HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2003-07-28 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETMonday, July 28, 2003; 7 p.m.
3. SPECIAL ISSUES
4. REPORTS
5. MISCELLANEOUS
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Council Agenda
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: Joe Duffie Dave Fenton
Rhonda Berry, Acting City Administrator Jim Haggerton Joan Hernandez
Pam Carter, Council President Pamela Linder Richard Simpson
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
2. CITIZEN COMMENT/ At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on
CORRESPONDENCE this agenda. To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save
your comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
a. Regional Disaster Plan.
b. A proposed resolution to ratify amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies.
c. Proposed swimming pool fee increase.
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
d. City Attorney
e. Intergovernmental
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance
notice by calling the City Clerks office 206 433 1800 /TDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available in alternate formats for
those with disabilities with advance notice and is also available at http: /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
1908
CAS Number: 03-098
Original Sponsor:
I Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
I 7/28/03
Agenda Item Title:
Meeting Date
7/28/03
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Meeting Date
7/28/03
Regional Disaster Plan
Council
Initials
Prepared by 1 Mayor's r, 1 Cour il review
JM ).A.L I
Original Agenda Date: July 28, 2003
Admin.
State law requires that cities and counties have emergency programs, but provides only
minimal guidance to special purpose districts, businesses, and non profits. The King County
Regional Disaster Plan will provide a coordinated response among public and private entities
in the county. Participation is voluntary and assistance is provided at the sole discretion of the
signatory providing the service. To date there has been 112 signatories to the plan.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Forward to Committee of the Whole for review and direction.
Committee: Same as sponsor.
Administration:
I Cost hnpact (if known):
I Fund Source (if known):
Action
1
Public Works
Information Memo dated July 15, 2003
Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement
Frequently Asked Questions Regional Disaster Planning in King County
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan as of 7/18/03
Regional Disaster Plan Power Point Presentation
Finance Safety Committee Meeting Minutes from July 21, 2003
ITEMNO.
To: Finance and Safety Committee
From: Public Works Director/Emergency Manage
Date: July 15, 2003
Subject: Regional Disaster Plan
ISSUE
Should the City of Tukwila participate and become a signatory to the King County
Regional Disaster Plan?
DISCUSSION
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
King County is 2,134 square mile of diverse terrain with almost 1.7 million people, 39
cities, over 100 other taxing districts (fire, school, water /sewer, etc.), and over 500
elected officials. The City of Tukwila, like King County, faces periodic river valley and
urban flooding events, earthquakes, severe weather, hazardous materials spills,
transportation accidents, and has the potential to be adversely affected by volcanic and
terrorist activity.
State law requires that cities and counties have emergency programs, but provides only
minimal guidance to special purpose districts, businesses, and non profits. State statutes
provide minimal guidance on multi disciplinary or multi jurisdictional disaster responses.
The population density, complex system of governance, and significant risks faced (both
natural and technological disasters) by the City create the need to plan for a coordinated
response among public and private entities in the county.
The plan emphasizes collaborative response operations, capitalizing on geographical
coordination within the County (Tukwila is in Zone 3) that is already utilized by fire and
emergency medical services. The goal is to streamline the information necessary to
assess countywide impacts of disaster and increase the speed and efficiency of the relief
effort.
The process for creating the plan has involved representatives from local government,
specific emergency functions, schools, private sector, hospitals, and other stakeholders.
To date there has been 108 signatories to the plan.
Activation of the regional disaster plan may be for an intense, localized event, or a
widespread regional or catastrophic event. It is to be activated in conjunction with other
state and local emergency plans. Mutual Aid Agreements are still the "first line of
defense" for plan participants. Because mutual aid (sharing with "like" agencies) may
be unavailable during regional disasters, the plan defines the legal and financial ground
rules (See Attachment A) for resource sharing among plan signatories.
Key points contained in the Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement are:
1. Participation is voluntary. No signatory shall be liable to another on account of
any delay in or failure to perform any obligation under the agreement.
2. Tukwila's Emergency Manager, or designee can serve as a City representative to
work out the language or implementation issues of this agreement.
3. Should Tukwila request the services of another signatory, Tukwila will be liable
to pay the assistance costs within 60 days. Likewise, if Tukwila provides
services, we may charge for those services.
4. Requests for emergency assistance shall be directed to the designated Emergency
Contact Point. For Tukwila, it is the Director of Emergency Management.
5. The extent to which assistance is provided shall be at the sole discretion of the
signatory providing the service.
6. Emergency assistance will be in the form of resources, such as equipment,
supplies, and personnel or the direct provision of services.
7. A signatory shall not be held liable for failing to provide emergency assistance.
8. Signatories are held harmless and will defend each other.
Attachment B provides the responses to frequently asked questions.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward to the Committee of the Whole for discussion.
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
OMNIBUS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
for Organizations Participating in the Regional Disaster Plan
for Public and Private Organizations in King County
This OMNIBUS AGREEEMENT is made and entered into by certain public and
private organizations to enable them to provide Emergency Assistance to each other
during times of emergency or disaster.
WHEREAS, the Subscribing Organizations have expressed a mutual interest
in the establishment of an Omnibus Agreement to facilitate and encourage
Emergency Assistance among participants; and
WHEREAS, in the event of an emergency a Subscribing Organization who
has executed this Omnibus Agreement may need Emergency Assistance in the form
of supplemental personnel, equipment, materials or other support; and
WHEREAS, each Subscribing Organization may own and maintain
equipment, stocks materials and employs trained personnel for a variety of services
and is willing, under certain conditions, to lend its supplies, equipment and services
to other Subscribing Organizations in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, the proximity of the Subscribing Organizations to each other
enables them to provide Emergency Assistance to each other in disaster situations.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the undersigned Subscribing Organization agrees
as follows:
Article 1 APPLICABILITY.
This Omnibus Agreement is available for execution to all Subscribing Organizations,
in and bordering geographic King County. Execution of this Omnibus Agreement by
a Subscribing Organization will occur when a Subscribing Organization signs an
identical version of this Omnibus Agreement.
Article II DEFINITIONS.
A. 'Assistance Costs' means any direct material costs, equipment rental
fees, fuel, and the labor costs that are incurred by the Lender in providing
any asset, service, or assistance requested. For further information on
costs, see section XII.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 1
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
B. 'Basic Plan' is the core document of the Reaional Disaster Plan for Public
and Private Organizations in Kina County. It provides the architecture for
multi jurisdictional, multi disciplinary disaster response operations in King
County. The Basic Plan will be supported by this Omnibus Legal
Agreement and later by Emergency Support Functions, which are
chapters on certain functional areas, such as communications,
transportation, and resource management. The Basic Plan was
developed by the Regional Disaster Planning Task Force, under the
direction of the King County Emergency Management Advisory
Committee.
C. 'Basic Plan Package' includes the following core documents that create
the framework necessary to implement the concept of operations implied
in the Basic Plan. "This suite of documents includes:
the Basic Plan,
this Omnibus Legal Agreement,
Appendix 1: Direction and Coordination
D. 'Borrower' means a Subscribing Organization who has adopted, signed
and subscribes to this Omnibus Agreement and has made a request for
Emergency Assistance and has received commitment(s) to deliver
Emergency Assistance pursuant to the terms of this Omnibus Agreement.
E. 'Emergency' includes, but is not limited to, a human caused or natural
event or circumstance within the area of operation of any participating
Subscribing Organization causing or threatening loss of life, damage to
the environment, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial
loss, such as: fire, explosion, flood, severe weather, drought, earthquake,
volcanic activity, spills or releases of hazardous materials, contamination,
utility or transportation emergencies, disease, infestation, civil
disturbance, riots, act of terrorism or sabotage; said event being or is likely
to be beyond the capacity of the affected Subscribing Organization or
Organizations, in terms of personnel, equipment and facilities, thereby
requiring Emergency Assistance.
F. 'Emergency Assistance' means employees, services, equipment,
materials, or supplies offered during an Emergency by the Lender and
accepted by the Borrower to assist in maintaining or restoring normal
services when such service has been disrupted by acts of the elements,
equipment malfunctions, accidents, terrorism /sabotage and other
occurrences where Emergency Assistance from other Subscribing
Organizations is necessary or advisable, as determined by the requesting
Subscribing Organization.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 2
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
G. 'Emergency Contact Points' are the persons, in a line of succession, listed
on the Emergency Contact Information Form to be submitted to the Zone
Emergency Planning Committee by each Subscribing Organization. The
list includes names, addresses, and 24 -hour phone numbers of the
Emergency contact points of each Subscribing Organization. The people
listed as Emergency Contact Points will have (or can quickly get) the
authority of the Subscribing Organization to commit available equipment,
services, and personnel for the organization. Note: The phone number of
a dispatch office staffed 24 hours a day that is capable of contacting the
Emergency contact point(s) is acceptable.
H. 'King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee' acts in an
advisory capacity to the County Executive, Council and Emergency
Management Division on emergency management matters, and facilitate
the coordination of regional emergency planning in King County.
'Lender' means a Subscribing Organization who has signed this Omnibus
Agreement and has agreed to deliver Emergency Assistance to another
Subscribing Organization pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Omnibus Agreement.
J. 'Omnibus Agreement' means identical agreements executed in
counterparts which bind the executing Subscribing Organization to its
terms and conditions to provide and receive Emergency Assistance. The
terms and conditions of the Omnibus Agreements are all identical and the
execution of an Omnibus Agreement binds a Subscribing Organization to
all other Subscribing Organizations who have executed identical Omnibus
Agreements in counterparts. To be effective for purposes of receiving
Emergency Assistance, this Omnibus Agreement and the Basic Plan must
be fully executed and received by the Zone Emergency Planning
Committee.
K. 'Subscribing Organization' means the executive governing authority of any
public or private organization in, or bordering King County, WA, that
chooses to subscribe to and sign onto the 'Basic Plan Package' of the
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King
County.
L. For large and complex organizations like county government, cities, and
major employers, all departments and branches of these complex
organizations are included as 'Subscribers' under the single executive
authority of these organizations.
M. 'Termination Date' is the date upon which this Agreement terminates
pursuant to Article V.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 3
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Article III PARTICIPATION.
It is agreed, acknowledged, and understood that participation in this Omnibus
Agreement is purely voluntary and at the sole discretion of the requested lender. No
Subscribing Organization shall be liable to another Subscribing Organization for, or
be considered to be in breach of or default under this Omnibus Agreement on
account of any delay in or failure to perform any obligation under this Omnibus
Agreement, except to make payment as specified in this Omnibus Agreement.
However, Subscribing Organizations who execute the Omnibus Agreement are
expected to:
A. Ensure that other Subscribing Organizations in the Emergency
Response Zone have their Organizations' most current Emergency
Contact Points:
B. Participate in scheduled meetings to coordinate operational and
implementation issues to the maximum extent possible.
Article IV ROLE OF EMERGENCY CONTACT POINT FOR SUBSCRIBING
ORGANIZATIONS
Subscribing Organizations agree that their Emergency Contact Points or their
designee can serve as representatives of the Subscribing Organizations in any
meeting to work out the language or implementation issues of this agreement.
The Emergency Contact Points of a Subscribing Organization shall:
A. Act as a single point of contact for information about the availability of
resources when other Subscribing Organizations or Zones seek
assistance.
B. Participate in Zone Coordination meetings convened on the
implementation of this agreement.
C. Take the initiative to obtain and communicate decisions and
discussion items of the meeting.
D. Maintain a manual containing the Basic Plan package including a
master copy of this Omnibus Agreement (as amended) and a list of
Subscribing Organizations who have executed this Omnibus
Agreement.
Article V TERM AND TERMINATION.
A. This Omnibus Agreement is effective upon execution by two or more
Subscribing Organizations.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 4
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
B. A Subscribing Organization opting to terminate its participation in this
Omnibus Agreement, shall provide written termination notification to
the King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee, care of
the King County Office of Emergency Management, 7300 Perimeter
Rd. S., Room 128, Seattle, WA, 98108, or by Fax at (206) 296 -3838.
Notice of termination becomes effective upon receipt by the King
County Emergency Management Advisory Committee who shall, in
turn, notify all subscribing organizations. Any terminating Subscribing
Organization shall remain liable for all obligations incurred during its
period of participation, until the obligation is satisfied.
Article VI PAYMENT FOR SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE.
Borrower shall pay to the Lender all valid and invoiced Assistance Costs within 60
days of receipt of the lender's invoice, for either all or part of the Emergency
Assistance services provided by the Lender. In the event the Lender provides
supplies or parts, the Lender shall have the option to accept payment of cash or in
kind for the supplies or parts provided.
Article VII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Lender shall be and operate as an independent contractor of Borrower in the
performance of any Emergency Assistance. Employees of Lender shall at all times
while performing Emergency Assistance continue to be employees of Lender and
shall not be deemed employees of Borrower for any purpose. Wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of Lender shall remain applicable to all of
its employees who perform Emergency Assistance. Lender shall be solely
responsible for payment of its employees' wages, any required payroll taxes and any
benefits or other compensation. Borrower shall not be responsible for paying any
wages, benefits, taxes, or other compensation directly to the Lender's employees.
The costs associated with borrowed personnel are subject to the reimbursement
process outlined in Article XII. In no event shall Lender or its officers, employees,
agents, or representatives be authorized (or represent that they are authorized) to
make any representation, enter into any agreement, waive any right or incur any
obligation in the name of, on behalf of or as agent for Borrower under or by virtue of
this Omnibus Agreement.
Article VIII REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.
Requests for Emergency Assistance shall be directed to the designated Emergency
Contact Point(s) on the contact list provided by the Subscribing Organizations
and /or directed to and managed by the Zone Coordination function. The extent to
which the Lender provides any Emergency Assistance shall be at the Lender's sole
discretion. In the event the emergency impacts a large geographical area that
activates either Federal or State emergency laws, this Agreement shall remain in
effect until or unless this Agreement conflicts with such Federal and State laws.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 5
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Article IX GENERAL NATURE OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.
Emergency Assistance will be in the form of resources, such as equipment,
supplies, and personnel or the direct provision of services. The execution of the
Omnibus Agreement shall not create any duty to respond on the part of any
Subscribing Organization hereto. A Subscribing Organization shall not be held liable
for failing to provide Emergency Assistance. A Subscribing Organization has the
absolute discretion to decline to provide any requested Emergency Assistance and
to withdraw resources it has provided at any time without incurring any liability.
Resources are "borrowed" with reimbursement and terms of exchange varying with
the type of resource as defined in Articles X through XII. The Subscribing
Organizations recognize thabtime is critical during an emergency and diligent efforts
will be made to respond to a request for resources as rapidly as possible, including
any notification(s) that requested resources are not available.
Article X LOANS OF EQUIPMENT.
Use of equipment, such as construction equipment, road barricades, vehicles, and
tools, shall be at the Lender's current equipment rate, or if no written rates have
been established, at the hourly operating costs set forth in an industry standard
publication as selected by the Regional Disaster Planning Task Force, or as
mutually agreed between Borrower and Lender. Equipment and tool loans are
subject to the following conditions:
1. At the option of the Lender, loaned equipment may be loaned
with an operator. See Article XII for terms and conditions
applicable to use of borrowed personnel.
