Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCapitol Improvement Program (1984-1989) / \ 707 - 11( ;) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1984 - 1989 City of Renton CITY OF RENTON Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch City Council Thomas W. Trimm, President John W. Reed Earl H. Clymer Randall Rockhill Robert J. Hughes Richard M. Stredicke Nancy L. Mathews SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM For The CITY OF RENTON 1984 - 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Flag- SECTION I: TAX SUPPORTED FUNDS Funding Sources 2 Mayor's Recommendation 3 Description of the Mayor's Recommendation 5 Departmental Project Analysis 9 SE•TION II: SEWER FUND PROJECTS Mayor's Recommendation 49 Departmental Project Analysis 50 SE s TION III: WATER FUND PROJECTS Mayor's Recommendation 61 Departmental Project Analysis 62 SE ' TION IV: AIRPORT FUND ,PROJECTS Mayor's Recommendation 69 Departmental Project Analysis 70 • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING The eurpose of the Six Year Capital Improvement Program is to develop a long range order y schedule for major public improvements within the City. Capital improvement progr1 mining is a continuing process, with periodic review and revision. The m apital Improvement Program provides the City Council and administration with a long' :nge view of necessary g physical improvements and a means of coordinating capital proje proje jts with the annual operating budget. This allows for optimum use of personnel, equip ent, debt capacity, and revenue. Othe benefits of capital improvement programming include the ability to schedule purch ses of land or equipment so that costs are favorable and opportunities are not lost; • the a1Qility to take better advantage of federal and state grants or matching funds; a mech:nism to avoid hasty decisions that may result in unnecessary public expenditures; and a,stabilized program so that all City departments and other public agencies are well infor ed and may plan accordingly. i The 1, g term scheduling of public improvements is determined 'by establishing priorities based •n the need or importance of such improvements and on the present and anticipated abilit of the City to fund the improvements. The priorities of the Capital Improvement Progr,m should also be consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and should beco - a primary means of implementing the public aspects of the Plan. RECENT HISTORY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City of Renton has been successful in implementing its Six Year Capital Improvement Progr: through the years. Representative high priority projects that have been acco lished in recent years include: ' Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Development Cedar River Trail Acquisition ew Computer System iberty Park Community Building albot Hill Reservoir arlington Park Development ire Station #13 ire Station #11 urnett'Linear Park enior Center edar River Trail Development These L rojects involved over $17,000,000 of federal, state and local funds. The magnitude of the - sums underscores the value of a clear and logical capital improvement program. GUIDE TO 1984-1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Six Year Capital Improvement Program is generally separated into two categories. First, projects from the Tax Supported Funds such as the Current, Park, and Library Funds are separated from the Enterprise Funds which include the Water and Utilities Funds and the Airport Fund. Projects have been separated into these categories due to the distinctions in funding available. The Tax Supported Funds rely heavily upon the property, sales, and utility taxes while the Enterprise Funds rely on user charges for direct services provided, and various user and connection fees. The following four sections contain the Mayor's recommendations and descriptions of each of the projects for the Tax Supported Funds, Airport Fund, Sewer Fund and Water Fund. • • • i 4- I- [ '. �N- r 7 Y' O O V • • � amftwiimmftft '�Nb N �FF ::::nii::::::il 440. ......- ------ ----------- . - 1 i::: ::::::.'% :"""""" ::::::.:.:*.:: :*:.:...ft::::::,.z..... :::ft.:wr.:.x..... .. C . .:e.::::::::: . ..:::.:.:.: :: .:„..:..:.:.:..:.:„.:. : :.:.::.:.::. :::.::::.:::::::::::::::,:..„...••• ::::::::::::0:::::: Amm.. ::::: ..:*:...:aiiiii.e %X.:8....... .......... •••• „.•:.:........:„......:.:•......:.: . ..% .„.....:.....: :•.:.:..:.:.:.::.:.:. ..::.:.:.::.:.:..:.:.:.........• I I 1 I I 1 1 . Tax Supported Funds I pp . . a) . , FUNDING SOURCES Com. ted as of 6/1/83: l Bond g Capacity - Total.City Property Value - $ 2,339,492,464 1. Indebtedness for General Purposes - without a vote of the people: Legal limit: 3/4 of 1% on property value $ 17,546,193 Installment Notes & Contracts $ 735,594 G.O. Bond Liabilities $ 3,075,000 Less Redumption Fund Assets $ 2,408 Excess of Liabilities Over Assets $ 3,808,186 Total Net General Indebtedness $ 3,808,186 Margin of Indebtedness Still Available $ 13,738,007 2. Indebtedness for General Purposes - with 3/5 vote of the people: Legal limit: 2-1/2% on property value S 58,487,312 Indebtedness incurred i -0- Net general indebtedness from Section 1 above $ 3,808,186 Margin of indebtedness still available $ 54,679,126 3. 'Indebtedness for Utility Purposes - with 3/5 vote of the people: Legal limit: 5% on property value $ 116,974,623 Indebtedness incurred -0- Total indebtedness from Sections 1, 2, and 3 $ 3,8081,186 argin of indebtedness still available $ 113,166,437, 4. i debtedness for Open Space and Park Facilities - - th a 3/5 vote of the people: I i egal limit: 7-1/2% on property value $ 175,4611,935 Indebtedness incurred $ 7,530,000 Less redemption fund assets 181,962 Excess of liabilities over assets $ 7,348,038 otal Net Open Space and Park Indebtedness $ 7,348,038 j i otal Indebtedness from Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 $ 11,156,224 argin of Indebtedness Still Available $ 164,305,711 (2) MAYOR'S RBCOMMBNDATION Project Total Cost Potential Description Annual Funding Priority & Location Acquisition Improvements 0 & M Souices * #1 ! Maintenance Shop $ 3,452,000 Unknown Currently (p.14) Facilities Funded (Adjacent to County Shops) #2 I Heather Downs $ 240,000 $ 1,000 Park (p.16) Park Acquisition Acquisition Fund #3 Main Public Library $ 660,270 $ 13,750 (p.37) Addition & Renovation #4 Cedar River Park $ 4,100,000 $ 200,000 (p.17) Community Center #5 N. 3rd Street $ 250,000 $ 825 (p.39) & Sunset Blvd. Intersection Improvements #6 S. 7th Street & $ 100,000 (p.42') Rainier Avenue S. Intersection Improvements #7 Construct $ 180,000 $ 550,000 $ 460,000 (p.33) Fire Station #14 in Kennydale #8� Old Shop Site $ 82,300 • $ 6,000 H/CD (p.18) Redevelopment Bl !ck Grant * 0 y revenue sources other than General Funds, General Obligation Bonds, Co cilmanic B•nds and Revenue Sharing are indicated. . (3) I MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION (Continued) Project Total Cost potential Description Annual Funding Priori y & Location Acquisition Improvements 0 & M S'ources * I - 9 Entry Point Street $ 100,000 $ 5,000 (p.10) Enhancement #10 Street Lighting $ 60,000 $ 10,000 (p.43) i Modification in the CBD #11 Senior Housing $ 230,450 $ 266,000 $ 4,000 H/CD (p.19) ' and Pedestrian Block Grant Corridor #12 Signal Controller $ 200,000 $ 14,025 (p.40) , Modernizations #13 Relocation of $ 700,000 $ 400,000 (p.34) Fire Station #12 in Highlands I i ' #14 Sierra Heights/ $ 240,000 $ 2,000 Park (p.21) I Glencoe Park Acquisition Acquisition Fund * 0 y revenue sources other than General Funds, General Obligation Bonds, Councilmanic Bo lids and Revenue Sharing are indicated. (4) , - liS 1 • , • City of Renton TAX' SUPPORTED FUNDS c Prc jet Location CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 2, PROGRAM f (FOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 4/ O 1 PLEASE REFER TO MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS(pp. 3-8) CORRESPONDING TO NUMBER IN CIRCLE ) - e A O get 71 sN_N___N__________Xj____,rf--•-/ �r © IPP- . --© ¶,ee N NE4th 0 ----hi S S4n•®r inset Z..) o � oM y Way AVs tiw��\�� , '\\_.,j 7-.3\ ,i 0Grady .' 1 co 1 I / 1 dJJlp. � 1 N 3rd I - a �`�, 4151, irr---.--- I � DESCRIPTION OF THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Maintenance Shop Facilities (Relocation) Relocation of City maintenance operations includes the construction of new offices, shops, garage, storage and vehicle parking facilities. These new fa o ilities will be located off Monroe Avenue N.E. next to the King County Sho site. Operation of Maintenance Administration, Street / Storm Sewer / Sanitary Sewer / Water System Maintenance, Central Garage, Equipment Rental, Sign & Paint, Survey, and Signal/Communications crews, and the Carpentry Shop will be 1 cated in the new facilities. The construction of new shop facilities is currently in progress. 2. Heather Downs Neighborhood Park Acquisition • This project involves the acquisition of 7 to 10 acres of ,land for a future eighborhood park in the Heather Downs area. Renton's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan -- adopted in 1978 -- identified this project as the number one cquisition priority for the City. neighborhood park would serve residents within about a one-half mile radius. In 980, over 1,300 people resided in the Heather Downs neighborhood. Since that ime, additional multiple family and single family housing has been completed in the area. More residential growth is planned. Renton's adopted recreation tandard is 10 acres of neighborhood park space per 1,000 inhabitants. Based;upon this standard, the City's Comprehensive Park Plan, the escalating cost of land, and I he diminishing choices for potential sites in the area, timely acquisition of the eather Downs Neighborhood Park is a high priority. otal estimated cost of this project is about $240,000, with minimal maintenance osts prior to development. 3. ain Public Library Addition and Renovation his project will provide a second floor addition to the Main Library, as well as improve building safety, security and energy conservation and institute an ••utomated circulation system. The 3,000 square foot addition will increase' book ihelving capacity for the growing collection. Building renovation will include new arpeting, replacement equipment and furniture, and necessary repairs. Energy onservation measures are intended to reduce future heating and cooling costs. utomated circulation and book security systems will improve service to the .ublic, increase security of materials and reduce additional staff needs. stimated cost of this project is $660,000. Maintenance costs would be about 13,750.per year. � I I , (5) � I 4. C dar River Park Community Center TlI{is multi-purpose center would provide classrooms, craft rooms and equipment, gr up kitchen and recreational facilities for the entire community. Existing c tural and visual arts and crafts facilities%must be expanded to accommodate de and for these activities. A gymnasium for basketball and volleyball and rabcquetball/handball courts would also be included. This project was recommended in the City's adopted Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. T e total estimated cost of the community center is about $4,100,000. Yearly o erations and maintenance would be about $200,000, partly self-generated. 5. North 3rd Street & Sunset Blvd. Intersection Improvements The intersection of N. 3rd Street and Sunset Blvd. is one of the principal vehicular t affic junctions in the City of Renton. Much traffic in and out of Boeing, dhwntown Renton, I-405 and the N.E. 4th corridor passes through this intersection. C ngestion is a major problem. During the afternoon peak period, the intersection is operating at full capacity. This project involves improved signalization, r surfacing, channelization, as well as curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street li hting. These improvements will increase the efficiency and safety of this terse ction. E timated cost of this project is $250,000. I 6. S uth 7th Street and Rainier Avenue S. Intersection Improvements • T e intersection at S. 7th and Rainier Avenue S. is one of the busiest in the City a d, with anticipated industrial and commercial growth in the area and the c mpletion of SR 515, more congestion is probable. This project would channelize a d widen approaches to the intersection and modify signalization. Enhanced capacity and safety will result from these improvements. he project is estimated to cost $100,000. 7. onstruction of Fire Station #14 in Kennydale Site aquisition and construction of a new fire station in Kennydale is necessary to i prove emergency response time and to serve new development in the area. iurrent response time to much of Kennydale is in the range of six to eight utes. A new station in the vicintiy of N.E. 30th and I-405 would lower this time to three to four minutes. A new fire station would provide primary response to more than 1,300 households and up to 3,500 people. In conjunction with the relocation of Station #12 to the Bast and with new development proposed for .the area (specifically the Port Quendall project), the new station would serve upwards of 5,000 residents. Early 4tages of the Port Quendall Project will result in about 250 new housing units and 500 people. High value commercial and office space -- some located in buildings up to 20 stories high -- is also a major part of this development. Both the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Fire Station Location Study support construction of a new fire station. (6) Proposed fire apparatus for Station #14 includes a pumper, ladder truck and aid car. Total estimated cost of this project is $730,000 with annual operations and maintenance of about $460,000. 8. Old Shop Site Redevelopment 1 City maintenance shop facilities, currently located adjacent to the Senior Center at the Cedar River, will be moved to the Renton Highlands. Relocation will allow re-use of the Cedar River property for other purposes. This project involves j redevelopment of the site for additional Senior Center parking and a community pea-patch. Existing parking at the Senior Center is inadequate, especially at midday. The remainder of the property will be converted to a pea-patch, until such time as a long term use is determined for the property. Demolition of the existing sheds and gravel bin will improve the appearance of the site, as well as providing badly needed parking and a unique recreational experience. Costs of this project are estimated at $82,300, with $6,000 per year maintenance. Some funds are available through the Block Grant program. 9. Entry Point Street Enhancement This project would provide signs and landscaping at six points along major streets entering the City of Renton. The signs would welcome travelers and commuters to the City and thank them for their visit. Purposes of the project are to enhance the City's image, give definition to the City's boundaries, and improve unsightly ' ' roadsides. This project would hopefully be accomplished in conjunction with other street improvements. i if six entry points are enhanced at a cost of $10,000 - $20,000 each, total costs of his project would be about $100,000. j I i- 10. •treet Lighting Modification in the CBD his project involves the elimination of 54 unnecessary street lights in the Central ':usiness District, and installing smaller lamps and painting the remaining street ghts. Existing lighting is far in excess of minimum lighting standards and is -xpensive to operate. Replacing and upgrading street lights in the CBD will Provide more uniform lighting at a substantial reduction in maintenance and — peration costs. I otal costs of this project are estimated at $60,000. I 11. •enior Housing and Pedestrian Corridor 1 his project is designed to provide additional senior housing near downtown and to nk the Cedar River Trail and Senior Center with the Central Business District. iThe site is the abandoned Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way between !B urnett and Logan Avenues. ' The project involves acquisition of the I site, evelopment of the pedestrian corridor to downtown and site preparation for the ousing structure. Housing construction would be separately financed. The City of enton, King County and the Renton Housing Authority would participate in the roject. otal cost of the project is about $500,000. Block Grant funds ($230,450) to urchase the land have already been secured. - i (7) 1 12. Signal Controller Modernizations Because of age and the difficulty of obtaining replacement parts, a number of tr ffic signal controllers are obsolete and need replacing. This project would up rade signal controls at seven intersections along N.E. Sunset Blvd., four intersections on N. 4th Street, three on N. 3rd Street, and at three other locations. Estimated cost is $200,000 with about $14,000 yearly maintenance. 