Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/21/1992 E v { I; OZZIE I (� 9 3 E Colty of Kent € 0 1 Meefin C t T9 ! k � kr : itP tfik I�k�sF Ageanda 1 f£>�' CITY OF i € j l iri£jigIt i#i)t„k3t lj a j2E1 yK 3 h SE'�r IP , yy ,x `£E= Mayor Dan Kelleher I Council Members Judy Woods, President I Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Bill Jon Johnson Jim White if t t 3 iE #$„ July 21 , 1992 <yt 1 > (F (n yi Office of the City Cierk I1 CITY OF "L22 V Z5 SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 21, 1992 Council Chambers V?WHC7 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL yi. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS � 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS xA. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR XA. Minutes B. Bills C. Shoreline Master Program Amendments - Ordinance D. Council Absence E. visual Preference Survey Implementation - Resolution bF Constrictor Snake Ordinance Fireworks Ordinance ' L�jS Electronic Monitoring Agreement 'X4 . OTHER BUSINESS CPG Grant A. �5. BIDS ;�A. LID 333 - Signalization at 72nd Avenue & S. 180th A. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS x7 . REPORT VS. ADJOURNMENT l NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. i �A, % i'14 LZ � Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 J Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the revised Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan 1993-1998 . The City Clerk has given the proper legal notification of the hearing. The Director of Public Works and staff will review the projects included in the TIP. 3 . EXHIBITS: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan 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: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: oy Councilmember 1� moves, Councilmember �L�C�'Cl✓ seconds that Resolution No. Ili be adopted, approving the 1993-1998 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2Ax Public Works Committee July 1, 1992 Page 3 to back away from the annexation policy entirely and just say the community will not grow any more. He continued that if we look at the ratio of police and fire per capita we will probably find that Kent has one of the highest ratios in the county. Paul Mann moved that the Committee accept the Chestnut Ridge annexation. Jim White clarified that the motion was to recommend the boundaries as defined by the staff, the annexation should include the City's bonded indebtedness and authorization to circulate the 60% petition. The Committee unanimously approved. Final EIS 272nd/277th Corridor Wickstrom explained that the Final EIS has been completed. The next step would be for Council to direct us to submit the preferred alignment to King County for them to establish the roadway. Because of the sensitivity of the project, Wickstrom recommended a public hearing process be involved with August 4 being the hearing date after which refer the matter back to the Public Works Committee for subsequent recommendation. The Committee unanimously recommended setting August 4 as date for public hearing on the FEIS. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Wickstrom stated the public hearing is scheduled for July 21. Wickstrom stated the plan is being presented for any questions the Committee might have on the projects. Paul Mann stated he was concerned that the Bicycle Advisory Board hadn't been established prior to this and it would have been helpful to have that Advisory Board in the beginning of this process. Wickstrom stated this TIP is updated every year. White alluded to an ISTEA committee he has recently been appointed to serve on and that it included funds for such things as bicycle lanes. Latecomer Agreement - Robinson Sewer Extension Wickstrom explained the developer has requested a latecomer agreement so that he can be reimbursed as other properties connect to the sewer extension. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the preparation and signature of the latecomer agreement. Bill of Sale and Latecomer Agreement - West Valley Masonry The developer has requested acceptance of a sanitary sewer extension and preparation of a latecomer agreement for future connections. Since the main has been in operation for some time we are recommending waiving the one-year maintenance period. The RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 1993-1998. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: _ Section 1. The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 1993 to 1998, as set forth in the attachments hereto and herewith filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1992 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK CONSENT CALENDAR ✓3 . City Council Action: Councilmember [t". '> moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through H be approved. Discussion Action ", � Cn d1 "3A. Approval of Minutes. Approv 1 of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July , 1992 . r3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through July 15, 1992 c� after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 00 p.m. on July 21, 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agenda Item No. 3 pt'9.B'X Kent, Washington July 7 , 1992 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Houser, Johnson, Mann and White, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Direc- tor Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Finance Director McCarthy, Human Resources Director Olson, and Informa- tion Services Director Spang. Councilmembers Orr and Woods were excused and Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance. Approx- imately 100 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced COMMUNICATION that Fred Hewitt of the Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Department has been chosen as the Employee of the Month for July. He noted that Hewitt began his career with the City in 1979 as a Building Inspector. Fire Chief Angelo noted that Hewitt is knowledgeable, practical and works well with people in the construction community as well as with his fellow City employees. DARE Donation. Jerry Jackson, Manager of Mitzel ' s Restaurant in Kent, explained that last May Mitzel ' s Restaurants began a coloring contest and sold special pies to benefit the DARE program. He noted that the restaurants had raised $6000, and presented Kent' s share in the amount of $773 . 00 to Bob Bradley of the DARE program. Bradley stated that they appreciate the corporate sponsorship throughout the City and thanked each and every one of them. Kent Recreation Center. Ms . N. Hibbard asked that something be done about the Kent Recreation Center. She cited loud noise and music which lasts all night on weekends, fights, drinking, litter and so forth. She noted that she has spoken with the manager to no avail, and has called the Police. The Mayor noted that there are representatives from Kent Recreation present at tonight ' s meeting and suggested that they and other interested citizens meet with representa- tives from the appropriate City departments after tonight' s meeting. Police Chief Crawford agreed to speak with them. Ms. Hibbard noted that she had written a letter to the newspaper about this and that she would provide a copy to the City. 1 July 7 , 1992 CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR L be approved, with the exception of Item 3K which was removed, and including the additions to Item 3A. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF BILL DOOLITTLE Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of June 16 , 1992 . Bill Doolittle, 412 N. Washington, stated that he feels the minutes do not reflect the tone and the mood in the room on June 16th regarding budget issues. He said he had reviewed the video tape of the meeting and that there were a number of quotes by various councilmembers who wanted to be on the public record, and he feels those statements should be put in quotes . He listed them as follows: WOODS : "I was shocked and dismayed to receive the confidential memo/letter on Thursday at 5: 00 o ' clock at my door. " Leaning over the dias she said "I am not pleased. I want the public record to know that I am not pleased and if my council colleagues remember it in a different way than I do, I would stand corrected at this point. I am not happy with this proposal , I want something else tried. And I have been waiting to say this since last Thursday afternoon at 5: 00 o 'clock. And I may appear angry right now, but you (addressing McCarthy) are very, very fortunate, you and Mr. Chow, that you did not see me on Satur- day, Sunday and Monday. " (Applause) CHOW, when asked by White whether Executive Committee meetings are open to Councilmem- bers: "If we choose to invite you. " JOHNSON: "I no longer have confidence in the City administration, as a councilmember, to adequately provide me with the necessary information, not only on the budget, but on any matter. Simply, they' re not doing their job. As Mr. White said, if they were working 2 July 7 , 1992 MINUTES for his organization, I ' ll go even farther and say I would fire them if I was the person in charge. " ORR: "I do want to add, just to be on the public record, I was very disturbed to receive this information in the way I received it and at the time I received it. And to receive a proposal that goes against everything this council has said for months and months and months, giving us the alter- native of laying off the bulk of the people that is said we need to lay off in our public safety. " There was no objection from the Council to Doolittle' s request and the Mayor directed the City Clerk to add the quotes into the minutes. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) SANITATION Soosette Creek Lift Station. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Kent Pump Station Cost Sharers for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 2 , 098 feet of sewer main extension, 2 , 625 feet of force main and a lift station constructed for the Lindental development in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 266th Street with release of the cash bond supplied for these improvements to be in conjunction with acceptance of the Lindental plat, as recommended by the Public Works Commit- tee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Dally Tynes Apartments Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement sub- mitted by Kent-Kangley Associates for approxi- mately 1, 640 feet of water main extension, 1, 705 feet of sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 116th Avenue S.E. and Kent-Kangley and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 3 July 7 , 1992 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) SANITATION Arco AM/PM Mini Market Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company for continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 430 feet of street improvements and 116 feet of storm sewer improve- ments constructed at West Valley Highway and So. 180 and release of the cash bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) West Valley Masonry Bill of Sale and Latecomer Agreement. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by B. G. McElderry for continuous operation and maintenance of approxi- mately 309 feet of sanitary sewer extension con- structed in the vicinity of So. 228th and West Valley Highway, waiver of the one-year maintenance period with immediate release of cash bond and authorization for staff to prepare and the Public Works Director to sign a Latecomer Agreement for future connections to this main, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) CONTROL Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan 1993- 1998. AUTHORIZATION to set July 21 as date for public hearing on the City ' s Six Year Transporta- tion Improvement Program 1993-1998 , as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K/REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AND CHANGED TO OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G) REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF CHARLIE KIEFER 272nd/277th Corridor. AUTHORIZATION to set August 4 as the date for the public hearing on a proposed Council action relating to implementation of the FEIS preferred alignment for the 272nd/277th Corridor project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Public Works Director Wickstrom explained that the final environmental impact statement on this corridor is complete and staff would like direc- tion from the Council to submit to King County the EIS and the accompanying documents for the estab- lishment of the preferred alignment as denoted in 4 July 7 , 1992 TRAFFIC the EIS. He noted that in order for the County to CONTROL concur with the project, they must establish the route. He explained that the purpose of the requested public hearing is to receive input on whether or not Council wishes staff to move ahead with the project. Charlie Kiefer, 10926 SE 274th, said he appre- ciates having a public hearing on this corridor since it is not required. He invited councilmem- bers and others to attend a meeting he could set up before August 4th to discuss their concerns with the environmental impact statement. He said that the more the Council understands citizens ' concerns, the better off everyone will be. He requested from the Public Works Department a copy of the boundaries of the Local Improvement Dis- trict which will be formed to pay for this arte- rial . Wickstrom noted that the boundaries have not been established at this time, and that there are enough no-protest agreements to form the LID. WHITE MOVED to set August 4th as the date for the public hearing on a proposed Council action relating to implementation of the FEIS preferred alignment for the 272nd/277th corridor project. Houser seconded and the motion carried. LATECOMER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) AGREEMENT Robinson Sewer Extension Latecomer Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for staff to prepare and the Director of Public Works to sign a Latecomer Agreement for future connections to the sanitary sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of 94th Avenue So. and So. 232nd Street, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee. BIDS (BIDS - ITEM 5A) LID 338/LID 339/Decant Stations/94th Avenue Storm. Bid opening was June 23 with three bids received, all of which exceeded the engineer' s estimate. The projects were originally combined in the hope of attracting better bids. However, after review of the bids received and a survey of the current construction climate, staff recommends the bids be rejected and the project re-bid as separate pro- jects. 5 July 7 , 1992 BIDS WHITE MOVED the bids for LID 338/LID 339/Decant Stations/94th Avenue Storm be rejected and the project re-bid. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5B) Central Avenue Improvement. Bid opening was held June 26 with six bids received. The low bid was submitted by West Coast Construction in the amount of $853 , 894 . 89 . Staff recommends this bid be accepted and the project awarded to West Coast Construction, subject to approval of TIB. WHITE MOVED the bid of $853 , 894 . 89 from West Coast Construction be accepted and the contract awarded for the Central Avenue Improvement project, sub- ject to TIB approval . Bennett seconded and the motion carried. DOWNTOWN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) PLAN Downtown Plan Zoning Program. Jerald Klein asked that this item, as follows, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: "Adoption of Ordinance No. 3050 amending the Zoning Code and Ordinance No. 3051 amending the Zoning Map to implement the Downtown Plan Zoning Program approved by the City Council at its June 2 , 1992 meeting. The proposal establishes three zoning districts, outlines new development standards for the downtown area, creates a design review process for new sidewalks, and lighting of pedestrian corri- dors . " There was no objection from Council to removing this item from the Consent Calendar and discussing it. Mr. Klein stated that he represents several prop- erty owners who will be affected by the Downtown Plan. He provided to Councilmembers a copy of a Kent Downtown Plan Clarification Statement and outlined three technical corrections he felt the Council would want included. The corrections are as follows: A. DCE needs to include "business offices" as a permitted use. Business offices are per- mitted in DLM and DC. 6 July 7 , 1992 DOWNTOWN B. DCE needs to include recreational, enter- PLAN tainment and cultural activities. The pur- pose of DCE specifically includes "recrea- tional" uses, but there are no recreational uses permitted. Furthermore, the Downtown Kent Plan specifically calls for the encour- agement of "entertainment, cultural, recrea- tional and civic activities. C. DCE needs to include light manufacturing. Policy 2 of the Downtown Kent Plan reads: Recognize that the existing manufacturers are a vital part of the Planning Area and should be encouraged to participate in the develop- ment and growth of the Planning Area. The recent decision of Lucas v. South Carolina precludes regulatory taking without "just compensation" unless for the "prevention of harmful use. " But light manufacturing is not a harmful use if it can be mixed with residential use in the DLM. Planning Director Harris pointed out that a number of hearings on this matter had been held by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and that if Council chooses to make changes, the issue should be looked at further at a workshop. Plan- ning Manager Satterstrom assured Klein that busi- ness offices would be a permitted use in the DCE zone, even though that is not enumerated under that district. He said language similar to that in Items A and B could possibly be incorporated into the document without changing the meaning or intent of the proposed ordinance, if Council so desires, but that Item C would diverge from the intent of the Downtown Zoning and would be incon- sistent on the Downtown Plan. He said that the only industrial zoning is labeled DLM and that it is currently being utilized as industrial . At this point the Council chose to put this item back on the Consent Calendar. 