2. Loaned equipment shall be returned to the Lender upon release
by the Borrower, or immediately upon the Borrower's receipt of an
oral or written notice from the Lender for the return of the
equipment. When notified to return equipment to a Lender, the
Borrower shall make every effort to return the equipment to the
Lender's possession within 24 hours following notification.
3. Borrower shall, at its own expense, supply all fuel, lubrication and
maintenance for loaned equipment. The Borrower will take proper
precaution in its operation, storage and maintenance of Lender's
equipment. Equipment shall be used only by properly trained and
supervised operators. Lender shall endeavor to provide
equipment in good working order. All equipment is provided "as
is with no representations or warranties as to its fitness for
particular purpose.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 6
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
4. Lender's cost related to the transportation, handling, and
loading /unloading of equipment shall be chargeable to the
Borrower. Lender shall provide copies of invoices for such
charges where provided by outside sources and shall provide
hourly accounting of charges for Lender's employees who perform
such services.
5. Without prejudice to a Lender's right to indemnification under
Article XIV herein, in the event loaned equipment is lost or
damaged while being dispatched to Borrower, or while in the
custody and use of the Borrower, or while being returned to the
Lender, Borrower shall reimburse the Lender for the reasonable
cost of repairing said damaged equipment. If the equipment
cannot be-repaired within a time period indicated by the LenderE
then Borrower shall reimburse Lender for the cost of replacing
such equipment with equipment, which is of equal condition and
capability. Any determinations of what constitutes "equal condition
and capability" shall be at the discretion of the Lender. If Lender
must lease or rent a piece of equipment while the Lender's
equipment is being repaired or replaced, Borrower shall reimburse
Lender for such costs. Borrower shall have the right of
subrogation for all claims against persons other than parties to this
Omnibus Agreement who may be responsible in whole or in part
for damage to the equipment. Borrower shall not be liable for
damage caused by the sole negligence of Lender's operator(s).
Article XI EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.
Borrower shall reimburse Lender in kind or at Lender's actual replacement cost, plus
handling charges, for use of partially consumed or non returnable materials and
supplies, as mutually agreed between Borrower and Lender. Other reusable
materials and supplies which are returned to Lender in clean, damage -free condition
shall not be charged to the Borrower and no rental fee will be charged. Lender shall
determine whether items returned are "clean and damage -free" and items shall be
treated as partially consumed or non returnable materials and supplies if item is
found to be damaged.
Article XII LOANS OF PERSONNEL.
Lender may, at its option, make such employees as are willing to participate
available to Borrower at Borrower's expense equal to Lender's full cost, including
employee's salary or hourly wages, call back or overtime costs, benefits and
overhead, and consistent with Lender's personnel union contracts, if any, or other
conditions of employment. Costs to feed and house loaned personnel, if necessary,
shall be chargeable to and paid by the Borrower. The Borrower is responsible for
assuring such arrangements as may be necessary to provide for the safety,
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 7
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
housing, meals, and transportation to and from job sites /housing sites (if necessary)
for loaned personnel. The Subscribing Organizations' Emergency Contact Points or
their designees shall develop planning details associated with being a Borrower or
Lender under the terms of this Omnibus Agreement. Lender personnel providing
Emergency Assistance shall be under the control of their regular leaders, but the
organizational units will come under the operational control of the command
structure of the Borrower. Lender shall not be liable for cessation or slowdown of
work if Lender's employees decline or are reluctant to perform any assigned tasks if
said employees judge such task to be unsafe. A request for loaned personnel to
direct the activities of others during a particular response operation does not relieve
the Borrower of any responsibility or create any liability on the part of the Lender for
decisions and /or consequences of the response operation. Loaned personnel may
refuse to direct the activities-sif others without creating any liability on the part of the
Lender. Any valid licenses issued to Lender personnel by Lender or Lender's state,
relating to the skills required for the emergency work, may be recognized by the
Borrower during the period of emergency and for purposes related to the
emergency. When notified to return personnel to a Lender, the Borrower shall make
every effort to return the personnel to the Lender's possession immediately after
notification.
Article XIII RECORD KEEPING.
Time sheets and /or daily logs showing hours worked and equipment and materials
used or provided by the Lender will be recorded on a shift -by -shift basis by the
Lender and /or the loaned employee(s) and will be provided to the Borrower as
needed. If no personnel are loaned, the Lender will provide shipping records for
materials and equipment, and the Borrower is responsible for any required
documentation of use of material and equipment for state or federal reimbursement.
The documentation will be presented to the Administration /Finance Section of the
Incident Management structure. Under all circumstances, the Borrower remains
responsible for ensuring that the amount and quality of all documentation is
adequate to enable disaster reimbursement.
Article XIV INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
A. INDEMNIFICATION. Except as provided in section B., to the fullest
extent permitted by applicable law, the Borrower releases and shall
indemnify, hold harmless and defend each Lender, its officers,
employees and agents from and against any and all costs, including
costs of defense, claims, judgments or awards of damages asserted or
arising directly or indirectly from, on account of, or in connection with
providing Emergency Assistance to the Borrower, whether arising
before, during or after performance of the Emergency Assistance and
whether suffered by any of the Subscribing Organizations or any other
person or entity.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 8
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
The Borrower agrees that its obligation under this section extends to
any claim, demand and /or cause of action brought by or on behalf of
any of its employees, or agents. For this purpose, the Borrower, by
mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects any indemnitee only,
any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims
under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW of the State
of Washington and similar laws of other states.
B. ACTIVITIES IN BAD FAITH OR BEYOND SCOPE. Any Subscribing
Organizations shall not be required under this Omnibus Agreement to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend any other Subscribing
Organization from any claim, loss, harm, liability, damage, cost or
expense caus l by or resulting from the activities of any Subscribing
Organizationstfficers, employees, or agents acting in bad faith or
performing activities beyond the scope of their duties.
C. LIABILITY FOR PARTICIPATION. In the event of any liability, claim,
demand, action or proceeding, of whatever kind or nature arising out of
rendering of Emergency Assistance through this Omnibus Agreement,
the Borrower agrees, to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, to the
fullest extent of the law, each signatory to this Omnibus Agreement,
whose only involvement in the transaction or occurrence which is the
subject of such claim, action, demand, or other proceeding, is the
execution and approval of this Omnibus Agreement.
D. DELAY /FAILURE TO RESPOND. No Subscribing Organization shall
be liable to another Subscribing Organization for, or be considered to
be in breach of or default under this Omnibus Agreement on account
of any delay in or failure to perform any obligation under this Omnibus
Agreement, except to make payment as specified in this Omnibus
Agreement.
E. MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. If a dispute arises out of or relates
to this Contract, or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be
settled through direct discussions, the parties agree to first endeavor
to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation. Thereafter,
any unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this
Contract, or breach thereof, may be settled by arbitration, and
judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in
any court having jurisdiction thereof. The parties to this Contract may
seek to resolve disputes pursuant to mediation or arbitration, but are
not required to do so.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND Fl NANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 9
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
F. SUBSCRIBING ORGANIZATION LITIGATION PROCEDURES. Each
Subscribing Organization seeking to be released, indemnified, held
harmless or defended under this Article with respect to any claim shall
promptly notify the Borrower of such claim and shall not settle such
claim without the prior consent of Borrower, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Such Subscribing Organization shall have the
right to participate in the defense of said claim to the extent of its own
interest. Subscribing Organization's personnel shall cooperate and
participate in legal proceedings if so requested by the Borrower, and /or
required by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Article XV SUBROGATION.
A. BORROWER'S WAIVER. Borrower expressly waives any rights of
subrogation against the Lender, which it may have on account of, or in
connection with, the Lender providing Emergency Assistance to the
Borrower under this Omnibus Agreement.
B. LENDER'S RESERVATION AND WAIVER. Lender expressly
reserves its right to subrogation against the Borrower to the extent the
Lender incurs any self- insured, self- insured retention or deductible
loss. The Lender expressly waives its rights to subrogation for all
insured losses only to the extent the Lender's insurance policies, then
in force, permit such waiver.
Article XVI WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE CLAIMS.
Lender's employees, officers or agents, made available to Borrower, shall remain
the general employee of Lender while engaged in carrying out duties, functions or
activities pursuant to this Omnibus Agreement, and each Subscribing Organization
shall remain fully responsible as employer for all taxes, assessments, fees,
premiums, wages, withholdings, workers' compensation and other direct and indirect
compensation, benefits, and related obligations with respect to its own employees.
Likewise, each Subscribing Organization shall provide worker's compensation in
compliance with statutory requirements of the state of residency.
Article XVII MODIFICATIONS.
No provision of this Omnibus Agreement may be modified, altered, or rescinded by
any individual Subscribing Organization without two- thirds affirmative concurrence of
the Subscribing Organizations. The King County Emergency Management Advisory
Committee will be the coordinating body for facilitating modifications of this Omnibus
Agreement. Modifications to this Omnibus Agreement must be in writing and will
become effective upon approval of the modification by a two- thirds affirmative vote
of the Subscribing Organizations. Modifications must be signed by an authorized
representative of each Subscribing Organization.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Page 10
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Article XVIII- NON EXCLUSIVENESS AND PRIOR AGREEMENTS.
This Agreement shall not supercede any existing mutual aid agreement or
agreements between two or more governmental agencies, and as to assistance
requested by a party to such mutual aid agreement within the scope of the mutual
aid agreement, such assistance shall be governed by the terms of the mutual aid
agreement and not by this Agreement. This Agreement shall, however, apply to all
requests for assistance beyond the scope of any mutual aid agreement or
agreements in place prior to the event.
Article XIX GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.
This Agreement is subject to laws, rules, regulations, orders, and other
requirements, now or hereafter in effect, of all governmental authorities having
jurisdiction over the emergencies covered by this Omnibus Agreement, the
Subscribing Organization or either of them.
Article XX NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES.
No undertaking by one Subscribing Organization to the other Subscribing
Organizations under any provision of this Omnibus Agreement shall constitute a
dedication of the facilities or assets of such Subscribing Organization, or any portion
thereof, to the public or to the other Subscribing Organization. Nothing in this
Omnibus Agreement shall be construed to give a Subscribing Organization any right
of ownership, possession, use or control of the facilities or assets of the other
Subscribing Organization.
Article XXI NO PARTNERSHIP.
This Omnibus Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an
association, joint venture or partnership among the Subscribing Organizations or to
impose any partnership obligation or liability upon any Subscribing Organization.
Further, no Subscribing Organization shall have any undertaking for or on behalf of,
or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind any other
Subscribing Organization.
Article XXII NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.
Nothing in this Omnibus Agreement shall be construed to create any rights in or
duties to any Third Party, nor any liability to or standard of care with reference to any
Third Party. This Agreement shall not confer any right, or remedy upon any person
other than the Subscribing Organizations. This Omnibus Agreement shall not
release or discharge any obligation or liability of any Third Party to any Subscribing
Organizations.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 11
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Article XXIII ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes any and all prior
agreements of the Parties, with respect to the subject matters hereof.
Article XXIV- SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.
This Omnibus Agreement is not transferable or assignable, in whole or in part, and
any Subscribing Organization may terminate its participation in this Omnibus
Agreement subject to Article V.
Article XXV GOVERNING LAW.
This Omnibus Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in
accordance with the laws of Washington State.
Article XXVI VENUE.
Any action which may arise out of this Omnibus Agreement shall be brought in
Washington State and King County.
Article XXVII TORT CLAIMS.
It is not the intention of this Omnibus Agreement to remove from any of the
Subscribing Organizations any protection provided by any applicable Tort Claims
Act. However, between Borrower and Lender, the Borrower retains full liability to the
Lender for any claims brought against the Lender as described in other provisions of
this agreement.
Article XXVIII WAIVER OF RIGHTS.
Any waiver at any time by any Subscribing Organizations of its rights with respect to
a default under this Omnibus Agreement, or with respect to any other matter arising
in connection with this Agreement, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver with
respect to any subsequent default or other matter arising in connection with this
Agreement. Any delay short of the statutory period of limitations, in asserting or
enforcing any right, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver.
Article XXIX INVALID PROVISION.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provisions hereof, and this Omnibus
Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable
provisions were omitted.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL. AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 12
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington
Article XXX NOTICES.
Any notice, demand, information, report, or item otherwise required, authorized, or
provided for in this Omnibus Agreement shall be conveyed and facilitated by the
King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee, care of the King County
Office of Emergency Management, 7300 Perimeter Road S., Room 128, Seattle,
WA 98018, Phone: 206 296 -3830, Fax: 206 296 -3838. Such notices, given in
writing, and shall be deemed properly given if (i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted
and received by telephone facsimile device and confirmed by telephone, or (iii) sent
by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the Emergency Management Advisory
Committee.
The Basic Plan, OMNIBUS LEGAL AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENT Page 13
Version: 03 -14 -03 (Printed 03/24/03)
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County
2003 Signatory Documentation Sheet
In January 2002 the Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in Kino County.
Washington, consisting of five core documents, was sent out for adoption and signature. This
voluntary plan is intended for participating organizations, within King County, to assist each other in
disaster situations when their response capabilities have been overloaded.
For 2003, three new Emergency Support Function (ESFs) documents are completed and ready for
adoption and inclusion to the Plan. They are as follows:
Appendix 2: Public Information
Appendix 6: Training Exercises
ESF -2: Telecommunications Warning
This "2003 Signatory Documentation Sheet" is requested because there was one change to the
legal document, the Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement (specifically Article XVIII), from the
2002 Open Comment Period. Participating organizations are requested to approve and adopt,
through signature to this form, the revised Omnibus. New partners are also requested to use this
signatory sheet.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Subscribing Organization hereto has caused this Regional
Disaster Plan for Emergency Assistance to be executed by duly authorized representatives
as of the date of their signature:
ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS:
PHONE
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE:
03/24/03
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Regional Disaster Planning in King County
Page 1
1. Why do we need a Regional Disaster Plan?
King County is 2,134 square miles of diverse terrain with over 1.7 million people, 39 cities, over
120 special districts (fire, school, water /sewer, etc.) and over 600 elected officials. The county
faces many natural (flooding, earthquakes, severe weather) and technological disasters
(hazardous materials releases, transportation accidents, civil unrest). RCW 38.52.070 requires
cities and counties to have emergency management programs, but minimal or no guidance is
provided to special purpose districts, businesses and non profits. With the dense population
and complex system of governance and significant risks, disasters present the need to plan for
a coordinated response among governments, non profits and businesses. Potentially hundreds
of entities would behave in a coordinated manner during a severe regional disruption. This
plan focuses exclusively on disaster response and may be applied to any event that
concurrently challenges multiple jurisdictions or multiple disciplines.
2. What makes this plan different?
This agreement pioneers new territory as a cooperative endeavor, in that any private business,
nonprofit organization, government agency or special purpose district can choose to be a
signatory and participate with this plan. Any regional response in geographic King County will
not be "perfect." This plan is an attempt to create a shared concept for how individual,
autonomous private and nonprofit organizations, and government agencies and jurisdictions
will work together in times of extreme emergency or disaster. It supplements NOT replaces
the local emergency plans required by state statute.
