LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 9, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL

Transcription

1 LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 9, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL ANDY RYDER Mayor CYNTHIA PRATT Deputy Mayor VIRGIL CLARKSON JEFF GADMAN LENNY GREENSTEIN JASON HEARN MICHAEL STEADMAN CITY MANAGER SCOTT SPENCE CALL TO ORDER: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS* A. Worksession meeting minutes of March 5, 2015 B. Worksession meeting minutes of March 19, 2015 C. A motion to approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers for 03/19/2015 through 03/31/2015 * Items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 3. PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: A. Arbor Day Celebration: Proclamation declaring April as Arbor Month (Mayor Ryder) Presentation of Tree to City of Yelm (Mayor Harding) Recognition of Tree Planting Projects (Claire Skelly) Arbor Day Seedling Giveaway (Kathie Owen) 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA* *The City Council will allow comments under this section on items NOT already on the agenda. Where appropriate, the public will be allowed to comment on agenda items as they are addressed during the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Hill-Betti Annexation (Ryan Andrews) 6. PROCLAMATION: A. Sexual Violence Awareness Month and Take Back the Night Day (Brittany Reed) 7. REFERRAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION: A. Ordinance approving amendments to Shoreline Master Program (Christy Osborn) 8. REFERRAL FROM HEARINGS EXAMINER:

2 9. RESOLUTIONS: 10. ORDINANCES: 11. MAYOR'S REPORT: 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 13. STANDING GENERAL COMMITTEE: A. Transportation Committee ( ) 14. OTHER BUSINESS: 15. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: A. Mayor Andy Ryder: 1. Mayors Forum 2. Transportation Policy Board (TPB) B. Deputy Mayor Cynthia Pratt: 1. LOTT 2. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) C. Councilmember Virgil Clarkson: 1. Community Action Council (CAC) 2. Health & Human Services Council (HHSC) 3. HOME Consortium 4. Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) D. Councilmember Jeff Gadman 1. Intercity Transit (IT) 2. Joint Animal Services Commission (JASCOM) E. Councilmember Lenny Greenstein 1. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 2. TCOMM911 F. Councilmember Jason Hearn: 1. Thurston County Coalition Against Trafficking (TCCAT) 2. Thurston County Law & Justice Council G. Councilmember Michael Steadman: 1. Economic Development Council (EDC) 2. Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater Visitor & Convention Bureau (VCB) 3. Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) 16. ADJOURN

3 MINUTES OF THE LACEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2015 LACEY CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL PRESENT: A. Ryder, C. Pratt, V. Clarkson, J. Gadman, L. Greenstein, J. Hearn COUNCIL EXCUSED: M. Steadman STAFF PRESENT: S. Spence, S. Egger, R. Walk, L. Flemm, T. Woo, L. Gotelli, D. Schneider, D. Pierpoint, G. Smith, S. Seymour, C. Litten COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER CLARKSON SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. TREATMENT SALES TAX GRANT APPLICATION AND MOU Scott Spence, City Manager, presented Council with a proposal to approve a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Treatment Sales Tax Grant Application. In 2008, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners enacted a Treatment Sales Tax (TST) to assist Thurston County residents impacted by substance abuse and mental health issues. In January, the Commissioners approved $100,000 of this tax for community grants. The funds must be used solely for the purposes of providing for the operation or delivery of chemical dependency or mental health treatment programs and services. The City of Lacey, in conjunction with the City of Tumwater, would like to apply for the TST grant. The Cities currently contract with the Nisqually Tribe for jail beds for misdemeanants. The application will be for the position of Diversion/Re-entry Specialist for the Nisqually Jail. Currently, there is no Re-Entry/Diversion position available at the Nisqually Jail to address offenders with chemical dependency or mental health issues. The cities agree that such a position would provide needed help and services for offenders from both jurisdictions, as well as saving on incarceration costs. This application would complement the Nisqually Tribe s pending grant application to US- DOJ Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Grant for a re-entry specialist, chemical dependency and mental health specialist for tribal offenders. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO THE TREATMENT SALES TAX GRANT APPLICATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Lacey City Council Worksession March 5, 2015 Page 1

4 NEONICOTINOIDS Scott Spence, City Manager, stated the City was presented with a request in 2014 to consider adopting a regional resolution stating jurisdictions in Thurston County will not knowingly purchase or use products containing neonicotinoids on properties it maintains. At its December 8, 2014, meeting, the General Government & Public Safety Committee discussed the request for a resolution and the issue of pesticide use. They agreed to forward a recommendation to full Council to consider a resolution affirming the City does not use neonicotinoids. Council discussed the committee s recommendation and concurred that a resolution is not warranted. However, they requested a presentation at a future meeting on the City s Integrated Pest Management Program. UPDATE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORK PLAN Rick Walk, Community Development Director, and George Smith, Economic Development Coordinator, provided a presentation on the Economic Development Work Plan. Objectives of the plan include the following elements: Develop Economic Development Element Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) City of Lacey Market Analysis Create an Economic Development Strategy: Incorporating strategic investments, priority properties, and City of Lacey values Using information from SWOT analysis, economic development element, market analysis, and best practices Designing & Implementing a Sustainable & Scalable Economic Development Program: Based on strategy, needs, and cooperation with community partners Business development Business retention and expansion Backfill empty under-utilized spaces Effective coordination with community partners Creating a communication network with brokers, developers, and business owners Economic development presence on City s web site Lacey City Council Worksession March 5, 2015 Page 2