7 July 7 , 1992 ANNEXATIONS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) West Hill Island Annexation. This is the date and time set for a public hearing on the West Hill Island Annexation. This area of unincorporated King County is less than 10o acres in size and is entirely surrounded by the existing boundaries of the City of Kent. As a result, the City Council is authorized, on its own motion, to annex the area by ordinance after the public hearing is completed. If annexed, the West Hill Island will assume its share of the City' s existing indebtedness and will be subject to the existing zoning requirements for newly annexed territory under the Kent City Code. . Planning Director Harris pointed out the location of the annexation and noted that there are approx- imately 144 registered voters in the area. He also noted that this item is listed as a high priority on the City' s Target Issues. He explained that the City has held two meetings on the West Hill with citizens of the island. He said that he feels it will not cost a lot to serve this area because it is a low crime area and is served by the Federal Way Fire Department, although the Kent Fire Department also goes into it. He added that the City would most likely break even financially. Harris noted for White that the property taxes in this area will probably stay the same or go down. Mayor Kelleher declared the public hearing open. David Hofer, 23805 - 43rd Avenue South, said that in 1976-77 there was an annexation petition for a larger island and during that annexation the City and petitioners illegally tried to annex just a portion of it and the annexation petition failed. He said the City then recut the borders to fit where the yes votes were and resubmitted it without going back and repetitioning the people in the area. He said the residents acquired a lawyer who made the City redo the petition to get a fair vote, and since then they have become a smaller island. He said they were aware that because they were a smaller size, they could be annexed without going to a petition, but were assured by the City that that would not occur. He said the residents would much prefer that the City let them ask to be 8 July 7, 1992 ANNEXATIONS annexed. He pointed out that with this way of annexing, it is the electors who vote and not the property owners, which is not fair because the rentors will vote, but the property owners will be most affected by it. He also said there is a question on the constitutionality of this State law. Jim Kotter, 4326 S. 239th Place, said it is unfor- tunate that this has to happen, and that he is opposed to the taxes which would be charged. Jeanne Shiffelbein, 3714 S. 239th Street, stated that she is in favor of the annexation, noting that there has been an increase in thefts and crime in the area and she feels Kent would provide better protection than King County. Cheryl Sallee, 3940 S. 239th, noted that some residents disagreed with figures provided to them by the City and asked for more accurate information on the fees they would be paying. She agreed that King County does not provide good police response, and noted that Kent responded to her call to 911. Margaret Farris, 23666 - 41st Avenue S . , spoke in opposition to the annexation, saying she feels it is simply a move to get residents to help pay for Kent ' s debt. She said she has not had a problem with service from King County. Steve Inman, representing Public Storage on Highway 516 and Military Road, said that part of the reason they developed that site was due to the property tax structure there which they like. He noted that he manages 15 other sites in other cities in the area and that simply being in Kent won't assure instant police response. There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to close the public hearing. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Upon Johnson ' s request, Assistant City Attorney Brubaker explained that because this area is less than 100 acres in size and is surrounded on all borders by the existing boundaries of the City of Kent, the City is authorized by State statute to annex this island by ordinance brought by the City Council . He said that once the ordinance is passed, it will not be effective for 45 days and that within that 45 day time period, 10% of the electors in the island area who voted in the last 9 July 7 , 1992 ANNEXATIONS general election will have the opportunity to cause a referendum election to be called. In that event the effectiveness of the ordinance would be stayed until the vote is scheduled in one of the next general elections, which would be either in September or November and that the electors of the island area would have an opportunity to vote as to whether or not they wish to be citizens of Kent or remain in unincorporated King County. WHITE MOVED that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 3049 annexing the West Hill Island, subject to the City' s existing indebtedness and to the zoning re- quirements of the Kent City Code. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Chestnut Ridge Annexation. This date has been set for a public meeting with the petitioners of the Chestnut Ridge Annexation, a 190-acre area adja- cent to the City' s eastern border in the vicinity of 208th and 92nd Avenue. The City Clerk has given the required notification to the petitioners and public of this meeting. The motion was sup- ported by the Public Works Committee at their July 1 meeting. Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that a 10% petition has been received from the residents of Chestnut Ridge. He pointed out the location on the map and noted that the City has met with the residents in regard to the annexation process. He noted that approximately 495 people live in the area and that the zoning is primarily single family. He indicated that the assessed valuation is approximately $38 million, that it would cost approximately $51, 000 to bring things up to stan- dard, that there is a need for about $200, 000 worth of overlays in the next ten years, and that police costs would be approximately $35, 000 . He said that the Public Works Committee has reviewed this and supports it. He added that once the Council authorizes circulation of the 60% petition, the petitioners will circulate it through the area and try to secure signatures from people who represent 60% of the assessed value of the area. 10 July 7, 1992 ANNEXATIONS Howard Woodword, President of the Chestnut Ridge Homeowners Association, noted that they represent 93 homes and 50% of the valuation. He said they are interested in being members of the City of Kent as opposed to Renton, and that by annexing they would be better able to control the remainder of development in their area. He added that their location is a stepping stone to Benson Highway which would be an asset for businesses as the City grows. WHITE MOVED that the 10 percent petition for the Chestnut Ridge annexation be accepted, the boun- daries as identified by staff be accepted, the annexation area be subject to the City ' s existing indebtedness and the 60 percent petition be circu- lated. Mann seconded and the motion carried. AMUSEMENT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) DEVICE Amusement Devices. The proposed ordinance amend- FEES ing the application of license fees on amusement devices under Kent City Code 5. 19 . 030 would exempt non-coin-operated amusement devices, excluding pool and billiard tables, from annual special licensing fees. Finance Director McCarthy explained that the Kent Recreation Center has twelve pool tables and the City currently licenses them at $12 . 50 each, that they have forty-one amusement devices which would normally be licensed at $50 each, and that they should also have an arcade license for $500 and a public dance license at $150 . He noted that adopting an ordinance exempting non-coin-operated machines from the $50 each license fee would impact the City by $2 , 050 . He said amusement devices in the City generate between $16, 000 and $18 , 000 a year and the majority of those devices are not in arcades but in individual establish- ments, and noted that there is only one other arcade in the City. He said that if this ordi- nance is adopted, it is conceivable that arcades may move from individually coin-operated machines to non-coin-operated machines in order to fall under this category, which could potentially cause losses in revenue. Mann explained that although he had voted in favor of this in committee, he has 11 July 7, 1992 AMUSEMENT since received information regarding the fiscal DEVICE impact and the possibility of appearing to endorse FEES this particular business and has changed his opinion. There were no further comments on this issue. CODES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) 1991 Editions of Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Staff requests the adoption of the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. These codes have received extensive review by the State Building Code Council and have been approved. The State Legislature has passed these codes into law which is effective July 1, 1992 . The action by the City Council will bring the City Code in alignment with State law. Any local amendments to these codes must be passed by the Local Government Agency and presented to the State six months prior to adoption. As of this date, City staff does not intend to recommend any local amendments. Fire Chief Angelo explained that this is simply adoption of a State law in effect right now and that there is nothing the City has added or changed, including fee changes. He also noted that the proposed ordinances referring to viola- tions of the codes change the penalty process form from criminal to civil , as requested by Council several months ago. City Attorney Lubovich explained Items 4D, 4E and 4F are related to this item. Chief Angelo said that there are no changes proposed by the City on any of those items. 12 July 7 , 1992 CODES MANN MOVED adoption of Ordinance No. 3052 adopting the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. White seconded, motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) Penalty for Violations of Uniform Building, Housing Mechanical and Plumbing Codes. Staff requests adoption of an ordinance providing for a civil penalty process for violations of the Uni- form Building, Housing, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes, at the same time repealing the criminal penalties from the Kent City Code. This proposed process is very similar to the Zoning Code Penalty Ordinance and will provide a more consistent enforcement of the City Codes. It will also remove the criminal aspect of violating the Uniform Codes and replace it with a civil pro- cedure. MANN MOVED the adoption of Ordinance No. 3053 enacting a civil penalty procedure for the viola- tion of the Uniform Building, Housing, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) 1991 Edition of Uniform Fire Code. Staff requests the adoption of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Fire Code. This code has received extensive review by the State Building Code Council and has been approved. The State Legislature has passed this code into law which is effective July 1, 1992 . The action by the City Council will bring the City Code in alignment with State law. Any local amendments to this code must be passed by the Local Governmental Agency and presented to the State six months prior to adoption. As of this date, City staff does not intend to recommend any local amendments . 13 July 7 , 1992 CODES MANN MOVED adoption of Ordinance No. 3054 adopting the 1991 edition of the Uniform Fire Code. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F) Penalty for Violations of Uniform Fire _Code. Staff requests the adoption of an ordinance pro- viding for a civil penalty process for violations of the Uniform Fire Code, at the same time repealing the criminal penalties from the Kent City Code. This proposed process is very similar to the Zoning Code Penalty Ordinance and will provide a more consistent enforcement of the City Codes. It will also remove the criminal aspect of violating the Uniform Fire Code for first time offenders, and replace it with a civil procedure. MANN MOVED adoption of Ordinance No. 3055 enacting a civil penalty procedure for violation of the Uniform Fire Code. Houser seconded and the motion carried. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Request for Excused Absence. Approval of a request from Council President Woods for an excused absence from the City Council meeting on July 7 , 1992 since she will be out of town. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Request for Excused Absence. Approval of a request from Councilmember Orr for an excused absence from tonight 's Council meeting, since she is unable to attend. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through June 30, 1992 after audit- ing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 00 p.m. on July 7 , 1992 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/16-6/30/92 119581-120121 $1, 205 , 225 . 02 14 July 7 , 1992 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 7/2/92 01174126-01174689 $ 414 , 605. 62 REPORTS Administrative Reports. City Administrator Chow announced that Administration has held three meetings with employees regarding the budget shortfall and that approximately 250 employees participated. He added that forms for suggestions were also distributed to employees and that this information is currently being collated and will be forwarded to Human Resources and the Finance Department for their input. He noted that he has also asked department heads to submit proposals to increase revenues and to submit additional budget reductions. He said that Administration will meet with union leadership for their suggestions this week. The Mayor stated that he has asked Mr. Chow and other staff members to report back to the Council outlining these cost saving alternatives and how much money they may save, and recommending how to proceed. Johnson noted that both Orr and Woods, who are not in attendance, have indicated they would like to have a workshop on this subject and that McCarthy could present a financial update at that time indicating how much revenue could be saved or generated from the suggestions. Mayor Kelleher asked the councilmembers in attendance if they would agree to a workshop tentatively set for before the Council meeting on July 21st and they agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 15 p.m. Brenda Jacob r, CMC City Cler ' 15 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS NO. SMP-90-1 AND NO. SMP-91-1 (FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance 30 , relating to the Shoreline Master Program Amendments (SMP-90-1) and SMP-91-1) as now approved by the Department of Ecology. These amendments were approved by the City Council at its June 2 , 1992 Council meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance adopting Shoreline Master Program Amendments 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council 6/2/92 (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 Age da Item No. 3C i ORDINANCE NO . it AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the City's amended Shoreline Master Program as approved and enacted by the Department of Ecology on June 16, 1992 , establishing a new Title 11 to the j Kent City Code, and implementing the Administrative and Enforcement sections of the Shoreline Master Program as a new Chapter 11. 04 of the Kent City Code. WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature has mandated that the City of Kent develop a Shoreline Master Program pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90. 58 et sea. ; and i WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act authorizes the i; Department of Ecology to adopt, approve, amend, and adjust the ' City's Shoreline Master Program; and I WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology adopted and approved the City' s Shoreline Master Program on April 9, 1974 and ( subsequently approved revisions to the Program on December 8 , 1978, ;; April 10, 1979 , and December 10, 1980; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent has submitted a further i ' revision to its Shoreline Master Program to the Department of 11 ', Ecology for review and approval ; and i; WHEREAS, after providing all required public notice and after conducting all required public hearings, the Department of I II ', �j i i ( Ecology has approved the City of Kent's latest revision to its Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City's latest revision became effective, Iunder the Department of Ecology' s rulemaking authority, on July 16, 1992 , and officially codified as Section 173-19-2511 of the I Washington Administrative Code; and i� WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Kent and its citizens and landowners that the administrative and enforcement sections of the City' s Shoreline Master Program become codified as part of the Kent City Code in order to more adequately insure compliance with the-City' s current Shoreline Master Program as approved and adopted by the Department of Ecology; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES !; HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The City of Kent's amended Shoreline Master ;;' Program, as enacted by the State of Washington Department of Ecology in WAC 173-19-2511 is hereby adopted. A copy of the amended Shoreline Master Program shall be filed with the City Clerk and made available for public inspection. Section 2 . There shall be established a new Title Eleven to the Kent City Code, which shall be entitled, "Environmental ( Management. " is Section 3 . Chapter 11. 