Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/19/1991 Cityof Kent City Councoll Meet n g Agenda CITY OF 790`P11� Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White November 19, 1991 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 19, 1991 dF4i�IICC9f� Summary Agenda MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White City of Kent Council Chambers Office of the City Clerk 7 . 00 p.m. NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS JA. Presentation to D.A.R.E. Program A. National Night Out Presentation 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 3 . ✓CONSENT CALENDAR 4A. Minutes B. Bills C. Surplus Vehicles j Street Occupation Permit Rate - Resolution E. MCI Franchise - Ordinance F. City Shops Wash Rack Arts Commission Appointments 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. 1992 Budget - Ordinance B. Enhanced 911 System - Ordinance 5 . BIDS None 6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTS 8 . 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) Police Union Presentation to D.A.R.E. B) National Night Out Presentation CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be approved. Discussion �� I tI r"� ► �'�t ', Action —� 3A� Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 5, 1991. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through November 15, 1991, after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 5: 30 p.m. on November 26 , 1991. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agen& Item No. 3 A B Kent, Washington November 5, 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, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Personnel Director Olson, Information Services Director Spang, and Finance Director McCarthy. Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance. Approx- imately 85 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month Mayor Kelleher announced COMMUNICATION that Glenn Bearson of the Operations Division of Public Works has been named as Employee of the Month for November. He noted that Glenn works as a Water Treatment Supervisor, and is responsible for the City water treatment laboratory. His supervisor, Tim Heydon, noted that with water and storm water systems getting more complex, highly skilled people are needed, and that Bearson has attended community college to expand his knowledge in this field. He added that Bearson is a very conscientious and considerate person and he is proud to have him in the Public Works Department. The Mayor presented Bearson with the Employee of the Month plaque. Human Services Month Mayor Kelleher noted that the Human Services Commission held a reception before tonight ' s meeting, and thanked those who attended. He read a proclamation declaring November as Human Services Month in the City of Kent, and encouraged all citizens to recognize and support its observance. The proclamation was pre- sented to Mary Eckfeldt, Chairman of the Human Services Commission. Kent-Meridian Football Appreciation Week. The Mayor read a proclamation noting that the Kent- Meridian Royals are the city champions for 1991, and that on Thursday the Royals host traditional rival Auburn with the victor claiming not only the Taylor Trophy but also the championship of the South Puget Sound League ' s Northern Division and an automatic berth in the playoffs for the State Triple A Championship. He proclaimed the week of November 4 - 10 as Kent-Meridian Football Appre- ciation Week in the City of Kent and urged all citizens to recognize the achievements of this 1 November 5, 1991 PUBLIC team and support them in their continuing efforts COMMUNICATION to excel and to honor the colors of royal blue and white and cheer the Royals on at French Field on Thursday evening and in the playoffs to follow. Head Coach Bruce Rick thanked the Mayor and Coun- cil for this recognition and honor. He added that the players on this team always found their way through adversity, and have seen their dream come true this year. He introduced players Bob Holmes and Chris Schlecht, who presented Mayor Kelleher with a hat and a jacket on behalf of the football team. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR E be approved. White seconded and the motion car- ried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 15, 1991, and the Special Council meeting of October 29 , 1991. BUSINESS (ADDED ITEM) LICENSE U.S. Engines. Thomas Cinko, Vice-President of U.S . Engines, Inc. asked for an opportunity to speak to the Council ; there were no objections. Cinko apologized on behalf of himself, Michael Crossan, and U.S. Engines, for damages caused to the City of Kent by U.S . Engines and for not correcting early violations promptly. He explained that this was due to operating capital and lack of additional manpower. He noted that the City' s concerns were addressed, and that on October 29 , 1991, their only violation was oper- ating without a valid business license. He noted that on that date, Superior Court issued a tempo- rary restraining order effective at 5 : 00 p.m. on October 31, 1991, which forced closure of U.S . Engines for a minimum of 15 days. Cinko noted that the estimated cost of the shutdown and startup after 15 days will be in excess of $35, O0o . Cinko noted that it has never been their intent to defeat the City in a battle, and expressed concern 2 November 5, 1991 BUSINESS for the future relationship between the City and LICENSE U.S . Engines. Cinko explained that recent violations have been promptly addressed and that an application for a business license was submitted October 2 . He noted that Building and Fire Department inspectors then revealed new violations and denied the appli- cation on October 18 . He said that another busi- ness license application was submitted on October 23 , that the facility was inspected and found to be in compliance, but on October 28 the Building Inspector returned to convey concerns regarding temporary exit signs. He noted that the signs were permanently placed on October 29 . Cinko expressed concern for the employees of U. S . Engines, and apologized to them, noting that they are not the cause, but the victims. He stated that since inspections have been completed and U.S . Engines is in compliance, he hopes for renewal of the business license. He thanked the City for their patience and cooperation. SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) LID 338 Westview Terrace. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3009 authorizing condemnation proceedings to acquire a sanitary sewer easement, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Winterbrook II Final Plat No. SU-89-6. This meeting will consider an application for the Winterbrook II Final Plat No. SU-89-6 . The prop- erty is approximately 3 . 15 acres in size and is located on the north side of South 272nd Street, 500 feet east of 41st Place South and directly south of Cardiff Street. There were no questions or comments and JOHNSON MOVED to approve the staff ' s recommended approval for Winterbrook II SU-89-6 Final Plat. White sec- onded and the motion carried. 3 November 5, 1991 GROWTH (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) MANAGEMENT Community Participation Program. This meeting will consider Resolution No. 1297 to expand com- munity participation and input on important growth management issues enacted by the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990. Planning Director Harris noted that the figures and the resolution were reviewed by the Planning Committee today. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, thanked the Council for conducting a special meeting last week on this matter, and noted that the purpose of part of that meeting was to highlight which issues would be the focus of the growth management video. He noted that four issues emerged, and that these issues closely aligned with the Council ' s priorities. He listed the issues which received the most responses as follows: 1. How can Kent ensure public facilities and ser- vices are adequate to service existing and future development? 2 . How should Kent change its land use plan and map to more effectively manage growth? 3 . How can Kent best meet the transportation needs of its citizens? 4 . How should Kent encourage economic develop- ment? He explained that it is their intent to highlight all four of these issues in the growth management video. JOHNSON MOVED to approve Resolution No. 1297 in support of a Community Participation Program, as recommended by the Planning Committee. Houser seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) RECREATION Amendment to Conservation Futures Interlocal Agreement. King County has approved the appropri- ation of an additional $100, 000 in Conservation Futures funds to be added to the $850, 000 Lake Fenwick Trail Open Space Bond project. Prior to any distribution of funds, all cities must sign an amendment with King County. 4 November 5, 1991 PARKS & DOWELL MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign RECREATION an amendment to the January 29 , 1991 Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between King County and the City of Kent and to accept the $100, 000 additional allocation from King County for the Lake Fenwick Trail project. White seconded and the motion car- ried. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Planning Commission. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointments as follows: Reappointment of Christopher Grant to the Kent Planning Commission. Mr. Grant ' s current appoint- ment expires 12/31/91. His new term will begin 1/l/92 and continue through 12/31/94 . Reappointment of Linda Martinez to the Kent Plan- ning Commission. Ms. Martinez ' current appoint- ment expires 12/31/91 . Her new term will begin 1/l/92 and continue through 12/31/94 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Arts Commission. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointments as follows: Reappointment of Grace Hiranaka to Kent Arts Com- mission. Ms. Hiranaka ' s current appointment expires 10/31/91 . Her new term will begin immedi- ately and continue through 10/31/95 . Reappointment of Keiko Cullen to Kent Arts Commis- sion. Ms. Cullen ' s current appointment expires 10/31/91. Her new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95 . BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) 1992 Budget. Tonight ' s meeting has been set to take public input on the 1992 Budget. The Mayor' s 1992 Budget proposal was presented to the Council and the public at the October 15 Council meeting and was explained in more detail at the Council Budget Work Session on October 22 . Public input will be taken tonight with the Council scheduled for a second Budget Work Session on November 12 . The Budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 19 , but that date could be deferred until December 3 . 5 November 5, 1991 BUDGET Finance Director McCarthy pointed out that this is the third public hearing this year on the budget, and that tonight' s is the first to receive input on a budget document. He gave a brief overview of the budget situation and noted that the Council asked that the budget be balanced without layoffs and without any new taxes. He listed the balanc- ing proposal as follows : Reduces the general fund contingency to $500, 000 after adding approximately $800, 000 for utility tax accrual $2 , 300, 000 Uses one time only transfers from the unemployment and capital improvement funds $1, 075, 851 Increases departmental revenue, pri- marily by providing for double bunking at the Correction Facility $ 511, 869 Makes citywide cuts for: expenditures below trend; 30% of professional de- velopment; and equipment rental charges due to extending vehicle lives and es- tablishing rental pools for vehicles, reducing the number of city vehicles $ 324 , 594 Makes cuts in departmental budgets as proposed by departments except for po- sitions $ 548 , 089 Establishes a salary credit allocated to departmental budgets with depart- ments absorbing by maintaining vacant positions $1 , 137 , 872 $5,898 ,275 McCarthy noted that sales tax revenues are up 3/10 of 1% ($50, 000) over earlier projections. He noted for Dowell that the total revenue forecast is approximately $30, 700, 000 for 1992 and that it was $30, 800, 000 for 1991. He added that general fund revenue for 1991 was $28 , 800, 000 . Dowell noted that there will be an increase of approximately $2 , 000, 000 and asked whether the majority of it 6 November 5, 1991 BUDGET will be used for salary increases. McCarthy said it would be used for salaries, health insurance, liability insurance, and some contractual agree- ments. He noted for White that the increased de- partmental revenue would be in the Police, Parks and Public Works Departments. He also noted for White that $20, 000 is factored in for additional food, etc. at the Corrections Facility, and that he is not aware of any contractual union agree- ments which indicate that if population of the correctional facility is increased, staff would have to be increased also. Upon Mann ' s question, Personnel Director Olson explained that an RFP for insurance brokers to study the City' s program was recently put out. White noted that the balancing scenario includes eliminating appropriation for tools and small capital items, which would save nearly $100, 000 . McCarthy explained that that account could include both new and replacement tools, and could include anything from fire hose to computers. White stated that with no way of accounting for items under $1000, it would be difficult to determine whether equipment is broken or lost or simply dis- appears. McCarthy noted that when the budget is being put together it is difficult to determine what equipment will need to be replaced in the following year, and added that what is in the bud- get is the lowest possible estimate of what might be needed. Upon the Mayor' s question, McCarthy agreed to work with any Councilmember through the Operations Committee on concerns regarding the past and present procedures used for inventory. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Pat Curran, Chair of the Performing Arts Center Task Force, noted that two years ago a feasibility study was conducted which indicated support for a cultural center. She asked that the Council commit $50, 000 in 1992 CIP funds for architectural pre-planning, noting that this would enable them to qualify for matching funds from the King County Hotel/Motel Tax for which they have already applied. Grace Hiranaka of the Kent Arts Commission noted that the need has been shown for such a facility and urged the Council to consider the $50, 000 request. 7 November 5, 1991 BUDGET Greg Murray of the Imperials Music and Youth Or- ganization also spoke in favor of funding for the performing arts center, noting there is a need to provide youth activities in Kent. Claudia Appell of the Kent School District urged the Council to support this issue and noted that the facility could be used to provide activities for youth and cultural opportunities for all citizens. Sherry Orada, Advisor to the Task Force, said the facil- ity would nurture cultural growth in the commun- ity, and that it would bring in a good return on the investment. Pat Curran stated that the center would provide a focal point for City center revi- talization, increase patronage to Kent businesses, and enhance the City' s image. Mary Gretz introduced representatives of the thirteen agencies who will receive $311, 497 , the 1% of this year's budget, for seventeen human ser- vices programs. The agencies are Catholic Commun- ity services, Child and Family Resource and Refer- ral Center, Children' s Home Society, Children' s Therapy Center, Community Health Centers of King County, Domestic Abuse Women' s Network, Kent Com- munity Service Center, Kent Youth and Family Ser- vices, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, Pregnancy Aid, South King County Multiservice Center, Washington Women ' s Employment and Educa- tion, and Valley Cities Mental Health Center. Grace Hiranaka noted that the Kent Arts Commission had suggested a cut in their budget of approxi- mately $11, 000. She said that Administration not only suggested a cut of $19 , 555, but also sug- gested increasing revenue. She pointed out that their program is not a revenue-producing program. She said the $19, 000 cut cannot be handled and asked that the cut be limited to $11, 000 . Tim Gates, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce City Government Committee, stated that they have studied the 1992 proposed budget and recommend the following: 1. The City should carry forward any excess revenue into the 1992 budget and place it back into the contingency fund until the previous $2 . 8 million level is regained. 8 November 5, 1991 BUDGET 2 . Eliminate positions represented by the employ- ment freeze. 3 . Eliminate at least 30 additional City staff positions (1. 3 million dollars in labor costs) by the end of the first quarter of 1992 . 4 . Work with the Kent Chamber of Commerce to press on with the City management study ' s recommenda- tions to create more efficiencies in City government. Bill Doolittle, 412 N. Washington, noted that Renton and Tukwila expect to get through 1992 without using reserve funds or raising taxes, but expect there may be a problem in 1993 and 1994 . He opined that using the contingency fund and the utility tax accrual to balance 1992 should be a last ditch effort. He said he would not like to see any Parks programs cut. He noted that the CIP fund for 1992 was increased by $50, 000 for the cultural arts center. He pointed out that the proposed financing for the center is through a $20, 000, 000 bond issue and that out of 200 people in favor of the bond issue who were interviewed during the feasibility study, fewer than 15 lived in the 98031 and 98032 zip code areas. He ques- tioned the $450, 000 for remodeling the south wing of City Hall , a transfer of $500, 000 to the gener- al fund from CIP, and $450, 000 which goes back into the CIP to reestablish a contingency fund. He stated that after seeing the projects for 1993 , 1994 and 1995, there must be some cuts made and agreed that tools should be accounted for. He noted that the Arts Commission spent $3 , 700 on paintings this year and there is no accounting for them. He suggested that the Arts Commission could raise money by publishing a brochure showing all the paintings, statues, and murals in Kent. He reiterated that the City needs to dig deeper and cut the fat out of the budget. Police Chief Crawford noted that the Police and Fire represent approximately 60% of the budget, and their services need to be considered. He noted that there were 3 , 000 more Police calls this year than last and if the number of employees to respond to those calls is not increased, safety 9 November 5, 1991 BUDGET and welfare will be impacted. Crawford clarified that the Police Department wants to be part of the City-wide effort and should also be required to take cuts. He noted that City employees are dedi- cated and trying to give the best service. He asked the Council to remember the added services when considering eliminating positions. Fire Chief Angelo noted that they did not fill some po- sitions last year, and that the number of calls for service has increased 99%. He explained that the Fire Department will always give their best, but that the best will be less than it was in the past. He noted for White that the average response time is approximately five minutes. He also noted that the Master Plan identified a four minute response time as achieveable, and explain- ed that at four minutes a cardiac patient has a 50% chance of survival if someone intervenes, and at five minutes they have a 25% chance. He also noted for White that 60% of their calls are emer- gency medical services. Angelo noted for White that a ladder truck with a cracked frame was due for replacement 4-5 years ago. He also assured the Council that their personnel are held account- able for tools, but with more calls received, more equipment is used. He also noted for White that there is paid staff at all fire stations. Paul Seeley of the Boeing Company, Chair of the Chamber Task Force, noted that the City has a good system which indicated early on that there would be budget challenges ahead. He said the Mayor and staff did the right thing by acting promptly. He said he feels revenues will not necessarily improve and the only thing to do is look at cuts . He voiced concern that the City hasn't looked at what will happen in ensuing years. He noted that Boeing has sent out warning notices to 700 employees and more jobs may be lost, the bulk of which will be in Tukwila and Kent and will occur in 1992 and 1993 . There were no further comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. White seconded and the motion carried. The Mayor noted that a workshop on the budget is scheduled for November 12 and asked McCarthy to discuss not only the issues pertaining to this year ' s budget, 10 November 5, 1991 BUDGET but some of the underlying assumptions he has used to come to the conclusion that the budget can be balanced next year and the year after that. Dowell noted that the City is planning to spend $29, 000, 000 in 1991, and $31, 000, 000 in 1992 , which is an increase of $2, 000, 000. He said if $1, 500, 000 of that $2 , 000, 000 is spent on wage increases, 400 employees would be getting $5, 000 increases. He opined that wage increases are the major problem and suggested that the City be care- ful on wage increase promises and contracts in the future. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills.' ills Approval of payment of the bills received through October 31, 1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 5: 15 p.m. on November 12 , 1991. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/16-10/31/91 110912-111462 $1, 173 , 493 . 36 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/5/91 01163149-CI163881 $ 630, 569 . 27 REPORTS Public Works Committee White noted receipt of a letter from Connie Epperly regarding her concerns about the City' s inventory system. He asked that the Operations Committee look into this matter and make a report to the Council . Administrative Reports Assistant City Adminis- trator Hansen noted that per Council direction, a public auction of surplus library furniture was conducted on October 26. He noted that ads were (Library run, a professional auctioneer was retained, and Auction) staff put forth extraordinary effort in preparing for and conducting the auction. He noted that attendance was good and all the furniture was sold. He explained that the net profit from the auction was $5, 331. 89, but that with the original bid of $9, 083 . 00 the net profit would have been 11 November 5, 1991 REPORTS $7, 575.73 , resulting in a loss of $2 , 243 . 84 . The Mayor pointed out that Mr. Lindsey' s choice of using the bid process would have been more profit- able. White noted that the City furnished the personnel (Library for the auction, did all the advertising, and paid Auction) an auctioneer 20%, and that normally an auctioneer brings their own personnel and charges 15%. He stated that he had attended the auction and that his figures regarding total sales differ from the City' s by $2 , 000, and asked for a further break- down of the figures. Hansen noted for White that sales to City departments totalled $713 . 04 which was the price established originally. Customer Services Manager Lindsey explained that the other auctioneers contacted needed three to four weeks lead time, and they would charge 30%, which is why they chose to use an auctioneer who they work with regularly who charged only 20%. Bill Doolittle stated that $3 , 840 . 28 was spent for City staff, $693 . 00 of it getting ready for the auction. He noted that the tags had been changed before the auction and that the merchandise was not the same for the auction as for the bid. He stated that the difference between the net profit of the bid and of the auction was $5 , 000, split 50/50 with the County, so it cost the City $2 , 500 . He ques- tioned the advertising, and noted that he had called Peggy Ziebarth of the Valley Daily News who wrote an article on the auction free of charge. Upon Dowell ' s question, Lindsey noted that because of the time frame, letters were not sent to schools or libraries who may have been interested in this furniture. Dowell questioned the $3 , 000 spent to prepare for the auction. Lindsey explained that because of the time frame and the good bid submitted by Mr. Charles, he had allowed Charles to rearrange the furniture and tag it prior to the Council meeting of October 15, and that afterwards the furniture had to be rearranged and retagged for the auction, which took almost a week. He also noted for Dowell that although the auctioneer was present for four hours, staff spent seven hours at the auction at time-and-a-half. Lindsey clarified that the price for items pur- chased by City departments was based on the price 12 November 5, 1991 REPORTS bid by Mr. Charles, that the $9 , 083 . 00 bid did not include those items, and that all other items for the auction were the same as for the bid. Lindsey noted for White that the staff time for the auc- tion is being credited to the departments. White reiterated that he is not satisfied with the (Library income shown on the breakdown, noting that it does Auction) not match his figures, and asked for a further breakdown. He also expressed hope that in the future a different auctioneer is used. The Mayor congratulated Mr. Lindsey for his excellent advise to the Council two weeks ago and his excellent administration of the auction. