HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/02/1991 ................... ..............
I'x
... ........
Colt of Kent
1�ry li
X.-
ulty Cou nci I Meeti ng .�.
Agenda .....
....... CITY OF
mi
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
X.X...
Steve Dowell Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
April 2, 1991
Office of the City Clerk
. .. ... ... .................. .... ..... .. .... .
.. ......... ....... ......... .... . ......... ..
.................
.................. ............
.... . ......
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 2 , 1991
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Council Chambers
office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m.
dA�1(�'RA
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the
back of this page.
✓CALL TO ORDER
DROLL CALL
1. ✓ PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
VA. Employee of the Month
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
--X� 1991 CDBG Local Program Policies Amendment
-j -' 1992 CDBG Funding and Local Program Policies
�! Puget Power Substation - Appeal
LID 336 - East Valley Highway Improvements Ordinance
LID 338 - Westview Terrace Sanitary Sewers
3 . CQNSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
,g: Bills
,,C ' Golf Cart Acquisition
-B: Street Utility Staffing
Service Agreement - Federal Way strict
I.A.C. Grant - Riverview Park - Resolution„(��7
I.A.C. Grant - Scenic Hill Park Resolutionj;2 ?�1
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
Olympic Pipeline Franchise „ Ordinanc
-� ��;�,
5. IDS
6. CONTINUTED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS - Budget Status and C.I.P. Kickoff
8 . EXECUTIVE SESSION, IF NECESSARY
9. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) Employee of the Month
ry 1 I ,/,L.k'4/'rn-
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1991 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider the
approval of the proposed Amendment to the Local Program Policies
for the 1991 Kent Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program as recommended by the Council's Planning Committee.
This proposed Amendment includes eliminating all priority
emphasis given to the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) .
.gge(n-i€ 1-Iy, _a rev-ision to the Housing policy sate-gory is
`PreposLsd
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and Planning Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember V"Y�a-'VW- seconds
To accept the Council Planning Committee's
recommendation of the proposed Amendment to the Local Program
Policies for the 1991 Kent CDBG Program.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Ager da
Item No. 2A
CrU-Y OF Aenk
CITY OF KENT
acla
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
March 25, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ALICE SHOBLANNER
SUBJECT: 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL
PROGRAM POLICIES AMENDMENT
The City Council adopted Local Program Policies for this year's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in March, 1990.
The 1991 Local Program Policies emphasized projects which would
serve residents residing in the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA)
which is a mapped area consisting of the Central Business District,
North Park, South of Willis, and Lower Scenic Hill neighborhoods.
When the NSA was established in the mid-19701s, it was identified
as the concentrated area of low and moderate income residents in
the City of Kent.
In the fall of 1990, a study entitled "Needs Survey of Kent
Neighborhood Strategy Area and Target Areas" was conducted by the
Planning Department. One of the primary objectives of the study
was to identify areas outside the NSA with a concentration of low
and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and
moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated in the four
neighborhoods listed above. Rather, there are also small pockets
of low and moderate income residents scattered throughout the city.
The Kent Housing Repair Services Program is currently our only CDBG
funded program which uses the NSA to determine service priority
within the program. Currently, applicants residing inside the NSA
will receive priority (unless the repair is an emergency) , over
those residents living outside the NSA.
The Housing Repair Services Program was approved for funding last
year because it addressed a need identified in the Housing category
of the 1991 CDBG Local Program Policy. The Housing policy category
currently reads:
Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or
expansion of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income
residents of Kent with priority given to the Neighborhood
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
March 25, 1991
Page 2
Strategy Area. (Emphasis added. ) While the city's current
Housing Repair Program and assistance to emergency and
transitional housing programs should be continued, new methods
of meeting housing needs may also be considered.
The Needs Assessment Study completed by the Planning Department
last November clearly shows that our NSA boundries are outdated.
The Kent Planning Department recommends that the NSA be eliminated
rather than expanded for the following reasons:
1. There is no federal program requirement mandating designation
of an NSA.
2 . The low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are no longer
contiguous and, therefore, distinct boundaries are difficult
to map.
3 . A primary goal of the CDBG program is to address need of low-
and moderate-income families. The need throughout Kent will
be addressed more fairly.
4 . The Home Repair Services Program requires income verification
from every applicant, therefore, income eligibility is
verified on a case by case basis.
The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the 1991 CDBG Local
Program Policy Amendment at its March 19 meeting and recommended
approval.
Recommended Action
1. Amend the 1991 Local Program Policies to eliminate any
specific emphasis on the Neighborhood Strategic Area.
Specifically, amend the Housing Section of the 1991 Local
Program Policies to read:
Housing
Projects will be encouraged which lead toward
preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low- and
moderate-income residents of Kent. While the city's
current Housing Repair Program and assistance to
emergency and transitional housing programs should be
continued, new methods of meeting housing needs may also
be considered.
ALS: ljh: \cdbg\91april4 . cc
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
March 19, 1991
elementary and Junior High boundaries. The reason they have a serious
problem is because they have for the second time in a row failed to have a
bond issue approved, which would have provided two additional elementary
schools and an additional Junior High School. Therefore, Mr. Fountain
stated the Federal Way School District has a real interest in this whole
subject of impact fees for schools and in growth management. They are not
opposed to growth and think halting all growth is not the answer. They
cannot keep up with the pace of providing facilities to students. He said
he hopes that an ordinance would be drawn up that is compatible to all the
school districts involved.
Paul Bray, representing the Highline School District, stated that only half
of their district is in King County and it was important that all five
cities around them develop continuity for economic reasons.
Dick Lowell spoke representing the Master Builders Association said he
doesn't feel it is fair to spread impact fees area-wide.
1991 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AMENDMENT (A. Shobe)
Planner Alice Shobe summarized the background on this amendment- as
mentioned in the Agenda packet. In the fall of 1990 a study entitled
"Needs Survey of Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) and Target Areas"
was conducted by the Planning Department. One of the primary objectives of
the study was to identify areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of
low and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and
moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated in just the four
target neighborhoods. The Kent Housing Repair Services Program is
currently the only CDBG funded program in the County which uses the NSA to
determine service priority within the program. Ms. Shobe stated that the
Kent Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed Amendment to
the Local Program Policies for the 1991 Kent Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program. This proposed Amendment includes eliminating all
priority emphasis given to the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) .
Specifically, a revision to the Housing policy category is proposed.
Councilmember Christi Houser made the MOTION to support this Amendment and
to forward this to full Council as a Public Hearing on April 2nd.
Councilmember Leona Orr SECONDED it and the motion CARRIED.
1992 CDBG FUNDING & LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES (A. Shobe)
Planner Alice Shobe explained that the City Council needs to take action on
five items for the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
The Human Services Commission has approved the Public (human) Services
portion of the Program Policies and the allocation of the Community
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1992 CDBG FUNDING & LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider five
action items — --1�} )
which include$ the adoption of the Local Program policies for
the 1992 Kent Community Development Block Program (CDBG) as
recommended by the Council's Planning Committee and by the Human
Services Commission. The estimated amount of funds available
for the 1992 Program is $183 , 146.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Human Services Commission and Planning
Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
To accept/ the five action items
which includes adoption of the Local Program
Policies for the 1992 Kent CDBG Program as recommended by the
Council's Planning Committee.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2Bi
«4Y OF'7F4J2 U
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
March 25, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ALICE SHOBOkANNER
SUBJECT: 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL
PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING
Background
Again this year, the City of - Kent qualifies to receive "pass-
through" funds for its 1992 Community Development Block Grant
Program. The City has received its estimate for 1992 funds from
King County. The estimate of $183, 146 is approximately $2 , 000
lower than the original estimate received last year. However, last
year's estimate was raised significantly to $240, 129. It appears
that our total CDBG allocation will decrease in 1992 because
President Bush has proposed reducing CDBG funds by approximately
ten percent. However, it is likely that the estimated entitlement
will increase slightly due to program income earned from our Home .
Repair Program throughout the remainder of 1991 and recaptured
funds.
The City Council needs to take five actions:
C) Receipt of Funds
The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects
to receive the "pass-through" funds again this year or to
compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that
the City accept the pass-through funds in lieu of the
competitive funds. This recommendation is based on the
following:
a) With pass-through funds, the City is guaranteed a funding
level far greater than that received in the years prior
to the availability of the "pass-through" option. The
only funds guaranteed previously were the "pop fund"
monies, which in 1986 were approximately $94, 000 for the
City of Kent.
b) If the City does not elect to take the pass-through
monies, Kent is not guaranteed the receipt of any CDBG
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
March 25, 1991
Page 2
funds. Kent would have to compete with the County and
other cities for all funds.
c) The pass-through alternative maximizes the City's
discretion in use of funds. The City will be able to
plan its own programs based on its own community needs
without having to compete for funds to implement the
projects.
( 2 .; Public (Human) Services Funding
If the City chooses tq accept pass-through funds, it can
reserve the maximum of its fair share of public services
dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this
amount of funding for human services, another city can request
the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the
maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to
continue in its present support for human services, the
Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify
the County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars
available ($35, 743) for human services.
3 . Planning and Administration Funds
As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG
funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration. The
maximum amount which can be reserved is seven (7) percent of
its pass-through allocation. In 1990, Planning &
Administration funds were used to do a community needs
assessment to assist the City in setting funding priorities
for its CDBG money. Since this study was recently completed,
there is not an immediate need in 1992 for the City to reserve
a large amount of the CDBG money for Planning and
Administration. A small amount should be set aside to pay for
communications, printing, and supplies. Staff feels that the
rest of the amount which could be allocated to Planning and
Administration would be better spent by leaving it in our
general pot of money to be spent for other needed projects.
For this reason, the Planning Department recommends that the
City of Kent notify the County that it wishes to reserve only
one-half of one percent ( . 005%) of its 1992 CDBG funds for
Planning and Administration ($916) .
\J Local Program Policies Background
The development of Local .Program Policies is an annual federal
requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent' s CDBG
Program Policies each year. The attached draft of Kent' s 1992
CDBG Local Program Policies is a description of our local
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
March 25, 1991
Page 3
strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies
form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG
funds in the City of Kent.
The Human Services Commission reviewed the Public (Human)
Services Policy at their February meeting and recommends
adoption of the policy as proposed in the draft document.
Local Program Policy Changes from 1991
A Elimination of the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA)
In past ears our policies have encouraged projects
p Y P g p ]
within the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) , a mapped
portion of the city which included the Central Business
District, North Park, South of Willis and Lower East Hill
neighborhoods. This area was emphasized because the low
and moderate income households were primarily clustered
within this area in Kent.
As explained in the memo regarding the proposed amendment
to the 1991 Local Program Policies, a needs survey
completed in 1990 revealed that pockets of low- and
moderate-income families are living throughout Kent. In
order to retain consistency with CDBG program goals, all
reference to the NSA has been eliminated in the proposed
1992 Local Program Policies.
/B) Expanded Emphasis on Regional Projects
You will note under Part III "Needs Assessment" of the
attached Local Program Policies, that a second section
entitled "Regional Needs" was added. The Local Program
Polices for 1991 emphasized the importance of regional
programming and acknowledged Kent' s commitment to
exploring and supporting regional funding systems.
The commitment made in 1991 remains in the 1992 Local
Program Policies, however there is acknowledgement of a
new regional public services funding system targeted for
emergency shelter programs and "one-time-only" projects.
For the 1992 program year, new federal guidelines
regarding calculating the CDBG public service ceiling
have been adopted. For the first time, program .income
can be added to the annual entitlement prior to
calculating the fifteen percent public (human) services
ceiling. This will create additional public service
capability for the Consortium, but will not increase
total CDBG entitlement funds.
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
March 25, 1991
Page 4
The 'Consortium has created a program whereby the funding
potential created by the additional public services
ceiling will be dedicated to a regional funding pot.
This funding pot, entitled "The Consortiumwide Emergency
Shelter System" will be administered by King County.
Emergency shelter programs have been targeted because
homeless . individuals do not usually have strong
associations with one jurisdiction. Each Consortium City
has the opportunity to donate their portion of Community
Development Interim Loan (CDIL) program income to this
regional emergency shelter fund. The program estimate
for the City of Kent is $9 , 597. If this amount is not
donated to the regional shelter fund, the City of Kent
will retain the money for capital CDBG projects.
CDIL program income will vary significantly from year to
year; therefore, the public services entitlement will
vary. In years when the public service entitlement
allocated to the emergency shelter program is increased,
the additional funding will be designated to regional
one-time-only projects. Allocations will be balanced
between south county and east county. Examples of one-
time-only regional projects include: a new van for a
regional multi-service center or V/TDD phones for the
hearing impaired. In the past, one time projects have
had difficulty obtaining local funding because on-going
programs have received preference.
5. Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System Funds
The Citymust determine if it will participate in the newly
developed Consortium Emergency Shelter System. The Planning
Department Recommends that the City allocate $9,597, the full
amount of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) Program
Income to the Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System. This
recommendation is based on the following:
1. There is an increased awareness of the need to build
regional systems to address critical human services needs
which cannot be as effectively met on the local level.
2 . The City of Kent has seen an increased demand for public
(human) services dollars in recent years. Agencies
report that capital funding is available from private
sources and public state programs. Therefore, they are
desperately seeking public service money to subsidize
operating costs. If the City of Kent chooses to retain
the CDIL program income, the money must be allocated for
capital CDBG projects because the public service
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
March 25, 1991
Page 5
"ceiling" has been raised for the entire Consortium, not
individual cities.
3 . Homeless families and individuals in 'need of emergency
services has increased significantly in recent years.
The City of Kent has responded to some of the local need
by providing emergency funding for a severe weather
voucher program. This gives the City an opportunity to
enhance their commitment to addressing the plight -of the
homeless.
4 . King County has provided a significant amount of funding
for homeless programs within the City of . Kent.
Currently, King County funds eight units of YWCA
transitional housing in Kent. (The .City of Kent does not
provide any funding for this program. ) The County has
also provided matching funds for capital projects serving
homeless people within the City limits. , Allocating
funding to the regional pot will ensure that King County
continues to fund public service programs within
incorporated cities.
The City Council Planning Committee reviewed the '1992 CDBG funding
information and policies at its March 19 meeting and recommended
approval of all five actions as presented. The Human Services
Commission also reviewed the public (human) services and CDIL
program income allocations and recommended approval as presented.
Recommended Action
1. Approval by City Council to accept 1992 Pass-Through funds.
2 . Allocation of the City's fair share maximum of 1992 Pass-
Through funds ($ 35,743) to Public (Human) Services.
3 . Allocation of . 005% ($916) of 1992 Pass-Through funds to
Planning and Administration.
4 . Approval of the proposed 1992 Local Program Policies.
5. Allocation of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL)
program income ($9 , 597) to the Consortiumwide Emergency
Shelter System.
The City' s action on these five items needs to be forwarded to King
County by April 8, 1991.
ALS: ljh: 1992cc.mem
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
PROPOSED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
1992 LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES
CITY OF KENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent' s 1992 Local Program Policies summarize the
City's housing and community development needs and outlines '
policies and priorities for use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds: The City of Kent receives federal CDBG
funds through a county-wide consortium, therefore these Local
Polices are also part of the 1992 King County CDBG Consortium
Policy Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
Existing predominately as an agricultural area for many years,
the City of Kent, - incorporated in 1890, has developed a
suburban character as a result of the rapid growth in Seattle
and the Puget Sound area. The City's residential character is
varied and divided greatly by natural topography. The
residential areas in the valley, clustered mostly around the
downtown consist primarily of single family homes built in the
early to mid 1900s. The east and west hills of Kent have seen
significant single family and multifamily dwelling residential
growth in the later half of this decade. The east hill
continues to develop rapidly as more land is annexed into the
City. The valley floor, outside of the downtown has developed
with primarily industrial, commercial, and retail uses.
The City of Kent occupies roughly nineteen square miles, with
a population of approximately 37, 960. According to the most
recent census estimates (1980) , approximately 30 percent of
the City' s population are 19 years or younger, and 15 percent
are seniors (55 years or older) . Over 40 percent of the
City's residents are estimated to be of low and moderate
income. In the past the low and moderate income households
were concentrated in and around the original townsite, which
includes the Central Business District. According to recent
studies, pockets .of low and moderate income families in both
owner occupied and rental dwellings are scattered on the east
and west hills as well.
III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. Local Needs
Since the inception of the CDBG program in the City of Kent,
a target area or a "Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) " was
designated to receive a predominate share of the City's CDBG
allocation. The NSA was originally mapped to include the
largest concentration of low and moderate income residents.
The NSA included four neighborhoods located in the valley of
Kent: North Park, South of Willis, Lower East Hill and, the
Central Business District.
In November, 1990 a study entitled "Needs Survey of Kent
Neighborhood Strategy Area and Target Areas" was published.
One of .the primary objectives of the study .was to identify
areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of low and
moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and
moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated only in
the four neighborhoods listed above. Rather, there are
smaller pockets of low and moderate income residents, not
associated with a particular neighborhood or housing type,
which are scattered throughout the city.
The primary purpose of Kent's CDBG program is to address the
needs of the city's low and moderate income residents and to
follow the related goals, objectives and policies of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. In order to remain consistent with the
Community Development Block Grant Program purpose, the NSA has
been eliminated. In order to determine eligibility for area
wide projects the most recent census data available will be
evaluated by census 'block. This change is , policy from
previous years will guarantee equal funding opportunity for
projects addressing the needs of low and moderate residents
throughout Kent.
B. Regional Needs
The City of Kent realizes that there are regional needs that
cut across all jurisdictions within the Consortium.
Currently, the City is addressing some of these needs by
funding two regional agencies which provide emergency housing
and services to low and moderate income residents and a sub-
regional health care facility. Theses programs currently
receive money from the City of Kent, the County, and
neighboring cities.
For the 1992 program year new federal guidelines for
calculating the CDBG public service ceiling have been adopted.
For the first time program income can be added to the annual
entitlement prior to calculating the fifteen percent public
(human) services ceiling. This will create additional public
service capability for the Consortium but will not increase
total CDBG entitlement.
King County has proposed dedicating a portion of the
additional public services ceiling to a Consortiumwide
emergency shelter system. Funds previously allocated to
Consortium cities for capital projects may be allocated to
this regional public services pot designated for emergency
shelter programs. The funds will be distributed to shelter
2
programs throughout the county. Emergency shelter programs
have been targeted because homeless individuals do not often
have strong associations with one jurisdiction.
Program income will vary significantly from year; therefore,
the public services entitlement will vary. In order to create
stable funding for emergency shelters only a predictable level
will be allocated each year for shelter programs. The
remaining funding will be designated to regional "one-time
only" projects. Allocations will be balanced between south
county and east county. Examples of one-time-only regional
projects include: a new van for a regional multi-service
center or TTD phones for the hearing impaired. In the past,
one time projects had difficulty obtaining local funding
because on-going programs are preferred. The one-time-only
program will alleviate some of this burden.
The City of Kent supports this new regional funding program
designed to fund emergency shelter and one-time-only projects.
The City acknowledges that this new funding pot can not fund
the entire regional shelter system. However, the
Consortiumwide emergency shelter system is a step toward
regional thinking in the provision of public services. In the
event that future mechanisms are developed to address
regional/Consortiumwide needs, the City will consider further
contributing its fair share for programs which demonstrate a
benefit for the citizens of Kent.
IV. PROJECT CATEGORIES AND POLICIES
The seven categories listed below are priorities the City of
Kent has identified for their 1992 Community Development Block
Grant program. Project applications which address one or more
of the following goals are encouraged.
Housing
Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or
expansion of housing occupied by low and moderate income
residents of Kent. The City of Kent's dousing Repair Services
Program should be continued; for it addresses the needs of low
and moderate income home owners. Emergency and transitional
housing projects which currently serve homeless or special
needs persons are emphasized, however new programs which
provide shelter or permanent housing shall be considered.
3
Public (Human) Services
Projects should provide essential public services to low and
moderate income persons. This may include programs which
provide health care, counseling and therapy, child care,
family support, support to seniors and persons with
disabilities, job training, transportation, emergency &
transitional. housing and support services, and other services
that meet demonstrated needs.
Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers
Pedestrian walkways, . free of impediments to access are
important in neighborhoods where a large number of children,
elderly, and persons with disabilities reside. The following
types . of physical improvements are encouraged in eligible
neighborhoods throughout Kent: projects that improve
pedestrian circulation and safety; projects that link
residential areas to the downtown or to community facilities
and services; projects that help implement or complement the
Downtown Improvement Plan; projects that improve storm
drainage conditions where there exists a threat to the health
or safety of .the residents.
Many existing publicly or privately owned housing units and
commercial buildings and other non-residential structures do
not currently meet federal barrier free standards. Any'
project which removes architectural. barriers which restrict
mobility of persons with disabilities or the elderly are also
encouraged.
Community Facilities
Past CDBG funding has contributed to a number of community
facilities used by the city's low and moderate income
population. Past projects include design of the Kent Senior
Center; acquisition of a youth services facility; acquisition
of a facility to house an agency providing low income and
elderly persons emergency services; and construction of the
South King County Community Health Center. Funding requests
may be considered to assist in design, acquisition,, and/or
construction or other facilities benefiting Kent' s low and
moderate income, elderly, or disabled residents.
Parks
Park projects to be encouraged are those which serve low and
moderate income neighborhoods and/or other target populations,.
i.e. , handicapped residents. Parks projects may include
rehabilitation of existing park facilities and establishment
of new facilities, for which funds are not elsewhere
available.
4
Historic Preservation
Kent's inventory of historic structures locates a number of
potentially significant buildings within Kent. Rehabilitation
of publicly or privately owned structures is an eligible use
of CDBG funds, provided that the project meets one of the
national objectives. Projects which serve low and moderate
income residents will be favored.
Planning and Administration
Funds will be used Tor staff support to plan and manage Kent's
CDBG program and to identify and assess ,the needs in the
community. This will ensure adequate project implementation,
fiscal control, planning, and contract compliance to ensure
CDBG funds provide maximal benefit to low and moderate income
residents in Kent.
Additional Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria may be considered in addition to the
categorical priorities listed above:
1. Feasibility, timeliness, urgency.
2 . Compliance with the policies outlined in the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. These policies include needs for
housing and other physical improvements, as well as needs
for critical human services.
3 . Compliance with the federal objective to reduce slum and
blight.
4 . The extent to which the needs of very low income citizens
or special populations, including abused children,
battered spouses, elderly persons, handicapped persons,
homeless persons, illiterate persons, or migrant farm
workers, are addressed.
5. The extent to which regional needs are addressed.
City of Kent Planning Department
March 25, 1991
5
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 3
Lin sent a thank you note to each of the three resource people who
spoke to the Commission.
Lin Ball updated the Commission on the retreat topic of tying in
the Roundtable at the local level. A planning meeting was held on
February 28 to determine how the DAWN shelter model will be set
into place. It was decided to have one large meeting and skip the
first staff meeting. DAWN felt it would be more helpful for them
to do some one-on-one contacts with the staff of the various
cities, prepare the plan, and then have one meeting that would
bring together all the advisory bodies. That meeting is targeted
for the first -week of April.
NEW BUSINESS
CDBG - 1992 PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES POLICY
Alice Shobe presented the Commission with the proposed 1992 Kent
CDBG Program Policy, Public (Human) Services section, to add
emergency and transitional housing and support services as
additional programs. It was MOVED and Dee Moschel SECONDED the
motion to approve and recommend this change to the Planning
Committee for presentation to the City Council. Motion carried.
Lin Ball updated the Commission on a change in federal guidelines
regarding calculating the CDBG public service ceiling. For the
first time, program income can be added to the annual entitlement
prior to calculating the 15 percent public (human) services
ceiling. This will create additional public service capability for
the King County Consortium but will not increase total CDBG
entitlement funds.
The Consortium has created a program whereby the funding potential
created by the additional public services ceiling can be dedicated
to a regional funding pot. This funding pot, entitled "The
Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System" will be administered by
King County. Each Consortium City has the opportunity to donate
their portion of Community Development Interim Loan program income
to this regional emergency shelter fund. If this money is not
donated to the regional shelter fund, the City of Kent will retain
the money for capital CDBG projects.
In years when the public service entitlement allocated to the
emergency shelter program is increased, the additional funding will
be designated to regional one-time-only projects, for example, a
new van for a regional multi-service center or V/TDD phones for the
hearing impaired.
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 4
Jean Archer MOVED and Susan Ramos SECONDED a motion to recommend to
the Planning Committee that the City of Kent allocate the full
amount of Community Development Interim Loan Program Income to the
Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System and regional one-time only
projects. Motion carried.
CDBG NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Alice Shobe distributed a copy of a study entitled "Needs Survey of
Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area and Targeted Areas" which was
conducted in the fall of 1990. The primary objective of the study
was to identify areas outside of the Neighborhood Strategy Area
(NSA) with a concentration of low and moderate income individuals.
The study confirmed that there are small pockets of low and
moderate income residents which are scattered throughout the city,
outside of the NSA. -
Alice stressed that the survey did not target every resident of
Kent, only low income neighborhoods. Chairman Eckfeldt suggested
everyone look over the survey and at the next meeting Alice could
give a short assessment of the findings.
REVIEW YEAR-END REPORTS FROM FUNDED AGENCIES
Rachel McCurdy summarized the year-end statistical report from the
funded human service agencies. No concerns were expressed on these
year-end reports. It was noted that the new report format made for
easier reading. Lin Ball noted the new 1991 contracts are asking
for quarterly narratives as well as statistical information. This
should help determine if agencies are on target before year-end.
REPORTS
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE
The main priority for the Roundtable is currently the DAWN shelter
project.
SOUTH KING COUNCIL OF HUMAN SERVICES
Chairman Eckfeldt stated the Council tried to advocate with Valley
Medical Center regarding the psychiatric ward, however, the
hospital has. decided to go ahead and close the unit.
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
March 19, 1991
elementary and Junior High boundaries. The reason they have a serious
problem is because they have for the second time in a row failed to have a
bond issue approved, which would have provided two additional elementary
schools and an additional Junior High School. Therefore, Mr. Fountain
stated the Federal Way School District has a real interest in this whole
subject of impact fees for schools and in growth management. They are not
opposed to growth and think halting all growth is not the answer. They
cannot keep up with the pace of providing facilities to students. He said
he hopes that an ordinance would be drawn up that is compatible to all the
school districts involved.
Paul Bray, representing the Highline School District, stated that only half
of their district is in King County and it was important that all five
cities around them develop continuity for economic reasons.
Dick Lowell spoke representing the Master Builders Association said he
doesn't feel it is fair to spread impact fees area-wide.
1991 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AMENDMENT (A. Shobe)
Planner Alice Shobe summarized the background on this amendment as
mentioned in the Agenda packet. In the fall of 1990 a study entitled
"Needs Survey of Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) and Target Areas"
was conducted by the Planning Department. One of the primary objectives of
the study was to identify areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of
low and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and
moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated in just the four
target neighborhoods. The Kent Housing Repair Services Program is
currently the only CDBG funded program in the County which uses the NSA to
determine service priority within the program. Ms. Shobe stated that the
Kent Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed Amendment to
the Local Program Policies for the 1991 Kent Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program. This proposed Amendment includes eliminating all
priority emphasis given to the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) .
Specifically, a revision to the Housing policy category is proposed.
Councilmember Christi Houser made the MOTION to support this Amendment and
to forward this to full Council as a Public Hearing on April 2nd.
Councilmember Leona Orr SECONDED it and the motion CARRIED.
1992 CDBG FUNDING & LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES (A. Shobe)
Planner Alice Shobe explained that the City Council needs to take action on
five items for the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
The Human Services Commission has approved the Public (human) Services
portion of the Program Policies and the allocation of the Community
3
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
March 19, 1991
Development Interim Loan (CDIL) Program Income to the new regional funding
pot. It is recommended that action on these items be forwarded to the full
Council for a Public Hearing on April 2, 1991. Leona Orr made the MOTION,
Christi Houser SECONDED it, and the motion CARRIED to approve the following
five action items including the adoption of the Local Program Policies for
the 1992 Kent Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program submitted by
the Planning Department. The estimated amount of funds available for the
1992 Program is $183 , 146. The five action items are as follows:
1. Approval by City Council to accept 1992 Pass-Through funds.
2 . Allocation the City's fair share maximum of 1992 Pass-Through funds
($35,743) to Public (Human) Services.
3 . Allocation of . 005% ($916) of 1992 Pass-Through funds to Planning and
Administration.
4. Approval of the proposed 1992 Local Program Policies.
5. Allocation of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) program income
($9, 597) to the Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System.
RESOLUTION CHALLENGING COUNTY PLATS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION (Jon Johnson)
Councilmember Leona Orr reported that this resolution went to the Public
Works Committee on March 19th with approval by only two votes because Steve
Dowell was not present at the meeting. Councilmember Orr made the MOTION
- to approve the Resolution and recommend it to full Council as recommended
by the Planning Committee and Public Works Committee. Councilmember
Christi Houser SECONDED it and the motion CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5: 45 p.m.
MP:C:PCO319 .MIN
4
V �
kA/
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Public Hearinas
n4\ np,
\J��y 1. SUBJECT: PUGET POWER SUBSTATION APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT #CE-90-8
2 . SUMMARY STATEM NT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal by Puget Sound Power and Light Company from the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of approval with seven (7) conditions
of a request for a conditional use permit to construct a 16, 000
square foot electrical distribution substation. The applicant
requested reconsideration of two of those conditions:
(1) Condition 5 related to noise reduction and (2) Condition 6
related to limits on electromagnetic field exposure. After
reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner's decision of August 29,
1990 remained the same. The applicant is appealing these two
(2) conditions.
3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal letter, appeal form; Notice of Appeal ;
Request for Reconsideration, Notice of Request for
Reconsideration; Findings and Conclusions, Hearing Examiner's
minutes of 8/15/90; staff report; and verbatim minutes.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. 8/29/90
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISgWPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
J
To approve/deny the appeal made by Puget Sound Power and Light
Company of the Hearing E miner's approval with seven (7)
conditions for a Condit' nal use permit.
f
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Procedure on Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Decision
pursuant to City Re on No. 896
FROM: ROGER LUBOVICH
I. Staff Report.
II. Appellant presents argument.
A. 30 minute limit and may reserve time for rebuttal.
B. Appellant's argument must be based on the record.
IV. Additional Presentation.
A. Council has the option, if it chooses, to request
"additional information" from the parties, City staff, or
the public.
B. Additional information does not have to be confined to
the record.
V. Conclusions.
A. The Council reviews the hearing examiner's decision under
the following standards:
1. Decision based on substantial error.
2 . Procedural irregularities that materially affected
the prior proceedings.
3 . Decision unsupported by material and substantial
evidence.
4 . Decision inconsistent with the City' s comprehensive
plan.
5. Insufficient evidence as to the impact on the
surrounding area.
VI. Decision.
A. The Council may take any of the following actions:
1. Approve and adopt the hearing examiner' s findings
and decision.
2 . Modify and approve the findings and decision.
3 . Reject the hearing examiner's decision and
deny the proposal as originally submitted.
3 . Remand for a further hearing before the hearing
examiner.
._r--• PERKINS COIF
A LAW PARTNERS111V INCLUDING PROI:M- 10NAL CORPORATIONS
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUI'EE 1800.411-1081'll AVENUE•.NORTIIEASr BELLEVUE,WASIIINGTON 98004
TELEPIioNE:(206)453-6980
November 7 , 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Office of the City Clerk
City of Kent
220 S. Fourth NOV 11990
Kent, WA 98032
f
Re: Hearing Examiner ' s File No. CE-90-8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF KENT
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is an Order for Transcript for Appeal from
Decision of Hearing Examiner and a check in the amount of $200
as the fee for transcribing two tapes in connection with the
above-referenced Notice of Appeal . Also please confirm
acceptance of the Order for Transcript by stamping the enclosed
copy of said Order "received" and returning the copy to our
messenger for our files .
Please call if you have any questions or comments .
Very truly yours ,
Marj sly
Gr y �~
Legal Assi taut
MIG:plg,
1069x
Enclosures
CC : Markham A. Quehrn
TELEX:32-0319 PERKINS SEA•FAcsiMILE(206)453-7350
ANCHORAGE'Los ANGELES'PORTLAND•SEATTLE•WASI IINGTON,D.C.
COPY
Office of the City Clerk
220 S . 4th
QSa� -R-"-3370
City of Kent
Order for Transcript for
Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner
Resolution 896
Ordinance 2233
Date November 7 , 1990 Appeal filed October 29 , 1990
Appellant' s Name Puget Sound Power and Light Company
Address c/o Perkins Coie , Attn: Markham A. Ouehrn , 411 - 108th Avenue N.E. ,
suiteJ866 , Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone (206 ) 453-6980
Hearing Examiner ' s File No . CE-90-8
Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing August 15 , 1990
Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision August 29 , 1990
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of
the action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $25 filing fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt # 16814
Within 30 days of the 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. / l
Order for Transcript received
Treasurer' s Receipt #
11LV
. i s, fly
K. ,) 1990
crrr" of RENT
1 CITV r1.E�K
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
12 OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON j
13
14
15 IN RE : Application for Conditional )
16 Use Permit of Puget Sound Power & ) No . CE-90-8
17 Light Company, )
18 ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
19 Applicant . )
20 )
21 )
22
23
24 I . APPEAL
25
26 Puget Sound Power & Light Company ( "Puget Power" ) appeals the
27
28 decision of the City of Kent Hearing Examiner (the "Examiner" )
29
30 rendered in the above-referenced matter (the "Decision on
31
32 Appeal" ) . The Decision on Appeal is set forth in the Examiner ' s
�._.l 33
.Q 34 "Findings , Conclusions and Decision" dated August 29 , 1990 (the
35
36 "August Decision" ) , as modified by the Examiner ' s decision in
37
38 "Request for Reconsideration" dated October 17 , 1990 (the
39
40 "October Decision" ) .
CD 41
42 II . AUTHORITY
43 1
44 This appeal is filed pursuant to Kent City Code ( "KCC" )
45
46 § 2 . 54 . 160 and the applicable rules and procedures set forth in
47
Resolution No . 896 .
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 PMKINSCOIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE 1800
411-108T11 AVENUE NORTHEAST
BELLEVUE, \v/A 9R004•(206)453.6980
] III . SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
2
3
4 The relevant proceedings in this matter are summarized as
5
6 follows :
7
R A. State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA" ) determination :
9
10 a Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated was issued on
11
12 May 31, 1996 .
13
14 B . Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP" ) application: the CUP
15
16 application was filed on June 12 , 1990 .
17
tR C. City of Kent Staff 'Report (the "Staff Report" ) : the
19
20 Staff Report was issued on August 3 , 1990 .
21
22 D . Public Hearing: a public hearing on the CUP application
23
24 was held -by the Examiner on August 15 , 1990 ,
25
26 E . August Decision : this decision was issued by the
27
28 Examiner on August 29 , 1990 .
29
30 F . Request for Reconsideration: Puget Power filed a
31 �
32 request for reconsideration on September 12, 1990 .
33
34 G. October Decision : this decision was issued by the
35
36 Examiner on October 17 , 1990 .
37
38 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
39
40 The City Council may remand, modify or reject the Decision on
41
42 Appeal if it finds that : i
43
44 - there has been substantial error ;
45
46 - the proceedings were materially affected by irregularities
47 in procedure;
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 PEMNSCOIE
ONE Br1.LEVUE CENTra,Surn;1R00
411-108TII AVENUE Nonrnresr
BELLFVIIr, \m 98004•(206)453-6980
1
- the recommendation was unsupported by material and
3 substantial evidence in view of the entire record as
4 submitted;
5
6 - the recommendation is in conflict with the City' s
7 Comprehensive Plan; or
8
9 - insufficient evidence was presented as to .the impact on
10 surrounding areas .
11
12 Resolution No . 896 , § 7 .
13
14 The Decision on Appeal should be modified by deleting
15
16 Conditions No . 5 and No . 6 of the CUP because there has . been a
17
18 substantial error . by the Examiner , and because imposition of the
19
20 conditions is not supported by material and substantial evidence .
21
22 V. ARGUMENTS
23
24 A. Summary of Arguments . Puget Power brings this appeal t�
25
26 modify a CUP for construction of an electrical distribution
27
28 substation. The proposed substation is needed in order to
29
30 provide reliable electric service to the surrounding area . This
31
32 substation is not different , in any material respect , from the
33
34 many substations in residential neighborhoods throughout Puget
35
36 Power ' s service area . The substation presents no new or unique
37
38 risks to the community, nor is there anything about this
39
40 particular site which is unsuitable for a substation.
41
42 None of the issues before the . City Council in this appeall
43
44. were raised during environmental review of the project . A
45
46 Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated was issued; mitigation
47
measures addressed drainage , storm water runoff and street
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 PEWK SCOIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE 1800
411-108Tli AVL•NUF.NoRT11EA$T
BELLEVUE, WA 98004•(2o6)453-6980
i
I
I
2 improvements . None of the issues before the City Council in this
3
4 appeal were issues of concern raised in the Staff Report prepared
5
6 by the City' s professional staff .
7
s However , at the hearing, members of the public expressed
9
10 concern with respect to audible noise and electromagnetic fields
11
12 (EMFs) . The audible noise issue was raised by an individual
13
14 concerned with transformer "hum" ; this concern was met with
15
16 testimony by Puget Power that it would install "low noise"
17
is transformers designed for installation in residential areas . The
19
20 EMF issue was raised by an individual concerned that the United
21
22 States Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA" ) had or was about
23
24 to designate EMFs as a carcinogen; this concern was met with
I
25
26 testimony by Puget Power explaining that EPA had not designated
27
28 EMFs as a carcinogen, nor was there any scientific evidence
29
30 establishing a cause/effect relationship between EMFs and cancer .
31
32 It is possible for significant issues to escape scrutiny
33
34 under SEPA. It is also possible for such issues to be missed in
35
36 the Staff Report , and to see their first light of day at the
37
38 hearing . It is possible for such issues to be raised by
39
40 non-experts unfamiliar with utility facilities . The Examiner
41
42 apparently felt this series of possibilities occurred in this
43
44 case . The Examiner imposed onerous conditions with respect to
45
46 audible noise and EMFs . Puget Power submits that this was a
47
substantial error . Moreover , imposition of these conditions is
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4 PERKINS COIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE 1800
411-108TH AVENUF.NORTHEAST
BELLEVUE, WA 98004•(206)453-6980
1
2 not supported by material and substantial evidence . Therefore,
3
4 Conditions No . 5 and No . 6 should be deleted .
5
6 B . Noise . To the best of Puget Power ' s recollection, the
7
8 noise issue was first raised by Mr . Kurt Erikson. Mr . Erikson
9
to expressed concern about transformer "hum. " He went on to say
it
12 that if this was a problem, then a noise shield or barrier should
13
14 be erected.
15
16 In response to Mr . Erikson' s concern, the Examiner questioned
17
18 Puget Power representative Mr . Ba-rry Lombard . Mr . Lombard
19
20 testified that Puget Power would install a "low noise"
21
22 transformer at this substation ( i . e . , audible noise not to exceed
23
24 45 dBA at the property line of the substation) . "Low noise
25
26 transformers are manufactured to specific noise standards to
27
28 ensure their compatibility in residential areas . Use of "low
29
30 noise" transformers allows Puget Power to site substations in
31
32 residential areas and, even without reliance on exemptions
33
34 applicable to substations , comply with Washington State
35
36 Department of Ecology ( "DOE" ) "Maximum Environmental Noise
37
38 Levels" regulations . A copy of the relevant DOE regulations is
39
40 attached as Exhibit A. Mr . Lombard' s testimony further indicates
41
42 that a source of noise no greater than 45 dBA at the, propert)f
43
44 line rapidly attenuates as it approaches receiving properties ,
45
46 and would otherwise be at or below background noise levels in
47
residential areas ( i . e . , imperceptible) .
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 PERKINS COTE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE 1800
411-108T11 AVENUE NORTHEAST
llrux.vur, %X?. 98004•(206)453-6980
1
The Examiner then questioned Mr . Lombard about what Puget
3
4 Power does to abate noise at problem substations ( i . e . ,
5
6 substations with old , transformers and a noticeable "hum" ) .
7
8 Mr . Lombard responded that one solution--when there is a
9
ld a cinder block noise abatement wall .
10 problem--is to bui
11
12 Mr . Lombard further explained that such walls are expensive
13
14 ( $40 , 000 to $50 , 000 ) and their physical presence makes it more
15
16 difficult to maintain the transformers .
17
18 With no evidence of a problem, and on the basis of testimony
,19
20 which pertains to circumstances that will not exist at this
21
22 substation, the Examiner required as Condition No . 5 construction
23
24 of a cinder block wall to reduce noise levels from the
25
26 substation. The Examiner ' s reasoning is stated on page 4 of the
27
28 October Decision :
29
30 The applicant ' s own testimony suggested that tuned
31 cinder block around the transformers would reduce the
32 noise emanated from the substation. It was stated by
33 the applicant that this could be done at a cost of
34 $40 , 000 to $50 , 000 . This appears to the Examiner to
35 be a reasonable cost given the certainty in noise
36 reduction that will be achieved .
37
38 The Examiner makes liberal use of Mr . Lombard' s testimony.
39
40 The Examiner disregarded Mr . Lombard ' s statement that Puget Power
41
42 would install "low noise" transformers . The Examiner prescribed
43
44 a fix for a nonexistent problem. This is a substantial error .
45
46 So understood, a $40 , 000 to $50 , 000 expenditure is not
47
NOTICE OF APPEAL — 6 PEMNSCOIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE1800
411-108T11 AVENUE NoRT11EAST
BIn.1.Evi I:, WA 98004•(206)453-6980
1
2 reasonable . It is a waste of money. The Examiner ' s reliance -on
3
4 testimony concerning the value of a wall where "low noise"
5
6 transformers are not used is misplaced. As such, Condition No . 5
7
8 is not supported by material and substantial evidence . The
9
10 Decision on Appeal should be modified by deleting Condition No . 5 .
11
12 C . EMFs . EMFs (electromagnetic fields) are created by any
13
14 and every device which uses electricity. Electricity on a wire
15
16 produces an electric field in the area surrounding the wire.
17
18 Electric fields are usually measured in units of kilovolts per
19
20 meter (kV/m) . Electric current on a wire produces a magnetic
21
22 field . Magnetic fields are measured in units of milligauss
23
24 (mG) . The presence of electricity in our daily lives is
25
26 common as the air we breathe and the water we drink . People are
27
28 constantly surrounded by EMFs .
29
30 In the last few years EMFs have received a great deal of
31
32 media attention . Scientific studies of possible health effects
33
34 of EMFs have been undertaken for a number of years . Such studies
35
36 are still being undertaken. However , only recently have feature
37
38 articles in magazines , newspapers , radio and television programs
39
40 brought the issue to the attention of the general public . Quite
41
42 often, the level of public concern far surpasses. the level o
43
44 public understanding.
45
46 Concerns with EMF are frequently associated with a limited
47
number of epidemiological studies which have examined prolonged
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 7 PffWNS COIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE 1800
411-108TH AVENUE NoRTilEAST
Bi:m.rvuF.., 1%X?. '.V004•(206)453-6980
1
2 exposures to EMFs and the incidence of a rare form of leukemia
3
4 (nonlymphocytic leukemia) . No scientific studies have shown--or
5
6 purport to show--a cause and effect relationship between EMFs and
7
8 leukemia . The body of existing research--as well as emerging
10 research--falls well short of establishing EMFs as a significant
11
12 health risk .
13
14 To Puget Power ' s knowledge, no federal or state authority has
15
16 regulated EMFs on the basis of public health criteria . EPA has
17
18 imposed no such regulations , nor to Puget Power ' s knowledge, has
19
20 any other agency of the federal government . Neither the Florida
21
22 standard ( 150 mG) nor the New York standard ( 200 mG) referenced
23
24 in the record of this proceeding are based upon public health
25
26 criteria . ' In promulgating these standards , both New York and
27
28 Florida have explicitly acknowledged that there is no public
29
30 health basis for more strict standards .
31
32 _
33
34 ' In the October Decision , the Examiner incorrectly refers
35 to a New York standard of 100 mG . In fact , the standard is
36 200 mG . See State of New York Public Service Commission, Cases
37 26529 and 26559 , Statement of Interim Policy on Magnetic
38 Fields , " September 11 , 1990 . In arriving at this standard, the
39 Public Service Commission said :
40
41 The staff recommendations in this matter proceeded
42 from the premise that adoption now of a standard based }
43 on health effects would be unreasonable given the
44 current state of research; the research does not
45 provide a basis for choosing a standard. Hasty
46 adoption of unnecessarily strict standards would
47 itself compromise public safety by making it more
difficult and costly to provide needed energy supplies .
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 8 PERKINS COIE
ONr Bui.rvuis CHNrrie,Sums 1800
411-108rii AWNur.NORTHEAST
Bm.urvur:, WA 98004•(206)453-6980
1
The Washington State Legislature has also considered this
3
4 issue and rejected the idea of imposing standards . The
6 Legislature found:
7
8 (T]hat it has not yet been proven that electric and
9 magnetic field levels present in daily living are
10 responsible for any adverse health effects .
11
12 See Exhibit B, ESSB No . 5275 ( 1989 Regular Session) .
13
14 However , the Examiner saw fit in the case to impose a
15
16 magnetic field standard of 20 milligauss . This standard is seven
17
18 times more stringent than the Florida standard of 150 milligauss ,
19
20 and is 10 times more stringent than the New York standard of 200
21
22 milligauss . This is a substantial error . Moreover , it is a
23
24 decision which--in the Examiner ' s own words--is not based up,
25
26 any finding of an "appropriate" exposure level :
27
28 The appropriate maximum level for EMF exposure can be
29 vigorously debated. The Examiner attempted to avoid
30 engaging in this debate by accepting a threshold that
31 the applicant testified could be met .
32
33 October Decision at 6 . If not based on "appropriate exposure
34
35 levels , " what is the basis of the Examiner ' s 20 milligaus
36
37 standard? If it is solely based on Puget Power ' s ability to
38
39 comply (which--in passing--is an odd basis for regulation' ) ,
40
41 then the . Examiner did not listen carefully to the evidence
42
43 presented.
44
45
46
47 ' It is further noted that a condition based solely upon the
applicant ' s ability to comply has no legal basis under the
Examiner ' s authority to impose conditions , per KCC § 15 . 09 . 030 .
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 9 PEMNSCOIE
ONE•BELLEVUE CL'NTER,SUrrE 1800
411-108TH AVENUE NoRTIIEAST
BELLLVUE, W." �•sno4•(206)453-6980
1 The issue of EMFs was first raised by a concerned citizen,
3
4 Ms . Patricia Gilmore . Ms . Gilmore testified, and entered a
5
6 letter into the record, expressing her concerns about EMFs .
