Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/21/1990 City of Kent ::: City Cou nci Meeting -1. f Ag enda Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods President Leona Orr Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Jim White August 21 , 1990 office of the City Clerk PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. N Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: f1999 BUDGET �,�('n?� �t �a1 I �� p d ecl ✓� { r t5 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Tonights me ting has been set to receive public input for the 1991 budget. �o meeting follows receipt of public input at the July 17 Council meeting and the presentation of departmental programs to Council at a August 9, 1990 work session. w • - _ Geurdi The official public hearing on the budget will be held November 6, 1990 prior to scheduled budget adoption on December 4, 1990. 3. EXHIBITS: Council Budget Calendar 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A 4/11/90 CITY OF RENT, WASHINGTON w COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR COUNCIL VORKSHOP 3/20 4th Quarter Financial Report Review 1991 Budget, Calendar/Process COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/1 1st Quarter Financial Report Preliminary Financial Forecast Review of 1991 budget process COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/4 - 7/13 Review Departmental programs, goals and budget New CIP priorities Presentation to include 1991 Preliminary Budget Objectives DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/16 - 7/27 Reviews 1991 budget requests COUNCIL REGULAR 7/17 Proposed Use Public Hearing on 1991 Budget priorities COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8: 00 A.M. - 3 : 00 P.M. ) 8/9 2nd Quarter Financial Report Updated Financial Forecast Departmental presentations on 1991 Budget Objectives Council to Prioritize 1991 Budget Objectives COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING 8/21 Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Objectives Proposed Use Public Hearing on Budget COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9/18 Budget update of implementing 1991 Budget Objectives COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/16 Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report Overview of Preliminary 1991 Budget COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/16 - 11/13 Review Preliminary Budget COUNCIL REGULAR 11/6 Public Hearing on 1991 budget COUNCIL REGULAR 12/4 Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance COUNCIL REGULAR 12/18 Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1990 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJE MINSHULL-WAGNER REZONE NO. RZ-90-5 2. S�Y STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of an application by Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner to rezone 18.5 acres from RA, residential architectural, to R1-7.2 , single family residential. The property is located west of 92nd Avenue South at 20129 92nd Avenue South. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, memo to Ted Hunter from staff, Hearing Examiner Minutes and findings and recommendations. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner July 1. 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: moves, Councilmember seconds Councilmember To accept/reject odCf, the findings of the Hearing Examiner to adopt, reject, modify he Hearing Examiner's recommendations of denial of the MliTrs3iu11-Wagner Rezone no. RZ-90-5. 4t-) V I --I3k�, DISCUSSION• cw'vv-' ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B MY of 3 *nk CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER w FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Ilvvn-rb FILE NO: MINSHULL-WAGNER #RZ-90-5 APPLICANT: Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner REOUEST: A request for a rezone from RA, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 .2 , Single Family Residential. LOCATION: The subject property is located west of 92nd Avenue S. at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S. APPLICATION FILED: 3/23/90 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED• 4/12/90 MEETING DATE: 6/6/90 and 6/20/90 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 7/1/90 RECOMMENDATION: DENIED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Kathy McClung, Planning Department Scott Williams, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department Ed White, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lillie Wagner, applicant Other Donna Williamson Lisa Bishop Cal Stewart Ken Mellott WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Cindy Cameron William L. Robbins, Sr. „. 1 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. FINDINGS 1. The applicants are owners of approximately 18. 5 acres located west of 92nd Avenue S. at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue South. The applicants propose a rezone of the property from RA, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7.2, Single Family Residential with 7, 200 square feet minimum lot size. 2 . The City-wide and Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Maps designate the subject property as SF, Single Family. The Valley Floor Plan Map was first adopted in 1979. At that time, the subject property was designated as RA, Residential Agricultural. In June of 1988, the City Council amended the Valley Floor Plan Map by Resolution No. 1120. That Resolution changed the comprehensive plan designation on the subject property from RA to SF, Single Family Residential. 3 . Land use surrounding the subject property is predominately single family residential. The property is bordered by SR 167 on the west. The area across from the subject property on 92nd Avenue S. is in the jurisdiction of King County and is •zoned SR-9600, Single Family with 9, 600 square foot lot sizes. Despite zoning which allows smaller lot sizes, most of the lots in the area are one-half acre or larger. 4 . Several residents from homes surrounding the subject property testified about traffic concerns at the public hearings. Concerns expressed included heavy, fast traffic on 92nd Avenue S. (back-ups as far as from Central Avenue to mid- span) with no shoulder or sidewalks; heavy, fast traffic on S. 200th; unsafe pedestrian access along 92nd Avenue S. so that children cannot walk to nearby school; and potential problems with traffic on S. 202nd if it is opened up for new development. 5. Any development of the subject property would impact traffic on 92nd Avenue S. That road is currently classified as a 2 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 collector arterial. It has a paving width of 24 feet. The City testified that the current traffic count for 92nd Avenue S. is 3, 600 to 3, 800 vehicles per day. The estimated traffic increase which may occur as a consequence of development of the subject property with single family dwellings is from 670 to 1, 100 additional trips per day depending on the density of development. This represents approximately a 20 to 30 percent increase in traffic on 92nd Avenue S. The City also testified that traffic mitigation measures could be applied including a speed limit of 35 mph, a 36 foot wide paved area, and a curb and sidewalk (at least along one side of 92nd Avenue S. ) . It was suggested that the formation of a LID for transportation improvements was also possible. 6. The Soos Creek Planning Area, which includes the area on the east side of 92nd Avenue S. , is one of the fastest growing residential areas in King County. The demand for housing has increased substantially in the past year throughout the City of Kent. 7. The subject property slopes to the west at approximately 14 percent. Residents of the area testified that there are a significant number of springs on the hillside. A number of the residents use wells in the area that could be impacted by development of the site. Some residents presented testimony about the wildlife on the site (hawks, pheasant, quail, rabbits, possum and deer) and expressed concern about loss of wildlife. Some residents expressed concerns about loss of views of the valley if development were to occur on the subject property. 8 . A letter from Benson Realty, Inc. was presented by the applicant and received in evidence as Exhibit 5. The letter states that there is an "urgent need for single family houses in South King County" and that the subject property "is ideally suited and situated for just that purpose" . 9. A Declaration of Nonsignificance with no conditions was issued for the proposed rezone on April 12, 1990. 3 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 CONCLUSIONS Introduction Section 15. 09 of the Kent Zoning Code requires the Hearing Examiner to use the following standards and criteria to evaluate a request for a rezone. The Hearing Examiner can recommend approval of a rezone request only if he determines that the request meets the following standards and criteria: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. In addition, Section 15. 04. 010 of the Kent Zoning Code requires that any rezoning of RA lands to more intensive use shall: -be predicated upon the documentation of the need for additional residential . . . land in Kent. This documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis showing the other lands already zoned and accessible to municipal services are not sufficient and/or suitable to accommodate demand for the proposed uses and that the market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to provide municipal services . . . required by the project. The Examiner must evaluate the proposed rezone against both sets of criteria to determine if a recommendation to grant or deny is appropriate. 4 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Conclusions Upon review of all the evidence submitted with reference to this request for a rezone, and upon review of the standards and criteria for evaluating the request for a rezone, the Examiner concludes that: 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Both the City-wide and the Valley Floor Plan Comprehensive Plan maps designate the subject property as SF, Single Family Residential. The Valley Floor Plan also contains goals which encourage residential development on the Valley Floor when consistent with environmental quality. 2 . The proposed rezone from RA to R1-7. 2 and subsequent development of the site would be not compatible with development in the vicinity. The subject property is surrounded by single family development that is far less dense than that proposed in the application. A change of zoning to R1-7 .2 would mean as many as 100 homes could be built on the subject property or about 6 homes per acre. The surrounding development has about two homes per acre. Even if some of the subject property was not developed with homesites due to streets and slopes, the density would still be far in excess of that surrounding the subject property. A zone designation of R1-12 or R1-20 would be far more compatible with development in the vicinity. 3 . The proposed rezone would unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. The proposed rezone, associated with single family development of the site, would increase traffic on the main corridor road by 20 to 30 percent. The traffic level is already high and already has adverse impacts on area residents. The additional traffic would cause significant additional adverse impacts. Many of these impacts could be mitigated. However, there was very little evidence presented at the public hearings regarding specific mitigation measures that would be applied. Although traffic mitigation measures are typically addressed at the time of environmental review or at the time of development permit applications, the concerns raised at the public hearings on this proposed rezone by residents in the vicinity of the subject property are specific enough to require more detail in the description of the mitigation measures that would be applied rather than those the could be applied. Without that level of detail, it cannot be concluded that the 5 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 - adverse impacts can be mitigated as required by Section 15.09 of the Zoning Code. 4 . Circumstances agpear to have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone but the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to show this as required by the Zoning ordinance. The demand for single family housing in the area has increased significantly in just the past year. The purpose of the RA zone is to "assure efficient and attractive growth" at the appropriate time. The key question to be addressed regarding the proposed rezone is when it is appropriate to rezone the property. For a rezone -of an RA zone to a more intensive classification, the City Council has required a more detailed analysis of the "change of circumstances" criteria. The required analysis is specified in Section 15. 04 . 010 of the Kent Zoning Code (as quoted above) . The applicant must document the need for additional housing by using a fiscal impact analysis showing the other lands zoned for single family residential are not sufficient or _. suitable to accommodate the demand for housing. The applicant' s only documentation is a letter from a realtor (Exhibit 5) which states the "urgent need for single family housing in South King County. " Neither this letter nor any other documentation made available at the public hearing addresses whether other lands already zoned for single family residential development are available in the City. In order to recommend approval of the proposed rezone, the Hearing Examiner must conclude that these other lands are insufficient or unsuitable for development. This conclusion cannot be reached without additional evidence to support it. The Hearing Examiner must also conclude that "the proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to provide municipal services . . . required by the project" . Section 15. 04 . 010. There was no evidence submitted by the applicant or anyone else regarding the revenue needed to provide the municipal services specified in the ordinance (which includes, but is not limited to, police, fire, streets, water, drainage and sewer) . Without this evidence, the Examiner cannot conclude that there would be sufficient revenues generated to provide the necessary municipal services specified in the ordinance. 6 - Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner r #RZ-90-5 5. The proposed rezone would adversely affect the safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Citv of Kent._ The testimony presented at the public hearings from surrounding residents was overwhelmingly consistent with regard to the traffic problems that now exist and the concern about additional adverse impacts on the transportation system that may occur if the proposed rezone is approved. The street system in the area is not now safe for young pedestrians or bicyclists. Approval of the proposed rezone would exacerbate the situation. Traffic mitigation measures may be available that would mitigate these additional negative impacts, but they have not been identified with specificity. The applicants proposed no mitigation measures whatsoever. While some level of residential development appears appropriate for the subject property, the City Council has applied an RA zoning designation to the site to assure that development does not occur until the appropriate time. "It is essential that the City avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand" . Section 15. 04 . 010 of the Zoning Code. Without documentation of the unavailability of other zones for single family housing, approval of the proposed rezone would adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of the City. The applicants for the proposed rezone appear to be model neighbors and citizens by all accounts. Lillie Wagner stated she has lived in the area for over 40 years. Her testimony clearly indicated she shared the surrounding residents ' concerns about traffic problems, wildlife and safety for children. However, the requirements of the City as expressed in the ordinances adopted by the City Council must be adhered to by the Hearing Examiner in his effort to "interpret, review and implement land use regulations" as required by law. The requirements to approve the request for a rezone have not been met by the applicants in this matter. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the request for a rezone from RA, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7. 2 , Single Family Residential, be DENIED. If additional evidence is provided by the applicant which supports a more intensive zoning, it is recommended that the zoning be no more intensive than R1-20 to assure compatibility with the existing residential development surrounding the subject property 7 Findings and Recommendation Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 and to help assure that adverse impacts due to traffic increases can be adequately mitigated. Dated this 5th day of July, 1990 THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. 8 _. City of Kent - Planning Department ri If -jlif N'.r\1\�� (: it �� '�•': ���p� f v� I°,o bi q�\\ i{¢ir ��]'/ I I ; k 4•. }: fl\� I { I l d 1l° 1 l (I I I (r)\ t /LI/ \ \ 1 I I 1 ` I i,i I ,III I Iri rl i i /�f1�'fil oil III I h l\ ❑ 1 j1 \ I 1�I a 111 IIIV 1a1 �/ a \'1IIII \ 111)dl II I I 1 11+1 II! ❑ Ula I{y IIII IN �. \a\\\y1� I CP I !-, �, I'll I I; 111, ;11 1 ❑7��y11�� {tl ;"11�'a+,, lib LJ IIr%I I IIII +\\\\I. \ II 1 21 I -•11V ,I `\\\\\\I}111I1\ •' 1 \�� I, \1 f I UNI \ �\\\�\\'ll\�ll 4 �1 4\ APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2 Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. LEGEND Application site ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - Planning Department 4TH ST 0 96TH ST Az 0 � o u' _Ccrr w ' ? > w w r � h cn _ r 00 w co S 200TH ST Q' 0 0 T H ST •': :::::3 r :3: ;::•::•. 202NO ST Q N N S 206TH � r w > _ Q7 Q r rn APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2, Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. LEGEND Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - Planning Department r e 61, \ � J 2 N I 1 h \ \ v o I E I / 1x aL3 I 0 i i ti 1 � a n "HJaI / m a / ed a[/ TY, APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2 Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. LEGEND Application site SITE PLAN Zoning boundary City limits '�' PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to, or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision. These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings, or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you are interested in obtaining an official transcript. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES June 20, 1990 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, June 20, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony. MINSHULL-WAGNER Rezone #RZ-90-5 A public hearing continued from June 6, 1990 to consider the request . by Margaret Minshull, 28114 110th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031 and Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA 98064, to rezone approximately 18 acres from RZ, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2, Single-Family Residential. The property is located at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031. Scott Williams, Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Williams commented the rezone request is a rezone from RA, Residential-Agriculture, to R1-7.2, Single-Family Residential . Mr. Williams showed some view foils depicting 1) the location of the site, and 2) zoning of the site and surrounding area and 3) topography of the site. A Determination of Nonsignificance without conditions was issued on April 22 , 1990. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 20, 1990 Mr. Williams commented the site will have access to 92nd Avenue S. Mr. Williams stated the Traffic Department did a traffic count on 92nd Avenue S. on June 12 . A total trip count of 3 , 832 vehicles (north and southbound) for the 24-hour period was made. Mr. Williams noted that traffic mitigation and road improvements would be required at the time of preliminary plat application. Mr. Williams stated any plat application on the property would need to go through SEPA and the preliminary plat process. A video of the site was shown. Mr. Williams commented on the analysis of the Comprehensive and Valley Floor Plans. Mr. Williams stated a revision to the staff report was mailed last week. Mr. Williams stated that in June 1988 the City Council changed the Valley Floor Plan designation for the property from RA to SF, Single-Family. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Single-Family. Mr. Williams stated the rezone request could be approved without a Valley Floor Plan amendment. The R1-7 .2 zoning would comply with the SF designation. Mr. Williams commented there wasn't an updated map available. Mr. Williams gave a brief history on the Valley Floor Plan amendment. Carol Proud, Planning Department, commented there is available a copy of the East Valley Study and Resolution making the change to the Valley Floor Plan. Mr. Williams submitted to the record a copy of Resolution 1170 (Exhibit 3) . Mr. Williams talked about Area 5 where the site was changed from RA to SF. Mr. Williams reviewed the goals and objectives relating to this rezone request. Mr. Williams claimed staff felt the natural features of the site, especially the slopes and trees, could not be retained with the R1-7 . 2 designation as they would be with a larger-lot designation. Mr. Williams mentioned that R1-12 zoning would be more consistent with the goals and objectives. Mr. Williams commented the staff is recommending approval to R1-12 , Single Family Residential. Mr. Hunter stated there was a letter received from Cindy Cameron (Exhibit 2) . Mr. Hunter remarked that the Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 010, states that the rezoning of RA lands shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for additional residential , commercial or industrial lands. Mr. Hunter asked if there was evidence submitted relating to a fiscal impact analysis or market demand. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 20, 1990 Mr. Williams stated the applicant submitted a letter from a real estate agent in the area. Mr. Williams commented the reasoning for the staff support of the rezone was the growth in single-family residential development in the area. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to respond. Lillie Wagner, applicant, submitted to the record a copy of her prepared remarks (Exhibit 4) . She read from the remarks. Ms. Wagner remarked the area is no longer rural. Ms. Wagner talked about the area in regard to use, location and surrounding uses. Ms. Wagner commented the site is located between a commercial area and larger, 9, 600 square feet, residential lots. Mr. Hunter asked if a fiscal impact analysis or market demand analysis was done? Ms. Wagner commented she hasn't seen one. Ms. Wagner felt the analysis would have been done by a governmental agency. Mr. Hunter said the report could have been done by a governmental agency or Ms. Wagner could have hired someone to do the analysis. Ed Cleveland, 19415 Talbot Road, Renton, WA 98055, commented there are three subdivisions being built in the area; two across the street from the subject property and one beside the property. Two of the subdivisions will have 7,200 square feet lots and one will have 9, 600 square feet because of slope. These subdivisions are located in King County. Traffic impacts from these subdivisions have been sent to Kent and Kent has responded that there would not be any significant traffic impact from these subdivisions. However, there will be about 80 homes total on these subdivisions. Mr. Cleveland commented this strip of land where the subject property is located has been considered by the City to be a transitional buffer between commercial in the valley and residential on the east slope. Mr. Cleveland stated this property was down zoned by Kent to RA, density one home to the acre, about ten years ago. Mr. Cleveland felt that to have one home to an acre of land that had all the public services is unfair, when compared to other lands with higher density and fewer available public services. Mr. Cleveland felt a density of 9, 600 square feet should be allowed. Ms. Wagner commented down zoning this property to a lower density than surrounding property was not equitable. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 20, 1990 Mr. Hunter asked if there were any more comments. Cal Stewart, lives to the east of the Wagner parcel. Mr. Stewart stated the property is view property. Mr. Stewart felt there could be a possible obstruction of the view if the property was developed with large houses. Mr. Stewart commented he had a well on his property that was being used; he felt that the well could be damaged by allowing development. Mr. Stewart felt the site was too steep to allow 7 .2 density. Furthermore, some natural springs are located on the property Mr. Stewart felt the traffic statements in the staff report are inaccurate. He commented the traffic from this development would impact the streets. Mr. Stewart wanted to know what the City was going to do about the traffic. In addition, there are no improvements to the street, no sidewalks or places to walk. Ken Mellott, 20110 92nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031, lives across from the Wagner property. Mr. Mellott had concerns about this development in regard to the overall impact to the area, especially with the other subdivisions being developed. Mr. Mellott had a concern about the impact on the view with the development of this site. Mr. Mellot asked if provisions for drainage would be required. Mr. Mellot mentioned the well on his property and the impact the development might have on the well. Mr. Mellot was concerned about the cumulative traffic impacts from this development as well as from the other subdivisions being developed. Mr. Williams remarked the City has view regulations that must be complied with. He stated that any property with a 20 percent slope is entitled to have the view protected. Mr. Williams commented on the RA, Residential Agriculture, designation. Mr. Williams stated the property has been zoned the same for approximately 30 years; not as a buffer between industrial and single-family but to facilitate a transition between agricultural use and single-family residential uses. Mr. Hunter commented the purpose of the residential agricultural zone, as stated in the Ordinance, is as the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth; it is essential that the City avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. Mr. Williams commented his understanding of the idea is that the original intent was to preserve the agricultural uses there. The City Council looked at property they were reasonably sure was going to be single-family at some future time. Instead of zoning it as single family immediately, the City Council decided to enact the 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 20, 1990 RA designation to protect the agricultural land until such time there was a demand for single-family use. Ms. Proud remarked the average slope is about 14 percent. The hillside standards in the subdivision code govern any hillside subdivision. The hillside standards begin at 15 percent slope. Ms. Proud stated the subject site is less than the beginning hillside standards. One of the standards for a hillside subdivision is the lots should be larger than usually allowed. Thus, under a rezone the Planning Department tries to allow for such standards. Ed White, Public Works Department, talked about how the trip generation figures are derived. Mr. White discussed the trip generation figures for the proposed rezone using the different lot sizes. Mr. White stated there are no improvements on the road; the road is approximately 24- to 26 feet wide, open ditch on the east side and a six to seven foot shoulder on the west side. This road is currently functioning as a local arterial. Mr. White stated with the build-out proposed the road could become a major roadway. Mr. White stated a speed study was not done; if requested a speed study can be done. Gary Gill, Public Works Department, commented that when the property is developed many of the questions regarding traffic and storm drainage will be resolved. Mr. Gill stated that a future developer of this property will be required to participate in the 228th/224th Corridor Project or the 192nd/196th Corridor Project. Mr. Gill remarked the developer could be required to either fully improve 92nd along the entire frontage of the property or sign a no-protest LID covenant. The developer might be required to do minimal improvements to 92nd. Mr. Gill stated that property owners who have wells should get in touch with the Public Works Department so any impacts from development could be restricted. Mr. Gill stated storm drainage would be closely monitored. Mr. Williams commented the purpose statements for the RA and MA zones were changed at the time the agricultural land study was completed approximately eight years ago. Mr. Williams read a letter received from the Benson Realty dated June 4, 1990 (Exhibit 5) . Mr. Stewart felt that a letter from a realtor stating that the land is necessary for single-family use is lining the realtor's own pocket. Mr. Stewart did not feel that letter was valid for showing it would be necessary to have the land for single-family use. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed. 5 PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to, or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision. These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings, or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are available at a charge from the. City of Kent. Please contact Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you are interested in obtaining an official transcript. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES June 6, 1990 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, June 6, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony. MINSHULL-WAGNER Rezone #RZ-90-5 A public hearing to consider the request by Margaret Minshull, 28114 110th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031 and Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA 98064, to rezone approximately 18 acres from RZ, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7. 2 , Single-Family Residential. The property is located at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031. Scott Williams, Planner, stated the applicant has requested a continuation of the Hearing Examiner meeting to June 20. Mr. Williams remarked the reason for continuance is the property owners requesting the rezone need to discuss the staff' s recommendation prior to the hearing. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 6, 1990 Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA 98064 , remarked the request was a rezone from rural to residential. Ms. Wagner remarked they wanted time to look at the ramifications of the Comprehensive Plan on this property. Mr. Williams commented the City is in agreement with this request. Mr. Williams stated that if the applicant doesn't agree with staf f s recommendation on the rezone, then the applicant will need to file for a Comprehensive Plan change prior to a rezone request. Therefore, applicant will need to make a decision on whether to withdraw the application, file for a Comprehensive Plan change, and then file for a rezone. Mr. Hunter stated he will take public testimony today with the understanding that the City and applicant will testify at the continued hearing of June 20, 1990. Donna Williamson was interested in the access to the property. Ms. Williamson was concerned that the lots would be 7, 200 square feet in size while the County land was 9, 000 square feet in size. Ms. Williamson remarked on the current congestion of 92nd Avenue S. and felt the addition of this plat would create more congestion. Ms. Williamson commented she had called about the speeding on the road and the unsafe conditions; however, it has been difficult to find who is responsible because the road is shared between City and County. Mr. Hunter asked Ms. Williamson to delineate the access. Ms. Williamson stated it was the 30 foot access lane going down the side of her property. There is a big gully on the north side. Thus, the road cannot be widened unless the gully is filled in. Mr. Hunter commented road improvements were required by the Determination of Nonsignificance. Lisa Bishop commented she lives on S. 200th Street which is an access to 92nd. Ms. Bishop stated traffic is atrocious. Ms. Bishop asked for an explanation of the traffic counts shown in the staff report. Ms. Bishop felt the lots sizes should be larger. Mr. Hunter asked that an explanation of traffic counts be made at the June 20, 1990 hearing. A letter was received into the record from Cindy Cameron (Exhibit 2) . The hearing was continued to June 20, 1990 at 3 : 00 pm. 2 ` Hearing Examiner Minutes June 6, 1990 KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK REZONE ##RZ-90-4 A public hearing to consider the request by Trammell Crow Company, PO Box 80326, Seattle, WA 98108, to rezone 42.85 acres from GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M2, Limited Industrial. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 84th Avenue S. and S. 218th Street. Carol Proud reiterated the request. Ms. Proud listed some of the surrounding businesses in this area. Ms. Proud commented this is a portion of a 42-acre site developed as an industrial building with a commercial portion located on East Valley Highway. Ms. Proud stated there were two separate buildings, with a commercial building on East Valley Highway. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Proud identified the surrounding uses. Ms. Proud discussed the criteria that are reviewed when a rezone request is considered. The staff is recommending approval. Mr. Hunter commented the Gateway Commercial zoning was established one year ago. He asked what circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the Gateway commercial district? Ms. Proud stated, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, that the established boundaries were a compromise between what the current property owners desired versus what was reasonable in determining a zoning boundary. Ms. Proud stated that if a site-specific analysis had been done, the current request would have been incorporated into the changes initiated with the Gateway Commercial zoning. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. Kirk Johnson, Trammell Crow, stated he had no formal presentation. Mr. Johnson commented there were five property owners in the rezone area. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the establishment of the zoning boundary. Mr. Johnson stated the requested zoning would be consistent with the type of users that would locate in the area. Mr. Johnson stated the intent is to maintain a service type of use along the East Valley Highway. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the ownership of this property and other property in the area. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes June 6, 1990 Mr. Hunter asked if there was any other testimony. James H. Rust talked about the various zoning requests that have been made. Les Snodgrass, American Lenders Service Co. , had some concerns; he talked about the traffic as well as the LID imposed on his conditional use permit. He wanted to know why this request does not have the same LID condition. Mr. Snodgrass wanted to know what was the setback for the southernmost building on the site. Ms. Proud commented the developer will be participating in the 224th/228th Corridor Project as well as 218th improvements. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, gave a brief explanation on the process of defining the GWC zoning. Kathy McClung, Planning Department, commented on the rezone request and the amenities that would be provided. Furthermore, the goals of the GWC zone would be accomplished. There was no further testimony.The hearing was closed at 4 : 00 pm. 4 urr OF nv� KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 15, 1990 MEMO TO: TED HUNTER, KENT HEARING EXAMINER FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, PLANNER RE: #RZ-90-5 MINSHULL WAGNER REZONE New information has arisen since the writing of the staff report for the above mentioned application. The following revisions need to be made to the staff report for the above mentioned application. The revised portions of the staff report are shown in bold face: Page 1: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF REZONE TO R1-12 Page 3 : VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the subject property as SF, Single Family Residential. The Valley Floor Plan was adopted in 1979 as a more specific statement of the - City Council 's intentions for the Valley Floor. The adoption of the Valley Floor Plan amounted to an update of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Valley Floor. The Valley Floor Plan Map reflected an updated intention for the subject property from SF, Single Family to RA, Residential Agricultural, reflecting the intention to create a smooth transition from agricultural to residential uses. In June 1988, as part of the East Valley Study, the City Council changed the Valley Floor Plan Map designation of the property to SF, Single Family Residential. Elements of the Valley Floor Plan are addressed below followed by Planning Department comments. OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ON THE VALLEY FLOOR, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT. GOAL 3 : ASSURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Ob-iective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment as possible. Planning Department Comment: The subject property slopes to the west at a rate of approximately 14 percent. The site is also covered with many significant trees. Memo To: Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner Date: June 15, 1990 RE: Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Page 2 Smaller lots, such as those that would be allowed under the proposed zoning, generally make it more difficult to retain natural features. Small lots in sloped areas often require retaining walls to secure a flat building site, thus disrupting the natural topography of the area. Because relatively large portions of the lots are covered with impervious surfaces (i.e. , roofs, driveways) , reducing the number of options for site design, significant trees are often difficult to retain. Staff feels that zoning restricting lot size to 12,000 square feet would allow retention of natural features of the site and would, therefore, be consistent with the Plan. Page 7 : B. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single Family Residential. Pages 7 and 8 A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department Comment: While the proposed single-family residential use would be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan designations for the property, the Planning Department has some concerns relative to the proposed density. Page 8 : B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment: The surrounding land uses are predominantly residential. The area has retained a rural character. Most of the lots in the area are one- half acre or larger, despite King County zoning that allows smaller lot sizes (9, 600 square feet minimum) . It is the opinion of staff that the zoning proposed by the applicant (R1-7 . 2) , and the subsequent development on the site, would not be compatible with the existing development in the area. Memo To: Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner - Date: June 15, 1990 RE: Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Page 3 Staff feels that rezoning the subject property to R1-12 would be more compatible with the existing development in the area. Page 10: VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone the City staff recommends APPROVAL of a rezone from RA, Residential Agriculture to RI-12 , Single-Family Residential. In summary, because the Valley Floor Plan designation for the property is SF, Single Family Residential, the request could be accommodated without need for a plan amendment, as was stated in the original staff report. However, because of the physical constraints of the property (i.e. , slopes) staff feels that R1-12 is a more appropriate designation for the subject property than R1-7 . 2 . - SW:ch cc: Jacob and Lillie Wagner P.O. Box 5490 Kent, WA 98064 Margaret Minshull 28114 110th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98031 James Harris, Planning Director KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1990 FILE NO: MINSHULL-WAGNER #RZ-90-5 APPLICANT: Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner REOUEST: A request for a rezone from RA, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Williams STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF REZONE TO R1-20 I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposal is to rezone approximately 18 . 5 acres from RA, Residential Agricultural , to R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential (71200 square feet minimum lot size) . B. Location The subject property is located west of 92nd Avenue S. The addresses are 20227 92nd Avenue S. and 20129 92nd Avenue S. C. Size of Property The subject property is approximately 18 . 5 acres in size. D. Zoning The zoning on the subject property currently is RA, Residential Agricultural. This was designed as a holding zone for areas that were recognized as being in transition from agricultural to residential uses. The original intent of the zone was to preserve agricultural uses Zoning across 92nd Avenue S . , which is in unincorporated King County, is SR-9600, which is a single-family residential zone with 9 , 600 square foot lot sizes. 1 M. Staff Report Minshull-Wagner - #RZ-90-5 E. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as SF, Single-Family Residential . Elements of the Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by Planning Department comments. OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. Obiective 1: Encourage new residential development on suitable areas of the Valley Floor, close to transportation corridors. Planning Department Comment: The subject property is located in close proximity to transportation corridors that access services on the East Hill and the Valley Floor. It is also in close proximity 2 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 to a freeway interchange that provides access to a north- south corridor. The subject property is located in close proximity to two east-west corridors. Services on the Valley Floor can be accessed by utilizing either S. 208th Street or S. 212th Street, which is a major east-west corridor in the City. Access to the services on the East Hill can be accessed by utilizing SE 208th Street or SE 200th Street. South 212th Street provides access to the Valley Freeway (SR-167) , which is a major north-south transportation corridor. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the subject property as RA, Residential Agriculture. The Valley Floor Plan was adopted in 1979 as a more specific statement of the City Council ' s intentions for the Valley Floor. The adoption of the Valley Floor Plan amounted to an update of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Valley Floor. The Valley Floor Plan Map reflected an updated intention for the subject property from SF, Single Family to RA, Residential Agricultural, reflecting the intention to create a smooth transition from agricultural to residential uses. Elements of the Valley Floor Plan are addressed below followed by Planning Department comments. OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ON THE VALLEY FLOOR, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT. GOAL 3 : ASSURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment as possible. Planning Department Comment: The subject property slopes to the west at a rate of approximately 14 percent. The site is also covered with many significant trees. 3 _. Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Smaller lots, such as those that would be allowed under the proposed zoning, generally make it more difficult to retain natural features. Small lots in sloped areas often require retaining walls to secure a flat building site, thus disrupting the natural topography of the area. Because relatively large portions of the lots are covered with impervious surfaces (i.e. , roofs, driveways) , reducing the number of options for site design, significant trees are often difficult to retain. Staff feels that zoning restricting lot size to 20, 000 square feet would allow retention of natural features of the site and would, therefore, be consistent with the Plan. II. HISTORY A. Site History There have been no other land use applications for the w subject property. The last building permit activity on the site was in 1965. B. Area History The subject property is part of a 320-acre area that was annexed to the City in April 1959 under Ordinance 1017 . III . LAND USE Land uses in the area are predominantly single-family residential . The site is bordered on the west by SR-167 . IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. Environmental Assessment A Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-90-29) was issued for the rezone on April 12 , 1990 . No conditions were attached. 4 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Vegetation The subject property slopes to the west approximately 14 percent. The site is covered mostly with native . vegetation, including some relatively mature trees. Portions of the site are, or have been used for pasture and are covered with grass. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 92nd Avenue S. , which is classified as a collector arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60-feet. The actual width of paving on the street is 24-feet. The street is improved with two lanes of asphalt paving. The average daily traffic count on the street is 2 , 000 vehicle trips per day. Any deedings or street improvements that would be required would be addressed at the time of application for a specific development proposal (i.e. , short plat, preliminary plat) on the subject property. 2 . Water System There are no City of Kent water mains in the vicinity of the proposal . The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District provides service to the subject property. The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District has indicated that there are facilities available to serve the subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System There are no City of Kent sanitary sewer mains in the vicinity of the proposal . The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District provides service to the subject property. The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District has indicated that there are facilities available to serve the subject property. 5 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 4 . Storm Water System The applicant will be required to design and construct a system to collect, detain and treat storm water prior to discharging it into the City system. This would be required as part of a preliminary plat or short plat request for this property. 5. LID's None at the present time. v. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief - Building official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments and concerns have been incorporated into the staff report where applicable. The Fire Chief had the following comments: "The number of houses given recent growth in the area will put a great deal of stress on the currently heavily taxed response. system. This and other developments will further push the need for additionally staffed companies on the east hill . Adequate and normal width roads will be essential and some slopes could provide difficulties with winter access and may necessitate the need for more built in protection. " 6 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as SF, Single-Family Residential. B. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as RA, Residential Agriculture. C. The site is presently zoned RA, Residential Agricultural . D. Land uses in the area are predominantly residential. E. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal on April 12 , 1990. F. The site slopes to the west approximately 14 percent. G. The site has access to 92nd Avenue S. H. The site receives sewer and water service from the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District. There are facilities in place to serve the site. VII . STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR A REZONE REQUEST The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15. 09 . 050) shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department Comment: The proposed rezone would be consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. However, it would not be consistent with the Valley Floor Plan designation for the site. As discussed above, the Valley Floor Plan was 7 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner w #RZ-90-5 adopted in 1979 and was, essentially, an update to the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the City's desire for growth on the Valley Floor. The site is recognized on the Valley Floor Plan Map as being in transition from agricultural to residential uses. The purpose of 'the Residential Agricultural designation is to provide a smooth transition from agricultural to residential uses. It is the opinion of staff that the R1-20 zoning district would retain the rural nature of the site and better facilitate the transition from agricultural to residential uses. The Planning Department has determined that this would be consistent with the Valley Floor Plan and would, therefore, not require a Plan amendment. However, a rezone to R1-7 . 2 would alter the character of the area such that the rural character could not be retained. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan change from RA, Residential Agriculture, to SF, Single Family, would be required. B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment: The surrounding land uses are predominantly residential. The area has retained a rural character. Most of the lots in the area are one-half acre or larger, despite King County zoning that allows smaller lot sizes (9 , 600 square feet minimum) . It is the opinion of staff that the zoning proposed by the applicant (R1-7 . 2) , and the subsequent development on the site, would not be compatible with the existing development in the area. Staff feels that rezoning the subject property to R1-20 would be more compatible with the existing development in the area and would, therefore, not require an amendment to the Valley Floor Plan. C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. 8 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Planning Delartment Comment: Rezoning the subject property from RA to R1-7 . 2 and the subsequent development would create more traffic in the area. The Engineering Department would require road improvements and traffic mitigation agreements to address the traffic impacts of the development. It is not expected that the proposed rezone would unduly burden the transportation system in the City. D. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed change. Planning Department Comment: In recent years, economic growth and in-migration have fueled high demand for housing in the Puget Sound area. The Soos Creek Planning Area in particular, which includes the area on the east side of 92nd Avenue S . is one of the fastest growing areas in King County (Kent Planning Department 1989) , in terms of residential development. The demand for housing has put increased pressure on areas, such as the subject property, to be subdivided. This demand has increased substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district on the subject property. The Kent Zoning Code requires that no RA zoned lands be rezoned without documentation of the need for additional residentially zoned land. The applicant has provided documentation to the Planning Department to demonstrate the demand for additional single-family residentially zoned land in the City. E. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Planning Department Comment: The health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent was considered by staff in preparation of this staff report and will be considered during the evaluation of specific development proposals for the subject property. No adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated are anticipated as a result of the proposed rezone. 9 Staff Report Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION and the Code criteria for Upon review of the merits of this requestSingle-Family a rezone the City staff recommends ommends APPROVAL of a rezone granting Agriculture to R1-20' from RA, Residential ing condition: Residential, subject to the follow of the Rezone Recommended Condition for A royal : grades on the subject property exceed 12 . percent, any If road g residences constructed on the site shall be single-family sprinklered. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 23 , 1990 10 Kent City C Date____—A Category -- 1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - MINSHULL-WAGNER REZONE NO. RZ 2 . SUlMMY STATEMENT: Council consideration of th. Examiner's recommendation should be considered bet hearing, see Item 2B. This public hearing will consider an appeal by Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of an application to rezone 18.5 acres from RA, residential architectural to R1-7.2, single family residential. The property is located west of 92nd Avenue at 20129 92nd Avenue South. 3. EXHIBITS: Appeal form, letter from Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner dated July 13, 1990, and verbatim minutes from the June 6, 1990 and June 20, 1990 hearing (see additional information in public hearing 2 .B) . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner July 1 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISgWPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/deny the appeal, and if approved, to allow city staff to recommend conditions to go with the approval and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2C V I Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 Category Public Hearings ov / 1. _SUBJECT: -WAGNER REZONE NO. RZ-90-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council consideration of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation should be considered before this hearing, see Item 2B. This public hearing will consider an appeal by Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of an application to rezone 18.5 acres from RA, residential architectural to R1-7. 21 single family residential. The property is located west of 92nd Avenue at 20129 92nd Avenue South. 3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal form, letter from Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner dated July 13 , 1990, and verbatim minutes from the June 6, 1990 and June 20, 1990 hearing (see additional information in public hearing 2 .B) . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hear;na Examiner July 1. 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Ne moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/deny the appeal, and if approved, to allow city staff to recommend conditions to go with the approval and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2C o Ev p� ioffice of the City Clerk 13 79 O/ 220 S . 4th CITY 90 8fi2-3370 C/r1,Cf-ANT City of Kent C Rk Order for Transcript for <_ . Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner ` Resolution 896 9 Ordinance 2233 Date / -��- �� Appeal . filed --- --A Appellant ' s Name /tea y�� 3ij 49G Address �'1,2cz G�p S/ Pll�i�C , Hearing Examiner ' s File No . - C �r�c �Z - 90 Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing O / 2FLO Date of Hearing Examiner' s Decision Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of tion taken by the Hearing Examiner and- must be 'accompanied by a $2 5 fling fee• Treasurer ' s Receipt # /3 q /0 Within 30 days of h te Hearing Examiner ' s decision , the appellant shall order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before the Hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order , security in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed. If the actual cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the cost is less tham the amount posted, any credit due will be returned to the appellant. Order for Transcript received /3 (100 . 00) Treasurer ' s Receipt # 13612 k:ent. City Cial nic i l July 1 :=. I cl=iC) (=ILE: NO . Minstluil/Wagner APPLICANT; Mal^g:ale:'t. tlirlsf'1(.1ll/ja.cot, C. and Lillie ltlagner REQUEST ; Appeal tc.: City Council. .--If Hearing Es F.krr11rle:_r reec:rcl- metidation for denial of ti,_ !10-_c_, In tl-'ie, f in'-lings of the Hearing E;<arrt nc—1 r it is felt ttieere is an error in statereient. that 'joc) I-Ir_uses w'_ul'_I be allowable under R1 -7 . 2 z.c:11ing . TI-iis does ric-.it take ilitC: ELCL:CiI_,111't. necessary LA't iliZati-Orl of 5paCe 'f1.)r r'Jctds arl'_I Iut:•i11tiaS . . Howeve:.r , although MS . F'r'ut_ld llo'Led th':_ sul.-ljer"t site is less thai the 1 5% slope for the beginning hi •llsicle standards , the logic -for t•1"I!. gLA7.delitias :is I`c:l' l::al"gE'1' lots as slope increases . (:See attachment M ) since the average of the subject site at ltt% approaches the bc:rderline, 4'.)e wc-1 Ild be: agreeable (:jFas =:tlr'eady noted in OUr June ;_C)t•h precsen'taat•iC+n:) -f it apprc'val for 96Ql1 size . T1-1is would be Cal'rij:ii_ttil:! Le '>a.'itiI Ic-Its being ds•vel.' g.-'ed immediately across the street: and in areas within a. utile t•'-' North, kjuth and East . To the W!:_,t lies tl'Ir_ F.a:>', . <xllt-:, tl../ , dUs ry a!r1rJ we+.riatc:use_, . A1.so, iwith the ctet:.Vlow.iedged need fc_r riiorei? axffo 'dab le si rig Ie Tami1y housing , the larger 'Ct"Ili: lot the 'firer?.'t.l.''.1, l.ni t•izit]. cost of 1'lutries . -. ... for eetsy tl :,-.j; L.-p----unlike rrtanyr ,_Develop- A l 1. L t t•i 1 i .1 a r r1 t t !.l-I:_i r ment•s oc owing i'r1 aree:tti . It"Ie' flee\r].n!� t_;:=lfrilller ' En r i rrlrrle'll'=la'L :L,-}11 '_''f _�L,tly �'�_I-I was pl'eJicat•ed __. _. ._ i_iii I'.'tls eva.lua'l:-i n ':!'( ()LAY' 1"e��Ll�?''-it. in rrlete'tin'g the standards avid cri-- te,ria (page q•? of rr-p':lrt. . HiS jUdgrilentS in eaCh one c'f these i t:errls was n:_ga't.ive 'LID sc'riue extent . We wi_uld appre- c ictte file ,=:1:,�ii it"t L(ni.t'y' to pre'a=lnt a p':isl. Live reTp']1i5�"' t.C! L-�clCtl item 11'1 GI"Cl ci'1" .f,-i1.` ;/r:'I_l1" t..'_!!-A)lcil. I:i_ '!/t.i::i'_)1...1 'I:hei_ IDID1111CIVIs . i1LAes'Lic-i :Jf t'1's.•1 :1.4ii bei.rlci i0'II_i;act.ec1 w,;-!_s raised t:ly ne l'=J1'I Ci':il"•_3 . A basic I<n:='wlec1ge '_-F the nz-tture Of wells L''.li':j grOLA'ild water would a- 1- levia'iLe those fears , the b':; it<: , (,1atc:t' a vc'lume fr'-'rrl 'the Life _i C 1 e n C e Library , and (;.c,ll Si' -1'I_A(::'t_7.1"1:, arici Mai ritcain l rig Your '1. 1.s and :ze9:ptic ,cys'terit by t-1l. t:l-t c:atn pr''.'.�i.:JE' in=..:i:;gilt . tate11s ii1 tale area tern) to be over 100 fe!_''t: cle:eGq ' . -rj-ic_ 'ale::l. l. c'11 1:_:;areel 2 twagrit-_r parcel ! is 1 ,36 feet. in depth . ..ft le 1-e--::kr incl Examiner c!.[-pezilrecl riijt. 'i:.i i have t:itken rli_lt.e Cif Mr . Williiarcis pr e.ser'l t.a'Liclvi crf the _uile_ 1 Y _% C:i.'ty Council. action wt-iirh changed the Valley F=l ic'r Plan de—ignat.i_n for the property fr+_'rrl RA to :_,I , :aingle_' Fariti. ay . We fee:l. th:i'.-i item has not been given due co1' si,.-Jera.tior'i for p.I.allne:'_J 91^:_iwth . N...:'1' did he cadclre s direct•1Y the staff f 1"e c'�'I'rll'11'i_1'1::j•_a't 7.,::11 'f C?'t' ( .,•_:O(ll..! si:�ll.A ct 1'F.7 f i_„:!'t• 1'_:'45:. . =lpl_,liCat•i'DYl with acceptable m, difica'ticli'1=�:i 4:c�uLel �:tCI-11eve thle '('ii1 liJW].Il 'I . Use :.f tl-ie lavid for its only useful pL.rrpC'se . ]: ' :i=; i.ci .s+.l ].y sl_aitE�ci for residenti-al and useless for a gricl_iltl_Ire . 2 . FN' -duce urbl:an spray.,j""' iew-E.,l' , wafter a1'ld rith-Ier 3 . Reduce p 17.t,rt.inn- -t.hle_ I:n._arce7. is ideally located orla.y cnl ivs :if rilil fr_an1 v;all.ey traffic corriclvrs . 4 . Reduce_ f i. re dry grass and blacberry I. (-) t•ruc..- traan5it.l01'1 1=jetP/een intensive valley- crri,rrlt r ci.�l]. _;.r'1d 2Eulj:_tcl= it: 3R 3r=17l7 . 6. I''rc.- uctic-In of s_igl-lificrint. tree growth rl_:LAItiVICI 'f1"i11'il 1.si.1"YCltaC:itl=�lll�;J Gt 1'E":-Iirleltlal sines . • / . 1-'rowlCle 'f,_11" C,i Cjr_l.Irllent r-A gc:-gals saind ne-ecl fOr sil"gle fril'i11a.`? sAl' flJ1"�aaI:J:Le fP-�ldf3111�� , . 