5 The City is in the process of distributing a Retail Preference Survey to Lacey utility customers to identify where residents shop and what types of retail categories and/or store brands are lacking in the City of Lacey. Businesses have also been asked to participate in a survey to identify what improvements are needed by the City, and what is working well. SIX-YEAR STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLAN Troy Woo, Finance Director, provided a briefing on Council authorized and voterapproved revenue enhancements as another element of the Six-Year Strategic Financial Plan. During the retreat, Council will be asked to: Determine which revenue enhancement options are feasible; Provide guidance that will formulate the timing of when revenue enhancements might be implemented; Establish the scope and magnitude for feasible revenue enhancement options; Consider timing of revenue enhancements to ensure minimum service level has been identified, and designated reserves are used to the maximum extent possible Options for Council Consideration are as follows: Council Authorized Revenue Enhancements Property tax Utility tax Transportation Benefit District vehicle license fee Business & Occupation Tax Retail maximum of 2% Eliminate exemptions (manufacturing wholesaling) Gambling Tax Voter Authorized Revenue Enhancements Utility tax for electric, gas, steam and phone Metropolitan Park District Property tax levy lift Business & Occupation Tax Public Safety Sales Tax Lacey City Council Worksession March 5, 2015 Page 3

6 Other Revenue Enhancements Service Fees Business License Fees Compliance Fees Indirect Cost Recovery Plan Credit card convenience fees for phone or web payments Local option motor vehicle fuel excise tax Co-mingle funds for investment purposes Credit card convenience fees for phone or web payments Motor vehicle fuel excise tax Strategic Annexation: Annexation assessed valuation is treated like new construction Not subject to 1% revenue limit Analysis of additional revenues vs expected service cost increases Tax collection increases vs incremental cost increases Service costs and infrastructure replacement /improvements Draft Annexation Study Provides analysis guidelines and assumptions for future proposed annexations Discussion of the Six-Year Financial Strategic Plan - Economic Indicators will be scheduled for the March 19 Worksession. Mayor Ryder adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Lacey City Council Worksession March 5, 2015 Page 4

7 MINUTES OF THE LACEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015 LACEY CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL PRESENT: C. Pratt, V. Clarkson, J. Gadman, L. Greenstein, J. Hearn, M. Steadman COUNCIL EXCUSED: STAFF PRESENT: A. Ryder S. Spence, R. Walk, L. Flemm, T. Woo, L. Gotelli, D. Schneider, D. Pierpoint, T. Palmateer, S. Kirkman, B. McAllister, C. Litten Deputy Mayor Pratt requested an amendment to the agenda to add two items: Scott Schoengarth would like to address Council. Council discussion regarding SWAC request regarding recycling. COUNCILMEMBER CLARKSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. Scott Schoengarth extended his appreciation to the City Council and City of Lacey for its support of Entertainment Explosion. In 2014, the City donated its free day at the Washington Center to their fundraising event which raised $25,500. UPDATE ON CDBG PROJECTS Steve Kirkman, Public Affairs Manager, reported that Council issued a request for proposals in early 2014 to solicit projects under the new CDBG partnership. The City awarded $836,510 to five proposals. Those agencies who have received CDBG funding provided an update to Council. Bob Ricks, Deputy Director of the Housing Authority of Thurston County: The Housing Authority of Thurston County was awarded $382,786 for acquisition of two four-plex buildings in Lacey to provide affordable rental housing. CDBG funds were used to purchase the building, and renovation funds were allocated by the Housing Authority. Total project cost was $731, 000. Trudy Soucup, Executive Director of HomesFirst!: Lacey City Council Worksession March 19, 2015 Page 1

8 HomesFirst! was awarded $250,000 for acquisition and renovation of affordable rental housing in Lacey. The funding provided a down payment of $150,000 for an eight-plex building, and $100,000 for rehabilitation, including weatherization and clean-up. Gary Aden, Housing and Program Manager of Thurston County and Community Renewal, reported for Community Youth Services who were unable to attend this evening. CYS received $46,879 for weatherization and minor renovations of transitional housing. Tambra Donohue, Director of Community Action Council s Monarch Children s Justice and Advocacy Center: CAC Monarch Children s Justice and Advocacy Center was awarded $156,845 towards serving approximately 200 clients in Lacey. As part of a community response to child abuse, the child-focused facility provides a wide-range of services for victims of childhood abuse and neglect. In addition, the agency provides community education and public outreach to reduce the rate of child sexual abuse. Jason Salcedo, Associate Dean of Applied Technology at South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC): SPSCC was awarded $68,729 for its Camo to Credit Program, which provides exiting military personnel with qualified assessment and award of undergraduate college credit for prior learning and life based experiences. The goal of the program is to assist military personnel with a transition into a career path and ultimately the job market. Scott Spence, City Manager, noted that the interlocal agreement with Thurston County Housing Authority expires in He requested a review of the agreement prior to expiration CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION Tom Palmateer, PW Management Analyst, presented the Capital Facilities Plan to Council for review. The Capital Facilities Plan details the City of Lacey s anticipated public projects with a financial timeline. Funding for public projects are paid for, but not limited to, using current funds, grants, and debt. Capital Facilities Plans are considered a mandatory element of the city s overall Comprehensive Plan by the Growth Management Act as set forth in RCW 36.70A. A Capital Facility Plan element must show an inventory of existing capital facilities, their locations, and a forecast of the future needs to include locations and capacities. It must show at least a six-year plan that details how the city intends to finance the cost of the facilities consistent with the city s revenue forecast. Lacey City Council Worksession March 19, 2015 Page 2