01 of the Kent City Code is hereby i! reserved. ;J j i 2 I i; I +I i i I Section 4 . Chapter 11. 02 of the Kent city Code is hereby reserved. I i Section 4 . Chapter 11. 03 of the Kent City Code is hereby reserved. Section 5 . There is established a new Chapter 11. 04 to i the Kent City Code, which shall be entitled, "Shoreline Master �� Program" 11. 04 . 020. ADMINISTRATION. A. Purpose. There is hereby established an administrative system designed to assign responsibilities for implementation of the Master Program and Shoreline Permit review, lto prescribe an orderly process by which to review proposals and ij permit applications, and to ensure that all persons affected by +! this Master Program are treated in a fair and equitable manner. B. Substantial Development. Any person wishing to undertake substantial development within the shoreline shall apply into the Administrator for a shoreline substantial development permit. 1. Development is defined by RCW 90. 58 . 030 (d) to mean a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing iof obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the { waters overlying lands subject to the Shoreline Management Act ("Act") at any state of water level . { 3 i � i �I.I , I 2 . Substantial development is any development of which the total cost or fair market values exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars ($2, 500. 00) or which materially interferes lwith the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state, �,lexcept for those developments listed in WAC 173-14-040. C. Exemptions. Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit. Such developments may still require a variance or conditional use permit, and all development within the shoreline is subject to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, regardless of whether a substantial development permit is required. Developments which are exempt from requirement for a substantial development permit are described at RCW 90.58. 030 (3) (e) and WAC 173-14-040. Whenever a development is determined to be exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit and the development is subject to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 or Section 404 Permit, the Administrator shall prepare a Letter of Exemption in accordance with WAC 173-14-115, and shall transmit a copy to the applicant and the Washington State Department of Ecology. NOTE: EXEMPTION FROM SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXEMPTION FROM THE POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MASTER PROGRAM, AND OTHER APPLICABLE CITY, STATE OR FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS . D. Permit Process. 1. Forms. The Administrator shall provide the necessary application forms for shoreline substantial development, variance and conditional use permits. 4 i I i I i r 2 . Public notice. Upon receipt of a proper application for a permit, the Administrator shall instruct the applicant to publish notices thereof at least once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the area in which the development is proposed. An affidavit of publication shall be transmitted by the J applicant to the local government and affixed to the application. In addition to publishing, the applicant will be required to (! provide additional notice by one of the following methods: (1) mailing notice to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least three hundred feet of the boundary of the property upon which the substantial development is proposed, (2) posting of the notice in a conspicuous c manner on the property upon which the project is to be constructed, :, or (3) any other manner deemed appropriate by the Administrator to '! accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent I landowners and the public. All such notices shall include a statement that within thirty days of the final publication of notice, any interested person may submit his/her views upon the application in writing to the Administrator or notify the ;'. Administrator of his/her desire to receive a copy of the action taken upon the application. All persons who notify the Administrator of their desire to receive a copy of the final order shall be notified in a timely manner of the action taken upon the application. 3 . Application review. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for substantial development permits, and recommendations on applications for conditional use or variance permits based upon: (1) the policies and procedures of the ;! Shoreline Management Act and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; and (2) the Kent Shoreline Master Program. I 5 I � I li I 1 �1 1 j 4 . Administrator action. The Administrator shall � i ( make decisions on applications for substantial development permits. �! All such decisions shall be in writing, and shall be issued no ijsooner than 45 days from the time of the application. i 5. Public hearings. The Administrator shall schedule a public hearing before the Kent Hearing Examiner on an ! application for a conditional use or variance permit. Notices of the hearing shall include a statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on the application at the hearing. The minimum time from the date of application to the date of the hearing is 45 days. 6. Hearing Examiner action. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a permit and make decisions regarding permits based upon: (1) the Kent Shoreline Master '; Program; (2) the policies and procedures of the Shoreline '! Management Act (ch. 90 .58 RCW) and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; (3) written and oral comments from • interested persons; and (4) the comments and findings of the Administrator. The Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision '; within fourteen days from the date of the hearing. 7 . State review. Within eight (8) days of the issuance of the written decision, the Administrator shall transmit copies of the action taken and the application materials to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the State Attorney '. General . The applicant shall also be notified of the action taken. !, Where a substantial development permit and a conditional use or variance permit are required for a development, the actions taken on all permits will be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the State Attorney General. Conditional use or 6 I I I� I �I 1! i i i f variance permits must be approved by the Department of Ecology .II before they can become effective. The department shall transmit its final decision on such permits within thirty days of the date of submittal . Upon receipt of Ecology's decision, the Administrator shall notify all persons having requested ,. notification of the decision. 8 . Action on Permit. Development pursuant to a ! permit shall not begin and is not authorized until thirty (30) days from the date of filing the approved permit with the Department of ; Ecology and the Attorney General, provided all review and appeal proceedings initiated within 30 days of the date of such filing have been terminated. In the case of a variance or conditional use permit, the "date of filing" means the date the Department of Ecology' s final order on the permit is transmitted to the city. 9 . Duration of permits. Permits may be issued with termination dates of up to five years. Construction or ; substantial progress toward completion must begin within two years after approval of the permits. The Administrator may authorize a ; single extension before the end of either of these time periods, with prior notice to parties of record and the Department of ! Ecology, for up to one year based on reasonable factors. lo. Compliance with permit conditions. When permit approval is based on conditions, such conditions shall be satisfied !'. prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior to commencement . of a nonstructural activity. i i i i ;j 7 !i i� i I � I III I; E. Appeals. 1. Local appeals. Any decision made by the Administrator on a substantial development permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a conditional use or variance permit may be , appealed by the applicant, private or public organization or ,; individual, to the City Council. Such appeal must be filed with Ithe City Clerk and the Administrator within ten days of the decision being appealed, and must be accompanied by the required filing fee. 2 . Shoreline Hearings Board. After the local appeals process has been exhausted, persons aggrieved by the grant, denial, rescission or modification of a permit may file a request for review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process established by RCW 90. 58 . 180 and Ch. 173-14 WAC, and with the regulations of the Shoreline Hearings Board contained in Ch. 461-08 WAC. The request for review must be filed with the , Hearings Board within 30 days of the date of filing of the local permit decision with the Department of Ecology. F. Variance Permits. 1. Purpose. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, and where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90. 58 . 020 . Construction pursuant to a variance permit shall not begin nor can construction be authorized except as provided in RCW 90. 58 . 020. In ' I 8 I �i ii i all instances, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and they public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. I � I 2 . Application. The application process for a ' variance permit is described in section 11. 04 . 020 (D) above. i I 3 . criteria. Variance permits may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. b. That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant' s own actions. C. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not lcause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. That the variance permit will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford l relief. it e. That the public interest will suffer no ;'. substantial detrimental effect. !' 9 '( I , II I� f. variance permits for development that will jibe located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within marshes, bogs or swamps, as defined in this Master Program, J may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate items a-e � of this section, and: (1) that the strict application of the i standards set forth in this Master Program preclude a reasonable permitted use of the property; and (2) the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected ! by the granting of the variance. g. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of ch. 90. 58 RCW and should not . produce substantial adverse effects on the shoreline environment. G. Conditional Use Permits. 1. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the master program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90. 58 . 020 ; provided that, conditional use permits should also be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the state policies listed in RCW 90 . 58 . 020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the Master Program may not be authorized with approval of a conditional use i' 1permit. 10 i, ;I I� i I I r 2 . Application. The application process for a conditional use permit is described in section 11. 04 . 020 (D) above. j i � I I � i 3 . Classification. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are (1) designated as such elsewhere in this Master Program or (2) consistent with the underlying shoreline ! environment designation in which proposed, but not classified as i ' permitted uses in Section 6, Specific Shoreline Use Policies and . Ii iPerformance Standards. 4 . Criteria. Uses classified as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. That the proposed use will be consistent .; with the policies of RCW 90. 58 . 020 and the policies of the Kent ( Master Program. !I b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. iI i! C. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. d. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline environment kdesignation in which it is to be located. j I e. That the public interest suffers no li substantial detrimental effect. I I' 11 I i I1 I, t Ij j I I I i� I �I 5. Other Impacts. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted to 'jother developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, I, the total of the conditional uses should also remain consistent �jwith the policies of ch. 90. 58 RCW and should not produce : substantial adverse effects on the shoreline environment. 6. Additional Authorization. Uses which are not classified or set forth in the master program may be authorized as conditional uses, provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria- set forth in section 11. 04 . 020 (G) (4) above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the iprogram. 7 . Certain Uses Prohibited. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this program may not be authorized. 8 . Cumulative Impacts. In granting any conditional use permit, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the . area. H. Nonconforming Development. Nonconforming development shall be defined and regulated according to the ,, provisions of WAC 173-14-055 . it I ii I I, I 12 !I I� i, I !I Y 11. 04 . 040. ENFORCEMENT. �I A. Violations. 1. It is a violation of the Kent Shoreline Master Program for any person to initiate or maintain or cause to be initiated or maintained the use of any structure, land or property ;; within the shorelines of the City of Kent without first obtaining the permits or authorizations required for the use by this Chapter. i 2 . It is a violation of this Chapter for any person to use, construct, locate, or demolish any structure, land or property within shorelines of the City of Kent in any manner that is not permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter, provided that the terms or conditions are explicitly stated on the permit or the approved plans. 3 . It is a violation of this Chapter to remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint or order required by or posted in accordance with this Chapter or Chapter 12 . 12A. 4 . It is a violation of this Chapter to misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development authorization. 5. It is a violation of this Chapter for anyone to fail to comply with the requirements of this Chapter. I� i is 13 I �i I I B. Duty to Enforce. 1. It shall be the duty of the Administrator to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator may call upon the police, fire, health or other appropriate City departments to assist in enforcement. 2 . Upon presentation of proper credentials, the Administrator or duly authorized representative of the Administrator may, with the consent of the owner or occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued inspection warrant, enter at reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent or warrant to perform the duties imposed by the Shoreline Master Program or this Chapter. 3 . The Shoreline Master Program shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons. 4 . It is the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to place the obligation of complying with its requirements ; upon the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the condition of the land and buildings within the scope of this Program. 5 . No provision of or term used in the Program is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees which would subject them to damages in a civil action. ,j Ii 14 I! I� i i ii C. Investigation and Notice of Violation. , 1. The Administrator or his/her representative lshall investigate any structure, premises or use which the i ', Administrator reasonably believes does not comply with the !! standards and requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. 2 . If after investigation the Administrator determines that the Program's standards or requirements have been violated, the Administrator shall serve a Notice of Violation on the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The Notice of Violation shall provide: a. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of violation and the damage or potential damages; and b. A notice that the violation or the • potential violation must cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective action to be taken within a given time; and C. A notice that the required corrective action shall include, if appropriate, but shall not be limited to, mitigating measures such as restoration of the area and replacement of damaged or destroyed trees. 3 . The Notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition by personal service, registered mail , or certified mail with return receipt requested, addressed to the last known address of such person. If, after a reasonable search and reasonable efforts are made to obtain service, the whereabouts of the person or persons is unknown or 15 i I' i i i i I 1 Ili I _ service cannot be accomplished and the Administrator makes an i! affidavit to that effect, then service of the Notice upon such person or persons may be made by: a. Publishing the Notice once each week for ',Itwo (2) consecutive weeks in the City,s official Newspaper; and I b. Mailing a copy of the Notice to each ;', person named on the notice of violation by first class mail to the last known address if known, or if unknown, to the address of the I. property involved in the proceedings. 4 . A copy of the Notice shall be posted at a conspicuous place on the property, unless posting the notice is not iphysically possible. 5. The Administrator may mail, or cause to be delivered to all residential and/or nonresidential rental units in the structure or post at a conspicuous place on the property, a notice which informs each recipient or resident about the Notice of Violation, Stop Work Order or Emergency Order and the applicable , requirements and procedures. 