1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY GUIDELINES FOR SLOPING GROUND The following table represents the guidelines for lot area and lot � width-used by the Subdivision Tochnical Committee when reviewing Subdivision Applications IAW the King County Comprehensive Plan. Variations may be approved on the basis of special evidence, (e.g. soils reports, seismic data, etc.) . Maximum Slope of Minimum Voq'd'• Minimum Max. KC Building Site Lot Area (Minus Raq'd-.Lot Units Comp. Area* Roads L Utilities) Width Per Plan -Graduated- Acre Policy Ain square feet) 0 - 151 7,200 60'' 5/A D-11 D-5 16 - 20% 8,00,0 - 15,000 70' 3/A SS-3 D-5 21 - 25% 15,500 - 20,000 8o, 2.5/A SS-3 26 - 30% 20,500 - 35,000 100, 2/A D-9 31 - 40: 35,500 - Over 135' 1/A D-8 411 - Over*'* No Development - 0/A SS-1 • The slope of the Building Site Area is measured perpendicular to the topographic lines shown on the preliminary plat drawn to a scale of at least 1' - 100' and at intervals of not more than 5' in elevation. The Building Site Area of a lot is considered to be an area of approximately 5000 square fact which includes the aren. of &- house, patio■ and driveways, cleared yard areas, etc. " All lots must first meet minimum area requirements of the applicable :one district. Required area in excess of the zone requirement may be assigned to the lot, or, may be ;asigned to permanently dedicated open space if the additional open space lies adjacent to the lot requiring it and effectively minimises the impact-of lot development on the slope. ••• In general, land of this slope should 'be placed in open space, or left in .tracts of 5 acres or more for use as Fore at-Racreation property. Attachment AZTAC�UE=N1T�S LC-LiZ[rttL„c vl iILC , � .. crrr oFTAenft -- CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER MINSHULL/WAGNER #RZ-90-5 Verbatim Minutes of June 6, 1990 Ted Hunter: First, Minshull-Wagner rezone 90-5 application. I would like to turn to Mr. Scott Williams, Planner for the City of Kent. Sir, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give? Scott Williams: I do. Hunter: Please proceed. Williams: On this application, the applicant has requested that the item be continued until the June 20, Hearing Examiner meeting. Hunter: O.k. , is the applicant here. Williams: The applicant is here. Hunter: Do you know the reasons for this request or . . . Williams: Well, there are more than one property owner involved and they need to discuss between themselves, I guess, how they feel about the City's recommendation. Hunter: O.k. , I would like to hear from the applicant on this. The reasons for the request for continuance. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give? Lillie Wagner: Yes. I 'm Lillie Wagner and we are two parties working together on this and never having gone through it before we have discovered there are other procedures that we should have been thinking of and we would like a little extra time to clarify. Hunter: O.k. , now what steps precisely do you think you need to clarify. I mean here's why I 'm going to ask this, I 'm a little concerned because we have a number of people here today to hear this application and I want to know why the date should be (unclear) . Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes - Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Waaner: I realize. Well, we requested a rezone from rural agriculture and we have been advised that there is a Comprehensive Plan for the valley that probably takes precedence over this. And it's something that we haven't even considered and don't know anything about so we are going to have to look into this and the ramifications. Hunter: How much time, do you think, will be necessary? Wagner: Well, hopefully, we' ll know by the next hearing meeting. Hunter: O.k. The ordinances of the City do have a deadline date. Have you looked at this City's. . .time of hearing and action by Hearing Examiner, I believe its 100 days from the date of application. Williams: I can tell you the date of application was March 23 , 1990. So it's been approximately 60 days. Hunter: Well, March, April, May. . .you can. . .have you considered withdrawing and refiling. . . Wagner: I don't know about that you see. That' s something else we have to look into. This is all new to us, so. . . Hunter: You're not prepared to forward your application today, is that what you're indicating? Wagner: That' s right. Hunter: And, is the City in agreement with the request for continuance, Mr. Williams? Williams: Yes, we are. The decision that needs to be made is basically if the applicants don't agree with the City's. . .with our recommendation on the rezone, a procedure they have to go through before we can even consider a rezone is a Comprehensive Plan change and, I guess, communication wasn't what it could be so they need to decide if they want to go forward with a rezone or if they want to withdraw it and file for a Comprehensive Plan change and then the rezone. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes w Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: Well, I guess, I am a little concerned about a continuance when it doesn't appear that we really know what we are continuing for sure. If you are continuing this application which is a rezone from rural agriculture to residential 71200, whether we are looking at a changing the nature of your application as I understand it, you have not determined yet, o.k. , we have a number of people here that plan to testify on this proposed application. If we are changing the nature of the application, then it presents a concern to the public notice. The public notice should be on what the application is and if you are moving forward on this application, RA to R1-7.2 , that is appropriate for continuance. If you are going to change the nature of your application, we really should look at withdrawing this and refiling. Williams: At this point, I believe, the applicant just wants to continue this item. Hunter: O.k. , what we will do is this. There are a number of people here who would like to testify on this proposed change and, I think, since they took time to show up today we should take testimony from them to get an idea of what the concerns are, to see what the sense of the community is on this application. So, I 'm going to open the record, (unclear) , and take a brief testimony today with the understanding that the applicant is not prepared to move forward or prepared to respond to all the concerns that may be raised. But, in deference to the folks that have shown up today to testify, I don't want to continue and just have them have to come back. a second time, since they took the time to show up today. So, we will hold on, what we will do is, we (unclear) the description in the file what the proposed application is. We' ll conduct this hearing a little bit different from our normal course in deference to the people who have appeared we will allow you to raise your concerns, present your testimony, recognizing that this will be continued. We are looking at, I think, June 20, would be the next hearing date. We will allow you to present some testimony today and return on that date if there are some additional concerns that you want to raise. We will dispense at this time with any presentation by the City and the applicant, who asked for a request for continuance. We' ll take report as is, the report has been reviewed by the Examiner, (unclear) people that has testified a either. . . (unclear) . Is there anyone present who would want to testify on this application today? O.k. we have one individual, and recognizing that this may be hardship for some, we will take 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 your testimony today and then what we' ll do for others is continue this hearing until June 20, 3 : 00 pm. O.k. , Ma'am, if you would like to put your testimony on record, we' ll take that at this time. I ' ll swear you in to begin with. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give? Please proceed. State your name first. Donna Williamson: O.k. , I 'm Donna Williamson and I live. . .the property in question surrounds my property and the concern that I would like to address today is that the access they plan to have to the property. Because right now there's a lane that goes down the whole side of my property and is that the area they plan to access this property for this many homes. The noise level and just the depth of the property, it's very much a concern to me. The other thing is the size of the lots that I 've. . .here 7200 square feet. That's a concern to me when across the street on the County it's over 9,000 square feet and with that many new homes or what have you, I 've a real concern about the congestion on 92nd Avenue S. since that street is the dividing line between the City and the County. Right now, it's like the Indy 500, at 7 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon and later on in the evening and there' s no shoulder on the road. The school buses have to stop a block from my house and people park in my driveway to pick their children up and although I don't have any children and that's a concern that there, you know, are there going to be improvements or what have you or just go on because when I called to do something about the speeding on the street because of the children, its very difficult to find out who takes responsibility on a road that is shared by the County and the City. The other thing is that, like I say, its the high volume of the street and the other thing is that since I 'm going to be surrounded possibly by all this new development, what is the cost to me. What am I looking at as far as outlay and expense. That's all I have to say. Hunter: Let me make sure that I understand your concerns about the access lane. . .attached to, do you have the Planning report provided ftoday (unclear) ? Williamson: I picked it up but I have not read it. Hunter: O.k. , there' s two maps that are attached to this report. I just want to make sure that I understand what access? 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Williamson: I have the one that was sent to me in the mail. And, I don't know if that's the same one. Its, can I show that to you? Hunter: Certainly. O.k. , let me just take a look at this. We can use this. This is the map attached to the last page of the Planning Department's report. Can you indicate on that map where. . .the concern you have. . . Williamson: Yes, uh huh. Where you see 30 feet of easement. That is actually a very small lane that goes down the side of my property. The way it's kind of laid out, this doesn't quite indicate how my property is but then there' s a big gully on the north side and that's my concern about if that would be access to all this property because right across the street from it they are putting in 23 homes up there and there's going to be more congestion coming down the hill below Chestnut Ridge and that's where my mailbox is, across the street. Hunter: O.k. so that 30-foot easement is bordered by a gully that - you are concerned about the access. Williamson: Um hum. Hunter: O.k. , you can't get much wider on this thing. Williamson: Right, unless you fill in the gully. And, the other piece that is that when there is work done in the gully for the City, sewer what have you, a year after that I lost a very large, probably 40-year-old maple tree and another one right on that property line so that's a concern too, loss of my trees. That's all I have to say. Hunter: One thing that you might want to do is look at the report of the Planning Department you see the conditions attached at the time of Declaration of Nonsignificance, there's conditions regarding road improvements. Williamson: 292nd Avenue S. Hunter: Well, I guess, that' s what you want to look at. . . (unclear) . One other criteria that will be considering is the burden on the transportation system in the vicinity and whether there are impacts which cannot be mitigated. So, typically, we 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes — Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 have some recommendations on how traffic impacts can be mitigated and there's you will want to post your review. See if they can take care of your concern. What we are looking at today, both these applications are rezone criteria is set forth in the ordinances and one use of the (unclear) is about traffic impacts. Williamson: O.k. I ' ll do that. Hunter: O.k. , thank you for your testimony. I noted those concerns and they will be made a part of the record as this matter is continued to 20th of June at 3 pm. O.k. , no further testimony on that application, then. We have one other individual. You want to present testimony at this time. O.k. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you are about to give. Lisa Bishop: I do. My name is Lisa Bishop and I guess I have more of a concern than testimony and I think my neighbors share our concern. I live on S. 200th Street which is an access to 92nd and like Mrs. Williamson mentioned that the traffic is atrocious on that street right now and I do have small kids and I want to know what this is going to do to our traffic situation because it is already just. . . its stressed to the max right now. And, I noticed on the significant social features, Section C, number 1, they say the average daily count is 2 , 000 vehicle trips and I 'm wondering where they got their figures from and how they got it because I think its a lot higher than that. Hunter: O.k. , so traffic is a concern, you ask for some explanation? Bishop: Right. And the size of the lots is a concern too. If they going to put houses in there, I think they should have larger lot sizes to cut down on the amount of houses. Hunter: O.k. , thank you very much. Mr. Williams, with the City, ( are you familiar with the traffic count and how it was established. Williams: That was information that was received from our transportation department and how recent the count was or how it was acquired, I don't know. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: since we're continuing this see if you can find a response to that question for the record next time. Williams: I will. Hunter: O.k. , then we will begin on the 20th with the testimony from the City and then from the applicant. We' ll take additional testimony from anyone concerned about application at that time. O.k. , we will then continue that and for today we will close the record on Minshull-Wagner's application. t w 7 cmroF Tierd CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER MINSHULL/WAGNER #RZ-90-5 Verbatim Minutes of June 20, 1990 Ted Hunter: Let's call this session to order. This is June 20th, 3:00, so it must be a continuation for an application for a rezone, Minshull/Wagner, #RZ-90-5. We began this. . .this hearing, on what date, June 6, 1990 and continued it until today, to gather additional information that at the time was not available so that continuation was agreed to by the applicant and the City. In addition there were a number of the members of the public at that hearing who did have an opportunity on June 6 to present oral and written testimony and we've received both oral and written testimony from the City, the applicant, and concerned citizens, members of the public, at the June 6th hearing. This is a continuation of that hearing date, to provide additional information on the application. So, we will follow the following order: We' ll have Mr. Scott Williams from the City Planning Department present the new information and then give the applicant an opportunity to supplement that and then anyone else that's here that cares to speak to the application. We' ll hear from them at that time. Mr. Scott Williams, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give. Scott Williams: I do. Hunter: Please proceed. Williams: All right. As you said the request we have before the Hearing Examiner again, today, is the Minshull/Wagner rezone. The request is for a rezone from RA, Residential Agricultural, which has a minimum lot size of one acre associated with it to a rezone from that R1-7.2 which is a single-family residential zone with 7, 200 square foot minimum lot sizes. The subject property is located on the west side of 92nd Avenue between. . . .south of 208th. . .I beg your pardon, south of 200th and north of 208th. It's the shaded area here. Two Hundred and Eighth is actually out of the graphic. The site is approximately 18 and a half acres in size. The current zoning on the area is RA, Residential Agriculture. Its separated. . . .the site is separated by the valley freeway from M2, Limited Industrial. There's some small pieces of R1-7.2 down here and on the other side of 92nd Avenue is King 1 _. Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 County and the zoning in King County is SR 96 which is single- family residential with 9, 600 square foot minimum lot sizes. A DNS for the rezone only was issued on April 22, 1990 with no conditions attached. The site has an average east-west slope, maybe I' ll put this back on. An average east-west slope of about 14 percent, local slopes in different parts of the site approach 25--30 percent in places. The site has access to 92nd Avenue S. After a question that, I guess, at the June 6th meeting, our traffic department did a traffic count on that street on June 12th they found a total trip count of 3,832 vehicles. That's north and south bound for the 24- hour period on June 12th. I should note here that traffic mitigation and any road improvements that would be required for development on this site would occur at the time of preliminary plat application. There would be another. . .any plat application on the property would have to go through SEPA again and then through the plat process, improvements and traffic mitigation conditions are usually attached not usually to the rezone. Water and sanitary sewer for the property are also available in 92nd Avenue to serve the property. I do have the video if you would like to see the. . . . Hunter: Let's play that, yes. Video was played. Williams: Staff reviewed the proposal in light of the Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan. The analysis in the original staff report starts on page 2 . There's also a revision to the staff report which we sent out in the last week or so and what that revision deals with is basically is in the intervening two weeks between the last meeting and this one, we discovered that the City Council in June of 1988 actually changed the Comprehensive. . .pardon -me. . . .the Valley Floor Plan designation for the property from RA to SF, Single-Family. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property already was single-family and the assumption made in the staff report, the original staff report, was that the Valley Floor Plan Designation was RA, so this changed some things in terms of our review. Basically, what it means is that the application as it sits could be approved without a Comprehensive or without a valley floor plan amendment. R1-7. 2 zoning would comply with the SF designation where as it would not have with the RA designation. .. 2 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: Where's that documented? Has there been a revised Valley Floor Plan Map published since the time of this action? Explain how this came about? Williams: Well, the publishing of the maps was actually the problem. We didn't have an updated map or least I didn't have one. The amendment came about as part of the East Valley Zoning Study and I can, although I don't have them with me, I can get the City Council minutes and the Planning Commission minutes whereby the designation on that property was discussed and eventually changed from RA to single-family. And, the East Valley Study basically covered a much larger area than the subject property. It also included a lot of the valley floor and another major outcome of that study was the Gateway Commercial zoning district. . .the formation of that. But, this change came out of that same. . .very same study. Hunter: Is a change that now can be viewed on a map revision or is it a textural change within an ordinance revision? Williams: It was just a map change. And, again, if the map was revised since in that. . . . since that time, I don't have a copy of one. Hunter: Does anybody that you know of have a copy of one? Carol Proud of the Planning Department. Carol Proud: I don't know if, I think the problem that happen is that this one section was changed and it never got transferred to the map upstairs so by resolution. . .ordinance it has been changed officially but our staff never transferred, apparently, to the map that Scott would have used to do the initial review of it. But, we do have a copy of that study upstairs and those maps are available. Hunter: O.k. , so this in embodied in the Valley Floor Study that changes. . . Williams: The change itself is actually embodied in an ordinance by the Council, the number of which I can't recall, but I can like I say get a copy of the. . . .produce a copy of that in a couple of minutes if you would like to see one. Hunter: I think we' ll do that. Yes, I think we should have the 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes `r Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 ordinance. Reference to you, so why don't we take a pause in the action. If you can access it that quickly and then we' ll at least get that into evidence. Williams: O.k. Would you like me to. . . .take a pause, o.k. I can, sure. O.k. Hunter: Thank you. We' ll just take a slight break for the purpose of gathering relevant evidentiary material. O.k. , we' ll go back on the record, now. Williams: I guess the first correction that I should make over what I said is that it's a resolution that changed the Plan Map not an ordinance. An ordinance isn't required to change a Comp Plan Map but it is Resolution #1170, signed June 22, 1988, and the area that the subject property is located in is Area 15 in Appendix A which is the last page. And then the resolution refers to Area #5 on page 3 where it changes the designation from RA to single- family. Hunter: O.k. , thank you. Williams: I ' ll just continue on with the staff's review of the proposal in light of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. I 'd like to address in particular Goal #3 and Objective 1 out of the Valley Floor Plan. This is discussed beginning on page 2 of the original staff report and discussed again in the memo amending the staff report. Goal 3 reads, "Assure environmental quality in residential areas. ", Objective 1 says, "Preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment as possible. " The staff basically felt that by rezoning the property to R1-7 . 2, the natural features of the site, i.e. , the slopes that I discussed earlier and quite a number of significant trees, these features couldn't be retained as readily with the R1-7. 2 designation as they could with a larger lot. Generally, the small lots are, oh, there's a higher percentage of impervious area and there's generally just less flexibility to incorporate the natural features of the site and, therefore, we felt that an R1-12 designation would be more consistent with these. . .this goal and objective out of the Valley Floor Plan than a rezone R1-7.2 would. We also reviewed the request in light of the standards and criteria in the Zoning Code for the granting of a rezone. These were discussed beginning on page 7 of the original staff report. I 'd just like briefly to 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 touch on the Number V of these standards which reads, "The proposed rezone and subsequent development be compatible with development in the vicinity. " Staff s feeling was that the development that's out there now both on the west and east sides of 92nd Avenue in spite of the 9, 600 square foot zoning is fairly rural in nature. There are a lot of larger lots and even with some subdivisions which I know have been approved on the other side, there are still a lot of large lots and we felt that the R1-7 .2 or, I beg your pardon, the R1-12 would be more compatible with the existing development out there right now than would the R1-7 .2 designation. So, our revised. . . in summary, our revised recommendation for this request is a rezone. . .approval of a rezone to R1-12 and that revised recommendation is discussed in the revision to the staff report. Hunter: 0.k. , thank you. Hold on for a minute, I 've got a couple of questions. I do want to note that the Resolution #1170 we' ll receive as Exhibit 3 , the file being Exhibit 1. At that the last hearing we accepted one item of evidence, a letter from Cindy Cammeron, that's Exhibit 2 and this will be Exhibit 3 which references the Comprehensive Plan change from RA to single family. Scott, I wanted to ask about the. . .the testimony. . .currently this is a residential agricultural zone? Williams: That' s correct. Hunter: O.k. , and looking at the Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 010 reads that rezoning of RA lands shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for additional residential, commercial or industrial land. This documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis showing the other lands already zoned and accessible are not sufficient or suitable and secondly, that the market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to generate revenues necessary to provide specified municipal services. Are you aware of evidence in support of either one of those; the fiscal impact analysis or the market demand. Williams: What we received from the applicant was a letter from a real estate agent in the area. Hunter: Well, this isn't evidence that you're submitting. Is this part of the file, so far or is this something the applicant will bring in. 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Williams: This is something the applicant brought in. And, it should be part of the file. Hunter• O.k. Williams: I'm not locating it right at the moment. Our reasoning was, as I discussed in the staff report, that, based on the growth in single-family residential development in Kent and in the whole region, the demand for that kind of development was pretty self- evident and the. . . in conjunction with the City Council being on record a number of times encouraging single-family development, that the need and demand were both there. Hunter: O.k. We can. . .have the applicant respond to that as well. The letter you referred to though was not part of the file, so if you are able to find that and if that's relevant to the hearing that we are holding, it would be good to have that submitted. I do not have that in front of me and will not consider it unless we do see some copy of it. Williams: It's not part of your file. O.k. Hunter: 0.k. , shall we turn to a representative for the applicant. Someone here to speak to the application. Good afternoon. Voice: I have a copy of what I have for you, if you care for it now. Hunter: O.k. , let's, we' ll swear you in and we' ll take your name for the record. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give. Voice• Yes. Hunter: O.k. , and your name, please? Lillie Wagner: Lillie Wagner. Hunter: O.k. , and you have some information relevant to the rezone. Wagner: Well, I just made a copy of what I 'm going to present if you would like it right now. 6 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: Oh, that would be helpful. O.k. Thank you very much. What we'll do, Ms. Wagner, is we' ll just make this an exhibit to the file as well then. Wagner• All right. Hunter: O.k. , label that Exhibit 4. O.k. Wagner: O.k. We note the revisions to this staff report now recommend approval of our application modification to R1-12. We are appreciate of the change. However, we feel that it still falls short for land use in terms of highest and best potential in relation to the projected growth and development in the Kent city area. The Planning Department comment, page 9 of the original report, notes economic growth and in migration has fueled high demand for housing in the Puget Sound area. The Soos Creek planning area in particular. As a consequence, developments in the greater Kent area have resulted in far-flung, unbridled urban sprawl. There is now a recognized over abundance of multiple housing with its accompanying problems and a cry for more single-family affordable housing. In the review of the Hearing Examiner, one important goal is to promote the development close in. Current planning philosophy opts for logical transition from dense to lesser concentrations. For instance, the business and commercial area, progressing to multiple residential, then to single-family and on to rural. Our application addresses this transition for the area in which it lies, from business and commercial in the valley to R1-7.2 and R1-9. 6 to the east. Valley Freeway access is only one mile from the subject property as compared to the 3 to 5 miles for multiple housing on SE 208th, 240th, 256th and the Kent-Kangley and the north and south roads in between. It is noted that at the junction of 92nd Avenue S. and SE 208th Street, a parcel of land is already designated R1-7.2 and that you saw on the topographical map. At the June 6 hearing which was postponed at our request, Mrs. Donna Williamson and Mrs. Bishop, expressed concerns about traffic and we have these questions. Do you know of anyplace in the greater Kent area, where rush traffic is not bad. Two, would you propose that the people who would live in the projected development live further out where xx number of miles of road would be further required and burdened. Three, if one car per house, under the requested R1-7.2 would enter 92nd Avenue S. during rush hours it would add less than, and we 7 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 would say it at this point, approximately one and a half percent to the traffic. That's in view of your new figures as to the traffic. We had three percent in here. Please remember that 90 percent of the traffic then and all of it now is from other developments. The concerns of these people and Mrs. Cammeron in her letter to the City of Kent for child safety, good schools, changing boundaries and wildlife are not new or unique to the area but have existed over the years. They all were and still are our concerns. Three of our children walk to and from Panther Lake school along the busy Benson Highway. Rules for the road were stressed for their safety. They experienced changed schools, split classes and had to make new friends and to adapt to new situations. Upon moving from the Benson School road to an acreage, we too enjoy and protected the wildlife, quail, pheasant, a pair of nesting hawks, coyotes loping across the fields. It was truly a productive farm, raising sheep, cattle and abundance of hay. However, it was short-lived, as a large development went in, immediately adjacent only to be followed concentrations of apartments in close proximity. This in an area as far out as 132nd Avenue SE. It is no longer country. We predict the wildlife in the 92nd Avenue S. area will find some haven in the nearby ravines which are not buildable because of the slope and this did not exist in the area in which we lived. In critically examining the subject property as to suitability for development, we observed: 1) the freeway was not visible from any part of the Wagner parcel 12; 2) the noise of the freeway is very effectively dulled by the high-cut bank and trees to the east of the freeway. The noise is actually more apparent on 92nd• Avenue S. , 3) there is a pleasant view across the valley to the west hill, 4) a count of significant trees was 31 on the 18 and one-half acres, less than two per acre, overall, and 5) comments of the Planning Department and other agencies contacted appear favorable for the most part. Those concerns for protection of the environment and runoff from impervious surfaces, we believe, could be met in careful planning and always subject to approval by the examining agencies. We feel to restrict zoning to R1-12 would not make for the highest and best use of the property. According, if R1-7.2 is not determined to be acceptable we request that lot size comparable to that immediately across the road, SR-9600, be approved. As for the comments about the protecting the environment. As of now, the large majority of our lot is in. . . .overgrown with blackberry vines. It leaves much to be desired in a suitable environment. And, they have been practically uncontrollable. We've sprayed several times. We've had a _.. 8 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 bulldozer in. We can't eradicate them. So, we certainly would be interested in leaving trees but I think the planning could be done to preserve those. There are a nice group of them. And, then I have another page of summary. Rezoning the property from RZ-90-5 application to the requested R1-7.2 would achieve the following: Use of the land for the. . .the only useful purpose possible. It is ideally suited for residential and useless for agricultural. Two, reduce the urban sprawl as it spreads out through the country. Sewer, water and other services are on-site. Three, reduce pollution. The parcel is ideally located only one-half mile from valley traffic corridors. Four, reduce fire hazards. Tall, dry grasses and blackberry vines would be controlled. Five, a true transition between intensive valley floor commercial and the adjacent SR 960. Six, production of significant tree growth resulting from landscaping of residential sites would occur. Seven, at present, traffic on 92nd Avenue S. originates away from the proposed development. The rezone to permit R1-7.2 would add less than two percent, around one and half percent, to this traffic. Hunter: Thank you very much, that's helpful testimony. Let me ask you, though, in addition, if I could, Mrs. Wagner, about the Zoning Code requirement for the need for additional housing. The fiscal impact analysis and the market demand analysis. Are you familiar with anything that' s been done in that area. Wagner: We have seen that matter, it comes from some sort of governmental agency. Hunter: Well, it could or it could come from someone that you may have talked to about it or hired to do that sort of a thing. Wagner: I think this gentleman up here could speak. Hunter: Is it someone that. . . Voice: I know some of that. Hunter: Sir, maybe if you can respond to that maybe we can have you come to the podium and since this is official record, we will swear you in. Voice: All right. 9 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give. Ed Cleveland: I do. Hunter: O.k. , please proceed. Cleveland: My name is Ed Cleveland. I live at 19415 Talbot Road, Renton, about a third of a mile away from the subject property. We have three subdivisions going in. Two across the street from our property and one right beside us. Thirty, let's see, 19 homes in one of them, 27 in another and proposed 25 in the third. These are all 7200 square feet except the 19 lots and they are at 9600 because of the slope. And, I have been present at the hearings in Bellevue, its King County level on those. So, I 'm very familiar with them. I don't know exactly what you would like to know about them except that the traffic impact on the City of Kent has been fed to Kent. That information has been fed to Kent and Kent has accepted it as not having enough impact to be significant and yet the total of them is probably 80 homes there. But, they were in bits and pieces so as to speak, you know. Hunter• O.k. Cleveland: I would like to speak further, if I could? Hunter: Certainly. Cleveland: I didn't know whether you were finished with that. . . Hunter: Well, it seems that we had a question on that. . .on that topic area that the applicant thought you could help address. You provided some information on that. If there are additional comments. Cleveland: Yeah, I had some additional comments, yes. Yeah. Hunter• O.k. Cleveland: Well, I 've lived at my property for almost 40 years and became aware of the zoning and the density of the homes on the strip as it came into being by the building of the valley freeway. "' 10 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes _ Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 This long, narrow strip there was caused by the freeway coming through. I contacted the land management several times regarding zoning and density of that strip and was always told that this strip was considered to be a transitional buffer between commercial and the valley and residential on the east slope and that the City would invite applications for multiple housing, medium density. A little over ten years ago, Kent downzoned this land to RA, density one home to the acre. This, at a time, when the property on the east side of 92nd which is just across the street from the subject property was zoned 9600. To place this land under the term agriculture is misleading as it is a rocky, sandy hillside that you stand on to view the agricultural land in the valley covered by warehouses. Also, to put the density. . .a density of one to an acre on land that had all the services, sewer, water, freeway, etc. is very unfair in view of the density allowed on similarly endowed land in Kent. I see and hear the word transitional use towards this strip of land. Maybe I 'm in error but this word to me means an orderly move from one zoning to another. In other words, some zoning between commercial and 9600, not some zoning less than either. I have walked this property, the subject property, and not - been overly aware of the freeway. Certainly, anything built on this land will not affect the view of any of the homes to the east. I would urge the City to look favorably upon a density of 9600 square feet. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you very much. Let's turn back. Is there any further testimony from the applicant's side of this. Those that are in support of the proposed rezone. Any further information that' you want to support at this time. Wagner: This isn't really any further information other than a comment. I think the die was cast when industry and business was allowed to go into the valley and cover over the very fine lush soil instead of putting industry on the hill as a study committee had, many years ago, recommended. And, it is inconceivable that, as the gentleman put it much better, that you downzone an area between two of more density. Hunter: Thank you very much, Mrs. Wagner. O.k. , is there others, now, that would like to come forward and present testimony for or against or raise questions. Anyone else, testimony? Yes, sir. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give. 11 Hearing Examiner Minutes - Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Voice• Yes, I do. Hunter: Please proceed. Cal Stewart: My name is Cal Stewart. I live directly east of the Wagner parcel and this property is a view property and as the applicant made reference to a moment ago there is quite a pleasant view of the valley floor and of the west hill. And, I see a possible obstruction of this view if the property was developed and large houses put up there. Houses that seem to be quite popular with developers these days. Ed Cleveland mentioned a while ago that there would be no obstruction with view to the houses east of this property. I would hope that would be the case but if they elected to build right up close to 92nd Avenue with a two-story house it would definitely block my view. I would also like to go on record as having a well on my property. Its an excellent well, we use it for the residence. I would like to go on record as just mentioning this in case of any development that would possibly damage the supply of water. To address the lot size, in my opinion, of course I 'm certainly no expert on the subject, but 7.2 is ridiculous for that property. It's just too steep. There would have to be so much terracing done in order to level the site. Then you would have to take out trees. I 'm not sure about this particular parcel, but I know that most of that hillside is covered with. . .excuse me, not covered but has natural springs drainage. I know there are several on my property and the small lot size is not going to help that problem any. Even if you do figure out how to put .all these people on this hillside, what are you going to do with them traffic-wise. The staff report says this is not going to create a problem. They can be mitigated. I would like to know what they are going to do about it. I 've lived on that street since 157 and have watched all the development. . .all of the development in the area. I watched it all build up and there hasn't been any improvement to either 92nd Avenue or S. 200th in the 30 plus years that I 've been living there and the traffic is really getting bad and, you know, where do we draw the line. The applicant says this is not going to create much more of a problem. Well, if we continue with this attitude, I mean, you know, where is it going to stop. One day last week I couldn't even get out of my driveway. It was bumper to bumper the full length of 92nd Avenue as far as you could see up 200th. I don't know if there was an accident or what but it was just completely stopped. And, you get another 80 or 100 homes across the street that's not really going 12 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 to help the situation. There are no shoulders or sidewalks for the kids. We have a school just a couple blocks up the hill. My boys like to go up there and play, but its too dangerous for them to walk up there. You got to get them in the car and actually drive them up there which is, you know, crazy. But, there's, just not enough room along the side of road for the kids to safely get up and with bumper to bumper traffic its. . . .its just crazy. I personally feel that we should just stop development in that area completely until something is done with the roads. Any development, now just across the street. Any development that is served by 92nd Avenue, S. 200th, they put in Chestnut Ridge which is just right up the hill, 100 and some houses. They did nothing with the road and, you know, it just continued and continues and who is going to fix the road, that's. Perhaps this doesn't pertain to this meeting but, at some point, something is going to have to be done. Hunter: On the density questions now, the Planning Department has recommended approval of the rezone to 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size. Stewart• Yes. Hunter: Is your testimony seems to indicate, you're not supportive of that either. It's the. . .any increase. . .any development would be a problem until the traffic is resolved, is that. . . Stewart: That is correct. Hunter: Is that your testimony. Stewart: Yes. Twelve hundred, of course, is a lot better than 7200 but, at this point, I think we should address the traffic situation. You know, maybe it is just going to increase at another three percent but at some point that's going to break the camel 's back, so to speak, so. . . O.k. Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Stewart: O.k. All right. Hunter: Others. Yes, sir. Step forward. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're to give. 13 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Mellott: Yes. Hunter: Please proceed. Ken Mellott: My name is Ken Mellott. I live at 2011. ... Hunter: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last name. Mellott: I'm sorry. Ken Mellott. M-E-L-L-O-T-T. Hunter• O.k. Mellott: We live at 20110 92nd Avenue S. , it's directly across the street from the Wagner property again. Same as Cal, just south of him. I guess I have a number of concerns. There are 22 houses going in on the east side of 92nd, south of 202nd. Two Hundred Second deadends at 92nd. And, in. . .as part of that development, they're going to open up 202nd and go straight on through Chestnut Ridge. We expect to see a tremendous increase in traffic because that's going to be another, not really an arterial, but another good route down the hill from. . . A lot of that traffic, I expect, that would have gone over to 200th and then come down on 92nd will come down that way. It could drain some traffic off from. . .coming down 208th to the south also. I 'm not sure about that. So, the traffic count or the traffic increase just from this new development is going to be augmented by another big increase from the other side of this. . . 92nd. We also a bit concerned about a view.. Our house has a view across the valley and to the west hill. Of course, true you're looking down at a bunch of warehouse roofs but it's better than looking across the road at another house. So, we are concerned about building houses or a group of houses right next to 92nd and especially if they are two-story houses. That would. . . it would appreciably diminish any view that we have and on 7200 square foot lot it would probably totally obliterate it, just wouldn't be anything left. I 'm also concerned, again, not an expert but concerned about a 7200 square foot lot. That's all hardpan that whole hillside is hardpan and springs and I don't know where the drainage is going to go. There's going to have to be some kind of provision for drainage. It' s not going to seep into the ground, it's going to loose a lot of that ground area for absorbing any rainfall or moisture that we get now with the driveways and the roofs. I. . .I assume there's going to be some kind of an improvement to 92nd. I don't know if that's going to be 14 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 done on a LID which all the neighborhood that's going to have to contribute to or if it's going to based on. . .or is going to have to have to be. . .the cost going to be imposed on the developers of this property, 18 and a half acres. We certainly don't look forward to having to pay for improvements. I mean, if its true, it would be an improvement for us also but that's to me is a major concern. Who's going to have to pay for any road improvements. We understand that the 22 houses going in south of 202nd and east of 92nd, there will be some road improvements to 92nd. . . 202nd which will be paid for by the developers, not by the local homeowners. There's also a well on our place and we recently purchased a couple of places across 202nd to the south and our well is not to being used but the well across the street is useful as a water source and I don't know if this could disrupt that well or not. We had that same concern with this development going in up the hill from us. There's a lot of trees especially some real old eucalyptus tree. . .not eucalyptus, what are they, locust trees in our front yard that are right near the property line, this road line, the road right of way. There's also some very old rose bushes that are actually in the roadway right of way. We'd be concerned about - damage to all of those and there are some other trees and bushes there to in our front yard that we would be concerned about damage to in the event of any road improvement. I don't know what the legal ramifications are since they are already in the right of way for the road. And, looking at just very crude figures, at 7,200 square feet, that would convert to something in the neighborhood of 100 houses or more and this a very raw figures. I don't know how many.. . .much area will be taken up by access roads and that kind of thing. At 9600 square foot lot, we'd be looking at something in the order of 70 houses for that area and at 12, 000 square foot which is what the staff is recommending, we are looking at something in the order of 15 houses. I don't know what kind of traffic figures are generated. Usually, you find more than one car per house or per family, typically two, some times three. If you have any teenagers, could be many more than that. And, that' s going to generate some additional traffic. Everybody seems to be concerned. I think, agree with Cal pretty much, that there is a potential for real traffic problems in the area and we need to get some road improvements. It would be nice to have a little moratorium on development until those road improvements are put in but I don't expect that will ever happen. I don't see it, its never happened before, so, don't see why it should happen now. I guess that all I have. I can appreciate the landowners looking to 15 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 get a nest egg out of this. If I was in their position, I suppose I would be looking for something like that too, although not 7200 square feet, I cannot understand that kind of density there. Hunter: Thank you very much, sir. O.k. , are there others who would like to testify. Anyone else in favor or opposed. o.k. Opportunity for any clarifying remarks, applicant or the City? Mr. Williams, of the City. Williams: I ' ll just make a couple comments and then maybe I ' ll have our representative from our Engineering Department discuss traffic a little bit. Back to Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mellott's concerns on views. The City does have view regulation and any of the lots on this property or any. . . .I beg your pardon, any property with 20 percent slope is entitled to have their view protected and that would undoubtedly be enforced here as well. I guess going back to the first gentleman that testified on the residential agricultural designation, the stated purpose of that zone is to provide a transition between the agricultural and residential use of the property so zoned. So, the purpose and the property has been so zoned for, I believe, at least 30 years. Not as a buffer between the industrial and the single-family but as, to facilitate a transition between agricultural use on that property and the impending single-family residential use. So, I ' ll just make that clarification. Hunter: Let me understand that clarification. The purpose of the residential agricultural zone as stated in the ordinance is that's the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth, its essential that the City avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. I understand what you're saying but I wondering where it would be in the. . . Williams: I didn't mean to be quoting. And, the previous purpose statement of the residential/agricultural designation are a little more clear but my understanding of the idea was that basically. . .well the original intent to preserve the agricultural uses there instead of where the City Council saw property that they were reasonably sure was going to be single-family at some time rather than zoning it for that, you know, right now they decided to enact this designation which would protect that agricultural land until such time as the demand was really there. 16 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: I understand what you're saying and that' s how one would ordinarily think of it as that type of transitional zone. But, I 'm. . .I struggle as I think you are, looking at what the Council meant in terms of its designation of residential/agricultural versus the stated purpose that is in the ordinance. They don't seem to completely dovetail. But's that what's we are working with, the Zoning Code and its ordinance and the concept may or may not be the same as what's stated in the zoning ordinance. O.k. Williams: O.k. Hunter: Anything further from. . . Williams: Maybe somebody from our Engineering Department can talk a little bit about traffic if you would like that. Hunter: That may be appropriate. Let's first turn to Carol Proud of the Planning Department has a comment. You're under oath from the last meeting, I believe. Carol Proud: That's true. I can go again, if you like. O.k. For the record I 'm Carol Proud, I 'm senior planner with the Kent Planning Department. In looking at this proposal and looking at the slopes of the property and in the application without having a lot of detailed analysis before us, the average was stated about 14 percent and typically when a request comes in like this, we have regulations in the Subdivision Code, the Hillside Subdivision standards and those kick in at 15 percent, when the slopes reach 15 percent and even though this property is just, a least from preliminary, our preliminary understanding and review of this, that's just a little bit under that. But, one of the things that they discuss in hillside or in the hillside subdivision standards is that lots should be sized larger than typically would be allowed even under the zoning. So, in looking at a rezone we sort of try to put the horse before the cart so we don't have to go retroactive and look at it. The property to the east on 92nd doesn't have the slopes quite as steep as this hillside development so it' s understandable that the 9600 square foot lot size would be more suitable for more level type land, topography. Whereas, on a hillside you want to account for the sloped topography by sizing the lots a little bit larger and depending on what those final surveys are that come before us, regardless of the zoning, it may be, in fact, be required or brought forth that the lots should be, 17 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 in fact, larger. But, typically, when we have the opportunity to look at a rezone we try to, like I say, take those into consideration in coming up with the size of the lots. Hunter: Thank you. Traffic is clearly a concern and a problem in the area, is there anything that the applicant or the City wants to comment on about traffic. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth in the testimony you're about to give? Ed White: I do. I'm Ed White, Assistant Traffic Engineer for the City. I was requested by Scott Williams to take a look at the proposed project as well as do the traffic count that you requested. What I've come up with is for the most part is a gross estimation of what the trip generation potential of the site is. So, keep in mind that we are talking about if the entire development were subdivided into either the 12000 square feet or the 7200 square feet, not allowing any roads or circulation, this is what the trip generation potential would be. We start out by looking at the current ADT. Based on the count that we did, we estimate that the current ADT for this roadway, this would be a two-way volume ranging between 3600 and 3800 vehicles a day with an a.m. peak of being about 700 cars being 18 percent of your total daily traffic and your pm peak being around 400 cars representing 11 percent of your total daily traffic. In taking a look at, first of all, the Planning Department's recommendation of going to an R1-12 or 12, 000 square feet, you are looking at a maximum lot development of 67 lots which would add approximately 670 daily trips, 50 during the a.m. and 76 p.m. peak hour trips. This would adjust the volume of the arterial from the again 36 to 3800 vehicles to up 43 to 4500 vehicles. Given the developer's proposal, you get a maximum of about 112 lots on the site. This would be adding around 1100 total daily trips to the site which would bring the adjusted daily trip total up to 4700 to 5000 trips. Now, what we are talking about in terms of a percent increase is the daily traffic would be an increase over the existing daily trip. . .the existing daily trips, around 30 percent. It would be approximately 10 percent higher than the Planning Department's recommendation. Now, what we are talking about in terms of roadway improvements that would possibly be necessary for or in order to improve the roadway. Currently, the roadway is a two-lane roadway ranging from 24 to 26 feet wide, two-lanes; one lane in each direction. You have an open ditch on the east side and approximately six or seven foot shoulder on the west side. Its 18 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 currently functioning like a local arterial and probably during the a.m. and p.m. peaks probably close to a some type of a minor collector arterial. With the added trips given the maximum buildout of the developers proposal, you would go from, again, this local type facility up to a potential of a major roadway given a 35-foot or 35 mile an hour speed limit, a, let's see, a 36-foot wide paved area and basically all the improvements that would be necessary to come up to a major collector type facility. You're looking at a range for a major collector facility as being between four and six thousand vehicles a day. So, this kind of gives you, again, somewhat of an idea of what you would be going from, again, probably around the 3, 000 that you have now up to a potential of maybe four or five thousand vehicles. Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much. Do you have perhaps a question. Do you want to ask a question or me and we' ll see. . . Voice: You mentioned a 35 miles per hour speed limit. White• Correct. Voice: It' s 25 now. White• Correct. Voice: (Unclear) its going to be changed. White: No, it wouldn't. Again, I was just giving, trying to draw a comparison between a facility that this. . .a similar type facility that may occur as a result of development. Voice: (Unclear) . You said it would run 38 to 42 hundred vehicles. White: The current volume is. . . Voice: (Unclear) approximately. Hunter: Let me interject here that the traffic. . . Voice: The traffic volume going by. 19 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 Hunter: Let me. . . Voice: Wait a minute. Excuse me a minute. Hunter: O.k. Finish your question. Voice: If they put 150 homes in the homes in this area which is 300, they go twice a day that 600 trips how did we get 42 hundred, 38 from 42 , how did we get the 4, 000 cars out of 500 people or 120. White: I 'm not sure I understand your question. What it is basically you are looking for. . . Voice: I 'm looking at your program. . . . White: For each additional single-family house that is constructed on a roadway it is estimated that ten trips, ten daily trips are added. Voice: Ten daily cars a day. White: Right. That means seven houses would be seven. . . Hunter: Excuse me, sir. Let him respond to your question and maybe that will help clarify your concern. White: Basically, again, what you are looking at is the potential of say, if the parcel were say develop out at 70 to 80 percent, you're probably looking in the neighborhood of 80 lots. O.k. , you multiply those 80 lots by ten trips, you come up with basically 800 daily trips, new trips. O.k. Voice: Excuse me, I 'm going to interrupt you. Does that go from 3800 to 42, 000. There's 4, 000 trips. White: O.k. , I estimated the adjusted daily trips for the site at full build-out as being between 4700 and 5000 that's an increase of 1100 trips or 30 percent increase. Now, that's based. . . Voice: Now, I understand, we have a couple of kids that (unclear) . White: O.k. , again, you're looking at a facility that currently does not handle that traffic. The characteristics of the roadway 20 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 would change, may not significantly, but it would change from what the existing characteristics would be. Hunter: O.k. , thank you. That's fine. Voice: (Unclear) . I realize that I 'm driving down Benson Highway. I just came from eastern Washington, ten cars in 50 miles. Come over here and drive and 80, 000 cars. Hunter: A whole different world isn't it. Voice: Sorry, and it was 90 degrees when I left it. Hunter: Any other testimony on this topic. Voice: I have a question. Hunter: O.k. , ma'am. Voice: About 90 percent of the traffic, in peak hours at least,that goes down 92nd and up 200th is by-pass people. They come up 208th, down 92nd and up 208th, turn left at 106 and go over to where they can get a light up on the Benson, and there's nothing that we can do about that as far as I know. Hunter: Ma'am, that sounds almost like testimony. You have some traffic things that you want to comment about and you're welcome to put that on the record if that's a concern you want to address. What we are looking at now since Mr. White's testified about traffic impacts, we want to get clarification of the numbers of traffic, we're looking at that in terms of mitigation measures or special concerns you have, we welcome you to put that on the record as a concern. O.k. Thank you very much. Are there other questions of Mr. White or others that want to testify. Question about traffic? Voice: (Unclear) traffic count and putting how fast the cars are going? White: No, we did not. We didn't do a speed study. That wasn't a question that arose. You. . .when we look at a facility somewhat similar to this one, you probably do have a certain percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. It hasn't been brought up in 21 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 any of the testimony, thus far, and it wasn't request that either the Hearing Examiner of Planning staff requested. But, if requested we can certainly do a study to identify what the speeds are. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Any others that would like to testify on the application. Yes, sir. You have. . .we have additional responses to questions raised here. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth in the testimony you're to give. Gary Gill: I do. My name is Gary Gill, City Engineer. There were a couple of other questions that came up and I know that these issues will be resolved and discussed further when we get into any future development potential on the property and when they go forward with the platting procedure. But, there were questions regarding what types of improvements will be required on 92nd Avenue. Also, what future potential for improvements to this street and others. As a condition of reviewing either an environmental checklist or a future potential subdivision of this property, Public Works will look at these issues and the developer and owner of the property will have to agree to participate in one of the nearest planned corridor projects that we've got planned on our long-range transportation plan. One, is the 228th/224th Corridor. Then there's a north corridor which is the 196th/192nd Corridor which would link the Benson Highway with Interstate 5 going across the valley floor. And our traffic people would look at this particular property and determine which corridor this project should be contributing towards. . .monetarily towards those future projects. At this point in time we have some potential for receiving substantial monies from the State through this new gas tax increase that came up that would go into partially funding these corridor projects and we are in the process of putting together prospectuses to try to get the preliminary monies for doing the planning studies and design of those facilities. As far as adjacent to the site, as a minimum we would require a developer to either improve their half of 92nd Avenue all the way along their frontage which would include curb and gutter and sidewalks and storm drainage facilities. If it looked like there was interest in the area for forming a local improvement district which was another question that came up, that very well could be a future mechanism to go ahead and improve other portions of 92nd Avenue. I 'm not positive what the County required on some of these other developments that were raised but typically they will require as a 22 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 minimum that the developer execute a no-protest LID covenant which commits them to participating in a future project for improving that roadway if and when it ever comes up. So, we would require that type of a similar commitment from this development as well. They either improve it or maybe they will have to do some minimal improvements as a beginning point and then they would have a commitment to participate in future full-street improvements which would include some of the facilities that I just talk about, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights and the whole works. Storm drainage would also be addressed during a development proposal. We are well aware that this hillside has a lot of springs. In fact, the wells down in the valley and some of the wells that the City has recently develop tap into some of the artisan aquifers that are quite deep. If you have specific information regarding wells that you have on your property or adjacent properties, be sure to get that information to us. If they are fairly deep, then the potential for impacting those aquifers is going to be very minor for this type of development. If they are shallow, then we definitely want to know about it so if it can have an impact on the site. Storm drainage, we are going to look at that very carefully.They would have to provide on-site detention facilities. They would have to provide a biofiltration or wet ponds which would try to mitigate some of the water quality impacts that result from urban growth and development. And, then obviously, this would impact the state highway down below so I 'm sure DOT will have some comments on this too. So, whatever is done to this site will not adversely impact drainage facilities on the state highway. So, these are all issues that will be taken into account in a lot more detail once we get a specific proposal on the site. Hunter: Thank you very much. Gill• O.k. Hunter: And as Mr. Gill has indicated some of these like storm drainage issues are relevant to times of applications for filing or actually development. Others, such as the traffic concerns, many of you addressed, are relevant to the time of a proposed rezone. Your City ordinances do require that transportation impacts at the time of a rezone request and if there are adverse impacts associated that there be some discussion on whether its possible to mitigate those impacts. So, there' s different points in the process where some testimony is relevant and that's what we are 23 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 trying to do in this public hearing is to sort out those items that are relevant to the rezone request and we've. . .and I think we've heard a lot of testimony on relevant points today and if there's any additional comments that anyone would like to make now is the time to do it. Scott Williams will have the final say it looks like. Williams: I guess to go back briefly to get in behind what the City Council's intention was when writing the purpose statement. As I was sitting here thinking, I thought of something that might be helpful. Where this wording. . .the purpose statement wording for the RA and MA zones were both changed and they were changed as a result of the agricultural land study which the Planning Department undertook for the City Council and I believe it was six or eight years ago now. The intent of that study was to look at agricultural. . .current agriculture. . .existing agricultural lands south and west of the Green River. And, what they were looking at doing in that study, or what they eventually did was make a very strong statement that they wanted to preserve those lands and not have them be converted. Primarily, of course, in agricultural lands we are talking about the valley floor and not having those lands converted to industrial use as was most of the valley east and north of the Green River. And, like one of the. . . .some of the testimony today alluded to, this piece of RA was probably, as I said earlier, has been so zoned for 30 years approximately. It was probably a remanent of agricultural lands that continued down on to the valley and, I believe, although I don't have a Zoning Code in front of me, is probably one of the only pieces in the City that is not either south or west of the Green River. And, I believe, that the preservation of those lands was the impetus for this wording, if that's any help. And, before you close the record I did find the letter the applicant provided to me and I can submit that as evidence from a William Robbins, Sr. Hunter: O.k. , thank you for the clarifying remarks and let's take a look at. . . .this is a letter you refer to earlier in your testimony that you received from the applicant. And, it's a letter from Benson Realty Incorporated, dated June 4, 1990, signed by William Robbins, Sr. and reads as follows: "This letter is a follow-up to our previous conversations, it's addressed to Margaret Minshull, we wish to emphasize the urgent need for single- family housing in South King County. Your acreage in Kent is ideally suited and situated for just that purpose. Subdividing 24 Hearing Examiner Minutes Verbatim Minutes Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5 your acreage in Kent into single-family lots will help ease the pressure and rapidly soaring costs of single-family housing in Kent is most desirable to the proximity to the east side, downtown Seattle, Puyallup, Federal Way and Pierce County locations. Kent is a growing community with a (unclear) , don't you want to be part of it. Sounds like a realtor writing a letter. We' ll receive this into the record. I read it, so that anyone that wants to respond to the letter has an opportunity to do so since it was brought up late in the hearing process, it's appropriate that we read it and allow anyone that wants to comment on it, to do so. O.k. , there' s a gentleman who would like to comment. Voice: Any realtor would think that land (unclear) is necessary for single-family units, is going to line his pockets of his own. I don't think that's really a valid letter showing that a property is necessary to be developed as single-family use. Hunter: And that's Mr. Cal Stewart commenting on that. O.k. , we've heard a lot of material. What we will do now is wrap up the hearing, we do have an application in front of us that we've had - Lillie Wagner speak too, as the applicant, where the request is to zone from residential agricultural to R1-7. 2 . We've had a recommendation from the Planning Department, Mr. Scott Williams, that that should be R1. 12, 000 square feet and then we heard from a number of people that live nearby/around the site regarding transportation impacts, concerns on view and concerns regarding wells and other concerns expressed and its my job then to take all that, testimony into account and to issue a recommendation to the City Council which will have the final decision in this matter and I will issue that recommendation within 14 days of today and I think it will take that full amount of time to do that. So, thank you all for coming and the record is now closed. 25 CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: y� Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through V be approved. Discussion ,P\UA\M/ Action ")t �✓ 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 7, 1990, with the following correction to Item 3E: Russell Road Picnic Shelter. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the Russell Road Picnic Shelter project, and to release retainage to Golf Landscaping upon receipt of state release, and to transfer $3 .759 from the Kent Kherson Peace Park unexpended project balance to the Russell Road Picnic Shelter account, as recommended by the Parks Committee. 3B. Approval of Bills. (�V Approval of payment of the bills received through August 21, �v 1990 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 :30 p.m. on August 28, 1990. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/31/90 94337 1, 075.29 8/2 - 8/14/90 94990 - 95026 124,139.41 8/15/90 95027 - 95506 1, 845, 509.47 1,970,724. 17 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/3/90 139431 - 140203 847, 833 .97 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B ........... x Kent, Washington August 7, 1990 In the absence of Mayor Kelleher, the regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Johnson, Mann, Orr and White, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Acting City Attorney Williamson, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wick- strom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederiksen, Information Services Director Spang, Personnel Director Olson, Finance Director McCarthy and City Clerk Jensen. Councilmember Houser has been excused from this meeting. City Administrator Chow and Parks Director Wilson were on vacation. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A) COMMUNICA- Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods TIONS announced that Grace Rieg of the Word Processing Department has been selected as the Employee of the Month for August. She pointed out that Grace is praised by the staff at City Hall for her out- standing motivation and dedication to her job. Information Services Director Ron Spang stated that she is an excellent employee, and that the detective unit has come to rely upon her to produce endless masses of typing for their investigations. Ms. Rieg will receive an Employee-of-the-Month plaque. (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B) Marie Jensen Week. Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring August 5-11, 1990 as Marie Jensen Week in they City of Kent. She noted that Ms. Jensen has served as the City Clerk of Kent for twenty-five years and has been a knowledge- able, dedicated, dependable and caring employee for all those twenty-five years. Ms. Jensen was presented with the proclamation and a plaque. CONSENT MANN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through N CALENDAR be approved. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 17 , 1990. HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) SANITATION Goodwin short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Randall 1 August 7 , 1990 HEALTH AND S. Goodwin for continuous operation and main- SANITATION tenance of approximately 180 lineal feet of water- line improvements; 445 lineal feet of sanitary improvements; 334 lineal feet of storm sewer improvement, and 745 lineal feet of street improvements constructed in the vicinity of 98th Avenue South & S.E. 248th Street for the Goodwin Short Plat and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Homecourt Hotel. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Young Development Company for continuous operation and maintenance of 2, 339 lineal feet of waterline im- provements; 1558. 4 lineal feet of sanitary sewer improvements; and 480 lineal feet of street im- provements constructed in the vicinity of S. 212th Street and 64th Avenue South for the Homecourt Hotel project and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) LID 335 - Improvement of 77th Ave. S. AUTHORIZA- TION to set September 18 , 1990 as the date for a public hearing on confirmation of final assess- ment roll for LID 335. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) LID 330. APPROVAL to prepay the City Shops assessment on LID 330 in the amount of $12,733 .41 as discussed with the Operations Committee at their July 24 meeting. The City feels it would be appropriate to prepay this assessment prior to de- termining the final bond sale amount, thus saving future interest costs and administrative costs. Expenditures to prepay this assessment are included in amounts set aside for annual LID pay- ments each year for LIDS budgeted for completion during the year but not used. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) CONTROL Speed Limit Change - West Valley Highway. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2934 changing the speed limits from 50 to 35 mph on West Valley Highway between S. 180th and 212th during construction. 2 - August 7, 1990 TRAFFIC (BIDS - ITEM 5A) CONTROL signal Modification - 84th and S. 208th. Bid opening was held on July 17, 1990. Two bids were received, both of which exceeded the Engineering estimate and available funding. Staff recommends that these bids be rejected, the specifications revised, and the bid re-advertised. WHITE SO MOVED. Mann seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5B) Signal Modification - SR 516 and SR 167 . Bid opening was held on August 2 , 1990. The only bid received was from Signal Electric, Inc. , in the amount of $66, 472 and staff recommends that it be accepted. WHITE SO MOVED. Mann seconded. Motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5C) Rubber Rail Crossing Material. Bid opening was held August 7 for the purchase of material neces- sary to rubberize the railroad crossings on James Street, Titus Street and S. 228th Street. One bid was received from Riedel OMNI Rubber Products in the amount of $37, 751. 81. Staff recommends ac- ceptance of the bid. WHITE MOVED that the bid be accepted. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Kent East Corporate Park Rezone. ADOPTION of Ordinance 2935 approving RZ-90-4, rezoning a por- tion of 43 acres from GWC to M-2 for Trammell Crow Co. This was approved by the Council on July 17, with the condition as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. REZONE & (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) REZONE (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2B) APPEAL Willis St. Restaurant & Motel Rezone No. RZ-90-3 . This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval as of a request by John Anderson and Associates, PS, Inc. to rezone a 2 . 9 acre site from M2 , Limited Industrial, to M1C, Industrial Park Commercial suffix. The property is located on the south- east corner of W. Willis St. and 74th Ave. S. The Hearing Examiner has recommended that the 3 August 7 , 1990 REZONE & rezone be approved with five conditions. The 4 REZONE applicant, through his attorney, Nadine Zackrisson APPEAL has appealed Conditions #4 and #5. Carol Proud of the Planning Department described the rezone, and noted that the Department agreed with the applicant and also recommended that Con- ditions #4 and #5 be modified. The public hearing on the appeal was declared open and Ms. Zackrisson noted that the Planning Depart- ment's review of Condition #4 determined that greater design flexibility would provide opportu- nity for design solutions which may serve to both protect the trail and improve on-site development. She asked, therefore, that #4 be modified as follows: A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth along with a berm of at least three feet in height, or a design alter- native acceptable to the Planning Depart- ment shall be provided along the eastern perimeter of the site to help establish a visual and aural buffer between users of the adjacent Interurban Trail. Ms. Zackrisson further noted that the City' s interest would be protected while allowing the applicant to work out design alternatives with City staff if Condition #5 were modified as follows: The drainage channel, and the associated vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in its existing state and shall not be disturbed unless modifications are approved and supervised by the Planning Department and Public Works. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. JOHNSON MOVED to grant the appeal and to approve the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation for RZ-90-3 with five conditions, modifying #4 and #5, as noted above and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. White seconded and the motion carried. 4 August 7, 1990 ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) ZONING Mortenson Annexation Zoning. This public hearing is the second of two hearings to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for initial zon- ing of R1-20, Single Family Residential (20, 000 square feet minimum lot size) for the Mortenson Annexation No. AZ-88-2 . The property is approxi- mately nine (9) acres in size and is located in the vicinity of 98th Ave. S. and S. 218th St. Mayor Pro Ten Woods declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and MANN MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to approve the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for initial zoning of R1-20 for the Mortenson Annexa- tion and to authorize the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. White seconded and the motion carried. FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Hemlock Acres No. 17 Final Plat. This meeting will consider the final plat map for the Hemlock Acres No. 17 final plat No. SU-88-3 . The property is approximately 4 . 15 acres in size and is located on the north side of S.E. 240th St. , approximately 500 feet west of 116th Ave. S.E. There were no comments from the audience and JOHNSON MOVED for the approval of Hemlock Acres No. 17 Final Plat No. SU-88-3 . Mann seconded and the motion carried. SENIOR (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) HOUSING senior Housing Advisory Committee Final Recommen- dations Phase I. The final recommendations of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee have been for- warded for Council action. The Phase 1 recom- mendations relate to ownership, management and development of the 92 units of Senior Housing authorized by voters in February 1990. The Planning Committee reviewed these recommendations at their July 17 meeting and approved them with a change to Action Item One: Ownership and Manage- ment. Janet Shull of the Planning Department noted that this was a three phase program: 5 August 7 , 1990 SENIOR 1. Policy development HOUSING 2 . Site selection and design development 3 . Construction The entire 20 page report of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee's final recommendations was distributed with the agenda packet and has been made a part of the record. Ms. Shull noted the name of members of the committee and expressed appreciation to the many others who had helped with this project, both before the election to pass the bond and since then, to study the program. Tracy Faust spoke on the subject of ownership and management of the senior housing, noting that the committee recommends that ownership and management be turned over to King County. She explained that the City could not own and operate such a program; that it must be done by a housing authority. It is recommended therefore: Action Item One: Ownership and Management (as amended) The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is directed to negoti- ate with the King County Housing Authority a Housing Cooperation Agreement consistent with the final recommendations of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee for the purposes of owning and managing the Kent senior Housing, with the final cooperation agreement to be approved by City council ordinance. The Housing Cooperation Agreement must contain the provisions outlined in Chapter Four of this report, and any additional provisions which are deemed necessary by the City' s Legal Department. Action Item Two: Development The City of Kent is to develop the senior housing utilizing a design/build/turnkey method which re- quires a single RFP for the purposes of selecting the senior housing site(s) , building(s) and de- sign-development teams (s) . This Action Item would be conducted as outlined in Chapter Three and the Appendix of the report. 6 August 7, 1990 w SENIOR Action Item Three: Construction Process HOUSING The City of Kent Administration is to retain pro- fessional services for the purposes of overseeing the construction of the senior housing. This Action Item would pertain to Phase Three of the senior housing program. Action Item Four: Support Services. The City of Kent will ensure that the Kent Senior Housing consist of independent living units with the capacity to provide support services for some of the units. This Action Item must be further developed in Phase Two of the Senior Housing program by the Advisory Committee and staff and must address the concerns outlined in Chapter Three of the report. Steve Delmore, Chairman of the Committee, address- ed Action Items Two, Three and Four, giving the rationale for each, as shown in the printed report. Upon questions from the Council, the fol- lowing was determined: any negotiations with King County Housing Authority would require approval by the Council, that property for the project would be removed from the tax rolls, that Kent citizens would be given priority and that the project would be self-supporting. White noted that we should set a goal to have Kent citizens as 90% of the tenants since Kent taxpayers would be footing the bill. ORR MOVED to approve the final recommen- dations of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee shown as Action Items One through Four on page 20 of the report, noting that Item One has been modified. (The change is shown in these minutes) . Mann seconded and the motion carried. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Excused Absence for Councilmembers. APPROVAL to excuse the absence of Councilmember Christi Houser from the August 7, Council meeting and to excuse absences for Councilmember Judy Woods for the August 21 and September 4 Council meetings. Both Councilmembers will be out of town on those dates. 7 August 7 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ADDED ITEM 4F) DISTRICTS Legislative District. Councilmember White dis- tributed copies of a resolution calling for Kent to be placed in a single legislative district. He noted that this issue has been discussed in the past, and is advocated by the Chamber of Commerce. He pointed out that Kent is presently within four State legislative districts, three King County Council districts, and two Congressional dis- tricts. HE MOVED for adoption of Resolution 1254 to so provide and Dowell seconded. White asked that the Mayor send copies of the resolution to each State legislator and the Governor, along with a cover letter emphasizing that it is frustrating not being a large enough part of any district to have an impact. The motion carried. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Reclassifications. APPROVAL to implement the reclassification recommendation findings of Bill Ewing & Associates, effective September 1, 1990 as recommended by the Operations Committee. The findings identified 72 positions currently working out of their present position classifications. The cost to adjust the present internal salary inequities within the City, effective September 1, 1990 through the end of the year would be $44, 982 . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Salary Survey. The Personnel Department is pro- viding salary survey results, identification of fiscal impact and recommendations for the imple- mentation of the salary survey conducted by Bill Ewing and Associates. Don Olson, Personnel Director, noted that City compensation levals had been compared to munici- palities within a 40 mile radius and he pointed out the benchmark classifications used. Olson noted that the results showed that the present level of compensation was not competitive in the following divisions: Engineering, Code Enforce- ment, Legal, Planning and Parks. He also recom- mended that because of the costs involved, any changes become effective January 1, 1991. He noted for White that the median figure in the salary survey would be the maximum figure in Kent's pay range. He noted for Dowell that some 8 August 71 1990 PERSONNEL positions are presently overpaid, but that there is no implementation plan on them. Becky Fowler of the Personnel Department clarified for Orr that in order to ease the financial burden, implementa- tion of the salary survey can take place over a two year span, half the first year and half the following year. Hansen noted that this item has not been considered by ,the Operations Committee and Olson suggested that they review it. White agreed and asked that the Personnel Director look into the possibility of freezing the salaries of the positions which are currently overpaid. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) Enhanced Penalties for Drug Activities ADOPTION of Resolution 1253 including a map of school boundaries and bus routes as approved by the Public Safety Committee on June 4, 1990. The map will allow implementation of enhanced penalties for unlawful drug activities in those areas. PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Russell Road Picnic Shelter. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the Russell Road Picnic Shelter project, and to release retainage to Golf Land- scaping upon receipt of state release as recom- mended by the Parks Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Resource Center Kitchen Remodel AUTHORIZATION to transfer $3, 217.80 from the unexpended Kent- Kherson Peace Park project funds to cover an overage in the Resource Center Kitchen Remodel project. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Lake Fenwick. AUTHORIZATION to expend $260 . 00 from King County Bond Issue proceeds to cover recording fees and administrative costs for the purchase of Tax Lots 44 and 215 at Lake Fenwick. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) Glass Works - East Hill Fire Station The Council is requested to review and approve the jury's selection of dichroic cast glass artwork by Paul Marioni and Ann Troutner for the Headquarters Fire Station. 9 August 7, 1990 PARKS The artists were selected by the jury in an open - competition for the project. Liz Carpenter of the Cultural Arts Department, showed drawings of the artwork and distributed a sample of the material. She noted for White that this project is funded by the 2% City Art Fund. MANN MOVED that the artwork by Mr. Marioni and Ms. Troutner be approved. White seconded. The motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 3 , 1990 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 00 p.m. on August 14 , 1990. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/16 - 7/30 94316 - 94336 $ 114 , 808 . 01 7/31/90 94338 - 94989 1 , 399 , 932 . 37 $1, 514 , 740.38 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/20/90 138639 - 139430 $ 836, 308.40 (REPORTS - ITEM 7G) 1991 Budget. Finance Director McCarthy distrib- uted copies of the proposed expenditures section 1991 for the 1991 budget, noting that a meeting has BUDGET been scheduled for Council to set priorities on Thursday, August 9 at the Senior Center from 7 : 45 a.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. McCarthy recapped the probable amounts which would be available in the various funds and proposals for new sources of revenues. With information gained at the meeting, staff will prepare material for later presentation at Council meetings. White stated that the Council regularly adopts plans such as the Fire Master Plan, Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, etc. and limited funds are available. He stated that he would like 10 -. August 7, 1990 FINANCE to see a balanced budget presented to Council based upon goals set by Council and plans already 1991 adopted. Council would then recognize that in BUDGET order to add something to the budget, something else must be removed. Professional staff should be able to set priorities, he stated and the role of the Council was to set policy and not to function as administrators. McCarthy stated that there was never enough money to fund all programs. It was confirmed that these concerns have been discussed before and Hansen suggested that this be discussed at the end of the budget process in December, for action in the future. It was con- firmed for Dowell, that the Council would be asked to prioritize items for each department. Mann stated that it should be shown that the Council Target Issues adopted in January are for the following years budget. It was agreed that the process could not now be changed for the 1991 budget. At Dowell ' s request for an approximate bottom line figure, McCarthy stated it would be $1. 6 million for operating needs or $700, 000 if the Council wants to put $900, 000 into the contingency fund. The figure for capital needs would be another million dollars. Hansen noted that staff was open to suggestions as to how to refine the process. REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 7A) Council President. Woods reminded the Council- members of the Suburban Cities meeting this week, and the budget meeting to be held at the Senior Center on Thursday, August 9 . Woods commented on the new carpet, upholstery and arrangement of furniture in the Council Chambers and expressed appreciation to Charlie Lindsey, Purchasing Agent, who was in charge of this project. (REPORTS - ITEM 7F) Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks Committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 August 7, 1990 REPORTS August 15. This was later changed to Tuesday, w August 21, from 5: 30 to 6 : 00 p.m. , in the City Hall Courtroom. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. i�G�LLCi 4? Marie en en, CMC City C k 12 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL REZONE NO. RZ-90-3 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance rezoning property located in the general area of-49outheast corner of West Willis Street and 74th Street South, as directed by the City Council at their meeting of August 7, 1990. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance rezoning a 2 .9 acre site from M2 Limited Industrial to M1C Industrial Park Commercial Suffix. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. Applicant and staff. (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, rezoning a 2.9 acre site with conditions in the general area of the southeast corner of W. Willis St. and 74th Ave. So. within the City of Kent from M2, Limited Industrial to M1C, Industrial Park Commercial Suffix. WHEREAS, applicant has applied for a rezone of the property located in the general area of S.E. corner of W. Willis Street and 74th Street So. , and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the rezone was held before the Kent Hearing Examiner on May 16, 1990; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 1990 the Hearing Examiner recommended that the rezone be approved with five conditions; and WHEREAS, applicant timely appealed the Hearing Examiner'sI rezone conditions #4 and 15; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 7, 1990 wherein the Kent City Council considered thArecommendations of the Hearing Examiner, and applicant's appeal of conditions #4 and #5; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council granted the appeal of applicant; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted by reference the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner for the rezone subject to conditions #1, #2, #3 as recommended by the Hearing Examiner and conditions 44 and #5 as modified by the appeal of applicant; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and in the general area of the S.E. corner of W. Willis St. and 74th Ave. So. is rezoned from M2, Limited Industrial, to M1C - Industrial Park Commercial Suffix, subject to the following conditions: 1. For those peak hour trips generated from development of the property under this rezone which are in excess of those peak hour trips which would have been generated from development of the property under its present zoning, the Developers financial contribution to the 272nd/277th corridor project as a means of providing partial mitigation of the traffic impact of the development shall be calculated at 100 percent of the estimated trip cost. 2. An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be constructed to provide access to 74th Street, Willis Street, and the development to the south. 3. Landscaping along the western and northern perimeters shall be at least 20 feet in depth and at least 15 feet in depth along the southern perimeter. 4. A landscape strip of at least A feet in depth along with a berm of at least three feet in height, or a design alternative acceptable to the Planning Department shall be provided along the eastern perimeter of the site to help establish a visual and aural buffer between users of the adjacent Interurbal Trail. 5. The drainage channel, and the associated vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in its existing state and shall not be disturbed unless modifications are approved and supervised by the Planning Department and Public Works. 2 - i Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1990. APPROVED the day of , 1990. PUBLISHED the day of , 1990. I hereby certify that this is a True copy of Ordinancel' No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. i I i MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL) 8760-310 - 3 - EXHIBIT "A" Lot 1 , 2, E 3 of City of Kent Short Plat No. 78-27, recorded under Recording No. 7810170678. Records of King County and part of Lot #9, Plat of "Foster Industrial Park" Vol . 133, pages 8-11 , Records of King County, and Russell Southwest D. C. #41, the south 20' of north 450' of D.C. lying west of P.S.E.R.Y. right-of-way. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MORTENSON ANNEXATION NO.. AZ-88-2 PERMANENT ZONING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As approved by the Council at the August 7th meeting and public Hearing, adoption of Ordinance 4 ` iWzoning certain property located in the vicinity of 98th Avenue South and 218th Street, consisting of approximately 9 acres within the city limits Of Kent for initial zoning of R1-20, Single-Family Residential zoning to remain R1-20, Single-Family Residential zoning (AZ-88-2) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Hearing Examiner, and Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, rezoning certain property located in the vicinity of 98th Avenue South and South 218th Street, consisting of approximately 9 acres within the city limits of Kent for initial zoning of R1-20, Single Family Residential zoning to remain R1-20, Single Family Residential (AZ-88-2) . WHEREAS, on May 2, 1990, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider permanent zoning of property described in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein and proposed development of property located in the vicinity of 98th Avenue South and South 218th Street at R1-20 Single-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, City of Kent Planning Department, requested that the subject property, which was earlier annexed in July of 1989 and previously given an initial zoning designation of R1-20 by operation of KCC 50.03.020 of the Kent zoning code, remain R1-20 Single-Family Residential as its permanent zoning district; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 1990, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the permanent zoning of the subject property in Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations in Rezone No. AZ-88-2; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held on this matter on August 7, 1990 at which time the Kent City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations including additional public input and staff reports; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner has concluded that the proposed zoning action of maintaining existing initial zoning of R1-20, Single-Family Residential should remain R1-20, Single-Family Residential and that the zoning district is consistent with the comprehensive plan; that the zoning action of the subject property is compatible with the development of property in the vicinity of the site; and that the proposed zoning action will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kent; and WHEREAS, the zoning action will further assist in preserving and encouraging additional single-family homes within the City of Kent consistent with the Objective of the Housing Element of the city-wide Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, said action will not increase burdens upon traffic in the area; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in recommendations regarding the Mortenson Annexation No. AZ-88-2; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in the Findings for Mortenson Annexation No. AZ-88-2 for the City of Ken which is on file with the Kent City Clerk issued May 16, 1990 are hereby adopted by reference as if set forth verbatim. Section 2. Zoning and rezone designations for this site and property located generally in the vicinity of 98th Ave. So. and So. 218th St. and consisting of approximately 9 acres or described in Exhibit "A" is permanently zoned R1-20, Single Family Residential (20,000 square foot minimum lot size) . Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. I i DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 2 - i ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BILL H. WILLI SON, ACTING CITY ATTORNE PASSED the day of , 1990. APPROVED the day of , 1990. PUBLISHED the day of , 1990. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8770-310 3 - Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF LADDER TESTING EQUIPMENT u 4-h 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the interlocal agreement/ for purchase, use and maintenance of ladder testing equipment, and authorization for the Mayor to sign. Funds were identified in ; the 1990 budget to allow for the joint purchase, usage and maintenance of ground ladder testing equipment. We now--have - � -- e --with"-the L Auburn, Renton,w Tuk and-our--city• 3. EXHIBITS: Executive Summary and copy of Interlocal Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Norm Angelo, Fire Chief (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JULY 25, 1990 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JUDY WOODS, JON JOHNSON, JIM WHITE, PAUL MANN, CHRISTI HOUSER, STEVE DOWELL AND LEONA ORR FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF,� a- SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF LADDER TESTING EQUIPMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Background: Funds were identified in the 1990 budget to allow for the joint purchase, usage, and maintenance of ground ladder testing equipment. We have now reviewed the proposed agreement with the legal departments of Auburn, Renton, Tukwila and our City. We are requesting formal approval of the agreement and authorization for the Mayor to sign. Recommendation: Authorizing the Mayor to sign interlocal agreement. Significance: Allow the above referenced cities to provide for the _. joint purchase and use of ground ladder testing equipment. NFPA standards require fire departments to test and certify the safety of it's ground ladders. The testing equipment is expensive and a joint purchase/use is an economic way to obtain the equipment. Budget Impact: None. Alternatives: lm INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PURCHASE AND USE OF GROUND LADDER TESTING EQUIPMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into between the CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal corporation located at 25 West Main, Auburn, Washington 98001, hereafter referred to as "AUBURN", and the CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation located at 220 Fourth Ave. S. , Kent, Washington 98032, hereafter referred to as "KENT" , and the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation located at 211 Mill Ave. S. , Renton, Washington 98055, hereafter referred to as "RENTON", and the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation located at 444 Andover Park E. , Tukwila, Washington 98188, hereafter referred to as "TUKWILA" . In accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and in consideration of the conditions herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the above- referenced cities to provide for the joint purchase and use of ground ladder testing equipment. The four cities are among the fire agencies comprising VALLEY COM. Nationally recognized fire protection standards require fire departments to test and certify the safety of its ground ladders. The testing equipment is expensive and a joint purchase and use is an economic way to obtain the equipment. 2 . TERM. This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 1990 and may be terminated by any one of the cities by sixty (60) days written notice to the other cities. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by any one of the cities, the other cities may continue the Agreement to the extent that they may agree. If this Agreement is terminated by all of the cities, then the ground ladder testing equipment shall be sold and the sale proceeds shall be divided equally among the cities PROVIDED THAT, any of the cities who is a party to this Agreement may purchase the equipment. 3 . PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT. The CITY OF KENT shall be designated the coordinating agency for purposes of buying the ground ladder testing equipment. The total purchase price, including delivery charge and taxes equals FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($4,200. 00) . Each City agrees to pay to the vendor a share of the cost equal to 25% of the total purchase price. 4 . DESIGNATION AND USE OF EQUIPMENT. The ladder testing equipment will be marked with the acronym "KART", standing for KENT, AUBURN, RENTON and TUKWILA. 4 . 1 KART USE• The ladder testing equipment will be assigned to each KART department for a three month period or after use may be stored at the Kent Fire Department. -- Should a department need to conduct a test exclusive to their annual testing, arrangements will be made with the department in possession of the equipment. The cost of any accessory equipment that is approved by KART will be divided equally between the four departments. Upon receiving the equipment it will be each department's responsibility to ensure that all the equipment is present (an inventory and check off sheet is included) and in working condition. It will be the responsibility of each KART department to replace or repair equipment damaged or lost while the equipment is housed at their department. 4 .2 OTHER DEPARTMENT USE: If other departments wish to use KART test equipment, the following conditions must be met. 1. KART departments have priority use of testing equipment. 2 2. The department wishing to use the equipment must contact a KART department and a testing date set up. 3 . The KART department who has been contacted must call the other KART departments to see if there is a conflict with the date(s) . 4 . Personnel experienced with the use of the KART equipment shall be present during the ladder testing to insure proper use of the equipment. The KART personnel shall not certify the safety of any ladders or assume any responsibility for damage done to ladders. 5. The outside department will pay any costs of hiring back any KART certified testers(s) . 6. ALL testing will be done at one of the KART facilities. 5. NOTICES. All notices, requests, approvals, consents or other communications which may be required shall be given as follows: Bob Wigley City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, Washington 98001 Dale Robertson City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, Washington 98032 Jim Matthew City of Renton 211 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Washington 98055 Loren McFarland City of Tukwila 444 Andover Park E. Tukwila, Washington 98188 3 6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties. It supersedes any oral representations that are inconsistent with or modify its terms and conditions. 7 . FILING OF AGREEMENT. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the City Clerks of each City to this Agreement and with the King County Auditor, and the Secretary of State, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39 . 34 . 040. DATED this day of , 1990. " 4 CITY OF AUBURN BOB ROEGNER MAYOR ATTEST: Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marguerite Schellentrager, City Attorney 5 y CITY OF KENT DAN KELLEHER MAYOR ATTEST: Marie Jensen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandra Driscoll, City Attorney 6 CITY OF RENTON EARL CLYMER MAYOR ATTEST: Maxine Motor, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Larry Warren, City Attorney CITY OF TUKWILA GARY VAN DUSEN MAYOR ATTEST: Jan Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Colgrove, City Attorney 6016L-10L 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 211990 Category Consent Calendar r 1. SUBJECT: HVAC MAINTEN E--CONTRACT EXTENSION Tt(1 r 1 ae Qg f ��y �t � ,e � . ef�huns (rvr 2 . SUMMARY STA d Withorization for the Mayor tc sign contract extension for one year with Control Contractors, Inc. for maintenance of the HVAC systems in the computer room, City Hall, Kent Commons, Senior Citizens Center, Special] Populations Resource Center, Corrections Facility, and adding, the City Shops and Riverbend Golf Course F- 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Customer Services Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $14 185 (already budgeted) SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1991 Budget 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F MEMO DATE: July 31, 1990 TO: Operations Committee FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services Mana SUBJECT: HVAC Maintenance Contract Due to having to bid several other large contracts this year and a heavy workload I have asked our current Maintenance Contractor to extend our current contract for 1 additional year excluding filter maintenance which we will begin doing ourselves. They have agreed to do so at the current price. Buildings included are as follows: City Hall Computer Room A/C Kent Commons City Shops (added) Library (six months only) Riverbend Golf Course (added) Senior Citizens Center Special Pops Resource Center Corrections Facility X AINTENANCE AGREEMENT/INFORMATION SERVICES AIRCONDITIONING Services Manager Lindsey requested authorization forthe Mayor to extend the current nce contract for one additional year excluding filter maintenance which will be done internally. Information Services airconditioning needs were also explained. A proposal to install a supplemental airconditioner in the Information Services computer room with a condensing unit and a window airconditioning unit for the Word Processing area was presented. The cost for the main unit would be $5,320. The smaller unit is a surplus one from the shops which would require $500 for installation. These request were moved to Council with a vote of 2-0. CASHIERING POSITION FOR PERMIT CENTER Assistant City Administrator Hansen explained the need for the cashiering position at the new permit center. This position would meet and greet the public, provide general information and allow payment of permits in one spot. Fire Chief Angelo added that this position would provide an answer to a common complaint of citizens having to go to too many departments for a relatively simple transaction. If this position is not filled until 1991, this perception will persist. The original concept of the permit center was centralization and approving this request would support that concept. The Committee moved to support this request to Council with a vote of 2-0. After discussion of where it should be presented on the Council Agenda, it was moved to Other Business. KHERSON PARK FUEL TANK REMOVAL u Fire Chief Angelo reported to the Committee the current situation at the Kherson Park. The fuel tank on the property has presented questions as to responsibility between the property owner, the building connected to the tank, and previous property owners. It was recommended that the City obtain permission from the involved parties to remove the tank, test the soil, properly dispose of the tank and restore the park with City funds. The estimated cost of$7,000 was set forth to cover any possible contingencies with the actual expected cost of$2,500. The Code Enforcement fund would cover this amount. Fire Chief Angelo believes this action would project a positive image for the park as well as forestall any possible liability in the future. The Operations Committee recommended this to Council with a vote of 2-0. SALARY SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION Personnel Director Olson presented the findings of salary survey conducted by the City of Kent in conjunction with Bill Ewing and Associates. Although the results showed that most salary ranges are competitive, there are areas that are not at the median range. This creates a problem in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. He reviewed the three options for implementing the salary survey as outlined in the agenda. It was also noted that the survey addressed only public sector employees and in all probability the private sector would be higher. A few positions were paid over the median of the salary survey. Kent City Council Meeting Date Aucrust 21. 1990 ,._ Category Consent Calendar /l...SIUBJECT: DISPUTE OF WATER BILL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to give Roland Mason of Packers Plus, Inc. , a fifty percent adjustment of his water and sewer bill as recommended by the Operations Committee. The overage is $663 .54 . Mr. Roland Mason is disputing his June water and sewer bill. Consumption jumped from an average of 600 to 700 cubic feet every other month to 18,500 cubic feet for the two month period between April and June. Mr. Roland has asked for an adjustment on his bill. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Customer Service Manager 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utility Fund 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G MEMO Date: August 9, 1990 To: operations Committee From: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services Mana r 6 Subject: Disputed Water Bill Roland Mason of Packers Plus Incorporated is disputing his June Water and Sewer bill. His consumption jumped from an average of 600 cubic feet every other month to 18, 500 for the period 4-20-90 to 6-20-90 and has dropped back to normal with consumption being 700 cubic feet between 6-20 and 7-24 . Mr. Roland contends that he did not use the water and that there were not any leaks during the period in question. I cannot explain what may have occurred at his place of business but only that the water did pass through the meter and therefore was con- sumed by someone. The total amount of the bill being disputed is $663 .54 with $306.70 of that being water, $334 . 40 being sewer, and $22 .44 being utility tax. Mr. Roland will be at the meeting to discuss this from his point of view and to answer any questions you may have. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 14, 1990 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson Paul Mann STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo Mary Berg Mimi Castillo Ed Chow Becky Fowler Jim Hansen Charlie Lindsey Tony McCarthy Alana McIalwain May Miller Kelli O'Donnell Don Olson Don Wickstrom Bill Williamson MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Roland Mason Lyle Price The meeting was called to order at 4:40 pm by acting Chairperson Jon Johnson. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending July 31, 1990 in the amount of$1,514,740.38 were approved for payment. DISPUTED WATER BILL Customer Services Manager Lindsey introduced Mr.Roland Mason of Packers Plus Incorporated who was.contesting his June Water and Sewer bill in the amount of$663.54. Mr. Mason explained that his business had been in Kent for the past fifteen years with a consistent bill of$27-32 a month. His business has no industrial usage of water; the facilities are in use all of the time with no recent leaks; and the sprinkler system is metered separately. He feels the billing is wholly unjustified. Customer Services Manager Lindsey stated that historically there no policy to deal with this sort of situation so therefore it must be decided through the Council. He also indicated that the meter had been checked and the readings verified. He did not believe the meter to be faulty and by all indications the water had passed through the meter. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded that the bill would be split between Mr. Mason and the City 50/50 since no explanation could be found. The motion passed with a vote of 2-0. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar C� 1. SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND TANK AT KHERSON PARK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to remove an underground fuel tank at Kherson Park, as recommended by the Public Safety and Operations Committees. (An underground heating fuel tank was uncovered during the preparation of Kherson Park. The property owner is allowing the city to use his property as part of the park. With new laws regarding use of underground storage tanks, the city could possibly be responsible for having the tank tested, future monitoring of the tank and later replacement of the tank. Due to the previous and current relationship with use of the site, the city has the opportunity to move forward in a leadership role to protect the environment and to project a positive image for the park by having the tank removed now using city funds. 3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, Operations Committee, Norm Angelo - Fire Chief, Don Olson - Risk Manager (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $7, 000 for removal of the tank, testing of the soil, proper disposal of the tank and to restore the park grounds. SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H Kent City Date Category0 9� E 1. SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND TANK AT KHERSON PARK 2. STn+►MAItY STATED: Authorization to remove an _ Ad fuel tank at Kherson Park, as recommended by the Public ety and Operations Committees. An underground heating fuel tank was uncovered during the preparation of Kherson Park. The property owner is allowing the city to use his property as part of the park. With new laws regarding use of underground storage tanks, the city could possibly be responsible for having the tank tested, future monitoring of the tank and later replacement of the tank. Due to the previous and current relationship with use of the site, the city has the opportunity to move forward in a leadership role to protect the environment and to project a positive image for the park by having the tank removed now using city funds. 3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Operations Committee, Norm Angelo Fire Chief Don Olson - Risk Manager (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $7,000 for removal of the tank, testing of the soil, proper disposal of the tank and to restore the park grounds. SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JULY 27, 1990 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JUDY WOODS, JON JOHNSON, JIM WHITE, PAUL MANN, CHRISTI HOUSER, STEVE DOWELL AND LEONA ORR FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND TANK AT KHERSON PARK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Background: During the preparation of Kherson Park an underground heating fuel tank was uncovered. It appears that the tank is no longer being used. While the tank is on one person's property it is connected to a building belonging to a different owner. In researching the matter there was also a possible relationship with the old city hall raised, although not confirmed. The property owner is allowing the City to use his property as part of the park. New laws regarding the use of underground storage tanks would require testing and future monitoring of the tank and later replacement of the tank. No one is utilizing the tank. We believe because of previous and current relationships with use of the site that the City has an opportunity to move forward in a leadership _. role to protect the environment and to project a positive image for the park. Recommendation: That the City obtain permission from the involved parties to remove the tank, test the soil, properly dispose of the tank and restore the park with City funds possibly from the Environmental Fund. Significance: City would demonstrate a leadership role in protecting the environment and maintain previous and current relationships with use of the site. Budget Impact: Costs of approximately $7, 000 would be allocated through City funds perhaps from the Environmental Fund. lm N� Kent City Council Meeting Date_ Auaust 21 1990 �} Category. Consent Calendar 1• —SECT: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT 2 . S1lMMARY STATEMENT: CONFIRMATION of Mayor Kelleher's appointment of Callius Zaratkiewicz to the Civil Service Commission to replace former Mayor Alex Thornton whose term has expired. This term will begin immediately and will expire May 31 1996. 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT NO FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended YES Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOIIIRED: $ SOIIRCE OF FUNDS: 7• CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I M E M O R A N D U M TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBE S FROM: DAN KELLEHERI MAYOR % a� DATE: AUGUST 14, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CALLIUS ZARATKIEWICZ AS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER I have recently appointed Callius Zaratkiewicz as a member of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Zaratkiewicz is employed by the Boeing Company in Renton. He is active as a Shop Steward, is involved with the Employee Good Neighbor Fund and also serves as President of his Union Local which is the largest Union Local for Machinists in the United States. He has had extensive personnel training in arbitration, organization and problem solving. His term will begin immediately and continue through May 31, 1996. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LIBRARY BOARD 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of JoAnn Brady to replace Betty Rasmussen Van DeMark who has resigned. The appointment will become effective immediately and will continue through January 31, 1991. 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCALIPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J M E M O R A N D U M TO: JUDY WOOD, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHERI MAYOR �� DATE: AUGUST 10, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF JoANN BRADY TO LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS I have recently appointed JoAnn Brady as a member of the Library Board of Directors. She will replace Betty Rasmussen Van DeMark who has resigned. Ms. Brady is currently Chair of the Kent Arts Commission, is active with Kent Soroptimists and is a Kent business woman. She has also had a long standing interest and involvement in the development and revitalization of downtown Kent. Her term will begin immediately and will continue through 1/91. I submit this for your confirmation. Kent City Council Meeting Date Aucrust 21, 1990 N Category Consent Calendar EQUIPMENT � SUBJECT: SURPLUS E 1. ! 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: appro_v_B.GL�2y___the � � i G Worlra o mitt authorization to surp 1980 John Deere Backhoe No. 156 and a 1980 John Deere Tractor No. 157 and offer same for sale or use as trade for new equipment. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpts from minutes of August 7, 1990 Public Works Committee meeting and supporting material from August 7, 1990 Public Works Committee meeting. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCWPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K Public Works Committee August 7 , 1990 Page 4 that could possibly be used. White asked staff's suggestion to solve the problem. Nizlek stated he felt it would take this measure plus added enforcement as you will continue to get those who will scoff the laws. The Committee concluded they would like staff to proceed with implementing the temporary measures this year and to request the funding from IBC. White asked Dowell and Orr to take the request for increased enforcement to the Pubi' c Safety Committee. Nizlek alluded to tDe need for an established procedure and criteria for the placement f these types of barricades. White agreed and suggested that we proceed with this location and staff can then prepare a procedure to bring before the Committee and Council for approval. Authorization to Surplus Equipment Heydon referred to the material that was included in the Committee' s packet which supported Equipment Rental ' s policy of replacing these pieces of equipment with approximately 4 , 500 hours. Heydon stated we also have the option of using this equipment as trade-in on purchase of new equipment. The Committee unanimously approved to surplus the equipment. Speed Limits - West Valley Highway Williamson stated an ordinance has been prepared reducing the speed limit on West Valley Highway during construction. Williamson stated he believes the City has authority under State statute to allow and enforce the speed reduction. The Committee unanimously recommended adoption. Vehicle Registration Fee After a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Vehicle Registration Fee. Library Street Closure list Avenue) Hansen reviewed the approved traffic patterns for the Library. The contractor would like to proceed with this closure so he can bring his equipment into the site. Dowell asked about parking for those businesses on First and Second. Hansen responded the Library's parking lot is public parking and there are 127 spaces available. In addition there will be parking available in the municipal parking lot across from the new library. It was determined that after completion of the library there will be more parking available than there is now. Hansen reviewed that the closure is DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 27, 1990 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, RE: Authorization to Surplus Equipment A At your last Committee meeting, you requested Tim Heydon to determine the manufacturer' s recommendation for replacement of the :.two tractors. That information is attached hereto. pwcomm MEMORANDUM w DATE: July 27, 1990 TO: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works THROUGH: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager ,pv�' FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager u�2� SUBJECT: Public Works Committee Report; surplusing of tractors #156 and #157 Each of these machines has between 41400 and 4, 500 hours1i and is at ten years old. A 1. #156 1980 JOHN DEERE BACKHOE On this equipment, we are experiencing problems with hydraulics on the loader and backhoe units. It has excessive wear in the control valves and hydraulic cylinders which makes it difficult to control drift and travel on the backhoe boom and bucket. This can endanger employees working close to the loader or bucket when moving or placing heavy material in close areas. With our previous backhoe of the same make, we experienced engine problems at approximately 4,000 hours which made it necessary to overhaul the engine. At about the same time, the hydraulic pump failed and we had to recondition and seal the unit. On our 1976 John Deere grader, we had to have the engine rebuilt at about 5, 300 hours. The cost of repair was $ 7 , 529 . 22 . 2. #157 1980 JOHN DEERE TRACTOR On this equipment we are having hydraulic problems with the loader and housing and seals on the reservoir. The loader at times will not maintain the weight it has lifted and the loader bucket will lower by itself. The seals on the reservoir have been replaced several times and cause loss of fluid and constant need of repair. I have enclosed two letters from local companies stating policies of construction companies as to replacement and use of older machines. We are replacing these machines at approximately the same number of hours, but our machines are older because we do not use them as many hours per year. I feel we will receive the highest price for our equipment if we either trade or sell them before some major and costly repairs are needed. Attachments B: \C013E03 . RCCEfUCf�ERAIG TAYWR C17Y Ut r(.,�r OPERA f]0NS CRAIC3 TAYLOR F" ~ENT CO. P.O.Box 710 98057 Business(206)251-8022 3100 East Valley Rd. FAX(206)251.0917 Renton,WA 98055 July 25, 1990 1 City of Kent 220 4th Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 r Attn: Jack Spencer Dear Jack, In regards to our conversation of July 23, 1990 about machinery hours and how long our customers are keeping them. Contractors in our area like to keep a piece of equipment about 3000 to 4000 hours before getting rid of it, according to them if they wait any longer than that the machine starts costing them money and down time. For municipalities and cities the hour criteria is about 5000 hours. I hope this helps. Best Wishes, Simon Hernandez 17-14 CRAIG TAYLOR EQUIPMENT CO. SH/kk JOHN DEERE • LISTER • MITSUBISHI JCB • GME • RAMMER • KOBELCO • WACKER • DYNAPAC Diesel Engines,Generator Systems and Water Pumps Construction 3tan0ard or Custom for Agriculture, industrial and Marine Applications Sales, Service, Parts and Rentals Smith Tractor SIX & Equipment Co. ffW P.O.Box 1247 19808 West Valley Hwy. Since 1955 Kent,WA 98032 (206)575-0140 July 24, 1990 Mr. Jack Spencer City of Kent City Hall Public Works Dept. Operations Division A Ref: Replacement Policies of Contractor's Equipment Sir, Regarding your enquiry when the average piece of contractor's equipment is deemed suitable for replacement, the 5000 hr figure we discussed is pretty consistent with what we observe in the industry. Another factor to be considered is the age in years of the tractor. Ten years of productive machine life is app- roaching the top end to be sure. We at Smith Tractor see mostly 5 to 6 year with 4000 to 5000 hour trades from the majority of our customers. In addition to tax considerations and depreciation, time loss due to 'down-time' for repairs and increased maintenance costs are the primary determining factors leading to replacement. )istributons for: " From the City of Kent' s position, the resale dollars of your ohnDeere present John Deere Backhoe have been maximized. No further 3arberGreene advantage may be anticipated by holding on to your ten year old JD410 Backhoe. Sakai "rail King Jack, I appreciated you taking time to speak with me yesterday and we at Smith Tractor look forward to being of Mroe Bobcat service to you and the City of Kent. aosco Sincerely Yours eledyne SMITH TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT COMPANY .ocatlons In: acoma (ent. Bruce Bice ,Aontesano Wholegoods Mgr. At.Vernon Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 11\ a lT' Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RIDGEGATE APARTMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the Bill of Sale and Warranty agreements submitted by Griffin-Holly joint venture for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 1,489 feet of water main extension and 932 feet sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of Southeast 248th and 100th Avenue Southeast for the Ridgegate Apartment Complex and releasing a cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance. 3 . EXHIBITS: A vicinity map. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L VICINITY MAP 1"•15l.O' 315 lee? z LU rH z 5110 0 sE z4em sr. 4i y e oy R/d ECFA TE c A�,4 TINENT'S Kent City Council Meeting 1 Date August 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SHOPS REMODEL 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Radosevich Construction for the Shops Remodel Project and q (,{A007-e release of the retainage after receipt of the necessary releases from the State. 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Director of Public Works 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 16, 1990 TO: Mayor Kelleher \and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Shops Remodel On September 7, 1989 bids were opened for the Shops Remodel with Radosevich Construction submitting the low bid of $162 , 344 . 16. The project made improvements to two bay areas used for equipment and constructed an employee lunchroom on the second floor of the Shops building. Final construction costs are $173 , 949. 12. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and retainage released after receipt of the State releases. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LIBRARY STREET CLOSURE (1ST AVENUE) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 4 as the date for a Public Hearing on closure of the 1st Avenue access onto Smith street in conjunction with construction of the new library. 3. EXHIBITS: Excerpts from minutes of August 7, 1990 Public Works Committee meeting and Memorandum to Public Works Committee from Director of Public Works. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3N Public Works Committee August 7, 1990 Page 4 that could possibly be used. White asked staff's suggestion to solve the problem. Nizlek stated he felt it would take this measure plus added enforcement as you will continue to get those who will scoff the laws. The Committee concluded they would like staff to proceed with implementing the temporary measures this year and to request the funding from IBC. White asked Dowell and Orr to take the request for increased enforcement to the Public Safety Committee. Nizlek alluded to the need for an established procedure and criteria for the placement of these types of barricades. White agreed and suggested that we proceed with this location and staff can then prepare a procedure to bring before the Committee and Council for approval. Authorization to Surplus Equipment Heydon referred to the material that was included in the Committee's packet which supported Equipment Rental's policy of replacing these pieces of equipment with approximately 4,500 hours. Heydon stated we also have the option of using this equipment as trade-in on purchase of new equipment. The Committee unanimously approved to surplus the equipment. Speed Limits - West Valley Highway Williamson stated an ordinance has been prepared reducing the speed limit on West Valley Highway during construction. Williamson stated he believes the City has authority under State statute to allow and enforce the speed reduction. The Committee unanimously recommended adoption. Vehicle Registration Fee 1 After al brief discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Vehicle Registration Fee. Library Street Closure (1st Avenue) Hansen reviewed the approved traffic patterns for the Library. The contractor would like to proceed with this closure so he can bring his equipment into the site. Dowell asked about parking for those businesses on First and Second. Hansen responded the Library's parking lot is public parking and there are 127 spaces available. In addition there will be parking available in the municipal parking lot across from the new library. It was determined that after completion of the library there will be more parking available than there is now. Hansen reviewed that the closure is just for access from Smith. The Committee unanimously recommended that a public hearing be held on closure of the Smith Street access to First Avenue and that staff proceed with the traffic revision process. Traffic "Bulge" Fraser Road and S. 212th and Crow Road Bypass The Committee asked staff to followup on these requests and to contact the individuals who brought the issues up at Council meeting and to bring this back before the Committee. Left Turn from James Street to'First Church of Nazarene Dowell stated this came up in Public Safety Committee. It was suggested that "No Left Turn" be placed on James Street. Committee asked staff to review the problem and to bring recommendations back before the Committee. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 27, 1990 TO: Public Works Commi tee FROM: Don Wickstrom �M RE: Library - Street Closure (1st Street) In conjunction with the development of the library, closure of 1st Avenue access onto Smith Street is anticipated. In order for staff to proceed with the issuance of the building permit, assurance of the closure is necessary. To institute the closure, a public hearing is necessary along with notifying the affected properties. It is the Public Works Department's recommendation to proceed with - the closure process. V R i Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CDBG INTERLOCAL CORPORATION AGREEMENT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 1991-1993 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Corporation Agreement. It is necessary for the city to enter into the new community development block grant/CDBG Interlocal Corporation Agreement for the years 1991 through 1993. Signing other agreement makes the city eligible to receive federal block grant funds for the years 1991 through 1993. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, CDBG Interlocal Corporation Agreement and the Planning Committee Minutes of August 7, 1990. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee, August 7 , 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS* 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 30 CITY OF )r>\L22jSV Dan Kelleher, Mayor James P. Harris, Planning Director The City of Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years d1T�IIi0RA KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 15, 1990 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: 1991-1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (ICA) Background It is necessary for the City to enter into the new Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) for the years 1991-1993 . The Mayor must sign this agreement in order for the City of Kent to participate as a partner in the King County CDBG Consortium, and be eligible to receive Federal Community Development Block Grant funds for the period 1991-1993 . The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires cities to sign an interlocal agreement as a condition of receiving these federal funds to benefit low- and moderate-income people. A new ICA must be adopted every three years. The current ICA, under which we are operating, expires at the end of this year, and adoption will continue the old ICA for an additional three years. There are no major changes in terms of fund distribution or organization of , the Consortium in the new ICA. The changes are primarily a result of new HUD requirements or minor revisions which have already been endorsed by the Joint Policy Committee and adopted as part of the 1991 CDBG Policy Plan. The changes are primarily in the form of additional language. A copy of the new ICA is attached with the revisions underlined. The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the new ICA at its August 7 meeting and recommended approval of the Agreement as presented. - — 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3390/FAX 8 859-3334 Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members August 15, 1990 Page 2 The City's approval of the new ICA needs to be forwarded to King County before August 24 , 1996. Recommended Action Adoption of the 1991-1993 CDBG ICA as recommended by the City Council Planning Committee and authorization for the Mayor to sign this Agreement and forward it to King County. Attachment a AGREEMENT FOR PLANNING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND EXECUTION OF THE KING COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13LOCK,GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED. THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1990 by and bet- ween King County and the undersigned Incorpor County. 'led municipal Jurisdiction within King WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the federal Housing and Community Developmentgovernment through adoption Act of 974,, as o amended, herieafterreferred to as the Act, will make Community Development Block Grant, hereinafter referred to as CDBG, funds available to the County of King, hereinafter referred to as King County, for expen- diture during the 1991-1993 funding years; and WHEREAS, the area encompassed by the county, exclusive of the cities Of Seattle, Bellevue, and Auburn, has been designated by the U.S. Departme6t of Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to as HUD, as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to the urban county the annual appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county; and WHEREAS, the Act allows Joint participation of units of general government within an urban county, and a distribution of CDBG funds to such governmental units; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of both the Housing Assistance Plan and the Annual Community Development Plan by participating Jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, King County will undertake CDBG funded activities in participating incor- porated Jurisdictions as specified In the Annual Community Development Plan and the Housing Assistance Plan by granting funds to those jurisdictions to carry out such acti- vities, and by undertaking such activities directly as are authorized by amendment to this Agreement; and w WHEREAS, King County as the applicant is responsible to the federal government for all activities undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King County Is required to submit to HUD with the Annual Statement will be met; and WHEREAS Ki ounty and the arlici atin 'urisdictions are committed to targeting CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low and moderate income.12ersons a s defined j;ly HUD; and WHEREAS, King County and Its consortium members reco nize that the needs of low mo eral3 income ersons may cross 'urisdi i I considered regional needs- Fin boundarip5 atia can therefore he WHEREAS, the Housing Assistance Plan and Community Development Plan must be revised annually by King County and participating jurisdictions and submitted to HUD as part of an annual Statement, required to receive CDBG funds; and' WHEREAS, the purpose of this Cooperation Agreement, which is entered into pur- suant to and In accordance with the Stale Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW Chap. 39.34, Is to form an urban county consortium, herein referred to as the Consortium, for planning the distribution and administration of CDBG funds and for execution of activities In accor- dance with and under authority of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED rTHAT: I. GENERAL AGREEMENT King County and each participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance acti- vities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, as specified in the Community Development Plan and Housing Assistance Plan portions of the Statement, 1 7/27/90 funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Federal Fiscal Years 1991, 1992. and 1993 appropriations, from recaptured funds allocated In those years, and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS The distribution within the County, exclusive of the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Auburn, of CDBG Entitlement Funds under Title I of the Act shall be governed by the following provisions: A. The amount needed for administration of the CDBG program, less County charges for overhead, shall be reserved by the County. This amount, hereinafter referred to as the administration setaside, Is contingent upon review by the Joint Policy Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Committee, as provided in VI(B) (1), and approval by the King County Council, as provided in IX(A) and IX(B). B. 01 the grant amount remaining after II(A), hereinafter referred to as the adjusted grant amount, any city which is a participant In this agreement may elect to receive a direct share, hereinafter referred to as a pass-through, given that: 1. this share of the adjusted grant amount is based on the city's share of the Consortium's low and moderate income people, as defined by HUD; and 2, this share equals $25.000 or more. C. The funds remaining in the adjusted grant amount after II(B) shall be referred to as the County and Small Cities fund, and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities not receiving or not electing to receive pass- lhroughs and serving the unincorporated areas (County). D. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the actual cost, or if the project is later reduced or cancelled, then the excess monies, hereinafter referred to as recaptured funds, will he redistributed as follows: 1. Administration setaside funds, as defined in II(A), which are recaptured shall return to the Consortium and be distributed in the same manner as the entitlement amount, described in II(A), II(8), and II(C). 2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through, as defined in II(B), shall return to the city's pass-through fund, unless the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in II(B) (2), in which case the funds return to the County and Small Cities fund. 3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities fund, as defined In II(C), shall return to the County and Small Cities fund. E. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years (e.g., unallocated or recaptured "Population," "Needs," or "Joint" funds) shall return to the Consortium and be distributed in the same manner as the entitlement amount, described in,ll(A), 11(B), and II(G). F. Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from the use of CDBG lunds, hereinafter referred to as program income, shall return to the fund which generated the program income as follows, unless exception is specifically recommended by the Committee and approved by the King County Council: 1. Program income generated through the interim finance ("CD float") loan, which uses all or a portion of the Consortium's total available CDBG funds, shall return to the Consortium and be distributed in the same manner as the entitlement, as described in II(A), II(B), and II(C). after reserving the amount needed to pay for the direct costs (e.g., attorney and bank tees, advertising costs, contract compliance costs), of the negotiation and implementation of the CD float loan project. 2. Program income generated from a project funded through a city's pass- through, as defined in II(B), shall return to the city's pass-through fund, unless the city no longer qualifies for a pass-Through as provided in II(B)(2), in which case the program income returns to the County and Small Cities fund. 3. Program income generated from a project funded through the County and Small Cities fund, as defined in II(C), shall return to the County and Small Cilies fund. 2 7/27/90 4, Program income oenerated from prolects (except for Housing repair) funded in 1987 and prior Years shall return to the Consortium and be distributed in the same manner as the entitlement amount described in II(A). II(B), and II(C). Housing repair program income shall return to the housing repair program. III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS A. The County and each of the pass-through cities shall specify activities and pro- jects which It will undertake with the funds described In II above. B. The County and each of the Pass-through cities shall ensure that scarce CDBG funds are targeted to activities which can document predominant (51%) benefit to low and moderate income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's requirements for the percentage of funds spent to benefit to and.moderate income people In King County. C. Pass-through cities may exchange their CDBG funds with other pass-through cities for general revenue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a pass-through city in this manner shall be consistent with the general Intent of the community development program, but shall not be considered CDBG program Income. D. The County and each of the pass-through cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen participation activities as required by HUD regulations. E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applications (proposals) to King County; approval of activities shall be secured when the annual program is approved or amended. F. General administrative costs incurred by pass-through cities shall be paid for out of the pass-through or from local funds" Costs Incurred In administering specific projects may be included in project costs. IV. PROGRAM INCOME A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the participating jurisdiction. B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth In Section II (F) of the Agreement. C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as may then apply. D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income thereby requiring appropriate recordkeeping and reporting by the participating jurisdiction as may be needed for this pur- pose. E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to King County. V. REAL PROPERTY A. Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds must comply with change of use restrictions as required by HUD and the policies adocted by the Joint Policy Committee as found in the annual Policy Plan. B. The participating jurisdiction must notify King County prior to any modification or 4 change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part 4 using CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement, including disposition. 3 7/27/90 C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County In an' amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or Improved with CDBG funds that Is sold or transferred for a use which does not quality under the CDBG regulations. D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of properly prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the coopera- tion agreement between the county and the participating jurisdiciton shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 11 (F) and Section IV. VI. JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE There shall be established a Joint Policy Committee. A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of the following elected otfl- cials or their designees (who shall be specified in writing by the elected member, and who should, where possible, be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting): The King County Executive; two King County Councilmembers to be selected by the Council every January; and two elected officials of participating pass-through cities and one elected official of a small city participating in the County and Small Cities fund. The cities' officials shall be selected by the Suburban Cities Association every January. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year, if possible, provided that a representative of a city shall be designed as chairperson at least once in every two years. B. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to: 1. Review and recommend to the County Council all policy matters including the amount of the administration setaside. 2. Review, recommend and adopt the Housing Assistance Plan and the Annual Community Development Plan required by HUD. The King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium Policy Plan, herein referred to as the Policy Plan, will be developed annually by the Consortium to meet the HUD requirement for an annual community development plan. The Policy Plan will include Consorflum-wide policies and program guidelines for project propo- sals. 3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating cities, and offer recommendations to the King County Council. VII. DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION STAFF Those King County Planning and Community Development Division Staff which are funded through the administration selaside, hereinafter referred to as the Staff, shall fulfill the following duties: A. Responsibilities to the Committee. The Staff shall: 1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy guidelines, special conditions, and formal requirements related to the pre- paralion of the Housing Assistance Plan and the Annual Community Development Plan, (locally known as the Policy Plan), and related to admi- nistration of the programs under these plans. 2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the King County Council as components of the annual King County Housing Assistance Plan a and Community Development Plan to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to: collection and analysis of data; identification of problems, needs and their locations; development of long and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparation of the administration budget. 3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or recommen- dations, and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties. _. 4 7/27/90 C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current - fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of properly acquired or improved with CDBG funds that Is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the coopera- tion agreement between the county and the participating jurisdiction shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section If (F) and Section IV. VI. JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE There shall be established a Joint Policy Committee. A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of the following elected oifl- cials or their designees (who shall be specified In writing by the elected member, and who should, where possible, be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting): The King County Executive; two King County Councllmembers to be selected by the Council every January; and two elected Officials of participating pass-through cities and one elected official of a small city participating in the County and Small Cities fund. The cities' officials shall be selected by the Suburban Cities Association every January. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year, if possible, provided that a representative of a city shall be designed as chairperson at least once in every two years. B. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to: 1. Review and recommend to the County Council all policy matters Including the amount of the administration selaside. 2. Review, recommend and adopt the Housing Assistance Plan and the Annual Community Development Plan required by HUD. The King County Community Development Block Grant Consortium Policy Plan• herein referred to as the ._• Policy Plan, will be developed annually by the Consortium to meet the HUD requirement for an annual community development plan. The Policy Plan will include Consorlium-wide policies and program guidelines for project propo- sals. 3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating cities, and offer recommendations to the King County Council, VII. DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION STAFF Those King County Planning and Community Development Division Staff which are funded through the administration selaside, hereinafter referred to as the Staff, shall fulfill the following duties: A. Responsibilities to the Committee. The Staff shall: 1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy guidelines, special conditions, and formal requirements related to the-pre- paration of the Housing Assistance Plan and the Annual Community Development Plan, (locally known as the Policy Plan), and related to admi- nistration of the programs under these plans. 2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the King County Council as components of the annual King County Housing Assistance Plan and Community Development Plan to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to: collection and analysis of data; j identification of problems• needs and their locations; development of long and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparation of the administration budget. 3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or recommen- dations, and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties. 4 7/27/90 B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which Are Parties to This Agreement. The Staff shall: 1. Solicit and present all applicable federal and County policy guidelines, special conditions, and formal requirements related to program administration. 2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the King County Council as components of the annual King County Housing Assistance Plan and the Community Development Plan (locally known as the Policy Plan) to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement, Including but not limited to collec- tion and analysis of data; identification of problems, needs and their location; development of long and short term objectives; consideration of alternative strategies; and preparation of the administration budget. 3. Identify supplemental sources of funding to Increase the participating juris- diction's capability to conduct effective community development activities. 4. Prepare and where applicable present project review reports for proposed projects. 5. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council material necessary for the approval of the County and Small Cities portion of the annual program. 6. Present to the King County Council the Consortium's annual program for adoption. 7. Administer the Consortium's CDBG Program, including monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act, Vlll. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF JURISDICTIONS The Jurisdictions, the County and Cities participating in this Agreement, shall have the following responsibilities and powers: A. The County and Cities will develop annually a Consortium-wide Housing Assistance Plan and CDBG Policy Plan. In addition, the pass-through cities and the County will each develop local program policies which will identify com- munity development and housing needs in the pass-through cities and in the balance of the County, respectively, in accordance with the primary objective and requirements of the Act. This Policy Plan, including the local program policies, will meet the HUD requirement for an annual community development plan. B. Each pass-through city shall adopt a local program policy that commits the city to examining its role in recogni inq and addressing reolonal or Consortium-wide needs Through a coordinated funding approach with other jurisdictions and the County and Small Cities fund. C. Each pass-through city shall exercise local discretion In determining the use of its pass-through funds in a manner consistent with the Housing Assistance Plan and the Policy Plan including the pass-through city's local program policies. D. The legislative authority of each pass-through city shall approve or disapprove activities, areas and budgets submitted by its agents for'inclusion in the annual program. Approval shall be given by motion or resolution. E. Each pass-through city shall submit project proposals to the staff for review as to consistency with federal benefit objectives, eligibility requirements, and environmental review requirements prior to the presentation of the proposals to the King County Council for approval with the rest of the Consortium's annual program. t F. The legislative authority of each small city submitting proposals for use of the County and Small Cities funds shall approve such applications by motion or resolution. G. King County shall determine, with the advice of officials from small cities, the use of the County and Small Cities funds in a manner consistent with the Policy Plan Including its local program policies. 5 7/27/90 H. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satisfaction all relevant - requirements of federal laws and regulations which apply to King County as applicant, including assurances and certifications described in part X(D). I. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570501(b) all participating units of local government are subject to the same requirements applicable to subreciplenls including the requirement of a written agreement with the county which complies with 24 CFR 570.503 and Includes provisions pertaining to the following Items: statement of work7 records and reports• program income uniform administrative items; other program requirements conditions for religious organizations' suspension and lerminaliom and reversion of assets. IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers: A. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters, including the Consortium-wide Policy Plan and Housing Assistance Plan, upon review and recommendation by the Committee. B. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allo- cation matters, including the approval of the annual administration setaside and the approval and adoption of the Consortium's annual CDBG program (annual CDBG budget). C. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG program in the following cir- cumstances: 1. The requested change Is to a pass-through city's portion of the adopted annual program, and the change is requested by the legislative body of the pass-through city; or 2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted annual program, and it is limited to a change of project scope or change of project implementor in a specific project, and it is requested by the subrecipient, and the change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the project is located. D. The King County Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program, shall have authority and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is responsible to the federal government. E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control and.disbursements. F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the applicant for CDBG Funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program, including final respon- sibility for selecting activities and annually tiling Final Statements with HUD. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsibilities and obligations. X. GENERAL TERMS A. This agreement shall extend through the 1991. 1992 and 1993 program years, pr. If the federal government should end King County's CDBG entitlement status before that time, through the completion of CDBG activities in the participating city. King County, as the official applicant, shall have the authority and respon- sibility to ensure that any property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance with federal regulations. B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2), during the period o1 qualification (1991-1993) no included unit of general local government may withdraw from nor be removed from the urban county for HUD's grant computation purposes.C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply with the policies and goals of the Housing Assistance Plan. D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure compliance with King County's certification required by Section 104(b) 01 Title I of the Housing and Community Development Action of 1974. as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act 6 7/27/90 of 1968, Sections 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and other applicable laws. E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in or in support of any par- ticipating city that does not affirmatively further fair housing within Its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification. F. If Is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become necessary, and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a written addendum to this Agreement. G. Calculations for determining the number of low and moderate Income persons residing In the County and Cities shall be based on the 1980 Cenus Data, until such time as 1990 Census data becomes available, and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities, towns and communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Managment. H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have signed this Agreement. I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were locally generated. J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, under which King County may require the local Incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data. Information, and assistance for King County's review and assessment In deter- mining whether King County must prepare an Environmental impact Statement. K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility In fulfilling the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility only. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION Tim Hill, King County Executive Signature of Designated Official Name of Designated Official (Print) Official Title City or Town K:agmtbg/cptr 1 t1 7 7/27/90 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE August 7, 1990 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Christi Houser Lauri Anderson Leona Orr Lin Ball Jon Johnson, Chairman Jim Harris Margaret Porter Other City Staff Fred Satterstrom Janet Shull Bill Williamson Alana McIalwain Other Guests Linda Van Nest CDBG INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (L. Ball) Senior Planner Lin Ball explained the underlined revisions and clarified the changes to the agreement, which each member received in their Agenda packet. Discussion occurred and questions were answered. Ms. Ball explained that the CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement outlines the methods of distribution in administration of funds that are received by the county. There are no major changes in terms of fund distribution or organization of the Consortium in the new ICA. Councilwoman Leona Orr made the MOTION to approve the agreement and send it onto full council on August 21, 1990. Council Chairman Jon Johnson SECONDED it. Motion carried. HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. Ball) Senior Planner Lin Ball reported that Council President Judy Woods, who is the City's Roundtable representative, wants to take a few minutes of each Planning Committee meeting to keep the Planning Committee updated. Ms. Ball passed out and presented information about the Family Violence Project that the Roundtable is working on right now. Family Violence and family support was one the five high priority items that were addressed in the Roundtable action agenda. It is one of the major programs for the 1990 Work Program of the Roundtable along with housing. Ms. Ball also passed out an information sheet entitled, "The Challenge: Building an Effective Response to Family Violence" . This project is trying to build a regional system for addressing the family violence issue. This is an exciting project because it is the first time in building a system to bring together all the people involved; i.e. social services providers that serve the victims, the courts, law enforcement, and the medical staff. The goal of the project is to build a system that would link all people involved so the victim would have access all the way through the process. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1990 Senior Planner Ball stated that the Roundtable is going to be looking at all of this in September and eventually this will be coming to the City. On Friday, August 3 , 1990, the County Council voted to put a Law, Safety and Justice measure on the ballot in September and as part of that, they made a Domestic Violence System part of that package. If this is passed by the voters, there will be a percentage of it going to help establish some legal advocates and community advocates throughout the County. The City will be receiving some money in the amount of one-tenth of a percent that goes individually to the City. There will have to be a plan as to how this money will be spent. Ms. Ball stated part of this money could be used to help fund this Domestic Violence System that they are trying to establish. The County has agreed to put some of their money into this and also some local jurisdictions. At the last Roundtable meeting, the providers presented their package for the Human Services part of the housing levy. They presented a package that was $72 , 000, 000 to be added onto the $112, 000, 000 housing levy. This was overwhelming for the Roundtable, and they felt there would be no way they could support this even though they saw a need. The Roundtable is looking at more of a $25-35 million dollar services package that would be part of the housing. This would be for housing related services. The $112, 000, 000 housing package with the housing related service component, is being proposec as part of the County Housing Finance Master Plan. This will be going back- to the Regional Work Group. The Regional Work Group will be forwarding it onto the County Executive in the near future. It is possible this will be the end of August or some time in September. In the meantime, the Roundtable Staff has directed the project Staff of the Roundtable to come up with a work program for a Human Services Levy, separately from a Housing Levy. Essentially now, we could be looking at potentially two issues and two separate levies. HISTORIC PRESERVATION WORK PROGRAM (L. Anderson) Senior Planner Lauri Anderson presented the components that the Planning Department is proposing for inclusion in this Historic Preservation Work Program. Essentially, she spoke about two different elements. The first would be an Historic Preservation Ordinance. Along with that Ordinance, there would come all kinds of decisions. Lauri stated what we are proposing is that a Citizens Advisory Committee be set up to work with Staff to develop some policy recommendations for that Ordinance. We would be talking about things like: whether the City of Kent wants to participate with King County through an interlocal process with them; or Historic Preservation; whether the City is interested in setting up its own historic board; maybe some consideration of criteria that we as a City would use in determining a historic preservation value for a piece of property, etc. No decisions have been made. There are a number of issues that need to be 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF AUGUST 7 , 1990 are proposing to do that by way of a Citizens Advisory They y at local ordinance policies. Committee working with Staff looking g are proposing is to look at our The second part of the Work Program that they City Of relationship with the White River ValLey hatsthel same S Citizens n Committee be Auburn. What they are recommending with the City and the museum and used in evaluating our relationship then entering into an interlocal with those associated Historical Society, to our participation. This could some predictability two entities to bring how we are going to relate to the Historic of this is l finalize, once and for all, um. The timing as she mentioned earlier, the Historical Society in Society in the City of Aubur really critical because, n relative to the muse to re paring to enter into a contract relativeeriodt e the City of Auburn is p p planning committee which, over a p an interior p management of the museum, funding, etc. museum setting up process about 18 months, will look at future encouraged participate in the p The City of Auburn all along has encouraged us to when we are ready and thought maybe looking into an interlocal would be the which is scheduled to run appropriate way to do that. The Work Program, would be with the Citizens through the fall until the beginning of October, Advisory Committee to develop policy recommendations to be incorporated intonto an an ordinance and to develop interlocal recommendations to be p in Manager Fred om explained no action was in the museum to formalize that interlocal agreement with the City of Auburnburn in relationship. Plann g needed at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 4: 45 P.M. 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN DESIGN FOR LAKE FENWICK PHASE III 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to approve the Master Plan Design for Lake Fenwick Phase III, a.5 I Pfo\1ed 0 � 3 . EXHIBITS: Master Plan Design 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee, Parks Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3P 0 o • 00 N O N �W N O J y N Q Q �SR U � � Y � � T Co 0 ¢ gt �tr� 4 m CE /ya . .. ' Ilk + t k ! H tr � s � J i Q ax a in LLJ ro 87 L Z O d � O �0 m Y Y o N $ �G cc Y � Y Connion —� CnwncR Ver-(Pail r � r ,� a �i� G-�isi'ing parirsng �h - a • J a []4 Lao ' PdXlluiG� p 4 I i t \1tz 1-- (.lake -Veruu icv- p -vail M neCClon is \���\ \\\ \ �� , park propwjfi a farK c.UA16r floariiv►9 pier � � � ,�\��,,, �� \\ \\ \ Q 4 Q � I o III�IIII III o I I I Q I`I III l II I I I 0 O I III II III p O `'ll 'll Ill( dQnDaO \ Ili I I III (ill I IIIiI I1 . lilil 'I II t lk\0\ lake. fen^^w�' k,' I ,lill`I�i k pr I I I ill I ll li lli lilt LAlilt I III�C-, III Ian\\'II��II [\'\���)//���Y(�/(/ II�7I� ��/(\�'\�'' �/V�/(\T Ili a I� 1J �.J 11 V L! \J L! U II II1�\ � SCALE: TRAIL ACQUISITION SITE 0 46 60 100 .•,,, � City of Kent Colie Hough Associates Parks & Recreation L.ndm,.A .a , Kent, Washington seaffl.Wwt*is�gSI21'(z66)66z-aos1 `c { iv m cny O d o Po. C,& �11�I C� n CD 0w • �d1 � piJnnun �� • �p� y4 � D SH `' D 1 1 m �-- �r > T - T- vr$ n o n o N�D CD o m En W 0 $ o (� Kent City Council Meeting �( Date August 2 I_x 1990 Category CO sent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN -DESIGN FOR EAST HILL PARK 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to approve the Master Plan Design for East Hill Park' as appfojed 6,1 } fie (,/)avi-S 3 . EXHIBITS: Master Plan Design 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee Parks Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Q N -ITT n P I My 0 1 oQ a - 0 om o N El & CD .� ( O90 j s �j _. CD ¢ CD 0 i • III III I I ( I - - N u ♦y i J �� i. ik s ' I. 1 I q \•� � �, �_' I I I I I I I I I I I I � A •�F I f � I � � � I �� �n �l_� _�-l� �__ ____ N \ ��__ -- ! � N rn e raI{ • 1 1 n ------------------------! x V M �. IYI+P.rGL 59 , :IN4.t �hMILY PtSIOL f1AL 5 Nb�E 6AMILT RES,OENfIAL - �\ _ I � I , I I ' LANK OPEN -\ WEfLAH - — lt WF'rl A&6 ARCh \ rNrl.e I "ziS UNIfEP ryLTNOOISf srisen I J f.NUFGM `. _ I r PLANfINFr, OUPPEP , ` Ex6TIHG GHUR(.N PRRIHG I PLAr�SntIH4 BEPM h � �L Loves r.I q�r.I ,',—...� � 1 $I P 5'auCTur+t FOP I I sAPwE.m PPeE rI.AT I — I — 5w.(' BENUeEs 1 i fPASO FXIV VrALLt(1YP.) SEKFIMfi DEit'1 a'WN OPEN PICH LE IL 'FABLES (tYR) LAWN= ° C 4 \�1 jU( OPEN'PMY... Q PARK ENTRANCE ' ..pPIHPIHb. `;fOUHfhIH . a. WhTCR i LfILIfIES I JfENHIS GOUPT ! P'ICH. SNGLTER W/ , I W/P&NGC PI. V AMP UFILIfIES ` I EVER'GREEN T I 1 VE& NO suppeR \ PAPa EMrMA O- I 1 e \ fEHCa(Lau 4+SWE FOP SAFETY I tW"WLP PAMI i RESIDENTIAL — I.tRµIH&-(7)SfAL1-5 PLUS _ -all wdaDluv STkw U) - � - - r r � _ 18,RI(il+f or WAY / r � S,E. 298m ST. SINGLE [ MULTIPAHLY iOU� SIN(. ':W n n p On"OO© City of Kent IPAPA /� �p� Parks & Recreation K Kent, Washington .HJLY 1990 A5P++AVt SWHGL65 izESTFmriS 0 in 6"XL" POST 9" �EIMP. CAMC. Ii Sf-CrION = N cr— _______ __________ I I R )S >< 1 I I I I ro I I I I I I I I I o I I 5IDaAGE I m I I I I I I I I I I I � I I P I I {.XJHEN I I � I Ft,oO?- Plit7N SGA": 'A"-I' 000 Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN DESIGN FOR RIVERVIEW PARK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to approve the Master Plan Design for Riverview Park) 05' Gtppr>v'?d LiLl f4le 1"Ct� ICS �V Vvi oA i f a a e-e 3 . EXHIBITS: Master Plan Design 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee, Parks Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISgWPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3R r�A � Foo-b (ouutcrnrl �.EJ7 BOAr p;y ro`k NnAy�r�w� m .U,- uulFI CFI 0 25 50 100 a: R - oNf,OAT vrHi6ULO I1 accE� SCALE 1'-50'-0' D m � m moo da��Fs . ,"OFF g po p : r �,.�� tMiL p o \\ !yc 1t lr k*O t ' ➢ �[ 4 tceuh ♦ rFtAl1 e� L7 � �j�,SiJ14 r s K tk�1L1 T_o1T1KpeAP5ff1 �,�B TP'N L- .. (•J I XlTfP) x tPr Ep c`°i X ' P.FSr m r r R<w ro capiki 4 ; �; k � � ♦ X rru��rn + a[ *f Z Y00 Qp OY ` ,• ' 1� Yo #r XY Vxro'e4 Dz EF 1+ rFlAIL Q I O O < 20 F�dTURn� , mr- eP�e Yt r f QQO p00 m 9 �� o0O Q °o D r+#xkxx xxxx ,� p �ew�NcnP) xkxY�'k ll �kK#� llxxxh 1y !tf FI-Dfl lEn T u TRd� rnuuEaaJ City of Kent Parks & Recreation Colie Hough Associates Lands peArcMeck"&Plenning Kent, Washington t000Leraraso-ee�.s""e 1( Saettle,Wash@rwl. ufte5 (206)682-3051 JULY 1990 ........... �J Kent City Council Meeting C\ Date August 21, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT SIX YEAR C.I.P. PLAN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to adopt Resolution No. fad S , approving the Parks Department's Six Year C.I.P. Planj 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, Letter from I.A.C. , Information/Instruction Sheet, Capital Improvement Plan 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee, Parks Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3S a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the Parks Outdoor Recreation Six-Year Capital Improvement Program: 1990-1996. WHEREAS, funding for the implementation of the outdoor recreation capital improvement projects is limited; and WHEREAS, it is important to coordinate and prioritize the funding of projects in those.plans; and WHERE,,S, a Outdoor Recreation Six-Year comprehensive Capital Improvement Program is the best vehicle for accomplishing such a coordinated planning process; and WHEREAS, the City Staff has developed a draft Outdoor Recreation Six-Year Capital Improvement Program for the years 1990 through 1996; and WHEREAS, a great deal of public input has been sought and obtained through surveys and public meetings regarding priorities and funding sources; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 1990 - 1996 Outdoor Recreation Six-Year Capital Improvement Program attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1990. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR R ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 08780-310 2 - ' Rey StATg a� ROBERT L. WILDER ox t x OY � `Ifectof t M STATE OF WASHINGTON INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION 4800 Capitol Blvd., KP-71 • Tumwater, Washington 98504-5671 • (206) 753-7140 • (SCAN) 234-7140 July 19, 1990 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Local Agency Project Sponsors FROM: Lori Flemm, IAC SUBJ: Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plans We have received your grant applications. Now is the time to check your comprehensive park and recreation plan to make sure that your projects are reflected in your priorities and action plan. Your projects should also appear on your CIP. Attached is a copy of "How the Comprehensive Plan is Used to Score Question A-4." You should review this against your comprehensive plan. If you have any questions , please call me at (206) 753-7140 or SCAN 234-7140. If you make any changes to your plan or CIP, please send them to me by August 31 . A CIP form is attached if you need it . LMF: ah Attachments G' C? m 0 O` G 9 A 5 S �v .wi �� p 0 v`-' v 3 <Co n N 3 y O "fl cc ^ o rn 0 � C art" w ro w ] o ro > 3 C� o'y co .. < c C) y 3 w ] w � 3 n0 ^ 0 w oy b Wc. n°=.0 °; D ry a s O 0 'O ZS ^'d —. t I ^ P1 .-. G W H n O� "•N cD rr O G r -w, N ^^ N G w-, y N 0�,(] I ., W w Q 'L1 CD ."..N O N H N "C7 a o. a H ^ w ] CO •ti Co o G 3 0 0 `r •- C •0 0.9 `�< ... co G 0. w e ^ ^ •O ] co 0 0 a w < y. n rn .. •� C 0 •+�N G c a 0 •N Co 7 R .. Q ^ ^ 7 C� 0 G ^ w o-'o O 0 ^ 4 ^ O nw w o o N o S F 7 COG a p o c co cOo N. ?,o o c c^o Co a G cGi 3 cv �,co G �.w y r wi w � c a 0 C. ° m y� 3 ( o. ny o a ] .N N .+ 0 0 w O ] 0• co 0 '0 f9 . O a co 0 G y^. 3 p G N y N ] Co^ n N' y N N ? N N lz�ft ^ �9' N' n 03 N OyC. S O• Q 0 .0 co 7 G.— Oo w v p ON ^ N w .< 'J 0. n cV^ ] 0.. a G so 0 � ^ ] Co w ] a +n p m v Co w o n � w ^ CO ^..N» P Co pa CD :: o'] ccoo0 3 ] 00 � 'dnw .,. N tT1 Co. T .w+ co .N. a N O ro 9 ^.so co CL 3 0 a Oo , ap w w Np =o 0.c<e o' w 3 0 °.rn ' w a 3 0 CD fO w a c C �• w p.'" 'O = d O W .., 1CD N-0 w ZL C � `� . a C 0.0]O 0 o o to D , I l o o zo o M-0 -.I.0, 3.ao y 0 .^ a a000N Oo0 ?' aOO a. 3. _ f 0 CD o <^ w 3 0 0 o, , :^ wo 70CD � c]opo -G, w aV'. < OQ RKoc Co '0' ti to to Na N10 Gp= ccoo •^ '�^ Gf• ]•O'a CO 03o �• T .. A 3 a a o y N a cD p ^, 0, .Co 't 00o M/�N'. A m C) Co a a � o ^ env a ^�w 0 ° ] o 5 I coC7no A. b r ' aO N w a CD wyw 0 G G w ,- o tz1 a0 w � a � 0 N CO 0 coo 'O "`30 ] H R p a y 0. ] ?a CD 3P. co w O co G w 0 ...w 0 p 0 0 ^ a+ .x» 0 ^ CO 0.� w 0 0 Oo ] a �' O < w ] w-N O ] ^ w N cr .. ororow aroma ^ ] �, . cp a< •< < G '�• ^_ •;: ' K O -wi QO ".O N ? G ^ c3r0. f-, S co� ^ Co a •< a H Q O G .' co 'O y n .. rna H �, 7? 5c Gydc]o ;< a wroco ^ CD .� w N cD " . N � f�3 3 -�cnv�v�0 �oro00Zo Oo �a o o w 0) o � o oo...0 a o .. 3 w w f.k.E'CD ,w< � ' °D °,° � 3 3 3 <N-. s CD w C� C9 ^ = B33a ^ ] c•o a'3N339.� ].:: 3a �. o �nc(D � (�3 30 w C t7 00 c.0 ° =° °eG� 0) M.°]° �?'.d .r3N» 3 a 'O O. n OOO OO OO `< 'P' n ]'<,^„ via ] ^ :. .�30 ~ o . 0CD `ec 'oe <0o0000 �e `e03 ^ N0 , ., WT13 1 0 0 � ow 'r1 0 .. toy � co ^ O 0 OGcOaZ rn � mcv'D — aoo :c<D �. o oil 0) 'tl ° x 0 co O 3• " D 'd ti 0 � y A "3 co a � 0 co p o c N d -, a .3 G 0 go M w w � VpoCAA ) CA 0 tz Id< p D o xnaw 0 ro Ill n N r O•.... ^N N O - I N� NI \ D' n o w d o0 Ehn• N 0. r* . WCD >1 �D N M (D r- rt 0 C) wOano m0 00 a' N � :� p 7 PO r9 n n D ti a m ro CJ Y tj y u.� rt W 7y o Y K r ro ro O z -3 m n w £ r3 1--3 to H ro ro "o ro < n w cn A � =swro to ro rox 0 o. b co co M r-j0 cd co r(yi O N O fo O rD O O w V a- o O O 0. ,•. Q o a °a m t-- ;o o n o *a '47y7 � ^ ° � a 0 0 '0 x ] 0 o ro a m O r O w (n 0 N O 9 £ o a n 0 ty 3 O W. N fn � O :3 rt �r. a c�D ~ z N W 'O m 0 r, (-r3 n r1 0 'o n rt 0 W n 0 0 rn O r• y N 0 7 W �- 0 a CD ti O � d O a y n y^ CD . O O O 0 o I I I O O to O 0 a a co ONco co mO co d F4 o o m o o O N coo N m 0 .. N a rt w m r H n I ro x a o c m r, m ❑ CD 3 ❑ q E w o m m w 84 9 < Enr• O 7co N N J rt rj T• T., £ 0. r• O� ro O Or 7r O H o y O I a N �W x r O O 0 G03 a Li n N a ro 't1 .y ,Oruro roan tocn � ro co ab co m M w.� yy 4A nr N .oN .jn ( d 7 y O O O 00 O B m9 o m 0 'TJ O O O cois .Cr-. 'JO O O O 00 O. Co o. w :. 0 o p. a a N U Li OD � O Q. 0 Sw r < 7 FFF111 O O Ln co O O O ' O N N to Co £ O 0 N ra r+ O O ^� O 0 U _ —to. to Co rMn Cu n0 ti 7 Vs N tom adC7 O m 0 0 O a O D d tin D Y �#N rorr•• rXC� co Cl.oC�~^0o "n co .co \n O � ova tl (D rt O C O O n 10 7 5' (o H rn p 0) C (n O O N D (D (D O n Eg v 0 l En rt << Cy7CNON Z CD H. O C) 'a7 C m '-' r-' C Z Cn O � _< m C O n 0 Ln O ~ N � [D y rt CL m ° w la ti proi N b r n H X w' 00 O a 7z, ? C b r' r' S O C y < N w C C C '"Z C C" C C 7 •-� CD q A 9 A ^ b r� v a c7 r a "o � ^ a � r ro n Kfbyrorown ro n Cn 7y < co 0C � M O O V O CD n b O °� fo ,C^, 0 O coy. o as a H w o a #vo q0 In J r �O en `< .I .a�y+ 00 O O r w ON w E O �' O 0. n -, O O ti Ln r O O O O O H O C a w v+ (V o Z .� In 0 r•. M n Ln O o �. O O o � ' w O o o o o o U O O law # N y O (9 O O O a Un .- U O O O O bC)aa ._.C.0o 0 CO tJ r L-nr r O•v co n n 00 o 7� L vn Nd ? H -o O � �t r�d ro c� c7 R c� o M rn x c� ° o .. D. ow K n G O n H. O m m w w m H Oo _ O .Ly H. [T r r• O 1-� < N n w N m R Cl) y U� O w G R M < G M m R �' R H � 0 N G W. N. r co 1 N7 C70 O M0 O x r' x O wm MG f,M m O 00 0 0 'O H. R W O "o R N O R^ (D G 70 m H 7d r't m r m < w r N w ro N G M O N N 00 'O m 00 M m R N O < (V 0 m B .'� H H n < w m R m H. wH T. 9 O w C) 7C ro a ❑ p n G ^ ° H. m w R R r• w r. 7 H H• G 0 H p� 7 OO r• O• O T O S' %o a w R O I-e R o N. O r I `� O C 0 G G R O �• a C C C C C C C n a O n O (D C) co w m 0 a v c7 t� o a v o tJ a c7 w 9 Y• '� � r o cv,° O 09 C9 w 0) a z ZO O H w �... O � co OWN n� b w O 0 'v N Cop'w ^, o.O r F., fA � 17 Ln � � a r o o x 0' 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 rn c co O O O O O LAN ^ E O O O O p O 0 n x 0 0 o O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o H Iz OCy C 0 w �C 7yM 0 0 b O coaw O O p 00 v+ to r � \ocv aC7G 0 0 JO w co 9k N» O O O 0 0 ° 0 I I I 0 0 -o �aa D °y ] R 00 ccoo r} N o oo c cco 0 ��y` � •9 Nd n N co �k (D m G M !D ^� O O w O rt M rt r rt N W N 'T1 (N O C w v O ^� 9 w a r• a R a w r N a Z R y � o co to o 'IV CD E < 9 p O N rr N H a O Q R a C ro a m " n . m co 0 cu C cn x O a O U) o a. rt ro Nj 7a C C C .Wi O. o30 'A R c0 n n a., H b co rt w py r. a Oca w t" ., n co o c co = R ro `` m O co rn -ia C � a p c`o o O y P. C o n ro ;; C �pQ R n a n O x o r7 co ro m Ch w r r m w O n�i ' 9 0 o a x O 'd H. N O rr O CDN O O N n 'o n rr 9 r M H rt M 'd b 0 0 a o R In O CD CL O A W it w rN N O 0 O � O LA I I I City Council Meeting Date Auaust 21. 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REPEAL OF ORDINANCE127,776:,,and 2777. 2 . SUMM_MY STATEMENT: Adoptio of Ordinances -� repealing Ordinances 2776 and 27774 Ordnance 2776 and O dinance 2777 were passed in May of 1988 approving a rezone and mobile home park combining district for smW§a6k property. 1,14The property has not been developed pursuant to the mobile home park combining district approval and such approval has now lapsed. These ordinances are no longer effective and repeal is necessary to remove these ordinances from appearing of record on the title of the subject property. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance repealing ordinance no. 2776 and 2777 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3T ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, repealing Ordinance 2776 and Ordinance 2777, affecting a 14 acre site within the City of Kent which is bounded by the north side of South 262nd, the east side of SR-167, the south side of the Green River and the west side of the Puget Sound Power and Light Co. right-of-way. WHEREAS, Ordinance #2776 and ordinance 2777 were previously enacted on May 3, 1988 and pertain to the subject property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 2776 had rezoned the subject property from M2, Limited Industrial to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily residential, in order to allow development for the property pursuant to mobile home park combining district; and WHEREAS, Ordinance #2777 had approved a mobile home park combining district with conditions; and WHEREAS, the property has not been developed pursuant to the mobile home park combining district approval, and such approval has now lapsed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. Ordinance #2776 is repealed. i Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance 2777 is repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BILL H. WILLIAMSON, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1990. APPROVED the day of 1990. PUBLISHED the day of 1990. I hereby certify that this is a , rue copy of Ordinance, No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8750-310 2 - 'J EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 4 AND 16, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF TIIE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY 140. 