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 50 p.m. Brenda Jacob , CMC Deputy City Clerk 13 \1 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES 2 . SUMMARY STarp EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, Authorization to surplus 13 vehicles as listed in the Street Managers memo dated October 15 and-made a part of this record and offering same for sale at the State auction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and October 15 memorandum from Jack Spencer 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C x r Public Works Committee November 5, 1991 Page 3 Surplus Vehicles Jim White expressed concerns about surplusing vehicles with only 85, 000 miles. He asked if there were maintenance problems. Tim Heydon explained that it is hard on vehicles to have a number of drivers. Some of the vehicles have been used as construction vehicles and have experienced a lot of hard wear. Jack Spencer explained that the on-going maintenance of these vehicles is more than they are worth. Tim Heydon explained that mileage is not the only element to determine if a car should be surplused or not. Many of these run 24 hours a day so have a lot of hours on the engine and go through several drivers each day. It was explained they would be sold at the State auction. Occasionally, if we are purchasing other vehicles, we have been able to use a surplus vehicle as a trade-in. Bill Doolittle asked how much some of these vehicles might be worth. Tim Heydon replied that we have previously gotten good value for the vehicles at the auction. He offered to review previous auction results with Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Doolittle suggesting rebuilding some of the old police cars and putting them back into the fleet. Jack Spencer added that the cost of a new transmission is about $7-800 and a new computer for the pollution control would run about the same. Don Wickstrom added that we are short a mechanic now so the daily maintenance is hard to keep up with and we certainly would not have sufficient manpower to start rebuilding vehicles to keep them in the fleet. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to surplus the vehicles . Drainage Problem - Charles Tiffany Leona Orr inquired about the drainage problem that the Tiffany' s have reported. She indicated that she had suggested to the Tiffany' s that she would bring it before the Committee. Gary Gill explained that the City' s survey crew is scheduled to do a topographic survey along the road to determine if McCann ' s proposal will solve the problem. McCann has worked with the Planning Department and since his business has been in operation since 1955 it has been grandfathered in. A fence has been installed which defines the area that is allowed for the topsoil operation. Anything outside that would require a separate grade and fill permit. Jim White asked if Gary would be able to bring some proposed solutions to the Committee at their next meeting. .r MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works ��Director FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manage, THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Ma er e- SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles I am requesting authorization to surplus vehicles that have been taken out of service and are no longer needed in the fleet. #1 1979 Ford LTD Wagon, Serial #185957, License #D26627 This vehicle has been replaced with a new car. It is in need of repair and no longer of use to the City. It has 64,000 miles on the odometer. #9 1980 Ford Fairmont, Serial #194654, License #D29054 This vehicle has in excess of 85,000 miles. It has been on an accelerated replacement but has failed to hold up. A line vehicle is filling it's position as it is not cost effective to repair. #107 1976 Brutus roller and trailer, Serial #564626, License #D23296 This is a small asphalt roller that has many problems with the frame and steering controls. It has been replaced with a new roller and is no longer needed. It should be surplused. #116 1968 Roller trailer, Serial #423499, License #C26247 This trailer has been used to transport our old roller. The body and bed are in need of complete rebuilding. The axle and wheels are of a vintage where parts or replacement is not possible. It does not have any brakes and is not safe to use. #215 1973 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton Pickup, Serial #174965, License #D35251 This truck was purchased "used" by the Golf Course and donated to Equipment Rental. It has 134,000 miles on it and the engine has failed. It's appearance is poor and needs costly repairs. A line vehicle was loaned to the Golf Course until their new truck came in this year. #302 1987 Ford Mustang, Serial #197755, License #01845D This car has been used by the Police Department, Traffic Division. It has only 48,919 miles on it but has failed to hold up. It has had transmission problems at least three times and is starting to act up again. The vehicle has been replaced with a new car of a different make. DATE: October 15, 1991 TO: Don Wickstrom,'Public Works Director FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles Page 2 of 2 #304 1985 Plymouth Fury, Serial #610649, License #D35035 This was a Police Traffic car that was replaced in 1989. It was then used as a standby vehicle until a reliable car became available. It is no longer needed or useable for Police work. This car has 65,000 miles on it. #368 1986 Plymouth,Fury, Serial #582329, License #D36311 This vehicle has 106,000 miles on it. It was replaced with a new patrol car and then used as a temporary K9 car until a new car came in. It has extreme high mileage and is of no use to the City. #370 1988 Chevrolet Caprice, Serial #211568, License #03934D This unit has 77,596 miles on it and has been replaced with a new Police car. The suspension is worn and the transmission is showing signs of wear. #374 1988 Chevrolet Caprice, Serial #211572, License #04771 D This car has 75,295 miles on it and has been replaced with a new car. It is in poor condition and it would not be cost effective to keep in service. #379 1987 Chevrolet Caprice, Serial #100347, License #01842D This car has been replaced with a new Police car. It has 83,761 miles on it and the suspension and steering are in need of repair. It is no longer of use to the City and should be surplused. #704 1984 Chevrolet Citation, Serial #108596, License #D33615 This car has over 80,000 miles on it and the car is in need of paint and minor body repair. It has been replaced with a new vehicle and is no longer needed. #837 1963 Paint trailer, Serial #585980, License #D08749 This is a home-made trailer and used by the paint crew. It is in poor condition and should be surplused. JS/map E103CO2 i q f1� Kent City Council Meeting y , Date November 19 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET OCCUPATION PERMIT RATE RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adoption of'`-Aesolution setting the rates for street occupation permits. llJ 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 3D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 18, 1991 TO: MAYOR KELLEHER{{`` AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DON WICKSTROwIIkj RE: STREET OCCUPATION PERMIT FEES REAL ESTATE SIGNS An item on the Consent Calendar of your November 19 agenda is the adoption of the resolution setting the fees for the street occupation permit as required by Ordinance 2998 . Subsequent to the Public Works Committee meeting on November 5 at which the fees and procedures for obtaining a street occupation permit were discussed (refer to excerpt of those minutes in your council packet) , Michael Spence, Governmental Affairs Director for the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors directed a letter to Councilmember White regarding the procedures to be followed in issuing a street occupation permit. Attached for your information is a copy of the response from the City' s Legal Department on this issue. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works FROM: Carol Morris, Law DATE: November 15, 1991 RE: Letter from Mike Spence of November 51 1991, addressed to Jim White I received a copy of the letter Mike Spence wrote to Jim White, requesting certain changes in the Street Occupation Ordinance. His suggested changes appear to be the same ones that he proposed at a previous Public Works Committee meeting. Because it appeared from his comments at the meeting that he misunderstood how the ordinance would actually be implemented, I recommended that we get together to talk. Ed White and I scheduled this meeting with Mike at his convenience, but he never showed up, never canceled and didn't reschedule. If any response is contemplated to this letter, I would like to make the following comments on the need for his suggested changes to the ordinance: 1 . Mike' s suggestion that we amend Section 4 . 09 . 160 will have the effect of removing the fee requirement for off-premise real estate signs. If we exempt them from the need to make an application, and the fee is charged for processing that application, the next step in this argument is that a fee would therefore not be warranted. From an overall review of his suggested amendments, Mike seems to have adopted the position that off-premise real estate signs should be exempt from certain ordinance provisions (and/or fees) because the Public Works Department does not have to review the individual sign placements, and they are therefore a small administrative/cost/enforcement burden. However, your employees have told the Committee that these signs presently cause the Department the biggest problem (time and cost-wise) than any other type of sign. Apparently, the Department has been picking up numerous violating off-premise real estate signs, transporting them to City premises for storage in a City facility, and handling redemptions and/or destruction of these signs ; all employee/cost intensive activities. If a number of these signs are picked up by your employees because they are improperly placed, there is no support for the idea that real estate off-premise signs should be exempt from any provision of the ordinance which would subject the applicant to a process informing him/her about our rules on placement. Further, any analysis of the reasonableness of the administrative processing fee should include the City' s costs to implement and enforce, and if Memo to Don Wickstrom November 15, 1991 Page two off-premise real estate signs are the most costly to enforce, there is no reason to exempt them from either the fee or the application requirements of the ordinance. 2 . Mike erroneously considers Section 4 . 09 . 300 of the ordinance to contain the only ' rules ' applicable to off-premise real estate signs. This was not meant to be an exhaustive description of the manner in which portable signs may be placed. You may choose to develop administrative rules specific to off-premise real estate signs, rules that can be handed out to each applicant for this type of permit. I figured that you would need rules to first define an 'off-premise real estate sign;" its acceptable dimensions; areas where such signs are prohibited, such as sidewalks; or requirements for removal. It becomes apparent at this point why the proposed amendment removing off-premise real estate signs from the application procedure is unworkable. If these signs are exempt from the application requirements, how will the City be able to inform real estate salespeople about the rules to which they must conform? The city could most efficiently resolve this by handing out these rules at the time the applicant comes in to fill out an application form. 3 . No amendment of Section 4 . 09 . 180 is necessary in order for the Public Works Department to expeditiously process real estate sign applications. Since the ordinance merely sets forth the basic procedure for review, the Public Works Director can make a determination that certain steps in the review process are not needed for the type of application submitted. An abbreviated review procedure can be adopted administratively by the Department for any type of use without the necessity for amending this ordinance. This abbreviated review procedure can take the form of an administrative rule promulgated by the Director or just be a separate form developed for use with real estate sign applications. 4 . Since Section 4 . 09. 200 is discretionary on the Director's part, there is no need to amend this section to state that it does not apply to off-premise real estate signs . In sum, Mike's misunderstanding of what needs to be in this ordinance arises from a limited perspective of the purpose behind it. The ordinance was meant to apply to all uses of public right- of-way, not just off-premise real estate signs. As a result, we have not specifically tailored the review process with this particular use in mind. If we were to follow his argument on the necessity for these amendments to its logical conclusion, we would need to make substantial amendments of the ordinance to add language providing an exhaustive list of all possible uses subject to each ordinance provision. SEATTLE-KING COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS© i;t it REACTOR® 2810 Eastlake Avenue East • Seattle, Washington 98102 Telephone (206)328-1980 November 5, 1991 The Honorable Jim White Chairman, Public Works Committee Kent City Council 220 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Councilmember White: I 'm writing regarding Ordinance #2998, and the accompanying fee schedule, which deal with street uses, including real estate signs. As you know, Ordinance #2998 was recently passed by the City Council , and the fee schedule was passed out of the Public Works Committee earlier today. As I understand the fee schedule, each real estate office will have to pay a $75 annual fee for a street use permit, which will allow off-premise signs on public right-of-way. For that $75, a real estate office will get a certain number of stickers (the number will be determined in the future) which will be required to be attached to each off-premise real estate sign . Any sign that does not have a sticker is technically illegal . At this point, however, it gets confusing. A literal reading of Ordinance #2998, Section 4.09. 