13. Relocation of Fire Station #12 This project involves the relocation of existing Fire Station #12 (Highlands) ealstward to the vicinity of Sunset Blvd. N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. When Fire St tion #14 is constructed in Kennydale, Station #12 should be moved to provide i proved fire protection and emergency response time to the developing area! of t e East Renton Plateau. The existing station is in need of major repairs and, b cause it was constructed in 1943, is located to serve the central Highlands,area. N w residential and commercial development on the north and east fringes of the C ty necessitate relocation to balance response times. This project is consis ent th the Northeast Renton Comprehensive Plan and the Fire Station Location S udy. • T a tal estimated cost is $1,100,000 with minimal increases in annual operations c8sts. 14. Sierra Heights/Glencoe Neighborhood Park Acquisition T e Sierra Heights/Glencoe area of Renton is not currently served by neighborhood r creational facilities. Only a small tot lot exists in this heavily developed area. T s project would acquire 8 to 10 acres for future development of a neighborhood pIrk. TLis neighborhood supports about 1,800 City residents and a total of 3,300 people in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Renton park standards suggest 10 a res of neighborhood recreation per 1,000 inhabitants. By this standard, r creation needs are not being met. Further, acquisition of a park in this area is r commended as the second highest priority in the Comprehensive 'Park and ecreation Plan. ecause a major portion of the neighborhood lies outside City jurisdiction, acquisition and development could be shared with King County and/or the school 4strict. King County owns a small undeveloped site in the area. Estimated cost of park acquisition is $240,000. (8) 1 1 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARIES OF ALL PROJECTS ! i I JOINT PROJECTS . Page 1. Entry Point Street Enhancement 10 i 2. Lake Washington Boulevard Bike Lanes 11 3. 1 aple Valley Railroad Tracks Trail 12 4. etlands Acquisition 13 5. Maintenance Sho p Facilities Relocation 14 1 i (9) FINAL PRIORITY.# JOINT MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # 9 DEPARTnlFNT: POLICY DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 1 PROJECT TITLE: Entry Point Street Enhancement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide for architecturally enhanced entry points including landscaping and signs at six (6) key corridors. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ minimal IMPROVEMENTS$ 10-20,000 per entry TOTAL $ 100,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 5,000 FINANCING 1) 1/2 cent gas tax OPTIONS: 2) General Revenues 3) Developer Improvement 4) L.I.D. BACKGROUND: The City has a number of entry points/corridors with minimal, if any, identification and beautification. This proposal will provide for installation of landscaping and signing of key locations to enhance the City's image with the travelling public. Enhancement would be constructed with concurrent street improvements. POTENTIAL SITE: 1) Rainier Avenue North at airport entry 2) Sunset Boulevard North at FAI-405 3) Maple Valley Highway at Maplewood Roadside Park 4) Rainier Avenue South at FAI-405 5) Grady Way S.W. at Valley Parkway 6). Sunset Boulevard S.W. at Powell S.W. FACTORS 1) Each site serves in excess of 20,000 vehicle trips per day. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Enhances the community's "image" at minimal cost. or what programs are served? Why 3) If combined with development, improvements will further enhance the this project?) esthetic value. 4) Supports 6-year T.I.P. project: #1, #6, #10, #18. 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action - none $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) Less locations - items 2, 3 $ 20-80,000 $ 0-4,000 supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $� 5) $ $� (10) FINAL PRIORITY# JOINT MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION# DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 2 PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Boulevard Bike Lanes I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Bike lanes on road shoulder for 3.9 miles from FAI-405 to Park Avenue. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 100.000 TOTAL$ 100,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 5,000 FINANCING • 1) 1/2 Cent Gas Tax OPTIONS: ' 2) H/CD Block Grant 3) L.I.D. • I , 4) ACKGROUND: 1 The Lake Washington Boulevard Bikeway is one of five regional links that joins a total bicycle network in South King County. It is the major link between bicycle facilities in Bellevue and those in Renton and South King County. The route is a part of Renton's , bicycle plan and has been identified in the King County General Bicycle Plan: Focus 1990, and the King County Urban Trails Plan. ! 1 The Lake Washington Boulevard Bikeway is located on the eastern shore of Lake OTENTIAL SITE: Washington between the central business district and the Kennydale neighbor- hood to the north. It is approximately 3.9 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Riverside Drive and Bronson Way to the May Creek Interchange of FAI-405 at N.E. 44th Street. ,The route will follow Park Avenue North to 5th Street and then will turn east to Garden Ave- nue. It will then head in a northerly direction until linking with Lake Washington Boulevard. 'The route will then follow this course until reaching its terminus at N.E. 44th Street. ACTORS 1) Alternative locations will require land acquisition in fee or by ease- SUPPORTING ment with the potential cost exceeding $8 per foot. The only alterna- �ROJECT:(Who 2) tive routes parallel to Lake Washington Boulevard are the Burlington •r what programs Northern railroad tracks (possible easement) and FAI-405. •re served? Why 3) Is project?) — 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M' LTERNATIVES 1) No project - possible hazard on the current $ 0 $ 0 THIS PROJECT: underdevel oped street. dlcate which 2) BN railroad - possible railroad opposition. $125,000 $ 5,000 I-pporting factors n be met.) 3) Freeway I-405 - safety related considerations. $100,000 $ 0 4) $ $ 5) $ $ • (ll) - FINAL PRIORITY# JOINT MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION#----- DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 3 PROJECT TITLE: Maple Valley Rail road Tracks Trail PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of the soon to be abandoned Maple Valley railroad tracks to a multipurpose pedestrian and bicycle trail. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ 100,000 IMPROVEMENTS$ 200,000 TOTAL $ 300,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 5,000 FINANCING 1) 1/2 Cent Gas Tax OPTIONS: 2) H/CD Block Grant 3) IAC Grant 4) Joint King County/WSDOT Project BACKGROUND: The existing tracks are being considered for abandoment by the Burlington Railroad. These will be available from Renton to Lake Wilderness. City of Renton portion to S.E. 140th Street would'make an unique Burke-Gilman type multipurpose trail along the Cedar River. POTENTIAL SITE: Burlington Northern Railroad tracks along Cedar River FACTORS 1) Critical bicycle/pedestrian link to County park. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Access improved to City greenbelts. or what programs are served? Why 3) Major public recreational project. this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No project - continued use of Maple $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: Valley Highway. (Indicate which 2) Alternate off-tracks right-of-way more $ • 0 $ 0 supporting factors expensive. can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (2) FINAL PRIORITY a JOINT MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a — DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION/POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a a PROJECT TITLE: WETLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of 40-80 acres of Wetlands in the Renton area. L:iTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ 800,000 , IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - TOTAL $ 800,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 10,000 undeveloped IIINANCING 1) City - no funds currently budgeted. TrPTIONS: I2) Proposed County-wide Bond Issue (opportunity fund) I 3) Local Bond Issue 4) IAC - Potential for 50-75% funding (current chance of submitting g successful grant very bleak) ACKGROUND: The need to acquire Wetlands as an integral part of the Park system is supported by the City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Renton Wetlands Study. 1 Fa) TENTIAL SITE: East and West of Valley Freeway. 1 i I I F CTORS 1)Acquisition at this time would preserve rapidly vanishing Wetland areas as S PP ORTING well as negate inflationary trends in land values. POJECT: (Who 2/Wetlands support a number of wildlife species as well as unique plant life. ollwhatprograms Dwindling numbers of natural areas in the urban environment mandate acquisi- 1- ai- served? Why tion now or loss of these species in this area. th• project?) ' • 3)Acquisition could aid efforts in controlling drainage problems associated with this area. I COST: CAPITAL O&M Ai ERNATIVES 1) Acquire only the most valuable sites at $ - 0 - $ - 0 - Tc�i THIS PROJECT: this time. 1 (Ir icate which 2) Work with King County and the State to $ - O. -, $ -e - sL.Iporting (actors acquire identified areas. ca I be met.) 3) Work with developers to preserve areas $ - 0 - $ - 0 - under development pressure. 4) Continue to work with King County, the Soil $ ._ 0 - $ - 0 - Conservation Service, and neighboring suburban ,cities on the P-1 channel project or the various alternatives being suggested. , FINAL PRIORITY # JOINT MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # 1 DEPARTMENT: Public Works - Street/Water/Sewer DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # — PROJECT TITLE: Maintenance Shop Facilities PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of new maintenance shop facilities on recently purchased site south of N.E. 4th Street adjacent to King County shops. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ -0- • IMPROVEMENTS $3,452,000 TOTAL $3,452,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Unknown FINANCING 1) "316 Fund" - $ .632,000 OPTIONS: 2) Utility Bond Funds - $ 320,000 3) Interest Income, etc. - $ 200,000 • 4) Councilmanic Bonds - $2,300,000 $3,452,000 Total BACKGROUND: New offices, shops, garage, storage and vehicle parking facilities to be built on site purchased from King County - south of NE 4th Street and east of Monroe Ave. 'NE, adjacent to the new County Shops. Will house Maintenance Administration; Street/Storm Sewer/Sanitary Sewer/Water System Maintenance crews plus Central Garage/Equipment Rental, Sign and Paint crew, Carpentry Shop, Survey Crew and Signal/Communications crew. Document storage will be included together with space for Police Department evidence storage and vehicle searches. POTENTIAL SITE: Adjacent to County Shops south of N.E. 4th Street. Land already purchased. FACTORS 1) Current shop facilities are outdated and undersized. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) New and expanded offices, garages, shops, storage and parking or what programs facilities will improve all maintenance operations in the City. are served? Why 3) All maintenance operations can be placed together in a central this project?) location. 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Continue to use existing shops with Water $ $ TO THIS PROJECT: Maintenance in "temporary" leased property. (Indicate which 2) Continue to use existing shops but purchase $ • $ supporting factors or construct building for Water Maintenance. can be met.) 3) Downgrade the proposed New Facilities in size $ 5 and features. 4) $ $ 5) 5 $ (114) I1 1 I i PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS (In Department Priority) P,_ge 1. Heather Downs Neighborhood Park Acquisition 16 2. Cedar River Park Community Center 17 3. Old Shop Site Redevelopment 18 1 4. Senior Housing and Pedestrian Corridor 19 5. Highlands Administration Building Renovation 20 6. Sierra Heights/Glencoe Neighborhood Park Acquisition - 21 7. Cedar River Trail Development 22 8. olf Course Acquisition 23 9. sports Park Acquisition 24 10. 1 eather Downs Neighborhood Park Development 2 1 11. I albot Hill/Springbrook Neighborhood Park Acquisition 26, 12. East Kennydale Neighborhood Park Acquisition 27 13. Mothers Park Recreation Center Renovation 28 14. iffany Park/Benson Hill Neighborhood Park Acquisition 291 15. ..ushion Turf Field 30 , I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 (15) 1 - II FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION z 2 ' DEPARTMENT: pARxS_k-11PLAFATIQN - DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # :1 s pis d mark AconisitionJ-10 Acres PROJECT TITLE: Hpather ik�wn �1 Ihoo PROJECT DESCRIPTION: i Acquisition of a neighborhood park in the Heather Downs area of Renton. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $24R,non IMPROVEMENTS$ - 0 - TOTALS 240.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 1.000 undeveloped 35,000 developed FINANCING 1) park Acquisition Fund #1689 1 OPTIONS: 2) Use agreement with City Water Utility for use of existing utility land on Union Avenue. 3) 1 4) BACKGROUND: The acquisition of this neighborhood park site was identified in the City of Renton's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan adopted by the City Council in March, 1978. Development of the park site would be mandated in the not to distant future as development of the area is rapidly occurring. I POTENTIAL SITE: Heather Downs area of Renton (Neighborhood #8 - City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan). FACTORS 1)Renton citizens in the Heather Downs area would directly benefit from SUPPORTING this park. PROJECT:(Who 2)This Park is designated as the number one acquisition priority in the or what programs City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. are served? Why 3)Cost of land in this area is escalating rapidly while the number of viable this project?) potential sites is rapidly vanishing. Acquisition at this time would be fiscally prudent and would insure the City's ability to provide future park services. 4)Development of this area has proceeded rapidly in recent years,mandating provision of local park services at a neighborhood level. COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1)No action (service area with existing $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities at Kiwanis Park)i - (Indicate which ' 2)Purchase smaller site (5 acres) $125,000 acq $1,000 undev.supporting factors I50000 acq $1,000 undev. can be met.) . 3) Initiate trade/purchase agreement with $ , 20,000 dev. City Utility. 4) Initiate joint use agreement with City $ - 0 - acq $1,000 undev. Utility. 20,000 dev. 5)Utilize existing City owned site (2.2 acres) $ - 0 - acq. $ 500 undev. 10,000 dev. 1 (16) • FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 4 D PARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY u 2 PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR RIVER PARK COMMUNITY CENTER P OJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a Community Recreation Center in Cedar River Park. • E (MATED COSTS: LAND $ - 0 - IMPROVEMENTS $4,100,000 • TOTAL $4,100,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 200,000 (up to 40% could be financed by revenue collected at the Center) Fl ANCING 1) OF, IONS: • 2) City Funding - G.O. Bonds. 3) 4) B• ' KGROUND: N-ed for this facility is established in the City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Existing facilities are outdated and need major renovation. P ENTIAL SITE: C dar River Park FAmTORS 1) All facets of the Renton Community should benefit from this project as. SUgP ORTING •facilities included have community-wide scope and interest. PRsJECT: (Who 2) This project has been identified as a high priority in the City's or hat programs Comprehensive Park Plan and the Six Year C.I.P.. arelerved? Why 3) Current facilities are outdated and in need of major renovation. thi project?) 4) Population growth and increased interest in activities requiring indoor facilities of this nature are creating pressures for development. 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ' AL fRNATIVES 1) No Action. $ 0 $ TO HIS PROJECT: (Indi� ate which 2) Renovate existing Mothers Park Center $ 1,500,000 $200,000 sup orting factors adding more facilities (short term benefit) cane.a met.) 3) Develop facility in two (2) Phases. $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (v) FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 8 DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 3 PROJECT TITLE: OLD SHOP SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project involves redevelopment. of the present City Shop Site into an improved park setting which will include additional parking for the Senior Center and a pea-patch fdr use by the general community. The project is intended to meet an identified need for additional parking at the Senior Center, improve an unsightly part of.the central Cit , and provide a new recreation experience for the entire community. ESTIMATED COSTS: . LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS $ 82,300 TOTAL $_82.300 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 6.000 FINANCING 1) Housing & Community Development Program ($10,677 secured, additional OPTIONS: funds anticipated in 1983 & 1984). 