7
8 In response to Ms . Gilmore ' s concerns the Examiner questioned
9
10 Puget Power representative Mr . Mel Walters . Mr . Walters '
11
12 testimony established that :
13
14 - EPA had not determined EMFs to be a carcinogen;
15
16 - he was aware of the scientific literature concerning
17 EMFs and, to his knowledge, no scientific study has
18 established a causal link between EMFs and cancer ; and
19
20 - the only jurisdiction he knew to have set a magnetic
21 field standard (Florida) had set the standard at 150 mG.
22
�3 Mr . Walters was also questioned--at length--by the .Examiner
24
25 concerning the actual EMF levels he would expect to find around
26
27 the proposed substation . Mr . Walters said that he would expect :
28
29 - a range of 3 to 5 milligauss along the property line of
30 the substation at locations distant from where
31 transmission lines enter the substation;
32
33 - a field of 20 milligauss , under normal operating
34 conditions , along the property line of the substation at
35 locations proximate to where transmission lines enter
36 the substation; and
37
38 - a range of 35 to 40 milligauss under peak operating
39 conditions , along the property line of the substation at
40 locations proximate to where the transmission lines
41 enter the substation .
42
43 Mr . Walters also submitted, for the record, a Bonneville Power
44
45 Administration publication which shows a 20 mG average/40 mG peak
46
47 range for 115 kV transmission lines . See Exhibit C.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 10 PERKINSC01E
ONc Bru.rvur Ci rrw,Surrr:1800
411-108rii AVENUr Noa•nir:Asr
Br.u.rvur, NXIA '"')W)i•(2o6)453-6980
1
2 On the basis of this evidence, the Examiner imposed a "not to
3
4 exceed" standard of 20 milligauss at the property line . This
5
6 standard, which has as its only justification the applicant ' s
7
8 ability to comply, cannot be complied with under all operating
9
10 conditions . Would the Examiner have Puget Power "pull the plug"
11
12 on the substation every time circumstances arise which cause this
13
14 facility to carry an above normal load? Such a condition makes
15
16 no sense . Imposition of such a condition is not supported by
17
18 material and substantial evidence .
19
20 The City Council cannot allow the Examiner to arbitrarily
21
22 throw darts which impair Puget Power ' s ability to serve its
23
24 customers . The concerns of Ms . Gilmore, and others , would r
25
26 better - served with more information, not arbitrary EMF
27
28 standards . Puget Power urges the City Council to follow the lead
29
30 of other jurisdictions , including the Washington State
31
32 Legislature , and refrain from imposing EMF standards when there
33
34 is no basis to do so . Condition No . 6 should, therefore, be
35.
36 deleted in its entirety.
37
38 VI . CONCLUSION
39
40 Based on the foregoing, Puget Power respectfully requests the
41
42 City Council to modify the Decision. on Appeal by deleting
43
44
45
46
47
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 11 PBWNSCOIE
ONE BELLEVUE CENTER,SUITE1800
411-108T11 AVENUE NORTI[EAST
BELLEVUE,INA Q12!T S•(206)453-6980
1
2 • Conditions No . 5 and6 .
3
4 Dated this cC of C%U��°� , 1990 .
5
6 PERKINS COIE
7
8 /d2====
9 By
10 arkham A. Quehrn
11 Attorneys for Puget Sound Power &
12 Light Company
13
14 1093p
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 12 POWNSCOIE
ONr:Br.Urvur CEN-rclt,SUITE 1800
411-108Tu AVENUE Nnlmir:A%r
Bi:u.r•.vuc,WA 95;00-1•(206)453.6980
173-58-090
Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Dellis. sent of
�• •,
f 173-60460 Nuisagiree u a tons nRoproutaed.�i•
large piers, breakwater, etc., for a minimum distance of 173-60-070 Future regulations.
100 feet (30 m). Three markers (buoys or posts) shall be 173.60-080 Variances and implementation schedules.
placed in line, 50 feet (15 m) apart, to mark the course 17340-090 Enforcement policy.
the boat is to follow while being tested. 173-60-100 Appeals.
173-60-110 Cooperation with local government.
(b) The sound level meter shall be a Type 2 or better. 173-60-120 Effective date.
The microphone shall be placed 50 feet (15 m) from the
line determined by the three markers, normal to the line WAC 173-60-010 Authority and purpose. The.
and opposite the center marker. It shall also be placed rules are adopted pursuant to chapter 70.107 RCW, tt
4-5 feet (1.2-let 0. above the water surface and no Noise Control Act of 1974, in order to establish max
closer than 2 feet (0.6 m) from the surface of the deck mum noise levels permissible in identified environment
or platform on which the microphone stands, as near to and thereby to provide use standards relating to the r
the end of the deck or platform as possible or overhang- ception of noise within such environments.
ing the end of the deck or platform.
(3) Watercraft operation. The watercraft shall pass [Order 74-32, § 173-60-010. filed 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.1
within 1-3 feet (0.3-0.9 meter) on the far side of all
three markers, on a-straight course. WAC 173-60-020 Definitions. (l) in a given r
(a) Watercraft which weigh less than 7,000 lbs. gross sound level" means the level of all sounds in a given e
weight shall be operated according to the following pro- vironment, independent of the specific source bei,
cedure. The watercraft shall approach the first marker measured.
at idle speed. When the bow is even with the first (2) "dBA" means the sound pressure level in decib(
marker, the engine shall be immediately accelerated to measured using the "A" weighting network on a sou
its full throttle RPM range. The watercraft shall con- level meter. The sound pressure level, in decibels, of
tinue to accelerate until its bow passes the third marker. sound is 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of t
(b) Watercraft which weigh 7,000 lbs. or more gross ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressu
weight shall be operated at the midpoint of the manu- of 20 micropascals.
facturer's recommended maximum continuous (or (3) "Department" means the department of ecology
"cruise") RPM range, f 100 RPM. The watercraft shall (4) "Director" means the director of the departure
be at this speed when it passes the first marker, and of ecology.
shall continue to operate at this speed until its bow pas- (5) "Distribution facilities" means any facility us
ses the third marker. for distribution of commodities to final consu, s,
(4) Measurement. The watercraft sound level shall be eluding facilities of utilities that convey watt,, va
measured as follows: water, natural gas, and electricity.
(a) The sound level meter shall be set for fast re- (6) 'EDNA" means the environmental designation
sponse and on the "A" weighting scale. noise abatement, being an area or zone (environme
(b) The meter shall be observed during the entire within which maximum permissible noise levels
passby. The applicable reading shall be the sound level established.
obtained as the stern of the watercraft passes the middle (7) "Existing" means a process, event, or activity
marker. Peaks due to unrelated ambient noise, water an established area, producing sound subject to or
noise from waves or wakes, propellor cavitation noise, or empt from this chapter, prior to the effective date
extraneous impulsive-type noise shall be excluded. At September 1, 1975.
least two measurements shall be made for each side of (g) "Local government" means county or city gove
the watercraft. All values shall be recorded. ment or any combination of the.two.
(c) The sound level for each side of the watercraft (9) "Noise" means the intensity, duration and ch:
shall be the average of the two highest readings which acter of sounds, from any and all sources.
are within 1 dBA of each other, rounded to the nearest (10) "Person" means any individual, corporal.
0.5 dBA. The reported sound level shall be that of the partnership, association, governmental body, st
loudest side of the watercraft. agency or other entity whatsoever.
(5) New watercraft shall be tested according to the (I1) "Property boundary" means the surveyed lint
specifications of the SAE J34 measurement procedure. ground surface, which separates the real prope
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 79-04-033 (Order DE owned, rented, or leased by ,one or more person, ft
78-19), § 173-58-o9o, filed 3/22/79.1 that owned, rented, or leased by one or more other ;
sons, and its vertical extension.
(12) "Racing event" means any motor vehicle con.
Chapter 173-60 WAC tition conducted under a permit issued by a governn
MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS tal authority having jurisdiction or, if such permit is
required, then under the auspices of a recognized s:
WAC tioning body.
1 7 3-604 1 0 Authority and purpose. (13) "Receiving property" means real grope wi
173-60-020 Definitions. which the maximum permissible noise levels.....Neci
173-60-030 Identification of environments. herein shall not be exceeded from sources outside
173-60-040 Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. property.
173-60-050 Exemptions.
(198'
[Title 173 WAC—p 1561
Maximum Environmental Noise Levk 173-60-040
(14) "Sound level meter" means a device which mea- (iii) Agricultural and silvicultural property used for
sure5 sound pressure levels and conforms to Type I or the production of crops, wood products, or livestock.
?YPe 2 as specified in the American National Standards (d) Where there is neither a zoning ordinance in ef-
Institute Specification Sl.4-1971. feet nor an adopted comprehensive plan, the legislative
(15) Watercraft" means any contrivance, excluding authority of local government may, by ordinance or res-
aircraft used or capable of being used as a means of olution, designate specifically described EDNAs which
nation or recreation.on water. conform to the above use criteria and, upon departmen-
transP° tal approval, EDNAs so designated shall be as set forth
Igtytutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 83—IS-046 (Order DE
173-60-020, filed 7/19/83;Order DE In such local determination.
77—I, § 173-60-020,
riled d 6•§/1/77; Order 74-32, § 173-60-020, filed 4/22/75, effective
(e) Where no specific prior designation of EDNAs has
riled
y/1/75.1 been made, the appropriate EDNA for properties in-
volved in any enforcement activity will be determined by
µ,kC 173-60-030 Identification of environments. the investigating official on the basis of the criteria of
(1) Except when included within specific prior designa- (a), (b), and (c) of this subsection.
tions as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this (2) In areas covered by a local zoning ordinance, the
section, the EDNA of any property shall be based on the legislative authority of the local government may, by or-
following uses, taking into consideration the dinance or resolution designate EDNAs to conform with
following YP g
present, future, and historical usage, as well as the usage the zoning ordinance as follows:
of adjacent and other lands (a) Residential zones - Class A EDNA
the vicinity. (b) Commercial zones - Class B EDNA
(a) Class AEDNA - Lands where human beings re-
(c) Industrial zones - Class C EDNA
side and sleep. Typically, Class A EDNA will be the Upon approval by the department, EDNAs so desig-
Following types of property used for human habitation: nated shall be as set forth in such local determination.
(i) Residential EDNA designations shall be amended as necessary to
(ii) Multiple family living accommodations conform to zone changes under the zoning ordinance.
(iii) Recreational and entertainment, (e.g., camps, (3) In areas not covered by a local zoning ordinance
parks, camping facilities, and resorts) but within the. coverage of an adopted comprehensive
(iv) Community service, (e.g., orphanages, homes for plan the legislative authority of the local government
the aged, hospitals, health and correctional facilities)
(b) Class B EDNA - Lands involving uses requiring may, by ordinance or resolution designate EDNAs to
protection against noise interference with speech. Typi- conform with the comprehensive plan as follows:
tally, Class B EDNA will be the following types of (a) Residential areas - Class A EDNA
(b) Commercial areas - Class B EDNA
property: (c) Industrial areas - Class C EDNA
(i) Commercial living accommodations Upon approval by the department EDNAs so desig-
(ii) Commercial dining establishments nated shall be as set forth in such local determination.
(iii) Motor vehicle services EDNA designations shall be amended as necessary to
(iv) Retail services conform to changes in the comprehensive plan.
(v) Banks and office buildings (4) The department recognizes that on certain lands,
(vi) Miscellaneous commercial services, property not serenity, tranquillity, or quiet are an essential part of the
used for human habitation quality of the environment and serve an important public
(vii) Recreation and entertainment, property not used
For human habitation (e.g., theaters, stadiums, fair- need. Special designation of such lands with appropriate
grounds, and amusement parks) noise level standards by local government may be adopted subject to approval by the department. The di-
(viii)und Community services, property not used for hu-e. rector may make such special designation pursuant to
man habitation (e.g., educational, religious', governmen- the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act,
tal, cultural and recreational facilities).
chapter 34.04 RCW.
(c) Class CEDNA - Lands involving economic activ-
ities of such a nature that higher noise levels than expe- (Order 74-32, § 1734M30, filed 4/22/75.effective 9/1/75.1
rienced in other areas is normally to be anticipated.
Persons working in these areas are normally covered by WAC 173-60-040 Maximum permissible environ-
noise control regulations of the department of labor and mental noise levels. (1) No person shall cause or permit
industries. Uses typical of Class A EDNA are generally noise to intrude into the property of another person
not permitted within such areas. Typically, Class C which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise lev-
EDNA will be the following types of property: els set forth below in this section.
(i) Storage, warehouse, and distribution facilities. (2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set
(ii) Industrial property used for the production and forth in the following table after any applicable adjust-
Fabrication of durable and nondurable man-made goods ments provided for herein are applied.
(1989 Ed.) fritle 173 WAC—p 1571
fi
173-60-040 Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Department of
EDNA OF EDNA OF (b) Sounds originating from forest harvesting and sil-
NOISE SOURCE RECEIVING PROPERTY vicultural activity.
(4) The following shall be exempt from all provisions
Class A Class B Class C of WAC 173-60-040:
(a) Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated
by chapter 173-62 WAC.
CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA (b) Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and
CLASS s 57 60 65 sounds that originate at airports which are directly re.
fated to flight operations.
CLASS C 60 65 70 (c) Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in in.
terstate commerce by railroad.
(b) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the (d) Sounds created by warning devices not operating
noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced continuously for more than five minutes, or bells,
by 10 dBA for receiving property within Class A chimes, and carillons.
EDNAs. (e) Sounds created by safety and protective devices
(c) At any hour of the day or night the applicable where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the
noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exceeded device or is not economically feasible.
for any receiving property by no more than: (f) Sounds created by.emergency equipment and work
(i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one—hour necessary in the interests of law enforcement or for
period; or health safety or welfare of the community.
t1 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one—hour (g) Sounds originating from motor vehicle racing
( ) events at existing authorized facilities.
period; or (h) Sounds originating from officially sanctioned pa.
(iii) 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one— rades and other public events.
hour period. (i) Sounds emitted from petroleum refinery boilers
(order 74-32, § 173-60-040, filed 4/22/75,effective 9/t/75.1 during startup of said boilers: Provided, That the startup
operation is performed during daytime hours whenever
WAC 173-60-050 Exemptions. (1) The following possible.
shall be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173-60— 0) Sounds created by watercraft.
040 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.: (k) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms in tht....
(a) Sounds originating from residential property re- course of hunting.
lating to temporary projects for the maintenance or re- (1) Sounds caused by natural phenomena and unamp-
pair of homes, grounds and appurtenances. lifted human voices.
(b) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on (m) Sounds created by motor vehicles, licensed or un-
authorized shooting ranges. licensed, when operated off public highways ExcEPT
(c) Sounds created by blasting. when such sounds are received in Class A EDNAs.
(d) Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and (n) Sounds originating from existing natural gas
maintenance not related to flight operations: Provided, transmission and distribution facilities. However, in cir-
That aircraft testing and maintenance shall be con- cumstances where such sounds impact EDNA Class A
ducted at remote sites whenever possible. environments and complaints are received, the director
(e) Sounds created by the installation or repair of es- or his designee may take action to abate by application
sential utility services. of EDNA Class C source limits to the facility under the
(2) The following shall be exempt from the provisions requirements of WAC 173-60-050(5).
of WAC 173-60-040 (2)(b): (6) Nothing in these exemptions is intended to pre•
(a) Noise from electrical substations and existing sta- elude the department from requiring installation of the
tionary equipment used in the conveyance of water, best available noise abatement technology consistent
waste water, and natural gas by a utility. with economic feasibility. The establishment of any such
(b) Noise from existing industrial installations which requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Ad-
exceed the standards contained in these regulations and ministrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.04 RCW.
which, over the previous three years, have consistently [Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 83-15-046 (Order DE
operated in excess of 15 hours per day as a consequence 82-42), § 173-60_050. filed 7/19/83; Order DE 77-I, § 1734M50,
of process necessity and/or demonstrated routine normal filed 6/2/77;Order 75-18, § 173-60-050, filed 8/l/75;Order 74-A
operation. Changes in working hours, which would affect § 17340-050, filed 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.1
exemptions under this regulation, require approval of the
department. WAC 173-60-060 Nuisance regulations not prohib-
(3) The following shall be exempt from the provisions ited. Nothing in this chapter or the exemptions provided
of WAC 173-60-040, except insofar as such provisions herein, shall be construed as preventing local govern'
relate to the reception of noise within Class A EDNAs ment from regulating noise from any source as a nul
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. sance. Local resolutions, ordinances, rules or regulations
(a) Sounds originating from temporary construction regulating noise on such a basis shall not be deemed in,
sites as a result of construction activity. consistent with this chapter by the department.
fritk 173 WAC—p 1581 (1919FAY
Maximum Environmental Noise Levels 173-60-120
14-32 § 173--60-060, filed 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.1 WAC 173-06M40 shall be measured in dBA with a
[order sound level meter with the point of measurement being
WAC 173-60-070 Future regulations. It is the in- at any point within the receiving property. Such en-
tention of the department to establish use standards forcement shall be undertaken only upon receipt of a
an Performance standards for the following sources complaint made by a person who resides, owns property,
of noise exempted or partially exempted from the re- or is employed in the area affected by the noise com-
ter
PT for parks,
as, and
qutremenislativehlfund ngeis made availabler within two stof condduct wildl a sanctuaries. For enforcement pu nasesf pursuant
quate g P Po P
roviding the necessarydata. to RCW 70.107.050, each day, defined as the 24-hour
studies pperiod beginning at 12:01 a.m., in which violation of the
noise(1) Sounds created .by aircraft engine testing and p g g
lations ( ter
maintenance not related to flight operations, through the shall constitute auseparatecha viopation73-60 WAC) occurs,
adoption of a new chapter 173-64 WAC.
(2) Sounds created by construction equipment and [Order DE 76-5. § 173-60-090, filed 2/5/76; Order 74-32, § 173-
emanating from construction sites, through the adoption 60-090, filed 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.1
of a new chapter 173-66 WAC.
(3) Sounds created by motor vehicle racing events, WAC 173-60-100 Appeals. Any person aggrieved
through the adoption of a new chapter 173-63 WAC. by any decision of the department in relation to the en-
(4) Sounds created by watercraft, through the adop- forcement of the maximum permissible noise levels pro-
lion of a new chapter 173-70 WAC. vided for herein, the granting or denial of a variance or
(5) Sounds created by the operation of equipment or the approval or disapproval of a local resolution or ordi-
facilities of surface carriers engaged in commerce by nance for noise abatement and control may appeal to the
railroad, to the extent consistent with federal law and pollution control hearings board pursuant to chapter 43-
fegulations through the adoption of a new chapter 173- .21B RCW under the procedures of chapter 371-08
72 WAC. WAC.
[order DE 77-1, § 173-60--070, filed 6/1/77; Order 74-32, § 173- [Order 74-32, § 173-60-100,filed 4/22/75,effective 9/I/75.1
6"7o,filed 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.)
WAC 173-60-080 Variances and implementation WAC 173-60-110 Cooperation with local govern-
schedules. (1) Variances may be granted to any person ment. (1) The department conceives the function of noise
from any particular requirement of this chapter, if find- abatement and control to be primarily the role of local
ings are made that immediate compliance with such re- government and intends actively to encourage local gov-
quirement cannot be achieved because of special ernment to adopt measures for noise abatement and
circumstances rendering immediate compliance unrea- control. Wherever such measures are made effective and
sortable in light of economic or physical factors, en- are being actively enforced, the department does not in-
roachment [encroachment] upon an existing noise tend to engage directly in enforcement activities.
source, or because of nonavailability of feasible technol- (2) No ordinance or resolution of any local govern-
ogy or control methods. Any such variance or renewal ment which imposes noise control requirements differing
thereof shall be granted only for the minimum time pe- from those adopted by the department shall be effective
riod found to be necessary under the facts and unless and until approved by the director. If approval is
circumstances. denied, the department, following submission of such lo-
(2) An implementation schedule for achieving compl- cal ordinance or resolution to the department, shall de-
ance with this chapter shall be incorporated into any liver its statement or order of denial, designating in
variance issued. detail the specific provision(s) found to be objectionable
(3) Variances shall be issued only upon application in and the precise grounds upon which the denial is based,
writing and after providing such information as may be and shall submit to the local government, the depart-
requested. No variance shall be issued for a period of ment's suggested modification.
more than 30 days except upon due notice to the public (3) The department shall encourage all local govern-
with opportunity to comment. Public hearings may be ments enforcing noise ordinances pursuant to this chap-
held, when substantial public interest is shown, at the ter to consider noise criteria and land use planning and
discretion of the issuing agency. zoning. j
(4) Sources of noise, subject to this chapter, upon [Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 87-06456 (Order 86-
which construction begins after the effective date hereof 40), § 173-60-110, filed 3/4/87; Order 74-32, § 173-60-110, filed
shall immediately comply with the requirements of this 4/22/75,effective 9/1/75.)
chapter, except in extraordinary circumstances where
overriding considerations of public interest dictate the WAC 173-60-120 Effective date. This chapter shall
issuance of a variance. become effective on September 1, 1975. It is the inten-
[order 74-32, § 173-60-080, filed 4/22/75, effective 9/t/75.1 tio❑ of the department to periodically review the provi-
sions hereof as new information becomes available for
WAC 173-60-090 Enforcement policy. Noise meas-
the purpose of making amendments as appropriate.
urement for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of [Order 74-32, § 173-60-120, filed 4/22/75,effective 9/l/75.1
(1999 Ed.) [Title 173 WAC—p 1591
EXHIBIT �
✓
11 N
Y
✓
M�.
Epq
0.
Ll
M
L
Q
V. y
N A N
« N
C 4 O U U O u N ^• ro N Y N
p a N 4 L - Q M a + r U V N ■
L O 1n •� tl MC L O p 1 R .4. U w V R r wp R r rC
9 N « S a U ^ M �. O .y. Y 0 y a `
Y u C .C. y 4 4 0) ■ -"• i S u 6 ■■ Y 'AM C C Y O■�. N
M N Y :3 m L L u Y ` ✓ L p 4 O 4 MMMIII
r M z n C y �• O O �„ a L S A 4 Y Y 0, ^
a Y Y r }
7 a U C L U �. N N �• Y . V ✓ ✓ r ✓ Y 0. C
y a •a• 101■ u o n e w o •L• c 9 _w K a o
pyka o a y y 0 n W G f G. +Qa• yOj a ` C a r " Y 0 Y a y N O O a. � s � « y a
S 0 U C U ✓ U .r a r a
Y U 4 vN ^ 0 Y L U Y Y C (. M O N 9 a V L
O G a • 0 M D U . Y N w r • U Y uL .qui r L O O U S,
D) go C y •: N C Y s N « .Y• G U O !�
{{{UUU V yyV,, 4 ap G C
O 4 N y Y L U Y N D ) 0 ~
a L w n m a > ✓ ■ Y D _
•+ 0 ^ F M Y r L C M L R
-• Y t O N Y� L Y a r r
a Po Y a a a a {" L MM �i�o �' « y L
Y � C y ■ V � .. M it N « U / ■ r
qc ■ ■ Y N y YVY 84 a y A " F Y Y F Nyyyy Y SN
■ •^ Y 8 G L « ID. .Oi a F V Y O N y -•Y r 0 L ' .�.. {J a V V •�
a .7 is
n M Y V h• C L R U y ..• p ✓ n Y l� V C4 ✓ U
M y a P ■
N N so O p L 4 u U a✓ r �MM {y1 (Ly
If .. y a ` N Y • 2 L Y N N A OI
pO Cv uM o N 4 KN •9• R y
Mp W 7pp �'_•J A v >• E 0 t E Y i 5 u « Iri Y y a 0 N •0t.. Q .pr L
Y 7 y a •� H U ~ ~ p L R M Y • D
0•• ■ D: N Cp L �. C L, c L i O E s, N 7 xx
vy y E 9 isC L „
1^ Y h Y y a 0 « Q a « V - E l' L•
«17 V U C U GGGJJJ 1 L Y V M U{� q Y
M C M .( V) tl ^ 4 N O •.• N r {/J Y •7 Y «
V " r C D. i r •.. C �. U u�u q 1 1 + yy r ^1 O yY ti �i µ 0 ey �xtl Y• ►. 0 � L r A .� N
My+ U.7 9 � tl J = C � V C■ Z p^ Y 4 �VC S r JI y �pN1 � �pC7 �•
N A K U m A te. 4 4 N • 6 E A. 0 •+ w i l• F 7 ryq �y •rY� S r •+.•.
�. N ri � h IG n m O� O .. n .�. r .„.. .V. .�`.. .tl." .p.• R N N N N N N N �
EXHIBIT �
115 kV Edge of
Right-of-way
Max.On Rlght-of•way 50 ft. 100 ft. 200 ft. 300 tt.
Magnetic Field (mG)
Average 20 5 1 0.3 0.1
Peak 40 10 2 0.6 0.3
UNA
Edge of
230 kV Right-of-way
Max.On Right-of-way 50 tt. 100 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.
Magnetic Field (mG)
Average 35 15 5 1 0.5
Pew 70 30 10 2 1
500 kV Edge of
Right-of-way
1
Max.On Right-of-way 65 ft. 100 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.
Magnetic Field (mG)
Average 70 25 12 3 1 f
Peak 140 50 25 7 3
FIGURE 11. Typical magnetic field strengths at various distances from 8PA transmission lines.Actual field strength and right-
of-way width depend on line design and current levels. Current levels vary widely throughout the year due to fluctuations in
electricity use. Therefore,both annual average and peak values are given(peak values occur less than f percent of the time).
19
STATE OF WASHINGTON
auyoF n� COUNTY OF
THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, ON OATH
STATES THA1 t)N THIS DAY AFFIANT DEPOSITED IN THE MAILS OF
THE LINITEP STATES OF AMERICA A PROPERLY STAMPED A D
CITY OFDiMFEN TEttiIvELOPE DIRECTED TO THE UHRAL c aJdt�`
OFFICE OF THE LAND Ugl PF WITIM.rQn OF-THE DOCUMENT
(206) 859-33e
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T09EFORE ME THIS DAY OF
�yQQ
►VJ
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR WAS INGTON
RESIDING AT 4rQ A a (IQ ig o f
IN RE ) MyCmrftonExpires: 0-Ib•940
PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE ) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
SUBSTATION )
#CE-90-8 )
Introduction
A Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Decision in this
matter was filed by the applicant, Puget Sound Power and Light
Company, on September 12 , 1990. The application for a conditional
use permit was heard on August 15, 1990 and APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS by the Examiner on August 29 , 1990. The Examiner set
forth seven conditions in his approval of the conditional use
permit. The. applicant requests reconsideration of two of those
conditions: (1) Condition 5 related to noise reduction and (2)
Condition 6 related to limits on electromagnetic field exposure.
The applicant requests that those conditions be deleted based on
alleged errors in fact, law and judgement.
A Notice of the Request for Reconsideration was mailed to all
parties of record who presented testimony at the hearing on the
application. Two responses to the Request for Reconsideration were
received: (1) A letter from Craig Brown dated October 1, 1990 and
(2) A letter from Patricia R. and J. David Gilmore dated October 1,
1990. Attached to the Gilmore letter are a number of news articles
on damage from electromagnetic pulse radiation and opposition to
transmission lines. The letters of response introduce no new
evidence but merely respond to the Request for Reconsideration and
reference to material already in evidence. The news articles
submitted with the Gilmore letter do not appear relevant to the
issues under reconsideration and will be disregarded for purposes
of this reconsideration.
The evidence considered by the Examiner in this reconsideration
includes all testimony presented at the August 15th hearing, all
documents received into evidence at the .August 15th hearing, the
Request for Reconsideration and the letter responses to it.
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Response to Request for Reconsideration
Procedural Matters:
The applicant, in his cover letter to the Request for
Reconsideration, requested information regarding the time-frame for
appeal of a decision. The applicant filed his Request for
Reconsideration in a timely fashion and raised questions of fact,
law and judgement appropriate to be resolved on reconsideration.
As a consequence of the filing of the Request for Reconsideration,
the decision on the application for a conditional use permit is
considered a final decision for purposes of appeal only upon
issuance of this Decision on Reconsideration.
Substantive Matters:
Exposure to Noise:
The applicant requests that Condition 5 in the Examiner 's Decision
approving the application for a conditional use permit be deleted.
Condition 5 reads:
Cinder block shall be placed around the
transformers in order to reduce noise levels from
the substation.
The condition was placed on the approval based on the finding of
the Examiner that increased noise is of concern to residents
surrounding the proposed substation site and the conclusion of the
Examiner that, based on testimony of the applicant, anticipated
noise levels of as high as 45 dBA could be reduced with cinder
block designed to absorb and reflect the type of noise emanating
from electrical transformers. See, Hearing Examiner Decision,
pages 3 and 6 .
The applicant argues on reconsideration that there will be no
adverse noise impacts because the noise levels will not exceed
those established in Chapter 9 . 20 of the Kent City Code. The
applicant' s reliance on that chapter of the Code is misplaced. The
chapter does establish a maximum permissible noise limitation of 55
dBA for any activity in a residential zone. It is clear from the
record that the substation would not violate this noise standard.
However, Chapter 9 . 20 does not deal with land use applications. It
is a criminal code with criminal penalties for violations. See,
2
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge.Substation
#CE-90-8
KCC 9 . 20. 88. The ordinance expressly states that any permit of
compliance issued under KCC 9.20 "shall in no way affect the duty
to obtain any other permit or license required by law. . . " . KCC
9 .20.76.
The chapter cited by the applicant deals with criminal law, not
land use law. It establishes maximum levels, but not the
appropriate levels in all circumstances. The applicant seeks to
place an electrical substation in an existing residential area. A
different level of permissible noise may be appropriate for a
particular conditional use. Indeed, that is why the City Council
has identified some activities - such as the location of an
electrical substation in a residential zone - as activities that
require a conditional use, permit.'
The City Council has directed the Hearing Examiner to consider
specific criteria when deciding whether to approve a conditional
use permit. Those criteria are set forth in Chapter 15 . 09 . 030 of
the Kent City Code. Those criteria require the E4aminer to
approve a conditional use only if he finds that, inter alia, 11 the
proposed use . . . will not be detrimental to other uses . . . in the
zoning district" and that "adequate buffering devices . . . protect
adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use,
including adverse visual or auditory effects" . The Kent City
Council has further directed the Hearing Examiner to:
require of the applicant such conditions,
modifications and restrictions as the Examiner
finds necessary to make the application
compatible with its environment and carry out
' The state law which enabled the city to adopt noise standards also recognizes
that there may be more protective noise standards in certain situations. RCW
70.107.060 (4). The state agency charged with implementation of the state
law has adopted a regulation that expressly recognizes this authority. WAC
173-60-060 states that:
Nothing in this chapter or the exemptions
provided herein, shall be construed as
preventing local government from regulating
noise from any source as a nuisance.
3
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
the objectives of . . . the codes and ordinances
of the City. KCC 2. 54 . 100 B (1) .
The City Council recognized that the conditions required may not
always be set forth in the existing ordinances and codes. The
Examiner is thus directed to apply such additional setbacks,
screening, fencing, covenants, easements, or other conditions,
modifications, or restrictions that may be necessary. KCC 2 .54 . 100
B (1) . The Hearing Examiner clearly has the jurisdiction and
authority to apply Condition 5 in the Hearing Examiner Decision of
August 29th.
The applicant admits that noise of 45 dBA would be received by the
residents adjacent to the proposed substation. No evidence has
been offered by the applicant to rebut the concerns of the
residents about adverse impacts due to increased noise. The
applicant' s own testimony suggested that tuned cinder block around
the transformers would reduce the noise emanated from the
substation. It was stated by the applicant that this could be done
at a cost of $40, 000 to $50, 000. This appears to the Examiner to
be a reasonable cost given the certainty in noise reduction that
will be achieved. The Examiner agrees with the applicant that it
was inappropriate to reference the rate base of the applicant as a
basis for determining reasonable cost. Rather, reasonableness
should be measured by the certainty of result, ability of applicant
to pay, and cost of the condition in relation to the entire
project. Based on those measurements, Condition 5 is reasonable
and should be retained.
Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields:
The applicant also seeks reconsideration of Condition 6 of the
Examiner' s Decision. Condition 6 states:
The level of magnetic field shall not exceed 3
milligauss at the property line of the site.
The applicant alleges that this condition is based on an error of
fact and an error in judgement. The applicant states on
reconsideration that a level of 3 milligaus would not be possible
to comply with where the transmission line enters the property to
go to the substation. The applicant further argues that no
protective standards are warranted because of a lack of evidence of
harm caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) .
4
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
The level of 3 milligaus (mG) as an exposure limit was selected by
the Examiner based on the applicant's own testimony that the level
of EMFs would be 3 mG around the perimeter of the site. The
applicant's expert witness, Mr. Mel Walters, affirmed in two oral
statements at the hearing that the level of exposure to EMFs around
the perimeter of a substation site would be between I and 3 mG. He
further testified that a similarly situated substation in Bellevue
had been examined and that the exposure was between 1 and 5 mG.
Based on this information, the Examiner established a condition
that the level not exceed 3 mG. This was intended to inform and
assure surrounding residents that the level of EMFs would be
relatively low. It was not intended to disrupt the operation of
the proposed substation.
The applicant now asserts that it would not be possible to locate
a substation if a 3 mG limit had to be complied with because
transmission lines would exceed that limit. Testimony and evidence
submitted by the applicant show that a 115 kV transmission line
would generate an electromagnetic field of up to 20 mG directly
under the transmission line (about 20 feet from the lines) . This
drops to under 5 mG when 50 feet away from the line. The Examiner
was in error to not consider the impact of the transmission line on
the level of EMFs surrounding an electrical substation. The focus
of the Examiner on the conditional use application is on the
substation only; the Examiner does not have authority to approve,
disapprove or condition the siting of transmission lines. It is
appropriate to revise the EMF limit to reflect the contribution to
EMFs from the 115kV transmission line.
The applicant states on reconsideration that there is "an absence
of evidence" about the impact of EMFs and that protective standards
are therefore not warranted. See, Applicant ' s Request for
Reconsideration, page 3 . The evidence submitted by the applicant
and the testimony presented by members of the public at the public
hearing shows otherwise. Studies submitted as evidence by the
applicant detail how a magnetic field is produced when electric
current flows in a wire. The force of this field is measured in
units of tesla (T) or gauss (G) . Although shocks associated with
electric and magnetic fields are well understood, questions have
been raised by scientists as to whether there are long-term
negative heath impacts from these fields. See, Exhibit 7 , Electric
and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review, Bonneville
Power Administration (June, 1989) . The BPA report summarizes the
scientific evidence on page 4 of the report as follows:
5
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Over the last 10 years, a growing number of
epidemiological studies suggest that people who live or
work near electric powerlines or equipment have an
increased risk of cancer. . . . The relative risks reported
in these epidemiological studies are low. . . . There have
been several scientific reviews of the biological
research on electric and magnetic fields. These reviews
typically conclude that no link has been established
between these fields and adverse human health effects.
However, they point out that some studies suggest the
possibility for adverse effects. The need for long-term
research to resolve this issue is universally
acknowledged.
Studies cited in the report include ones undertaken by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health
Organization. The EPA study concluded that "a great deal of
caution must be exercised before allowing any increase in exposure
of the general population until a better understanding is obtained
of the underlying mechanism of action and possible synergism with
other potentially hazardous agents and stressors in the
environment" . The World Health Organization study concluded that
"the possibility of some perturbing effects occurring following
long-term exposure (to magnetic fields) cannot be excluded" . See,
pages 89-90 of BPA Report. Numerous other studies are reviewed in
the BPA report. Some conclude that adverse health effects are very
unlikely. Although the studies do not reach consistent
conclusions, there is certainly no absence of evidence about the
impact of EMFs on human health. Based on the evidence submitted by
the applicant, it appears reasonable to the Examiner to require
some means of measuring the exposure to EMFs that residents
surrounding the proposed substation might receive. This is best
done by conditioning the approval of the substation on a showing
that EMFs do not exceed a specified level. At least residents will
know that the exposure is below certain thresholds.
The appropriate maximum level for EMF exposure can be vigorously
debated. The Examiner attempted to avoid engaging in this debate
by accepting a threshold that the applicant testified could be met.
It now appears on reconsideration that the 3 mG limit at the
property line is too stringent given the EMFs associated with
transmission lines. A more appropriate level is 20 mG at the
property line, given the evidence of EMF strengths associated with
115kV transmission lines. That evidence clearly shows that EMF
exposure directly below such a transmission line will not exceed
6
Land Use Hearing Examiner
Request for Reconsideration
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
20 MG. This level can clearly be met by the applicant yet remains
below most standards set by others who have considered appropriate
levels.2
The establishment of a maximum level will require measurement to
assure compliance. since humans cannot perceive the 60-Hz magnetic
fields, several types of devices have been developed to measure the
strength of the field. These include wrist devices, vests, digital
read-out devices and shirt pocket meters. Accurate measurement of
the field is therefore readily available both by the applicant and
by the residents near the electric substation.
Decision
Following reconsideration of all the evidence submitted in this
matter, the Examiner determines that:
1. Condition 5 of the Examiner' s Decision relating to protection
from increased noise shall remain as is stated in the
Decision.
2 . Condition 6 of the Examiner's Decision relating to exposure to
electromagnetic fields shall be changed to read as follows:
The level of electromagnetic field shall not
exceed 20 milligauss at the property line of
the site.
In all other respects, the Examiner' s Decision of August 29, 1990
remains the same.
DATED this 17th day of October, 1990 .
THEODORE P. HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
2The State of Florida, for example, has adopted a 150 mG exposure limit for
transmission line of 200 kV or less. The State of New York has adopted an interim
standard of 100 mG.
7
DISTRIBUTION OF HEARING EXAMINER MATERIAL
THE PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE SUBSTATION RECONSIDERATION INFORMATION
WAS MAILED ON TO THE FOLLOWING ON 10/19/90:
Mayor
City Administrator
City Attorney
Chief of Police
Fire Chief
City Engineer, Carol Storm, Randy Brake
Parks Director `
Routed in Planning Department
Building Director
Fire Marshal
City Clerk
City Council Members (7)
Planning Commission Members (9)
Hearing Examiner
H.E. File
Kent News Journal
Federal Way News
Planning Department File
Sent to the following parties of record:
LINDA AT OROURKE STEVEN MAYER
PUGET POWER 27123 41ST PL S
PO BOX 97034 KENT WA 98032
BELLEVUE WA 9809-9731
DAVID/PATRICIA GILMORE
26849 DOWNING AVE S
KENT WA 98032
HOLLY ISAMAN
4611 SOMERSET CT
KENT WA 98032
CRAIG A BROWN
27118 41ST PL S
KENT WA 98032
CORY MEEKS
27112 41ST PLS S
KENT WA 98032
KURT ERICKSON
27004 DOWNING AVE S
KENT WA 98032
crav of Wiet-1!
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
ZCT&
IN RE: )
PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE ) NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR
SUBSTATION ) RECONSIDERATION
#CE-90-8 )
A REQUEST for Reconsideration has been received in the
case referenced above. The Request seeks deletion of Conditions 5
and 6 as imposed by the Hearing Examiner following the August 29,
1990 hearing or, in the alternative, a reopening of the record to
receive additional evidence on the issues raised with respect to
electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) . The complete Request for
Reconsideration may be reviewed at the Office of the Hearing
Examiner, Kent Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA
98032 , during the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 : 30 p.m.
Anyone who wishes to respond to the Request for
Reconsideration must do so by 4 : 30 p.m. on October 2 , 1990, at the
above address. The Hearing Examiner may prepare a Decision on
Reconsideration following review of the record. The decision of
the Hearing Examiner on the above-reference application will not be
considered for a final decision until final action is 'taken on the
Request for Reconsideration.
DATED this 18th day of September, 1990 .
FOR THEODORE P. HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I,Christine Holden, Administrative Assistant I for the Planning Department, City of Kent,Washington, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that on September 18, 1990,1 deposited in the United States mail collection box, the Notice of Request
for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner for Puget Power Cambridge Substation 110E-90-8, which Notice of
Request for Reconsideration were placed in sealed envelopes addressed to the applicant, owner and parties of
record as listed on the Distribution List.
nn
Christine Holden
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of September, 1990
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the/Stah�el1,,
of Washington, residing in
#CE-90-8
LINDA AT OROURKE
PUGET POWER
-'PO BOX 97034
BELLEVUE WA 9809-9731
#CE-90-8
DAVID/PATRICIA GILMORE
26849 DOWNING AVE S
KENT WA 98032
#CE-90-8
HOLLY ISAMAN
4611 SOMERSET CT
KENT WA 98032
#CE-90-8
CRAIG A BROWN
27118 41ST PL S
KENT WA 98032
#CE-90-8
CORY MEEKS
27112 41ST PLS S
KENT WA 98032
#CE-90-8
KURT ERICKSON
27004 DOWNING AVE S
KENT WA 98032
#CE-90-8
STEVEN MAYER
27123 41ST PL S
KENT WA 98032
September 12 , 1990 SEP 1 2 NO
Hearing Examiner PLANNINGDEPARiME
City of Kent -- CITYdFKENT
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Re : Puget Power Cambridge Substation #CE-90-8
Request for Reconsideration of
Hearing Examiner ' s Decision
Puget Sound Power & Light Company respectfully requests
reconsideration of the above-referenced Hearing Examiner ' s
decision . Enclosed is our formal request for reconsideration .
Please send ,your written response to the following address :
Linda A. T . O' Rourke
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
P.O. Box 97034 , OBC-11N
Bellevue, WA 98009
In submitting this request for reconsideration, Puget Power
is concerned about ambiguities in the Kent ordinances which
relate to Puget Power ' s right to appeal . Specifically, the
issue is whether the periods within which to file an appeal and
a request for reconsideration ( 14 days) run concurrently or
sequentially .
Puget Power raised this issue with Ms . Alice Shope of the
City of Kent , and was told that the appeal periods run
sequentially. That is , Puget Power ' s right to appeal to the
City Council will run from the date of the Examiner ' s decision
on the enclosed request for reconsideration . If, for any
reason, the Examiner ' s Office feels that the advice provided by
Ms . Shope is in error , Puget Power asks that the enclosed
request for reconsideration also be received as a Notice of
Appeal , with the additional request that consideration of the
appeal be deferred pending the Examiner ' s decision on the
request for reconsideration.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important
matter .
Li a A. ou e
Associate Land Planner
Enclosure
2 5 7 5 q
The Energy Starts Here®
Puget Sound Power&Light Company P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue,WA 98009-9734 (206)454-6363
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
IN RE : Application for Conditional )
Use Permit of Puget Sound Power ) No . CE-90-8
& Light Company, )
APPLICANT ' S REQUEST
Applicant. ) FOR RECONSIDERATION
I . REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to § 2 . 54 . 150 of the Kent City Code ( "KCC" ) , Puget
Sound Power & Light Company ( "Applicant" ) submits this Request
For Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision in the
above-captioned matter , dated August 29 , 1990 (the
"Decision" )
II . LEGAL BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION
KCC § 2 . 54 . 150 states that the Decision is subject to
reconsideration if it is :
based on erroneous procedures , errors of law or fact ,
error in judgment , or the discovery of new evidence
which could not be reasonably available at the prior
hearing . . . .
Applicant contends that the Decision must be reconsidered due
to errors of law and fact , and in judgment .
APPLICANT ' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
III . GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. Finding of Fact No . 7 Page 3 (Error of Fact) . The
Examiner found with respect to electric and magnetic fields
( "EMFs" ) that :
Key responses of the applicant pointed out that the
level of EMF exposure would be less than 3 milligauss
outside the fenced off area .
This finding . is an error .
Testimony regarding EMFs was provided on Applicant ' s behalf
by Mr . Mel Walters , Senior Environmental Scientist . Mr .
Walters did indicate that magnetic field levels would probably
be less than 2 to 3 milligauss at the property line, but only
as to those points along the property line distant from where
the transmission line enters the substation .
Mr . Walters stated that the primary source of magnetic
fields associated with substations are incoming transmission
lines . His testimony shows that fields at the property line
from the 115 kV line entering this substation could reach
20 milligauss . Therefore, it would not be possible to comply
with a 3 milligauss limit .
Further evidence submitted at the hearing (Exhibit 7)
states that magnetic fields from common household appliances
can range from 60 milligauss to 2000 milligauss near a electric
range , and from 400 milligauss to 4000 milligauss near a
APPLICANT' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
fluorescent lamp. These represent loads in one typical
household served by the Applicant . Applicant simply could not
supply electrical service to the City of Kent , or the State of
Washington, if substations were required to comply with a 3
milligauss limit .
This error of fact is relied upon in Conclusion No . 2e, at
page 7 . The erroneous findings and conclusion provide no
support for Condition No . 6 , at page 8 . Therefore, Condition
No . 6 should be deleted.
B . Conclusion No 2d Page 6 (Error in Judgment) . In
summarizing his conclusions as to EMFs the Examiner states :
Until it can be shown that there is no likelihood of
harm from human exposure to increased EMFs due to the
location of an electrical substation in a residential
area, it is prudent to provide protection from
increased EMF exposure where that protection can be
implemented at a reasonable cost .
(Emphasis added) .
Applicant disagrees with the conclusion. An absence of
evidence does not warrant protQctive standards of the nature
and degree proposed . Evidence submitted shows that the only
jurisdiction imposing "prudent" standards is the State of
Florida . Florida ' s standard is 150 milligauss at the edge of
the right-of-way. This "prudent" standard is some 50 times
higher than the standard proposed by the Examiner .
APPLICANT ' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
The referenced conclusion reflects , however , a much more
egregious error in judgment . The Examiner concludes that the 3
milligauss standard "can be implemented at a reasonable cost . "
Again, the evidence • shows that this standard would be
impossible to implement . Moreover , any attempt to implement
such an unreasonable standard would carry unreasonable costs .
The error in judgment reflected in Conclusion No . 2d
eliminates any reasonable foundation for Condition No . 6 .
Therefore, Condition No . 6 should be deleted.
C. Finding No 7 Page 3 (Errors of Fact , Law and
Judgment) . With respect to audible noise the Examiner finds :
A potential adverse impact on property values due to
visual and noise impacts and perceived adverse health
impacts was also mentioned as a concern.
If this is to serve as a finding that the proposed substation
would in fact present an adverse noise impact (Applicant is
aware of no other such finding) , then the finding is in error .
The record shows that audible noise from the proposed
substation will not exceed 45 dBA . This is all that is
required in the City of Kent . KCC 9 . 20 . 48 establishes maximum
permissible noise levels . For receiving properties in the most
restrictive classification, the allowable level is 55 dBA. If
reduced by 10 dBA for night time hours , the allowable level is
45 dBA (which, as noted above, is a standard which the project
will meet) .
