,290 $15,000 $10,000 Rough Carpentry Heavy timber construction 1104 BF $10 $11,040 Finish carpentry Barn 1225 SF $10 $12,250 wood treatment Barn 1 LS $2,000 $2,0W PICNIC SHELTER 55 by 28 1540 SF $20 $29,323 $0 $0 concrete floor + form and finish 38 CY $140 $5,250 remove siding I LS $5,000 $5,000 replace posts 50% 224 BF $10 $2,240 replace rafters 50% 7 EA $200 $1,400 replace roof 1679 SF $8 $13,433 Paint I LS $2,000 $2,000 7000 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION (Barn) $38,417 $19.835 $26,000 Waterproofing 240 SF $7 $1,644 Insulation 7229 SF $2 $14,458 metal roofing 2479 SF $8 $19,835 Flashing & sheet metal 100 LF 9.8 $980 Sealants I LS $500 $500 Caulking 1 LS $500 $500 Firestopping I LS $500 $500 Edlund Property cost estimate.xls Page 1 Preliminary Estimate - - - SPEC TEM QUAN. UNIT COST SUB TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 8000 DOORS AND WINDOWS (Barn) $5,188 $0 $5,188 Wood doors, entry 4 EA $300 $1,200 Wood doors, interior 1 EA $109 $109 Specialty Doors 1 EA $119 $119 Wood windows (energy code) 7 EA $400 $2,800 Glazing 2 EA S480 $960 8700 HARDWARE (Barn) $3,026 $0 $3,026 Panic Hardware -single 2EA $550 $1,100 Locksets/latchsets-single 4 EA $165 $660 Butts, stops,kp, etc 2 EA $67 $134 Closers EHO 2 EA $445 $890 Closers 2 EA $121 $242 9000 FINISHES (Barn) $34,313 $0 $0 GWB, bd and tape 892 SF 0.5 $446 Wood Flooring -overlay with hardwood 2254SF 8.5 $19,159 Wood Flooring -mezzanine overlay 1200 SF 8.5 $10,200 painting 2254 SF $2 $4,508 SIGNS (Site) $1,020 $1,020 $1,020 Interior Building Signs 2 EA $110 $220 Exterior signs 4 EA $200 $800 12000 FURNISHINGS (Barn) $2,850 Cabinets and Storage 3 EA $950 $2,850 15000 MECHANICAL (Barn) $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 plumbing (restrooms) 2 EA $100,000 $200,000 plumbing (fire sprinklers) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 15500 FIRE ALARM SYSTEM (Barn) $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Alter Existing 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 15800 HVAC $0 none 1 LS $0 $0 16000 ELECTRICAL (Barn) $38,750 $20,001 Electrical Outlets 10 EA $500 $5,000 Lighting 25 EA $550 $13,750 Re -wire building (Options A,B, &C) 1.00 LS $20,000 $20,000 BUILD NEW INTERPRETIVE CENTER 1440 SF $150 $0 $0 $216,000 REFURBISH STABLES 1.00 LS $80,000 $0 $0 $80,000 Contingency at 20% $311,554 $286,142 $352,013 Soft costs at 25% $389.443 $357,678 $440,017 $2,258;770 $2,074,633 Z' Passive Park/Interpretive center Passive Park Working Farm ASSUMPTIONS Open for winter Inside toilets Edlund Property cost estimate.xls Page 2 IAC - Local Parks (VWURP) 2003 IAC Grant Schedule Task: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Mar (2004) Grant workshop 5,6,7 Letter of Intent 1 Applications Due 1 City Council Adopt Parks Comp Plan * 1 Project Review 24,25,26 Technical Completion 1 Evaluation 6,7,8 IAC Recommendation 11,12 Funding Available 1 1 Note: City Council must adopt Parks Comprehensive Plan to be eligible for grant process. MEMORANDUM CITY OF RENTON COMMUNITY SERVICES 0 Committed to Enriching Lives 0 TO: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Jim Shepherd, Community Services Administr rr CC: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Renton City Councilmembers SUBJECT: NARCO Building Demolition Plans DATE: February 5, 2003 lal ' 1%" To inform the Mayor of the current status of efforts to demolish the NARCO Building. BACKGROUND: • The first sign of vandalism was graffiti on the building. During 2000-2001 the vandalism increased, and they were soon breaking the windows. Eventually every window was destroyed, frame and all. The Facility's staff has boarded up 13 windows altogether. It takes two workers 2 hours to prep and complete boarding each window, plus the cost of the plywood ($20 per window). The vandalism continued and certain individuals wanting to enter the building were using large boulders to break the plywood over the windows. (photo # 3) We repaired the windows every time someone broke in. • We discovered during one of our repairs that the intruders were starting fires inside the building, either to stay warm or to cause more destruction. Facilities had a demolition container dropped off at the site to remove the partially burnt items and to try to remove any other flammable materials. When the container was full someone ignited it as it sat next to the building. The Fire Department was called and responded by extinguishing the fire. CADocuments and Settings\jdoe\My Documents\Mayor's Office\memo to mayor - NARCO Demolition.docmemo to mayor - NARCO Demolition. doc2/5/2003 • We then decided that we needed to bolt steel plates over the windows, and replace the doors with steel plating as well. (photos # 2,3 5) The project was completed in July of 2001 at a cost of $3,630.00. The project was successful and the steel plates have never been broken, however, the vandalism continued. Someone managed to create a hole in the brick wall by using a large boulder and steel rod, so we patched the hole with a metal plate. (photo #1) • With the steel doors and steel window coverings, if a fire starts there is little chance of escaping. • Someone has tried to dig out the wall beneath several of the windows. (Photo #4) • Additional photographs are at attachment # 1 • The roof is in need of repair. It is leaking and the cost to replace the wood shakes with a steel roof is $14,000.00 • The cost for demolition and disposal of the building is $9,521.00 while leaving the floor slab in place. • The City has no immediate use for the building that would provide enough presence there to avoid the continued damage to the building and to prevent the possible consequences of break-ins, such as vandalism and fire hazards. • There are no utilities (electricity, gas, sewer, or water) near the site. The closest connections are under Interstate 405. CURRENT STATUS: • Facilities has received a memo, (copy at attachment 2), from Neil Watts, Development Services Director, agreeing the any vested rights which the current building now has will be fully retained as long as the foundation of the structure remains in place. Since the building foot -print is approximately 1,600 square feet, a SEPA review is not required and all that is needed is a demo permit. • Facilities received two quotes to demolish the building while leaving the foundation intact. The low quote was $9,521. • In order to protect the historical record of the building, Facilities contacted Steve Anderson of the Museum to undertake a photographic documentation of the building. He expects to complete that documentation by Friday, February 7, 2002. • Part of this preservation effort will be the removal and storage of the tiles at the main entry. It is assumed these tiles were made at the brick factory. • Although no funding is presently available to do this work, Facilities has asked the Risk Manager if insurance funding would be appropriate, given the City's liability should injury occur in or around the building. An answer is pending. • Once the above efforts are completed, Facilities plans to request final approval to demolish the building. CADocuments and Settings\jdoe\My DocumentsWayors Office\memo to mayor - NARCO Demolition.docmemo to mayor - NARCO Demolition.doc2/5/2003 ATTACHMENT 1 •�� rE � _ _ _. � i -- - � ., _... ii �, ., .......�.. ... ,--__ .� - ..� I ------ - -- . s - __. _�:� � � -. � "�. �°ter � f � i:=t�_ . —.f— - _... �. �• �� '... Y � ' 'fit r i I t AkO — �_�tra �-�"7 �C. ��r` _•-- ^••y�� -,may :�... �'-.-i � - - - _ �� _.e�-1S..r.. �...�` • r�.•r_.. TM ��cs•�w.�••y�� a.,..+�r��' ►-.�.•.ra.r_w..•'•••��:� ~Ye u.._�1 ~�.-�..is. air �w�.•'�w��r ��•'w�cM-+.•.�n+--ram-.. '. YT� .�...,r �• i - � 'y'Y��'; �• � ..wry • �.'+....� -. Ir WA "' 44 ii' • 1t r yt � ! "• le �.. ;.f_ ��` Sr• t ray ��'" vtir' PHOTO 9 ATTACHMENT oj CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: JANUARY 16, 2003 TO: DEWS CULP FROM: NEIL WATTS SUBJECT: NARCO SITE — REMOVAL OF BUILDING Per our earlier conversation, the existing brick building on the Narco site can be partially demolished and reconstructed at a later date provided the foundation slab is kept in place at this time. Any vested rights which the current building now has will be fully retained as long as the foundation of the structure remains in place. Since the structure proposed for partial demolition is over 4000 square feet, SEPA review will be required. Once the SEPA review is completed, a demolition permit can be issued. cc: Jennifer Henning TT Ac41N��Nt � Page I of 7 SKUTTLE WEEKLY January 29 - February 4, 2003 Endangered Seattle Historic preservation? It's just so yesterday. by 1. Kingston Pierce Art Skolnik is a man with a rapidly approaching --and most intimidating --deadline. Within the next couple of days, he has to raise $2 million to $3 million in order to keep the historic, silver -skinned ferry Kalakala in Seattle or risk seeing what he calls "that magic boat" sold to any interested buyer anywhere. "Make no mistake," says this executive director of the Kalakala Foundation. "We're into the last-ditch efforts here. I believe that, ultimately, this community wants the Kalakala preserved. The problem is, unless somebody comes forward quickly with cash, this beautiful old vessel may be preserved in some other community willing to pay for its restoration." After hustling for the last six months to find a permanent moorage in or near the city, as well as financing to rejuvenate this long -neglected ferryboat, and receiving mostly well-intentioned but inadequate offers of aid in return, Skolnik might be forgiven a bit of cynicism. Trained as an architect, and having spent much of the last three decades around Seattle preservationists (he served as Pioneer Square's district manager during that neighborhood's revival in the early 1970s and was later appointed as Washington's first professional state historic preservation officer), Skolnik has come to expect a lot from his fellow residents. And he's disappointed by the tepid public response to the Kalakala's desperate straits. The streamlined ferry, which plied Puget Sound from 1935 to 1967 before being auctioned away to an Alaska fish packer, received an enthusiastic welcome when it was finally towed back to Seattle in November 1998. Yet since then, its supporters have run afoul of Coast Guard and Seattle Fire Department regulations, lost their initial bid for a permanent home on the central waterfront, and failed to rouse one or more deep -pocketed local "angels" to guarantee the ship's survival. "The Ka/akala's future is endangered only because of a tremendous lack of imagination among a spoiled population," intones Skolnik, standing outside on the ferry's promenade deck and gazing out over sunlit north Lake Union, where the vessel has been temporarily secured. "People are too busy staring at their computers and trying to find time to be with their families. I can understand that they have other things on their mind. But this isn't just any old boat; millions of people rode on the Kalakala, and many Seattleites have fond memories of it. This is a part of our history." At earlier points in our city's development, statements much like that one became rallying cries for community action. In 1966, for instance, when Mayor Dorm Braman thought he was doing Seattle a favor by promoting plans to tear down decrepit Pioneer Square and put up parking lots, he incited architects and younger, more progressive politicians to save that original downtown core. (It became the city's first historic district in 1970.) Not much later, when a proposal to flatten the wonderfully eccentric Pike Place Market was floated, the public gave its overwhelming approval to a ballot initiative that created a 7-acre historic district encompassing the multilevel farmer's marketplace. Other prominent, once- threatened parts of our history have been rescued and revitalized, too, including Interlake School (now Wallingford Center), the exterior of Mount Baker's Franklin High School, downtown's Paramount and Coliseum theaters, broad -shouldered Union Station, and the University District's funky Blue Moon Tavern. 'WE STILL HAVEN'T SAVED ALL THE GOOD STUFF' However, such noteworthy successes may actually have helped to breed citizen complacency. "The [preservation] advocacy network that we used to have in the 'good old days' of the 1960s and early '70s, when we were saving Pike Place Market, for instance, has shrunk rather dramatically," says Walt Crowley, a former city bureaucrat and now executive director of HistoryLink, an online encyclopedia of Seattle's past. He attributes this contraction in part to the well-intentioned 1973 creation of an official city Landmarks Preservation Board, endowed with the legal muscle to protect designated structures regardless of their owner's objections. "When you have good -citizen causes institutionalized into government," Crowley avers, "people assume that these are permanent changes and that the bureaucracy will take care of business. But that's nothing more than a wonderful fantasy." At the same time, there's been a loss of public faith in the notion that every Seattle landmark worth saving can be protected. The destruction by fire of Queen Anne's 94-year-old Coe Elementary School in 2001, the sudden and stealthy demolition of Aurora Avenue's kitschy Twin Teepees Restaurant, even the razing of the disparaged Kingdome-- all of these events and more have led locals to question how successfully they can protect their city's architectural heritage. A recent TV lottery advertisement, suggesting that the Space Needle had been sold and trucked across the Cascades to Moses Lake, unintentionally reflected just what many Seattleites fear: that even the most distinguished elements of their built environment may be transitory. http://www.seattlewcekly.com/features/printme.php3?eid=41526 2/4/03 Page 2 of 7 "This should be a great time for preservation to occur," says Heather MacIntosh, the preservation advocate for Historic Seattle, a nonprofit organization committed to saving our town's architectural heritage. "There was a lot of introspection during the 1990s about the state of this city. A lot of people here came into a lot of money really fast, and suddenly they had enough to transform or tear down buildings and houses all over town. Those threats raised awareness of just how fragile our past really was." But, she adds, national and state economic declines of the last two years have pretty much dried up money for "good works," leading to a "loss of momentum" for preservation activism. The Kalakala isn't the only conspicuous element of our civic inheritance that's currently endangered by these forces. Also under threat are downtown's elegant First United Methodist Church, the existing Westlake Center -to -Seattle Center monorail, and a miscellany of less -familiar structures, together validating Crowley's contention that "no matter what people may think, we still haven't saved all the good stuff." THE KALAKALA: BUCK ROGERS BRILLIANCE "This vessel represents 20th-century progress," enthused observers of the Kalakala in 1935. Built atop the iron hull of a San Francisco ferry that had burned to her waterline two years earlier, the aerodynamically designed Kalakala--its name translated from Chinook Indian jargon as "the flying bird" --was then the largest and swiftest ferry on Puget Sound. With its massive, 3,000-horsepower diesel engine, it could achieve speeds of 17.5 knots in its daily crossings