2) City - No. funds currently budgeted. -- I 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The City will be moving its present shop site to the Renton Highlands in the Fall of 1983. At its meeting of February 22, 1982, the City Council officially accepted this plan for use of the site '(pea-patch portion meant to be interim use). The preliminary estimate for the complete project is $82,300, $10,677 was secured through the 1982 Block Grant Program. These funds are programed for demolition of sheds which run the length of the south roperty line and the gravel bin located on the northwest corner. POTENTIAL SITE: City of Renton Public Works Shop Site, 105 Williams Avenue North. • FACTORS 1) The Senior Center presently has only 72 parking stalls, with approximately SUPPORTING 100- 25 vehicles using the facility at the noon hour, parking is a major PROJECT: (Who 2) prob�em. or what programs When the Senior Center site was designed it was anticipated that additional are served? Why 3) parking would be added at some later date. this project?) The present shop site is unattractive and is in direct contrast to the re- 4) vitalization efforts that have occurred in the immediate area. The pea-patch will provide a new and unique recreation experienc for the 5) entire community, and will not be a high maintenance item. Because of its location within the NSA, Block Grant funds are av ilable. COST: CAPITAL . O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Minimal action (health & safety). $ 5,750 $ 500 • TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) Purchase additional property for parking. $ 46,800 land$1,000 supporting factors 10,000 dev. can be met.) 3) Work within existing parking constraints and $ encourage car poo ing, mini-buses, and im- provement ot public transportation. 4) Various seduction of scope including: - demplition of structures, sheds and in- $ 25,800 $ 500, stallation of tencing. - Above items plus installation of parking lot. $ 35,300 ,$ 600 - Above items plus installation of landscaping $ 54,350 $1,000 sidewalks and walkways. I • (18) i FINAL PRIORITY z MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # 11 EPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 4 PROJECT TITLE:. SENIOR HOUSING & PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT 1NROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project involves the acquisition and development of a senior housing complex and pedestrian corridor along the abandoned Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way be- tween the City, the Renton Housing Authority, and Ring County with the City acting as coordinator for the project. 1 TIMATED COSTS: LAND $ 230,450 (funds secured) IMPROVEMENTS $266,000 * * Senior Housing site ($116,000) Pedestrian Corridor/Linear Park TOTAL $ 496,450 ($150,000) ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 4,000 F NANCING 1) Housing & Community Development Program ($247,832 securred, additional •-TIONS: funds anticipated in 1983 & 1984). 2) City (if additional property is needed or desired). 3) Street fund (street improvements portion of project). 4) L.I.D. B•CKGROUND: The project will link the downtown business district with the Cedar River Trail encouraging pedestrian movement and at the same time improving the aesthetics of the area. It will also complete the linear link-up along Burnett tying together Burnett Linear Park on the south, the Burnett Parking Lot system and the Cedar River Corridor. The project has received Block Grant funds ($249,332) over the past two years. Utilizing these funds, the City is proceed- ling with acquisition of Burlington Northern property and parcel along Logan Avenue South, relocation responsibilities, and preliminary design of the corridor. An additional $116,000 111 be available for development of the housing site once financing is securred for the, P ?Eh1ffL rSPf1'E: That portion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way between Logan Avenue South and Burnett 'Avenue South extending northerly from the Metro-Park'n' Ride lot to the river. A small i parcel located between the right-of-way and Logan Avenue is also included to accomodate parking and access. The parkin' ride lot will be incorporated into the project in some ' manner. 1 F TORS 1) Lack of senior housing units in downtown area, close to services. 5 PORTING P'DJECT• (Who 2) Residents of Cedar River Terrace have difficulty traveling to downtown. or hat programs ar-served? Why 3) Site is presently over grown with weeds and blackberry bushes, area is thi project?) blighted and need of revitalization. 4) Project may stimulate Metro into maintaining present Park'n' Ride Lot: 1 5) No park land exists for downtown workers, shoppers and residents. 6) Because of its location within the NSA, Block Giant funds are available. COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action (abandoned plans to purchase property,$ 1,000 $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: return Block Grant funds). Attorney's fees (incate which 2) Acquire property, delay development. $230,450 $ 500 su9u•orting factors ca 'be met.) 3) Acquire other site for senior housing. $270,000 $ 500 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (19) i • FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # — DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY u 5 PROJECT TITLE: HIGHLANDS ADMISTRATION BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovation of an existing building in the Renton Highlands for Community use. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ - 0 - IMPROVEMENTS $250,000 • TOTAL $250,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $No Increase FINANCING 1) City Funds (property taxes). OPTIONS: 2) Federal Revenue Sharing 3) Housing & Community Development Funds. 4) BACKGROUND: This building has housed a variety of governmental and community functions over the past 42 years and has deteriorated badly in the past decade. The buildings mechanical systems are hopelessly outdated. The building is currently being studied under an energy grant. It is highly likely that a major portion of the building will be recommended for demolition as a result of the energy audit. POTENTIAL SITE: Highlands Administration Building, 800 Edmonds Avenue N.E.. FACTORS 1) The residents of the Highlands area rely on this facility for SUPPORTING community recreation and meeting space. PROJECT: (Who 2) A small maintenance area is currently being utilized by the Water or what programs Division and could have future value for similar functions. are served? Why 3) Rapidly increasing utility rates and construction costs mandate this project?) immediate attention and a decision on the feasibility of renovating all or part of this building. COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action. $ - 0 - $ 1) TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) Renovate only a portion of the building $ 100,000 $50,000 supporting factors demolishing the rest. •(support factors 01 & 03). can be met.) 3) Demolish the entire structure and rely on the $ 20,000 $ -10 - Highlands Elementary School for recreation and meeting space. • • (20) i FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 14 . EPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 6 ^I OJECT TITLE: SIERRA HEIGHTS/GLENCOE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ACQUISITION (8-10 Acres) OJECT DESCRIPTION: , Acquisition of an 8-10 acre neighborhood park site in the Sierra Heights/Glencoe area of Renton. TIMATED COSTS: • LAND$ 240,000 ' • IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - • TOTALS 240,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 2,000 undeveloped • • F ANCING 1) IAC Funding (60-75% - unlikely at this time). e-TIONS: 2)Federal Revenue Sharing. 3) G.O. Bonds. . 4) . •CKGROUND: Sierra Heights/Glencoe Neighborhood Park acquisition is identified in the City's Comprehensive P=rk and Recreation Plan as a high priority. The City constructed Glencoe Tot Lot as an il•terim measure but it is wholly inadequate to meet current demand. King County owns a 4.7 a•re undeveloped park in the western portion of this neighborhood outside the City limits. C1ia•perative or joint development with King County or the $chool District could reduce local casts. • PIo TENTIAL SITE: ' Serra Heights/Glencoe area of Renton (Neighborhood #11 - City of Renton Comprehensive Park ad. Recreation Plan). • • F•CTORS . 1) Need for acquisition is established in the Comprehensive Plan adopted S aPPORTING by the Rentot City Council in March, 1978. P-OJECT:(Who 2) Escalating land costs and diminishing availability of suitable sites o what programs mandates action as soon as possible. a - served? Why 3) Residential growth in this area has created a need for recreation th project?) facilities for all members of the family. 4) This project has been recognized by the City Council in the 1981 Six 1 Year C.I.P.. 5) COST: CAPITAL O&MA ERNATIVES 1) No Action. $ - 0 - $ - 0 -I T4 THIS PROJECT: j (I '•icale which 2) Purchase additional property (3-4 acres) $ 110,000 $ - 0 -I porting factors adjacent to County park property (factors #1-4) 1 .1' be met.) 3) Work with Renton School District and Ring County$ 300,000 $ 20,000 to co-develop Sierra Heights Elementary School property & King County Park property (factors #1-4). 1 , 4) Purchase smaller site in eastern portion of $ 120,000 $ Loop under area (5 acres). 20,000 dev. I i I I I i, FINAL PRIORITY # MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # EPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION • DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 7 -ROJECT TITLE: DID;t ;I' R TRAIL DEVELOPMENT NATURAL ZONE , ' -ROJECT DESCRIPTION: his project involves development of the Natural Zone of the Cedar River Trail System. chematic plans includes construction of trails linking the eastern terminus of the press t rail (City Hall) to the King County Cedar River Regional Park, and other desirable ameni ies restroom structure, footbridge, picnic shelter and interpretive center). I STIMATED COSTS: LAND $ - 0 - 1 IMPROVEMENTS$ 630,000 - • TOTAL$ 630.000 - ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 40.000 I INANCING 1) , I OPTIONS: 2) City - No funds currently budgeted. 3) Housing & Community Development Program (Matching funds). I 4) IAC - Potential for 60-75% funding (unlikely at this time). BACKGROUND: I On June 14, 1976, the City Council through the adoption of the Cedar River Master Plan r-- assured a previous commitment to incorporate a recreational system along the Cedar River from Lake Washington to the King County Regional Park. Since completion of the Industri=l Park and Urban Zones, attention has been turned toward the Natural Zone. With acquisition of the Thomas Property the acquisition phase is now complete. The construction estimate is based upon a system of trails and recreation nodes. A majority of the property will be •re- served in its natural state. • POTENTIAL SITE: I The proposed trail extension will run adjacent to the southern edge of the Cedar River b=tween FAI 405 and the King County Regional Park (east of Maplewood Golf Course). This recreation belt contains 151 acres of City owned property, and 13,375 of water front. i FACTORS 1) Acquisition phase is complete. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Maintenance/operation costs are minimal due to nature of project. or what programs are served? Why 3) Large population served (estimated at over 100,000). this project?) 4) I 5) COST: CAPITAL 0- M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action (serve trail users with existing $ - 0 - $ ' 1 000 • • TO THIS PROJECT: facilities). 2 000 1 (indicate which 2) Maintain area in natural state as a conservancy $ - 0 - $ supporting factors with the City's role being that of stewardship. 1 can be met.) 3) $ Si 4) $ SI 5) $ SI () FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION rr DEPARTMENT: PARRS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 8 PROJECT TITLE: GOLF COURSE ACQUISITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of the Maplewood or other golf course facility to preserve both the 1 recreational and esthetic value of such a large scale open space. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ 3,275,000 IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - , TOTAL$ 3,275,000 11 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 11 FINANCING 1) OPTIONS: II 2) G.O. Bonds - City. 3) II 4) B IA CKGROUND: . The City is interested in preserving or providing a golf course in the Renton area. The redevelopment of Earlington Golf Course into an industrial park has severely limited the Opportunities in this area. The Sherman Report recently completed for King County indicates that this area has approximately 50% fewer courses on a population basis then the rest of the country. Development pressure on Maplewood Golf Course merits an investigation into its potential acquisition by the City. POTENTIAL SITE: - I. Maplewood Golf Course. 2. General Renton area (new course). . FACTORS 1) Recreation potential for golf. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Potential for other recreational activities on-site. or,what programs are served? Why 3) Open space/green belt/urban buffer for Maple Valley Highway. this project?) °l 4) , 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No Action. S - 0 - S - 0 - TO)THIS PROJECT: ' (Indicate which 2) Work with potential developers to preserve $ - 0 - $ - 0 - supporting factors nine (9) boles can be met.) 3) Work with Ting County to acquire/develop $ ? $ ? a course. 4) $ $ i 5) $ $ I (23) I FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a • ; ' PROJECT TITLE: ••: S PARK C,UISITION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of 20-30 acres in the Renton area for future development as an Athletic Complex for soccer, softball, baseball, and football. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$450.000 IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - TOTAL $450.000 . ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 1.500 undeveloped 1 - FINANCING 1) City - No funds currently budgeted. i OPTIONS: 2) IAC - 60-75% potential (unlikely at this•time). i 3) 4) 1 BACKGROUND: ! The City has been impacted by tremendous growth in the demand for recreational site- and facilities that support various team sports. Multiple use of existing faciliti-s • has created a major M&0 problem which will result in major renovation costs. - I POTENTIAL SITE: • General Renton area as long as proper site selection criteria are followed with an emphasis on accessibility to the entire community. Due to the acreage necessary, a northeast location is probable. FACTORS 1) Sports programs for all age groups; especially soccer. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Land availability and rising costs make acquisition now a costlef ective or what programs and necessary action. are served? Why 3) Open space/green belt use. this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL ■8M ALTERNATIVES 1) No Action (service area with existing parks) $• - 0 - $ 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) Work with King County and/or Renton School $ ? $ supporting factors District to acquire property or develop can be met.) existing publicly owned property. $ $ 3) Acquire and develop numerous small sites. $ • (24) !I FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY r 10 I PROJECT TITLE: HEATHER DOWNS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop a 7 to 10 acre site for active recreation fields, play equipment, hard surface courts and picnic facilities. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ - 0 • - IHPROVE11ENTS$ 300.000 TOTAL$ 300.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 35.000 (FINANCING 1) City - No funds currently budgeted. • OPTIONS: 2) IAC - Potential for 60-75% funding (unlikely at this time). 3) 4) • • (BACKGROUND: The need for development of this park is established in the City of Renton's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Recent development of multi-family units in the area has further impacted the area's immediate park needs. Ali POTENTIAL SITE: Heather Downs area of Renton (Neighborhood #8 - City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan). FACTORS 1) Neighborhood recreational needs of Heather Downs area residents. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Nearest park land is Kiwanis Park which is not within easy walking or what programs distance of this area and separated by major automobile traffic corridor. are served? Why 3) Need for this development established in City's Comprehensive Park and this project?) Recreation Plan. 4) Development costs are high but the present bid climate is favorable. Future costs will no doubt escalate rapidly. 