6. A Notice or an Order may be amended at any time in order to: a. Correct clerical errors, or b. Cite additional authority for a stated violation. i 16 i l �I I D. Effective Date. Any notice of violation issued under this Chapter which contains an order to cease and desist ; shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the person to whom , the Notice is directed. E. Time to Comply. 1. When calculating a reasonable time for ! compliance, the Administrator shall consider the following ' criteria: a. The type and degree of violation cited in the Notice; b. The stated intent, if any, of a responsible party to take steps to comply; C. The procedural requirements for obtaining a permit to carry out correction action; d. The complexity of the correction action, including seasonal considerations, construction requirements and the legal prerogatives of landlords and tenants; and e. Any other circumstances beyond the control of the responsible party. 2 . Unless a request for remission or mitigation of the penalty before the Administrator is made in accordance with ; Section 11, 04 . 040 (H) below, the Notice of Violation shall become I the final order of the Administrator. A copy of the Notice shall be filed with the Department of Records and Elections of King �I I 17 i I i i i i i I i ! County. The Administrator may choose not to file a copy of the Notice or Order if the Notice or Order is directed only to a : responsible person other than the owner of the property. F. Cease and Desist Work Order. Whenever a continuing violation of the Shoreline Master Program will materially impair the Director's ability to secure compliance with the Program, or when the continuing violation threatens the health or safety of the public, the Director may issue a Cease and Desist Order specifying the violation and prohibiting any work or other activity at the site. A failure to comply with the Cease and Desist Order shall constitute a violation of the Shoreline Master Program. G. Emergency Order. Whenever any use or activity in violation of this Code threatens the health and safety of the occupants of the premises or any member of the public, the Administrator may issue an Emergency Order directing that the use or activity be discontinued and the condition causing the threat to the public health and safety be corrected. The Emergency Order shall specify the time for compliance and shall be posted- "in a conspicuous place on the property, if posting is physically possible. A failure to comply with an Emergency Order shall constitute a violation of the Shoreline Master Program. Any condition described in the Emergency Order which is not corrected within the time specified is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and the Administrator is authorized to abate such nuisance summarily by such means as may be available. The cost of such abatement shall be recovered from the owner or person i responsible or both in the manner provided by law. ' 18 ! if I ;i j I I' H. Review of Penalty by the Administrator. Ili 1. Any person incurring a penalty imposed in a I� notice of violation issued by the Administrator pursuant to Section ! 8. 3 may obtain a review of the penalty by making application for iremission or mitigation of the penalty within fifteen (15) days after service of the notice. When the last day of the period so computed is a Saturday, Sunday or federal or City holiday, the period shall run until five p.m. (5: 00 p.m. ) on the next business day. The application shall be in writing, and upon receipt of the application, the Administrator shall notify all persons served with the Notice of Violation and the complainant, if any, of the date, time and place set for the-review, which shall be not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) days after the application is received, unless otherwise agreed by all persons served with the Notice of Violation. Before the date set for the remission or mitigation hearing incurring a penalty in the Notice of Violation may submit any written material to the Administrator for consideration at the review. 2 . The review will consist of an informal review meeting held at the Planning Department offices. A representative of the Administrator who is familiar with the case and the applicable ordinances will attend. The Administrator' s representative will explain the reasons for the Administrator's issuance of the Notice and will listen to any additional information presented by the persons attending. At or after the review, the Administrator may remit or mitigate the penalty only upon a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, such as the jpresence of information or factors not considered in setting the original penalty. The Administrator may also choose to continue to review to a date certain for receipt of additional information. 19 I i ;� I �I I i i ii 3 . The Administrator shall issue an Order of the 11( Director containing the decision on the penalty within seven (7) i� days of the date of the completion of the review and shall cause ; the same to be mailed by regular first class mail to the person or lipersons named on the Notice of Violation, mailed to . the complainant, if possible, and filled with the Department of Records ,,, and Elections of King County. �I I . Extension of Compliance Date. The Administrator may 11grant an extension of time for compliance with any Notice or Order whether pending or final, upon the Administrator's finding that lisubstantial progress toward compliance has been made and that the public will not be adversely affected by the extension. An extension of time may be revoked by the Administrator if it is shown that the conditions at the time the extension was granted have changed, the Administrator determines that a party is not performing corrective actions as agreed, or if the extension creates an adverse effect on the public. The date of revocation shall then be considered as the compliance date. '` J. Appeal of Civil Penalty. 1. Right of Appeal. Persons incurring a penalty imposed by the City may appeal the same to the Shorelines Hearings '; Board. 2 . Timing of Appeal. Appeals shall be filed within thirty days of receipt of the Notice of Violation unless an application for remission or mitigation is made to the Administrator. If such appeal is made, appeals must be filed j I I 20 �I i i li 1within thirty days of receipt - of the Administrator's decision regarding the remission or mitigation. K. Civil Penalty. I' I I 1. Additional Relief. In addition to any other sanction or remedial procedure which may be available, any person ,: violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to a cumulative penalty in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1, 000) . Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required permit shall constitute a separate violation. 2 . Persons Incurring Penalty. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the civil penalty. 3 . Penalties Due. Penalties imposed by this section shall become due and payable thirty days after receipt of notice imposing the same unless application for remission' or mitigation is filed. Whenever an application for remission or mitigation is made, penalties shall become due and payable thirty days after receipt of the Administrator's decision regarding the remission or mitigation. Whenever an appeal of a penalty is filed, the penalty shall become due and payable upon completion of all review proceedings and upon issuance of a final decision confirming the penalty in whole or in part. 4 . Enforcement of Penalty. The penalty imposed by ; this section shall be collected by civil action brought in the name of the City. The Director shall notify the City Attorney in 21 I i 'I I i i I I i i writing of any penalty owed the City and not paid within thirty a days after it becomes due and payable, and the City Attorney shall, i With the assistance of the Administrator, take appropriate action j Ito collect the penalty. A � I 5. Mitigation of Penalty. The violator may show !. j; as full or partial mitigation of liability: a. That the violation giving rise to the ; action was caused by the willful act, or neglect, or abuse of another; or b. That correction of the violation was commenced promptly upon receipt of the notice thereof, but that ; full compliance within the time specified was prevented by ' inability to obtain necessary materials or labor, inability to gain access to the subject structure, or other condition or circumstance '; beyond the control of the defendant. L. Criminal Penalties. In addition to incurring the civil liability under Section 8 . 11 above, any person found to have ' wilfully engaged in activities in violation of the Shore Master Program shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished pursuant to RCW 90. 58 . 220 by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one thousand dollars ($25. 00-$1, 000. 00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment: PROVIDED, that the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five year period shall not be less than five hundred nor more ten thousand dollars ($500. 00-$10, 000. 00) . �i 22 I� I i I i �I I I M. Additional Relief. Any person who violates any ; provision of this Chapter or permit issued pursuant thereto shall 11 be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The Administrator may request that the City Attorney shall bring suit for damages on behalf of the City under this section. The Administrator may also seek legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices and abate any condition which constitutes or will constitute a violation of the Shoreline Master Program when civil or criminal penalties are inadequate to effect compliance. Section 6. 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 thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 7 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: i �iBRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I i I � is 23 I I i Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COUNCILMEMBER PAUL MANN 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of a request for an excused absence for Councilmember Paul Mann from the July 21, 1992 meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Councilmember Paul Mann to Mayor Kelleher and City Council President Woods dated July 15, 1992 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D JF MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 1992 TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: PAUL MANN, CITY COUNCIL MEM SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the July 21, 1992 City Council meeting as I will be out of town and unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. PM:kno L � �1 Kent City Council Meeting yti Date July 21, 1992 n ?ti Category Consent Calendar ^!1 � 1. SUBJECT: VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of the Visual Preference Survey Implementation Resolution i315 as recommended by the Planning Committee. This is a follow up to the presentation delivered by Anton Nelessen at the Council Workshop on June 16, 1992 . The resolution directs staff in the Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments to review the contents of the Growth Management Community Participation Program Report. Also, the resolution responds specifically on how the recommendations of the visioning section of the report can be implemented and direct staff to bring back to the City Council a plan for implementation. The Public Works Committee reviewed the Visual Preference Survey Implementation resolution on July 15, 1992, recommended approval, and forwarded this to the full Council. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, resolution and Planning Committee Minutes of July 7 . (Public Works Committee minutes were not available at the time materials were due for the agenda packet. ) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (unanimous) and Public Works Committee (unanimous but only 2 Councilmembers present) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_I<, YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E CITY OF L"L122� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM JULY 21, 1992 TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION: RESOLUTION Council President Judy Woods has requested that the City Council consider actions or strategies as a followup to the presentation delivered by Professor Anton Nelessen at the Council Workshop on June 16th regarding visions for Kent ' s future. The Planning Department worked with Council President Woods and Councilmember Leona Orr on the development of a Resolution to this effect. The Resolution which has been drafted directs staff in the Planning, Public Works and Parks departments to review the contents of the Growth Management Community Participation Program Report develop an implementation plan for the recommendations of the visioning section of the report. The Resolution specifies that the three departments would report back to the full Council within 90 days outlining the steps which can be taken to implement the community vision. Requested Action 1. Approve the Resolution directing staff in the Planning, Public Works and Parks departments to consider the findings and recommendations of the Visioning report and bring back to the full Council a plan for implementation. The Council Planning and Public Works Committees reviewed this Resolution at their respective July 7 and July 15 meetings and recommend approval of the Resolution. JPH/JBS/mp: cpp\ccmemo. imp Attachment cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Janet Shull, Planner RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the recommendations of Kent' s Visioning Program conducted as Phase II of the Growth Management Community Participation Program, directing City Staff to prepare a plan for implementation of the recommendations relating to land use, transportation and parks. WHEREAS, the City Council established "Planning for Kent' s Future" including Community Vision and Identity as one of Council ' s target priorities for the 1991-1992 year; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1297, implemented a two-phased Growth Management Community Participation Program to seek citizen input on issues to be addressed in the update of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Community Participation Program included a Visioning component to gauge citizens ' preference for various existing and potential development patterns; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992 , the results of the Growth Management Community Participation Program were presented to the Kent City Council and Kent citizens at a Council Workshop; and WHEREAS, the results of the Growth Management Community Participation Program were also presented in the document entitled "City of Kent Community Participation Program: Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning" ; and .. .:-+._r.-+^cr_-.�r+�-✓z airu,.,•e:•,.•.^a^mx+:aza�^..�r.rwi":!.^t.',b*anacPTJ".,C�«5BF,3SSTC.4dAY:?�w?3FidF+..,,..;i,M".'u+;;f;..�a.rut.'n.�t �'S,e:�,;:g,Y:."`••,••• "?_^TNT'rii`e�i}A$°�kS9`.'Si4LS354�T�2Y:33'��'.,:t:yT•;;;.... WHEREAS, the above mentioned document contains specific findings and recommendations which can be implemented through the process of updating the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and related policies and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1297 directed that the information received through the Growth Management Community Participation Program be utilized in the development and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and regulations implementing such plans, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The City Council hereby declares its support of the general recommendations developed by A. Nelessen Associates titled "Visioning Program" and contained in the Visioning section of the Growth Management Community Participation Program Report as the foundation for the City's overall vision for future development. Section 2 . The City Council hereby directs staff in the Planning, Public Works and Parks departments to prepare a plan for the implementation of the Visioning Program as follows: A. Staff in the Planning, Public Works and Parks departments shall review the visual and written findings and recommendations of the visioning section of the City of Kent Community Participation Program report. B. The Planning, Public Works and Parks departments shall prepare a phased implementation plan for the visual and 2 written recommendations which specifies 1. those recommendations which can be implemented immediately and/or outside of the comprehensive plan update process; 2 . those which can be implemented through the current comprehensive plan update process and; 3 . those which can be implemented through changes to policies and development regulations related to the updated comprehensive plan. C. The implementation plan shall include a proposed strategy for City-endorsement of projects which demonstrate Kent's visions for parks, residential , commercial and mixed use areas. D. The implementation plan shall include the "Power of Paint" program as suggested by Anton Nelessen at the Council Workshop (6-16-92) where existing city streets would be restriped to test visions for streets such as on-street parking, bike lanes and boulevards. A method for identifying candidate streets for the program shall be included as well as a method for analyzing the results of the program. Section 3 . The Planning Department shall be responsible for coordinating preparation of the implementation plan as specified in Section 2 herein. Section 4 . The Planning, Public Works and Parks Departments shall present the implementation plan to the full City Council within 90 days of the passage of this Resolution. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1992 . 