HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/19/1994City ofKent
City Council Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF It JH4T
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
April 19,1994
Office of the City Clerk
V
. KENT
MAYOR: Jim White
Jim Bennett
Jon Johnson
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 19, 1994
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Tim Clark Christi Houser
Paul Mann Leona Orr
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Proclamation - Volunteer Week
$� Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
,1i. CDBG Program Policies and Funding Levels
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
,A. Approval of Minutes
-f�: Approval of Bills
.e. Coordination Prevention Grant - Agreement
,B. SR167 - HOV Lanes - Agreement
,E. Downtown Water and Storm Drainage Improvements - Accept
as Complete
�F: Emergency Generator - Acceptance of Completion of
Contract
-9. Appointment and Reappointments - Transit Advisory Board
4. OTHER BUSINESS
�. Residential Garbage Service Rates
5. BIDS
None
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
'/. REPORTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
/1,7 ,'nufes
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in
the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the
City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call
1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (206) 854-6587.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council
make known the subject of interest, so
heard.
A) Proclamation - Volunteer Week
will, at this time,
all may be properly
B) Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
C Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 19 1994
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 199�COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING LEVEL
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider the
adoption of five action items for the 1995 CDBG Program, as
recommended by the Planning Committee on March 15, 1994. The
five items that need Council approval are to: 1) accept 1995
Pass -Through funds; 2) accept the $38,830 in 1993 recaptured
funds for the 1995 program year; 3) allocate the maximum
available to the City of Kent for the Public (Human) Services
($50,171); 4) allocate the city's fair share maximum of 1995
Pass -Through funds to Planning and Administration ($42,336);
and 5) approve the proposed 1995 local program polices.
3. EXHIBITS: 1995 CDBG Local Program Policies and Planning
Committee Minutes 3/15/94
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmembermoves, Councilmember seconds
for approval of the five action items for the 1995 CDBG
Program, as recommended by the Planning Committee as follows:
1) accept 1995 Pass -Through funds; 2) accept the $38,830 in
1993 recaptured funds for the 1995 program year; 3) allocate
the maximum available to the City of Kent for the Public
(Human) Services ($50,171); 4) allocate the city's fair share
maximum of 1995 Pass -Through funds to Planning and
Administration ($42,336); and 5) approve the proposed 1995
local program polices.
DISCUSSION:
Rk'+r\
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
CITY OF )Q]An LS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
r®n caa� MEMORANDUM
April 19, 1994
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: BETSY CZARK, PLANNER
SUBJECT: 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL
PROGRAM POLICIES AND FUNDING LEVELS
Background
Again this year, the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass-
through" funds for its 1995 Federal Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program. Kent's estimated 1995 CDBG funding level is
$393,040. This is slightly higher than the 1994 amount. However,
the 1995 figure is only an estimate based upon the proposed federal
budget. The final amount won't be known until Congress passes the
budget in the Fall. In addition to that amount, Kent is
recapturing $38,830 of its 1993 CDBG funds. This money was
recovered from two 1993 projects that did not get off the ground.
Both projects were terminated because neither received enough other
funding for necessary support services or operating expenses. We
recaptured $25,000 from the Archdiccesan Housing Authority's
housing for single homeless men project and $13,830 from Vision
Special Needs Housing.
The City Council needs to take five(5) actions:
1. Receipt of Funds
The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects
to receive the "pass-through" funds again this year or to
compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that
the City accept the pass-through funds in lieu of the
competitive funds in order to: 1) Maximize local discretion in
allocating the funds; 2) Guarantee a minimum funding level; 3)
Eliminate competition with other King County and small cities
projects. If the City does not elect to take the pass-through
monies, Kent is not guaranteed any CDBG funds, and would have
to complete for all funds.
2. The City also needs to inform the County whether it wants to
recapture $38,830 of its 1993 CDBG funds for its 1995 CDBG
program.
1995 CDBG Local Program Policies
and Funding Levels
April 19, 1994
Page 2
3. Public (Human) Services Fundin
If the City chooses to accept pass-through funds, it can
reserve the maximum of its fair share of public services
dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this
amount of funding for human services, another city can request
the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the
maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to
continue in its present support for human services, the
Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify
the County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars
available for human services. The estimated 1995 CDBG funding
amount for human services is $50,171.
4. Planning and Administration Funds
As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG
funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration.
In 1994 the City reserved the maximum amount available. The
Planning Department recommends allocating the maximum amount
available in 1995 to fund a portion of salaries and other
activities associated with the administration of the Program.
The maximum amount of 1995 CDBG funds available for Planning
and Administration is $42,336.
5. Local Program Policies Background
The development of Local Program Policies is an annual federal
requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent's CDBG
Program Policies each year. The attached draft of Kent's 1995
CDBG Local Program Policies is a description of our local
strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies
form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG
funds in the City of Kent.
The Human Services Commission reviewed the Public (Human)
Services Policy and Funding Priorities at its February 24th
meeting and recommends adoption of the policy as proposed in
the draft document.
Local Program Policy Changes from 1994
A. Revision to Part IV - "Public (Human) Services"
This section has been revised to include special
populations that CDBG regards as groups with a presumed
benefit. These groups were previously mentioned in
another part of the policies. It also adds a line
regarding projects that are encouraged: "Preventative
1995 CDBG Local Program Policies
and Funding Levels
April 19, 1994
Page 3
and subsistence programs are encouraged, especially those
that leverage other services and financial resources.
11
B. Addition of Part V - "Funding Priorities"
This section was added to make explicit the funding
priorities that the Human Services Commission has always
implicitly used in its application review process. The
first 3 items in this part are the H. S. Commissions'
priorities. The fourth item is a CDBG requirement and
was previously mentioned in another part of the policies.
C. Revision of Part VI - "Additional Evaluation Criteria"
This section was revised to reduce redundancies with
other sections of the policies. The items that were
deleted are now covered in either Part VI or Part V.
The City's approval of these five items needs to be forwarded to
the County by May 1, 1994- The Planning Committee recommended
adoption of all five items at its March 15th meeting.
Recommended Action
1. Approval to accept 1995 Pass -Through funds.
2. Approval to accept the $38,830 in 1993 recaptured funds for
the 1995 program year.
3. Allocate the maximum available to the City of Kent for Public
(Human) Services ($50,171).
4. Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1995 Pass -Through
funds to Planning and Administration ($42,336).
5. Approval of the proposed 1995 Local Program Policies.
BC/mp: C: bc3:\CD8G95cC.mem
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Lin Ball, Human Services Manager
PROPOSED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
1995 LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES
CITY OF KENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Kent's 1995 Local Program Policies summarize the City's housing and
community development needs and outlines policies and priorities for use of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City of Kent receives federal CDBG
funds through a county -wide consortium, therefore these Local Polices are also part of
the 1995 King County CDBG Consortium Policy Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Kent, incorporated in 1890, was predominately an agricultural area for many
years. Today Kent has adopted a suburban character as a result of the rapid growth in
Seattle and the Puget Sound area. The City's residential character is varied and divided
greatly by natural topography. The residential areas in the valley, clustered mostly
around the downtown, consist primarily of single family homes built in the early to mid
1900s. Large multifamily dwellings have developed on the outskirts of the downtown
surrounding these older established neighborhoods.
The east and west hills of Kent have seen significant growth of single family and
multifamily dwelling residential in the later half of this decade. The east hill continues
to develop as more land is annexed into the City. The valley floor, outside of the
downtown has developed with primarily industrial, commercial, and retail uses.
The City of Kent occupies roughly nineteen square miles, with a population of
approximately 41,090. According to the most recent census estimates (1990),
approximately 27 percent of the City's population are 19 years or younger, and 13
percent are seniors (55 years or older). According to 1990 data, 41 percent of the City's
households are estimated to be low-income or very low-income. In the past, low and
moderate income households were concentrated in and around the original townsite,
which includes the Central Business District. According to recent studies, pockets of low
and moderate income families in both owner occupied and rental dwellings are scattered
on the east and west hills as well.
III. HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS
A. Local Needs
The primary purpose of Kent's CDBG program is to address the needs of the City's low
and moderate income residents and to follow the related goals, objectives and policies
of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. In most cases, project eligibility will be determined
by the clients served. In order to determine eligibility for area wide projects, the most
recent census data available will be evaluated by census block.
B. Regional Needs
gional needs that cut across all jurisdictions
The City of Kent realizes that there are re
within the Consortium. The City has been addressing some of these needs by funding
regional agencies which provide emergency housing and services to low and moderate
income residents, and a subregional health care facility. These programs currently
receive money from the City of Kent, the County, and neighboring cities. The City
should continue in 1995 to address the funding of regional and subregional systems.
Acknowledging the need to respond regionally to the affordable housing requirements of
the Growth Management Act (GMA), in 1994 the Consortium established a new
Consortium -wide public services funding pot. These dollars are used to fund public
service activities in support of the Affordable Housing requirements under GMA. This
new funding pot replaced the existing consortium -wide emergency shelter and one -time -
only pot. The City of Kent supports this new regional funding pot, as it will assist the
City in meeting some of its affordable housing service requirements under GMA.
The City continues to recognize the importance of a regional shelter system and the need
for the City of Kent, the County and other Consortium cities to continue to support their
existing Emergency Shelter Programs.
In the event that future mechanisms are developed to address regional/Consortium-wide
needs, the City will consider further contributing its fair share for programs which
demonstrate a benefit for the citizens of Kent.
IV. PROJECT CATEGORIES AND POLICIES
The six headings listed below are funding categories the City of Kent has identified for
its 1995 Community Development Block Grant Program. Project applications which
address one or more of the following goals are encouraged.
Housing
Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing
occupied by low and moderate income residents of Kent. The City of Kent's Housing
Repair Services Program should be continued, for it addresses the needs of low and
moderate income home owners. Emergency and transitional housing projects which
currently serve homeless or special needs persons are emphasized, however new
programs which provide shelter or permanent housing will be considered.
2
Public (Human) Services
Projects should provide essential public services to low- and moderate -income persons
and special populations such as abused children, battered spouses, homeless persons, the
elderly, illiterate persons, and persons with disabilities. Pre-ventative and subsistence
programs are encouraged, especially those that leverage other services and financial
resources. These programs may include programs which provide health care, counseling
and therapy, child care, family support, support to seniors and persons with disabilities,
job training, transportation, emergency and transitional housing and support services, and
other needed services.
Streets, Walkways, and Architectural Barriers
Pedestrian walkways, free of impediments to access are important in neighborhoods
where children, elderly, and persons with disabilities reside. The following types of
physical improvements are encouraged in eligible low- and moderate -income
neighborhoods of Kent: projects that improve pedestrian circulation and safety;
architectural barrier removal projects; projects that improve storm drainage conditions
where there exists a threat to the health or safety of the residents.
Many existing publicly or privately owned housing units and commercial buildings and
other non-residential structures do not currently meet federal barrier free standards. Any
project which removes architectural barriers which restrict mobility of persons with
disabilities or the elderly are also encouraged.
Community Facilities
Past CDBG funding has contributed to a number of community facilities used by the
City's low and moderate income population. Projects will be encouraged to assist in
design, acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of facilities serving seniors, persons
with disabilities, or which house programs serving predominately low- and moderate -
income residents.
Parks
Park projects to be encouraged are those which serve low and moderate income
neighborhoods and/or other target populations, i.e., handicapped residents. Parks
projects may include rehabilitation of existing park facilities and establishment of new
facilities, for which funds are not elsewhere available.
Planning and Administration
Funds will be used for staff support and operating costs to plan and manage Kent's
CDBG program and to identify and assess the needs in the community. This will ensure
adequate project implementation, fiscal control, planning, and contract compliance to
ensure CDBG funds provide maximal benefit to low and moderate income residents in
Kent.
3
V. FUNDING PRIORITIES
The following four priorities will be considered when making funding decisions for
CDBG programs.
1) Priority to preventative and subsistence programs.
2) Priority to projects that leverage funds and use the resources of other cities and
agencies effectively.
3) Priority to programs whose clients are composed of a significant percentage of
Kent residents. This does not necessarily mean that it serves a large percentage
of the Kent population, but that of the clients served a significant percentage are
Kent residents.
4) Projects must comply with Kent's comprehensive plan policies and CHAS policies
in accordance with CDBG requirements.
VI Additional Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria may also be considered in addition to the four priorities listed
above:
1. Feasibility, timeliness, urgency.
ery low income citizens or special populations
2. The extent to which the needs of v
are addressed.
3. The extent to which regional needs are addressed.
be :\95 c dbg\Po I is ie s.95
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1994
PAGE 3
1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND
ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS - (B. Czark)
Planner Betsy Czark explained the 1995 Local Program Policies and the
City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass-through" funds for its 1995 CDBG
program. She mentioned the City has not yet received its exact estimate
for the 1995 funds from King County. However, the County predicts that
the 1995 funding will be at approximately the same level as 1994. The
1994 CDBG funds totaled $373,101. In addition, we are recapturing
$38,830 of our 1993 CDBG funds of projects that did not get off the
ground. Staff requested that the following actions be approved:
1. Approval to accept 1995 Pass -Through funds.
2. Approval to accept the $38,830 in 1993 recaptured funds for the 1995
program year.
3. Allocate the maximum available of 1995 Pass -Through funds for Public
(Human) Services for the City of Kent.
4. Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1995 Pass -Through funds to
Planning and Administration.
5. Approval of the proposed 1995 Local Program Policies.
6. Forward these recommendations to the full City Council for
consideration at its April 19, 1994 meeting.
Planner Czark explained three(3) changes to the 1994 Local Program
Policies. The first one is a revision to Part IV - "Public (Human)
Services", to include special populations that CDBG regards as groups
with a presumed benefit. It also adds a line regarding projects that are
encouraged: "Preventative and subsistence programs are encouraged,
especially those that leverage other services and financial resources."
The second revision is the addition of Part V - "Funding Priorities",
which is to make explicit the funding priorities that the Human Services
Commission has always implicitly used in its application review process.
The third revision is in Part VI - "Additional Evaluation Criteria",
which is to reduce redundancies with other sections of the policies. The
items that were deleted are now covered in either Part VI or Part V.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the
aforementioned six(6) actions. Motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1994
PAGE 4
ADDED ITEMS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and Regulatory Review
Application - (J. Harris)
Mr. Harris explained there is a potential problem occurring because of a
person has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezone. With
the Planning Department already involved with Comprehensive Plan project
for GMA, it is difficult to handle these requests with the GMA. Mr.
Satterstrom stated there very few comprehensive plan amendments in the
history of the Planning Department. City Attorney Lubovich said to Fred
that a person who submits an application for a rezone has the right to
have the rezone application processed, even though it may be in conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan. This doesn't mean staff would recommend
approval; it would go to the Hearing Examiner with an obvious conflict
between the request and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is asking the
Council committee members how to proceed on these kinds of issues
particularly since we're so close to finishing the overall Comprehensive
Plan. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Clark SECONDED a
motion to recommend to putting these Comprehensive Plan actions on hold
and to fold them into the current Comprehensive Plan process until the
Comprehensive Plan is done.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
PC0315.MIN
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Action: ,k'
Councilmember W -SA moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through G be approved.
Discussion Yu
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
April 5, 1994.
3B. Approval of Bills.-
7qaproval of payment
and -paid on
Committee on
the bills received through
after auditing by the Op ions
Date ` . \ \Check Numbers
Amount
ADDroval checks issued for payroll:
Da Check Numbers ount
(-Dates and figures are not available because the Operations
Committee meeting scheduled for April 13, 1994, was cancelled.T,
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A -B
Kent, Washington
April 5, 1994
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann and Orr, Operations
Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning
Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief
Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Acting Parks Director Thorell,
Finance Division Manager Miller, Human Resources Division Manager
Viseth and Public Information & Government Affairs Division
Manager Martin. Mayor White was not in attendance.
Approximately 30 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC State Representative Julia Patterson.
COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Woods noted that evidently
Representative Patterson was unable to attend
the meeting tonight, and that her visit may be
rescheduled at a later time.
Washington Earthquake Awareness Week. Mayor
Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring
April 10-16, 1994 as Washington Earthquake
Awareness Week in the City of Kent. She noted
that the Mayor encourages all citizens to
enhance their knowledge and awareness of proper
safety measures to follow before, during and
after an earthquake. Fire Chief Angelo
accepted the proclamation.