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action - serve area with present $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities. (Indicate which 2) Do development in phases - Phase I $ 150,000 $ 15,000 skpporting factors Phase II 150,000 20,000 can be met.) 3) Continue to work with developers to $ - 0 - $ - 0 - include recreational amenities on-site. 4) S S 5) S S • • (25) FINAL PRIORITY # MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION x - DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY is 11 PROJECT TITLE: TALBOT HILI,LSPRING BROOK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ACQUISITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of a ten (10) acre park in the Talbot Hill/Springbrook Neighborhood of Renton to serve active recreation needs. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $240.000 IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - TOTAL $240.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ l.000 FINANCING 1) City - No current funds budgeted. OPTIONS: 2) IAC - Potential for 60-75% funding (unlikely at this time). 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The need for acquiring this park was established in the City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan adopted in 1978. POTENTIAL SITE: Talbot Hill/Springbrook area of Renton (Neighborhood #4 in the City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan). FACTORS 1) Renton citizens in the Talbot/Springbrook would directly benefit by SUPPORTING the potential addition of neighborhood recreation facilities. PROJECT: (Who 2) Land availability and rising costs make acquisition now a cost-effective or what programs and necessary action. are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) • COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No Action - (service area with existing $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities at Talbot Hill Park). (indicate which 2) Purchase 4-6 acre site. $125,000 $ 1,000 unde supporting factors 20,000 dev. can be met.) 3) Work with City Utility at Springbrook Water $ ? $ Shed in additional purchase and joint use. 4) Continue to work with developers for set $ - 0 - $ - 0 - aside of recreational land and development of on-site recreational facilities. (26) • FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 12 PROJECT TITLE: NORTHEAST KENNYDALE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ACQUISITION (7-10 acres) li PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire 7 to 10 acres for future development of an active recreation site. • ESTIMATED COSTS: • LAND$ 250.000 ' I IMPROVEMENTS $ - 0 - TOTAL$ 250.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 1.000 undeveloped 40,000 developed FINANCING 1)City - No funds currently budgeted. OPTIONS: • 2)IAC - Potential for 60-75% funding (unlikely at this time). 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The need for acquiring an East Kennydale Neighborhood Park is established in the City's Comprehensive Park & Recreation Plan adopted by the City Council in 1978. • III POTENTIAL SITE: East Kennydale area of Renton (Neighborhood i313 - City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan). • FACTORS 1)Renton Citizens residing in the affected area would have land for SUPPORTING future neighborhood recreation services. PROJECT:(Who 2)Land availability and rising costs make acquisition now a necessary and or what programs cost effective action. 1___ are'lserved? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) • COST: CAPITAL O&M • ALTERNATIVES 1)No action (service area with existing $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities at Rennydale Lions Park). undev. (Indicate which 2) Purchase 4-6 acre park site. $ 125,000 $ 1,000 20,000 and supporting factors - 0 - dev. canlbe met.) 3),Continue to work with developers to set $ - 0 - $ aside recreational land and on-site development of recreational facilities. 4 (27) FINAL PRIORITY u MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # — DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY tt13 PROJECT TITLE: MOTHERS PARK RECREATION CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ - 0 - DEVELOPMENT$ 750,000 TOTAL $ 750.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 16.000 additional FINANCING 1) Federal Revenue Sharing OPTIONS: • 2) H&CD 3) Bond Issue 4) • BACKGROUND: Mothers Park Recreatoin Center was constructed in 1939 and has served the City well for over forty years. It is still heavily used and is the City's only major Community Center. The Center is very limited in it's ability to serve our residents due to its small size and lack of facilities to meet current needs. Renovation of the existing building and construction of additional facilities is planned. POTENTIAL SITE: 635 Park Avenue North FACTORS 1) This site was donated to the City for recreational use only. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) There is an identified need and demand for additional facilities of or what programs this kind. are served? Why 3) If renovation does not occur soon, this facility will continue to this project?) deteriorate in its ability to serve its purpose as a community recreational facility. • COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No action (provide existing level of services $ - 0 - $ TO THIS PROJECT: until the building is no longer usable). (Indicate which 2) Phase renovation. $ •? $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) Complete a feasibility study and if feasible, $ 10,000 $ a Master Plan leading to renovation and enlargement. 4) Construct a new facility. $4,000,000 $ (28) ' . FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a — DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 14 PROJECT TITLE: TIFFANY PARK/BENSON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ACQUISITION (7-10 Acres) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of a 7 to 10 acre site suitable for active recreation to serve the southern portion of this neighborhood area. ESTI ATED COSTS: LAND$ 240,000 IMPROVEMENTS $ TOTALS 240,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 1,000 undeveloped 40,000 developed • FINANCING 1)City - no funds currently budgeted. OPTIONS: • 2)IAC - potential for 60-75% funding (unlikely at this time) 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The need for acquiring a Tiffany Park/Benson Hill Neighborhood Park is established in the City's Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan adopted by the City Council in 1978. 61 POTENTIAL SITE: Benson Hill area of Renton (Neighborhood #5 - City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan). it FACTORS ”Renton citizens residing in the affected area would have land for SUPPORTING future neighborhood recreation services. PROJECT:(Who 2)Land availability and rising costs make acquisition now a necessary or what programs and cost-effective action. are served? Why 3) this Project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1)No action (service area with existing $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities at Tiffany Park). (Indiciate which 2)Purchase 4-6 acre site. $125,000 $ 1,000 undev. supporting factors 20,000 dev. can tie met.) 3)Continue to work with developers to set $ - 0 - $ - 0 - aside land for park use and on-site development of recreational facilities. (29) . FINAL PRIORITY # MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # -- DEPARTMENT: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 15 PROJECT TITLE: CUSHION TURF FIELD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of an all-weatifer sports field for football and soccer primarily. Incorporate, if possible, with lighted field at Philip Arnold Park. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ - 0 - IMPROVEMENTS $100,000 TOTAL $100.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 5.000 FINANCING 1) City - No funds currently budgeted. OPTIONS: 2) IAC - Potential for 60% funding (very doubtful). 3) ( 4) BACKGROUND: Fall-Winter sports are currently wreaking havoc on our turf fields causing undue maintenance and associated costs. One way of meeting this demand is the installation of a cushion turf field at Philip Arnold Park which has existing lighting. The lighting obviously permits extended hours of use which is particularly valuable during the fall- winter months. POTENTIAL SITE: Philip Arnold Park. FACTORS 1) This project would triple the capacity of an existing lighted sports SUPPORTING field and allow year-round inclement weather use with little negat ve PROJECT: (Who impact on M&0 funds. or what programs are served? Why 2) All of the major outdoor team sports would benefit with soccer rec iving this project?) a major boost. Current participation is heavily youth with subst tial growth in adult levels. COST: CAPITAL 0 M ALTERNATIVES 1) No Action (serve users with existing $ - 0 - $ - 0 - TO THIS PROJECT: facilities). (Indicate which 2) Acquire and develop 20-30 acre turf $ 800,000 $ 410,000 supporting factors complex for soccer. can be met.) 3) Renovate Philip Arnold Park Athletic field $ 100,000 $ .,000 with drainage, new soil, and turf. 4) Work with King County and the Renton School $ ? $ ? District to upgrade their facilities. 5) GO) it FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECTS (In Department Priority) Page 1. Fire Training Center 32 2. Construct Fire Station #14 in Kennydale 33 3. (Relocation of Fire Station #12 in Highlands 34 4. 1Construct Fire Station #15 in Green River Valley 35 I li 9 (31) • FINAL PRIORITY x MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION x- DEPARTMENT•Fire DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 1 • "ROJECT TITLE: Construct Training Center ••ROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop a training facility that will include a 5 story tower, P gas props and materials storage, any remaining storm drainage, fencing, drafting classroom and storage. Blacktop and cement surface for drill and driving area =nd provide hydrants. • STIMATED COSTS: LAND $ city owned IMPROVEMENTS $ 600,000 TOTAL $ 600,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 50.000 FINANCING 1) General funds OPTIONS: 2) GO bonds 3) Councilmatic bonds 4) • BACKGROUND: The facility we are now using is located in Carco Park adjacent to Carco Theater. it consists of a wooden 3 story tower. The area is too small for proper training and the tower itself is deteriorating due to age. We need a complete train- ing facility to properly train our firefighters in all phases of firefighting. POTENTIAL SITE: Lind Ave. SW and SW. 20th. This site has been designated as a training site and is ideal for this type of use. We would need the total of 6 acres to build a complete facility as outlined above. FACTORS 1) Need to train all firefighters in all phases of firefighting SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Present site not adequate or what programs are served? Why 3) Present site needed by the Park Department this project?) 4) Cost to train at outside facility prohibitive 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Find other site for training of firefighters $ -0- $ 30,000. TO THIS PROJECT: • (indicate which 2) No training - City liable $ -0- $ -0 supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ • • (32) 1 li FINAL PRIORITY r 1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION u 7 DEPARTMENT: Fire DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 2 PROJECT TITLE: Construct Station 1114 - Kennydale area PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 3 apparatus (pumper, aid car, ladder truck) Station 14 should be constructed in conjunction with the relocation of Station 12 (Highlands) to maximize coverage and minimize response times. il ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ 180,000. • • li IMPROVEMENTS $ 550,000. TOTAL$ 730,000. ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 460,000. FINANCING 1) General funds OPTIONS: • ' 2) GO bonds • 3) Councilmatic bonds • 4) BACKGROUND: This area of the City is developing at an accelerated rate, both commercially and residentially. The proposed Quendall complex will include three to thirty story structures and will require ladder responses. Our response time to this area is now in the six to eight minute range. We must be able to reach this area within a four minute time span. The Nester Plan recommended this facility and aPlanning Department study done in 1972 also recommended a station in this area. 1 II POTENTIAL SITE: Preferably the station location should be in the vicinity of NE 30th • and Highway 405. The area is zoned for business. FACTORS 1) 3500 existing residents would be served SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) 2000 new residents are anticipated in the Quendall project orjiwhat programs , are served? Why 3) Response reduced from 6 to 8 minutes to 4 minutes this project?) 4) Aid response reduced from 6 minutes to 3 minutes. 11 5) 72 responses were made to the area in 1981 II 11 COST: CAPITAL O&M P I ALTERNATIVES 1) 2 bay station - no aid vehicle (supports $ 650,000 $400,000 TO THIS PROJECT: 1, 2 and 4) (Inldicate which 2) 2 bay station - no ladder truck (supports $ 340,000 $310,000 , I supporting factors I, 3 and 4) ca�be met.) 3) 2 bay station - pumper only initially $ 250,000 $217,000 (supports 1 and 3) 4) Interim leased space in Quendall phase 1 $ 80,000 $217,000 ' pumper only (supports 1 and 3) • 5) $ $ (33) • • FINAL PRIORITY z MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION z 13 D PARTMENT: Fire DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # PROJECT TITLE: Relocate Ste. 12 to Sunset B d NE ', • • • •• - - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • :STIMATED COSTS: LAND $ Z00,000 IMPROVEMENTS $ 400,000 TOTAL $ 1,100,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal INANCING 1) General funds •PTIONS: 2) GO Bonds 3) Councilmatic bonds 4) BACKGROUND: Station I2 was built in 1943 and remodeled in 1959. The station was •uilt to provide fire protection for the Highlands area which as grown substantially since 1943. In a 1972 Planning Department study on fire station locations, it was recommended that this station be moved east to better serve the rapidly growing area. The present station is in need of major repair because of its age. Relocation st be preceded by the construction of the Kennydale station. POTENTIAL SITE: Area of Sunset Blvd NE and Union NE. We understand there is property in the area zoned R1. FACTORS 1) Sell present station and site - $200,000 SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) Li) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Provide service from the present location $ -0- $ -0- TO THIS PROJECT: • (indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors • 'can be met.) 3)• $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (34) FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a — DEPARTMENT: Fire _ DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 4 PROJECT TITLE: Construct station 15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Station 25 in the Earlington industrial area and relocate Station 13 if expansion warrants. EST MATEDCOSTS: LAND$ city owned IMPROVEMENTS $ 450,000. TOTAL$ 450,000. ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 475,000 FINANCING 1) General funds OPINIONS: 2) GO bonds • 3) Councilmatic bonds 4) BACKGROUND: As the Earlington industrial area continues to grow, the need increases for la centralized station located in this area. The City owned property on Lind Ave. SW could be utilized for this facility along with a training center. If annexation and development continues to move south.. and east of our present Station 23, 'pbecause the facility is temporary, it could be moved to a more advantagous location. POTENTIAL SITE: Lind Ave. SW and SW 20th Relocate Station 23 when necessary or consolidate with District 40 FACT ORS 1) Need for fire and aid protection in the southeast area of the SUPPORTING City PROJECT: (Who 2) Improve response times to 4 minutes from 6 to 7 minutes. or What programs are served? Why 3) Serve rapidly developing industrial/commercial area. thisIproject?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) None $ $ TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors canlbe met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (35) LIBRARY PROJECTS Page 1. Main Public Library Addition and Renovation 37 (36) FINAL PRIORITY # MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # 3 DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 1 PRIIOJECT TITLE: RENTON PUBLIC LIBRARY Addition & Renovation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of a 3,000 square foot second floor, bookstacks, carpet seplacement, energy conservation measures, repairs, equipment and furniture, a book ecurity system, circulation control system that is fully automated, and possible conversion or replacement of heating system with an energy efficient heating/cooling system. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS $660,270 TOTAL$660,270 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $13,750 FINANCING 1) General Funds OPTIONS: 2) Councilmanic Bonds 3) G. 0. Bonds 4) BACKGROUND: Addition will provide needed book storage capacity for a growing collection that will meet most library service needs of Renton residents. Renovation will focus on safety, security of building and materials, energy conservation, needed repairs, and a general upgrade of a building that is showing the wear and tear of 16 years of heavy use. Energy conservation measures are estimated at $26,383. This estimate is subject to possible drastic revision once the City has the results of the consultants energy study on the Renton Public Library due to be completed this summer. POTENTIAL SITE: Renton Public Library -- Existing building includes a roofed clearstory area of 3,000 square feet planned as a future second floor addition to structure. FACTORS 1) Need for book stack area to shelve growing collection of books. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Population growth and information growth results in greater demand or What programs for library resources and services. are served? Why 3) Safety, security, and comfort measures will benefit and protect thisiiproJect?) the public and the building. 4) Energy conservation is a cost avoidance measure. 5) Automated circulation control system will greatly lessen need for additional circulation staff as the City grows. COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Addition, bookstacks, carpet, energy $ 404,313 $ 3,750 TO THIS PROJECT: conservation, repairs (supports 1,2,3,4) (Indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3)• $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (37) PUBLIC WORKS/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROJECTS (In Department Priority) 1. North 3rd Street and Sunset Boulevard Intersection Improvements 39 2. Signal Controller Modernization 40 3, Traffic Signal Interconnect 41 4 South 7th Street and Rainier Avenue Intersection Improvements 42 5. Street Lighting Modifications in the CBD 43 6. South 3rd Street/Wells and Williams Intersection Improvements 44 7. Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption 45 8. CBD Decorative Light Modifications 46 9. N.E. 3rd Street and Edmonds Avenue Intersection Improvements 47 (38) 11 FINAL PRIORITY a t MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 5 DEPARTMENT: Public Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 1 PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Blvd. & N 3rd Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is aimed at improving traffic operations at the Intersection of Sunset Blvd. and North. 3rd Street. The project involves resurfacing and channelization Is well as curbs, .gutters and sidewalks on the approaches to the intersection. Also nccludegd is improved traffic signal detection and indication equipment as well as street STIMATED COSTS: LAND$ • IMPROVEMENTS S 250,000 II TOTAL$ 250,000 II ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 825 II FINANCING 1) Federal Funds (FAUS, FASP, etc.) OPTIONS: 2) State Funds (UAB) 1 3) General Funds 4) Developer Mitigation Fees i 0 BACKGROUND: T • he intersection of Sunset Blvd. and North 3rd is a major intersection in the Renton transportation network. The intersection serves as access to the NE 4th corridor which is realizing a rapid rate of growth of both commercial and residential properties. The intersection is operating at a LOS E during PM peak period. We also have significant • accident patterns that could be corrected with proposed improvements. .II POTENTIAL SITE: E • xisting location. II FACTORS 1) This intersection has been high on our high frequency locations list SUPPORTING for the past three years (20 accidents in 1981). PROJECT:(Who 2) Approximately 50,000 vehicles per day use this intersection. o what programs i e served? Why 3) this project?) 4) ' 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M i ALTERNATIVES 1) Maintain "as is." $ $ 1'250 • TO THIS PROJECT: . (Indicate which 2) $ $ wpporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ N 4) $ $ 5) S $ • . (39) FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 12 DEPARTMENT: Publ is Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY s 2 PROJECT TITLE: Controller Modernization • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is aimed at replacing obsolete traffic signal controllers at the locations indicated in "Potential Site." ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ -0- . IMPROVEMENTS $ 200,000 TOTAL $ 200 000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 14,025 FINANCING 1) Federal Funds OPTIONS: 2) 1/20 Gas Tax 3) General Funds 4) Revenue Sharing BACKGROUND: Because of the availability of outside funds and the City's need for improved traffic control . large amounts of funds were expended on the purchase of traffic control equipment in th- late 60's and early 70's. Consequently, we have the majority of our equipment in the 10 - 1, year category. Unfortunately, the average life span of traffic control technology is approx matel•, 7 years. Therefore, we are unable to purchase replacement parts. If we experience fai ure of critical parts, traffic control at specific intersections could be non-operational. POTENTIAL SITE: The following locations need to be replaced: Sunset & NE 10th Sunset & Edmonds N 4th & Garden N 3rd & Garden N 4th & Monror Sunset & Harrington Sunset & Park N 4th b Williams N 3rd & Factory Sunset E NE 7th Sunset & Duvall N 4th & Logan Park & N 6th Sunset & NE 3rd N 4th & Factory N 3rd & Williams Lake Wash./Park/Garden FACTORS 1) Traffic circulation in the City SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Traffic safety In the City or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL 0a,M ALTERNATIVES 1) Maintain "as is." $ $ 2 ,675 TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2). $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ - 1 4) $ $ 5) • $ $ (40) FINAL PRIORITY• MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a — DEPARTMENT: Public Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY +s 3 PROJECT TITLE: Traffic Signal Interconnect PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal interconnect cable and conduit (where necessary) to specific corridors listed under "Potential Sites" from City Hall. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS $100,000 TOTAL$100,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 1.000 FINANCING 1) Federal Funds OIPTIONS: • 2) General Funds 3) City-Wide Traffic Mitigation Fees 4) B'11CKGROUND: - The City is currently in the process of purchasing and installing a Multisonics VMS 220 computer system to replace the existing Multisonics 201 master. The new system master will have the capability of controlling 96 intersections. The current master can only control 40 intersections. The City is presently operating 70 signalized intersections. • As a result, necessary provisions should be made tocoordinate specific heavily travelled corridors listed below. POTENTIAL SITE: Ttie proposed sites include Sunset Blvd. from Park Drive to Duvall, N 3rd/N 4th from Logan to Sunset, Park Avenue from N 6th to Sunset Blvd., and S/SW 43rd from Talbot Road to West V 1ley Road. Also, interconnect must be provided from City Hall to each of the specific locations. FACTORS 1) Need to coordinate signals in heavily travelled corridors SUPPORTING to improve traffic circulation. PIOJECT:(Who 2) Need to coordinate signals to enhance safety. - or,whet programs ail:served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) With full installation of cable TV - the S $ TO THIS PROJECT: cable will become an option. At this time, (Indicate which 2) it is too costly and system is not complete. $ $ supporting factors cab be met.) 3) S S 4) S S 5) S $ (41) - . FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION+s 6 •EPARTMENT: Public Works/Traffic Enq. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 4, -ROJECT TITLE: Rainier Ave. South E South 7th Street -ROJECT DESCRIPTION: Channelization, widening of South 7th Street and signal modifications. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 100,000 TOTAL$ 100.000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ no increase above existing FINANCING 1) Federal Funds (FADS, FASP, etc.) OPTIONS: • 2) State Funds (UAB) 3) General Fund 4) Developer Mitigation Fees BACKGROUND: • This area of the City has experienced significant growth during the last several years. We anticipate significant future growth with extensive development along the SW/S 7thl Street corridor. Furthermore, this intersection has been high on our High Frequency Accident List during the last several years. The proposed improvement is anticipated to improve safety and traffic circulation in the Rainier Ave. South/SW and South 7th Street corridor. POTENTIAL SITE: Existing intersection. FACTORS 1) High accident frequency (23 accidents in 1981) SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Serves 51,000 vehicles per day or what programs are served?Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL 'O- M ALTERNATIVES 1) Maintain "as is." $ -0- $ TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) $ $ i ! supporting factors ' can be met.) 3) $ $ 4)• $ $ 5) $ $ (42) • FINAL PRIORITY+ MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION r 10 DEPARTMENT: Publ i c Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY+r 5 liROJECT TITLE: Street Lighting Modifications and Maintenance in CBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Eliminate approximately 54 of the existing 123 street lights in the Central Business District. Replace the existing 400 WHPSV lamps with 250 WHPSV. Also paint all 69 remaining luminaires. ESTIMATED COSTS: LABOR X.4011111 $ 30,000 IMPROVEMENTS$ 30,000 TOTALS 60,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 10,000 ICI I FINANCING 1) General Funds OPTIONS: 2) G.O. Bonds 3) Councilmanic Bonds • 4) Other Grants BACKGROUND: This project is proposed because of the following deficiencies in the existing CBD lighting system: 1) Minimum lighting standards required by City ordinance are exceeded by 6 times 11 with existing lighting design. 2) Budget and energy considerations have necessitated eliminating 20 luminaires from operation. 3) Existing steel luminaire poles have been damaged by rust and need to be repainted POTENTIAL SITE: at this time (cost estimate S30,000). "Aill painted steel luminaire poles in the Central Business District. FACTORS 1) Reduced cost of lighting CBD area from $940 per month to $360 per S'PPORTING month or an annual savings of $7,000. PROJECT:(Who 2) Provision of good uniform lighting instead of existing light and ora what programs dark areas currently experienced when random lights are turned off. are served? Why 3) th,s project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M • ALTERNATIVES 1) Paint the existing poles and maintain existing $ 30,000 $17,000 TO THIS PROJECT: 1 um i na i res. (Indicate which 2) Replace the steel poles with aluminum poles. $ 150,000 $ 6,000 supportIng factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ S (43) • FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION — DEPARTMENT: Publ i c Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY * 6 PROJECT TITLE: South 3rd Street - Wells & Williams Intersection Modifications PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Eliminate existing trees and shrubbery, relocate crosswalks to be in line with the curb, extend traffic signal arms over roadway and repave curb area with concrete. ESTIMATED COSTS: LABOR UMW$ 8.000 IMPROVEMENTS S 2.000 TOTAL$ 10,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ FINANCING 1) General Funds • OPTIONS: 2) 3) 4) BACKGROUND: • The project is being proposed to eliminate sight distance and signal visibility problems at the intersection of South 3rd & Wells and South 3rd & Williams. Street trees and shrubbery have created sight distance problems for vehicles and pedestrians particularly in relation to the traffic signals visibility. Maintenance of the trees and shrubs have been a continuous problem. POTENTIAL SITE: Intersections of South 3rd & Wells and South 3rd & Williams. FACTORS 1) Better visibility for the motoristand pedestrian. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Reduced maintenance cost. or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) • 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Maintain "as is" S $ TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (44) • • ANAL PRIORITY a • MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION+r — i DEPARTMENT: Publ ic Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 7 PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Vehicle Preemption PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide emergency vehicle preemption for all intersections listed in the "Potential Sites." ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS$ 80,500 TOTALS 80,500 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 1.000 • FINANCING 1) General Funds OPTIONS: • 2) Developer Fees 3) • BACKGROUND: • The City of Renton Fire Department has requested that emergency vehicle preemption be provided along all strategic emergency access routes within the City. To accomplish the goal, the Public Works Department has defined equipment requirements at key intersections. The purpose of the preemption is to protect emergency vehicles from side street inter- ference. POTENTIAL SITE: The following sites have been defined as requiring additional preemption equipment: Airport & Rainier Park & N 6th S 3rd & Rainier S 4th & Logan Airport & Logan Park & N 10th Talbot & Grady Airport & Shattuck Lake Wash./Park/Garden Talbot & S 15th FACTORS 1) Fire response time throughout the City SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Safety considerations for emergency vehicles as well as the general or what programs public. • arse served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) No acceptable alternatives have currently $ $ TO THIS PROJECT: been identified. (Indicate which 2) $ $ supportIng factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) . $ $ 5) $ $ (45) FINAL PRIORITY t MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION+ --�� .EPARTMENT: Publ is Works/Traffic Eng. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 8 -ROJECT TITLE: CBD Decorative Light Modifications PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing 4,048 - 69 watt incandescent lamps and replace with 1 - 50 watt sodium vapor lamp on the existing 130 short poles. The lamps on the street light poles would be completely eliminated.. Other operational options become available. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS $ 126,500 TOTAL $126,500 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Reduction of $3,300 per year (holiday operation only, as existing) FINANCING 1) General Funds OPTIONS: • 2) Councilmanic Bonds 3) G. 0. Bonds 4) BACKGROUND: • The existing CBD decorative lights are costly to maintain and operate. Currently the City can only afford one month of operation per year. The concept is to replace the existing design with a design which is energy and cost conscious. With the improved design we could maintain and operate the system (including power) for what it costs to operate for one month with the existing design. • POTENTIAL SITE: All 253 decorative lamps within confines of:the Renton Central Business District. • FACTORS 1) City beautification SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Energy consciousness or what programs are served? Why 3) Cost consciousness this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remove all decorative lights $ -0- $ -0- TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) Replace 69 watt bulbs with 25 watt bulbs $ 18,100 $ 1,000 supporting factors or less can be met.) 3) Maintain "as is" S S 4) S S 5) S S (46) III ' FINAL PRIORITY• I II . MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION• DEPARTMENT: Public Works/Traffic Enq. DEPARTMENT PRIORITY• 9 PROJECT TITLE: NE 3rd 6 Edmonds Intersection Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Wi�ening and channelization of NE 3rd and signalization of the complete intersection. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAW)$ IMPROVEMENTS $ 150,000 TOTALS 150,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 2,500 Fl ANCING 1) Developer funds OPTIONS: 1 2) General Revenue Funds 3) Federal Funds 4) BA • I KGROUND: Edmonds Avenue is being constructed from NE 4th to NE 3rd as a part of The Terrace development conditions. This action will create an intersection with NE 3rd Street. Because of the anticipated traffic volumes and sight distance problems, signalization isnecessary. The City was unable to require the developer to install the signal. ' Ho'ever, each developer has participated according to his fair share. POTENTIAL SITE: NE13rd and the extension of the Edmonds Ave. Right-of-Way. II FACTORS 1) Intersection will meet signal warrants SUrORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Sight distance problems on NE 3rd or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) i COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Do not allow left turns at this intersection $ 2,000 $ 100 TO 1THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) S $ • r 5) S S I (47) I • I • 1 ,--- . i . . . . . i ! . 