9 The Capital Facilities Plan updates the earlier version adopted in 2014 with minor changes related to project schedules and budgets. Future updates will occur annually and will be completed shortly after the development and adoption of the City s annual budget in order to make them more consistent with each other in terms of budget and project scheduling. It updates all capital projects planned in the current sixyear window of 2015 to 2020 and future years to Lori Flemm, Parks & Recreation Director, noted that $10,000 was approved for erosion control of the Woodland Creek Shoreline Trail, but was inadvertently omitted from the CFP. She requested that the $10,000 be included in the final plan. The City of Lacey Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2015, then took action to endorse the CFP and forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. COUNCILMEMBER GADMAN MOVED TO FORWARD THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE MARCH 26, 2015, COUNCIL MEETING FOR ADOPTION. COUNCILMEMBER GREENSTEIN SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. SIX-YEAR STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLAN Troy Woo, Finance Director, briefed Council on primary economic indicators, which include the most significant assumption factors within the 6-year plan financial model. Each individual primary indicator has the potential to warrant a change in course. The primary economic indicators include sales tax, single-family housing starts, population growth rate, inflation, and cost of labor. At the April 2, 2015, Worksession, staff will present the expenditures/service levels and financial model. During the Council Retreat on April 30, 2015, Council will provide policy direction on the major components of the 6-Year Strategic Financial Plan: Reserves, Strategic Investment, Revenue Enhancements, and Expenditures/Service Levels. Council will validate a course of action, which will indicate the timing and scope of budget actions. CITIZEN REQUEST - SWAC RECYCLING Deputy Mayor Pratt reported she received an from a citizen regarding recycling. She provided Councilmember Steadman with details to be discussed at the next SWAC meeting. Lacey City Council Worksession March 19, 2015 Page 3

10 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Disbursement Approval RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers. STAFF CONTACT: Troy Woo, Finance Director ORIGINATED BY: Troy Woo, Finance Department BACKGROUND: The action requested of the City Council is by motion to approve payment of claims, wages and transfers for 3/19/2015 through 3/31/2015. The disbursements consist of the following: Checks: Week of Beg. Check No. End. Check No. Amount 3/20/ , /27/ , *3/31/ , Electronic Transfers: Week of Amount 3/19/ /20/ , /25/ , /27/ , *3/31/2015 1,138, /31/ , Payroll: Month Ended: Wages 3/31/2015 1,136, * Disbursements for employee out-of-pocket deductions and employee benefits. Page 1 of 1

11

12 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Hill-Betti Annexation RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the Hill-Betti Annexation. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Rick Walk, Community Development Director Ryan Andrews, Planning Manager ORIGINATED BY: Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Annexation Petition 2. Annexation Report FISCAL NOTE: None. PRIOR REVIEW: February 19, 2015 City Council Worksession April 5, 2013 Utilities Committee Meeting BACKGROUND: The City has received a petition for annexation filed by the Hill-Betti Business Park, LLC using the 60 percent petition method (RCW 35A ). The petition has been signed by Stan Hill, President of the Hill-Betti Business Park, LLC and John Walsh, Executive Director of the Community Action Council. It has been verified by the Thurston County Assessor s Office that the signatures represent not less than 60 percent of the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which the annexation has been petitioned (RCW 35A ). Procedurally, the annexation is required to be sent to the Thurston County Boundary Review Board (BRB) for their review. The application was sent to the BRB and was considered complete on March 17, 2015, with a deadline to request BRB review by May 1, If the Boundary Review Board declines to assert jurisdiction, then the application returns to the Council for final consideration in ordinance form. Page 1 of 3

13 Prior to approval of the annexation, a public hearing is required to be held by the City Council. Notice of the public hearing has been published in The Olympian, mailed to property owners within the proposed annexation boundary, and posted in three public places in the proposed annexation area. Proposed Annexation Area The area proposed for annexation is located in the Hawks Prairie Planning Area and within the Lacey Urban Growth Area generally east of Marvin Road NE, north of Hickory Stick Lane NE, and south of 33 rd Avenue NE. The area includes acres in 20 separate tax parcels. The assessed value of these parcels is $22,608,400 of which the Hill- Betti ownership represents $10,454,400 or approximately 46 percent of the assessed valuation. The Community Action Council ownership represents $3,417,800 or approximately 15 percent of the assessed valuation. A full annexation report is attached to this staff report that provides additional details related to the area to be annexed. The annexation area contains a variety of uses. At the south end of the annexation area is property zoned Light Industrial/Commercial and Hawks Prairie Business District Business Commercial (HPBD-BC) that contains a variety of commercial uses including retail, commercial recreation, and light manufacturing. This area also includes one existing residence. To the north is zoning consisting of Business Park and Moderate Density Residential. The Business Park property is primarily owned by the State of Washington for development of the future regional headquarters of the Washington State Department of Transportation. The Moderate Density Residential zone contains an existing mobile home park and a multi-family housing complex operated by Community Action Council known as Tolmie Cove. The total number of residential units in this area is approximately 97. Previously, the City had required that the property zoned Light Industrial/Commercial be redesignated as Business Park upon annexation, which was also previously identified on the zoning map. In 2013, the applicant applied for and was granted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to keep the Light Industrial/Commercial designation and to have the note removed from the zoning map. There are very few identified critical areas in the area proposed for annexation with no identified water bodies, wetlands, or steep slopes. The area around the east side of the area adjacent to Marvin Road NE is in a critical aquifer recharge area associated with the Betti well operated by the City of Lacey. As properties develop in this area, certain land use restrictions apply to protect the aquifer. The area proposed for annexation includes the properties in the Hill-Betti ownership as well as adjacent properties to the north. This boundary, as proposed, would connect to the current City limits to the south of the Raili May subdivision. This configuration is a logical extension and would not create any islands or illogical boundaries. Page 2 of 3