between Seattle and Bremerton and carried up to 2,000 passengers on five decks plus 100 automobiles. (By comparison, the biggest ferries now cruising the sound are equipped with four 13,200-horsepower engines, can travel at 18 knots, and carry as many as 2,500 passengers plus 218 cars.) Skolnik calls the Kalakala "the poor man's ocean liner," recalling how it once boasted a double -horseshoe lunch counter, three large observation rooms, and 500 velvet -upholstered easy chairs for the public. The vessel even had its own eight -piece orchestra, the Flying Birds, whose music was piped shipwide for evening dancing. Although it was known for its noise and vibration, and seemed disposed to minor collisions with docks and other watercraft, the Kalakala became a popular attraction. "By the time of the 1962 World's Fair," Skolnik explains, "this was one of the city's icons. For years, if you saw a postcard of Seattle, it had the Kalakala on it." As automobiles grew in size, though, reducing to 60 the number that could squeeze onto the ferry's car deck, and fewer passengers came aboard on foot, the Kalakala became more expensive to operate. Its sale for $101,551 in 1967 was deemed preferable to spending the money for a major overhaul. Not until the mid-'80s, when Fremont sculptor Peter Bevis discovered the ship aground on Alaska's Kodiak Island and began a crusade to rescue it, did anyone think it would be seen again in Seattle. From a distance, the Kalakala now appears dilapidated, as if it might sink into the Lake Union mud while your back is turned. But wandering about inside this ferry, from its dark and rusted car deck to the vast, sunlit cavern of its forward observation cabin, reminds you of the engineering expertise that went into its construction. "Not only is this boat not going to sink," Skolnik remarks, "it's going to be the last thing to sink." He insists that the Kalakala's steel -plated superstructure could be brought back to "its Buck Rogers brilliance" within five months for a bargain price of $750,000 to $1 million, and that a complete restoration --taking about 18 months --would cost between $5 million (for a basic overhaul) and $16 million ("to do it up to the Ts"). He imagines the craft being occupied by two restaurants, an Art Deco cocktail lounge in place of the former ladies' lounge, a 4,000-square-foot exhibition hall, and a grand ballroom. Tied up at one of the piers on Elliott Bay, "this could be a major tourist draw," Skolnik raves. Yet there's still that matter of the $2 million to $3 million, which Skolnik says is needed to pay off creditors and move this prodigal vessel from Lake Union to a longer -term moorage. With the security such money would bring, the Kalakala Foundation could begin selling tax-exempt revenue bonds to pay for the ferry's restoration. If sufficient funds cannot be obtained locally, the Kalakala might be sold to another community interested in making it a waterfront attraction. (Port Angeles has previously expressed some interest, as have parties from San Francisco.) Skolnik's biggest concern right now is that his foundation's creditors will lose confidence in the future of this ship, perhaps relegating it to the scrap yard. The executive director says, though, that he's encouraged by recent events, including "the very good chance" that it will soon find dry-dock space on Lake Union, where restoration of the ferryboat could begin. Skolnik mentions, too, that a not yet publicly identified but "longstanding private business" on Seattle's central waterfront "is very interested in moving the Kalakala to it, and using the boat as a supplement to their own business." In the works as well is a request for financial aid from the St. Louis -based beer company Anheuser-Busch, which built the ship's Busch -Sulzer engine during its Prohibition "holiday" from spirits production, and might now be persuaded to fund restoration of the engine and car deck. "Sometimes," Skolnik concludes, "these sorts of ventures can be pulled off in the last moment. I'm more hopeful than I've been in a long time." THE ORIGINAL MONORAIL: END OF THE LINE? Facing a less immediate, but perhaps no less daunting, challenge are folks allied to protect what was once Seattle's premier symbol of progress: the jet -sleek, 1962 Seattle World's Fair monorail. It is poised to be sacrificed in the name of further "progress." Ed Brighton, a retired former Navy officer and member of the advocacy group Friends of the Monorail, says that "when we talked about extending the monorail system, we never had the idea of tearing down what already exists." However, a shortage of details in the $1.78 billion monorail ballot measure narrowly approved by voters last November may well result in the original monorail's demolition. http://www.scattleweekly.com/features/printme.php3?eid=41526 2/4/03 Page 3 of 7 Backers of that monorail had originally envisioned erecting an automated, 14-mile-long "Green Line" --the first stage of an elevated, citywide mass -transit system --that would travel from West Seattle to Ballard, slicing through downtown along Second Avenue. But that route was eventually reconsidered, after Belltown merchants and residents objected and businesses in the city's shopping core groused that the system would carry passengers too many blocks west of their doorsteps. The alternative was to run the Green Line north up Second, but then turn it east at Stewart Street and on to Fifth Avenue, along which the existing, driver -manned monorail operates. Rather than demolish the present monorail, the Downtown Seattle Association and others have suggested creating a double-decker system on Fifth, which would allow the current trains to continue their 1.9-mile circuit between Seattle Center and Westlake Center (a profitable arrangement for Westlake, which welcomes 2.5 million potential shoppers to its third -floor monorail stop each year) but let the new monorail's smaller cars pass on some sort of parallel track. These two lines would diverge again at Seattle Center, with the new system either swinging around the center (to preserve that site's preferred open and airy ambience) or shortcutting through it (an option that, according to one estimate, could save 30 seconds of travel time and $4.4 million to $7 million in construction costs). While a dual -layered monorail cruising over Fifth may sound like a reasonable compromise, preserving history but still making way for the future, monorail officials estimate that it could also add up to $25 million to the Green Line's price tag, because the existing system's concrete guideway and supporting pylons would have to be replaced or retrofitted in order to bear the additional weight of new trains. Though the money is budgeted, many believe this is an expensive, problematic solution that might preserve the original monorail route and current stations but certainly not the historic structure we know today. Mayor Greg Nickels has put in his two cents, dismissing a double-decker monorail as an eyesore, and others submit that separate monorail operations through Belltown would steal each other's riders and income, hurting the viability of both. Brighton suggests that Seattleites have been the victims of a bait -and -switch scheme. Blame, he says, lies to a large degree with the Elevated Transportation Company, which before the November election was charged with putting together a plan for a broader monorail system. "When the ETC did its community outreach, they always left people thinking the original monorail might be saved or that the old cars might be able to at least run on a new guideway," recalls Brighton. "I don't think it was at all clear to people that by endorsing construction of this new system, they were dooming the old bug-eyed monorail, with which the city has become so well associated." So why didn't he and others who realized the breadth of this public misunderstanding say something before last November's vote? "Because," Brighton concedes, "we didn't want the Green Line to lose. We thought maybe we could make an issue out of this after the election." To now head off any attempted removal of Seattle's present, notably profitable monorail, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last April, supporters have applied to win it protective city landmark status. Their case seems easily articulated: Today's city -owned system is intrinsically associated with an important event from Seattle's past (having been built for the Century 21 Exposition by Alweg International of Cologne, Germany); it "contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of its neighborhood or the city," as required by the local Landmark Preservation Ordinance; and it represents a conspicuous step in transportation technology. While the first monorail went into operation in England in 1825, it wasn't until the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 that a system was created specifically to carry passengers. Seattle began toying with monorail proposals during the 1890s (an early conception had elevated trains rattling above Second Avenue, just like the voter -approved Green Line), but it wasn't until after a small system was built at Disneyland in 1959 that a citywide monorail development seemed realistic. Capitalizing on the space-age theme of the '62 fair, Alweg offered to construct the present monorail with its own money ($4.2 million) as a way to promote this "ideal form" of rapid transit. "This was the baby that started it all," Brighton says of Seattle's present system. "There will never be another one quite like it." Architect and former landmarks board member Susan Boyle agrees that our historic monorail represents an important moment in time. "[Removing it] certainly would detract from our knowledge of what was happening in Seattle in the 1960s, when there was an effort to put this town on the map," says Boyle, who co-authored (with fellow architect Andy Phillips) the monorail's landmark application. On the obverse side of this issue is monorail activist Peter Sherwin, who maintains that the new system shouldn't be hobbled by complications involved in protecting the sanctity of its predecessor. "I'm not suggesting that we turn the present monorail to rubble and turn the current cars into planters," he says. "I certainly think the monorail cars should be preserved in some way --but without preserving the whole system. One of the present stations could be turned into a museum instead, or you could create a monorail museum at Westlake Center, with an existing car or two, and make it a big attraction like San Francisco's Cable Car Barn Museum." But while history museums play an essential role in sustaining a community's attachment to its past (see "Remodeling Seattle's Attics," p. 22), Boyle asserts that the "static nature" of a museum would not serve the monorail well. "This is a kinetic object that's best appreciated as it moves around the city. To still it," she says, "to trap one of the cars and a piece of guideway behind a sign explaining its former purpose, would mean destroying part of the interest we now find in [the monorail]." She suspects that members of the landmarks board will agree with that assessment and that the monorail "will be nominated (as a landmark]; I just don't know whether it will ultimately be designated." A hearing on the application isn't expected until February or, more likely, March. In the meantime, monorail preservationist Brighton http:/.'w,ww.seattleweekly.condfeatures/printme.php3?eid=41526 2/4/03 Page 5 of 7 First United Methodist officials say they're willing to listen to suggestions of how downtown's last historic church might be preserved. However, they're skeptical that a solution can be found to satisfy both their congregation and the preservationists. "We're not closing our door to any good ideas," Armbruster insists. "But we've been looking at this for the last decade, and we haven't come up with an alternative --one that we can afford and that keeps us downtown. I think that all the concern you hear right now about this building's future has to do with the community working through the same grief process we've already been through in accepting this change. We just have to keep an eye on our priorities." PRIORITY -SETTING IS essential to historic preservation, too. We simply can't protect every bit of our built past, which is why even a one-time tourist attraction like the Kalakala may, sadly, be on its way out of town. It's also why there are more applications for landmark status than there are designations. (At present, Seattle harbors more than 230 individual properties with city landmark designation, plus several hundred others that are covered within historic districts or special review districts.) Every week seems to bring news of familiar sights and structures that are newly endangered, whether it's a water tower on Queen Anne Hill, an aged but fire -damaged hotel in Ballard, views from the Pike Place Market, or the primate house at Woodland Park Zoo, a 1911 pile that once housed monkeys, birds, and crocodiles. Sometimes, as in the case of the Blue Moon, what makes the difference is just people speaking their minds, letting their support be known. "Seattleites have shown that they're interested in historic preservation," says MacIntosh. And they've proved that they'll act to prevent a crisis. The worry always is that they won't act without one. info@seattleweekiy.com a© J. Kingston Pierce is a Seattle writer and editor whose latest book, Eccentric Seattle --a collection of essays about this city's past and presence --is to be published this fall by Washington State University Press. REMODELING SEATTLE'S ATTICS While some of the city's most familiar landmarks face demolition, four local museums are looking at major expansions. BURKE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY AND CULTURE It's just over the last decade or so that the Burke has shed its image as an eccentric trove of dusty artifacts to become a more sophisticated facility on the University of Washington campus, and already it is developing a strategy for expansion. Not that associate director Denis Martynowych will commit to significant growth. "We're still in the early stages, studying what might be done," he insists. Using a $350,000 allotment from the state, the museum (with help from Seattle architect Walter Schacht) is putting together a long-term plan, scheduled for completion this summer, that may call for changes in the museum's interior arrangement as well as a physical addition to the structure. For now, Martynowych proposes only a "modest addition," something in the 8,000-square-foot and $8 million to $10 million range. Talk of raising a Native American -style longhouse next to the Burke has been replaced by suggestions of a simpler addition, providing more display space and quarters for traveling exhibits. A 2001 show of photographs and relics from the ill-fated 1914-1916 South Pole expedition led by Sir Ernest Shackleton drew more than 130,000 visitors to the Burke --not quite twice as many as its annual visitor count of 85,000. "We could do with a few more of those," Martynowych jokes. The museum is also looking to establish an environmental learning center at the old Sand Point Naval Station. And Martynowych hints that the Burke might wish to relocate or else expand significantly --even triple in size --"in an eight-to-10-year time frame," perhaps adding an auditorium and making room to "better represent the culture