3 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1992 • DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, 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 , 1992 • (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK vispref.res 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 71 1992 PAGE 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent is being asked to extend the term of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) through a revised interlocal agreement. Kent approved the original agreement in December 1991 which provided for termination by July 1992 . The emerging countywide planning policies require that the GMPC continue to exist in order to perform certain functions related to regional planning. Therefore, the revised agreement would extend the duration until completion of the designated duties of the GMPC, which could be a few months or as long as a year or more. Planning Director Harris pointed out that if the GMPC continues into 1993 they will receive more State funding and local jurisdictions will receive less. Chair Orr asked to amend the interlocal agreement by setting a termination date of December 31, 1992 . Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to approve the interlocal agreement with the addition of an expiration date of December 31, 1992 . Motion carried. VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that Councilmembers Orr, White and Woods asked what could be done with the results of the Visual Preference Survey recently conducted by the Planning Department. Planning staff has drafted a resolution directing staff in the Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments to review the contents of the Growth Management Community Participation Program Report and respond specifically on how the recommendations of the visioning section of the report can be implemented. The resolution directs the three departments to report back to the full Council with a coordinated response within 60 days. Each department would be requested to indicate how the recommendations can be implemented, which could be implemented immediately and which may be implemented by future planning efforts. Planner Janet Shull distributed a draft resolution and explained the contents. In response to Councilmember Bennett's question about time impacts to the departments, Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that few of the items related to the Parks Departments. Public Works Director Don Wickstrom has requested the subject be presented to the Public Works Committee. Planning Director Harris explained that this is part of the growth management program, and within that program different departments will be called upon for input. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 7, 1992 PAGE 3 Chair Orr stated she feels since the City has gone to the citizens and asked their opinions, it is important that some action be taken on the results of the survey. Chair Orr requested the following changes: 1. Section 1. Remove the parentheses around "Visioning Program" and insert the word "title" . 2 . Section 2 , C. Add "parks" to "Kent's vision for. . . 3 . Section 4 . Change the time frame for presentation of the implementation plan to the full Council from 60 to 90 days. The resolution will be taken to the next Public Works Committee meeting. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to adopt the visual preference survey resolution with the above three changes. Motion carried. This item will go before the full Council on July 21 provided there are no major changes made by the Public Works Committee. In that case, the resolution will be brought back to Planning Committee. ADDED ITEMS Hugh Leiper stated the Renton School District is represented by 85% city limits and 15% county, and the Kent School District is made up of 40% city limits and 60% county. Mr. Leiper feels Kent is having trouble determining what makes this a community. He further stated that the Kent School District's mailings reach approximately 150, 000 people. He feels the Kent School District is the only agency of the community that totally has its act together because they are providing a service to all children within the area, not just the city limits. He pointed out that residents of the outlying areas think they live in Kent and they participate in many activities in Kent. Mr. Leiper further stated that Kent is the fifth largest in the U.S. in square footage of warehouse and manufacturing, second only to Seattle. Mr. Leiper presented a 1984 map of Kent's trade area of influence representing a homogeneous community. He stated it is important to plan for the whole area. In reference to downtown Kent, Mr. Leiper does not feel Kent has a true focal point, that being an easily identified location which provides all the good and services needed for residents in the area. CKent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE REVISION REGARDING CONSTRICTOR SNAKES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance J GS5 which amends Section 9. 16.76 of the Kent City Code regarding constrictor snakes. The proposed amendment allows the ownership of any non-poisonous constrictor snake under 10 feet in length; requires that those snakes be kept in secure, locked cages; imposes a duty on sellers of those snakes to clearly post a notice of these restrictions; and, imposes a separate civil penalty for violations of this section. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Orr & Johnson in favor, Mann opposed) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F K I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 11 of Ordinance No. 2316, codified as KCC Section 9 . 16.76, I regarding ardin constrictor snakes. I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 11 of City of Kent Ordinance No. 2316, codified as KCC Section 9 . 16. 76, is hereby amended as follows: Section 11 Poisonous Snakes and-Reptiles , Poisonous . Snakes and Constrictor Snakes. A. It shall be unlawful to keep or harbor any poisonous er eenstrieter snake and/er any peisenekis repti reptile, poisonous snake or constrictor snake other than constrictor snakes under ten feet in length, within the City of Kent. B. All constrictor snakes legally allowed within the City of Kent must be kept or harbored in a secure locked cage when left unattended. C. This section shall not apply to zoological parks, performing animal exhibitions, circuses, or pet shops licensed by the City of Kent provided, however, that pet shops within the City of Kent choosing to sell constrictor snakes allowed under this Section must plainly post in a conspicuous place the following i� notice• ji I 1 I I � I I !I It is illegal to keep or harbor constrictor snakes over ten feet in length within the City of Kent. j Any person who legally-keeps or harbors constrictor snakes within the City of Kent MUST keep the snake(s) in a secure locked cage when left j unattended. �I D. In addition to or as an alternate to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law any person violating this section shall incur a civil penalty The penalty for the first notice of violation shall be one hundred dollars; three hundred dollars for the second notice of violation in any one-year period; and five hundred dollars for each successive violation in any one- year period. Section 2 . 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 thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 I I �' I . y � A,I Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21. 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADDRESSING FIREWORKS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance aLiL repealing Kent City Code Section 13 . 09 addressing fireworks, and clarifying City Fireworks permits and fee requirements. This P/Ydinance repeals the existing Kent City Code 13 .09 to remove inconsistencies with State law, while clarifying that City Fireworks Permits and Fees as recently established are required. It also provides criminal penalties as stipulated by the State Statute (Chapter 70. 77 RCW) . p aY —� 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Department; City Attorney; Public Safety Committee (2-0 vote) ; Paul Mann and Leona Orr (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X_ YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Age da Item No. 3G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to fireworks regulation, repealing Chapter 13 . 09 of the Kent City Code (Ordinance 2413) and adding a new section relating to local fireworks permits, providing penalties for failure to obtain such permits. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. Chapter 13 . 09 of the Kent City Code (Ordinance 2413 ) . entitled: AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to fire prevention, and regulating fire- works ; adopting a new Chapter 13 . 09 ' Kent City Code to adopt by reference Chapter 70.77 RCW, the State Fireworks Law; enacting a City of Kent Fireworks Permit and establishing a fee therefore; repealing Chapter 13 . 09 Kent City Code (Ordinance Numbers 1242 , 1247 , 1796, 1873 and 1943) is hereby repealed. Section 2 . Local Fireworks Permits. Application for all local fireworks permits required by the State Fireworks Law, Chapter 70 . 77 RCW, shall be made to the Kent fire marshal. The fee for such permit shall be $42 . 00, which amount covers the City' s administrative costs for permit processing and inspection, all as provided for in RCW 70. 77 . 555. L^f"A,C Ca section 3 . Penalty. A person 7erein iling to obtain a local fireworks permit as required by Section 2 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished : in accordance with the provisions of K.C. C. Section 1. 02 . 020 (Ordinance 3013) relating to criminal penalties for misdemeanors. Section 4. Violation a separate, continuing offense. A . person is guilty of a separate offense for each day during which he commits continues or permits a violation of Section 2 herein. Section 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. 'LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1992 . APPROVED the day of , 1992 . PUBLISHED the day of , 1992 . 2 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance iINo. , 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, CITY CLERK fire.ord 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign Electronic Monitoring Agreement with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee 7/6/92 (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: approximately $4 per unit used SOURCE OF FUNDS: Corrections budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H KENT CORRECTIONS FACILITY June 3 , 1992 TO: CHIEF CRAWFORD FROM: CAPT. D. E. BYERLY SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGREEMENT Enclosed is a copy of the agreement with Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) . As stated, we will only pay for equipment that is being utilized. Presently, we plan to charge each client ten dollars ($10.00) per day. Our cost to WASPC is outlined in the attached agreement. By the end of 1992 , we should have enough history to modify the cost, as dictated by circumstances. Thank you. deb:bk Attc. WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS, hereinafter referred to as "WASPC", and CITY OF KENT , hereinafter referred to as PURCHASER WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ptxrrhaGar desires to have certain services performed as hereinafter set forth requiring specialized skills and other supportive capabilities; and WHEREAS, WASPC represents that it possesses sufficient skills and necessary capabilities to perform the services set forth in this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance, contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. SERVICES: WASPC shall perform services and accomplish such tasks, including the furnishing of all materials and equipment necessary for full performance, as are identified and designated as WASPC responsibilities throughout this Agreement and as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT: -. The term of this Agreement and performance of WASPC shall commence upon execution of the Agreement by both parties. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or by 60 day written notice by either party. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, both parties agree that this Agreement will remain in full force and effect until such time as the monitoring term of each and every client has been completed. Ill. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT: A. COST: The price of services shall include the cost of equipment, maintenance, training, shipping, etc., necessary for electronic monitoring on a per-client, per-day basis. — (1). RF and VOICE @ $7.75 AA.030 Title 9 RCW`- Crimes and L'umsnmems sum may include both public and private costs. The im- felonv classified as a violent offense in (a) of this sub- position of a restitution order does not preclude civil section: and (c) Any federal or out--Of-state conviction for an of- redress. fense that under the laws of this state would be a felonv Serious traffic offense" means: .a Driving while intoxicated (RCW 46.61-50'_'), ac- classified as a violent offense under (a) or (b) of this tua! phvsicai control while intoxicated (RCW 46.61- subsection. �0?i. reckless driving (RCW -46.61.500). or hit-and- (30) "Work release' means a program of partial con- cur- an attendee vehicle (RCW' 46.5_.030(�)?: or finerrent available to offenders who are emploved or en, (b Anv federal, out—of—state. county- or municipal gaged as a student in a regular course of study at school. conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state Participation in work release shall be conditioned upon would be classified as a serious traffic offense under (a) the offender attending work or school at regularly de- of this subsection. fined hours and abiding by the rules of the work release (_?) 'Serious violent offense" is a subcategory of via- facility. lent offense and means: `30 a,,Hometdestea n' means a program of partial { s xt. wf ' (a- Murder in the first degree. homicide by abuse, co finemehf oval ate o of wherein the offender murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree- is confined in a private residence subject to electronic kidnapping in the first degree. or rape in the first degree. surveillance- ome4detention may not.oe 311IDosed for , or an attempt- caminal solicitation, or criminal conspir- offenders con cied'of a woknf o e"'env sex offense'' acy to commit one of these felonies: or any"drug'offense, reckd ten° hr firer n`* c ond� (b Any federal or out-ol-state conviction for an of- d ���ee as o� ed 4n; CW"'�9A.4$,04�or 9 4 .OdO,'as- -.,-at that under the laws of this state would be a felonv +f 3auT1?'in'the third degree as defined in RCW'9A.36 01 classited as a serious violent offense under (a) of this unawful imprisonment�as defned inxK A�00 0.+ subsection- or assment.as,ae med`i`n`TtC _' pine e 'Sentence range' means the sentencing court's tenno4 imposed for offenders convicted of pos, discretionary range in imposing a nonappealable sessot of a controlled substance (RCW 69.50.401(di` sentence. y or forged prescription for a controlled substance-(RCW' ('_6 "Sex offense" means: 69.50.403) if the offender fulfills the participation con, ta A felon} that is a violation of chapter 9A.?? di[ions se[ forth in this subsection and is monitored for RCu RCW W 9A-64.030 or 9.68A.090 or that is. under drug use by treatment alternatives to street crime caapte: RC RCW, a criminal attempt. criminal soiic- (TASC) or a comparable court or agency-referred pro- _ traitor.. or criminal conspiracy to commit such crimes: or gram. Home detention may be imposed for offenders (b- Anv federal or out-of-state conviction for an of- convicted of burglary in the second degree as defined in ` ense riot uncle-- the laws of this state would be a felon}' RCW 9A.5=.030 conditioned upon the offender: (at classified as a sex offense under (a) of this subsection. Successfully completing twenty-one days in a work re- Total confinement" means confinement inside lease program. (b) having no convictions for burglary in „- she :nvsical boundaries of a facility or institution oper- the second decree during the preceding two years and r ated r utilized uncle: contract by the state or any other not more than two prior convictions for burglary- (c' unit o government for twenty—four hours a day, or pur- having no convictions for a violent felony offense during cc suan_ :o RCS 2.64.0i0 and -64-060- the preceding two years and not more than two prior _ "Victim- means any person who has sustained convictions for a violent felony offense. (d) having no p, t phv;i a' or fire cial injury [o person or property as a prior charges of escape, and (e) fulfilling the other con- ou- direc: result of :he crime charged. Gluons of the home detention program.Participation in a anc _o, 'Violent offense" means: P_home detention program shall be conditioned upon: (a) i2 Anv of the following felonies, as now existing or The offender obtaining or maintaining curent employ- in-. s.r at � re hereafter amended: Anv felon} de:med under any law as jinent or attending a rewiar course of schooP study a: a eras= A felon or an attempt to commit a class A fei- egularl .defin '�iou'"�s,orch�e'ofed^rn - forming pa pis om. c::minai soiicitation of or criminal conspiracy to ggtal sties to offspring or minors normalh to trig cus- deer coin::.:: a class A feiony, manslaughter in the first de- /tody of the offender, (b) abiding by the rules of the gree manslaughter in the second degree. indecent liber- home detention program, and (c) compiiance wits dur: tics committed by forcible compulsion. child court-ordered restitution- The home detention orogruT car,. charges in the first degree. rape in the second de- may also be made available to offenders wgose eha ^_=s whi, moie Free. :ddnapping in the second degree. arson in the sec- "and_convictions do not otherwise disqualify their. n; fine^ one decree. assault in the second degree, extortion m the medical or health-related conditions, concerns or treat- offer, firs degree. robbm' in the second decree, vehicular as- men[ would be better addressed uncle: the home deter- earn- - vehicular and vehicular homicide, when proxima[eiy cause- cn by : -z driving o� any vehicle by any person while under offender, other inmates. or staff would be jeopardized by pen•!s rug as de- the offender's incarceration. Participation in the home 16 the •nfluence of intoxicating licuor or any d of env ve- detention program for medical or health-related reason> w"i-1h,1 Fine-- :% RCW -16.61.60L or by the operation is conditioned on the offender abiding by the rujc° o! :ne coma- aide :r. a recktiess marine:: - b Anv conviction for a felonv oFFense in effect at home detention program and complying with --purr�" i _ an}' _me prior :p July 1. 