14 Process Procedurally, the next step is for the City Council to conduct a public hearing to accept testimony on the proposed annexation. Additionally, the annexation application is required to be sent to the Thurston County Boundary Review Board who has 45 days from the date of receipt to review the application. The deadline for review of the application is May 1, If no applicable party requests that the jurisdiction of the BRB be invoked by May 1 st, a notice is received from the BRB that the annexation can proceed. Once that has concluded, the City Council can take final action on the annexation through passage of an ordinance approving the annexation at the regular meeting on May 14 th. ADVANTAGES: 1. Conducting the public hearing will allow members of the public to provide testimony on the proposed annexation and will meet the procedural requirement. 2. Annexing the proposed area is a logical extension of city boundaries into an area that contains city utilities, that receives city services, and contains future economic development opportunities. DISADVANTAGES: 1. None identified. Page 3 of 3

15

16

17

18

19 Parcels o Park pro Other p Hill-Betti Annexation Study Prepared for: Hill-Betti Business Park LLC Parcel Num Totals 2102 CARRIAGE DRIVE SW, BLDG. H, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON P: F: Dec Proposed Annexation Prepared by:

20 Hill-Betti Draft Annexation Study May 2014 Project Information Project: Prepared for: Hill-Betti Annexation Hill-Betti Business Park LLC Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: City of Lacey Project Representative Prepared by: SCJ Alliance 2102 Carriage St SW, Suite H Olympia, WA scjalliance.com Contact: Jean Carr, Principal Project Reference: SCJ # N:\Projects\1240 Stan Hill co Evelyn Betti Estate\ Annexation & Development Plan Support\Annexation Report\Report\ Hill Betti Draft Annexation Study.docx SCJ Alliance Page i May 2014

21 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION Project Overview Location Background Resolution Current Status of Application ANNEXATION AREA CHARACTERISTICS Demographics Zoning and Land Use Environmental Aspects Utilities Roadway Condition Crime and Law Enforcement FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ANNEXATION Impact on Existing Interlocal Agreements Property Taxes Business & Occupation Taxes Amount of Bonded Indebtedness to be Assumed by the Annexation Area Fire Protection LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Demographic Data... 5 Table 2. Residential Uses in Annexation Area... 5 Table 3. Police Responses in Annexation Area Table 4. Comparison of Property Tax Levies Per $1,000 Assessed Value Page LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Hill-Betti Annexation Area... 1 Figure 2. Census Tract Figure 3. Census Blocks... 4 Figure 4. Existing Zoning... 6 SCJ Alliance Page ii May 2014

22 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 5. Approximate Wetland Locations... 7 Figure 6. Wellhead Protection Area... 8 Figure 7. Water Service Areas... 9 Figure 8. Properties Currently Served by Lacey Sewer Appendix A Demographic Information LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix B Police Calls in Annexation Area Appendix C Interlocal Agreement for Annexation of the City of Lacey into Thurston County Fire Protection District No. 3 SCJ Alliance Page iii May 2014

23 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview The City of Lacey has commenced annexation proceedings for the Hill-Betti annexation. The property includes approximately 150 acres with a 2013 assessed valuation of $22,947,770. Hill-Betti Business Park LLC owns property assessed at $10,897,300, representing 47.49% of the assessed value, more than the minimum 10% required to request consideration for annexation. The proposal is to annex the properties with the zoning identified on the City of Lacey zoning map. The City of Lacey evaluates annexation requests on the basis of their short-term and long-term community impact. 1.2 Location The proposed Hill-Betti Annexation area is located in the Hawks Prairie Planning Area of Lacey and generally east of Marvin Road NE, north of Hickory Stick Lane NE, and south of 33 rd Avenue NE. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed annexation area. Figure 1. Hill-Betti Annexation Area 1.3 Background Washington State s Growth Management Act requires that counties designate urban growth areas to include those areas within which urban growth is to be encouraged. Per RCW 35A the area proposed for annexation must be within the urban growth area and at least 60% of the boundaries of the area must be contiguous to the annexing city. Approximately 83% of the proposed annexation area boundaries are contiguous to the City of Lacey. (Total boundary is 11,655 feet, with 9,680 feet adjacent to city limits.) SCJ Alliance Page 1 May 2014

24 As a first step in the annexation process, a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings was filed by Hill-Betti Business Park LLC. The City verified that the ownership comprised more than 10% of the assessed valuation of the properties for which annexation is required. On April 5, 2013 the City s Utilities Committee reviewed the proposal to verify that the City can effectively provide utility to the area and recommended approval to the full Council. On April 25, 2013, the City Council was asked to consider the annexation request with the following provisions: 1. Authorize the applicants to circulate a petition and gather signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the assessed value of the annexation property demonstrating their consent to annex; 2. Require the assumption of all or of any portion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; 3. The City will not adopt an ordinance to formally annex the area or make application to the Boundary Review Board prior to the completion of an annexation study in accordance with the City s annexation policies; 4. The City will not adopt an ordinance to formally annex the area or make application to the Boundary Review Board prior to the rescinding of Resolution 917; 5. Refer to the Planning Commission for formal review and recommendation to Council, the request to remove the notation on the Comprehensive Plan indicating the property will be annexed into the City under the Business Park zoning designation Resolution 917 On December 21, 2006, the City of Lacey passed Resolution 917 which instituted policies limiting the availability of water for future water customers. This was necessitated by limited water availability and the need for the City to secure additional water rights. In light of Resolution 917, annexation proposals were not entertained by the City of Lacey unless the properties proposed for annexation provide the City with additional water rights in an amount equal to offset the water needs of future development. By Spring 2013, the City of Lacey had sufficient water rights and a funded Capital Improvement Plan to allow it to meet current and future water demands in its designated service area. On May 23, 2013, the City of Lacey passed Resolution 994 which rescinded Resolution Current Status of Application As noted in the section above, the requirement for the proposed annexation area to provide additional water rights is no longer in effect. Additionally, the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by City Council on July 25, 2013 removed the notation that stated the property will be annexed into the City under the Business Park zoning designation. The annexation request is to annex the properties under the current zoning designations identified on the Lacey zoning map. The City of Lacey has authorized the applicants to circulate a petition and gather signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the assessed value of the annexation property demonstrating their consent to annex. SCJ Alliance Page 2 May 2014