160, would require the applicant to state "an accurate description of the public place or portion thereof desired to be used", and "the use desired to be made of such public place. . . " Ordinance #2998 goes on to require review by the City engineer (4.09. 180(A) ) and transmittal to the Building Official (4.09. 180(8)) . It further may require a cash indemnity deposit and engineering studies (4.09.200(A) ) , and a surety bond (4.09.200(B) ) . Since real estate signs are included in Ordinance #2998, they may fall under these guidelines . I sincerely hope that this is not the intent of Ordinance #2998. As the Ordinance and fee schedule were described in today' s Committee meeting, real estate companies would be required to pay $75 per year for a number of stickers, which would then be placed on signs . According to further discussions today, the companies would then be given a copy of the "rules" . Signs placed in violation of these "rules" or signs without a sticker would than be declared illegal . But the "rules" are contained in Ordinance #2998, which requires all of the above. This is unworkable for off-premise real estate signs, since the place where the sign will be located is unknown at the point that the broker comes in to pay the fee. I therefore suggest an amendment to Ordinance #2998, exempting off-premise real estate signs from Sections 4.09. 160, 4.09. 180, and 4.09.200(A) and (B) . The end result would be that real estate brokerages would pay the fee, and would then be given the guidelines enumerated in Section 4.09.300 as the "rules" for off-premise real estate signs . m RFALTOR - is a r00iSterPd rnl�k of the, NLTIONAL P. 'IATION OF D7Ai TnRc I honestly feel that this is the easiest solution to what has now become a very confusing situation. It makes no sense to require Engineer and Building Official review for every off-premise real estate sign. The better course is to require the office to pay the fee, at which point they will be given the rules and the stickers. The Broker can then give each agent copies of the rules. Any violations can still be addressed through the remainder of the Code. I 've enclosed a copy of the ordinance with two alternative suggested changes inserted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation. Our Association is willing to assist you should you have questions, comments, or concerns. Yours sincerely, Ce, Michael Sp4ce ta Governmen 'I Affairs Director Legal Counsel MS:ms kentsign2 cc: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Carol Morris, City Attorney Pete Gomes, Windermere Kent Jim Nelson, Prudential -Meridian Valley PU131-1C WORKS CONIN111-1C il'. NOVE7,\1i3IR 5, .991 cAROt. MORRIS PRESENT: JIM ORRITE TONY MCCARTHY LEONA ORR JOII1r BOND DONW DOWL'LLICKSTROM TIM EEYDON DON F,R TOM BRUDAI(GR ii,ci SPLNC GARY GILL Bill Doolittle, Russ Stringham, Mr. and Mr. Jim Rust, Don Rust, Mike Spence, Brian Lawler, Mike Pintar, Jean Parietti Street Lights at The Lakes Jim White stated he had received a petition regarding street lights at The Lakes. Apparently some are not working. lie indicated he would be giving the petition to Don Wickstrom and asked that staff look into the problem. Fee Schedule-7- Street Occupation Ordinance Wickstrom explained that the schedule of fees includes a "no fee" recommendation for real estate signs in keeping with the Mayor's request. Leona Orr said she doesn't have a concern about no fee �y for them but was wondering about the legality of those signs on the i�,a sidewalks. She said she had noticed in three different locations within the city limits real estate signs that were completely blocking the sidewalk access. She questioned if we would be condoning such actions. Carol Morris responded that they would not be exempt from the requirements of the ordinance which gives the Director authority to tell them where they can place the signs. They shouldn't be blocking sidewalks. Orr wondered if City personnel would still have authority to picl,, up the signs if they were illegally placed. Morris confirmed it would not give the real estate industry carte blanche to put signs wherever they wanted. Morris added that we can not regulate signs as to content in the ordinance. Political signs would be allowed in the right of way if they obtained the required permit and paid the fees. Bill Doolittle questioned if real estate signs included the signs used by apartment complexes to advertise their unit availabilities. lie also questioned the fee for garage sale signs. Orr concurred and added that the garage sale signs are usually up only for a weekend and it is unrealistic to expect them to pay $75 for a permit. She continued that many garage sales don't even make $75. She recommended the fee for garage salesigns be eliminated. Morris clarified that removing the reference of garage sale signs in the resolution would prohibit them from being in the right of way and that would give staff authority to remove them if they are illegally placed. Simply removing the fee would mean that they are allowed and would still need to apply for a permit. It was determined that the garage sale siqns �dould be removed from the resolution. Dowell referred again to the reasoning fc:. exempting real estate signs from a fee, lie continued that he felt the ordinance creates a situation impossible to police. Ile commented that he felt the ordinance has a lot of holes in it. ':e.+ signs are allowed on public property but they are not allowed cn private property. lie suggested that the ordinance and fees lie eliminated entirely. Morris commented that the ordinance covers a lot more than just signs - house moving, etc. She added that if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding signs that was possible. Don Rust stated Ile was going to continue to work with the Planning Committee to change the ordinance concerning signs on private property. Jim White questioned whether we needed fees on anv of permits. It was determined that the permit fees were established to cover the administrative costs of issuing the permit and enforcement of same. Wickstrom suggested a $75 permit fee per each real estate office which Would provide them with "stickers" for up to a certain number of signs. It was further suggested that if the real estate office wished to permit more than the initial number of signs, they could purchase stickers for the additional number of signs at the City's cost to produce the stickers. Mike Spence stated that the real estate brokers did not have a problem with a yearly fee per office. Their major concerns were the $5.00 per c;ign and the process for getting a permit. Leona Orr's motion was to eliminate yard, moving and garage sale signs and to charge a $75 per office permit fee for real estate signs which would entitle them up to to signs. Stickers for additional real estate signs would be available at the City's cost to produce the stickers. After discussion, the motion was further amended to allow up to two signs for the $75 fee for portahle signs. The Committee unanimous:y approved the motion. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a schedule of fees for permits issued under Ordinance 2998 , relating to Street Occupation, and Kent City Code Chapter 4 . 07 , relating to Street Use. WHEREAS, the City of Kent adopted Ordinance No. 2998, which allows the Director of the Public Works Department to approve and issue permits for the use and occupation of public places within the City; and WHEREAS, the Director is instructed, in Section 4 of that Ordinance (Kent City Code Section 4 . 09 . 240 (C) ) , to prepare and adopt a schedule of fees applicable to all permits, in amounts commensurate with the costs of administration, inspection and policing involved in the issuance and continuance of the permit and use thereby granted; and WHEREAS, Kent City Code (K.C.C. ) Chapter 4 . 07 which relates to street use, allows the Director to approve the permits described therein; and WHEREAS, any fee schedule adopted by the City Council by resolution shall govern the amount of the fee for such permits, which shall be collected by the Public Works Department as a condition to permit issuance or renewal ; Now, Therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following Schedule of Street Occupation and Street Use Permit Fees shall govern the amount of all street occupation and use permits as such may be hereafter issued and renewed by the Public Works Department: RENEWABLE ANNUALLY/MONTHLY/WEEKLY TYPE OF USE MINIMUM FEE 1. Beautification or landscaping (no fee except when insurance or bond is required) : $ 75. 00 2 . Portable Signs (32" x 36" maximum) (24" x 24" minimum) $ 75. 00 up to a maximum of two signs additional signs $ 5. 00 3 . Special event signing (example: Safeco Classic, Cornucopia days, etc. ) : $ 75. 00 Each additional sign: $ 5. 00 4 . Barricading streets (temporary private use) $ 75. 00 5. Real Estate Signs (per office location) : $ 75. 00 (Minimum fee authorizes up to 10 signs. For real estate signs in excess of this amount, stickers will be provided at cost. ) 6. Banner/Flag pole, signs, etc. extending over public property: $ 75. 00 7. Sidewalk cafes ($25. 60 per table) : $ 75. 00 2 NONRENEWABLE ANNUALLY TYPE OF USE MINIMUM FEE 8 . Driveways, business/commercial & multiple/single dwelling when independent of site development: $ 75. 00 9 . Marquee, awning, canopies (retractable and nonretractable) PER UNIT: $ 75 . 00 10. Retaining walls, rockeries: $500. 00 11. Fences: $ 75. 00 12 . Building moving on dollies and all buildings over 12 feet wide or greater: $150. 00 13 . The use of sidewalk by a contractor for equipment, tar kettles, mixers, etc. , to be used at various locations for exterior or interior buildings main- tenance with a one day limit, except where only one ladder is required per truck or unit with a one-time only limit (no material storage) : (There shall be a note on any such permit: "This is not permission to use curb space. " $ 75. 00 14 . Use of parking stall when maintaining the exterior or interior of buildings, PER DAY/STA11 : $ 10 . 00 15. PERMITS NOT OTHERWISE COVERED IN EITHER NON-RENEWABLE OR RENEWABLE SCHEDULE, REQUIRING THE FILING AND MAINTENANCE OF INSURANCE OR BOND: $ 75. 00 3 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: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1991. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK fees.res 4 ......... Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19 . 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MCI FRANCHISE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works ,Committee, #doption of Ordinance -410 granting MCI the right, privilege, authority and franchise for 10 years to construct, maintain and operate fiber optic cable in City rights-of-way. i 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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 Age Ala Item No. 3E Committoo amber S, 1991 Page 2 '' that would give staff authority to remove them if they are illegally placed. Simply removing the fee would mean that they are allowed and would still need to apply for a permit. It was determined that the garage sale signs would be removed from the resolution. Dowell referred again to the reasoning for exempting real estate signs from a fee. He continued that he felt the ordinance creates a situation impossible to police. He commented that he felt the ordinance has a lot of holes in it. Now signs are allowed on public property but they are not allowed on private property. He suggested that the ordinance and fees be eliminated entirely. Morris commented that the ordinance covers a lot more than just signs - house moving, etc. She added that if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding signs that was possible. Don Rust stated he was going to continue to work with the Planning Committee to change the ordinance concerning signs on private property. Jim White questioned whether we needed fees on any of permits. It was determined that the permit fees were established to cover the administrative costs of issuing the permit and enforcement of same. Wickstrom suggested a $75 permit fee per each real estate office which would provide them with "stickers" for up to a certain number of signs. It was further suggested that if the real estate office wished to permit more than the initial number of signs, they could purchase stickers for the additional number of signs at the City' s cost to produce the stickers. Mike Spence stated that the real estate brokers did not have a problem with a yearly fee per office. Their major concerns were the $5. 00 per sign and the process for getting a permit. Leona Orr Is motion was to eliminate yard, moving and garage sale signs and to charge a $75 per office permit fee for real estate signs which would entitle them up to 10 signs. Stickers for additional real estate signs would be available at the City' s cost to produce the stickers. After discussion, the motion was further amended to allow up to two signs for the $75 fee for portable signs . The Committee unanimously approved the motion. Dow-MCI Franchise Carol Morris explained the draft franchise ordinance has been negotiated between MCI and the City to allow MCI to place their fiber optic cable in the city's right of way. She continued that because MCI is a telephone company, they are exempt from paying any annual franchise fee. MCI had previously been constructing their facilities under a right of way permit. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. i 'I I i l ;i i i i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, granting unto MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware corporation, its i� successors and assigns, the right, privilege, authority and franchise for ten years, to construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair an underground fiber optic cable telecommunications system, in, across, under, through and below certain designated public rights-of-way and public properties of the City it of Kent, Washington. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES i ( HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Franchise Granted. The existing right-of-way ' j: permit granted by the City of Kent, Washington (hereinafter the 11 "City") , and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter "MCI") , for utilization of streets, Havenues, rights-of-way, roads, alleys, lanes or other public 1 places within the City of Kent is hereby cancelled as of �I Pursuant to RCW 35A.47 . 040, the City hereby grants to 'IMCI, its heirs, successors, administrators, legal representatives 11. nand assigns, subject to the terms and conditions set forth Ilhereinafter, a franchise for a period of ten years, commencing and expiring i I j I I I This franchise shall grant MCI the right, privilege and Ilauthority to construct, operate, maintain, replace, and use all , necessary equipment and facilities thereto for an underground ( fiber optic cable telecommunications system, 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: I STREET DISTANCE LOCATION 176th Ave. So. 120 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks ;ISouth 212th Street 110 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks ,ISouth 228th Street 100 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks JJames Street 110 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks jISmith Street 60 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks Meeker Street 60 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks West Gowe Street 60 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks j i West Titus Street 60 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks !West Willis Street 66 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks , South 259th Street 30 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks ' South 266th Street 30 ft. B.N.R.R. R/W Tracks The rights and privileges granted under this franchise '; shall not convey any right to MCI for the use of City-owned, Ii !; leased or operated properties outside of the franchise area Idescribed above. I II Section 2 . Non-Exclusive Franchise Grant. This franchise Jis granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any Imanner prevent the City 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 and i properties of every type and description. Such franchise shall in IIno way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of said roads, streets or other public properties or affect its jurisdiction over ) iI I - 2 - II I II �Ii 'I I+ �I them or any part of them, and the Cityshall retain power to make p i all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-ways, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Section 3 . Relocation of Fiber 0 tic Cable and Telecommunications system Facilities. MCI agrees and covenants atl its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its Ilinstallations when so required by the City by reason of traffic �Iconditions or public safety, dedications of new right-of-ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, freeway construction, Mchange or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency Ilacting in a governmental capacity, provided that MCI shall in all l!1such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the Iiauthorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, !f j, any section of cable required to be temporarily disconnected or i �t removed. I If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of MCI's then existing facilities, the City shall : I� a) At least sixty (60) days prior to the commencement j of such improvement project, provide MCI with written notice requiring such relocation; and I Ib) Provide MCI with copies of pertinent portions of thel plans and specifications for such improvement project and a i 3 i i' I i I� I I proposed location for MCI's facilities so that MCI may relocate its facilities in other City right-of-way in order to accommodate Ilsuch improvement project. c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and ;specifications, MCI shall complete relocation of its facilities at Ilno charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the j ilimprovement project at least ten (10) days prior to commencement of the project. 11 MCI may, after receipt of written notice requesting � a relocation of its facilities, submit to the City written ilalternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such ilalternatives and advise MCI in writing if one or more of the �ialternatives is suitable to accommodate the work which would ; otherwise necessitate relocation of the facilities. If so I (! requested by the City, MCI shall submit additional information to bassist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give jleach alternative proposed by MCI full and fair consideration. In ;; the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other i! reasonable alternative, MCI shall relocate its facilities as Ilotherwise provided in this Section. I I The provisions of this Section shall in no manner 1preclude or restrict MCI from making any arrangements it may deem Ilappropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its l� facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the j !+ facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or ,twill not become City-owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City i I, construction project. i �I I - 4 - I i i I II Section 4 . MCI's Mans and Records. As a condition of i this franchise, MCI shall provide to the City at no cost, a copy I of its current as built plans, maps and records of its fiber optic ) Doable system and facilities as they exist on the date of this ! franchise agreement in the City. All such as built plans, maps j I, and records will be available to the City upon request. j I' Section 5. 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- Ilways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as )possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of j adjoining property, and MCI shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety j regulations duringsuch period of construction as required by the 11ordinances of the City or the laws of the State of Washington, including RCW 39 . 04 . 180 for the construction of trench safety ;! systems. i, li Whenever MCI shall excavate in any public right-of-way or , Mother public property for the purpose of installation, con- �Jstruction, repair, maintenance or relocation of its cable or !! equipment, 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. In no case shall any work commence within any public Ilright-of-way or other public property without a permit, except as otherwise provided in this franchise ordinance. During the Iprogress of the work, MCI shall not unnecessarily obstruct the j passage or proper use of the right-of-way, and shall file as built ! Ilplans or maps with the City showing the proposed and final location of the cable. Ii I f I - 5 - I I If either the City or MCI 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 ;1the other, upon receipt of a written request to do so, an lopportunity to share such excavation, PROVIDED THAT: (1) such t use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party 13oin causing the excavation to be made; (2) such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to li both parties; and (3) either party may deny such request for safety reasons. i' Section 6. Restoration after Construction. MCI shall, ! after abandonment approved under Section 11 herein, or ' I ;! installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair of cable/facilities within the franchise area, restore the surface of ! the right-of-way or public property to at least the condition same ; iwas in immediately prior to any such installation, construction, ! relocation, maintenance or repair. All concrete encased monuments! ( which have been disturbed or displaced by such work shall be restored pursuant to all federal, state and local standards and specifications. MCI 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: it Section 7. Emeraencv Work -- Permit Waiver. In the event of any emergency in which any facilities located in or under' zany street, breaks, are damaged, or if MCI's construction area is �lotherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the � I property, life, health or safety of any individual, MCI shall '( immediately take the proper emergency measures to repair its I I I j) III - 6 - I i 1 I I I i I II _ I I facilities, 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 MCI from the requirement of obtaining any permits necessary for this purpose, and MCI shall apply for all such permits not later than the next succeeding day during which the Kent City Hall is open for business. iSection 8. Dangerous Conditions Authority for City to i ( Abate. Whenever construction, installation or excavation of !; facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed i jto a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral Isupport of the adjoining street or public place, or endangers the 1public, an adjoining public place, street utilities or City I property, the Public Works Director may direct MCI, at MCI's own ilexpense, to take actions to protect the public, adjacent public ,; places, City property or street utilities; and such action may include compliance within a prescribed time. I I In the event that MCI fails or refuses to promptly take I,Ithe actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with 1such directions, 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 ilstreets, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support lthereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and ,' MCI shall be liable to the City for the costs thereof. i II I 1 I' I - 7 - I II � II I I Section j 9. Recovery of Costs. MCI shall pay a filing Ifee for the City's administrative costs in drafting and processing! this franchise agreement and all work related thereto. MCI shall further be subject to all permit fees associated with activities i �iundertaken through the authority granted in this franchise I ordinance or under the� laws of the City. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for review, inspection or supervision of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or any ordinances relating to the subject for which a ;1 permit fee is not established, MCI shall pay such costs and expenses directly to the City. In addition to the above, MCI I shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all costs it reasonably incurs in response to any emergency involving MCI's i cable and facilities. I Section 10. Citv's Reservation of Rights. Pursuant to iSection 35. 21. 860 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) , the City is precluded from imposing a franchise fee on a telephone business as defined in RCW 82 . 04 . 065, except for administrative i expenses or any tax authorized by RCW 35.21. 865. MCI hereby I warrants that its operations as authorized under this franchise are those of a telephone business as defined in RCW 82. 04 . 065. As' a result, the City will not impose a franchise fee under the terms of this ordinance, other than as described herein. However, the City hereby reserves its right to impose a I i franchise fee on MCI for purposes other than to recover its ! administrative expenses or taxing, if MCI's operations as authorized by this franchise change so that not all uses of the i i franchise are those of a 'telephone business' as defined in RCW 82. 04. 