heritage of our entire state and how those cultures are integrated here." KLONDIKE GOLD RUSH NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK In 2004, this underrated storehouse of material relating to the 1897 Klondike gold rush and its impact on Seattle is hoping to move into a two-story, 14,400-square-foot space in the Cadillac Hotel, a landmark at South Jackson Street and Second Avenue South that is set for restoration after being damaged by the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Acting superintendent Maria Gillette says that "since we don't yet have full funding for exhibit fabrication," it's likely the museum will open first on the building's ground floor, with work on additional exhibits for the basement to follow. "I'd like to see the museum do a better job in its new space of making the Klondike story accessible to visitors," Gillette opines. "I think we do fine at telling people the difficulty of making the trek north, but we don't do as well in explaining how economic conditions of the time drove people to the Yukon and how the gold brought back really shaped modern Seattle." MUSEUM OF FLIGHT Ground was broken last June on the first part of a three-phase, 10-year, $140 million development project that will turn the Museum of Flight into "the biggest air and space museum in the world," to quote marketing communications manager Craig O'Neill. "Not that bigger is always better, but when you're displaying aircraft, size does matter." Phase one (slated for completion in the spring of 2004) is the addition of an 88,000-square-foot Personal Courage Wing, devoted to 23 military planes flown during World Wars I and II. The next phase will enclose the so-called Red Barn, Boeing's humble 1910 home, in a steel -and -glass structure that will include 22,000 square feet of gallery space and basement classrooms for the 100,000 children who are served every year by this museum's educational programs. http://www.seattleweekly.conVfeatures/printme.php3?eid--41526 2/4/03 Page 6 of 7 Finally, the museum plans to construct a mammoth Commercial Aviation Wing northwest of its East Marginal Way campus, in which will be housed commercial aircraft, including prototypes of the Boeing 727, 737, and 747. Room will also be made there for a gallery of space -related artifacts, including the Boeing Lunar Roving Vehicle and a section of a Saturn V rocket. "We want to display more of the amazing aircraft in our collection," says O'Neill, "but also to better show visitors more about the people who sweated blood to bring us --in just 100 years --to where aviation is now." MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND INDUSTRY (MOHAI) With the Seattle Public Library relocating its central facility later this year from its interim site in the Washington State Convention and Trade Center to cool new digs on Fourth Avenue, MOHAI--which celebrates its 51st anniversary in February --will take over that Convention Center location, moving in no later than 2007. The 130,000-square-foot space provides twice the room available to the museum in its present Montlake quarters. As executive director Leonard Garfield envisions it, the new facility's three-story atrium entrance will be filled with "iconic artifacts," such as William Boeing's 1920s B-1 floatplane, the old Rainier Brewery's once -revolving, bullet -pocked "R" sign, and other advertising neon. On the ground level, visitors will receive an overview of Seattle history, while the second floor is to be occupied by learning labs for children. The top story will house MOHAI's main exhibits, relating centuries of Northwest cultural and commercial development. Traveling exhibits from the Smithsonian Institution and other museums will find accommodations in special galleries throughout the building, and even an on -premises coffee shop must supplement this museum's mission, acquainting customers with the history of Seattle's caffeine craze as they queue up for lattes. So what happens to MOHAI's Montlake building after this move? If it survives a possible expansion of state Route 520, it will house an enlarged research library and provide much -needed storage. "MOHAI always has more relics than it can display," says deputy director Felix Banel. "If the media are the midwives of history, we're the undertaker. And the past is dying every day." J.K.P. Landmarks Loophole Seattle has a long preservationist tradition, with more than 230 designated landmarks and seven historic districts scattered through the city. But in recent years, developers aiming to prevent landmark designation have become a common sight at the Landmarks Preservation Board. Why would developers apply for landmark status for properties they want to demolish? The State Environmental Policy Act, which requires developers to consider whether a property is listed as historic before moving forward on a project, gives them an incentive to make sure their property doesn't qualify for designation. So does the city's landmarks policy, which allows anyone to apply for landmark status for a property. Historical status can make it difficult if not impossible for a developer to tear down or alter a building, so developers have a tremendous incentive to file their own applications with the hope that they'll actually be rejected. Once landmark designation is denied, a property can't be renominated for another five years. By then, most will be long demolished and redeveloped. "That avenue is closed for any protests or objections," historian Walt Crowley says. That's not always a bad thing. In some cases, the landmark process is little more than a roadblock to demolishing properties that aren't economically viable or have been renovated too many times to be salvaged. But in other cases, potentially viable landmarks are nominated with what one architect familiar with the designation process refers to as a "straw -man" application. The Hahn building, a downtown low-rise structure that was built around the turn of the century and used until recently for low- income housing, is one example. When the Hahn's owners wanted to redevelop the property, they submitted what architect John McLaren described last year as a "straw -man" landmark application -- one made "on the assumption that it won't pass." The application was denied in 1999, and the building will likely be demolished to make way for high -end condos and a hotel. Sometimes it isn't so clear which category a nomination falls into. In a recent series of nominations by the Cornish College of the Arts, an independent consultant dismissed the historical value of five turn -of -the -century homes because of "extensive alterations" to the properties, which are used by the school as administrative offices. Cornish wants to sell the homes to Admiralty Development, a real- estate developer, and move to a new location in the Denny Triangle. One of the houses, dating from around 1893, may be among the oldest on Capitol Hill, according to Historic Seattle preservation advocate Heather MacIntosh. That alone would seem to make it worthy of consideration. But landmark status, particularly for individual houses, is a tough sell. "You've got to work hard to make a good case," MacIntosh says. Alterations, lack of prominent placement in the neighborhood, and nearby similar properties can diminish the odds that a building will be preserved for posterity. Ultimately, all five landmark applications were rejected, clearing the way for Cornish to move ahead. The school plans to finalize the sale of the houses and move into its new digs around the end of June, according to Cornish chief operations officer Vicky Clayton. Taking their place will be a gated community of new high -end townhomes and condos, to be known as the Harvard Estate, aimed at wealthy empty nesters and retirees. Erica C. Barnett http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/printme.php3?eid=41526 2/4/03 YEAR END FINANCIAL STATUS THE BIG PICTURE WE ENDED 2002 "HOLDING OUR OWN." • Total expenditures were 3.9% above last year. • This included all expenditures — including transfers for the capital funds and the expenditure of those funds. • Revenues are on the next page. WHAT IS DOWN? REVENUES —Purchase of electricity on the "spot" market. Cost to the City - $800,000 in 2002 in electric utility rate revenue. This will continue unless State Legislation fixes it. —Gambling taxes are down $300,000. Issue: Is Native American efforts harming local businesses? Or is it the economy? —Sales taxes $300,000 less than last year. We will make some of this up with the new businesses, but where is the economy going? —Property tax — up a bit in 2002, but we do expect a flat base AV in the next couple of years (like the early 1990's) due to building revaluations. —Golf course — did surprisingly well, after a very weak beginning. — All utilities held up well. WHAT IS UP? • Health care costs — of course, this was a given. • Everything else was at or below budget — as expected ALL FUNDS OVERVIEW 8 2002 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES WERE 17% LOWER THAN BUDGET - primarily in the capital funds $180,000,000 $120,000,000 $60,000,000 ■ Revenues ■ Expenditures $0 — -T 97 98 99 100 '01 '02 ACT 02 BDGT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE MANY FUND TYPES CANNOT BE MIXED $160,000,000 — 13 Internal Service 0 Enterprise $140,000,000 ■ Capital $120,000,000 ■ Debt Service MOW ■ Special $100,000,000 ■ General Gvt $80,000,000 $60,000,000 . $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Revenues Expenditures GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES WE USED LESS FUND BALANCE THAN ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED. $70,000,000 $68,000,000 - r $66,000,000 $64,000,000 $62,000,000 $60,000,000 Use of FB $58,000,000 Expenditures $56,000,000 t Revenue Budget Actual THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR BASIC SERVICES 2001 AND 2002 $18,000,000 T - $15,000,000 $12,000,000 ■ 2001 ■ 2002 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 - T Sales Property Utility Bldg/Plan All Other fees PROPERTY TAXES .60% HIGHER THAN 2002 BUDGET $20,000,000 $16,000,000 ■Actual ■ Budget $12,000,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 '97 '98 199 '00 101 '02 COMMERCIAL TYPES OF PROPERTY PAY 59% OF ALL TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES fted use Centers 2 %- Industrial 0 SALES TAX RECEIPTS 2.0% BELOW 2001 - AND 3.3% LOWER THAN BUDGET ANNUAL COLLECTIONS $1 5, 500, 000 - $15, 000, 000 $14, 500, 000 $14,000,000 - Actual Bud et $13, 500, 000 $13, 000, 000 199 100 101 '02 AUTO SALES - THE ONLY SALES TAX SOURCE HIGHER THAN 2001 AIIOther -- Bldg ■'02 El '01 General Retail Auto Sales --. - - 6so 000 000 000 000 000 000 6s , ��,• 6s�6sa�Sh, ��• HOW MUCH DOES DIFFERENT KINDS OF BUSINESSES GENERATE IN SALES TAXES? w V,VVV,V VV $12,000,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 f 1 $0-4 99 '00 101 '02 ©All Other $4,849,600 $4,916,643 $5,038,741 $4,988,122 M Bldg $1,545,886 $1,671,621 $2,060,060 $1,899,055 '■ General Retail $3,887,252 $4,500,200 $4,876,830 $4,600,384 ■ Auto Sales $3,446,262 $3,775,582 $3,367,800 $3,549,973 HISTORICALLY WE HAVE LOST SALES TAXES FROM MANUFACTURING $1,400,000 T $1,200,000 — $1,000,000 $800,000 ^- — $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 WILL WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH OUR BASE AGAIN — FROM WAREHOUSING ACTIVITIES? • This is something we should brief either at an informal Council Committee of the Whole meeting or a Finance Committee meeting about. • It had no impacts on 2002. ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX RECEIPTS ARE $800,000 LOWER THAN BUDGET $5,000,000 $4,000,000 ■ ACTUAL ■ BDGT $3,000,000 - $2,000,000 $1,000,000 - I $0 +- - 97 98 99 100 101 '02 OTHER UTILITY TAXES ARE HIGHER THAN 2001 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 1:��] on NEI 97 98 99 100 101 02 ACT 02 BDGT UTILITY RECEIPTS OVER AND SHORT OF OUR 2002 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS $400,000 Phone $200,000aLr�� Cell City -$200,000 t Total Over Bdgt = $405,370 -$400,000 Total Under Bdgt =-$800.800 -$600,000 Total Difference =-$395,500 -$800,000 Electric -$1,000.000 City Electric Natural Gas Call Phone 10 BUILDING RELATED HIGHER THAN 2001 AND HIGHER THAN BUDGET $3,000,000 ■ Plan Check $2,500,000 ■ Bld $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 + $500,000 $0 97 98 99 '00 '01 02 ACT 02 BDGT ASSUMPTION: LAST YEAR FOR STATE SHARED REVENUE $1,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 $0 ■ Criminal Justice funds ■ Formerly MVET/State Shared 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 I OTHER STATE SHARED REVENUE RECEIPTS MEET EXPECTATIONS $1,600,000 $1,200,000 $800,000 ■ Gas Taxes ■ Liquor Taxes $400,000 $0 - 97 98 99 100 101 02 ACT 02 BDGT ANNUAL GAMBLING TAX RECEIPTS BEGIN TO SHOW WEAKNESS $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 ® Bingo $500,000 * ■ Pull Tabs ■ Cards $0 -- T 98 99 100 '01 '02 PARK FEES GREW BY 8.2% Primarily in the Self -Sustaining Area $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 ❑ Boat Fees $400,000 ❑ Concessions 1 ■ Rentals $200,000 ■ Self Sustaining $0 '97 '98 199 100 101 '02 INVESTMENT INTEREST No improvement predicted in the near future $7,000 000 ❑ Fiduciary Fund $6,000,000 ❑ Proprietary Funds ■ Capital Funds $5,000,000 ■ General Gott $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000.000 $1,000,000 $0 1 1 4 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 BDGT IT ALL ADDS UPH! • "Interesting" Highlights — Probation Assessment - $165,000 generated. — Already charging for jail services $17,000. — Electronic Home Detention - $162,000 — False Alarm Fees - $23,000 — Library Fines! - $34,589! — Photocopies at Library - $8,300! GENERAL GG FUND BALANCE TABLE Will be brought to meeting. We are double checking numbers and working on carry forwards. We also have to keep in mind the relationship with 2003 budget. We balanced the 2003 budget using $1.4 million. We do have that. We will have a fair fund balance. 