25 2. ANNEXATION AREA CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Demographics Demographic information is from the US Census Bureau website and the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The annexation area is located in the southern portion of Census Tract in Census Blocks , 007 and 008. Figure 2 illustrates the location of Census Tract and Figure 3 shows the location of the census blocks. Figure 2. Census Tract Information on the City of Lacey and Census Tract was drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau website. Additional information on the census block level was provided by the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC). U.S. Census Bureau data is provided in Appendix A. SCJ Alliance Page 3 May 2014

26 Figure 3. Census Blocks Census Tract has a total estimated population of 4,821, or 1,760 households. This compares to the City of Lacey 2012 estimated population of 43,860 and 18,493 housing units. The census blocks encompass an area that is much larger than the proposed annexation area. Estimated population of the three census blocks is: Block Group # Block Group # Block Group # The Hill-Betti annexation area includes all of census block group and and a small portion of SCJ Alliance Page 4 May 2014

27 Thurston Regional Planning Council s model estimates the 2012 population of the annexation area to be 210 people and 100 dwelling units. Based on this estimate, annexation would result in a population growth of % and a growth in number of households of 0.057%. Available data from TRPC at the block group level shows that 31% of the population within the annexation area are minorities. The median household income is $61,289 and 9.6% of the population lives below poverty level. The table below shows how this compares to the City of Lacey as a whole. Table 1. Comparison of Demographic Data City of Lacey (1) Annexation Area (2) Median Household Income $59,572 $61,289 Percent Minority 25.8% 31.0% Below Poverty Level 10.1% 9.6% (1) Lacey (city) QuickFacts from US Census Bureau, (2) Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council Within the proposed annexation area, there are only four parcels with residential uses as shown in the table below. Table 2. Residential Uses in Annexation Area Parcel No. Address Owner/Name nd Avenue NE nd Avenue NE Alpine MHC Holdings/Alpine Mobile Home Court Community Action Council/Tolmie Cove Apartments Type of Residence No. of Units Mobile Home 51 Apartment nd Avenue NE Jonathon and Theresa Stevens Mobile Home Betti Lane NE Hill-Betti Business Park LLC Single Family Residence Total: 97 1 The Community Action Council provides affordable housing and rental assistance for low income families. The Tolmie Cove apartments represent about 44% of the annexation area housing. 2.2 Zoning and Land Use The property in the southern portion of the annexation area is zoned Light Industrial/Commercial, with the southeast corner zoned Hawks Prairie Business District Business Commercial. This portion of the proposed annexation area includes the Hill-Betti Business Park and a variety of commercial uses, including retail, light manufacturing and commercial recreation. An existing residence also remains in this area on parcel The northwestern portion of the annexation area is zoned Moderate Density Residential, which includes one single family residence, the Tolmie Cove Apartments, and The Alpine Mobile Home Court. The northeast corner is zoned Light Industrial. This includes property owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for development of a future regional headquarters. SCJ Alliance Page 5 May 2014

28 Table 3 below lists the existing commercial/warehouse uses and square footages as shown in the Thurston County Assessor records. Table 3. Existing Commercial Uses Parcel No. Address Current Use Size Marvin Road NE J & S Gunparts sf Betti Lane NE Capitol Lumber Marvin Road NE Betti Lane NE Gensco PKMM Advanced Solutions Summit Fence Co. Tanglewilde Marine Services & Repair 9 warehouse buildings totaling 92,900 square feet 7 buildings totaling 48,000 square feet 2 buildings totaling 3726 sf 5 mini-warehouses totaling 9,200 square feet Marvin Road NE Marvin Road Mini Storage 2 warehouse buildings totaling Marvin Road NE O Rear Family 15,744 sf Marvin Road NE H D Fowler Co. 7,298 sf warehouse nd Avenue NE NW Processing 30,795 sf warehouse The proposal is to annex the area with the zoning shown on the City of Lacey zoning map and Figure 4 below. Figure 4. Existing Zoning SCJ Alliance Page 6 May 2014

29 2.3 Environmental Aspects A Field Reconnaissance Report: Habitats and Species was prepared by Krippner Consulting, LLC for the Hill-Betti Business Park properties in June The report identified three small wetlands on Parcel (7530 Betti Lane NE). At the time of the field visit, following several rainfall events, standing water was present. The report indicates that high groundwater levels may be present, but this could not be confirmed and additional information will be gathered. See Figure 5 for location of potential wetlands. Figure 5. Approximate Wetland Locations SCJ Alliance Page 7 May 2014

30 Portions of the annexation area around the Betti well (Lacey Well S 19) is located within the wellhead protection area (WHPA). Within the WHPAs, careful management of land uses can reduce the risk or contaminating groundwater, and land use restrictions will be applied to any development in order to protect the well. The well is located on parcel , across Marvin Road from the annexation area. (See Figure 6.) Figure 6. Wellhead Protection Area SCJ Alliance Page 8 May 2014