APPLICANT ' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
However , even if this night time standard was exceeded,
KCC 9 . 20 . 60 exempts electrical substations . The Examiner has
chosen to ignore an ordinance, adopted by the City Council , and
require Applicant to spend $50 , 000 to mitigate a non-problem.
This is an error of fact , law and judgment . There is no basis
in the record to support imposition of Condition No . 5 , at
page 7 .
D . Conclusion No 2e Page 6 (Error of Law) . In
concluding that Applicant should spend $50 , 000 to build a
cinder block noise deflection barrier , the Examiner states :
This is a relatively minor cost considering the rate
base available to spread the cost and the proven
reduction in noise that results when a cinder block
surrounding is in place .
Applicant does not question the Examiner ' s authority to
impose conditions within his jurisdiction . However , Applicant
does question the appropriateness of the assumption that costs
are not material because they may be passed on to Applicant ' s
ratepayers . It is Applicant ' s position that , if costs are not
warranted, none of its ratepayers anywhere should bear such
costs . The Examiner ' s conclusion cannot rest on the comfort of
a "deep pocket" provided by Applicant ' s ratepayers .
IV . CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully
requests that the Examiner reconsider the Decision and delete
Condition No . 6 on page 8 and Condition No . 5 on page 7 .
APPLICANT' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
In the alternative, if the Examiner feels that additional
evidence is necessary in order to address the issue raised with
respect to EMFs , Applicant asks that the record be reopened to
address this issue . /
DATED this day of 1990 .
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
r
Lind A.T. VRo-trne
Associate Land Planner
1 0 6 6 Q
APPLICANT' S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
cry oFleid
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
nvvicrA
FILE NO: PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE SUBSTATION #CE-90-8
APPLICANT: Puget Sound Power & Light Company
(Linda A. T. O'Rourke, representative)
REOUEST: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
a 16, 000 square foot electrical distribution
substation on S. 272nd at 42nd Avenue S.
LOCATION: The site is located on the northeast corner of
S. 272nd Avenue and 42nd Avenue S.
APPLICATION FILED: 6/19/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 5/31/90
MEETING DATE: 8/15/90
DECISION ISSUED: 8/29/90
DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
Alice Shope, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Linda A. T. O'Rourke, representative
Melvin Walters, Puget Power
Barry Lombard, Puget Power
Other
Cory Meeks
Patricia Gilmore
Holly Isaman
Craig Brown
Steve Mayer
Kurt Erickson
1
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
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 decision are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1. The applicant desires a conditional use permit to facilitate
construction of an electrical distribution substation on the
northeast corner of S. 272nd and 42nd Ave. South.
2 . The site is approximately 4 .29 acres. The applicant proposes
to clear and grade an area of approximately 88, 000 square feet
and construct a substation within a fenced area of
approximately 16, 000 square feet.
3 . Except for initial construction activity, there will be only
two vehicle trips to and from the site each week for
maintenance purposes.
4 . The site is zoned R1-7 .2 and is designated as SF, Single
Family, in the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. The property is
currently vacant with significant natural vegetation. The
site is surrounded by residential uses. Property to the west
and south is in unincorporated King County. Property to the
east was recently short platted and is zoned single-family
residential. Property to the north is developed with single-
family homes in the Cambridge subdivisions.
5. The proposed substation would consist of the installation of
two 115 to 13 KV transformers, two 35 foot dead-end towers and
associated electrical equipment. The purpose of the
substation is to transform 115 KV power from transmission line
to 12 KV power for residential use. The transmission line
would approach the substation from the south on 42nd Ave. S. ,
come into the station on the west side and then terminate at
the dead end tower. The applicant asserts that the substation
is necessary to provide additional power and increased
reliability to the adjacent service areas for existing and
future load growth.
2
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
6. A mitigated Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued
for the proposal on May 31, 1990 with conditions related to
drainage easements, storm water detention and biofiltration
and street improvements. No one challenged that declaration.
7 . Several residents expressed concerns at the public hearing
about the proposed location of the electrical distribution
substation next to residential uses. Of particular concern is
the impact of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) on human
health. It was noted at the hearing that four private
residences share a common boundary with the proposed
substation and many more residences are proposed. In addition,
it was noted that numerous children use the existing pathway
on the west side of the site to go to and from school.
Concerns were expressed about EMF exposure to these children
and well as the access of children to the substation area. A
potential adverse impact on property values due to visual and
noise impacts and perceived adverse health impacts was also
mentioned as a concern. A number of questions were addressed
to the applicant and the City regarding type of vegetation
buffer, security around the substation and future plans of the
applicant. These questions were responded to by the City and
the applicant. Key responses of the applicant pointed out
that the level of EMF exposure would be less than 3 milligauss
outside the fenced off area; that the substation area would be
secured by a chain link fence with three strands of barbed
wire at the top; and that the existing pathway would not be
interfered with unless necessary for drainage purposes.
CONCLUSIONS
1 In order to approve a request for a conditional use permit,
the Hearing Examiner must examine the criteria established by
the City Council to determine if the request should be
allowed. These criteria are set forth in Section 15. 09 . 030 of
the Kent Zoning Code. The Hearing Examiner must conclude
that:
a. The proposed use in the proposed location will not
be detrimental to other uses legally existing or
permitted outright in the zoning district.
b. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed
use.
3
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
ICE-90-8
C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not
unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the
vicinity.
d. The other performance characteristics of the
proposed use are compatible with those of other
uses in the neighborhood or vicinity.
e. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing,
landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect
adjacent properties from adverse effects of the
proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory
effects.
f. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site
are such as to permit the proposed use to function
effectively.
g. The proposed use complies with the performance
standards, parking requirements and other
applicable provisions of this code.
h. Any other similar considerations that may be
appropriate to a particular case allow
authorization of the proposed conditional use.
2 . Considering the Findings detailed above, the Examiner
concludes that:
a. The proposed use of the site for an electrical
distribution substation could be detrimental to
residential uses that legally exist in R1-7 . 2
zoning district if specific conditions are not
applied and enforced. However, the proposed use of
the site as an electrical substation is also
beneficial to residential uses in the area in so
far as the reliability and efficiency of electrical
service is enhanced by the proposed substation. No
one at the public hearing questioned the need for
an additional substation. Electrical substations
are specifically designated in the Kent Zoning Code
as a "general conditional use" that "require
greater freedom of location than other uses" . See,
Section 15. 08 . 030 of Kent Zoning Code.
4
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
b. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed
use. A minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet is
necessary in the R1-7 . 2 zoning district. This lot
greatly exceeds that area and proposed lot coverage
is only about 35 percent.
C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will
hardly be noticeable and will not burden the
traffic circulation system in the vicinity.
d. Other performance characteristics of the proposed
use will not be compatible with the those of other
uses in the vicinity unless specific conditions are
applied and enforced. Specifically, the concerns
for human health associated with EMFs must be
addressed. Neighbors surrounding the site and
parents of children who use the existing pathway on
the site to go to and from school are legitimately
concerned about the impacts of EMFs. Although
there is no irrefutable evidence that EMFs cause
human health problems, there clearly is a strong
perception that health problems may be caused by
exposure to EMFs. In addition, the summaries of
scientific studies presented by the applicant as
Exhibits 6 and 7 conclude that:
Although many studies of EMF
exposure show no evidence of
harm, a small number of studies
has raised the question of
whether EMF exposure could
increase human cancer. These
studies are inconsistent and
have not been resolved by
laboratory investigation. . . .
In the meantime, the evidence
of harm, as discussed above,
must be considered
inconclusive. Exhibit 7 , page
4 .
There have been several
scientific reviews of the
biological research on electric
and magnetic fields. These
reviews typically conclude that
5
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
no link has been established
between these fields and
adverse human health effects.
However, they point out that
some studies suggest the
possibility for adverse
effects. The need for long-
term research to resolve this
issue is universally
acknowledged.
Exhibit 7 , page 4 .
Until it can be shown that there is no likelihood
of harm from human exposure to increased EMFs due
to the location of an electrical substation in a
residential area, it is prudent to provide
protection from increased EMF exposure where that
protection can be implemented at a reasonable cost.
e. Adequate buffering could protect adjacent
properties from adverse visual and auditory impacts
at a reasonable cost. It is necessary to provide
Type I landscaping on the eastern and western
boundaries to assure an adequate visual buffer as
the substation and residential uses are entirely
separate uses. The existing vegetation on the
northern boundary of the site should also be
preserved as a visual buffer.
Noise impacts could be as high as 45 decibels at
the property line. This amount of noise would be
noticeable to residents in the area during
nighttime hours. Noise impacts could be reduced if
construction hours are limited and if the
transformers are surrounded by cinder block to
absorb and deflect sound. The applicant testified
that cinder block noise deflection could cost up to
$50, 000 at the site. This is a relatively minor
cost considering the rate base available to spread
the cost and the proven reduction in noise that
results when a cinder block surrounding is in
place.
Potentially adverse EMF impacts can be mitigated if
specific limits are adhered to regarding the amount
of off-site EMF exposure. The applicant testified
that exposure levels at the perimeter of the site
6
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
would be less than 3 milligauss - a degree of
exposure that appeared to alleviate the concerns of
residents surrounding the site. A variety of
transformer equipment is available with varying
degrees of associated EMF exposures. The applicant
should provide the equipment that allows EMFs to be
kept to a minimum. The exposure levels will vary
from time to time at the site, but can be easily
measured with measuring devices available from the
applicant. These measurements should be shared
with surrounding residents upon request to assure
compliance with the level of exposure testified to
by the applicant; 3 milligauss or less.
f. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site
- such as the residences, community facility, and
school - would allow the proposed use to function
effectively.
g. The proposed use complies with the performance
standards and parking requirements of the code.
h. There are no other considerations applicable to
this case beyond those already addressed above.
DECISION
Based on the Findings and Conclusions detailed above, the
application is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Type I landscaping shall be provided along the eastern and
western boundaries of the site.
2 . Hours of operation for construction shall be limited to 8 : 00
a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
3 . Natural vegetation shall be preserved wherever possible and
where consistent with the goal of providing visual buffers.
4 . Three strands of barbed wire shall be placed on top of the
proposed seven foot high chain link fence with slats in order
to discourage access to the substation.
5. Cinder block shall be placed around the transformers in order
to reduce noise levels from the substation.
7
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
6. The level of magnetic field shall not exceed 3 milligauss at
the property line of the site.
7 . The existing pathway on the west side of the property shall
remain outside the fenced off area. The possibility of a
combined drainage and public pathway easement that allows use
of the pathway for school children to avoid use of streets
should be explored.
Dated this 29th day of August, 1990.
T E DORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Section 15 . 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any
conditional use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain
effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that
time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction -
has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall
become invalid.
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.
8
Hearing Examiner Decision
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
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.
9
City of Kent - Planning Department
S 261ST ST
NO, �- S 262NO ST '
RO
t � Q" S 263R0 ST
SOME RSET IN Jl
W J�
t ¢ Q HAMPTON ,
o Quo OP H9Y '
GL ENN W v�v TOTE#
'NEL SON z ~ ' .1R.
v
PAR!( C
`� ML 8TH ST x .
a STAR CARNASY
r u L,91(E T ■
EL EX
S i ?
m >Cr
!- f"
o x�n m
APPLICATION NAME: Puget Power Cambridge Substation
NUMBER: CE-90-8 DATE: August 15, 1990
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
Application site
Zoning boundary
��= City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
------ ------
-------------------------
4 T /T1V'O.'J OW,. VNK MK- B'N4u a,! _ �'-�•
M'� � ,uGfa 1v 2 �^r arc >rn. "'�� •• �'� �
.' 3' aN [rt+tR Lx Cv YK+.c CCMIfC w2 I . �
2,0
RA•J-N• i� 7 A.
P•.tw t,1rc.J j Bbr_vrnr—Cb--- � --- � U ro �•kcTJ% •'�"'"1: M^?.
APPLICATION NAME: Puget Power Cambridge Substation
NUMBER: CE-90-8 DATE: August 15, 1990
REQUEST: Conditional use Permit
LEGEND
SITE PLAN Application site
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Zoning boundary
City limits
• `/ ��+�
W, AND
N®r fill
off
Q
Ell m
VIA,fill
Ell
i •1 0
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
August 15, 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, August 15, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Courtroom.
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.
PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE SUBSTATION
Conditional Use Permit
#CE-90-8
A public hearing to consider the request by Linda A.T. O'Rourke for
Puget Sound Power and Light, PO Box 97034, OBC-11N, Bellevue, WA
98009, for a conditional use permit to construct an electrical
substation to be known as Cambridge Substation. The site is
located on the northeast corner of S. 272nd and 42nd Avenue S.
Alice Shobe, Planning Department, reiterated the conditional use
permit request. Ms. Shobe went over the maps showing the location
of the site, topographic plan and site plan attached to the staff
report. Ms. Shobe corrected the staff report to state the
reference concerning the landscaping on the northern and eastern
boundaries should be western and eastern boundaries. A video of
the site was shown. Ms. Shobe commented a Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued in May 1990. Ms. Shobe discussed the
criteria that should be reviewed when consideration a conditional
use permit request. Ms. Shobe commented the staff is recommending
approval with conditions.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 15, 1990
Linda O'Rourke, Puget Sound Power & Light, lectured on the need for
a substation at this site. Ms. O'Rourke went over a map showing
where the transmission lines would be entering and leaving the site
(Exhibit 2) . Further, the transmission lines will be overhead in
the public right of way. Ms. O'Rourke described the project.
Ms. O'Rourke stated the access to the site will be from 272nd.
Ms. O'Rourke concurred with the City's recommendation for Type I
landscaping on the east and west sides of the property.
Ms. O'Rourke remarked in 1982 the substation was to have been
built; however, it was shelved. Initially, one tower will be
constructed; in approximately eight years another tower will be
constructed. Ms. O'Rourke submitted to the record a hearing
memorandum of applicant (Exhibit 3) .
Mr. Hunter asked if there was anyone who would like to comment.
Cory Meeks asked: if the value of the residences in the area could
be adversely affected; when will construction begin; will the trees
and shrubs used in the landscaping be fully grown or will there be'
several years before the site is obscured; will the site be safe
from the children and animals in the area; what will the power
lines look like. Mr. Meeks stated his fence line and landscaping
encroach into Puget Power's property. At the time he purchased
the property, the fence and landscaping already existed, he wanted
to know what would be done about this encroachment.
Patricia Gilmore submitted a letter to the record (Exhibit 4) .
Ms. Gilmore read the letter into the record. The letter concerned
the effect on health from electromagnetic emissions.
Holly Isaman, 4611 Somerset Court, Kent, WA 98032 , commented she
is also representing the Star Lake Elementary School PTA.
Ms. Isaman asked if the path through the property currently used by
children going to and from school will be left opened and
maintained. Further, there are concerns about the possible dangers
involved in walking next to this site. Ms. Isaman also asked: if
site would be secured to keep children away from the substation
building and Federal Way School District asked to be informed of
the decision of this hearing.
Craig Brown, 27118 41st Place S. , Kent, WA 98032, stated his back
yard abuts the proposed site. Mr. Brown asked some questions: 1)
asked for a clarification on the difference between a Type I and
Type II landscaping; what kind of vegetation will be used for
screening; the map shows landscaping on the south and west, is that
correct; felt the constructions hours should be no earlier than 8
am and no later than 6 pm--Monday through Friday; felt much of
existing vegetation should be retained; a six to eight foot high
earthen berm should be constructed between the fence and the green
belt; asked that Puget Power be required to improve and maintain
the trail used by the children and others. Mr. Brown submitted a
letter to the record (Exhibit 5) .
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 15, 1990
Steve Mayer, 27123 41st Place S. , Kent, WA 98032 , enumerated his
concerns: not notified of meeting and asked for an explanation of
the LID. Mr. Mayer commented on the traffic volume on 272nd.
Mr. Mayer stated he felt the gravel path was extensively used. He
asked if a crosswalk with a light could be located across 272nd.
Curt Erickson, 27004 Downing Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032, asked
several questions: under Environmental Considerations what does a
no-protest LID covenant for the construction of 42nd Avenue S. mean
and what is Type I and Type II landscaping? Mr. Erickson asked if
the cables can be shielded to prevent an electromagnetic field
problem. Furthermore, if a berm was placed around the site, would
the berm reflect back to the substation any electromagnetic waves?
Mr. Erickson asked if a cross-walk bridge could be constructed on
272nd to accommodate the children crossing the street.
Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal comments.
Ms. Shobe, Kent Planning Department, explained the tree ordinance.
Ms. Shobe discussed the difference between Type I and Type II
landscaping. Ms. Shobe submitted to the record a reduce copy of
the proposed plantings proposed by Puget Power (Exhibit 6) .
Gary Gill, Public Works Department, gave a brief explanation of a
local improvement district (LID) . Mr. Gill commented on the
conditions listed in SEPA. He pointed out that 42nd Avenue will
not be a through street. Mr. Gill continued explaining the
different conditions required for this project. Mr. Gill stated
the City had no immediate plans for a mid-block crosswalk in this
area and the cost of a pedestrian overhead crossing is quite
prohibitive.
Ms. O'Rourke remarked the subject property has been owned by Puget
Power in 1982 . Further, since 1982 , a sign has been on the site
stating the site would be used for a Puget Power substation.
Ms. O'Rourke stated on the portion of the site where the substation
will be built will be fenced with a seven-foot high slatted chain
link fence with one foot of barbed wire on top. The fenced area
will have a gate to prevent access. Ms. O 'Rourke stated Puget
Power does not plan on closing the pathway used by the people in
the area. There might be one change to the site plan, the project
might be moved further to the north to accommodate the proposed
widening of the 272nd. Ms. O'Rourke talked briefly about the
construction of the substation.
Berry Lombard, Puget Power, talked about the noise level from the
transformer. Mr. Lombard stated the latest model transformers emit
very little noise. At a few of the older sites where transformers
are quite noisy, Puget Power did construct a hollow cinder block
type of fence to help absorb the noise. This fence would need to
be higher than the transformer to completely block the noise.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 15, 1990
Melvin Walters, Puget Power, talked about the electromagnetic field
emitted by the site. Mr. Walters commented there have been
several studies done on the effect on people of electromagnetic
emissions; however, no causative effect has been found.
Mr. Walters stated that according a comparison study concerning the
measurements made of the electromagnetic fields, the substation
emits. less electromagnetic emissions than an electric stove found
in the typical household. Mr. Walters did state that
electromagnetic emissions will vary at the site. Mr. Walters
submitted to the record a brochure and study done concerning
electromagnetic emissions (Exhibit 7) .
Ms. Gilmore asked why couldn't the building of the substation wait
until a final report regarding the effect of electromagnetic
emissions was done.
Mr. Walters stated there have been several reports issued.
Mr. Walters commented EPA has stated there isn't enough data to
make a final evaluation on the effect of electromagnetic emissions.
Mr. Brown was concerned about the visual effect this substation
will have on the neighborhood. Mr. Brown wanted to know which
areas would have Type I landscaping and which areas would be
Type II landscaping.
Ms. Shobe commented Type I landscaping would be on the eastern and
western boundaries, Type II landscaping on the front street,
and, at the rear, Type II landscaping along the fence.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing was closed at 5: 15 pm.
4
ary oFTktrd
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 15 , 1990
FILE NO: PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE SUBSTATION #CE-90-8
APPLICANT: LINDA A.T. O'ROURKE FOR
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 15 . 08 . 030 (B1) of the City of
Kent Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is
requested to construct a 16, 000 square foot
electrical distribution substation on S. 272nd at
42nd Avenue S.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Shobe, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
I . GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
Puget Sound Water and Light Company proposes construction of
a 16, 000 square foot electrical distribution substation with
a graveled yard. There will be two power transformers and
two deadend towers from which overhead conductors will be
strung to one of the existing power transmission lines
immediately south and west of the site. The site will be
fenced and will be accessed by a driveway east of the
substation.
B. Location
The site is located on the north east corner of S. 272nd
Avenue and 42nd Avenue S.
C. Size of Property
The site is 4 . 29 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
D. Zoning
R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential, 7 , 200 square feet minimum
lot size .
E. Land Use
The site is currently vacant with significant natural
vegetation. A small pond, which appears to be manmade is
located near the eastern boundary of the property. This
proposal includes filling in the pond.
This property additionally serves as a drainage course for
storm waters collected on and along 270th Street and released
in the vicinity of the property' s northwest corner. Said
waters traverse this property to the drainage system in
S. 272nd Street. As a result, drainage easements are
required in accordance with the City of Kent Public Works
Department standards.
F. History
1. Site History
This site is surrounded by residential uses. Property
to the west and south is unincorporated King County
residential. To the north is the Cambridge 5 and 6 and
Cambridge East Subdivision, developed with single-family
homes. Property to the east was recently short platted
and is zoned single-family residential.
2 . Area History
This site was included in a 332 acre area of land that
was annexed into the City of Kent on December 11 1960,
under Ordinance 1078 . There has been a substantial
amount of short plat activity in recent years to the
east and north of the proposed site. An application for
Winterbrook short plat (#SP-89-14) , which borders the
site to the east, was approved November 15, 1989 . The
plat has not been officially recorded with King County
at this time. Other short plats in the immediate area
include: Cambridge South Short Plat (2 lots, 1979) ,
Finer Homes Short Plat (4 lots, 1978) , Lombardo Short
Plat (4 lots, 1986) , Grube Short Plat (4 lots, 1978) ,
Hayashi Short Plat (4 lots, 1977) , Hayashi Subdivision
(3 lots, 1982) , and Shannon Short Plat (4 lots, 1989) .
2
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-90-42) was
issued on May 31, 1990 with the following conditions:
1. The owner/developer shall provide an as built survey by
a Washington State licensed land surveyor of this
drainage and grant to the City drainage easements for
that portion there of which lie on this property. The
width of said easement shall be sufficient as determined
by the Public Works Department to accommodate the
drainage course and necessary maintenance thereof.
2 . The owner shall provide on-site detention and
biofiltration of storm water runoff prior to discharge
into the nearest public storm system. A minimum 200
foot long biofiltration swale with maximum three (3) to
one (1) side slopes is required. Wet ponds, filter
strips, or other alternatives shall comply with the
latest edition of the King County Surface Water Design
Manual.
3 . The owner must execute a no-protest LID covenant for the
future construction of 42nd Avenue S. to City standards
between S. 272nd Street to S. 270th St.
4 . If necessary, the owner shall deed property to provide
a minimum half street right of way of forty two (42)
feet as measured from the centerline of the existing
roadway.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The topography of this site varies from flat to rolling.
Near the southeastern corner of the property there is a
large mound approximately five (5) feet high and forty
(40) long. Near the northeastern boundary there is what
appears to be a manmade pond which is approximately
forty (40) feet by fifty (50) feet. In general, the
site slopes to the south. There is a ditch which runs
across the southern border, parallel to S. 272nd Avenue.
3
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
2 . Vegetation
The site is almost entirely covered with brush and has
scattered cottonwood, willow, and alder trees throughout
the site. Tall grass and some wild flowers are located
near the pond located on the eastern border.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 272nd Street which
is classified as a minor arterial. The street has a
public right-of-way width of 84 feet while the actual
width of paving is 58 feet. The street is improved with
lanes of asphalt paving. The average daily traffic
count on the street is 18 , 500 vehicle trips per day.
2 . Water System
An existing six (6) inch water main line runs along the
north end of the entire parcel and is available to serve
the subject property.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There is no existing sewer service to the subject
property.
4 . Storm Water System
During the SEPA process it was determined that a storm
water drainage system will be necessary. Such system
was a condition of the SEPA determination.
5. LIDs
There are no existing LIDS at this time.
III . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and persons were notified of this
conditional use permit application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Chief of Police Fire Chief
4
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Director of Public Works Building Official
Parks and Recreation Director
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 August 15, 1990 public hearing.
Staff comments have been included in the report where appropriate.
VI. 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
intention 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
following is review of each of the above plans as they relate
to the proposed development.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the site as SF,
Single Family Residential.
PUBLIC UTILITIES ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE A PLANNED, COORDINATED UTILITY SYSTEM
GOAL 5: Assure a balanced, continuous and adequate power
supply for the Kent area.
5
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
,#CE-90-8
Planning Department Comment
The intent of the proposed project is to meet the increasing
need for electrical power in the City of Kent. The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the importance of providing
adequate power for Kent residents. Therefore, the need the
electrical substation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
B. Standards and Criteria for a Conditional Use Request
The following standards and criteria shall be used by the
Hearing Examiner to evaluate a request for conditional use.
Such condition use shall only be granted after the Hearing
Examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine if it
complies with the standards and criteria listed below. . The
standards are provided for in the Kent Zoning Code, Section
15. 09 . 030 D. A conditional use permit shall only be granted
if such a finding is made. The staff has responded to these
criteria and made the following findings:
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be
detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted
outright in the zoning district.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed use is not an outright permitted use in a
single-family residential zone. Yet, Section 15. 08 . 030 of
the Zoning Code defines utility facilities as a use which may
be required throughout the City, regardless of the zoning
designation. The proposed use will enhance the surrounding
residential neighborhoods by expanding the available
electrical system.
2 . The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
Planning Department Comment
A minimum lot of 7, 200 square feet is required in a R1-7 . 2
zone. This site is approximately 4 . 29 acres, which greatly
exceeds the minimum lot requirement. Additionally, only
35 percent of the entire shall be covered with impervious
surfaces upon the completion of this substation. A
significant portion of the site shall be devoted to
landscaping and screening from the adjacent uses.
6
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not
unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
It is estimated that after construction is completed, only
one trip to and from the site will be made per week for
maintenance purposes. The limited number of trips will not
significantly impact the traffic circulation system.
4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed
use are compatible with those of other uses in the
neighborhood or vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
The site will have enhanced landscaping to avoid detracting
from the residential quality of the area.
5. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping,
or topographic characteristics protect adjacent
properties from adverse effects of the proposed use,
including adverse visual or auditory effects.
Planning Department Comment
In order to assure adequate buffering between the substation
and surrounding residential uses, it appropriate to require
Type I landscaping which will provide a 100 percent site-
obscuring screen along the eastern and northern boundaries.
Type II landscaping shall be integrated throughout the
remainder of the site.
An operating substation will emit noise that may be heard at
a distance. WAC 173-60 outlines maximum noise level
standards that must be adhered to by Puget Power. Once the
substation is operating, the maximum noise level standards
outlined in WAC 173-60 shall not be exceeded.
6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are
such as to permit the proposed use to function
effectively.
7
Staff Report
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
Planning Department Comment
The other residential, community facility, and school uses in
the surrounding area will not impact the function of the
proposed project.
7 . The proposed use complies with the performance
standards, parking requirements and other applicable
provision of this code.
Planning Department Comment
Due to the nature of this facility there will be no parking
requirements. The gravel driveway shall be sufficient for
the minimal amount of traffic and the occasional parking
necessity. The applicant has stated that Type II landscaping
will be provided throughout the site, however, the City shall
condition Type I landscaping on those portions of the lot
abutting residential property. Section 15. 07 . 050 (A) of the
Kent Zoning Code states that the purpose of Type I
landscaping is "intended to provide a solid sight barrier to
totally separate incompatible uses. " Type I will insure
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods.
It appears that other provisions of the code have been
addressed on the submitted site plans. Additional concerns
shall be addressed during the building permit approval
process.
8 . Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate
to a particular case.
Planning Department Comment
None.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria
for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends approval with the
following condition:
1. Type I landscaping shall be provided along the eastern and
northern boundaries of the subject property to assure maximum
barrier between the substation and adjacent residential uses.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 3 , 1990
8
City of Kent - Planning Department
P� S 261ST ST r
,��►, S 262NO ST
h� a 63R0 S� ^>°j
S 263R0 ST
SOHERSET LN t
' ¢ Q HAHPTON '
z Q=� pQ N9Y
o ■
GL ENN w vw TOTEM ■
NELSON z ~ c ✓SCHOOLy
PARK --
` �� a 8TH ST co
°C
r u L 9KE CRRNRBY
EL EN, T
'^ SCHOOL
m S T,....:..:.`. L
a a ,
C o
APPLICATION NAME: Puget Power Cambridge Substation
NUMBER: CE-90-8 DATE: August 15, 1990
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
:'`•` Application site
Zoning boundary
m m-m City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
aye �
64
r •/ err
•q- f - ..�:_.___._._�_—___ ��.�. :-:ter. ... �,
�: WPt-/sK scars -
I.Az4 to S ItsVr ay.c Or Lvi � ,: .
fN_(_p�
1 T C( ILL.PAK Y•A:JIYY_
�:.( i ,j%i/:/ � / •fir J
.NO..TH
APPLICATION NAME: Puget Power Cambridge Substation
NUMBER: CE-90-8 DATE: August 15, 1990
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LEGEND
SITE PLAN Application site
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
El ED
T I rL ",
(a Q
� C5 CJ53
7 Ttt~ a o °' ti
GJ El
p
Q �q
APPLICATION NAME: Puget Power Cambridge Substation
NUMBER: CE-90-8 DATE: August 15, 1990
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit
LEGEND
:: r:
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP ::::;;:Application site
�Zoning boundary
City limits
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390
PLEASE NOTE: This verbatim transcript was prepared by the City Planning
Department for use by the City Council in hearing the appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision. It is intended as an aid to the Council in reviewing the record of
the Hearing Examiner. It is not an officially certified transcription. The audio tapes
of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner are also available to the Council and the
parties to the appeal. These tapes should be reviewed if there is any uncertainty
about the transcription prepared for the Council's review on appeal. The unofficial
transcript should not be relied upon for decision making by the Council if there is any
uncertainty about the record before the Hearing Examiner. If the matter under review
is further appealed to Superior Court, an officially certified transcript will be prepared
in response to the Court's decision.
cry oFTZien
CITY OF KENT
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390
PUGET POWER CAMBRIDGE SUBSTATION
#CE-90-8
Hearing of August 15, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m.
Verbatim Minutes
Ted Hunter: O.k. I 'm going to call this to order. It is 3 : 05 on
August 15, 1990, sesssion of the Hearing Examiner. We have one
item on the agenda today and that is an application by Puget
Power. . .Puget Sound Power and Light for a substation. . . substation,
conditional use permit, location at S. 272nd and 42nd Avenue S.
This is not our not normal setup obviously and we have some
adjustments we ' ll have to make to accommodate presentations. This
hearing is recorded, every item that we speak of today is a matter
of public record and it is important that we get everything
recording and the tape recording system is at this table. So what
we will do is whoever is presenting information or testimony, we' ll
ask them to step forward and have a seat at the front table and
we' ll hold the hearing that way. I 'd like to have some indication
of who would like to present testimony today. The typical pattern
that we use and that we will use today even with the change of
location is we will allow the City to present the information
first, that is based on the staff report of the Planning Department
and copies are available up here at the table. You should make
that everyone has a copy because we do not have overheads to
present. So, if you don't have a copy of that Planning report,
Alice with the Planning Department will hand you one now. In
addition there are the procedures, description on how the
procedures flow if anyone needs those, there' s a copy of those up
here. The third item is a sign-up sheet if you want to make sure
you get a copy of the decision mailed directly to you, make sure
you sign the sign-up sheet that is being circulated, I believe,
yes, its circulating somewhere in the back row here, so, make sure
that you sign on that if you want receive a copy of the decision.
It ' s not necessary to sign up to testify but that is the way that
you assure that you are a party of record and will receive a copy
of the decision. So, the City usually will go first, the applicant
following the City and then others that want to testify. I would
like to see who' s here for the applicant. O.k. , we have the three
individuals representing the applicant. Are there others present
that would like testify on this application.
Voice: If we just have some questions about how it would affect
us, is this an appropriate place to ask these questions?
1
Hunter: What we will do is take questions basically as testimony,
following the presentation by the City and then by the applicant,
there will be an opportunity for questions to be raised of the City
or the applicant and we' ll take that in the context of testimony to
make sure its a part of the record so we' ll allow an opportunity
after those presentations and then an opportunity for response by
the City or the applicant or both whichever might be most
appropriate. So, it looks like we have .a couple of, two
individuals, who would like to testify on the application, three.
O.k. , . I ' ll indicate that this is a matter of quasi-judicial
proceedings that we will take testimony under oath, you will be
allowed to ask questions,' have those questions responded to, its a
small enough hearing we will ample time for everyone to speak that
wants to speak, make sure that all your questions are responded to
if they can be at this hearing and with that we will begin with the
presentation by the City and Ms. Alice Shobe is presenting today.
Yes, and we will .come forward and have a seat rather than the
podium approach we ' ll be seated so that we can pick everything up
in the microphone here. Just a minute. Now, do you swear, affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about
to give?
Alice Shobe: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Shobe: I ' ll try to speak louder. I ' ll try to talk a little bit of
both ways. The proposed project is a Puget Power Cambridge
Electrical Substation. Its located on the northeast corner of
S. 272nd and 42nd Avenue S.
Hunter: Alice, let me interrupt. I 've got a better idea. I think
that if you were here perhaps. I could see you and then the
audience could also hear you.
Shobe: O.k. If you look in the packet in the last few pages
there' s a map that shows exactly where this is. The big black
dashed lines shows the City limits. So you can that this is on the
edge of the City and what's not shown is a. . . .a little bit of
what's shown is unincorporated King County. It. . . The last page
it shows the zoning designation and, again, the site is shaded and
it's zoned R1-7. 2 which means residential lots that must be a
minimum of 7, 2QQ square feet. And, it continues with some other
residential. . . basically the site is completely surrounded by
residential, on two sides surrounded by unincorporated King County
residential but residential nonetheless. The property that. . . in
question is 4 . 29 acres. Let me show you a video just to show what
the site looks like. Basically, it' s a very densely covered site.
So, you' ll see a lot of. . . . . (video shown at this point) .
(Approximately 068-080 on tape) .
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
As I said the surrounding land uses are completely residential and
the site to the east was recently short platted, with, I believe,
with the intent of building residential. So the two sites
directly, on either side of the site will be residential. An
Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on
May 31, 1990. As I stated the topography is heavy vegetation;
there 's scattered cottonwood, willow and alder trees and a large
portion of the natural vegetation will remain as proposed by Puget
Power. There is one small pond on the northeast corner of the site
which is about 40 feet by 50 feet and it appears to be manmade and
this will be filled in for the project. This proposal addresses
the Comprehensive Plan need for providing a planned coordinated
utility system. And, how the Zoning Code works with this. . .the
reason why its in this hearing right now is for a conditional use
permit. And that 's because this type of use can go in any zoning
district in the whole City with a conditional use permit so the
main objective is to make sure that its compatible with surrounding
uses. And, what the City has determined is that this project will
be compatible for the following reasons. First of all, a
substantial amount of the native vegetation will remain and then,
in addition to the native vegetation, after they've cleared what
they need for the 1600 square foot electrical actual substation and
yard, there will be additional landscaping and we are requiring the
most dense type of landscaping on the areas that border the
residential. Now, I have to make a correction to the staff report.
The condition does say that it will be on north and east part, it
should be the east and west part. The north part of the lot will
have the natural vegetation which doesn't need to be done. So, the
City has determined that this will insure maximum screening.
There 's almost no impact on traffic due to this project because its
estimated that there will only be one trip to and from the site per
week and the project will not exceed the maximum noise levels that
are permitted. Under State law they can only have certain noise
levels and I 've received documentation from Puget Power showing me
that those noise levels are and, to be frank it doesn't mean much
to me, but, it guarantees that they will remain within the State
requirement. So, therefore, the City is recommending approval with
the following conditions, as I mentioned, which is the enhanced
landscaping on the east and west boundaries to insure that those
residential neighborhoods or those residential homes on either side
are screened sufficiently. For actual information about the
project and what' s going be there, I just told you that there's a
15, 000 square foot electrical distribution substation and there
will be a graveled yard. You can see on the second to last page
that there is a driveway access from 272nd to get into it. But,
then there' s screening around it. So, for the details of what
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
exactly is going that's going to be there,' I ' 11 leave that to Puget
Power representatives.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you, Alice. All your references are to this
staff report dated August 3 , 1990 and one that you circulated
earlier.
Shobe• Right.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you. O.k. , we have three representatives for
the applicant. Will all of you want to be testifying, or. . .
Voice: We may all comment eventually.
Hunter: O.k. Why don't the. . .the other two of you, if you want to
come up to the front table that why we might be- able to facilitate
any responses to questions and make sure that we have those all on
record as well. Have chairs here on the other side of the table
and that way we can turn to any one of you for questions. . . . answers
to questions. And, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Voice• I do.
Hunter: Please state your name first.
Linda O'Rourke: My name is Linda O'Rourke. I work with Puget
Power and I 'm here to represent them today. Do you want my
address. . .
Hunter: No, that's fine. We have that in the file. . .the address.
O.k.
O'Rourke: Puget Power in order to meet increased residential load
demand in the area, we need to improve our system reliability in
the area where we have selected to put the same. . .the substation
called Cambridge. As Alice said the proposed site is located at
the intersection of S. 272nd and 42nd Avenue S. in Kent and its
approximately 12 .2 acres in size. In addition to the substation,
we will always have transmission lines to feed the substation and
here ' s the new transmission lines to be located all in King County
and I ' ll explain a little bit about the transmission line. Its
going to be fed off this. . .what we call the Christopher Starwood
line that comes out of our Christopher substation in Auburn. The
new lines will be tapped at 42nd, excuse me, 48th Avenue S. and
288th Street. And it will move in a northerly direction along
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
48th Avenue S. to S. 282nd Street and then turn left along 282nd
Street until reaching 46th Avenue S. The line will then again turn
north along 46th Avenue S. until reaching this Starlake Road. At
the Starlake Road it will continue west until reaching 42nd Avenue
S. and then it will travel up 42nd Avenue S. in King County and
terminate within the substation. They will probably more than
likely span the street to do that. This line here will serve this
whole area. Right now we have two substations, Zenith and Redondo,
that are servicing this total area. During winter we have a peak
load problem in the area. What we consider peak load conditions is
23 degrees around here and some of the neighboring substations are
rated very high, over 100 percent. If one of the substations go
down, they have to pick up all the existing load and if they do
that they will be over their maximum potential and what that will
do,, will cause some people to be out longer which Puget doesn't
like to have. We like to bring all our neighborhoods, all our
customers up as soon as possible. That's a little more about the
project than is put in the staff report. The line is located in
King County and also permits will be applied for through King
County.
Hunter: O.k. Linda, is that. . .
O 'Rourke: That' s an exhibit, yes.
Hunter: Left here as an exhibit so lets make sure we have that
entered.
O'Rourke: Now, on here may not totally reflect that this reads,
but you should have in the written testimony the line route that I
gave, recorded testimony.
Hunter: O.k. , we' ll refer to that ask Exhibit 1 and is that. . .that
indicates where you're, Exhibit 2 , excuse me Exhibit 1 is the file.
Is that you're. . .that ' s the proposed location and that has
been. . .the corridor has been made available for that
transmission. . .
O'Rourke: It will go in the public right of way.
Hunter: O.k. , overhead. . . .
O'Rourke: Along the franchise, overhead.
Hunter: • Overhead or underground?
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
O'Rourke: Overhead, its 115 KV lines, so it needs to go overhead,
on-line distribution. A little bit about the project. We propose
to clear and grade an area approximately 263 feet by 335 feet for
the site and which of that, approximately 125 by 128 feet will be
fenced for the substation. Now, the substation will consist of two
transformers that will convert 115 down to a residential voltage of
12 .5 KV. Two thirty-five foot deadend towers, and I brought a full
size drawing to help explain some of this better, it doesn't show
the equipment in it but it will show like the little reduction you
have.
Hunter: Is this the same drawing that is part of the staff report?
O'Rourke: Yes, its just a full size drawing of the one in the
staff report for ease of seeing. It will have the two deadend
towers which are illustrated as bars on your drawing; one up here
and one down here. They will be thirty-five feet tall. Initially,
however, we only planned on installing one deadend tower and one
transformer and the associated (unclear) work to set down to run a
substation and go out into a distribution feeders that go out into
the street system into the pipes that are underground. We planned
on putting a drainage and retention system in that will be designed
to intercept and retain storm water per City standards and the
single driveway will answer from S. 272nd and provide the duel
access that we need for our trucks in addition to providing for
fire truck turnaround. We have proposed a slotted chain-link fence
with fairly dense landscaping around and we concur with the City' s
recommendation to put Type I on the east and west, adjacent to the
residential district which is fairly dense. This substation will
be connected to the existing transmission via that transmission
line I mentioned and it will serve it so we can serve you.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you. I would like to ask a little bit about
the site selection process. Do you begin with a number of sites
and narrow it to this one or how did that process go?
O'Rourke: Typically that ' s what we do. We look at our system.
We find where the load is and then we try to locate properties in
the area where that load is and we've owned this site for a while.
In 1982 we proposed to build it and we went through a design review
process and then project money got pulled so we had to put in on
the shelf. That doesn't mean the need wasn't there. It just meant
that Puget at that time in our division didn't have the money to
build it. Now, it is a definite need. They have budgeted the
money to build it and plan on building it next year. We plan to
fence and grade and put in our equipment in a sequence. Puget
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
usually phases. They will fence and grade the substation site and
then come back and put in the foundation and the other equipment to
run the substation. The station plans on being energized, I think,
in 1992 .
Hunter: Are there other sites available along the transmission
corridor that could be utilized for a substation purpose?
O'Rourke: Puget tries to locate their substation in the center of
a load area. Usually on an existing corridor, now there's existing
transmission, excuse me, existing distribution feeders out there.
According to the exhibit, we only have some substations in east
Kent and some substations in west Kent and we have a whole open
area here. that is developing and growing that we need to serve and
Puget likes, to what they call, move, this is just going to be a
tap and eventually we' ll build a line so the substation can be fed
from either way in case there's any problems with the line along
here . we can shut that line down and feed from this way for
increased reliability.
Hunter: O.k. , now, now the site plan or landscaping plan indicates
two towers that you refer to. One is necessary. . .
O'Rourke: Yeah, initially we' ll. . .with the tapping only you need
to put' in one tower. When they bring the other line down
eventually at some point in the future, I think that' s eight to ten
years out in the future, we' ll put in the second tower. We' ll come
in. . .back and apply for the appropriate permits at that time for
that second tower. Typically, its only required a building permit
to come back once we have the substation yard developed through a
conditional use hearing.
Hunter: Thank you very much.
O 'Rourke: I ' ll just leave this up here for people if they want to
look at it.
Hunter: O.k. We' ll now turn to testimony from others that would
like to speak to the application and like these gentlemen in the
front and then the two ladies in this row here who I saw, those
three individuals, and you, sir, who came in a little later, those
four, who we see now, would like to testify. Any others who would
like to testify. O.k. , let's begin with you, sir.
O'Rourke: Excuse me, before this, I would like to submit this as
a written record as my response to the staff report.
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim 'Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: O.k. , this. . .what we have submitted by the applicant is
entitled, "A Hearing Memorandum of Applicant" , dated August 15,
1990. Has this been submitted or circulated today?
O'Rourke: I have copies for the staff as well.
Hunter: Are there additional copies for any other people here that
would want to look at it. I. . .
O'Rourke: I can make some. I have my own file copy, I would like
that but if anybody is interested, I can make them a copy.
Hunter: O.k. , I 'm a little. . . little concerned that this coming in
at a rather late date for anyone to respond to. So let me
indicate. . .
O'Rourke: I didn't realize that. Typically, I 've always submitted
them at the hearing.
Hunter: We' ll indicate what' s. .-.what' s in it. What we have are,
I guess, nine different sections submitted and its a statement of
proceedings to date which seems to go through the application
process, beginning with the submittal of the conditional use
application. . .
O'Rourke: There should be a site description, a project
description.
Hunter: We have then some land use facts that are entitled that
are presented by the applicant, site description, project
description, a reference to the what' s termed here special use
permit criteria and then a section that ' s entitled, "Contact with
adjacent property owners" and then a section entitled, "Puget' s
response to staff report" and then, finally, a conclusion. We will
accept this as applicants ' exhibit and allow anyone that' s wants to
testify today time to look at this and see if you need to respond
to it. If you have any concerns about it.
Shobe: It appears this copy doesn't have a section 8 and 9, the
response or the conclusions.
O'Rourke: No, the exhibits are the attached section.
Hunter: This table of contents of this exhibits indicates a
section 8, Puget' s response to staff report" , and a section 9 ,
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-.8
final conclusions. And then there' s also a series of six exhibits.
Exhibits to the report. O.k. , let' s begin with your testimony
Voice: I need to come up.
Hunter: Yes, you can take a chair here at the table and we' ll make
sure that your remarks are recorded. And, do you swear, affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to
give.
Voice• I do.
Hunter: You had some questions, you indicated, as well.
Voice: Yeah. I had some questions and that's really all I had
about the. . .some different things with the project. First of all,
I was wondering if anybody knew. . . .
Hunter: Oh, I 'm sorry, could you please state your name?
Cory Meeks: My name is is Cory Meeks.
Hunter: Cory Meeks?
Meeks: M-e-a-k-s.
Hunter: O.k. , and you reside, where?
Meeks: At. . .on 272nd, 41st Place.
Hunter: Did you sign up in the sign up register so we can send you
a copy of the decision.
Meeks:. No, I haven't signed it yet.
Hunter: O.k. , would you like to do that when you get an
opportunity then we' ll make sure that we notify you.
Meeks: My first question was about the value of the homes in the
area. Does this detract from the value of my home?
Hunter: O.k. , the way we will handle this. You can direct
questions to me and then we will look for the appropriate person to
respond to those questions. So, your first concerns is impacts on
the value of your home in that immediate area.
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Meeks• Correct.
Hunter• O.k.
O'Rourke: Did you want a response immediately.
1 .
Hunter: No, we' ll allow him to present his questions and concerns
and then we will turn to response.
Meek: O.k. The other. . .well, one of the questions was when will
it be. . .the construction begin, what year, what month and that was
pretty much answered. The landscaping that is going to be going up
is this landscaping that' s going to be fully grown. I mean, or
is. . .or is just a bunch of little .shrubs that are going to take 10
- 15 years to grow and that was one of my concerns. Other concerns
I have for animals and children in the neighborhood. Is there any
need to be concerned about animals or children playing there. And,
then the. . .one more question was will. . .will the power lines be
coming in. . . is it just going to be like a big web of power lines
coming in or will it be totally hidden from sight. Will the power
lines go around our houses or is that. . .what is it going to look
like 'cause you can't see it here on the picture that they gave us.
And, my final question was more of a statement. My fence line, my
yard as well as a lot of my landscape, trees and so forth, encroach
into the property. I bought the house that way, the fence was
there, the landscape was there, the trees were already there, how's
that going to affect my yard and so forth. Am I going to have to
take it down or do I have some kind of encroach rights or what do
I have here. Those are some questions. . .that' s all of the
questions that I have.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you for that and we will get to those
responses. I think we will hear from everyone first and then turn
for responses. See if others have similar concerns.