14 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AT YEAR END BOEING EMPLOYMENT DOWN BY 12.3%; AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT DOWN 3.3%; REVENUE IS 7.3% LOWER. ON 1/30/03 BOEING REPORTED AN 18% DECREASE IN EMPLOYMENT 13,731. THE LOWEST EVER RECORDED BY US. $3,000,000 48,000 $2,500,000 -- 40,000 ayoa $2,000,000 loo 32,000 T c a3 a E a') $1,500,000 24,000 W m � c Q $1,000,000 16,000 E © Employment Other Z $500,000 Boeing 8,000 —t Reven ue $0 92 93 94 95 96 97 9e 99 tb O1 w '1/3d93 OUR VOTED DEBT BURDEN CONTINUES TO DECREASE $40 $1,600,000 $35 - $1,400,000 m Annual Debt Service $30 -Rate per$1000AV $1,200,000 $25 $1,000,000 $20 $800,000 $15 $600,000 $10 $400,000 $5 $200,000 $0 $0 97 98 99 100 101 '02 '03 '04 '05 LODGING TAX RECEIPTS CONTINUE TO BE $150,000 IN THIS ECONOMY $300,000 0 Collections $250,000 0 Exps E Ending Fund Balances $200, 000 $150,000 r $100,000 $50,000 $0 1999 2000 2001 2002 16 CAPITAL FUNDS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES RECORD NUMBER OF HOMES SOLD; RENTON MEDIAN HOME PRICE INCREASES BY 7.3% 3220000 lzaa - ,$225,000 1,196 v Homes Sold 0 En 800 $150,000 Q U E a 0 x � `o :o E400 $75,000 2 Z Number of Homes Sold t Median Price a i i $0 97 98 99 00 '01 '02 OVERALL HOME PRICES CONTINUE TO GROW ■ $400K + 1400 0 $300 - $399K 0 $200 - $299K 95 470 1200 ■$100-$199K homes homes 1000 ■ 0- $99K 800 600 400 200 0 97 98 99 100 101 '02 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXES HIGHER THAN BUDGET ANNUAL COLLECTIONS $3,500,000 $3,000,000 — -- $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1 ,500,000 $1 ,000,000 © Collections $500,000 Budget $0 z T-7 TI-.I-_L _ I I _ '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 IR] HIGHER DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO SOLID MITIGATION REVENUE $3,000,000 ■ Transportation $2,500,000 ■ Fire ■ Parks $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 97 98 99 100 101 '02 LEASE PAYMENTS MEET THE OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE MILL AVENUE BUILDING 1/1/02 Fund Balance $265,67�- REVENUES Lease Payments $485,640 Loan from 316 300,000 Loan from 316 300.000 TTL REVENUES $1,085,640 EXPENDITURES Operational $129,111 Loan Payment 315,200 Tenant Imprvs 796,181 TTL EXPS $1.240.492 12/31/02 End FB $110,820 THE GARAGE IS NEARLY COMPLETED 1/1/02 Fund Balance $9,478,118 REVENUES Interest Earnings $127,629 TTL REVENUES 127,629 EXPENDITURES CIP Admin $63,252 Construction 5,524,985 TTL EXPS $5,588,238 12/31/02 End FB This Amount will be in the Carry Forward Ordinance $4,017,509 DESIGN BEGINS FOR THE NEW POOL 1/1/02 Fund Balance $-0- REVENUES Transfers from Various Fund Balances $5,000,000 Interest Earnings 29,774 TTL REVENUES $5,029,775 EXPENDITURES Design $100,452 TTL EXPS $100,452, 12/31/02 End FB This Amount will be in the Carry Forward Ordinance $4,929,323 20 WE BROKE GROUND FOR THE NEW FIRE STATION 12 1/1/02 Fund Balance $988,700 REVENUES Mitigation Fees $518665 Interest Earnings 27,500 Loan from 316 3,879.040 TTL REVENUES $4,425,205 EXPENDITURES Operational $57,655 Debt Payment 73,490 Construction 563.175 TTL EXPS JU4..320 12/31/02 End FB This Amount will be in the $4,719,585 Carry Forward Ordinance ENTERPRISE FUNDS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES • Water • Solid Waste • Golf s • Airport • And, their capital expenditures 21 WATER OPERATIONS ACTUAL REVENUE MET BUDGET $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 ❑ All Other ® Metro $15,000,000 ® Surface $10,000,000 ■ Sewer ■ Water $5,000,000 $0 Budget Actual WATER OPERATING FUND BALANCES INCREASE BY 13.4% (Funds 401 and 451) 2002 Beginning FB $6,128,128 Revenues $25,329,659 Expenditures $24,909,232 Ending FB $6,548,555 22 WATER UTILITY CAPITAL SPENDING WAS QUITE A BIT LOWER THAN BUDGET PROBABLY NEED TO CHANGE THIS INTO SOMETHING $12,0b;90 — ❑ Other o Surface Water $10,000,000 ■ Sewer ■ Water $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 -4ii $2,000,000 $0 Budget Actual WHEN SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS ARE DOWN - SO ARE THE REVENUES AND THE COSTS $10,000,000 $7,500,000 $5,000,000 ■ Budget $2,500,000 ■ Actual $0 Rate Revenue Contractor and Tax Payments 23 THE SOLID WASTE FUND BALANCE IS GROWING AGAIN $10,000,000 $1,000,000 $7,500,000 ' $750,000 $5,000,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 Re%enues $250,000 ExpendRues Fund Balance $0 $0 1999 2000 2001 2002 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT LOWERED EXPENDITURES TO MEET A CHANGED ECONOMY $3,000.000 $2,500.000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000.000 $500,000 $0 101 02 ACT 02 BDGT 24 EQUIPMENT RENTAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES One bright spot THE FUND CONTINUES TO OPERATE AT OR BELOW BUDGET —AS EXPECTED. $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 ■ Revenues ■ Ex nditures i $0 Revenues Expenditures 25 INSURANCE FUND TO UNDERSTAND THE INSURANCE FUND - ONE HAS TO REVIEW IT BY LINES OF BUSINESSES • We capture the costs of all types of insurances in the Insurance Fund. — Property and liability — Health — Dental — Industrial Insurance — Unemployment • The details are very important. This will be provided. `,,6 IN 2002 WE MAINTAINED OUR RESERVE LEVELS, BUT WE ARE USING THEM IN 2003. 2001 2002 2003 Beginning FB $4,733,405 $6,762,497 $7,834,225 Revenues 9,208,725 8,333,083 8,187,400 Expenditures 7,424,780 $7,261,355 $9,047,000 Recessionary Reserve 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 8% Reserve 4,662,497 4,931,680 $5,130,168 Health Reserve $802,545 Ending FB $6,762,497 $7,834,225 $7,230,168 BUT, AS EXPECTED, HEALTH COSTS WERE 17% HIGHER THAN BUDGETED $5, 000, 000 $4,000,000 ® 2002 Bdgt $3,000,000 ■'02 Act Exps ■ Revenue $2,000,000 $1,000,000 — $0— Health Dental 77 2003 CHALLENGES BASED UPON 2002 ACTUALS • PROPERTY TAX — We need to understand the implications on the future. • SALES TAX — Cost conscious retailers are doing well. The other parts of the economy — not so well. If car sales drop, we will have an issue. — Warehousing needs a special time to discuss. • UTILITY TAX — Long term issue of Market Electric Purchases. Great for us when a Texas company is manipulating the market. Terrible — when large users figure out a way to minimize that cost. • HEALTH COSTS — The Union contract changes will help! However, there are some very serious national structural problems with the entire system. These will be discussed again and again. SUMMARY • Our largest asset is economic development and the fact we have new low cost retailers joining our tax base. • However, "out of the gate" we have a $800,000 electric utility tax receipts issue. And, the gambling tax revenue is a state wide issue. Both of these are in Olympia and being worked on .... The first compares city needs and those of a large company with national stresses (airplane building). The second has all kinds of communities of interest. • Departments have been told to slow spending. We have received the November collections in Sales taxes. They are better than November 2001 numbers. We have not analyzed the differences yet. • The operative words — while a cliche — are correct. SLOW AND STEADY Cut out the "extras." Watch spending. Don't see a lot of adds right now, but we are still okay. (as of 1 /30/03) ITS_Index Page 1 of 1 t listmeat rlm* 841�*t Deanna Fricke Pay Period: 8/1/02 - 8/15/02 Description Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 811 812 813 814 8l5 8/6 817 8:8 8;9 Regular» 8.00 8.00 Vacation » 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Hour Totals 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Description Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Pay Period 8110 8111 8112 8113 8114 8115 Totals Regular» 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 48.00 Vacation >> 40.00 Hour Totals 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 88.00 http://rentonnet/web sites intranet/ITS/index.cfm?fuseaction=submit&DO=-182 1 /30/2003 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES TOTALREVENUES DRAFT - DECEMBER 2002 Actual Adjusted Actual Adjusted DESCRIPTION 2002 YTD 2002 BGT % BGT 2001 YTD 2001 BGT % BGT Property Taxes 17,871,034 17,760,500 100.6% 16,253,829 16,454,100 98.8% Sales Taxes 15,037,534 15,560,000 96.6% 15,343,552 15,782,200 97.2% Sales Taxes/Crim Justice 986,344 1,050,000 93.9% 1,012,546 950,000 106.6% Utilitity Taxes 8,928,645 9,445,000 94.5% 10.554,911 8,540,000 123.6% Other Taxes 5,121,171 4,596,000 111.4% 4,969,823 4,481,000 110.9% Licenses & Permits 2,438,610 1,764,400 138.2% 2,098,082 1,538,800 136.3% Grants 314,464 330,000 95.3% 183.739 145,000 126.7% Intergovt Revenues 2,597,163 2,477,200 104.8% 2,462,497 2,279,000 108.1% Charges for Services 2,517,595 2,023,300 124.4% 2,417,329 1,904,400 126.9% Fines & Forfeits 966,410 858,600 112.6% 943,256 792,100 119.1% Narcotics Seizure 76,774 25,000 307.1% 49,837 25,000 199.3% Investment Interest 532,246 1,063,517 50.0% 1,664,405 1,070,500 155.5% Miscellaneous 678,735 515,000 131.8% 763,656 523,500 145.9% Interfund Revenues 3,298,317 3,513,900 93.9% 3,367,677 3,452,440 97.5% Other Financing Sources 182,584 77,700 235 0% 133,335 77,650 171.7% TOTALS 61,547,627 61,060,117 100.8% 62,219,268 58,015,690 107.2% H:WFinancelFinplanWayorsURovenue\19991a 2002 General Gov Revenues.Mb Page 1 1/13/2003 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES PROPERTY TAXES DRAFT - DECEMBER 2002 ZOOZ MTHLY ACTIVITY I YEAR TO DATE ACT BGT % BGT ACT BGT % BGT JAN -2,401 39,290 -6.1 % -2,401 39.290 FEB 129,449 100,629 128.6% 127,047 139.919 90.6% MAR 398.096 431,310 92.3% 525.143 571,229 91.9% APR 3,462,610 2.513,477 138.6% 4,007,753 3,084.706 129.9% MAY 5.118,554 6.092,390 84.0% 9,126,307 9,177,096 99.4% JUN 70,021 31.795 220.2% 9,196,326 9,208,891 99.9% JUL 45,781 45.169 101.4% 9,242,109 9,254.060 99.9% AUG 117,418 44.590 263.3% 9,359,527 9,298.650 100.7% SEP 450.229 79,224 568.3% 9,809,756 9,377.874 104.6% OCT 3,671.576 2,884,335 127.3% 13,481,332 12.262.209 109.9% NOV 4,307.550 5.161.965 83.4% 17,788,883 17.424,174 102.1% DEC 82.152 336.326 24-4% 17,871,034 17.760,500 100.6% 2001 r�ADJ BGT -*-ACT f5.500.000- - -- - - - - -. $4.000.000 s1.000,000 - IL JAN FE9 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL 3FP OCT NW CEC (f500,000) 9AAA ACT ADJ BGT % BGT ACT ADJ BGT % BGT 35.957 33.031 108.9% 35,957 33.031 108.9% JAN 92.093 78,822 116.8% 128,050 111.853 114.5% FEB 394.721 300,893 131.2% 522,771 412.746 126.7% MAR 2,300.251 3,214,422 71.6% 2,823,022 3.627.168 77.8% APR 5,575,556 4.898,662 113.8% 8,398,578 8,525.830 98.5% MAY 29,097 117,852 24.7% 8,427,675 8,643,682 97.5% JUN 41,336 27,601 149.8% 8,469,011 8,671,283 97.7% JUL 40.807 -132,454 -30.8% 8,509,818 8,538,829 99.7% AUG 72,504 352,312 20.6% 8.582,322 8,891,141 96.5% SEP 2,639,650 2.379,380 110.9% 11,221.971 11.270.521 99.6% OCT 4.724.061 5,041,824 93.7% 15.946,032 16.312.345 97.8% NOV 307.797 141,755 217.1%1 16,253.829 16,454,100 98.8% DEC H lFnancelFmplan%MayoPs%Revenuel1 Ngkb.2002 Property Taxes. We Page 2 1/1312m 2002 500,000 400,000 300,000 200.000 100,000 0 Auto Services Const General Whsle Mnfg Trans Other Dealers Retail BY INDUSTRY: DESCRIPTION SALES TAX BY SIC CODE GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES DRAFT - DECEMBER 2002 Auto Dealers Services Const General Retail Whsle Mnfg Trans Other Total 2002 MONTHLY ACTIVITY YEAR TO DATE 02 ACT 02 BDGT % BDGT 02 ACT 02 BDGT % BDGT 280,153 361,223 77.6% 3,549,973 3.944,000 90.0% 145,306 148,153 98.1% 1,835,039 2,179,000 84.2% 202,113 145,562 138.8% 1,899,005 1,820,000 104.3% 387,367 359,131 107.9% 4,600,384 4,263,000 107.9% 143,178 153.269 93.4% 1,451,387 1,909,000 76.0% 38,487 68,543 56.1% 547,256 445,000 123.0% 131,815 59,748 220.6% 621,314 676,000 91.9% 43,345 41,581 104.2% 546.397 454.000 120.4% 1,371,764 1,337,211 102.6% 15,050.756 15,690 000 95 9% $13.222 difference In reporting for Fab 2002 2001 500,000 001 ACT ■01 BDGT 400,000 - - - - - 300,000 - - -- --- 200,000 100,000 0 Lit's Auto Services Const General Whsle Mfg Trans Othc Dealers Retail 2001 MONTHLY ACTIVITY 12 MO.YEAR TO DATE DESCRIPTION 01 ACT 01 BDGT % BDGT 01 ACT 01 BDGT % BGT Auto Dealers 314,918 397.955 79.1% 3,307,794 3.967.000 83.4% Services 148,086 151.403 97.8% 1,913,630 2,191,000 87.3% Const 164,762 195.887 84.1% 2,080,061 1.830.000 112.6% General Retail 388.066 389.879 99.5% 4.876,828 4,287.000 113.8% Whale 116,655 174.924 66.7% 1.535,709 1.920.000 80.0% Mfg 35,384 55.009 64.3% 426.965 448,000 95.3% Trans 40,199 60,102 66.9% 648,177 680,000 95.3% Other 49,593 39.382 125.9% 574,267 457,000 125.7% 15.343,430 15.780.000 97.2% Total 1,257.663 1,464,540 85.9% H 1FlnanceTInplanWay0rslRevenue%c 21302 Sales Taxes As Page 3 1/13/=3 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES UTILITY TAXES DRAFT - DECEMBER 2002 $300.000 2002 BGT tACT $200,000 $100,000 295 2361 259 00 00 $O 1 - -" Electrical' Gas ' Gas Use Tax Transfer Cable TV Telephone CWlular City UIM1les Station .142 2002 MTHLY ACTIVITY YEAR TO DATE DESCRIPTION ACT BGT % BGT ACT Total BDGT % BGT Electrical' 227,151 298,000 76.2% 2,899,375 3,700,000 78.4% Gas ' 59,904 59,500 100.7% 808,790 700,000 115.5% Gas Use Tax 0 0 N/A 258,780 225,000 115.0% Transfer Station 25,867 23,600 109.6% 365,149 450,000 81.1% Cable TV -14,192 29,500 -48.1% 494,019 530.000 93.2% Telephone 174,935 124,900 140.1% 1,350,646 1,150.000 117.4% Cellular 77,003 118,100 65.2% 1,027,156 965,000 106.4% City Utilities 151.783 136,900 110.9% 1,724,730 1,725,000 100.0% 8.928,645 9.445,000 94.5% Total 702,453 790,500 88.9% Note: Monthly budget allocation is based on an average of 1998 through 2001 actual activity Cable TV - Includes annual allocation ($30.000) to Fund 127 2001 May Revenue includes April receipts $300.000 $200.000 $100,000 $0 Elaue" Gas Gas Use Tax Transfer Cable TV Telephone Ce9ular City Utilities station 2001 MTHLY ACTIVITY YEAR TO DATE ACT ADJ BGT % BGT ACT ADJ YR'S BGT % BGT DESCRIPTION 270,993 283,000 95.8% 4,755,927 3,100,000 153.4% Electrical 71,437 50,900 140.3% 842,045 600,000 140.3% Gas 0 0 N/A 206,229 150,000 137.5% Gas Use Tax 31,684 22.200 142.7% 395,573 425,000 93.1% Transfer Station 48,753 22,700 214 8% 517,114 405,000 127.7% Cable TV 109,035 139.200 78.3% 1,257,903 1,280,000 98.3% Telephone 60,025 88,800 67.6% 888,806 725,000 122.6% Cellular 143,347 147,200 97.4% 1.691,313 1,855,000 91.2% City Utilities 735,274 754,000 97.5% 10,554,911 8,540,000 123.6% Total H.%Finance\FinplanWayor'slRevenuaW.2002 U9ti6ly Taxes.xls Page 4 1/1312003 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES DRAFT - DECEMBER 2002 $1,100,000 - - - - - - - ■ YR'S BIT ttxlo.o 1osa.51 2002 YTD N ACT S850,000 - - 743.01 755.9 $600.000 479.2 1464.5 $350,000 - - - --- 225.01 235-1 1 $100,000 30.0 47.1 - 0.0 3 MVET MVET/ CJ Street Fuel Tax Liquor Ex/Prolit Fire Dist #25 Other (St50,000) DESCRIPTION 2002 MONTHLY ACTIVITY I YEAR TO DATE ACT BIT % BIT I ACT YR'S BIT % BIT MVET 0 0 N/A 235,053 225,000 104.5% MVET/ CJ 0 100 0.0% 47,137 30,000 157.1% Street Fuel Tax 64,151 61,200 104.8% 765,854 743,000 103.1% Liquor Ex/Profit 65,768 80.600 81.6% 464,488 479,200 96.9% Fire Dist#25 527,239 493,400 106.9% 1,054,478 1,000,000 105.4% Other 4,490 0 N/A 30,154 0 N/A Total 661,648 635,300 104.1% 2.597.163 2,477.200 104.8% Note: Monthly budget allocation is based on an average of 1998 through 2001 actual activity Si,000,000 $750,000 j $500.0( $250,01 ■ADJ YR'S BIT 2001 YTD 825.1 FACT Life-1Q .i39.41 f 387.00 438.1 214.0 22E.7 963.7] MVET MVET/ CJ Sueal Fuel Tax Liquor Ex/Prolil Fire Dist 025 Other 2001 MONTHLY ACTIVITY ACT ADJ BIT % BIT 12 MO. YEAR TO DATE ACT ADJ YR'S BIT % BIT DESCRIPTION 0 0 N/A 228,673 214,000 106.9% MVET 0 100 0.0% 46,428 35,000 132.7% MVET/ CJ 64,560 59,100 109.2% 739,186 718,000 103.0% Street Fuel Tax 53,849 65,200 82.6% 439,130 387.000 113.5% Liquor Ex/Profit 481,841 456,400 105.6% 963,681 925,000 104.2% Fire Dist #25 2,634 0 N/A 45,399 0 N/A Other 602.884 580,800 103.8% 2.462,497 2,279.000 108.1% Total Note: Monthly budget allocation is based on an average of 1997 through 2000 actual activity. H 1Finance%FinpianWayor's%Revenuele 2002 Intergovemmental Revs As Page 5 1/13/2003 250 200 0 f 150 s h u t - 100 0 f f s 50 0 1- Jan Feb Mar Res/Comm 160 127 2000 - 2002 Shut Off Comparison DECEMBER 2002 Monthly Tracking Chart Residential $ Commercial Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep W2000 Res/Comm 02001 Res/Comm ®2002 Res/Comm Aar Apr May Jun Jul 143 92 0 144 175 83 114 146 210 105 153 Oct Nov Dec 123 153 128 49 Page 6 H %Finance12001Budgel12001NewReports\0lhert2002 shut off -As 6, 000, 000 4,500,000 3,000,000 1,500,000 0 (1,500,000) { .00O,000) General Fund 000 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes: All Departments) $—Allocated Adj. Budget —Actual Expenditures — -6— Cum, Resources -Act Exp Total Resources rdF r----a--- -- / — 'der — — n / Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 3,661,301 3,855,665 3,923,903 3,702,220 3,851,976 3,827,151 3,702,773 3.729,015 3,813,766 3,809,191 3,824,742 3,924,672 45,626,376 Actual Expenditures 4,310,099 3,372,609 3,275,056 3,597,587 3,310,166 3,673,081 3,269.369 —1,261,429 3.510,836 3,301,685 3,737,146 3,297,212 4,458.035 43,112,882 Cum. Resources -Act Exp (1,214,224) (962,371) (1,079,624) (649,573) 1,669,504 1,246,248 1,318,993 933.332 1.079,089 2,958,581 2,802,931 Actual Revenue 2,806,035 3,334,623 2,867,963 3,737,799 5,339,404 2,959,985 2,994,711 3,278,560 2,626,185 3,593,063 4,886,864 4,012,546 42,437,737 Adj Use of Prior Year Rev 289,840 289,840 289,840 289,840 289,840 289,840 289.840 289,840 289,840 289,840 289,840 289,840 3,478,076 Total Resources 3,095,874 3,624,463 3,157,802 4,027,639 5,629.243 3,249,825 3,284,551 3,568.399 2,916,025 3,882,903 5,176,704 4,302,385 45,915,813 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. June expenditures does not reflect an Operating transfer of $1.8 million from Fund Balance. H.