5 AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORnrn UNDER RECORDING NO. 5950410. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE MOSES KIRKLAND DONATION LAND CLAIM IN TOWNSSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , 1P1 KING C'UUNTY, WAS-1IINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DONATION CLAIM; A14D RUNNING IIE•NCE NORTH 89'21' 15" EAST 2270.70 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF TATE AID ROAD 140. 69; THENCE, AT.ONG SAID ROAD LINE SOUTH 5303'00" WEST 554 .40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69'07 '50" EAST 1182 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCP, NORTIT 6'15' 10" WEST 549.59 FEET TO THE NORTH LIVE OY' SAID DONATION CLAIM: .- THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID NORTH LI14C TO TIIE WEST LINE OF THE STRIP OF LAND DEEDED TO THE PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1930, BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2644020: THENCE ALIONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 6-18110" EAST TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE SA10 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 89'07'50" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 89.01.'S6" WEST TO THE TRUr POINT OF BEGINNING) EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FRET IN WIDTH THEREOF, HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO KI140 COUNTY FOR ROAD PURP09L•3 DY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING 110. 2633060; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WEST OF THE EAST LINE. OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5, AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5958419. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ----------- ------------ -- - ---------- -------- ------------------- - Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21, 1990 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AIR CONDITIONING - INFORMATION SERVICES 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to expend funds from the Public Office building renovation fund to install supplemental air conditioning in the Information Services area and also in Word Processing, as approved by the Operations Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Customer Services Manager. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $5.820 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1990 Public Office Building Budget 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3U MEMO N DATE: August 14 , 1990 TO: Operations Committee FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Customer Services Manag SUBJECT: Information Services AirConditioning When we get days where the temperature exceeds 75 degrees the area that house Information Services Staff is unable to get adequate air flow and cooling. The problem is created by placing five to six staff in an area originally designed to house a couple of off- ices parttime and the additional heat that is generated by all of their computer equipment. Additionally that area is on the same system the Council Chambers and Courtroom are and only has two vents for the entire area. The Word Processing area is also having a problem related to all of the windows and their southern exposure as well as the word processing and computer equipment. We are pushing all of the air into this area that we can without taking from another area. I am proposing that we install a supplemental airconditioner in the Information Services area with a condensing unit located on the patio south of the sitting area and that we add a small window air- conditioning unit in the Word Processing area to supplement the exist- ing air flow from the main system. The cost for these items will be $ 5, 320. 00 for the Information Services Area and approximately $500. 00 for the Word Processing Area. The cost of Word Processing is for the materials to frame up the existing doorway by our building maintenance staff. The air- conditioner is an existing one at from the City Shops that was re- placed by a larger unit. This will not have a budgetary impact as we will use funding in the building renovation account. HVAC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/INFORMATION SERVICES AIRCONDITIONING Customer Services Manager Lindsey requested authorization for the Mayor to extend the current 0.00 maintenance contract for one additional year excluding filter maintenance which will be done internally. Information Services airconditioning needs were also explained. A proposal to install a supplemental airconditioner in the Information Services computer room with a condensing unit and a window airconditioning unit for the Word Processing area was presented. The cost for the main unit would be $5,320. The smaller unit is a surplus one from the shops which would require $500 for installation. These request were moved to Council with a vote of 2-0. CASHIERING POSITION FOR PERMIT CENTER Assistant City Administrator Hansen explained the need for the cashiering position at the new permit center. This position would meet and greet the public, provide general information and allow payment of permits in one spot. Fire Chief Angelo added that this position would provide an answer to a common complaint of citizens having to go to too many departments for a relatively simple transaction. If this position is not filled until 1991, this perception will persist. The original concept of the permit center was centralization and approving this request would support that concept. The Committee moved to support this request to Council with a vote of 2-0. After discussion of where it should be presented on the Council Agenda, it was moved to Other Business. KHERSON PARK FUEL TANK REMOVAL Fire Chief Angelo reported to the Committee the current situation at the Kherson Park. The fuel tank on the property has presented questions as to responsibility between the property owner, the building connected to the tank, and previous property owners. It was recommended that the City obtain permission from the involved parties to remove the tank, test the soil, properly dispose of the tank and restore the park with City funds. The estimated cost of$7,000 was set forth to cover any possible contingencies with the actual expected cost of$2,500. The Code Enforcement fund would cover this amount. Fire Chief Angelo believes this action would project a positive image for the park as well as forestall any possible liability in the future. The Operations Committee recommended this to Council with a vote of 2-0. SALARY SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION Personnel Director Olson presented the findings of salary survey conducted by the City of Kent in conjunction with Bill Ewing and Associates. Although the results showed that most salary ranges are competitive, there are areas that are not at the median range. This creates a problem in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. He reviewed the three options for implementing the salary survey as outlined in the agenda. It was also noted that the survey addressed only public sector employees and in all probability the private sector would be higher. A few positions were paid over the median of the salary survey. Kent City Council Meeting ►�) \ Date August 21. 1990 �J Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor to send letter support to King County for development of common planning and coordination process for the vehicle registration fee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee Minutes and copy of letter from King County 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3V Public Works Committee August 7 , 1990 Page 4 that could possibly be used. White asked staff' s suggestion to solve the problem. Nizlek stated he felt it would take this measure plus added enforcement as you will continue to get those who will scoff the laws. The Committee concluded they would like staff to proceed with implementing the temporary measures this year and to request the funding from IBC. White asked Dowell and Orr to take the request for increased enforcement to the Public Safety Committee. Nizlek alluded to the need for an established procedure and criteria for the placement of these types of barricades. White agreed and suggested that we proceed with this location and staff can then prepare a procedure to bring before the Committee and Council for approval. Authorization to Surplus Equipment Heydon referred to the material that was included in the Committee' s packet which supported Equipment Rental ' s policy of replacing these pieces of equipment with approximately 41500 hours. Heydon stated we also have the option of using this equipment as trade-in on purchase of new equipment. The Committee unanimously approved to surplus the equipment. Speed Limits - West Valley Highway Williamson stated an ordinance has been prepared reducing the speed limit on West Valley Highway during construction. Williamson stated he believes the City has authority under State statute to allow and enforce the speed reduction. The Committee unanimously recommended adoption. Vehicle Registration Fee After a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Vehicle Registration Fee. Library Street Closure (1st Avenue) Hansen reviewed the approved traffic patterns for the Library. The contractor would like to proceed with this closure so he can bring his equipment into the site. Dowell asked about parking for those businesses on First and Second. Hansen responded the Library's parking lot is public parking and there are 127 spaces available. In addition there will be parking available in the municipal parking lot across from the new library. It was determined that after completion of the library there will be more parking available than there is now. Hansen reviewed that the closure is DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 27, 1990 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom OW RE: Vehicle Registration Fee Implementation Attached is a copy of a letter regarding the County' s intent on implementing the vehicle registration fee (VRF) . In addition to the resolution we sent them, the County has asked that we send them a letter stating the City' s support of the development of a common process for implementing the Transportation Planning and Coordination requirements in ESSB 6358 and also, information on how we might use the funds. It is recommended that we do so. King County Council R E C E IV E D Lois North,Chair Calvin P.Hoggard,Program Stall Director ,1 U L 2 6199U 402 Kfng County Courthouse Seattle,washington 98104 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (206)296-1000 CITY OF KENT AUG 0 1 1990 ENGINEERING DEPT. July 25, 1990 The Honorable Dan Kelleher Mayor, City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Re nest for Support. of Vehicle Registration Fee Im lementation Dear May er: On July 16, 1990, the King County Council passed the enclosed motion which states the Council 's intent to consider implementing the new, local option vehicle registration fee (VRF) as soon as possible. The motion also requests that (1) cities over 82000 population pass resolutions which request that King County establish the VRF and express support for developing a common process .for implementing the transportation planning and coordination requirements in. ESSB, 6358, and (2) these cities, provide ,. ;: -: information on how they might use its share of VRF funds in 1991 and '1992: Once the County has received VRF resolutions and expenditure information from each of the twelve cities over 8,000 population, the Council will consider an implementing ordinance. Your city council has passed a resolution supporting implementation of the VRF. Your city's early support of the VRF is appreciated. It only remains that we receive a letter stating your city's support for the develgpment of a common planning tand the VRF coordination process and information on how your city plans revenues in 1991 and 1992. I would like to point out that the expenditure information will be used to demonstrate, to the public the proposed uses of . these funds. King County recognizes that each city has its own budget adoption process which will result in final expenditure determinations. There is a six month lag between the time that the VRF is enacted by ordinance,_and-the..time -that revenue. collection begins.. .. Therefore, it „is cimportant,;that the' requested letter be sent to me as soon as possible. ; c... District 2 Brien Derdowski District 3 w Audrey District t Cynthia Sullivan District 5 Bruce Laing District 6 Lois Northrth District 4 Ron Sims District 9 Paul Barden Distract Greg Nickels District B Kent Pullen Y'-' Printed on Rtoycled Pape - The Honorable Dan Kelleher July 25, 1990 Page 2 Your public works director has been alerted to the need for both the resolution and expenditure information by King County Public Works Director Paul Tanaka. If your or your public works director need further information, please do not hesitate to contact County Road Engineer Louis J. Haff at 296-6590. Sincerely, le li/ Lois North, Chair King County Council LN/DG/am Enclosure cc: Ed Chow, City Manager Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works TT : Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer John Bodoia, Manager,. Transportation Financing Strategies Unit Donna Gordon, Program Analyst i . 4 July 16, 1990 Introduced by: Lois North CS:ssj\90-566.ssj Proposed No. : 90-566 7979 1 MOTION NO. 2 A MOTION expressing King County's intent to 3 establish the local option vehicle license 4 fee as soon as possible, requesting 5 resolutions -of support from cities over 6 8,Ooo population for implementing the fee, 7 and directing the executive to prepare a 8 plan of expenditures for the county's share 9 of the fee revenues as part of the 1991 10 budget process. 11 WHEREAS, the county council through motion 7102 and 7211 12 established a multijurisdictional process to identify 13 transportation needs in the King County region through the year 14 2000, to develop a forecast of revenues to meet those needs, to 15 determine the shortfall between the identified needs and 16 forecasted revenues, and to develop new transportation funding 17 sources to address the transportation revenue shortfall, and 18 WHEREAS, a transportation revenue shortfall of $1.502 19 billion (1990 dollars) was identified for King County and the 20 cities within the boundaries of King County between the years 21 1988 and 2000, and 22 WHEREAS, the local option vehicle license fee is a regional 23 revenue source which will benefit the county and each of the 24 cities within the boundaries of the county as shown in .25 Attachment A, and the county recognizes that some cities have 26 urgent need for new transportation revenues in addition to 27 revenues provided by the increase in the statewide motor 28 vehicle and special fuel tax authorized by the 1990 Legislative 29 Session, •and 30 WHEREAS, at a meeting held of May 16, 1990 to which the 31 county invited representatives of all the cities within the 32 boundaries of the county and of private sector and other public 33. agencies which have worked to secure the Legislature's approval 34 of new transportation revenues to express their views on how, 35 the new. local option transportation revenues should be 36 implemented, and 90-566.ss) 7' 979 1 -WHEREAS, the prevailing view expressed at that meeting was I 2 that the county should implement the vehicle registration fee 3 as soon as possible (Attachment B) , and 4 WHEREAS, Chapter 42, Session Laws of 1990, Section 212, 5 requires that if the local option vehicle license fee is 6 implemented that there be coordination of local and regional 7 plans and transportation programs funded with this local option 8 revenue source; 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: 10 A. It is the County Council's intent to consider adoption 11 of an ordinance establishing the vehicle registration fee as 12 soon as possible. 13 B. Before the County .Council further considers an 14 ordinance establishing the local option vehicle license fee, 15 the cities within King County having a population of 8,000 or 16 more which have not already done so are requested to pass 17 resolutions which: 18 1. State the extent of the city's need for additional 19 general transportation revenues and list projects for which the 20 vehicle registration fee revenues .may be used in 1991 and 1992, 21 and 22 2. Requests that the county enact the local option vehicle 23 license fee at the earliest possible date, and 24 3. Declares the city's intent to participate in 25 negotiations to develop a common process to carry out the 26 provisions of Chapter 42, Session Laws of 1990, Section 212, as 27 described in Attachment C. 28 C. In order to ensure that the process developed to meet 29 the provisions of Chapter 42, Session Laws of 1990, Section 30 212, is consistent with the' outcome of the reorganization of 31 the Puget Sound Council of Governments and the King Subregional 32 Council (KSRC) , the KSRC Transition Team which includes King 33 County, the City of Seattle and the suburban cities should 90.566.ssW 2 . 7979 r . • 1 designate a group of elected officials to work with a 2 multijurisdictional staff group as a part of Xing County 3 Transportation Financing Strategies Project in the development 4 of a common process as described in Attachment C. q 5 PASSED this �� day of 1990 RIN COUNTY COUNCIL 6 6 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 9 Ch—ai"ra� ff 10 ATTEST: 11 ism_ 12 A��kZof the Council 90-566.is) 3 ATTACHMENT A VEHICLE REG/STRATIDN FEE REVENUE ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION Estimzted Distribution 199D-2000 1991 (12 mos . ) Percent* Distribution Distribution Jurisdiction 1969 POP. ------- rcent------------------------------ . ------ 1 ,705 0.10,E S171 ,992 S15,746 Aloonz 311705 1 .92,: S3,274 ,410 S2901BO6 Auburn 0•02;; S30,D61 S21752 Beaux Arts Bb,350 5.1Cn SE,710,577 S797 ,544 Bellevue 1,375 O.DB:: 5171 ,09E c15,746 Black Diamond 10,430 0.62%, 51,052,129 96,333 Bothell (part) D.OY: S126,094 511,545 Carnation 1 ,2a0 S306,676 526,263 3,06D 0.16h Clyde Hill 14 ,520 0.B71: S1,494 ;971 S13b,BBO Des Moines 0 lg;; S2Z21430 S20,366 Duvall 2,205 S64315B4 . S58,927 0.3B,� Enumclaw fi4,D00 0 .7B,; 56,45E,016 S591 ,115 Federal key 0.03,; 553,262 54,717 Hunts Point a2S S750,512 S6B,ii7 7 ,440 2. DE,e S321 ,973 lssaouah 34 .E60 2.D6,; 53,516,511 Kent S3,694,051 . S13E 229 Kirk,iand 2,790 0. 16,: S26: ,442 52. i5 Lake Forest Pi;. 0• ] 5301 ,6:7 S27 .616 2.990 E,. Med. , S2. 0B E38 �1BE Z33 M 0.3BD 2C.. C ha_r�er ]stand 2 0.D4,; SE 5°� S� 0_5 pill ion (G • ) k i.32p C.37,` '-g� G22 S' Ncrr,and)' G1 .310 0,14,. ;43 North Be ,; S ,2i3 c3 n 3,740 0 c? 53.369.233 S30E,4°S Redmond S3,BB],679 5355,408 3E,460 2.27.+ Renton 24 .000 ] .42,� S2,421 ,OD6 S22] ,668 Sez ac 49i .2O0 2s .35,� 550,155,]i2 547592,Z26 wattle o o„� S24 ,009 S2, Skykomisn Z38 ,33p S14,039 ]520 C'0°o, 51 .15i •9-5 S10:1477 Snoqualmie 11 ,420 0.67" co 421 Tukwila „020 0.OE,: S102,8-3 i Yarrow Point ------------------"---- ____ ------ Total incor. 950, 144 _56.1C:, S95,BBE,897 SB,i7-,624 495,B56 43.9C,. S751029,394 • S6,669,720 Unincorporated -" -- ----- c46------------------ 000 ] ,E93,926 S170,875,403 515,645,416 TGTAL - + • ' * The distribution is based on z per Capitz ,tlrmula which weiehts the poDuiation bV a factor of unincorporated area c\'-s\vrs2 3/7"D/90 ATTACHMrNT, B of discussion of participants at the Post-Legislative session sur:nary Transportation Forum held on May 16, NS In what order and how rapidly should decisions be made about I . OPTIO count)' only options7 implementing countywide and/or city/ Implement the Vehicle Registration Fee as soon as possible. source for the local options be subject to z cortmon II . STRATEGY DEYELOPME�sPoROCESS To what extent shouldt on timing and selection of revenue regional strategy development process or left to the implementing jurisdiction? possible for the process as soon transit option, the Conduct a strategy. developmenthehigh capacity remaining options including � . The process should commercial parking tax and the street u,;lit) • produce: -- Time lines for impiementin4 the options . a ;ectives, policies and programs for expenditures o; one revenues. ) and, HicF m�hasis on Transportation Demand Vlanacement (TDP Occupancy Vehicle programs . uirements be addressed cooperatively, and Wh? . is ITI pLANNING AND COORDINATION P.rQUIREMENTs• To what extent should ' pianm ng/coordin_tion reo the timing and mechanism for doing -so? y , process. Support an Zgreement on E common planning and coordina�.ion finalize institutional issues such as the Puge` -- Do not wait to PSCOG and Kin° Subregion al Council Sound Council of Governments ( ) (1: canization or SRC) reor ESHB 2S2B. _. Relate the process to mechanisms already under deveiopment. i i i ATTACHMENT C The direction provided at the Post-Legislative Transportation Forum held by . King County on May 16, 1990, was that King County and the cities within King County should agree to a common process for carrying out the transportation planning and coordination provisions of Chapter 42, Session Laws of 1990 [Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 635B) Section 212. This common process should also be consistent with Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2929 and plans for reorganizing the Puget Sound Council of Governments and the King Subregional Council . The common process should: 1 .. Ensure that the vehicle 'registration fee revenues are expended for transportation uses consistent with 'the adopted transportation and land use plans of the jurisdictions expending the funds and consistent with any applicable and adopted regional transportation plan for the Central Puget Sound metropolitan planning area; (Section 212 (2)) 2. Ensure that the County and city over 6000 population develop and adopts a specific transportation program which: A. Identifies the geographic boundaries of the area(s) within which the local option transportation revenues will be levied and expended; (Section 212 (a) ) B: ' Is based on an adopted transportation plan for the geographic area in which the expenditures are to be made, and identifies proposed operation, construction of improvements and services in the designated plan area; (Section 212 (3) (b)) C. Indicates how the local transportation plan is coordinated with applicable transportation plans for the region and for adjacent jurisdictions; and, (Section 212 (3) (c) ) D. Includes at least a six-year funding plan to b4 updated annually; (Section 212 (d) ) 4 . Ensure that local transportation programs are periodically updated and consistent with applicable local and regional transportation and land use plans, and within the means of estimated available public and private revenues. S. Ensure that expenditures for new or expanded transportation facilities, improvements, and services are made based upon the following criteria, which are stated in descending order of weight to be attributed: a. First, the project serves a multijurisdictional function; b. Second, it is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion; C. Third, it has the oreatest person-carrying capacity; d. Fourth, it .is partially funded by other government funds or by private sector contributions; and f. Fifth, it meets such other criteria as the local government determines is appropriate. (Section 212 (5)) 6. Encouraoe local governments to enter into interlocal agreements to _ jointly develop and adopt with other local governments the transpor"apion programs required by Section 212 for the purpose or accomplishing regional transportation planning and development. (Section 212 (7)) Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In a cooperative agreement among King County, Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila, construction of needed levee improvements along the Green River will be the responsibility of the abutting jurisdictions with the County taking over the maintenance and operation of the levee system. The source of funding will be the flood control zone district and its taxing authority. By implementing a charge of 6 cents per $1, 000 property valuation on property owners in the flood control zone district sufficient funds would be generated to properly maintain the Green River levee system. The Public Works Committee has recommended approval and support of the flood control zone district and its financing authority. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Director of Public Works and excerpt of minutes of the August 7, 1990 Public Works Committee meeting. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds adoption of Resolution No. requesting King County Council to implement the flood control zone district and its financing authority. DISCUSSION• ACTION: - -6 Council Agenda Item No. 4A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, requesting the King County Council to activate the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) for the purpose of funding flood control activities within the authority of the District as established pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington, Title 86, Section 15. WHEREAS, the City of Kent has approved formation of the GRFCZD as set forth in King County Resolution No. 31058, dated December 7, 1965; and WHEREAS, the King County Council has subsequently authorized the formation of the GRFCZD by approval of King County Resolution No. 31192, dated January 10, 1988; and WHEREAS, King County has constructed the P-1 and P-17 pump stations on the Green River in accordance with the District's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, King County continues to operate and maintain the P-1 and P-17 pump plants; and WHEREAS, a number of river protection revetments and flood control levees have been constructed within the District in accordance with the District's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a continuing need exists for maintenance of these revetments and levees, together with existing river banks and the Green River channel itself; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent is signatory to the June 15, 1985 Green River Management Agreement (GRMA) ; and WHEREAS, a Green River Levee Improvement Plan recommending a phased program of improvements to the Green River flood control levees has been formulated and approved pursuant to the terms and provisions of the GRMA; and WHEREAS, said levee improvements will require maintenance in perpetuity to assure their structural integrity and function; and WHEREAS, said levee improvement plan has been formulated to accommodate sufficient discharge from the Mill Creek Basin drainage(s) to allow for the development of a Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan, as required by the GRMA; and WHEREAS, said Mill Creek discharge allowance will require the construction of certain flood control outlet improvements within the Mill Creek Basin; and WHEREAS, said Mill Creek flood control outlet improve- ments will require maintenance and operation in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the City of Kent to request activation of the District for these purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent requests the King County Council to activate the GRFCZD and authorize a special tax to be levied annually on all properties within the GRFCZD, with annual revenues thus realized to be expended solely within the boundaries of the District for the following purposes; (a) construction of the Green River Levee and Mill Creek Basin flood control outlet improvements; (b) continuing maintenance of the Green River channel, riverbanks, revetments, and levees; (c) continuing maintenance and operation of the P-1 and P-17 pump plants, and of any flood control outlet improvements subsequently constructed to serve the Mill Creek drainage(s) , and; d) operational and administrative costs of the annual Green River Basin Program related to the Flood Warning Program, the Pump Operations Procedures Plan, and the Basin Technical and Executive Committees; and (e) any other related works and operations as expressly authorized in annual District budgets which have been approved by the Green River Basin Executive Committee. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1990. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1990. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1990. (SEAL) MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK 8790-310 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE - AUGUST 7, 1990 PRESENT: Jim White John Bond -. Steve Dowell Ed Olson Leona Orr Jack Spencer Don Wickstrom Dave Clark - King County Jim Hansen Charlie Kessler - King County Bill Williamson James Dunn Marty Nizlek Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tim Heydon Flood Control Zone District Wickstrom introduced Dave Clark and Charlie Kessler from King County Surface Water Management. Wickstrom summarized that since 1985, Kent executed the Green River Management Agreement to manage the Green River. One of the tasks in the Agreement was to look at the levee system to determine what improvements were needed to address today's flood conditions. in terms of providing adequate freeboard and to address future needs. Studies have determined there are approximately $14 million worth of levee improvements needed. Individual jurisdictions have agreed to construct the levee improvements needed within their own area and the County would take over maintenance and operation of the levee system. However, the County currently has to maintain not only the Green River levee but all the other rivers they maintain from the River Improvement Fund. This fund is established by a tax levied county wide of which approximately $200,000 per year therefrom is spent on maintenance of the Green River system and most of that goes for maintenance of both the Black River Pump Station and the P-17 (Tukwila) pump station. Wickstrom stated that Kent has spent $350,000 just on one maintenance project for the levee. Wickstrom explained that the County could provide the ongoing maintenance required through the Flood Control Zone District. This is an existing entity instituted in 1965Vwith taxing authority or can levy a se}vice charge for flood protection purposes. The county has estimated the needs would relate to approximately 6 cents per $1,000 property valuation. The River Improvement funds could then be used for capital improvements. Wickstrom added the County is seeking the city's concurrence to pass a resolution to institute a flood control zone district and asking the County to institute same. White asked about Kent's (drainage utility. Wickstrom responded our utility has been concentrating on internal drainage although we have spent $350,000 and will be spending another $300,000 on the Meeker Street levee improvement. Responding to White's question, Dave Clarke indicated the total assessed valuation of the Flood Control Zone District is approximately $7.5 billion for approximately 44,000 acres. Some older studies have indicated that if the levee were to fail in Auburn about 17,000 acres would be inundated. Under this scenario, if the assessed valuation were equally distributed over the entire area, there is a potential for about $2.5 billion worth of improvements subject to inundation. White asked what percentage of the Flood Control Zone District was commercial/industrial. Clarke responded he thought the entire district would be about two-thirds commercial/industrial and one- third residential. Dowell asked what would happen if we didn't do this. Wickstrom stated we would continue on a piece-meal approach. Dowell moved this item be placed under "Under Business" on the Council agenda with a recommendation for approval. Clarke added that the County, City of Kent and City of Auburn have been working cooperatively on Mill Creek since 1978 as part of the basin program. The costs of developing the engineering design for the Mill Creek projects and built those costs into the Flood Control Zone District rate base as well. It was suggested that the two cities and county might want to consider this which would add 6.9 cents per thousand to complete the design work. This is outlined in the report included in the Committee's packet. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Proposed LTD - 218th Street (EVH - SR 167) Wickstrom explained that Mr. and Mrs. Rust had seen this project listed as a potential project and asked it be placed on the agenda for discussion since they own approximately 4 acres in the vicinity. Wickstrom explained the existing road is less than 2 lanes and in some cases narrows to 12 feet; thus, it is inadequate to handle the existing traffic. There is a large development planned for the area which will handle most of their traffic DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 27, 1990 TO: Public Works C((o�� '% ittee FROM: Don Wickstrom Y RE: Green River Flood Control Zone District In 1985 the City executed the Green River Management Agreement. The agreement initiated a cooperative effort among the jurisdictions of King County, Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila per; 1) regulating inflows (present and future) into the river, 2) formulating a comprehensive levee improvement plan and, 3) establishing a flood watch and levee monitoring program. In developing the levee improvement plan, significant hydrological studies were done. The conclusion therefrom were several fold with the first being that significant portions of the existing levee system (see map) are deficient per assuring flood protection against present flood flow conditions; the second being the structural integrity of the levee system itself is questionable based on the knowledge that its builders were various (farmers, developers, City & County) and an active maintenance program is lacking and the third being that the most viable alternative for providing flood protection against future flood flows is a combination of levee improvements and inflow control at the outlet of Auburn' s Mill Creek. V The estimated total costs of the levee improvement is $18 , 000, 000 and tha of Mill Creek and associated work is $14 , 000, 000 for a total cost of $32 , 000, 000. Per developing the financial plan for the levee work the concurrence reached among the jurisdiction was basically that each would be responsible for those specific levee improvements located within -its jurisdiction and the County, through implementation of the Flood Control Zone District, would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the levee, including the significant outlet facilities such as at P-1 (Black River) , P-17 (Tukwila) y Public Works Committee RE: FCZD -- 7/27/90 The Flood Control Zone District is an existing but inactive entity. It has legal taxing authority including the ability to levee service charges. A detailed description of what the FCZD is proposed 'to fund and the financial impact thereof is given in the attachments. To implement the FCZD, the County is requesting a resolution (see attached) supporting its implementation, be passed thereto. Because this proposal would initiate continuity with respect to maintenance of the levee system and control of major inflows thusly enhancing the integrity of our existing flood control system, and because the financial impact is minimal ($0 . 06 per $1000 of assessed value) compared to the catastrophic impacts associated with a levee failure, the Public Works Department recommends the City support same. V N I _ v ..... �J. ''.` n, - •\ \ � - .- r r� A 1 � ~ -vim -• I�-;y ', ,.�-- ',t _•`� ----_mot'' •1;_}7., •I�ac_Jr• _ � ;�`(,�z�_ :,;`_ �.�„� •„t5 1-I> .�. � v i -.rn/+.ni-nJ'. rlrp'� ����' 1 ` r � •n 4]...�_�- T ..Il l� ��~ ���-- �Kl.�'_ � \J'll 1. �.�y.�� \ r•.ll VA NAW IZ �.• � ]t\1>�.�, D. ''' 1.�, i • ¢ .� �Y.�tI = � y,F.A� \\\�\ 1�II//1� ! '�1.. Li ! \� l (•ern 1_r \ , ^\\�V�, '� i � •' � ,� /�• �t K� c C� �}, \/���Syr ��r���T`� , ��� I�1'.iJ ���f//I G, r. 1� s _I ,��,I �� ,�—ref.,• /� ,. —,�s,. It I I �� ,'' \ -1 i ~ its:• ,1�. '` VV ,_ 'yl �.-�� .,�-�," ,�'�-- 'ate �\- j[��' � _" • .'�- - ' — •J.. '�:.1', r, ram`- .�,�yM1->.i,'II;. , '1 1 •( -' - ���'�",}:>t�� - "f.'`-vim. - lid{�, 1 �"T'•4'lr� �ii^�-d e� "'I t- � �' ..� y "1' - 39 - GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT: APPENDIX D. GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAIN Discussion Paper I. Purpose This paper presents discussion of issues affecting maintenance and operation costs of the Green River flood control system. The information is presented for use in preparing needed detailed Basin Technical Committee (BTC) response to the January 26 , 1989 , Basin Executive Committee (BEC) resolution that the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) be levied to raise funds with which to operate and maintain Green River levees and pumps. The specific focus of this discussion is on the portion of the Green River system which lies within the legal boundaries ' of the GRFCZD. This paper is organized in the following outline form: I. Purpose II. Existing Maintenance Program III. Policy Issues and Recommendations . IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal II. Existing Maintenance Program Maintenance Management System King County currently provides for river maintenance' as one component of an overall storm drainage .facility maintenance program termed the Maintenance Management System (MMS) . River maintenance needs are documented through field visits for facility assessments throughout all King County river systems during the spring of each year. The assessments are prepared and analyzey'd by the staff of King County Surface Wa4er .Management "s Facilities Management (SWM-FM) Section. I Actual maintenance expenditures are not limited so much by the annual needs assessments as by availability of resources raised through the county-wide River Improvement Fund (RIF) levy. Maintenance needs , including those within the GRFCZD, must therefore be systemmatically prioritized on a county-wide basis . lThe first cut priorities are established by merely sorting all assessed needs by the type of facility in the following order: GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 2 II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) 1. Pump Plants 2. Levees 3. Enclosed Drainage Systems 4. Regional R/D Facilities 5. Revetments 6. Open Drainage Facilities 7. Settling Basins 8. Docks 9. River Channels 10. Boat Ramps MMS policy dictates that maintenance of high-priority facilities occur to the extent of RIF resources. Pump plants , being the highest- priority facilities , are to be fully maintained. Boat ramps , being the least-priority facilities , are only to be maintained in years when all other facilities are fully maintained. In practice, professional judgment plays an important role in the MMS process. In addition to the above facility priority list, the MMS defines several goals : 1. Function to design and operational standards 2 . Maximum safety 3 . Accessibility 4. Security of facility and surrounding properties 5 . Multi-use functions 6. Aesthetics SWM-FM professional staff prepares spreadsheet matrices indicating each facility 's needed maintenance tasks and the associated cost estimates. They then recommend a specific combination of county-wide maintenance activities , through the normal budget process , to the King County Council. Service ve} s For some tasks , such as maintenance of landscaped grounds , King County has defined three levels of service. For example , landscaped grounds have been assigned the following lawn mowing service levels: Service Level 1 Mow. every week, March to Sept. Service Level 2 Mow every other week, March to Sept. Service Leve1 . 3 Mow every month, March to Sept. The same terminology is used differently with river flood control structures . Each year 's budget has been prepared in a menu format, with various "Service Levels" applied to the county-wide maintenance program. In effect, budget preparation has asked the question, " If $ were available for county-wide river maintenance, which " river maintenance tasks would be performed? " Three such "Service KC SWL: RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNE L MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 3 II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) Level" scenarios have typically been prepared each year, and presented as budgeting options to the Executive and Council offices. River maintenance facilities have therefore not been assigned specific service levels in the manner of landscaped grounds maintenance , but instead each facility is subject to SWM-FM judgment each year in the spring maintenance assessment. Trees which become established on levees or revetments are not maintained at all until an assessment finds either "associated problems" (debris , erosion, or visual obstructions ) or vegetation which covers more than 1/3 of the structure. At that time ; the trees are completely cut down. , No . systemmatic attempt is made to prune or otherwise constructively "guide" plant growth. Tvoes of Maintenance The maintenance program examines five major components of river structures; the bank slope, the slope toe, any vegetation on the structure, the back slope, and associated access roads. For bank slope and toe problems , the maintenance procedure primarily consists of regrading and rebuilding rock revetments to the original designs. Vegetation maintenance strategy is similarly simple; allow unhindered growth until certain standards are exceeded, and then "cut to ground" . Access roads are mowed and cleared of debris in order to preserve a usable driving surface. Sp ina River Assessment Each spring King County 's SWM-FM attempts assessment of every river flood control facility in the county. Additional assessments are conducted immediately following every major flood event. Standardized MMS forms are completed by the field crews (utility workers) for each facility and forwarded for processing by SWM-FM professional staff as outlined above. Fmerzencv (Maintenance The careful planning of the spring assessment. and the MMS is used in the County 's annual budget process to set the next year 's expenditures. However, some maintenance needs , once discovered, cannot be responsibly allowed to wait a year or more before repairs are begun. Therefore, funds appropriated one year based upon the previous year 's spring assessment may very well be used to maintain facilities in which more urgent needs have subsequently been found. Further budgeting complications arise as needed repairs wait for funding. One spring's assessment may document weak spots in bank armor; significant bank erosion may occur during any flood which precedes armor repair. Following the intense flooding of 1986 , several budget supplements were necessary in order to fund emergency river maintenance. At that time, SWM-FM staff discussed including emergency funds in their annual budget. However, no procedure was devised which could simplify KC: SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 4 - .II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) the existing budget supplement process without encroaching upon proper_ Council budget authorities . Pump Plant Maintenance The P-1 and P-17 pump plants are maintained and operated by King t to this task was given to the SCS County. Perpetual local commitmen prior to federal construction of the facilities. This commitment was to have been assumed by the GRFCZD as a part of the entire flood control plan including both SCS (Eastside and Westsige) projects. However, neither SCS project has been substantially completed, so GRFCZD funding has not yet lAeen applied to this task. i Maintenance Standards King County has developed a set of vegetation management. and maintenance standards for river structures (appended to this report) . The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has proposed contract language requiring local sponsors to maintain federally-constructed Green River levees " in accordance with regulations or directions prescribed by the Government. " The proposed contract would allow the COE to require such maintenance of federally-built improvements on ' 30 days ' notice. The Washington State Department of Fisheries holds Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permitting authority over any work done within the river channel. Typical HPA requirements on Green River bank stabilization projects include: • Equipment must be operated from the top of bank. • Overburden material cannot be wasted into the river. • Existing trees must be protected. • Toe construction must include large boulders to provide fish habitat. • Newly-armored surfaces must be revegetated. Green River Maintenance Hi �tnry The construction of Howard Hanson Dam and several associated Green River flood control projects were accomplished through King County 's local sponsorship of COE and SCS construction. At that time the GRFCZD was being created as a regional local sponsor for design, construction, maintenance and operation for the major Green River projects envisioned by the SCS. Although the GRFCZD was successfully formed in 1965 , other political problems tabled most of the SCS plans. The creation of the current Green River Basin Program recognized the KC Sr%'4 RWR npAPT DRAB' GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 5 II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont "d) probable use of the GRFCZD by including a GRFCZD Supervisor (King County Councilman) in the BEC along with executive-branch representation from each of the five jurisdictions . III. + Policy Issues and Recommendations Sprina River Assessment As a needs assessment system is an obvious need for any maintenance program, we expect the field activities of the spring assessment to be continued in largely the same manner as in the past. Additional levee construction as proposed under the 1987 Green River Levee Improvement Plan (LIP) would increase the scope of the assessment process . Further, the county-wide assessment includes such structures as docks and boat ramps. Although several of these facilities provide access necessary for river inspection, some may fall outside specific GRFCZD authorization (under RCW 86 . 15 . 080) . Therefore,. some • territorial overlap would occur between the continuing county-wide assessment and any new GRFCZD process. Policy issues include: -' Is annual assessment adequate? Too frequent? For all facility types? • Is current King County assessment reporting format acceptable? • Green River maintenance assessments would be prioritized separately from the remainder of King County; should the separate Green River prioritization process be overseen by an advisory committee to the GRFCZD (per RCW 86. 15. 070) ? Such committees are limited to f iye members ; a likely arrpngement would include the five executives from theIBEC (and therefore exclude the GRFCZD Supervisors " BEC representative) . Desi ,zn Standards City-built improvements to a not-city-maintained levee system would be analogous to the public road and utility improvements being built by private developers throughout the region. The developers , who do not personally foot the bill for future repairs , rarely insist upon quality. road construction. Large chunks of public road maintenance budgets are consumed by the subsequent repair to developer-built roads which fail the test of time. In order to insure that the GRFCZD maintenance budget is not consumeA by repair to products of poor construction, the regional program ma, reserve design and construction approval powers over levee improvements before accepting them for regional maintenance. Questions include: KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Duff . Discussion Paper Page 6 III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont 'd) What specific standards should apply to design and construction? • Who should administer regional design review? • Who should administer regional construction inspection? • Should a maintenance/defect inspection (perha* one year after constructiAon completion) be included as part of the acceptance process? • How should differing opinions be resolved? • How do private levees (ie, Segale) fit in? Emergency Maintenance By state statute, flood control zone district budgets must be prepared at the time of county budget preparation. Therefore, many needs identified in a spring assessment are not f.urded until the following January, and then may not actually be addressed until the summer construction season more than a year after the need was documented. • Can GRFCZD funding meet requirements of state law and, at the same time, increase the flexibility to prioritize maintenance activities based upon more current assessments? How might catastrophic failures , for which needs exceed budgeted funds available , be addressed? • Should the GRFCZD capitalize a "rainy day" account for emergency use only? • How should an emergency be defined and declared? Prioritization Process The LIP documented broad variations in need for levee segments which remained deficient. The LIP was developed in three phases , in order to speed construction of those levee segments needed for protection of existing urban-use land while delaying improvements to those levee deficiencies which only impact agricultural and park lands. Subsequent design work has further explored the necessity of slope protection along the river banks. The COE has developed setback levee designs for protection of the Southcenter area. Current COE plans do •. not include significant bank protection. King .County 's SWM Project Management and Design section has secured COE concurrence with a similar design approach in the Horseshoe Bend levee segment. These KC SWM RWR T)PART iot ioo GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE 0 RAH Discussion Paper Page 7 III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont "d) Green River design decisions lend credence to current King County policy of prioritizing maintenance needs of levees ahead of revetments. Policy questions include: • Should complex matrices be developed to prescribe priorities between combinations of facility type and protected land use? • Should the "Level of Service" concept be applied to river structures , establishing priority rankings among the various levee segments? • Should annual maintenance priorities be developed through the professional judgment of an advisory committee to the GRFCZD? Federal Pro i - -ts The COE has proposed contract language requiring local sponsors to maintain federally-constructed Green River levees "in accordance with regulations or directions prescribed by the Government. " The propose contract would allow the COE to require such maintenance of federally-built improvements on 30 days " notice. The BEC resolution of January 26 , 1989 , recommends that the GRFCZD maintain levees which are to be constructed by the valley cities. This would require some additional interlocal agreement to finesse the COE language which implies that both maintenance and local cost share responsibilities would be undertaken by. a single local sponsor.. Rasement. /Anness Con_H i ti_nns Easements would be needed granting QRFCZD rights to inspect and work on the new river structures in the maintenance program. I • Who should evaluate easements for adequacy? • What should constitute minimum easement standards (ie , width to allow adequate access , acceptable setbacks for stability, etc.0 ? • Should easements be wider than actual facilities in order to allow room in which to work with heavy maintenance equipment, provide room for shade tree establishment behind the levees , etc. ? • What provisions should be required to insure ability to complete windshield assessments of levees during high-river events? KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper OURPage 8 - III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont 'd) Maintenance Menu Potential "extras" include: • Gates and fencing ford access control • Levee top surfacing • Levee toe repair • Levee slope face repair A • Levee plantings C:oordi na i on with Local l Silr f A Pat,-.Pat,-.r utilitip-c; Maintenance responsibilities must be clearly defined. Questions include: • Who should maintain outfall structures? • Who should maintain natural outfalls to the river? Along what line should responsibilities be divided? • How can mobilization costs be minimized? IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal FXistinE Pump Plants The P-1 and P-17 pump plants should continue to be maintained and operated by King County personnel. The costs should be supported through levy of the GRFCZD. Policies and Dpsi n Etandards All levy projects should obtain design approval through King County 's Surface Water Management Division. Process for Adding Nev a ilitiec In order to qualify for GRFCZD maintenance , new facilities within the district should: 1. Obtain GRFCZD design review approval 2. Obtain GRFCZD construction inspection approval 3. Obtain GRFCZD maintenance/defect inspection approval (field inspection to verify satisfactory function one year after construction approval) Annexa .ions /Tn [ pOr� i on Because jurisdictional boundaries are immaterial both to the physical processes involved in flood control and to the financial workings of KC SWM RWR nRAPT ) 1i0n GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE OUFT. Discussion Paper Page 9 IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal (cont "d) the GRFCZD, this maintenance program proposal is not affected by changes to those boundaries. AS ss / .asem -n . Con6itions Easement should include a suitable driving surface of minimum 15-foot . width which connects at each end to allow continuous vehicular access along river bank.. Easement should give perpetual right to maintain improvements , including addition or reconstruction. Coordination with Parks . Trails , River Recreation Maintenance expenses under GRFCZD are strictly limited by state law to flood control items. Mowing,' pruning, planting, and other maintenance activities may be efficiently performed by a single crew working both in parks or trail right-of-way and on the levees; however, expenses would have to be calculated separately for the two types of facilities . Habitats Enhancement GRFCZD levies should be used primarily for maintenance of function. Where necessary permits for maintenance activities require plantings and/or other mitigations , GRFCZD levy funds should be used to satisfy those requirements. No separate program of riparian habitat enhancement is proposed for funding under the GRFCZD maintenance program. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington State Department of Ecology grant funding under the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) should be vigorously pursued. Flood control zone districts are expressly eligible for FCAAP grants , which can include the types of maintenance being proposed as GRFCZD activities. FCAAP grants require at least 20% local share for emergency projects , and 50% local share for non- emergency work. y Federal Projects The GRFCZD maintenance program should accept federal projects .for maintenance as long as the usual plan and inspection approvals are obtained. Service Levels Annual assessment of all facilities should be continued. Priority needs identified in any given assessment cycle should be addressed with appropriate maintenance measures before the next flooding season starts. Tn .angi bl a Cost Elements King County administrative costs involved with GRFCZD levy collectio^ should be reimbursed to the county "s general fund by the GRFCZD. KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN .RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 10 IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal (cont 'd) Cost of RPrommended• Program Annual budget should include: P-1 and P-17 Pump Statipns : $ 150 , 000 (maintain existing funding) Levee/revetment maintenance: $ 150 , 000 ($3 , 000 / bank / mile / year) ------------------------------------------------ --- Total Annual GRFCZD .Budget $ 300 ,P00 Because the GRFCZD includes properties for which 1988 assessed value (AV) totals $6. 493 billion, the current annual levy should be less than $0. 05 per thousand. Future development will ' increase the GRFCZD's total AV but minimally impact maintenance needs ; therefore allowing levy rates to be diminished. Alternative Programs /Costs To be developed as ETC discussion unfolds . KC SWM RWR DRART 1, le) 1 iPo..: Green-River Basin Program River Maintenance Study PROPOSED GREEN RIVER MAINTENANCE FUNDING Direct Costs to Maintain Current Levee System 171,773 Indirect Costs on above 3OX + $21,532 ------------- Total Maintenance Costs; Current Levee System $93,305 P-1 Pump Plant $135,318 P-17 Pump Plant + $10,195 ------------- Total maintenance Costs; Current Pump Systems $145,573 PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUDGET Assume levee expenses increase by 5% each of next 10 years because of new construction. Further, assume 5% annual inflation. Multiplier; 110X 105Z I Levee Pump Total M&O Year Maintenance Operation Budget --------------------------------------------------- 1990 $93,305 9145,573 $238,877 1991 $102635, $152,851 $255,486 1992 $112:899� $160,494 $273,393 1993 $124,188 $168,519 .$292,707 1994 $136,607 f176,945 $313,552 1995 4150,268 $185,792 $336,060 1996 $165,295 $195,081 $360,376 1997 $101,824 $204,835 $386,660 . 1998 $200,007 $215,077 $415,084 1999 $220,007 4225,831 $4450839 2000 $242,008 $237,123 $4799131 _ XC SNM RWR 28-Mar-89 Page I Green River Basin Program River Maintenance Study Green River Maintenance Assessment ((((((((C((((<((<(<(< Spring 1984 >)>)>)»>>>))>>>>>>)>>>>>> Highest Combined Highest Combined Task Task Priority Total Unit Priority Total Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 Rock Haul 1 Place CY 2,570 17,125 121.09 f54,210 13611223 612 Access Surface Maintenance LF 2411308 24,308 $0.17 $4,132 $4,132 617 Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY $15.94 $0 $0 618 Silt Removal CY $9.28 SO $0 622 Mechanical Brushing (Slope Mow) SY 60,240 88,475 $0.26 $15,462 $2:,709 623 Hand Brushing SY 81692 42,758 $0.47 $4,085 $20,096 631 Gate Installation Each $1,441.90 f0 $0 632 Access Restoration LF 1,585 19595 $5.55 $8,797 f8,797 633 Gate Maintenance Each A $98.25 t0 $0 637 Debris Removal - River CY 1,800 . $16.59 $0 $29,856 -------------------------------------=--------------------------------------------------------------------- $86,686 $446,813 Green River Maintenance Assessment (<(((C(K((<(<(<(((<( Spring 1985 >>)»»»»>)>»»»)>>)>> Highest Combined Highest Combined Task Task Priority Total Unit Priority Total Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 Rock Haul & Place CY 800 6,985 $21.21 $16,968 $148,152 612 Access Surface Maintenance LF . 21900 19,028 $0.17 $493 $3,235 617 Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY $16.25 $0 $0 618 Silt Removal CY $9.42 so $0 622 Mechanical Brushing (Slope Mow) SY 55,160 55,160 $0.23 $12,687 $12,687 623 Hand Brushing SY 35,690 35,690 $0.45 ;f16,061 $16,061 631 Gate Installation Each $1,460.52 $0 $0 632 Access Restoration LF 1,585 $5.65 $0 $8,955 633 Gate Maintenance Each 2 $97.26 $0 $195 637 Debris Removal - River CY 120 $16.75 $0 $2,010 -----------------------------7----------------------------------------------------------------------------- $46,208 $191,294 YC SNM RWR 28-Mar-89 Pang 7 .Green-River Basin Program River Maintenance Study Green River Maintenance Assessment («(((<((<((<((«<(<( Spring 1986 )))))M>>)))))»>))>>>)» _. Highest Combined Highest Combined Task Task Priority Total Unit Priority Total Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 Rock Haul 6 Place CY I,670 4,690 $21.33 $35,616 $100,022 612 Access Surface Maintenance LF 41150 $0.40 $0 $1,660 617 Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY $16.56 $0 $0 618 Silt Removal CY 50 $9.56 $0 $478 622 Mechanical Brushing (Slope Mow) SY 1,500 11,240 $0.20 $305 $2,285 623.Hand Brushing SY 6,600 $0.43 $0 $2,838 631 Gate Installation Each s1,479.06 $0 $0 632 Access Restoration LF 150 150 15.75 $863 sw 633 Gate Maintenance Each $96.27 $0 $0 637 Debris Removal - River CY I80 204 $16.91 $3,044 s31450 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $39,827 $111,596 Green River Maintenance Assessment (((C(C«(<(<(«((«<C Spring 1987 >)>)»»>»»>»)>)»»»> _. Highest Combined Highest Combined Task Task Priority Total Unit Priority Total. Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 Rock Haul 6 Place CY 11038 $21.44 $0 $22,258 612 Access Surface Maintenance LF $0.63 $0 $0 bll Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY $16.86 $0 $0 618 Silt Removal CY 88 $5.70 $0 $854 622 Mechanical Brushing (Slope Mow) SY 10,000 31,770 $0.18 $1,767 $5,613 623 Hand Brushing , SY 1 ti 310 $0.41 $0 $562 631 Gate Installatio Each $1,497.59 $0 s0 632 Access Restorati� LF $5.85 $0 s0 633 Gate Maintenance I Each l $95.28 $0 $95 637 Debris Removal - River CY $17.08 $0 $0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,767 $29,381 KC SNM RAR 28-Mar-69 Page 3 Green River Basin Program River Maintenance Study , Green River Maintenance Assessment Spring 1988 )»>)»»)>>>)>>))»»>)>> Highest Combined Highest Combined Task Task Priority Total Unit Priority Total . Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 Rock Haul & Place CY 11013 29268 $21.56 $21,840 149,329 612.Access Surface Maintenance LF J $0.86 $0 $0 617 Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY $17.17 s0 $0 618 Silt Removal CY $9.94 s0 $0 622 Mechanical Brushing (Slope Maw) SY 71250 33,275 $0.15 s110a8 $4,991 623 Hand Brushing SY $0.39 $0 s0 631 Gate Installation Each $1,516.13 $0 s0 632 Access Restoration LF 41150 $5.95 $0 128,263 633 Gate Maintenance Each A $94.29 $0 $0 637 Debris Removal - River CY s17.24 s0 $0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $22,928 $62,583 Green River Maintenance Expenditures Summer 1989 >>)>))»>))»>))»»)>)>>> Work Work Work Work Task Task Authorized Completed Unit Authorized Completed Number Description Unit Units Units Costs Costs Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61l Rock Haul & Place CY $21.56 $0 $0 612 Access Surface Maintenance LF $0.86 $0 $0 617 Debris Removal - River (Emergency) CY 144 $17.17 $2,472 10 618 Silt Removal CY 86 $9.84 $866 $0 622 Mechanical Brushing (:Slope Mow) SY 33,800 26,649 $0.15 $5,070 $4,027 623 Hand Brushing SY 2,940 ` $0.39 $1,147 $0 631 Gate Installation Each 2 $1,516.13 $3,032 s0 '632 Access Restoration LF $5.95 $0 $0 633 Gate Maintenance Each 2 2 $94.29 $189 $189 637 Debris Removal - River CY $17.24 $0 $0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------- $12,776 $4,216 KC SWM RWR 28-Mar-84 PIMO e r Green NIver Basin Program River Maintenance Study Green River Maintenance Expense History J LEVEES -7 SPRING ASSESSMENT Assumed Total OR Damages DATA Expenses Needs Minus Included Priority Total 1 To Reduce Assumed In Next Year OR Needs OR Needs 1 Assessment Expenses Assessment ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ 1984 $86,606 $446,013 $260,000 $186,813 $4,480 1985 $46,208 $191,274 1 $150,000 $41,294 $70,303 1986 $39,827 f111,596 1 $85,000 s2b,596 $2,785 1987 $1,767 f291381 1 $20,000 $9,381 $73,202 1988 f22,92B $82,583 1 f4,216 $78,367 ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Average $39,493 $172,334 1 $03,943 $68,490 $37,692 Std Dev f28117B $146,886 1 $53,622 $63,362 $34,080 ------------------------------- - ---------------------------- Avg + Dev $67,661 $319,220 1; 1s97,466-�,f131,873 $71,773 V I i KC SNM RNR 287Mar-89 Page 5 Total Cost Estimates (Thouf�cnds) (n [j [n O U1 Q (A U o 0 ED o o c) o a a 1 \\j\ 1 J- T rt IJ'1..JI G �1 LO L7 o a m ED 3 v, LO C13 i, a r-+- ' rc o J 1 / CD M S� n rb C` �JJ V) .p V! LL1 V/ R• CD h �1 11^ v� W (n (n Annual Task Cost Estimates (Thousands) j 1 N (fl LD U n � o 0 o U o cn f CD cn 1 .N cn A J o � l to o (.n — m C to w ^ 03 3 — cl, ❑ 1 Cb G G. m rn s ca N ❑ Cn -i N cr, ❑ C� C cn n N c Cl -7 ' [G r^ cn CD 1 \V ♦ f IJ IJ `�VV r / f ' 4Y^ Cn C9 W ti rn t,+ J � Annual Task Cost Estimates (Thou-sonds) •-- c� Q Q Q Q Q O Q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r^ 1 V / W m �1 `V �V cn cn V' I'T 1 Eh m r* C G —+ E G cn ❑ >�1 rr rf � [L R. ❑ a J G f cv `a 03 1 J J Q, ❑ T L Q 9 �. 7 F N �. / W l z rr a a LD m W Can G+ (f) 1 .r�l 1^) Cn rn � co (,4 I co cn W \. J �. 2I r7 U LE) CI 1r] w co Q� nl E rl w COco co U �.�\\` r- w Crl v � = v , v N c a 4 nl E V a w v a_ z � s Cn 47 r q �\ > w U W \ ` 4-j ` v E v m V47 co y r •O t (A w a) Q� cn w ry I N Q) w � f " r r / / LO •r Q L aJ w r nl rj Q7 w <t rJ O d 1,1 sq.jDwps3 gsoo Aso_ Icnuuy GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT: APPENDIX E. WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS V N I Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. June 4, 1990 i Three distinct limitations to property taxes apply in Washington State: • a limitation to total levy rates, • a limitation to total tax and a limitation to.revenue growth. The three limits are illustrated in Table I, on the following page. Note that all these limit apply only to "regular" levies. Any "excess levies", such as those for generating the debt service for most bond issues, are exempt. Excess levies are also specifically authorized in RCW 84.52.052 if necessary "to prevent the impairment of the obligation of contracts" and if approved by the voters of the district. When any of the three limits is reached, levies throughout the districts causing the exceedence must be rolled back in priority order.1 V f 1- For a discussion of the seven priority levels and the process of levy rollbacks, see "Levy Lids" (Nesbitt, 7/89). `WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS Page 1 Thomas J. Nesbitt Nanning and Management 49'1 10.000 9.000 Limit#1 s.No $5.90 NLOC11 M �.000 [$6.372 6.000 in 19901 Limit#2 c $10.00 5.000 MA7131�mum d (59.416 4.000 in 19901 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 Limit#8 106% THE TAX STACK [106%in 1990 in most districts] Table I LIMITATIONS TO PROPERTY TAXES IN WASHINGTON STATE [Using as an example areas in the Green River Flood Control Zone District] Note: $6.372 is the sum of the following regular levies: King County General,King County Road District,Hospital District#1,'any one of Fire Districts levying at their full$1.50 and the Rural Library. $9.481 is the sum of the above levies plus the following regular levies: King County Conservation Futures and Washington State. V i —WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS Page 2 Thomas J. Nesbitt . I'lanning and Management 4NI LIMITATION #1: TOTAL LEVY RATES Authorization: RCW 84.52.043 (Amended 1990 - See Session Laws) The Limit: The aggregate levies of taxing districts (the State's levy excepted!) may not exceed $5.90 per $1000 of assessed valuation. The Fine Points: • Each type of taxing district is also subject to its separately specified maximum statutory levy rate. For an example, using the some taxing districts located in the Green River Flood Control Zone District: T evv County 1.80 Road district 2.25 City or Town 3.60 (including fire protection) Fire Districts 1.50 (3 separate authorizations) Hospital Districts .75 _. (2 separate authorizations) • The $5.90 limitation is for "overlapping" districts. One must calculate for each area which districts and their levies apply. The County Road District, for example does not overlap any of the Green River cities, nor do any of the fire districts, but the County General levy covers all areas in the County, incorporated or not. • The $5.90 limitation was raised from $5.55 in 1990. The fire districts, being relatively low on the priority list, are quite concerned about rollbacks. Under the old limit, the levy of Fire District #10 in King County was rolled back some fifteen cents for taxes payable in 1990. y • The old $5.55 limitation used to be aggregated with the State's $3.60 limitation for a total limit of $9.15, until the State was threatened with a roll back state wide due to one exceedance in one county ... and amended the statutes, removing the State share from the levy lid, beginning with taxes payable in 1989. 0 Levies for the any port, emergency medical care or services or for conservation futures have statutory exemptions from this limitation. 0 A county may raise its levy for general county purposes from $1.85 to as high as $2.25 as long as the total levy for both the county and any road district within the county does not exceed $4.05 (_ $1.85 + $2.25). *-WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS Page 3 Thomas J. Nesbitt Planning and Management '�y 1 1. 4 L LIMITATION 02: TOTAL TAX Authorization: RCW 84.52.050 The Limit: The total of all tax levies by the State and by taxing districts may not exceed 1% of assessed valuation. [Equivalent millage rate: $10.00 / $1,0001 The Fine Points: • The 1% is for "overlapping" districts. One must calculate for each area which districts and their levies apply. • The I% limitation derives from the State constitution. Article 7, §2 (a) allows exceedance of this limitation when specific authorization is granted by the voters. Article 7, §§2 (b) and (c) allow exceedance of this limitation under certain conditions for payments of principle or interest on general obligation bonds. • Levies for the any port or public utility district are exempt from this limitation. 0 The State's levy is adjusted up or down before its application (for taxes, as well as for determination of this total tax rate limitation) in order to equalize tax assessment variations among counties across the State. For example, when the State views that King County assesses its real property at a lower ratio of true market value than average within the state, the State adjusts the state levy up to compensate. For taxes payable in 1990, the equalized State rate was approximately $4.046. V i -WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS Page 4 Thomas J. Nesbitt Planning and Management 4y LIMITATION #3: REVENUE GROWTH Authorization: RCW 84.55 (Entire chapter) The Limit: The levy for any taxing district must be set so as not to raise more than 106% revenue than was raised in the highest of the preceding three years in which such taxes were levied. This limit is applied individually by jurisdiction. The Fine Points: • Before applying the 106% limit, the base is incremented by an amount equal to: the tax rate for the previous year times the sum of the increases in assessed valuation due to new construction, improvements to property and any changes in the state-assessed property. • If a taxing district has not levied in the previous three years, the "restored levy", as the reinstituted levy is called, may not exceed the amount which could be levied in 1973 plus: the tax rate proposed to be restored times the sum of the increases in assessed valuation due to new construction and improvements to property. • The 106% limitation may be increased for a given taxing district if approved by a majority of the voters of that district. Suph propositions may (but need not necessarily) include limited periods of applicability or limited purposes for which the increase is granted. • The 106% limitation, being based on past total revenues, is not affected by loss of assessed valuation through incorporation or annexation. 106% of the full "old" . district's revenues can be levied from the properties remaining in the district ... at as high a levy rate as statutorily allowedl subject to Limitations #1 and #2 described above. `WASHINGTON STATE PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS Page 5 Thomas J. Nesbitt Nzimiing and Management -�y GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT: APPENDIX B. July 5, 1989 AL:vs(M/GR:6-1) PROPOSED NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION requesting the King County Council to activate the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) for the purpose of funding flood control activities k within the authority of the District as established pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington, Title 86, Section 15. WHEREAS, the City of has approved formation of the GRFCZD as set forth in King County Resolution No. 31058, dated December 7, 1965, and WHEREAS, the King County Council has subsequently authorized the formation of the GRFCZD by approval of King County Resolution No. 31192, dated January 10, 1988, and WHEREAS, King County has constructed the P-1 and P-17 pump stations on the Green River in accordance1with the District's Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, King County continues to operate and maintain the P-1 and P-17 pump plants, and WHEREAS, a number of river protection revetments and food control levees have been constructed within the District in accordance with the District's Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, a continuing need exists for maintenance of these revetments and levees, together with existing river banks and the Green River channel itself, and WHEREAS, the City of is signatory to the June 15, 1985 Green River Management Agreement (GRMA), and WHEREAS, a Green River Levee Improvement Plan recommending a phased program of improvements to the Green River flood control levees has been formulated and approved pursuant to the terms and provisions of the GRMA, and WHEREAS, said levee improvements will require maintenance in perpetuity to assure their structural integrity and function, and WHEREAS, said levee improvement plan has been formulated to accommodate sufficient discharge from the Mill Creek Basin drainage(s) to allow for the development of a Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan, as required by the GRMA, and WHEREAS, said Mill Creek discharge allowance will require the construction c Sa'r I 'cod cor.t,c c ls nithi tie Mi l Creek Basin, and WHEREAS, said Mill Creek flood control outlet improvements will require maintenance and operation in perpetuity, and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the City of to request activation of the District for these purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of do RESOLVE as follows: The City of requests the King County Council to activate the GRFCZD and authorize a special tax to be levied annually on all properties within the GRFCZD, with annual revenues thus realized to be expended solely within the boundaries of the District for the following purposes; (a) construction of the Green River Levee and Mill Creek Basin flood control outlet improvements; (b) continuing maintenance of the Green River channel, riverbanks, revetments, and levees; (c) continuing maintenance and operation of the P-1 and P-17 pump plants, and of any flood control outlet improvements subsequently constructed to serve the Mill Creek drainage(s), and; (d) operational and administrative co i sts of the annual Green River Basin ProaraA related to the Flood WarningIProgram, the Pump Operations Procedures Plan, and the Basin Technical and Executive Committees; and (e) any other related works and operations as expressly authorized in annual District budgets which have been approved by the Green River Basin Executive Committee. PASSED by the City Council of the City of on this day of 19 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor t- 4' GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT A Report to the Green River Basin Technical Committee July, 1990 V i \ Prepared for The Green River Basin Program by King County Surface Water Management with the assistance of Nesbitt Planning & Management, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 INITIAL PROGRAM FUNDING BY AN AD VALOREM LEVY . . . . . 2 Mechanism Cost Shares by Jurisdiction Costs by Typical Users LONGER RANGE FUNDING BY USER CHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tax Lids in Washington State The Property Tax"Ceiling" for the Green River Flood Control Zone District Eventual Need for a User Charge APPENDICES 11 Appendix A: Basin Executive Committee, Green River Management Agreement Financing Plan, Recommendations/BEC Action Items (11/89) Appendix B: (Draft) City Resolution "Requesting the King County Council to activate the Green River Flood Control Zone District..." (7/5/89) Appendix C: Green River Flood Control Zone District, Annual Cost Estimates, King County Surface Water Management (10/89) Appendix D: Green River Channel Maintenance (from Discussion Paper, King CountyOurface Water Management (3/21/89) Appendix E: Washington State Property Tax Limitations, Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. (6/4/90) BACKGROUND In November of 1989, the Green River Basin Executive Committee endorsed activation of the Green River Flood Control Zone District to fund certain flood control activities in the District and directed the Basin Technical Committee to prepare a report on program costs and rates. This report responds to that request. In 1965, King County formed the Green River Flood Control Zone District with the approval of the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila. The District was never used to fund any project and no levy was imposed on the taxable property within the District. Maintenance and operation was funded from sources other than the Flood Control Zone District. Recent uncertainties in these more traditional funding sources and the need for funding of anticipated new flood control facilities, however, has caused renewed interest in the District. Activation of the Flood Control Zone District would initially fund King County to: • maintain all existing flood control levees, revetments and river banks in the District within easements or tracts of land granted to King County, • operate and maintain the existing P-1 and P-17 pump plants and any outlets and related storage facilities constructed to serve the Mill Creek Basin tributaries and • administer the Green River Basin Program, including the Flood Watch Program, the Pump Operating Procedures Plan and the Basin Technical and Executive Committees. In addition, other activities such as new Green River levees and Mill Creek Basin flood control improvements could be funded in the future if expressly authorized in annual District budgets approved by the Green River Basin Executive Committee. Appendix A details the Basin Executive Committee's directions. I GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 1 Printed 7/11/90 INITIAL PROGRAM FUNDING BY AN AD VALOREM LEVY Mechanism RCW 86.15.160 (3) authorizes Flood Control Zone Districts to levy within "within any zone or participating zones an annual ad valorem property tax levy of not to exceed fifty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value", subject to the statutory and constitutional limits on property taxes. For Green River such an ad valorem tax would be collected by King County on behalf of the Green River Flood Control Zone District. The tax would not appear as a city or county tax. A draft motion by which each city would formalize its request that King County activate the District is included as Appendix B. Cost Shares by Jurisdiction The costs to be funded by the District are summarized in Appendices C and D. Table I below groups these costs in two areas:. • the "base program costs" of the operation and maintenance of the P-1 and P-17 pump plants, the maintenance of the current levees and revetments and the Green River Work Program and • the "Mill Creek program costs" of the preparation of the flood control program for Mill Creek. The base program costs are spread among all sevens cities and King County, in proportion to each jurisdiction's assessed value in the District. The Mill Creek program costs are spread among only those six jurisdictions which have acreage in the Mill Creek Basin, in proportion to each jurisdiction's assessed value in the Mill Creek portion of the District. Table I uses estimates of the assessed valuation within the Mill Creek basin; final calculations will require that the King County Assessor first divide some "levy code" areas to reflect the boundary for the basin. V I i t- To the four cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila are added here three cities which had in the past been considered as part of the unincorporated land in the flood control zone district: Sea-Tac and Federal Way (formed by incorporation.) and Des Moines (legally part of the district, but comprising only 0.1% of its assessed valuation). GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 2 Printed 7/11/90 lQ tl' w N � O a r ��; a ' m _ °oaO $ n omn 'p ; o my m n "r m v r to 3 ^ tail n 7 m m a a �m m o a n ro m m a m N n u y *^ m a o a c cm =m ° m � � 3 m O C1 N N N < H o o w o a Afta 3 N O O1 O W N w � N F C m -.. �, In P P W S m P p� VI 00 = u fmn FC CO V OOO A x x L4J < mm !) m dry �m N VJ 7_.o H "' o N N n m H V V N 10 A ? K K y N s 9 ^ yd z ; r o r o re N p O V O N � Op jO�pp j = N 7 O mf A N N . p3j y O) ~ °l N .� rf re O O P O W N W m N Of O tpn 10 P W N P tVil m m 0 0 -4 °' m m m N 40 uNi o 0 o c - m w o z m c o � o K m< n w N N W O O` m co 0 0 L;l to O W VW m > role 0 1O � O. V ['f wm O m � n [LCg' 0O `NOO Ic wWp °'m Nv n 0 �° o b �' � ;°10 �y rmpNIN ° H om > o K "� r tp 1 o 1-3 LONGER RANGE FUNDING BY USER CHARGES Of the approximately one dozen types of taxing districts, flood control districts are second to the lowest in priority should levies be rolled back". Prudence demands, therefore, that any planning on flood control revenues in the Green River Flood Control Zone District investigate the chances of a roll back there, as any.property tax limitation would almost certainly eliminate the district's levy. In such an event, the activities previously funded by the ad valorem levy would have to be funded all or in part by a new source of revenue, such as a user charge. Tax Lids in Washington State First, under what circumstances would property taxes be rolled back? Three distinct limitations apply to regular property tax levies2 in Washington State. (1) Total levy rates for almost all taxing districts junior to the State cannot exceed $5.90 / $1,000 assessed valuation. (2) Total taxes on any piece of property cannot exceed one percent of its assessed valuation ($10.00 / $1,000) (3) Revenue growth in any one district cannot exceed six percent of the highest of its revenues over the most recent three years. Obviously, each individual taxing district is also bound by the special limitations of its authorizing legislation. These three limitations can be visualized as the "tax stack" of Table III. Note: For a more extensive summary of these three types of tax limitations, including their exemptions and extensions, please refer to Appendix E, "Washington State Property Tax Limitations". V I f 2- Various excess levies, which are voter approved, are not subject to these limitations. GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 5 Printed 7/11/90 10.000 9.000 Limit#1 s.0oo $6.90 MAXD" 7.000 [$5.372 6.000 in 19901 Limit#2 o $10.00 o MAXI" e s.0oo [$9.481 4.000 in 19901 3.000 z.000 1.000 0.000 Limit#S . 108% THE TAX STACK [106%in 1990 in most districts] Table III LIMITATIONS TO PROPERTY TAXES IN WASHINGTON STATE [Using as an example areas in the Green River Flood Control Zone District] Note: $5.372 is the sum of the following regular levies: King County General,King County Road District,Hospital District#1, any one of Fire Districts levying at their full$1.50 and the Rural Library. $9.481 is the sum of the above levies plus the following regular levies: King County Conservation Futures and Washington State. Y N i GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T v Page 6 Printed 7/11/90 The Property Tax "Ceiling" for the Green River Flood Control Zone District Recent and current regular levies for taxing districts in the Green River Flood Control District are listed in Table IV, together will their maximum levy authorized in each district's authorizing statute. The total of these regular levies is calculated in both incorporated and unincorporated areas for the summations applicable to Limitation #1 and to Limitation #2. YEAR: 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 MAXIMUM STATUTORY LEVY [est.[ DISTRICT State[After"normalization",the 3.784 3.842 3.742 4.046 3.66 3.600 state levy can exceed 3.60 KC General 1.310 1.388 1.377 1.464 1.30 1.800 KC Con.Futures 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.06 KC Roads 1.583 1.681 1.716 1.827 1.95 2.250 City/Town[highest] 3.250 3.485 3.412 3.650 3.14 3.600 Hospital#1 0.084 0.088 0.087 0.091 0.09 0.750 Fire (many) 1.600 1.500 1.500 1.600 1.50 1.600 Rural Library 0.600 0.500 0.500 0.600 0.45 0.500 SUM OF ALL MAX. STATUTORY LEVIES LIMIT.#1:Cities 4.644 1 4.961 4.876 5.104 4.53 6.150 LIMIT.#1:County 4.977 5.167 6.180 5,g72 5.29 6.800 LIMIT.#2:Cities 8.491 8.866 y 8.681 9.213 8.14 9.750 LIMIT.#2:County 8.824 9.062 8.985 9.481 8.90 10.400 LEFT FOR FCZD Incorp'd: 1.256 0.939 1.024 0.788 1.37 0.000 County: 0.923 0.745 0.720 0.520 0.61 0.000 Table IV CALCULATION OF "CEILING" FOR THE GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 7 Printed 7/11/90 Limitation #1. In the current tax year, Limitation #1 would not restrict the Flood Control District's from levying at any amount up to $.50 per $1,000, its full statutory authorization. The most limiting sum ($5.372/$1,000) occurs in portions of the unincorporated areas of the Districts If all districts comprising the Limitation #1 sum were to charge at their statutory maxima, however, the total of $6.800/$1,000 would exceed the allowed total of $5.900/$1,000, forcing rollbacks even without the Green River Flood Control Zone District levy. Limitation 02 In the current tax year, Limitation #1 would not restrict the Flood Control District's from levying at any amount up to $.50 per $1,000, its full statutory authorization. The most limiting sum ($9.481/$1,000) also occurs in portions of the unincorporated areas of the District.' If all districts comprising the Limitation #2 sum were to charge at their statutory maxima, however, the total of $10.400/$1,000 would also exceed its allowed total of $10.000/$1,000, forcing rollbacks even without the Green River Flood Control Zone District levy. The trend in Table IV shows the levy amount available for the Green River Flood Control District under each of these first two limitations has steadily decreased over the past four years. More importantly still, if each of the higher priority taxing districts were to levy at their full statutory rates today, no ceiling at all would exist. Limitation #3. Limitation #3 would not limit the District, as RCW 84.55.035 directs that the 106% limit does not apply to the first levy by or for a newly-formed taxing district created other than by consolidation or annexation". The annual revenues, once set, would be limited to 6% growth per year. Y N I 3- Even if the levy total were to exceed Limitation #1 only in one tiny area, the requirement that a taxing district charge uniformly would force a reduction throughout the Flood Control Zone District. '- Similarly, even if the levy total were to exceed Limitation #2 only in one tiny area, the requirement that a taxing district charge uniformly would force a reduction throughout the Flood Control Zone District. GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T _ Page 8 Printed 7/11/90 Complications. Strangely, the 106% limit may actually preserve the ceiling for low priority districts such as the Green River Flood Control District, preventing the $5.90 or $10.00 .W limits from ever being reached. The key interrelation is this: an increase in assessed valuation by itself will tend to cause the revenue collected by all taxing districts to rise. Regardless of any district's need or inclination to tax, there may be little or no need to raise the levy rate. In fact, in times of rapidly increasing assessed valuation, the 106% limitation forces taxing districts to levy at less than their full statutory authorization. Reference back to Table IV will confirm that very few taxing districts are levying at their maximum rates. Over the period 1987-1990, the increase in assessed valuation in the County has "used up", as it were, a portion of the 6% annual revenue growth allowed. In years where "inflation" in assessed valuation exceeds 6%, even a senior district will be forced to lower its levy from the previous year! If the rate of assessed value increases were to consistently average above 6% over Intervals of a few years, junior districts might have ceiling room indefinitely. Annexations and incorporations further complicate the situation. When a district loses assessed valuation (such as the County Road District), the levy rate can rise more than 6% before that district's revenues reach the 106% limitation. In effect, the remainder of the district can receive the burden of supporting 106% of the old, larger district's program. If a sufficiently large portion of a district's is lost due to annexation or incorporation, the district's levy may rise to its full statutory maximum in one year, regardless of the ceiling left the prior year. One must remain cautious about predictions when so many interrelated factors are concerned, but it does appear likely that sufficient ceiling for the Green River Flood Control Zone District's proposed levy will remain available for at least several years. V I GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 9 Printed 7/11/90 Eventual Need for a User Charge Despite the District's good prospects in the short term for an ad valorem levy, in the long term, a secure revenue will be necessary. The Green River Basin Executive Committee has directed that a service charge be anticipated as this revenue. Details of such a service charge have not been determined, given no present need. Many possible bases for a service charge (gross area, impervious area, intensity of use, etc.) are possible. Were the Basin Executive Committee to direct the development of a service charge based on gross property area, the service charge rates would be roughly: For the Base Program $450,000 = approximately $10.20 44,000 acres per acre (the size of the entire District) For the Mill Creek Program $100,000 = approximately $8.50 11,800 acres per acre (the size of the Mill Creek portion of the District) V GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 10 Printed 7/11/90 y APPENDICES y i GREEN RIVER PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT D-R-A-F-T Page 11 Printed 7/11/90 GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM FUNDING ASSESSMENT. APPENDIX A Green River Basin F yA•f ATTACHMENT . (3) GREEN RIVER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (GRMA) FINANCING PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS/BEC ACTION ITEMS (1) WHAT TO FUND A. The Green River Basin Executive Committee (BEC) endorses activation of the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) to fund the annual costs for King County to; 1. operate and maintain the existing P-1 (Black River) and P-17 flood control outlet pump stations and associated flood storage facilities; 2. operate and maintain any flood control outlet(s) and related flood storage facilities subsequently constructed to serve the Mill Creek Basin tributaries; 3. maintain all existing flood control levees , revetments , and river banks within easements or tracts of land granted to King County; 4. maintain all new Green River Levee Improvements within easements or tracts of land granted to King County; and, 5. administer the Green River Basin Program (GRBP) . All such annual costs shall betiauthorized through annual pork programs and budgets approved by the Green River Basin 'Technical Committee (BTC) and BEC as provided in (3) below. B. The BEC further endorses the Green River Flood Control Zone District to fund only such portions of the capital improvement costs for construction of Green River Levee and Mill Creek. Basin Flood Control Improvements as may be subsequently approved by the BEC in the form of an annual GRFCZD Work Program and Budget. King County Auburn Kent Renton Tukwila K.C.Conservation District (M/GR:A) (11/89) Attachment (3) cont'd (2) FUNDING SOURCES The Green River Basin Executive Committee endorses the institution of a GRFCZD service charge as authorized by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 86. 15. 160(4) and 84. 15. 176) to fund only such portions of the foregoing costs as may be 'sub- sequently approved by the BEC in the form of an annual GRFCZD Work Program and Budget. (3) CITY ROLE IN FUNDING DECISIONS The Green River Basin Executive Committee endorses joint City/County administration of the GRFCZD through either of the following options: 1. Negotiation of Interlocal Agreements between the Cities and King County authorizing the BTC to formulate, and the BEC to approve, an annual GRFCZD Work Program and Budget; or 2. Amendments to appropriate sections of the RCW to provide for joint City/County management of GRFCZD activities and . expenditures through direct BTC oversight and BEC approval of the annual GRFCZD Work Program and Budget. (4) GRFCZD IMPLEMENTATION The BEC hereby directs the BTC to prepare appropriate documents as needed to activate the GRFCZD including but not limited to the following: 1. Interlocal Agreements to formalize joint City/County control of GRFCZD activities and budget approval through the GRBP; 2. Draft amendments to appropriate sections of the RCW to provide for direct BTC oversight and BEC approval of the Jannual GRCFZD work program and budget; 3. Draft legislation to activate the GRFCZD for the purposes outlined in items (1) - (3) above; 4. Detailed estimates of GRFCZD program costs for the years 1990 and 1991; and, 5. Draft legislation establishing GRFCZD service charge rates pursuant to item (2) above. (M/GR:A) (11/89) FUNDING ASSESSMENT: Green River Basin ) APPENDIX C. GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT - SERVICE CHARGE FUNDING ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES GREEN RIVER PUMP STATION 0 & M Based on average cost 1985 - 1988) $140,000 P-1 (Black River) $ 10,000 P-17 (Tukwila) Subtotal $150,000 LEVEES AND REVETMENTS MAINTENANCE (Based on average costs 1984 - 1988 Subtotal $20_00 for current maintenance practices) GRBP WORK PROGRAM (Based on average costs 1986 - 1989) Administration (BTC/BEC) $ 45,000 Pump Operations Procedures Plan $ 10,000 ° Flood Warning Plan $ 10,000 Levees (includes Finance Plan) $ 35,000 Subtotal $1009000 SHARED TOTAL ESTIMATE TOTAL $55� O,000 V MILL CREEK (includes Finance Plan)* $10_ 0_000* * Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan and Financing Plan will continue to be shared among King County, Auburn, and Kent. (10/89; " King County Auburn Kent Renton , Tukwila K.C.Conservation District t : Green River Basin Program hm . CITY OF KFNT MAR 2 31989 ' fN6iN€�RiN� 6€RT. March 22 , 1989 To: Green River Basin Technical Committee From: Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section King County Surface Water Management RE: Groan River Basin Technical committee Meeting Attached is a draft paper on Green River Channel Maintenance which gives background information and introduces several issues to be resolved in upcoming BTC discussions of maintenance policy. The paper is being circulated within King County for review and r is considered a preliminary report for discussion purposes only. As you know, our next Green River Basin Technical Committee Meeting has been rescheduled to 9: 30 am on Wednesday, March 29 , in Tukwila's Engineering Conference Room (in the Public Works Annex adjacent to City Hall) . Agenda items . will include: • Interlocal Agreements - Levee Improvements � - Mill Creek • Green River Levee Maintenance Program • 1989 Green River Basin Program Budget cc: Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River and Water Resources Tom Bean, Engineer, River and Water Resources Tom Nesbitt, Planning and Management, Inc. King County Auburn Kent Renton Tukwila' K.C.Conservation District GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE OUR' Discussion Paper I. Purpose This paper presents discussion of issues affecting maintenance and operation costs of the Green River flood control system. The information is presented for use in preparing needed detailed Basin Technical Committee (BTC) response to the January 26 , 1989 , Basin Executive Committee (BEC) resolution that the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) be levied to raise funds with which to operate and maintain Green River levees and pumps. The specific focus of this discussion is on the portion of the Green River system which lies within the legal boundaries of the GRFCZD. This paper is organized in the following outline form: I. Purpose II. Existing Maintenance Program III. Policy Issues and Recommendations IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal II. Existing Maintenance Program Maintenance Management System King County currently provides for river maintenance as one component of an overall storm drainage facility maintenance program termed the Maintenance Management System (MMS) . River maintenance needs are documented through field visits for facility assessments throughout all King County river systems during the spring of each year. The assessments are prepared and analyzed by the staff of King County Surface Water Management 's Facilitiyes Management (SWM-FM) Section. Actual maintenance expenditures are not limited so much by the annual needs assessments as by availability of resources raised through the county-wide River Improvement Fund (RIF) levy. Maintenance needs , including those within the GRFCZD, must therefore be systemmatically prioritized on a county-wide basis. The first cut priorities are established by merely sorting all assessed needs by the type of facility .in the following order: KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 2 Buff II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) 1. Pump Plants 2. Levees 3. Enclosed Drainage Systems 4. Regional R/D Facilities 5. Revetments 6. Open Drainage Facilities 7. Settling Basins 8. Docks 9. River Channels 10. Boat Ramps MMS policy dictates that maintenance of high-priority facilities occur to the extent of RIF resources. Pump plants , being the highest- priority facilities , are to be fully maintained. Boat ramps , being the least-priority facilities , are only to be maintained in years when all other facilities are fully maintained. In practice, professional judgment plays an important role in the MMS process. In addition to the above facility priority list, the MMS defines several goals: 1. Function to design and operational standards 2. Maximum safety 3. Accessibility 4. Security of facility and surrounding properties 5. Multi-use functions 6. Aesthetics SWM-FM professional staff prepares spreadsheet matrices indicating each facility 's needed maintenance tasks and the associated cost estimates. They then recommend a specific combination of county-wide maintenance activities , through theynormal budget process , to the King County Council. I Service Levels . For some tasks , such as maintenance of landscaped grounds , King County has defined three levels of service. For example, landscaped grounds have been assigned the following lawn mowing service levels: i Service Level 1 Mow every week, March to Sept. Service Level 2 Mow every other week, March to Sept. Service Level 3 Mow every month, March to Sept. The same terminology is used differently with river flood control structures. Each year 's budget has been prepared in a menu format, with various "Service Levels" applied to the county-wide maintenance program. In effect, budget preparation has asked the question, " If $ were available for county-wide river maintenance , which river maintenance tasks would be performed? " Three such "Service KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 UPAffGREEN RIVER CH ANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 3 II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) Level" scenarios have typically been prepared each year, and presented as budgeting options to the Executive and Council offices. River maintenance facilities have therefore not been assigned specific service levels in the manner of landscaped grounds maintenance, but instead each facility is subject to SWM-FM judgment each year in the spring maintenance assessment. Trees which become established on levees or revetments are not maintained at all until an assessment finds either "associated problems" (debris , erosion, or visual obstructions) or vegetation which covers more than 1/3 of the structure. At that time, the trees are completely cut down. No systemmatic attempt is made to prune or otherwise constructively "guide" plant growth. Types of Maintenance The maintenance program examines five major components of river structures; the bank slope , the slope toe , any vegetation on the structure, the back slope, and associated access roads. For bank slope and toe problems , the maintenance procedure primarily consists of regrading and rebuilding rock revetments to the original designs. Vegetation maintenance strategy is similarly simple; allow unhindered growth until certain standards are exceeded, and then "cut to ground" . Access roads are mowed and cleared of debris in order to preserve a usable driving surface. S� 9�ver Assessment Each spring King County 's SWM-FM attempts assessment of every river flood control facility in the county. Additional assessments are conducted immediately following every major flood event. Standardized MMS forms are completed by the field crews (utility workers) for each facility and forwarded for processing by SWM-FM professional staff as outlined abovke. Eme genevIMaintenance The careful planning of the spring assessment and the MMS is used in the County 's annual budget process to set the next year 's expenditures . However, some maintenance needs , once discovered, cannot be responsibly allowed to wait a year or more before repairs are begun. Therefore, funds appropriated one year based upon the previous .year 's spring assessment may very well be used to maintain facilities in which more urgent needs have subsequently been found. Further budgeting complications arise as needed repairs wait for funding. One spring 's assessment may document weak spots in bank armor; significant bank erosion may occur during any flood which precedes armor repair. Following the intense flooding of 1986 , several budget supplements were necessary in order to fund emergency river maintenance. At tha-"• time, SWM-FM staff discussed including emergency funds in their annual budget. However, no procedure was devised which could simplify KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper DUff Page 4 µ II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) the existing budget supplement process without encroaching upon proper Council budget authorities . Pump Plant Maintenance The P-1 and P-17 pump plants are maintained and operated by King County. Perpetual local commitment to this task was given to the SCS prior to federal construction of the facilities. This commitment was to have been assumed by the GRFCZD as a part of the entire flood control plan including both SCS (Eastside and Westside) projects. However, neither SCS project has been substantially completed, so GRFCZD funding has not yet been applied to this task. Maintenance Standards King County has developed a set of vegetation management and maintenance standards for river structures (appended to this report) . The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has proposed contract language requiring local sponsors to maintain federally-constructed Green River levees "in accordance with regulations or directions prescribed by the Government. " The proposed contract would allow the COE to require such maintenance of federally-built improvements on 30 days ' notice. The Washington State Department of Fisheries holds Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permitting authority over any work done within the river channel. Typical HPA requirements on Green River bank stabilization projects include: •Equipment must be operated from the top of bank. • Overburden material cannot be wasted into the river. V • Existing trees must be protected. I • Toe construction must include large boulders to provide fish habitat. • 1ewly-armored surfaces must be revegetated. i Green River Maintenan .e History The construction of Howard Hanson Dam and several associated Green River flood control projects were accomplished through King County 's local sponsorship of COE and SCS construction. At that time the GRFCZD was being created as a regional local sponsor for design, construction, maintenance and operation for the major Green River projects envisioned by the SCS. Although the GRFCZD was successfully formed in 1965 , other political problems tabled most of the SCS plans. The creation of the current Green River Basin Program recognized the KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE DRAff Discussion Paper Page 5 II. Existing Maintenance Program (cont 'd) probable use of the GRFCZD by including a GRFCZD Supervisor (King County Councilman) in the BEC along with executive-branch representation from each of the five jurisdictions. III. Policy Issues and Recommendations 5-pr na River Assessment As a needs assessment system is an obvious need for any maintenance program, we expect the field activities of the spring assessment to be continued in largely the same manner as in the past. Additional levee construction as proposed under the 1987 Green River Levee Improvement Plan (LIP) would increase the scope of the assessment process. Further, the county-wide assessment includes such structures as docks and boat ramps. Although several of these facilities provide access necessary for river inspection, some may fall outside specific GRFCZD authorization (under RCW 86 . 15 . 080) . Therefore, some territorial overlap would occur between the continuing county-wide assessment and any new GRFCZD process. Policy issues include: • Is annual assessment adequate? Too frequent? For all facility types? • Is current King County assessment reporting format acceptable? • Green River maintenance assessments would be prioritized separately from the remainder of King County; should the separate Green River prioritization process be overseen by an advisory committee to the GRFCZD (per RCW 86. 15. 070)? Such committees are limited to five members; a likely arzlangement would include the five executives from the! BEC (and therefore exclude the GRFCZD Supervisors " BEC representative) . Des ian Standards City-built improvements to a not-city-maintained levee system would be analogous to the public road and utility improvements being built by private developers throughout the region. The developers , who do not personally foot the bill for future repairs , rarely insist upon quality road construction. Large chunks of public road maintenance budgets are consumed by the subsequent repair to developer-built roads which fail the test of time. In order to insure that the GRFCZD maintenance budget is not consumed by repair to products of poor construction, the regional program may ,_ reserve design and construction approval powers over levee improvements before accepting them for regional maintenance. Questions include: Vn SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE OUR Discussion Paper Page 6 III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont 'd) • What specific standards should apply to design and construction? • Who should administer regional design review? • Who should administer regional construction inspection? • Should a maintenance/defect inspection (perhaps one year after construction completion) be included as part of the acceptance process? • How should differing opinions be resolved? • How do private levees (ie, Segale) fit in? Emergency Maintenance By state statute, flood control zone district budgets must be prepared at the time of county budget preparation. Therefore, many needs identified in a spring assessment are not funded until the following January, and then may not actually be addressed until the summer construction season more than a year after the need was documented. • Can GRFCZD funding meet requirements of state law and, at the same time, increase the flexibility to prioritize maintenance activities based upon more current assessments? • How might catastrophic failures , for which needs exceed budgeted funds available , be addressed? V • Should the GRFCZD capitalize' a "rainy day" account for emergency use only? • How should an emergency be defined and declared? Prioritization Process The LIP documented broad variationp in need for levee segments which remained .deficient. The LIP was developed in three phases , in order to speed construction of those levee segments needed for protection of existing urban-use land while delaying improvements to those levee deficiencies which only impact agricultural and park lands. Subsequent design work has further explored the necessity of slope protection along the river banks. The COE has developed setback levee designs for protection of the Southcenter area. Current COE plans do not include significant bank protection. King County 's SWM Project Management and Design section has secured COE concurrence with a similar design approach in the Horseshoe Bend levee segment. These KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper BUFT Page 7 III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont 'd) Green River design decisions lend credence to current King County policy of prioritizing maintenance needs of levees ahead of revetments. Policy questions include: • Should complex matrices be developed to prescribe priorities between combinations of facility type and protected land use? • Should the "Level of Service" concept be applied to river structures , establishing priority rankings among the various levee segments? • Should annual maintenance priorities be developed through the professional judgment of an advisory committee to the GRFCZD? Ft-deral Projects The COE has proposed contract language requiring local sponsors to maintain federally-constructed Green River levees "in accordance with regulations or directions prescribed by the Government. " The propose ' contract would allow the COE to require such maintenance of - federally-built improvements on 30 days " notice. The BEC resolution of January 26 , 1989 , recommends that the GRFCZD maintain levees which are to be constructed by the valley cities. This would require some additional interlocal agreement to finesse the COE language which implies that, both maintenance and local cost share responsibilities would be undertaken by a single local sponsor. Fasem -n ./Access Conditions_ Easements would be needed granting CORFCZD rights to inspect and work on the nerd river structures in the maintenance program. • Who Ishould evaluate easements for adequacy? • What should constitute minimum easement standards (ie, width to allow adequate access , acceptable setbacks for stability, etc.;) ? • Should easements be wider than actual facilities in order to allow room in which to work with heavy maintenance equipment, provide room for shade tree establishment behind the levees , etc. ? • What provisions should be required to insure ability to complete windshield assessments of - levees during high-river events? KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Discussion Paper Page 8 III. Policy Issues and Recommendations (cont 'd) Maintenance Menu Potential "extras" include: • Gates and fencing for access control • Levee top surfacing • Levee toe repair • Levee slope face repair • Levee plantings Coordination with Local Surface Water Utilities Maintenance responsibilities must be clearly defined. Questions include: • Who should maintain outfall structures? • Who should maintain natural outfalls to the river? • Along what line should responsibilities be divided? • How can mobilization costs be minimized? IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal Existing Pump Plants The P-1 and P-17 pump plants should continue to be maintained and operated by King County personnel. The costs should be supported through levy of the GRFCZD. y Policies and D .siLn Standards All levy projects should obtain design approval through King County 's Surface Water Management Division. Process for Addine New Facilities In order to qualify for GRFCZD maintenance , new facilities within the district should: 1. Obtain GRFCZD design review approval 2. Obtain GRFCZD construction inspection approval 3. Obtain GRFCZD maintenance/defect inspection approval (field inspection to verify satisfactory function one year after construction approval) - Ann -xa i ons /In .o vo ati ons Because jurisdictional boundaries are immaterial both to the physical processes involved in flood control and to the financial workings of KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE RJR D Discussion Paper Page, 9 - IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal (cont 'd) the GRFCZD, this maintenance program proposal is not affected by changes to those boundaries. Anress /Easement Conditions Easement should include a suitable driving surface of minimum 15-foot width which connects at each end to allow continuous vehicular access along river bank. Easement should give perpetual right to maintain improvements , including addition or reconstruction. Coordination with Parks Trails River Renrea ion Maintenance expenses under GRFCZD are strictly limited by state law to flood control items. Mowing, pruning, planting, and other . maintenance activities may be efficiently performed by a single crew working both in parks or trail right-of-way and on the levees ; however, expenses would have to be calculated separately for the two types of facilities . Habitat Enhancement GRFCZD levies should be used primarily for maintenance of function. Where necessary permits for maintenance activities require plantings and/or other mitigations , GRFCZD levy funds should be used to satisfy those requirements. No separate program of riparian habitat enhancement is proposed for funding under the GRFCZD maintenance program. Flood Control Assistance Account Program Washington State Department of Ecology grant funding under the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) should be vigorously pursued. Flood control zone districts are expressly eligible for FCAAP grants , which can include the types of maintenance being proposed as GRFCZD activities . FCAAP grants require at least 20% local share for emergency projects , and 50% local share for non- emergency work. V N Federal Ptoj .c s The GRFCZD maintenance program should accept federal projects for maintenance as long as the usual plan and inspection approvals are obtained. Service L .v is f Annual assessment of all facilities should be continued. Priority needs identified in any given assessment cycle should be addressed with appropriate maintenance measures before the next flooding season starts. Intangible Cost Elements King County administrative costs involved with GRFCZD levy collectio- should be reimbursed to the county 's general fund by the GRFCZD. KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 GREEN RIVER CHANNEL MAI NTENANCE OUR Discussion Paper Page 10 IV. Green River Maintenance Program Proposal (cont 'd) Cost of RerommendPd PmEram Annual budget should include: P-1 and P-17 Pump Stations : $ 150, 000 (maintain existing funding) Levee/revetment maintenance: $ 150, 000 ($3 , 000 / bank / mile / Y ----- - ------------------------------------- Total Annual GRFCZD Budget $ 300 , 000 Because the GRFCZD includes properties for which 1988 assessed value (AV) totals $6. 493 billion, the current annual levy should be less than $0. 05 per thousand. Future development will increase the GRFCZD's total AV but minimally impact maintenance needs , therefore allowing levy rates to be diminished. B]+ +�n-t;vG Proerams / os .s To be developed as BTC discussion unfolds . V N KC SWM RWR DRAFT 3/21/89 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PLAN THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and among the CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Auburn" ) , the CITY OF KENT a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Kent" ) , the COUNTY OF KING (hereinafter referred to as "King County" ) , the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Tukwila" ) and the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Renton" ) , . WHEREAS, all the parties hereto include portions of the Green River Basin , which presents both drainage and flooding problems as well as recreational and resource potentials which are not wholly controllable by measures taken within the boundaries of any one party; and WHEREAS, all the parties hereto have participated in the Green River Basin Program under the terms of an agreement signed by all parties and effective July 18 , 1985 , V resulting , among other products , in the 1987 Levee Improvement Plan and L•:HEREAS , there are mutual advantages to the parties hereto in stating to one another their commitments to implementing this plan and WHEREAS , all the parties hereto formally expressed their approval of formation of a Green River Flood Control Zone District and such District was established under the authority of RCW 86 . 16 in December, 1965 and WHEREAS , i L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 1 The parties hereby agree to as follows : W Auburn agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Take responsibility for the by provided that King detailed design and [ / ] County agrees to construction of. all Phase II maintain these and Phase III levee improvements to the improvements within the City level of service of Auburn (estimated at a specified in total of $ 0 . 89 million , see Attachment B Attachment A) AND provided that King County activates the Green River Flood Control District to fund such levee maintenance . Endorse the use of the Green by [no conditions?) . River Flood Control District to fund continuing riverbank, revetment and levee maintenance and the P-1 and P-17 pump plants ' maintenance and operation AND reimburse King County for [**] % of the costs of securin District financing (** o be filled in with the ratio of the total assessed valuation of Auburn within the Green River Flood Control Zone District to the total assessed valuation of the Green River Flood Control Zone District) L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 2 , Kent agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Take responsibility for the by provided that King detailed design and [ / J County agrees to construction of all right bank maintain these Phase II levee improvements improvements to the within the City of Kent level of service (estimated at a total of specified in $ 2 . 25 million , see Attachment S Attachment A) AND provided that King County activates the Green River Flood Control District to fund such levee maintenance . Endorse the use of the Green by [no conditions?) . River Flood Control District to fund continuing riverbank., revetment and levee maintenance and the P1 and P17 pump plants ' maintenance and operation AND reimburse King County for [**) % of the costs of securing District financing (** to be filled in with the ratio of the total ass e sed valuation of Kent within the Green River Flood Control Zone District to the total assessed valuation of the Green River Flood Control Zone District) L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 3 King County agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Maintain all existing Green annual provided that a River levees, riverbanks and majority of the revetments and levees within cities of Auburn, easements granted and conveyed Kent, Renton and to King County Tukwila request by resolutions of AND their respective City Councils that maintain all Green River levee King County provide improvements to be constructed these services under the terms of this agreement within easements AND granted and conveyed to King County provided that the cities agree to a AND service level maintenance program maintain and operate the P-1 as specified in and P-17 pump plants within Attachment B. easements granted and conveyed to King County AND raise revenues for such maintenance through a tax levied by the existing Green River Flood Control District Prepare for the review and by (No conditions?) . approval by the Green River [6/891 Basin Technical Committee a set of uniform design and V construltion and access standards for levee and channel improvements proposed for maintenance by King County AND P update 'said standards at regular intervals L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 4 Renton agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Endorse the use of the Green by [provided that River Flood Control District ( / ] Auburn , Kent, King to fund continuing riverbank, County and Tukwila revetment and levee consent to the use maintenance and the P1 and P17 of the Green River pump plants ' maintenance and Flood Control Zone operation District to fund maintenance of AND those portions of the SCS Eastside reimburse King County for Watershed Plan [**] % of the costs of channel system securing District financing which are (** to be filled in with constructed within the ratio of the total the City of Renton assessed valuation of Renton within the Green AND River Flood Control Zone District to the total (provided that assessed valuation of the Auburn , Kent, King Green River Flood Control County and Tukwila Zone District) consent to the use of the Green Rive Flood Control Zone District to reimburse the local sponsor costs incurred by Renton for construction of the SCS Eastside Watershed Plan . V I i L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 5 _, Tukwila agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Take responsibility for the by provided that the detailed design and [ / l Corps of Engineers construction of. all Phase I awards Tukwila a levee improvements within the grant of approri- City of Tukwila and all left mately $ 1 . 01 bank Phase II levee million for the improvements within the City construction of the of Tukwila (estimated at a Phase I total of $ 1 . 