Drug Free Washington Month. Mayor Pro Tem
Woods read a proclamation declaring April, 1994
as Drug Free Washington Month. She encouraged
residents to acknowledge the accomplishments of
the youth and appreciate the positive projects
and programs in which they are involved.
Councilmember Houser, Chair of the Drinking
Driver Task Force, was presented the proclama-
tion.
Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor Pro
Tem Woods introduced Connie Epperly who is the
Mayor's appointee to serve as a member of the
Kent Planning Commission, and Bill Erb who is
the Mayor's appointee to serve as a member of
the Kent Arts Commission.
Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods
announced that Roger Lubovich has been selected
as the Employee of the Month for April. She
noted that Roger has been the City Attorney
since September, 1990, and that he is a
01
April 5, 1994
PUBLIC talented, dedicated attorney who responsibly
COMMUNICATIONS manages, resolves, and directs a wide variety
of legal matters. She noted that he is always
available to take on new challenges, trusts his
employees and gives them the authority and
responsibility to approach projects in their
own way and to make their own decisions. She
stated that he always keeps an "open door" and
an open mind... inviting honest responses to
issues and encouraging lively discussions on
legal topics. She also noted that he is a hard
worker who spends many additional hours on the
job. Operations Director McFall noted that the
City is pleased to have the opportunity to
recognize Roger and his contribution to the
City of Kent. He noted that Roger's legal
advice, common sense, and good humor are appre-
ciated by all of the staff, and congratulated
him on being the Employee of the Month.
Regional Justice Center Update. Wendy Keller,
Project Director, noted that the design
development documents were reviewed and com-
pleted within 10 days and thanked the Fire,
Building, and Planning Departments for their
quick response in reviewing these documents.
She noted that the County is now reconciling
the cost estimates by using the architect's
estimate, the in-house estimate, plus a con-
struction management contract which does an
independent cost estimate so that this project
doesn't run over budget before it is completed.
She noted that they intend to be done with the
cost estimates by Friday, and that the maximum
allowable construction costs must be met and in
line before they can proceed further as well as
try to keep on schedule. She stated that the
County will then come out, do a review with the
City's Urban Design Development group, and get
together with each of the City's Department
Directors. She again noted that the mitigation
issues have been divided into two groups: 1)
design, technical, and environmental which are
subject to the building permit review process
standards with issues relating to traffic, lay-
out of the site, landscaping, the building
orientation, bright lights, and how tests and
inspections are done; 2) operational issues
2
April 5, 1994
PUBLIC dealing with such things as notifying people
COMMUNICATIONS when certain types of prisoners are released,
when prisoners will be released, what type of
transportation prisoners will have, and how the
regional justice center will impact the social
service agencies in this area. Keller ex-
plainedthat the intent is to wrap up all the
issues relating to mitigation before applying
for a construction permit. She noted that the
next CBAG meeting will be held on April 20th at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to get
started on these issues. She stated that all
of the tanks are out, and that they didn't
leak. She noted that the demolition and
asbestos RFP's are still being developed but
will be out shortly. She explained that the
County is trying to increase the minority and
small business participation in these large
contracts so they are planning on doing a
special invitation to the pre-bid to generate
more interest and will do the same thing during
the construction phase of this project.
Kent Building Safety Week. Mayor Pro Tem Woods
read a proclamation declaring April 10-16, 1994
as Kent Building Safety Week in the City of
Kent. She urged all citizens to visit their
local building departments and to better
familiarize themselves with the important
safety information and services provided by
these public servants. Planning Director
Harris accepted the proclamation on behalf of
the Office of Development Services.
CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through P be approved. Orr seconded and the
motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes
of the regular Council meeting of March 15,
1994.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
SANITATION Acheson Sewer Extension. AUTHORIZATION to
accept the bill of sale and warranty agreement
submitted by David Acheson for continuous
operation and maintenance of 277 feet of
3
April 51 1994
HEALTH & sanitary sewer line and release of bonds after
SANITATION expiration of the maintenance period, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Director. The
project is in the vicinity of 112th Avenue SE &
SE 232nd Street.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Charge in Lieu of Assessment. AUTHORIZATION
for the Finance Manager to execute the neces-
sary documents allowing Mr. & Mrs. David Temby
of 12220 Kent Kangley Road to make monthly
payments against a $2,456.21 Charge in Lieu of
Assessment fee for water service, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee and in
accordance with Resolution No. 975. Mr. &
Mrs. Temby have claimed that paying the full
amount at this time would create a hardship.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Watershed Fencing Project_ AUTHORIZATION to
accept as complete the contract with Guyline
Construction, Inc. for the Watershed Fencing
f retainage
Project,
State releases, as recommended after receipt
recommended bythePubli
ofc
Works Committee.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Manganese Treatment Plant. It is the recom-
mendation of the Public Works Committee that
$154,000 be transferred from the Unencumbered
Water Funds to the 212th/SR167 Water Supply &
Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48). The
need for this transfer is to complete the
project so that the facility can be made
operational. MANN MOVED that $154,000 be
transferred from the Unencumbered Water Funds
to the 212th/SR167 Water Supply & Treatment
Facility Project Budget (W48) for the comple-
tion of the project. Houser seconded. Bennett
noted that $300,000 was requested last July for
this project because of alleged difficulties
with the contractor. He said he hopes there
will be more direction from Administration in
the future so that this type of thing does not
happen again. Orr suggested having a profes-
sional project manager on board for projects of
this magnitude. Bennett stated that he has
toured the facility and was impressed by the
craftsmanship. The motion then carried.
4
STREET
VACATIONS
(PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
[church Alley_
April 51 1994
tion (STV-y4-61-
This
STV-y4-61-This public hearing has been set to consider an
application by the Corporation of the Catholic
Archbishop of Seattle to vacate a portion of an
alley extending northward from Saar Street at
St. Anthony's Church (STV -94-2), as referenced
in Resolution No. 1385, and as shown on the map
and discussed in the staff report.
Woods declared the public hearing open.
Patrick Crowley, 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 3500,
Seattle, attorney representing the Corporation
of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, acknowl-
edged that they accept the conditions set forth
in the staff report.
There were no further comments and ORR MOVED
that the public hearing be closed. Johnson
seconded and the motion carried.
ORR MOVED to approve the Planning Department's
recommendation of approval, with conditions, of
an application to vacate a portion of an alley
extending northward from Saar Street at St.
Anthony's Church, as referenced in Resolution
No. 1385, and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance upon receipt of
compensation and retainment of the utility
easement. Johnson seconded and the motion
carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Van Doren's Landing Way• AUTHORIZATION to
establish a new fund for the receipt of the
monies associated with the Van Doren's Landing
Way Street vacation and that the monies therein
be utilized for pedestrian walkway improvements
related to school travel patterns, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee. Monies
received from a street vacation are generally
deposited in the Street Division's operating
budget as revenue. The City anticipates
receiving approximately $148,738 for the Van
Doren's Landing Way street vacation.
5
April 51 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL Left STurnENT CLaneDIm rovements- ITEM )- 104th & 256th.
AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the con-
tract with Gaston Bros. Excavating, Inc. for
the 104th Avenue SE & SE 256th Street Left Turn
Lane Improvements, and release of retainage
after receipt of State releases, as recommended
by the Public Works Director.
SIDEWALKS (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I. Bid
opening for this project was held on March 24th
with four bids received. The low bid was sub-
mitted by R. E. Bailey Construction in the
amount of $157,632.90. The engineer's estimate
was $202,306.11. The project consists of re-
placing existing cement concrete sidewalks,
which have been damaged by tree roots, with new
cement concrete sidewalks. The project also
includes filling Railroad Park at the northeast
corner of Titus Street and First Avenue and
providing new storm drainage.
The Public Works Director has recommended that -
this bid be accepted and the contract awarded
to R. E. Bailey Construction. MANN MOVED that
the Downtown Rehabilitation Phase I contract be
awarded to R. E. Bailey Construction for the
bid amount of $157,632.90. Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
SHORT PLAT (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
APPEAL The Woods Short Plat (SP -94-3) - Appeal of
Administrative Decision. This public hearing
has been set to consider an appeal by the
applicant, Thomas N. Sharp of S.D.M. Proper-
ties, of the Woods Short Plat (SP -94-3)
Findings issued on March 18, 1994, by the Short
Subdivision Committee.
n
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT City Attorney Lubovich explained the procedure,
APPEAL noting that the appellant has thirty minutes to
make his presentation, and explaining the
standard of review and the Council's choices
regarding a decision.
Planning Director Harris explained that Section
12.04.170 of the Subdivision Code states that
the Short Subdivision Committee shall consist
of one Planning Commissioner, the Director of
Parks and Recreation, the Planning Director who
shall be Chairman, the Director of Public Works
who may designate the City Engineer to attend
in his absence with full voting power, and the
Fire Chief who may designate the Chief of the
Fire Prevention Bureau to sit in in his absence
with full voting power. He noted that at this
time, no Planning Commission member has been
appointed by the Planning Commission. He noted
that the Code states that three of the five
members of the Short Subdivision Committee must
be present in order for the committee to take
any action, and that three of the five members
were in attendance at the meeting. when a
decision was made on this issue. Harris
pointed out that the Findings of Fact are in
the form of a staff report which was presented
to the applicant and which was used by the
Committee in their deliberations. He noted
that the report includes the description of the
proposal, the location, the zoning, the site
history, environmental concerns, and informa-
tion on utilities, streets, stormwater, transit
stops, fire prevention, street addresses and
parks and open space. Harris read the history
of the site from the staff report as follows:
"Site history relevant to this application may
be found in Planning Department File, 25801
116th Avenue, SDM Properties. In December
1989, a letter was written to Mr. Tom Sharp of
SDM Properties regarding the culverting of a
tributary to Soos Creek. A portion of the
undergrounding occurred on the Colonial Square
multifamily housing property which is located
directly north of the subject property at 25001
116th Avenue SE. The letter states that at
that time, the creek was also undergrounded
`7
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT where it crosses the subject property. A copy
APPEAL of the letter is attached to this report
(Attachment 1). Photographs found in the above
file and City of Kent Building Department file
#89-049, 116th SE, taken of the subject pro-
perty from the Colonial Square property show
the fill and grading of the subject property."
Harris quoted from the staff report as follows:
"Section 15.02.092 of the Zoning Code states
that the West Branch of Big Soos Creek and
tributaries are major creeks identified by the
city. They are shown on the map entitled
"Hazard Area Development Limitations" (see
Attachment 3). This tributary of Big Soos
Creek appears to be a minor tributary because
of its seasonal nature. Section 15.08.224.0.1
states that all major and minor creeks in the
city where they flow on or across undeveloped
land shall be retained in their natural state
and location. Section 15.08.224.C.2 addresses
the guidelines which must be followed when a
creekbed is altered and restored, or moved. A
site specific plan, referred to as a stream
plan, is required, subject to review and
approval by the Planning Department and the
Department of Public Works. This section also
sets forth the setbacks from a relocated creek
as twenty-five (25) feet from a minor creek,
and fifty (50) feet from a major creek."
Harris noted receipt of a letter from
Mr. Phillip Schneider of the Department of
Fish and Wildlife which states:
"The Department of Fish and Wildlife support
and encourage the daylighting of streams that
have been placed in culverts. Soosette Creek,
which is a tributary to Soos Creek, supports
coho salmon and cutthroat trout. The Depart-
ment of Fisheries catalog of streams with
salmon utilization show no blockages to salmon
migration throughout this stream system and
fish may get up as far as Kent-Kangley Road.
9
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT Although fish may not get up the headwater
APPEAL streams that have been culverted, they are
still considered to be environmentally sensi-
tive and can contribute to the overall health
of the lower basin where fish reside. Streams
that have been culverted will still function to
convey water; however, they will remain devoid
of any life (insects, algae, amphibians) and
will not contribute to downstream areas. In
addition, culverts generally do not have the
capacity of open channels to provide for water
storage and energy dissipation during high
flows, thereby increasing the risks of erosion
to downstream areas. Besides impacting fish,
the tightlining of streams will negate the
benefits riparian corridors have for wildlife.
The diversity of vegetation within the riparian
corridor will provide food, nesting, and cover
opportunities for many wildlife species.
A Hydraulics Project Approval will be required
to remove the culvert. When the culvert is
removed and the channel restored, native trees
and shrubs should be planted along the stream
to re-establish riparian corridors."
Harris used the overhead projector to point out
the location, and noted that the creek has been
paved over in some areas. He explained that
the Zoning Code indicates that the City must
rely on the Department of Fisheries when
dealing with small creeks and streams, and he
introduced Mr. Schneider who is a representa-
tive of that department. Mr. Schneider, 16018
Mill Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, noted that
this stream is a tributary to Soosette Creek,
which is a tributary to Soos Creek, which flows
into the Green River. He added that the
streams support cutthroat trout and salmon,
provide food and insects to fish downstream,
and improve water quality. He said it is
important that these streams remain open.
Harris showed the hazard area map and the creek
system, and noted for Bennett that the streams
flow from mid-October to mid-May.
9
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT
Woods declared the public hearing open. Tom
APPEAL Shar , 11126 SE 256th, stated that the Short
Subdivision Committee is not constituted per
the City's ordinance. He stated that one
etwa
to provide more single family housing
on he
East Hill is to provide short plats. He noted
that this short plat would provide larger lots
than required, and noted that there are 22
conditions on the plat, some of which they
disagree with, such as the drainage ditch. He
noted that they had to purchase the property to
protect their Colonial Square Apartments and
that there was no vegetation on the property.
Sharp stated that they had agreed in the
Committee meeting to adhere to the Fisheries
Department recommendation concerning the ditch
and that the letter from Fisheries does not
demand that the ditch be reopened. He said the
ditch is right next to an apartment complex
which they own and in order to avoid lawsuits,
they undergrounded the ditch. He noted that
the ditch has also been undergrounded on other
people's property and that this is selective
enforcement. He noted that on February 23,
1990, the City sent them a letter demanding
that the ditch be opened within 90 days. He
said they met with the City Engineer on
March 19, 1990, and thought the issued was
resolved, adding that no further action was
taken by the City. He said he believes this
issue should be remanded back to a properly
constituted Short Plat Committee for further
hearing.
upon Bennett's question, the City Attorney
stated that since there is not a Planning
Commission member appointed to the Short
Subdivision Committee, that there is a vacancy
on the committee. Harris noted that a quorum
is three members of the committee, and may act.
Paul Morford, P.O. Box 6345, Kent, noted that
he has determined that the Chief of Fire Pre-
vention is Chief Berg. He noted thatthere is
a form letter which is sent out by
the ng
Department on short plats, and that it is
addressed to five short subdivision committee
members, but that they are not the five people
10
April 51 1994
SHORT PLAT in the ordinance. He said the form letter was
APPEAL addressed to Building, which is not a part of
the committee, the Fire Marshall, who is not
either the Fire Chief or the Chief of Fire
Prevention but was present at the committee
meeting, the Parks Director, who was correctly
represented by the Acting Parks Director, the
Planning Director and the Public Works
Director. He noted that the memo goes to the
wrong Fire representative and that it is not
even sent to a Planning Commissioner.
Morford noted that they culverted the ditch
because they were faced with a lawsuit several
years ago because a child nearly drowned, and
that they spent several thousand dollars to
protect themselves, children, and the City of
Kent. He said he was not aware that it was
against the law to culvert the mudhole. He
also thought the matter had been resolved five
years ago since the 90 days came and went
without further action from the city. He noted
that the people who voted on this issue had not
actually seen the ditch, and he pointed out
that the County and State had put manholes in
along Kent-Kangley. He noted that they had
agreed to have the Planning Department contact
the Fisheries Department, and reiterated that
the letter from the Fisheries Department says
they encourage the daylighting of streams that
have been placed in culverts, and in no way
says it must be taken out. He pointed out that
they had agreed to do what Fisheries requires,
not what they encourage. He noted that the
ditch is along the road, and that oil from the
road goes into the ditch. He suggested that
this go back to a proper committee and that the
committee visit the site. He said that to tear
this up would be disruptive and detrimental to
the citizens of Kent. Morford also noted that
the property has been zoned multi -family for 20
years, is surrounded on three sides by apart-
ments, and is not suitable for single-family.