Meeks• Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you very much, sir. Yes, ma'am. Would you like to
step forward and we' ll take your testimony or questions? And do
you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the
testimony you're about to give.
Patricia Gilmore: My name is Patricia Gilmore.
Hunter: Patricia Gilmore ,and did you sign in on the register?
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Gilmore: Yes, I did. And, I live on (unclear) Avenue just about
north of the property. And I have a letter written to you and it
has some concerns of mine in it and I ' ll just read it, all right.
Hunter: O.k. , that will be fine.
Gilmore: One of the most controversial health issues today is the
potentially hazardous health affects associated with exposure to
electromagnetic fields emanating from high voltage and high current
power lines. Responsible scientists after extensive research are ,
recommending caution and a strategy of prudent avoidance.
Dr. William Farland, Director of the EPA, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment and the Office of Research and
Development, reports that his staff had set the link between
exposure to electromagnetic fields and certain types of cancer and
initially recommended that the fields be classified as B1 or
probable human carcinogens which requires regulatory action.
However, due to the fact that no animal exposure or mechanistic
study evidence was available yet, only human data, EMFs were
classified as a possible human carcinogen. Farland says I would
agree that it does suggest a link and wethink that it was extremely
important to get that information out to the scientific community
and see what they thought and to the public to let them know that
this a data base that is developing. Yet, in the memo from the
City of Kent Office of Planning in which they evaluate and
recommend approval of a proposal to build a power substation in our
neighborhood no mention of this subject is to be found. Clear
sighted planning on the part of the City and the power company
could provide electrical power to residents without the possibility
of danger from EMFs. Surely, the Planning Commission cannot
approve such a proposal without first considering the possible
adverse health affects to those living near the utility. Distance
is the only buffer from electromagnetic fields and that distance is
steadily being encroached upon. Four private residences share a
common boundary with the proposed substation and the City continues
short platting for more single-family residences. This subject. . .
this substation is planned to occupy only 35 percent of the
available lot. The remainder of the lot, if not fenced off, will
allow neighborhood children to continue playing in a potential
hazardous area. If this area is fenced off, and an off-limits sign
is posted, our children will be protected. But, due to adverse
publicity our property values will decrease and how soon will Puget
Power put in more high voltage lines not to far away and as it 's
being shown exposing more families to EMFs. We need assurance that
these problems will be given the attention they deserve before
permission is granted to Puget Power. We need to know what the
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
field levels will be, with an average load and with a maximum load
as may. . .as will take place in the future. We respectfully advise
that this hearing be postponed until these other subjects can be
address and the people within a 2 milligauss exposure area can be
notified of the possible installation.
Hunter: O.k. Would you like to submit that letter then as. . .
Gilmore: Yes, please.
Hunter: This will be labeled as Exhibit 4 and if you could stay
seated for a minytes, a couple of questions about this.
You're. . .the last sentence here, the two milligauss exposure area
what does that refer too, what would that area be, do we know?
Gilmore: Well, no, we don't know---that' s the point.
Hunter• O.k.
Gilmore: Milligauss measuring the electromagnetic field. We don't
know if the people within two milligauss have been notified yet.
That may extend much further than, especially if that line is going
to go overhead, immensely in the future.
Hunter: Um hum, um hum, now, notices of this hearing do go out to
the entire public in the City and I think that would, its mailed
notice and then there' s also posted notice.
Gilmore: Well, there was mailed notice 200 feet from the lot.
And, well, that 's not (unclear 1-1-436) obviously, but, yeah, we
did get a notice in the mail that there would be a public hearing.
There wasn't much on that notice. There were the maps and all,
but, I have to call to get a staff report.
Voice: This is it.
Gilmore: That' s it, yeah.
Hunter: O.k. , o.k. so, your feeling is the notice was not
sufficient to apprise people of a substation location.
Gilmore: Not at two milligauss, it would reach beyond that.
Hunter• O.k.
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Gilmore: And, if Puget Power was planning to develop that further,
that northern end of that plot, which, I think, has been stated
they own, but, they haven't stated what they are going to do with
that. Now, if they are going to leave that vegetated or fenced in,
then children couldn't play there but if they are going to develop
it later, then. . .
Hunter: I would also like to ask about the report of
Dr. William Farland, and you quoted or referenced, I guess, and
also quoted. Is this taken from an article that you have available
or where is this information?
Gilmore: I heard the man on the radio and this is what he said and
then he spoke. No, Dr. William Farland.
Hunter: So, the, Dr. William Farland, Director of EPA' s Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment and this was on a radio
program.
Gilmore• Yes.
Hunter: Do you recall the date when that was or what program it
might have been.
Voice: It was last Friday.
Gilmore: Last Friday, yeah, it was on. . .
Hunter: Let me just get a response from the person testifying, if
others have that information I can ask for that later.
Gilmore: It was last Friday on KBLU on a program called, "Fresh
Air" . And, what, 6: 30 in the evening and the interviewer's name
was Terry and she spoke with him on the phone. And, I think, it
was a rebroadcast so it may have been from an earlier day.
Hunter: O.k. , Dr. Farland did not look at this specific
substation, this was a general program.
Gilmore: Oh no, this was general, yeah. He looked at EMFs not the
Puget Power substation.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you very much for your testimony. We had two
others. This lady here if you want to come forward and have a
chair. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you 're about to give.
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
Holly Isaman: I do. My name is Holly Isaman: I reside in the
Cambridge area at 4611 Somerset Court and I 'm here today
representing the Starlake PTA and the parents of the neighborhood.
I have also been in contact with school officials, we're Federal
Way School District, and trying to find out what their. . . if they've
been informed as to whether or not this is going to be going in.
I guess there was a notice sent to the one individual school as far
as I know which is Starlake. Starlake School is located, as you
can see on the last map, its the large building right on 270th
here. So I 'm representing the children and the parents in the
neighborhood. I have several. . .or two or three questions that I
wanted to put to this hearing and I would like those answered.
First of all, I don't know. . . I have a question about a certain
walkway. Now, I 'm looking at the map that is next to the last
page, is this little gravel walkway that is to the left of the. . . it
looks like it runs right on unincorporated. . .between King County
and City of Kent. There' s a little graveled walkway. I don't know
if this is the walkway or not but there' s word that the proposers
of this project are aware of any number of school aged children
both elementary and junior high level who regularly use a path that
crosses right through this particular site.
Hunter: O.k. , let me help locate. You're referring to the site
plan and landscape plan which is in report, as you referenced, also
on the table in front of us, can you indicate where that would be,
that you're referring to.
Isaman: You could probably see it right here. Through the. . .on
the. . .the western boundary, right here. I don't know if this is it
or not but I know there is a path that comes through the wooded
area and it kind of empties out right here on 270th and children
use that path to access the elementary school and the junior high
school.
Hunter: So the concern is and question is about that path. . . is
there some provision for maintaining it or. . .
Isaman: Will the path be maintained and providing one, etc. , or
will it be cut off altogether. In addition to that, I have the
same concerns that Mrs. Gilmore has as to the safety of possible
medical side effects or problems that might be, you know, that
these children might be in danger of in crossing this path. Also,
the school has a concern as do parents and the PTA, of the
guarding, of a secure. . .the securing of a station like this. As
you know, children can get over any fence and into any. . .through
any locked door. Through osmosis, I suppose, but it does happen.
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
And, because there are large numbers of children who regularly play
in and around the school grounds and in this wooded area, would
they really be protected against entry or is it just a fence that
will simply be scaled. That was another concern. And, since I 've
come here I see two other concerns. . .or one other concern. And
that is the discussion of' power lines in the future to be going off
to the north. If you look at the map, on the last page of this
pamphlet, directly to the north. . .
Hunter: This is again the Planning Department's report that is
circulated, the last page of that?
Isaman: Um hum. And, they are talking about in the direction of
the north. Does that mean power lines going through this
residential area or through the school grounds or just exactly
what? I don't. . . I 'm sure that those things were taken into
consideration but what' s the importance of them, really, taken
seriously. Those are my questions. And, I am representing the PTA
of that school and the school officials would like to be notified
of these results too. Because Federal Way schools, even though
this is the City of Kent, those two schools are Federal Way schools
and they are not, didn't feel adequately informed as possible
safety problems.
Hunter: At this point, you have presented some concerns and
questions, position for or against the proposal or it just to get
some clarification.
Isaman: I think my concern is for the children and if. . .a safe
unit, the children will be safe crossing that ground and being
exposed to that proximity, then I have no concerns. I 'm not an
immediate property owner, I live to the north just a little bit.
Although I have concerns about property values and what's going in
our neighborhood. Its a major concern that the 272nd corridor is
going to be opened up and I don't know if this is just one more
nail in that coffin for those property owner but that's not
necessarily the PTA' s concern. The concern of them is the safety
of the children and the welfare of the children.
Hunter: Thank you very much.
Isaman: Um hum. Thank you.
Hunter: Others that want to testify. Yes, sir, come forward.
Raise your hand. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
15
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
Craia Brown: I do. My name is Craig Brown. I 'm a resident on
41st Place, my backyard abuts upon the proposed construction site.
I have a couple of questions and then I have a letter here, I
neglected to be able to get a copy of it so you can look at it, the
same time as I 'm going over it. But, I will present it later. The
first couple of questions I have is, I 'm not positive what Type I
vegetation you were referring to, a Type I vegetation. I would
like to have that addressed. Also, you. . .on your. . . in the City's
Planning Department report, the second to last page, on the
landscaping plan, you show, use A and B that were not called out on
the drawing that were not included in this. They appear to be
showing a front and side views from the south and from the west of
what maybe the vegetation would look like. I believe that those
views should have been included in the report because I have
questions upon that again. Second, question I have, -is. . .
Hunter: Let me backtrack up, to that last point you just made, I 'm
not sure I quite grasped that, would you reiterate that?
Brown: The views called out right here. . .
Hunter: O.k. , you can refer to this on the table, might be easier
to see.
Brown: This view, the views right here and here, that are called
view B, is looking at the western proposed property line site and
A is referring to the southern property line.
Hunter: O.k. , o.k. , and the. . .
Brown: And those views have not been included in the report, I am
interested in finding out what those are, they may very well answer
the questions of what type of vegetation would be included in
their. . .I have the same questions of what' s brought up, I believe
by Cory, what type of plants? Are they going to leave the original
vegetation there or are they going to bring any new stuff that' s
going to take 50 years to grow there.
Hunter: So, your point on this A and B is what is existing there
in those areas?
Brown: Well, I 'm. . . I 'm aware of what exists. I 'm, what I believe
is that view A and B should have been included in the report so
that we would have time to evaluate that. . .
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: I see whether its an accurate representation of what's
there?
Brown• Yes, yes.
Hunter: So these are 'the areas immediately surrounding what is
indicated on the site plan.
Brown• Yes.
Hunter: To the west and to the. . .
Brown• South.
Hunter: South, o.k.
Brown: O.k. , the next question I had is exactly. . .I would like to
know why they choose to bring in the feeder lines into what is the
proposed routes that they have on there which brings it. . .further
to the north and west. Actually cutting across the corner of that
property that was shown of that new home being built. Why did they
not have the original lines coming in what is the proposed future .
routes of the feeder lines which would impact less of the local
residents in that area as far as being directly. . .having closer
proximately to those feeder lines on that. Then, the letter that
I have here that I would like to submit to the Examiner. Here I
have three items that I would like to address. As a resident
living right next to the proposed site, I am concerned about the
construction hours. These hours should be limited to no earlier
than 8 a.m. in the morning and no later than 6 p.m. in the
afternoon and only Monday through Friday, that is just strictly
because of the noise. . .construction noise and inconvenience of
what's happening. I request that a condition of a permit
that. . .request as a condition of the permit that an absolute
minimum of the existing trees and shrubs between the fence, the
proposed fence around the substation and property line not be
removed. Do not clear out the underbrush to plant grass--leave the
vegetation as it is. Looks like they have proposed on clearing out
some of the stuff like Salow (1-1-697) and underbrush to plant
seeds as indicated on the landscaping plans in the City, here.
This area right here they refer as to grass, seed for grass. . .
Hunter: You're looking at the north more or less the north side of
the. . .
Brown: Northern area.
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: On the site. . .
Brown: And, it looks like it comes around and down, halfway down
on either the east and west side. Also, I 'm not positive, but this
may be bark here. I 'm not positive here. I couldn't quite make
it, down along the .southern part of the property. I 'm not positive
what that symbols on the drawing refers to. Also, . . .
Hunter: Excuse me, just a minute, I think. . . .
(Changed tapes at this point) (End of Taype 1 Side 1)
Hunter: O.k. , we're back on the record now, so you continue your
testimony.
Brown: O.k. Also, I requested that an eight, excuse me, six to
eight foot high earthen berm be constructed between the fence and
green belt. These items will minimize the visual impact of the
substation on the residential area. A substation does not belong
in a residential area but, if well hidden, it may be acceptable.
Hunter: Where do you see this. . .this berm being located?
Brown: I believe it should go around basically, its hard,
basically surrounding the proposed fence line but between the fence
and the green belt which they do show on the landscaping map.
Hunter: O.k.
Brown: Its hard to describe exactly where. O.k. , I do not wish to
look out of my window and see a substation. Also, as a homeowner,
I 'm concerned about the resale value of my home, people do not want
to live next to a power station. And the last thing is,
addressing, again, the trail which the last testimony addressed,
presently there is a trail that basically follows the old gravel
road noted on the site plan, landscape plan, from S. 272nd Street
to S. 270th Street. This trail is used by students attending
Starlake elementary and Totem junior high schools. It is a narrow,
foot-beaten path that crosses a couple of times a drainage ditch
that follows. I request that Puget Power improve the trail the
full length. The improvement will include widening the trail,
putting gravel down, putting up barriers to motorcycles from using
the trail and routing the trail so it does not cross the drainage
ditch. These improvements would be maintained. The trail is used
by as many as 200 students as a shortcut to school. By using this
trail, students do not have to walk along busy S. 272nd Street. It
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
reduces the danger of a kid being hit by a car. The improved trail
would increase visibility, reducing the threat of people hiding
along the trails, someone being hit by a bicycle coming down around
the corner and somebody being injured and/or injured in falling
into the drainage ditch. That is all I have on there and I present
this to the Examiner.
Hunter: 0.k. , thank you very much. We' ll receive this letter from
Mr. Brown as Exhibit 5. Are there others that would like to
testify in the application. Yes, sir. Please step forward. Do
you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the
testimony you're about to give.
Voice• Yes, I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Steve Mayer: My name is Steve Mayer. I live across the street on
41st, from Cory and Craig, both whom spoke, live. I have several
concerns. My first one is, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have
known about this meeting. I understand that there was a sign
posted saying public hearing back in the back of the woods as you
drive by on 272nd. Granted, my property isn't adjacent but its
across the street. Obviously, its going to be very much affected.
I 'm not sure about a two miles radius as the lady recommended
earlier but I would think that across the street would be, in the
future at least, the way to go. I need to ask, if I can, because
I didn't get one of the packages, if I may ask a couple of
questions before I make my comments.
Hunter: Certainly.
Mayer: It refers to in here several times to a lid or an LID, I 'm
not sure what that is.
Hunter: O.k. , we' ll have that. . . .we are taking all questions,
we' ll respond to that at. . .Local Improvement District is what it
refers to, but you can have that explained in a minute--what is an
LID.
Mayor: O.k, that just. . .just helps me in some of my comments. I,
again, echo Mr. Brown's comments that on this page, on the second
to the last page, there is a power line coming across, what
appears, you know, property that is not currently occupied. I
believe, you know. . .
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: Referring to the one on the table here that is. . .referring
to the one moving from south towards Auburn, off the site.
Mayer: Yes, top. . . I believe it was identified earlier as north but
that would be the south end.
Hunter: And you have an inquiry about the question regarding that,
is that. . .
Mayer: Just a comment that I. . .the overall comment that I have is,
they mentioned several times in here the traffic volume on 272nd,
at the same time the City of Kent is trying to put 272nd/277th all
the way through. That is going to affect the area. We know that,
I think everyone sees that as an inevitability so, I mean that' s
just going to happen. I 'm concerned because we are in
unincorporated King County, we are not in. . .we not in Kent, we are
on the other side of Kent. We are in the Low Pine Block (spelling)
and my concern with the road going in, my concern is with the power
station going in, that that is going to affect property values
immensely and this pamphlet it says they are going to do some
things that will not only not hurt the value but, I believe its #5
on page 7 . . .
Hunter: This is the report that the Planning Department you are
referring to?
Mayer: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They talk about some of the things
they are going to do so they do not decrease property value that
type of situation. One of the things it says, adequate buffering
devices such as fencing, landscaping, etc. , etc. , will be used and
then it says it going to be used on the east and the northern
boundaries. I 'm concerned why the western boundaries are not being
addressed.
Hunter: O.k. , I think I can respond to that because that was
clarified, I think before you came in the room, that the reference
to the north should have been west was the clarification the City
presented early on in the hearing.
Mayer: O.k. , I apologize for missing that, something about work.
And, then my last concern, of course, would be the road. As it
goes through there, the graveled path that we talked about. That
is not just used by kid. . .by kids that is used by, my guess would
be, I don't mean to sound exaggerating but probably 150 to 200 kids
everyday go across that path. They also go across 272nd to the
other side of the road. If they are going to put a substation
20
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
there, and I don't know if they do require to make any improvements,
a light or a crosswalk across the road. But, that would certainly
help the safety of the children and having that improvement might
help them from the distraction of having a substation in the
neighborhood.
Hunter: And this. . .this. . .the crosswalk you are referring to would
be across 270. . . .
Mayer: Across 272nd on. . .on what is basically 42nd. Forty-Second
goes right now, 42nd goes down to, o.k. , straight to a hallway if
you could put that all the way, you know, with a crosswalk or a
light, whatever, that would. ..
Hunter: O.k. , thank you very much for your comments and testimony.
Mayer: Thank you.
Hunter: Are there individuals who want to testify. Yes, sir, here
in the front row. Step forward.
Curt Erickson: My name is Curt Erickson. I live at 27004 Downing
Avenue S.
Hunter: Let me swear you in, please. Do you swear, affirm, would
you raise your hand, to tell the truth, the whole truth in the
testimony you're about to give.
Erickson• Yes.
Hunter: O.k. , Steve?
Erickson: Curt Erickson.
Hunter: Curt Erickson, excuse me.
Erickson: And, I just have a whole bundle of questions, really.
Under environmental considerations, Section 2 , is a portion that
owner must execute a no-protest LID covenant for the future
construction of 42nd Avenue S. to City standards, what are they
getting at there?
Hunter: O.k. , you are referring to which page then of this
planning report.
Erickson• Page 3 .
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: On page 3 . O.k.
Erickson: That I don't know and maybe I don't to ask right now.
Hunter: There' s someone' here that can respond to that question.
Erickson: O.k, and the following is necessary: The owner shall
deed property to provide minimum half-street, etc. That' s also the
same page. I had questions also on the Type I landscaping and
Type II landscaping, what is that specifically, will it be young,
or will it be established. The area has apple trees in it as well
as hazel nuts are growing out of. . .pretty well spread through
(unclear 1-2-121) seasons. Some of that might be left and it would
look prettier than if you just cut it all down. That would be the
northern portion of this, the lower portion of the lot itself is
pretty much grass, bracken, its not really a very (unclear
1-2-126) . If there is a possible input that could be made by the
people that surround it is, what they would like to see grow up
over the next few years, maybe that' s an idea. The electromagnetic
field question has been brought up a couple of times. I seem to
recall that you can shield cables. Now, can you shield cables to
the extent that you will not have an electromagnetic field problem.
Now, its not the cables, if its the actual, step down transformers,
if a person puts a berm as suggested up at a certain level, will
that reflect back to the substation any electromagnetic. . .you know
kind of like the radar bouncing it off of something. Would that
solve your problem.
Hunter: We have questions raised about that, we do need to turn to
the applicant for some response to that.
Erickson: Does Puget Power have studies on the electromagnetic
field? They do have that. . .
Voice: Not at this site.
Erickson: Not at this site. Could that something could. . .can that
problem be solved so. . . There are children that go up and down
through that land, there's a crosswalk that actually painted by the
City of Kent to accommodate that path as they go up into Star Lake
elementary.
Hunter: Where' s the crosswalk?
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Erickson: The crosswalk is right at. . . it shows the backside. of
right in here, right on the corner there' s a crosswalk right in
here. The northwest corner.
Hunter: O.k.
Erickson: And, so there' s acknowledgement that there' s foot
traffic there.
Hunter: Um hum
Erickson: The field behind is also by dirt bikes, so its used, at
least locally, by the children on up to 18 years old, its a place
to play and recreate. If the northern portion of that lot is left
undeveloped it will still continue to attract children. The lower
portion of it, probably would not hold a lot of interest because
its wide open, I, at least that' s speculation. But, if a berm can
reflect any electromagnetic fields then the question is moot of
whether or not we have to worry about except for overhead cables
because then you' ll centralize it and reflect it straight up. What
about a crosswalk bridge on 272nd that would give these children as
opposed to a stop sign. Because the traffic will continue to
increase, people run stop signs all the time and its getting worse
and when the 40th Street sign was put in, I wondered why that was
put in, put a cross walk you wouldn't have to stop the traffic
unless you're just trying to let people out of their own
residential areas. You're looking at the safety standpoint for
children, the cross shielded crosswalk would be nice they have
something like that on 405 North in the Kirkland/Bellevue area.
They don't stop the traffic, no one gets hit. And noise levels,
are the noise levels that are being discussed presented, noise of
the truck that comes once a week for maintenance or are we talking
about noise level of the transformers themselves, they hum. How
loud is that? Its not even a concern if put up some sort of a
noise shield or concrete wall, it will never be heard. That' s all
I really have to say.
Hunter: Thank you very much for raising those questions and I
think we are at a point where we can turn to City and applicant for
some responses. Is there anyone else who wanted to testify before
we do that. O.k. , we have a number of concerns raised and
questions asked, some of which are appropriate for City response
and some more appropriate for applicant response. Alice, have you
been able to note most of what they are. O.k. , why don't we begin
with you and I 'm, my job here is to make sure that questions you
all raised, concerns you raised so we can see what responses might
23
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
be 'and see if those are satisfactory responses. So, we' ll begin
with Alice Shobe of the Planning Department who will respond to
some of the questions raised, City is in the position to respond
too.
Shobe: The questions I 'm going to respond to are regarding
landscape, the ones they had concerns about that. First of all, I
would like to explain to everyone that before any tree is removed
from a vacant lot in the City of Kent, which is six inches in
caliper or greater, you can't remove it unless you have received or
else you have a tree plan that has been approved by the City of
Kent for removal. So, Puget Power will be required to submit a
tree plan so we do really make an effort to save all trees and with
that, you know, we would encourage saving other natural vegetation
too. But we do actually have an ordinance that requires approval
by the City of Kent before a tree is cut down of six inches in
caliper or greater. So that' s any tree that's like bigger than
that around so. Let me address the Type I and Type II landscaping.
I always forget in Type I, you read these codes all the time and
that doesn't mean anything to anyone else. The Type I landscaping
is what we call solid screen landscaping. I ' ll go ahead and read
it to you. The purpose of Type I landscaping is intended to
provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate incompatible
uses" . It says require in the staff report. Type I landscaping
shall consist of evergreen trees or tall shrubs with the minimum
height of six feet at planting. So there' s six feet at planting or
larger. . .which will provide a 100 percent sight obscuring screen
within two years from the time of planting. That answers the other
question about the how long it will take. Or, it may be a
combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs backed by
100 percent sight-obscuring fence. The object is to have full
(unclear 1-2-224) within two years and a couple of alternatives on
how you do it.
Type II landscaping will be integrated into this plan as well,
various places especially and probably on the northern side of the
actual station since there ' s going to be natural vegetation
remaining, will probably have some of the Type II just north of the
fence in there and that' s. . . just that the intent of it is to create
a visual separation and how its defined. . . its not necessarily 100
percent sight obscuring, they could use just a little bit. And,
again, its evergreen or a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees,
large shrubs and ground cover interspersed with trees. A sight
obscuring fence will be required unless determined by a development
plan review that a fence is not necessary. Evergreen trees. . . .
24
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
The one gentlemen referred to the elevation plan and this we can
produce, what exhibit are we at, Chris, 4, 5. . .
Hunter: Do you want to submit additional material.
Shobe: Yes, just put this plan in the file.
Hunter: What are you referring to?
Shobe: This was submitted by Puget Power and this addresses the
gentleman's question who asked what was the view of A and B were.
Voice: Question I brought up.
Shobe: Yes, remember he asked what was the difference. He wanted
to get an idea.
Hunter: O.k. , this is additional information on landscape.
Shobe: Landscaping and this was submitted to the Planning
Department by Puget Power and if. . .these issues usually aren't
raised that's why it wasn't put in the staff report. And,
this. . . is what they submitted saying, that this is, you know,
basically what it will look at and then we came through and
conditioned it. It would have to be more dense then what they
wrote and I ' ll be frank with you and say this doesn't cover a lot
because it shows the trees but it was submitted and everyone has
already stated that they agreed to do. . . The vision I would say
that if they wanted to drawn this accurately as our conditions it
would show more density.
Hunter: So, you want to submit this as an exhibit in response to
the question.
Shobe• Right.
Hunter: Which we will admit it as that but your indication is
that is not. . .
Shobe: Its not 100 percent accurate. To show that Puget Power was
thinking about it and they did submit it but then we went and
conditioned. . .
Voice: Do you want a reduction?
Shobe: Oh, that would be great, we will submit a reduction.
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: O.k. , mark this as exhibit 6. O.k. , that gentleman that
raised that question if you want to look at this detail, you're
welcomed to do so.
Shobe: I 'm not. . . as far as the other questions I feel the City
could answer, they are related to the LID.
Hunter: Excuse me, gentlemen, leave us not talk during the hearing
if you want to have a conversation outside the room it will be
fine. Please continue.
Shobe: Regarding the transportation and road improvement issues,
I 'm going to turn to Gary Gill, City Engineer, here because he
knows the stuff.
Hunter: O.k. , Mr. Gary Gill responds to questions raised about the
LID and the conditions that were in the staff report regarding the
environmental conditions that were applied at the time of the
Declaration of Nonsignificance. Mr. Gill? Do you swear, affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're to give.
Gary Gill: I do. Some of the information that was in the staff
report which effects the road and transportation improvements were
conditions that were established as part of the SEPA process. They
were conditions that the Public Works Department put on this
development to mitigate the impacts of this particular proposal.
Now, I talked with Linda from Puget Power last week because a
couple of the conditions somehow were in transposing it from our
written format and giving it to the Planning Department, we
didn't. . .we made some errors in the way we wrote some of the
conditions so this may. . .this may clarify and alleviate some of the
concerns that have been raised by some of the residents in the
area. Number one, is the definition of an LID. An LID is a Local
Improvement District. It means of financing specific improvements.
It could be utilities, streets, sidewalks, anything that the
general public may wish to have constructed in their area and the
costs for doing those improvements are shared by the people that
are petitioning or desiring those improvements to be put in. So,
if its in a neighborhood and they want to put in sidewalks, then
all the residents in the neighborhood would say we want sidewalks
and we agree to pay for them and sometimes the City will put
together a local improvement district road improvements and then
adjoining properties that benefit from those improvements would be
sharing in the cost of paying for those improvements. What these
conditions refer to is that Puget Power would not protest a
formation of a local improvement district in the future and,
26
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
therefore, they would be willing to participate in any future costs
from benefits that they might achieve from either improving 272nd
or putting in 40th Avenue along the west side of the property.
Fortieth Avenue originally is shown as a paper street because of
the 30 feet of right of way on the adjoining property to the west
that was showing as a future right of way for that street. Since
this area developed, we've looked at it from our standpoint and
discussed this with Linda and we feel that there's no real need to
putting 40th Avenue through there. . . or 42nd, 42nd, excuse me, its
too close to 40th which is a signalized intersection and then just
down the road you've got 46th which is another fairly major access
point into the West Hill area there. So, we will be revising that
one condition which calls for an LID covenant for the future
construction of 42nd. Some of what happens in the future along the
western boundary of that site will depend a little bit on what
Puget does with the northern portion of the site. But, there is
plat that's being developed called, Winterbrook, o.k. , which is
just to the north and east of this particular site and Downing or
Carter(?) Avenue is extended southerly and then it swings westerly
into a deadend cul-de-sac on that piece of property. In the
future, if this northern portion is sold off by Puget and its
developed as a single-family residential plat, we feel that road
will be extended through and tie-up to 270th Street so it will be
like a small loop street in there and that' s all that we would do
looking at it. So 42nd Avenue would not go through so we are going
to strike that condition. LID covenants for 272nd if and when that
is ever widened for curb and gutter and sidewalks and other
improvements along there would be something that we would ask Puget
to do--sign a covenant for that. One of the conditions in there
speaks of Puget asbuilding that existing drainage course which the
neighbors have discussed which goes through portions of this site
and then granting to the City , of Kent easements for the
maintenance, ability to maintain and doing any necessary
improvements in there to make sure that drainage course is
maintained. Whether or not that can fit into any future plans for
maintaining that type of walkway or that walkway or pathway that
used by the children right now, I can't really say for sure since
this is private property. We are going to get an easement for
drainage purposes, if it can be used also for children who still
walk through the site it ' s something that we ' ll have to work with
Puget Power and the neighbors on, if it is compatible and doesn't
conflicting with any plans for the site. As far as any crosswalks
on 272nd, since 40th Avenue is already signalized, we don't have
any plans, immediate plans, for any mid-block crossing in this
particular area. This can be raised in the future if and when that
road is ever widened or improved as part of a joint City/County
27
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
project. I know in the past we've looked at these pedestrian
overpasses and when you're crossing a major arterial like that,
they're very expensive, they're anywhere in the order of quarter of
a million dollars and up and now with the handicap requirement
coming in to play on everything, the ramping and everything else
that have to be done to make that handicapped compatible, it
probably would even escalate the cost even more. So, there' s no
immediate plans for crossing in there since there is a signalized
intersection just about a block to the west. I think that covers
most of the questions with respect to roads, drainage.
Hunter: Let' s see if I have any others for you since we have you
there. Looks like you covered it, thank you very much. O.k. ,
there's a number of other questions that have been put to the
applicant, the applicant an opportunity to respond to the testimony
raised by surrounding property owners.
O'Rourke: I 'd like to submit a polaroid picture. This site has
been signed by Puget Power as a future substation site since, I
think, 1982 . This was taken from the opposite side of the road.
The sign is almost in the center. The sign is still there, at
least the last time I went out.
Hunter: Now, I have a photograph that. . .this indicates. . .
O'Rourke: Well, I 'd just. . . I 'd like. . .
Hunter: The design of the property. . .regarding the subject
property we're talking about today?
O'Rourke• Yeah.
Hunter: That there 's a sign on the property.
O'Rourke: There' s a sign on the property that Puget Power planned
on using. . .
Hunter: Can't determine from this photograph what the sign might
say.
O'Rourke: No, you can 't. Not from that one, I should of had a
closer-up but I know what the sign says if you go out there and
walk by the site. . .
28
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: I don't see that this exhibit is helpful at all. You can
testify that there' s a sign on the site and we use that testimony
but the photograph doesn't indicate anything.
O'Rourke: O.k. , sorry about that. I thought it was close enough.
The sign has been on the property since 1982 or at the time we
purchased the property, we posted a sign up there that said this
site would be used as a potential substation site. We put that up
so neighbors know that it is not a park area. They know that it is
private property and at some point in time, Puget Power does plan
on coming back and developing it. We put the fact that it is a
substation site there you are also aware that there will be a
substation in your neighborhood. We try to do that at all our
potential property sites so there' s no confusion about it being a
park, a recreation area, that it is private property and we plan on
developing it. That also addresses the issues, hopefully of any
property value concerns you may have, we're letting you know up
front that we do plan on developing a substation there. If you are
highly concerned about your property, we had. . . . Well, Puget Power
hasn't had studies done but there has been studies by other
utilities and on other sites we have had no problems or people
really complaining that there their property values have gone down
drastically. We consider Puget Power being a quiet neighbor.
There 's no partying going on, we do put up a high-security fence,
we slat it, we put three strands of barbed-wire on top of a seven
foot high fence so that we don't have intruders in there. I 've
talked with our substation people, and our civil engineers and we
intend to put a gate across the driveway area so that there is
restricted car. . .vehicle access. We have found, in the past, on
certain sites that were not gated up, teenagers drove in there
because its nicely landscaped and screened, its make a nice party
area. We don't like vandalism in our substations, we do have an
internal security system inside so that if there' s an intruder in
there, our system' s operating unit and (unclear 1-2-437) there' s
beams, and they're notified that there' s somebody in the property
that shouldn't be inside the substation. Its dangerous for
unauthorized personnel to be in there. They are not aware of
certain safety requirements like our crews are.
Hunter: Ms. O'Rourke can you indicate where . the fencing is
proposed on this plan?
O'Rourke: O.k. , yes. The fencing is proposed along here, outside
the retention pond, along the north side of the drainage swale,
along the west side here where the swale continues and along the
southern border as well. So that' s the substation yard. That is
29
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
where the eight foot high fence is what we call it; seven foot of
barbed wire with slats and three-strands of barbed wire on top of
that.
Hunter: Seven foot of barbed wire?
O'Rourke: Seven foot of chain link and one foot of barbed wire.
Hunter: And would the fence enclose what has been referred to as
the trail or the pathway?
O'Rourke: No, it would not.
Hunter: So, the trail or pathway would be on the west side of the
fence.
O'Rourke: West side. And we do plan on granting the City their
drainage easement along that side.
Hunter: Have you made any efforts to date to prohibit use of that
pathway or trail, since you own the property?
O'Rourke: No. The. . . .there might be some during construction but
I can't envision that.
Hunter: So your intent is to leave that trail/pathway to be used
as it has been used, at least in the past several years according
to testimony.
O'Rourke: We have. . .we have no intents of interfering with it,
unless the City requires us to put in a underground drainage ditch
but I think they an open swale system. Is that true, Gary, you
have an open swale system for biofiltration. The City also has
requested as one of the SEPA conditions to put biofiltration system
in. That is not proposed at this time and we can be revising our
plans through the design review process to accommodate that swale
and what that may do, in addition to dedicating a no-protest
agreement on S. 272nd that Gary and I discussed in our
conversation, is that it may push this property line a little
further north, we're not sure at this time how far north. But, in
order to accommodate the City standards through SEPA and their
right of way for no protest development of S. 272nd we need to keep
our buffer. .
Hunter: So, the fence along the west side, this is something
voluntary that you are doing and the placement of this to
accommodate the trail or is that to accommodate. . .
30
Hearing Examiner Verbatim.Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
O'Rourke: We're fencing our substation area in to keep it secure.
There is no fence currently located on the west property line of
Puget that I know of.
Hunter: O.k. A number of other concerns that were raised, do you
have a list that you wanted to go through.
O'Rourke: Yeah, I kind of have some of them. I think I answered
(unclear 1-2-499) . Power lines in the future. . . .when Puget
proposes to build the future power lines that will go north out of
the station it is in the City of Kent, it will be along franchise
right of way. We will work with the City, with their requirements
on what they require, for permitting, for notification of any
property owners along that. At this point of time, we will work
with King County for the lines south of us, applications have not
been submitted for that as yet. There's a little misconception on
this plan in that this is the first deadend tower that will go in,
the most southern one and that will connect across the street
somehow south, I 'm not sure exactly where the alignment of the line
is going to be in our franchise area and King County.
Hunter: Is that the one labeled future. . .
O'Rourke: That' s the one labeled future. My electrical engineer
sometimes switches these things on me depending upon how the
surveys come out and how they can line up the poles along the
franchise. I have to pull teeth sometimes to get them to. . .to give
it back to me. The future one will go out north and at this point
in time, that' s ten years down the road, so ten years in the future
we will be coming back and at that point in time, we hoped to have
worked with the City and the Comprehensive Plan process to include
any franchise right of way or major line development in the Comp
Plan. That way, rather than knowing where our lines are going and
we know how the City' s growth is affecting us. Often times we come
back in after the growth has been there and we need to fix the
problem of our system to serve. At some point in the future. . .we
haven't developed the plan yet, but we do hope to come back.
Voice: Making some comment from the audience.
O'Rourke: The one labeled on here, future, is going to be the
first. . .first tower coming in.
Voice: Another comment being made.
31
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
O'Rourke: Well, I don't know that it will come in from the north,
it will go out down along the street somehow, down S. 272nd. It
will exit, yeah, it will exit down south. It will still come down
this way and go along the City street. The City has plans to widen
that street, so we won't do anything until the City has developed
those plans. We plan ` on being in the franchise. With kids and
animals, we hope that kids can't climb a eight foot high fence, but
that's not to say that they don't. Typically they haven't, pretty
much of a deterrent. Let' s see. The fences are grounded we have
an extensive ground map system that connects the fences to avoid
any potential exchange between how the power equipment works and a
metal fence and that' s hooked into the ground, so if you're
standing next to the fence and lightening should strike, it will
strike the fence and down through the ground not through the kid or
man touching the fence, that' s for our crews safety as well as
anybody elses there.
Underbrush. Typically, we clean and grub the site, stripping it
of, the substation area, stripping it of most vegetation and then
we develop the substation with rough ground coarse, we need to put
some heavy equipment, the transformers do weigh a bit and we need
to have a good stable soil base for the foundation and we found it
easier to strip the site. That' s not to say, the total site will
be stripped but particularly the substation area will be stripped
of most vegetation. We cannot have trees inside a substation or
any type of landscaping in there because they have the same type of
potential as a man standing in there who doesn't know what he's
doing, you know, its just not good to have the site substation
areas.
Hunter: This is inside the fenced area. . .
O'Rourke: The fenced area. Yeah. We will work with the City and
the tree plan and try to keep any significant trees that the City
feels.
Hunter: Is there any reason that native vegetation is not
appropriate outside the fence area?
O'Rourke: No, there is not.
Voice: Can I address a question on that at this time?
Hunter: Well, let' s wait. I think we had an opportunity for
testimony, we' ll see what the responses are if there' s additional
time and questions, we' ll take them then.
32
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
O'Rourke: Puget Power' s plans at this time for the northern
portion are not ready for any type of exposure. We will develop
the substation and use as much of the property for the substation.
What typically may happen is we will surplus it and it will be
developed residential because that' s the zoning of the area. But,
I 'm not sure how far along that. . . .down the road that is. A couple
of years, at least.
Hunter: It' s not now offered for sale, is that your point?
O'Rourke: No its not and will not be until after the substation
has been developed. As far as any power lines crossing any private
property other than City franchise. . .City or County franchise area,-
we will acquire the appropriate, easements if, at such time,
it. . . like on this one, it kind of does show it crossing the
adjacent property which is still, right now, considered 30 feet of
King County right of way.
Hunter: What about construction hours if it were to be
constructed. Is there. . .
O'Rourke: Yeah, yeah. That was addressed in the SEPA and
typically, our construction hours are 8: 30 to 4 : 30, Monday through
Friday, no working on the weekends. As far as the noise. The
noise is typical noise -during construction hours. I noted in my
report that approximately 210 truck trips will be required for site
development and that' s for importing and exporting any material
that Puget will need. Again, it will be done during the typical
construction hours.
Hunter:. What about the overhead power line impacts, what type of
thickness of line, how many lines?
O'Rourke: There' s typically three lines and a neutral. I 'm trying
to think of the size wire we use for. . . 150. . .do you remember?
172 . . . 1272 . I think its all aluminum, ATC. I can't remember, we
can find that out for you. I can't remember the size.
Hunter: Well, what we had was questions or concerns raised about
visual impacts of lines and is this. We are taking about four
separate lines that are. . .
O'Rourke: Three lines make a circuit and one line for neutral for
distribution. I don't think a transmission has a neutral. . . .they
have three lines going which are the three circuits that make up.
33
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
Hunter: O.k. , and these occupy what an air space of. . . . several
feet or. . .
O'Rourke: Typically the poles will be approximately 45 to 60 feet
in height, depending upon their clearances required for crossing
roads, railroads, depending on the type of road, so it depends on
the size of the pole.
Hunter: O.k. , how wide would the lines be. . . .
Some comments made from the audience. (1-2-669)
Hunter: I 'm sorry, was there. . .do we have someone else to respond
to that.
O'Rourke: Yeah, we do have someone else that can respond to the
noise issue. I also have someone here who can respond to EMF
issues. There was one more question on encroachment. I 'm not sure
what Puget Power' s policy is on when adjacent properties are
encroaching. Typically we have a survey done for our property for
development and/or City' s requirement for their drainage easement.
If we. . .
Hunter: I think. . . I think that' s probably a private matter between
the applicant and the individual who raised that concern. We don't
need to go into any detail of that in a public hearing but it is
one that, I 'm sure, the person who raised the concern will want to
check it out in detail.
O'Rourke: I would recommend then that he contact us and we' ll put
him in touch with our real estate person and find out. Berry, do
you want to address the noise issue and Mel, will you do the EMFs.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you're to give.
(End of side 2 of tape 1)
Berry Lombard: I do.
Hunter: And your name, please.
Lombard: Berry Lombard.
Hunter: Mr. 'Lombard is here representing Puget Power.
34
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Lombard: O.k. , the answer to the one concern about visual concerns .
that were raised. Lines will be a wood pole structure and
different configurations of insulators that probably haven't been
determined at this time but normally we're using off-set insulators
which are probably about three to four feet on each side, so, your
stands is probably somewhere ten to twelve feet maximum between the
base.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you.
Lombard: And, there was concern raised about noise. Whether the
transformers made a humm. And, transformers do humor but we are
using low-noise transformers. We buy them with a NEMA rating and
that's a rating where they take. . . .the manufacturer will measure
the noise, one foot around the transformer, to specify what level
that is and then the level decreases with distance. What we are
obligated to meet under State, City and County ordinances is 45 DB
at the property line and we also, utilities, I should mention also,
usually have an exemption that says that it can be 55 during the
day and a DB reduction at night in a residential area but utilities
have that exemption for 10 DB but we try to meet it any way and
that' s our standard practice is to meet the 45 DB.
Hunter: What line would you be utilizing? Would be the fence line
or the property line, the substation or the.property line or beyond
that.
Lombard: Its beyond that, right.
Hunter: Is it possible to utilize the fence line as. . .I would
assume some substations are on smaller parcels of property?
Lombard: What we really try to do is meet at least the 45 at the
property line, the more distance you have the noise drops off with
the distance.
Hunter: You've heard testimony about use of the site, . particularly
as a trailway to short cut to school, that would be outside the
fence line but within the property line.
Lombard: Right.
Hunter: Is it possible to meet these standards utilizing the fence
line rather than the property line?
35
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Lombard: It may be, but I would have to calculate what the
distance of the transformer was to the fence, you know, what. . .what
the type of. . .what the exact rating of the transformer. It would
probably be difficult to meet it.
Hunter: In the site plan design, is that taken into account when
the site plan is prepared or is it. . . .
Lombard: It is taken into account. Forty-five DB, by the way,
just to give you an idea, its not very loud, its. . . if we had an
adjustable meter in here we're probably over 40 DBs and, its. . . its
a fairly quiet sound. Traffic is 55 decibels going by, you know.
When you're driving your car on the freeway that' s about 70
decibels so 45 is really pretty quiet. I don't think, you know,
there are problem substations where old transformers, there's a
noticeable sound and try to resolve those problems on a case by
case basis.
Hunter: What methods are available to reduce and replace?
Lombard: Replace a transformer with a low-noise transformer or
build a sound wall around the site.
Hunter: What methods for sound walls are available to reduce
noise?
Lombard: Usually you would use a. . . looks like a cinder block which
is hollow inside and is tuned to the 60 hertz frequencies and it
will absorb your sound and reflect it back towards the transformer
but beyond it you can get maybe a 12 decibel reduction using one of
those at the property line.
Hunter: And that. . .that cinder block construction would be
immediately around?
Lombard: Immediately around the transformer.
Hunter: Around the transformer.
Lombard: Around the transformer. It is expensive to do it that
way, that can cost, you know, 40 to 50, 000 dollars to build the
sound wall. So we try to build. . .buy sufficient property and buy
low-noise transformers to start with.
Hunter: But it could reduce sound by as much as 12 decibel levels
at the property line, right. What other methods are available?
36
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Voice: Comments from the audience (2-1-59)
Lombard: All right. That' s true. Also, there' s another point
about the' sound walls which you could put into the record. Because
it is around the transformer facility, there's a maintenance
problem if they have to replace the transformer then they have to
take down the wall and build another one and so it. . .there are
problems.
Hunter: How often do you take down a transformer?
Lombard: Just depends on if they are having problems with it.
Normally, they last 10-20 years.
Hunter: o.k. Are there other. methods available to reduce
sound. . .noise? We've heard a suggestion about earth berms, is that
ever utilized?
Lombard• No.
Hunter• Why not?
Lombard: Because the sound waves from a transformer are long waves
and you have to build a berm above the height of the transformer to
do it and. . .
Hunter: What is the height of the transformer?
Lombard: About 12 to 15 feet. So, when this wall, I mentioned, we
built walls at a couple of substations. The wall is higher than
the transformer, 15 - 16 feet high. Berms really wouldn't work.
Hunter: Any other methods that are used to reduce noise.
Lombard: Those are the main methods. Vegetation and wood fences
can be used but they really don't work so well because of the
length of the sound wave.
Hunter: Unless you find a wood that resonates.
Lombard: Right. Probably got some. That was about it.
Hunter: O.k. So you are the noise expert?
Lombard: That' s one of my areas, yeah.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you.
37
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Lombard: O.k. Thank you.
Hunter: We have someone to talk about the, must be you, the .
electromagnetic fields. Its flash, are we safe.
Voice: We're a one milligauss field here.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in
the testimony you're to give?
Melvin Walters: I do.
Hunter: Your name, please?
Walters: My name is Mel. . .Melvin Walters. I 'm a senior
environmental scientist for Puget Power. And the issue or the area
of electromagnetic fields is the causative issue as was pointed out
earlier. As far as the McFarlin (2-1-89) report by the EPA. That
report came out earlier this summer and it was criticized by the
scientific community. Because of that criticism EPA pulled it
back. It was a staff report and the reason they pulled it back is
because they had only based their information on two studies and
they hadn't looked at some of the animal studies that had been
done. The animal studies that have been done., exposing animals to
electromagnetic fields have all come up to show that there' s no
correlation, no causative relationship.
Hunter: Have you read the report?
Walters: Have I read the. . .
Hunter: The report that was released and referred to?