\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor s EOM\EXPENSE\2O02\a.General Fund 2002.xis Page 7 1/13/2003 Department: Administrative, Judicial, & Legal Services DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes: Mayor's Office, Hearing Examiner, City Clerk) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 131,434 109,612 109,786 112,499 113,463 108,605 107,797 105,2156 106,421 111,942 109,673 123,778 1,350.297 Actual Expenditures 139,304 87,806 98,359 90,940 101,060 98,356 104.972 93,322 100,826 118,564 92,204 103,814 1,229,526 Cum. Under/(Over) (7,871) 13,935 25,363 46,922 59,325 69,574 72,399 84.364 89,959 83,338 100.807 120,771 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. The Municipal Arts Commission has been moved from the Executive Division of the General Fund Into the Parks Fund as of May 1999. HAFINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\b.AJLS 2002 As Page 8 1/13/2003 Division: Hearing Examiner DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: AJLS (General Governmental Funds) 4-- Allocated Adj. Budget --- IIIIIIII-Actual Expenditures - -A- Cum. Under/(Over) 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 9,215 9,822 10,265 9,974 9,713 9,757 9,775 9,790 10,031 9,860 9,810 11,288 119,300 Actual Expenditures 9,910 9,525 9,520 9,780 9,695 9,511 9,904 9,881 9,628 10,161 9,773 9,923 117,212 Cum Under/(Over) (695) (398) 347 541 559 805 675 584 987 686 723 2,088 Note* The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. HAFINANCE\BUDGElWayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\b.AJLS 2002.xis Page 9 1/13/2003 Division: City Clerk DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: ARS (General Governmental Funds) tAllocated Adj. Budget-FActual Expenditures - -6 - Cum. Under/(Over) 75,000 60,000 45,000 30,000 15,000 (15.000) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj Budget 65,491 41,711 33,552 37,492 32,589 34,444 31,523 30,125 32,556 35,028 34,071 47,015 455,597 Actual Expenditures 66,408 26,244 27,849 25,961 24,850 28,702 26.078 26,765 26,830 40,400 27,836 35,941 383,863 Cum. Under/(Over) 1°17 14,550 20,253 31,784 39,523 45.265 50,710 54,070 59,797 54,426 60,660 71,734 Note* The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\b.AJLS 2002.xls Page 10 1/13/2003 Division: Mayor's Office DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: AJLS (General Governmental Funds) 0-Allocated Adj. Budget --- E-Actual Expenditures - ->'- Cum. Under: (Over) 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 (20,000) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Ad). Budget 55,469 57,623 66,133 65,066 71,748 64,557 66,865 65,724 63,969 67.305 66,022 64,918 775,400 Actual Expenditures 62,986 52,037 60,989 55,200 66,516 60,143 68,990 56,675 64,367 68,003 54,595 57,950 728,450 Cum Under/(Over) (7,517) (1,931) 3,213 13,080 18,312 22,726 20,602 29.651 29,253 28,555 39,981 46,950 Note The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. The Municipal Arts Commission has been moved from the Executive Division of the General Fund into the Parks Fund as of May 1999. li FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EO M\EX PENS E\2002\b.AJ LS 2002.xls Page 11 1/13/2003 Division: Court Services DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: ARS (General Governmental Funds) tAllocated Adj. Budget - Actual Expenditures - -A- Cum, Under/(Over) - Historical -rt-- Cum. Under/(Over) - Str Lined 150.000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 (30,000) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 89,751 110,057 103,357 110,116 110,892 103,155 109,186 107,097 109,899 117,827 109,400 115,064 1,295,800 Straight Lined Adj. Budget 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 107,983 1.295,800 Actual Expenditures 93,033 97,354 99,530 123,094 95,385 105,001 100,686 101,578 100,696 102,187 101.672 101,897 1,222,113 Cum. Under/(Over) - Historical (3,282) 9,421 13,247 269 15,776 13,931 22,430 27,949 37,152 52,793 60,521 73,687 Cum. Under/(Over) - Sir Lined 14,950 25,580 34,033 18,923 31,521 34,503 41,801 48,206 55,493 61,289 67,601 73,687 Note The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\c.Court Services 2002.xis Page 12 1/13/2003 Division: City Attorney DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: AAS (General Governmental Funds) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Budget 83,831 87,291 83,177 101,801 82,317 81,381 85,222 72,900 83,852 91,440 101,045 69,543 1,023,800 Actual Expenditures 80,204 73,423 59,407 83,879 87,906 92,680 86,215 75,932 99,234 74,931 78,150 79,351 971,312 Cum. Under/(Over) 3,628 17,495 41,265 59,187 53.598 42,299 41,305 38,273 22,892 39,401 62,296 52,488 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\d City Attorney 2002.xls Page 13 1/13/2003 Department: Economic Development, Neighborhoods, & Strategic Planning DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: All Divisions) -4--Allocated Adj. Budget -1111111-Actual Expenditures - -6 - Cum. Under/(Over) - Hlstorlcal -,A Cum. Under/(Over) - Str Lined 300,000 250,000 200,000 150.000 100,000 50,000 0 15 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 88,163 99,324 110,293 111,212 104,546 98,948 99,570 117,100 110,879 120,446 142,943 200,796 1,404,221 Straight Lined Adj. Budget 117,018 117,018 117,018 117,018 117,018 117,018 117,018 117.018 117,018 117,018 117,018 117,018 1,404,221 Actual Expenditures 85,021 99,495 93,412 88,026 82,392 96,082 86,828 99,530 85,125 107,174 107,693 80,729 1,111,505 Cum Under/IOver) - Historical 3,142 2,971 19,852 43.039 65,192 68,059 80,802 98,372 124,126 137,398 172,649 292,716 Cum Under/ )ver) - Str Lined 31,998 49,521 73,127 102.120 136,746 157,683 187,874 205,363 237,256 247.101 256,426 292,716 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H•\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\e.Economic Development 2002.xis Page 14 1/13/2003 Department: Finance and Information Services DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: Finance, Printing Services, Information Systems) --♦--Allocated Adj. Budget --- E-Actual Expenditures - -A- Cum. Under/(Over) 375,000 300,000 225,000 150,000 75,000 i 0 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 209,528 270.275 271,829 250.921 257,327 269,435 273,263 252,420 259,160 268,470 258,949 271,123 3,112,700 Actual Expenditures 243,079 260,439 250,115 267,932 206,990 264,201 231,400 268,889 218,576 278,379 255,952 282,690 3,028,640 Cum. Under/(Over) (33,550) (23,715) (2,000) (19.011) 31,327 36,561 78,424 61,955 102,539 92,630 95,627 84,060 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H.\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor s EOM\EXPENSE\2002\f.Finance 2002.xls Page 15 1:13/2003 Department: Human Resources and Risk Management (All) DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental and Internal Service Funds (includes General Fund and Insurance Fund) --- 0-Allocated Adj. Budget (Actual Expenditures - -d - Cum. Under/(Over) 1.250,000 1,000,000 750,000 50,001 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 1,112,370 632,908 628,768 713,436 703,270 693,821 720.484 672,707 587,987 678,977 741,658 694,316 8.580,700 Actual Expenditures 914,351 891,203 570,470 654,730 647,779 534,001 667,427 718.418 554,581 885,069 600,527 258,357 7,896.914 Cum. Under/(Over) 198,019 (60,276) (1,919, 56,727 112,217 272,037 325,093 279,382 312,789 106,697 247.828 683,786 Note. The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H'\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\g.HR Risk Mgmt 20O2.xls Page 16 1/13/2003 Division: Personnel Administration, Civil Service DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: HR & Rid (General Governmental Fund) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 51,382 55,625 61,507 62,017 56,407 57,919 55,765 54,990 57,250 51,092 58,843 81,804 704,600 Actual Expenditures 45,645 42,466 54,852 74,800 41,248 57,631 49,037 48,779 42,845 46,380 65,606 66,268 635,558 Cum Under/(Over) 5,736 18,895 25,549 12,766 27,925 28,213 34,941 41.152 55.557 60,269 53,506 69.042 Note: The Budget attocatron is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actua; monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor s EOM\EXPENSE\2002\g.HR Risk Mgmt 2002.xls Page 17 1/13/2003 6,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Insurance Fund 502 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Human Resources and Risk Management Ending Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance -0-- Ending Fund Bel Based on Bud -f- 8% Of General Fund Actual Activity vs. Budget ® Actual Expenditures Actual Revenue -0 Allocated Adj. Budget -0 Revenue Adj. Bud -Straight lined Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Beginning Fund Balance 4,417,350 4,186,528 4,043,254 4,205,627 4,275,440 4,338,685 4,472,688 4,472,097 4.434,543 4,579,226 4,354,842 4,429,897 5,484,020 Actual Expenditures 868,705 848,737 515,618 579,930 606,532 476,370 618,390 669.639 511,736 838,689 534,921 192,089 7,261,355 Actual Revenue 637,884 705,463 677,991 649,742 669,777 610,373 617,799 632.085 656,419 614,305 609,975 1,246,212 8,328,025 Ending Fund Balance 4,186,528 4,043,254 4,205,627 4,275,440 4,338,685 4,472,688 4,472,097 4,434,543 4,579,226 4,354,842 4,429,897 5,484,020 6.550,690 Allocated Adj. Budget 1,059,438 577,425 567,644 651,552 646,810 635,938 664,587 617,707 531.086 627,704 682,735 613,474 7,876,100 Revenue Adj. Bud -Straight lines 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 656,342 7,876,100 Cum. Resources -Act Exp 190,732 (80,580) (28 554) 43,069 83,347 242,916 289,112 237.181 256,530 45,546 193,360 614,745 Note, The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. The Rainy Day Reserve reflects 8% of the 2003 Budget for General Governmental funds. H.TNANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\g.HR Risk Mgmt 2002-x,s Page 18 1/132003 CITY OF RENTON FUND 502 - INSURANCE FUND DRAFT - YEAR TO DATE THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002 AND DECEMBER 31, 2001 Proram Risk Management/Property & Liability. Premium Revenue Other Revenue Claims Other Costs Total Costs Total Property/Liability Income (Loss) Healthcare (Medical): Premium Revenue Claims Total Healthcare (Medical) Income (Loss) Healthcare (Dental): Premium Revenue Claims Total Healthcare (Dental) Income (Loss) Other Costs Total Healthcare Income (Loss) Industrial Insurance: Premium Revenue Claims State Administration Costs Other Costs Total Costs Total Industrial Insurance Income (Loss) Unemployment: Premium Revenue Claims Total Unemployment Income (Loss) Other. Revenue Costs 2002 2002 % 2001 2001 % Actual Budget Bd t Actual Ad' Bd t Bd t 1,718,823 1,537,300 111.8% 162,783 0 N/A (295.855) (939,200) 31.5% (557.437) (649,100) 85.9% (853,292) (1,588.300) 53.7% 1,028,314 (51.000) 1,611,026 1,551,000 103.9% (a) 22,715 0 N/A (b) (834,977) 1051,600) 79.4% (556.259) 1626.000) 88.9% (c) (1.391.236) (1677.600) 82.9% 242,504 (126,600) 4,078,623 4,509,900 90.4% 3,671,141 3,532,161 103.9% 4,445.198) (3,783.200) 117.5% (3.801,760) 2.992 800) 127 0% (366.575) 726,700 (130.619) 539,361 999,071 1,058,500 94.4%, 1718 245) (925.000) 77.6% 280,826 133,500 1263,386) (220.600) 119.4% (349,135) 639,600 560,215 457,400 122.5% (411.522) (291.000) 141.4%, (140.979) (89,000) 158.4% (41,461) (72,000) 57.6% (593.962) (452,000) 131.4% (33,747) 5,400 909,991 879,310 103.5% .735,675) 818 345) 89 9% 174,316 60,965 1225,508) (216.100) 104.4% (d) (181.811) 384,226 516,380 456,494 113.1 % (500,790) (270.000) 185.5% (129,204) (93.200) 138.6% (35,912) (66,400) 54.1% (e) (665.906) (429.600) 155.0% (149.526) 26.894 113,000 113,000 100.0% 65,900 114,744 57.4% 90.959) (113.000) 80.5% (66,730) (108,600) 61.4% 22,041 0 (830) 6,144 695,510 200,000 347.8% 2,411,572 2,250,000 107.2% (f) 13) (193.000) 153.5% 37.963) 23.5% (g) Total Insurance Programs Income (Loss) 1,066,670 601,000 1,783,945 254,664 (a) + Judgements & Settlements (b) FEMA (c) Salaries/Benefits, Supplies, Third Party Administrator, Other Insurance, Travel/Training, Arthur Gallagher Insurance Prog, Memberships, Publications, State Self -Insurance Tax, Capital Outlay (d) Admin Costs, Health & Wellness Program, Broker Fees, Employee Assistance Program (e) Third Party Administrator (f) Invest Interest, Interest on Contracts, Tsf-Ins, Misc, Interfd Loan Repmt (g) Indirect Costs Reimbursement to General Fund, 125 Plan Enrollment Fee, Emergency Services Total Per Status Reports: Revenues Expenditures Net cc: Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle Eileen Flott 8,328,025 7,876,100 (7,261,355) (7.275,100) 1,066,670 601,000 9,208,725 8,783,709 1,783,945 254 664 H:lfinplanVnayors\fundsla_502_2002.x1s Page 19 1/1312003 Department: Community Services DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes: General Fund, Parks Fund, Library Fund) -0-Allocated Adj. Budget Actual Expenditures - -6- Cum. Resources -Act Exp --- �+-Total Resources 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 (1,000 000) (2,000,000) item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 766,303 976,683 1,035,538 1,024,457 1,285,075 1,096,909 1,217,012 1,273,925 1,117,495 1,114,979 1.065,883 1,484,163 13.458,422 Actual Expenditures 680,150 796,041 808,266 889,181 908,890 3,030,774 1,011,535 1,054,187 846,546 995,722 872,705 1,046,130 12,940,126 Cum. Resources -Act Exp (119.206) (328,51J1) (5J1,016) 563,391 1,686,935 (1,043,264) (1,281.667) (1,814W9) (1,101,916) 84,875 1,118,739 (7,221) Actual Revenue-- 380,718 406,520 425.464 1,803,421 1,852,207 120,348 586,905 348.988 771,042 2,608,286 1,726,341 (260,057) 10,770,184 Adj Use of Prior Year Rev_ 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180.227 180.227 180,227 2,162,722 Total Resources 560,944 586,746 605.690 1,983.648 2,032,434 300,575 767,131 529,215 951,269 2,788,513 1,906,568 (79,830) 12,932,906 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average o11996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayors EOM\EXPENSE\2002\h.Community Services 2002 As Page 20 1/13/2003 Parks Fund 101 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Community Services (General Governmental Funds) --#-Allocated Adj. Budget 3.000.000 2,250,000 1,500,000 750,000 (750.000) (1,500.000) -40-Actual Expenditures - -6 - Cum. Resources -Act Exp - Total Resources A Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Let, Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 633,928 838,681 875,222 877.432 1.121,019 941,092 f 1,050,445 1,07%980 952,819 943,290 885,646 1,244,469 11,444,022 Actual Expenditures 569,974 652,546 