He voiced concern about selective enforcement
and about the improper committee. He clarified
for Woods that the memo he referred to is dated
March 10, 1994.
11
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT Harris admitted that there is no member of the
APPEAL Planning Commission on the Short Subdivision
Committee at this time, but said that a quorum
of three members, including the Acting Parks
Director, the Public Works Director and the
Planning Director, were at the meeting. He
explained that the memo did not go to a
Planning Commissioner because at this point
there is none on the committee. He added that
the memo goes to the Building person as a
person of interest, and that listing the
Building official on the memo is an error.
Fire Chief Angelo clarified that the Assistant
Chief was in charge of the Building Department
and Fire Prevention and that the person who has
been delegated to interpret the code is the
Fire Marshall. He noted that the Fire Marshall
typically attends these meetings under his
authority and has done so for years.
Orr questioned whether the meeting was legiti-
mate, since three bona fide members of the
committee were in attendance and that the
decisions were unanimous, but that possibly the
wrong fire personnel was there. Lubovich
explained that the absence of a Planning
Commissioner is simply a vacancy, and that the
Planning Commission need not be sent notices.
He noted that if it is determined that the Fire
Prevention Bureau Chief does not meet the cri-
teria of the Fire Marshall, then the Council
should consider whether that different position
is a procedural irregularity that materially
affected the outcome. Morford said he has an
organizational chart which shows Mr. Mary Berg
as the Fire Prevention Chief, and that the
ordinance does not mention the Fire Marshall.
He reiterated that all agreed to leave the
decision to the Fisheries Department and that
their letter does not require removal, and
recommended that the Councilmembers tour the
site before voting.
Bill Dinsdale, 12700 SE 266th, a partner in SDM
Properties, noted that when they bought the
property 15 years ago, it was open space, and
that since then apartments and duplexes have
been built in the area. He said that at that
12
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT time the ditch was simply a low area, but
APPEAL because of development there is now more water
flow. He said water retention systems were
installed during development, and that this is
a storm drainage system, and is not a signifi-
cant stream at all. He said that no purpose
would be served by pulling the culvert out of
the ground. He added that water from other
properties backs up into their culvert and if
it is removed, water will continue to back up
into the open ditch which will be a liability
concern for them.
Tom Sharp noted that Section 15.08.222 states
that "development limitation areas are hereby
delineated on the map entitled 'Hazardous Area
Development Limitations' filed with the City
Clerk and in the city Planning Department.
Development limitations within these areas
shall be in addition to those limitations and
standards set forth in this title. When there
is a conflict, the provisions of Sections
15.08.220 through 15.08.224 shall prevail." He
also quoted Section 15.08.224 Section B, as
follows: 111. The hazard area development
limitations map adopted by Section 15.08.222 is
based upon the most accurate data available at
the time of preparation. 2. To more accur-
ately determine the location of hazard areas,
the city may require additional information
with development proposals, including but not
limited to a survey of the area. The hazard
area map shall be corrected by planning and
public works departments based upon more recent
and accurate information accepted by such
departments." He noted that he had asked the
departments to review the new information, and
that they would have liked to have the map
updated, adding that the map was in error in
the beginning.
Planning Director Harris said that tonight the
Council has heard a simplistic view of a creek
and stream system from the applicants. He said
the hazard area development limitations map of
the city is as presented, and pointed out the
creek in question. He stated that it is a
creek, not a ditch, and it should not be taken
13
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT off the map. He said that the applicants
APPEAL illegally filled that site in 1989, and that
the City is now able to exercise some authority
to get it opened. He said that this is about
controlling how the Short Plat Committee oper-
ates, and how the Planning and Public Works
Departments operate administratively by people
who do not care what is going on in a natural
system. Bennett stated that that cuts both
ways.
There were no further comments and ORR MOVED to
close the public hearing. Houser seconded and
the motion carried. ORR MOVED to concur with
the Short Subdivision committee's approval,
findings and conditions. Johnson seconded.
Orr voiced concern about the illegal culverting
and said that action should have been taken at
the time the stream should have been reopened.
She added that the committee acted appropri-
ately and that this was not handled any
differently from any other short plat decision
that has been made. She pointed out that two
meetings were held and said that if the appli-
cants were concerned about the members of the
committee, it should have been raised after the
first meeting rather than going back to a
second meeting and challenging the validity of
the committee members after the decision was
made. She said if a change to the committee
needs to be made, it should be looked at, but
that has no impact on this particular decision.
Johnson stated that he cannot support the
applicant's argument that the letter was ad-
dressed to the wrong members of the committee,
and that the membership was clearly established
by ordinance. He stated that whether it is a
stream or a ditch is debateable, and that based
on the minutes of the committee meetings, the
letter from the Fisheries Department, and the
appellant's comments tonight, there is no
evidence to overturn the recommendation made by
the committee.
Bennett said that there was no conclusive
evidence by the Fisheries Department that this
was a stream, and that information regarding
14
April 5, 1994
SHORT PLAT the additional culverted area was lacking. He
APPEAL said that if the makeup of the committee was
not perceived to be proper, it should have been
reconvened with proper personnel. Orr disa-
greed with Bennett and reiterated that if the
applicant were concerned about the membership,
they should have raised the issue after the
first meeting, but that they did not do so
until they disagreed with the decision which
was handed down.
Orr's motion to concur with the approval,
findings and conditions of the Short Sub-
division Committee with respect to The Woods
Short Plat appeal then carried with Bennett
opposed.
CONDEMNATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
Upper Garrison Creek Condemnation. ADOPTION of
ordinance No. 3161 authorizing condemnation for
easements for the Upper Garrison Creek Storm -
water Conveyance project which services the
area in and around the Benson Center (104th
Ave. SE & SE 240th St), as recommended by the
Public Works Committee. Negotiations will be
on-going to secure all easements. This
parallel action is requested in the interest
of reducing project implementation time.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Top of the Hill Rezone. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3160 for the Top of the Hill Rezone
(RZ-93-4), as approved by the City Council on
March 15, 1994.
CAPITAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
FACILITY PLAN Capital Facilities Plan. AUTHORIZATION of a
budget change of $21,500 to the Capital
Facilities Plan based on changes to the Scope
of Work for consultant services. The addi-
tional services will allow a wider range of
alternatives to be considered during the
deliberations on the Capital Facilities Plan.
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
AMENDMENT Convenience Stores/Gasoline Sales Sign Code
Amendment (ZCA-94-1). The Planning Commission
has recommended adoption of an ordinance which
clarifies sign code requirements related to
15
April 5, 1994
ZONING CODE automobile service station signs in Section
AMENDMENT 15.06.050(B) of the Kent Zoning Code. This
amendment allows service stations the same
rights to signage as other businesses in
commercial zoning districts, differentiates
between interior and corner lots, and includes
fuel price signs in the aggregate sign area.
ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3162 amending
the City's sign regulations pertaining to
convenience stores with gasoline sales. Mann
seconded and the motion carried.
METRO (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Metro Grants. AUTHORIZATION to execute an
agreement with Metro, to receive a $500,000
grant from the Metro Shoreline Improvement
Program for the Lagoon Conversion project and
to adjust said project budget accordingly, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
AUTHORIZATION to receive a $210,000 grant from
said Metro program for the Riverview Park
project, as recommended by the Parks Committee
on December 14, 1993 and to adjust its project
fund accordingly, if necessary.
RECYCLING (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Recycling/Yard Waste Requests for Proposals.
This issue was discussed at the March 81 1994,
Council Workshop. At the meeting, the three
proposals for curbside recycling and yard waste
collection were reviewed along with staff's re-
commendation. Woods noted receipt of a letter
on this matter from Greg Leach, 831 Kimberly
Avenue, Kent. ORR MOVED to make Mr. Leach's
letter a part of the record. Johnson seconded
and the motion carried.
Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that the
recycling contract expires soon and that yard
waste needs to be addressed because the County
plans to ban yard waste from the landfill in
1995. He noted that Kent Disposal's recycling
program involves toters, and that Tri -Star's
and Waste Management's are basket systems. He
explained the recycling and the yard waste
pick-up schedules. He recommended Waste
Management on an overall basis in terms of
service and cost to the city and the customer.
16
April 5, 1994
RECYCLING HOUSER MOVED to authorize and direct staff to
pursue contract negotiations for curbside
recycling and yard waste collection with Kent
Disposal, and that if said negotiations are
unsuccessful, that the matter be referred back
to Council for further direction. Mann
seconded.
Upon Johnson's question, Wickstrom clarified
that it is his recommendation that there be a
customer service charge for yard waste collec-
tion, and emphasized that the service is not
mandatory. Orr stated that her research sug-
gests that citizens are happy with the current
system; Johnson concurred. Orr noted that Tri -
Star's system is a good one, but that switching
would cause problems. Bennett agreed with
Orr's comments regarding Tri -Star's system, but
said that people resist change. Houser's
motion then carried.
HOUSER THEN MOVED to fund implementation of the
curbside recycling and yard waste collection
and to instruct the staff to develop a financ-
ing plan that utilizes existing revenues. Orr
seconded and the motion carried.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
RECREATION Green River Trail. AUTHORIZATION to accept the
Green River Trail project as complete, and to
release retainage to Merlino Construction upon
receipt of State releases, as recommended by
the Parks Committee. The project was completed
within budget.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Planning Commission CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor's appointment of Connie Epperly to serve
as member of the Kent Planning Commission.
Ms. Epperly is a long-time Kent resident and
has been active in community affairs. She is
involved in PTA, is co-founder of Citizens
Lobby Against More Politics (CLAMP), serves on
the Teen Youth Center Board, and the Downtown
Design Committee. Ms. Epperly will replace
Chris Grant, who resigned, and her appointment
will be in effect until 12/31/94.
17
April 5, 1994
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
Rent Arts Commission. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor's appointment of Bill Erb to serve as a
member of the Kent Arts Commission.
Mr. Erb has owned and operated a bookstore in
Kent for several years and has a long-standing
interest in the arts. He volunteers his time
and talent to help with Canterbury Faire each
year and is involved with other arts -related
projects as well. He will replace Jim Land,
who resigned, and his appointment will be in
effect until 10/31/95.
REMODEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
Council Chamber Remodel. AUTHORIZATION to
establish a budget not to exceed $20,000 to
replace the Council dais and provide improved
background for Council filming and to sign the
change order, as recommended by the Operations
Committee at their March 23, 1994 meeting. The
architect estimates that the costs will not
exceed $20,000. The plan anticipates building
a new dais to allow Councilmembers more room
and includes a wheelchair ramp.
OUT OF STATE (CONSENT CALENDAR - 3L)
TRAVEL Out of State Trip. Approval of Mayor White's
request for City Council approval of his trip
to China and Taiwan. His travel, hotels and
meal expenses will be paid by the Mayor and
through the Kent Chamber of Commerce, but he
requests approval of unbudgeted incidental
expenses that may arise such as the use of his
City Telephone calling card. He expects to
telephone the City periodically while he is
traveling.
SUBURBAN CITIES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
Suburban Cities Association Appointments to
Ring County Regional Committees. The Suburban
Cities Association Board recommends adoption of
a resolution relating to committee appointments
by the Suburban Cities Association to the
Regional Committees of the Metropolitan King
County Council.
m
April 51 1994
SUBURBAN CITIES Woods explained that County Councilmember
Pullen has objected to the manner in which
Suburban Cities made appointments to the three
new regional committees, and that all 32
suburban cities in King County will pass such a
resolution. She added that the regional com-
mittees will not meet until this action is
complete. JOHNSON MOVED for the adoption of
Resolution No. 1387 relating to Suburban Cities
Association appointments to Regional Committees
of the Metropolitan King County Council.
Houser seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) payment of the
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payor
bills received through March 4, 1994 and paid
on March 15, 1994, after auditing by the
Operations Committee on March 23, 1994.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3-1-94/ 140719-141187 $1,089,281.94
3-15-94
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3-18-94 Checks 193318-193652 $ 412,257.60
Advice 13736-14080 6 106
.71
73,
$ .31
REPORTS council President. Woods announced that Kent
will host the next Suburban Cities meeting to
be held on April 13, and asked interested
Councilmembers to contact Mrs. Banister.
Planning committee. Orr noted that the
Planning Committee will meet on April 19 at
4:00 P.M.
She commended Public Works Director Wickstrom
for the good and prompt work done by his staff
on a water main in the vicinity of 77th and
212th. She noted that an Auburn resident had
called her to comment on the efficiency of the
Public Works Department.
owl
April 5, 1994
REPORTS
Public Safety committee. Bennett noted receipt
of a letter from the Windblower/Good Sam Club
commending Parks Department employees Ken
Denhart and Jim Dorrough and their crews for
the fine job they have done in clearing and
cleaning up Lake Fenwick Park. He explained
that he had given the letter to the Acting
Parks Director and asked that it be passed
along to Denhart, Dorrough and their crews.
EXECUTIVE
Administrative Reports. At 8:45 Woods
SESSION
announced an executive session to discuss labor
negotiations and litigation.
Labor Negotiations. JOHNSON MOVED to authorize
the Mayor to sign a labor agreement with AFSCME
for wages and benefits. Houser seconded and
the motion carried.
Litigation. MANN MOVED to authorize the City
Attorney to participate in environmental
litigation affecting the City right-of-way at
64th and Meeker and to utilize funds from the
Environmental Fund for related expenses.
Bennett seconded and the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting then adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
zlt�� d- �
Brenda Jaco r, CMC
City Clerk
� 1
Kent City Council Meeting
� Date April 19 1994
\ % Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT 4 AGREEMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, thorizatio to execute an agreement with the
Washington tate Dept. f Ecology to receive a $72,052 grant
for education and public involvement of our recycling efforts,
as required in the King ounty Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan, a,
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director memo and
vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
RN
IF/
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 11, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom t W
RE: Coordinated Prevention Grant
The City of Kent has been se-lected to receive a grant of $72,052
from the Washington State- Dept of Ecology for coordinated
prevention grant activities. The funds will be used for education
and public involvement for residences and businesses to enhance
recycling efforts and meet waste reduction and recycling goals, as
identified in the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan.
ACTION: Recommend authorize=ing the execution of the agreement for
receipt of grant fund.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 . (206) 459-6000
March 29, 1994
Ms. Robyn Bartelt
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Re: Coordinated Prevention Grant Offer
Dear Ms. Bartelt:
The enclosed grant agreement will provide up to $72,052 in -
matching funds to the city of Kent for coordinated prevention
grant 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 Dan Swenson, Waste
Management Grants Section Manager.
Enclosed are two additional sets of certification forms. The
first is the "Sworn Statement of Compliance with Minority- and
Women- owned Business Utilization Requirement" form, which must
be signed, notarized, and returned with your signed agreement.
The second is a "Procurement Certification Form," which documents
the procurement procedures that will be used for grant -related
projects. The Department of Ecology reserves the right to
withdraw the grant offer if the agreement is not returned within
45 days.
Please contact me at (206) 407-6062 (SCAN 407), if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Diane R. Singe
Project Officer
Waste Management Grants
DS:pk
Enclosure
cc: Tamara Gordy, Ecology/NWRO
a,1 3 - . 0
PROCUREMENT CERTIFICATION FORM
Recipient
Grant Name
Grant No.
The undersigned, on behalf of the Recipient, certifies that the Recipient:
(check and complete one of the following)
_ will follow Recipient's own adopted procurement procedures and
applicable state law in procuring grant -related public works contracts,
professional and personal services contracts, and purchase agreements.
The procurement procedures were adopted date by
(adopting authority) and are
recorded in (document name).
_ having no applicable, adopted procurement procedures, will follow the
Standards for Competitive Solicitation found in the Administrative
Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans, WDOE 91-18 (March 1991)
(the "Yellow Book"), and applicable state laws in procuring grant -related
public works contracts, professional and personal services contracts, and
purchase agreements.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE
TITLE
LEGAL COUNSEL SIGNATURE DATE
TITLE
SWORN STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
with
Minority- and Women-owned
I Business Utilization Requirements
ECOLOGY
Grantee Grant No.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath, states on behalf of the GRANTEE as
follows:
The following affirmative steps in awarding contracts and subcontracts will be taken:
1. Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists;
2. Insure that qualified minority and women's businesses are solicited whenever
they are potential sources of services or supplies;
3. Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or
quantities to permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's
businesses;
4. Establish delivery schedules, where requirements of the work permit, that will
encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses; and
5. Use the services and assistance of the state Office of Minority and Women's
Business Enterprises, and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the
U.S. Department of Commerce as appropriate.