Walters: Yes, I read the earlier report. There's now a .draft
report out which I haven't finished reading recently. Its out and
the EPA right now is basically saying that there's not enough
evidence to indicate significant health problems and they have not
listed EMF as carcinogen because there's no causative data
available. In other words we can't establish a causative
relationship. I ' ll explain that in a moment. The EPA draft report
that they are doing now should be out in the next few months. I
say the next few months even though they said it would be out in
July and now I 've heard its something like the end of the year that
they are going to come out. There' s many reports out.
38
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: Yeah, they may turn to the reports but its even more
appropriate that we looking at, we're focused on conditional use
criteria. One of which is, would the conditional use be a
detriment to surrounding uses and, maybe with your expertise on
this area, we can look at where is the area of controversies as far
as the impact of electromagnetic fields. We have some references
to the exposure areas.
Walters: Well, the controversy stems mainly from two reports. One
was done in 179 by a man named Woodcock (2-1-114) and the other one
done by Dr. Satterson (2-1-114) .
Hunter: I would like to focus this even more so on this particular
application. Are we. . .
Walters: What our exposures are?
Hunter: Yes, we have, we had reference and testimony to people
using a pathway that' s probably the closest use to the substation
that' s proposed. In addition we have several residences of
adjacent property that would be a little bit further distance from
the substation but still within that general area and we also had
some testimony about an area referred to in the current report. . .
Walters: Two milligauss.
Hunter: A two milligauss area that ought to be referenced. Where
are we with this application in terms of adjacent users of the
property or adjacent owners of the property.
Walters: You need to put magnetic fields in a perspective as far
as what exposures are. Typically, a substation, now a 115 KV
substation, the major source of the . magnetic field at that
substation is the transmission lines going into them. If I measure
the magnetic fields at the actual transformers, I will get fields,
right up next to the transformers, in the 25-30 milligauss range.
I move a few feet away, those fields drop off rapidly, they drop
off into (unclear 2-1-131) and so, basically standing underneath
the 115 KV line which is the major source of electromagnetic
fields, in that situation, on a line similar to these, I make
measurements, would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 20
milligauss directly underneath that line. That would be the size
of the field that you would be in.
Hunter: Directly underneath extends to the ground level?
39
Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Walters: Directly underneath the line. Right. In other words you
would be about 25 to 30 feet. . .you would be like 30 feet from the
line because that' s all the closer you could get to the line. If
you get right up next to the line, the magnetic fields will be much
higher. Your exposures not there because you can't get that close.
Now, if you move 50 feet away from that line, your exposure would
drop to 5 milligauss to 2 and one-half milligauss. I'm in the
business. . .qualified to be able to measure that line. The time
you're 100 feet away, your fields have dropped to one milligauss to
point 2 or 3 milligauss. As far as magnetic fields limits go,
there are no standards that say what is safe or what isn't safe.
As a matter of fact, the scientific evidence at this point does not
indicate that any level is not safe. Presently, there' s one state
in the Union that has a magnetic field limit and that's the State
of Florida. And it has a 150 milligauss edge of the right of way
limit which is many times higher than two milligauss limit that we
heard referred to earlier. As a matter of fact, as much as a year
and a half ago, down at hearings with the State Energy Subcommittee
hearings to the Senate there was a proposal by Senator Talmadge to
establish two milligauss limits at the edge .of all right of way and
that Bill basically was turned into a study Bill. Dr. Gill Holman
(2-1-154)_from the University of Washington wrote a letter to
Talmadge saying that at this time there wasn't enough evidence to
indicate that we even needed an exposure limit because we didn't
even know that magnetic fields would cause problems. As far as the
two milligauss limits, for example, when I was standing out at your
foyer here, the entry, I was standing in a two and a half to four
milligauss field at that point in time. Standing next to your
kitchen stove you will be in a 35 to 40 milligauss fields. Now, if
you move back three or four feet that field will drop down to : 5 or
. 6 milligauss. A hair dryer will put out 20 to 200 to 2000
milligauss fields. Magnetic fields are everywhere around us, if we
are going to McDonald' s we would be in a six milligauss field.
Hunter: What is it for the substation? I know you can't be
precise about that.
Walters: Walking around the substation, the maximum field I would
expect to encounter would be somewhere around 20 milligauss. More
in likely it would be around 10. If you walked around the fence,
if you were on the other side of the yard from the transmission
lines where they come in, you would be probably in one, two or
three milligauss at most. If walking through the property as the
children would pass, they could be in an 8 to 10 milligauss fields,
maybe 20 milligauss fields. If that is dangerous then walking past
40
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
your stove which is putting out 35 milligauss fields i-s also
dangerous.
Hunter: How is the fenced area determined? Obviously, your fence
could be closer or further away from a substation. Is there any
criteria to selecting how large an area, does it have anything to
do with the exposure limits.
Walter: I 'm not, yeah, I believe there's probably. . .nothing to
with exposure limits, has to do with safety codes probably. I 'm not
versed in those requirements. I know about health effects, I've
followed this issue for the last seven to eight years. Its not a
new issue, its been around for 20 years.
Hunter: But you could, you could determine based on the type of
transformer that' s put it, , at what point does that possible
electromagnetic field exposure drop to below certain thresholds.
Walter: We could do that but we haven't done that to date because
we've. . . scientific information doesn't indicate that there's a
significant health risk.
Hunter: But when you state that the exposure limit is between one
and three milligauss outside this proposed application fence. What
are you basing that on? Is the number of feet. . . .
Walters: I 'm basing that on my experience of, having walked around
substations, 115 KV substations.
Hunter: Similarly situated substations.
Walters• Yes.
Hunter: That would have a similar fenced off area.
Walters: Correct. I 've walked, for example, there's one in
Bellevue that I've walked around. And when I made a trip around
that, where the lines came in, I was in about a 22 milligauss field
and everywhere else around there, I was in a field bearing anywhere
from five to one milligauss. But magnetic fields, you know, when
I 'm giving you these measurements, you have to realize that
magnetic fields are based on current flow, so at any one time, when
I 'm out there making a measurement, the fields may be different the
next time I 'm there. But, they will be in that general range.
41
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Hunter: Um hum. And, will that vary from type of
transformers. . . its 115 KV, that's the. . .are the new transformers
create shields. . .
Walters: As far as shields go. And that was another question that
was asked. You can shield. . .actually there' s two fields associated
with the power lines. . .an electric field and a magnetic field. The
electrical fields can be shielded but magnetic fields, these are
the same magnetic fields that make compass needle go north, these
fields can pass through the dirt, ground, rocks, buildings, you
cannot shield them with a berm and nor can you reflect them
straight up into the area. Magnetic fields basically, go where
they want to go.
Hunter: O.k.
Walters: To clarify this .causal relationship thing. I could give
you a little bit of information. The magnetic fields,
epidemological studies, the three things they look for are
strength. . .consistencies in the studies, and also they look for a
dose relationship. In the case of the electromagnetic fields,
there have been thousands of studies done. Seventeen studies as
reviewed by a Dr. Phillips Cole, an epidemiologist from Alabama,
University of Alabama, and when he reviewed 17 studies, he pointed
to two studies that showed this possible correlation between
childhood leukemia and power lines. This is a statistical link.
One epidemiologist looked at these kinds of studies, they would say
that is not consistent and this is what he says, this is not
consistent enough results to indicate significant risk: For
example when they did cigarette smoking studies, same kind of
studies, if they did 20 studies or 17 studies all the studies
showed the correlation, then when they looked at this further,
they'd look for the strength of the association. The two studies
that were done in Denver, the one by saddest (2-1-230) and the one
by Whitmeyer (2-1-230) , said that there was a two-fold increase
involved with risk; the normal cancer risk with children is 1 in
10, 000 and these studies said that could possibly increase to 2 in
10, 000 if this was a true association. That is a very weak
association as compared to cigarette smoking when they've got 30 to
40 full increases in the relative risk and an epidemologist would
look at. . .at this point and say, well, there' s a pretty good
indication that we might have a problem with cigarette smoking but
for EMF, we don't really know yet, we need to do further studies
and look at this closely. Now, the next step in the scientific
process which would show causality is when you go to the laboratory
and expose animals to cigarette smoke or you expose animals to EMF.
42
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge substation
#CE-90-8
When those studies have been done, that kind of animal studies,
never have they been able to cause cancer by exposing animals to
electromagnetic fields and so, we have never been able to develop
a dosage relationship. We don't know if one milligauss will cause
cancer and if five milligauss will cause more cancer. Because at
that one milligauss we 'haven't caused cancer, nor caused at five,
ten, that' s very high doses. With the cigarettes, of course, they
exposed animals to smoke and they caused cancer and they were able
to develop a dose relationship because the more smoke, the more
cancer. Interestingly enough, in the last 30 years, the use of
electricity has increased by 700 percent and child leukemia rate
has remained stable. We don't know and we can't say that there' s
any causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and cancer.
Hunter: The main area of concern, you pointed to, if there is some
relationship, I don't think we need to decide that today, but.
Walters: We can't.
Hunter: Its the power line itself rather than the transformer and
does that take into account on. . .have you been able to look at this
site and where the proposed power lines are, whether there are
exposures. You indicated that it falls off significantly as one
moves away from the source of the EMF. Are there residences within
the 100 foot level that you seem to refer to as the. . . . I think 100
feet is what you said it dropped below. . . .
Walters: One milligauss . I don't know. . .that' s. . . I 'm just telling
you what it would drop off at different distances. I 'm not saying
that one milligauss is safe. I 'm not saying that ten milligauss is
unsafe. For a line of this size, magnetic fields of this magnitude
are not common even within the house. . And there are no guidelines
right now to tell us what we need to limit people' s exposure to,
whenever we site transmissions lines we always try to keep them as
far away from people, telephones, houses as possible just because
of the dangers of the line falling. I mean, there are certain
safety requirements that we have to. . .have to meet. And, so, you
know, those types of things are taken into consideration but we
haven't looked at limiting peoples exposure by creating wide right-
of-ways or trying to move power lines or redesigning at this point
because we could not. . .there' s no evidence that this would be
helpful.
Hunter: Is an environmental scientist' s perception of a risk
sometimes cause health concerns or health problems as well as the
reality of a risk.
43
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
JCE-90-8
Walters: There's no doubt of that. There have been cases where
schools have roped off areas and judges have listened to testimony
by experts and decided that power lines, that children shouldn't be
allowed in to play in the playground, for example, if this could be
supported. - There have been other cases, where, like
Judge McCaven (2-1-288) in New York, listened to testimony and he
listened to Margaret Tucker who is the cancer
epidemiologist. . . .epidemiologist for the Cancer Society and she
indicated that there was no rational reason why people should fear
cancer and so Judge McCaven made his decision and he decided that
these class suits that was filed against the utilities that people
shouldn't be awarded any money because of property values going
down because of the fear of cancer because that fear wasn't
rational. When judges make decisions, and they look at scientific
information, its also emotional, political and people's perception
that comes into play. The scientific information we have right now
doesn't indicate significant risk. We tend to look at it, if the
risk is there, like the (unclear 2-1-300) University of Washington,
says, if the risk is there, he compared it to that of like eating
a peanut butter sandwich or drinking fluorinated water, we' ll never
be able to prove, that power lines are perfectly safe,
scientifically, you can't do that. I can't prove that when we go
in to a restaurant that, forsaking the food there, because it could
have salmonella and there' s those kinds of risk we take whenever we
do things we have to put that in perspective. We don't, we can't
prove that its perfectly safe. But we also have really no evidence
at this point other than a couple of studies out of thousands that
say it could be a problem.
Its an issue. Whenever we try to site transmission lines, whenever
we try to site about anything, people, you know, evaluate the
situation, and they look for possible reasons why a project maybe
shouldn't be built and they have concerns. Many of their concerns
are legitimate. We all have concerns for our children's health and
Puget Power is not evading its responsibilities to provide safe,
economic power to the public and we have no reason not to try to do
that. And, if we know or even had any evidence that power lines
were causing health problems in children then we would have to take
action to deal with that.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Stay seated there
for just a moment.
Walters: I can also provide you electrical and biological
(unclear 2-1-327) transmission review in the back, hundreds and
44
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
hundreds of studies have been done on the topic. It talks about
some of the biological effects of transmission lines. It gives a
review of the present situation with electromagnetic fields.
Hunter: Would you like to submit that as part of the record?
Walters: Yes. This was • produced by Bonneville Power
Administration, so its a government document, published in
June 1989 , so its pretty recent and then this an Electrical Power
Research Institute brochure that talks about some of the studies
that power companies have done and others have done over the last
few years.
Hunter: O.k. , we' ll receive these and mark them as exhibits.
Walters: Those pages are 19-20 in the Bonneville.
Hunter: O.k. , we've taken a lot of testimony today and heard a
number of questions and concerns by my account I think they've all
been respond to. There may be some additional questions and need
for cross-examination that may have emerged out of the responses.
But I want allow for is an opportunity for any of you that
testified and particularly on this final issue, the electromagnetic
fields. Ms. Gilmore is it that raised that area of concerns, are
there additional questions you had or issues that you want to
addressed by the applicant. O.k. , is this within a few minutes
or. . .o.k. , why don't you go ahead and have a chair here and we' ll
allow Ms. Gilmore since she has raised this concern fairly
directly, to allow her to ask a few questions of the applicant's
witness. And if you could just ask them very succinctly, and then
we' ll allow the information to flow.
Gilmore: Yes. Well, I did have one point to make and then I' ll
ask a couple of questions. And one is that when you're heating
your sandwich or going to a restaurant, you're making that choice.
And, and when someone else is running a power line over your head,
you don't make the choice and it stays there 24 hours a day, there
are no choices left to be made. O.k.
Hunter: That' s your closing argument, your closing statement. You
had some information you wanted to bring out, I think now would be
a perfect time to do it.
Gilmore: O.k. when it was brought up earlier that a substation
was running at this point beyond potential. . .running beyond
potential that means running beyond max. . .right? If that' s true
45
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
and you have readings for maximum then do you have readings for
beyond maximum. And, one more question and that is, if this report
from the Department. . .no, not the Bonneville. . . .
Hunter: These are the ,two studies referred to? The EPA report?
Gilmore: The EPA report, thank you. If that' s going to come in at
the end of the year or something like that probably, the
information is going to come back on it, why can't we wait until
then.
Walters: The draft is out right now.
Gilmore: You said there was going to be. . .
Walters: There are going to be reports coming in for the next 20
or 30 years on this topic. And, you know, a lot of reports been
done. . .there have been thousands of reports done. One. . .
Gilmore: But this is the Environmental Protection Agency that you
said was coming out. . .
Walters: One. . . one. .
Hunter: I don't want to be in a debate here. I want to allow you
an opportunity to ask questions. We' ll get information in, it will
be my role to make the decision but I don't want to have a debate
going on. You asked about the EPA report and where is it or. . .
Gilmore: And its coming back in December and some where else.
Hunter: And he' s respond to that question.
Walters: The EPA report is probably available at this point.
There' s many reports that would be available on this topic at this
point. One report is just one more report. You don't just look at
one report when you are reviewing scientific data, you look at
thousand and thousand of reports that were done. If I choose to
look at one report, I 'd look at a report done by (unknown 2-1-392)
in Sweden which says that power lines give less cancer. I mean
those kind of reports are out there and we. . . so we could debate
this issue for long periods of time and I cannot convince you or
its not my job to convince you that this stuff is perfectly safe.
You know, we have, the scientific community, look at all the
information out there and, at this point, the scientific community,
you know, is looking at this information, one report one way or the
46
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
other,, its just one more report. You have to look at all that
information. EPA, I know what EPA said, basically they said that
they are concerned about the issue, (unclear 2-1-407) health, they
said we have no evidence or causative relationship and they are
going to continue to evaluate the situation. If the government or
EPA determines that there are there are exposure limits that are
appropriate for power companies to meet then, you know, we would
meet them. But, there are many things out there that people can
point to and say there could be problems.
Hunter: O.k. , I think you've respond to the questions. That' s an
appropriate response. Any further questions you have.
Gilmore: The substation running beyond the potential.
Walters: As far as my estimate, if you, what we say when we are
measuring a peak, that is the. . .anything above that and the thing
would fail. I don't know what potential means.
Hunter: You mentioned. . .you mentioned measurements that you have
taken at similarly situated substations where you thought it was
less than the three milligauss at the edge of the enclosure.
Walters: Right.
Hunter: And, as I understand the question is, what's the max. . .you
refer to that as normal operating conditions or is that maximum
or. . .
Walters: Normal. Very, very. . .
Hunter: How much variation could be there be, how much higher
could it go?
Walters: I would like to explain like. . . its like, you know, a car.
I mean my car will go 120 miles an hour and we don't drive. . . I
don't drive 120 miles an hour, I drive at 55 on the freeway because
that 's what its designed to do and it operates best at that and
that 's the way we run substations. They are designed to carry peak
current up to a certain amount, anything above that and, you know,
they will fail. Now, when we are estimating, based on a model,
which is what I was doing, using a model to estimate what
electromagnetic fields would be around that substation. I was
basing that on that peak. . .the maximum capability of that
substation and it could be' 20 to 30 milligauss. But the changes of
us operating like that would be very, very remote and even then if
47
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
it we're at 35 milligauss for a day or a few hours, that's still,
that's just like what you've got around your kitchen stove.
Hunter: This is measured at the edge of the enclosure. That
you're referring to, the 35 or is that . . . .
Walters: The 35 milligauss would be underneath the transmission
line.
Hunter: Underneath the transmission lines.
Walters: That' s where is going to be the highest.
Hunter: O.k. The degree of variation at normal operating to peak
operating would be how much of a variation.
Walters: On page 19 in the book I gave you, the EPA book, there's
a diagram that shows a 115 KV transmission line and it shows a peak
and an average. I was giving you figures for average, 20
milligauss. O.k. , the peak is 35 milligauss. O.k. and then, it
shows that peak dropping off to different, you know.
Hunter: O.k. , I think that. . . .that response. . .
Walters: So the peak is what the thing can actually put out. . .35,
40 milligauss. That would be the maximum you could ever get from
the substation site.
Gilmore: This is for the first line, not the future line, right?
Walters: Lines aren't additive. Matter of fact, some times when
you put lines together, you can get cancellations of magnetic
fields because that' s the. . .waves cancel each other out. So, just
because you have the one line and you have 35 milligauss and you
add another line you aren't going to get 70, you're probably going
to get less than 35 .
Gilmore: Not even if you are standing here.
Walters: Not even if you ,are standing there.
Hunter• O.k.
Walters: Magnetic fields, you know, cancel out, and if you move
the conductors closer together we can reduce magnetic fields or
readjust current, we can reduce magnetic fields. For example, if
48
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
we put another line in there then we would reduce the current on
existing line and that would reduce the magnetic field. There' s
many, you know, different variables. Going to larger amounts, 115
to 230 Kv transmission lines you can sometimes. . .we could reduce
the current magnetic fields. But, the peak, the potential at
higher fields would be 'higher.
Gilmore: And probably would reach a peak at some time or another
in the future.
Walters: No, no, that' s only if some major transmission line
failed going across the mountains or something like that would that
situation ever, ever exist. I mean, I can guarantee that my car is
never going 120 miles an hour but its the same finality to it. I'm
not saying that there' s people that don't do that occasionally but
its not a (unclear 2-1-490) .
Hunter: Did you have any further questions.
Gilmore• No.
Hunter: O.k. , I think we have information in. Yes, sir, did you
have a. . .
Brown: I just have a couple of questions.
Hunter: O.k. , and you are Mr. . . .
Brown• Brown.
Hunter: Brown. . .Brown. And, did you have questions of this
individual, the applicant's expert on electromagnetic fields or
other areas.
Brown: Primarily pertaining to the vegetation.
Hunter: O.k.
Brown: So, I 'm not positive whether the City or whether it would
be Puget Power would address that.
Hunter: Well, we' ll let Mr. Walters turn off his machine and
probably we ' ll ask these of Alice when (unclear 2-1-504) they are.
Brown: Basically, first off I want to make a statement that as
being a property owner adjacent to the proposed site I 'm not any
49
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
where near as concerned about the EMF concern as I am about the
visual concern.
Hunter: Yes, yes, your testimony I noted earlier has recorded
that.
Brown: So, the berm that I spoke of would be more for visual it is
not, I am not concerned about it trying to knock down any
radiation. I am concerned about, one of the questions I had here is
the, what exactly would be the areas and which would be, the Type I
and Type II vegetation. There appears to be a difference about
halfway up on either side from the southern border.
Hunter: O.k. Let's take that question and ask the City to respond
to that. As I read the proposed condition of the City its Type I
landscaping along the eastern and revised western boundaries and
that would mean the entire boundary between the substation and
adjacent property but Alice might respond.
Shobe: First of all, this isn't the official, approved landscaped
plan. The landscape plan when it is submitted, is when they submit
for their building permit and we have a landscape planner who, its
her specialty, to review it and so she will be the one reviewing
it. And so, there' s definitely going to be changes in this. I
can, again, refer to generally when I look at a plan, if I 'm
looking at it to get general idea, since I don't have the specific
background, we require the Type II landscaping on your buffering
street or a parking lot or something like that and Type I
landscaping isn't used very often unless it is for these very
incompatible type uses which is why we conditioned to make sure
that we got the Type I on the side. So, generally, I can't say
specifically like from this portion to that portion but what I 'm
envisioning that will be required is the Type II along the front
street here. The Type I on both sides if acceptable as a condition
of this permit and then in the rear probably some Type II along the
fencing area and then you have the natural vegetation and as I
remember being on the site its also hilly too and its
hillier. . .this kind of slopes downward in here so you also have
some buffering from the street just by the natural topography.
Now, on your side, I think. . .
Brown: I 'm present. . .
Shobe: Oh, you are on this side.
Brown• Yes.
50
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Puget Power Cambridge Substation
#CE-90-8
Shobe: O.k. Doesn't it slope up too?
Brown: Very, very little. Maybe a foot or a foot and a half.
Shobe: A little bit, yeah. ' Which is why that we want to make sure
that you get the solid 'screening.
Brown: Most of the area along from about oh the mark where it says
topo. . .the. elevation is about 374, that area down from that point
down is very thinly vegetated anyway naturally.
Shobe: Right, well, that's why we're requiring them.
Hunter: All right. The question has been responded to about what
type of landscaping. I urge you also to look at the ordinance that
defines Type I landscaping, I think, it might be useful. Anything
further.
Brown: No, other than just that that is my concern, the
vegetation. I 'm not concerned about the EMFs other than just a
minor concern on my part. Thank you.
Hunter: O.k. You bet. I think we have the information then that
we need to make a decision. Any further statements that anyone
wants to make from the applicant and the City. O.k. , there' s been
ample opportunity for cross-examination, for rebuttal, for direct
testimony. We've heard it all. It is recorded and it is my job
now to take all this information and to make a decision within 14
days of today' s hearing date and I will do that and again, if you
want a copy of it mailed directly to you, if you sign this book you
will have that, and with that the hearing is now adjourned.
51
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: LID 336 - EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public
hearing on formation of LID 336 East Valley Highway
Improvements. The City Clerk has given the proper legal
notification. The Director of Public Works will review the
history and scope of the project.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director,
ordinance and IBC note
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:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTIO }
Councilmember moves, Councilmember l I - seconds
the memorandum from Public Works Director be made a part of the
record and that Ordinance e 7 forming LID 336 be adopted and
that the budget for same be established as detailed in the IBC
note.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2D
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 28, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstromw
RE: Proposed LID 336 East Valley Highway Widening
From S. 192nd St. to S. 180th St.
Resolution 1273 adopted by City Council on March 5, 1991
established April 2 , 1991 as date for the public hearing on L.I.D.
336. The project provides for the widening of East Valley Highway
from S. 192nd St. (just south of Springbrook Creek) to S. 180th St.
BACKGROUND
This is the last remaining link of the original East Valley Highway
from Auburn to Renton, through Kent, that has not been widened to
five lanes. Currently, the roadway pavement has deteriorated in
many places and is in need of major overhaul. In addition, the
capacity of the two lane road has been stretched beyond its
reasonable limit. The number of left turning vehicles to adjoining
businesses and properties, result in significant backups nearly any
time of the day.
In 1988 , the City of Kent requested funding from the State
Transportation Improvement Board to help pay for a portion of the
cost of the proposed improvement. A commitment of funds was
received from that Board approximately one year ago, and the
schedule outlined in that grant request was to have construction
commence in 1991.
Much of the area is already developed with a few remaining
undeveloped areas. A number of the undeveloped parcels have
development plans currently in the works.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvement is to complete the missing link of five
lane arterial between S. 192nd St. and S. 180th St. Currently,
East Valley Highway is five lanes in width, both north and south of
this project area. The completed roadway cross-section will look
similar to East Valley Highway, southerly of S. 192nd St. The
roadway will include curb and gutter, concrete sidewalks along both
LID 336 East Valley Highway Widening
March 28, 1991
Page 2
sides, a five lane wide roadway which includes a two-way left turn
lane in the center, - street lighting on both sides of the street,
street trees on both sides of the street, a storm drain system and
bioswale system between the curb and sidewalk.
The project will also include extending sanitary sewer and water
stubs to undeveloped properties adjacent to the roadway section.
NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Street Widening - Without question, the street needs to have
capacity improved. A two way left turn lane is needed to allow
safe movement of trucks and left turning vehicles to the numerous
adjoining businesses, driveways, and truck distribution centers on
either side of the roadway.
Additional street lighting is needed beyond the few existing street
lights to bring the arterial up to current requirements for
adequate street lighting.
Continuous sidewalks are also needed to integrate to the sidewalk
system at both ends of the project. Sidewalks will allow for safe
pedestrian access along the roadway and help provide for passenger
use of METRO transit along this route.
The drainage system in the area needs to be improved. The proposed
curb and gutter, swale and storm drain system will help alleviate
some of the drainage problems in the area. However, it should be
understood that due to the overall low-lying nature of the entire
valley floor in this area it will not be possible with this street
widening project to completely eliminate the type of flooding that
has occurred in this region sporadically over the years. A
consultant will be utilized to determine which, if any, portions of
the existing roadway are suitable to be widened and overlayed with
new pavement vs. complete removal and replacement.
Utilities that are currently within the roadway will be extended at
the request of the property owners to serve undeveloped or
underdeveloped properties so that the new street will not have to
be tunneled underneath to provide for these facilities in the
future.
A large number of the properties within the assessment area for
this project have recently developed and have already agreed to
participate in this LID project.
LID 336 East Valley Highway Widening
March 28, 1991
Page 3
PROJECT FUNDING AND ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION
The project funding is primarily from the Local Improvement
District, with 10% of the project cost funded from City funds, and
26% from the State Transportation Improvement Board grant funds.
In the proposed Local Improvement District 336, each parcel is
assessed a share of this cost based on two zones.
Zone 1 is the front footage assessment and is prorated over the
front 300 feet of property abutting the East Valley Highway
improvements. The costs of pavement, storm drainage, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting are included in Zone 1.
These costs represent approximately 80% of the project.
The costs for the addition of the two-way left turn lane are
included in Zone 2 and are approximately 20% of the project. Zone
2 costs are distributed over the entire area of all parcels within
the LID on a square foot basis.
F�
Total of LID Assessments $21280, 637
City/State Funding 1, 250 , 000
Project Total $3 , 530, 637
FORMATION OF THE LID
The grant funds that were made available for this purpose by the
state, must be utilized this year or they will be taken away and
reallocated to some other project in the state. Due to increased
transportation needs throughout the state it is doubtful that the
state funds would become available for this project again if they
were not used now.
A meeting with the property owners was held February 20,, at which
time the project was discussed in detail with`Kiem. Because of the
unique configuration of some of the parcels, the predominant
question from those attending dealt with the method of assessments.
It was explained that the modified zone termini method used
provided as fair a distribution of costs as possible. This
rationale seemed to be generally accepted by those in attendance.
At the conclusion of this meeting, little opposition to the L. I .D.
was expressed. Prior to this hearing, assessment notices have been
sent out to each property owner with the preliminary assessment
estimate delineated for each parcel. Property owners may protest
the LID formation at the formation hearing, or by mailing a letter
which must be received by the City Clerk' s office prior to the
LID 336 East Valley Highway Widening
March 28, 1991
Page 4
formation hearing. If protests are received from owners
representing 60% of the assessments, the LID could be stopped.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Currently, the project is estimated to start in June 1991 and be
completed in the Fall of 1991, weather permitting. This type of
project with the required underground storm drainage work
necessitates that work be completed in the drier months.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT
After City Council passes the ordinance confirming the final
assessment roll, there is a 30 day period in which any portion or
all of the assessment can be paid with no interest charges. After
that 30 day period the assessments will be paid over a 15 year
period wherein each annual payment is 1/15th of the principle plus
interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the
municipal bond market dictates at the time the bonds are sold.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ordering the widening and
improvement of the East Valley Highway from South
192nd Street to South 180th Street, all in accordance
with Resolution No . 1273 of the City Council;
establishing Local Improvement District No . 336 and
ordering the carrying out of the proposed
improvement; providing that payment for the
improvement be made by special assessments upon the
property in the District, payable by the mode of
"payment by bonds" ; authorizing interfund loans; and
providing for the issuance and sale of local
improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or
other short-term financing and local improvement
district bonds .
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1273 adopted March 5, 1991 , the
City Council declared its intention to order the widening and
improvement of the East Valley Highway from South 192nd Street
to South 180th Street, and fixed April 2, 1990 , at 7 : 00 p.m. ,
local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time
and place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed
improvement and all comments thereon and objections thereto and
for determining the method of payment for the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works caused an estimate to
be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and
certified that estimate to the City Council , together with all
papers and information in his possession touching the proposed
improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed
local improvement district and a statement of what portion of
the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the
property within the proposed district; and
WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the
proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts , parcels
of land, and other property which will be specially benefited by
the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense
thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or
other property; and
WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the
manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City
Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and no
objections to the proposed improvement were received, and all
persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the
best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter
described be carried out and that a local improvement district
be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN as follows ;
Section 1 . The City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington (the "City" ) , orders the widening and improvement of
the East Valley Highway from South 192nd 'Street to South 180th
Street, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
-2-
All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans
and specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public
Works of the City and may be modified by the City Council as
long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the
improvement .
Section 2 . There is created and established a local
improvement district to be called Local Improvement District
No. 336 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District" ) , the
boundaries or territorial extent of the District being more
particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Section 3 . The total estimated cost and expense of the
improvement is declared to be $3 , 530 , 637 . Approximately
$1, 250 , 000 of that cost and expense shall be paid from City
funds and State grant proceeds and the balance thereof shall be
borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited
by such improvements to be included in the District which
embraces as nearly as practicable all property specially
benefited by such improvement .
Section 4 . In accordance with the provisions of RCW
35 , 44 . 047 , the City may use any method or combination of methods
to compute assessments which may be deemed to fairly reflect the
special benefits to the properties being assessed.
Section 5 . Local improvement district warrants may be
issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvements
-3-
herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of
the Local Improvement Fund, District No . 336, hereinafter
created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and,
until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and
delivered to the purchaser thereof , to bear interest from the
date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City
Finance Director, as issuing officer, and to be redeemed in cash
and/or by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to
be issued, such interest-bearing warrants to be hereafter
referred to as "revenue warrants . " In the alternative, the City
hereafter may provide by ordinance for the issuance of other
short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter 39 . 50 RCW.
The City is authorized to issue local improvement district
bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and
be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by
ordinance . The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in
redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or
other short-term obligations hereafter authorized, including the
interfund loans, and not redeemed in cash within twenty days
after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash
payment without interest of assessments on the assessment roll
for the District . The bonds shall be redeemed by the collection
of special assessments to be levied and assessed against the
property within the District, payable in annual installments ,
with interest at a rate to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under
the mode of "payment by bonds, " as defined by law and the
-4-
ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest
rate and denominations of such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by
ordinance of the City Council . Such bonds shall be sold in such
manner as the City Council hereafter shall determine .
Section 6 . For the purpose of paying all or a part of the
costs of carrying out the improvements with the District pending
the receipt of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the
bonds or short-term obligations referred to in Section 5,
interfund loans from the General Fund, Water Fund and/or Sewer
Fund to the Local Improvement Fund in the maximum aggregate
amount of $2, 280 , 637 are authorized and approved, those loans to
be repaid on or before the issuance of such bonds or obligations
from the proceeds thereof . Each of the interfund loans shall
bear interest at a variable rate, adjusted the fifteenth and
last day of each month, equal to the interest rate of the State
of Washington Local Government Investment Pool on the fifteenth
and last day of each month. The initial interest rate on the
date of each interfund loan shall be determined as of the last
preceding interest payment adjustment date.
Section 7 . In all cases where the work necessary to be
done in connection with the making of such improvement is
carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the
City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all
bids) , the call for bids shall include a statement that payment
-5-
for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local
Improvement Fund.
Section 8 . The Local Improvement Fund for the District is
created and established in the office of the City Finance
Director . The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or
other short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be
issued and sold by the City and the collections of special
assessments , interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited
in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor
or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in
connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for
all other items of expense in connection with the improvement
shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund.
Section 9 . Within fifteen ( 15) days of the passage of this
ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director
the title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the
diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the
preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing
thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be
specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense
of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of
land. The City Finance Director immediately shall post the
proposed assessment roll upon his index of local improvement
assessments against the properties affected by the local
improvement .
-6-
Section 10 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five ( 5) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST;
Marie Jensen, City Clerk
PREPARED BY;
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN
Passed the day of April, 1991 .
Approved the day of April , 1991 .
Published the day of April , 1991 .
I 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
SLH-248*
-7-
EXHIBIT A
LID No . 336 Project Description
This road improvement project is a widening of the existing
2-lane East Valley Highway arterial to a 5-lane wide arterial
roadway. The project will include 2 northbound lanes, 2
southbound lanes and a two-way left turn lane as a center lane.
The road improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalks
continuously along the length of the project . Bioswales and a
new storm drain system also will be included, replacing the
existing open ditches along the roadway. A street light
illumination system will be installed. The project also will
include the undergrounding of existing overhead power
distribution lines and telephone lines . Street trees will be
planted in planter areas behind the curb line.
SLH-751"/6
EXHIBIT B
Cam( OF KENT L.I D N— 336
LFGAL DESCR EIM
That portion of the West 1/2 of Section 31,Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,
and of the NW 1/4 of Section 6,Township 22 North, Range 5 East,'W.M, and of the
S.E. 1/4 of Section 36, Township 23 North,Range 4 East, W.M. described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the NW 1/4 of said Section 31;
Thence Northerly along the West line thereof to its intersection with the North line of
the South 310 feet of the said NW 1/4;
Thence Easterly along said North line to its intersection with the West line of the S.E.
1/4 of the said NW 1/4;
Thence Northerly along said West line to its intersection with the South line of the
North 247.80 feet of the said S.E. 1/4 of the NW 1/4;
Thence Easterly along said South line to its intersection with the Westerly margin of the
East Valley Highway as conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under
Auditoes File No.3960406;
Thence Southeasterly, at right angles to said Westerly margin, to an intersection with the
Easterly margin of the East Valley Highway as conveyed to King County by deed
recorded under Auditor's File No. 1132967;
Thence Southwesterly along said Easterly margin to a point which is 350 feet
Southwesterly (as measured along said Easterly margin) of the South line of the North
50 feet of the said SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4;
Thence Southeasterly, at right angles to said Easterly margin, to an intersection with the
North line of the South 1/2 of the said SE I/4 of the NW 1/4;
Thence Easterly along said North line to its intersection with the Westerly margin of SR
167 (Prim. State Hwy No. 5);
Thence Southerly along said Westerly margin to its intersection with the North line of
the South 1800 feet of the NW 1/4 of said Section 6;
Thence Westerly along said North line to its intersection with the Easterly margin of a
strip of land 25 feet in width condemned by the Commissioners of King County Drainage
District No. 1, by decree entered in King County Superior Court Cause No.32912;
Thence Northerly along said Easterly margin to its intersection with the South line of the
SW 1/4 of said Section 31;
Thence Westerly along said South line to its intersection with the centerline of a stream
known as Spring Brook (also known as Big Slough); _
Thence Northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the following
described line 'A
[Line 'A': Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 31; thence North along
a line parallel with the centerline of a 20 foot pavement 76.26 feet to the Point of
B4ruting; thence East 256J0 feet; thence North 44 06' 00' East 140.23 feet to the
centerline of a stream known as Spring Brook and the Terminus of said line 'A'
description.]
B9�SVAVEY�CE"rt�9I0LSJJ D-1 OI/Jt�YI
Thence South 4. 06' 00',West along said line 'A' a distance of 14023 feet;
Thence West along said line 'A' a distance of 25630 feet;
Thence continuing West to an intersection with the East line of Lot 1, of City of Kent
Short Plat No. SPC-84-1 (also known as Knudson Industrial park), according to short plat
thereof recorded under recording No..8404180794,records of King County,Washington;
Thence Northerly and Northwesterly along the Easterly line of said Lot 1 to the
Southeast corner of Lot 2 said Short Plat No.SPC-84-1;
Thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot 2 to its intersection with the East line
of the West 305.47 feet thereof;
Thence Northerly along said East line to its intersection with the South bank of said
stream known as Spring Brook;
Thence Easterly along said South bank to its intersection with the West line of the East
255 feet of said Section 36;
Thence Northerly along said West line to its intersection with the South line of the
North 4205 feet of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 36;
Thence Westerly along said South line to its intersection with the West line of the East
300 feet of said Section 36;
Thence Northerly along said West line to its intersection with the South line of the NE
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 36;
Thence Westerly along said South line to its intersection with the Easterly margin of
Springbrook Counry Road No. 373;
Thence Northerly along said Easterly margin to its intersection with the South line of the
North 1/2 of the said NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 36;
Thence Easterly along said South line to its intersection with the West line of said
Section 31;
Thence Northerly along said West fine to the Southwest corner of the NW 1/4 of said
Section 31 and the POINT OF BEGINNING.
gq�$r11tV LrY�KL'"R\91oL257
B-2 nn1�1
WICKSTROM,DON / KENT70/PW - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
�ssage. Dated: 02/21/91 at 1713 .
subject: LID 336 EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY WIDENING - FISCAL NOTE
Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 3 .
TO: Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 1.
TO: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN
Paul SCOTT / KENT70/PW
Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW
Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 2 .
THE FISCAL NOTE FOR THIS PROJECT. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
Part 3 .
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUDGET
FOR THE EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT. THE TOTAL PROJECT IS ESTIMATED
TO BE $3 , 424 , 740, WITH $250, 000 IN CITY FUNDS BEING CONTRIBUTED TO MATCH
A $900, 000 TIB GRANT. THE REMAINDER WILL COME FROM LID ASSESSMENTS. THE
$250, 000 IS A 1991 APPROVED BUDGET ITEM IN THE STREET FUND.
WITH ALL FUNDS CURRENTLY COMMITTED, THE IBC RECOMMENDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE PROJECT BUDGET.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Public Hearincrs
1. SUBJECT: LID 338 - WESTVIEW TERRACE SANITARY SEWERS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public
hearing on formation of LID 338. The City Clerk has given the
proper legal notification to the property owners. The Director
of Public Works will review the history and scope of the project.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Public Works Director and
vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_Z_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION• A
Councilmember � moves, Councilmember ��,�r � seconds
that the memorandum from the Public Works Director be made a
part of the record and that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare the ordinance forming LID 338 for Westview Terrace
Sanitary Sewers. \
DISCUSSION• lV
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2E�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 23, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher & City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: LID 338 - Westview Terrace/McCann' s Westview
Sanitary Sewer - 96th Ave. S. ; 98th Ave S. ;
S. 216th St. and S. 214th St.
This project was previously considered under LID 337 with a public
hearing on February 5, 1991, however the LID formation was rejected
by the Council. Project supporters attended the subsequent Council
meeting and asked for reconsideration of the issue. Council
directed staff to proceed with a new LID proposal.
Resolution No. 1272 adopted by City Council on March 5, 1991
established April 2 , 1991 for the public hearing on L. I.D. 338 .
All of this was the result of a petition received in June, 1990 and
subsequent contact with property owners which indicated sufficient
support.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Description: Includes the installation of 8-inch sanitary sewers,
6-inch side sewers and related appurtenances.
ON FROM TO
98th Avenue S. S. 216th St. 200 ' South of S. 213th Pl
S. 216th St. 96th Ave. S. 98th Ave. S.
96th Ave. S. S. 216th St. 200 ' Southwest of
S. 213th
S. 214th St. 96th Ave. S. East to end of cul-de-sac
Easement 96th Ave. S. 150 ' West of 96th Ave. S.
near S. 216th St.
Easement West end of 130 ' south
easement above
PROJECT FUNDING
This project is proposed to be 100% LID financed. The estimated
cost is $312, 901. 44 . There are 48 lots included; therefore, the
assessment per lot is $6, 518 . 78 .
It should be noted that this cost and extent of construction is
based on the fact that the proposed plat of Garrison Heights will
provide easements and will extend the sewer approximately 175 feet
to the point of connection for the LID. Should this developer
extension not be made, additional costs will be incurred by the
LID, resulting possibly in higher assessments. As an alternative,
the City would pick up these additional costs.
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Each property serviced is being assessed. Since each lot is a
single family residential lot each receiving one service, the
benefit is equal for all parcels. Therefore, the cost is evenly
spread over all lots within the LID.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT
Upon Council passing the ordinance confirming the final assessment
roll (after completion of the construction) , there is a 30-day
period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid
without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is
paid over a ten year period wherein each year's payment is 1/10th
of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest
will be what the market dictates.
NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT
The property location is a developed residential area composed of
single family lots on septic tanks. For years, it has been known
that the septic systems in -the general Westview Terrace area
function poorly or not at all. Previous attempts to install sewers
within the entire area have failed. However several years ago LID
322 and 323 for sewers were formed for the neighborhood adjacent to
LID 337 .
It has been reported by residents that there is raw sewage on the
surface of the ground and that septic odor is a real widespread
problem.
The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has identified
various failing septic systems within the general area. These
problems are a threat to .everybody who lives in the area. Most of
the problems are not repairable and are expected to become worse
and more widespread. The only economically feasible alternative is
to install a public sewer system. As the situation deteriorates
further, people may be forced from their homes.
2
Knowing the severity of the problem, property owners within the
proposed LTD came to the City to request sanitary sewers. The
Engineering Department requested that a petition be circulated. A
petition for sewers was received with sufficient signatures to
proceed with the formation process.
SUPPORT FOR LID
Initially a larger LID boundary was proposed. However, following
a property owner meeting, the Owners completed Questionnaires
regarding their continued support for the LID. There was
insufficient support for the entire LID, however, the majority of
the supporters were grouped so that a revised boundary provided a
reduced area with sufficient support. Within the proposed
boundary, 25 out of 48 property owners (52 . 1%) requested that the
City proceed with the LID formation, which is greater than the 40%
required to allow the LID formation.
BENEFIT TO PROPERTIES
Generally speaking, for two otherwise identical properties, the one
with sewer would have a higher value or potential sale price.
There are several reasons for this. With sewer in place, the cost
of the sewer installation has been addressed so the potential of a
future expense of installing sewers has been eliminated. Another
way of looking at it is the sewer is another improvement to the
property which adds to the overall value, as would be the case with
the addition of a room, a fireplace or paved driveway or any other
improvement.
Why is it an improvement or benefit if the property has a working
septic system? The main consideration in this regard is the
history of the general area. If numerous septic problems have
occurred and numerous problems exist, it is more difficult to sell
a property for a given price. With a history of problems, even
though a given septic system is still functioning, there would be
a concern over how much longer it will function. Also, problems at
a particular location can cause sewage and the related odors to
appear on another property which would be a deterrent to a sale.
So even though a residence has a functioning septic system, the
installation of sanitary sewer will boost or protect the property
value and potential sale price particularly in an area such as the
proposed LID area where numerous septic problems have occurred.
GRAVITY SERVICE
The entire LID area will be serviced on a gravity basis. Based on
our preliminary review of the project area and the available
information including topographic maps, it is anticipated that
pumping will not be needed. For the worst cases noted the main
floor of the houses are at road level to approximately 5 feet
below. Basement floors are usually 8 to 10 feet below the floor
3
Knowing the severity of the problem, property owners within the
proposed LID came to the City to request sanitary sewers. The
Engineering Department requested that a petition be circulated. A
petition for sewers was received with sufficient signatures to
proceed with the formation process.
SUPPORT FOR LID
Initially a larger LID boundary was proposed. However, following
a property owner meeting, the Owners completed Questionnaires
regarding their continued support for the LID. There was
insufficient support for the entire LID, however, the majority of
the supporters were grouped so that a revised boundary provided a
reduced area with sufficient support. Within the proposed
boundary, 25 out of 48 property owners (52 . 1%) requested that the
City proceed with the LID formation, which is greater than the 40%
required to allow the LID formation.
BENEFIT TO PROPERTIES
Generally speaking, for two otherwise identical properties, the one
with sewer would have a higher value or potential sale price.
There are several reasons for this. With sewer in place, the cost
of the sewer installation has been addressed so the potential of a
future expense of installing sewers has been eliminated. Another
way of looking at it is the sewer is another improvement to the
property which adds to the overall value, as would be the case with
the addition of a room, a fireplace or paved driveway or any other
improvement.
Why is it an improvement or benefit if the property has a working
septic system? The main consideration in this regard is the
history of the general area. If numerous septic problems have
occurred and numerous problems exist, it is more difficult to sell
a property for a given price. With a history of problems, even
though a given septic system is still functioning, there would be
a concern over how much longer it will function. Also, problems at
a particular location can cause sewage and the related odors to
appear on another property which would be a deterrent to a sale.
So even though a residence has a functioning septic system, the
installation of sanitary sewer will boost or protect the property
value and potential sale price particularly in an area such as the
proposed LID area where numerous septic problems have occurred.
GRAVITY SERVICE
The entire LID area will be serviced on a gravity basis. Based on
our preliminary review of the project area and the available
information including topographic maps, it is anticipated that
pumping will not be needed. For the worst cases noted the main
floor of the houses are at road level to approximately 5 feet
below. Basement floors are usually 8 to 10 feet below the floor
3
SEPA
The Planning Director has determined that this project is
categorically exempt since the sewer pipe size is 8" or less.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Property Owner Meeting August 30, 1990
Resolution by City Council March 5, 1991
Public Hearing April 2 , 1991
Passage of Formation Ordinance April 16, 1991
Ordinance in Effect May 16, 1991
Construction 1991
5
9 196TH ST t \ _ J SE 196TH
W <
0
I =
INDUSTRIAL
AREA < I m a < >
w N 14 < < ` SE I99TX101.
R!
» Tel I 23t1H AS e \� ti F ST `\ )
3 200TN ST { S 200TN q ST N Sc TOOTH a ST
I uW F .-A41F; ..•-.
T I »
40 sr Tel
R<I S 202n0 ST SPRINGIBROOK
EMENTARY 1' YY
c 1 !LSCHOOL YTE N 6
D I N SCHOOL S.