1 . . , l I , e;*•.1-:•?:::::::• ••••:•••:e•.:.•:•:•::::::::::::::::::::::•:••:::•:•••• .6 :::::::::::::.: , :0:4;••*.estgE0::::::::::::::::•:•:•:•:•:•:44.:4•:•:•:: % AZR ...:.:.:44.:. . •••••• 1 • .......N.:.:::::::: • .0X*X •:%%:.:.:.:.: ..a:. ::::" :* *X5. 1r ::..M ' •.••• 4=? 1 1 .:N.:4455$55$55555:-, •••••••••••:... .:*.. 5.::aiii:. *i*:*:::.krill..„...„ 1 ...,„..,:5555::::::::555555::: _,P v.:..,,..... %.,:x.4,:x.4.x445555555:.:,:45,5:,%%,..,x.455555„5„: ::::::::•:—.-- :•••••••:::::::::•:•:•:•:•::::::.55:.:::.*•555:2g::::::::::::::::: 1 , ?.?.:::%.%........-.......55-•:•"••:•:•, N55555:444554,- • •••••.: .."..;:;::•.•:•.:::::••.:**;.::::.::::**.:::::45:::•:':::.•:::::::::•::::.:i:iiixi:::::::t r.;::::::.:: L1.-.1 tp.5.i%....*......55555:!$.5.5::•%. ,,,,..5.5.: •:•:........:•:•.••:•••••••:,... .•:.•:••• •••••:•:•:-:•:•:44%:•:•:•:•.- 3$0::•:•:•:•:. ';:i::::::::::::•:%:•::::::::::::::::". .4:555555*:::::::::::::::.• .*::::::::: , , ';';'*:*::::::::::•;•••••••••••%:e-•:::::::::::•:•::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•;" 1 , . , ••••••••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•-.•:•:?.??,, ; ; ;;'-----------;%•;:;:;:77!!• 4,•%:::::::•::::::::•:::::::.5*Komil*iiiiimi:.:3:;.:555.:•::.„..5.„...:...55.... 4:::i::::91:;:iiiii•!..1204••••:::-.:ani:i• ii::::.•.:•ii::::::41:::::•ii::iiii:::i:: ilii1:•§;.:•;.:;.:::•i'iiiii::::::iiii::.::.:ii1:::.E::::ii:::::0.::::. :i..j...;;.5.;.:.;...:::;;;;i:..iiii 1•-•,i:;,;•;;;•;•-•?•iff•;;;;;••:::::•.;:i*i*M:i*.i?:::.5.:*:.:iniWi::.5.5.:if:::: :*:::::::igi::::::::•5•:::.5.::.gi..:.*::::*Ki:;?....5......•••••_. ..„./....:6::::::.... , ;::::::::::::::::i::::::1*:::::::::* 5.*::::::::::=::::::::::::::: •-••••%,•:::::::::•K::: ••;:i::::::::::::::::::::::::x:,•,,,•:•:,.....:.•:66, ..„....e:•:::•:::::::".....':; , • ,..-•*:::::::.f:::::***5i::::::.:-:::::::::::::••••••••••::::::::::::::::....:5.::::::::.%.„:„...:::::: :...:.::::::::::::........:::::. ,..„6„..7....:::::::::::..... , 1 , 5:5.5A:;.5.5...1.5...x..... %:5555555.5.;:;555.52: 5.:::5555;./.**5•555: :5555.7.555555x.x4,.-....... ...:::,:.:e:,......,.._,„.(if:y.......: iiM5ii:e..i..5.ir '5.f..;i:ii::::•:0,:, *.:::::::::%::::::5.:.;;:...5.:.5.5i, ui:i52:5ii:... ...- ..,....5...ii::::::iii:.:,,,55:....:::::.4.5:::::::.idmi5:.5:i ••••••••••••:::•:•:•.:-.....• %•••• •••• *::::•:•Ye::::::::•5:4•Fx• si,:.:.:.:.:4.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.........:.x.:...:;.,00:::.x.:.:.:.::::.....:.:„.....:,.:.:..........:........... 1 , , . ...-.........:::::::............." %::::::::„:4„:::::: N 455::::::: ::::::::::e•e'.....:.::::::::::::::::•:%A.::::::::::::::::•:•/....::::::::::.55:555555500..... •••:::•:•:•:•:::::::: '.......r.....:.:•:•:•. : 1 • ,:•:•:•:•:•:::::::::::::::$:,•••••••••:•:::::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::: .......: ........ ::::::.;:::: *i:::::::::::::::::.../.x.x,:::::,.il...5555:::::::::.:*.:55::::::::::.*i::::::::::::::::::;;, , t :::::::**:::::::.5.:i*:iii::::::::::::5:::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•..........F...4.;•....... ........ • ••••••••••..i:i:: i ..1..., ......e.......w.................................;...... . ‘... . • , I . , .. 1 1 ' , I• i 1 . 1 , .. , 1 , I • . II. Sewer Fund . . , . . , . (48) i . 1 1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION 1 Project Total Cost Potential Description Annual Funding Priority & Location Improvements 0 & M Sources #1il Honey Creek $ 672,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.50) , Interceptor Ref 39 #2 CBD Sewer $ 700,000 Slight Utility Fund (p.51) '' Replacement Reduction #3 South Renton $ 600,000 Slight Utility Fund (p.52) Sewer Replacement Reduction #4 " North Renton $ 700,000 Slight Utility Fund (p.53) Sewer Replacement Reduction Phase 1 #5 North Renton $ 600,000 Slight Utility Fund (p.54) '! Sewer Replacement Reduction Phase 2 #6 Renton Avenue $ 200,000 Minimal L.I.D. (p.55) Interceptor Utility Fund II • Ref. 39 #7 Black r Rive $ 140,000 $ 10,000 L.I.D. (p.56) Interceptor ' Developer Extension #8 Heather Downs $ 80,000 $ 5,000 L.I.D. (p.57) Interceptor Developer -Upper Basin- Extension Utility Fund I - #9 ' West Kennydale $ 150,000 $ 5,000 L.I.D. (p.58) 1 Interceptor Utility Fund I Ref. 39 1 #10 East Kennydale $ 95,000 $ 5,000 L.I.D. (p.59) , Interceptor Utility Fund Ref. 39 (49) 1I • FINAL PRIORITY : MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION :: 1 DEPARTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY :: PROJECT TITLE: Honey Creek Interceptor and Pump Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Honey Creek Interceptor from Sunset Lift Station to May Creek, and Connect to Either Future May Creek Metro Sewer or New ' • Interim Pump Station. • ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS $672,000.00 TOTALS 672,000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: 2) Referendum #39 - Municipal Wastewater Funding Program 3) 4) BACKGROUND: • The northeast section of Renton's sanitary sewers are at capacity, • and further connections are prohibited. The project would elimi- nate overflows of sewage and allow further development. POTENTIAL SITE: Honey Creek Ravine is only alignment possible. FACTORS 1) The project is critical to protect water quality and to allow SUPPORTING continued development. PROJECT: (Who 2) or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL OaM • ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $ Increasing TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) $ ' $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ S 4) $ S 5) $ $ • • (50) MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION#. 2 EPARTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division FINAL PRIORITY#DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 2 ROJECT TITLE: Central Business District Sewer Replacement • ROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Sanitary Sewers in Central Business District of Downtown - Bounded by Mill Avenue South, Shattuck Avenue South, Houser Way South and the Cedar River • • STIMATED COSTS: LAND $ • IMPROVEMENTS$ 700,000.00 TOTALS 700,000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M•$Slight Reduction FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund PTIONS: 2) 3) -- 4) 'BACKGROUND: The sewers are 50 years old and are not maintainable. ,POTENTIAL SITE: City Right-of-way FACTORS 1) Reduce maintenance costs and future sewer backups. ,SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Eliminate infiltration from leaking sewer joints and breaks. i or what programs are served? Why 3) 'this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL ' O&M • • ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $Increasing • TO THIS PROJECT: ; (Indicate which 2) In line placement of grout or plastic sleeve $ 700,000 $Reduced supporting factors , can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ S 5) $ $ (51) FIND L PRIORITY x MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION# 3 UTILITY (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT PRIORITY x 3 PROJECT TITLE: South Renton Residential Area Sewer Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Sanitary Sewer in residential area of South Renton - bounded by Main Avenue South, Shattuck Avenue South, Railroad Tracks and South Grady Way. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 600.000.00 TOTAL$ 600,000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Slight Reduction FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: ' 2) • 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The sewers are 50 years old and are not maintainable. POTENTIAL SITE: City Rights-of-way FACTORS 1) Reduce maintenance costs and future sewer backups. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Eliminate infiltration from leaking sewer joints and breaks. or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) • COST: CAPITAL O:M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $Ingreasing TO THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) In line placement of grout or plastic sieve. $ 600,000 $Decrease supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (52) 11 I FINPL PRIORITY# MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION is. 4 I DE'ARTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY to 4 PR+ JECT TITLE: North Renton Sewer Replacement - Phase 1 PR I JECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Sanitary Sewers in a portion of North Renton - Bounded by North 3rd Street, Bronson Way, Burnett Avenue North and Houser Way. I ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 700,000.00 . • TOTALS 700,000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Slight Reduction FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: 2) 3) 4) B CKGROUND: The sewers are 50 years old and are not maintainable. POTENTIAL SITE: City Right-of-way F iltCTORS 1) Reduce maintenance costs and future sewer backups. SUPPORTING POJECT: (Who 2) Eliminate infiltration from leaking sewer joints and breaks. o what programs alle served? Why 3) this project?) Li) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $ Increasing TO THIS PROJECT: (i dicate which 2) In line placement of grout or plastic sleeve $ 700,000 $ Decreased , s pportIng factors can be meL) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ 1 (53) I I FIND L PRIORITY# �' __ MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION n—_ 5 DEPARTMENT: Utility'(Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a 5 PROJECT TITLE: North Renton Sewer Replacement - Phase 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:1 Replace Sanitary Sewers in North Renton residential area - Bounded by ! i North 6th Street, North 3rd Street, Burnett Avenue North and Garden Avenue North. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ ' I IMPROVEMENTS$ 600,000.00 : TOTAL$ 600,000.00 1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ Slight Reduction I FINANCING 1)! Capital Outlay - Utility Fund i l' OPTIONS: 2), 3). . 4) . BACKGROUND: The sewers are 50 years old and are not maintainable. Right-of-way• POTENTIAL SITE: City 9 ht-of-wa Y 1 1 FACTORS 1) Reduce maintenance costs and future sewer backups. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) Eliminate infiltration from leaking sewer joints and breaks. or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) , 4) i '5) . COST: CAPITAL O:M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $ In•reasing TO THIS PROJECT: 1 De•rease: I (Indicate which 2) In line placement of grout or plastic sleeve $ 600,000 $ supporting factors $ $ can be met.) 3) 4) • $ $I 1 I 5) - $ $i it ! ! (54) • FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION 17 6 , DEPARTMENT: Uti 1 ity (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY u 6 PROJECT TITLE: Renton Avenue Interceptor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sanitary Sewer Interceptor from Victoria Place West to Existing Earl ington School Pump Station I ESTIM TED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS$ 200,000.00 TOTAL $ 200.O00.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal FINAf�1CING 1) Local Improvement District OPTIONS: - 2) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund 3) Referendum 39 - Municipal Waste Water Funding Program 4) BAC GROUND: Provides gravity sewer service to this west side of City replacing pump station and force main. POT•NTIAL SITE: Easements and Public Rights-of-Way FACTORS 1) Provides gravity sewer service to unsewered and pumped sewer SUPPORTING area . PROJECT: (Who 2) or what programs are s rved? Why 3) this 1 roject?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M. ALT!RNATIVES 1) Remain as is $ 0 $Increasing TO THIS PROJECT: (indi ate which 2) $ $ suppPrting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) S $ 1 I 5) $ $ 1 (55) - FINAL PRIORITY - 1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION r. 7 D PARTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY " 7' PROJECT TITLE: Blark River Inrerrenrnr PROJECT-DESCRIPTION: New 15" - 3,500' Long Sanitary Sewer Along Monster Road and ' Container Corporation Site to Serve Extreme West Portion of Black River Drainage Basin • ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS$ 140.000.00 I • TOTAL 5140.000.00 'ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 10,000.00 F NANCING 1) Local Improvement District OPTIONS: • 2) Developer Extension 3) • • 4) ' •'ACKGROUND: This new interceptor would provide sewer service to the north and 'west part of Black River Drainage Basin near the Black River Quarry, west of.the current City limits. i I ••OTENTIAL SITE: Easements and public rights-of-way in and west of Monster Road. ACTORS 1)i This project will provide sanitary sewers to undeveloped areas! • '•UPPORTING r ROJECT: (Who 2) .r what programs •re served? Why 3) _ his project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M •LTERNATIVES 1) Remain as i s S 0 .$ 0 •• O THIS PROJECT: ' indicate which 2)1 $ I$ -upporting factors an be met.) 3); $ IS 4) $ '$ 5) $ ;$ (56) 1. I � 1 I ' FINAL PRIORITY# MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION u 8 EPARTMENT: Util ity (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY# 8 ROJECT TITLE: Heather Downs Interceptor - Upper Basin 6 ' IROJECT DESCRIPTION: New 12" 2,000' long Sewer Interceptor from N.E. 4th Street South to existing Heather Downs Interceptor. STIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 80,000.00 TOTAL$ 80,000..00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ 5,000.00 NANCING 1) Developer Extension PTIONS: • 2) Local Improvement District . 3) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund 4) iiACKGROUND: Provides gravity sanitary sewer service to the Cascadia Annexation area in the northern portion of Heather Downs drainage basin and south of N.E. 4th Street. P TENTIAL SITE: Public rights-of-way and easements. FACTORS 1) Project allows development of Cascadia Annexation. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(Who 2) o what programs a�e served? Why 3) thIs project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $ 0 Tp THIS PROJECT: (Indicate which 2) $ $ s pporting factors c-n be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (57) • FINAL PRIORITY # MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION r. 9 DE-ARTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY sr 9 PROJECT TITLE: West Kennydale Interceptor PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New West Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Interceptor from Kennydale School to N.E. 20th St. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS$ 150,000.00 TOTAL 5 150.000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 5,000.00 FI ANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund O-TIONS: 2) Local Improvement District- 3) Referendum 1139 - Municipal Wastewater Funding Program 4) BACKGROUND: The proposed line serves the west half of upper Kennydale via Jones Road. • -OTENTIAL SITE: Easements and Public Rights-of-Way 'ACTORS 1) Provide sanitary sewers to area of poor septic tank operation UPPORTING -R OJECT: (Who 2) Eliminate water quality and health risks r what programs -re served? Why 3), his project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL o81.5 •LTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is $ 0 $ 0 O THIS PROJECT: indicate which 2) $ $ upporting factors $ • $ an be met.) 3) 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (58) FINAL PRIORITY MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION :+ 10 DEP RTMENT: Utility (Sewer) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY +% 10 PR JECT TITLE: East Kennydale Interceptor PR JECT DESCRIPTION: New East Kennydale Sanitary Sewer Interceptor from N.E. 27th St. Southeast to N.E. 23rd St. and Aberdeen Ave. N.E. ' ESTI ATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS $ 95,000.00 TOTALS 95.000.00 • ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ 5,000.00 FINA CING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: 2) Local Improvement District 3) Referendum #39 Municipal Wastewater Funding Program 4) BACKGROUND: Provides sanitary sewer service to north and east portions of Kennydale, presently unsewered. I POT NTIAL SITE: Easements and publ is rights-of-way 1 FACT RS 1) Provide sanitary sewers to area of poor septic tank operation SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) Eliminate water quality and health risks. or what programs are s rved? Why 3) this p oject?) 4) 5) -- COST: CAPITAL ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can b met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ • $ 5) $ $ (59) • . , . , I ; I ,' • ! '\ :------,x:::::,:if::i*Ki;::::*:::::::•::::::*:;:i*:::::::ii: ::::::::::i:i:i:i:ii:ii:::iiii.:::i:.:iiii:••=•:::.::.?:::::*:::i**i§:ii::,:.:iii:::iiKiii:ii . , -.1..:-.:::::::::::::::i§i§:::::::: flii.::::::::•:::ii:::i::::::::::::::ft::i:.:: ::::iii*:::::Ii::: :iiii:::: :.:a c4::::::§:::::'...:::::illieiriii1:::...... ;;; litrii iiii:•:itiiti ::ici*ii..i:::iiitriii iih iiiiiiiii;iiii:INI:iiiitiala :.:.;:;.:):::. ' ::.::*:.::::*::::::'::::::*::::::::.