679,217 739,773 738,787 2,880,974 832,431 856,226 686,553 774,363 717,091 854,032 10,981,968 Cum Resources -Act Exp (13,012) (82,609) (1bO,150) 730,028 1.669,360 (914,538) (987,283) (1,318.424) (1,465.064) 244.407 1,079,829 466,972 Actual Revenue 376,735 402,723 421,449 1,449,724 1,497,893 116,849 579,459 344,858 359.686 2,303,607 1,372,287 60,948 9,286,218 Adj Use of Prior Year Rev 180,227 186,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180.227 180,227 180,227 180,227 180,227 2,162,722 Total Resources 556,962 582,950 601,676 1,629,951 1,678,119 297,076 759,686 525.085 539,913 2,483,833 1.552,513 241,175 11,448,940 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\h.Community Services 2002 xls Page 21 1/13/2003 Library Fund 106 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Community Services (General Governmental Funds) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adi Budget 102,998 115,599 124,535 111,701 116,355 120,601 119,265 121,089 115,936 125.322 121,808 143,889 1,439,100 Actual Expenditures 91,564 126,554 111,401 115,482 126,255 110,532 140,504 116,622 120,145 138,166 112,314 115,607 1,425,145 Cum. Resources -Act Exp T (81,581) (210,338) (317,725) (79,510) 148,549 41,517 (91.542) (204.034) 87,177 253,691 495,432 58,820 Actual Revenue 3,982 3,797 4,015 353,697 354,315 3,499 7,445 4,130 411,356 304,679 354,055 (321,005) 1,483,966 Adl Use of Prior Year Rev Total Resources 3,982 3,797 4,015 353,697 354,315 3,499 7,445 4,130 411,356 304,679 354,055 (321,005) 1.483,966 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCBBUDGET\Mayoi's EOM EXPENSE\200211h Community Services 2002 AIS Page 22 1/13/2003 Division: Human Services DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Community Services (General Governmental Funds) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 24,612 21,428 33,211 35,553 53,404 35,452 50,334 74,869 49,509 45,015 55,407 96,505 575.300 Actual Expenditures 18,612 16,941 17,647 33.926 43,848 39,268 38,599 81,339 39,849 83,193 43,300 76,491 533,013 Cum. Underl(Ovei) 6,000 10,487 26,051 27,679 37,235 33,419 45,153 38,683 48,343 10,165 22,273 42,287 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\h.Commumty Services 20O2.xls Page 23 1i132003 625.000 500,000 375,000 250,000 125,000 0 (125,0001 Municipal Golf Course System Fund 404 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Community Services --*-Allocated Adj. Budget Actual Expenditures - - Cum. Resources -Act Exp 'Ar_ • / ----�, Ilei /r \ _1 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 102,566 132,124 149,100 154,340 180,829 453,833 144,336 144,692 135,075 153,664 132,742 456,900 2,340,200 Actual Expenditures 111,771 95,323 160,743 165,368 150,917 254,838 140,810 176,510 134,073 132,705 108,127 447,576 2,078,763 Cum. Resources -Act Exp (45.715) (38,45J) (105,236) (65,949) 37,233 59,435 265,254 400,910 537.871 577,389 566,145 207,426 Actual Revenue 66,056 102,585 93,960 204,655 254.098 277,040 346,630 312,165 271,034 172,223 96,884 88,858 2,286,188 . date. The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H.\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor s EOM\EXPENSE\2002V.Golt Course 404 2002.xis Page 24 1,132003 CITY OF RENTON FUND 404 - MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE SYSTEM OPERATING FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND FUND BALANCE Draft - Year to Date Through December 31, 2002 & December 31, 2001 Beginning Fund Balance OPERATING REVENUES. Charges for Services: Merchandise Sales Green Fees Driving Range Fees Miscellaneous Charges Miscellaneous Revenues: Cart Rentals Clubhouse Room Rentals Concessionaire/Restaurant Miscellaneous Revenues TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING EXPENSES: Administration: Salary & Benefits Supplies Other Svc & Charges Interfund Payments Total Administration Maintenance: Salary & Benefits Supplies Other Svc & Charges Total Maintenance ProshoprDriving Range: Salary & Benefits Supplies Merchandise Purchases Other Svc & Charges Total Proshop/Driving Range Other Costs: Miscellaneous TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES Fund 404 - Operations Fund 404 - Operations 2002 Actual 2002 B t % 8 t 2001 Actual 2001 Adj B t % B t 1,216,721 1,216,721 100.0% 1,145,231 1,145,231 100.0% 166,712 195,000 85.5% 1,212,443 1,267.200 95.7% 364.313 370,000 98.5% 53,830 46,000 117.0% 207.225 200,000 103.6% 62,529 70,000 89.3% 131, 700 130.000 101.3 % 37,982 22,000 172.6% 2,236,734 2.300,200 97.2% 173,638 216.900 80.1% 11,453 24,500 46.7% 57,983 43,900 132.1% 115,300 115,300 100.0% 358,374 400,600 89.5% 379,943 407,000 93.4% 114,253 97,900 116.7% 50,410 90,200 55.9% 544,606 595,100 91.5% 296,299 317.200 93.4% 34,295 54,700 62.7% 84.274 147,400 57.2% 36,558 7,600 481.0% 451,426 526,900 85.7% 0 0 N/A 1.354,406 1,522,600 89.0% 192,633 195,000 98.8% 1,237.587 1,347,245 91.9% 347.095 350,000 99.2% 46.155 41,000 112.6% 194,677 195,000 99.8% 71,158 70,000 101.7% 135,156 125,000 108.1 % 88,880 18.000 493.8% 2,313,341 2,341.245 98.8% 144,502 203,548 71.0% 11,560 24,281 47.6% 50,733 43,444 116.8% 112,999 112.999 100.0% 319.795 384,272 83 2% 417.801 372,469 112 2% 112,701 96.937 116.3% 129,619 89,269 145.2% 660,120 558,675 1182% 290,635 306,571 94 8% 51,448 54,748 94.0% 138,687 145,423 95.4% 24.425 7,621 320.5% 505.195 514,363 98.2% 186 0 N/A 1,485,296 1,457,310 101.9 % Income (Loss) fm Operations 882,327 777,600 113.5% 828,046 883,935 93.7% NON -OPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE): Investment Interest 16,748 40,000 41.9% Operating Tsf-in Gen Fd 0 0 N/A Sale of Restaurant Equipment 32,707 0 N/A Refunding Rev Bond Proceeds 0 0 N/A Debt Service 473.533) (475.500) 99.6% Payment to Refunding Trustee 1 0 0 N/A Ts( to Capital Fund 150.000) 150,000) 100.0% Capital Improvements 100 823) - 124 700) 80.9% TOTAL NON -OPERATING i674 9011 1710 200) 95.0% 45,797 50,000 91.6% 0 0 N/A 15,422 25,000 61.7% 0 0 N/A 458.893) (455.508) 100.7% 0 0 N/A :311,196) (373 436) 83.3% 140 749) 1165 000) 85.3% 849 619) (918944, 92 5'.: Total Net Income (Loss) 207,426 67,400 307.8% (21,573) (35,009) 61 6% Ending Fund Balance 1,424,147 1,216,721 117.0% 1,123,658 1,145,231 98 1% Bond Reserve 441,358 441,358 100.0% 441,358 441 358 100 0% Unreserved Ending Fund Balance 982,789 775,363 126.8% 682.300 703,873 96.9% cc. Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle Leslie Betlach File Golf Course Mgr 111312003 4 13 PM Page 25 mrlun91workshlsl _a04_2002 As 1,250.000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 0 (250,01 Department: Fire DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: All Divisions) --4—Allocated Adj. Budget --4*—Actual Expenditures — -6 — Cum. Under/(Over) Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 1,067,506 924,549 949.501 923,127 939,434 949,938 921,666 939,021 912,217 936,179 947,969 1,066,392 11,477,500 Actual Expenditures 1,137,505 865.243 935.188 931.528 896,330 929,327 882,663 919,482 942,038 951,550 921.159 970,207 11,282,219 Cum. Under/(Over) (69,998) (MbU2) 3,621 to 781) 38,324 58,935 97,938 117,476 87,655 72,285 99,095 195,281 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H-\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\j.Fire 2OO2.xls Page 26 1/132003 Department: Fire DRAFT - December 2002 Fire Department Overtime Expense Analysis General Governmental Funds E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10 000003 Disability OT E 000 000000 009.5220.0020 10.000005 Holdover OT E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000006 Training OT E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000011 Straight Time Payback (Sour. -Tina Rapnan E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000012 Holiday/Double Time E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000003 E 000 000000 009.5220.0020.10 000005 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020.10 000006 E 000 000000 009 5220-0020.10.000011 �rlr��T.44r:4Ir:rI�1-Y��ICrY�rIIrIr:rULii': E 000 000000 009 5220 0020.10 000003 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000005 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000006 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 000011 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020 10 0000 2 $250.000 a r ou,wu $125,000 $100,000 $75.000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 ($25.000) 2000 Dollars Jan E94 Mac 15M ME man All Aa �N 29 Na lM Is4ni 1.70154 73431 11840 0.00 456-55 000 000 16 015.51 22,389 73 19,626 82 19,454 94 $80,408 22 7.21607 7,566.60 3.451-38 2.755.46 6.032.05 3,146.98 4,02437 5.476.24 5,82533 3.71759 1,70556 $45,227 01 3,395.04 2,374.06 12,349-11 12.891.82 14.561.21 10.742.71 668.85 000 8,441.69 10,979.14 27.143 98 13 747.95 $117 295 56 16,020.22 7,542.79 7.705,91 5.597.99 3.749.29 68243 11.938 34 17.022 58 720.04 000 672.08 000 $71,651 67 165.168 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 $165,168 00 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 000 67208 12.361 93 13,260 32 $26.294 33 193.500.87 18.2117.76 23.624.80 21,155 69 24.342.55 15.028.67 16.631 56 22,498.82 31 002 57 37.758.54 54.114.19 48,168 77 $506,044 79 2001 Dollars in E4 MIX Az MR -jun ).W 8u9 -0M Not PM I" Disability OT 4.430.74 645.93 1.61023 190.65 981.01 1.136.33 6.12035 7,66464 6,50791 9.019.20 21,675.20 26,290 38 $86,272.57 Holdover OT 2,358.54 1,042.26 737.61 1.072.10 727.22 1.560.89 5.40768 10,398 62 3,08408 2.302.35 3.42854 2,760.09 $34.900 18 Training OT 4.059.23 5.471.13 12.764.84 11,521.03 21,116.17 1.202.05 35064 2,154.34 64450 (lb 214 49) 7.64987 4.252.09 $55.971.60 Straight Time 5,535.64 12.546.48 11.815.20 6,594.60 13,898.52 23.721.72 12,865 80 (Bb6 88) 000 796.14 000 000 $86,907.42 Payback (Sour.•Tlme ReWler) 157.126,32 1.272.24 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $158.398.56 Holiday/Double Time 22.29 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ODD 0.00 000 0.00 14.378 05 14.127 29 $28,527.66 173.532.96 20.978.04 26,927.88 19,378 38 36,722.92 27,640.99 24.744.87 19,350 72 10,236 49 W 090 BO) 47.131.69 47,429 65 $450.977.99 2002 Dollars "n ftb Mgt: AZ MIA st6 Jul A0G 2M 4s.1 N91 22k Islnl Disability OT 5,821 16 2.072.47 1,431.16 1.026.36 2,907.51 1.58209 1.046.13 2.16936 10.663 05 4,60702 000 29.381.39 $62.907.70 Holdover OT 1,15453 1.04538 1.872.84 1,641.09 1,632.96 1,556.03 1,913.28 5,376.84 3.04040 945.78 000 10,698.56 $30.877.69 Training OT 7,869.27 2.31630 4.912.16 1,419.93 4,517.14 1,734.90 2,104.94 4,82055 33.906.19 1,83021 000 30,818.27 $96.249 86 Straight Time 20.720 88 12,723.48 9,842.04 8.759.40 6.160.38 7,925.70 10.503 12 7.090.20 0.00 0.00 000 000 $83.725 20 Payback (S-T.. RagW.1) 177.137.65 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 0.00 0,00 0.00 $177,137.65 Holiday/Double Time 2.975.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,417.70 $33.393.24 215.679.03 18.157.63 18.058.20 12,846.78 15,217.99 12,798.72 15,567 47 19.456.95 47.609.64 7,58301 0.00 101.315.92 $484.291 34 $250,0w ® Holiday/Double $225,000 TimeSMADO } ■ Payback (Source - Time Register) $175,000 O Straight Time $150.000 0Traming OT $125.000 13 Holdover OT - $100.000--------------- ■ Disability 0T $75.000 $50,000 $25,000 so J n Fab Mar Apr May Jw1 JW Aug Sep GrA Nov ($25,(>00) - - - - - H 1FINANCE%BUOGETOAayor s EOM101her12002 FIRE OT.bs Page 27 Department: Fire DRAFT - December 2002 Fire Department Overtime Hour Analysis General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: Suppression only) E 000.000000.009.5220 0020.10.000003 Disability OT E 000.000000.009.5220.0020. 1 0.00OW5 Holdover OT E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10.000006 Training OT E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10.000011 Straight Time " Payback E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10 000012 Holiday/ Double Time E 000.000000.009.5220.0020 10.000003 E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10.000005 E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10.000006 E 000.000000.009.5220.0020.10.000011 E 000 000000 009 5220 0020.10 000012 2001 Hours 6M un �!i! 89S Sao �! P ov Total 121.0 18.5 42.5 5.0 24.0 32.3 167.5 197.0 169.5 2435 579.5 704.5 2,304.8 63.5 28.0 20.5 29.5 19.5 42.0 135.0 250.0 87.0 62.0 970 67.0 901.0 103.0 139.0 303.0 395.5 511.5 56.5 38.5 48.0 44.0 174.5 196.8 149.0 2,159.3 216.0 504.0 492.0 252.0 516.0 924.0 504.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 3.384.0 6,096.0 72.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.168.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 472.0 468.0 941.0 6.600.5 761.5 858.0 682.0 1,071.0 1.054.8 845.0 471.0 300.5 480.0 1,345.3 1,388.5 15.858.0 2002 Hours 4n Feb mar _AjK MAYJun �! 9� AN Pot Nov Dec Total YTD Disability OT 145.5 53.0 37.5 28.5 62.0 41.5 28.5 48.0 261.0 318.0 150.5 372.5 1.546.5 Holdover OT 32.0 25.5 49.5 42.0 36.5 37.5 50.0 1250 73.0 187.0 63.5 38.5 760.0 Training OT 185.0 53.0 106.0 30.8 100.3 40.0 48.0 103.5 826.0 136.5 359.0 255.8 2.243.8 Straight Time 780.0 480.0 372.0 304.0 229.0 301.0 402.0 252.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1200 Payback 6.456.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,456.0 Holiday/ Double Time 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5205 496.0 1,116.5 7,698.5 611.5 565.0 405.3 427.8 420.0 528.5 528.5 1.160.0 641.5 1.093.5 1,162.8 15,242.8 T,DDO 6,000 5.000 4.000 7 O x 3.000 Dbabky OT Haleo%w OT Trammg OT StragM Tyne Payback Hollaayl Double Tkne H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's E0M\01hen2002 FIRE_OT.xls Page 28 Department: Fire DRAFT - December 2002 Fire Department Overtime Analysis General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: Suppression only) 2002 Fire Suppression Hours 6,000 7 " 6,000 5.000 4.000 3,000 2,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 Fire Suppression Hours 4,000 3,000 2,OOO 7,000 1 o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc H \FINANCE%BUDGETWayofs EOM1OthaiQW-- FIRE OT As Page 29 Department: Police DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: All Divisions) --$— Allocated Adj. Budget Actual Expenditures — -4— Cum, Under/(Over) 1,500, 000 1,200,000 900,000 600,000 300,000 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 1,017,729 1,217,812 1,234,246 1,109,746 1,220,088 1,190,154 1,105,617 1,182,270 1,147,230 1,210,165 1,126,349 1,383,494 14,144,900 Actual Expenditures 1.0.06.659 _ 1,188,112 _ 1,032,414 1,249,245 1,138,937 1,291,554 1,044,475 1,195,529 1.036.293 1,352.684 1,028,911y 1,194,727 13,759,541 Cum Under/10vei) 11,070 40,770 242,601 103,102 184,254 82,854 143,995 130,737 241,674 99,154 196,592 385,359 Note The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\k.Police 2002.xis Page 30 1/132003 Department: Planning, Building, Public Works DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart General Governmental Funds (Includes General Fund: Administration, Development Services, Technical Services Street Fund: Transportation Systems, Maintenance Services) ---*-Allocated Adj. Budget Actual Expenditures - -A- Cum Under/(Over) 1,350.000 1,125,000 900,000 675,000 450,000 i 225,000 0 Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Niocated Adj. Budget 693,251 831,798 835,577 789,447 890,269 821,533 816,709 841,627 801,586 814,297 802,411 1,228,996 10,167,500 Actual Expenditures 689,826 732,997 715,237 772,029 750,370 772,813 769,975 789 886 748,132 859,602 756,005 738,334 9,095,206 Cum. Under/(Over) 3,424 102,225 222,565 239.983 379,883 428,603 475,337 527,077 580,531 535,226 581,632 1.072,294 Note. The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. June expenditures does not reflect an Operating transfer of $425. 