Authorized Signature Date
State of
County of
Title
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
residing in
My commission expires
19
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
-- Agreement with the City of Kent
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND
CITY OF KENT
This is a binding agreement entered into by and between the state of Washington
Department of Ecology, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT, and the city of
Kent, hereinafter referred to as the RECIPIENT, to carry out the activities
described herein.
RECIPIENT ADDRESS
RECIPIENT REPRESENTATIVE
RECIPIENT TELEPHONE NUMBER
FAX
RECIPIENT PROJECT COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT PROJECT OFFICER
DEPARTMENT FAX
REGIONAL DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE
FUNDING SOURCE
MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST
STATE GRANT SHARE
LOCAL SHARE
STATE MAXIMUM GRANT PERCENT
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Don Wickstrom
(206) 859-6573
(206) 859-3559
Robyn Bartelt
Diane R. Singer, (206) 407-6062 (SCAN 407)
(206) 407-7157 (SCAN 407)
Tamara Gordy
Solid Waste Management Account
$120,087
$ 72,052
$ 48,035
60%
91-6001254
For the purpose of this agreement, the RECIPIENT will be allowed to match the
DEPARTMENT share with cash and interlocal in-kind costs in accordance with pre -
application instructions.
The effective date of this grant is the date the grant agreement is signed by the
DEPARTMENT. Any work performed prior to the effective date of this agreement
without prior written authorization and specified in the Scope of Work will be at
the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT.
This agreement shall expire no later than December 31, 1995.
1of7
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
SCOPE OF WORK
The task(s) set forth below summarize the RECIPIENT's activities, budget(s) and
schedule(s).
I. PROJECT TASK: (WRRA) PROJECT ADMINISTRATION/EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Recipient Responsibilities:
The RECIPIENT is responsible for the implementation of waste reduction and
recycling activities in the city of Kent as identified in the King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
Maximum Cost: $120,087
Schedule: January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995
SUBTASK 1.1 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Maximum Eligible Cost: $94,474
Subtask Description:
The RECIPIENT shall employ a recycling coordinator who will be
responsible for management and oversight of the waste reduction and
recycling programs for the city of Kent. The waste reduction and
recycling programs will consist of the following activities: ensure
household collection of primary recyclables from all single and multi-
family residences, ensure household collection of yard waste, ensure
yard waste collection service options are available to multi -family
residences, develop household appliance collection services and
programs, develop household textile collection services and programs,
expand nonresidential recycling services and programs, develop
collection services and programs for secondary recyclables, and
coordinate ongoing special collection events for secondary recyclables.
SUBTASK 1.2 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Maximum Eligible Cost: $25,113
Subtask Description:
The RECIPIENT shall implement education and public involvement
activities targeted at residences, businesses, government and
institutions to enhance recycling efforts and meet waste reduction and
recycling goals.
2of7
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
The following activities and programs shall be implemented and/or
expanded to encourage, promote, and increase diversion of recyclables
from the waste stream: coordination with local schools to develop and
expand recyclables collection programs, community outreach and
workshops, development and distribution of the Kent Recycling Brochure,
development and distribution of educational materials through the use of
various media sources, and development of programs for community
involvement in waste reduction and recycling.
Expected Impact: Through implementation of these activities and public
education and involvement, the RECIPIENT hopes to divert an estimated
additional 18 percent (18%) from the waste stream, totaling 53 percent (53%)
waste reduction by 1995, surpassing the 50 percent (50%) goa
l.
CPG BUDGET
Maximum Elivible Cost
Project
1. Project Administration/Education and Public $120,087
Involvement
$120,087
TOTAL
FUND SOURCE
$120,087
Total Eligible Project Cost
Solid Waste
Management Account (SWMP)
60%
$72,052
Cash Match or 40% $48,035
Interlocal Costs
ADDITIONAL BUDGET CONDITIONS
1, Overhead is eligible; the RECIPIENT may charge 25 percent of the
RECIPIENT salaries and benefits applied directly to the project as
overhead.
2. Interlocal costs are eligible; other in-kind contributions are not
eligible.
3of7
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
3. The fiscal office will monitor expenditures at the task level. A letter
amendment is required to redistribute costs among tasks. A formal
amendment is required to increase state funding.
4. The maximum allowable amount from SWMA is $72,052. All remaining costs
will be paid by cash match and interlocal costs.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
The RECIPIENT agrees to utilize to the maximum extent possible, minority and
women -owned businesses in purchases and contracts initiated after the
effective date of this agreement.
In the absence of more stringent goals established by the RECIPIENT's
jurisdiction, the RECIPIENT agrees to utilize the DEPARTMENT's goals for
minority and women -owned business participation in all bid packages, request
ese
ofrtprposal, and heototals
dollars ua ailablerchase dfor the hpurchase sorrcontract sand ed apercentage
are as
follows:
Minority-owned business participation - 10%
Women -owned business participation - 6%
ons submitting qualifications
The RECIPIENT and ALL prospective bidders or pers
shall take the following steps in any procurement initiated after the
effective date of this agreement:
1. Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists.
2. Ensure that qualified minority and women's businesses are solicited
whenever they are potential sources of services or supplies.
3. Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller
tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by qualified
minority and women's businesses.
4. Establish delivery schedules, where requirements permit, which will
encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses.
5. Use the services and assistance of the State Office of Minority and
Women's Business Enterprises and the Office of Minority Business
Enterprises of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate.
The RECIPIENT shall provide written certification, on a form provided by the
DEPARTMENT that the above steps were/will be followed.
4of7
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
The RECIPIENT shall report to the DEPARTMENT at the time of submitting each
invoice, on forms provided by the DEPARTMENT, payments made to qualified
firms. The report will address:
1. Name and Federal Tax Identification number of qualified firms receiving
funds under the voucher, including any sub and/or sub -subcontractors.
2. The total dollar amount paid to qualified firms under this invoice.
B. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS
If parties other than the RECIPIENT are.contributing to the local share of
project costs, memoranda of understanding or other written agreements
confirming the contribution must be negotiated. These agreements must specify
exact work to be accomplished and be signed by all parties contributing to the
local match of this project. .Copies of these agreements shall be submitted to
the DEPARTMENT.
C. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
A copy of all promotional and educational materials developed as part of this
grant shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT concurrent with public
distribution. The DEPARTMENT shall have the right to use any printed
materials developed as part of this project in any manner the DEPARTMENT deems
appropriate. The Washington State Department of Ecology will be acknowledged
for providing funding in all published material and oral presentations that
result from this grant.
D. PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS
1. The RECIPIENT shall provide written certification that they will follow
their standard procurement procedures and/or applicable state law in
awarding contracts; RECIPIENTS with no formal procurement procedures
will be required to certify that they have complied with the "Standards
for Competitive Solicitation," found in the Administrative Requirements
for Ecology Grants and Loans, WDOE 91-18 (March 1991).
2. Upon issuance, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of all requests for
qualifications (RFQs), requests for proposals (RFPs), and bid documents
relating to this grant agreement to the DEPARTMENT.
3. Prior to contract execution, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the
proposed contract to the DEPARTMENT for review and written comment.
Following execution, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the contract
to the DEPARTMENT.
5of?
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
E
F
G
N.
I
USE OF EXISTING CONTRACTS
The RECIPIENT may use existing contracts that conform to adopted procurement
procedures and applicable state laws. The RECIPIENT shall notify the
DEPARTMENT if it used contracts entered into prior to the execution of the
grant agreement for performance of grant funded activities.
ENGINEERING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
All engineering plans and specifications submitted for review shall be
completed and stamped by an appropriate licensed professional engineer
certifying that these design documents will provide for facilities conforming
to requirements of the Minimum Functional Standards (Chapter 173-304 WAC), and
to all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including
evidence of SEPA compliance.
Before construction may begin, final design of the project must be reviewed
and approved by the DEPARTMENT, and all appropriate permits for the facilities
obtained. This includes, in the case of Solid Waste Handling Permits, the
approval of a new or amended operations plan by the Jurisdictional Health
Department and the DEPARTMENT before construction may begin.
SEPA COMPLIANCE
To ensure that environmental values are considered by the state and local
government officials when making decisions, the RECIPIENT shall comply with
the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 41.23C
RCW, and the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC. Copies of the SEPA documents
shall be sent to the DEPARTMENT's Environmental Review Section, the
appropriate regional office, and the Waste Management Grants Section.
WETLANDS PROTECTION
To comply with the directive of Executive Order 90-04, Protection of Wetlands,
all local governments are requested and encouraged to make all of their
actions consistent with the intent of this executive order; specifically, (1)
to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or modification of wetlands, and (2) to avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical
alternative.
FAILURE TO COMMENCE WORK
In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded herein
within six (6) months after the effective date of this grant, the DEPARTMENT
reserves that right to terminate this grant.
6 of 7
Grant No.
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Agreement with the City of Kent
J. DOCUMENT SUBMITTALS
Unless otherwise specified, at least three (3) copies of all documents
prepared under this grant agreement shall be submitted by the RECIPIENT to the
Project Officer. The Project Officer will forward one (1) copy to the
appropriate regional office of the DEPARTMENT.
K. GRANT PROJECT REPORTING
Quarterly progress reports shall be prepared by the RECIPIENT and submitted to
the Project Officer of the DEPARTMENT. These reports shall include, but not
be limited to, the following information:
1) Information at the subtask level as appropriate.
2) Accomplishments for the reporting period.
3) Planned activities and schedule for the upcoming two months.
L. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
This agreement, the appended "General Terms and Conditions," and the
DEPARTMENT's Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans, WDOE
91-18 (March 1991), contain the entire understanding between the parties, and
there are no other understandings or representations except as those set forth
or incorporated by reference herein. No subsequent modification(s) or
amendment(s) of this grant agreement shall be of any force or effect unless in
writing, signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and DEPARTMENT
and made part of this agreement; EXCEPT a letter of amendment will suffice to
redistribute the budget without increasing the total eligible project cost or
to change the DEPARTMENT's Project Officer or the RECIPIENT's Project
Coordinator or to extend the period of performance as set forth in the Grant
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Dan Swenson
Section Manager
Waste Management Grants
Approved as to form only by
Assistant Attorney General.
Date
CITY OF KENT
Authorized Signature
7 of 7
Print Name of Authorized Official
Title
Date
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements of
the Department of Ecology
A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE
'All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and RECIPIENT's employees.
The RECIPIENT shall not assign or subcontract performance to others unless specifically authorized in writing by the
DEPARTMENT.
ti. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE
I'hc ItL('II'IENT must ensure that all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement.
C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this agreement, the state of
Washington is named as an express third -party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such.
D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING)
Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering services shall be awarded through
a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded, for
inspection and use by the DEPARTMENT.
E. ASSIGNMENTS
No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
1. The RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders, regulations and permits.
Prior to commencement of any construction, the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary approvals and permits required
by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits
have been secured, and make copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request.
2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and State laws, regulations,
and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to affirmatively support the program of the Office
of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to the maximum extent possible. The RECIPIENT shall report to the
DEPARTMENT the percent of grantAoan funds available to women or minority owned businesses.
3. Wanes And Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United
States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety.
4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements.
If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to immediately terminate this
agreement for cause as provided in Section K.1, herein.
G. KICKBACKS
The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this project to give up
any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled or, receive any fee, conmrission or gift in return for award of
a subcontract hereunder.
H. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
1. The RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this agreement. Such records shall
clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and task or object. All grantfloan records shall be kept in
a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits
and inspections.
Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished under this agreement shall
be maintained by the RECIPIENT.
2. All gian0 an records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly authorized audit
representative of the State of Washington for a period of at least three years after the final grant payment/loan repayment
or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits identify discrepancies in the financial records, the RECIPIENT
shall provide clarification and/or make adjustments accordingly.
3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available to the DEPARTMENT
and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this agreement
and for at ]cast three years following grant/loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder.
a. RECIPIENT shall meet the provisions in OMB Circular A-128 (Audit of State and Local Governments) or OMB Circular
A-110 (Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Other Non -Profit Organizations) if the
RECIPIENT receives federal funds in excess of $25,000. The RECIPIENT must forward a copy of the state auditor's
audit along with the RECIPIENT response and the final corrective action plan as approved by the SAO to the
DEPARTMENT within ninety (90) days of the date of the audit report -
PERFORMANCE REPORTING PATM
The RIPISpecial TshallConditions.sub tr ogress
sEportsto the ERECIPIENT shDl alsoRrcportrin wn 6 to the DEPARTMENT any problemeach payment request or such other s, delays or
firth n
adverse
ccompan edtby a which will Materially affect their ability to tatem nt f thea tion taken r prop s d and anyrassistance ect needed from theeDEPARTMENT to rest a the
accompanied Y
situation. Payments may be withheld if required progress reports are not submitted. h June 30, July I through September 30,
Quarterly reports shall cover the periods January I through March 31, April 1 throng
and October l through December 31. Reports shall be due within twenty (20) days following the end of the quarter being
reported.
COMPENSATION on a reimbursable
provided by
1 per month.cEach compensation.nrequest forPayment
payment will be submitted by the RECIP1ElNT on State s at least voucher request forms p rly and no more often an once
the DEPoARTMENTdtaleof, i sdocumen the Scope exWntation of nses.ork whenyments shall becompletedby theaRECIPIENT andde for each pcertifiedhase of �as
prof portion
satisfactory by the Project Officer.
The payment request form and supportive documents must itemize all allowable costs by major elements as described m
e found in
rh",I., `'GranWork LInstru`partslfor
publ shesubmitting
d hyhth pDEPARTMENTayment requests arA copy of this s docutmentt shall be furnishedstrative Requirements to
E `1payments will be made to the mutually
the RECIPIENT. When payment requests are approved by the DEPARTMENT,
1_reed upon designee.
mitted to the DEPARTMENT and directed to the project Officer assigned to admme
tsr flus
Payment requests shall be sub
aggreement.
Bucket_ deviation• Deviations in budget amounts are not allowed without written amendment(s) to this agreement. Payment
hen the RECIPIENT's request for reimbursement exceeds the State maximum share amount
requests will be disallowed w
for that element, as described in the Scope of Work.
made for action of the RECIPIENT pursuant to the grant/loan agreemen
unless those dates are specifically -�
3_ Period of Compensation. Payments shall only be
and performed after the effective date and prior to the expiration date of this agreement,
modified in writing as provided herein.
4. Final Reguestrs) for Payment. The RECIPIENT must submit final requests for compensation within forty-five(45) days
ent and within fifteen (15) days after the end of a fiscal biennium. Failure to comply
after the expiration date of this agreem
may result in delayed reimbursement.of each
5. Performance Guarantee. The DEPARTMENT may withhold an amount not to exceed ten percent (10 %) the
reimbursement payment as security tor the rmance and a financial
DEPARTMENT may be paid to the RECIPIENTiwh n tthe Pro project(s) described herein, or°a portion thereond. Monies f, been
completed if, in the DEPARTM
sediscrtion,shPaymntisrersndrapproved to this
agreement and, as appropriate, upon completion specifiedsection J herein.
the RECIPIENT.
6. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT shall be subject to final audit by the DEPARTMEN an
any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grantfloan shall be refunded to the DEPARTMENT by
Mileage and Per Dicrn. If mileage and per diem are paid to the employees of the RECIPIENT or other public entities,
it shall not exceed the amount allowed under state law.
�. O.enccad Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in the Scope of Work
hereunder.
K. TERMINATIONerformanceby the
I . For Cause. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory p
RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this agreement. In theevent the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion
of the DEPARTMENT, to perform any obligation required of it by this agreement, the DEPARTMENT may refuse to
pay any further funds thereunder and/or terminate this agreement by giving written notice of termination.
ation. In that
te of
A written notice of termination shall be given at least five working days prior to the effective
ode se Photograph in d reports or
event, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, map
other tmmaterials prperry and the RECIPIENT shall be entitledthe RECIPIENT under this �eceive Nt at st and equitable compensation for any satise option of the DEPARTMENT, shall fa torr
Department property
work completed on such documents and other materials.
Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any Lability to the DEPARTMENT for damages sustained by
the DEPARTMENT and/or the State of Washington because of any breach of agreement by the RECIPIENT. e
the exact amount of damaga due the
DEPARTMENT may withhold payments for the purpose of setoff until such time u
T DEPARTMENT from the RECIPIENT is determined.
2. Insufficient Funds. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make payments is contingent on the availability of state and
federal funds through legislative appropriation and state allotment. When this agreement crosses over state fiscal years
the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent upon the appropriation of funds during the next fiscal year. The failure
to appropriate or allot such funds shall be good cause to terminate this agreement as provided in paragraph K.1 above.
When this agreement crosses the RECIPIENT's fiscal year, the obligation of the RECIPIENT to continue or complete the
pmicct described herein shall he contingent upon appropriation of funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body; Provided,
hoverer, that nothing contained herein shall preclude the DEPARTMENT from demanding repayment of ALL funds paid
to the RECIPIENT in accordance with Section N herein.
I Failure to Commence Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded herein within
four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement
of work, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to terminate this agreement.
L. WAIVER
Waiver of any RECIPIENT default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of any provision of this
agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will not be construed as a modification of the terms of this agreement
unless stated as such in writing by the authorized representative of the DEPARTMENT.
M. PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. Comyrichts and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property,
the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the DEPARTMENT retains a royalty -free, nonexclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to
use the same for federal, state or local government purposes.
Where federal funding is involved, the federal government may have a proprietary interest in patent rights to any
inventions that developed by the RECIPIENT as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-212.
2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish information of the
DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos,
reports, maps or other data, in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the
DEPARTMENT.
3. Tangible Property Rights. The DEPARTMENT's current edition of "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants
and Loans". Part 1V, shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part
with tunds furnished by the DEPARTMENT in the absence of state, federal statute(s), regulation(s), or policy(s) to the
contrary, or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in the Scope of Work.
-t. Personal Property Furnished by the DEPARTMENT. When the DEPARTMENT provides personal property directly to
the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to final payment
by the DEPARTMENT. If said property is lost, stolen or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, the
DEPARTMENT shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property.
5. Acquisition Proiects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this agreement includes funds for the
acquisition of land or facilities:
a. Prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this agreement, the RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost of
landlor facilities is fair and reasonable.
b. The RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to
disbursement of funds provided by this agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies, Torrens
certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or
claim which would impair the uses contemplated by this agreement.
6. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time
convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for
which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval may be
conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease or other conversion
or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase or construction
costs of such property.
N. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT
The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies paid to it as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance
of this agreement including the satisfactory completion of the project described in the Scope of Work. In the event the
RECIPIENT fails, for any reason, to perform obligations required of it by this agreement, the RECIPIENT may, at the
DEPARTM ENT's sole discretion, be required to repay to the DEPARTMENT all grant/oan funds disbursed to the RECIPIENT
.for those parts of the project that are rendered worthless in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT by such failure to perform.
Interest shall. accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time the DEPARTMENT demands repayment of
funds. If payments have been discontinued by the DEPARTMENT due to insufficient funds as in Section K.2 above, the
RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. Any
property acquired under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, may become the DEPARTMENT'S property and
the RECIPIENT'S liability to repay monies shall be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property.
O. PROJECT APPROVAL
The extent and character of all work and services to be performed under this agreement by the RECIPIENT shall be subject to
the review and approval of the DEPARTMENT through the Project Officer or other designated official to whom the RECIPIENT
shall report and be responsible. In the event there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of o
the work to be done,
the determination of the Project Officer or other designated official as to the extent and character of the work to be done shall
_overn. The RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for below.
I'
111tiP1'I�ES
DIP as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is
Exk-epn. a �hspo.cd ,d in writing shall he decided by the Project Officer or other designated official who shall provide a written statement
,it decision to the RECIPIENT. The decision of the Project Officer or other designated official shall be final and conclusive
unless, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such statement, the RECIPIENT mails or otherwise furnishes to the Director
of the DEPARTMENT a written appeal.
In connection with appeal of any proceeding under this clause, the RECIPIENT shall have the opportunity to be heard and to offer
evidence in support of this appeal. The decision of the Director or duly authorized representative for the determination of such
appeals shall be final and conclusive. Appeals from the Director's deterrnination shall be brought in the Superior Court of
Thurston County. Review of the decision of the Director will not be sought before either the Pollution Control Hearings Board
or the Shoreline Hearings Board. Pending final decision of dispute hereunder, the RECIPIENT shall proceed diligently with the
performance of this agreement and in accordance with the decision rendered.
Q. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No officer, member, agent, or employee of either party to this agreement who exercises any function or responsibility in the
review, approval, or carrying out of this agreement, shall participate in any decision which affects his/her personal interest or the
interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall he/she have
any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this agreement or the proceeds thereof.
R. INDEMNIFICATION
1. The DEPARTMENT shall in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's fees, and other costs related
to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of Work. .
2. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party shall indemnify and hold the
other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act
or „mission of that party or that parry's agents or employees arising out of this agreement.
S. GOVERNING LAW
'I h,., aCrecment shall he governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
T. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall beheld invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the other provisions of this agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the
provisions of this agreement are declared to be severable.
U. PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistency in this agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving
precedence in the following order: (a) applicable Federal and State statutes and regulations; (b) Scope of Work; (c) Special Terms
and Conditions; (d) Any terms incorporated herein by reference including the "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants
and Loans"; and (e) the General Terms and Conditions.
SS -010 Rev. 10/92
A V Jam'
0/1
//
•i �, �; //� Kent City Council Meeting
j Date April 19. 199
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SR167 - HOV LANES - AGREEMENT
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, thoEzation o execute agreements with the
Washington State Dept. of nsportation, subject to some
modifications by the Public ks Department and review and
concurrence by the City Attorney. With the extension of the
HOV lanes from 84th Ave. to W. Main Street, the State will be
re -doing all the bridges thereon. As such, certain City
streets will be impacted with lane reconfigurations and
detours) portions of City trails will be detoured.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director memo and
Road/Detour Agreement (copy)
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETEDFISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended T
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
gap in time. Bennett further stated that he felt this is a bigger
issue than this committee can discuss so rather than choosing an
Option, he suggested recommending this entire packet (all three
Options) go to the full Council.
Clark recommended making a decision on an Option, however also
agreed to Bennett's recommendation of taking the entire packet to
the full Council.
Committee voted 2-1 that the three options go before the full
Council with Clark's amendment that Option 2 be recommended.
Coordinated Prevent Grant
Wickstrom stated that we have been selected to receive a $72,052
grant from the state for which these funds will help pay for our
Recycling Coordinator position. He said these funds are good until
December of 195 and this will be the last time we will be getting
a grant to offset the cost of that position.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the execution of the
agreement for the receipt of grant funds.
Downtown Water & storm Drainage Improvement - Accept as Complete
Wickstrom stated that this project was contracted with Robison
Construction. He said there is about $50,000 over the contract
amount, specifically because we replaced three additional lines for
$15,000; two of them were on the infrastructure study; one on Third
Ave between Saar & Titus. Wickstrom said by doing this, we saved
money because we did not have to do a re -design and we did more of
the infrastructure program.
Committee unanimously recommended the project be accepted as
complete and release of retainage after receipt of state releases.
SR167 HOV Lanes
Wickstrom said that the state is planning to advertise the project
of adding the HOV lanes and essentially carrying on their existing
project starting at 84th Avenue (Central Avenue) and continuing
down to W. Main Street in Auburn. He said the contract is for 460
working days. Wickstrom said that in that project, they will be
redoing bridges at Green River, Willis, Meeker, James, both
railroad bridges and at Central Avenue, and that this will all
result in some lane narrowing on various city streets. He also
stated that there will be detours in our city streets as well as
detours on the interurban trail. He stated that part of the
agreement packet enclosed, is the detour plan for that trail.
Wickstrom said there will also be some on-ramp closings. He said
4
there is significant work involved that Council should be fully
aware of. In response to Bennett's question on the downside of not
signing the agreements, Wickstrom said that under various
overpasses some of the streets are on their limited access. He
said we do want the HOV lanes because this stretch is heavily
conjested during peak hour traffic. He said this was that
"windfall" money that the state reallocated back to the highways so
we need to go for it if we want to see the HOV lanes on that
system. Wickstrom said we have some minor modifications related to
time, such as James Street. He said we are overlaying James this
year and we won't let them in before we have finished the overlay.
He said there is also some additional signing we want for detours.
Committee unanimously recommends
agreement subject to some minor
Attorney's review and approval.
Meeting Adjourned: 5:10 P.M.
5
d authorizing the signing of the
changes and subject to the City
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 11, 1994
TO: Public Works Co mittee
FROM: Don Wickstromo
RE: SR167 HOV Lanes
The State is planning to extend the SR 167 HOV lanes from 84th
Avenue So to W Main Street in Auburn. As such, they are proposing
to re -do the Green River Bridge and the bridge overpasses at West
Willis, Meeker St., James St., UPRR tracks, N. 4th Ave., and 84th
Ave (Central Ave). They will also be redoing some of the on and
off ramps and constructing a retaining wall along S. 228th Street.
As a result, there will be impacts on both City streets and our
trail system. These impacts range from lane reconfiguration and
restriction to detours.
Attached are copies of the agreements. The State plans to
advertise the project on April 25th for which the contract
schedules call for 460 working days.
The Public Works Department recommends that Council authorize the
signing of the agreements subject to some minor modifications
relating to signage and time constraints.
ACTION: Authorize the signing of the agreements, subject to some
minor changes and/or modifications and subject to the
City Attorney's review and approval.
AMk, Washington State
GAPDepartmentof Transportation
Sid Morrison
Secretary of Transportation
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent WA 98032-5895
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
District 1
15700 Dayton Avenue Norll•
F O. Box 330310
Seattle WA98133-9710
cz06f 440-4000 CITY OF KENT
March 30, 1994 C.,I ; l 1994
ENGINEERING DEPT.
City of Kent
SR 167
W Main to 84th Ave S
HOV and SC&DI Improvements
Construction Permit
The State is currently preparing plans for the referenced project. It will be necessary to
perform work at a number of locations within City right of way during the life of the
contract
This project has a scheduled advertisement date of April 25, 1994.. The contract currently
has a total of 460 working days set up to complete the construction.
Following is a list of locations, the associated work and anticipated duration of
construction:
Vic 277th St UC - Sta. 721+00 to 723+00 ( 110' Rt. ).
Construction of retaining wall and drainage. Approximately 60 days.
W. Willis St.
Revision of lane configuration to allow for center pier work for widening of the
overcrossing. Estimated at 8 weeks.
Meeker St.
Revise lane configuration twice to allow for outside pier work to widen the
structures. Duration estimated to be 7 weeks for each side, a total of 14 weeks.
-t► James St.
Narrow lanes to 10' to provide work areas for installation of piers to widen
structure. Estimated duration of 6 weeks for each side.
N. 4th Ave.
Narrow lanes to 11' to provide work areas for installation of piers to widen
structure. Estimated duration of 6 weeks for each side.
S 228th St
Construction of retaining wall between S 228th and 84th to SB SR 167 on-ramp.
Approximately 30 days will be required.
84th Ave. S.
Revise lane configuration to allow for outside pier construction to widen the
overcrossing. Approximate duration for work on each side is 6 weeks for a total
of 12 weeks.
CPKENTOI.LTR
SR 167 - Main to 84th - HOV & SC&DI
March 30, 1994
Page 2
84th Ave. S.
Construction of right turn lane for the S 228th and 84th to SB SR 167 on-ramp.
Approximately 30 days will be required.
A vicinity map and pertinent plan sheets are attached to show how the areas within the
City's right of way will be impacted.
f this correspondence. Please sign both copies if
We are transmitting two original copies o
satisfactory and return one copy for our files.
Thank you for your cooperation and expeditious processing of this permit.
Sincerely, f A l
(�TERRENCE G. PAANANEN, PE
Local Programs Engineer
Dated
City of Kent
Title
TGP/NGW/nw
Attachment
cc: File SR 167 - Construction Permit
ps&e: J. Johnson, MS 143
cnstr: T. Madden, MS 51
Plans, MS 111
CPKENTo t.LTR
fI/ 0"mwt wd of T arrportedon
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Department of Transportation, acting by and
tion, hereinafter called the "STATE," and the above named organization, hereinafte
r
WE
through the Secretary of Transporta-
called the "LOCAL AGENCY."
WHEREAS, the STATE is planning the construction or improvement of a section of state highway as shown above, and
WHEREAS, in the construction of the project it is planned to use, for the purpose noted above, those LOCAL AGENCY
roads or streets described above and as further detailed in red on the attached Exhibit "A," and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that as a result of the use of these roads or streets, additional maintenance expense may be
incurred by the LOCAL AGENCY.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
The LOCAL AGENCY hereby agrees to the STATE's
use of the roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT
subject to the conditions contained herein.
If
Immediately prior to the beginning of the STATE's use
of the above described roads or streets, the parties to this
AGREEMENT shall make a joint condition inspection and
the STATE shall prepare a memorandum record of the con-
dition of said roads or streets. The memorandum record shall
include a statement of the extent and frequency of routine
maintenance operations normally carried out by the LOCAL
AGENCY on said roads or streets and may include photo-
Rranhs showing condition of the existing roadway.
[]1
The STATE agrees to reimburse the LOCAL
AGENCY for the cost of additional routine maintenance
and repairs, operations in excess of those enumerated in the
record made under the provision of Section 11, made neces-
sary by the STATE's project. The reimbursement for such
additional routine maintenance and repairs shall be limited
to the actual cost of such operations supported by proper
records. Such costs are to be exclusive of all administrative
and overhead costs and all charges for small tools.
IV
Upon completion of use of the roads or streets covered
by this AGREEMENT, a joint inspection shall be made by
the parties to determine the condition of said roads or streets.
All maintenance and/or repairs shall be based upon the con-
ditions of these roads or streets at the time of this completion
inspection, taking into account the memorandum record
made under Section II.
V
It is expressly understood that the STATE shall be re-
sponsible only for that extra maintenance and repairs of the
LOCAL AGENCY's roads or streets occasioned by the pro-
ject use. In the event of a dispute over the terms of this
AGREEMENT and/or the extent of maintenance or repair
work required to be performed, the dispute shall be submit-
ted to the Secretary of Transportation for determination. In
determining this responsibility the Secretary shall give con-
sideration to the memorandum record provided for in Section
11. The conclusions of the Secretary as to the extent and
amount of such maintenance shall be final and conclusive as
to all parties to this AGREEMENT.
Vi
The LOCAL AGENCY agrees not to restrict below le-
gal limits the size, weight, or speed of vehicles using the
roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT except as
stated above under Vehicle Restrictions.
VII
No liability shall attach to the STATE or the LOCAL
AGENCY by reason of entering into this AGREEMENT
except as expressly provided herein.
ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS
City of Kent
LOCAL AGENCY
220 - 4th Avenue South
HAUL ROAD/DETOUR
Kent WA 98032-5895
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT NUMBER
SECTION/LOCATION
W Main to 84th Ave S - HOV Improvements
HRD 1-0130
STATE ROUTE
CONTROL SECTION
DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION OF ROADS OR STREETS
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
167
1766
1
James St N 4th Ave S 228th St
W Willis St W Valley Highway /Washington Ave
INTENDED USE (Haul Road or Detour Road)
Detour
VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS
None
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Department of Transportation, acting by and
tion, hereinafter called the "STATE," and the above named organization, hereinafte
r
WE
through the Secretary of Transporta-
called the "LOCAL AGENCY."
WHEREAS, the STATE is planning the construction or improvement of a section of state highway as shown above, and
WHEREAS, in the construction of the project it is planned to use, for the purpose noted above, those LOCAL AGENCY
roads or streets described above and as further detailed in red on the attached Exhibit "A," and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that as a result of the use of these roads or streets, additional maintenance expense may be
incurred by the LOCAL AGENCY.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
The LOCAL AGENCY hereby agrees to the STATE's
use of the roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT
subject to the conditions contained herein.
If
Immediately prior to the beginning of the STATE's use
of the above described roads or streets, the parties to this
AGREEMENT shall make a joint condition inspection and
the STATE shall prepare a memorandum record of the con-
dition of said roads or streets. The memorandum record shall
include a statement of the extent and frequency of routine
maintenance operations normally carried out by the LOCAL
AGENCY on said roads or streets and may include photo-
Rranhs showing condition of the existing roadway.