3. Why is the private sector involved in this plan?
Disasters don't respect jurisdictional boundaries, let alone economic environments. The
citizens expect that public, private and non profit entities know how to work together to
effectively respond to and recover from a disaster. Whether we represent a public, private or
non profit, we are all stakeholders and interconnected to the continued viability of our
communities. The private and non profit sectors provide services and have resources that are
critical during regional response efforts, and their availability and use can be coordinated
through this regional plan.
4. Don't we already have mutual aid agreements that exist for this purpose?
Very few official mutual aid agreements exit within King County. A number of sewer and water
districts participate in the "Washington's Water Sewer Agencies Mutual Aid Agreement." For
the fire service, the "King County Fire Resource Plan" exists. A number of public works
departments have also signed on the "Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement." Hazardous
material response teams have an existing mutual aid agreement within Zone 4 (between
Federal Way and Port of Seattle). Mutual aid is a pre- agreed sharing of resources between
entities to support response activities. This plan will go beyond just a mutual aid that provides
assistance within a discipline. This plan will facilitate cross -zone and cross discipline
sharing of resources. The typical sort of emergency for which this framework plan is designed
will overwhelm the mutual aid systems available on a daily basis.
May 24 Elected Officials Disaster Forum
Page 2
5. Does this plan put King County government in charge?
This is a voluntary and cooperative agreement. In no way is King County government in
charge. The key is coordination rather than control, and the Appendix One to this plan reflects
that... "Direction and Coordination." No participating organization has "control" or authority
over another except where stated in federal, state or local laws. The "Reaional Disaster Plan
for Public and Private Organizations in Kina County" may only be initiated by a chief elected
official (or their designated representative) of a public jurisdiction or agency. An example of an
appropriate use of the Regional Plan may be by: (1) A jurisdiction's formal proclamation of a
disaster; (2) A jurisdiction in anticipation of exhausting all normal capabilities, resources and
zone mutual aid available to the jurisdiction(s).
6. How can we be sure our personal interests will be protected?
All participating organizations, agencies and districts will commit all their available resources to
address their internal challenges BEFORE supporting a wider regional response. Participation
in this plan does in no way impose any partnership obligation or liability upon any participating
organization. Signatory entities that offer available resources and services do so voluntarily,
but in the context of working within a coordinated response system. All regional coordination
activities will NOT supercede the authority of, or take over the resources, assets, or personnel
of those public, private and non profit organizations.
7. If we don't like the plan, what do we do?
Help draft it. We are still in the development process and all participation is influential and
welcomed.
8. What will this cost my jurisdiction, district or agency?
An "Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement" has been developed to provide the legal platform
for resource sharing among participating organizations. The ground rules encourage a sense
of security to those with available resources so they feel safe in offering assistance without
risking excessive losses or liabilities, as well as establishing an accounting /billing process that
is congruent with FEMA polices to- encourage appropriate financial recovery. Resources and
services that are loaned to other participating organizations will remain under the operational
control of the borrowing entity until recalled or replaced by the lending entity.
9. When will the plan be implemented?
The "Basic Plan Package" (consisting of the Plan, Omnibus Legal Financial Agreement,
Appendix One, Emergency Support Function (ESF) 1- Transportation, 2- Communications, 7-
Resource Support, and 8- Health and Medical Services), at the first step, will be sent out to all
participating jurisdictions for "formal" coordination and review. From there the Regional
Disaster Planning Task Force (RDPTF) will revise, forward to the Emergency Management
Advisory Committee (EMAC), then send to the Regional Policy Committee and on to the King
County Council for final approval. This planning process does take time. It took Washington
State Emergency Management over ten years to develop their state -wide comprehensive
emergency management plan.
May 24 Elected Officials Disaster Forum
Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations
in King County
What is the Plan?
Elected officials from Seattle, Suburban Cities and King County, serving on the Regional
Policy Committee of King County, passed a motion in October 1998 to initiate the
development of a regional disaster plan for King County
The plan provides the framework needed to inter -link the emergency response plans of a
wide range of organizations
The plan allows potentially hundreds of entities to behave in a coordinated manner following
a severe disruption; "who is going to do what"
Representatives from local government, specific emergency functions, schools, private
sector, hospitals and other stakeholder groups have been involved in creating this plan
The plan emphasizes collaborative response operations that capitalize on geographical
coordination within the county that are already utilized by fire and emergency medical
services
This plan streamlines the information necessary to assess the county -wide impacts of
disasters and increase the speed and efficiency of the relief effort
It will also assist with larger scale emergencies such as large aircraft accidents or hazardous
material incidents
Your Role as an Elected Official
As an elected official, who establishes public policy for your jurisdiction or agency, you have
an obligation to ensure the safety of your,community and citizens
State law (RCW 38.52) requires incorporated cities to have emergency management
programs
However, minimal guidelines exist for multi disciplinary or multi jurisdictional response
involving municipalities, fire districts and private industry
To ensure proper emergency response to the citizens of King County, regardless if they
reside in a city, district or unincorporated area, the region needs tope prepared to work
together
Elected officials support for this regional planning is CRUCIAL to the success of these efforts
Timeline Goals
Some jurisdictions and agencies in the three different county zones are working on
developing their collaborative response plans
The current completed plan has been adopted and signed by close to 100 public, private and
nonprofit organizations in King County
How You. as an Elected Official. Can Help
Provide the support internally towards your organization's emergency management efforts
Become a signatory to the Regional Disaster Plan
Support and participate in additional regional planning process efforts
Interact and become involved with your neighboring jurisdictions, agencies and districts
regarding emergency management endeavors
May 24, 2001 Elected Officials Disaster Forum
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan -
Official Signatory Sheets received as of 07/18/03
Organization
Name
2002
Signing Date
2003
Signing Date
CITIES — 32 TOTAL (31 of 39)
City of Auburn
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
12/16/02
5/5/03
City of Bellevue
Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
3/8/02
5/12/03
City of Bothell
James Thompson, City Manager
5/7/02
City of Burien
Gary Long, City Manager
7/02
City of Carnation
Bill Brandon, City Manager
4/1/03
City of Clyde Hill
George Martin, Mayor
3/12/02
City of Covington
Andrew Dempsey, City Manager
4/5/02
City of Des Moines
Tony Piasecki, City Manager
10/28/02
City of Duvall
Becky Nixon, Mayor
4/10/03
City of Federal Way
David H. Moseley
8/5/02
City of Issaquah
Ava Frisinger, Mayor
3/5/02
City of Kenmore
Stephen Anderson, City Manager
1/13/03
City of Kent
Tim Clark, Mayor Pro Tem
4/23/02
4/2/03
City of Kirkland
David Ramsay, City Manager
7/3/03
City of Lake Forest Park
David Hutchinson, Mayor
3/11/02
City of Maple Valley
John Starbard, City Manager
12/3/02
City of Medina
Douglas J. Schulze, City Manager
7/10/02
City of Mercer Island
Richard Conrad, City Manager
3/20/02
5/2/03
City of Milton
Katrina Asaz, Mayor Pro Tem
6/18/02
City of Newcastle
Andrew Takata, City Manager
3/11/02
City of North Bend
Joan Simpson, Mayor
6/25/02
City of Redmond
Rosemarie Ives, Mayor
7/22/02
City of Renton
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
8/15/02
City of Sammamish
Ben Yazici, City Manager
7/12/02
5/6/03
City of SeaTac
Bruce Rayburn, City Manager
2/12/03
3/28/03
City of Seattle
Greg Nickels, Mayor
6/17/02
City of Shoreline
Steven C. Burkett, City Manager
1/9/03
City of Snoqualmie
R. Fuzzy Fletcher, Mayor
2/11/03
5/1/03
Page 1
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan -
Official Signatory Sheets received as of 07/18/03
City of Woodinville
Donald D. Rose, City Manager
5/13/02
6/11/03
Kinq County
Ron Sims, Executive
5/20/02
Town of Beaux Arts Village
Charles R. Lowry, Mayor
6/11/02
4/29/03
Town of Yarrow Point
J.R. Berry, Mayor
7/23/02
FIRE DISTRICTS —17 TOTAL of 35
Eastside Fire & Rescue
Jim Norris, Chairman of the Board
6/11/02
Enumclaw Fire Dept. / KC Fire District #28
Joseph Kolisch, Chief
3/18/02
3/27/03
Federal Way Fire Department
Mark Freitas, Chairman & Al Church, Chief
3/21/02
3/25/03
King Co. Fire District #2 (Burien)
Alex Sasonoff, Chairman
4/16/03
Kinq Co. Fire District #20 (Seattle)
Commissioners
5/20/02
King Co. Fire District #27 (Fall City)
Commissioners
4/9/02
King Co. Fire District #37
Commissioners
6/17/02
4/21/03
Kinq Co. Fire District #40
Michael Patrick, Chair of Commission
4/11/02
4/24/03
King Co. Fire District #44
Judy Meinert, Chair & Greg Smith, Fire Chief
4/9/02
King Co. Fire District #47
Commissioners
11/13/02
4/9/03
Maple Valley Fire & Life Safety
Commissioners
4/4/02
North Highline Fire District
Ron Malaspino, Chairman of the Board
4/1/02
Northshore Fire Department ( #16)
Robert Peterson, Chief
4/2/02
Shoreline Fire Department
Commissioners
6/6/02
Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue
Matt Cowan, Chief
2/6/02
Vashon Island Fire & Rescue
Commissioners
4/2/02
Woodinville Fire & Life Safety
Steve Smith, Chief
5/20/02
NONPROFITS —1 TOTAL
American Red Cross
Jim Hamilton, Director
1/24/02
PRIVATE INDUSTRY — 9 TOTAL
Bank of America
Marie Gunn, President
Gennie Thompson, VP & Regional Mgr.
2/1/02
1/31/02
Boeing Company, The
Gregory Gwash, Director Security & Fire Prev.
4/24/02
Page 2
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan -
Official Signatory Sheets received as of 07/18/03
InfoSpace Inc.
Ed Belsheim, President & COO
Will Longman, Director, Computing Security
5/31/02
4/30/03
King County Library System
Board of Trustees
2/26/03
3/26/03
Port of Seattle
M.R. Dinsmore
4/19/02
4/28/03
Puget Sound Energy
Gary Swofford, Senior Vice President & COO
3/20/02
4/16/03
Regence BlueShield
Long, Vice President & General Counsel
1/2/03
Sound Transit
Joni Earl, Executive Director
6/4/02
Washington Mutual Bank
Norman Swick, Senior Vice President
10/24/02
HOSPITALS - 18 TOTAL of 20
Auburn Regional Medical Center
Michael M. Gherardini, CEO /Mng. Director
4/18/02
Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center
Jeffrey Sconyers, VP & General Counsel
3/11/02
3/26/03
Enumclaw Community Hospital
Dennis Popp, CEO
12/13/02
Evergreen Healthcare
Steven Brown, CEO
3/20/03
Group Health Cooperative
William Biggs, Executive Director
1/21/03
Harborview Medical Center
David Jaffe, Executive Director
2/6/02
Highline Community Hospital
Linda Paulson, BSN, MBA
2/19/02
Kindred Hospital
Adam Darrish, CEO
1/30/02
Northwest Hospital
President / CEO
4/22/02
Overlake Hospital Medical Center
Kenneth D. Graham, President & CEO
2/22/02
4/16/03
Regional Hospital for Respiratory & Complex
Care
James Cannon, CEO
2/8/02
St. Francis Hospital
Brooks Sutton, COO
2/5/02
Swedish Medical Center - First Hill Campus
Calvin Knight, COO
5/1/02
Swedish Medical Center - Ballard Campus
Lane Sawitch, COO
2/5/02
Swedish Medical Center - Providence
Campus
Marcel Loh, COO
2/11/02
University of Washington Medical Center
Preston Simmons, Senior Operations Officer
5/1/02
Valley Medical Center
Paul Hayes, COO
6/7/02
3/28/03
Virginia Mason Medical Center
Ruth Anderson, Senior Vice President
5/21/02
Page 3
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan -
Official Signatory Sheets received as of 07118/03
Page 4
SCHOOLS -13 TOTAL (12 of 19)
Auburn School District #408
Linda Cowan, Superintendent
2/22/02
Bellevue School District
Michael Riley, Superintendent
4/22/02
Federal Way Public Schools
Thomas R. Murphy, Superintendent
5/7/02
Highline School District
Joseph R. McGeehan, Superintendent
4/15/02
Issaquah School District
Janet Barry, Superintendent
5/23/03
Kent School District
Barbara Groehe, Superintendent
6/12/02
Lake Washington School District #414
Karen Bates, Superintendent
6/5/02
3/26/03
Mercer Island School District
Bill Keim, Superintendent
4/25/02
Puget Sound Education Services District
Terry Lindquist, Superintendent
2/6/02
Shoreline School District
Dr. James Welsh, Superintendent
3/2/02
Snoqualmie Valley School District #410
Dr. Richard McCullough, Superintendent
6/27/02
Tahoma School District #409
Michael Maryanski, Superintendent
5/14/02
Vashon Island School District #402
Dr. Marguerite (Mimi) Walker, Superintendent
3/14/02
SEWER & WATER DISTRICTS - 22 of 35
Cedar River Water & Sewer District
Walter Canter, President
6/02
Coal Creek Utility District
Thomas Peadon, General Manager
3/17/02
Covington Water District
Judith Nelson, General Manager
3/29/02
Fall City Water District
Commissioners
5/15/02
Highline Water District
Peggy Bosley, General Manager
3/22/02
King Co. Water District #1
Robert Bishop
4/20/02
King Co. Water District #19
Margaret Cruse, General Manager
2/22/02
King Co. Water District #20
Commissioners
4/2/02
King Co. Water District #117
Commissioners
7/11/02
King Co. Water District #119
Terry Olson, Manager
7/3/02
King Co. Water District #125
Russ Austin, Superintendent
2/7/02
Lakehaven Utility District
Donald Perry, General Manager
3/11/02
Midway Sewer District
Commissioners
5/22/02
4/23/03
NE Sammamish Sewer & Water District
Laura Szentes, General Manager
5/7/02
Page 4
Signatories to the Regional Disaster Plan -
Officia/ Signatory Sheets received as of 07/18/03
Northshore Utility District
Margaret Wiggins, Board President
4/1/02
4/25/03
Ronald Wastewater District
Philip J. Montgomery, General Manager
1/30/02
Skyway Water & Sewer District
Jon Ault, President, Board of Commissioners
5/3/02
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
Ron Speer, District Manger
6/5/02
3/26/03
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
Commissioners
4/10/02
Southwest Suburban Sewer District
William Skahan, General Manager
5/20/02
Val Vue Sewer District
Joe Colello, President
4/2/02
Woodinville Water District
Bob Bandarra, General Manager
6/7/02
4/15/03
Total Signatories = 112
Total 32 = for 2003 - Second Round Adoption & Signature Process
* *First Round Adoption & Signature Process - 2002 = 106 TOTAL Signatories **
ENDORSEMENTS Received:
• Washington State Emergency Management Division
• King County Fire Chiefs Association
February, 2002
February 20th, 2002
All Regional Disaster Plan documents and related information can be accessed at:
www.metrokc.gov/prepare/RDPTFLink.htm
Page 5
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Regional Disaster Plan
for Public and Private Organizations
in King County
Laurel L. Nelson, Regional Planning Project Manager
King County Office of Emergency Management
(206) 205-8110
Pull Plan is at
www.metrokc.gov /prepare /RDPTFLink.htm
2,100 square miles
1.7 million people
39 cities
120 special
districts (fire,
school, water,
etc.)