1976, that is comparabic to a de-ed restitution. 11989 c 394 g 1. Prior: I988 c 1: during (!9s9 Sd-I 11989°d. rnue 9 aC'W—p W r PyEC ON[C MONUOWNG AGREENMNT PAGE 2 RcY6cd 04192 (2). RF only @ $5.25 (3). VOICE VERIFICATION ONLY @ $6.00 (4). FIELD PROGRAMMER/ @ $1.75 DRIVE-BY UNIT (if less than ten total daily units) (5). RF INVENTORY COST @ $3.56 NOTE: ALL PRICES SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE TAX. Inventory cost is based upon any agency who has in their possession a quantity of RF units not in service, greater than 20% of their total billable inventory. WASPC reserves the right to adjust these rates during the contract period if necessary. B. SUBMISSION OF STATEMENT: WASPC will at monthly intervals, submit a statement of charges encompassing each client as designated by g urchaser C. PAYMENT FOR SERVICE: upon receipt of the statement for services _purchasetyvill have 10 days to reconcile the statement and dispute any differences. Payment by purchaser shall be made no later than 30 days from the receipt of the statement for services. IV. LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT: Purchaser shall be liable for loss of or damage to monitoring equipment installed in the residence or on the person of a purchaser client. Deliberate damage to or theft of monitoring equipment will be reported to local law enforcement for investigation. The cost of replacement or repair will be at the prevailing rate as specified by VOREC, the supplier of the monitoring equipment. In the event that monitoring equipment is lost or stolen purchaser will have 15 days to locate and return the equipment before a billing takes place. ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGRU-M34T PAGE RcvLxd 04/n V. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION: A. Purchaser and WASPC expressly agree to hold harmless and indemnify the other party and all of its officers, agents, or employees for any and all liability, loss or damage including reasonable cost of defense that they may suffer as a result of claims, demands, actions, or damages to any and all person or property, costs or judgments against the other which result from, or arise out of the sole negligence of its officers, agents, or employees of WASPC or Purchaser in connection with or incidental to the performance of this Agreement. In the event that the officers, agents, or employees of both WASPC and purchaser are negligent, each party shall be liable for its contributory share of negligence. B. Purchaser expressly agrees to hold harmless and indemnify WASPC and all of its officers, agents, employees, or otherwise, from any and all liability, loss or damage including reasonable cost of defense that they may suffer as a result of claims, demands, actions, or damages to any and all person or property, costs or judgments against WASPC which result from, arise out of, or are in any way connected with Purchasers method of selection of candidates to be placed into the electronic monitoring program. C. Nothing contained in the above paragraphs shall be construed to create a liability to or a right of indemnification in any third party. VI. JURISDICTION: A. This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington, and it is agreed by each party hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretations and performance. B. Any action of law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provisions thereof, shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Thurston County, Washington. i Y.':[z.-es rh t...-..m.: .::,."Ya J,n:V�'a c+._ .'.tn—Y"r2. 2> -_"fw' 1C F^:.-..0 S°,'�.'l.i:�.v J n.�.�:: X']5 i.M°'$ I.M1z�•4$�"4 iXgf r' ,a, ,i..Y:! . � �_.:Y . .. .� _. .• ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGRF22AENI' PAGE Rc isM 04/92 VII. SEVERABILITY: A. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by the Courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as it the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. B. If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statute of the State of Washington, said provision which may conflict therewith shall be deemed and modified to conform to such statutory provision. Vlll. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. IX. WAIVER OF TERMS: It is also agreed by the parties that the forgiveness of the nonperformance of any provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of provisions of this Agreement. DATED: DATED: WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EUGENE A. COTTON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: BY: JOHN WASBERG ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING AGREEMENT PAGE Rc i=d 04/92 Exhibit A WASPC shall provide a home confinement electronic monitoring program for clients as designated by p urrhaoer . The services shall include: A. Telephone voice verification monitoring consisting of random telephoer ne calls to telephone numbers designated by comparison of voice of the individual answering the telephone with voice verification samples previously provided to the system. Frequency of random calls shall be specified by Qurchaser . The systems inability to identify the voice received on a random call shall be reported according to instructions to be provided by purchaser B. Continuous radio frequency home detection monitoring consisting of a radio transmitter attached to the client and a receiver which is monitored through the client's phone line. The system reports when the receiving unit is no longer receiving a signal from the transmitting device will be reported according to instructions to be provided by Durchaser C. WASPC shall conduct training and provide consultation in the operation of the electronic monitoring devices. D. When required by Subpoena or Court Order, make available qualified person to give expert testimony and provide physical evidence. r......o'h%T�:S*7€27A#k"3".-,h-"L`L3�R6!Ax' '�.�',.5+75.'F'.f�79'r:*'.:.:*..d• _ r.. <5 .. - . ...'/'� .. .. _ _�i.- . ." t _..� . 11 SIN Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21, 1992 J Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CPG GRANT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Department has received a 60/40 matching grant in the amount of $85, 564 to provide funding for a Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator and for special recycling events. In light of the City's budget, _we­hav4a_.51oUC V 0 V restructured the position, included water conservation responsibilities, and propose to fund the 40% match from the water utility. By so dong, any impact to the general fund in filling this position is eliminated. An "in-house" recruitment of the position would provide a potential additional savings for the general fund. The Public Works Committee;- Executive Committee and Operations Committee have approved this approach and recommend accepting the grants re�cruiting in-house for a Conservation Specialist and transfen")$32, 000 from"unencumbered water fund to provide the 40% match for the position. 3 . EXHIBITS: Fiscal note, excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, memo from Public Works Director and letter from DOE 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 Jim White absent) Executive Committee and Operations Committee (2-1) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended .A��1` Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember twlG'-tL�v seconds that Mayor be authorized to sign CPG grant for $85,564; to recruit in-house to fill the Conservation Specialist position; and to transfer $32 , 000 from unencumbered water fund to provide the 40% match for the position. DISCUSSION: ACTION: ^ f'1 �,,,4 i uncil Agen_4a Item No. 4A SIEGEL,KAREN ./ KENT70/PW - HPDesk print. ---------------------------------------- M-ssage. Dated: 07/06/92 at 0950. eject: COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT - FISCAL NOTE Sender: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Contents: 2. TO: Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW Part 1. FROM: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN TO: Ed CHOW / KENT70/AD Jim HARRIS / KENT70/PL Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Alana MCIALWAIN / KENT70/AD Don OLSON / KENT70/PR Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW Part 2. FISCAL NOTE: COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT - FISCAL NOTE IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH FEDERAL, STATE, AND KING COUNTY MANDATED SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND WATER CONSERVATION WITH THE LEAST CITY COSTS, THE PUBLIS WORKS DEPARTMENT APPLIED FOR A TWO-YEAR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY GRANT. THEY RECEIVED NOTICE THAT THE GRANT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ACCEPTANCE. THE 60/40 MATCHING GRANT WILL (VIDE FUNDS FOR A CONSERVATION SPECIALIST PLUS OTHER PROJECT RELATED LvSTS. THE REQUEST IS TO TRANSFER $32,000 FROM UNENCUMBERED WATER FUNDS TO PROVIDE THE CITY'S 40% MATCH. THE POSITION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM, AS WELL AS DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING A 5% WATER REDUCTION PROGRAM BY 1995. IN-HOUSE RECRUITMENT IS REQUESTED. IN LIGHT OF THE CITY'S TIGHT FINANCIAL CONDITION, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE GRANT, BUDGET CHANGE FOR $32,000 OF WATER FUNDS AND FILLING THE POSITION IN-HOUSE. SINCE BOTH RECYCLING AND WATER CONSERVATION ARE MANDATED, OUTSIDE GRANT MONEY IS A WELCOMED METHOD TO ACCOMPLISH A PROJECT WITHOUT USING GENERAL TAX FUNDS. FURTHER SAVINGS MAY BE REALIZED IF A GENERAL FUND PERSON FILLS THE GRANT POSITON AND THE VACANT POSITION REMAINS FROZEN OR IS DELETED. NOTED ALSO WAS THE FINANCIAL IMPORTANCE OF REDUCING SOLID WASTE, SINCE DUMP FEES INCREASED FROM $47 PER TON IN 1991 TO $63 IN 1992. Public Works Committee June 17, 1992 Page 2 The Committee unanimously approved that the Public Works staff develop an interim solution to the problem. CPG Grant Wickstrom explained we had applied for this grant last year. When originally presented, it was noted this grant would fund 60% of the Solid Waste Coordinator's position. It was recognized that if the grant were approved, the City would have to come up with the 40% match. We have received approval of our grant application. Because of the City's financial situation, we rewrote the job description -to that of a Conservation Specialist, decreased the responsibilities but added a water conservation element, and placed it under the supervision of the Public Works Administrative Assistant III . The City is required to meet certain water reductions through conservation by 1995 . This approach then gives us the ability to address the conservation issue as well and the 40% match can be funded from the water utility. This completely funds the position without any impact to the general fund. A further benefit is that if we advertise the position in-house only, the possibility of another general fund position filling this position further relieves the general fund. Wickstrom added that if we do not move forward on this shortly the grant offer will be repealed. Wickstrom stated he was requesting concurrence of the change in the position as explained, authorization to sign the grant agreement and transferring approximately $32, 000 from the water utility to finance the 40% match for the position. Jim Bennett commented that since this is a program that is required and we have a grant that pays for a percentage of the position, it makes sense to approve it. Wickstrom stated this addressed two problems with no impact on the general fund. We have to address recycling as mandated through adoption of the comprehensive plan and we have to reduce water consumption by 5% by 1995. The Committee unanimously recommended that the request be approved. Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Wickstrom explained that the action required is to authorize us to establish July 21 as the hearing date for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. He stated we will bring a draft of the Plan to the Committee for their review at the next Committee meeting. The Committee unanimously approved setting July 21 as hearing date for the Six Year TIP. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS June 10, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: CPG GRANT As we have previously indicated, the City applied for Department of Ecology grant funds to fund a Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator position and to hold special recycling events in Kent. We received notification in February that our grant application was approved and- the city is eligible for $85, 564 in grant funds. Since receipt thereof, we have been working with the Executive Committee per filling the position in light of the city's budget situation. As such, we have restructured the position to reduce its general fund impact. In doing so, we reduced the responsibilities of the position, lowered its recommended salary level and placed it under the supervision of the Public Works Administrative Assistant III, for whom we also requested a reclass due to the additional responsibilities this would place on that position. Additionally, since the grant is a 60/40 matching grant, we added water conservation elements to the job description and, thus, propose to fund the 40% city match from the water utility. This, then, eliminates any impact to the general fund. If the position is filled "in-house" , an even greater savings would be recognized by the general fund. The Executive Committee has recommended approval to fill the position as a "Conservation Specialist" from in-house recruitment but did not speak to the issue of a reclass for the Administrative Assistant III. We are requesting at this time authorization to sign the grant agreement, concurrence with changing the position to a Conservation Specialist and authorization to transfer approximately $32 , 000 from the unencumbered water fund therefor. It should be noted this position is essential to implementing the programs we are mandated to have in place to address both the solid waste issues and the water conservation issues. DOE has requested resolution of this matter or the grant offer will be repealed. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. July 7, 1992 office visit is just an average cost at this point. Houser asked about the requirements for tracking temporary employees. Chatwin replied that documentation would be required even if an employee rejects the offer for vaccination there are mandatory declinations that must be signed for the City's protection. Houser asked when this would take affect. Chatwin stated that the WISHA standard came out May 26, 1992 with all aspects to be completed by August 27, 1992. Upon Committeemember Whites question Chatwin noted that he did not currently have a strong description of which Parks employees would fall under this but it was clear that training and disposal programs need to be designed for the Parks Department. During further discussion he noted that his main purpose was to bring the Committee up to date on the information available at this time. Water Leak Adjustment Request- Don Prociw, Sr. Customer Services Manager Lindsey informed the Committee that Councilmember Bennett had brought to his attention a citizen complaint regarding a leaky toilet. Lindsey wrote a letter explaining the City policy regarding leaks and informing Mr. Prociw that if he wished to pursue the matter he could bring it to the Operations Committee. Mr. Prociw explained to the Committee that he had left on a trip early on the 30th of January and had asked someone to come in to bring in the mail and paper on that day. The person used the restroom before leaving and it ran for seventeen days which left Mr. Prociw with a water bill of $270. Mr. Prociw asked if the Committee would look at last year's billing and forgive the difference since he did not have any control. White asked what our obligation was to METRO. Lindsey replied $13.70 since it went through the sewer. Finance Director McCarthy informed the Committee that this was an exception to policy of allowing a 50% reduction if a leak occurs between the meter and the house. During further discussion, Committeemember White noted his concern of having the rest of the citizens of Kent pick-up a portion of the bill. After further discussion, Prociw noted he understood the Committee's concern but pointed out that normally the person would be at home and have some measure of control. Chairperson Houser asked for a motion. After having no motion put forth, she informed Mr. Prociw that the Committee did not wish to adjust his bill because of the precedent it would set. CPG Grant Acceptance/Budget Change Public Works Director Wickstrom stated that as authorized in 1991, a CPG grant from the DOE for a Solid Waste Coordinator had been applied for. The grant has been awarded to the City and the DOE is asking for acceptance of the funds or, if not accepted, they would like to have the funds freed up for another project. Wickstrom outlined how the position had been redefined to meet mandatory needs of the City for recycling and water conservation. Also by redefining the job, the City portion of the salary could be funded from the 3% water utility tax. During further explanation, Wickstrom noted that the City has been approved for a two year grant with the potential for another two years. There would be no impact on the general fund and he proposed that the position be advertised in-house which could provide further savings if a general fund position is vacated and frozen. He requested that the Committee: authorize acceptance of the grant; transfer$32,000 from the water utility tax; and, approve a different title. Wickstrom informed the Committee that the Public Works Committee had concurred with this request. 