[]1
The STATE agrees to reimburse the LOCAL
AGENCY for the cost of additional routine maintenance
and repairs, operations in excess of those enumerated in the
record made under the provision of Section 11, made neces-
sary by the STATE's project. The reimbursement for such
additional routine maintenance and repairs shall be limited
to the actual cost of such operations supported by proper
records. Such costs are to be exclusive of all administrative
and overhead costs and all charges for small tools.
IV
Upon completion of use of the roads or streets covered
by this AGREEMENT, a joint inspection shall be made by
the parties to determine the condition of said roads or streets.
All maintenance and/or repairs shall be based upon the con-
ditions of these roads or streets at the time of this completion
inspection, taking into account the memorandum record
made under Section II.
V
It is expressly understood that the STATE shall be re-
sponsible only for that extra maintenance and repairs of the
LOCAL AGENCY's roads or streets occasioned by the pro-
ject use. In the event of a dispute over the terms of this
AGREEMENT and/or the extent of maintenance or repair
work required to be performed, the dispute shall be submit-
ted to the Secretary of Transportation for determination. In
determining this responsibility the Secretary shall give con-
sideration to the memorandum record provided for in Section
11. The conclusions of the Secretary as to the extent and
amount of such maintenance shall be final and conclusive as
to all parties to this AGREEMENT.
Vi
The LOCAL AGENCY agrees not to restrict below le-
gal limits the size, weight, or speed of vehicles using the
roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT except as
stated above under Vehicle Restrictions.
VII
No liability shall attach to the STATE or the LOCAL
AGENCY by reason of entering into this AGREEMENT
except as expressly provided herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written.
LOCAL AGENCY STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
By: District Administrator
Date:
Form ^_+-uia
DOT 0.a. IqX4 o•
AM1I.
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1 19—,
between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Department of Transportation, acting by and through the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, hereinafter called the "STATE," and the above named organization, hereinafter called the "LOCAL AGENCY."
WHEREAS, the STATE is planning the construction or improvement of a section of state highway as shown above, and
WHEREAS, in the construction of the project it is planned to use, for the purpose noted above, those LOCAL AGENCY
roads or streets described above and as further detailed in red on the attached Exhibit "A," and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that as a result of the use of these roads or streets, additional maintenance expense may be
incurred by the LOCAL AGENCY.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
I
The LOCAL AGENCY hereby agrees to the STATE's
use of the roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT
subject to the conditions contained herein.
11
Immediately prior to the beginning of the STATE's use
of the above described roads or streets, the parties to this
AGREEMENT shall make a joint condition inspection and
the STATE shall prepare a memorandum record of the con-
dition of said roads or streets. The memorandum record shall
include a statement of the extent and frequency of routine
maintenance operations normally carried out by the LOCAL
AGENCY on said roads or streets and may include photo-
graphs showing condition of the existing roadway.
III
The STATE agrees to reimburse the LOCAL
AGENCY for the cost of additional routine maintenance
and repairs, operations in excess of those enumerated in the
record made under the provision of Section 11, made neces-
sary by the STATE's project. The reimbursement for such
additional routine maintenance and repairs shall be limited
to the actual cost of such operations supported by proper
records. Such costs are to be exclusive of all administrative
and overhead costs and all charges for small tools.
IV
Upon completion of use of the roads or streets covered
iic AC:RFFMFNT a inint incnertinn shall he made by
the parties to determine the condition of said roads or streets.
All maintenance and/or repairs shall be based upon the con-
ditions of these roads or streets at the time of this completion
inspection, taking into account the memorandum record
made under Section ll.
V
It is expressly understood that the STATE shall be re-
sponsible only for that extra maintenance and repairs of the
LOCAL AGENCY's roads or streets occasioned by the pro-
ject use. In the event of a dispute over the terms of this
AGREEMENT and/or the extent of maintenance or repair
work required to be performed, the dispute shall be submit-
ted to the Secretary of Transportation for determination. In
determining this responsibility the Secretary shall give con-
sideration to the memorandum record provided for in Section
11. The conclusions of the Secretary as to the extent and
amount of such maintenance shall be final and conclusive as
to all parties to this AGREEMENT.
VI
The LOCAL AGENCY agrees not to restrict below le-
gal limits the size, weight, or speed of vehicles using the
roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT except as
stated above under Vehicle Restrictions.
V11
No liability shall attach to the STATE or the LOCAL
AGENCY by reason of entering into this AGREEMENT
.......t ac .vnr.ccly nrnviderl herein
ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS
City of Kent
LOCAL AGENCY
220 - 4th Avenue South
HAUL ROAD/DETOUR
Kent WA 98032-5895
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT NUMBER
SECTION/LOCATION
W Main to 84th Ave S - HOV Improvements
HRD 1-0128
STATE ROUTE
CONTROL SECTION
DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION OF ROADS OR STREETS
NUMBER
167
NUMBER
1766
NUMBER
1
W Willis St S Central Ave N Central Ave
W Gowe St 68th Ave S S 228th St
INTENDED USE (Haul Road or Detour Road)
Detour
S Washington Ave N Washington Ave W Meeker St
W Meeker St
VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS
None
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1 19—,
between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Department of Transportation, acting by and through the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, hereinafter called the "STATE," and the above named organization, hereinafter called the "LOCAL AGENCY."
WHEREAS, the STATE is planning the construction or improvement of a section of state highway as shown above, and
WHEREAS, in the construction of the project it is planned to use, for the purpose noted above, those LOCAL AGENCY
roads or streets described above and as further detailed in red on the attached Exhibit "A," and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that as a result of the use of these roads or streets, additional maintenance expense may be
incurred by the LOCAL AGENCY.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
I
The LOCAL AGENCY hereby agrees to the STATE's
use of the roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT
subject to the conditions contained herein.
11
Immediately prior to the beginning of the STATE's use
of the above described roads or streets, the parties to this
AGREEMENT shall make a joint condition inspection and
the STATE shall prepare a memorandum record of the con-
dition of said roads or streets. The memorandum record shall
include a statement of the extent and frequency of routine
maintenance operations normally carried out by the LOCAL
AGENCY on said roads or streets and may include photo-
graphs showing condition of the existing roadway.
III
The STATE agrees to reimburse the LOCAL
AGENCY for the cost of additional routine maintenance
and repairs, operations in excess of those enumerated in the
record made under the provision of Section 11, made neces-
sary by the STATE's project. The reimbursement for such
additional routine maintenance and repairs shall be limited
to the actual cost of such operations supported by proper
records. Such costs are to be exclusive of all administrative
and overhead costs and all charges for small tools.
IV
Upon completion of use of the roads or streets covered
iic AC:RFFMFNT a inint incnertinn shall he made by
the parties to determine the condition of said roads or streets.
All maintenance and/or repairs shall be based upon the con-
ditions of these roads or streets at the time of this completion
inspection, taking into account the memorandum record
made under Section ll.
V
It is expressly understood that the STATE shall be re-
sponsible only for that extra maintenance and repairs of the
LOCAL AGENCY's roads or streets occasioned by the pro-
ject use. In the event of a dispute over the terms of this
AGREEMENT and/or the extent of maintenance or repair
work required to be performed, the dispute shall be submit-
ted to the Secretary of Transportation for determination. In
determining this responsibility the Secretary shall give con-
sideration to the memorandum record provided for in Section
11. The conclusions of the Secretary as to the extent and
amount of such maintenance shall be final and conclusive as
to all parties to this AGREEMENT.
VI
The LOCAL AGENCY agrees not to restrict below le-
gal limits the size, weight, or speed of vehicles using the
roads or streets covered by this AGREEMENT except as
stated above under Vehicle Restrictions.
V11
No liability shall attach to the STATE or the LOCAL
AGENCY by reason of entering into this AGREEMENT
.......t ac .vnr.ccly nrnviderl herein
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written.
LOCAL AGENCY
By:
Date:
F.nm 224.1114
DOT Rc% IY94 o* �.1�
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By. District Administrator
le'll
1 ?�I
Kent City Council Meeting
\ 1 Date April 19 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN WATER AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS -
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: s recommended by the Public Works
Committee, uthorization to accept as complete the contract
with Robison Construction Inc. for the Downtown Water & Storm
Drainage Improvement prole t, and release of retainage after
receipt of State releases.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director memo and
vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
./ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended �-
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 11, 1994
TO: public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstromw
RE: Downtown Water & Storm Drainage
Improvements - Accept as Complete
This project consisted of the construction of water mains and storm
sewers in two separate locations.
The project was awarded to Robison Construction, Inc. on July 6,
1993 for the bid amount of $552,483.27 for which the Engineer's
Estimate was $674,813.65. The final construction cost is
$609,260.64. The difference relates to the installation of
additional waterline at unit price.
ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete and release of
retainage after receipt of state releases.
=/=AK
N EA -7
I
1` m
< W < < y
NLZ ST ►` K r. ` I '
ilk'
WAY
C Z 2d
< W LIX) Y S <.
r.
>R z Z
Q
N<MT 24
.19..\\hlh LU J�rRI'I�L < E <.
i y 1AthlehC FidCM R ST
<
P404EER S L M91E I _ Z
PROJECT LOCATIONS I< 11. iT
W SMITH ST � < Z < W SMITH ST - 4 14
Z C !i Z WARD >CIE
A.
W HARRI d ST �' HARRISON ST H �:9A0.4 a ST S - _REI
Z W MEEKER2 4
ST Z< M KEe ST � `ti 0
ST 2 a Q W < ST 4•`C rJ
i < W < OOWE ST E
uG
r
< 'STREET Z to A-= W ENT A cm r LL T < f, EhOS�r TACOMA $T '��y
INTCNC > LEM 516 4Y�r M Ik ERI
Tm *ST E DEAN � HILL ST
101 n > ST ST < E MNCLYN S
W
■
1
z
A
'LS
SS R ALPIN
;
z E
GU 1 ERSON
ST
ST
N
WAY
=
< r
��
>
>516
<
a
1i/
ate.
R-s?yTTt.E
ST
3T
<
Z`
E
W RO
ST
RU
<
KIR'ANI�
i'11tK
®
h
W -ST
F- f'. <
E
CHIC!
KIK \\I�
I'\I-I•
W
«
Y
I'.\ItK�
StationN
Q CH>
U
DO <
'^
c
t MO
Q 5 ST
E
LAUREL
CK
I Wa
ST
2 •�js Y w
E
HEJLLOC
J
d
t0
ST
<
A
MRION
~ E
FIIKRT
M
h
+ I N
RT
J
3 � t
24
19
1 E
<
y
_
z
25
30
W
W
U
b
M
M
i
259TH
ST
S
259TH ST
.
z
A
gap in time. Bennett further stated that he felt this is a bigger
issue than this committee can discuss so rather than choosing an
Option, he suggested recommending this entire packet (all three
Options) go to the full Council.
Clark recommended making a decision on an Option, however also
agreed to Bennett's recommendation of taking the entire packet to
the full Council.
Committee voted 2-1 that the three options go before the full
Council with Clark's amendment that option 2 be recommended.
Coordinated Prevent Grant
Wickstrom stated that we have been selected to receive a $72,052
grant from the state for which these funds will help pay for our
Recycling Coordinator position. He said these funds are good until
December of 195 and this will be the last time we will be getting
a grant to offset the cost of that position.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the execution of the
agreement for the receipt of grant funds.
Downtown Water & Storm Drainaae Improvement - Accept as Complete
Wickstrom stated that this project was contracted with Robison
Construction. He said there is about $50,000 over the contract
amount, specifically because we replaced three additional lines for
$15,000; two of them were on the infrastructure study; one on Third
Ave between Saar & Titus. Wickstrom said by doing this, we saved
money because we did not have to do a re -design and we did more of
the infrastructure program.
Committee unanimously recommended the project be accepted as
complete and release of retainage after receipt of state releases.
SR167 HOV Lanes
Wickstrom said that the state is planning to advertise the project
of adding the HOV lanes and essentially carrying on their existing
project starting at 84th Avenue (Central Avenue) and continuing
down to W. Main Street in Auburn. He said the contract is for 460
working days. Wickstrom said that in that project, they will be
redoing bridges at Green River, Willis, Meeker, James, both
railroad bridges and at Central Avenue, and that this will all
result in some lane narrowing on various city streets. He also
stated that there will be detours in our city streets as well as
detours on the interurban trail. He stated that part of the
agreement packet enclosed, is the detour plan for that trail.
Wickstrom said there will also be some on-ramp closings. He said
4
f 1 j
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 19, 1994
J Category Consent Calendar
y
1. SUBJECT: im 1p EMERGENCY GENERATOR -STATION 74.
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval for the contract related to the
emergency generator at Station 74.
A contract was signed with VECA Electric for the purchase and
installation of a standby emergency generator at Station 74.
It is anticipated that the entire project will be completed
within 2 months. The portion related to the VECA contract is
complete. Council acceptance of the completion of VECA's
contract will allow the City to contact the Department of Labor
and Industries and the Department of Revenue for certification.
Upon this certification, retainage will be released.
3. EXHIBITS: Executive Summary
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Administration
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
rl
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Final payment and retainage
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
INI&Y91140110WE
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APRIL 12, 1994
TO: MAYOR WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS,
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, HOUSER, ORR, MANN,
BENNETT, CLARK
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF 0%1-$. e
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF STANDBY EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT
STATION 74
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This project will have a number of phases. Total budget for this project is $244,00.00. This
phase of the project consists of the purchase and installation of the emergency generator. The
contractor is VECA Electric and the base contracted amount was $77,103.32 with sales tax.
With to two change orders in the amount of $18,902.20 the total contract amount todate is
$96,005.52 with sales tax. This contractor has successfully completed this phase of the
proj ect.
The Fire Department is recommending processing the paperwork to notify the Department of
Labor and Industries and Department of Revenue that work has been completed. Upon receipt
of the necessary certificates, we will then be able to release the remaining 5 % retainage to the
Contractor.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Fire Department is recommending that the City Council approve, subject to the
certification from state agencies, acceptance of this project and authorize the release of the
remaining 5 %.
SIGNIFICANCE
This is the first phase for the installation. The remaining phase will deal with noise insulation
and possibly planning for emergency generators at other sites.
BUDGET/ECONOMIC IMPACT
This project has been budgeted through the CIP process with no impact on the general
operating budget of the department.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSEQUENCES
None
tcn
� �Xw
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 19 1994
�r"•, Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ftppeqEtiqq4EN1R6TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the Mayor's appointment and
reappointments to the Kent Transit Advisory Board.
The Mayor has recently appointed Linda Johnson to serve as a
member of the Kent Transit Advisory Board. Ms. Johnson is
Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership, serves on the
RJC Citizen's Advisory Committee and RJC Arts Committee and is
active with the Kent Chamber of Commerce. She will replace Don
McDaniel, who resigned, and her appointment will continue to
4/30/95.
The Mayor has recently reappointed Claudia Otey and Russ
Stringham to serve as members of the Kent Transit Advisory
Board. Their new appointments will continue to 4/30/96-
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
No
EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBE
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: APRIL 15, 1994
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD
I have recently appointed Linda Johnson to serve as a member of the Kent Transit Advisory Board.
Ms. Johnson serves as Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership, serves on the RJC Citizen's
Advisory Committee and RJC Arts Committee, and is active with the Kent Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Johnson will replace Don McDaniel, who resigned, and her appointment will continue to
4/30/95.
1 have also recently reappointed Claudia Otey and Russ Stringham as members of the Kent Transit
Advisory Board. Their new appointments will continue to 4/30/96.
1 submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
cc: Bob Whalen, Kent Transit Advisory Board Chair
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 19, 1994
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE SERVICE RATE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: In January the City performed an audit
to verify the hauler's claim for the necessity of a rate
increase. The City also analyzed a claimed revenue loss
attributed to instituting a recyclesincentive garbage rate.
The results thereof are included in the Council packet. The
Public Works Director will give a brief synopsis of this matter
for Council.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Committee by a
vote of 2-1, that staff be directed to proceed with Option #2
as enclosed herein.
3. EXHIBITS: Internal Auditor's Report, Memorandum from Public
Works Director, Public Works Committee Minutes (1/5/94) and
Public Works Committee Minutes (4/11/94)
4.
5.
rip
7.
RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember WCIum moves,
to direct staff to proceed with
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Councilmember �/L seconds
Option #
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
Date: April 11, 1994
To: May Miller, Finance Manager
City of Kent
From: Jim Huntington CPA, Internal Auditor
City of Kent
Subject: Request by Kent Disposal for a increase in monthly
residential garbage fee.
On January 251 1994 I was requested by City of Kent Administration
to do an audit of Kent Disposal's accounting records. From January
27, 1994 through February 11, 1994 I was on site auditing
financial records to verify the accuracy of revenue and expenses
and to validate the theory behind their cost allocations. Rabanco
who does the accounting for Kent Disposal was prompt in my every
request. Accounting records were for the majority correct and had
an excellent audit trail. Although I found some minor differences
in both theory and the accounting records they were not material as
to the whole and should be accepted as correct with a few
modifications. The following are three options for your
consideration:
OPTION 1 -APPROVE CPI AND ECONOMIC CHANGE WITH SOME COST CUTTING
MEASURES:
In April of 1993 as provided in the contract we gave a
CPI increase of 3.70%, and are now recommending a 2.6%
CPI increase effective April 1, 1994 as authorized in
Section 5.2.3. Per the contract Kent Disposal may be
given additional increases based on economic changes.
The City has identified a 3.26% decrease in Kent
Disposal's revenue due to a recycling program implemented
in 1993 and I recommend this increase also. No other
evidence has been provided for any additional increases
since the contract was signed, such as dump fees(as
confirmed with King County Solid Waste there have been no
increases in dump fees since January 11 1992), law
changes or unusual changes. Based on the information I
have reviewed to date, only the two increases seem
warranted at this time. In addition to the combined rate
increase of 5.86% on the service portion of the contract
as indicated above, I recommend that cost cutting
measures be explored as is being done industry wide.
OPTION 2 -RATE INCREASE WITH MODIFICATIONS:
Total Residential Revenue Per Trial Balance $829,890
Total Residential Expense Per Trial Balance 913.986
Calendar Year Ended 12/31/92 Loss (84,096)
Recommended Add Backs:
a) Reduction in all direct expenses due
to defect in truck expense allocation 2,319
method(42 man days unaccounted for).
134
b) Donations.
c) Bad debt method not proven, so used 21048
City experience rate.
d) Truck #kA -033 rental overcharge $753.00 353
per day less $400.00.
e) Management Fee contains management fee
from Rabanco General Managers who should
be sharing in the profits and not guaranteed
a profit. Kent Disposal has 18 managers
and general administration employees already
on site, while only two residential garbage
trucks are in Kent on a daily basis. I recommend
we disallow the off site General Managers and
General Administration employees cost allocation
from Rabanco in the amount of $13,071 plus
benefits of $1,945. In addition, recalculation
of management fee amount differs from the trial
balance amount, this adjustment of $22,157 is 37.173
taken into account here also. Adjusted Loss (42,069)
f) Recommended profit $829,890 X 5.00%= 41,495
(Per RMA annual statement studies
weighted average).
Target Additional Revenue $83,564
Based on a Target Additional Revenue of $83,564 the
service portion of the residential garbage fee would need
to be increased 20.32%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 10.07%. CPI increase has not been included
in OPTION 2 analysis. Had it been included the service
portion of the residential garbage fee would have needed
to be increased to 22.92%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 11.44%. Recycling increase is assumed to be
in OPTION 2.
OPTION 3 -RATE INCREASE WITH MODIFICATIONS AS TO WHAT KENT
DISPOSAL CONSIDERS TO BE APPROPRIATE:
Total Residential Revenue Per Trial Balance $829,890
Total Residential Expense Per Trial Balance 913.986
Calendar Year Ended 12/31/92 Loss (84,096)
Recommended Add Backs:
a) Reduction in all direct expenses due
to defect in truck expense allocation 2,319
method(42 man days unaccounted for).
b) Donations.
134
C) Truck #A-033 rental overcharge $753.00
per day less $400.00. 353
d) Change in billing system to improve customer
service. (7,573)
e) Legal costs for boundary dispute settled in
March of 1991, amortized over life of contract. (20,449)
Adjusted Loss (109,312)
f) Recommended profit $829,890 X 5.00%= 41,495
(Per RMA annual statement studies
weighted average).
Target Additional Revenue $150,807
Based on a Target Additional Revenue of $150,807 the
service portion of the residential garbage fee would need
to be increased 36.65%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 18.17%. CPI increase has not been included
in OPTION 3 analysis. Had it been included the service
portion of the residential garbage fee would have needed
to be increased to 39.25%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 19.50%. Recycling increase is assumed to be
included in OPTION 3.
IN CONCLUSION I RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Rabanco Companies is a 50 percent owner of Kent -Meridian Disposal
Company, they have an excellent cost accounting system and all
accounting for Kent Disposal is done by Rabanco. When the disposal
contract was renewed in December of 1992, Kent Disposal should have
been aware of their costs(since they were testing costs through out
1992 according to Paul Glasgo Controller of Rabanco Companies) and
should have adjusted their rates before signing the new contract.
Section 5.2.2 of the contract provides for dump fee increases, law
changes, and unusual cost increases. Kent Disposal has not
demonstrated to our satisfaction that any increases have taken
place since the contract was signed in December of 1992 which would
justify increases under the terms of the contract. I have not
audited the Calendar Year 1993 income statements since they are not
yet available.
The letter from Kent Disposal Dated August 24, 1993 asking for a
21% increase was comparing cost increases that happened prior to
signing the residential garbage contract in December of 1992.
County Fees have been in effect since July 1, 1991 and Dump Fee
rates were last increased January 1, 1992. Kent Disposal has
experienced some cost increases but the annual CPI rate increase
should have addressed these costs. For additional information see
Attachments A, B, and C.
Rabanco Companies
Management Fees
TYPE
customer Service
Customer Service Supervisors
Accounting Dept. Clerical
Collections
Computer Dept.
Payroll Dept.
General Clerical
Accounting, General and Management
Kent Site Management & General
Less Rebanco Management
EMPLOYEES
28
3
16
2
2
4
5
19
18
97
Attachment A
TOTAL 1992
GROSS WAGES
& PR. TAXES
-------------
393,706.45
122,374.94
130,494.05
67,506.65
131,524.95
66,588.87
62,724.95
1,052,338.58
392,982.16
2,420,241.60
Benefits Rate Per Study $32,482.94 X .1488 =
Modified Management Fee
Management Fee per Trial Balance
Management Fee Decrease
ALLOCATED
TO KENT
RESIDENTIAL
7,730.18
2,350.96
1,207.85
1,899.88
2,111.16
581.50
538.41
13,071.08
16,063.00
45,554.02
(13,071.08)
32,482.94
4,833.46
37,316.40
74,489.00
(37,172.60)
m •O P w P vi r W N
x o o N n n n n n n
d
a a a a a a
a 9 D D z z Z Z Z Z n
_ r r r m w y pl V1 D C
y 0 0 0 z D
z z z y
O
Z
S
W
,
A
I
m
I
VI
N
C
O I
N pVp..I W N pp.. VNV
r A N .
r
A
yOo
I
N
'
I
I
�
m
z
o
i d V o 0 0 0 o V o w
i
A
n
I
C
3
I
N P 1ppj�� N P co N
A<
I
W
A
+
C
•~o
o Oo v+ w m s� m v' w o o
m
y
I
A N O V '
O
rp I
trll W `O A P N RP W `O r O V1 I
Z
M=
'
W I
N P V r N W V P P r O N •
A
T
m
A
M
Co r m o
z
m
voi VLA vii
-4 V
---------------
H
T
D A
yJ. I
W N r
O
0
v D
�
'
i 'O
VI O O W `O V P W VI O
a
r
r
a
A
r• m
M
r
, lA
O O O V1 0 0 0 0 lJl O O
i
J N
,o V
;0
iv �n *N '0
-----------------
A
m
o
0
c,
-�
W O r ZO r -+ V O W
-1
r
C
D
n
A
N
P N V N V N O CO to V O P
A
m
p
I O Vt Nt O VI 111 O� W 0 0 0
Z
-1
I
A
I
p
0
m
m
D
' VVi
V P r vl N `O
W P W 111 r V Co O W
A
i
N
I to
O W W O W W O W O N O O
n
Z
m
O N
N
W r o — —
n
o
1
+�r r W r N `O •O O V
1O •O O W W N P O
i N
A
n
I yPi
W IPJI .O
m
�+ m
VI I
Zo
O
P
n
m m
A
X
V
V
'
V P r V� N `O V y' W O E
. A
� T
a
Z
o
-1
z =
I
z
W
I W W P N V r P `O `O
m
w
P N O to r 0 P co O
+
-----
------------------
--
A
O
w
Z
T
M N
v
I P
_
I N N -+
W
I w P r 'O W P O P N W O r
A
, T m
C
r
A
0
r
I
N
a
A
Z
n
'
r yl .O Vt Vf W O V P �++ p r
m
N T
NO
I
�
'
' N
A
2
— i
z
m
m
r
_
•O O .O N W O W
n
m
r
+
'
I N
W p W •O N
NV N O r O W W V O 'm
m
' a
D
0
Z
�l
W
•O N `O O P O P N `O O `O
m
'�
w y
_
`O
O
Z
N
M D
O
n
m
-+ r
-
. — O P r •O P O 1O P
A
Z
O
z
z
W
P O W 6 Vn N O Pr r 0 •O
N
A
I
V
111 P P O W O W
W
W
KvENT=DISPOF 1L CO.
Serng of Kent
4730 32ND AVE. SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98118 August 24, 1993
(206) 725-1700
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Director of Public Works
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Attachment C
Dear W. Wickstrom:
Pursuant to section 5.2.4 of our contract, we are asbng for an in in our residential
revenue of $177,074. This change translates • The increase
into a 21 percent rate increaseckets) in
is necessary because we have experienced an in
or decrease (shown in bra
the following expenses.
Driver wages taxes and benefits
15,804
$ 290
Truck operating expenses
(lo,120)
container expenses
91,719
Dump fees
General and administrative
39,849
14,912
Taxes on revenue
29,733
County fees
3,147
,
Interest expense
$ 18334.
Total
rces. First, prior to April 1, 1993, our
These increases in expense have two main sou
commercial rates in the City of Kent were subsidizing residentialredte Secondnas.e
averaged our rates with Tri-Stograsmp ha eased,the ability of the rate structure to
participation in the recycling p gr Portion of all
cover our fixed expenses decreases, therefore increasing the fixed expense
the residential rates.
It is important that we implement this increase as soon as possible. If we cannot agree on
our request then we should submit the issue to independent audit as stipulated in section
5.3 of our contract.
cc: Mayor Kelleher
cawnMORD nscwxe1scmc
Sincerely,
St Caputo
General Manager
Printed on RecYcled Paper
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom AJ
RE: Residential Garbage Service Rates
At the Public Works committee meeting on March 28, 1994, Steve
Caputo of Kent Disposal distributed a comparison sheet showing
garbage rates charged by local cities. As some of these rates
included other costs such as toter rentals and recycling costs, we
have taken out those extra charges to show a more accurate
comparison of the base garbage rates.
The attached chart will show the rates for the cities as prepared
by Kent Disposal (white columns), and our comparison of base rates
of all cities (shaded columns) less any utility tax, toter rentals
or recycling fees. You will note that while Kent Disposal showed
toter rental for some of the cities, they did not include toter
rental on Kent's rates which does not reflect an accurate
comparison. We have also included the base garbage rates of Sea-
Tac/Normandy Park which is serviced by Sea -Tac Disposal (a Rabanco
Company), but was not included in Kent -Disposal's comparison.
The second chart showing options for the proposed rate increase is
information you received at the last meeting. We have included it
on this sheet for easier comparison with base garbage rates of
other cities.
A W N .--• �p G� W N r C�
O O n n n
7 3 G 7
.n G)
d d d d p❑ n
N N N N w
0
n 0 0 0 n O
0 0
n n N J Oo to �1 N =. N
l.n In In In O d
5 G C+ :-• N tJ CN y n
w Cn �D W N Q\ N r' Cc,
n o T w
^< p,� O H
CD = n
3CDG
p 4, In r-+ O
00
T a �
G w
T O
A
W N
E
E.
N
O y
T d
O H
O
J
O �
F
�D U to A w
Oo d Q F
V1 w Q1
(D
1
.p a H fNi 7.
CL G d
C, U d n 7
O' O 4s n
y r bo
O N
0
� ti ti
w_
c R _
a
n G Cx
G Oo baq =
? O N G
o w _
-' Oo Ei `G
f1
C O d w
a ❑ � H
n H
a
� w �
� vs
d
CD in
G p= G
G
w a
G
C,0• rn
Cl
0 CG
O O
CIL w
p w_
G
j
G
G
O
N
�I
C
n
ll
d
'1
w
d
c
r
m
,Y
�ervice
Level
1.
Current
Kent
2
Kent
+ 15e
3
Tukwila
Des Moines
unicorp KC
4
Auburn
5
Federal
6
Algona
7
Averagent
e
ofColumns
3-4-5-6
8
+
1 can ** 7.93
2 can 11.9
3 can 15.3
4.0 toter 13.13
9.13
13.68
17.59
15.1
9.83
13.8
17.26
15
* 7.90
15.6
0
15.8
10.88
16.32
22.03
16
** 9.36
13.12
16.41
14.3
9.49
14.76
18.57
15.28
** 9.60
14.39
18.51
15.89
,10 toter
15.71
18.06
17.66
22
21.5
16.72
19.47
19.01
* Auburn rates reflect a drop site recycle program
** Kent rates reflect 3 = utility tax for curbside recycling
.-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 28, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom��%
RE: Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
As the committee will recall the above subject was discussed at
their January 5th meeting .(minutes attached) for which it was
referred back to staff for review. Since that time several
meetings have been held with the hauler. As a result thereof, the
City reviewed their issue relating to recycling and also did an
audit of their accounting records to verify the accuracy of their
revenue/expense claim.
The recycle issue related to instituting a recycle incentive rate
structure for garbage service. We required same and the hauler
implemented one in January 1993. The result was a shift of their
customer base to smaller containers. our analysis supports that
this accounted for an estimated 3.26% reduction in service charge
revenue and as such, an increase by same is warranted.
With respect to the audit (copy attached) it denotes that in fact
the expenses are exceeding the revenues. It also reflects three
possible options to resolve this issue. The first basically
follows the contract as we interpret it. It should be noted that
the contract language is basically not clear so with this option,
comes a high potential for litigation.
The second option, while not making the contractor whole, it only
incorporates those costs felt appropriate by our auditor.
Selection of this option should include modifying the contract
language to clear up any ambiguities thereon and also provide
assurance that this situation will not reoccur.
The third option essentially incorporates all those costs the
contractor deems appropriate. Like the second option, were this
option selected, modification of the contract language should also
be included.
ACTION: Direct staff to proceed with Option?
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JANUARY 5, 1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
TONY McCARTHY
JON JOHNSON
MAY MILLER
DON WICKSTROM
STEVE CAPUTO
TOM BRUBAKER
NELS JOHNSON
GARY GILL
MR & MRS RUST
ABSENT: JIM BENNETT
Rabanco - Garbage Contract Rates
Steve Caputo stated that in July of 1993, Rabanco requested a
garbage rate increase due to cost of service. He said this was
followed up with an August 24th letter showing numbers and reasons
for the increase. Caputo said he had a discussion both with Don
Wickstrom and Roger Lubovich and asked where the City stood on
this. At that time, Wickstrom informed him that this was a Council
decision. Rabanco said at that time that they did not want to go
to audit but would rather work something out. Caputo said Rabanco
had requested a 21% increase and he felt an audit would delay it
another 30 days. Caputo said they needed this in July and now it is
3 - 4 months later. He said they were very comfortable at that
time with 15% however since then, they have talked more within
their company and they would like 18%; Caputo said they are now
comfortable to go with an audit however, the increase will be
greater than 18% and we will save lost time. Caputo said he feels
the process has been stalled and they would like to move on this.
Mann asked why it would be more with an audit. Caputo said they
asked for 21% and they feel the audit would support a 21% increase.
Caputo said that 18% now is better than 21% four months from now.
Caputo said they have comparative rates from sister cities in this
area and from unincorporated King County. Caputo said that Kent's
rates are well below everyone else.