No law mandates
coordination
between public and
private sectors
07 -21 -03
City of Tukwila
King County Today
Historic Disaster Planning Efforts:
39 cities. 30+ fire districts, 19 school districts. 32 sewer water districts.
19 hospitals. Port of Seattle, Puget Sound Energy, utilities, non -profit
agencies. private sector, etc.
King County Office of Emergency
Management 1
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Regional Disaster Plan for Public
Private Organizations in King County
Purpose:
Voluntary plan, with legal financial agreement, that
provides the framework needed to inter -link response
plans of a wide range of public, private and non profit
organizations within King County
Response plan
It foes not replace existing agreements
www.metrokc.gov/prepare/RDPTFLink.htm
Regional Disaster Planning Process
Regional
Disaster
Plan
oofdfnate for Greater
Efficiencies
Communication
Debris clearance
Lifeline restoration
Use of regional services
such as Red Cross,
Health Dept., and
transit operations
Public safety
information
Management of
donated goods
Shelter operation
Sharing of specialized
resources
King County Office of Emergency
Management 2
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Augments mutual aid
agreements
Establishes cross
disciplinary
interaction
Sets legal and financial
framework
Uses incident command
system (ICS)
awwa s veeaw eavvv, sanst
Carnelian, Owls W I, PAWL Hut.
van. Iwenak, Kenmore. Kirkland.
Lake Forst Par, MNiu. Macs
Wend, HscesH, Here Bend,
Redmml. ammoniac SoNka.
skYkortAM Wapiti; Wow-mile.
Yawn F4■
II
amend,
rr aw, Feat Wy,
Maple Wiley. Met
my Park, P.crb,
arT•e. Tawas.
Vu1m Island
ilk
King County Regional E. a Coordination Zones
State and
Federal GaAs
Made -up of one city
(Seattle) and its
departments
agencies
Key Elements
Made-up of 16 cities
with their departments,
jurisdictional agencies
businesses
Participation Is
voluntary
Uses existing
resources
Modeled on other
successful plans
Organized
geographically
Made -up of 22 cities
with their departments.
jurisdictional agencies
businesses
King County Office of Emergency
Management 3
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Those In affected Zone mobilize to
provide direct assistance
Unaffected Zones are activated to
provide additional incident support
County facilitates coordination
among Zones
Everyone plays by the ICS rules
ago ~NI Ikeda•. i
Proc
Atheist 'AnslM IfOtgatiti
exhaystec, activate
regional disaster
plan.
f'�•
rr ratite or
+mot+ f
tMnQdOrssfa
gll nts In
Bottom Line Benefit...
King County Office of Emergency
Management 4
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Adoption Signature History
Year 2002
1M Round Dissemination Adoption January 2002
Five Documents Released
700 Letters of Invite to Potential Partners
June 2002 Signing Celebration
Open Comment Period December 2002
Year 2003
2nd Round Dissemination Adoption March 2003
Three Documents Released
Out Reach to Partners via E -mail Letters
Elected Officials Workshop —April 11
NEW INFORMATION DIRECTION es of 3-2443
Siouan Shot UMW, ler Raba Owe&a Aoenat
Bemuse NWra: One Change Mlle HO beMw49P Omen LOCH en, Fiiw S Agreement
n incEMACI.Larm pNN Gw
endS tCWgMlveans en Emergency n n. WY
CnnrOmnibus.
PIN. 00v1111009 tin MMned Sid aM1nMd Gmtus AOeenel. end len vat Si gW Mecn•H MT
totam mo oneHygmd •2003Signa'WDOciWeM®x Sneer
to 11 .tic. n +/w_. vt 519
YSY(For ugmOat adgedn Otto aeBed Gm bA
Ag•mM. Sign BM mN mgnM to tint GOWN Emergency Management ATM Loser
Nate. 73WPenneeer Rood South. Roan 126: Seffi.N'A 981601
y¢llwd Dbeaktd.e AMN•e -2063 Nw11DP d•anabU
In 2960 nei4scWmwaohOaOS conned deNbgno aYmW MWaldoortents to to Rational
PUS Pia Shoes One(31ronansvmre les0ad end COMM byte Regan Psene
Plan Tai rota Your organ's'," Newt a dwnb.d those dmunan end odd mon to a
OUP r ._..snam.Hnn7 a1MRWmeaiDins
Current Signatories to Regional Disaster Plan
CITES
Ad A OM.
•RNCn/Noat-
FIRE DISTRICTS
1T ten Iola
NONPRORTS
Imtm a__
P RIVATE NWSTPT
B onkd AkeWe
S ag Cwr.ap. Tim
Skews Hs
my Ce. Win *Hem
P.O of Skew
Rapt teed Earp
Reprice NwnM-
Sond Tma
w.-agnn Mat
SCHOOLS
12 of Slay IX•dw
P.P. Sot EddM anon..OS
SEWER WATER N•TPCTs
22d35 weer ..ta.mn
HOSPITALS
Aw,m R. pet Motel Diet
Gnaw% Ibpa• R.Om. Waal
Oats
E runwx Cpmatry MwpM
MuMron M. Y.•I CMt
I C wsph a l WOW
Itherod 1Mwp1M
o..er. N.M.' Was Cann.,
R.paN Matt 1p Rn.plaw/
tr.. Can
S Raab Mapt
Swish Misital Grier Feet HO City.
M.0.5 BLLVdC•nry.
Census
N Wsily Wm Modal
Yaw M.6M C n
n
W
WO* Mac. Medea Lands
111 Total
PUBLIC PRIVATE NONPROFIT
King County Office of Emergency
Management 5
City of Tukwila 07/21/03
Regional Disaster Plan Work Plan....
2003 Second Round for Adoption Signature
Current Revised documents on websae
Continued development of additional support documents Si
training by the multi- disciplinary represented Regional
Disaster Planning Task Force
ESF 3— Public WOMB
ESF 6— Maas Care
ESF 7— Resource Management
ESF 23— Damage Assessment
Training to co npleted Plan and ESFt
Terrorism Annex
Regional Hospital Biotermdsm Annex
Business -related support document
Questions
King County Office of Emergency
Management 6
Finance and Safety Committee
July 21, 2003
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Jim Haggerton, Richard Simpson
Jim Morrow, Alan Doerschcl, Nick Olivas, Chris Flores, Lt. Phil Lyons, Sally
Blake, Lucy Lauterbach; Laurel Nelson and Eric Holdeman-KC Emergency
Management
1. Regional Disaster Plan Tukwila has had an emergency disaster plan for some time. Jim has
rewritten portions of it, and will bring it to the Council soon. Laurel and Eric explained that King
County started developing a Regional Disaster Plan in 1998, when they looked at all the city, state,
non-profits, special districts, and businesses that had emergency plans, and decided to work to
coordinate all their work. They now have a voluntary plan that provides a framework for agencies
and governments to work together in an emergency. Thc county plan is divided into Seattle, north
and east, and south. It doesn't cost anything, and 111 signatories now have adopted it. They include
30 of the 39 KC cities; 17 of the 35 fire districts, 12 school districts, 22 sewer and water districts, and
numerous hospitals and businesses.
The plan uses existing resources, and plans for cross-disciplinary interaction. No one will be charged
money unless and until an emergency happens and someone who provides machinery or special
expertise charges for their time and expenses. Jim suggested a practice emergency based on a train
derailment. With 80 trains a day mixing passenger trains and cargo and hazardous waste trains, it
could be a realistic training exercise. Recommend plan presentation and adoption to COW.
2. Emergency Radio Replacement Plan Jim M used the opportunity to inform the committee
about the radios used by staff. The basic system is an 800 Mhtz Motorola radio system. Replacing our
150 radios would cost $600,000. Motorola is the only provider, and they have made their new radios
dependent on a new battery and charger system. Replacement units will cost $3,000-3,500 a piece.
Replacing 15 units yearly will keep the system updated. The city is trying to consolidate phones,
pagers and radios into one unit. Jim M said the new bandwidth the government has released is for
data transmission, not public safety. Staff will research whether other cities or thc state are also
buying this equipment to see if they can get a discount. Information.
3. Rescue Tool Purchase Phil went through the functions of the fire department. He talked about
the "golden hour" which is the first hour after a serious health event when thc patient has the best
chance of survival if they receive critical care. Auto extrication can take a lot of time at a highway
crash, using valuable minutes of that hour. Any tool, which helps thc department rescue, someone
more quickly, is valuable. NW Auto Wrecking has been very good to provide practice cars to the
department. Phil researched several auto opener tools. The City has two auto extrication tools
already, though they are aging and aged. The Homaltro openers were thc best of the four tools
researched. The system can be used independently, which is important if the rescue is down a cliff or
high up. They are light and ergonomically designed. They are a little expensive, but Fire has $16,000
left of a grant. They want to buy a $23,612 Homaltro. They may buy part of it this year and the rest
next year, or this year if they can find the funds in their department. Information.
Committee chair approval
Agenda Item Title:
CAS Number: 03-099
Original Sponsor:
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
Committee:
Administration:
Cost Impact (if known):
I Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
07 -28 -03
Meeting Date Prepared by
07 28 03 SL
Council
Admin. X
Initials
I Mayor's review I Council review
I AA-ft' I (,d.C.
I I
I I
I I
ITEMNO.
07 -28 -03
Proposed Resolution Ratifying the 2003 Countwide Planning Policy Amendments
Action requested by 08 -17 -03
King County adopted seven amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies for
King County on May 19, 2003. Tukwila's City Council may act to ratify or oppose the
amendments within 90 days of the County's action (by 08- 17 -03). In the event the
City Council takes no action by that date, the City will be deemed to have ratified the
amendments.
Ratify the proposed Countywide Planning Policy amendments Approve Resolution
Ratify the proposed Countywide Planning Policy amendments Approve resolution.
Same as sponsor.
None
N/A
Attachments
Memorandum from S. Lancaster, to City Council dated July 23, 2003
Minutes Community Affairs Parks Committee dated July 15, 2003
Proposed Resolution Draft Format
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Steve Lancaste~.~bc~
SUBJECT: Ratification of 2003 Countywide Planning Policy amendments
DATE: July 23, 2003
BACKGROUND
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that King County and the cities within the
county work together to adopt countywide planning policies, which serve to guide and
coordinate the development of local comprehensive plans. The Growth Management Planning
Council (GMPC) comprised of representatives of King County, the cities and special districts
was formed in 1990 to develop such countywide planning policies. The original Countywide
Planning Policies for King County (CPPs) were adopted in July 1992. These policies are
periodically reviewed and revised in response either to changing conditions or requirements of
growth management law.
The GM_PC develops proposed countywide planning policies or amendments to the policies, and
recommends them to the King County Council. Policies adopted by the County Council become
effective only if ratified by at least 30% of the city and county governments in King County,
representing at least 70% of the county's population. Jurisdictions failing to act within 90 days
of County Council action are deemed to have ratified the policies or amendments. The 90-day
period for the 2003 CPP amendments described below expires on August 17.
2003 CPP AMENDMENTS
King County Ordinance No. 14652 adopts GMPC Motion No. 02-04, adding new policy support
to ongoing water supply planning and development. King County Ordinance No. 14653 adopts
three CPP amendments relating to revised housing and employment targets (GMPC Motions No.
02-01, 02-02 and 02-03). King County Ordinance No. 14654 adopts GMPC Motion 02-05,
amending the CPP's "Urban Separator Map" to refieet a negotiated modification to the Renton
Urban Separator. King County Ordinance No. 14655 adopts GMPC Motion 02-06, amending
the CPPs to designate the Totem Lake area in Kirkland as an "Urban Center." Finally, King
County Ordinance No. 14656 adopts GMPC Motion 01-2, amending the CPPs to add new
policies addressing long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
These amendments are more fully described below.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 1 of 4
Water Supply Plannine and Develonment (Kine County Ordinance No. 14652)
The issue of regional water supply was raised during discussions related to the adoption of new
housing and employment targets (see below). The proposed new policy was offered in the spirit
of ensuring ongoing infrastructure planning efforts. The proposed new policy reads:
FW-12c Ensuring sufficient water supply is essential to accommodate growth and
conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial lead-time required to develop water
supply sources, infrastructure and management strategies, long-term water supply
planning efforts in the Region must be ongoing.
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14652
Housing and Employment Targets (King County Ordinance No.14653)
In February 2002 the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) released new
population forecasts for the 20-year period 2002-2022. GMA requires King County and the
cities to plan to accommodate these updated projections. The GMPC is responsible for
developing updated housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction in King County, and
the aggregate of the housing targets must be consistent with OFM's population forecast.
GMPC's interjurisdictional staff worked with a subcommittee of the King County Planning
Directors to extend the previous 1992-2012 targets through 2022. Development of the updated
targets was done on a county sub-region basis in order to further the goal of jobs/housing
balance.
King County Ordinance No. 14643 approves three related GMPC motions. Motion No. 02-01
(see Attachment B.2) does the following:
· Specifies the process for allocating targets in King County.
· Makes clear the importance of federal, state, regional and local transportation
investments in achieving growth targets.
· States it is the responsibility of each jurisdiction to plan for and accommodate the
housing and employment targets, but recognizes that the targets do not obligate
jurisdictions to guarantee that the targets will be met.
· Provides for target adjustments when annexations occur.
Motion No. 02-02 adopts the specific household growth targets for each jurisdiction (see
Attachment B.3). The new household targets represent the most significant aspect of the 2003
Countywide Planning Policy amendments from Tukwila's perspective. Under the amendments,
Tukwila's 2022 household target (3200) is actually lower than our previous 2012 target (4761 -
6014). The new target is much more realistic in light of our current zoning and other
development constraints.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 02-03 adopts specific employment growth targets for each jurisdiction (see
Attachment B.4). The new employment targets for 2022 are 16,000, compared to our previous
2012 target of 22,500. The most significant factor in this reduction is the dramatic change in
Boeing expansion plans for the Duwamish industrial area.
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14653
Renton Urban Separator (Kin~ County Ordinance No. 14654)
Urban Separators are low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth
Area. They are intended to protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas and environmentally
sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas. Renton did not
agree with the Urban Separator designation for 76 acres of unincorporated urban land within
their Potential Annexation Area (PAA), citing lack of environmental constraints. Renton
identified 119 acres within the city limits that they felt would be a more appropriate Urban
Separator. GMPC Motion No. 02-05 approves Renton's proposal to remove the designation
from the unincorporated 76 acre area and designate the 119 acre area as an Urban Separator
instead (see Attachment C.2).
StaffRecotnmendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14654
Urban Center designation for Totem Lake (Kin~ County_ Ordinance No. 14655)
In January 2002 the Kirkland City Council adopted a new plan for the Totem Lake area, and
requested that the area be designated as an Urban Center in the Countywide Planning Policies.
Totem Lake, which is located in the northeast comer of Kirkland, encompasses about one square
mile and includes residential, office, retail, light industrial and institutional uses. The GMPC
interjurisdictional staff team reviewed Kirkland's request against the CPP criteria governing
urban centers, and concluded the designation would be appropriate. GMPC Motion No. 02-06
approves this proposal (see Attachment D.2).
Staff Recommendation - City Council ratification of King County Ordinance No. 14655
Governance of Agricultural Protection Districts (King County_ Ordinance No. 14656)
The Countywide Planning Policies prohibit urban development of designated agricultural lands.
The amendments proposed by GMPC Motion No. 01-2 (see Attachment E-3) modify this general
policy direction by:
· Prohibiting the annexation of designated Agricultural Protection Districts (APDs) by
cities.
· Specifically identifying the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural Protection
District (lying between Aubum and Kent) as a regionally designated resource, and
allowing King County to contract with adjacent jurisdictions for provision of local
services to the area.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification.doc Page 3 of 4
· Amending the CPP's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Map so that the Lower Green
APD is not included in any city's PAA.
· Amending the CPP's Urban Growth Area Map to remove the Lower Green APD
from the designated Urban Area.
The cities of Auburn and Kent are most directly affected by these proposed amendments. The
city of Auburn supports the proposed amendments. The Kent City Council Planning Committee
has opposed the proposed amendments, apparently unconvinced that the County will provide
adequate agricultural protection over the long nm. The full Kent City Council has not taken final
action as of this writing.
StaffReeotntnendation -Staff will continue to coordinate with the City of Kent and inform the
City Council of Kent's position when it is known. Our preliminary recommendation is that the
Tukwila City Council ratify King County Ordinance No. 14656.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposed 2003 Countywide Planning Policy Amendments to the next regular
meeting of the City Council for ratification.
Q:\STEVE\GMA\CPP\CC 2003 ratification, doc Page 4 of 4
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14652
Proposed No. 2003 -0123.1 S; Hague
1
Alt (AAMCMt Ae 1
1200 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue'
Seattle, WA 98104
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; adding a new policy to
3 support ongoing water supply planning and development;
4 ratifying the amended Countywide Planning Policies for
5 unincorporated King County; and amending Ordinance
6 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and
7 Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C.
8 20.10.040.
9
10
11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 Countywide Planning
15 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
Ordinance 14652'
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on Augt~st 15, 1994, under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. Th6 Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
21 Policies, adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply planning and
22 ' development.
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 am
24 each hereby amended to reed as follows:
25 Phase IL
26 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planmng
29 Policies are amended, as shoTM by Attachment I to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34' E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended,'as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36 F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance.13858.
2
Ordinance 14652
38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
40 H..The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 -.Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 !' The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14~92.
44 J. The Phase li Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning,
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 ar~ hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase.II amendments to the King Coanty 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
57 unincorporated King County.
58. E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12(Y27 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
3
Ordinance 14652
61 F. The amendments to the Kihg County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421,. are hereby ratified on behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64~ G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide Planning Policies, as '
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, am hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, a~ ~
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plm/ning Policies, as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, ar~ hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County.
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, aa
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County. '
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified ma behalf of the
81 population of Unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14652
82 M. The amendments to the Kin County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies. as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance are hereby ratified on behalf of the population
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
Ordinance 14652 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
Yes: 12 Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day of_ la 2003.
Attachments Attachment 1. GMPC Motion 02-4
5
KING COUNTY COUNCIL,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ynthia Sullivan, Chair
:r
30
31
32
33
September 25, 2002
!cm
1 MOTION NO. 02-4
A- hroac.HMtNT A.2
Attachment 1 2 003 -0123
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding a new policy to support ongoing water supply
5 planning and development.
6
7 WHEREAS, in July 2002, the Growth Management Planning Council approved additions
8 and changes to the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies approving the countywide process
9 developed to recommend a new 22 -year household and employment target; and
10
11 WHEREAS, an amendment to add a new policy supporting ongoing water supply planning
12 and development was considered and tabled; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the GMPC allowed reconsideration of the amendment at such time agreement
15 could be reached on the language; and
16
17 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the county to encourage regional efforts to plan for and
18 develop sufficient water supply sources to accommodate population growth and to meet
19 environmental needs related to conservation of fish habitat.
20
21 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
22 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Add a new policy to Section III C of the King County Countywide Planning Policies as
25 follows:
14652
26 FW -12c Ensuring sufficient water sunnlv is essential to accommodate growth and
27 conserve fish habitat. Due to the substantial Lead -time reauired to develop water sunnly.
28 sources. infrastructure and management strategies. Long -term water sunnlv nlanning efforts
29 in the Region must be ongoing.
1
2 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
3 September 25, 2002 in open session.
4
5
6
8
10
LGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02-4.du
14652
Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14653
Proposed No. 2003 -0124.1 Sponsors Hague
1200 King County C_
516 Third Avenue
Seattle. WA 98104
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; adopting new household
3 and employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022;
4 revising existing policies and adding new policies in
5 support of the new targets; ratifying the amended
6 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
7 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
8 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
9 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
10
11
12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
13 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
14 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
15 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 Countywide Planning
16 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
1
pr tm.,1l MINT 1
Ordinance 14653
17 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase 11
18 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
19 11446.
20 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on July 24, 2002 and voted to
21 rec ad amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning Policies,
22 revising existing policies and adding new policies to support extending household and
23 employment targets for the period 2001 through 2022.
24 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 25, 2002 and
25 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
26 Policies, adopting new household and employment targets for the period 2001 -2022.
27 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
28 each hereby amended to read as follows:
29 Phase II.
30 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
31 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
32 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
34 C. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
36 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
38 E. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
39 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
2
Ordinance 14653
40 F. The Phase li Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
42 G. The Phase Ii Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
44 H. The Phase 11 Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1.to Ordinance 14391..
46 I. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 -, Countywide Planning.
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392.
48 J. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide P]annlno
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance.
50 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and ICC.C. 20.10.040 are
51 each hereby amended to read as follows:
52 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
53 A. Countywide Plaun!ng Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
54 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55' B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
56 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
57 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
58 11061 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
59 D. The Phase H amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning ·
60 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
61 unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14653
62 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 F. The amendments to the King Count~, 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
67 population of unincorporated King County.
68 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Couniywide Planning Policies, as
69 shOWn by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the
70 population of unincorporated King County.
71 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
72 shown by Attachment I through 4 ~o Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
73 the population of unincorporated King County.
74 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
75 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
76 the population of unincorporated King County.
77 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as '
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are liereby ratified on behalf of the
79 population of unincorporated King County.
80 IC The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
81 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
82 population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14653
83 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
84 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
85 population of unincorporated King County.
86 M. The amendments to the King Coumy 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
87 shown bv Attachments 1 through 3 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
88 population of unincorporated King County.
89
Ordinance 14653 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms..Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
~ynthia Sulliva~ Chair ,~> ::~- IT1
A'rr/~ST:
Anno Nm'is, Clerk of the Council
Attachments 1. OMPC Motion 02-I, 2. GMPC Motion 02-2, 3. OMPC Motion 02-3
' Attachment I
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
· SponsorextBy: Executive Committee
/em
i MOTION NO. 02-1
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planfdng Council of King
3 County recxnmnending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies revising existing policies and adding new policies to support
5 the extension of the household and employment targets for the period
6 2001-2022.
7
8 WHEREAS, in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the 1994
9 Countywide Planning Policies established a household and employment target range for
10 each city and for King County through 2012; and
I1
12 WHEREAS, the 1994 targets need to be extended to reflect projected growth through 2022
13 in accordance with the GMA (RCW 36 70A 110); and
14
15 WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW-3 states that the adopted household and
16 employment targets shall be monitored by King County annually with adjustments made
17 by the Growth Management Planning Council utilizing the process established in FW-I,
18 Step 6; and .
19
20 WHEREAs since February 2001 staff from King County and the cities in King County
21 'have worked cooperatively to analyze and recommend new 20-year household and
22 employment targets; and
23
24 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
25 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
26 public comment ~n March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
27 THE GROWTH MANAG~ PLANNING coUNcIL OF KING COUNTY
28 HERFmy MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
29
30 Amend Sections llI. C and Ill. F of the King County Countywide Planning Policies'as
31 follows:
32
33 III. Land Use Pattern
34
35 C. Urban Areas
36
14653
1 The following policies establish an Urban Growth Area (UGA). determine the amount of
2 household and employment growth to be accommodated within the UGA in the form of
3 targets for each jurisdiction, and identify methods to phase development within this area in
4 order to bring certainty to long -term planning and development within the County. All
5 cities are included in the UGA, with the cities in the Rural Area identified as islands of
6 urban growth. The UGA is a permanent designation. Land outside
7 the UGA is designated for permanent rural and resource uses.((
8 Countywide Policies on Rural and Resource Areas
9 are found in Chapter ILIA, Resource Lands, and Chapter lllR, Rural Areas.
10
11 In accordance with the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (36. the State
12 Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides a population projection to each county_
13 The county. through a collaborative intergovernmental process established by the Growth
14 Management Planning Council. allocates the population as growth targets to individual
15 jurisdictions. Forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council are used to
16 establish the employment projection.
17
18 The process for allocating targets in King County is as follows.
19
20 1. The PSRC employment forecasts are calculated for the four geographic subareas
21 the UGA (Sea- Shore. South. Fast. and Rural Cities). These then become subarea
22 employment targets.
23 2. The jurisdictions collectively allocate the OFM population projection to the four
24 .subarea's based on the projected ernvlovment for each area. A small amount of
25 growth is assumed to occur in the Rural area.
26 3. The technical staff translates the nopulation nroiectjons.into projected households.
27 taking into account different average household sizes within each subarea. These
28 projections then become subarea household targets.
29 4. Jurisdictions within each subarea negotiate the distribution of subarea household
30 and employment targets using criteria based on Countywide Planning Policies.
31
32
33
34.
35
36
37
38 as growth occurs.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The housing capacity in the (JGA (Orr 6 ,0 1,411)), based on adopted
plans and regulations, ((meets -the)) should accommodate the protected 20 -year
growth((..•
population forecasts)). ))Growth is to be accommodated within
permanent Urban Areas by increasing densities, as needed Phasing ((is-to)) should occur
within the UGA. as necessary. to ensure that services are provided
FW -11
The land use pattern for King County shall protect the natural
environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating
development. An. Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas, and resource lands
shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations
adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a boundary for the
Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall make land use decisions
based on the Countywide Planning Policies.
IICMPC/02GMPCJMa02 -1.doc 2
la. 653
! FW-12 The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate
2 future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban
3 services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the
4 Urban Growth Area shall be instituted.
5
6 FW-12a All iurisdictions within Kinq County share the responsibility to
? accommodate the 20-year poPulation proiection. The qrowth projection
8 shall be assi,qned to the four subareas of Kinq County (Sea-Shore, East,
p South, and the Rural Cities) proportionate with the share of projected
]0 employment qrowth. The .qrowth shall be allOCated pursuant to the
] ] followin.q objectives:
]2 a. To ensure efficient use of land within the UGA by directinq growth to
13 Urban Centers and Activity Centers;-
]4 b. To limit development in the Rural Areas;
15 c. To protect desiqnated rasoume lands;
16 d. To ensure efficient use of infrastructure;
17 e. To improve the iobs/housin.q balance on a subarea basis;
is f. To promote a land use pattern that can be served by public
19 transportation and other alternatives to the sin.qle occupancy vehicle;
20 and
21 g. ,To provide sufficient opportunities for qrowth within the jurisdictions.
23 FW-12b The ,qrowth tar,qets established pursuant to the meth0doloqy described in
24 LU-25c and 25d shall be supported by both re,qio'nal and local
25 transportation investments. The availability of an ade(~uate
26 transportation system is.critically important to accommodatinq qrowth.
2? The rapional responsibility shall be met by'planninq for and deliverinq
28 county, state, and federal investments that support the growth tarqets
29 and the land use pattern of the County. This includes investments in
30 transit, state hiqhways in key reqional transpo~ation corddore, 'and in
31 improved access to the desi.qnated Urban Centers. The local
32 responsibility shall be met by local transportation system inveslments
33 that SUDOOrt the achievement of the tarqets.
34
35 LU - 25a Each iurisdiction shall plan for and accommodate the household and
36 employment tarqets established pursuant to LU-25c and LU-25d. This
37 obli,qation includes:
3s a. Ensudn.q adequate zoninR capacity; and
39 b. Planninq for and delivedna water, sewer, transportation and other
4o infrastructure, in concert with federal and state investments and
41 recO~, nizinq where applicable special purpose districts; and
42 c. Accommodatinq increases !n.household and employment tareets as
43 annexations occur.
The tar.qets will be used to plan for and to accommodate .qrowth within
46 each iurisdiction..The tarqets do not obliqate a iurisdiction to .quarentee
4? that a ,qiven number of housinq units will be built or iobs added durinq the
48 planninq period.
IJGNIP~JO2GZv~otO2-l.doc
14653
] LU25b AS annexations occur, qrowth tar.qets sh~ll be adjusted. Household and
2 employment tarqets for each jurisdiction's potential annexation area,
3 adopted in Table LU-1, shall be t~ansferred to the annexinq iurisdiction
4 follows:
6 a. Kinq county and the respective city will determine new household
7 and employment tar.qets for areas under consideration for
s annexation prior to the submittal of the annexation proposal to thA
9 Kinq County Boundary Review Board;
lO b. A city's household and employment tar.qets shall be increased by a
1 t share of the tarqet for the potential annexation area proportionate to
t2 the share of the potential annexation area's development capacity
13 located within the area annexed. Each city will determine how and
14 where within their corporate boundaries to accommodate the tar.qet
15 increases;
16 c. The County's tarqet shall be correspondingly decreased to ensure
]? *that overall tarqet levels in the county remain the same;
18 d. The household and employment tarqets in Table LU-1 will bA
19 updated periodically to reflect chanqes due to annexations. These
20 tarqet updates do not require adoption by the Growth Manaqement
21 Planninq Council.
22
23 LU - ((6~)) 25cThe target ((s-aml~-egalafierm)) objectives identified in ((LU
24 FW-12a (( ....... ~. ch)) shall be realized thmuqh the following ((=tcp=))
25 methodolo.qv for allocatinq household larqets:
28 ..... *t.,~, ..,,-,..+ on ...... 3~ .sn¢; nnn)) Determine the additional
29 pooulation that must be accommodated countywide by calculatinq the
30 difference between the most recent Census count and.the Stm~-
31 Office of Financial Manaqement population projection for the end of
32 the twenty year plannin.q period;
36 Subtract a percentaqe from that number to represent the amount of'
37 .qrowth that is assumed to.occur in the unincorporated Rural Arch;
............. , ................, .............. r,))
IdGMPC./02GMPC/Mot02-1.doc - Z~ --
14653
] c. Assi,qn proportions of the urban population qrowth to each of the four
2 subareas (Sea-Shore, South, East, and Rural Cities) based on the
3 ' proportion of future employment qrowth forecasted for each of those
4 subareas by the Puqet Sound Re,q onal Council;
5 d.Convert the estimated preiected population for each subarea to an
6 estimated number of households+ usin,q pmiected averaqe
? household sizes that reflect the variation amonq those subaren~
s observed in the most recent Census;
9' e.Allocate a household target to individual iurisdictions, within each
m . subarea, based on FW-12a and considerinq the followin,q factors:
H 1. the availability of water and the capacity of'the sewer system;
t2 2. the remaininq portions of previously adopted household tar,clets;
13 3. the presence of urban centers and activity areas within each
14 iurisdiction;
]5 4. the availability of zoned development capacity in each jurisdiction;
]6 and
]? 5.' the apparent ma~'ket trends for housin.q in the area.