3 O b � s �aJ lfl N`! STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washingron 98504-87 1 1 • (206) 459-6000 February 18, 1992 Ms. Karen Siegel City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: Coordinated Prevention Grant No. G9200185 Dear Ms. Siegel: The enclosed grant agreement will provide up to $85,564 in matching funds to the City of Kent for coordinated prevention activities . If you find the grant agreement satisfactory, please have it signed by the appropriate authorized official and return it to this office as soon as possible. The grant agreement becomes effective upon signature by Narda Pierce, our Assistant Director of the Office of Waste Management. Also enclosed is the Sworn Statement of Compliance with Minority and Women Business Utilization Requirements, which should be signed, notarized, and returned with your signed agreement. Please contact me at (206) 438-7251 (SCAN 585) , if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kaia Petersen Project Officer Waste Management Grants KP/md .Enclosures cc: Peter Christiansen, WRRLC Planner, Department of Ecology - NWRO Ann Kenny, Regional Moderate Risk Waste Coordinator, Department of Ecology NWRO .. ».. ♦ i -.. .. a L ,.. .... _ .i i .,tsr!., s. �J .3..<...a .r,4 ,.. ,:`s.. .,'..',..li'. k'j-r \ l Kent City Council Meeting Date July 21. 1992 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: LID 333 - SIGNALIZATION OF 72ND AND S. 180TH 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was July 7 with four bids received. The low bidder was Breaker Construction with the bid of $71,930 and recommend!r&ithe bid be accepted and the project awarded. "C J ' 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from the Public Works Director and bid summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0; Paul Mann absent) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. XP� ENDITURE REQUIRED: $ URCE OF FUNDS• 1 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: b + Councilmember I'l n moves, Councilmember ��� �� se9onds the bid from Breaker Construction in the amount of $71, 930 for LID 333 be accepted and the project awarded. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Age cga Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 9, 1992 TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO ITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM7 RE: L. I .D. 333 - SIGNALIZATION AT 72ND AND S. 180TH STREET Bid opening was July 7th with four bids received. The low bid was submitted by Breaker Construction in the amount of $71, 930. 00. The project will provide a complete new signal at the intersection of 72nd Avenue S. and S. 180th Street and is completely funded by the local improvement district. It is recommended the project be awarded to Breaker Construction for the bid amount. BID SUMMARY Breaker Construction $ 71,930 Totem Electric 75,922 Signal Electric 89, 620 UDL 89, 763 Engineer's Estimate $97 , 375 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P 0 R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE- E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OPERATIONS COMMITTEE M1N UTE5 July 7, 1992 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Leona Orr Jim White STAFF PRESENT: Ken Chatwin Ed Chow Dan Kelleher Charlie Lindsey Roger Lubovich Tony McCarthy Alana McIalwain May Miller Rose Nelson Kelli O'Donnell Tom Vetsch Don Wickstrom Barney Wilson MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle Jean Parietti Donald Prociw The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending June 15, 1992, in the amount of$2,845,642.28 and for the period ending June 30, 1992, in the amount of$1,205,225.02 were approved for payment. Burlington Northern Parking Chairperson Houser noted that the Committee could hear non-action item reports since Committeemember White was delayed. Administrative Manager Mclalwain updated the Committeemembers on the progress of negotiations with Burlington Northern. She noted that the City had been leasing a number of properties from Burlington Northern under separate agreements. The City is working to combine all of the leases under one agreement. Local businesses have also been supportive of the City negotiating for additional parking spaces. A tentative agreement has been drafted and is awaiting action from Burlington Northern. McIalwain stated that there is a non-budgeted cost associated with the lease. Burlington Northern is requesting payment of the property taxes on the lots in exchange for the use of the land for parking which amounts to approximately $6,000. 1 ._...... ,.. .....__..,_............ .:.......:.... ....,........».,....,,,...-.....a..o.wx-...-.. �:._. ,:-,-r..; _.,..::-._✓r v..w,....;w. d .rn_.c�'.'ir .�.;•.. T�val.+:a;� -a.,:.i.S:�e. ..^i'§'�;,. 4 . S:. .. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. July 7, 1992 City Attorney Lubovich noted that he had received a letter tentatively agreeing to the lease in return for the City paying the taxes but apparently Burlington Northern is using the property to secure a major loan packages which is holding them back from signing the agreement. He also noted that there is the possibility that their are some additional properties that the City may have previously leased that may be of benefit. Once the agreement is complete, the City should have long-term access to parking. Mandated Bloodborne Pathogens Vaccination Risk Analyst Chatwin stated that he need to update the Committee on a potential budget expense due to the new Federal and State WISHA mandated program. Chatwin noted that the Fire Department was okay but the Police Department had a possibility of 20 people requiring the subject vaccinations. He elaborated that any person who may be required to perform first aide which could expose them to AIDS or Hepatitis B, must be offered the Hepatitis B vaccination series. The series consists of three shots which would amount to approximately $300 per person, the serum itself is about $150. The Police Department requested funding last fall for this item but there are 20 people in Corrections who need to be offered the vaccination. Chatwin stated that there is a narrow window for implementation of the program. The requirements have also continued to change and now include Parks staff and youth programs. Employees dealing with sewers were also considered for inclusion but are not included at this point. The main area of implementation now is personnel in youth programs including baseball and recreation. The requirements may be applied to anyone who may have to provide emergency first aide before calling 911. If their job description requires first aide, the City is obligated to offer the vaccination to them. Another aspect is to provide for the disposal and control of any materials with blood on them from first aide. Houser asked if this would apply to referees and coaches. Chatwin replied that his understanding is that temporary employees must be offered the vaccination even if it is for a three month program and the person is not employed long enough to receive the third shot since the series is completed over 90 days. The guidelines may require the employer to be responsible for notification and possibly payment after termination of employment. Lubovich asked if this was an interpretation of the State law. Chatwin replied that the law states that occupational exposure means reasonable anticipated skin, eye mucus membrane or perennial contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result in the performance of an employees duties is one test. The other test is if we have made first aide and CPR a part of the job description, which is true in a number of Parks employees. Houser asked how many temporary employees these requirements would apply to. Chatwin replied that it could be 100 or more employees depending on the individuals involved. He also stated that the numbers could possibly be controlled in the future by changing some job descriptions. Chatwin pointed out that the Parks employees as well as Public Works employees were considered by the State as an afterthought and at this point Public Works will not be subject to the regulations but everything is just being defined. Committeemember Orr stated that she had previously looked into this issue on her own and could understand the $150 for the vaccination but questioned the $150 to administer the shots. Chatwin responded that we could possibly get a reduced figure through contracting for services. The$50 figure per 2 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. July 7, 1992 office visit is just an average cost at this point. Houser asked about the requirements for tracking temporary employees. Chatwin replied that documentation would be required even if an employee rejects the offer for vaccination there are mandatory declinations that must be signed for the City's protection. Houser asked when this would take affect. Chatwin stated that the WISHA standard came out May 26, 1992 with all aspects to be completed by August 27, 1992. Upon Committeemember Whites question Chatwin noted that he did not currently have a strong description of which Parks employees would fall under this but it was clear that training and disposal programs need to be designed for the Parks Department. During further discussion he noted that his main purpose was to bring the Committee up to date on the information available at this time. Water Leak Adjustment Request - Don Prociw, Sr. Customer Services Manager Lindsey informed the Committee that Councilmember Bennett had brought to his attention a citizen complaint regarding a leaky toilet. Lindsey wrote a letter explaining the City policy regarding leaks and informing Mr. Prociw that if he wished to pursue the matter he could bring it to the Operations Committee. Mr. Prociw explained to the Committee that he had left on a trip early on the 30th of January and had asked someone to come in to bring in the mail and paper on that day. The person used the restroom before leaving and it ran for seventeen days which left Mr. Prociw with a water bill of$270. Mr. Prociw asked if the Committee would look at last year's billing and forgive the difference since he did not have any control. White asked what our obligation was to METRO. Lindsey replied $13.70 since it went through the sewer. Finance Director McCarthy informed the Committee that this was an exception to policy of allowing a 50% reduction if a leak occurs between the meter and the house. During further discussion, Committeemember White noted his concern of having the rest of the citizens of Kent pick-up a portion of the bill. After further discussion, Prociw noted he understood the Committee's concern but pointed out that normally the person would be at home and have some measure of control. Chairperson Houser asked for a motion. After having no motion put forth, she informed Mr. Prociw that the Committee did not wish to adjust his bill because of the precedent it would set. CPG Grant Acceptance/Budget Change Public Works Director Wickstrom stated that as authorized in 1991, a CPG grant from the DOE for a Solid Waste Coordinator had been applied for. The grant has been awarded to the City and the DOE is asking for acceptance of the funds or, if not accepted, they would like to have the funds freed up for another project. Wickstrom outlined how the position had been redefined to meet mandatory needs of the City for recycling and water conservation. Also by redefining the job, the City portion of the salary could be funded from the 3% water utility tax. During further explanation, Wickstrom noted that the City has been approved for a two year grant with the potential for another two years. There would be no impact on the general fund and he proposed that the position be advertised in-house which could provide further savings if a general fund position is vacated and frozen. He requested that the Committee: authorize acceptance of the grant; transfer$32,000 from the water utility tax; and, approve a different title. Wickstrom informed the Committee that the Public Works Committee had concurred with this request. 3 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. July 7, 1992 Houser felt that $60,000 seemed like a high salary. Wickstrom replied that the funds included salary and benefits as well as funding of programs such as oil pick up and hazardous waste disposal. Personnel Analyst Nelson noted that the position has been researched by Human Resources. They have found that other cities have similar positions and recruiting as a salary range of 27 is significantly less. Nelson also recommended that it would be noted that this was a two year implementation position. Orr noted that with all of the numerous mandates the City needs to comply with, the City should take advantage of the dollars available to us. A discussion followed of the various mandates from the DOE and King County imposed under adoption of the Regional Comprehensive Plan as well as requirements for water use reduction tied to the permit process for Pipeline Number S. Orr moved to accept Wickstrom's recommendation to authorize acceptance of the grant; authorize the transfer of$32,000; and, approve the revised position. Orr stipulated that if the in-house position did not work out, it should be brought to the Committee's attention. The motion passed with a vote of 2-1. Houser seconded the motion. Orr and Houser voted in favor of the motion. White voted against the motion. Bill Doolittle questioned the in-house vacancy asking if that position would be filled. Houser responded that it was her understanding the vacancy would be frozen. Senior Housing Update McIalwain gave a verbal report on the status of the Senior Housing Project. She informed the Committee that the City has received over 280 calls of interest. The construction has been remarkable and is on-time. The project is also on-budget. The King County Grant is almost completed and the loan with the State is still being looked at. In addition, the King County Housing Authority is finalizing a management plan. The application process is planned to begin in late August with project completion in late November and the dedication in mid/late December. White questioned the ownership of the project in regards to the use of staff time. Mayor Kelleher explained that the housing was being built by the City and developed as a turn-key project. The City has a responsibility to the bond holders. In addition, the Housing Authority is working hard on the project. During further discussion, City Attorney Lubovich noted that the City does hold a reversionary interest in the project. Kelleher pointed out that the project coming in under budget gives the City the option of foregoing the State loan. White questioned how the City could come in under budget when the contract with the Bellewood Corporation is for a given fee. Kelleher indicated that the amount included the grant and some contingencies could be negotiated. Kelleher noted that if the loan is accepted, there are more stringent requirements that must be met. Doolittle asked if it was known how many of the 280 inquiries were Kent residents versus outside of the City. McIalwain responded that staff has only taken names and addresses to distribute information as it becomes available. Doolittle pointed out that 300 people had been identified in Kent at the beginning of 4 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. July 7, 1992 the process. He added that King County Housing Authority has stated that absolute priority would be given to Kent residents. Kelleher replied that the project fell under multiple restrictions. The Housing Authority must 1) give priority to Kent residents and 2) have residents who earn 50% or less than the median income. While it is not etched in stone, it is being considered that if both of these criteria are met an applicant would have top priority. If an applicant only meets one of the requirements they would be given number two priority and if they met neither, would be last priority. The County Grant for$250,000 agrees to only 10 residents having to be from unincorporated King County. Kelleher continued that one of the advantages to foregoing the State loan is their requirement that at least 70 units be below 30% of median income, whether or not the person is a Kent resident. A discussion followed regarding the people interested in the project. Budget Status City Administrator Chow stated that per the Mayor's and Council's request three meetings have been held with approximately 250 employees in attendance. In addition, forms were distributed for input. The suggestions from the forms and meetings were collated and are being forwarded to Finance and Human Resources to cost out and report back. Kelleher asked if these were non-personnel cost savings. Chow replied that they were. Chow continued that Department Heads were requested to resubmit proposals for revenue generation and additional budget cuts which is due to Administration by the 10th of this month. Administration will be meeting with the unions tomorrow to discuss their suggestions for the short fall. Parks and Recreation Director Wilson noted that he had attended one of the meetings and felt it went well. Doolittle pointed out that at the workshop in March the Council had unanimously asked to withdraw the frozen positions. During further comment, he pointed out that the frozen positions will cause confusion during the 1993 budget process. After a brief discussion of frozen positions,Chairperson Houser adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. 