31 2.4 Utilities Most properties in the annexation area are served by City of Lacey water, with service mains in Marvin Road NE, Betti Lane NE, and 32 nd Avenue NE. Both Tolmie Cove Apartments and Alpine Mobile Home Court operate their own private Class A water systems. Additionally, the Floating Bear Water Service Area has five connections in the north portion of the Light Industrial Commercial area (APN , , and ). City of Lacey service mains include a 14- inch line on Marvin Road NE, a 12-inch line on 32 nd Avenue NE, and an 8-inch line on Betti Lane NE. See Figure 7. Figure 7. Water Service Areas SCJ Alliance Page 9 May 2014

32 Most properties in the annexation are served by existing septic systems. On the north end of the annexation area, the warehouse operation at nd Avenue (APN ) is served by a grinder system that goes to Marvin Road. Tolmie Cove Apartments are currently served by gravity sewer through the Eagle Court development to the northeast. Three incubator warehouses at the south end of the annexation area are also served by gravity sewer. Figure 8 illustrates the properties in the annexation area that are served by sewer. Figure 8. Properties Currently Served by Lacey Sewer Private utilities, including Comcast and Puget Sound Energy also serve the area. The City of Lacey Utilities Committee has reviewed the annexation proposal and verified that the City can effectively provide utility service to the proposed annexation area. SCJ Alliance Page 10 May 2014

33 2.5 Roadway Condition In September, 2013, City of Lacey staff performed a walking survey analysis of public streets in the proposed annexation area. A portion of 32 nd Avenue NE between Marvin Road and Eagle Court that is currently maintained by Thurston County would be owned and maintained by the City of Lacey following annexation. According to the Lacey assessment, the segment of 32 nd Avenue in County jurisdiction is approximately 1,430 feet. Half of it (approximately 730 feet) was repaved two years ago and is in excellent condition. The remaining portion is years old and has some minor defects but nothing that requires immediate attention. In comparison to other roadways, 32 nd Avenue doesn t have a high traffic volume or much truck traffic, so asphalt deterioration will be slow. Near the intersection with Marvin Road, there is some edge cracking, but recent patching has taken care of the worst of this. A few streets west of Marvin Road between 32 nd Avenue NE and Britton Parkway are private roads and will continue to be privately maintained once the area is annexed. 2.6 Crime and Law Enforcement In the years between 2009 and August 2013, the Thurston County Sheriff s Office and the Lacey Police Department responded to 477 total calls in the proposed annexation area. The area is served by the Thurston County Sheriff s Office, however, Lacey Police also respond to calls when asked to assist. Of the 477 responses in the last five years, the Sheriff s Department responded to 377 and Lacey Police to of the 100 calls that Lacey responded to were traffic-related events on Marvin Road. The following table lists the types of calls with the highest number of responses. Data for all the annexation properties is attached in Appendix B. Table 4. Police Responses in Annexation Area Total Number of Calls Call Type 2009-August 2013 Emergency Burglary Alarm 49 Follow-up (1) 41 Traffic stop of observed violation initiated by officer 33 Business (2) 33 Burglary 27 Suspicious Vehicle 25 Threatened Suicide 20 (1) Recontact relating to an existing case or police issue to obtain evidence, statements, effect an arrest, etc. (2) Check on business initiated by officer The City of Lacey Police Department responds to 38,000 incidents per year on average. From January 2009 through August 2013 (56 months), calls in the proposed annexation area that Thurston County responded to averaged approximately7 per month, or 80 per year. A City of Lacey staff report to City Council dated April 25, 2013 states that based on the number of mutual aid calls the Lacey Department SCJ Alliance Page 11 May 2014

34 already receives to this area, it is not expected that additional police coverage for this area will be a significant issue. SCJ Alliance Page 12 May 2014

35 3. FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ANNEXATION This section outlines what tax implications, if any, the annexation would have on property owners within the area to be annexed 3.1 Impact on Existing Interlocal Agreements The City of Lacey and Thurston County entered into an Annexation Agreement in January 1990, in which the two jurisdictions agreed to the following: Compensation Formula A formula was established to compensate the County and City for revenue lost and service obligations incurred as a result of annexation of significant developed commercial and/or industrial land. In these cases, net revenues will be shared in accordance with the agreed-upon formula. Annexation Support Thurston County will send a letter to the Boundary Review Board and City of Lacey confirming that the proposed annexation is consistent with the Urban Growth Management Agreement. Subsequent Residential Annexations This section establishes a formula for determining excess cost in the event that the cost of City services for annexation of significant residential properties exceeds the revenue generated. In such cases, the excess cost will be deducted from the City s payment obligation to the County. Combined Annexations If a proposed annexation contains both significant developed industrial/commercial property and significant developed residential property, the compensation to be paid will be calculated taking both elements into account. Capital Projects Reimbursement The City agrees to reimburse Thurston County for any major capital construction expenditures during the ten years prior to annexation. This section defines how valuation and value of the facilities is calculated. Continuation of Maintenance Thurston County agrees to continue routine maintenance of facilities in the annexation area until the effective date of the annexation. Annexation of Adjacent Streets and Roads Streets and roads adjacent to land to be annexed shall be part of the annexation. Early Notice and Collaboration Prior to acting on a petition for annexation, the City will notify the County. The County agrees to comment within 30 days. Public Information The City and County will jointly develop public information and data to provide interested and potentially affected residents and property owners on the issues relative to the annexation. SCJ Alliance Page 13 May 2014