28 r' ...... ))
29 f. Jurisdictions shall plan for household targets as adopted in Table'
30 LU-1; and
3] ((f))g; Monitoring should follow the process described in policy FW-
32 1.
33
34 A portion of the urban employment growth will occur in Activity Areas and neighborhoods
35 in the Urban Area, This employment growth will support the Urban Centers, while
36 balancing local employment opportunities in the Urban Area.
37
38
39 LU - ((68)) 25d ((._.~ ......~ .........~...., ....... ~
42 ...~..)) The tarqet obiectives identified in FW-12a shall be realized
43 throu,qh the followinq methodolof~ for allocating employment targets:
44
45 a. ((Thc ~...,..,k..._...,, .-.-.,-~-,,,-,,-s's ........ · .......... u ........... pled ...... .
14653
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 b.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 c. Jurisdictions shall plan for employment targets as adopted in Table
45 LU -1.
46 (INSERT TABLE LU-1)
UGMPCJO2GMPC/Mm02 -1.doc
Papasity;
residential-ma)) Determine the number of lobs that must be
accommodated in each of the four subareas of Kina County (Sea
Shore. South. East. and the Rural Cities) in accordance with the most
recent PSRC lob estimates and forecasts for the 20 -year planning
period. To account for uncertainty in the employment forecasts,
establish a range of new lobs that must be accommodated in each
subarea. Unless exceptional circumstances dictate. the range should
be 5% on either side of the PSRC forecast.
For each subarea. determine the
point within the ranae uoon which iurisdictions within the subarea will
base their taraets and allocate employment Growth targets to
individual jurisdictions based on consideration of the following:
1. the PSRC small area forecasts;
2. the presence of urban centers. manufacturina/industrial
centers, and activity areas within each iurisdiction:
3. the availability of zoned commercial and industrial
development capacity in each iurisdiction and
4. the access to transit. as well as to existing hiahways and
arterials.
6
1&653
F. 1. Urban Residential Areas
2 [/rban residential areas form the bulk of the UGA, and are home to a large portion of the
3 County's population. They will contain a mix of uses and will have different
4 characteristics in differbnt neighborhoods. Generally, the character, form, preservation
5 and development of these areas ((is a)) are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction ((et
6 , ~or ......... ;)). However, th~ residential areas need to support the Centers concept and
7 provide sufficient opportunity for growth within the [/GA. A substantial majority of new
$ residential units will be cOnstructed within urban residential areas.
9
10
1 ] LU-66 In order to ensure efficient use of the land within the UGA, provide for
12 housing opportunities, and to support efficient use of infr~istructure, each
- 13 jurisdiction shall:
]4
]5 a. Establish in its comprehensive plan a target minimum number of net
]6 new households the jurisdiction will accommodate in the next 20
]7 years in accordance with the adopted household qrowth tar.qets
la identified in Table LU-1. Jurisdictions shall adopt regulations to and
]~.) commit to fund infrastructure sufficient to achieve the target number;
2o b. Establish a minimum density (not including critical areas) for new
2] construction in each residential zone; and
22 c. Establish in the comprehensive plan a target mix of housing types for
23 new development and adopt regulations to achieve the target mix.
uGMPC/O2G/vIPC/MotO'2-I,doc - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
41
48
vobaD20MPem.1024 Ax
1.465
1
14653
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on July 24,
2 2002 in open session.
3
4
5
6
7 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
L/GMPC /02OMPC/MO102 -1.doc 9
Attachment 2
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
Icm
1 MOTION NO. 02-2
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
3 County recommending the amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new household for the period 2001-2022
5 by deleting Appendix 2, 2A and 2B and amending Table LU-I: 2001-
6 2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets which will be
7 located in Section HI. C of the Countywide Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established a housing target range for
10 eeeh city and for King County; and
11
12 WH~S, the Growth Management Act requires the 1994 targets need to be revised to
13 establish an extension of the targets through 2022; and
14
15 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 tho household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on'March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
2O
21. The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and Employment GroWth Targets
22 is hereby recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23 the household growth targets to reflect the target extension from January 1, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022 and Appendix 2, 2A, 2B are .recommended for
25 deletion.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
14653
1
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25, 2002 in open session.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Ron ms, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
12 Attachment:
13 1. Table LU -1: 2001 -2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
LGMPC/02GMPC)Ma02.2.doc 2
1
Subareas
Sonth Kinn County
IMR9e
Anhnm
IBlack Diamond
Dmitai
c'ovinvtm.
Pes Moinr•
I1 Way
Kent
41119^
Manta Valley
Normandy Park
gAdfie
grLtnn
Scalise
Tukwila
Uoinsom Kinn County
T9t
ewe
lvdt Hill
{11n is Pnim
aural,
Kenronre
Mgr
bMM411'
W ater island
Newcastle
Effirmind
Sammamich
W jnville
Rural /Vties
746
1.037
1.927
636
20
Snooualmie 1 1.697
tamovaidai I 5_563
1 151932
IIGMPC/02GMPC/M0102 -2.doe
Household 1111 Capacity PAA RF1
Job Target
Target in PAA' Target
1
209 1
5.92R 2.635 9261
1.099
1 552
1.173 "1
1 576 5 21
6.188 3.754 1370
4.294 1.763 6111
50 106 371
3681 I 1
1001 1
996 1 127 451
6.198 1 5.622 1.9761
4478' 1 14 51
371101 13 51
4.935 1 1
421155 1 14.039 4.935 1
I I
3 1
10.117 1 184 1711
1 751 603 5841
21 1
1 1
3.093 R27 9921
1 325
5480 77t 747
31 1
1.437 1
R63 1 1 11
9 093 407 3901
3942 1
1.869 1
2R
6.801 "4222 "4099
47.645 7109 6.R91I
51R 1
51 510 1
2.651 1
1.670 1,670 1.670 1
56.369 1.670 t.6Q1
3
lob Capacity PAA lob
in PAA Target
*FAA: Potential Annexation Area in UDIcayaated King County Urban Area; **Bear Creek UPD; ***Noah lbgb8uee
me Rural Cities' targets are for the current city limits and =al expansion area for each city. Thus the methodology
for adjusting targets as annexations otter is not applicable to the coral vices.
14653
Attachment 3
2003-0124
14653
July 24, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/em
I MOTION NO. 02-3
2 A MOTION by the Growth Management Planning Council of King
· 3 County recommending thc amendment of the Countywide Planning
4 Policies adding targets for new jobs for the period 2001-2022 by
5 amending Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and ~mploymant
6 Growth Targets which will be located in Section m. C of the
7 Cogntywidc Planning Policies.
8
9 WHEREAS, thc 1994 Countywide Planning Policies established an employment target
10 range for each city and for King County; arid
11
12 WHEREAS, thc 1994 targets need to be revised to establish an extension of thc t,grgets
13 through 2022 ~s required by thc Growth Management Act.
14
15 WI-Ikfl~AS the Growth Management Planning Council met and discussed the extension of
16 the household and employment targets for the period 2001-2022, with opportunity for
17 public comment on March 28, 2001, July 25, 2001, October 24, 2001 and May 22, 2002.
18 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNRqG COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
19 ItEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
20
21 The attached Table LU-I: 2001-2022 Household and F. mployment Growth Targets
22 is hereby 'recommended for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies to revise
23' ~10 employment growth targe.ts to reflect the target extensi°n from January I, 2001
24 through December 31, 2022.·
'25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
36
1
2
3 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
4 September 25, 2002 in open session.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 l• I /IM
12 r Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
13
14 Attachment:
15 1. Table LU-P 2001-2022 Household and Employment Growth Targets.
LGMPC/020MPC/Mot02-3.dcc 2
14653
South Kin, County
Algona
A
Black Diamond
Roden
Covington
Drs Mninea
Federal Wav
got
nle Valley
Normandy bp4r
Pacific
Rentnn
t'nc
Tukwila
Unincom Ring County
Tots)
Mar Corm&
Remy Arts Vitiate
levee
Bolhel
Clyde Hill
Broils Point
]ssa9ygh
Kenmore
JCirkUnd
Medina
Mopor Island
tie
Subareas
IIGMPC/02GMPC/Mot02 -3.doc
Household HH Capacity PAA 1111 lob Capacity PAA lob
Target in PAA* Target lob Target in PAA* Target
10R
6 079! 252
7.525 I
1712
91111
1695
7.481 1
11 500 44
1A54
R04
67
10R
77.597 45R
9 7RR 496
16 497
2.582 701
R9 4011 2 SR2
40/11111
2.000
14. non
2.1/00
R 1100
1100
500
114
1
97k
21.760
1.210
villa 7 000
Yarrow Point
Uninomo Kinn County 4.637 "4193
Ta &1 911S27 4.637
tile
Unincom King Countva"
To tal
Rnrd of
Cpmstirm 75
Ihrvalt 1.125
l 291 1
Rend 1.125
SSni vkomish
oqualmie 1,800
Total .4.250
comity Total I 2119.127
MAA: Potential Annexation Area in Unincorporated King County Urban Arts: "Hear Creek UPD; t•Monh Rightist
7beRunI Cites' targets are for the tartan city limits and rural expansion area for each city. 71ms the methodology
for adjusting targets as amexations occur is not applicable to dwrotal dues.
40_
92 Mll
2.618
694
95A511
71
1.544
1 544
259
114
44
4511
496
497
70 1{ 7.51
77
124
771
21
"4193
4.637
694
694
14653
KING COUNTY
Signature Report
May 19, 2003
Ordinance 14654
Proposed No. 2003-0125.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to.the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; amending the Urban
3 Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
4 Renton Urban Separator;, ratifying the amended
5 Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated King
6 County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
8 Section 4, as amended~ and K.C.C. 20.10.040
9
10
11 BE. 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
12 SECTION 1. l~lndings. The council makes the following findings..
13 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified ~e Growth
14 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
15 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450. . -
l
Ordinance 14654
16 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase II
17 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
18 11446.
19 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
20 voted to recommend amendments to the King County'2012 - Countywide Planning
21 Policies, amending the Urban Separator map to reflect negotiated modifications to the
22 Renton Urban Separator. -
23 SECTION 2. Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
24 each hereby amended to read as follows:
25 Phase II.
26 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
27 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
28 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
30 C. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
32 D. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
34 E. The Phase II Amendments to tho King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment I through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
36' F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies .a~ amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
2
Ordinance 14654
38 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14390.
40 H. The phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391.
42 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392.
44 J. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Plannin~
45 Policies am amended, as shown by Attachment I to this Ordinance.
46 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
47 each hereby amended to read as follows:
48 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
49 A. Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance 10450 for the purposes
50 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
51 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
54 11061 are hereby tariffed on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
55 D. The Phase II. amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
56 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of'
57 unincorporated King County.
58 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
59 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the
60 population of unincorporated King County.
Ordlnanc~
61 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
62 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, arc hereby ratified ~)n behalf of the
63 population of unincorporated King County.
64 G. Thc amendments to the King County 2012 - COUntywide PlanningPolicies, as
65 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
66 population of unincorporated King County.
67 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
68 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
69 the population of unincorporated King County.
70 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
71 shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, are hereby ratified on behalf of
72 the population of unincorporated King County.
73 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
74 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
75 population of unincorporated King County..
76 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
77 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
78 population of unincorporated King County.
79 L. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
80 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
81 population of unincorporated King County.
4
Ordinance 14654
82 M. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
83 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance,.are hereby ratified on behalf of the oooulation
84 of unincorporated King County.
85
Ordinance 14654 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edm6nds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Pattemon
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cynthia Snllivan,~atr
A'I'I'EST:
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this ~ day of J']Ot~4 ,2003
Attachments 1. OMPC Motion 02-5
5
Attachment 1
2003-0125
14654
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-5
2 A MOTION to amend the Urban Separator Map in the
3 Countywide Planning Policies to reflect the negotiated
4 modifications of the Renton Urban Separator.
5
6 WHEREAS, .The Growth Management Act states that each Urban Growth Area shall
7 permit urban densities and shall include'greenbelt and open space areas;
8
9 WHEREAS, Urban Separators are an adopted regional strategy'serving multiple functions
10 and providing environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits to the citizens and
11 communities of King County;
13 WHEREAs, Consistent With the Countywide Planning Policies, the King county
14 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Urban Separators create open space corridorS, provide
15 a visual contrast to continuous development, and reinforce the unique identities of
16 cunmaunitie~;
17
18 WHEREAS, King County has designated Urban Separators on the land Use 2000 map in
19 the King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County has provided advance copies of
20 Urban Separator maps to cities that have designated Urban Separators located within their
21 Potential Annexation Areas;
22
23 WI-I~REAS, the City of Renton disagreed with Urban Separator.designation for 76 acres of
24 land within its Potential Annexation Area; and
25
26 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council directed staff to attempt to
27 negotiate a'mutually acceptable resolution of this disagreement
28
29
30
31
32
33
:1.4654
2
3 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
4 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 The Urban Separators map included within the Countywide Planning Policies document is
7 amended to reflect the negotiated modifications of the Renton Urban Separator described
8 and mapped in the September 25, 2002 GMPC staff report. Specifically, 76 acres of
9 unincorporated land is deleted from Urban Separator designation and 118.8 acres within
10 the City of Renton shall be designated Urban Separator.
11
12 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
13 October 23, 2002 in open session.
14
15
16
17
20 '
21
22 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
IdGMPC/2002GMPC/Motlon02-5.dec
KING COUNTY
516 Tl~td Avenne
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
Ordinance 14655
Proposed No. 2003-0126.1 Sponsors Hague
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies; designating Totem Lake as
3 an Urban Center; ratifying the amended Countywide
4 Planning Policies for unincorporated King County; and
5 amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and
6 K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as
7 amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
8
9
10 BE IT ORDAI1VED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
14 Policies (Phase I) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The metropolitan King County council adopted and ratified the Phase ti
16 amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies on August 15, 1994, under Ordinance
17 11446.
1
Ordinance 14655
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on October 23, 2002 and
19 voted to recommend amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
20 Policies, designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center.
21 SECTION 2. Oxdinance 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
22 each hereby amended to read as follows:
23 Phase II.
24 A. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Plahning
25 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted.