- •:...*:*..*::••:*:i::•:::::*: i*::::::::K:i::: i4.:!::::::i:i::::i:;i:::*i::*:::i:::::::*:•::::i**K:::::*::::.:: -i-i-i*:* :. •::::::::;*::::::*::::::;::::*:::::::M::::::: ::::::*::: :K:::::::::::::::: i::4-i::.:if:::::::::i::i:';:i ..i::.?::::::::•::•::'::::•-•::::::3i?::::::.::A m:::::::: : :::::::•::::::•:•::::::•::::::•:•::::-:-;•:.....••;::•••:•:::::::::•:::::: :•::::::•::::::::•:: ...:..-. ....x.:::::'..:-:;:÷ .:........:.:.•• ...:.:.:.:•::.:.:.::. :*:::::**:* • ••::::•:•::::::•:•::::•:•::::•:•::::::•:•:5:•:•::::::•:•:5:AK**:::.::::::.::: ::.:.::::::.:::.:.::.::::.::: ::.::::::. ....:........ ... 5:0)5 • '::::: 55:•555:::.555:55:::::555:0* %%"5:5 ::::i:5 :.::*:',555., %.555...::::::-..-.-ee' •:::::::::•:•::::.:•:.:: :::•:5::...........••••••7......*.'•••••:•::::::•:.::::::.::::::.::••••.4s r.:.::::.: ::::....:.::.:.:.:..x....:... :.:.:.:....... e.:Sx.x555:555:::: •:•::•:•:•::::•:•:•*.••••::•'•:•••%::::::•.... *•:•:::• ::::•:e.:::•:•.... .........x.:. ;.:.:.:.::.:.:.:. ........x.:. --, •••:::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::*::: : I , ii::•:.:::::::::•:;:::.:::.:::..::::•:::%:::::.::•::.:::.::::%::::::::****:::::%::::::::::::::*:::::.:::•::•::::. r............0.:::::i :::::::::::::•:':.:'.:iiii.:07:.:.:..:.:.::i.:5:1.5...:.:::.::: ..:.:::.:0..::::::i.:::..i::.:::.::::.::::.:::.::::::::::::.::...:::,:::;i:::.:::.;:.:ii: :i::::. %::::::.•..::::: :0...: :•.:.•..:-.:....•.........x.....:..1 ......:::::::; *:::::::::::::::::::::i*:::::::::::.:::::::.. ....:::::.:::.::::::::.x.......,,---- : '0•:•::::•.,*•:::*.5...:•:Q:::::•* ' :*:•::"•••:':: '':':*::•:•:•:*::•:•:•::•:e0:•.:•:•:•....:.x.•. . .- .,.. "•••••-•:•:•%:::::::::i::.::.:-;:iiiiiiiK::•::•::, ,- :'.::::.:i:.:::i§ :i:i•::.:::•..•:::•,.....::::.::::::.:55:::::::.:.:.,.......... i;i:i::::::::kx.:•.......: :*i:::::::::*::-;:;;;;;;:::::::::::::::::::•:::::!!!!:Y•••".i.:::::::.::::...!.1 el: K:i:ii:K:1::::i:::*::i:::::::.**:::i:::::: ::::.*:::: '.:•:...:-.;pief.:1 •:•:•:•:•::::::"::::::':::::::::::::::•::.:.:::::::::::::::-____ ..../..4..........::::::_, ••••:•:•::•:•::::.:•::::.:.:•::....:.:.:............-.;.410,-N-0, .. ...7••••:••:..:.::::.:.:.::.. • • ::.:•:•:•::.:•:e.:.:.:::;::.:•:•::.:.:•:•::.••.. ."...;:i:•:•:.::::::.:•:::.§::::K::::i: 7..x55x5$:t::.xt:57..x.Y......5:.* *...F..::.x.:.•,.:.::.:.:t::.:.::::::.:.:5.., , -,::,::::.::.i:::.:1:::.:::.:::,:.!:::::::::*•:';':•:...........::*::::::•:•:::.*:.:::*::::.....:::::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::.:*:::ic.i 6 $1,4 :-:i;:$*:::•:::::::-;:i::.i::::i:i:waii.:::::..::.::;: iiii:ii::::iii:::::iiii:iii.::iilli::::::i.::i *:':'::'"*:::::::•:::-:-:•::::::::i:*:::::.:.:§F:..:::::::::::::::.*i:::::::::::::§i.::::*::*:;:i.. ::ii:::•::':,is.iK::1::*i:.:,:f::::::.::i.::::::iK:i::.§::::: :::::::: :.::*0 . , 11 :::::::%:*:?::.:1:1:;•;::1:I:::*::::*:::::::::.::::::.x.;;:::•:.:::.:::::::::::::•:::.:::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::1:.i 4......:.::•:•:.:.::::•:.::::•:•::...:•::.:.:•:•.::....::::.:.::::.:.:.::::.:.:.::.:.:...,.::::.:.::::.:.„ 1 • ' • cx.:.:%:.:•::::.:.:,•• ..:.::•:•:.:%:•:•:•:..:::•:•.:.:•:•:.••••••••••••......•.• i r?../ ':::::::::::::•xe,::::::::::::::*:::::::::„:•:•........... . , kk...- • I r61 I . ' 1 . 1 • , . i' , Water FLIP 1 • , • . III • , . 1 •.--, • , .--- ( 4 ) • • • ._ _• MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Project Total Cost Potential Description Annual Funding Priority & Location Acquisition Improvements 0 & M Sources #1 Well #9 $ 150,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.62) ' Cedar River Park Ref. 38 #2 I 24" Transmission $ 350,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.63) Main through CBD #3 West Hill $ 1,200,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.64) Reservoir & Ref. 38 Pump Station Joint Funding with Skyway Districts #4 Aberdeen Avenue $ 200,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.65) ' Transmission Main #5 South Talbot Hill $ 50,000 $ 650,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.66) Reservoir #6 Springbrook $ 200,000 Minimal Utility Fund (p.67) Springs Watershed Ref. 38 Acquisition Joint Purchase for Park r � , (61) ' . FINAL PRIORITY # 1 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION # 1 •EPARTMENT: Utility (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY z 1 1 1 -ROJECT TITLE: Wel 1 No. 9 -ROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of Well No. 9 Pump Station, a new water supply sourde. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ • ' IMPROVEMENTS $150,000.00 . ' TOTAL S150.000.OD ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal ' ' 'I' FINANCING 1); Capital Outlay - Utility Fund . OPTIONS: , 2) Referendum #38 - Municipal Water Supply Funding Program 1 3) I 4) 9 BACKGROUND: When,Well 38 was drilled and constructed in 1968, an exploratory well ; ' was also drilled. This was used as an observation well at that time, with, the eventual use to be as the site of future Well No. 9. A new: casing will be installed in 1982. Due to the possible conflicts with the D.S.H.S. and well construction in the Cedar River this project • should be done as soon as possible. The facility will provide addi-I tional water supply to the City's supply. This will allow for con- tinued growth and expansion of Renton. POTENTIAL SITE: The (site for future Well No. 9 wiJl be at the present observation well location in the northeast corner of the Cedar River Park. There should be no cost for the site and no zoning problems. FACTORS 1) The City of Renton can pump water from the Cedar River ground ' SUPPORTING water at a lesser cost than if water was purchased from the PROJECT:(Who 2) City of Seattle (the only other water purveyor in the area). or what programs All existing watermains in this area have been designed to ' are served? Why 3) accept water from proposed future well sites. this project?) ', 4) 5) I COST: CAPITAL ,la or • 1p ALTERNATIVES 1) Purchase water from the City of Seattle at an $ 0 $ Increase TO THIS PROJECT: increased cost. 1 (Indicate which 2) Remain as is, and eventually be short of water $ 0 $ 0 j supporting factors supply to serve the City of Renton. 1., can be met.) 3) $ jS ,, 4) $ 1S t1 5) $ $ • (62) 1 ' FINAL PRIORITY# MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION x 2 DEPARTMENT: Utility (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY n 2 PROJECT TITLE: 24" CBD Transmission Main PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete installation of 24" Transmission Water Main through the Central Business District. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 35O.000.OQ TOTAL $ 350,000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$Minimal Increase FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: • 2) 3) 4) BACKGROUND: This project was first proposed in the 1965 Water Study Comprehensive Plan. It was also one of the projects proposed in the 1975 Water and Sewer Bond Issue. The completion of this transmission line will balance the flows from the Talbot Hill Reservoir and the Mt. Olivet Reservoir. This project will increase the fire flows and reliability of the system in the C.B.D. and also improve the entire water system reliability. • POTENTIAL SITE: The location of the remaining portions of this project are in Talbot Road South from South Grady Way to South Renton Village Place; Burnett Avenue South from Houser Way South to South Tobin Street; South Tobin Street from Burnett Avenue South to Williams Avenue South; Williams Avenue South from South Tobin Street to South Riverside Drive; South Riverside Drive from Williams Avenue South to Wells Avenue South; across Wells Avenue Bridge to North Riverside Drive; then in North Riverside FACTORS Drive to Liberty Park and then through Liberty Park to Wells #1 and #2. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 1) There will be no cost for right-of-way for the watermain. or what programs are served? Why 2) This will increase the fire flows and reliability of the C.B.D. this project?) as well as the reliability of the entire water system. COST: CAPITAL O&M ' ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain the same. $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: I (Indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (63) FINAL PRIORITY# MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION u 3 DEPARTMENT: Utility (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY # 3 PROJECT TITLE: West Hill Reservoir and Pump Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of West Hill Reservoir, 1 million gallons, pump station and transmission mains. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ IMPROVEMENTS$ 1,200,000 TOTAL$ 1,200,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M$ Minimal FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: • 2) DSHS Referendum #38 Municipal Water Supply Funding Program 3) Joint use and funding from Skyway Water Districts 4) BACKGROUND: The West Hill is served by water purchased from the City of Seattle. There is insufficient water supply for fire protection in some a--eas of West Hill. The only storage presently available is in the City of Seattle Transmission line. The City of Seattle imposes a penalty demand charge when a system has insufficient storage. Renton is presently paying this penalty charge. POTENTIAL SITE: The City owns one potential site presently on N.W. 4th Street at 84th Avenue South. The latest design might require a different site. This new proposed site would be at Thompson School, which is located at South 123rd Street at 82nd Avenue South in King, County. The use of this site would have to be negotiated with the Renton School District. There could be zoning or King County opposition to the construction of an elevated tank at this site. FACTORS SUPPORTING 1) The cost benefit would be the elimination of the demand charge PROJECT: (Who for lack of storage that Renton is presently paying to the City or what programs of Seattle. are served? Why this project?) 2) Additional benefits would be in improved system reliability and fire flow capability. COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain the same. $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (64) FINAL PRIORITY MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION v 4 DEPARTMENT: Utility (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY rr 4 PPVDJECT TITLE: Aberdeen Ave. N.E. Transmission Main PIO JECT DESCRIPTION: Install 16" Transmission Watermain in Aberdeen Ave. N.E. from N.E. 14th Street to N.E. 28th Street I' ES,i IMATED COSTS: LAND $ IMPROVEMENTS $ 200,000.00 , TOTAL $2014.2xLcia ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal FI ANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund O TIONS: • 2) 3) ' 4) BA KGROUND: This project was in the 1965 water study. It would improve the fire flows to the northwest section of the Highlands, but is basically designed to increase the fire flows in the lower Kennydale area where there is anticipated commercial and multi-. family growth in the near future. PO ENTIAL SITE: The location of this project is all in public right-of-way of Aberdeen Ave. N.E. Therefore there is no costs for property involved. FA, TORS 1) The benefit of this project would be increased fire flows to the SUPPORTING aforementioned areas. PROJECT: (Who 2) or, hat programs are served? Why 3) thi project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain the same, and limit building and develop- $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: ment to meet the existing fire flows the system (in•icate which 2) can presently deliver. $ $ sup•orting (actors ca be met.) 3) $ $ ' 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (65) FINAL PRIORITY MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION :: 5 DEPARTMENT: Uti 1 ity (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY rr 5 -ROJECT TITLE: South Talbot Hill Reservoir - 1.5 Million Gallons -ROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Reservoir in South Talbot Hi11 Area Above Valley General Hospital. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ 50,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS $650,000.00 TOTAL $700.000.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal, FINANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund OPTIONS: 2) 3) 4) BACKGROUND: The reliability of any water supply is the capability of supply- ing water under adverse conditions such as power failures, etc. , and at a quantity to meet the requirements or demands of the system. The 350 ft. hydraulic pressure zone that this proposed reservoir would serve is presently planned to meet its fire service demands by pumping water through the south Talbot Hill, Pump Station. The system is intertie with two pressure reducing stations to the Rolling Hills elevated tank system. These inter- ties are not sufficient to supply the complete system demands. POTENTIAL SITE: The approximate location of he site for this proposed reservoir is just south of Carr Road and west of the Benson Road (SR 515) extended. The cost of the site is estimated to be $50,000.00 , FACTORS 1) The benefit would be increased reliability of the existing system. SUPPORTING PROJECT: (Who 2) or what programs are served? Why 3) this project?) 4) 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Remain as is. $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (indicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors • can be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ (66) 1 FINAL PRIORITY a MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION a 6 DEPARTMENT:I Utility (Water) Division DEPARTMENT PRIORITY z 6 11 ▪ OJECT TITLE: Sprinqbrook Springs Watershed Acquisition P OJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire three or four adjoining properties to Springbrook Water Shed for sanitary protection and further-source development. E MATED COSTS: LAND$ 200,000.00 11 IMPROVEMENTS$ ' I TOTAL $ ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal Fl ANCING 1) Capital Outlay - Utility Fund O-TIONS: 2) Referendum #38 Municipal Water Supply Funding Program 3) Possible joint purchase and development as passive park 4) - • B CKGROUND: The Springbrook Springs are the City's oldest source of water, operating now at about 2.5 million gallons per day since 1902. . When the springs were developed at the turn of- the century, the area was all rural. Now with urban development, buffer areas must be purchased to remain in undeveloped states. P TENTIAL SITE: Osterhouse property - •4 acres Weaton property - 16 acres Entrance parcel - 2 acres Fish farm - 8 acres FA TORS 1) Allow City to control sensitive neighboring properties for sanitary SU PORTING control. P 1 OJECT: (Who 2) Acquire adjoining lands for future source development. or hat hat programs ar served? Why 3) thi; project?) 4) r 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALI ERNATIVES 1) Remain as is $ 0 S 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (In•Icate which ` 2) Lose control and allow urban development. $ 0 $ Major sup•orting factors Increase , ca be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ S (7) I j , • • - II • }:{ix oa :I k§x QI {ai `sty Y rY �g, •::•i :: • gyp( X •:N r 1 I I' d I , • • IV. Airport Fund • j 1 (68) I MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Project Total Cost Potential Description Annual Funding Priority & Location Improvements 0 & M Sources #1 j Water Main $ 72,000 Minimal Airport Fund (p.70), Extension -S.E. Corner- ' #2 Water Main $ 108,000 Minimal Airport Fund (p.71)" Loop System #3 Instrument Landing $ 75,000 By U.S. Federal ADAP (p.72) System Government Funds (69) 1 FINAL PRIORITY a 1 ' ' MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION s 11 ' DEPARTMENT: PUBLI1C WORKS (AIRPQRT1_ DEPARTMENT PRIORITY a it PROJECT TITLE: WATER MAIN - U..radin. SE Corner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 12" water service extension from Logan Bridge to Boeing Bridge • le- in new 12" line to 'Renton's water system, providing more reliable water service to SE corner. Removes fire line from Boeing system allowing City system to provide domestic service. ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ - IMPROVEMENTS $ 72,000 TOTALS 72,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal I °INANCING :1) Airport Fund DPTIONS: .2) i 13) 4) 3ACKGROUND: 1 . :ventual goal is to service Airport completely from City's water system instead of co tinuing to use Boeing's water system. 1 1 ' • POTENTIAL SITE: N/A ' I - I • • ,I 'ACTORS 1) Improved reliability of system JuPPORTING 'ROJECT:(Who 2) Removes customers from Boeing water system and transfers them to ,r what programs City system ire served? Why 3) nisproject?) 