36 Groundwater Protection and Sewer Service Policies This section refers to water quality within the McAllister Springs Geologically Sensitive Area and to annexations of areas east of the Lacey corporate limits. It is not applicable to this annexation, which is north of the existing City limits. Administration The Lacey City Manager and the Thurston County Chief Administrative Officer are responsible for implementing this agreement. Termination The original term of the agreement was for three years and it has been automatically renewed for subsequent three year terms since that time. The City and County may agree to revise or terminate this agreement at any time. The above agreement remains in effect and the agreement will be honored by the City and County. It is unlikely that the industrial/commercial properties in the annexation area would be considered to be significant and require compensation to Thurston County. The annexation area is small and the residential properties are not considered to be significant. 3.2 Property Taxes Thurston County s property tax rate is currently 1.99% higher than the City of Lacey s rate. The 2013 property tax levies are shown in Table 4 below. Table 5. Comparison of Property Tax Levies Per $1,000 Assessed Value City of Lacey Thurston County City of Lacey n/a County Road n/a Medic One North Thurston School District Port of Olympia PUD # State of Washington Thurston County Timberland Library Lacey Fire District (1) Total $ $ (1) Includes both assessment for fire and emergency medical services plus voter-approved General Obligation bonds for construction and remodeling of fire stations and the purchase of equipment ($0.1103/$1000 Assessed Value). 3.3 Business & Occupation Taxes The City of Lacey has a Business & Occupation tax (B&O) which has a rate of 0.001% of retail sales and 0.002% of services. The tax is calculated on gross business receipts if over $20,000 per year or $5,000 SCJ Alliance Page 14 May 2014

37 per quarter. There is no B&O tax in Thurston County. A company with gross business receipts for services provided of $150,000 per year would pay $300 B&O tax annually. When comparing City and County taxes, the County Road tax is generally commensurate with the City s property tax levy. However, the City rate is a general tax levy, while the County Road tax is a specific tax. 3.4 Amount of Bonded Indebtedness to be Assumed by the Annexation Area The bonded indebtedness to be assumed by property owners in the proposed annexation area in 2013 upon annexation to the City of Lacey would be: Fire Safety: Parks: Total: $0.1103/$1000 Assessed Value $0.1788/$1000 Assessed Value $0.2891/$1,000 Assessed Value Pursuant to the approval of their respective voters, both the City of Lacey and LFD3 have issued tax general obligation bonds for the construction and remodeling of fire stations and the purchase of equipmet. The City s General Obligation bond levies are shown above and also included in Table 4 in Section Fire Protection Lacey Fire District 3 (LFD3) serves the annexation area and the City of Lacey. The General Obligation bond levy for the City of Lacey is included in Section 3.4 ($0.1103/$1,000 assessed value). For the annexation area in unincorporated Thurston County, the 2013 bond levy is $0.1419/$1,000 assessed value. Under current law, if the city annexes territory from the fire district, that property would be subject to the City s regular levy, City s bond debt, the fire district s regular levy, and the fire district s bond debt (RCW , RCW ). However, the City of Lacey and LFD3 have an interlocal agreement that was entered into when the City was annexed into LFD3. With regard to bonded indebtedness, the District and the City both issued tax general obligation bonds. LFD3 agreed that the excess tax levy for retirement of the District indebtedness will be restricted to portions of the District located outside of the City. Upon annexation to the City, it is understood that the annexation area would pay only the excess levies for retirement of the City indebtedness. RCW and allow for an annexation without the assumption of indebtedness as long as it is specifically defined in the annexation. The petition for annexation for the Hill-Betti annexation is requesting that the Thurston County portion of the LDF3 bonded indebtedness be waived based on the interlocal agreement entered into when the City of Lacey was annexed into LFD3. A copy of the interlocal agreement and RCWs are attached in Appendix C. SCJ Alliance Page 15 May 2014

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program RECOMMENDATION: Adopt final ordinance for limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Rick Walk, Community Development Director Ryan Andrews, Planning Manager Christy Osborn, Associate Planner ORIGINATED BY: Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance for limited amendments to the City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program 2. Resolution 1020 Approving limited amendments to the City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program for submittal to the Department of Ecology 3. Department of Ecology final approval letter FISCAL NOTE: No budget impacts are expected as a result of the proposed revisions. PRIOR REVIEW: November 18, 2014 Planning Commission Work Session December 1, 2014 Land Use Committee Work Session December 2, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing December 18, 2014 City Council Meeting BACKGROUND: The Washington State Department of Ecology updated the Washington State wetland rating systems for eastern and western Washington. The updates to the rating system required the City to update the wetland chapter of the Lacey Municipal Code and complete a limited amendment to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Page 1 of 2

81 The Department of Ecology updated the wetland rating system to incorporate the most current scientific information that more accurately determines mitigation needed for wetland impacts. As a result of the update, wetland buffer strategies that use habitat score to determine buffer widths, like Lacey s, needed to be adjusted to utilize the new scores. Amendments to Chapter 14.28, Wetlands Protection, in the Lacey Municipal Code were adopted by Council on December 18, Due to the changes required in the wetland chapter, limited amendments to SMP need to be completed to reference the updated wetland ordinance and include as an addition to Appendix 7. In addition, language was modified to clarify the requirement to amend the SMP when referenced documents in the plan have been included to provide compliance with state law (Shoreline Management Act). The Planning Commission held a workshop and a public hearing on the proposed amendments. At the December 2, 2014, public hearing, there were no public comments received on the matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the amendments to City Council for adoption. The Land Use Committee reviewed the amendments on December 1, On December 18, 2014, Council adopted Resolution No approving the proposed amendments to the SMP for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Under state law, the SMP cannot be formally adopted by the City until it is approved by Ecology. The Department of Ecology formally approved the amendments to the SMP in a letter dated March 10, 2015 (see attachment 3). Planning staff respectfully requests the adoption of the attached ordinance. ADVANTAGES: 1. The amendments will incorporate required provisions to the shoreline Master Program to maintain consistency with federal and state law. 2. The amendment will incorporate the most current and best available scientific information for the protection of environmentally sensitive wetland and shoreline areas. DISADVANTAGES: 1. None identified Page 2 of 2