000 from Fund Balance in the Street Fund. H.\FINANCE\BUDGETWIMayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\I.PBPW 000 2002.xls Page 31 1/13/2003 Street Construction Fund 317 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Planning, Building, Public Works --4-Allocated Adj. Budget 19 Proj. Mgr. Spending Plan - Actual Expenditures - -6 - Cum. Under/(Over) Plan' 3,000.000 2,400,000 1,800,000 1,200,000 600,000 ........... --1 (600.00( Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 194,855 631,321 406,583 360,535 650,435 784,929 739,244 942,157 659,789 851,891 510,389 830,671 7.562,800 Proj Mgr. Spending Plan 30,000 100,000 199,845 500,051 851,417 678,134 999,874 745,751 850,475 688,112 187.563 130,222 5,961,444 Actual Expenditures 25,285 150,120 132,444 247,265 439,031 576,014 109,446 399,389 711,013 182,654 1,303,168 503,712 4,779,559 Cum. Under/(Over) Plan' 4,715 (45,405) 21,997 274 762 687,149 789,269 1,679,697 2,026,059 2,165.521 2,670,980 1,555,375 1,181,885 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. Cum. Under/(Over) Plan' based on Project Manager Spending Plan H:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\m.Street Construction 317 2002.xls Page 32 1/13/2003 4,500.000 3,250,000 2,000,000 750,000 (500,000) (1,750,000) (3,000,000) Waterworks Utility funds 401/451 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Planning, Building, Public Works --9--Allocated Adj. Budget (Actual Expenditures — -A— Cum. Resources -Act Exp ---fir-_--�� \ Actual Revenue �_A- — — — Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 1,297,980 1,768,320 1,750,537 3,033,983 1,838,821 3,374,692 1,958,744 1,829,940 1,616,041 3,166,053 1,965,159 2,338,930 25,939,200 Actual Expenditures 1,508,307 1,482,938 1,737,781 2,838,512 1,706,110 4,180,073 2,483,430 1,656,229 1,615,473 1,898.703 1.839,145 1,962,533 24,909,233 Cum. Resources -Act Exp 457,210 454,147 646,129 (205,394) (2.803,023) (1,187,561) 11,016,314) (342.410) (17,160) 514,570 414,584 Actual Revenue 1,965,516 1,479.875 1.929,763 1,745.141 1,947,959 1,582,444 4,098,886 1.827,482 2,289.377 2,223,353 2,371,475 1,862,547 25,323,817 N, te* The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor s EOM\EXPENSE\2OO2\n.Waterworks Utility 401 2002.x!s Page 33 1.1312003 CITY OF RENTON FUND 401 - WATERWORKS UTILITY OPERATING FUND AND FUND 451 WATERWORKS REVENUE BOND FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND FUND BALANCE Draft Year to Date Through December 31, 2002 Total % Utility Water Wastewater METRO Surface Water Total Budget Bdgt Beginning Fund Balance 3,576,367 1,528,093 .248,610) 1,272,278 6,128,128 6,128,128 100.0% REVENUES: Licenses & Permits 0 30,010 0 1,470 31,480 22,000 143.1% Rate Revenue 7,777,211 3,565,520 7,338,780 2,666,466 21,347,977 21,952,100 97.2% Inspection/Approval Fees 52,348 78,994 0 159,617 290,959 310,000 93.9% Interfund Revenues 247,575 225,521 0 384,667 857,763 779,600 110.0% Investment Interest 46,114 13,456 0 25,126 84,696 250,000 33 9% Bryn Mawr Payment 37,874 0 0 0 37,874 37,900 99.9% WSDOT Reimb/1405 Retentn Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Misc Revenues 80,310 821 0 0 81,131 81,600 99.4% Water Installation Fees 202,069 0 0 0 202,069 140,900 143.4% Revenue Bond Proceeds 1,314,460 606,674 0 101.112 2,022,246 2,022,246 100.0% Disposal of Fixed Assets 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 0 N/A Other Financing Sources 0 67,621 0 0 67,621 0 N/A TOTAL REVENUES 9,757,961 4588.616 7,338,780 3,638,458 25,323,816 25,596,346 98.9% EXPENSES: Utility Engineering. Salaries & Benefits 531,485 301,454 0 408,829 1,241,768 1,305,000 95.2% Other Svc & Charges 257.793 37,011 0 65,766 360,570 494,100 73,0% Taxes 793,153 758,418 0 190,516 1.742,087 1,941,700 89.7% Interfund Payments 865,300 585,396 0 477,000 1,927,696 1,924,000 100.2% Sub -Total Utility Engineering 2,447,731 1,682,279 0 1,142,111 5,272,121 5,664,800 93.1% Utility Administration 93,298 100.343 0 101,486 295,127 314,800 93.8% Transfer to Constr Fund 1,392,000 0 0 208,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 100 0% Transfer to 215 for LTGO Debt 77,700 0 0 0 77,700 77,100 100.8% Debt Service 3,090,764 1,957,693 0 577,667 5,626,124 5,602,100 100.4% Other Debt Service Costs 1,152 532 0 89 1,773 238,000 0.7% Total Utility Systems 7,102,645 3,740,847 0 2,029,353 12.872,845 13,496,800 95.4% Utility Maintenance: Salaries & Benefits 1,309,283 330,808 0 349,405 1,989,496 2.209,600 90.0% Supplies 383,286 24,668 0 24,557 432,511 481,500 89.8% Other Svc & Charges 727,750 167,800 0 185,476 1,081,026 1,239,100 87.2% METRO 0 0 7,924,164 0 7,924,164 7.894,300 100.4% Capital Outlay 15,461 0 0 0 15,461 38,200 40.5% Interfund Payments 181,338 47,332 0 109,961 338,631 398,700 84.9% Sub -Total Utility Maintenance 2,617,118 570,608 7,924,164 669,399 11,781,289 12,261,400 96.1% Inventory Purchased 241,984 0 0 13,116 255,100 181,000 140.9% Total Utility Maintenance 2,859,102 570,608 7,924,164 682,515 12,036,389 12,442,400 96.7% Finance Bad Debt Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A TOTAL EXPENSES 9,961.747 4,311,455 7,924.164 2,711,868 24,909,234 25.939,200 96.0% Income (Loss) 277,161 1585.384) 926,590 414,582 (342,854) -120.9% Beginning Fund Balance 3,576,367 1,528,093 248,�-^ 1,272,278 6,128,128 6,128,128 100.0% Excess Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Transfer to 421 0 0 1100.000) N/A Operating Reserve 374,866 127,628 150,000 138,855 791,349 1,343,632 58 9% Bond Reserve (Fund 451) 1,730,197 731,857 0 199,499 2,661,553 2,661,553 100.0% Unreserved Ending Fund Balance 1,359,518 945,769 -983.994) 1,868,514 3,189,808 1,880,089 169.7% cc: Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle Nenita Ching Page 34 FUND 401 - WATERWORKS UTILITY OPERATING FUND Draft Year to Date Through December 31, 2002 Water Wastewater METRO Surface Water Total Calculation of Interest: Begin Fund Balance 3,576,367 1,528,093 Revenues w/o Interest 8,397,387 3,968,487 Expenditures 9,961,747 4,311,455 End Fund Balance 2,012,007 1,185,125 Average Balance 2,794,187 1,356,609 % of Total 54.447% 26.435% Allocated Interest 46,114 22,389 (%' Interest) (248,610) 1,272,278 6,128,128 7,338,780 3,212,220 22,916,874 7,924,164 2,711,868 24,909,234 1,772,630 4,135,768 1,522,454 5,131,948 -10.548% 29.666% 1 25,126 84.696 84,696 Page 35 CITY OF RENTON FUND 401 - WATERWORKS UTILITY OPERATING FUND AND FUND 451 WATERWORKS REVENUE BOND FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND FUND BALANCE Year to Date Through December 31, 2001 Utility Water Wastewater Adjusted Beg Fund Balance 6.477.274 2,129,575 REVENUES Total % METRO Surface Water Total Budget Bdgt 0 766,287 9,373,136 9,373,136 100.0% Licenses & Permits 0 36,090 0 350 36,440 22,600 161.2% Rate Revenue 7,634,795 3,552,352 6,536,744 2,632,606 20,356,497 20,657,455 98.5% Inspection/Approval Fees 64,967 51,539 0 156,453 272,959 315,000 86.7% Interfund Revenues 309,867 217,134 0 367,282 894,283 781,776 114.4% Investment Interest 173,802 58,934 0 35,242 267,977 215.000 124.6% Bryn Mawr Payment 37,874 0 0 0 37,874 37,874 100.0% WSDOT Reimb/1-405 Retentn Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Misc Revenues 69,137 0 0 0 69,137 83,250 83 0% Water Installation Fees 215,317 0 0 0 215,317 135.000 159.5% Other Financing Sources 0 15,000 0 15,000 30,000 30,000 100 0% TOTAL REVENUES 8505,759 3,931.049 6,536,744 3,206.933 22,180,484 22,277,955 99.6% EXPENSES: Utility Engineering: Salaries & Benefits 507,202 289,311 0 407,174 1,203,687 1,253,802 96.0% Other Svc & Charges 256,664 23,435 0 53,355 333,454 433,070 77 0% Taxes 817,957 722,828 0 192,113 1,732,898 1.828,806 94.8% Interfund Payments 863,752 585,260 0 482,740 1,931.752 1,916,203 100.8% Sub -Total Utility Engineering 2,445,575 1,620,834 0 1,135,382 5,201,791 5.431,881 95.8% Utility Administration 94,809 94,809 0 89,231 278,849 301,309 92.5% Transfer to Constr Fund 4,023,158 826,378 0 587,164 5,436,700 5,436,700 100.0% Transfer to 215 for LTGO Debt 77,650 0 0 0 77,650 77,650 100.0% Debt Service 1,968,283 1,397,361 0 241,002 3,606,646 4,084,111 88.3% Other Debt Service Costs 8,013 3,698 0 616 12,327 23,000 53.6% Total Utility Systems 8,617,488 3,943,080 0 2,053,395 14,613,963 15,354,651 95.2% Utility Maintenance: Salaries & Benefits 1,260,918 332,728 0 317,417 1,911,063 2,114,793 90.4% Supplies 349,777 38,927 0 25,247 413,951 520,118 79 6% Other Svc & Charges 740,711 164,853 0 192,365 1,097,929 1,222,601 89.8% METRO 0 0 6,785,354 0 6,785,354 6,661,800 1019% Capital Outlay 36,922 0 0 0 36,922 35,200 104.9% Interfund Payments 196,160 52,943 0 100,272 349,375 371,350 94 1% Sub -Total Utility Maintenance 2,584,488 589,451 6,785,354 635,301 10,594,594 10,925,862 97 0% Inventory Purchased 204,507 0 0 12,246 216,753 178,926 121.1% Total Utility Maintenance 2,788,995 589,451 6,785,354 647,547 10,811,347 11,104,788 97 4% Finance Bad Debt Expense 182 0 0 0 182 0 N/A TOTAL EXPENSES 11,406.665 4,532,531 6,785,354 2,700,942 25,425,492 26.459,439 96.1% Income (Loss) 505,991 0081 4 181 484) 77.6% Adjusted Beg Fund Balance 6,477,274 2,129,575 0 766,287 9,373,136 9,373,136 100.0% Excess Reserves 1,967,726 908,182 0 151,364 3,027,272 3,027,272 N/A Transfer to421 1,967,726 908,182 0 151,364 3,027,272 3,027,272 N/A Operating Reserve 367,781 126,877 150,000 134,453 779,111 1,208,786 64.5% Bond Reserve (Fund 451) 1,730,197 731,857 0 199,499 2,661,553 2,661,553 100.0% Unreserved Ending Fund Balance 1,478,390 669,359 398.610) 938,326 2,687,464 1,321,313 203.4% cc: Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle Nenita Ching H:\finplanVmyors%funds\c_401_2002 As Dec 01 Page 36 1/13/2003 FUND 401 - WATERWORKS UTILITY OPERATING FUND Year to Date Through December 31, 2001 Water Wastewater METRO Surface Water Total Calculation of Interest: Begin Fund Balance 6,477,274 2,129,575 0 766,287 9,373,136 Revenues w/o Interest 8,331,957 3,872,115 6,536,744 3,171,691 21,912,507 Expenditures 11,406,665 4,532,531 6,785,354 2,700,942 25,425,492 End Fund Balance 3,402,566 1,469,159 (248,610) 1,237,036 5,860,151 Average Balance 4,939,920 1,799,367 (124.305) 1,001,662 7,616,644 % of Total 64.857% 23.624% -1.632% 13.151 % 1 Allocated Interest 173,802 63,307 (4.373) 35,242 267,977 (%' Interest) 267,977 H:\finplan\mayom\funds\c_401_2002 xls Dec 01 Page 37 1/13/2003 2,400.000 2,000,000 1,600,000 1,200,000 800,000 400,000 0 Waterworks Utility Construction Fund 421 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Planning, Building, Public Works 0 Allocated Adj. Budget --*- Proj. Mgr. Spending Plan f Actual Expenditures - -6 - Cum. Under/(Over) Plan' i �01 i 1 d � i i Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 484,237 738,916 804,134 880,661 1,104,570 973,544 639,714 805,521 1,085,202 1,048,624 1,065,025 1,694,452 11,324,600 Proj. Mgr. Spending Plan 313,167 489,785 588,133 586,756 385,108 540,408 827,556 1,179,356 1,269,716 1,514,972 871,972 822,472 9,389,401 Actual Expenditures 219,973 336,115 612,601 322,712 493,501 507,772 465,240 413,970 628,952 2,118,026 507,532 1,547,917 8,174,313 Cum. Under/(Over) Plan' 93,194 246,865 222,396 486 440 378,047 410,683 772,999 1,538,385 2,179,149 1,576,094 1,940,534 1,215,088 Note: The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures Cum. Unded(Over) Plan' based on Project Manager Spending Plan H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\o.Waterworks Construcllon 4212002 xis Page 38 1/13/2003 C t0 O O O O O In0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O Q t0 14 ID ? OO O w CA In I/I `yam' 1) 1 O p t() t0 n M t�f tO N b r N S N M V N A M OI N I ,I!1 T ? O ? N m � N (] l) S O O O O tom N O p 0 0 0 0 a) O N 0 0 t0 Ih cy IOA _ O :On1 m 0_ N 1 tD N O M N N {vi M N m I rc� S N A N N C co f0 tD N Lc) co O i 1 M r O O O O O n tD O O O O O O O O O Q '75 m o � a ? c O) Ln 4 ? ? 1� r tn �tp0 r M M t0 O N N O m In 6 N g; o o Q o o v^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 off^ A _ 2S5 to n m m m m ri P't to O N t:C � w cn N m of O CD N R C-4 1A 0� n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qg o g o 0 !a S c torn $ 1 Ld 10 n M t7 O N ^l 1A ! i M N N N c m j i m f7 ui ai 1 ��yy It�oo otn000tn000000m o�� cp4pi l ictyy S 10 N M N S N O i 4 0 o Q o o �nSpp a, o otD C} t0 Ito a N N M m tAfS 1�� tO N N N ) n - JI C iiii IOD m �j Cl! 1 rl m O 1� clj pmN m npN Cl) M 1 C ^ 0 0 0 0 Ind O O O O O O O O Q a e t0 N O§ o p N O {pN Cl)N MmCD LO to J O O S O O Cpp O O fQQ fNp O O O O O m M O m M M C I_ - Opp 1A m GU f0 OOi 'Q C m to O) N v n IR N Cl - N M r) a INS t0 IQ 1 O O A o O O O O o o o§ O N N ' as v 2p5 25 �p O Yi t7i_ m n ^ t�) N N N S N Co n _ 3iN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O� t0 N Lo D i N tn0 m m 1.. N m m n 00 NIN N 1 to 119E N gg0 In n vi Mj OO^ Sn O M C S f�1 ^ t+f N N N N A Jj 7 j O O 8 o o O r O) r oMo000r O M M O N ci N Cm') nm O tn� 0 cnf N M O N N M t0 Of i� S r v to < Mm �� N M m 9m to am>m mU �y U) Ol 0 Y L > J? c m S Z ` N m ctj�a`Tg ��¢ooUm'CC�cYy� _ U tUl m Um mxti w w m E � 5 m U U¢¢ O U Ji tUi - 3: a) m m°l o mn 'm m E U m; O. n t L% m m m F- K am In m j F mmtn ImmFE::i3: w,.tn0CLCL 2 wo3: U) fV A 1 252525250O�25o2p525cOc00025 2OS 2m5 2S5 25 O t20�5) (2D5 2m5 S 9 V 1f7 7 l7 N 2^5 aS `Q 25�i�S MN co N =(L oo i ID �g "'mSS v m Inc m'Nm l y m ? In ? M N -... r M N M IN lA m ? (mmV fV to N 1— pp p� pp pp �tpp N N S 8 8 0 0 N m N O A m 0 10 O O N b N N V M t0 N T Off Of O m G O Of V t7i m N O N N tpo� N w w N IfI N O m N m ID mv 8 2 M m 1) N ? C 1R IA 7 ^ N O N t7 N N m tC i_ tg?oo�00 C) 00000000 00HE �oniv 'd r N N t7 N m N O O 01 N N m IN ooa OA8A o§oogOO�cggi�S �itjSmm N N ' m l) to f! Y N A IN In 1 1 n pQ o 00 m n co g o 00 00 o$ o g S N N O O S tM In Y] 4 O N 0i I N N N N N IMn O a r y N N m— m Nln 1 ZO Q 0 0 0 0- q 0 0$ Q 0 0 O N S r 1NMl1 j mm ``��jj IA n Ol m N ��Njj 8 11�- to 1p� I IA S N N m V A O m 1 ! C Cn f0 O O O O A^ O O O O O O O O$ O S N N ilia M tp ? r N t0 O) N O) 0 o T to n r7 li vi ai Q cYi M N N O t0 O CV N N N n n N n •- p N �kI Cp S Am O pp O O p cpp In t� 1p� O O O 8 O O O 1- M r N V m N m O Oo omO tip N m O N Q? Y'l N S Ori I` m 1� R ap N to n O O 8 O o ( rp a O '� pp '� 00 00 C. S CD pp t0 m a? ? O M In N 9 O co r N LL7 m r M M A A Qf N; tD M N N N n tN'7 N N 1CL fl N6. =N tip p p 8 m fA I. O S T O O O O S IQ n co t�pp O O O O O O It�pp O t Sp t� OMl Omi S C N N N M N N N j r N f((VVV m 1 m 1 1 r O O S O O ltpp r O O 8 0 0 0 O O O S O 8$ In m �a t7 7 O c0 Ot In Ii') Of C. ? N p Ln tG 1� M C7 N (V v Oi 1 C N t+f N N N n N r m r4;a N 7 O) D O O N r O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o M m O) r m^? S n r n r to N ((pp m 11_p n t0 h O In O r m N m T T S^ N tO N O N o m M Q N N M N � 9n N N � V' IE N N M 0 Ol OI rn U >m pO 3 E m C >>� m L 8� m m 6 y m CI m Y 'or14 j fn C Oj O C N Z 4 f� m UU fOfJ,l IS, 4O m m C m Yl O N U U .C.. .C., m N a n d O d .�. 