92 million , see improvements Attachment A) AND provided that King County agrees through an inter- local agreement with Tukwila to perform Tukwila' s maintenance obliga- tion for such im- provements as set forth in the Corps / Tukwila Local Cost Sharing Agreement AND provided that King County agrees to maintain the non- federal levee improvements to the level of service y specified in Attachment B AND provided that King County activates the Green River Flood Control District to fund such levee maintenance . L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 6 Tukwila agrees to: (continued) Endorse the use of the Green hN), [no conditions?] . River Flood Control District / l to fund continuing riverbank, revetment and levee maintenance and the P1 and P17 pump plants ' maintenance and operation AND reimburse King County for [**] % of the costs of the costs of securing District financing (** to be filled in with the ratio of the total assessed valuation of Tukwila within the GRFCZD to the total assessed valuation of the GRFCZD) V I L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 7 In addition, all parties to this agreement agree to: COMpIITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Jointly fund the operational annual- provided that consideration be and administrative costs of ly c the annual Green River Basin given to given these Program related to: costs into the * the Flood Warning annual GRFCZD Program , budget. * the Pump Operations Procedures Plan and * the Basin Technical and Executive Committee Administration V L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 8 Additions . to consider : * annual meeting / annual budget * termination / amendment duration effective date hold harmless liability signature block * schedule of commitments * * Y I L.I.P. AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 9 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT GREEN RIVER BASIN PROGRAM MILL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PLAN red into by and among the CITY OF AUBURN , a THIS AGREEMENT is ente in the State of Washington (hereinafter municipal corporation referred to as Auburn" ) , the CITY OF KENT a municipal �� einafter referred to corporation in the State of Washington (her as "Kent" ) and the COUNTY OF KING (hereinafter referred to as "King County" ) • WHEREAS, all the parties hereto include portions of the Mill Creek Basin , which presents both drainage and flooding problems as well as recreational, fisheries and resource and environmental protection potentials which are not wholly controllable by measures taken within the boundaries of any one party; and WHEREAS, Auburn, Kent, King County, the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington OF (hereinafter referred to as "Tukwila" ) , the CITYRENTON, a municipal corporation in the State of have Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Renton" ) participated in the Green River Management Program parties under the terms of an agreement signedY and effective July 18 , 1985 and WHEREAS , the Mill Creek Basin is wholly contained within the boundaries of Auburn , Kent and King County WHEREAS , the Green River Basin Program has authorized local sponsorship of the Soil Conservation Service a� tofde Watershed Project, which includes the major p the Mill Creek Basin V WHEREAS , I WHEREAS , i _ D _ R _ A _ F _ T - 3/10/89 Page 1 MILL CREEK AGREEMENT The parties hereby agree to as follows : Auburn agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Negotiate and sign with King by [No conditions?) . County and the City of Kent an [6/89) agreement to prepare a Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan Negotiate and sign with the by [No conditions?] . City of Kent an agreement to [ 6/89] fund, design and construct slide gates at the Mill Creek and Mullen Slough outlets into the Green River which protect. the Mill Creek and Mullen Slough floodplains from backwater flooding from the Green River V I i MILL CREEK AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 2 Kent agrees to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Negotiate and sign with King by [No conditions?] . County and the City of Kent an [6/B9] agreement to prepare a Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan Negotiate and sign with the by [No conditions?] . City of Kent an agreement to [ 6/89] fund, design and construct slide gates at the Mill Creek and Mullen Slough outlets into the Green River which protect the Mill Creek and Mullen Slough floodplains from backwater flooding from the Green River V I MILL CREEK AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 3 King County agrees to: COMMITMENTTIMING CONDITIONS Negotiate and sign with the by [No conditions?] . Cities of Auburn and Kent an [6/89] agreement to prepare a Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan V I i MILL CREEK AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 4 In addition , all parties to this agreement agree to: COMMITMENT TIMING CONDITIONS Jointly seek federal funding by [No conditions?) . through coordination and. local sponsor agreements with the Soil Conservation Service on the Westside Watershed Project AND jointly participate with the Corps of Engineers in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan to ensure its compatibility with flood control plans for the Mill Creek Basin V "" MILL CREEK AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 5 Additions to consider : * termination duration effective date hold harmless liability signature block * * V i MILL CREEK AGREEMENT - D - R - A - F - T - 3/10/89 Page 6 _. FROM:KING COUNTY DPW/SWM.". TO:CITY OF KENT JUL 31 1990 10 4BRM P.02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GREEN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FINANCING REPORT In 1965, King County, with the approval of the Cities of Auburn, Kent., Renton, and Tukwila, formed the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD) . The intended purpose of the District was to plan, finance, and construct Green River Valley'; flood control projects. since its inception, the District has not participated in the funding of any projects. In November of 19891 the Green River Basin Executive Committee (BBC) endorsed the activation of the District to fund the annual costs for King County to operate and maintain various flood control activities as well as to . jointly administer the Green River Basin Program (GRBP) with the Valley Cities. The BBC directed that a report be prepared documenting the financing plan of the GRFCZD and briefings with the City/County Councils be arranged to review the plan. 1. Flood Control Zone Districts, created under RCW 86: 15, are authorized to establish "within any zone or participating zones an annual ad valorem property tax levy of not to exceed fifty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value" , subject to the statutory and constitutional limits on property taxes. such an ad valorum tax would be collected by King County, as administrator of the District, on behalf of the GRFCZD. The tax would be approximately $. 06 per thousand dollars of assessed value for the "base" program and' approximately $. 07 per thousand dollars of assessed value for the Mill Creek program. Generated revenues would be used to cover the following 1991 Costs! Base Program $200, 000 operation and maintenance of the Green River levee system operation and maintenance $150, 000 of P-1 and P-17 pump plants y administration of the 5140, 000 Green River Basin Program Total Cost of Base Program $450, 000 C oControl Mill ,-� pr $100.000 - Mill Creek pro ect design Total Cost $550, 000 Activation of the GRFCZD would benefit all the participants. A funding base would be established to provide for the maintenance of flood control facilities for the Lower Green River Valley. Activation of . the District would also provide FROM:KING COUNTY DPW/SWM TO:CITY OF KENT JUL 31, 1990 1O:49AM P.O3 ro funding for maintenance of newly constructed levees and would provide the cities with the opportunity to participate in Corps of Engineers' laves improvement projects. An active GRFCZD could be used in the future to fund the operation and maintenance of other major regional flood control projects as they are constructed. Funding from the GRFCZD would provide administrative costs for the GRBP that cities have previously supported from other city revenues. County River Improvement Funds (RIF) that have previously supported the GRBP could be made available for use in the County's share of new capital projects. The City of Kent, having approved of the formation of the GRFCZD in 1965 .and having signed the Green River Management Agreement (GRMA) in. 1985, is being asked to adopt a Resolution requesting the King County Council to activate the GRFCZD for the purpose of funding flood control activities within the authority of the District. .In light of this proposed resolution, personnel from King County Surface Water Management Division will provide additional information to the City Council during briefings to be' conducted in August 1990. V i Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO PARKING REVISIONS REGULATIONS (VCA 90-3) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On July 17, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended modifications to the city's existing zoning regulations related to parking requirements in multi-family developments. 3 . EXHIBITS: Cover Memo, Staff report to Planning Commission for 1990 and Minutes of Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 1990. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission dated July 17, 1990 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCALIPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember 'v Y ` seconds to approv the recommendations of the Planning Commission s eta ®�epma is in Regcria iorttiiFc: 9fr-..,. -;.�- direct the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance. DISCUSSION:_ g ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF NaLI�2� LS Dan Kelleher, Mayor James P. Harris, Planning Director The City of Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years 4ht�aIIO4.R, KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 15, 1990 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGES TO ZONING CODE REGULATIONS RELATING TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT (ZCA 90-3) On July 23 , 1990, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certain changes to the City's zoning code relating to parking requirements for proposed multifamily developments. The matter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the Council ' s Planning Committee in March, 1990. This issue stemmed from a parking problem at The Lakes development, which was brought to the attention of the City Council by the Bridgewater condominium homeowners. The recommended changes by the Planning Commission address future multifamily developments incorporating garages in their site plan. As approved, garages would be accessed by an 18-foot driveway which would act as a "stacking space" for the garage. In the event that a garage unit is used for another purpose, the 18-foot stacking space would serve as a facto parking stall, ensuring adequate parking. In addition, the Planning Commission has recommended that the code be amended to allow the Planning Department to conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. ( Attachments: PC Staff Report PC Minutes Rh L - — 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3390/FAX#859-3334 KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 17, 1990 MEMO TO: Linda Martinez, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Laura Yeats Planning Intern RE: Planning Commission Public Hearing of July 23 , 1990 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements I. BACKGROUND In March of 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Department evaluate the existing conditions and investigate options for revising the parking standards for Multi-family development. The request is a response to the recurring concern at the Bridgewater Condominium site located within the Lakes subdivision. The parking problem at the Bridgewater Condominium development was investigated by the Kent Public Works Department in April 1990. As a possible solution, the Public Works Department proposed a plan where on-street parking could be accommodated on Lakeside Boulevard. This alternative was endorsed by the City Council Public Works Committee and presented to representatives of the condominium homeowners association. The homeowners association is currently considering the possibility of funding such a project. Parking problems at the Bridgewater Condominiums have given . rise to a broader concern regarding the adequacy of the City Is parking requirements in general. In this report the Planning Department investigates the City' s parking requirements with respect to multifamily residential development. Kent's regulations are compared to those of other cities; in addition, staff also conducted a field survey of parking patterns that served as a "reality check" of existing parking requirements. The following issues emerge from the apparent lack of parking at the Bridgewater condominiums: 1. Parking requirements for multi-family development. With the changing car ownership patterns and living situations, the existing Zoning Code parking requirements for multi-family development may be insufficient to meet the parking demand. Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 2 . Parking impacts posed by apartments versus condominiums: 1) car ownership and 2) the use of enclosed garages. Studies indicate that condominiums tend to have a higher percentage of automobiles per unit than apartments (APA Planning Advisory Service "Flexible Parking Requirements", 1983) . This can be explained by higher incomes and automobile ownership patterns. Bridgewater, like many other multi-family complexes within Kent, incorporate enclosed garages as part of their required parking. In fact, 50 percent of parking spaces provided at the Bridgewater Condominiums are garages. However, garages are often used for storage causing more cars to find alternative locations for parking. The use of garages is not regulated by the City, but rather it is established by the condominium association or apartment management. 3 . The provision of visitor parking. Since there are no direct provisions in the code for guest parking, non-residents, not finding adequate parking in the space provided, seek alternative locations for parking. II. EXISTING PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT The existing parking requirements for multi-family dwellings per Sec. 15. 05 . 040 A of the Kent Zoning Code is as follows: One parking space per unit for efficiency apartments in all sized developments; Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit for developments with 49 or less d.u. ; 1. 8 parking spaces per d.u. for developments of 50 or more d.u. For developments of 50 or more d.u. , one parking space for each 15 d.u. for recreational vehicles. R.V. parking spaces shall be in a defined fenced and screened area with a minimum of a six foot high, sight obscuring fence and/or landscaping as determined by the Planning Department; or the developer may provide an area of usable open space equal to that area that would be required for R.V. parking. 2 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 In addition, if the development incorporates a recreational building or day care facility the following requirements apply: Recreational buildings (Sec. 15. 05. 040 D) One parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet gross floor area. Such spaces shall be located adjacent to the building and shall be designated for visitors by signing or other special markings. Day Care Centers (Sec. 15. 05. 040 E) One parking space for each employee plus loading and unloading areas. There are no provisions for visitor parking; however, non- residents can park in the recreation building or the day care spaces during off-hours. III. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW Planning Department staff conducted two surveys to gather information for this report: a survey of other jurisdiction's parking requirements and a windshield survey of existing parking conditions at several apartment and condominium complexes in Kent. Staff surveyed other jurisdictions in the area to compare parking requirements. There are three methods for requiring parking based on parking demand, each more specific than the former: by the number of dwelling units; by the number of bedrooms within each dwelling unit; and by floor area as expressed in square footage. By Number of Dwelling Units City Parking Space/unit Guest Pka? Bothell 2 spaces/unit No Edmonds 2 spaces/unit No Everett 2 spaces/unit for first No 100 units; 1.5 for all other units less than 3 bdrm Issaquah 2 spaces/unit No 3 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17 , 1990 Kirkland 1.7 or 1.8/unit varies No with zoning district Marysville 1.75 spaces/unit No Renton 1.5 spaces/unit .25 spaces /unit Tukwila 2 spaces/unit No By Number of Bedrooms City Parking Spaces/unit Guest Pkg? Auburn 0-2 bdrm- 1. 5 spaces/unit No 3+ bdrm- 2 spaces/unit Bellevue 0-1 bdrm- 1. 2 spaces/unit No 2 bdrm- 1. 6 spaces/unit 3+ bdrm- 1.8 spaces/unit Bellingham Studios - 1 space/unit No (Plan to 1-2 bdrm- 1.5 spaces/unit amend to . 5 3+ bdrm- 2 spaces/unit spaces /unit (Planning to amend to 2 for guest pkg. ) space for all units) No Redmond Studios - 1. 2 spaces/unit 1 bdrm - 1. 5 spaces/unit 2 bdrm - 1. 8 spaces/unit 3+ bdrm - 2 spaces/unit By Square Footage There were no local jurisdictions that use the square footage method but a study done in Orange County, California (1981) concluded that it was the most consistent indicator for parking demand for multi-family housing. The following table specifies the square footage and recommended parking. Square feet Parking Spaces 700 or less 1 701-800 1. 17 801-900 1. 34 901-11000 1. 50 1, 001-1, 100 1. 67 1, 101-1, 200 1. 84 4 _. Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 1,201-11300 2 11301-11400 2 . 18 11401-11500 2 . 34 Over 1, 500 2 .5 The second survey consisted of a windshield survey of several multi-family developments to scope the parking situation and to document any noticeable parking deficiencies. The survey was conducted between 5: 30 and 8: 30 pm on Thursday, July 5, 1990, at a time when residents are returning from work and garages are more likely to be open. The following is a list of the complexes surveyed, covering both apartments and condominiums, with and without garages. Those with garages are indicated with parenthesis. Slides were taken to document the conditions and will be available for viewing at the workshop. Lower West Hill Lake Fenwick Estates 24849 - 46th Ave. S. 216 units Panorama Place Condos(garages) 25002 Lake Fenwick Rd. 42 units Westridge Townhouses (garages) 24815 Lake Fenwick Rd. 90 units Valley Floor Bridgewater Condos (garages) 23958 58th Ct. South 110 units Hampton Bay at the Lakes 6305 S. 238th P1. 304 units Island Park 23529 - 60th Ave. S. 254 units Riverwood Apts. 24620 Russell Rd. 336 units East Hill Forest Creek Apts 24802 99th P1. S. 92 units Heather Ridge Condos 9623 S. 248th St. 84 units Highland Creste Apts 24006 - 108th P1. SE 198 units Kings Place 10811 SE 239th 366 units Ridgegate Apts (garages) 24808 - 100th P1. SE 153 units Royal Firs Apts 24028 110th P1. SE 186 units The Shires (garages) 24840 - 110th P1. SE 211 units Walnut Park Apts (garages) 24817 - 112th Ave. SE 140 units Windshield Survey findings: Parking on adjacent streets and other areas not striped for parking were filled before other stalls within the development because of better access and proximity to unit entrances. „w 5 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 v - Cars were parked opposite the fire lane, narrowing the through access. - There was adequate amount of available parking within each development. - Garages were often used for storage, office and/or workshop rather than for cars. - Garages with cars had second car abutting garage door. - Cars parked parallel to garage doors, inhibiting through access. III. ALTERNATIVES Based on both survey findings, four alternatives have been developed for further discussion. Planning staff will elaborate on these alternatives at the workshop. The alternatives can be considered alone or in conjunction with one another. Alternative A No Action. Maintain the parking requirements as they presently exist. However, this could involve discouraging the use of garages for storage and enforcing parking violations in areas that pose safety problems by limiting emergency vehicle accessibility. Alternative B Amend the code to require parking according to number of bedrooms per unit instead of by dwelling unit. This would allow for more accuracy and more flexibility. For example: Studios - 1.2 spaces/unit 1 bdrm - 1.5 spaces/unit 2 bdrm - 2 spaces/unit 3 bdrm 2 .5 spaces/unit The Bridgewater Condos were built in phases so the development was required to provide 2 spaces per unit. Phase II, III, and IV consist of 85 units and 170 parking spaces. Under the above scenario the requirements would be as follows: 6 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 47 - 2 bdrm units @ 2 spaces/unit = 94 spaces 38 - 3 bdrm units @ 2 . 5 space/unit= 95 spaces 189 spaces required This alternative would have provided 19 additional spaces at Bridgewater II, III, and IV. Alternative C The provision of visitor parking. This alternative can work as a suboption to both Alternatives A and B by adding a guest parking provision to either the existing parking requirements or to revised requirements. Visitor parking is necessary to compensate for the parking lost when garages are used for storage, workshops or other uses. It is also necessary where there is no available parking on the adjacent streets as is the case with Lakeside Boulevard within the Lakes. As an example with the existing parking requirements, visitor parking at the rate of . 25 per dwelling unit would have provided 21 additional parking spaces at Bridgewater II, III, and IV (85 units) . Alternative D For developments incorporating garages, the development would have to meet certain garage/driveway design standards in order to apply the space toward the requirement. In this case, only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 to 20 ' in length meet the parking requirement. Garages without the driveway would be permitted, but would not be counted towards the parking requirement. That way, if a tenant chooses to use his/her garage for storage or other use, there is still room off the street for parking. In all of the alternatives, the Planning Department should conduct site plan review to insure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. Perhaps a detailed pedestrian connection plan depicting accessibility from each parking area should be required. Or, a clustered parking plan for developments with buildings of 20 units or more should be required. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the surveys conducted, Staff recommends Alternative D as a solution to the "parking problem" . All of the multi- family developments surveyed appeared to have adequate striped parking areas. But, as for Bridgewater Condominiums and other 7 Multifamily Development Parking Requirements July 17, 1990 developments incorporating garages, the tenants that used one of their spaces for an office or workshop sought alternate locations for parking. In most cases, cars were seen abutting the garage door in a space not intended for parking and causing maneuverability problems. This poses a hazard to both emergency vehicles as well as general vehicular traffic. An 18 ' to 20 ' space in front of each garage would increase accessibility throughout the development: cars waiting to pull into garages would be out of the drive; and cars could safely park there if the tenant chose to use his/her garage for storage or a workshop. 8 _. KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES w July 23 , 1990 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. July 23 , 1990 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Tracy Faust, Vice Chair Frank Chopp Coleen Miller Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Elmira Forner, excused Greg Greenstreet, absent Willie Gregory, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Senior Planner Laura Yeats, Planning Intern Margaret Porter, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JUNE 25 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ward stated that he was present at the June 25, 1990 meeting. Commissioner Ward MOVED that the minutes of the June 25, 1990 meeting be approved as corrected. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Martinez opened the public hearing. PARKING REVISIONS ZCA 90-3 Laura Yeats presented the current parking requirements and existing conditions for multifamily dwelling areas in the city. City Council asked the Planning Department to look at the parking requirements and the existing conditions because of recurring parking concerns at the Bridgewater Condominiums, located within the Lakes subdivision. The investigation indicated that cars were parked along the Lakeside Boulevard and biking lanes causing problems with traffic flow and emergency vehicle access. Public Works has resolved this issue by proposing that the Bridgewater Condominium management provide additional parking along Lakeside Boulevard to accommodate the parking needs. The condominium _, homeowners ' association is currently considering the method of Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 funding this project. First, staff investigated existing codes for multifamily developments and then compared these to existing conditions in the City of Kent. Studies indicated a difference between condominium and apartment parking needs, i.e. condominium residents often require more parking because of car ownership patterns and higher incomes. Currently there are no provisions in the code for visitor parking. The existing code requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit for 49 or less units, and 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit for 50 or more. Recreational buildings must provide one space for every 200 square feet of floor area, and day care facilities must provide one space for every employee, plus loading and unloading spaces. A survey to compare our parking requirements with other jurisdictions showed Renton as the only jurisdiction which requires guest parking. There are no jurisdictions which determine parking needs by square footage yet; however, it is considered to be the most consistent way of determining parking needs. Other cities base their requirements on the number of bedrooms. A windshield survey of apartments and condominiums on the Valley Floor, East Hill and West Hill between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 8 : 30 p.m. revealed adequate striped parking in most of the developments. There were cars parked opposite fire lanes, which would make emergency access impossible or extremely difficult. In areas where garages were provided, these were often used for storage, shops or offices. Often cars were parked abutting the garage door even when the space was inadequate. She presented slides depicting certain parking conditions, particularly those associated with garages. Ms. Yeats presented the following four alternatives: Alternative A: No Action. Maintain the parking requirements as they presently exist. However, this could involve discouraging the use of garages for storage and enforcing parking violations in areas that pose safety problems by limiting emergency vehicle accessibility. Alternative B: Amend the code to require parking according to number of bedrooms per unit instead of by dwelling unit. This would allow for more accuracy and more flexibility. Alternative C: The provision of visitor parking. This alternative can work as a suboption to both Alternatives A and B by adding a guest parking provision to either the existing parking requirements or to revised requirements. Visitor parking is necessary to compensate for the parking lost when garages are used for storage, workshops or other uses. It is also necessary where there is no available parking on the adjacent streets as is the case with Lakeside Boulevard within the Lakes. 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 Alternative D: For developments incorporating garages, the development would have to meet certain garage/driveway design standards in order to apply the space toward the requirement. In this case, only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 to 20 feet in length meet the parking requirement. Garages without the driveway would be permitted, but would not be counted towards the parking requirement. That way, if a tenant chooses to use his/her garage for storage or other use, there is still room off the street for parking. Commissioner Faust asked if there was a proposal for developments which did not incorporate garages into their plans. Ms. Yeats responded that the developments without garages did not appear to have parking problems. She pointed out that Renton, the only jurisdiction that has a visitor parking requirement, requires only 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and . 25 for visitor parking. This 1.75 total requirement is less than the Kent parking requirement. Mr. Satterstrom added that Kent requires visitor parking for a recreational building in addition to the 1. 8 per dwelling unit. He felt that these additional spaces could be used for visitor parking. Commissioner Miller wondered if the developer should be encouraged to design parking where the residents could park near their dwelling units. Ms. Yeats responded that this should be handled through design standards and guidelines. Chair Martinez asked for clarification regarding the statement in Alternative D ". . .conduct a site plan review to insure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. " Mr. Satterstrom felt that if adequate stacking space were required, this problem would be easily solved. It was a matter of requiring the developer to provide the space. The issue of convenience to parking place is complex and might inhibit site flexibility and creative development. Carol Proud attended the City Council Public Works Committee meeting in which residents of the Lakes development expressed concern regarding parking in the area. She explained to those attending the meeting that once the development is approved, there is little staff can do to regulate how individual condominium users 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 or apartment managers choose to allocate their parking. From the development community standpoint, requiring additional parking stalls might alleviate parking problems, but every parking stall adds - an addition $3 , 000 to $7, 000 to the project cost because of land value, costs, etc. She quoted from Section 15. 09 . 010 in the Development Plan Review under B3 "Pedestrian circulation system must become a part of any development plan when the proposed development will generate or attract pedestrians" . A statement suggesting that parking be within close proximity to the individual living or business use could be added, but it would be difficult to enforce. Discussion followed. Commissioner Miller MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Faust MOVED that the Commission Adopt Alternative D as proposed by the Planning Department with the additional request that the Planning Department work with Fire and Police in the city to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles are enforced as strictly as possible. Commissioner Chopp SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward asked if a statement regarding access to the garage should be included. Commissioner Faust responded that Alternative D included a statement about stacking spaces in front of garages. Chair Martinez suggested that the following statement be added to 15.09 . 010 Development Plan Review, page 137 B 3 . "The Planning Department should conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. " Commissioner Ward felt there is a parking space problem within multifamily units in Kent, and that there should be a minimum of two spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling unit. He felt there should be wording to encourage developers to designate parking for residents. Commissioner Faust felt there were sufficient restrictions on developers and urged the Commission to adopt Alternative D. Discussion continued. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the garage would be counted as a parking space, but the stacking space outside the unit would not be counted as a parking space. It is intended that the garage be used as car storage and the stacking space be used temporarily while the resident waits for the garage door to open to move the car into the 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 garage. If the garage is used for another purpose, there would be adequate space for parking outside of the garage. Ms. Proud added that garages without driveways would be permitted but would not be counted toward the parking requirement, and that a parking stall would be required in another location. She felt that people would be parking in front of their garage. Mr. Satterstrom remarked that 18 to 20 foot driveway was suggested but felt that 18 feet would be sufficient. The previous motion made by Commissioner Faust and seconded by Commissioner Chopp, that the Commission adopt Alternative D as proposed by the Planning Department with the additional request that the Planning Department work with Fire and Police in the city to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles are enforced as strictly as possible, was carried unanimously. Chair Martinez MOVED that the following words be added to Section 15. 09. 010 B3 : The Planning Department should conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Faust felt that the amendment should state "shall" instead of "should" . This was considered a friendly amendment by Chair Martinez. The motion was amended to state that the Planning Department shall conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Ward MOVED that an amendment be included to further encourage designated unit parking where it is not in front of the garage. Commissioner Miller SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Satterstrom responded that there are 13, 000 multifamily units in Kent. At 1. 8 stalls per dwelling unit there are over of 20, 000 parking stalls. It would be difficult to work with all of the developers to ensure that each stall be numbered. This is currently left up to the management of the complexes. Commissioner Faust felt that it is important that parking spots be identified with specific apartment units. Mr. Satterstrom felt that this activity was not in the purview of Planning Department. He felt the problems had been identified and addressed in the wording that Planning Department shall review the site plans to make sure that the parking is spread out over the 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 _ site in an appropriate manner. He felt this approach should address the problems that staff is currently experiencing. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Faust MOVED and Commissioner Miller SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jame P. Harris, Secretary 6 ww ........_. .......... _. Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21 1990 Category Other us 'ness A 01 1. SUBJECT: AUTO CHECK REZONE NO. RZ-90-6 � 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider he Hearing Examiner's recommendation of conditional approva of a request by Robert J. Lucurell to rezone a 17,299 square oot lot from M1, Industrial Park, to GC, General Commercial. the property is located on the west side of West Valley Highway, north of South 236th Street a d South 238th Street. She I�steel + he CDndt H0,15 as �01louJS : / �+t " f�Gste) We_,ce nO (� ues1-tL �o rn 4 h e a ad f e,nc e a-v�.c0 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Hea ing Examiner Minutes, Findings and Recommendations. ti 1. Any future development on the subject property shall have a 20-foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and eastern property lines, respectfully. Any associated parking in outside storage areas shall be prohibited. 2 . Landscaping (including a sight-obscuring fence) shall be installed in the entire setback area. 3 . The above conditions may be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner if and when the adjacent mobile home park use is terminated. 6. EXPENDTTURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �SQ� movei a er �aeerrcta- to accept the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to approve the Hearing Examiner's recommendation by Auto Check Rezone No. RZ90-6 with three conditions, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. -c,�-Se-� 5 ego rlaEeaL ce-+`�d� �E ✓Yt.O�+ 6-n �ci.►'rr"e�. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C cmroF CITY OF KENT -- OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: AUTO CHECK #RZ-90-6 APPLICANT: Robert J. Lucurell REOUEST: A request to rezone a 17 ,299 square foot lot from M1, Industrial Park, to GC, General Commercial. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of West Valley Highway, north of S. 236th Street and south of S. 238th Street. APPLICATION FILED: 4/23/90 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED• 5/24/90 MEETING DATE: 7/18/90 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 8/1/90 RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Robert J. Lucurell, applicant Other Larry Holmes WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check #RZ-90-6 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant requested approval of a rezone of a parcel of land consisting of 17, 299 square feet on property located on the west side of the West Valley Highway, north of 236th Street and south of 238th Street, Kent, Washington. The requested rezone is from the current zoning designation of M1, Industrial Park, to a designation of GC, General Commercial. The rezone is sought in order for the applicant to develop the property with two separate buildings that would be used as an automobile repair shop and administrative office for the automotive repair business. In addition, the site would be developed with parking and landscaping. 2 . Attached hereto and made part of these findings is a zoning and topography map which was admitted as an exhibit at the public hearing. On the zoning and topography map the subject property is shown as the dotted area northeast of the MHP, Mobile Home Park, zone. 3 . Submitted at the public hearing and admitted as part of the record was a site plan depicting the proposed two buildings that were part of the rezone. A copy of the site plan is attached hereinto and by this reference is hereby incorporated as part of these findings. As shown on the site plan, the auto repair shop will be a business that is conducted out of Building A which is in the northern portion of the property. The building on the southern portion of the property (Building B) will be for business offices of the auto repair shop. Parking for ten vehicles is depicted in the mid-section of the lot between Buildings A and B. Landscaping is shown throughout the property. 4. The properties to the north and east are zoned M2, Industrial Park. The properties to the south and west are zoned MHP, Mobile Home Park. There is a GC, General Commercial, zoning district that extends to S. Willis Street and is located approximately 100 feet south of the subject property. This zoning district extends on both sides of the West Valley Highway. 5. The properties to the south and west are developed as a mobile home park. The properties south of the subject property are developed with restaurants, grocery stores and commercial purposes. The properties to the east and north are undeveloped while the properties to the northeast include a 2 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check #RZ-90-6 multi-tenant industrial building* of Kent, the subject ric City ultural. In 19771 it 7 . At the time of ned14A,iIndustrialeAgric designation. The property was zoned MA, Industrial Park, was rezoned to the M1, adjacent mobile home park was constructed in 1959 . across the West Valley Highway, g , Other properties in the area are under rezone consideration. East of the subj ect property, from M1, a request Gateway Commercial. No official City est has been made to rezone the property has not Industrial Park, to GWC, west and the City action has taken place t this errd to it. made a recommendation with regard Zoning Code Section 15.09 . 05 urisd These are 9 , The criteria Ken standards for review ° has f a rezone are se forth in the the onal Hearing Examiner who reviewed by Council for the authority to make a recommendation is ions City fythe Kent Zoning City of Kent pursuant to the p Code, Section 15.09 .050 A 5. ect property is a small lot that would have andards• 10. The subj Industrial Park, limitations if developed to M1, lines. in M1 zones and would e Fifty foot setbacks are required a 40 foot setback would be required from the required for the southern and western property a Although only even with this reduced western setback, West Valley Highway building p The applicant has ad of ten feet in width would be created for e property to be developed in an M1 zone. the op request with the option to eitlecantehad filed aerezone requ or to seek the rezon , and thus The applicant City. Industrial Park, As previously noted, the setbacks for the e subject property. 11. ro erty can be zoned development are ommer restrictive Z zone tt a prop With a GC, General Commercial, posed structures developed with 20-foot setback between the pro and the adjacent mobile o to the ten •feeteof slide °r will rear be landscaped with a of landscaping yard landscaping. Included w this s solid screen which be the Type I landscaping which is a effectively blocks the view of the adjoining property. Comprehensive Plan Map designation 12 , The subject property has a Comp policies of this of Industrial. The goals, objectives and p e to minimize adverse physical impacts of strip designation ar 3 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check _ #RZ-90-6 commercial development while encouraging planned retail commercial business development. The commercial character of the property to the south is such that there is an indication that the area can support commercial development with the orderly physical development as proposed in the site plan. 13 . In addition to the Comprehensive Plan designation, the property is subject to the Valley Floor designation of Commercial for the portion that fronts on 81st Avenue E. and a designation for the remainder as industrial park. These designations require a balanced, safe and efficient transportation for all modes of travel. With adherence to the requirements of the City as set forth in the SEPA review (Infra) the applicant will participate in the City's traffic corridor improvements and conduct traffic assessments to determine the impacts of the proposal on the City's traffic system. 14. The applicant indicated that there would be approximately seven people working on site. He contented that most of these employees will work in the garage. The parking stalls on-site will be used for the parking of employees and customers cars. Cars that will be serviced on-site will be parked in the garage. 15. The applicant indicated that he currently operates a auto repair shop and administrative office in another section of the City. The existing business is on a much smaller lot and there are no parking problems at that site. According to the applicant, parking will not be problem at the subject site. 16. The amount of traffic to be generated from the site will be minimal. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with any adverse impact. The City has addressed the mitigating measures and conditions in the SEPA determination. 17 . Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , the City of Kent was designated the lead agency. On March 29, 1990, the City issued a Final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) . 18 . Because of the limitation of the property due to its size as compared to adjoining M1 zoned properties, circumstances have changed substantially since the present M1, Industrial Park, 4 - Findings and Recommendation Auto Check #RZ-90-6 zoning designation was established. The City indicated that the site is a "tag lot" adjacent to a larger, industrial zoned area to the north and is "awkward to include in any larger proposal" . The City further submitted that the expansion of the adjacent mobile home park is unlikely because it is a nonconforming use that would require special permits in addition to the building permit. As a result the subject property is limited in its usefulness, but, can be developed with the proposed rezone designation. 19. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. 20. The City recommended approval of the rezone subject to the following condition: Any future development on the subject property shall have a 20-foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and eastern property lines, respectfully, that also includes the prohibition of any associated parking in outside storage areas. I. LANDSCAPING (including a sight- obscuring fence) shall be installed in the entire setback area. 21. At the public hearing, the applicant presented opposition to the recommended condition of approval. According to the applicant, the 20-foot setback requirement along the side and rear yard property lines is prohibitive because permanently restricts the use of this area. According to the applicant, if the trailer court is removed there would be no need for setbacks and, thus, this requirement is not reasonable. 22 . The applicant submitted that the requirements of SEPA as set forth in the MDNS issued on March 29 , 1990 are unreasonable. The applicant, however, did not appeal these conditions within the statutory period of time. 23 . Access to the West Valley Highway is provided off the subject property. The West Valley Highway is a principal arterial that has a 100-foot right of way. The street is improved with curbs, gutter and sidewalk. The street is one of the main roads within the City of Kent. 5 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check #RZ-90-6 24 . Adequate sewer service through a 30-inch sewer main and water service through a six-inch water main off of West Valley Highway are provided to the site. CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a rezone of a 17,299 square foot parcel of land located on the west side of the West Valley Highway, north of S. 216th and S. 238th in Kent, Washington. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone the subject property from a M1, Industrial Park, zoning designation to a GC, General Commercial, zoning designation. It is the intent of the applicant to develop the property as an auto repair facility. 2 . The Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue a recommendation to the City Council. This authority is set forth in the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15. 09. 050. 3 . The criteria and standards for the review of a request for a rezone are set forth the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09 . 050 A 3 . These criteria and standards are satisfied by the proposed rezone. 4 . Although the proposed property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Kent. It will result in minimal physical impact on adjoining property while encouraging a retail commercial development that is consistent with the goals for economic growth and orderly physical development. 5. The proposed rezone and the development of the site with the auto repair and offices will be compatible with the general commercial development in the area. 6. The requested rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property. The applicant will be required to adhere to the conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 7 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current Mi zoning designation. Because of the physical limitations for the development of the lot, 6 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check -- #RZ-90-6 including its minimal size in relation to adjoining M1 properties, the requested rezone is reasonable. S. The requested rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, it is hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Kent that the request for rezone of a 17,299 square foot parcel of land at the west side of the West Valley Highway, north of S. 236th and south of S. 238th Street, Kent, WA, should be approved for a zoning designation change from the existing M1, Industrial Park, zoning designation to GC, General Commercial, zoning designation with the following condition: 1. Any future development on the subject property shall have a 20-foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and eastern property lines, respectfully. Any associated parking - in outside storage areas shall be prohibited. 2 . Landscaping (including a sight-obscuring fence) shall be installed in the entire setback area. 3 . The above conditions may be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner if and when the adjacent mobile home park use is terminated. Dated this 1st day of August, 1990. Vl . lesDiscoll mo T Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. 7 Findings and Recommendation Auto Check #RZ-90-6 Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. 8 City of Kent - Punning Dep artment 234T H S I hI � O � DpQ� �gy� oo > ODD CP Q � El 1 APPLICATION NAME: DATE Auto Check July 18, 1990 NUMBER: RZ-90-6 General Commercial '(; Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC. LE--- REauEs Application site ww. w Zoning boundary : ZONING TOPOGRA PHY MAP City limits 1 City of Kent - Planning Department lryry�r UJs Is3"rXernl� r rt •l ' Es . CW0Agear.+F Uri 'i1 _plod -- - I� ,_... �t,�r 4r 4i oToei � � � IV 154 MerEl:fY Gl= /.L drill. � ua+-na7ill{t CE/'a1iE .r &.Oyu�` � y \ I Wit I i 1 GOYu> � I � } C�FyOyyyyyt���,.f_[Rlplf I ' '• W��' � `. refry S PAS - I I t l\ "� 1 I"h¢Vlllry♦I�r� n4I f�� w Q QLLl2 O11Yt Re ,�. IP IuaT P. r-r honl�e 1bl IUj � {" �paci a� .{ 7c,l�JtT•C+'rvrrreursrJTLy n-I Ptei.�•�r_ ec�al�lae�, mAek4rTlal:hfreTW fLfrt n+HFdr11T*I-Ill*a rns ces P�M r Tyr j��pl�dElkEn r4b%N11Q7�a U ZA141 1L-laLClli�-.lk£4: 3750� (3,tJt1Jq-!Ytu7�I in ullav,,14j1 PUp) APPLICATION NAME: Auto Check NUMBER: RZ-90-6 DATE: July 18, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC, General Commercial LEGEND Application site SITE PLAN Zoning boundary City limits ,_.,.Building Envelope in M1 District •J-•!lJ-VJ 1. City of Kent - Planning Department 0 Cc � N r D S 228 Cr w CC z S 234TH ST w FCr S 238TH ST M w m C MMONS ¢ Z PLA FIELD w � JRMES ST Z Cr Uj IrENT B APPLICATION NAME: Auto Check NUMBER: RZ-90-6 DATE: July 18, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC, General Commercial LEGEND Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary - City limits -1111b- PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to, or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision. These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings, or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you are interested in obtaining an official transcript. HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES July 18 , 1990 The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order by the presiding officer, Jim Driscoll, Pro Tem Hearing Examiner, on Wednesday, July 18, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers. Mr. Driscoll briefly described the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting testimony was sworn in by Mr. Driscoll prior to giving testimony. AUTO CHECK Rezone #RZ-90-6 A request by Robert J. Lucurell, 305 E. Pine Street, Seattle, WA 98122, to rezone property from M1, Industrial Park, to GC, General Commercial. The property is located on the west side of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and north of S. 236th Street. Carol Proud, Planning Department, presented the staff report. Ms. Proud exhibited some view foils depicting 1) the site plan, 2) the location of the property and 3) zoning on the property and surrounding zoning. A video of the property was shown. Ms. Proud gave a brief history of the property and surrounding area. Ms. Proud reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and Map designation for the area. Ms. Proud critiqued the zoning criteria required when reviewing a rezone application. Ms. Proud reviewed the development standards that would be required on the property. The staff is recommending approval. Mr. Driscoll asked if the was a contract rezone or a noncontract rezone request? 1 Hearing Examiner Minutes July 18, 1990 Ms. Proud replied that an area-wide rezone general do not have a project. However, when a rezone is requested for specific property usually it is tied to a development. Mr. Driscoll asked if the rezone is approved, is applicant restricted to the site plan as shown with the rezone request? Ms. Proud answered affirmatively. Ms. Proud commented this particular site plan will be need to reconfigured a little to meet traffic requirements. Mr. Driscoll asked if an appeal was filed on the environmental checklist? Ms. Proud replied negatively. Mr. Driscoll asked if the applicant would like to comment. Robert Lucurell, 305 E. Pine Street, Seattle, WA 98122, commented that when looking at the map, it looks like there is a substantial difference between this property and the commercial district. However, the actual distance is about a driveway. Mr. Lucurell was concerned about the 20 foot setback requirement. He felt that the setback shouldn't be indefinite but tied to however long the mobile home park was there. Mr. Lucurell commented on the conditions applied to the property by the Determination of Nonsignificance. Mr. Lucurell stated an appeal was not filed on the Determination of Nonsignificance. Mr. Driscoll commented the conditions set by the Determination of Nonsignificance cannot be considered by the Hearing Examiner unless appealed. The only item that can be heard before the Hearing Examiner at this time is the request for rezone. Ms. Proud gave a brief explanation on the traffic condition required in the Determination of Nonsignificance. Mr. Driscoll asked if anyone else would like to comment. Larry Holmes, 1510 S. Central, Kent, WA 98032, commented on how the site would be used. Mr. Holmes stated one building would have about four employees and the other building, mainly an office, would have about four employees. Mr. Holmes commented there would be approximately ten to fifteen customers at the site during the day. Mr. Holmes stated the parking available at the subject site would exceed what is at the current site. There were no other comments. The public hearing was closed at 3 :35 p.m. 2 r Hearing Examiner Minutes July 18, 1990 CITY OF KENT MANGANESE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WELL ICE-90-7 A request by the City of Kent, Engineering Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032, for a conditional use permit to construct a water treatment plant and well. The proposed water treatment plant is located east of SR 167 at 212th Street. The well improvement site is located east of SR 167 at 208th Street. Kevin O'Neill, Planning Department, presented the staff report. Mr. O'Neill displayed some view foils depicting 1) the location of the sites, 2) a site plan for the water treatment plant and well and 3) zoning of the site and surrounding area. A video of the properties were shown. Mr. O'Neill commented a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on May 3, 1990. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the Comprehensive and Valley Floor Plans goals, objectives and policies. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the conditional use criteria that is to be considered when evaluating a conditional use permit application. The staff is recommending approval with conditions. - Mr. Driscoll asked about the building height of the treatment plant. Mr. O'Neill discussed the topography of the sites and how the building would be constructed. The building height would vary but would be within Code. Mr. Driscoll asked if the applicant would like to comment. Tim Haydon, Public Works Department, project manager, stated there were no objections to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department. Mr. Haydon commented the sewer lines would go along 212th to an existing line on 94th Avenue S. The change was made because the original sewer line would have gone through a wetland area. Mr. Haydon stated there would be one plant treatment employee on the site. Mr. Driscoll asked what would be done with the waste material. Mr. Haydon stated it would be released into the sanitary sewer through a permit issued by Metro. Mr. Driscoll asked if any one else would like to comment. 3 Hearing Examiner Minutes July 18, 1990 Richard King, 918 S. 208th, Kent, WA 98031, commented his property was next to the subject site. Mr. King asked if the trees on the property would be conserved. Mr. King talked about the driveway access to his property. Mr. Haydon commented the Public Works Department would meet with Mr. King to discuss the driveway access. The driveway access would not be blocked. There were no further comments. The hearing was closed at 4 : 05 p.m. BEST FABRICS Sign Variance ISV-90-2 A request by North American Signs and Luminart, PO Box 30, South Bend, IN 46624 for Best Fabrics, for a sign variance to allow an additional wall sign. The property is zoned CC, Community Commercial. The site is located int he Kent Hill Plaza and the specific address is 25704 104th Avenue SE. Alice Shobe, Planning Department, displayed some view foils depicting 1) the location of the site, 2) zoning of the property and surrounding property and 3) location of the building in the shopping center. Ms. Shobe described the amount of signage allowed each building in a shopping center and the type of signage allowed in a CC, Community Commercial, zone. Ms. Shobe described the signs currently on the site. A video of the property was shown. Ms. Shobe stated that on page 4 concerning the definition of canopy, the statement should read " . . .does not meet definition of canopy" . Ms. Shobe remarked on the criteria that needs to be reviewed when considering a sign variance application. Staff is recommending denial. Susan Sampson, Sampson Wilson & Combs, Inc, P.S. 200 Old Milwaukee Substation, 450 Shattuck Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055, representing applicant, submitted to the record a brief in response to the staff report (Exhibit 2) . Ms. Sampson briefly reviewed the submitted material. Clifford Min, 118 A Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 , commented Best Fabrics should be allowed to use the covered walkway to place a 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes July 18, 1990 sign in order to use the sign allowance allowed by Code. Mr. Min gave a brief description of the building location. Mr. Min discussed, at the Hearing Examiner bench, a site plan (Exhibit 3) along with some with pictures. Mr. Min submitted to the record a site plan marked with red hatch marks (Exhibit 4) . Mr. Driscoll asked if there were other businesses in the shopping center who had the same problem, other than Sports Plus. Mr. Min replied he felt this was the only area impacts by the covered walkway. Mr. Min felt Best Fabrics, because of this covered walkway, was unable to take advantage of the signage allowed in this area. Mr. Min submitted to the record an view of Best Fabrics store front (Exhibit 5) . Mr. Min commented that because of the covered walkway, Best Fabrics is only able to use about one-third of the total signage allowed. A frontal elevation drawing of the covered walkway showing the proposed sign was submitted to the record (Exhibit 6) . Mr. Min remarked that Best Fabrics is a specialty store and most of its customers come specifically to it to shop. Mr. Driscoll asked if there was a general sign for the shopping center. Ms. Shobe replied there was not one, but the shopping center is allowed to have one. Mr. Min submitted the following to the record: 1) a drawing showing the elevation of the canopy (Exhibit 7) ; 2) photos (Exhibit 8) . Ms. Sampson requested the video to be shown again. Carol Proud, Kent Planning Department, requested an extension of time to look over the submitted exhibits. Mr. Driscoll stated the City of Kent staff had until July 25 to make a response regarding the exhibits. However, the decision from the Hearing Examiner would still be made on August 1. There was no further testimony. The hearing was closed at 4 : 40 p.m. 5 CrrycFW6rd CITY OF KENT KENT PLANNING AGENCY (206) 859-3390 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JULY 18, 1990 FILE NO: AUTO CHECK #RZ-90-6 APPLICANT: Robert J. Lucurell REOUEST: A request to rezone a 17, 299 square foot lot from the current zoning of M1, Industrial Park, to GC, General Commercial, to allow the development of an auto repair facility. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud, Senior Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone a 17,299 square foot lot from the current M1, Industrial Park, zoning to GC, General Commercial and construct a 3 ,750 square foot auto repair facility. The facility includes two separate buildings. Building A on the north side of the lot will accommodate the repair shop and building B will accommodate the applicant's office and a separate retail shop. Related parking and landscaping areas are included in the proposal. B. Location The subject property is located on the west side of West Valley Highway, north of S. 236th Street and south of S. 238th Street. C. Size of Property The rezone site is 17, 299 square feet. 1 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 _. D. Zoning Property to the north and east is zoned M1, Industrial Park. The abutting property to the south and west is zoned MHP, Mobile Home Park. A GC, General Commercial, zoning district that extends south to S. Willis Street is located 100 feet south of the subject property on both sides of West Valley Highway. E. Land Use Surrounding land uses include a mobile home park that abuts the subject property to the south and west, a restaurant and grocery store located 150 feet to the south on the west side of the highway. The property directly to the east and north is undeveloped. The property to the northeast is developed with a multi-tenant industrial building. F. History The subject property was annexed in the City of Kent in 1958 as part of the 40 acre Meeker's Supplemental Plat annexation. The property was originally zoned MA, Industrial Agricultural, and rezoned to Ml, Industrial Park, in 1977. The adjacent mobile home park was built in 1959. An application has been received by the Planning Department to rezone the property directly east, on the opposite side of West Valley Highway, from the current Ml, Industrial Park, to GWC, Gateway Commercial (Anderson #RZ-90-7) . A public hearing for this proposal is scheduled for September 5, 1990. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) (#ENV-90-27) for the rezone proposal was issued on March 29, 1990 subject to the following conditions and mitigating measures: 1. Provide on-site detention and biofiltration of storm water runoff prior to discharge into the nearest City storm system. The biofiltration system shall comply 2 _. Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 with the design criteria established in the latest edition of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The auto service building shall include floor drains which connect to a Metro approved oil/water separator prior to discharge into the sanitary system. 3. Dust generated during construction activities shall be controlled by wetting those dust sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before they leave the site, and installing and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track-out is also a major dust source. Any evidence of track-out shall trigger violations and fines from the Department of Ecology, The City of Kent, or Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 4 . The developer shall conduct a traffic study to identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic signal system. The study shall identify all intersections at level-of-service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes from the development. These intersections are at a threshold level for traffic mitigation. The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and the mitigation measures outlined in the study, implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirement of the issuance of the respective development permits. In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development. A. The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South 224th/228th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $43, 110 based on 44 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and 3 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 the capacity of the South 224th/228th Street corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersection and road system by committing funding for the South 224th/228th Street corridor, which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 5. ' To determine the number of excess peak hour trips the developer shall provide to the City, a traffic analysis study for review and concurrence. Said study shall depict the number of peak hour trips which would have been generated by a development allowed under the pre- west valley amendments and which had a maximum of 25 percent retail and office use. Total peak hour trip generation, upon full build out of the site, shall not exceed that which would have been generated by the uses allowed under the present West Valley amendments. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the above mentioned corridor projects which will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. B. Significant Physical Features Topography and Vegetation The rezone site fronting West Valley Highway is undeveloped with a ground cover of grasses and shrubs. The topography of the site is relatively level. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to West Valley Highway which is classified as a principal arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 100 feet while the actual width of paving is 69 feet. The 4 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 street is improved with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The average daily traffic count on the street is 30, 000 vehicle trips per day. 2 . Water System The site is served by a 16-inch water main located along West Valley Highway adjacent to the site. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System A 30-inch sanitary sewer main located along West Valley Highway is available to serve the site. 4. Storm Water System A storm water system constructed in accordance with the Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code will be required at the time of development. 5. LID's No LID's are pending at this time. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. 5 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1969. The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to guide growth, development, and spending decisions. Residents, land developers, business representatives and others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City's intentions concerning future development. The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent. The proposed rezone area is served by the Valley Floor sub- area plan. The following is a review of both plans as they relate to the subject property. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two entities, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written goals, objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates that portion of the site fronting as I, Industrial. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION. GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in suitable locations. Obiective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development. Policy 1: Encourage planned retail-commercial business development. 6 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 Policy 4 : Adopt and enforce regulations which will minimize the adverse impacts and unsafe conditions caused by strip development. Planning Department Comment: The subject property is a nonconforming lot that would be virtually impossible to develop with the present zoning designation. The minimum lot size in the M1, Industrial Park, zoning district is one acre. The current zoning designation has very restrictive development standards especially setback requirements when abutting residential zoning districts. A 50-foot setback would be required of any development along the southern and western property lines. Since West Valley Highway is a principal arterial, the required front yard set back would be 40 feet. This would allow a building pad that is only 10 feet wide. A variance from the current development standards was considered by the applicant, but even with some relief from these standards, typical industrial users require a much larger site than the subject property. As a guide to commercial development, the Comprehensive Plan states that as a goal, such development should occur in suitable locations. Given the limitations of the subject property for industrial development and the close proximity to commercial development, The proposed zoning designation would afford the owner reasonable use of the property. The adjacent mobile home park as a result of recent road improvements has direct access to West Valley Highway. However, the highway curves at the entrance point and the park itself is tucked away behind the existing commercial development, just south of the subject site. The character of the area is commercial to the south and in the event of approval of the proposed rezone on the opposite side of West Valley Highway to the east as well. VALLEY FLOOR PLAN The Valley Floor Plan Map designates that portion of the site fronting 84th Avenue S. as C, Commercial, and the remainder as I, Industrial Park. 7 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISHED A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic moving within and through Kent. Objective 1: Provide adequate traffic ways for both local and through traffic, separating the systems when possible. Planning Department Comment The owner, as a result of SEPA requirements, will be required to participate in the City's traffic corridor improvements and conduct a traffic assessment to determine the impacts of the proposal to the City's traffic system. B. Standards and Criteria for a Rezone Recruest The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15. 09. 050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department Comment As previously discussed, the proposed rezone is consistent with the relevant goals and policies of both the City- wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zone change is not consistent with either plan map. 2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. 8 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 Planning Department Comment The development standards of the GC, General Commercial, zoning district require a 20-foot setback between the proposed structures on the site and the adjacent mobile home park. The landscaping standards require a minimum of ten feet of side or rear yard landscaping adjacent to residential zoning districts. To further protect the adjacent residents in the mobile home park from any light and glare and noise impacts typically associated with such a use, the staff recommends that the developer/owner should be required to install Type I landscaping (solid screen) in the required 20-foot setback area. Further, no outdoor storage or parking should be permitted in the setback area. The proposed use would be compatible with any future industrial development to the north and east. 3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Department Comment - Because of the small size of the subject property, the proposed rezone and resultant development will not unduly burden the surrounding street system. Anticipated impacts to the transportation system have been addressed by the mitigating measures and conditions required as a result of SEPA. 4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning Department Comment As previously discussed, the applicant has been unable to develop the property with the present zoning designation. The property is a tag lot adjacent to a larger industrial zoned parcel to the north and therefore awkward to include in any larger proposal. Expansion of the adjacent mobile home park is unlikely in that as a non-conforming development, any expansion would require a conditional use permit and substantial upgrading of the park. Circumstances have changed over the years to warrant the proposed rezone. 9 Staff Report Auto Check #RZ-90-6 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Planning Department Comment The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Plan and meets the standards of other City Codes and Ordinances. As a result the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the Auto Check Rezone request subject to the following condition: 1. Any future development on the subject property shall have a 20-foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and western property lines, respectively, that also includes the prohibition of any associated parking and outdoor storage areas. Type I landscaping (including a sight obscuring fence) shall be installed in the entire setback area. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT JULY 10, 1990 10 City of Kent - Planning Department 0 z > N Cc r `o D S 228 Cr w x z S 234TH ST F S 238TH ST w m C MMONS ¢ Z PLA FIELD w� JRMES ST z —T qQM coz KENT B APPLICATION NAME: Auto Check NUMBER: RZ-90-6 DATE: July 18, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC, General Commercial LEGEND Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - Planning Department 1101 ty: MAW; tril([r UJE� i`?"�ze�inyt 11 Fuyy. cu,uLq�aNF � l �. _, 77 1 {• � I fir( L1•. I, r1WNaaC +�L15�yu = 4 ►�„� j w� I 1 lsp�Ylr S'L T I ` 1 "sgG Ar 70'r oat, e �. .�,._1 2 jl � �M'Y 1 1 I S' nss � Ar 4t ry or ' ELI � 1 �Iba JNII i�F aDr �� �• I IIF, 1,I1NJ uT,�44Jn1 hOnILP. {bl(CJ> T N a 7�,UIl)G�•�`Is.TIFJL'r ICUP1J..,`.y h-j �-t£�elpTlal:k fre�oJ cF le�"i �u{�r117f.1-Itl-tcr-I��se's 7rp Lt cr 1 ece 1-71 Z9-1} jbjxl-U[xY.JkEA: 375��r .Jrj v rrt: Ida r� oLUAJI P 7a-0 APPLICATION NAME: Auto Check NUMBER: RZ-90-6 DATE: July 18, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC, General Commercial LEGEND Application site SITE PLAN Zoning boundary City limits City of Kent - Planning Department 'JS 234TH ST_ 1 I i lr' OQ 0 0 0 000 O�DoI O D oo ' Lri Miii 3 R G El ' __ APPLICATION NAME: Auto Check NUMBER: RZ-90-6 DATE: July 18, 1990 REQUEST: Rezone parcel from M1, Industrial Park to GC, General Commercial LEGEND Application site ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary City limits Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SALARY SURVEY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Personnel Department has provided Salary Survey results, identification of fiscal impact and recommendations for the implementation of the Salary Survey. If City Council approves, the results of the Salary Survey should be implemented on September 1, 1990. 3. EXHIBITS: Department Memo, Exhibit C & D. Survey Letter 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $35, 000 estimate SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund - September 1, 1990 thru December 1990 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember ' "aAlv�ll seconds that the Salary Survey be adopted and implemented on September 1, 1990. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4D MEMORANDUM DATE: August 7 , 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Don E. Olson, Jr. , Personnel Director SUBJECT: Salary Survey --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Kent conducted a salary survey in conjunction with Bill Ewing and Associates to review compensation levels with other local municipalities within a 40 mile radius. The compensation element of this study was conducted through a "market pricing" methodology. The first step in the salary process was the selection of benchmark classifications (Exhibit C) which met the following criteria: 1. The Classification was a good representative of an occupational group, family or profession; -- 2 . The Classification could be expected to be found in other organizations with about the same duties and responsibilities; 3 . The selected classifications as a whole must represent the entire array of classifications from highest to lowest within the City of Kent. Bill Ewing and Associates requested a copy of the most current class specification for the classifications surveyed. Where possible, the consultant was careful to compare the participants classifications with those currently utilized by the City to assure proper matching of classification content. The consultant also requested information from each participant on the minimum and maximum for the salary range relating to the benchmark classification. In all cases, our analysis focused on the midpoint of the salary range to which the benchmark classification was allocated. This practice is consistent with survey standards for public sector organizations. Since the salary practices of organizations surveyed tended to vary considerably, we elected to utilize the "MEDIAN" as the measure of central tendency. The final results of the survey showed the City of Kent is _ competitive in most areas of our compensation program with the exception in the following areas: Engineering Division 10 Professional Positions Code Enforcement Division 8 Professional Positions Legal Department 3 Assistant Attorney Positions Planning Department 8 Professional Positions Parks Department 9 Professional Positions The fiscal impact of implementing the salary survey with benefits for budget •year 1991 is $91,178 . With respect to the implementation of a program such as this, we believe it is important to consider the impact of salary range changes both on the City's financial resources and the well-being of employees. In order to ease the burden on both, we suggest the following alternatives: 1. Implementation of the salary survey September 11 1990, fiscal impact $29 , 224 . 2 . Implementation of the salary survey budget year 1991, fiscal impact $91, 178 . 3 . Implementation of the salary survey over a two year span on a percentage basis. CITY OF KENT SELECTED BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS EXHIBIT C Accountant Systems Analyst Accounting Services Assistant II Transportation Engineer Accounting Technician Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic II Administrative Assistant 11 Water/Environmental Quality Engineer Administrative Secretary I Word Processing Specialist I Adult Day Care Coordinator Assistant Building Official Assistant City Attorney 11 Assistant Fire Chief Budget Analyst City Engineer Computer Operator Custodian I Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Engineer I Engineering Supervisor Engineering Technician II Financial Services Manager Fire Apparatus Mechanic Irrigation and Plumbing Technician Lead Building Maintenance Worker Legal Secretary 11 Maintenance Superintendent - Utilities Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker I1 Microcomputer Technician Office Technician 11 Park Security Permit Specialist I Personnel Analyst Planner Planning Manager Police Captain Police Records Manager Printing Technician Programmer/Analyst I Public Education Specialist Public Information Officer Purchasing and Warehouse Technician Recreation Program Supervisor Recreation Superintendent Survey Party Chief C-1 June 6, 1990 Business Address Address Attn: Personnel Director To Whom It May Concern: Ewing and Company is conducting a salary survey in conjunction with the City of Kent, Personnel Department, for all levels and units of our employees. Our survey includes comparable city governments within about a 40-mile radius of Kent. In order for the survey to be of maximum benefit to the City, we would appreciate your participation in this process. Enclosed you will find: _ 1. A description of the classifications we are surveying -it is vital that you respond only with information on comparable classifications to assure the accuracy of the survey data. The descriptions and information on reporting relationships are included to aid in determining comparability. 2 . The Survey Form - please complete this form as fully and accurately as you can. Be certain to include the position to which each of your classifications reports. When returning this information to us, please be certain to enclose: 1. A complete set of your most current salary schedules for all .levels of employees and bargaining units. Please be sure to identify which are your normal steps and where any longevity or seniority steps begin. 2 . Class specification for each comparable classification. We utilize these to verify that the proper comparison has been determined. June 6, 1990 City of Kent Salary Survey 3. Please make every attempt to send us your material by June 22 , 1989. This time line is extremely important to the timely completion of this project and the meeting of critical deadlines. Thank you very much for your cooperation. We too have received requests such as this and can relate to the potential pressures this may put on you, so we want to thank you in advance for completing this paperwork. Please contact Becky Fowler at 859- 3356 if you have any questions. We will be pleased to send you a copy of the survey once completed, if requested. Sincerely, Don E. Olson, Jr. Personnel Director Kent City Council Meeting Date a, g—Ust Z1 1990 Category nihpr Business 1. SUBJF�C�: CUSTOMER SERVICES ASSISTANT FOR PERMIT CENTER 2 . S Y STA B A key area of concern on the part of the Council, developers, and the public is the ability to pay for permits in the same area that permits are being issued.ted The Fire Department currently this thatposition beingrrequested jointly by the budget. It is a position and the Fire Department. The by Public Works, Planning, Public position will serve all three departments for cashiering, Pu l assistance, and direction. Given the importance to the public and the Council, as well as the time lag in hiring bjectwas such a to position after the first of the year, the the Operations Committee to determine if there was a desire for Council to implement` sooner. 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum on Costs and Potential Time Frames for Hiring 4. RECpMMENDED BY: Jim Hansen Assistant City Admiistra ntor. su orted b the th ee de artments involved in the ermit rocess and reco ended b O erations Committee. (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) YES X 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO Not Recommended FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $19 ,240 for the remainder-of SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: — � �� � J moves, Councilmember seconds Councilmember_ UM ►�Y" that the Fire Department be authorized to hire one and one half persons to staff the Customer Services Assistant position for the Permit Center. DISCUSSION• VV ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 4E MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: CASHIER POSITION AT PERMIT CENTER - FISCAL NOTE Bator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/07/90 at 1514 . IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PERMIT CENTER AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, THE DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED ARE REQUESTING A CUSTOMER SERVICE / CASHIERING POSITION AT THE TIME OF FACILITY OPENING. THIS POSITION WOULD BE RESPONSIBILE FOR GREETING INDIVIDUALS AT THE CENTER PLUS WILL FUNCTION AS THE CENTER'S CASHIER. BY HAVING A CASHIER AT THE CENTER, THOSE INDIVIDUALS OBTAINING PERMITS WILL NOT HAVE TO WALK TO CITY HALL TO PAY FOR THE PERMITS AS IS PRESENTLY DONE. APPROXIMATELY 21% OF THE RECEIPT WRITING ACTIVITY IN THE CITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH RECEIPTS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS. THE IBC WOULD NORMALLY RECOMMEND DENIAL AND REQUIRE THAT THE WORK BE ABSORBED BY THE EXISTING STAFF. THIS IS DIFFICULT THOUGH BECAUSE A FUNCTION IS BEING SPLIT BETWEEN TWO DEPARTMENTS AND DOESN'T REPRESENT A WHOLE POSITION BASED ON PAST WORKLOAD. THE CURRENT SITUATION IS THAT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROXIMATELY 2.5 POSITIONS IN THE CASHIERING FUNCTION AND CAN NOT FREE UP A WHOLE POSITION FOR ASSIGNMENT TO THE PERMIT CENTER. THEREFORE SINCE MAKING THE NEW PERMIT CENTER AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE IS A TOP COUNCIL PRIORITY, THE IBC RECOMMENDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CUSTOMER SERVICE II POSITION AT THE PERMIT CENTER PLUS THE ACQUISITION OF A PERMIT CENTER CASH REGISTER. THE IBC ALSO RECOMMENDS AN IN HOUSE RECRUITMENT. THIS WILL GIVE THE CENTER AN EXPERIENCED POSITION WHO WILL BE AVAILABLE WHEN THE CENTER OPENS. FUNDS FOR THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE UNEXPENDED GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE. MEMORANDUM August 9, 1990 4e niEr 9 TO: Kent City Council, Operations Committee 0 1noN` Jim Hansen, City Administrator FROM: Norm Angelo, Fire Chief*f- Bob Hutchinson, Building Official A4*/ SUBJECT: Customer Services Assistant for Permit Center It is our understanding that the city intends to hire the Customer Services Assistants (1.5 positions) prior to January 1st. If this is the case and the goal is to provide this service at the opening of the Permit Center, time is of the essence with regard to hiring these individuals to support the cashiering / receptionist functions. We believe that the hiring process, if expedited, will take approximately three weeks. This position should be filled a minimum of three weeks in advance of the Permit Center's opening to provide adequate training time for a smooth operation. However, if necessary, a one week training session will suffice temporarily to become functional, with follow up training completed once the Permit Center is operational. It should be noted that the short time frame for this hiring process may impose a burden on the Personnel Department. If there is any concern regarding this matter, we will be happy to assist the department with any duties related to hiring these individuals that are appropriate to expedite the process. The following hiring schedule would be optimal: August 18 - 24 - Advertise for Position August 27 - 28 - Review Applications August 30 - 31 - Skills Testing Notification September 5 _ Skills Testing September 10 - 11 - Interview top 10 September 17 - Hire September 17 - - Training 3 weeks (assuming October 5 - individuals can start immediately) or Same schedule through September 17 with only 1 week training: October 1 - 5 - Training 1 week (if individuals must give notice in current job before beginning work) COST ANALYSIS The following cost analysis includes start up costs, parts of which may be removed from the 1991 budget request if funded now. These figures assume a hire date of September 17 and also assume the work stations are included in the tenant improvements for the Permit Center. Salary & Benefits - 13 ,304 . 00 Chairs - 700. 00 Cash register - 1, 000. 00 Safe - 2, 000.00 Phones - 2, 000. 00 Office Supplies - 200. 00 TOTAL START UP & SALARY COSTS 19,240.00 Kent City Council Meeting a.� 21 1990 Category Other Business . � S FULL TIME POSITION 1. JE_B CT: CHANGE OF THE MAYOR POSITION TO 2 • aUMMA& STAT T: Councilman Johnson has proposed making a change in the structure of t-he City's administrative section. hat that the His proposal inrve cludes a s ipulatioJohnsonthor would se on a full time basis. proposal. .3 Operations Committee endorse and recommend the prop �-s motion was �..� a '�' is Normally, a motion such as this which has been denied in in rt of the printed agenda; however,Committee would not be a pa this case the item has been placed on the printed agenda at the direction of the Council President who has authority under Council rules, to make such agenda revisions. Of course, even if an item is not on the printed agenda, any Council Member may raise an "added item" at any time, at any meeting for Council action. 3 . EXHIBITS• Judy Woods memorandum dated August 15, 1990 and Jon Johnson memorandum dated August 14 , 1990 4 • : Operations Committee heard the issue: Not recommended. etc. ) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, NO____X___ YES_______ 5 • UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: Not Recommended FISCAI,lPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended 6. vvuTrrrnTm[rRE REQUIRED: $ -0- SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 4F M E M O R A N D U M TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990 SUBJECT: ADDITION OF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON Councilmember Jon Johnson and I have discussed an item he wishes to have added to the agenda of the August 21, 1990, City Council meeting. This matter was raised in the Operations Committee on Tuesday, August 14, 1990, with Council Members Johnson and Mann present. No action was taken to add this item to the Council ' s next agenda nor was the matter placed upon the Council 's agenda during an earlier staff agenda meeting held at 9: 00 a.m. that same day. Because of the significance of issues presented in Council Member Johnson's memorandum relating to the office of the Mayor and inability to place this matter on an earlier agenda or at earlier committee meetings, I agreed to have the item added with the condition that six Council members be present. I have advised him if six (6) Council members are not present, the item will have to be carried over to the Sept. 4 meeting or a later meeting where a minimum of six Council members are present. Councilman Johnson has concurred that this is a reasonable condition. JW:jb M E M O R A N D U M To: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ED CHOW, CITY ADMINISTRATOR From: JON JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER Date: Auqust 14, 1990 Subject: PROPOSAL FOR FULL-TIME MAYOR I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE GO TO A FULL-TIME MAYOR OPERATION FOR OUR CITY. THE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. IF WE CONTINUE WITH OUR PRESENT SYSTEM THAT DEBATE WILL CONTINUE. I KNOW THERE IS NO SUPPORT ON THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO A COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS WHY I AM PROPOSING WE KEEP THE MAYOR/COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE AND MAKE THE MAYOR'S POSITION FULL-TIME. THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD REASONS TO DO THIS. THE COST IS ONE OF THEM. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE A FULL-TIME MAYOR, AN ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR, AND SECRETARY, FOR A TOTAL OF THREE POSITIONS. THE COST IN SALARIES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $145,000. IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM THERE IS A TOTAL OF FOUR FULL-TIME AND THREE PART-TIME FOR A TOTAL COST IN SALARIES OF $235,000. THIS IS A SAVINGS OF MORE THAN $90,000 A YEAR! THE SAVINGS IS EVEN MORE WHEN ONE ADDS THE COSTS OF BENEFITS, SUPPLIES AND FURNITURE TO THIS. ONE OF THE REASONS, WHY WE NEED ALL THE PEOPLE WE DO IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE MAYOR/ADMIN AREA. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE POSITIONS WE HAVE A COMMUNITY INFORMATION OFFICER, DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. IN MY PROPOSAL THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION OFFICER WOULD REMAIN. I DO FEEL HOWEVER THAT THE DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO POLICE, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS TRANSFERRED TO CULTURAL ARTS. THE LESS PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATION THE LESS NEED FOR SUPERVISION AND CLERICAL SUPPORT. ANOTHER REASON IS DECISION-MAKING. CURRENTLY THE MAYORS POSITION IS PART-TIME AND NEEDS TO HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE MAYOR CANNOT BE THERE WHEN SOME DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE. THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS ON THE MAYORIS BEHALF WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST. A FULL-TIME MAYOR WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IN THE PAST THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS MADE DECISIONS WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR OR THOUGHT HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT, ONLY TO FIND OUT LATER THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. AGAIN WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. ALSO A MAYOR NEEDS TO BE FULL-TIME TO HAVE SUCH THINGS AS DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETINGS TO MAKE SOME OF ROUTINE AND NOT SO ROUTINE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MADE SUCH AS QUESTIONS REGARDING COUNCIL POLICY AND DIRECTION, AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT A CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT MAKE WITHOUT CHECKING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST. WHILE THE IBC AND IPC MAY SERVE SOME PURPOSE, A FULL-TIME MAYOR WOULD NOT NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS BY COMMITTEE. REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT. A PART-TIME MAYOR CANNOT BE AS ACTIVE OR INVOLVED IN REGIONAL AFFAIRS AS A FULL-TIME MAYOR. BOTH AUBURN AND RENTON HAVE FULL-TIME MAYORS AND BOTH OF THOSE MAYORS ARE INVOLVED IN MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR CITIES ON REGIONAL ISSUES. WHILE OUR MAYOR IS INVOLVED IN SOME, RENT IS NOT GETTING ENOUGH INVOLVEMENT NOR ARE WE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE REGIONAL ISSUES THAT INVOLVE METRO, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, SUBURBAN CITIES, ETC. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED. FINALLY, BECAUSE IT JUST MAKES COMMON SENSE. WE ARE DEALING WITH A LARGE ORGANIZATION, A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES, WE SIMPLY CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE IN SERVING THE PUBLIC AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW AS A CITY. MY COMMENTS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE A PERSONAL ATTACK. I THINK EVERYONE IS GOING A GOOD JOB WITH THE RESOURCES GIVEN THEM. I DO KNOW WE CAN DO BETTER WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR SYSTEM AS I HAVE PROPOSED. JJ:wp // Kent City Council Meeting �f Date August 21, 1990 1I Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: TRACTOR LOADER 2. S Bid opening wa August 7, 1990 wit h one bid submitted in the amount of $16,512 .55 by Coastline Ford Tractor. This bid amount included allowance for a trade-in of our existing equipment which has been surplused by action tonight. It-4:& recommend&& the bid be accepted. W HIn -so :5ta-tt 4-hat MoQe0- 4-gL -Se-C *-he- ffuo+�or\ c.o�rn"e_eP. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Equipm t Manager. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, EZL , Commission, etc. ) 5. ETED FISCAL PERSMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE RE III D: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ION: Council memb r moves, Council member seconds the bid f om Coastline Ford Tractor in the amount of $16, 512 .55 for the ractor loader be accepted. DISCUSSI —� ACTION: V Council Agenda Item No. 5A ..1 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 1990 TO: Don Wickstrom n CC: Tim Heydorf, / FROM: Jack Spencer �+xa.� SUBJECT: Approval for purchase of equipment bid on August 7th. On August 7th Equipment Rental received a bid for a Tractor loader to replace unit #157 . One bid was received. Coastline Ford Tractor 2313 Milwaukee Way Tacoma, Wa. 98421 Ford 545C Bid $28 , 075. 00 Less trade 1980 John Deere 9 ,850. 00 Sales Tax 1, 187 . 55 $16,512 . 55 This tractor meets or exceeds specifications requested in all areas except it uses a three cylinder engine in place of a four cylinder. Horsepower exceeds what is requested. I recommend we purchase from CoastliV Ford. A copy of the Capitol Outlay is �nclosed. i i Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 1 Category Bids ' I 11 . SUBJECT: TRACTOR LOADER BACKHOE UNIT r 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening wasAAugust 8, 1990 with five bids received from four different companies. The low bid was submitted by Case Power, however the equipment for which their bid was submitted did not meet specifications. Coastline Ford Tractor submitted the next lowest bid for equipment that did meet the specifications. Coastline Ford Tractor's bid of $27,454.50 included an allowance for trade-in of existing C� equipment which has been surplused by action tonight. # ' j* recommend the equipment be purchased from Coastline Ford Tractor for the bid amount of $27,454 .50. W HQr- 5o MOVED. �p bv�o rnn AA c o oQR c� G.n c0 1-h e Tv�ot� 6,, C annnn d�. 3 . EXHI TS: Memorandum from the Equipment anager. 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee Staff, Examiner, ommission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL RSO L IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL PERSONNEL NO ecommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE RE UI $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL Al ION: Council mem)der n move Council member seconds the bid ,,submitted by Coastline Fo Tractor in the amount of $27,454�50 for the tractor loader backhoe unit be accepted. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5B r MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 199*0 TO: Don Wickstrom FROM: Jack Spencer SUBJECT: Approval for rchase of equipment bid on August 8, 1990. on August 8 , 1990 Equipment Rental received bids for a Tractor Loader and Backhoe unit to replace a John Deere Backhoe (unit #156) . We received five bids from the following four companies: 1. Case Power and Equipment (2 Bids submitted) 2702 West Valley Highway North Auburn, Wa. 98001 A. Case 580K Bid $34 , 539.74 Less Trade for 1980 John Deere -10, 000. 00 Sales Tax 1,987 .72 $26, 527 .46 B. Case 680E Bid $54,726 .26 Less Trade for 1980 John Deere -10, 000. 00 Sales Tax 3 , 622.83 $48, 351. 09 2 . S 'th Tractor and Equipment�'Co. P. Box 1247 Ke t, Wa. 98032 John Deere 410C Bid $43 ,710.00 Less Trade ifor 1980 John Deere -12, 000. 00 Sales Tax 2 , 568 . 51 $34,278 .51 3 . Coastline Ford Tractor 2313 Milwaukee Way Tacoma, Wa. 98421 Ford 555C Turbo Bid $40, 818. 00 Less Trade for 1980 John Deere -15, 350.00 Sales Tax 1, 986. 50 $27 , 454 . 50 4. Craig Taylor Equipment Co. P.O. Box 710-98057 3100 East Valley Road Renton, Wa. 98056 J.C.B. 1400B Bid $37 , 224 . 00 Sales Tax 3 , 015. 14 NO TRADE $40, 239 . 14 The Case 580K from Case Power is the low bid however, it has several things that don't meet specifications: 1. Loader bucket size 2 . Cylinder size 3 . Digging depth 14" 4 . Outrigger spread 5. Net horsepower at fly wheel Coastline Ford of Tacoma is the second lowest bidder, and has only one item that does not meet specs. This is digging depth, 15 ' was asked Pa and Ford is at 14 ' 8" . �Tith the extendahoe is exceeds this dnce. I recommend we purchase the Ford 555C from Coastline Ford. i cc: Tim Heydon Kent City Council Meeting Date August 21. 1990 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: ASPHALT PATCHER v-11 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was August 7, 1990 with two bids received. The low bid was submitted by Process Heatin¢,, D , Company ok Washington in the amount of $18,258.09. recommeltthis bid be accepted. W K/TC SO MOUO-D • j am c,,cO tt-0— w� 3. EXHIBITS: Me randum from the Equipment M ager. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, xaminer, Co fission, etc. ) i 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO IMPACT: NO YES FISrWPERSONNEL NOTE: co ended Not Recommended i 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRF.D: $_ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCII44CTION: Council member moves, Council member seconds;' bid ,submitted by Process Heating Company Washington for the asphalt patcher in the amount of $18,258.09 be accepted. DISCUSSION• V \/v ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5C -Y/A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 21, 1990 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM `l� RE: KENSINGTON AVENUE STORM The Public Works Department has designed a storm project for Kensington Avenue to correct a flooding problem in the area. Funding for the project is included in the budget for the Miscellaneous Storm Projects. Because the project estimate did not exceed $30, 000 we were not required to go through the formal bidding process and, instead, solicited proposals from several companies. Following are the bids received. 1. Scoccolo Construction $14 , 098 . 94 2 . Merlino Construction $15, 285. 34 3 . R.W. Scott Construction $18 , 344 . 57 4 . Como Construction $22 , 192 . 93 5. Robison Construction $35, 013 . 59 We are recommending the project be awarded to Scoccolo Construction. Due to the need to proceed with the project as soon as possible we are proposing to request Council approval at their meeting tonight, 8/21/90 . i O .. MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 1990 TO: Don Wickstrom FROM: Jack Spencer jaAk� SUBJECT: Approval for purchase of equipment bid on August 7, and 8th. A. On August 7th Equipment Rental received bids on a new Automatic Electric Asphalt Patcher for the Street Department, two bids were received. 1. Special Asphalt Products Inc. P.O. Box 83295 Portland, Oregon 97283-0295 P.B. Loader Bid $16,890.00 Sales Tax 1,368.09 Total $21,403.80 2 . Process Heating Company of Washington 2732 Third Avenue South Seattle, Wa. 98134 y 1 Patch King Bid $16,890.00 Sales Tax 1,368.09 Total $18,258.09 i Both patch boxes meet specifications. I am recommending we award the Bid toProcess Heating of Seattle. Enclosed you will find a Capital Outlay for $18,000. 00 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 14, 1990 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson Paul Mann STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo Mary Berg Mimi Castillo Ed Chow Becky Fowler Jim Hansen Charlie Lindsey Tony McCarthy Alana Mclalwain May Miller Kelli O'Donnell Don Olson Don Wickstrom Bill Williamson MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Roland Mason Lyle Price The meeting was called to order at 4:40 pm by acting Chairperson Jon Johnson. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending July 31, 1990 in the amount of$1,514,740.38 were approved for payment. DISPUTED WATER BILL Customer Services Manager Lindsey introduced Mr.Roland Mason of Packers Plus Incorporated who was contesting his June Water and Sewer bill in the amount of$663.54. Mr.Mason explained that his business had been in Kent for the past fifteen years with a consistent bill of$27-32 a month. His business has no industrial usage of water; the facilities are in use all of the time with no recent leaks; and the sprinkler system is metered separately. He feels the billing is wholly unjustified. Customer Services Manager Lindsey stated that historically there no policy to deal with this sort of situation so therefore it must be decided through the Council. He also indicated that the meter had been checked and the readings verified. He did not believe the meter to be faulty and by all indications the water had passed through the meter. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded that the bill would be split between Mr. Mason and the City 50/50 since no explanation could be found. The motion passed with a vote of 2-0. HVAC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT INFORMATION SERVICES AIRCONDITIONING Customer Services Manager Lindsey requested authorization for the Mayor to extend the current maintenance contract for one additional year excluding filter maintenance which will be done internally. Information Services airconditioning needs were also explained. A proposal to install a supplemental airconditioner in the Information Services computer room with a condensing unit and a window airconditioning unit for the Word Processing area was presented. The cost for the main unit would be $5,320. The smaller unit is a surplus one from the shops which would require $500 for installation. These request were moved to Council with a vote of 2-0. CASHIERING POSITION FOR PERMIT CENTER Assistant City Administrator Hansen explained the need for the cashiering position at the new permit center. This position would meet and greet the public, provide general information and allow payment of permits in one spot. Fire Chief Angelo added that this position would provide an answer to a common complaint of citizens having to go to too many departments for a relatively simple transaction. If this position is not filled until 1991, this perception will persist. The original concept of the permit center was centralization and approving this request would support that concept. The Committee moved to support this request to Council with a vote of 2-0. After discussion of where it should be presented on the Council Agenda, it was moved to Other Business. KHERSON PARK FUEL TANK REMOVAL Fire Chief Angelo reported to the Committee the current situation at the Kherson Park. The fuel tank on the property has presented questions as to responsibility between the property owner, the building connected to the tank, and previous property owners. It was recommended that the City obtain permission from the involved parties to remove the tank, test the soil, properly dispose of the tank and restore the park with City funds. The estimated cost of$7,000 was set forth to cover any possible contingencies with the actual expected cost of$2,500. The Code Enforcement fund would cover this amount. Fire Chief Angelo believes this action would project a positive image for the park as well as forestall any possible liability in the future. The Operations Committee recommended this to Council with a vote of 2-0. SALARY SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION Personnel Director Olson presented the findings of salary survey conducted by the City of Kent in conjunction with Bill Ewing and Associates. Although the results showed that most salary ranges are competitive, there are areas that are not at the median range. This creates a problem in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. He reviewed the three options for implementing the salary survey as outlined in the agenda. It was also noted that the survey addressed only public sector employees and in all probability the private sector would be higher. A few positions were paid over the median of the salary survey. After discussion of the options and their impact on the City, Councilmember Mann moved that the salary survey be implemented effective September 1, 1990 and this recommendation be presented at the next Council meeting with a report on the financial impact. This motion was passed by a vote of 2-0 and moved to Council. PROPOSAL FOR FULL-TIME MAYOR Committeemember Johnson set forth a proposal to reorganize the executive branch by increasing the Mayor's position to full-time with a change in organization of the administration staff. Committeemember Johnson stated that he felt the Operations Committee was the proper venue because of the budgetary impact. If his motion was not accepted, he would bring the proposal to Council as a Councilmember. The motion failed due to lack of a second. The motion was not recommended to Council. Councilmember Mann requested a report from Personnel Director Olson to the next Council meeting on the salary history of the Mayor including what it would be if cost of living increases had been factored in. He also asked acting City Attorney Williamson to draft a Council Proclamation commending the Mayor for doing such an admirable job. Councilmember Johnson confirmed the reclassification of Fire and Police Chiefs and the compression issue of those departments would be addressed at the next Operations Committee meeting. Acting Chairperson Johnson adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. M E M O R A N D U M To: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ED CHOW, CITY ADMINISTRATOR From: JON JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER Date: August 14, 1990 Subject: PROPOSAL FOR FULL-TIME MAYOR I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE GO TO A FULL-TIME MAYOR OPERATION FOR OUR CITY. THE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. IF WE CONTINUE WITH OUR PRESENT SYSTEM THAT DEBATE WILL CONTINUE. I KNOW THERE IS NO SUPPORT ON THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO A COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS WHY I AM PROPOSING WE KEEP THE MAYOR/COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE AND MAKE THE MAYOR'S POSITION FULL-TIME. THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD REASONS TO DO THIS. THE COST IS ONE OF THEM. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE A FULL-TIME MAYOR, AN ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR, AND SECRETARY, FOR A TOTAL OF THREE POSITIONS. THE COST IN SALARIES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $145,000. IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM THERE IS A TOTAL OF FOUR FULL-TIME AND THREE PART-TIME FOR A TOTAL COST IN SALARIES OF $235,000. THIS IS A SAVINGS OF MORE THAN $90,000 A YEAR! THE SAVINGS IS EVEN MORE WHEN ONE ADDS THE COSTS OF BENEFITS, SUPPLIES AND FURNITURE TO THIS. ONE OF THE REASONS, WHY WE NEED ALL THE PEOPLE WE DO IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE MAYOR/ADMIN AREA. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE POSITIONS WE HAVE A COMMUNITY INFORMATION OFFICER, DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. IN MY PROPOSAL THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION OFFICER WOULD REMAIN. I DO FEEL HOWEVER THAT THE DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO POLICE, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS TRANSFERRED TO CULTURAL ARTS. THE LESS PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATION THE LESS NEED FOR SUPERVISION AND CLERICAL SUPPORT. ANOTHER REASON IS DECISION-MAKING. CURRENTLY THE MAYORIS POSITION IS PART-TIME AND NEEDS TO HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE MAYOR CANNOT BE THERE WHEN SOME DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE. THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO MARE CERTAIN DECISIONS ON THE MAYOR'S BEHALF WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST. A' FULL-TIME MAYOR WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. IN THE PAST THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS MADE DECISIONS WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH THE MAYOR OR THOUGHT HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT, ONLY TO FIND OUT LATER THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. AGAIN WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. ALSO A MAYOR NEEDS TO BE FULL-TIME TO HAVE SUCH THINGS AS DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETINGS TO MAKE SOME OF ROUTINE AND NOT SO ROUTINE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MADE SUCH AS QUESTIONS REGARDING COUNCIL POLICY AND DIRECTION, AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT A CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT MAKE WITHOUT CHECKING WITH THE MAYOR FIRST. WHILE THE IBC AND IPC MAY SERVE SOME PURPOSE, A FULL-TIME MAYOR WOULD NOT NEED TO MARE DECISIONS BY COMMITTEE. REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT. A PART-TIME MAYOR CANNOT BE AS ACTIVE OR INVOLVED IN REGIONAL AFFAIRS AS A FULL-TIME MAYOR. BOTH AUBURN AND RENTON HAVE FULL-TIME MAYORS AND BOTH OF THOSE MAYORS ARE INVOLVED IN MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR CITIES ON REGIONAL ISSUES. WHILE OUR MAYOR IS INVOLVED IN SOME, KENT IS NOT GETTING ENOUGH INVOLVEMENT NOR ARE WE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE REGIONAL ISSUES THAT INVOLVE METRO, PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, SUBURBAN CITIES, ETC. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED. FINALLY, BECAUSE IT JUST MAKES COMMON SENSE. WE ARE DEALING WITH A LARGE ORGANIZATION, A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES, WE SIMPLY CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE IN SERVING THE PUBLIC AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW AS A CITY. MY COMMENTS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE A PERSONAL ATTACK. I THINK EVERYONE IS GOING A GOOD JOB WITH THE RESOURCES GIVEN THEM. I DO KNOW WE CAN DO BETTER WITH A FULL-TIME MAYOR SYSTEM AS I HAVE PROPOSED. JJ:wp PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 7 , 1990 PRESENT: Jim White John Bond Steve Dowell Ed Olson Leona Orr Jack Spencer Don Wickstrom Dave Clark - King County Jim Hansen Charlie Kessler - King County Bill Williamson James Dunn Marty Nizlek Mr. and Mrs. Rust Tim Heydon Flood Control Zone District Wickstrom introduced Dave Clark and Charlie Kessler from King County Surface Water Management. Wickstrom summarized that since 1985, Kent executed the Green River Management Agreement to manage the Green River. One of the tasks in the Agreement was to look at the levee system to determine what improvements were needed to address today's flood conditions in terms of providing adequate freeboard and to address future needs. Studies have determined there are approximately $14 million worth of levee improvements needed. . Individual jurisdictions have agreed to construct the levee improvements needed within their own area and the County would take over maintenance and operation of the levee system. However, the County currently has to maintain not only the Green River levee but all the other rivers they maintain from the River Improvement Fund. This fund is established by a tax levied county wide of which approximately $200, 000 per year therefrom is spent on maintenance of the Green River system and most of that goes for maintenance of both the Black River Pump Station and the P-17 (Tukwila) pump station. Wickstrom stated that Kent has spent $350, 000 just on one maintenance project for the levee. Wickstrom explained that the County could provide the ongoing maintenance required through the Flood Control Zone District. This is an existing entity instituted in 196-k with taxing authority or can levy a s4rvice charge for flood protection purposes. The County has estimated the needs would relate to approximately 6 cents per $1, 000 property valuation. The River Improvement funds could then be used for capital improvements. Wickstrom added the County is seeking the city's concurrence to pass a resolution to institute a flood control zone district and asking the County to institute same. White asked about Kent' s� drainage utility. Wickstrom responded our utility has been concentrating on internal drainage although we have spent $350, 000 and will be spending another $300, 000 on the Meeker Street levee improvement. Responding to White' s question, Dave Clarke indicated the total assessed valuation of the Flood Control Zone District is approximately $7 . 5 billion for approximately 44 , 000 acres. Some older studies have indicated that if the levee were to fail in Public Works Committee August 7, 1990 Page 2 Auburn about 17, 000 acres would be inundated. Under this scenario, if the assessed valuation were equally distributed over the entire area, there is a potential for about $2 . 5 billion worth of improvements subject to inundation. White asked what percentage of the Flood Control Zone District was commercial/industrial. Clarke responded he thought the entire district would be about two-thirds commercial/industrial and one- third residential . Dowell asked what would happen if we didn't do this. Wickstrom stated we would continue on a piece-meal approach. Dowell moved this item be placed under "Under Business" on the Council agenda with a recommendation for approval. Clarke added that the County, City of Kent and City of Auburn have been working cooperatively on Mill Creek since 1978 as part of the basin program. The costs of developing the engineering design for the Mill Creek projects and built those costs into the Flood Control Zone District rate base as well. It was suggested that the two cities and county might want to consider this which would add 6'.9 cents per thousand to complete the design work. This is outlined in the report included in the Committee's packet. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Proposed LID - 218th Street (EVH - SR 167) Wickstrom explained that Mr. and Mrs. Rust had seen this project listed as a potential project and asked it be placed on the agenda for discussion since they own a proximately 4 acres in the vicinity.. Wickstrom explained th7existing road is less than 2 lanes andlin some cases narrows to 12 feet; thus, it is inadequate to handle the existing traffic. There is a large development planned for the area which will handle most of their traffic through their internal streets out to EVH but a portion will use S. 218th. The City is in the process of putting together estimates and information to form an LID to improve S. 218th Street. Mr. Rust asked how soon it would be iifiplemented and asked why an LID was being considered now when United sold. Wickstrom stated it was not necessarily related to United. The property in the area is zoned industrial and the road has to be improved to allow further development. Once estimates are prepared, we will be sending notices to the property owners indicating the estimated costs, type of improvements, etc. If we receive adequate support from the property owners for formation of the LID, we will proceed with the formal process of property owner meetings, public hearings, etc. Public Works Committee August 7 , 1990 w Page 3 Mr. and Mrs. Rust asked several questions concerning the Trammell Crow development. Mr. and Mrs. Rust will be kept informed as to the status of the project. City Entry Signs and Central Business District Signs Nizlek displayed the sign that has been developed for the Central Business District signs and demonstrated the 20 areas at which they will be placed. The cost is approximately $1,200. Ed Olson and Tim Heydon presented a proposed design for the "Welcome to Kent" signs. Olson emphasized these signs are planned to be placed just within the city limits at every major arterial coming into the City. It is estimated the cost for the signs would be $4 ,500 to $5, 000. The Committee suggested that Olson bring back a final design as prepared by the artist for their approval and this would then be taken to Council for full Council approval. 94th Avenue Between Canyon and James Nizlek stated the 25 MPH stencils have been placed. The other issue that was to be addressed was how to place temporary traffic circles. Nizlek described the application which would use barrels at two locations, one on 94th Avenue S. at S. 244th and the other at S. 242nd Street. Estimated cost would be $12 , 000. Nizlek stated there are no funds available for this. Funds were requested in the 1990 budget process for neighborhood traffic controls but was not approved. Funds have again been requested in the 1991 budget. If you wish to proceed with this temporary modification this year, we will have to request a mid-year budget change. Dowell asked how the temporary meaEhires that are in place now are working. JNizlek stated that vehicles have been "spinning" their wheels onithe 25 MPH stencils. Nizlek stated he has observed this has happened in other areas that have similar street markings. Mr. Dunn stated the temporary measures have helped a little. Dowell restated his concern about the need for enforcement of the speed limit in residential areas. White asked about the public safety issues of speed humps for this areai. Nizlek replied that the fire chief certainly prefers not to have anything that would change the elevation of the vehicles. Nizlek stated he would be hesitant to recommend speed humps given the speeds that are occurring. White asked if these temporary circles do not clear up the problem sufficiently what would be the next step. Nizlek commented perhaps increased enforcement would be the next measure. White stated he would be willing to try the temporary circles using the barrels and asked about funding. Wickstrom stated there are funds in the CIP Public Works Committee August 7, 1990 Page 4 that could possibly be used. White asked staff's suggestion to solve the problem. Nizlek stated he felt it would take this measure plus added enforcement as you will continue to get those who will scoff the laws. The Committee concluded they would like staff to proceed with implementing the temporary measures this year and to request the funding from IBC. White asked Dowell and Orr to take the request for increased enforcement to the Public Safety Committee. Nizlek alluded to the need for an established procedure and criteria for the placement of these types of barricades. White agreed and suggested that we proceed with this location and staff can then prepare a procedure to bring before the Committee and Council for approval. Authorization to Surplus Equipment Heydon referred to the material that was included in the Committee's packet which supported Equipment Rental 's policy of replacing these pieces of equipment with approximately 4,500 hours. Heydon stated we also have the option of using this equipment as trade-in on purchase of new equipment. The Committee unanimously approved to surplus the equipment. Speed Limits - West Valley Highwav Williamson stated an ordinance has been prepared reducing the speed limit on West Valley Highway during construction. Williamson stated he believes the City has authority under State statute to allow and enforce the speed reduction. The Committee unanimously recommended adoption. Vehicle Registration Fee V 1 After a brief discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Vehicle Registration Fee. Library Street Closure fist Avenue) Hansen reviewed the approved traffib patterns for the Library. The contractor would like to proceed with this closure so he can bring his equipment into the site. Dowell asked about parking for those businesses on First and Second. Hansen responded the Library's parking lot is public parking and there are 127 spaces available. In addition there will be parking available in the municipal parking lot across from the new library. It was determined that after completion of the library there will be more parking N available than there is now. Hansen reviewed that the closure is Public Works Committee August 7 , 1990 Page 5 just for access from Smith. The Committee unanimously recommended that a public hearing be held on closure of the Smith Street access to First Avenue and that staff proceed with the traffic revision process. Traffic "Bulge" Frager Road and S. 212th and Crow Road Bypass The Committee asked staff to followup on these requests and to contact the individuals who brought the issues up at Council meeting and to bring this back before the Committee. Left Turn from James Street to First Church of Nazarene Dowell stated this came up in Public Safety Committee. It was suggested that "No Left Turn" be placed on James Street. Committee asked staff to review the problem and to bring recommendations back before the Committee. Rubberized Rail Crossings Wickstrom stated that bids were opened this morning on purchase of the rubber for the railroad crossings. He would like to add it to the agenda for this evening' s Council meeting in order to facilitate the construction to coordinate with the City' s Overlay project. The Committee agreed. V