065; or, if statutory prohibitions on the imposition of such fees are removed. In the former instance, the City reserves its j right to re �quire that MCI obtain a separate franchise for its I I 8 _ � I iii II it II iI i ( change in use, which franchise may include provisions intended to regulate MCI's operations, as allowed under applicable law. Section 11. Indemnification. MCI hereby releases, I covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and lhold 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 MCI's own 'lemployees to which MCI might otherwise be immune under Title 51 IiRCW, arising from injury or death of any person or damage to 1+ property of which the negligent acts or omissions of MCI, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing this franchise are the proximate cause. MCI 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 MCI's own employees, including those claims to which MCI might otherwise have immunity under Title 51 RCW) larising against the City solely by virtue of the City's ownership i for control of the rights-of-way or other public properties, by virtue of MCI's exercise of the rights granted herein, or by I� virtue of the City's permitting MCI's use of the City's 11rights-of-way or other public property based upon the inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by MCI, 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 MCI, its agents, servants, of I or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction,, i - 9 - I I I it I II ior work in any y public right-of-way or other public place in i 11performance of work or services permitted under this franchise. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work KI1performed by MCI at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of I it indemnification. Said indemnification obligations shall extend to II claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be I compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the li institution of any litigation. I I In the event that MCI refuses the tender of defense in .liany suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the indemnification clauses contained herein, and said refusal is subsequently determined b a court having g jurisdiction (or such i other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter) ,+ to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of MCI, then MCI shall; ! ; pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees ii and the reasonable costs of the City, including reasonable j i attorneys' fees of recovering under this indemnification clause. I I I Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this franchise 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 the itconcurrent negligence of MCI and the City, its officers, employees and agents, MCI's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent Of MCI's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly �I understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes ii MCI's waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. �I ! ii - 10 I �i � Ili The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this franchise agreement. i i II Section 12 . Insurance. MCI shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for jiinjuries 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 MCI, its agents, representatives or; employees. MCI 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 +i for bodily injury and property damage; and I i i 2 . 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, bodilyl injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) ; and i� 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 MCI. I! i I it The insurance obtained by MCI shall name the City, its j officers, employees and volunteers as insurers with regard to activities performed by or on behalf of MCI. The coverage shall Ii i jcontain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded)' ,Ito 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 j the insurer's liability. MCI'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 �I MCI's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The insurance 11policy or polices required by this clause shall be endorsed to i 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 j requested, has been given to the City. �iAny failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. !i it H Section 13 . Abandonment of MCI's Cable or Telecommunication System Facilities. No cable, section of cable or facility laid in the street by MCI may be abandoned by MCI i� without the express written consent of the City. Any plan for i abandonment or removal of MCI's cable and facilities must be first! �i approved by the Public Works Director, and all necessary permits I' must be obtained prior to such work. Section 14 . Bond. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or I II maintenance authorized by this franchise, MCI shall, upon the j request of the City, furnish a bond executed by MCI and a j corporate surety authorized to do a surety business in the State I - 12 - l IIi ! it ii of Washington, in a sum to be set and approved by the Director of Public Works as sufficient to ensure performance of MCI's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that MCI shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions i and faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to erect or replace any defective work or materials discovered' in the replacement of the City's streets or property within a IIperiod of two years from the date of the replacement and acceptance of such repaired streets by the City. Section 15. Modification. The City and MCI hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and i conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. 'I Section 16. Forfeiture and Revocation. If MCI 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 MCI by the City under the provisions of this franchise, then MCI shall, at the election of !i the Kent City Council, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the Council after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to MCI. 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 MCI to comply with the j provisions of this Ordinance and to recover damages and costs i j' incurred by the City by reason of MCI's failure to comply. Section 17. 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 MCI and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of - 13 - i i 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. I I Section 18 . _City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the Cityfs ability toi adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, i 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 j �I control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and j II manner of construction and maintenance of any fiber optic cable or cable facilities by MCI, and MCI shall promptly conform with all iIsuch regulations, unless compliance would cause MCI to violate other requirements of law. j I Section 19 . Cost of Publication. The cost of the publication of this Ordinance shall be borne by MCI. � I Section 20. Acceptance. After the passage and approval of this ordinance and within sixty days after such approval, this I franchise shall be accepted by MCI by its filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of MCIi to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by MCI, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the sixty day i period„absolutely cease and determine, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. I I Section 21. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions: �I and requirements of Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and - 14 - �I I i, liabilities MCI may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract, and shall survive the City's franchise to MCI for the use of the areas mentioned in Section 1 herein, and any renewals j or extensions thereof. All of the provisions, conditions, liregulations and requirements contained in this franchise Ordinance! ! shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, ! administrators, legal representatives and assigns of MCI and all i iprivileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of MCI shall inure to its heirs, successors and assigns equally as if j they were specifically mentioned wherever MCI is named herein. Section 22 . Severability. If any section, sentence, ! clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or I11constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase lI 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 23 . Assignment. This agreement may not be lassigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except MCI may freely assign this Agreement in whole or in part to is parent, subsidiary, or affiliated corporation or as part of any 11corporate reorganization or refinancing. MCI shall provide i ! written notice to the City of any such assignment. i Section 24 . Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties under this franchise i i 15 - I 1 I i agreement may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified: I � City of Kent Director of Public Works 300 West Gowe �I Kent, WA 98032 , MCI Telecommunications Corp. jISite Route Management Department 1103 400 International Parkway Richardson, Texas 75081 i MCI Telecommunications Corp. Office of General Counsel Real Estate Administrator !, 1133 - 19th Street NW I� Washington D.0 20036 I. I �! Section 25. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on 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 and after introduction on and after having been published at least I ! once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Kent. li I i !j I i i ji DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: I� l BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK � I fI - 16 - II � I� Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY SHOPS WASH RACK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with R.K. Construction for the City Shops Wash Rack Project and release of retainage after receipt of releases from the state. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO A — 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. 3F x DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 14, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council r FROM: Don Wickstroau RE: City Shops Wash Rack This project provided an addition to the City Shops Wash Rack and was awarded May 7, 1991 to R.K. Construction for the bid of $28 ,427 . 39 . The project was completed in October for the final construction cost of $29, 890. It is recommended the project be accepted as complete and the retainage released after receipt of the release from the State. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointments to the Kent Arts Commission as follows: Appointment of Jim Teeters to the Kent Arts Commission. He will replace Jamie Vickrey whose term expired. Mr. Teeters is a Counselor with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. His term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. Appointment of Doug Gesler to the Kent Arts Commission. He will replace Sally Ann Story, who resigned. Mr. Gesler serves as a Counselor with the Washington State Employment Security Department. His term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/93 . Appointment of Midge Sweley to the Kent Arts Commission. She will replace Chris Kramer, who resigned. Ms. Sweley owns her own business in downtown Kent. Her term will begin immedi- ately and continue through 10/31/93 . Appointment of Claudia Appell to the Kent Arts Commission. She will fill the position formerly held by JoAnn Brady. Ms. Appell serves as Director of Fine Arts Curriculum for the Kent School District. Her term as an Arts Commissioner will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95 . Reappointment of JoAnn Brady to the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Brady will replace Barbara Biteman, who resigned. The new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/93 . Reappointment of Marilyn Hadley to the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Hadley's new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. Reappointment of Jim Land to the Kent Arts Commission. Mr. Land' s new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos from Mayor 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher (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• -� V\Y-LaA Council Age da Item No. 3G MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF JIM TEETERS TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Jim Teeters to the Kent Arts Commission. He will replace Jamie Vickrey whose term expired. Mr. Teeters is a Counselor with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. His term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR �����-.�--• DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF DOUG GESLER TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Doug Gesler to the Kent Arts Commission. He will replace Sally Ann Story who resigned. Mr. Gesler serves as a Counselor with the Washington State Employment Security Department. His term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/93. 1 submit this for your confirmation. DK.jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF MIDGE SWELEY TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Midge Sweley to the Kent Arts Commission. She will replace Chris Kramer who resigned. Ms. Sweley owns her own business in downtown Kent. Her term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/93. I submit this for your confirmation. DK.jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CLAUDIA APPELL TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Claudia Appell to the Kent Arts Commission. She will fill the position formerly held by JoAnn Brady. Ms. Appell serves as Director of Fine Arts Curriculum for the Kent School District. Her term as an Arts Commissioner will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. I submit this for your confirmation. DK.jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL%1DET CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR �--���"� DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT OF JoANN BRADY TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently reappointed JOAnn Brady to the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Brady will replace Barbara Biteman, who resigned. The new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/93. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCI PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ,����t DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT OF MARILYN HADLEY TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently reappointed Marilyn Hadley to the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Hadley's new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. I submit this for your confirmation. DK.jb MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCII SID NT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR - --��`--� " DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT OF JIM LAND TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently reappointed Jim Land to the Kent Arts Commission. Mr. Land's new term will begin immediately and continue through 10/31/95. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19, 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: BUDGET ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of the 1992 Budget has been set for tonight's meeting. An ordinance has been prepared to reflect the Mayor's budget proposal with corrections as presented at the November 12th Council budget work session. The 1992 Budget totals $65, 814 , 057 and is balanced in difficult economic times without tax rate increase or employee layoffs. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ��i' ) moves, Councilmember "-o _seconds for adoption of Ordinance approving the 1992 Budget? DISCUSSION: c 1, ACTION• Council Agej3da Item No. 4A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington relating to budgets and finance; adopting the 1992 Budget. WHEREAS, the tax estimates and budget for the City of Kent, Washington for the year 1992 have been prepared and filed as provided by the laws of the State of Washington, the said budget having been printed for distribution and notice published in the official paper of the City of Kent setting the time and place for hearing on same and said notice stating that all taxpayers calling at the Office of the City Clerk would be furnished a copy of said budget; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Budget. That the budget for the year 1992 as it now stands is hereby adopted in the amounts and for the following purposes to wit: Change Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GENERAL FUND 31,766,971 33, 161,849 (1,394,878) 1,8942878 500,000 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 1,315,848 1,470,106 (154,258) 2072503 53,245 Capital Improvement 37542,827 3,804,441 (261,614) 711,614 450,000 Criminal Justice 783,119 634,976 148, 143 2342312 382,455 Environmental Mitigation 194,600 238,095 (43,495) 290,051 246,556 Housing & Community Dev. 2257180 225, 180 Other Operating Projects 50,000 502000 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 11813,719 1 ,898,795 (85,076) 185,076 100,000 Councilmanic 2,221,037 2,221,037 Special Assessment 3,446,014 3,395,514 50,500 21702,633 2,753, 133 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Capital 17259,000 1,259,000 Parks Projects 43,739 43,739 Other Projects 457,000 576,000 (119,000) 119,000 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 8,841,427 6,8575027 11984,400 82514,674 10,499,074 Sewerage 10,887,553 12,859,863 (1 ,972,310) 2,755,104 782,794 Golf Course 31269,150 2,487,743 781,407 98,917 8802324 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 11511,045 11238, 120 272,925 11950,583 21223,508 Central Services 1,973,894 1,907,432 66,462 180,841 247,303 Insurance 4,0257941 41190,697 (164,756) 1 ,6771581 1 ,512,825 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 221,200 149,500 71,700 119632076 210342776 Economic Development Corp. 29,912 25,345 4,567 472682 52,249 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 77,8797176 78,694,459 (815,283) 23,533,525 22,718,242 Less: Internal Service Funds 7,228,263 7,228,263 Other Transfers 5,652,139 51652,139 TOTAL NET BUDGET 64,998.774 65,8142057 (815,283) 2325332525 22,718,242 Section 2. This budget provides a 6.7% cost of living adjustment for nonrepresented employees effective January 1, 1992. Section 3. The City Administrator shall administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments to the extent that they are consistent with the budget approved herein. Section 4. Effective Date. 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: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1991 . APPROVED the day of 1991 . PUBLISHED the day of 1991 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK - Kent City Council Meeting Date November 19 , 1991 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ENHANCED 911 SYSTEM 2 , SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the present time, telephone systems are being installed in large business and apartment complexes that utilize some type of private telephone exchange. Calls from these private exchanges are routed through a remote telephone switch and during a 911 call will provide the address of the person requesting help. The call will also be routed to the 911 center for the switch location, which often times is the wrong location. This will result in time delays for the dispatch of help, especially if the caller is unaware or unable to correctly identify their location. The proposed ordinance will not address presently installed systems, only those being installed as part of construction work where a Building Permit is required. This prdinance will stop the current call routing problem from escalating while other solutions can be reached to solve the present problems. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee Fire and Police Department (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5, UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember' &,.1ttiJ moves, Councilmember V seconds adoption of Ordinance %� { ; y allowing an interface of the Enhanced 911 system and selective rerouting of 911 calls to the proper jurisdiction in new construction. DISCUSSION: � J-1 ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4BX i I I ORDINANCE NO. 1 i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Kent Fire Code, j Chapter 13 . 11 of the Kent City Code, to require that all telephone systems installed in new construction include both an interface with the Enhanced 911 system (E-911) and provide selective routing of 911 calls to the appropriate jurisdiction. t i WHEREAS, the E-911 system has proven lifesaving benefits to the citizens of Kent because it provides automatic caller identification to the proper Public Safety Answering Point, such as !, Valley Communications, the area ' s emergency telecommunication center; and WHEREAS, telephone systems utilizing Centron/Centrex (CTX) and/or Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs) have been installed at I I apartment complexes and large office/business buildings in order to i lsell phone service off the PBX to their tenants; WHEREAS, the proliferation of such PBX systems is ! increasing, (one estimate provided to the City is that in 1988, King County had only 300 units served by PBX' s, but in December, 1989 there were over 3 , 000) and the reason for this is the significant economic advantages for developers; and I �i WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the E-911 system is compromised by the use of PBXs and CTXs because a PBX/CTX user i calling 911 will only have displayed the location and phone number identification of the PBX/CTX system to the Public Safety Answering ( Point, and not that of the caller; and II i i I� i i I WHEREAS, this problem can be life-threatening when the caller is unable to verbally provide the exact location of the emergency, and the emergency dispatcher is unable to pinpoint the exact location of the caller because the PBX/CTX system is not at the same location as the caller; and I WHEREAS, an additional problem exists in that some phone � I lsystems are sold without selective routing, which may mean that a Ilcall placed to 911 within Kent would not be routed to the closest ( Public Safety Answering Point; and i WHEREAS, the citizens of Kent who are serviced by PBX telephone systems may be therefore denied the most important benefits of the E-911 system but may have the erroneous belief that 1 Ijthis service is provided to them now; and �t I� liWHEREAS, telephone products have been developed which can be attached to PBX/CTX telephone systems and which will allow a 11 PBX/CTX system to properly interface with the E-911 system (meaning that the installation of these interface products make the j! automatic number and location information feature available) and i ( further, services are presently available to customers that will , provide selective routing of calls to the nearest public safety !, answering point; and I� li WHEREAS, the Kent City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Kent that this problem not be amplified by allowing the number of PBX/CTX systems to increase in the City without the benefit of these life-saving services, and to therefore require that these (I PBX/CTX interface products be installed and selective routing i i it 2 I ;I I I I i service provided in all telephone systems installed in new �1 construction in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Fire Code is amended to add Section 1. The Kent the following new chapter: I I1 � II II CHAPTER 13. 11 I� ENHANCED 911 (E-911) SERVICE. I� i! Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known and may ',1, be cited as the Kent E-911 Ordinance. ��. Section on 2 . Declaration of Polic Findings and Intent. A. It is declared to be the policy of the City, in the of the p !I ublic ; exercise of its police powers for the protection lhealth, safety and general welfare, that all of the citizens of : Kent be provided with emergency telephone service that is The E-911 'jwith, or is equal to the best available technology. ! service currently available to the citizens of Kent allows caller lidentification and appropriate routing to an operator in the ( nearest Public Safety Answering Point or emergency telecommunication center. It is the intent of the City, in the dinance, that all telephone systems implementation of this or itst provide service or products that installed in new construction mu 'I ( will interface with the E-911 system to provide these benefits to F all citizens. 3 %I it II I� I III I iI ;I i i I I B. It is further declared that the installation of such I products or services is not only critical to the health, safety and welfare of the general public, but also to provide an effective means for Kent's fire, medical and police units to efficiently locate and promptly respond to any emergency. C. The express purpose of this ordinance is to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to protect individuals or create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of people who I, will or should be especially protected or benefitted by the terms of this ordinance. The obligation of complying with the requirements of this ordinance and the liability for failing to do I iso is hereby placed upon the owner and/or occupant or persons ` responsible for the conditions of the buildings or premises. iI Section 3 . Scope. This ordinance shall apply to all I ,, buildings, appurtenant structures and premises hereafter !! constructed in the City, in which telephone systems are installed; and shall also apply to any building, structure or premise which is jhereafter altered, rehabilitated or repaired, and for which alteration, rehabilitation or repair any permit is required by any if Kent City Code or ordinance. Existing buildings, appurtenant ; structures and premises which have been constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be affected by the ( requirements described herein. I� �I Section 4 . Enforcement Authority. A. Enforcement. The Kent Fire Chief is hereby j ,! designated the City Office to exercise the powers granted under I. 4 I I i it III this ordinance, except that the Fire Chief may call upon any City department to aid in implementation and enforcement of this ordinance. B. Rules. The Chief is authorized to adopt such rules Ithat are necessary to implement the requirements of this ordinance ! and to carry out the duties hereunder. � i Section 5. Fees. No fees shall be charged for j inspection of buildings or premises for compliance with this lordinance, if such inspection is carried out in conjunction with ; any required inspection under the Kent Building and Fire Codes. �I Section 6. Liability. Nothing contained in this 'iordinance is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or I� form the basis for any liability on the part of the City, or its i lofficers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of an owner of property or land to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any : inspection, notice, order certificate, permission or approval authorized or issued or done in connection with the implementation i` or enforcement of this ordinance, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any manner to the i enforcement of this ordinance by its officers, employees or agents. Section 7. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, certain words, terms, phrases and their derivations I �Ishall be construed as specified in this ordinance. A. "ALI" means Automatic Location Identification, which jis made up of the telephone number, the class of service of the I j 5 I I I I I I i I phone (residence, business, coin, PBX, etc. ) the date and time of the call. ALI further includes the name, address and city of the caller' s location, the routing code of the call, the pilot number and the port or trunk that the call was received on. The name of i the PSAP is listed along with the predetermined agencies which are responsible for Police, Fire or Medical response to that address. I I B. "ANI" means that data stream which is made up of a single digit which indicates the trunking of the call and the ( seven-digit telephone number of the calling party' s phone. I C. "CTX" means Centron/Centrex/Centraflex, which is a single line phone service over a dedicated central office line, �Idelivered to individual desks in a business, with added features. it D. "E-911" means the telephone service that enables the j1public to dial the three-digit emergency telephone number "9-1-1" (land reach the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point, based on ( the location of the calling party, and also provides certain caller H information ("ANI" and "ALI") to the PSAP Telecommunicator as each ji call is taken. I E. "PBX" means Private Area Branch Exchange, which is ja private phone system allowing communication within a business and between a business and the outside world. PBX lines were designed to provide telephone communications to large groups of people I without having dedicated central office lines for each station. I F. "PSAP" means the Public Safety Answering Point, which is normally based upon the calling party' s address. I I 6 I I I I I j I j i I I G. "Selective Routing" means that function of telephone service which will direct the call to the proper PSAP, based upon I the calling party's address. Section 8. Service or Interface Products Required. A. Every building, appurtenant structure or premise i within the City shall, where a telephone system is installed, also I j have telephone services or products installed which will properly interface with the E-911 system by making the following ALI-ANI linformation available to the PSAP on the PSAP's receiving screen when any party within the system calls 9-1-1: li II 1. Name. i I� 2 . Address -- building number, unit number (if applicable) . j �I 3 . Telephone number. 4 . City. 5. Appropriate police, fire response 6. Class of service (PBX, coin phone, residence) ij I II ) B. In addition to the above, service must also be jprovided which will selectively route 9-1-1 calls to the I; 11 appropriate PSAP jurisdiction on any phone in the building, appurtenant structure or premise. II i I Section 9. Enforcement. No permit or certificate of j Joccupancy shall issue for any construction not conforming to the requirements of this ordinance. For the purposes of this !I I �I I� 1� II ordinance, a "permit" shall mean either a building permit or tenant improvement permit. Section 10. Appeals. Any party affected by a decision of the Chief not to issue a permit or certification of occupancy j !1pursuant to Section 9 herein may, within fifteen (15) days after ,I I the date of the decision, petition the Superior Court of King County for review of the Chief' s decision. There shall be no appeal from this ordinance to the Board of Appeals as provided in I the Kent Fire Code (Uniform Fire Code, adopted under K.C.C. Section I I 13 . 02 . 010) Section 2 . 303 . ,I Section 11. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The ' invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section ' or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application jthereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity i of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its , application to other persons or circumstances. I Section 12 . Effective Date -- Statement of Emergency. IAs stated in the preamble to this ordinance, the problem that this ( ordinance seeks to remedy is health and safety related, and ; potentially life-threatening. It is in the best interests of the public that no further development take place in Kent which contains tele-communications systems incompatible with E-911, or that would contribute to the problem defined in this ordinance, since post-construction correction may be technologically difficult and expensive. This ordinance, therefore, is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety, and shall take effect and be in force and effect five (5) days from the II �I 8 i I II � I! I I� I t I j jj jl I f jltime of its final approval and passage as provided by law. I DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: I i BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK � I !; APPROVED AS TO FORM: i i I JROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY �I I� I "IPASSED the day of , 1991. I ( APPROVED the day of , 1991. PUBLISHED the day of 1991. ii I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of i Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of j ;; Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as l' hereon indicated. II (SEAL) itBRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK lili E 911.ORD �I i I 9 i II I II CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE / C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE J E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE L{CA,' F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 5, 1991 PRESENT: JIM WHITE CAROL MORRIS LEONA ORR TONY MCCARTHY STEVE DOWELL JOHN BOND DON WICKSTROM TIM HEYDON TOM BRUBAKER JACK SPENCER GARY GILL Bill Doolittle, Russ Stringham, Mr. and Mr. Jim Rust, Don Rust, Mike Spence, Brian Lawler, Mike Pintar, Jean Parietti Street Lights at The Lakes Jim White stated he had received a petition regarding street lights at The Lakes. Apparently some are not working. He indicated he would be giving the petition to Don Wickstrom and asked that staff look into the problem. Fee Schedule - Street Occupation Ordinance Wickstrom explained that the schedule of fees includes a "no fee" recommendation for real estate signs in keeping with the Mayor 's request. Leona Orr said she doesn't have a concern about no fee for them but was wondering about the legality of those signs on the sidewalks. She said she had noticed in three different locations within the city limits real estate signs that were completely blocking the sidewalk access. She questioned if we would be condoning such actions. Carol Morris responded that they would not be exempt from the requirements of the ordinance which gives the Director authority to tell them where they can place the signs. They shouldn't be blocking sidewalks. Orr wondered if City personnel would still have authority to pick up the signs if they were illegally placed. Morris confirmed it would not give the real estate industry carte blanche to put signs wherever they wanted. Morris added that we can not regulate signs as to content in the ordinance. Political signs would be allowed in the right of way if they obtained the required permit and paid the fees. Bill Doolittle questioned if real estate signs included the signs used by apartment complexes to advertise their unit availabilities. He also questioned the fee for garage sale signs. Orr concurred and added that the garage sale signs are usually up only for a weekend and it is unrealistic to expect them to pay $75 for a permit. She continued that many garage sales don't even make $75 . She recommended the fee for garage sale signs be eliminated. Morris clarified that removing the reference of garage sale signs in the resolution would prohibit them from being in the right of way and Public Works Committee November 5, 1991 Page 2 that would give staff authority to remove them if they are illegally placed. Simply removing the fee would mean that they are allowed and would still need to apply for a permit. It was determined that the garage sale signs would be removed from the resolution. Dowell referred again to the reasoning for exempting real estate signs from a fee. He continued that he felt the ordinance creates a situation impossible to police. He commented that he felt the ordinance has a lot of holes in it. Now signs are allowed on public property but they are not allowed on private property. He suggested that the ordinance and fees be eliminated entirely. Morris commented that the ordinance covers a lot more than just signs - house moving, etc. She added that if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding signs that was possible. Don Rust stated he was going to continue to work with the Planning Committee to change the ordinance concerning signs on private property. Jim White questioned whether we needed fees on any of permits. It was determined that the permit fees were established to cover the administrative costs of issuing the permit and enforcement of same. Wickstrom suggested a $75 permit fee per each real estate office which would provide them with "stickers" for up to a certain number of signs. It was further suggested that if the real estate office wished to permit more than the initial number of signs, they could purchase stickers for the additional number of signs at the City's cost to produce the stickers. Mike Spence stated that the real estate brokers did not have a problem with a yearly fee per office. Their major concerns were the $5. 00 per sign and the process for getting a permit. Leona Orr Is motion was to eliminate yard, moving and garage sale signs and to charge a $75 per office permit fee for real estate signs which would entitle them up to 10 signs. Stickers for additional real estate signs would be available at the City' s cost to produce the stickers. After discussion, the motion was further amended to allow up to two signs for the $75 fee for portable signs. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. MCI Franchise Carol Morris explained the draft franchise ordinance has been negotiated between MCI and the City to allow MCI to place their fiber optic cable in the city's right of way. She continued that because MCI is a telephone company, they are exempt from paying any annual franchise fee. MCI had previously been constructing their facilities under a right of way permit. The Committee unanimously recommended approval. Public Works Committee November 5, 1991 Page 3 Surplus Vehicles Jim White expressed concerns about surplusing vehicles with only 85, 000 miles. He asked if there were maintenance problems. Tim Heydon explained that it is hard on vehicles to have a number of drivers. Some of the vehicles have been used as construction vehicles and have experienced a lot of hard wear. Jack Spencer explained that the on-going maintenance of these vehicles is more than they are worth. Tim Heydon explained that mileage is not the only element to determine if a car should be surplused or not. Many of these run 24 hours a day so have a lot of hours on the engine and go through several drivers each day. It was explained they would be sold at the State auction. Occasionally, if we are purchasing other vehicles, we have been able to use a surplus vehicle as a trade-in. Bill Doolittle asked how much some of these vehicles might be worth. Tim Heydon replied that we have previously gotten good value for the vehicles at the auction. He offered to review previous auction results with Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Doolittle suggesting rebuilding some of the old police cars and putting them back into the fleet. Jack Spencer added that the cost of a new transmission is about $7-800 and a new computer for the pollution control would run about the same. Don Wickstrom added that we are short a mechanic now so the daily maintenance is hard to keep up with and we certainly would not have sufficient manpower to start rebuilding vehicles to keep them in the fleet. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to surplus the vehicles. Drainage Problem - Charles Tiffany Leona Orr inquired about the drainage problem that the Tiffany' s have reported. She indicated that she had suggested to the Tiffany' s that she would bring it before the Committee. Gary Gill explained that the City' s survey crew is scheduled to do a topographic survey along the road to determine if McCann' s proposal will solve the problem. McCann has worked with the Planning Department and since his business has been in operation since 1955 it has been grandfathered in. A fence has been installed which defines the area that is allowed for the topsoil operation. Anything outside that would require a separate grade and fill permit. Jim White asked if Gary would be able to bring some proposed solutions to the Committee at their next meeting.