26 B. Thc Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
27 Policies are mended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
28 C. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
29 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 12421,
30 D. The Phase Il Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
31 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260.
32 E. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
33 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
34 - F. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
35 · Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858.
36 (3. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
37 Policies are amend~cl, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390.
38 Iq. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 .Policies are amended, as ~hown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391.
-2
On~inanoe 14655
40 I. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
42 J. The Phase II.Amendments to the King County 201:2 - Countywide Plannim,
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
44 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10~040 are
45 each hereby amended to read as follows:
46 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
47 A. Countywide Planulng Policies adoptedby Ordinance 10450 for the purposas
48 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
49 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
50 10840 are hereby ratified on behalf.of the population of unincerporated King County.
51 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
52 1106i are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
53 D. The Phase li amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
54 Policies adopted by Ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified'on behalf of the population of
55 unincorporated King County.
56 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
57 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 are hereby ratified on behalf of the -
58 population of unincorporated King County.
59 P. The amendments to tho King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
60 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
6I population of unincorporated King County.
Ordinance 14655
62 G. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
63 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 13260, are hereby ratified on behalf of thc
64 population of unincorporated King County.
65 H..The amendments to the King C~unty 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
66 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, am hereby ratified on behalf of
67 thc population of unincorporated King County.
68 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Count)wide Planning Policies,'as
69 shown by Attachments I through 3 to Ordinance 13858, am h6reby ratified on behalf of
70 the population of unincorporated King County.
71 $. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
72 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, arc hereby ratified on behalf of thc
73' population of unincorporated King County.
74 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
75 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14391, arc hereby ratified on behalf of the
76 population of unincorporated King County.
77 L. The amendments to thc King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
78 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance. 14392, are hereby ratifiid on behalf of thc
79 population, of unincorporated King County.
80 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
4
Ordinance 14655
81 shown by Attachment 1 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified ~n behalf of the population
82 of unincorporated King County.
83
Ordinance 14655 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the MetrOpolitan King
County Council on 5/19/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Ms. von Reichbaner, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, MS. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
· Cynthia Sullivan, Chair
ATI'IdST:
Anne Nofis, Clerk of th~ Council (.v2 FT', ~ '
Attaelunonts 1. GMPC Motion 02-6
Attachment 1
2003-0126
14655
October 23, 2002
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
1 MOTION NO. 02-6
2 A MOTION to amend the Countywide Planning Policies by
3 designating Totem Lake as an Urban Center. Totem Lake is
4 added to the list of Urban Centers following Countywide
5 Planning Policy LU-39.
6
7
8 WHEREAS, A goal of the Growth Management Act is to encourage.development in Urban
9 Areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
10
11 WHEREAS, Policy LU-39 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
12 the criteria for Urban Center designation;
13
14 WHEREAS, Policy LU-40 of the Countywide Planning Policies of King County describes
15 standards for planned land uses within Urban Centers;
16
17 WHEREAS, the City of Kirkland has demonstrated that Totem Lake meets the criteria for
18 designation as an Urban Center,-and that Kirkland's "Totem Lake Activity Area"
19 designated on the City's comprehensive plan land use map is con.sistent with the standards
20 established by the Countywide Planning Policies for Urban Center designation.
21 ' ·
22 ~AS, King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-106 supports the development of
23 Urban Centers to meet the region's needs for housing, jobs, services, culture and
24 recreation.
25
26
27
28
29
.30
31
32 ' 'I).2.
33
14655
1
2
5 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY
6 HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
7
8 Totem Lake is designated as an Urban Center. The list of Urban Centers following
9 Countywide Planning Policy LU-39 is modified to include Totem Lake.
10
11 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on
12 October 23, 2002 in open aession.
13
14
15
16
18
19
20 .
21 Ron Sims, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
KING 'COUNTY ~=oo ~= co~yco~...
516 Tl~tcl Avenue
~eat tle~ WA 98104
Signature Report
May 20, 2003
Ordinance 14656
Proposed No. 2003-0127.1 Sponsor~ Hague
I AN ORDINANCE adopting amendments to the
2 Countywide Planning Policies addressing the long-term
3 protection of agricultural production districts; ratifying the
4 amended Countywide Planning Policies for unincorporated
5 King County; and amending Ordinance 10450, Section 3,
6 as mended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 and Ordinance 10450,
7 Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040
8
'9
10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
11 ' SECTION 1. Findings. The council makes the following findings.
12 A. The metropolitan King County enuncil adopted and ~atified the Growth
13 Management Planning Council recommended King County 2012 -Coml. tywid¢ Planning
14 Policies (Phase 1) in July 1992, under Ordinance 10450.
15 B. The.metropolitan King county council adopted and ralified the Phase H
16 amendments to the Countywide Plann!ng Policies on August 15, 1994, uhder Ordinance
17 11446.
OiMinanen 14656 .
18 C. The Growth Management Planning Council met on June 16, 1999, and
19 adopted Motion 99-3, recommending amendments to the King County 2012 -
20 Countywide Planning Policies addressing thc long-term protection of agricultural
21 production districts; adopting new polic!as LU-2A and LU-2B, revising thc interim
22 potential annexation area map so that thc lower green river valley agricultural production
23 district is not within the potential annexation area of any city, and drawing thc urban
24 growth area bounda~ around the lower green river valley agricultural production district
25 to clarify that it is outside of the urban growth area.
26 E. The King County Council adopted Motion 11208 on May 21, 2001, requesting
27 that the GMPC review and reconsider its Motion'99-3 and provide for a thorough public
28 process, including oppommities for public testimony.
29 D. The Growth Management Planning Council met on September 26, 2001 and
30 adopted Motion 01-2, reaffh-'ming Motion 99-3.
31 SECTION 2. Ordinancc 10450, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.030 are
32 each hereby amended to read as follows:
33 Phase II.
34 A. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
35 Policies attached to Ordinance 11446 are hereby approved and adopted. ·
36 B. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 20i2 - Countywide Plaunifig
37 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027.
38 C. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
39 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421.
2
Ordinance 14656
40 D. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 2012 ~ Countywide Planning
41 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 and 2 to ordinance 13260.
42 E. The Phase II Amendments to tbe King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
43 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415.
44 F. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
45 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance'13858.
46 G. The Phase II Amendments to the King County 201-2 - Countywide Planning
47 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 14390.
48 H. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning
49 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachment 1 to ordinance 1439L
50 I. The Phase 1I Amendments to the King County 2012 -'Countywide Planning
51 Policies are mended, as shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14392.
52' $. The Phase H Amendments to the King County 2012- Countywide Plannino
53 Policies are amended, as shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ord;nsnee.
54 SECTION 3. Ordinance 10450, Section4, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.040 are
55 each hereby amended to read as follows:
56 Ratification for unincorporated King County.
57 A. Countywide PlauningPolicies adopted by ordinance 10450 for the purposes
58 specified are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unineorporat:ed King County.
59 B. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
60 10840 am hereby ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
61 C. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by Ordinance
62 11061 are hereby ratified on.behalf of the population of unincorporated King County.
3
Ordinance 14656
63 D. The Phase II amendments to the King County 2012 Countywide Planning
64 Policies adopted by ordinance 11446 are hereby ratified on behalf of the population of
65 unincorporated King County.
66 E. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
67 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12027 arc hereby ratified on behalf of the
68 population of unincorporated King County.
69 F. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Counfywide Planning Policies, as
70 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12421, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
71 population of unincOrpOrated King County.
72 G. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
73 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to Ordinance 1.3260, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
74 population of unincorporated King County.
75 H. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
76 shown by Attachment 1 through 4 to Ordinance 13415, are hereby ratified on behalf of
77 the population of unincorporated King County.
78 I. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
79 shOWn by. Attachments 1 through 3 to Ordinance 13858, me hereby ratified on behalf of
80 the population 6f unincorporated King County.
81 J. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
82 shown by Attachment 1 to Ordinance 14390, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
83 population of unincorporated King County. '
4
Ordinance 14656
84 K. The amendments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
85 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14391, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
86 population of unincorporated King County.
87 L. The amen,dments to the King County 2012 - Countywide Planning Policies, as
88 shown by Attachment I to Ordinance 14392, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
89 population of uulncorpomted King County.
90 M. The amendments to the King County 2012 ? Count3nv~de Plannln~ Policies,
5
O~dinance 14656
91 shown by Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance, are hereby ratified on behalf of the
92 population of unincorporated King County.
93
Ordinance 14656 was introduced on 3/17/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 5/1912003, by the following vote:
Yes: 12 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. yon Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine., Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTOlq
nthia Sullivan,
A-i-i-I~T:
Anne Noris, Clerk of tho Council
Attachments 1. GMPC Motion 99-3, 2. GMPC Motion 01-2
6
Attachment 2
2003-0127
14656
September 26, 2001
Sponsored By: Executive Committee
/pr
1 MOTION NO. 01-2
2 . .A MOTION reaffirming Motion 99-3 passed by the GMPC on June 16,
3 1999 amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies that
4 address the long-term governance of Agricultural Production Districts.
5
6 . WHEREAS, Thc Grovnh Management Act requires the maintenance, enhancement and
7 conservation of agricultural industries and lands though a variety of methods and programs;
8
9 WHEREAS, .King County residents have supported efforts to preserve good farmland and active
10 farms for the value of local crops, dairy and livestock and for scenic and historic values;
11
12 WHEREAS, King County, through the Farmlands Preservation Program, has purchased the
· 13 development rights of 12,600 acres of farmland and has established the Agricultural .Production
14 Dislricts (APDs) to farther protect these and adjacent prime agricultural lands;
15
16 WHEREAS, the Lower Green River AID is ~ompletely surrounded by Urban designated lands and
17 as ~uch is under inm~nse pressu~ for development and annexation; and'
18
19 WHEREAS, King County and the City of Auburn have signed an interlocal agreement .tha[
20 removes the southea'n portion of the Lower Green APD out of the city's potential mmexation area.
21 THE GROWTH MANA(3EMENT P~G COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY HFa0tEBY
22 MOVES AS FOLLOWS:
23
24 Reaffirm the unanimous vote by this Council on June 16, 1999 t9 add the following new
25 Countywide Planning Policies:
26
..27 LU-2A Designated Agricultural Productibn District lands shall not be annexed by
28 cities.
29
30 LU-2B The Lower Green River Agricultural Production District is a regionally
31 designated resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
32 Preservation of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District will
33 provide an urban separator as surrounding Urban areas are annexed and
34 developed. King County may contract with other jurisdictions to provide
35 some local services to this area as appropriate.
~.A656
2 In the event that this motion is ratified by the member jmisdictions of Growth Management
3 Planning Council, then the Interim Potential Annexation Area Map shall be revised
4 accordingly and the Urban Growth Boundary will be drawn around the Lower Green
5 Agricultural Production District (APD) m clarify that the APD is outside of the Urban area.
6
7 ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County on September 26, 2001
8 in open session.
9
10
11
13
14 .
15
16 ~-~n~/, Growth Management Planning Council ·
LtOMPC/'2fl01GMPC/Molien01-2.doe - 2 -
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, RATIFYING SEVEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR KING COUNTY, AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE ICING COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policies for King County were adopted and
ratified through an inter jurisdictional planning process in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Planning Council for King County has
x,,,-....,ended seven proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2003 the King County Council approved and ratified the
proposed amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County through adoption of
Ordinance 14562, Ordinance 14653, Ordinance 14654, Ordinance 14655 and Ordinance
14656; and
WHEREAS, interlocal agreement provides that amendments to the Countywide
Planning Policies become effective only if ratified by at least thirty percent of local
jurisdictions within King County representing at least seventy percent of the county's
population; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Tukwila City
Council and found to be beneficial to continued regional cooperation and coordination
in managing growth;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CliY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02 -04. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -04, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, amending the Countywide Planning Policies to support ongoing water
supply planning and development.
Section 2. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-01. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -01, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, amending the Countywide Planning Policies concerning the allocation and
implementation of housing and employment targets for jurisdictions within King
County.
Section 3. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-02. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -02, attached hereto as
Exhibit C, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by establishing new housing
targets for jurisdictions in King County for the 2012 to 2022 period.
Section 4. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-03. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -03, attached hereto as
King County Planning Policies 724/03
Exhibit D, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by establishing new
employment targets for jurisdictions in King County for the 2012 to 2022 period.
Section 5. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02-05. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -05, attached hereto as
Exhibit E, amending the Countywide Planning Policies' "Urban Separator Map" to
reflect a modification to the urban separator in the vicinity of the City of Renton.
Section 6. Ratification of GMPC Motion 02 -06. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 02 -06, attached hereto as
Exhibit F, amending the Countywide Planning Policies by designating the Totem Lake
planning area within the City of Kirldand as an Urban Center.
Section 7. Ratification of GMPC Motion 01 -2. The City of Tukwila supports
ratification of Growth Management Planning Council Motion 01 -2, attached hereto as
Exhibit G, amending the Countywide Planning Policies to add new policies addressing
the long -term governance of Agricultural Protection Districts.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2003.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
King County Planning Policies 724/03
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Pam Carter, Council President
Community and Parks Committee
July 15, 2003
Tukwila Community Center
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Jim Haggerton, Joe Duffle
Steve Lancaster, Bruce Fletcher, Rhonda Berry, Lucy Lauterbach; Dennis
Robertson
1. New Half Time Position Since the pool has opened, it has increased greatly in use. That has
resulted in more hours of maintenance being needed, and it is the aquatic staff who do their own
maintenance. Bruce also pointed out that both the 50 acre Fort Dent Park and skateboard park
have been added to park maintenance staff's workload when they have not increased in staff.
Brace proposed increasing one Facilities Operation Technician position from its current half time
status to full time. One quarter of a position would be used for more pool maintenance, and one
quarter would be used for more park maintenance. The half time increase would cost $18,000
plus $4,000 in benefits, totaling $23,000. He proposed the increased pool fees and rental fees
fi'om Fort Dent's one city field there paying for the increase. So far pool revenues are higher
than originally projected. Jim said if the city has enough staff to do a better job we can perhaps .
charge higher pool fees than the average. The committee agreed the original fee schedule, and
one with slightly higher fees be brought to the COW when this position increase is taken there.
Jim said since not every department can charge for its services we'll need to look harder where
we can charge for service. Recommend position increase to COW.
2. TOD moratorium Steve reminded the committee that the city has passed two six-month
moratoriums on the TOD area. The second one loosened its applicability and allowed many
em-rent uses there to expand or change, or change signs. Auto dependent uses, land divisions, and
manufacturing and industrial uses are under the moratorium. The current moratorium expires
August 30th, SO a new one would be in effect September 1st tO the end of February. When asked,
Steve said the current businesses largely support the planning effort that is ongoing now. Joan
asked how many times a moratorium could be renewed, and was told it isn't limited. Steve said
he hoped the TOD study would be finished by the time a new moratorium expired; he thought it
would be in process at the Planning Commission or at the Council by then. As meeting time was
short, he recommended Lynn Miranda brief the committee on what staff have learned at their
workshops and public meetings. Steve pointed out on a map who owned what land in the TOD.
A public hearing will be needed, and Steve will brief the Council at the hearing on August 11th.