N ✓+ ° SE - 20AITH ST
I I ^ SS
W H I < g 1� �SOSTH N < V
J-T
S 2OSTH N tObTHT205TH ST PL > ST (Pvt)> < SENS 206TH h- 207TH
PL X STz 201TH I 6 3 20eTH ST ' ASH S OTTH Pt » auWr'
sT _ _ a 204TH sr 6 5 SE zoerH IT a» N $ s <
1 J M1 � 8» 20 H PANTHER LAKE J C
P R Ec I o W Pl ELSC li00LRY�z
S 210
N < <
A ( »
TH PL N oz
Z
C � SE IIITH 'ST
[ J l >
SE CC
6
4 E IITTN ST I J aL{. I >< 212TN 3T SE- 212TH ST
• PS PL 4 J1�TT•,9 SE 312TN >T
O'BRIEN �, 'JN ST z 3TH213rH $ ^ >N
sr < F Sr 36 w J 1 SE 21 TN- <
W E it L
LH' td 313H I SE 213TH PL b II3VA >AA ET j W»
u I ST�'• 8 { ST J < aE
214
H E 216TH c ,• ST
so-2'N TH 5T. ` BT W < SE 216TH ST
N SE 311TH ST
I F P Y !E 6 f N - N
3 216TH \ a C F ST x $ SE 218TH^
ST / a S 2 E 2TN !T E < o ST
.l •.f -SE I ST sf xIITH PL
I
F
INDU ;RIAL
9T 210TH - SE 21H PL
AREA >w ! a Sr
J !E 220TH PL
1 p
a R 0 0
YY o_
3 222N46 ST I w 1•'• 222ND ST N a 5E ST2ND 515 ![ ztt n0 PL
I N W
i F f q SE 223RO
» d 2 i I -Z.- r OW X
12 7 I 7 8 SE 224TH - Sr^ < a°
![22aTN 18 I ]8 ll - �rL »
e 13 �Oy fE 22I�
✓ » 1 ` _B °ter l,226T„ \m <z:4rH �" !4E nsrH
F T
N T EN < I I '1Y\\ice y L/M/ !E RTM E!E T„ F�^`n+
» 1 z INTC' 6 x�F 1 w I / `. EE 226TN Sr STK0, .
3 ne $ sr L E 22erN <» 3E g» 8`• » p FI
» I ST SE 226 PL -221T„ST^ �!
22STH ST SEE(226TH
\ I67 » I N I \ o SE 229TH a' LfJ 329THS N 1
F T[IIE J < (P») (PH) SE 231» W Z4a q\'Z4 {, SE 230 N
i �o
1 Io I ST
S 2315T SE 231ST \ ST 2 SE SAS 1� SE 231ST PARK RCHA
w ST Pvl)ST 230TM� -P. G1r ST I.a 18CM LTA
NOYAR 1 I s 232Np 3 232ND < SE I ZND ST, f 3StEND ET S< E232N
167 M
I, ST •I 5r !E EnO R 331nO S ET S M 1
NTN CT E.
•(//` , -- � , d J,LJw1!£ 233RD Z U=..la• 4 x
W04
a
IS
C ,qg» l !T VF 23•
< •Y'. 1 r b if 236TH 9 A v Tn Bari!T t. �.� C. JlA j 9 236TH� Jg5.4 SE
iV LL Fh.\I<: •�, Za (Pet) ` ST
\ih\Il.'K'1 �M1•Pa'd"
1'.\IIF 4 I N W
!' 'i''i'•2lii� ULORON L m i» aE 36TH PL
^ < WAY SE 23rTN ST a YxuIET
R l > 3iRirl - p < W N!3!•V9�•
> < LFT < RreaFry o z > '
ST 2 ° ; j 111-� i
)E OE ROE • ^1233n1 (P»I 3E23u.0 s�zzST A jn �i 3 W ` ` i S.239t PL I6[3 ST z I 3 2a0 ST 8 17 < LID 338
4 ,it i 24 W 5' o a < '" Q Pea-O,n.,{ EAST HILL ...•
` aC„oDL < E < 2 E 2413T sT : ELEMENTARY WESTVIEW TERRACE SANITARY SEWERS
< 1AINIHI[FId C[D • ST > I ; SCHOOL
PI ECR■■3 ¢ I < ^ 3 242HO<
5 21
z A ST N
f < Mc ILLAN U E iEM CRAI:E ST f
7 S 24390
t WIT ST t I ; II'3 ST '
WARD VIE ft:'�i.Vj EM1TN nT 2 S ST TH» °
YH
tok
\l • I
SCALP,: 1"=100' � �\. � �'•; l ....T t.: .-... .
1
w q! S7 a
�0
15>I I �il f ��(3:11 36r; I 14�
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER (LID) �_. ..
(WITH 6' SIDE SEWER STUBS TO EACH PROPS TY) rs� r..h ._� •`k / pl '
--
�
ASSESSMENT NUMBER H (7 11 44
.) • x ��.��?° k • iII� �. LLz _.`
o<
Z y— 1 9� ;� �I `24 •/ •_ 4J I < � 1Y5�� I*
Ow _•' I I !. 22\ l21 (20 ( I I \"
as .,.,� / .� (• ._..I - �yl
1
- _. .. .. � 1147��. et i
I5 316 LN=1J` i.�
PROPOSED SANITARY — - -- —
SEWER BY OTHERS I� I 4CIO
I
L,
•,13�4 1-5},:_..1 16 \I�[... -IB' al _ .............
I :
1 rJO
• i i .
EXISTING SANITARY „... W 9 N (;
SEWER
L.I.D. BOUNDARY
NOTES: CITY OF KENT
I. THE•PROPOSED SEWER IS ONLY SHOWN TO DEFINE L.I.D. 338
THE LIMITS AND EXTENT OF PROJECT. ACTUAL
LOCATION OF SEWER WITHIN ROADWAY WILL BE WESTVIEW TERRACEIMcCANN'S WESTVIEW
DETERMINED DURING FINAL DESIGN STAGE,
2.ASTERISK (*) INDICATES,PROPERTY,OWNER SANITARY SEWER
SIGNED PETITION. '
3 RETURNED
OUES•ONNAIRETES REO ESTENGPROPYTHENER CITY PROCEED 96TH AVE. S. ; 98TH AVE. S. ;
WITH THE L.I.D. FORMATION.
S. 216TH ST. AND S. 214TH ST.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
l
Councilmember � �'i
moves, Councilmember �
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be roved.
Discussion
Action
3A Approval of Minutes.
�v Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
March 19, 1991.
A �r
3B. Approval of Bills.
( Approval of payment of the bills received through April 1, 1991
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
4 :45 p.m. on April 9, 1991.
r�-
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenpav
Item No. 3 A-B
i
4
Kent, Washington
March 19, 1991
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public
Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Fire Chief
Angelo, Acting Police Chief Byerly, Assistant City Administrator
Hansen, Information Services Director Spang and Acting City Clerk
Jacober. Personnel Director Olson and Parks Director Wilson were
not in attendance. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR Q be approved, with. the exception of Item 30 which
was removed by Councilmember Dowell. Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of March 5, 1991.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
SANITATION Kent West Corporate Park. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Twenty
Valley West Limits for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 838 feet of water
main extension, 1, 276 feet of sanitary sewer ex-
tension, 920 feet of storm sewer improvements con-
structed in the vicinity of 64th Avenue South and
South 216th Street and release of cash bond after
expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Frazier Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement submitted by Litowitz
Construction, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 363 feet of water
main extension constructed in the vicinity of
South 243rd Street and Military Road and release
of cash bond after expiration of the one-year
maintenance period.
SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
LID 339 - Hilltop Sanitary Sewer. ADOPTION of Re-
solution 1274 setting April 16 as the date for a
public hearing on the creation of LID 339, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
1
March 19, 1991
UTILITIES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
(REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL)
Outside Sewer and Water Connections. ADOPTION of
Resolution 1275 declaring a moratorium on the Ci-
ty's extension of sewer and water services to pro-
perty for development purposes located outside of
incorporated limits.
JOHNSON MOVED for adoption of Resolution 1275.
White seconded. Dowell said he feels the City
should continue to provide services while working
with the County. He voiced concern regarding pub-
lic safety and urged the Council not to pass the
resolution. Johnson said the purpose of the reso-
lution is to foster negotiations with the County
about land use issues. Mann agreed with Dowell,
and felt this resolution would be detrimental in
negotiations with the County. Orr pointed out
that this resolution would not stop development,
since thousands of housing units have already been
promised sewer and water. Fire Chief Angelo said
that currently, if there is not an adequate water
supply, development is denied by the County. Hou-
ser pointed out that the resolution states that
the City of Kent shall not accept new applications
from any property owner for the extension of water
and sewer outside the City for development, plat-
ting, short platting and/or rezoning. She said
this gives the City control until urban growth
boundaries are determined. Angelo noted for
Dowell that many pre-existing buildings do not
have sufficient fire protection, and the City' s
tanker is used in those cases. Orr pointed out
that people with failing wells or septic systems
could be granted water and sewer with this reso-
lution in place because they are existing develop-
ments. She answered for Dowell that this resolu-
tion is not intended to stop growth, and that it
is a temporary measure. White said that the Coun-
cil has long recognized a problem with transporta-
tion and yet has continued to extend utilities and
add to the congestion outside the city limits. He
said that the City has tried to work with the
County and has gotten no response, and that these
problems must be addressed. The motion to adopt
Resolution 1275 carried with Dowell voting nay.
2
i
4
Kent, Washington
March 19, 1991
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public
Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Fire Chief
Angelo, Acting Police Chief Byerly, Assistant City Administrator
Hansen, Information Services Director Spang and Acting City Clerk
Jacober. Personnel Director Olson and Parks Director Wilson were
not in attendance. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR Q be approved, with. the exception of Item 30 which
was removed by Councilmember Dowell . Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of March 5, 1991.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
SANITATION Kent West Corporate Park. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Twenty
Valley West Limits for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 838 feet of water
main extension, 1, 276 feet of sanitary sewer ex-
tension, 920 feet of storm sewer improvements con-
structed in the vicinity of 64th Avenue South and
South 216th Street and release of cash bond after
expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Frazier Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement submitted by Litowitz
Construction, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 363 feet of water
main extension constructed in the vicinity of
South 243rd Street and Military Road and release
of cash bond after expiration of the one-year
maintenance period.
SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
LID 339 - Hilltop Sanitary Sewer. ADOPTION of Re-
solution 1274 setting April 16 as the date for a
public hearing on the creation of LID 339, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
1
March 19, 1991
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
WORKS 1990 Asphalt Overlay. ACCEPTANCE as complete of
the contract with M. A. Segale for the 1990 As-
phalt Overlay Project and release of retainage
after receipt of State releases.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
Canyon Drive Landslide. ACCEPTANCE as complete of
the contract with Scocolo Construction for the
Canyon Drive Landslide repair at 94th and release
of retainage after receipt of the State releases.
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Underground Storage Tank Removal and Aboveground
Tank Replacement. Bid opening was held February
15 with six bids received. The low bid was sub-
mitted by R. W. Scott in the amount of $54 , 084 .85.
After review of the bids and the project funding,
it was determined that in order to award the con-
tract it would be necessary to transfer $31,400
from the West Hill Pumping and Distribution Pro-
ject Fund (W42) and $5, 950 from the Riverview RV
Park Sewer Project Fund (D52) . The Internal Bud-
get Committee (IBC) has recommended approval of
this transfer.
WHITE MOVED that $31, 400 be transferred from the
West Hill Pumping and Distribution Project Fund,
$5,950 from the Riverview RV Park Sewer Fund and
that the project be awarded to R. W. Scott for the
bid amount of $54, 084 . 85. Orr seconded and the
motion carried.
SOLID (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
WASTE Solid Waste Utility Settlement. This public hear-
ing is designed to consider the terms of a pro-
posed settlement between the City of Kent, R.S.T.
Disposal Co. , Inc. , and Kent-Meridian Disposal
Company over a lawsuit filed by Kent for declara-
tory judgment seeking resolution of the issues re-
garding the rights of the parties to provide dis-
posal services in Kent.
City Attorney Lubovich asked the Council to pass
an ordinance authorizing him to negotiate settle-
ment of the litigation between the parties. Steve
DiJulio, Special Counsel, noted that the settle
ment is as follows:
3
March 19, 1991
SOLID The City. of Kent would enter into contracts with
WASTE Kent Disposal and Tri-Star for a period of 10•
years. Residential services would be provided by
Kent Disposal Service. Commercial service in the
core of the city would be provided by Kent Dispos-
al, and the remainder of the commercial areas of
the city would be served by Tri-Star. The resi-
dential recycling program would continue under the
existing contract with Kent Disposal. The City
will agree to allow the WUTC to continue their
rate setting function with respect to commercial,
the City will reserve its right to set rates with
respect to residential service but may contract
with the WUTC to provide residential rates.
DiJulio noted that at the end of the 10-year peri-
od, the City may continue to contract with either,
both or none of the solid waste companies.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were
no comments from the audience and WHITE MOVED that
the public hearing be closed. Woods seconded and
the motion carried. . DiJulio noted for the Mayor
that the ordinance specifically authorizes execu-
tion of the settlement. He noted for Dowell that
the agreement specifically continues the City' s
authority to impose its utility tax or other fees
for solid waste handling.
WHITE MOVED for passage of Ordinance 2970 authori-
zing the City Attorney to negotiate a settlement
of pending litigation pursuant to terms similar to
the proposed settlement agreement. Houser second-
ed and the motion carried.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
CONTROL Frager Road Guardrail. ACCEPTANCE as complete of
the contract with Peterson Brothers, Inc. for the
installation of guardrail along Frager Road at
various locations and release of retainage after
receipt of State releases.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
Traffic Mitigation. ADOPTION of Resolution 1276
which directs the Planning, Public Works and Law
Departments to pursue the appeal process of King
County Developments, which impact the City's
transportation system.
4
March 19, 1991
ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q)
CODE Downtown Plan. ADOPTION of Resolution 1277 which
AMENDMENTS authorizes the Planning Commission to hear the
proposed downtown plan amendments to the zoning
map and zoning text in lieu of the Hearing Exam-
iner.
FINAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
PLAT Garrison Creek II Final Plat SU-90-1. This meet-
ing will consider the final plat for Garrison
Creek II Final Plat No. SU-90-1. The property is
approximately 4 . 6 acres in size and is located on
the south side of So. 218th Street and abuts pro-
posed 95th Place South.
Planning Director Harris noted that this plat has
been to the Hearing Examiner and the Council as a
preliminary plat and that the conditions which
were applied by the Council have been complied
with. JOHNSON MOVED to approve the staff approval
for Garrison Creek II Plat No. SU-90-1 with condi-
tions which were approved May 1, 1990 by the Coun-
cil. Woods seconded.
Jim Flick, 9408 S. 218th, stated that he lives a-
cross the street from this development, and that
when manuevering their equipment, the contractor
caused damage to his driveway. He noted that he
had spoken with the contractor who consequently
repaired the damage, but that the repair job is
inadequate. ' He distributed photos of the drive-
way to the Council. Public Works Director Wick-
strom noted that although this damage is not in
the plat, he would look into the matter. He
pointed out that the contractor has put up a bond
and must complete the project to City' s satisfac-
tion before it is accepted. Houser asked to be
kept informed of the action taken on this issue.
The motion to approve the plat then carried.
Dowell noted receipt of a letter from James Ely of
the , LDS Church complimenting the people who work
for the City of Kent and citing examples of
prompt, caring and courteous work. DOWELL MOVED
to make the letter a part of the record. White
seconded and the motion carried. Orr noted re-
ceipt of a letter from D. Eve Edens regarding the
cutting of a tree on private property. MANN MOVED
5
March 19, 1991
FINAL that the letter be made part of the record. Woods
PLAT seconded and the motion carried. Mann asked that
the staff address the issue and report back to the
Council.
SUBDIVISION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
CODE Park Dedication and Plats. This meeting will con-
sider the adoption of Ordinance 2975 which amends
the City of Kent Subdivision Code. The Planning
Commission recommends that the City require land
dedication or fees in lieu of land dedication for
parks and open space in residential subdivisions.
Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that growth and
development create a demand for recreational faci-
lities, and that this ordinance would require a
subdivider to set aside a part of the subdivision
for parks and open space. Linda Martinez, Vice-
Chair of the Planning Commission, spoke in favor
of the ordinance. She noted that the City has
been requiring park dedication as part of plats,
and that this would formalize the practice.
Martinez and Satterstrom noted for Dowell that
they have not received any input from citizens re-
garding this. Satterstrom explained that develop-
ers have not balked at the dedication of the pro-
perty, but have asked for a method whereby they
can make a payment in lieu of the dedication of
land. He noted that in the case of dedication of
the land, the City would take over ownership and
maintenance. He said a third option would be a
homeowner' s association, in which case the proper-
ty would be privately maintained. He noted for
Dowell that the formula for payment is 150% of the
assessed value prior to its platting. He also
noted that the developer is responsible for bring-
ing the property into a condition that is accepta-
ble to the City, and then the City would accept it
and maintain it. Dowell pointed out that since
these would be public parks, that neighbors across
the street from the development could use the park
without contributing anything. Upon Dowell 's
question about the constitutional aspect of taking
property without compensation, Satterstrom noted
that this requirement would not conflict with the
just compensation clause. Dowell voiced concern
that housing costs would go up to accommodate .for
the 5% dedication.
6
March 19, 1991
SUBDIVISION WOODS MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2975 as recommended
CODE by the Planning Commission requiring land dedica-
tion or fees in lieu of land dedication for parks
and open space in residential subdivisions. Hou-
ser seconded. WHITE MOVED that action on this is-
sue be deferred for two weeks and that the matter
be referred to the Parks Committee. The motion
died for lack of a second. Upon Mann' s question,
Satterstrom noted that the City's liability is no
greater than at any other park, and that most of
the parks would be on East Hill. White noted that
this item should have gone through the Parks Com-
mittee and the Planning Committee before coming to
Council. Dowell agreed and urged the Council not
to pass the ordinance. He cited lack of public
input, the cost of maintenance of the parks, the
question of constitutionality on the taking of
property, and the increased price of housing as
reasons. Houser spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Upon White' s question, Lubovich noted that the Le-
gal Department is concerned that the formula is
applied across the board without any consideration
for multi-family versus single-family application,
and that there is no criteria for determining when
an impact or dedication is required. He noted
that he does not feel it is unconstitutional .
Mike Spence, Governmental Affairs ' Director and Le-
gal Counsel for the Seattle/King County Associa-
tion of Realtors, stated that he feels this is an
unconstitutional taking of property. Orr pointed
out that this ordinance is patterned after a King
County ordinance. She also reiterated that the
developer has three options, and that they have
asked to be able to pay a fee in lieu of land de-
dication. MANN MOVED to table this issue until
the next Council meeting to allow time for more
input. White seconded. The motion was defeated
with only Mann, White and Dowell in favor. The
motion to adopt Ordinance 2975 then carried with
Orr, Houser, Woods and Johnson in favor and Mann,
White and Dowell opposed.
BUSINESS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E)
LICENSES Massage Parlor Licensing. Staff requests adoption
of Ordinance 2976 exempting State licensed massage
practitioners from having to obtain city permits
but requiring those who run massage parlors or
7
March 19, 1991
BUSINESS public bathhouses to obtain a city business li-
LICENSES cense.
City Attorney Lubovich pointed out that this ordi-
nance amends the current massage ordinance, which
exempts certain types of facilities from the
stringent registration requirements in the City.
MANN MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance 2976
revising the regulations applicable to massage
parlors and bathhouses. Houser seconded. Brenda
Bohrer, 25320 Lake Fenwick Road South, Kent,
stated that she is a licensed massage practition-
er: She noted that massage is a health care
service and that no other health care providers
are subjected to background checks, fingerprint-
ing, and communicable or sexually transmitted dis-
ease testing. She noted that the proposed ordi-
nance provides exemptions for licensed massage
practitioners, while retaining regulations which
give law enforcement personnel the tools needed to
keep unlicensed people from abusing. the term "mas-
sage" . She urged the Council to pass the ordi-
nance. Mann' s motion to adopt Ordinance 2976 then
carried.
FRANCHISE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Olympic Pipeline Franchise. The new franchise a-
greement for Olympic Pipeline to operate and main-
tain their existing pipeline in City rights-of-way
is being presented for introduction and discus-
sion. This new franchise agreement is for a peri-
od of ten years, contains substantial clauses re-
garding hazardous substances, requires notifica-
tion to the City in the event of accidental re-
lease or accidents, requires a risk assessment to
ensure structural integrity, provides for recovery
of the City' s administrative costs in processing
this agreement and contains stringent indemnifica-
tion and insurance requirements.
Inasmuch as RCW 35A. 47 . 040 states that "No ordi-
nance or resolution granting any franchise in a
code city for any purpose shall be adopted or
passed by the city's legislative body on a day of
its introduction. . . ", this agreement will be
brought back before the Council on April 2 for a-
doption.
8
March 19, 1991
FRANCHISE City Attorney Lubovich noted that this is a renew-
al franchise agreement. He noted that the pre-
vious agreement was for 15 years, but that this
one is for 10 years and includes some hazardous
waste provisions, modified fees, and does not
provide for expansion on the system. WHITE MOVED
that the franchise agreement for Olympic Pipeline
be brought back before the. Council on April 2 .
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
CABLE TV (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Community Antenna Television Franchise Contract -
Cable TV. AUTHORIZATION to enter into a contrac-
tual relationship with 3-H Cable Communications
Consultants to provide services outlined in con-
tract to renew certain franchise ordinances with
Tele-Communications, Inc.
Finance Director McCarthy noted that the budget
impact is $8, 653, and that those funds will be
paid through cable franchising fees received by
the City.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Community Antenna Television Franchise General
Management Contract - Cable TV. AUTHORIZATION to
enter into a contractual relationship with 3-H Ca-
ble Communication Consultants to provide services
outlined in contract, to inspect and analyze the
technical operational effectiveness of the City' s
present CATV franchise.
CENTENNIAL (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
CENTER Centennial Center Furnishings. The bid opening
was held on February 22 with five bids received.
The Bid Evaluation Committee unanimously recom-
mends accepting the bid from Turnkey, the second
lowest bidder, in the amount of $272 , 964 . 41.
Assistant City Administrator Hansen noted the se-
lection committee chose the second low bidder for
the following reasons:
1. The Mywest Product is not of the quality the
City is looking for.
9
March 19, 1991 .
CENTENNIAL 2 . Drawer edges were PVC coated which does not
CENTER hold up well over time.
3 . Panels did not meet minimum requirements for
noise reduction.
4. Panels did not appear to be able to stand up to
reconfiguration and heavy use and abuse over
the long haul.
Upon the Mayor's question, Charlie Lindsey noted
that there was only one bid which totally met the
specifications and it was the high bid. He said
the committee felt the best compromise was to go
with the bid which met most of the bid specifica-
tions and was within the budget. Hansen noted for
White that Change Order No. 66 is for seven mis-
cellaneous items which were outstanding in comple-
tion of the project. He noted that the doorknob
issue has not yet been resolved with the Code En-
forcement Division. Angelo explained for White
that the doors lead to areas which the public
could enter, and the codes require that they be
equipped for the handicapped. He noted that this
was missed in the final inspection. Upon the
Mayor's question, Hansen noted that the situation
had been explained to Interior Woods who is satis-
fied with the results, and that Mywest had been
told they were not being recommended and they did
not question it.
Dowell questioned whether all of these furnishings
are removable, so that at the end of the lease
they would not be left in the building. Hansen
responded that they are all removable.
HOUSER MOVED that the bid submitted by Turnkey in
the amount of $272 , 964 . 41 be accepted. Mann sec-
onded. White noted that the building owner should
be furnishing the doorknobs in light of the fact
that the City is paying premium rates for the of-
fice space. The motion carried with White voting
nay.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Possession of Marijuana. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2971 relating to possession of marijuana, amending
Ordinance 1787 . City Attorney Lubovich pointed
10
March 19 , 1991
POLICE out .that in Section 1 the ordinance says "Kent
City Code 9 . 12. 22 is amended as follows" , and that
it should state "Kent City Code 9 . 12 . 22 is adop-
ted as follows" .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Hindering Law Enforcement. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2972 prohibiting hindering law enforcement officer
by hiding a suspect or warning him.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Obstructinq Public Officer. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2973 amending Ordinance 1960 relating to obstruc-
ting public officers.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Liability Insurance Proof. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2974 relating to proof of liability insurance, in-
surance identification card and falsification of
identification card. This has not yet been incor-
porated into the Model Traffic Ordinance, and
therefore requires emergency adoption.
PARKS & (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
RECREATION Cultural Plan/Cultural Center Feasibility Study
Consultant Contract. Staff requests acceptance .of
a $35, 000 contract between City of Kent and
ArtSoft Management Services, a division of Hill
Arts and Entertainment Systems, Inc. , for a Cul-
tural Plan and Cultural Center Feasibility Study.
Patrice Thorell of the Parks Department noted that
the Feasibility Study is comprised of three
phases: Phase I - Comprehensive Community Cultur-
al Arts Plan, Phase II - Cultural Center Facility
Development Program, and Phase III - Cultural Cen-
ter Financial Feasibility Analysis. She noted
that there will be many opportunities for public
input, and urged the Council to accept the con-
tract. WOODS MOVED for acceptance of a contract
between City of Kent and ArtSoft Management Ser-
vices for a Cultural Plan and Cultural Center Fea-
sibility Study. White seconded and the motion
carried.
(BIDS - ITEM 5C)
Russell Road Softball Field Lightinct. Bid opening
was held March 12 , 1991 with five bids received.
11
March 19, 1991
PARKS & The low bid was submitted by Service Electric Com-
RECREATION pany, Inc. of Woodinville, WA. in the amount of
$77,777. 00. After review of the bids and the pro-
ject funding, it was determined that in order to
award the base bid contract, it would be necessary
to reallocate $12, 500. 00 in the Parks Maintenance
budget to cover project costs. The only alterna-
tive is to reject the bids and readvertise the
project which would delay the project until fall .
Helen Wickstrom .of the Parks Department urged the
Council to award the bid to Service Electric,
noting a tight time schedule on the ballfield.
She noted for Dowell that funds in the Parks Main-
tenance Budget could be reallocated to the pro-
ject, and that change orders could reduce the to-
tal amount.
DOWELL MOVED to accept the bid of Service Electric
Company, Inc. in the amount of $77 ,777 . 00 plus
tax, with project costs being allocated from ap-
proved C. I.P. and Parks Maintenance budgets.
White seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through March 15, 1991 after au-
diting by the Operations Committee at its meeting'
at 4 :45 p.m. on March 26, 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/28-3/14/91 102541-102595 $ 719, 940. 81
3/15/91 102596-103065 1 , 297 , 416 . 64
$2 , 017 , 357.45
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/20/91 1152070-1152778 $ 615, 932 . 17
REPORTS Council President. Woods asked the cooperation of
department heads and Councilmembers to minimize
the same-day items that are appearing on the agen-
da. She noted that items coming out of committee
12
March 19, 1991
REPORTS to Councilmembers should wait the additional two-
week period, and should come to Council on the
same day only in cases of emergency.
Public Works Committee. White noted he had at-
tended the National League of Cities Conference in
Washington, D.C. and had heard a presentation on
the proposed reallocation of funds from the Feder-
al Gas Tax, which in Washington would come through
DOT. He also noted that he had been a guest at a
reception in the Vice-President' s Office.
Parks Committee. Dowell noted that the Parks Com-
mittee will meet Wednesday, March 20, at 4 : 00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers - East.
Administrative Reports. City Administrator Chow
noted that a report has been prepared regarding
the S. 252nd Right-of-Way brought up by Bob Brown
at the last Council meeting. Public Works Direc-
tor Wickstrom noted that they had reviewed the
trees in the area and had directed the City of
Seattle to remove the cottonwood trees. He said
the other trees are small and not dangerous. Mann
noted that he has spoken to Mr. Brown and that the
trees have been removed. Police Captain Chuck
Miller noted that Mr. Brown was concerned with the
number of parking citations issued in the area.
He said the Police Department had received a com-
plaint on February 14 and when officers responded
they saw vehicles with flat tires and expired
plates which had obviously been parked there for a
long time. They issued parking citations for the
expired plates and parking violations, and issued
warnings giving the residents 3 days to remove the.
vehicles, which they did. Houser thanked the Po-
lice Department for the memo outlining exactly
what they had done.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 : 10 p.m.
ui h_�X
Brenda Jac e CMC
Acting Cit erk
13
1
ll
+t Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GOLF CART ACQUISITION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to acquire 21 power golf
carts in lieu of leasing. On February 19, 1991, the City
Council authorized the Park Department to lease an additional 21
power golf carts. In reviewing the lease agreement the Law
Department noted that substantial financial disclosures, similar
to that required for bond issues, was required by the Lessor.
In addition, it was determined that the lease interest rate was
approximately 10 percent as compared to current interfund
interest rate of 6.9 percent. Based on this, the Park
Department recommendkhg the direct acquisition of these
21 power carts in lieu of leasing. The additional expenditures
required for the out right purchase will come from projected
golf course revenues that are currently exceeding the estimate.
3 . EXHIBITS: Fiscal note, plus prjlor minutes
''i/;
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee Operations Committee and the
IBC
(Committee, Staff, Examir(er, Commission, etc. )
Ji
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE:/ Recommended Not Recommended
J .
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRE $41, 85
SOURCE OF FUNDS: A itional golf com lex revenues
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTJON:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
ject: GOLF CART - FISCAL NOTE - WITH 3/20/91 AMENDMENT
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 03/20/91 at 1508 .
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS PROPOSING THE LEASING OF 21 ADDITIONAL GOLF CARTS TO
BRING THE TOTAL GOLF CART FLEET TO 50. THE LEASE WOULD COST THE CITY
APPROXIMATELY $27, 000 IN 1991 AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO THE PARK DEPARTMENT
ESTIMATES, GENERATE APPROXIMATELY $54, 000 IN INCOME. CURRENTLY ON MOST WEEKENDS
EVEN IN JANUARY, ALL CARTS ARE RENTED OUT AND FOR MANY TOURNAMENTS, THE CITY
LOOSES SUBSTANTIAL CART RENTAL INCOME. AT RENTAL RATES OF $18 PER ROUND, 125
ADDITIONAL RENTALS A MONTH ARE NEEDED TO BREAKEVEN.
SINCE THE PARK DEPARTMENT ANTICIPATES AN ADDITIONAL 250 RENTALS A MONTH AND
THESE RENTAL WILL GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL MONTHLY PROFIT AFTER EXPENSES OF
$3 , 000, THE IBC APPROVES THE REQUEST. THE APPROVAL ADDS $54, 432 TO THE GOLF
REVENUE BUDGET AND $27 , 410 TO THE GOLF EXPENDITURE BUDGET WITH THE $27, 022
PROFIT BEING USED TO HELP OFFSET OTHER GOLF COMPLEX EXPENSES . THE APPROVAL
ASSUMES THAT THE NUMBERS SUBMITTED BY THE PARK DEPARTMENT REPRESENT THE TOTAL
REVENUE PICTURE AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO OTHER EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS ACQUISITION. IN PARTICULAR, THIS REQUEST WILL NOT HAVE A STAFFING
IMPACT.
AMENDMENT OF 3/20/91
A REVIEW OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT REVEALED A LEASE INTEREST
RATE OF 10% AND REQUIRED LEGAL OPINIONS SIMILIAR TO THAT REQUIRED ON A CITY
r-ND ISSUE. BECAUSE OF THESE COMPLEXITIES AND THE HIGH INTEREST RATE (OUR
�., RENT LINE OF CREDIT INTEREST RATE CHARGED TO THE GOLF COMPLEX IS 6. 90) , THE
PARKS DEPARTMENT'S REVISED REQUEST IS AN OUTRIGHT PURCHASE.
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AUTHORIZATION IS FOR $27, 410 IN LEASE EXPENSE FOR 3
YEARS. ACQUISITION COST IS $69 , 195 REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1991 BUDGET OF
$41,785. REVENUE PROJECTIONS THROUGH FEBRUARY SHOW THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE
PROJECTED TO BE AVAILABLE. BASED ON INTEREST SAVINGS, REDUCED LEGAL PROCESSING
AND IMPROVED REVENUE PROJECTIONS, THE IBC RECOMMENDS ACQUISITION IN LIEU OF
LEASING.
GOLF COURSE REVENUE
e�aa.e
e0 >
Aaual
80%
70
eo%
SOX
a0 GOLF COURSE REVENUE
30 ACTUAL S 240,415
BUDGET 2,957,711
20%-
EST ACT 3,205,530
10% PROJ VAR •247,819
OIA
JAN FED MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 41.7X 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/. 75.0% 83.3% 91.T/. 100.0%
BUDGET 2.8% 7.5% 15.8% 25.4% 36.6% 50.3% 63.9% 78.8% 89.1% 94.9% 97.9% 100.0%
ACTUAL 2.8% 8.1%
EST ACT 101.3% 108.4%
February 19 , 1991
FIRE amount of $14 , 000 to project management and
DEPARTMENT $10, 000 of bond interest to East .Hill site work.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
High-Pressure Breathing Air Compressor._ The Fire
Department went out- to bid fora high-pressure
breathing air compressor. One bid was received
from Ingersol-Rand/Eagle Compressor Company. The
bid .price is within the 1990 CIP budgeted amount.
After review of the bid with Ingersol�'Rand, a fur-
ther cost reduction of approximately $2, 000 will
be realized by the deletion of a feature that was
not required in the bid specification. This com-
pressor will allow the Fire Department to supply
needed breathing air at the scene of emergencies
• involving hazardous atmospheres. MANN MOVED that .
the bid submitted by •Ingersol-Rand/Eagle Compres-
sor Company for a high pressure breathing air
compressor be awarded in the amount of $33 , 163 . 00.
Woods seconded and the .motion carried.
PARKS & (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
RECREATION Golf Cart Lease. As recommended by the Internal
Budget Committee, the Parks Department seeks au-
thorization �or .Riverbend Golf Complex to lease an
additional twenty-one power golf carts from
C Yamaha. The current 'fleet size, consisting of
twenty-nine, does not handle the demand for re- •
gular and tournament play, and the complex is'
losing potential revenue. Staff feels that the
revenues generated will cover the cost of expenses
and result in a profit. DOWELL MOVED that River-
bend Golf Complex be authorized to lease from
Yamaha an additional twenty-one. golf carts for
rental. Woods seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of. Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through February 15, 1991 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 4 : 30 p.m. on February 26, 1991.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
2/1-2/12/91 101452-101485 $ 129 , 684 . 21
2/15/91 101488-101984 2 , 151 , 890. 19'
$2 , 281,574 . 40
7
t
f�n�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
N Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STREET UTILITY STAFFING
2 . s _ As recommended by the Public Works
Committee and approved by Operations Committee, IBC and IPC,.__�
authorization to establish a budget for the street utility in
the amount of $101, 689 to include the addition of a new position
of Civil Engineer II and to reclassify one of the 1991 approved
positions from an Engineering Tech II to an Engineering Tech III
and to fill that position as well as a part-time Office Tech
position also in the 1991 approved budget,
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, fiscal
note and TIB letters
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO L IMPACT: 1' NO YES _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: ,Recommended ZA11k Not Recommended
7
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ Y�\
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D✓
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 5, 1991
PAGE 3
unanimously recommended approval to proceed with condemnation if
negotiations for right of way are unsuccessful.
Olympic Pipeline Franchise
Gill explained that Public Works and the Attorney's office have
been working on a new franchise ordinance for Olympic Pipeline as
their old franchise has expired. Morris explained that she has
added substantial clauses regarding hazardous substances,
notification, spills, and cleanup. She noted that Don Wickstrom
wanted to require a risk assessment of the pipeline system before
approving the franchise in order to determine the current
structural integrity of the system. The indemnification and
insurance sections have been strengthened considerably. They are
required to notify the Public Works Department and the Fire
Department in case of accidental release or accidents relating to
the pipeline. The franchise fee has been increased to $3 . 00 per
lineal foot of pipeline. Olympic Pipeline has reviewed the
ordinance and is in agreement. Morris added this is a 10-year
franchise as opposed to the old one which was 15 years and it does
not allow them to construct any new lines under this franchise.
The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the franchise.
Street Utility
Gill explained this is a continuance of the issues brought before
the Committee earlier. We are requesting to establish the corridor
funds to capture the available revenue, establish project budgets
and authorize the staffing requirements. IBC and IPC have reviewed
these requests and it is their recommendation to fill the clerical
and Engineering Technician position as approved in the 1991 budget
and to authorize one new engineer position. Personnel is to
evaluate the Tech and Engineer position to determine the
appropriate level. The rationale of upgrading the Engineer
position is to be able to use that position to manage contractual
engineers. McCarthy clarified that the Committee should make a
recommendation as to the hiring of these positions. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval of the IBC/IPC recommendation to
proceed with hiring of the Office Technician and Engineering
Technician positions as approved in the 1991 budget review of the
Technician position to determine appropriate level based upon job
responsibilities and to add an Engineer position at a level to be
determined after review of job responsibilities.
SIEGEL,KAREN / KENT70/PW - HPDesk print.
----------------------------------------
Message. Dated: 03/22/91 at 1440.
Subject: STREET UTILITY STAFFING - FISCAL NOTE
Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 3.
TO: Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW
Part 1 .
TO: Paul SCOTT / KENT70/PW
Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW
Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 2.
THE REVISED FISCAL- NOTE FOR THE STREET UTILITY. MY RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD BE
" . . THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUDGET FOR THE STREET UTILITY FROM THE UNENCUMBERED
FUNDS OF THE STREET FUND IN THE SUM OF $101,689 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE IBC.
THE BUDGET WOULD INCLUDE i NEW POSITION AND 2 CURRENTLY VACANT GENERAL FUND
POSITIONS. CONTINUED FUNDING WOULD COME FROM INCREASED FUEL TAX RECEIPTS, MOTOR
VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES, AND FUTURE STREET UTILITY REVENUE.
Part 3.
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A
STREET UTILITY BUDGET BASED ON COUNCIL ACTION OF FEBRUARY 5, 1991 DENOTING
INTENT TO CREATE A STREET UTILITY. IN ORDER TO SECURE GRANTS AND MOVE
THE PROJECTS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION THEY FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO IMMEDIATELY
HIRE AN ENGINEER II, AND ENGINEERING TECH III AND INCREASE AN OFFICE TECH II FROM PARTTIME TO FULLTIME. THEY NOTE THAT THE COST OF THESE POSITIONS WOULD
BE CHARGED TO THE VARIOUS. STREET PROJECTS. THE FULL YEAR COST OF THESE
POSITIONS IS ESTIMATED TO $1357585.
BASED ON COUNCIL ACTION BUT CONSIDERING THE CITY'S CURRENT FISCAL CONDITION,
THE IPC AND IBC RECOMMEND AN ALTERNATIVE. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO FILL
A CURRENTLY VACANT ENGINEERING TECH AND PARTTIME CLERICAL POSITION,
AUTHORIZING ONE NEW ENGINEER POSITION. THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE POSITION WILL BE REVIEWED WITH PERSONNEL TO INSURE THAT THE CITY GET A
MANAGEMENT TYPE ENGINEER CAPABLE OF MANAGING CONTRACTUAL ENGINEERS NEEDED FOR
PROJECT IMPLIMENTATION. THE POSITIONS WOULD BE CHARGED TO THE STREET UTILITY
WHICH HAS 1991 EXCESS FUEL TAX AND MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES.
TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION A BUDGET WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE EXISTING STREET
FUND AT $101,689 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991 . DURING
1991 THE STREET FUND AND THE STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WOULD BE COMBINED TO
FORM THE STREET UTILITY.
THIS ACTION WOULD IMPLEMENT A TOP COUNCIL PRIORITY WHILE SAVING GENERAL FUND
MONEY. THIS MAY FORCE OTHER PROJECTS TO BE SLOWED DOWN. THE IMPACTS OF THIS
WILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE IN THE MONTHS TO COME.
NOW State of Washington
ri,lTransportation Improvement Board
Transportation Building KF-01
Olympia, Washington 98504 CITY OF KENT
l (206)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
MAR 18 1991
ENGINEERING DEPT.
March 15, 1991
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Transportation Improvement Project
TIB No. 9P-106(001)-1
192/196/200 St Corridor
W Valley Hwy to E Valley Hwy
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
On January 18, 1991, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) adopted the attached
TIB policy regarding the deadline for Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
prospectus submittal.
The- above referenced project was selected for funding on March 23, 1990. The Board
adopted a ten month limit for prospectus submittal. Therefore, a prospectus or a written
explanation for your delay must be submitted to the TIB office by Anril 12, 1991.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206)586-6262.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Gibson
TIA Program Engineer
CEG.js
Enclosure
cc: Don Hoffman
TIB POLICY ON DEADLINE FOR TIA PROSPECTUS SUBMITTAL
The Legislature requires the Board to allocate funds to projects prior to July 1st of each
year. In order to accurately determine the amount of funds required for previously
approved projects and to determine the amount of funds available for new project starts, the
following policy is established.
(1) On projects the Board has selected for funding from the Transportation
Improvement Account, the lead agency shall submit a prospectus for project
approval within 10 months from the date the Board offered funding or if
unable to do so, submit a written report to the Board within 30 days
explaining why the funding request must be delayed.
(2) For projects that are nearing the 10 month limit for initial prospectus
submittal, the Executive Director will contact the agency in writing to
` / u determine when the agency plans to request prospectus approval. The
Executive Director will analyze the agency's response and their past
performance and may recommend to the Board that the offer for project
funding be withdrawn.
(3) For projects or stages of projects that have received initial funding and the
development of that portion of the project appears to be progressing at an
inapproptiate rate, the Executive Director shall request the lead agency to
provide an explanation for the apparent delay in project development. If the
response from the lead agency reveals that the project is unjustifiably delayed,
the Executive Director may recommend to the Board that the funding for this
project or stage of project be withdrawn.
(4) When the Board reviews a priority array to offer funding for new projects, the
Board will consider the local agency's past performance on projects and may
withhold an offer of funding for the project if in the Board's opinion, the
agency's performance on a previously authorized project is unacceptable.
(5) In no case will a projects funding or offer for funding be withdrawn without
the agency having an opportunity to appeal to the Board.
State of Washington
Transportation Improvement Board
Transportation Building XF-01
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
March 15, 1991
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Transportation Improvement Project
TIB No. 9P-106(002)-1
192/196/200 Streets
Orillia Road to West Valley Hwy
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
On January 18, 1991, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) adopted the attached
TIB policy regarding the deadline for Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
prospectus submittal.
The above referenced project was selected for funding on March 23, 1990. The Board
adopted a ten month limit for prospectus submittal. Therefore, a prospectus or a written
explanation for your delay must be submitted to the TIB office by April 12, 1991.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206)586-6262.
Sincerely,
C �A �—
Charles E. Gibson
TIA Program Engineer
CEG:js
Enclosure
cc: Don Hoffman
TIB POLICY ON DEADLINE FOR TIA PROSPECTUS SUBMITTAL
The Legislature requires the Board to allocate funds to projects prior to July 1st of each
year. In order to accurately determine the amount of funds required for previously
approved projects and to determine the amount of funds available for new project starts, the
following policy is established.
(1) On projects the Board has selected for funding from the Transportation
Improvement Account, the lead agency shall submit a prospectus for project
approval within 10 months from the date the Board offered funding or if
unable to do so, submit a written report to the Board within 30 days
explaining why the funding request must be delayed.
(2) For projects that are nearing the 10 month limit for initial prospectus
submittal, the Executive Director will contact the agency in writing to
determine when the agency plans to request prospectus approval. The
Executive Director will analyze the agency's response and their past
performance and may recommend to the Board that the offer for project
funding be withdrawn.
(3) For projects or stages of projects that have received initial funding and the
development of that portion of the project appears to be progressing at an
inappropriate rate, the Executive Director shall request the lead agency to
provide an explanation for the apparent delay in project development. If the
response from the lead agency reveals that the project is unjustifiably delayed,
the Executive Director may recommend to the Board that the funding for this
project or stage of project be withdrawn.
(4) When the Board reviews a priority array to offer funding for new projects, the
Board will consider the local agency's past performance on projects and may
withhold an offer of funding for the project if in the Board's opinion, the
agency's performance on a previously authorized project is unacceptable.
(5) In no case will a projects funding or offer for funding be withdrawn without
the agency having an opportunity to appeal to the Board.
State of Washington
ri,ll
Transportation Improvement Board
Transportation Building KF-01
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
March 15, 1991
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Transportation Improvement Project
TIB No. 9P-106(003)-1
272nd/277th Streets
Auburn Way North to Kent-Kangley Road
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
On January 18, 1991, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) adopted the attached
TIB policy regarding the deadline for _Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
prospectus submittal.
The above referenced project was selected for funding on March 23, 1990. The Board
adopted a ten month limit for prospectus submittal. Therefore, a prospectus or a written
explanation for your delay must be submitted to the TIB office by April 12, 1991.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206)586-6262.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Gibson
TIA Program Engineer
CEG:js
Enclosure
cc: Don Hoffman
TIB POLICY ON DEADLINE FOR TIA PROSPECTUS SUBMITTAL
The Legislature requires the Board to allocate funds to projects prior to July 1st of each
year. In order to accurately determine the amount of funds required for previously
approved projects and to determine the amount of funds available for new project starts, the
following policy is established.
(1) On projects the Board has selected for funding from the Transportation
Improvement Account, the lead agency shall submit a prospectus for project
approval within 10 months from the date the Board offered funding or if
unable to do so, submit a written report to the Board within 30 days
explaining why the funding request must be delayed.
(2) For projects that are nearing the 10 month limit for initial prospectus
submittal, the Executive Director will contact the agency in writing to
determine when the agency plans to request prospectus approval. The
Executive Director will analyze the agency's response and their past
performance and may recommend to the Board that the offer for project
funding be withdrawn.
(3) For projects or stages of projects that have received initial funding and the
development of that portion of the project appears to be progressing at an
inappropriate rate, the Executive Director shall request the lead agency to
provide an explanation for the apparent delay in project development. If the
response from the lead agency reveals that the project is unjustifiably delayed,
the Executive Director may recommend to the Board that the funding for this
project or stage of project be withdrawn.
(4) When the Board reviews a priority array to offer funding for new projects, the
Board will consider the local agency's past performance on projects and may
withhold an offer of funding for the project if in the Board's opinion, the
agency's performance on a previously authorized project is unacceptable.
(5) In no case will a projects funding or offer for funding be withdrawn without
the agency having an opportunity to appeal to the Board.