5 BRENDA JACOBER (please put in CITY OF L"L Council agenda packet) CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 7, 1992 4 : 00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Ed Chow Jim Bennett Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Laurie Evezich Tony McCarthy PLANNING STAFF Alana- McIalwain Sharon Clamp GUESTS Jim Harris Margaret Porter Bob Crisp Janet Shull Hugh Leiper Fred Satterstrom GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated the King County Council passed the countywide planning policies on July 6, 1992 . The next step is for ratification of the planning policies by 30% of the jurisdictions representing 70% of the population. The City of Kent can pass a resolution ratifying the planning policies, disapprove the planning policies by legislative action, or if the City takes no action within 90 days, will assume to have ratified the planning policies. Mr. Satterstrom further explained that Section 7 of the ordinance states that the County Executive shall develop and propose to the County Council the process for entering into interlocal agreements relating to each city' s potential annexation area. At the June 16, 1992 meeting, the Planning Committee discussed urban growth area boundaries. As requested by the Committee, various City departments have been asked to supply information on servicing the Covington area. It is anticipated that this information will be presented to the Planning Committee at its August 4 meeting. The framework goals for the comprehensive plan will be discussed at a Planning Commission workshop on Monday, July 13 . A Planning Commission hearing on those planning goals will be held in August, and in September the City Council will consider the urban growth area, planning goals which are the framework goals for the comprehensive plan, and ratification of the countywide planning policies. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 71 1992 PAGE 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent is being asked to extend the term of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) through a revised interlocal agreement. Kent approved the original agreement in December 1991 which provided for termination by July 1992 . The emerging countywide planning policies require that the GMPC continue to exist in order to perform certain functions related to regional planning. Therefore, the revised agreement would extend the duration until completion of the designated duties of the GMPC, which could be a few months or as long as a year or more. Planning Director Harris pointed out that if the GMPC continues into 1993 they will receive more State funding and local jurisdictions will receive less. Chair Orr asked to amend the interlocal agreement by setting a termination date of December 31, 1992 . Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to approve the interlocal agreement with the addition of an expiration date of December 31, 1992 . Motion carried. VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that Councilmembers Orr, White and Woods asked what could be done with the results of the Visual Preference Survey recently conducted by the Planning Department. Planning staff has drafted a resolution directing staff in the Planning, Public Works, and Parks Departments to review the contents of the Growth Management Community Participation Program Report and respond specifically on how the recommendations of the visioning section of the report can be implemented. The resolution directs the three departments to report back to the full Council with a coordinated response within 60 days. Each department would be requested to indicate how the recommendations can be implemented, which could be implemented immediately and which may be implemented by future planning efforts. Planner Janet Shull distributed a draft resolution and explained the contents. In response to Councilmember Bennett' s question about time impacts to the departments, Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that few of the items related to the Parks Departments. Public Works Director Don Wickstrom has requested the subject be presented to the Public Works Committee. Planning Director Harris explained that this is part of the growth management program, and within that program different departments will be called upon for input. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 71 1992 PAGE 3 Chair Orr stated she feels since the City has gone to the citizens and asked their opinions, it is important that some action be taken on the results of the survey. Chair Orr requested the following changes: 1. Section 1. Remove the parentheses around "Visioning Program" and insert the word "title" . 2 . Section 2 , C. Add "parks" to "Kent' s vision for. . . 3 . Section 4 . Change the time frame for presentation of the implementation plan to the full Council from 60 to 90 days. The resolution will be taken to the next Public Works Committee meeting. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to adopt the visual preference survey resolution with the above three changes. Motion carried. This item will go before the full Council on July 21 provided there are no major changes made by the Public Works Committee. In that case, the resolution will be brought back to Planning Committee. ADDED ITEMS Hugh Leiper stated the Renton School District is represented by 85% city limits and 15% county, and the Kent School District is made up of 40% city limits and 60% county. Mr. Leiper feels Kent is having trouble determining what makes this a community. He further stated that the Kent School District's mailings reach approximately 150, 000 people. He feels the Kent School District is the only agency of the community that totally has its act together because they are providing a service to all children within the area, not just the city limits. He pointed out that residents of the outlying areas think they live in Kent and they participate in many activities in Kent. Mr. Leiper further stated that Kent is the fifth largest in the U. S. in square footage of warehouse and manufacturing, second only to Seattle. Mr. Leiper presented a 1984 map of Kent' s trade area of influence representing a homogeneous community. He stated it is important to plan for the whole area. In reference to downtown Kent, Mr. Leiper does not feel Kent has a true focal point, that being an easily identified location which provides all the good and services needed for residents in the area. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 71 1992 PAGE 4 Mr. Leiper presented his plan for downtown Kent to include a mall, parking garage and relocation of shops from Meeker to Gowe Street. Mr. Leiper presented a copy of articles of incorporation for the New Destiny of Kent Association and a petition to get a regional center on the agenda. Chair Orr explained to Mr. Leiper that Team Downtown would be the appropriate organization for presentation of his ideas. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 20 p.m. PC0707. 92 fa PUBLIC WORKS COMMMEE JULY 11 1992 PRESENT: Jim White Kevin Lindell Jim Bennett Mae Miller Paul Mann Mr. and Mrs. Rust Don Wickstrom Jean Parietti Tom Brubaker Howard Woodward Ed Chow Diana Woodward Ed White Joan Jansen Bill Wolinski Connie Epperley Upper Garrison Creek Flood Control Proiect This item was continued to the next meeting since Mr. Carey was not present. Chestnut Ridge Annexation Wickstrom explained that Council will be asked to act on this annexation request at their July 7 meeting and this material is being presented so that the Committee can send a recommendation to that Council meeting. Wickstrom reviewed that the area is approximately 190 acres. The action was initiated by the property owners. Staff attended a community forum after which we received a 10% petition for annexation. The assessed value of the area is approximately $38 million. It is primarily residentially zoned, single family lots ranging from 5, 000 square foot lots up to 9, 600 square feet. The financial analysis indicates there would probably be a negative impact to the City of approximately $46, 000. (NOTE: A revised analysis using more up to date information indicates a positive impact. ) Wickstrom noted that Council can accept the petition and give staff direction on the boundaries, can determine if the annexation should assume the City's bonded indebtedness or deny the petition. The area is in the urban growth area designated for Kent. Jim Bennett asked what the financial impact was based on. Wickstrom explained it is based on existing assessed value, known revenue sources and estimation of the City's costs. Wickstrom stressed that these figures are not exact. Paul Mann asked how this would affect our current staffing with the Police Department. He added that two positions in the Police Department were denied and they currently have a new vacancy that should be filled. He questioned whether those two positions were going to be filled. Chow responded they were still in frozen position status. Jim Bennett asked what the ratio of police officers to population in Kent is. He commented that since we already respond up to the boundary of this area, he didn't feel this would have as much impact as might be expected. Tom Brubaker observed that it was Public Works Committee July 1, 1992 Page 2 noted by Police in Annexation Committee meeting that residential annexations do not typically generate a lot of police activity as compared to commercial and multifamily areas. Jim White noted that we are currently responding to the west side of 92nd which borders this annexation area. Wickstrom stated that we are currently first in with Fire response at this time. Ms. Jansen noted that most of the lots in the annexation area were recently reassessed and were increased significantly. She commented that this area would be a good stepping stone to further annex over to the Benson. She stated the community is more interested in being annexed to Kent than to Renton. Jim White confirmed the area is in Kent's planning area. Tom Brubaker stated that the County and neighboring cities are working together to define urban growth boundaries for the future. It is possible that, even if Council approves, this annexation might be delayed until these boundaries are determined. He added that the meeting with the petitioners is the only time that council has the opportunity to expand the boundaries of the annexation. It can later be decreased but this is the only time boundaries can be increased. Jim White asked what the impact on the annexation would be if the boundaries were expanded to include the property over to 104th. Don Wickstrom stated that the original request only included the small neighborhood area and we had squared the boundary up somewhat. Tom Brubaker cautioned that if the boundaries are expanded the 60% petition has to be signed by 60% of the assessed valuation of the area. Thus, if you expand to include a commercial area the assessed valuation would increase significantly and if the owners of that commercial property did not support the annexation could be defeated. However, if that were the case, Council could decrease the size of the annexation boundary. Jim White asked if Council could hold it over and not take action at the July 7th meeting. Brubaker will look into it but it was noted that the time period for responding to the petition is 60 days from receipt. Wickstrom commented when looking at an appropriate boundary we did not want to include 212th because of the accident and safety problems it currently has. Paul Mann suggested a recommendation to Administration that the two frozen positions in the Police Department be filled. Jim White stated while we could make the recommendation, he was not comfortable making the annexation contingent upon that. Paul Mann added that we are considering other annexations and if no consideration is given to additional police officers we will drain the department. Jim White stated he agreed with that concept however, the Council has had an annexation policy on the books for years and if we do not move ahead on this annexation then we need a Public Works Committee July 1, 1992 Page 3 to back away from the annexation policy entirely and just say the community will not grow any more. He continued that if we look at the ratio of police and fire per capita we will probably find that Kent has one of the highest ratios in the county. Paul Mann moved that the Committee accept the Chestnut Ridge annexation. Jim White clarified that the motion was to recommend the boundaries as defined by the staff, the annexation should include the City's bonded indebtedness and authorization to circulate the 60% petition. The Committee unanimously approved. Final EIS 272nd/277th Corridor Wickstrom explained that the Final EIS has been completed. The next step would be for Council to direct us to submit the preferred alignment to King County for them to establish the roadway. Because of the sensitivity of the project, Wickstrom recommended a public hearing process be involved with August 4 being the hearing date after which refer the matter back to the Public Works Committee for subsequent recommendation. The Committee unanimously recommended setting August 4 as date for public hearing on the FEIS . Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Wickstrom stated the public hearing is scheduled for July 21. Wickstrom stated the plan is being presented for any questions the Committee might have on the projects. Paul Mann stated he was concerned that the Bicycle Advisory Board hadn't been established prior to this and it would have been helpful to have that Advisory Board in the beginning of this process. Wickstrom stated this TIP is updated every year. White alluded to an ISTEA committee he has recently been appointed to serve on and that it included funds for such things as bicycle lanes. Latecomer Agreement - Robinson Sewer Extension Wickstrom explained the developer has requested a latecomer agreement so that he can be reimbursed as other properties connect , to the sewer extension. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the preparation and signature of the latecomer agreement. Bill of Sale and Latecomer Agreement - West Valley Masonry The developer has requested acceptance of a sanitary sewer extension and preparation of a latecomer agreement for future connections. Since the main has been in operation for some time we are recommending waiving the one-year maintenance period. The Public Works Committee July 1, 1992 Page 4 Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the sanitary sewer extension, waiving the maintenance period and preparation and signature of the latecomer agreement. Bill of Sale - Arco AM/PM Mini Market Wickstrom explained they have constructed the improvements and are turning them over to the city for operation and maintenance. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the improvements and release of the cash bond after expiration of the maintenance period. Bill of Sale - Dally Tynes Apartments Wickstrom stated this is a similar situation where the developer extended sewer and water mains to service their development and are turning them over to the City for operation and maintenance. The Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the improvements and release of the cash bond after expiration of the maintenance period. L. I.D. 338/L. I.D. 339/Decant Stations/94th Avenue Storm Wickstrom explained we had combined two small LID projects as well as two other City projects in an attempt to secure better bids than separate projects. However, at the time we advertised the project there were several large projects available for the contractors. Thus, we did not receive what we felt were competitive bids. Wickstrom continued he is recommending we reject the bids received and break the project up into four smaller contracts to perhaps attract, bids from the smaller contractors. The Committee unanimously recommended rejecting the bids received and to readvertise. Central Avenue Improvement Wickstrom stated we had received six bids for this project. The project funding includes two outside funding sources; one is from the State DOT for their overlay portion and the other is a major grant from the Transportation Improvement Board. DOT has already authorized us to award. We hope to have TIB approval before Council; however, our recommendation would be to award to the low bidder subject to TIB authorization. Paul Mann commented he felt it too bad that we have to accept low bid for street construction. We should be trying to get better quality on the streets so they last longer. Tom Brubaker responded we are required to take lowest responsible bid. The Committee unanimously recommended approval to award to the low bidder. Public Works Committee July 1, 1992 Page 5 Other Paul Mann asked about the parking situation in front of St. Christopher Academy as discussed at the last meeting. Ed White stated that they are trying to determine the best placement and number of signs. Parking restrictions will probably start at about the location of the door to the building down to the corner of Third and Saar. Paul Mann asked if this would solve the concerns that had been expressed about visibility at the intersection. Ed White responded that it should. Ed White emphasized that the Committee be aware these are interim measures until such time as the Downtown Parking study is completed. Jim Bennett asked about the truck turnaround situation on James and Russell. Ed White responded that "Truck Route" signs will be installed on the mast arm and side of road at 64th Avenue and James.