8 0. c U f U m m m m m m U `m c B o m g 3 w I OI c c LL m E c `� m U U Q m U w LL` m U m° 0 C U m m ma > 'm 0 E U 10 m n c 3 m m m~ x y 6m F- w mmtnSmmF-_3 U)cnrn7Zan.mmM w 0 i Mtn t U J m m Z cn N Cl) C) a Solid Waste Utility Fund 403 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Planning, Building, Public Works Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 578,484 876,872 819,003 786,591 766,607 781,926 792,456 800,605 764,308 806,699 802,402 794,348 9,370.300 Actual Expenditures 721,725 701,176 693,191 681,717 763,752 684,444 695,877 728,046 667,718 738,725 681,636 666,633 8,424,641 Cum. Resources -Act Exp (2 b 12) (16,22b) 29,995 166,502 94,999 159,770 274,251 128,303 198,248 205,268 181,131 221,529 Actual Revenue 719.093 627.583 799.411 818,224 692,249 749,215 810,358 582.098 737,663 745,745 657,500 707,031 8,646,169 . ote. The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\p.Solid Waste 403 2002.x1s Page 40 1/13/2003 CITY OF RENTON FUND 403 - SOLID WASTE UTILITY FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND FUND BALANCE Draft Year to Date Through December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001 Item Beginning Fund Balance REVENUES: Solid Waste Fees Investment Interest Franchise Fees Miscellaneous DOE Coordinated Prev Grant DOE 26/39 Grant KC Optional Business Grant KC Optional Special Grant KC/WR/R Grant Loc Haz Wst/SEA-KC Hth Interfund Revenues TOTALREVENUES EXPENSES' Salaries Personnel Benefits Supplies Garbage Contractor Solid Waste Programs Postage/Telephone/Other Travel/Training Equipment Rental Public Util Sv/Dump Fees Repairs & Maintenance Miscellaneous Local Haz Waste Mgt Program Fee State Excise Tax State Refuse Collection Tax Interfund Taxes Capital Outlay Interfund Payments TOTAL EXPENSES Income (Loss) Ending Fund Balance cc: Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle Nenda Ching Linda Knight I[ 2002 2002 °b Actual Adj Bdgt Bgt 388,190 388,190 100.0% 8,445,473 9,120,500 92.6% 3,549 12,000 29.6% 60,500 66,000 91.7% 0 0 N/A 51,451 59,300 86.8% 0 0 N/A 20,958 81,800 25.6% 0 0 N/A 22,635 5,000 452.7% 35,930 24,700 145.5% 5,674 1,000 567.4% 8,646,170 9,370,300 92.3% 132.340 149,100 88.8% 31,235 30,000 104.1 % 1,464 11,000 13.3% 6,798,875 7,631,300 89.1% 77,084 182,300 42.3% 53 2,100 2.5% 133 2,200 6.0% 14,000 13,900 100.7% 2,194 6,600 33.2% 0 600 0.0% 4,300 7,900 54.4% 182,490 186,800 97.7% 121,656 116,700 104.2% 291,974 280,000 104.3% 496,102 483,700 102.6% 0 0 N/A 270,740 266,100 101.7% 8,424,640 9,370,300 89.9% 221,530 0 N/A 609,720 388,190 157.1% K Ctv Haz Waste Assmt Budget: Jan 46,700 April 46,700 July 46,700 Oct 46,700 2001 2001 "o Actual Adj Bdgt Bgt 666,951 666,951 100.0% 8,334,675 8,642,450 96.4% 23,193 16,000 145.0% 60,500 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 13,205 46,000 28.7% 0 0 N/A 21,878 6,000 364.6% 4,500 10,000 45.0% 0 49,000 0.0% 32,931 22,000 149.7% 4,838 1,040 465.2% 8,495,721 8,792,490 96.6% 123,422 141,364 87.3% 28,651 33,875 84.6% 4,076 10,883 37.5% 7,139,787 7,751,278 92.1% 123,314 170,721 72.2% 63 2,131 2 9% 155 2,252 6.9% 11,800 13,852 85.2% 2,198 6,427 34.2% 0 568 0.0% 3,156 7,903 39.9% 190,670 260,796 73.1% 118,102 116,685 101.2% 283,445 280,043 101.2% 486,291 466,739 104.2% 0 0 N/A 260,933 260,933 100.0% 8,776,063 9,526,450 92.1 % (280,342) (733.960) 38.2% 386,609 (67,009) -577.0% H \finplan\mayors\funds\e_403_2002.xls Dec02 Page 41 1/13/2003 CITY OF RENTON FUNDS 501 - EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND FUND BALANCE Draft Year to Date Through December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001 Beginning Fund Balance REVENUES: Maintenance & Operation: Real & Personal Property Taxes Vehicle/Equipment Repair Chgs Veh/Equipment Maint & Oper Investment Interest Sale of General Fixed Assets Miscellaneous Charges TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES EXPENSES: Maintenance & Operation: Salary & Benefits Supplies Other Svc & Charges Interfund Payments for Sery Total Maintenance TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES Fund 501 - Operations 2002 Actual 2002 Bud et % Bgt 3,090,831 3,090,831 100.0% 0 0 N/A 26,887 30,000 89.6% 1.357,629 1,484,700 91.4% 66,264 50,000 132.5% 59,360 50,000 118.7% 0 0 N/A 1,510,140 1,614,700 93.5% 530,191 556,700 95.2% 543,609 738,700 73 6% 286,371 301,000 95.1% 228,600 228,600 100.0% 1,588,771 1,825,000 87.1% 1,588,771 1,825,000 87.17 Fund 501 - Operations 2001 Actual 2001 Adj Bd t % B t 2,287,486 2,287,486 100.0% 0 0 N/A 29,598 30,000 98.7% 1,583,625 1.634,700 96.9% 264,970 38,000 697.3% 86,727 20.000 433.6% 876 0 N/A 1,965,796 1,722.700 114 1 % 494,038 557,300 88.6% 576.008 731,400 78.8% 272,126 284,400 95.7% 227,232 224,200 101.4% 1,569,404 1,797,300 87.3% 1,569,404 1.797,300 87.3% Income (Loss) fm Operations (78,631) (210 300) 37 4% 396,392 (74,600)-531.4% NON -OPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE): Veh/Equipment Cap Recovery 1,605,396 1,746,300 91.9% EquityTsf fm LID Guaranty Fund 0 0 N/A Interfund Loan to 306 0 0 N/A Debt Service 0 0 N/A Capital Acquisitions �6; 1 210.500) 96.8% TOTAL NON -OPERATING 433,240 535,800 80.9% Total Net Income (Loss) Ending Fund Balance Total Revenue Total Expense Net Income (Loss) cc: Mayor Tanner Victoria Runkle David Hohn File 1,461,354 1,453,200 100.6 % 0 0 N/A 0 0.0% 0 0 N/A 1 87.6% 406,953 14 -817. _`o 354,600 325,500 108.9% 803,345 (124,400)-645.8% 3,445,440 3,416,331 100.9% 3,115,536 3,361,000 92.7% 2,760,927 3,035,500 91.0% 354,609 325,500 3,090,831 2,163,086 142.9% 3,427,150 3,175,900 107.9% 2,623,805 3.300,300 79.5% 803,345 H1Financelfinplan\mayors\fundsl f_501_2002 As Page 42 1/13/2003 Airport Fund 402 DRAFT - December 2002, Monthly Budget Tracking Chart Department: Planning, Building, Public Works Item Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Allocated Adj. Budget 39,766 65,230 55,499 63,226 59,655 _ 53,484 54.744 59,084 79,318 63,484 68,004 85,908 747,400 Actual Expenditures 32,766 59,468 74,934 121,230 43,526 46,211 34,038 42,910 46,164 53,501 _ 47,575 75,920 678,244 Cum, Under/(Over) 6,999 12,761 (6.61b) (64,67t (48,549) (41.216) (20,511) (4 397) 28.757 38,739 59,168 69,156 Note., The Budget allocation is based on an average of 1996 through 2001 actual monthly expenditures. Amounts shown represent operating budget and actual amounts only, capital projects are excluded. H \FINANCE\BUDGET\Mayor's EOM\EXPENSE\2002\q.Airport 402 2002.xls Page 43 1/13/2003 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 2, 2003 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Jo y Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Cc: Jesse Tanner, Mayor SUBJECT: Agenda Items for the 2003 City Council Planning Workshop RECEIVED JAN 0 2 2003 RENT0}4 Cf ry00 WC,L. Councilmembers, as you know, we have scheduled February 5-6, 2003, for the city's annual City Council Planning Workshop, and have reserved the conference room at the Hilton -Garden Inn here in Renton for those dates. From the Administration's viewpoint, this workshop is a critical opportunity for us to receive long-term policy direction from the Council in areas of our Six - Year Business Plan goals and objectives, land use directives, and budget priorities. For example, at our 2002 workshop, the Six -Year Business Plan that you updated and adopted actually covers the 2003-2008 time period. We received direction from you regarding potential comprehensive land use changes in the North Renton/Boeing/PACCAR area, and direction on other specific projects and proposals. The Business Plan goals and priorities, comp plan changes, and other policy directives were then incorporated into our comprehensive planning process, which you will take action on this year, and the 2003 budget, which you adopted in November. This retreat will mark the eighth year we have worked under the direction of our Six -Year Business Plan. I believe it has been a key reason for Renton's success in redeveloping our downtown, improving our neighborhoods, expanding our tax base, and improving the overall quality of life in our community. Renton continues to be used as a standard for strong and savvy political leadership and a results -oriented staff. I am looking forward to our time together in February. You have set aside some time on Monday, January 6', during the Committee of the Whole to identify and prioritize potential agenda items for this year's planning workshop. To aid you in preparation for our discussion Monday, I have listed the items that I am aware of that the Council and/or the Administration feels should be discussed: • Six -Year Business Plan review and update. We have historically worked on the actual update after we have discussed emerging issues and other potential impacts to the plan. Estimated time: 2-3 hours. Agenda Items for the 2003 City Council Planning Workshop January 2, 2003 Page 2 • Emerging Issues. As mentioned, in preparation for updating our Business Plan, it is appropriate to identify emerging issues that may impact Renton in the coming years. Staff will come prepared with items we have identified, which we will review with you- along with those you have identified as well. Estimated time: 2-3 hours. • Briefing on regional "Explore Life" efforts. By our retreat date, it would be timely for us to receive an update on the progress of the regional effort to bring bioscience development to the Seattle area. We have tentatively scheduled Norm Rice and Maura O'Neil, who are leading the effort, to provide you with the briefing. Estimated time: I hour. • Update on proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments —particularly for the South Lake Washington/North Renton area. This would be a quick update on our progress to date, estimated timelines, Council affirmation of process, etc. Estimated time: I hour. • Fund Balance allocation discussion. This item was referred to the Workshop during the budget discussion, and includes the police and library proposed positions, discussion on historic preservation, and other items the Council and/or the Administration might have. Estimated time: 2-3 hours. • Council electronic communications and E-mail policy. Council and staff worked on these issues in 2002, and staff will have revised recommendations for your consideration. Estimated time: 1-2 hours. • Council -only time. In past workshops, the City Council has asked for time to discuss matters without the Administration present. Estimated time: 2-3 hours. • Other items?? For discussion purposes, here is how these items could be scheduled within our workshop timeframe: Wednesday: 8:00-11:00 a.m. 11:00-12:00 noon 1:00-2:00 p.m. 2:00-5:00 p.m. Thursday: 8:00-10:00 a.m. 10:00-12:00 noon 1:30-4:00 p.m. 4:00-5:00 p.m. Orientation and Emerging Issues Explore Life Update Comp Plan Update Business Plan Update Council -only Time E-communications Issues Fund Balance/Other Issues Discussion Other Items?? If necessary, staff is available to begin earlier or stay later in order to effectively discuss and receive direction from the Council on items identified above, or on items not yet listed. I look forward to discussing the proposed agenda with you Monday. aoUouelulDIN JO(oIN S81411M PUD sallddnS S90VUOS PUD SIDIJaWIN 194n PUD UJ00J4S9d JOPO4JUDr Jogol SIS03 aOUDu91ulDN s)lond puo sualol4o 'sllggod 9£ WOE) 9 J9}l94S oluold daa4S 8 ulgDO ONolslH Bld asnoH uJJOJ Moo spe4S lowlu`d saluod 9 swog oMl slDwluy sbulplln8 4i4n eououaluloVI spunoie suolpJado Wd t000'L6S:WOlDnuuy) aououa;ulDV4 uawdolanap-aJd :❑ uol do luewdlnb3 (o00'ZV9S .spoO lonuuy) uoslJDduuoo wiod )IaaJ:) ASsla)l ,gddnS woOJlsed JaMoIN N-C) 0101 IDAOWE) J 94SDM wooJlsed sIDIJaWIN Jo4o9 ar sapddnS lu8w'4004VJ9M0IN,9L Jogol slueweldwi/M Joiomi ar sallllloD3 wll auo) asoyoJnd 'b3 Jogol slolJaWIN JOWO ar UDIJDuIJalaA J91U9O anllaJdJalul sallddnS lu9w4Oo4V JaMoW ,gL 6ulwooJg SIDJU%j Ja-Ma4S Jogol;lueweldwi/M JoloDJl ar peej f)ulwwDJBOJd S91M!ODj asDyo,nd 'b3)uogsnH 10wluy Jogol 4uln lUJDIN pDOd puD logy BullMd eououalulDlN punoif3ADld eououelulr)N UOIWBIJJI 90UDU9jUjDIN spunoJg suolpJado �Md (ODO'09LS SAGO ©wIl-OUO V IDnuuy)4JDd anISSDd :8 uol4do JOgDl L41114n eououalulolN ADmpood PUD 101 BuPIJDd SUONOl40lo )IOOIJ L aOUDuaIUIDIN punoif3ADld d9945 8 aOUDU91UIDIN UoIWBIJJI sesJOH JO MOO Z aououaIulo" spunoJg slDwluy asoyoJnd suol}olado �Md (000'LZVS :slsOO awll-eUO PUD IDnuuy) JaMoIN N9 oJol swooJlsed Jogol JOWg ar lolJaWIN puD Alddns sallddnS }uaw4oD4y JaMoIN 4Bnod ,9L Jogol s101uOd JallayS sluaweldwi qgm JopDJl ar sal�llloD3 bulwwDJBoJd )w4 auo) asoyoJnd }uawdlnb3 WJDA 15uI)IJom :o uottdo JogDl 4on aOUDUaIUIDIN ADMPDOd PUD logy f3ullJDd aoUDualulDlN punojl3ADld 9OUDU81UIDW UOIPf3PJI eououalulDlN spunoJE) suolpJado �JDd (000'Lazs eWt1 quo IDnuud) JaIuao angoidJa}ul/lMd anISSDd :y uo.4do OPO4SIH asnoH sPa4S 000'9 L L - OOOZb9 OOOZV OOO'SbZ 000195E 3ldZ 31J9 SwD9 Z L L 9L ellw L 08 OL 09 L L UDJ )IeeJO desle)l asnoH 000'99 00019Z - 00019Z 31d L '313L suJD9 0 0 0 0 0 0 L8'L l a uopdo asnoH 000'0 L OWL L I 000'08Z 0001OZ 000,091 000'0 L L 31d l '31317 uJD9 0 l sllols 9£ sallw Z L£'G L 9'£ L8'L L O uoµdo 000'Z9 000,9L 0001OZ - 000,99 31d L '3JJ L L L S1104s 9£ sellw Z LV L 0 LS'L L 8 uoµdo 000'8 S 000'80 L $ 000'E6 S 000'0Z S 000'9 L S 000,99 S 31d L '31J L nllaJdJalul L L sII04s 9£ sallw Z LS' L L 0 L8' L L y uol}do SlsoO spo0 SlsoO s4so0 WOO Jelle4s 103 esn seJoy seJOy enuenea ewll-euo IDnuuy IDlo1 Bu4wedo MUIODJ BulwwDJBOJd BuyDJedo )IJDd 6uUlD1S s6u!PIlnB PunOJ6JtDId OluOld BuPIJDd SHOJI Jeylo LLUDJ 10101 u040003 4E)d0Jd punlP3 U0408JOetl PUD S)IJDd to luewlJDdea Seo,AJeS A41unwwoo .'{-;`"fir .: •'v'"1' ` 49,712 r49� v`/\ I Fp• / !�9CF' AREA SEP,/ 'Fi'1 1RFJ ASEP, ��jl 66•g42 .. 8 3 0lee 1 ") � LJ M9 y ,420 AFr! 6 ems' r , 310 8 / 9� AREA � •' `A \� ~' 86•� 6 ,� \ 697p5 J 104,172 rl/ 47.821 52,�3 55,E V-56 AREA AREA 4. 41.227 71.095 AREA 78.070 AREA EA 4�, 91 74M, 97 AREA AREA AREA AREA 69,194 54,211 64,408 76,092 •'> a' •'; ) U � jam'' 75.450 FA II II 522,,7334 EA II II 52,7334 AREA II II AREA 55,294 AREA 73,953 II II 522. EA 3 II II 52,73 II II 5AREA 5, 94 AREA 165.438 AREA 124,173 AR 203,274 �u__1 IL--JI II-11 lUl AREAAREA AREA AREA _ 50,798 47,492 64,042 76,291 BED ❑ �❑ cl AREA I— — �� LIT Ir _ _ _ , O O❑ 5�-1y ❑ 7,08 I AREA AREACIa5.21411 11 75,482 J -- ARC-----i op ❑❑p 157,Md a •"" : I — — —— — — — LJ Lf � 1 Li cb � b `�ED El nF—'-F-- a MR El OCA a Z3 0� 4 and c� o L3 �� as o �\ do [z o ❑ �❑ a o0 oCJ 0=1 oG❑a p . o g ❑ ,.PUP 0, ,�' n �lJ, L�]�� d 8i p g p Imo El�f (�� ALL `� p 4 ❑° ❑ Ir�]�J� I �� (� M 0 / R�o ❑ ❑Ll,?AcoA,K I MAtl JAA loo SCALE M FEET Q. RIr,I-L I rl...,l1+ H E A R T L A N D BOEING RENTON PLANT 14107.00 January 31, 2002 L- oAc W12 I o IV G A AREA 78,070 AREA 63093 AREA 74.697 AREA 165,438 AREA j I �j AREA, 1111 AREA 11 J� AREA 69.194 54.21 64.408 76,092 7,-E,A] MEJA AREA I LLAEA, I LL1114 21 64,042 .2 AREA 1--111- 1 1 F 5A2.734 REA 5 1111, 55.AREA 1111 AEA 2,734 R294 ME ME AREA 55.294 173 -AREA 32,8802 AREA 203,274 0 1100 F� cP 0 C3 0 rr-lc:P - CP r"�__9 C�- CIO ozo\\ coDO L_jc� I q Y 0 CD Zl- M C3 90 Q = El L-F 00 0 �pp r3 C2 Co: E�l R3,9 0 g [�3 100Fl can E4:1 0 M� , El sEf][7 E 1 POO G 02� 0 E30 0 1 7-a 'np ED n cl C3 C, v ". co 00 p / /l\ a L� Cl 0 F9 nn CD ED LJD lAEAKTLAfJD A _&O GAPT 2 00 MCC W FIXT Z/ Street & Block Layout H E A R T L A N D BOEING RENTON PLANT 14107.00 January 31, 2002 55. r i WAS"1%IG1014 EKE WE i B26 g1900 115 AV � 4 �9 9 55�� i6 . '�-x4�.r 41 227 71�,095 78,070 63IA 093 6 91 7A 7 ", AREA _�� m 165,438 AREA AREA AREA AREA 69,194 54,211 64,408 76,092 ±h17 a AREA 43 20AREA 33.2274 III 0 n a C3 I�-�..-•.I AREA 50.798 47M,492 64.042 76,291 O ❑ n CD -, a O AREA 1— 11 I- - 11T p - O ❑ � 5�n-y ❑ I. 7,08 I AREA II I AREA I I AREA I p l I o t 145,21411 1 62,400 1 11 75,482 1jj _ i --- AREA - ----I oil {nQ50 00 r-lc!:] � � � �£ 1 157,70o I LJ Lf �J 0 O Psc---------J b anC2.gz� RM wu 9. CQ 123 CD Dj 11 0 0c:p � ❑ � and o � � ❑ a � a o o ��2pp �o� ❑ o ❑ n a❑ o❑ p a o 0 0 a S0 / � ❑ a cf)OL s C Dom❑ ❑ 0 ,,rr�� go 1p cl D It�oU goo a QQQQ II i4JJ 1 T Y WALK M FEU � Street & Block Layout H E A R T L A N D OEIiI BOEING RENTON PLANT 14107.00 r \ ' S A S A K I January 31, 2002