State of Washington
ripTransportation Improvement Board
, Transportation Building KF-01
Olympia, Washington 98504
(208)753-7198 SCAN 234-7198
March 15, 1991
Mr. Don Wickstrom, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Transportation Improvement Project
TIB No. 9P-106(004)-1
Kent/Des Moines
Park and Ride
City of Kent
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
On January 18, 1991, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) adopted the attached
TIB policy regarding the deadline for Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
prospectus submittal.
The above referenced project was selected for funding on March 23, 1990. The Board
adopted a ten month limit for prospectus submittal. Therefore, a prospectus or a written
explanation for your delay must be submitted to the TIB office by April 12, 1991.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206)586-6262.
Sincerely, 'A
Charles E. Gibson
TIA Program Engineer
CEG:js
Enclosure
cc: Don Hoffman
TIB POLICY ON DEADLINE FOR TIA PROSPECTUS SUBMITTAL
The Legislature requires the Board to allocate funds to projects prior to July 1st of each
year. In order to accurately determine the amount of funds required for previously
approved projects and to determine the amount of funds available for new project starts, the
following policy is established.
(1) On projects the Board has selected for funding from the Transportation
Improvement Account, the lead agency shall submit a prospectus for project
approval within 10 months from the date the Board offered funding or if
unable to do so, submit a written report to the Board within 30 days
explaining why the funding request must be delayed.
(2) For projects that are nearing the 10 month limit for initial prospectus
submittal, the Executive Director will contact the agency in writing to
determine when the agency plans to request prospectus approval. The
Executive Director will analyze the agency's response and their past
performance and may recommend to the Board that the offer for project
funding be withdrawn.
(3) For projects or stages of projects that have received initial funding and the
development of that portion of the project appears to be progressing at an
inappropriate rate, the Executive Director shall request the lead agency to
provide an explanation for the apparent delay in project development. If the
response from the lead agency reveals that the project is unjustifiably delayed,
the Executive Director may recommend to the Board that the funding for this
project or stage of project be withdrawn.
(4) When the Board reviews a priority array to offer funding for new projects, the
Board will consider the local agency's past performance on projects and may
withhold an offer of funding for the project if in the Board's, opinion, the
agency's performance on a previously authorized project is unacceptable.
(5) In no case will a projects funding or offer for funding be withdrawn without
the agency having an opportunity to appeal to the Board.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
ckage. Dated: 03/22/91 at 1437 .
.'ubject: STREET UTILITY STAFFING - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 2 .
Part 1.
THE REVISED FISCAL NOTE FOR THE STREET UTILITY. MY RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD BE
" . . . THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUDGET FOR THE STREET UTILITY FROM THE UNENCUMBERED
FUNDS OF THE STREET FUND IN THE SUM OF $101, 689 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE IBC.
THE BUDGET WOULD INCLUDE 1 NEW POSITION AND 2 CURRENTLY VACANT GENERAL FUND
POSITIONS. CONTINUED FUNDING WOULD COME FROM INCREASED FUEL TAX RECEIPTS, MOTOR
VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES, AND FUTURE STREET UTILITY REVENUE.
Part 2 .
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A
STREET UTILITY BUDGET BASED ON COUNCIL ACTION OF FEBRUARY 51 1991 DENOTING
INTENT TO CREATE A STREET UTILITY. IN ORDER TO SECURE GRANTS AND MOVE
THE PROJECTS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION THEY FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO IMMEDIATELY
HIRE AN ENGINEER II, AND ENGINEERING TECH III AND INCREASE AN OFFICE TECH II
FROM PARTTIME TO FULLTIME. THEY NOTE THAT THE COST OF THESE POSITIONS WOULD
BE CHARGED TO THE VARIOUS STREET PROJECTS. THE FULL YEAR COST OF THESE
POSITIONS IS ESTIMATED TO $135, 585.
^IkSED ON COUNCIL ACTION BUT CONSIDERING THE CITY'S CURRENT FISCAL CONDITION,
,,.E IPC AND IBC RECOMMEND AN ALTERNATIVE. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO FILL
A CURRENTLY VACANT ENGINEERING TECH AND PARTTIME CLERICAL POSITION,
AUTHORIZING ONE NEW ENGINEER POSITION. THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE POSITION WILL BE REVIEWED WITH PERSONNEL TO INSURE THAT THE CITY GET A
MANAGEMENT TYPE ENGINEER CAPABLE OF MANAGING CONTRACTUAL ENGINEERS NEEDED FOR
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. THE POSITIONS WOULD BE CHARGED TO THE STREET UTILITY
WHICH HAS 1991 EXCESS FUEL TAX AND MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES.
TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION A BUDGET WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE EXISTING STREET
FUND AT $101, 689 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1991. DURING
1991 THE STREET FUND AND THE STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WOULD BE COMBINED TO
FORM THE STREET UTILITY.
THIS ACTION WOULD IMPLEMENT A TOP COUNCIL PRIORITY WHILE SAVING GENERAL FUND
MONEY. THIS MAY FORCE OTHER PROJECTS TO BE SLOWED DOWN. THE IMPACTS OF THIS
WILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE IN THE MONTHS TO COME.
V�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SEWER 6E R ALIT-- FEDERAL WAY SEWER DISTRICT
2 . SUI�ARY STA As recommended by_ .the Public Works .
Committee, uthorization for the Mayor to sign the sewer service
reel�ent o allow Federal Way to provide sewer service to
property in the vicinity of 272nd and 42nd Avenue South. -
3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement and excerpt from Public Works Committee
minutes
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. 3E
Public Works Committee
- January 15, 1991
Page 3
concerns they had. The City would pay for the costs of relocating
those fences and the property owner would be responsible for
removing any landscaping they may have placed in the right of way.
Heydon indicated the only work the City has done to date has been
to clean it up, take out some of the brush, and install a catch
basin to eliminate a place where people would trip. Responding to
White's inquiry, Roger Lubovich indicated he felt that the City
does have the right to maintain the area as a walkway. As to the
fences, the City is only relocating the existing fences along the
property lines. The height of the fence is probably a private
covenant and a matter between the property owners. Leona Orr
reiterated her concern about setting a precedent of moving the
fences for private citizens. Mrs. Roemmich stated that what they
wanted in the first place was to close the walkway but that the
City staff has been very nice and cooperative in working with her.
Dowell moved that a recommendation be made to the Council as a
whole that the action taken be reconsidered and that the Public
Works and Legal Departments meet with the property owners to
determine a solution to this problem. White asked that staff then
come back to the Committee with some alternatives. The Committee
unanimously approved the motion.
LEFT TURN - REITH AND SR 516
Ed White stated the issue of left turns backing up the traffic is
probably not valid at this time. Recent traffic counts indicate
that only 8% of the total traffic were making left hand turns.
This equates to 85 vehicles turning left, 723 going through and 196
turning right. Eight percent does not justify modifying the signal
to include a left turn phase. The cost for that would be
approximately $50, 000. Signal timing changes have been
investigated and the State will be requested to make these. City
funds have been approved in the 1991 budget to add a right turn
lane channelization. These two modifications should eliminate the
left turn backups. White stated he has observed that when traffic
backs up at this intersection it is usually doing so in all
directions which would indicate that volume is the primary reason.
White stated he would recommend that staff contact the State to
extend the cycle length for that phase of the signal. Dowell moved
that staff continue to work on the timing with the State and to
pursue additional. funding for the right turn lane. The Committee
unanimously approved.
SEWER FRANCHISE- FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Wickstrom explained that Federal Way Water and Sewer District can
provide gravity sewer service to property in the vicinity of 272nd
Public Works Committee
i January 15, 1991
Page 4
and 42nd Avenue South. The City can only provide sewer service to
this property by pump and it is not financially feasible to do
that. In order for Federal Way Water and Sewer District to service
the property, they are requesting a franchise agreement be,
developed and signed by both cities. The Committee unanimously
recommended the franchise agreement be developed allowing Federal
Way Water and Sewer District to provide sewer service to the
property in the vicinity of 272nd and 42nd Avenue South and that
the Mayor be authorized to sign same.
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT SR 516 160TH AVENUE S .E. TO S .E.
WAX ROAD
Wickstrom stated that the State will be improving Kent Kangley (SR
516) in the Covington area between Wax Road and 160th. The City' s
Kent Springs Transmission Main lies within the alignment of this
road improvement. The City has budgeted $650, 000 to contruct a new
main in this area. It is proposed the State include the
replacement of the Kent Springs Transmission Main in their
contract. The State has prepared an agreement whereby the City
will reimburse them for the construction costs. It is recommended
the Mayor be authorized to execute same. The Committee unanimously
recommended approval.
OTHER ITEMS
Leona Orr asked about the status of the Downtown signs that have
been previously approved.
She stated she has been contacted about drainage problems at 120
North State Street and asked if staff would investigate and report
back to her.
SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT
CITY OF KENT -- FEDERAL WAY SEWER DISTRICT
THIS AGREEMENT, executed this day of 1991 , by and
between the City of Kent, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter the
"City") , and the Federal Way Water and Sewer District, a corporation
(hereinafter the "District") :
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a pump station would be required in
order to provide sanitary sewer service to an identified area within the
incorporated limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City's existing policy is that pump stations shall not be used
to provide sanitary sewer service for less than 250 potential single family
residences in areas less than 75 acres, and the identified area to be served
under this Agreement is smaller in size; and
WHEREAS, pump stations create maintenance problems for the City as well as
individual property owners, making gravity sewer service preferable; and
WHEREAS, the District has the ability to provide gravity sewer service to
this identified area, and the parties desire to authorize service to this area
of the City from the District; and
WHEREAS, both the City and the District are public agencies authorized by
law to engage in furnishing domestic sewer service, and to that end, may, through
their legislative authorities, enter into a contract with respect to the rights,
powers, duties and obligation of the parties with regard to the use and ownership
of property, the providing of services, the maintenance ,and operation of
facilities, the right to promulgate rules and regulations, to levy and collect
special assessments, rates, charges, service charges and connection fees, the
performance of contractual obligations and any other matters arising out of the
provision of District service to areas within the City, all pursuant to and in
accordance with RCW 39.34.0802 35.67.020 and 56.08.060; NOW, THEREFORE:
1
The parties agree as follows:
Section 1. AUTHORIZATION AND TERM FOR THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE. The
City does hereby authorize the District to furnish sanitary sewer service to
certain property, as specifically described in Exhibit A hereto, within the
corporate boundaries of the City of Kent, which area is not economically feasible
of being served by the City's sanitary sewer systems, all in accordance with and
subject to the provisions, terms and conditions of this Agreement. The
District's authorization to provide service shall extend for twenty-five years
after the effective date of this Agreement, and shall further include the right
and privilege to lay down, construct, relay, connect, replace and/or maintain
such and so many pipes, conduits and mains, and all other appurtenances and
appendages thereto, in, along, through and under the avenues, streets, lanes,
alleys, highways and other public places and ways in that portion of the City of
Kent as specifically described in Exhibit A as may be necessary, convenient
and/or proper in order to provide sanitary sewerage service and for that purpose
to make any and all connections which may be necessary, convenient and/or proper
between said pipes, conduits and mains, and the dwellings and other buildings of
consumers of such sanitary sewerage service.
Section 2. AUTHORITY TO MANAGE, REGULATE AND CONTROL SEWER SYSTEM. After
the construction of the sewer facilities as contemplated under this Agreement,
the District shall have the sole responsibility to maintain, manage, conduct and
operate its system of sewerage as installed within the area described in Exhibit
A, together with any additions, extensions and betterments thereto.
Section 3. AUTHORITY TO FIX SERVICE RATES. The rates charged the sewer
service customers within the area described in Exhibit A shall be fixed, altered,
regulated and controlled solely by the District, pursuant to the limitations on
such authority as set forth in RCW Chapter 35.67 or Title 56 RCW, or any
regulations promulgated thereafter on the subject of rates and charges for sewer
service.
Section 4. NON-EXCLUSIVE GRANT. This grant or privilege shall not be
deemed or held to be exclusive. It shall in no manner prohibit the City from
entering into other agreements or franchises of a like nature or franchises for
other public or private utilities, in over, along, across, under and upon any of
2
the streets, avenues, highways, alleys or public places, or ways as herein
enumerated, and shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of
said streets, avenues, etc. , or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of
them with full power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs,
maintenance, etc. , of same as it deems fit.
Section 5. APPROVAL OF PLANS. Prior to construction of any of the pipes,
conduits, mains; side sewers and appurtenances in the locations described in
Section 1 herein, the District shall submit, to the Director of Public Works
(hereinafter the "Director") , in triplicate, plans drawn to an accurate scale,
showing the exact location, character, position, dimension, depth and height of
the work to be done. The plans shall accurately depict the relative position and
location of all pipes, conduits, mains, manholes, side sewers and appurtenances
to be constructed, laid, relaid, installed, replaced, repaired, connected or
disconnected, and the existing street, avenue, alley, highway, right-of-way or
property lines. All streets, avenues, highways, alleys, lanes or ways denoted
thereon shall be designated by their names and number and the local improvements
therein such as roadway pavement, shoulders, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, ditches,
driveways, parking strips, telephone or electric distribution poles, conduits,
storm, gas or water pipe lines as may exist on the ground or area sought to be
occupied shall be outlined. .
In the construction proposed by the District, all materials and equipment
shall be of the first class type and kind. The exact class and type to be used
shall be shown on the plans, as will the equipment to be used and the mode of
safeguarding and facilitating the public traffic during construction. The manner
of excavation, construction installation, backfill , and temporary structures
(such as traffic turnouts, road obstructions, etc. ) shall meet with the approval
of, pass all requirements of, and be constructed under the supervision of the
Director. Prior to approval of any work under this franchise, the Director may
require such modifications or changes as he deems necessary to properly protect
the public in the use of the public places, and may fix the time or times within
and during which such work shall be done.
The District shall pay to the City such amounts as, in the judgment of the
Director, are reasonably necessary to investigate and process any plans for
construction work, to inspect such work, to secure proper field notes for
location, to plat such locations on the permanent records of the City Public
Works Department, to supervise such work, or to inspect or reinspect as to
3
maintenance, during the progress of or after the repair of, any of the initial
construction authorized by this Agreement.
Section 6. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC. Whenever an excavation or fill from the
construction, maintenance or repair of the facilities authorized under this
Agreement has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially
impair the lateral support of the adjoining street or public place, or endangers
the public, an adjoining public place, street utilities or City property, the
Director may direct the District, at its own expense, to take actions to protect
the public, adjacent public places, City property and street utilities, including
compliance within a prescribed time.
In the event that the District fails or refuses to take the actions
directed promptly, or fails to fully comply with such directions given by the
Director, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the
City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to
protect the public, the adjacent streets, or street utilities, or to maintain the
lateral support thereof, including placing of temporary shoring, backfilling,
alteration of drainage patterns and any other actions reasonably necessary to
decrease the possibility of earth movement, or actions regarded as necessary
safety precautions; and the District shall be liable to the City for the costs
thereof.
Section 7. REPAIR OF STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES. After
construction, maintenance or repair of the facilities authorized by this
Agreement, the District shall leave all streets, avenues, highways or public
places in as good and safe condition in all respects as they were before the
commencement of such work by the District, its agents or contractors. The
Director shall have final approval of the condition of such streets and public
places after completion of construction.
Section 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The District hereby releases, covenants not
to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs,
judgments, awards or liability to any person, including claims by the District's
own employees to which the District might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW,
arising from injury or death of any person or damage to property of which the
negligent acts or omissions of the District, its agents, servants, officers or
4
employees in performing this Agreement are the proximate cause. The District
further releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and all claims,
costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person (including claims by the
District's own employees, including those claims to which the District might
otherwise have immunity under Title 51 RCW) arising against the City solely by
virtue of the City's ownership or control of the rights-of-way or other public
properties, by virtue of the District's exercise of the rights granted herein,
or by virtue of the City's permitting the District's use of the City's rights-of-
way or other public property, based upon the inspection or lack of inspection of
work performed by the District, its agents and servants, officers or employees
in connection with work authorized on the City's property or property over which
the City has control , pursuant to this Agreement or pursuant to any other permit
or approval issued in connection with this Agreement.
This covenant of indemnification shall include, but not be limited by this
reference to, claims against the City arising as a result of the negligent acts
or omissions of the District, its agents, servants, officers or employees in
barricading or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction,
or work in any public right-of-way or other public place in performance of work
or services permitted under this Agreement. Inspection or acceptance by the City
of any work performed by the District at the time of completion shall not be
grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Said
indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a
suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any
litigation or the institution of any litigation.
In the event that the District refuses the tender of defense in any suit
or claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the indemnification clauses
contained herein, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having
jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the
matter) , to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the District, then the
District shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including
all reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees and the
reasonable costs of the City, including reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering
under this indemnification clause.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is
subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out
of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from
5
the concurrent negligence of the District and the City, its officers, employees
and agents, the District's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the
District's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that
the indemnification provided herein constitutes the District's waiver of immunity
under Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver
has been mutually negotiated by the parties.
Section 9. INSURANCE. The District shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of
the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to the District, its
agents, representatives or employees. The District shall provide a copy of such
insurance policy to the City for its inspection immediately upon the District's
execution of this Agreement, and such insurance shall evidence:
(a) Automobile liability insurance with limits no less than
$1 ,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily
injury and property damage; and
(b) Commercial General Liability insurance policy written on an
occurrence basis with limits no less than $1 ,000,000 Combined
Single Limit per occurrence and $1 ,000,000 aggregate for
personal injury, bodily injury and property damage.
Any deductibles or- self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by
the City. Payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole
responsibility of the District.
The insurance obtained by the District shall name the City, its officers,
employees and volunteers as insureds with regard to activities performed by or
on behalf of the District. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees
or volunteers. In addition, the insurance policy shall contain a clause stating
that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
The District's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the
City, its officials, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the
District's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
The insurance policy or policies required by this clause shall be endorsed
to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party,
6
reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written
notice by certified mail , return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not
affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
Section 10. RELOCATION OF SEWER LINES AND SEWER FACILITIES. The District
agrees and covenants at its sole .cost and expense, to protect, support,
temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its
installations when so required by the City by reason of traffic conditions or
public safety, street vacations, dedications or new rights-of-ways and the
establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction, change or
establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or
structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity, provided
that the District shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily
bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City,
any sewer line or portion thereof required to be temporarily disconnected or
removed.
The City will make its best effort and attempt to design or redesign
streets, avenues, alleys or public places or ways, and other City utilities to
minimize the in1pact thereof on the District's existing sanitary sewer systems,
including the need to require the District's facilities to be relocated.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the City shall make the final determination on the need
for relocation of the District's facilities.
Whenever the City determines that any of the above circumstances
necessitate the relocation of the District's then existing facilities, the City
shall provide the District with at least sixty (60) days written notice requiring
such relocation, which shall be completed by the District at no cost and within
the time frame set by the City. Upon the District's failure to complete
relocation of its installations and facilities as so directed, the City may
remove same at the District's expense.
Section 11. EXCAVATION. During any period of installation, relocation,
maintenance or repair of the District's facilities and installations, all surface
structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and positions within
said public right-of-ways and other public properties so as to interfere as
little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining
7
property, and the District shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades
during such period of construction as required by the laws of the State of
Washington or the City's ordinances.-
Whenever the District shall excavate in any public right-of-way or other
public property for the purpose of installation, repair, maintenance or
relocation of its facilities, it shall apply to the City for a permit to do so
and shall give the City at least three (3) working days notice thereof. During
the progress of the work, the District shall not unnecessarily obstruct the
passage or proper use of the right-of-way, and shall file maps or plans with the
City (as described in Section 3 herein) showing the proposed and final location
of the sewer facilities.
If either the City or the District shall at any time plan to make
excavations in any area covered by this Agreement and as described in this
Section, the party planning such excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt
of a written request to do so, an opportunity to share such excavation, PROVIDED
THAT: (1 ) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party
causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be arranged and
accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and (3) either
party may deny such request for safety reasons.
Prior to commencement of any construction authorized by this Agreement, the
District shall reference all monuments and markers of every nature relating to
subdivision plats, highways and all other surveys. The reference points shall
be so located that they will not be disturbed during the District's operations
under this Agreement. The method of referencing these monuments or other points
to be referenced shall be approved by the Director before placement. The
replacement of all such monuments or markers disturbed during construction shall
be made as expeditiously as conditions permit and as directed by the Director.
The costs of monuments or other markers lost, destroyed, or disturbed and the
expense of replacement by approved monuments shall be borne by the District.
Section 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The District, its subcontractors,
employees or any person acting on behalf of the District shall keep him/herself
fully informed of all federal and state laws, and all municipal ordinances and
regulations which in any manner affect the work or performance of the work
authorized under this Agreement, and shall at all times observe and comply with
such laws, ordinances and regulations, whether or not such laws, ordinances or
regulations are mentioned herein, and shall indemnify the City, its officers,
8
officials, agents, employees or representatives against any claim or liability
arising from or based upon the violation of any such laws, ordinances or
regulations.
Section 13. DISCRIMINATION. The District agrees that it shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant on the grounds of race, creed,
color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any
sensory, mental or physical handicap, provided that the prohibition against
discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the
particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker
involved. The District shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that
employees are treated during employment without discrimination because of their
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, creed, marital status, age, or the
presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. The District shall take
such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full
compliance with Chapter 49.60 RCW.
Section 14. CITY CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO DISTRICT INSTALLATION. The
laying, construction, maintenance and operation of the said District's system of
sewerage lines, pipes, conduits, mains, side sewers, etc. , authorized under this
Agreement shall not preclude the City or its accredited agents and contractors,
from blasting, grading, or doing other necessary road work contiguous to the said
District's pipe lines, provided that the District shall have twenty-four (24)
hours notice of said blasting or excavating in order that the District may
protect its line of pipe and property.
Section 15. MODIFICATION. The City and the District hereby reserve the
right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement upon
written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification.
Section 16. TERMINATION; BREACH. If the District willfully violates or
fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, or through willful
or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given the
District under the provisions of this Agreement, or persistently disregards laws,
ordinances or instructions of the Director, then the City may, without prejudice
to any other right or remedy and after giving the District five (5) days written
notice, terminate this Agreement.
9
Section 17. REMEDIES TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE. In addition to any other
remedy provided by law, this Agreement may be specifically enforced at the option
of either party, and each consents to the venue and jurisdiction of the King
County Superior Court in the event of a dispute.
Section 18. CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to direct the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and
appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this
Agreement, including any reasonable ordinance made in the exercise of its police
powers in the interest of the public safety and for the welfare of the public.
The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate
regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance
of any sewer facilities by the District, and the District shall promptly conform
with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause the District to violate
other requirements of law.
Section 19. ASSIGNMENT. The District may not assign the rights, duties
and obligations under this Agreement without the prior, written consent of the
City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If such consent is given
for assignment, acceptance of the assignment shall be filed by the District's
successor with the City.
Section 20. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All the provisions, conditions,
regulations and requirements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon
the successors and assigns of the District, and all privileges of the District
shall inure to its successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically
mentioned herein.
Section 21 . NOTICE. Any notice or information required or permitted to
be given to the parties under this Agreement may be sent to the following
addresses unless otherwise specified:
THE CITY OF KENT
Director of Public Works
Don Wickstrom
400 West Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032 -
10
FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Section 23. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall be effective on the date
after execution by both of the parties.
THE CITY OF KENT FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
By BY
Its Its
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roger Lubovich
City Attorney
SEWSERAG.LAW
11
EXHIBIT "A"
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4
EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSED
BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR' S FILE NO. 2669629:
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED
RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR' S FILE NO. 7206020442 .
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES SHALL ALSO BE SERVICED BY THE
FEDERAL WAY SEWER AND WATER DISTRICT:
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4
EAST, W.M. LESS THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE PLAT OF CAMBRIDGE
DIVISION SIX (6) LESS THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 27
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
1. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION, THENCE
NORTH 89-30-28 WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 328 . 34 FEET .
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 00-29-32 WEST 80
FEET, THENCE NORTH 89-30-23 WEST 165. 88 FEET, THENCE NORTH
PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 10 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 27-24-30 WEST 67 . 97 FEET TO THE POINT OF
CURVATURE -ANGLE TO THE RIGHT -A RADIUS OF 20 FEET THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE- THROUGH A CURVE WITH AN
ANGLE OF 29-31-36 HAVING AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10. 31 FEET TO THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION. SAID POINT BEING THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID PLAT. THENCE SOUTH 89-30-
28- EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND SOUTH
LINE OF SAID PLAT 200 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LESS
THE COUNTY ROAD.
2 . LOTS 11 2 , 3 AND 4 OF SINGH SHORT PLAT (SP-85-6) AS RECORDED
UNDER 8601290312 .
3 . LOT 2 OF CAMBRIDGE SOUTH SHORT PLAT (SP-78-39) AS RECORDED
UNDER 7903220530.
MORRIS,CAROL / KENT70/LW - HPDesk print.
----------------------------------------
M-ssage. Dated: 03/14/91 at 1103 .
, ..eject: federal way sewer district agreement
Sender: Carol MORRIS / KENT70/LW Contents: 2 .
Part 1.
TO: Randy BRAKE / KENT70/PW
Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 2 .
Attached to this E-mail is the original, final agreement for the Federal
Way Water and Sewer District Agreement. It contains all of the changes
that have been mutually negotiated between the Sewer District and Kent.
The changes I made were to change the word 'City's' to 'District, " on page
2, and I eliminated the old section 8 relating to completion of construction.
The District's attorney agreed to allow the disputed indemnification language
to stay in the agreement unaltered.
I have already called John Jensen at the District to let him know that his
attorney and I have reached an agreement on all of the language in the
agreement. If there is anything more that you need me to do, please let
me know.
de/
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: I.A.C. GRANT APPLICATION - RIVERVIEW PARK
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Parks Department to
apply to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation for
matching acquisition funds for the Green River Trail Park. The
application will be for $240, 000, to be matched by $240, 000 from
King County Open Space Bond Issue proceeds.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, fiscal note
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Co ttee Parks Department Staff
(Committee, Staff, Exa finer, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P ONNEL IMPACT: O YES ^
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NO E: Recommended_ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE Our D: $240. 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS• King County Open Space Bond Issue Proceeds
7. CITY COUNCIL A TION:
Councilmembek moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F*"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, authorizing
applications for funding assistance for an
outdoor recreation project to the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation as provided by
the Marine Recreation Land Act.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent has
approved a "Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan" for the urban
area which identifies a community park on Green River in the
southeastern part of the City; and,
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Marine Recreation
Land Act, state and federal funding assistance has been authorized
and made available to aid in financing the cost of land for parks
and the construction of outdoor recreation facilities of local
publio bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent considers
it in the best public interest to acquire 11.2 acres in the bend
of the Green River adjacent to the Green River Trail. Tax lots
2522049001 and 2422049108; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the mayor be authorized to make formal
application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
for funding assistance,
Section 2 . That any fund assistance so received be used
in the acquisition of 11.2 acres of land in the southeastern part
of the City of Kent, Washington.
f
Section 3 . That the City's share of the project will be
derived from King County Open Space Bond Issue proceeds.
Section 4. The City of Kent does hereby certify that the
City is responsible to support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
Section 5. That any property acquired with financial aid,
through the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation be placed
in use as an outdoor recreation facility and be retained in such
use in perpetuity unless as otherwise provided and agreed to by
the City Council, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation, and any affected federal agency, and
Section 6. That this resolution become part of a formal
application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.
Section 7. That adequate notification has been given an
opportunity for public input and that published notices have
identified affected flood plains and/or wetlands, if applicable.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1991.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1991.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
_ 2 _
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
�ject: RIVERVIEW PARK - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 03/28/91 at 0928 .
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS ASKING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR AN IAC GRANT
FOR MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE GREEN RIVER TRAIL PARK. THE GRANT REQUEST WILL BE
FOR $240, 000 AND WILL BE MATCHED BY $240, 000 FROM THE KING COUNTY OPEN SPACE
BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS. THE KING OPEN SPACE BOND ISSUE MONEY IS ALREADY
APPROPRIATED.
THE PARK DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL ALLOWS THE CITY TO ACQUIRE A $480, 000 PARK
WITHOUT A DIRECT CITY CONTRIBUTION. PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED OPEN SPACE BOND
ISSUE PROCEEDS ARE AN ALLOWABLE MATCH. BASED ON THIS THE IBC RECOMMENDS
BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR THE IAC GRANT ASSUMING THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS
SUCCESSFUL.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 . 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: I.A.C. GRANT APPLICATION - SCENIC HILL PARK }
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Parks Department to
apply to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation for
matching development funds for Scenic Hill Park. The
application will be for $225, 000, to be matched by $225, 000 from
monies provided by the Kent School District to cover the cost of
the parking lot and by the City's Park Matching Funds Budget.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, fiscal note
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee Parks Department Staff, The
ORB Organization
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PEMNNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE#. Recommended_Z Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRO: $225, 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent School District and City of Kent Park
Matching Funds
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G✓
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, authorizing
applications for funding assistance for an
outdoor recreation project to the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation as provided by
the Marine Recreation Land Act.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent has
approved a "Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan" for the urban
area which identifies a neighborhood park adjacent to Scenic Hill
Elementary in the eastern part of the City; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Marine Recreation
Land Act, state and federal funding assistance has been authorized
and made available to aid in financing the cost of land for parks
and the construction of outdoor recreation facilities of local
public bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent considers
it in the best public interest to develop 5 acres adjacent to
Scenic Hill Elementary as a neighborhood park; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the mayor be authorized to make formal
application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
for funding assistance,
Section 2 . That any fund assistance so received be used
in the development of 5 acres of land in the eastern part of the
City of Kent, Washington.
Section 3 . That the City's share of the project will be
derived from monies provided by the Kent School District to cover
the cost of the parking lot and by the City's Park Matching Funds
Budget.
Section 4 . The City of Kent does hereby certify that the
City is responsible to support all non-cash commitments to the
local share should they not materialize.
Section 5. That any property acquired with financial aid
through the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation be placed
in use as an outdoor recreation facility and be retained in such
use in perpetuity unless as otherwise provided and agreed to by
the City Council, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation, and any affected federal agency, and
Section 6. That this resolution become part of a formal
application to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.
Section 7 . That adequate notification has been given an
opportunity for public input and that published notices have
identified affected flood plains and/or wetlands, if applicable.
Section 8. That the City of Kent does certify that the
City is owner of the land to be developed and based on current
knowledge, provides assurance there are no encumbrances on the
land which would restrict recreation use of the land as proposed
in this application.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1991.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1991.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
2 -
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
_,aject: SCENIC HILL PARK - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 03/27/91 at 1750.
THE PARK DEPARTMENT, AT THE REQUEST OF THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS SEEKING
A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT IN SCENIC HILL PARK.
WITH EXTENSIVE REMODELING OF SCENIC HILL ELEMENTARY, THE PARKING LOT EXPANSION
IS BEING REQUIRED BY THE CITY. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OPTIONS FOR PARKING ARE
EITHER TO USE A PORTION OF THEIR PLAYGROUND OR TO SEEK A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY.
THE AGREEMENT WOULD STATE THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD BEAR THE FULL COST
OF THE PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION BUT THE LOT COULD BE USED BY THE CITY TO
ACCESS THE PARK. IN ADDITION THE CITY COULD USE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CONTRI-
BUTIONS OF $80, 000 TO $100, 000 WITH $120, 000 TO $145, 000 OF BUDGETED CIP GRANT
MATCHING FUNDS TO APPLY FOR A STATE GRANT OF $225, 000. IF THE GRANT IS APPROVED,
A $450, 000 SCENIC HILL PARK IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE PROVIDED. IF THE GRANT IS NOT
APPROVED THE CITY GRANT MATCHING FUNDS WOULD NOT BE USED. ALL PARKING LOT COSTS
WOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
WITH PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION COSTS PAID BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE
ADDITIONAL POSSIBILITY OF USING SCHOOL DISTRICT MONEY TO OBTAIN A $225, 000
MATCHING STATE GRANT, THE IBC APPROVES THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. IF THE GRANT
IS APPROVED, A $450, 000 PARK IMPROVEMENT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AT A CITY COST
OF $120, 000 TO $145, 000. THE CITY HAS $200, 000 BUDGETED IN THE CIP FOR PARK
GRANT MATCHING FUNDS FOR 1991.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 , 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: OLYMPIC PIPELINE FRANCHISE
2 . SUMKARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to RCW 35A.47 .040, this is the
second reading of an ordinance granting Olympic Pipeline Company
a ten year franchise agreement to operate and maintain an
existing pipeline in City rights-of-way. This agreement was
introduced at the March 19, 1991 Council meeting. Since the
first reading, modification to the agreement has been proposed
by the Fire Department, as set forth in page 9 of the document,
requiring immediate notification of accidents and related
incidents as well as providing for a 24 hour telephone number of
such notification. -the--
•er,d4nanee -�-anting -Olympic Pipeline company -the-€ranehise
P�
3 . EXHIBITS: Franchise agreement and excerpt from Public Works
Committee minutes
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
i
5. UNBUDGETED FIS P ONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL N : Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Z-
Councilmember move ncilmember sreCoids
f� adoption of Ordinance, WS granting Olympic Pipeline Company the
franchise agreement for ten years to maintain, operate, replace
and repair an existing pipeline. w c ��l', <;r=w, ct� Czv\d f-he.
YY1t�t-�c r� C a t'r� Fd
DISCUSSION•
r
ACTION• t--- T
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 5, 1991
PAGE 3
unanimously recommended approval to proceed with condemnation if
negotiations for right of way are unsuccessful.
Olympic Pipeline Franchise
Gill explained that Public Works and the Attorney' s office have
been working on a new franchise ordinance for Olympic Pipeline as
their old franchise has expired. Morris explained that she has
added substantial clauses regarding hazardous substances,
notification, spills, and cleanup. She noted that Don Wickstrom
wanted to require a risk assessment of the pipeline system before
approving the franchise in order to determine the current
structural integrity of the system. The indemnification and
insurance sections have been strengthened considerably. They are
required to notify the Public Works Department and the Fire
Department in case of accidental release or accidents relating to
the pipeline. The franchise fee has been increased to $3 . 00 per
lineal foot of pipeline. Olympic Pipeline has reviewed the
ordinance and is in agreement. Morris added this is a 10-year
franchise as opposed to the old one which was 15 years and it does
not allow them to construct any new lines under this franchise.
The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the franchise.
Street Utilitv
Gill explained this is a continuance of the issues brought before
the Committee earlier. We are requesting to establish the corridor
funds to capture the available revenue, establish project budgets
and authorize the staffing requirements . IBC and IPC have reviewed
these requests and it is their recommendation to fill the clerical
and Engineering Technician position as approved in the 1991 budget
and to authorize one new engineer position. Personnel is to
evaluate the Tech and Engineer position to determine the
appropriate level. The rationale of upgrading the . Engineer
position is to be able to use that position to manage contractual
engineers. McCarthy clarified that the Committee should make a
recommendation as to the hiring of these positions. The Committee
unanimously recommended approval of the IBC/IPC recommendation to
proceed with hiring of the Office Technician and Engineering
Technician positions as approved in -the 1991 budget review of the
Technician position to determine appropriate level based upon job
responsibilities and to add an Engineer position at a level to be
determined after review of job responsibilities.
i
,I
I ! �
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, granting unto the Olympic Pipe Line
Company, a Delaware corporation, its successors
and assigns, the right, privilege, authority
and franchise for ten years, to maintain,
operate, replace, and repair an existing pipe-
line, together with equipment and appurtenances
thereto for the transportation, storage and
handling of oil and any by-product thereof, in,
across, under, through and below certain
designated public rights-of-way and public
properties of the City of Kent, State of
Washington.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Franchise Granted. The existing franchise
between the City of Kent, Washington and Olympic Pipeline Company
(hereinafter "Olympic") for utilization of streets, avenues,
rights-of-way, roads, alleys, lanes or other public places within
the City of Kent is hereby cancelled as of
Pursuant to RCW 35A.47 . 040, the City of Kent, Washington
(the "City" herein, ) hereby grants to Olympic Pipeline Company, a
Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, subject to the
terms and conditions set forth hereinafter, a franchise for a
period of ten years, commencing and expiring
This franchise shall grant to Olympic the right,
privilege and authority to operate, maintain, replace, use and
i
operate one existing pipeline and all necessary equipment and
facilities thereto for the transport of oil and oil products, in,
under, on, across, or below the public right-of-ways and public
places located in the City of Kent, more specifically described as
follows:
STREET DISTANCE LOCATION
Across S. 228th St. 60 feet 1754 ' E/CL 68th Ave. S.
Across S. 202nd St. 60 feet 425' E/CL 72nd Ave. S.
Across S. 206th St. 60 feet 425' E/CL 72nd Ave. S.
Across S. 212th St. 60 feet 1730' E/C1 68th Ave. S.
Across S. Smith St. 60 feet 1800' E/CL 68th Ave. S.
Across W. Meeker St. 60 feet 1800' E/CL 68th Ave. S.
Across W. Willis St. 60 feet 740' W/CL 5th Ave.
Across S. 259th St. 60 feet 1375' W/CL 3rd Ave.
Across S. 262nd St. 60 feet 2340' E/CL 70th Ave. S .
Across W. James St. 66 feet 1800' E/CL 68th Ave. S.
The rights and privileges granted under this franchise
shall not convey any right to Olympic to install any new pipelines
or pipeline facilities, or to allow Olympic the use of City-owned,
leased or operated properties outside of the franchise area
described above.
Section 2 . Non-Exclusive Franchise Grant. This franchise
is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any
manner prevent the City of Kent from granting other or further
franchises in, along, over, through, under, below or across any of
said right-of-ways, streets, avenues or all other public lands an
properties of every type and description. Such franchise shall i
no way prevent or prohibit the City of Kent from using any of said
roads, streets or other public properties or affect its jurisdic-
tion over them or any part of them, and the City shall retain
power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs,
maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of same as
they may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment,
2 -
I
1
maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-ways,
thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and
description.
Section 3 . Relocation of Pipeline and Pipeline
Facilities. Olympic agrees and covenants at its sole cost and
expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or
remove from any street any of its installations when so required
by the City of Kent by reason of traffic conditions or public
safety, street vacations, dedications of new right-of-ways and the
establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction,
change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of
any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency
acting in a governmental capacity, provided that Olympic shall in
all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the
authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City o.
Kent, any section of pipeline required to be temporarily
disconnected or removed.
If the City determines that the project necessitates the
I relocation of Olympic's then existing facilities, the City shall:
a) At least sixty (60) days prior to the commencement
of such improvement project, provide Olympic with written notice
requiring such relocation; and
b) Provide Olympic with copies of pertinent portions of
the plans and specifications for such improvement project so that
Olympic may relocate its facilities to accommodate such
improvement project.
C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and
specifications, Olympic shall complete relocation of its facilitiv,
3 -
I
i
at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the
improvement project at' least ten (10) days prior to commencement
of the project.
Olympic may, after receipt of written notice requesting
a relocation of its facilities, submit to the City written
alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such
alternatives and advise Olympic in writing if one or more of the
alternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would
otherwise necessitate relocation of the facilities. If so
requested by the City, Olympic shall submit additional information
to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give
each alternative proposed by Olympic full and fair consideration.
In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no
other reasonable alternative, Olympic shall relocate its
facilities as otherwise provided in this Section.
The provisions of this Section shall in no manner
preclude or restrict Olympic from making any arrangements it may
deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of
its facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where
the facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not
or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities,
provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City
construction project.
Section 4 . Olympic's Maps and Records. As a condition
of this franchise, Olympic shall provide to the City at no cost, a
copy of its current maps and records of its pipeline system and
facilities as they exist on the date of this franchise agreement
in the City of Kent. These maps and records shall be copies of
those that Olympic updates and maintains in order to comply with
the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 49,
4 -
I I
I
Part 195.04 , or any other federal regulations that may be adopted
for promulgated in the future on the subject of pipeline safety.
All such maps and records, including the results of all tests or
inspections of the pipeline and its facilities done by Olympic
pursuant to 49 CFR §195 and any other federal regulations, shall
be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the proper
officials and agents of the City.
Upon written request of the City, Olympic shall provide
the City with the most recent updated plan available of potential
improvements to its facilities within the franchise area; Provided,
However, any such plan so submitted shall be for informational
purposes only and shall not obligate Olympic to undertake any
specific improvements within the franchise area, nor shall such
plan be construed as a proposal to undertake any specific
improvements within the franchise area.
Section 5. Pipeline Integrity. Prior to and as a
condition of the granting of this franchise, Olympic shall provide
for the city's review and approval, a Risk Assessment of Olympic's
pipeline system as it now exists within the Kent City limits. The
Risk Assessment shall be prepared by a consultant firm approved by
the City and stamped by a Washington State licensed engineer with
demonstrated experience in the field. The Assessment, prepared
under the direction of the City, shall include, but not be limited
to, a review of the original pipeline system design, any subsequen
modifications, the installation records, Olympic's past and
present operational and maintenance practices, emergency response
plan and emergency response record. The Assessment shall also
contain a determination of the potential failure risk of the
pipeline or any of its parts, apparatus and equipment, with
respect to loss of product into the environment during this
franchise term, or, until the year 2001. Locations of all
5 -
potential failure areas shall also be stated in the Assessment, as
well as the projected associated environmental damage or clean-up
costs, as such costs can reasonably be estimated.
i
All pipe and any other components of pipeline systems to
be placed by Olympic in the future within any street right-of-way
or other public property as designated under this franchise
agreement, 'shall be designed, manufactured and installed in full
compliance with the Design Requirements for Hazardous Liquids
Pipelines as set forth in 49 CFR §195, Subpart C, or any other
future federal regulations promulgated on the subject. Whenever
Olympic shall relocate or replace any pipeline system or portion
thereof, the new pipe or facilities shall be initially tested and
then tested annually or sooner thereafter, according to the
schedules as set forth in the federal regulations on the subject.
Section 6. Excavations. During any period of relocation
or maintenance, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected
and used in such places and positions within said public right-of-
ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as
possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of
adjoining property, and Olympic shall at all times post and
maintain proper barricades during such period of construction as
required by the laws of the State of Washington or the ordinances
of the City of Kent.
Whenever Olympic shall excavate in any public right-of-
way or other public property for the purpose of repair, maintenanc
or relocation of its facilities, it shall apply to the City for a
permit to do so and shall give the City at least three (3) working
days notice thereof. During the progress of the work, Olympic
shall not unnecessarily obstruct the passage or proper use of the
- 6 -
i
right-of-way, and shall file maps or plans with the City showing
the proposed and final location of the pipeline.
If either the City or Olympic shall at any time plan to
make excavations in any area covered by this franchise and as
described in this section, the party planning such excavation
shall afford the other, upon receipt of a written request to do
so, an opportunity to share such excavation, PROVIDED THAT: (1)
such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party
causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be
arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to
both parties; and (3) either party may deny such request for
safety reasons.
Section 7. Restoration after Construction. Olympic
shall, after abandonment approved under Section 16 herein, or
I relocation, maintenance, or repair of pipeline/facilities within
the franchise area, restore the surface of the right-of-way or
public property to at least the condition same was in immediately
prior to any such relocation, maintenance or repair. All concrete
encased recorded monuments which have been disturbed or displaced
by such work shall be restored pursuant to all federal, state and
local standards and specifications. Olympic agrees to promptly
complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage
caused by such work to" the franchise area or other affected area
at its sole cost and expense.
Section 8. Warranties. Olympic represents, warrants and
�1covenants that a) Olympic has not received any notice of, and is
not aware of, any actual or alleged release of any hazardous
substance from or in the pipeline system; b) Olympic has not
received any notice of and is not aware of, any actual or alleged
violation with respect to the pipeline system of any federal,
- 7 -
i.
i
state or local statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other law
pertaining to hazardous substances; and c) no action or proceeding
1 is pending before or appealable from any court, quasi-judicial
( body or administrative agency relating to hazardous substances
emanating from, caused by or affecting Olympic's pipeline system.
For the purpose of this franchise, the term "hazardous
substance" shall mean any hazardous, toxic or dangerous substance,
waste or material that is regulated under any federal, state or
local law pertaining to environmental protection, contamination,
cleanup or liability. The term includes without limitation, a)
any substance designated a "hazardous substance" under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ) , and/or under the Model Toxics
Control Act (Ch. 70. 105D RCW) , as these statutes shall be amended
from time to time, and b) any substances that, after being
released into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion,
inhalation or assimilation, either directly from the environment
or indirectly by ingestion through the food chain, will or may be
reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavior
abnormalities, cancer and/or genetic abnormalities in humans,
plants or animals. "Release" means any intentional or
unintentional entry of any hazardous substance into the
environment, including, without limitation, the abandonment or
disposal of containers of hazardous substances.
Section 9. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Olympic
shall not cause or permit the pipeline to be used to generate,
manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, dispose,
transfer, produce or process hazardous substances, except in
compliance with all applicable federal state and local laws or
regulations. Nor shall Olympic cause or permit, as a result of
any intentional or unintentional act or omission on the part of
- 8 -
II �
i
ii
'I
I
Olympic, any assignee or agent of Olympic, or any third party, a
release of hazardous substances on, the property of the City or on
any other property.
Section 10. Notification of Releases and/or Accidents•
Monitoring. Olympic shall monitor the pipeline system by making
visual inspections at least once every three weeks as required by
49 CFR 195. 412, or as may be required by any federal or state
regulations that may be promulgated on the subject in the future,
and by performing annual pressure tests of the pipelines. Olympic
shall ( (net#f]r-the=2iy-Pabl#e-Werks-Beper�Men -et-859-3363-end-bY�
e3t1+-ire-Heper�xlent-et-859-3369-1atk#n-trte-f�}-heirs) ) immediatel
notify the City Fire Department at 852-2121 (24 hour number) and
the City Public Works Department at 859-3383 of the occurrence of
any of the following circumstances which occur within the Kent
I City limits or which may affect property within the existing Kent
City limits or as the Kent City limits may be hereafter extended:
I
i1) When there is a leak in the pipeline causing a loss
of Olympic's product;
2) When there is an explosion or fire involving
Olympic's pipeline facilities or product;
t
3) When there is an escape into the atmosphere of
Olympic's products, or highly volatile liquids;
4) When there exists any hazardous condition which
could lead to an accident or imminently dangerous
I; situation;
5) When there is an escape of Olympic's product into
any stream, river, lake, reservoir, ground water or ..
water table;
9 -
i
6) When any person suffers bodily injury or death in an
event involving Olympic's pipeline, facilities or
product;
7) When there is damage to any public or private
property involving Olympic's pipeline, facilities or
product, which property is not owned by Olympic.