82 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LACEY AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LACEY RELATING TO WETLANDS PROTECTION, AMENDING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. WHEREAS, The Washington State Department of Ecology has updated the Washington State wetland rating systems for eastern and western Washington to incorporate the most current and best available scientific information; and WHEREAS, the updates to the rating system required the City to update the Wetlands Protection Chapter of the Lacey Municipal Code (LMC); and WHEREAS, due to the changes required in the wetland chapter of the LMC, a limited amendment to the Shoreline Master Program will be necessary; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program and recommended no changes; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the proposed amendments to the City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014, the City Council approved the amendments and directed that said amendments be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for approval prior to formal adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the Washington State Department of Ecology, in its letter to the Mayor, announced its final approval of said amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. The City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program is hereby amended as set forth in the attachment hereto. Section 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.

83 Section 3. CORRECTIONS. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the corrections of scrivener s/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection number and any references thereto. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, at a regularly-called meeting thereof, held this day of, CITY COUNCIL Approved as to form: By: Mayor City Attorney Attest: City Clerk

84 SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO CITY OF LACEY The City Council of Lacey, Washington passed on, 2015, Ordinance No., entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LACEY RELATING TO WETLANDS PROTECTION, AMENDING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AND APPROVING A SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION. The main points of the Ordinance are described as follows: 1. The Ordinance provides for a limited amendment to the City of Lacey Shoreline Master Program. 2. The Ordinance approves this summary for Publication. A copy of the full text of this Ordinance will be mailed without charge to any person requesting the same from the City of Lacey. Published:, 2015.

85 Shoreline Master Program Amendment References to Plans, Regulations or Information Sources 1. Where this Program makes reference to any RCW, or WAC, as amended and the current edition of other state, or federal regulations, shall apply. 2. Local Lacey plans and codes being referenced in this Shoreline Master Program include the following: A. Title 14 of the Lacey Municipal Code (LMC): The Lacey Title on Buildings and Construction that includes Lacey s critical area ordinances and design review chapters, specific sections referenced include: LMC Chapter 14.04, International Building and International Residential Code; LMC Chapter 14.23, Design Review; LMC Chapter 14.24, Environmental Policy; LMC Chapter 14.28, Wetlands Protection* (Ordinance #, 1295, 10/25/07 12/18/2014); LMC Chapter 14.31, Zero Effect Drainage Discharge; LMC Chapter 14.32, Tree and Vegetation Protection and Preservation* (Ordinance 1269, 07/27/06); LMC Chapter 14.33, Habitat Protection* (Ordinance 1215, 11/06/03); LMC Chapter 14.34, Flood Hazard* (Ordinance 1265, 06/08/06); LMC Chapter 14.37, Geologically Sensitive Areas* (Ordinance 1208, 08/18/03); B. Title 15 of the LMC: The Lacey Land Division Ordinance; C. Title 16 of the LMC: The Lacey Zoning Code; D. Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards (DGPWS)*; E. The Lacey Comprehensive Land Use Plan developed under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and all of its elements. Elements specifically referenced include: City of Lacey and Thurston County Land Use Plan for the Urban Growth Area; City of Lacey Housing Element Environmental Protection and Resource Conservation Plan and its Urban Forest Management Plan; Lacey Comprehensive Plan for Outdoor Recreation; City of Lacey 2030 Transportation Plan; Appendix 1 City of Lacey Public Access Plan Appendix 2 Vegetation/Landscaping Examples and Guidelines Appendix 3 Shoreline Environmental Designations Appendix 4 Portions of the original Inventory and Characterization Report and Environmental Designations that apply to Lacey. For informational purposes the full report is provided in CD format in the slipcover of this appendix. Appendix 5 Cumulative Impacts Report Appendix 6 Shoreline Environmental Designations Appendix 7 Referenced City of Lacey Ordinances Used in this Document (Include ordinance adopting revisions to CAO)

86 Shoreline Master Program Amendment NOTES REGARDING REFERENCED DOCUMENTS: * denotes a reference considered by the Department of Ecology to be mandatory fulfilling an identified requirement of local SMPs and required to be identified by date of adoption and adopted version and attached as an appendix to the SMP. References not identified by an * are considered loose reference by the Department of Ecology and are not required to be adopted in an appendix. Portions of the LMC referenced as a requirement of providing compliance with RCW (4) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC , Part III) of the SMP and designated with an * will be the version in effect at the time of adoption of the Shoreline Master Program and will not include amendments made to those Plans or sections of the LMC after the date of adoption. Pursuant to WAC (2)(b), amending the referenced regulations in the SMP for those areas under shoreline jurisdiction will require an amendment to the master program and approval by the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to a determination made by the Department of Ecology, later amendment to ordinances designated with an * will not be considered applicable to and will not change content of the Shoreline Master Program and therefore will not require amendment of the Shoreline Master Program. If the City wants to update the Shoreline Master Program to include such amendments in those areas under Shoreline Jurisdiction, Lacey may file for amendment of the Shoreline Master Program to include the amendments. Otherwise, the Shoreline Master Program will continue to use the version of the * referenced document in effect at the time the Shoreline Master Program was adopted, as shown in the applicable appendix. Pursuant to a determination made by the Department of Ecology those ordinances loosely referenced will apply to shoreline areas when updated, but will not require amendment of the SMP. Changes will also include the addition of the ordinance amendments to Chapter 14.28, Wetland Protections in Appendix 7.

87

88

89

90

91

92

93