Recommend extending moratorium to COW.
3. Countywide Planning Policies Steve explained the 1990 Growth Management Act set up
procedures for adopting countywide planning policies. That was done in 1992, and is being done
again now. Ratification by 30% of the cities/county in King County, representing 70% of the
county's population, is needed.
Steve said the most important policy for Tukwila was the one that changed our housing and job
market targets for the next twenty years. When the targets were first set, they relied on PSRC
numbers and were higher than could be achieved. The new numbers are more realistic, and
consider not only our current size but also our buildable lands available for more development.
Our housing target was reduced from 6,000 new units to 3,200. That is living units, and can be
houses, apartments, or condo units. Steve said jurisdictions don't need to supply the housing, but
they need to have available land and zoning that can accommodate the growth in population.
Since our goals were first set in 1992, Tukwila has added about 300 housing units. There will be
more capacity if can put housing in the TVC and TOD. Jim noted that replacing old apartments
with newer and larger ones could add housing. Tukwila is also expected to add 16,000 new jobs
in 20 years. There are not penalties for not meeting your goals. Joan said she talked to people at
Tukwila Days who said they moved here for Tukwila's rural feel, which people are afraid they'll
lose with too much infill. Our new comp plan will need to show how to increase our housing
stock. Steve and the committee briefly reviewed the other policies, which have little effect on us.
Recommend policies to COW.
Committee chair approval
Agenda Item Title:
Original Sponsor:
I Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
Meeting Date
7/28/03
Meeting Date
7 -28 -03
Swimming Pool Fee Increase
Council
Initials
Prepared by 1 Mayor's review' Council review
ihr 1.h..t_,G 1 4
CAS Number: 03-100 Original Agenda Date: 7/28/03
Admin. Parks Recreation
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Recommends forwarding to COW for discussion
Committee: same as sponsor
Administration: same as sponsor
I Cost Impact (if known):
I Fund Source (if known):
Attachments
Memo from Bruce Fletcher dated 7/17/03
CAP minutes dated 6/24/03
City of Tukwila Pool Fee Study 2003
ITEMNO.
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends a fee increase at the Tukwila Swimming
Pool. The increase will help operate the thirty year -old swimming pool that was transferred
from King County.
City of Tulovila StevenM. Mullet, Mayor
Parks fi Recreation Department Bruce Fletcher, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Tukwila City Council
FROM: Bruce Fletcher, Director of Parks & Recreat~l tx
DATE: July 17, 2003
SUBJECT: Tukwila Pool Fee Increase
Background
When the City of Tukwila accepted the South Central Swimming Pool from King County, the swimming fees stayed
fairly consistent with the 2002 fees (with the exception of rounding up fees; example $1.85 to $2.00). King County
implemented a fee increase in 2003 while the new Tukwila pool elected to keep fees the same and conduct a fee study to
compare other area pool fees.
The pool fee study looked at King County and 10 other city pools in the comparison. The study also compared the
average fee for each activity. In the study, we found that Tukwila private lessons and passes were well below the
average and all other fees were either average or below average.
When the City of Tukwila accepted the pool, the direction was to better manage the pool with more swimming
opportunities, additional programs and lessons, and to create a family atmosphere. With the overwhelming success, the
revenue figures are projected to rise from King County figures of $90,000 to our projected figure of $175,000. Even
though the new revenue figures will nearly double, swimming pool operations are expensive and we will end the year
with a 50% self sustaining ratio (or 50% subsidized).
Options
Option A: Increase the fees to be consistent to the average from the pool fee study (see-suggested fees A). This increase
will help the pool budget towards the 60% self sustaining ratio, yet keep the fees attractive for Tukwila residents. This
increase will not change the current dally swim fee, swim lessons or School District fee.
Option B: Increase the fees to be consistent to the average from the pool fee study (see-suggested fees B). This increase
is the same as above but also increases the daily swim fee, swim lessons and School District fee.
Opfion C: No increase in pool fees.
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends Option A. We must continue to operate the pool in an efficient
manner with more lessons, programs and rentals. The current pool management has been successful with increasing the
facility usage to a more acceptable level for our swimming population. Option A will increase revenues to be more
acceptable to the study average.
cc: Rhonda Berry, Acting City Administrator
Kick Still, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director
Malcolm Neely, Aquatics Coordinator
The Center of YOUR Community
12424 42nd Ave. S. · Tukwila, Washington 98168 · Phone: 206-768-2822 · Fax: 206-768-0524
Committee approval
Community and Parks Committee
June 24, 2003
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Jim Haggerton, Joe Duffle
Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Malcolm Neely, Lucy Lauterbach
1. Foster Golf Links Demolition The golf course clubhouse was demolished quickly and
efficiently in March -April. William Dickson Company did the project, which included some
asbestos removal. As it is all completed, the project is ready for close -out. There were no change
orders, or any change in cost from the contract award amount. Recommend nroiect close -out.
release of retainage and final acceptance of project to consent agenda of a Reg ular
Meeting.
2. City Pool Fees Malcolm looked at the fees charged all around King County, and had
\compared them on a chart. Bruce said the pool was meeting 25% of its costs (75% subsidization)
when the City took it over. They have gotten up to meeting 40% of the costs, and hope to get to
50% in a couple of years. Looking at fee increases, they tried to take a middle road between
King County and the average of all the pools. Admissions for youth, senior and disabled on a
one -time basis were not raised, but other admissions will go up a little. The people who buy the
longer passes will pay more. They will start to charge for showers people off the street take
there. Having a party at the pool will cost a little more, but they will be able to use an area set
apart from the pool also. Jim asked if there could be some inducement to try swimming before
they were charged, and staff said they would consider that. Joe and Jim initially thought the
school district fees should go up along with all the other increases. Joan wanted school kids to be
able to use the pool. In the end they agreed to let staff work something out with the school.
Recommend fee discussion to COW.
3. Foster Park Litter Bruce and Rick said that problems at Foster Park seemed to have
decreased since the last committee meeting. They had written a letter to all the park's neighbors,
reminding them to let Parks or the Police know if there was too much noise or alcohol. The
committee commended staff's action on the letter and on trying to patrol more. Information.
TEvergreen ahoma
Tahoma K
Renton KC
Shoreline
Issaquah
Lynnwood
Bellevue
FRem
NW
Center
Nel Moe
Snohomish
Enumclaw
city
Mountlake
Terrace
Kent
Tukwila
. "� ,;
Average"
Suggested
Fen (A)
".80.00
Suggestted
' Fees (8)
$ 75.00
$ 125.00
$ 80.00
$ 58.00
$ 70.72
$ 58.00
$ - 78.75
$
1 -25
$ 87.00
$ 55.50
78.00
$ 160.00
$ 115.00
$ 80.00
$ 92.48
$ 80.00
$x'`:10591.
.123.40
$ 106.00
28-80
$ 120.00
$
95.00
$ 85.00
$ 175.00
$ 150.00
$ 100.00
$ 10980
$ 100.00
$
$ 126.00
$ x'.9.00'
a, ..25.00
$'* "49.00
E'," 68:00
81 -90
$ 150.00
$
116.00
$ 260.00
$ 185.00
$ 125.00
$ 138.00
$ 125.00
$'.186.50
$ 146.00
91 -120
$ 187.00
$
137.00
$ 95.00
$ 160.00
$ 18320
$ ' 154.04
$ ' 186.00
121 -150
$ 225.00
$ 45.00
$
$ 40.00
$ 35.00
$ 45.00
$ 31.55
$ 29.00
$- "'3$.31
Party Area
`-
$ " 8.00
$ 24.00
$ '. 48.00
$ .::68.00
School District
8.00
$ 8.00
$ 8.00
$ 8.0D
$ 8.00
".25.83
Per lane
$
23.00
$ 38.50
$ 16.00
$ 25.83
$ 24.00
$
"``
Shared use
$
45.00
$ 32.00
$ 39.00
$ 48.00
$ 39.00
'
EreEntire
Entire
$
$ 70.00
$ 87.00
$ 32.00
$ 68.33
$ 84.44
P�
p
Swim Team
' 58.00
58.00
$ 48.00
$ 58.00
$ 48.00
$`
` ".8.13
$
'
Entire Pool
$ 70.00
5.25
I $ 8.85
$ 4.60
$ 8.13
$ 6.00
-
$
$ 8.00
Per
t 8.00
$
$ 48.00
$ 4890
Specieciallmerest
1 46.00 1 1 $ 48.00 I $ 48.00 ::..:....53.87 $ 54.00
s 70.00 :
Additional teen
$ 2900
$ 15.00
$ 15.00
Staff fee
$ 22.50
$ 20.00
$ 1500.
$ 18.00
Stag less[
$ 20.00
$ 15.00
-
$ 24.00
Senior lnsl
-
$ 2.00
r''
$ .200
Shower
$ 3.00
EveWWmen
Tahoma
Renton KC
Shoreline
Issaquah
Lynnwood
Bellevue
FNe rw
NW
Center
Kal Moe
Snohomish
Enumclaw
oIty
Mountlake
Terraee
Kent
7ukvAla
Avaap.
Suggested
Faso (A)
Suggested
Few (B)
Res
3 Month pace
84.00
E 50.00
$ 80.00
$ 60.00
$ 87.00
$ 59.62
$ 68.00
119.00
E'::'- ..88.89
$ '- '60.00
80.00
Youth
$ 82.50
E
• 64.00
$ 60.00
$ 120.00
$ 80.00
$ 87.00
$ 599.82
$ 68.00
$49.00
$.:.� 73.89
$
Senior
$ 82.60
$
64.00
$ 87.00
$ 59.82
$ 88.00
149.00
$ ` "72.22
1 '108.21
$ 80.00
Disabled
$ 82.50
$
$ 98.00
$ 75.00
$ 120.00
$ 75.00
$ 142.00
$ 97.58
$ 125.12
$85.00
$
E 95.00
Adult
$ 136.00
250.00
$ 188.00
$ 150.00
$ 190.00
$ 125.00
$ 258.00
$ 173.44
$ 250.24
E 187.68
Femity
$
Res
§.110.00
$'•110.00
x110.00
$ 170.00
8Month pass
$ 135.00
$89.00
Youth
135.00
159.00
- .. -'
$ 135.00
$
18900E
' ` ''
Disabled
$ 200.00
$153.00
Adult
$ 335.00
Family
Res
12 Month pass
$ 176.00
$ 200.00
$ 191.00
$ 151.78
$ 217.80
1120.00
$`'.189.34
$ 170.00
Youth
$ 250.00
$ 200.00
$ 140.00
$ 140.00
$ 17500
$ 200.00
$ 191.00
$ 130.08
$ 183.20
1120.00
1120.00
$ ' 171.33
5 164.88
$ 170.00
$ . 170.00
Senior
$ 191.00
$ 130.08
$ 18310
Disabled
$ 200.00
$ 140.00
$ 300.00
$ 265.00
$ 385.00
$ 249.32
$ 328.40
1230.00
$.,..29853
$ 280.00
Adult
$ 350.00
$ 230.00
$ 390.00
$ 500.00
$ 425.00
$ 582.00
$ 398.91
$ 544.00
$ ..491.42
Family
$ 500.00
max 8
Lessons
$ 5.50
$ 3.50
$ 8.60
$ 8.60
$ 4.50
$ 4.15
$ 9.24
$ 4.60
$ 5.67
$ 4.50
r.: , 6.00
Presdwol
$ 8.50
$ 3.75
$ 3.76
$ 5.50
1 3.60
$ 850
$ 5.75
$ 4.50
$ 3.50
$ 5.00
1 ` 5.00
Youth
3.751
5.501
3 .50
1 8.50
$ 912
1 4.50
1 4.94
1 4.50
Adult
$
$ 2.50
$ 5.50
$ 2.00
E 5.50
$ 4.25
$ 4.35
$ 4.500
E 4.30
'21.07
1 4.60
Pa
§ 2.50
$ 12.00
1 25.00
$ 22.00
$ 14.00
$ 15.00
$ 38.99
1 16.00
$
'
1 18.00
Pdvate
$ 22.50
38.00
$ 15.00
$ 35.00
$ 17.50
$ 24.00
$ 12.00
$ 38.99
$ 24.00
$ 25.21
$ 24.00
Semi Private
$
Private Rentals
City of Tukwila Pool - Fee Study 2003
Evergreen
Tahoma
Renton K C
Shoreline
Issaquah
Lynnwood
Bellevue
FIN
NW
Center
14.1 Moe
Snohomish
Enumclaw
city
Terrace
Kent
Pool
Avenge
Stickpins('
Fees (A)
Sunntd
Fen (8'
Admissions
2.00
$ 3.00
5 1.75
5 3.00
5 2.25
$ 2.70
1 2.00
5 2.00
5 2.00
1 3.28
5 200
$ '2.45
'72.68
$ "2.00
$ 2.60
ii,230 '
Y o u t h
$ 9.00
5
2.00
5 3.00
5 1.75
5 4.00
$ 2.25
1 2.70
5 2.50
5 2.00
$ . 2.50
$ 2.72
5 200
$
$ ' 2.00
$
`2.50
Senior
$ 3.00
5
2.00
$ 1.75
$ 2.00
$ 1.50
$ 2.50
$ 2.72
$ •'208
$ 2.00
3
Disabled
$
3.00
5 4.00
5 2.50
5 4.00
5 2.50
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
5 3.00
5 3.00
$ 3.81
$ 300
$
$ 3.00
Adult
$ 3.00
5
$ 8.00
$ 10.00
$ 8.50
$ 8.00
$ 7.00
$ 10.00
.' 3 18
Family
$ 4.60
$ 3.81
Lap
$ 4.50
Water exercise
3.75
5 5.00
$ 5.00
$ 8.005
4.005
4.00
$ 8.535
400
$ "6.04
$ "'6.00
'
Adult
$ 8.00
$
$ 5.00
$ 5.00
$ 4.00
$ 2.80
$ 4.35
5 300
$ "'''' 4.08
$ 4.00
Senior
$ 4.50
$ 2.75
$ 53.50
$ 40.00
$ 58.76
$ 37.00
3 ':45.58
$ 45.00
Adult 10 punch
$ 30.00
$ 22.00
$ 38.00
$ 25.00
$ 4025
$ 27.00
$'`::' 30.81
$ 35.00
Senior 10 punch
10 punch pace
18.00
$ 14.70
$ 27.00
$ 38.10
$20+tax
5 '23.95
5.20.00
Youth
$
18.00
$ 14.70
$ 27.00
$ 27.20
$20 +Iax
S '2123
$ 20.00
Senior
$
18.00
$ 14.70
$ 20.00
$ 27.20
520 +tax
$ "' 15.48
.
$ x:20.00
Disabled
$
24.00
$ 22.60
$ 45.00
$ 38.10
$30 +tax
$ 32.40
5 30.00
Adult
$
80.00
Family
$
Res
1 Month pass
20.00
$ 20.00
520.00
$ 25.00
Youth
$
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
52000
...
5. 25.00
Senior
520.00
$ 25.00
Disabled
5 30.00
530.ao
S..,.35.ao
Adutt
$ 80.00
Family