Within twenty-four (24) hours of the oral notice, Olympic
shall follow up with a written notice, addressed to the Director
of the Kent Public Works Department, 400 West James St. , Kent,
Washington 98032. Both oral and written notices shall specify, to
the extent possible, the Hazardous Substance involved; the amount
of Hazardous Substances involved; the location of the release or
contamination; the time and duration of the release or
contamination; the steps being taken to stop, limit or remediate
the release or contamination; other governmental agencies
contacted about the release or contamination; and the name and/or
title of the person making the notice.
Within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of any accident
involving Olympic's pipelines, facilities or products in the City,
Olympic shall prepare and file a written accident report with the
City, which shall either provide all information or be identical
to the completed form required for this purpose by the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation, pursuant to 49 CFR Parts
195. 50, 195.54, 195. 55 and 195. 56, or any future federal
regulations promulgated on the subject. The information on this
report shall include, but not be limited to a description of the
event, all significant facts relevant to the event, the
circumstances leading to its discovery, the corrective action
taken and the extent of any personal injuries, fatalities or
property damage.
- 10 -
Compliance with this provision shall not excuse Olympic
from any other notification requirements under federal, state or
local law. Failure to comply with the notification and .reporting
requirements of this Section or the hazardous waste clean-up and
permit regulations contained in Kent City Ordinance 2718 shall be
grounds for revocation of this franchise.
Section 11. Notification of Violation. In addition to
the requirements for notification contained in Section 10 herein
regarding accidents or releases, Olympic shall notify the City in
writing within 24• hours after Olympic a) receives any notice of or
becomes aware of any actual or alleged violation, with respect to
the pipeline system, or of any federal, state or local law
pertaining to Hazardous Substances, or b) becomes aware of any
Mien or action with respect to any of the foregoing. Olympic
will, at its sole expense, act in a manner satisfactory to the
III City, to comply with all laws, including Kent City Ordinance 2718,
and with all orders, decrees or judgments of governmental
j authorities or courts that apply to the use, collection, storage,
treatment, control, removal or clean-up of Hazardous Substances
emanating from or related to the pipeline system. Olympic shall
immediately comply with any request or order of the City relative
to the operation of the pipeline that the City determines
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Olympic shall further pay all clean-up, administrative and
enforcement costs of governmental agencies if obligated to do so
by contract or law. The City may, but is not obligated to take
such actions and incur such costs and expenses to effect such
compliance as it deems advisable; and whether or not Olympic has
actual knowledge of the existence of Hazardous Substances in, on
or under the affected premises or adjacent property as of the date
hereof, Olympic shall reimburse the City on demand for the full
amount of all costs and expenses the City incurred in connection
with such compliance activities.
- 11 -
Section 12 . Emergency Work -- Permit Waiver. In the
event of any emergency in which a pipeline located in or under any
street, breaks, is damaged or otherwise is in such a condition as
to immediately endanger the property, life, health or safety of
any individual, or when a violation as described in Section ' ll,
"Notification of Violation" occurs, Olympic shall immediately take
the proper emergency measures to cure or remedy the dangerous
conditions for the protection of property, life, health or safety
of individuals without first applying for and obtaining a permit
as required by this franchise. However, this shall not relieve
Olympic from the requirement of obtaining any permits necessary
for this purpose, and Olympic shall apply for all such permits not
later than the next succeeding day during which the Kent City Hall
is open for business.
Section 13 . Recovery of Costs. Olympic shall pay a
filing fee for the City's administrative costs in drafting and
processing this franchise agreement and all work related thereto,
including the cost of the City's review of the Risk Assessment in
Section 5 herein. Olympic shall further be subject to all permit
fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority
granted in this Ordinance or in prior ordinances relating to the
pipeline system, including Kent City Ordinance 2718, regardless of
the voluntary nature of any clean-up efforts. Where the City
incurs costs and expenses for review, inspection or supervision
of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this
Ordinance or any prior ordinances relating to the pipeline system
for which a permit fee is not established, Olympic shall pay such
costs and expenses directly to the City. In addition to the
above, Olympic shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all
costs it reasonably incurs in response to any emergency involving
Olympic's pipelines and facilities.
- 12 -
II
ii
i
it -
'
Section 14 . Indemnification. Olympic hereby releases,
C
covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the city, its officers, employees, agents and
I representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards
or liability to any person, including claims by Olympic's own
jemployees to which Olympic might otherwise be immune under Title
i51 RCW, arising from injury or death of any person or damage to
property of which the negligent acts or omissions of Olympic, its
agents, servants, officers or employees in performing this
franchise are the proximate cause. Olympic further releases,
covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and
all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person
(including claims by Olympic's own employees, including those
claims to which Olympic might otherwise have immunity under Title
51 RCW) arising against the City solely by virtue of the City's
ownership or control of the rights-of-way or other public
properties, by virtue of Olympic's exercise of the rights granted
herein, or by virtue of the City's permitting Olympic's use of the
City's rights-of-way or other public property based upon the
inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Olympic, its
agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work
authorized on the City's property or property over which the City
has control, pursuant to this franchise or pursuant to any other
permit or approval issued in connection with this franchise. This
covenant of indemnification shall include, but not be limited by
this reference, claims against the City arising as a result of the
negligent acts or omissions of Olympic, its agents, servants,
officers or employees in barricading or providing other adequate
warnings of any excavation, construction, or work in any public
right-of-way or other public place in performance of work or
services permitted under this franchise.
13 -
Olympic further agrees to release, covenants not to bring
suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City,
its officers and employees, agents and representatives from any
land all claims, costs, judgments or awards to any person,
, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the
City, or liabilities resulting from a) any breach of the
� representations and warranties as contained in this franchise, or
in any notice, report or permit application made by Olympic
pursuant to the requirements of this franchise, or local, state or
', federal law; and b) Hazardous Substances from the pipeline system
being found on or removed from any properties.
Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work
performed by Olympic at the time of completion shall not be
, ,, grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification
Said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims
,, which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be
, compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the
, institution of any litigation.
In the event that the Grantee refuses the tender of
defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made
pursuant to the indemnification clauses contained herein, and said
refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction
i (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the
matter) , to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Olympic,
then Olympic shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the
faction, including all reasonable expert witness fees and
[! reasonable attorneys' fees and the reasonable costs of the City,
;; including reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this-
' indemnification clause.
i
I;
14 -
�1
i
I
]
I
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that
this franchise agreement is subject to RCW 4 .24 . 115, then, in the
pk event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to
h ' persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the
:i concurrent negligence of Olympic and the City, its officers,
r employees and agents, Olympic's liability hereunder shall be only
p to the extent of Olympic's negligence. It is further specifically
and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein
constitutes Olympic's waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW,
solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has
been mutually negotiated by the parties.
The provisions of this Section shall survive the
�iexpiration or termination of this franchise agreement.
Section 15. Insurance. Olympic shall procure and
Imaintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against
claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may
] arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights,
privileges and authority granted hereunder to Olympic, its agents,
representatives or employees. Olympic shall provide a copy of
]
such insurance policy to the City for its inspection prior to the
adoption of this franchise ordinance, and such insurance shall
evidence:
I
1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less
than $1, 000, 000 Combined Single Limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage; and
2 . Commercial General Liability insurance policy
written on an occurrence basis with limits no less
than $2 , 000, 000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence,
and $2 , 000, 000 aggregate for personal injury, bodil,..
�'; - 15 -
i
injury and property damage. Coverage shall include
but not be limited to: pollution coverage and cost
of cleanup; blanket contractual; products/completed
operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse
and underground (XCU) ; and Employer's Liability.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the City. Payment of deductible or
self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the
Contractor.
The insurance obtained by Olympic shall name the City,
its officers, employees and volunteers as insureds with regard to
activities performed by or on behalf of Olympic. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers. In addition, the insurance policy shall contain a
clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insure
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability. Olympic's insurance
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall
be excess of Olympic's insurance and shall not contribute with
it. The insurance policy or polices required by this clause shall
be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail,
return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of
the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
- 16 -
li
I
i
Section 16. Abandonment of Pipeline or Pipeline
Facilities. No pipeline, section of pipeline or pipeline facility
may be abandoned by Olympic without the express written consent of
! the City. The City shall not consent to abandonment until Olympic',
llprovides an environmental report prepared for this purpose, which
, evaluates ground and surface water quality, surrounding soil
contamination or pollution of any kind in the area of the proposedl!,
, abandonment. If the City approves certain pipeline sections or
' facilities for abandonment, Olympic must comply with all local,
(,, state and federal regulations pertinent to abandonment of oil
pipelines and associated clean-up activities, including Kent City
Ordinance 2718.
Section 17. Bond. Before undertaking any of the work,
! improvements, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by thi-
� franchise, Olympic shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a-
Ibond executed by Olympic and a corporate surety authorized to do a
surety business in the State of Washington, in a sum to be set and
(' approved by the Director of Public Works as sufficient to ensure
performance of Olympic's obligations under this franchise. The
Ibond shall be conditioned so that Olympic shall observe all the
lcovenants, terms and conditions and faithfully perform all of the
obligations of this franchise, and to erect or replace any
idefective work or materials discovered in the replacement of the
City's streets or property within a period of two years from the
date of the replacement and acceptance of such repaired streets by
the City.
Section 18 . Modification. The City and Olympic hereby
reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and
conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both
parties to such alteration, amendment or modification.
17 -
I
i
i
i
Section 19 . Forfeiture and Revocation. If Olympic
willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence
fails to heed or comply with any notice given Olympic under the
provisions of this franchise, then Olympic shall, at the election
of the Kent City Council, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder
and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the Council after
i
a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Olympic. The City may
elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of
its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the
superior court having jurisdiction compelling Olympic to comply
with the provisions of this Ordinance and to recover damages and
costs incurred by the City by reason of Olympic's failure to
comply.
l
Section 20. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition
to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right
to pursue any remedy to compel or force Olympic and/or its
successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the
pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the
City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for
breach of the conditions herein.
Section 21. Franchise Fee. In consideration of the
benefits conferred under this franchise, Olympic shall pay an
annual fee to the City in an amount equal to three dollars ($3 .00)
per lineal foot of franchise area, which fee shall be increased or
decreased each year by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers for the Seattle-Tacoma area (CPI-W) .
The first installment of this fee shall be paid at the time of
execution of this franchise ordinance, and each succeeding
installment by March 1st, prior to the beginning of the next year
18 -
i
i
' of the franchise. Interest shall accrue on any late payment at
the rate of twelve (12) per cent per annum.
Section 22 . City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to direct the City's ability to adopt and
enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the
performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any
reasonable ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in
the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public.
The City shall have the authority at all times to control by
appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of
construction and maintenance of any pipelines or pipeline
facilities by Olympic, and Olympic shall promptly conform with all
such regulations, unless compliance would cause Olympic to violate
other requirements of law.
Section 23 . Cost of Publication. The cost of the
publication of this Ordinance shall be borne by Olympic.
Section 24 . Acceptance. After the passage and approval
of this Ordinance and within sixty days after such approval, this
franchise shall be accepted by said Grantee by its filing with the
City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure
of the Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of
time shall be deemed a .rejection thereof by the Grantee, and the
rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration
of the sixty day period, absolutely cease and determine, unless
the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that
purpose.
Section 25. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions
and requirements of Section 7, 14, and 16 of this franchise shall
be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities
Olympic may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by
contract, and shall survive the City's franchise to Olympic for
- 19 -
�r
the use of the areas mentioned in Section 1 herein, and any
I
renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions,
conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this
franchise Ordinance shall further be binding upon the successors
and assigns of Olympic and all privileges, as well as all
obligations and liabilities of Olympic shall inure to its
successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically
mentioned wherever Olympic is named herein.
Section 26. Right-of-Entry. The City is hereby
authorized but not required to enter the premises of Olympic Oil
Company, at reasonable times, to inspect the premises to ascertain
the accuracy of all representations and warranties, and compliance
with all covenants in this franchise.
Section 27 . Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid orI
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this franchise Ordinance. In the event that any of the
provisions of this franchise are held to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider
the grant of this franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or
modify any other provision of this franchise, or may terminate
this franchise.
Section 28 . Assignment. Olympic may not assign this
franchise without the written consent of the City Council of the
City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If such
consent is given for assignment of this franchise, acceptance of
the assignment by Olympic's successor shall be filed with the City
Clerk.
i
20 -
I
i
I
I
Section 29. Notice. Any notice or information required
or permitted to be given to the parties under this franchise
agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise
specified:
City of Kent
Director of Public Works
220 4th Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Olympic Pipeline Company
Attn: W. A. Mulkey
P. 0. Box 1800
Renton, WA 98057
Section 30. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take
effect on 611id lC Il or thirty (30) days after its
execution; having first been submitted to the Kent City Attorney;
having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority
of the City Council at a regular meeting after introduction
on ; and after having been published at least
once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Kent.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
- 21 -
i
U Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 2 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
(Csoiu�,00
2. SUNKARY STATffiNM Passage of ae-0-rU17r&FGQ pursuant nn
RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, to establish
Puget Sound Regional Council. This agreement provides 1r .-
regional transportation planning in accordance with fed
state law and replaces those functions currently perfor.
the interlocal agreement establishing the Puget Sound C4
Governments, which terminates June 1991. In order to m4
federal and state guidelines for grant application prow
the agreement must be approved by April 12, 1991.
3 . EXHIBITS: City Attorney memo to Mayor and Council, ordinance,
interlocal agreement
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO YES
FISCAUPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
to be determined
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ) }�
Councilmember moves, Councilmember L�" ►� seconds
i'� g0
passage of the authorizing execution of an interlocal
agreement creating the Puget Sound Regional Council.
DISCUSSION:
1
ACTION•
{ •, , ' Council Agenda)
;� Item No. O
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
i
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
i
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
----------------------------------------
,ject: BUDGET STATUS AND CIP KICKOFF
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 03/26/91 at 1130 .
EACH YEAR ABOUT THIS TIME WE PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL A DRAFT BUDGET CALENDAR
FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S BUDGET PROCESS. THIS YEAR'S PROCESS ALSO INCLUDES
THE CALENDAR FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DONE EVERY OTHER YEAR. THE
CALENDARS ARE PRIOR YEAR CALENDARS WITH CURRENT YEAR DATES AND THUS IDENTIFY
A PROCESS SIMILIAR TO WHAT WAS FOLLOWED LAST YEAR FOR THE BUDGET AND 2 YEARS
AGO FOR THE CIP.
LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME WE WERE PROJECTING CONTINUED ECONOMIC GROWTH. THE MOST
RECENT ECONOMIC PICTURE IS ONE OF A SLOWED DOWN ECONOMY. TO DEAL WITH THIS
REVENUE SLOWDOWN, ADMINISTRATION HAS IMPLEMENTED A HIRING AND CIP SLOWDOWN
FOR 1991. THIS SLOWDOWN WILL HOPEFULLY BRING EXPENDITURES WITHIN AVAILABLE
REVENUE AND THUS AVOID ANY BUDGET REDUCTIONS. THIS SLOWDOWN HAS AND WILL SAVE
FUTURE BUDGET DOLLARS BUT HAS NOT TURNED AROUND THE CITY 'S FINANCIAL FORECAST
AT THIS TIME.
POSSIBLY OF EVEN GREATER CONCERN IS THE 1992 BUDGET WHICH MUST ACCOMMODATE
NEGOTIATED LABOR CONTRACTS, CONTINUED MEDICAL AND LIABILITY INSURANCE
INCREASES PLUS OTHER INFLATIONARY COSTS AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY'S REVENUE
FORECASTS ARE LEVELING OUT.
BASED ON THIS, OUR INITIAL BUDGET DIRECTION TO THE DEPARTMENTS IS TO PLAN ON
A HOLD THE LINE BUDGET FOR 1992. THIS HOLD THE LINE BUDGET WILL PROBABLY
Te,ORPORATE ONE TIME ONLY TRANSFERS FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND LIKE
_ 2 $300, 000 TRANSFERED IN THE 1991 BUDGET.
IF THE SCENERIO .IS BETTER, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TRANSFERS WILL BE
LESS.
IF THE SCENERIO IS WORSE, THE CURRENT HIRING AND CIP SLOWDOWN WOULD
CONTINUE INTO NEXT YEAR.
AT THIS POINT ANY ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM YOU ON THE CALENDAR OR THE PROCEES
WOULD BE APPRECIATED. THE HOLD THE LINE BUDGET ASSUMES THAT THERE WILL BE NO
NEW PROGRAMS FOR THE COUNCIL TO EVALUATE SO THE USUAL SUMMER BUDGET MEETINGS
COULD BE SHORTENED. OTHER OPTIONS COULD BE A SHORTENED LIST OF DEPARTMENTAL
PRIORITES PRIMARILY FUNDED WITH OTHER FUNDS OR INCREASED TAXES/FEES AND/OR A
DEPARTMENTAL LIST OF PROGRAM REDUCTIONS.
WE WILL USE ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM YOU AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TO MODIFY
THE CALENDARS AND/OR PROCESSES.
CITY OF
1992 COUNCIL BUDGETTCALENDAR
COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2/28
Current Financial Status and Outlook
4/2
COUNCIL REGULAR
Review 1992 Budget & CIP Calendar/Process
Preliminary 1992 and beyond Financial Forecast
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/7
1st Quarter Financial Report
Update 1992 Budget Process
COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/3 - 7/12
Review Departmental programs, goals and 1992 Budget Objectives
DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/15 - 7/26
Review 1992 budget request
COUNCIL REGULAR 7/16
Public Hearing on 1992-1997 CIP
Proposed Public Use Hearing on 1992 Budget priorities
8/6
COUNCIL REGULAR
Adopt 1992-1997 CIP
COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.) 8/8
2nd Quarter Financial Report
Updated Financial Forecast
Council to Prioritize 1992 Budget Objectives
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING 9/3
Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Objectives
Proposed Public Use Hearing on Budget
Receive Council Balancing Instructions
9/17
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Budget update of implementing 1992 Budget Objectives
10/15
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report
Overview of Preliminary 1992 Budget
COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/16 - 11/12
Review 1992 Preliminary Budget
11/5
COUNCIL REGULAR
Public Hearing on 1992 Budget
11/19
COUNCIL REGULAR
Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance
12/3
COUNCIL REGULAR
Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1991
Z
1992 - 1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISED
CALENDAR OF EVENTS 3/25/91
MEET WITH PLANNING TO DISCUSS CIP COORDINATION
2/7
DISTRIBUTE CALENDAR & OLD QUESTIONAIRE a DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING 2/11
2/20
DISCUSS CIP PROCESS AT IBC MEETING /25
DISTRIBUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEETS IN REVISED FORMAT 2/25-2/15
DEPARTMENTS COMPLETE PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEETS 4/1
PREPARE PRELIMINARY CIP REVENUE FORECAST 4/2
DISCUSS CIP PROCESS WITH COUNCIL AT WORKSHOP
4/8
FINALIZE CIP QUESTIONAIRE & PROCESS AT DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING 4/30
MAIL CIP QUESTIONAIRES
PLANNING REVIEWS ?ROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEETS FOR CONCURRANCY 4/15-5/15
FINANCE PREPARES 5 YEAR REVENUE & EXPENSE PLAN AS REQUESTED 5/15-5/30
15
COMMUNITY MEETING:3 HELD
REVIEW QUESTIONAIRE, MEETING AND FUNDING OPTIONS WITH COUNCIL 6/18
7/16
PRESENT BALANCED 1992-1997 CIP TO COUNCIL 8/6
ADOPT 1992 -1997 CIP
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRE
At the 1991 City Council retreat the Council developed a list of target issues.The capital related target issues along with other
issues from previous CIP questionaires and issues that have come up in various community meeting are listed below for your
evaluation.
Next to each statement, circle the number which best reflects your sentiments, 5 meaning you agree with the statement, 1
meaning you disagree. Please indicate by circling "yes" or"no" whether you would be willing to support a tax or fee increase
to help accomplish the task.
SUPPORT
AGREE DISAGREE TAX FEE
IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
East-West arterials needed 5 4 3 2 1 yes no yes no
North-South arterials needed
Commuter rail needed
Better bus service needed
64th Avenue completion needed
Pavement repair needed
Other/Comments
DOWNTOWN AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Cultural/Performing Arts and Convention Center needed 2
Separate Kent Municipal Court needed
Downtown parking facilities needed O W
Downtown pedestrian walkways (midblock) needed
Historic preservation funding needed
Other/Comments
ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
.Expansion of Police facilites needed
City Correctional facility expansion needed
,Continued public safety automation and communication needed
Emergency fire apparatus and equipment needed
Equipment for fire facilities &Training Center needed
,Fire facility for building and grounds maintenance needed
Other/Comments
EXPAND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
East hill park development needed
Interurban trail development needed
Green River Trail improvements needed
Clerk Lake park acquisition needed
Ice skating facility needed
Skateboard facility needed
Additional outdoor athletic complex needed
Additional indoor recreation facility needed
Revitalize and update existing parks needed
Additional parking at parks and park facilities needed
Other/Comments
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITMENT f
Senior housing project completion needed r
Housing opportunities for lower income families needed
Emergency and transitional housing needed
Enhance city employee productivity through automation and training
Other/Comments
PRESERVE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Preservation of streams and wetlands needed
Preservation of critical wildlife needed
Preservation of farmlands and open space needed
Improved storm drainage needed
Expanded recycling program needed
Other/Comments
0 � _
D �
o
Y cc qJ
LL W E E Tm
tiol� WQ >t � � ¢(i $�� Svi � 11 ScYoH
L S E Y J O m v ;:3 U.N O o c' i,E A Ca-tt Soe tw1�X'
EEO � LL �' � aT" h LL .U > t'�,•:.S�Nr�1�ot�.�.lirC
a V V IL
Q rn ff E 'efi 5 i, w l� �ooU 1,"ke
C y }W — c d d J xv m
> U 8 c 3
`cy v m
U a Ew y.N -na
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRE
At the 1991 City Council retreat the Council developed a list of target issues.The capital related target issues along with other
issues from previous CIP questionaires and issues that have come up in various community meeting are listed below for your
evaluation.
Next to each statement,circle the number which best reflects your sentiments,5 meaning you agree with the statement, 1
meaning you disagree.Please indicate by circling"yes"or"no"whether you would be willing to support a tax or fee increase
to help accomplish the task.
SUPPORT
AGREE DISAGREE TAX FEE
IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM h`
East-West arterials needed ^ \\U 5 4 3 2 1 yes no yes no
North-South a e needed
Commuter railit needed O 0 W
Better hue service needed D
64th Avenue completion needed
Pavement repair needed
Other/Comments
DOWNTOWN AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Cultural/Performing Arts and Convention Center needed
Separate Kent Municipal Court needed
Downtown parking facilities needed .
Downtown pedestrian walkways(midblock)needed
Historic preservation funding needed
Other/Comments
ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
Expansion of Police facilitea needed
City Correctional facility expansion needed
Continued public safety automation and communication needed
Emergency fire apparatus and equipment needed
Equipment for fire facilities&Training Center needed
Other/Comments
EXPAND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
East hill park development needed
Interurban trail development needed
Green River Trail improvements needed
Clark Lake park acquisition needed
lea skating facility needed .
Skateboard facility needed
Additional outdoor athletic complex needed
Additional Indoor recreation facility needed
Revitalize and update existing parks needed
Additional parking at parka and park facilities needed
Other/Comments
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITMENT
Senior housing project completion needed
Housing opportunities for lower income families needed
Emergency and transitional housing needed
Enhance city employee productivity through automation and training
Other/Comments
PRESERVE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Preservation of streams and wetlands needed
Preservation of critical wildlife needed
Preservation of farmlands and open space needed
Improved storm drainage needed
Expanded recycling program needed
Other/Comments
If Increased taxes are needed to help pay for Improvements,which local tax would you find least objectionable?
O Property Tax ❑Utility Tax ❑Special Assessments ❑ Other
Other/Comments
Please check the box where your home Is located? 0 West Hill ❑ East Hill ❑ Valley Floor
Return with your utility bill or hand deliver It to the City of Kant Flnanca Department, City Hall,220 4lh Ave.So.,Kant,WA 98032.
PROPERTY TAXES
,00 �-
e�eaa
Actual
80%
70
60%
so%
ao PROPERTY TAX
00
ACTUAL S 68,302
BUDGET 8,619,411
20x
EST ACT 7,589,089
10X PROJ VAR (1,030,322)
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 41.7.E 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/, 75.0% 83.3% 91.7/ 100.0%
BUDGET 0.3% 0.9% 2.0% 23.9% 51.5% 52.0% 52.1% 52.8% 53.3% 76.7% 99.1% 100.0%
ACTUAL 0.4% 0.8%
EST ACT 144.7/ 88.0%
SALES AND USE TAX
,0p va0
80%
70
80%
so%
qp SALES & USE TAX
00 ACTUAL $ 2,080,960
BUDGET 9,726,668
20% EST ACT 9,167,223
PROJ VAR (559,445)
,0%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 41.7/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/ 75.0% 83.3% 91.7%, 100.0%
BUDGET 7.6% 15.1% 22.7/ 30.2% 38.7'/. 47.1% 56.1% 65.3% 73.6% 81.9% 90.8% 100.0%
ACTUAL 6.8% 13.3% 21.4%
EST ACT 89.0% 88.3% 94.2%
"a �,1
I� 9a �. `� P�do✓�
UTILITY TAXES
,10
Budget
-»E
100% Aaual
so
60
7o%
BO
UTILITY TAX
so
ACTUAL $ 794,027
40x BUDGET 3,473,571
EST ACT 3,551,737
so PROJ VAR 78,166
20
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.T/ 25.0% 33.3% 41.T/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.T/. 75.0% 83.3% 91.7*/ 100.0%
BUDGET 21.2% 22.4% 23.5% 48.8% 50.3% 51.4% 73.9% 74.5% 76.77 97.7% 99.0% 100.0%
ACTUAL 22.6% 22.9%
EST ACT 107.0% 102.3%
BUILDING PERMITS
100
Budget
Ile-
g0 Aaual
Fm(lr�
70
654BUILDING PERMITS
Op ACTUAL $ 27,404
BUDGET 541,500
lox EST ACT 202,349
PROJ VAR (339,151)
10%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 41.7% 50.0% 58.3% 66.7'/ 75.0% 83.3% 91.T/ 100.0%
BUDGET 7.7*/ 13.5% 21.8% 30.1% 37.8% 47.8% 57.0% 66.3% 81.6% 90.4% 95.5% 100.0%
ACTUAL 2.3% 5.1%
EST ACT 30.1% 37.4%
RECREATION FEES
100 Budget
-)1e-
Go Ao ual
80X
70
60%
SO%
40 RECREATION FEES
30 ACTUAL $ 76,481
BUDGET 983,007
20% EST ACT 782,129
PROJ VAR (200,878)
10%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.T/ <5.0% 33.3% 41.7/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.7% 75.0% 83.3% 91.70A 100.0%
BUDGET 5.5% 9.8% 23.6% 36.9% 42.9% 52.7/ 60.1% 70.3% 77.2% 80.8% 89.3% 100.0%
ACTUAL 4.8% 7.8%
EST ACT 86.6% 79.6%
WATER REVENUE
100 Budges
-i1F-
g0 Rdual
60%
70
60%
60%
WATER REVENUE
40
30 ACTUAL $ 964,142
BUDGET 7,335,600
20% EST ACT 7,978,213
PROJ VAR 642,613
to%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV D
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7/ 25.0% 33.3% 41.T/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.7% 75.0% 83.3% 91.7/ 100.0%
BUDGET 5.9% 12.1% 17.8% 24.6% 32.5% 42.0% 49.97 58.2% 68.7% 76.0% 85.2% 100.0%
ACTUAL 7.2% -
EST ACT 123.0%
O
SEWER AND DRAINAGE REVENUE
100
e�aa«
ao -�-
AR�eI
80%
70
60X
SoX
40
SEWER 8 DRAINAGE REVENUE
00
ACTUAL $ 1,617,853
lox BUDGET (1) 10,981,400
EST ACT 10,239,663
tox PROJ VAR (741,737)
0
JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7/ 25.0% 33.3% 41.7'/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/ 75.0% 83.3% 91.7/ 100.0%
BUDGET 8.2% 15.8% 24.0% 33.4% 41.8% 49.8% 60.0% 68.0% 77.1% 86.1% 91.8% 100.0%
ACTUAL 8.3%
EST ACT 100.3%
GOLF COURSE REVENUE
100
-dq-
go%-
80%-
70yl-
80%-
so%-
40%- GOLF COURSE REVENUE
00
ACTUAL $ 259,648
20x BUDGET 2,957,711
EST ACT 3,461,973
10X PROJ VAR 504,262
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7/ 25.0% 33.3% 41.7/ 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/ 75.0% 83.3% 91.7% 100.0%
BUDGET 2.8% 7.5% 15.8% 25.4% 36.6% 50.3% 63.9% 78.8% 89.1% 94.9% 97.9% 100.0%
ACTUAL 3.1% 8.8%
EST ACT 109.4% 117.0%
1
EXHIBIT E
GENERAL FUND TOTAL REVENUE
,00
8.dga
so +c-
A4aal
aox
70
00%
SO%
40
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
00
ACTUAL $ 2,024,729
20x BUDGET 31,149,672
EST ACT 29,124,943
10x PROJ VAR (2,024,729)
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7/. 25.0% 33.3% 41.7% 50.0% 58.3% 66.77A 75.0% 83.3% 91.7X 100.0%
BUDGET 7.0% 10.8% 15.5% 29.1% 41.3% 48.8% 57.1% 61.8% 67.0% 80.7% 91.3% 100.0%
ACTUAL 6.5%
EST ACT 93.5%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES
,00
Budgat
00
A4ual
E0%
70
00%
SO%
40 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
so ACTUAL S 2,645,524
BUDGET 32,887,388
20% EST ACT 31,448,741
PROJ VAR 1,438,647
,0%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
% OF YEAR 8.3% 16.7X 25.0% 33.3% 41.7X 50.0% 58.3% 66.7/. 75.0% 83.3% 91.7% 100.0%
BUDGET 8.4% 15.5% 23.4% 31.4% 39.4% 48.6% 56.5% 64.8% 72.5% 80.9% 90.2% 100.0%
ACTUAL 8.0%
EST ACT 95.6%
I O
CITY OF KENT EXHIBIT F
CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
GENERAL FUND
1991
---------------------------------------
Adjusted Adjustments Estimated
Budget Fav (Unfav) Actual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVENUES
Taxes:
Property 8,619,411 8,619,411
Sales 9,726,668 (559,445) 9,167,223
Utility 3,473,571 78,166 3,551,737
Other 511,881 511,881
Licenses and permits 787,600 (339,151) 448,449
Intergovernmental revenue 4,072,039 55,815 4,127,854
Charges for services 1,623,473 (200,878) 1,422,595
Fines and forfeitures 667,700 667,700
Interest income 780,000 780,000
Miscellaneous revenue 587,329 587,329
--------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL REVENUES 30,849,672 (965,493) 29,884,179
EXPENDITURES
Salaries & wages 19,039,643 369,982 18,669,661
Benefits 4,355,212 84,631 4,270,581
Supplies 1,476,007 1,476,007
Services & charges 10,790,696 126,621 10,664,075
Capital outlay 155,349 155,349
Cost Allocation (3,043,245) (3,043,245)
---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 32,773,662 581,234 32,192,428
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (1,923,990) (384,259) (2,308,249)
TRANSFERS IN FROM (OUT TO):
Special revenue 258,482 258,482
Other operating projects (41,558) (41,558)
other capital projects (30,650) (30,650)
---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL NET TRANSFERS IN AND (OUT) 186,274 186,274
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,737,716) (384,259) (2,121,975)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3,737,716 (286,492) 3,451,224
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Reserved 2,000,000 2,000,000
Unreserved (670,751) (670,751)
---------- ---------- ----------
Total 2,000,000 (670,751) 1,329,249
lI
* BUDGET SAVINGS STEPS IN PLACE DUE TO ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN PROJECTED EXPENDITURE UNDER BUDGET
FUND BALANCE RANGE BUDGET SAVING STEPS SALARY SAVINGS
GENERAL FUND SALARY AND BENEFITS 23,394,855
GREATER THAN 1,500,000 NO BUDGET RESTRAINTS GENERAL FUND BUDGETED FTE'S 470
1,500,000 TO 500,000 HIRING AND CIP SLOWDOWN AVERAGE MONTHLY COSTS 4,148
500,000 TO -500,000 HIRING AND CIP FREEZE GENERAL FUND FTE'S PAID 3/15 439
-500,000 TO -1,500,000 8% REDUCTION IN FORCE SALARY SAVINGS AT 3/15 321,472
-1,500,000 TO -2,500,000 ADD'L REDUCTION IN FORCE OTHER BUDGETARY SAVINGS
SALARY AND BENEFIT SYSTEM CONTINGENCY 133,141
LIBRARY ASSESSED VALUATION SAVINGS 126,621
TOTAL SAVINGS 581,234
I �
CITY OF KENT EXHIBIT F
CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
GENERAL FUND
1991
Adjusted Adjustments Estimated 1992
Budget Fav (Unfav) Actual Forecast
REVENUES
Taxes:
Property 8,619,411 8,619,411 9,567,546
Sales 9,726,668 (559,445) 9,167,223 9,717,256
Utility 3,473,571 78,166 3,551,737 3,906,911
Other 511,881 511,881 563,069
Licenses and permits 787,600 (339,151) 448,449 448,449
Intergovernmental revenue 4,072,039 55,815 4,127,854 4,581,918
Charges for services 1,623,473 (200,878) 1,422,595 1,422,595
fines and forfeitures 667,700 667,700 734,470
Interest income 780,000 780,000 780,000
Miscellaneous revenue 587,329 587,329 587,329
—-------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL REVENUES 30,849,672 (965,493) 29,884,179 32,309,543
EXPENDITURES
Salaries & wages 19,039,643 369,982 18,669,661 19,931,632
Benefits 4,355,212 84,631 4,270,581 4,688,859
Supplies 1,476,007 1,476,007 1,617,704
Services & charges 10,790,696 126,621 10,664,075 12,508,960
Capital outlay 155,349 155,349
Cost Allocation (3,043,245) (3,043,245) (3,394,471)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 32,773,662 581,234 32,192,428 35,352,684
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (1,923,990) (384,259) (2,308,249) (3,043,141)
TRANSFERS IN FROM (OUT TO):
Special revenue 258,482 258,482 258,482
other operating projects (41,558) (41,558) (41,558)
Other capital projects (30,650) (30,650) (30,650)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL NET TRANSFERS IN AND (OUT) 186,274 186,274 186,274
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,737,716) (384,259) (2,121,975) (2,856,867)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3,737,716 (286,492) 3,451,224 1,329,249
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Reserved 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Unreserved (670,751) (670,751) (3,527,618)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 2,000,000 (670,751) 1,329,249 (1,527,618)
13
CITY OF KENT EXHIBIT G
CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND -
1991
------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Adjustments Estimated 1992
Budget Fav (Unfav) Actual Forecast .
REVENUES
Taxes:
Sales & Use Tax 3,242,223 (186,482) 3,055,741 3,239,085
Real Estate Excise 500,000 500,000 550,000
Interest 90,000 90,000 90,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 23,540 23,540 25,668
TOTAL REVENUES 3,855,763 (186,482) 3,669,281 3,904,753
OTHER FINANCIAL SOURCES:
Proceeds from Bonds
EXPENDITURES (TRANSFERS)
operating Transfer to General Fund 300,000 300,000
Debt Service 2,146,405 2,146,405 1,976,249
Capital Projects:
Parks Projects:
City Arts Program (Murals) 50,000 50,000
K C Air Conditioner 50,000 50,000
Lights @Russ Rd #2 70,000 70,000
Parks Grant Matching 200,000 200,000
Other Projects:
Building Renovation 100,000 100,000 100,000
Equipment Reptacemnt 100,000 100,000 100,000
old Library Remodel 200,000 (500,000) 700,000
Burn Tower 350,400 350,400
Fire Dept Assist. Chief Vehicle 21,600 21,600
Parks Flatbed 21,000 21,000
Parks Mower 43,150 43,150
Fuel Storage Facility 35,000 35,000
Mobile Radio Project 133,000 133,000
Centennial Bldg Furniture 210,180 210,180
Central Services Fund:
City Automation/Telephone 537,000 537,000
Accounting Software 40,000 40,000
Computer Data Storage 57,210 57,210
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (TRANSFERS) 4,664,945 (500,000) 5,164,945 2,176,249
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (809,182) (686,482) (1,495,664) 1,728,504
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 1,347,404 184,734 1,532,138 36,474
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Reserved For Capital Expenditures 450,000 450,000 450,000
Unreserved: 88,222 (501,748) (413,526) 1,314,978
Total Ending Fund Balance 538,222 (501,748) 36,474 1,764,978
1 Q-
CITY OF KENT EXHIBIT G
CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS AND FORECAST
STREET FUND
1991
--------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Adjustments Estimated 1992
Budget Fav (Unfav) Actual Final
REVENUES
Intergovernmental Revenue:
Fuel Tax - Unrestricted 1111 656,767 656,767 729,011
Fuel Tax - Restricted 1120 308,506 308,506 342,442
Motor Vehicle Registration Fee 161,000 161,000 178,710
TOTAL REVENUES 1,126,273 1,126,273 1,250,163
EXPENDITURES (TRANSFERS)
Debt Service 97,225 97,225 97,401
Street Projects:
Canyon Dr Hazard 200,000 200,000
Row Acq-228TH & 64TH 161,000 161,000
EVH 192D-180TH (189) 250,000 250,000 400,000
Railroad Crossing Improvements 120,000 120,000
192/196/200 Corridor Feasibility 100,000 (260,000) 360,000 1,000,000
Traffic Safety Ntmp Devices 50,000 (30,000) 80,000
Traffic Island -76TH & 212TH 50,000 50,000
Military & Reith Rds 50,000 50,000
Reith Road & SR 516 15,000 15,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (TRANSFERS) 1,093,225 (290,000) 1,383,225 1,497,401
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 33,048 (290,000) (256,952) (247,238)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 317,317 (24,707) 292,610 35,658
ENDING FUND BALANCE 350,365 (314,707) 35,658 (211,580)
I�
GENERAL FUND
PERCENT CHANGE IN BUDGET
BY REVENUE SOURCE
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Average Projected
Actual Actual Actual Actual Est Act Increase Increase
REVENUES
Taxes
Property 5,489,290 6,311,417 6,869,350 7,690,276 8,619,411
% Change 9.20% 15.0% 8.8% 12.0% 12.1% 11.4% 11.0%
Sales 5,915,458 6,367,300 7,612,495 8,733,012 9,167,223
% Change 6.1% 7.6% 19.6% 14.7% 5.0% 10.6% 6.0'/
Utility 1,645,093 2,478,722 3,007,878 3,173,740 3,551,737
% Change -0.3% 50.7% 21.30% 5.5% 11.90% 17.8% 10.0%
Other 290,439 386,867 448,865 463,724 511,881
% Change 31.3% 33.2'/ 16.0% 3.3% 10.4% 18.8% 10.00/0
Licenses and Permits 662,507 702,111 770,856 731,112 44%449
% Change 9.9'/ 6.0% 9.81/0 -5.20% -38.7% -3.6%
Intergovernmental 2,558,205 2,839,973 2,932,806 3,835,007 4,072,039
% Change 10.5% 11.00/ 3.3% 30.8% 6.2% 12.3% 11.0%
Charges for Services 1,179,505 1,295,180 1,454,744 1,454,553 1,422,595
% Change 13.6% 9.8% 12.3% -0.01/. -2.2% 6.7%
Fines and Forfeitures 476,546 551,907 483,357 646,892 667,700
% Change 24.4% 15.8% -12.4% 33.80% 3.20% 13.0% 10.01%
Interest Income 705,748 738,176 885,142 1,111,504 780,000
Change 3.8'/ 4.60% 19.90/0 25.60% -29.8% 4.8%
Miscellaneous Revenue 489,378 524,272 544,501 604,310 587,329
% Change 10.5% 7.1% 3.93/ 11.00/. -2.83/ 5.90/0
Total 19,412,169 22,195,925 25,009,994 28,444,130 29,828,364
% Change 8.20% 14.30/. 12.7% 13.7% 4.9% 10.80/0
FUND BALANCE
Revenue Over Collection 2.3% 6.6% 7.4% 4.1% 5.1% 4.0%
Expenditure Under Budget 2.4% 0.1% 1.20A 1.3% 1.2% 1.00%
GENERAL FUND
PERCENT CHANGE IN BUDGET
BY OBJECT CODE
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Average Projected
Actual Actual Actual Actual Est Act Increase Increase
Salaries and Wages 11,314,229 12,732,170 14,381,432 16,251,390 18,669,661
% Change 13.50% 12.5% 13.0'% 13.00% 14.9% 13.4% 6.8%*
Benefits 2,281,096 2,512,180 2,858,012 3,366,475 4,270,581
% Change 13.5% 10.1% 13.8% 17.80% 26.9% 16.4% 9.8%*
Supplies 11000,511 1,107,207 1,176,964 1,405,190 1,476,007
% Change 7.0% 10.7% 6.3% 19.40% 5.0% 9.7% 9.60%
Services and charges 5,797,067 6,465,147 7,684,201 8,727,422 10,664,075
% Change 19.3% 11.5% 18.9% 13.6% 22.20% 17.1% 17.3%
Capital outlay 150,741 184,054 174,535 198,877 155,349
50.00% 22.1% -5.2'/. 13.9% -21.9% 11.81/0
Subtotal 20,543,644 23,000,758 26,275,144 29,949,354 35,235,673
% Change 13.5% 12.0% 14.2'0 14.0% 17.7% 14.3%
Cost allocation (1,539,739)(1,695,261)(1,969,108)(2,463,892)(3,043,245)
% Change 15.90% 10.1% 16.20% 25.1% 23.5% 18.1% 11.51/0*
Subtotal 19,003,905 21,305,497 24,306,036 27,485,462 32,192,428
% Change 13.3% 12.1% 14.1% 13.1% 17.1% 13.90% 17.1%
Transfers 892,134 265,685 339,668 488,931 186,274
Grand Total 19,896,039 21,571,182 24,645,704 27,974,393 32,378,702
Positions 346 373 401 436 455.5
% Change 4.5% 7.8% 7.59% 8.7% 4.50% 6.6%
* For projection used the average increase rate less the average increase in position growth.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND FORECAST
GENERAL, SPECIAL REVENUE AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Revenues by Source and Expenditures by Object
Four Year Forecast
1991 1992 1993 1994
Est Act Forecast Forecast Forecast
REVENUES
Taxes:
11.036 Property 10,033,286 11,136,947 12,362,011 13,721,832
6.03A Sales and Use 12,222,964 12,956,342 13,733,723 14,557,746
10.0% Utility 3,749,371 4,124,308 4536,739 4,990,413
10.0% Other 2,939,361 31233,297 3:556,627 3,912,290
Licenses and Permits 448,449 448,449 448,449 448,449
11.0% Intergovernmental 5,702,681 6,329,976 7,026,273 7,799,163
Charges for Services 1,422,595 1,422,595 1,422,595 1,422,595
10.0'% Fines and Forfeitures 667,700 734,470 807,917 888,709
Interest Income 2,154,126 2,154,126 2,154,126 2,154,126
Miscellaneous Revenue 610,869 610,869 610,869 610,869
Total Revenues 39,951,402 43,151,379 46,659,329 50,506,192
Operating Expenditures
6.8% Salaries & Wages 19,248,010 20,549,074 21,938,083 23,420,982
9.8'1 Benefits 4,417,381 4,850,038 5,325,071 5,846,631
9.6% Supplies 1,493,822 1,6373229 1,794,403 1,966,666
17.3'% Services & Charges 11,189,991 13,125,859 15,396,633 18,060,251
Capital Outlay 556,713
Debt Service 6,611,253 6,116,211 6,856,978 6,812,860
11.51/1 Cost Allocation (2,989,274) (3,334,270) (3,719,083) (4,148,308)
Total Operating Expenditures 40,527,896 42,944,141 47,592,085 51,959,082
Revenue Over ( Under) Expenditures (576,494) 207,238 (932,756) (1,452,890)
Other Financial Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In (Out) 222,600 140,000 140,000 140,000
Capital Project Transfers Out (2,980,958) (1,600,000) (1,833,000) (2,120,000)
Increase ( Decrease) In Fund Balance (3,334,852) (1,252,762) (2,625,756) (3,432,890)
5.0% Beginning Fund Balance * 7,782,889 4,448,037 5,289,609 4,937,577
Ending Fund Balance
8.0'% Reserved For Contingency 2,450,000 2,946,234 3,258,809 3,611,698
Reserved For Debt Service 1,484,735 1,373,560 1,539,919 1,530,011
Reserved For Envirorr ental Mitigation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
Unreserved 263,302 (1,374,519) (2,384,875) (3,887,022)
Total Ending Fund Balance 4,448,037 3,195,275 2,663,853 1,504,687
Percent of Operating Expenditures 7.22% 8.000% 8.00% 8.000%
4.0% * Revenue Overcollection added to Beginning Fund Balance
1.0% Underexpenditure added to Beginning Fund Balance
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 12, 1991
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
Jon Johnson
Paul Mann
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Hansen
Charlie Lindsey
Roger Lubovich
Kelli O'Donnell
The meeting was called to order at 4:55 p.m. by Chairperson Christi Houser.
Approval of Vouchers
All claims for the period ending February 28, 1991 were approved for payment in the amount of
$1,071,456.55.
Centennial Center Furniture Bid
Customer Services Manager Lindsey presented the Committee with the recommendations of the selection
committee for-the award of the Centennial Center Furniture bid. If the recommended bid is accepted, the
project will be completed with a remaining budget of $10,260.38 for possible contingencies. The
selection committee,consisting of representatives from three departments,felt Turnkey had the best quality
product for the price as well as meeting noise reduction and other requirements as specified.
He also informed the Committee that Interior Woods had voiced a complaint over not being selected.
While it could be argued that they had a better product, the bid was also over $90,000 more than the
recommended bid. He had informed Interior Woods that they could address the Operations Committee if
they wished. After further discussion, City Attorney Lubovich noted that the City had justification for
choosing the second lowest bid which met the minimum quality levels needed.
Committeemember Mann moved we accept the bid from.Turnkey and express the Citys thanks to the
selection committee. After clarification that the primary bid in the amount of$272,964.41 which provides
for products as formaldehyde free as possible was recommended, Committeemember Johnson seconded the
motion. '
The motion passed with a vote of 3-0.
Community Donations to Drinking Driver Task Force
Assistant City Administrator Hansen noted that a representative from the Drinking Driver Task Force could
not be at the meeting but the list of donations for July 1990 through December 1990 attached to the
agenda was to inform the Council of the variety of support from the community received by the DDTF.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 by Chairperson Houser.