4) I 5) ' COST: CAPITAL O&M %LTERNATIVES ' 1) Leave service as it is - on Boeing system $ 0 $ 0 0 THIS PROJECT:. indicate which ' 2) S• . $ '--' upporting factors $ $ •an be met.) 3) 4) $ $ , ; 5). $ $ (70) • FINAL PRIORITY r MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION +t 2 DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS (AIRPORT) DEPARTMENT PRIORITY or 2 PROJECT TiTLE: Water Main - Completion of Loop System PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete a loop system around the Airport by extending main line along east and north sides to the northwest corner. • ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND $ - IMPROVEMENTS$ 108,000 TOTALS 108,000 ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ Minimal FINANCING 1) Airport Fund OPTIONS: 2) 3) 4) ;BACKGROUND: • This would complete the process of up-grading the water supply system on the Airport and would remove the last of the Boeing system supply lines. • • -OTENTIAL SITE: !ACTORS 1) Increased reliab ility of system for Airport tenants and users. SUPPORTING PROJECT:(who 2) Improved fire flow capacity. Qr what programs sre served? Why 3) Facilitates installation of fire hydrants in affected area of the this project?) field. 4) Completes the switch from Boeing water system to City's water system. 5) COST: CAPITAL O&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Continue with existing arrangement. $ 0 $ 0 TO THIS PROJECT: (pndicate which 2) $ $ supporting factors clan be met.) 3) $ $ 4) $ $ 5) $ $ (71) • ANAL PRIORITY •• _�� MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION• 3 DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS (AIRPORT) DEPARTMENT PRIORITY • 3 PROJECT TITLE: Instrument Landing System (ILS) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • ESTIMATED COSTS: LAND$ - IMPROVEMENTS $ 75,000 TOTALS 75,000 • ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M $ BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT cINANCING 1) Federal ADAP Funds @ 100% OPTIONS: 2) • 3) 4) 3ACKGROUND: FAA is presently reviewing potential Airport installations of ILS System. If Renton;Airport is selected then Federal funds will be provided. If not, we will continue without ILS. POTENTIAL SITE: N/A • :ACTORS 1) Improved operational capacity and safety. iUPPORTING 'ROJECT:(Who 2) g what programs ire served? Why 3) his project?) 4) 5) • COST: CAPITAL • •&M ALTERNATIVES 1) Continue operation without ILS. S. 0 $ 0 1'0 THIS PROJECT: Indicate which 2) $• $ .upporling factors :an be met.) 3) S S 4) S S 5) S $ (72) I Renton City Council Auguslt 15, 1983 Page 1Four CORRESPONDENCE Letter was read from Jim Denzer, Chairman, Renton Senior Citizens continued Advisory Committee, expressing appreciation to John Webley, Parks Coulon Park Director, Park Department staff, Mayor Shinpoch and Council members Commnd-tion for the fine operation of Gene Coulon Park which gives pleasure and enjoyment to thousands of persons. OLD BUSINESS Council President Trimm presented a report recommending acceptance Committ=e of of the Capital Improvement Program report as submitted, by the the Whole Administration with reversal of Priority Items #2 and #3. Priority Capital Item #2 will be "Main Public Library Addition and Renovation," and Improve ent Priority Item #3 will be "Heather Downs Park Acquisition." Program MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR 'IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIEDL Busines• License Council President Trimm presented a report recommending that the Ordinance matter of business license revisions be referred to the City Revisio s Attorney for development of the ordinance with direction to bring the draft ordinance back to the Committee of the Who',le1meeting in September. MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY STREDICKE11, ;COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. CARRIED. Long Range Council President Trimm presented a report recommending for Transportation information purposes that the matter of the Long Range, Study Transportation Study be retained in Committee of the, Whole. 1 Index Avenue Councilman Stredicke submitted a letter transmitted 'anonymously NE regarding Index Avenue NE and existence of water mains and sewer manholes as well as sidewalks and street signs'' on that roadway during past years. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending the following ordinance and summary ordina ce for second and final readings: Ordinance #3744 An ordinance was read ordering construction and install tion of Ordering curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, utility adjustments, Construction storm drains and all necessary appurtenances on Garden ikvenue N. of LIID 328 - from N. 4th to N. 8th Street in accordance with Resolution No. Garden Avenue N. 2511 establishing LID 328. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED; BY HUGHES, between N. 4th COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. Councilman; Stredicke and N. 8th questioned whether the ordinance should be published without written confirmation that Pacific Car and Foundry will not file a protest. Attorney Kellogg stated rights of all assessed property owners to protest within 30 days of publication of ordinance, and publication must occur to begin the process. ROLL CALL: 6 AYES: TRIMM, MATHEWS, REED, ROCKHILL, HUGHES, CLYMER. 1 NAY: STREDICKE. CARRIED. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending the following ordinances for first reading. Mobile Home An ordinance was read repealing Chapter 20, Title IV ((Building Park Regulations) and enacting a new chapter, relating to Mobile Home Ordinance Parks. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR FOUR WEEKS. CARRIED. (Four week period allowed to review ordinance with interested', parties. ) Repeal of An ordinance was read repealing Section 4-720 and a' S'ubsection Sectiol 4-720 of Section 4-2204, Title IV (Building Regulations) and enacting and Po tions new subsections to Sections 4-709A and 4-709B, Title IV relating of Sec ion to zoning. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, THIS. MATTER BE 4-2204 REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. ' B-1 Zo e Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a ',report Revisi .ns concurring-In the Administration's. request to refer back to Planning and Development Committee the matter of B'-1 Zone Ordinance revisions for further review. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW. CARRIED., i s COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT AUGUST 15, 1983 1 . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Committee of the Whole recommends acceptance of the report as su mitted by the Administration with reversal of Priority Items #2 and #3. Priority Item #2 will be "Main Public Library Addition and Renovation andiPin rity Item #3 will be "Heather Downs Park Acquisition." 2. CODE OF ETHICS • The Committee of the Whole recommends concurrence in the Policy and Proce- dure as developed by the Administration. The Committee also recommends referral .of Ordinance #2586 to Ways and Means Committee for necessary revisions. 3. BUSINESS LICENSE REVISIONS The Committee of the Whole recommends that this matter be referred to the City Attorney for development of the ordinance with direction to bring the draft ordinance back to the September Committee of the Whole meeti'ng. A. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Information Only - The Committee of the Whole recommends that this matter be retained in this Committee. gl).-13-se4.41, - Thomas Trimm, Council President r °' Renton City Council July 25, 1983 Page t • AUDIENCE COMMENT continued Lake, Washington of the Public Works Department and that parking prohibition Blvdr Parking along Lake Washington Blvd. is due mainly to safety factors. Responding to Councilman Stredicke' s inquiry, Police Chief Wallis stated that non-enforcement of parking regulations along Lake Washington Blvd. during sockeye fishing season would not be a problem to the department, but could cause citizen confusion when the season ended and enforcement was resumed. Chief Wallis also noted availability of weekend overflow parking in the Boeing parking lot. Moved by Stredicke, seconded by Clymer, the Administration be advised that Council asks the Police Department to refrain from ticketing cars or trailers in the vicinity of Gene Coulon Park during the sockeye fishing season if the vehicle is completely off the paved roadway. Councilwoman Mathews objected to a tolerance policy for fishing season only, noting parking restrictions are necessary. Motion failed. Downtown Street Joan Walker, 1433 Monterey Avenue NE, urged Council to consider Lights pedestrian traffic in their decisions regarding downtown street lighting renovation, as well as a design to harmonize with existing brick decor. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are adopted by one motion which follows the I listing: 1984189 Capital (Policy Development Department submitted draft of the 1984-89 Improvement Capital Improvement Program prepared in conjunction with the 11 Program (Mayor' s Office. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Museum Executive Department submitted request from Renton Historical Renovation Society Museum requesting Council authorization to proceed with museum renovations. Refer to Community Services Committee. Claim f•r Claim for damages in the amount of $5,826.60 (lowest estimate) Damages filed by Dr. Coskun R. Ateser, 214 Park Avenue North, for CL 09-8 structural damage to commercial building allegedly caused when Ateser a trailer being towed by a city Parks truck came loose and struck the building (3/22/83) . Refer to City Attorney and insurance carrier. Claim f r Claim for damages in the amount of $1 ,350.49 filed by Farmers Damages Insurance Group, P. 0. Box 88888, Seattle, for water damage to CL 25-8 the home of Ralph Rutledge, 252 Stevens SW, allegedly caused by Farmers Insurance malfunctioning water pressure control diaphragm (4/17/83) ! Refer to City Attorney and insurance carrier. Bid Opening. City Clerk reported bid opening of 7/20/83 for Kennydale Sanitary Kennydale Sewer and 1983 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation; installation of Sanitary sanitary sewers and appurtenances, grading, paving, fencing and Sewer complete restoration. Six bids received. Refer to Utilities Committee. Ashley City Clerk submitted letter from Boundary Review Board approving Annexati n Ashley Property Annexation, single-family lot located on south side of SE 165th between 108th SE and Benson Highway. Refer to Ways and Means Committee for ordinance. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chairman Reed presented a report Commini y concurring in the recommendation of the Public Works Department Service and recommending acceptance. of the low bid received from Baugh Commilttee Construction for construction of the Renton Shop Facility buildings ShopjlFa ility in the aggregate amount of $1 ,981 ,093.57, including sales tax. Constru tion Committee further recommended the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contracts conditioned upon verification of contractor' s financial status, experience, and finalization of negotiations regarding prefab versus on-site fabrication of metal sheds. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS I OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. I I I /i RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting July Z5, 1983 Municipal Building Monda , 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL 7O ORDER Mayor Pro Tempore Thomas Trimm led the Pledge of Allegiance to the, flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL cALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; EARL H. CLYMER, ROBERT J. COUNCIL MEMBERS HUGHES, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN W. REED, NANCY L. MATHEWS. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY CLYMER, ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER RANDALL ROCKHILL BE EXCUSED. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MICHAEL W. PARNESS, Admin- ATTENoANCE istrative Assistant; MARILYN J. PETERSEN, Deputy City Clerk; i DAVID R. CLEMENS, Policy Development Director.; ALAN L. WALLIS, Chief of Police. PRESS Deeann Glamser, Renton Record-Chronicle. MINUT APPROVAL Councilman Reed requested addition of his comments as follows: LID 326, page 2, paragraph 2, Reed explained LID policy to proceed with the project design if the preliminary assessment roll is approved; upon completion of the project, the City Council will sit as a Board of Adjustment on the finalllassessment roll and make adjustments to the assessments as it sees fit; and, in the meantime, applications for outside funding sources could be made. Page 4, last line (Baugh request) , Reed reiterated recent Council policy to encourage development by removing barriers for developers; Mr. Baugh offers an innovative approach to encourage development, and the Council is slamming the door in his face. Other correction: Page 2, Paragraph 2: Motion of "Council go on record with a request that Police and Public Works Departments study the matter of removal of the left-hand prohibition in the NE Fourth Street corridor during certain hours" failed; following motion to refer to Transportation Committee is not an amendment and was carried. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECOND BYiREED, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1983 AS CORRECTED. CARRIED. PUBLI MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted Watson and published according to law, Mayor Pro Tempore Trimm opened Anne lation the public meeting to consider the Rowland Watson 10% Letter of Intent. to annex a 3.5 acre parcel located on the east side of 84th Avenue South between NW Fourth and NW Fifth Streets to the City. Policy Development Director Clemens described the proposed annexation, noting availability of City sewer and water, and recommended approval of the annexation request. Mr. Clemens noted City' s desire to include adjacent parcels in annexation, but property owners had shown no interest. Councilman' Hughes inquired as to owners' intent to accept the City' s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and/or any pre-existing bonded indebt- edness of the City. Rowland J. Watson, 12614 - 84th Avenue South, responded that such an agreement had been signed. MOVED BY HUGHES, SECONDED BY REED, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE LETTER OF INTENT,I AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF A 75? PETITION, AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. AUDI NCE COMMENT Charles Shane, 3003 Mountain View Avenue, stated his opposition LakelWashington to 'no parking' signs along Lake Washington Blvd. in the vicinity Blvd Parking of Coulon Beach Park, noting inadequate parking provision within the park and unjust ticketing of overflow parking onto Lake Washington Blvd. , especially during the current sockeye fishing season. Administrative Assistant Parness reported responsibility for sign placement and determination of where parking should or should not be allowed lies with the Traffic Engineering Division h. • For.Use .By City Clerk's Office Only A. I . [ AGENDA ITEM RENTON CITY; COUNCIL MEETING ______--____ - -==a= - _--_—__------==nm==a=== SUBMITTING Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Policy Develo.ment For Agenda Of July 25, 1983 r ; (Meeting Date) Staff Contact David -R. Clemens ' I (Name) ` Agenda Status: • SUBJECT: : Ca ital Improvement Program Consent Public Hearing Correspondence Ordinance/Resolution , • Old Business ' New Business Exhibits: (Legal Descr., Maps, Etc.)Attach• Study Session A. Attached letter. Other B. Draft - Capital Improvement Program Approval : Legal Dept. Yes No N/A COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Referral to Finance Dept. Yes No. N/A committee-of-the-whole for consideration Other Clearance at its August meeting. FISCAL IMPAC : -O- Amount Appropriation- Expenditure Required $ Budgeted $ Transfer Required SUMMARY (Back round information, prior action and effect of implementation) (4ta h additional pages if necessary.) The olicy Development Department in conjunction with the Mayor's office has repared a draft of the 1984 - 1989 Capital Improvement Program., It is recommended that the program be referred to the committee-of-the-whole, flsr Consideration at its August meeting. • PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED: I � � SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK:BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION. , OF Rel ��, o THE CITY OF RENTON is POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235-2552 n MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 9 i Pam. BARBAR Yl SHINPOCH ' MAIOR July'21, 1983 The(Honorable Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Members of Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE:I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Deal Mayor and Council Members: The I Policy Development Department in conjunction with the Mayor's office has prepared a draft of the 1984 - 1989 Capital Improvement Program. It is recommended that the progra be referred to the committee-of-the-whole for consideration at its August meeitin . Very yours, • d . Clemens Policy Development Director DRC: 0230G 11 Attac ent 1 1 j