Wickstrom said that we looked at some data that Rabanco provided
and there are two arguments in their proposed rate increase. He
said one is related to their maintaining that the commercial
accounts were subsidizing the residential rates and they can no
longer do that since the territory has been divided. Wickstrom
said the other argument was that because we have now gone to an
incentive residential rate for garbage - the smaller the can the
less the charge, more people have gone to a smaller can and have
gone to recycling. He said that while they still have to provide
01
the same service, the numbers they have given us shows their
revenues have actually decreased by 6% while their customer
accounts have increased by 8%. Wickstrom said there is some
relationship there. As far as the argument about subsidizing
residential; the rates we used in the contract were the WUTC
established rates. Wickstrom surmised that he thought WUTC would
look at each individual customer class on a stand alone basis. As
such, since our rates were WUTC established, he did not quite
follow the hauler's logic. Wickstrom said that in making a
comparison with other cities as far as their rate vs. ours, with
most other cities doing recycling it appears that our rates are a
little lower for garbage service. Wickstrom said that we have no
basis to say it should be 21% or whatever, and the only way we
could really do that is to go to an audit. He said that under the
contract, the hauler is required to pay for the audit.
Nels Johnson of Rabanco, said they did an internal audit in August
with their own CPA staff and at that point, all the numbers they
ran thru came up with a 21% increase and Rabanco is confident that
an auditor would find the same thing.
Wickstrom said there would be a cost of living increase, or CPI
increase, in April under the contract. He said that in April he
would assume Rabanco would go for the cost of living increase.
Nels Johnson said the CPI increase does not amount to much of
anything.
Referring to the garbage contract, Brubaker said there are
basically four instances justifying a rate increase. He explained
that one is an increase in dump fee costs not associated with a
change in the consumer price index; another area is called "unusual
cost" such as changes in the law; a third area is the CPI area and
the fourth area is a rate adjustment to reflect justified increases
and operating expenses and that particular request is limited to
once per year. Brubaker stated that in Rabanco's first letter to
us, they based their request for a rate increase on this increase
and operating expense; in their last letter to us, they said it
more properly reflected a different item which was the "unusual
cost" item, such as a change in the law. Brubaker said he has
conferred with the City Attorney and his feeling about this issue
of the commercial -residential subsidy is, that was part of the
negotiating quid pro quo in the contract when it was first entered
into. In other words, Rabanco entered into the contract with
knowledge that there were would be this averaging of the two Tri-
Star and Rabanco rates on the commercial end and that it would have
an impact. Brubaker said that since Rabanco knew this was going to
happen when they willingly entered into the contract, he has
trouble understanding how that could be a basis for an increase.
Brubaker said that the recycling issue looks like a legitimate
issue and he felt that in order to avoid Rabanco incurring the cost
of doing an audit, perhaps they could provide us with more specific
information for review.
0
Brubaker said that less than a year ago, we entered into a lengthy
contract to lock in service until the year 2001 and now Rabanco is
asking for a 21% increase in rates within one year. Brubaker
recommended that by the next committee meeting we come back with
some sort of compromise, solution and/or a recommendation to go to
an audit.
Caputo stated that they have used every avenue that the contract
has given them, and as it gets more and more delayed they .would
expect to be able to retroactive an increase.
Committee recommended that staff review the rate increase issue and
bring it back to committee.
Segregation Request = LID 320
Wickstrom stated that this was a James Street LID and the
segregation request was made by Schneider Homes, on the north side
of James Street, west of West Valley Highway. Wickstrom requested
approval of the segregation.
Committee unanimously recommended approval of the segregation
request.
Sale of Surplus Vehicles
Wickstrom referred to the list of vehicles that were submitted for
surplus. Jack Spencer stated that we have 18 pieces of equipment
and they all have high mileage or are in need of major repair.
McCarthy said that we are getting a new Senior Center van in the
194 budget. He asked if the vans in the list are no longer
useable. Spencer said that these were the vans that the Senior
Center did have and he would like to keep the better of the two as
a back-up.
Committee unanimously recommended declaring this equipment as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next state auction,
with the exception of one van to be used as back-up.
Signal at Reiten & Jason
Wickstrom said we received six bids and one was received thru FAX
which turned out to be the low bid. He said there is $1000
difference between the low bid and the second bid; however because
of some improprieties in the FAX bid, the second bidder would
possibly sue us. He said that legally awarding the bid to the low
bidder is defensible however, a great deal of staff time would be
involved in a suit for a $1000 differential. Wickstrom said that
the Public Works Dept. is recommending that the six bids be
rejected, and the project be re -bid.
Committee unanimously recommended rejection of all bids.
3
Date: March 25, 1994
To: May Miller, Finance Manager
City of Kent
From: Jim Huntington CPA, Internal Auditor
City of Kent
Subject: Request by Kent Disposal for a increase in monthly
residential garbage fee.
On January 25, 1994 I was requested by City of Kent Administration
to do an audit of Kent Disposal's accounting records. From January
27, 1994 through February 11, 1994 I was on site auditing
financial records to,verify the accuracy of revenue and expenses
and to validate the theory behind their cost allocations. Rabanco
who does the accounting for Kent Disposal was prompt in my every
request. Accounting records were for the majority correct and had
an excellent audit trail. Although I found some minor differences
in both theory and the accounting records they were not material as
to the whole and should be accepted as correct with a few
modifications. The following are three options for your
consideration:
OPTION 1 -APPROVE CPI AND ECONOMIC CHANGE WITH SOME COST CUTTING
MEASURES:
In April of 1993 as provided in the contract we gave a
CPI increase of 3.70%, and are now recommending a 2.6%
CPI increase effective April 1, 1994 as authorized in
Section 5.2.3. Per the contract Kent Disposal may be
given additional increases based on economic changes.
The City has identified a 3.26% decrease in Kent
Disposal's revenue due to a recycling program implemented
in 1993 and I recommend this increase also. No other
evidence has been provided for any additional increases
s
since the contract was signed, such as dump e
confirmed with King County Solid Waste there have been no
increases in dump fees since January 11 1992), law
changes or unusual changes. Based on the information I
have reviewed to date, only the two increases seem
warranted at this time. In addition to the combined rate
increase of 5.86% on the service portion of the contract
as indicated above, I recommend that cost cutting
measures be explored as is being done industry wide.
OPTION 2 -RATE INCREASE WITH MODIFICATIONS:
Total Residential Revenue Per Trial Balance $829,890
Total Residential Expense Per Trial Balance 913.986
Calendar Year Ended 12/31/92 Loss (84,096)
Recommended Add Backs:
a) Reduction in all direct expenses due
to defect in truck expense allocation 2,319
method(42 man days unaccounted for).
134
b) Donations.
C) Bad debt method not proven, so used 21048
dity experience rate.
d) Truck #A-033 rental overcharge $753.00 353
per day less $400.00.
e) Management Fee contains management fee
from Rabanco General Managers who should
be sharing in the profits and not guaranteed
a profit. Kent Disposal has 18 managers
and general administration employees already
on site, while only two residential garbage
trucks are in Kent on a daily basis. I recommend
we disallow the off site General Managers and
General Administration employees cost allocation
from Rabanco in the amount of $13,071 plus
benefits of $1,945. In addition, recalculation
of management fee amount differs from the trial
balance amount, this adjustment of $22,157 is 37,173
taken into account here also. Adjusted Loss (42,069)
f) Recommended profit $829,890 X 5.00%=
41,495
(Per RMA annual statement studies
weighted average).
Target Additional Revenue $83,564
Based on a Target Additional Revenue of $83,564 the
service portion of the residential garbage fee would need
to be increased 19.07%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 10.07%. CPI increase has not been included
in OPTION 2 analysis. Had it been included the service
portion of the residential garbage fee would have needed
to be increased to 21.67%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 11.44%. Recycling increase is assumed to be
in OPTION 2.
OPTION 3 -RATE INCREASE WITH MODIFICATIONS AS TO WHAT RENT
DISPOSAL CONSIDERS TO BE APPROPRIATE:
Total Residential Revenue Per Trial Balance $829,890
Total Residential Expense Per Trial Balance 913.986
Calendar Year Ended 12/31/92 Loss (84,096)
Recommended Add Backs:
a) Reduction in all direct expenses due
to defect in truck expense allocation 2,319
method(42 man days unaccounted for)
134
b) Donations.
c) Truck #A-033 rental overcharge $753.00 353
per day less $400-00-
d) Change in billing system to improve customer (71573)
service:.
e) Legal costs for boundary dispute settled in
March of 1991, amortized over life
Adjusted nLoss t (109,312)
f) Recommended profit $829,890 X 5.00%= 41,495
(Per RMA annual statement studies
weighted average).
Target Additional Revenue $150,807
Based on a Target Additional Revenue of $150,807 the
service portion of the residential garbage fee would need
to be increased 34.41%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 18.17%. CPI increase has not been included
in OPTION 3 analysis. Had it been included the service
portion of the residential garbage fee would have needed
to be increased to 37.01%. Resulting in a overall fee
increase of 19.54%. Recycling increase is assumed to be
included in OPTION 3.
IN CONCLUSION I RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Rabanco Companies is a 50 percent owner of Kent -Meridian Disposal
Company, they have an excellent cost accounting system and all
accounting for Kent Disposal is done by Rabanco. When the disposal
contract was renewed in December of 1992, Kent Disposal should have
been aware of their costs(since they were testing costs through out
1992 according to Paul Glasgo Controller of Rabanco Companies) and
should have adjusted their rates before signing the new contract.
section 5.2.2 of the contract provides for dump fee increases, law
changes, and unusual cost increases. Kent Disposal has not
demonstrated to our satisfaction that any increases have taken
place since the contract was signed in December of 1992 which would
justify increases under the terms of the contract. I have not
audited the Calendar Year 1993 income statements since they are not
yet available.
The letter from Kent Disposal Dated August 24, 1993 asking for a
21% increase was comparing cost increases that happened prior to
signing the residential garbage contract in December f 1992.
County Fees have been in effect since 19921, Kent Disposal has
p Fee
rates were last increased January 1, .
experienced some cost increases but the annual CPI rate increase
should have addressed these costs. For additional information see
Attachments A, B, and C.
Rabanco Companies
Management Fees
TYPE
Customer Service
Customer Service Supervisors
Accounting Dept. Clerical
Collections
Computer Dept.
Payroll Dept.
General Clerical
Accounting, General and Management
Kent Site Management & General
Less Rebanco Management
Attachment A
Benefits Rate Per Study $32,482.94 X .1488 =
Modified Management Fee
Management Fee per Trial Balance
Management Fee Decrease
ALLOCATED
TO KENT
RESIDENTIAL
7,730.18
2,350.96
1,207.85
1,899.88
2,111.16
581.50
538.41
13,071.08
16,063.00
45,554.02
(13,071.08)
32,482.94
4,833.46
37,316.40
74,489.00
(37,172.60)
TOTAL 1992
GROSS WAGES
EMPLOYEES
& PR. TAXES
28
393,706.45
3
122,374.94
16
130,494.05
2
67,506.65
2
131,524.95
4
66,588.87
5
62,724.95
19
1,052,338.58
18
392,982.16
---------
97
-------------
2,420,241.60
Benefits Rate Per Study $32,482.94 X .1488 =
Modified Management Fee
Management Fee per Trial Balance
Management Fee Decrease
ALLOCATED
TO KENT
RESIDENTIAL
7,730.18
2,350.96
1,207.85
1,899.88
2,111.16
581.50
538.41
13,071.08
16,063.00
45,554.02
(13,071.08)
32,482.94
4,833.46
37,316.40
74,489.00
(37,172.60)
5 Vc Z Yd
yi Z
Z �
D
a
D
J
O C r
J N N N W O W K
Ap..
p
U O O O N O O U O C N O O
z b O
w
N O
O r
Z
J
z-
d c
c
2E
C O D U O D U S U U O S O
z
Z
.-1 N
U
O w oe G P w O W m N S 0
r z
n ri V
_
J
�
Z N C
n n j
z
P
_
— J P A o -
NppO J U W
o
O
yyN��
n
(Ni 3
z ..
N
r pe J A g w 0 Qpe g A O N
A z
0
U U w N— A V J Oe N S P
.�-
r A r
nN�N7a
�i0
. . �. N
.. .p�
N D
p. pO
KENT DISPOcNL CO.
Serving theo
�l 4730 32ND AVE.ASOUTH SEATTLE, WA 96118 Aust 24, 1993
(206) 725-1700
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Director of Public Works
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Attachment C
Dear Mr. VAckstrom:
pursuant to section 5.2.4 of our contract
we are asking for an'increase in our residential
revenue of 3177,074. This change translates into a 21 percent rate increase- The increase
is necessary because we have experienced an increase or decrease (shown in brackets) in
the following expenses.
Driver wages taxes and benefits
15,804
$ 290
Truck operating expenses
(10,120)
Container expenses
91,719
Dump fees39,649
General and administrative
14,912
Taxes on revenue
County fees
29,733
_3,147
Interest expense
$ 185�4334-
Total
expense have two main sources. First, prior to April 1, 1993, our
These increases in exp residential rates. When we
commercial rates in the City of Kent were subsidizing eared. Second, as.,
averaged our rates with Tri-Star Disposal, this subsidy disappeared.
participation in the recycling program has increased, the ability of the rate st of all
cover our fixed expenses decreases, therefore increasing the fixed expense portion
the residential rates.
It is important that we implement this increase as soon as possiole. If we caiulot agree 01-1
our request then we should submit the issue to independent audit as stipulated in section
5.3 of our contract.
cc: Mayor Kelleher
C1W N WORUNflSC93%1ac.00c
Sincerely,
G
St Caputo
General Manager
Printed on PecYcled Paper
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
TIM CLARK
JIM BENNETT
DON WICKSTROM
ROGER LUBOVICH
TOM BRUBAKER
BRENT McFALL
APRIL 11, 1994
ARTHUR MARTIN
GARY GILL
MAY MILLER
JIM HUNTINGTON
JEAN PARIETTI
STEVE CAPUTO
MR & MRS RUST
Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
Wickstrom submitted an updated memo dated April 11th, from the
City's auditor, and stated that it reflected some percentage
changes on Option 2 and also some changes on Option 3. Wickstrom
stated that sometime ago, Rabanco requested a rate increase and
after much discussion it was decided that our auditor would review
their books. He stated that the results of the audit was in the
Committee's packet. He said with respect to the contract, we were
able to determine that there was some justification in January 1993
in implementing a rate incentive program on our garbage utility,
which we were able to do. Wickstrom said there was some transfer
of the larger container (90 gallon toter) going down to the 60
gallon toters. He said that reflected in a 3.26% change; on April
1st there was a cost of living increase automatically as
incorporated in the contract. Wickstrom explained that the Option
1 reflects the cost of living increase, plus instituting a rate
incentive for recycling. Wickstrom said we believe that there is
some justification under the existing contract for an increase. He
said that results in a total of about 5.86% (on the service portion
of their rate or 2.91% on the total rate - added for clarity).
Wickstrom said that based on how we interpret the language, that's
what we see the contract allows for. He said however the language
is somewhat unclear and may leave room for legal interpretation
from different attorneys.
Wickstrom further stated that the Option 2 in the audit report
is a result of our auditor going to Rabanco and looking at what
items he thought were justifiable. He said that the audit did show
that there wasn't a profit on the project; they were actually
losing money based on their analysis. Wickstrom said that our
auditor looked at the appropriate costs that should be included in
calculating the actual costs for service and that's what Option 2
does. He said if the Committee went with Option 2, we would want
1
to rewrite the contract to clear up any ambiguities in the contract
so the situation could not reoccur.
Wickstrom explained option 3 as incorporating all the contractor
costs that he (the contractor) felt were appropriate and
incorporating them into the proposed rate increase. Wickstrom said
that Option 2 resulted in a 22% increase in the service portion of
the rate which essentially is 11.4% in the total cost. Wickstrom
said there are two parts to the contract; a dump fee and a service
ffect all service related so if
cost. He said that these costs a
22% is added onto the service cost than over all it really is only
an 11.44% increase. Wickstrom said that similarly in option 3, it
is really a 39-1/4% increase in the service cost which would relate
to a 19-1/2% increase in the overall rate. Wickstrom referred to
a table of comparable rates in the packet; some being provided by
the contractor and some provided by staff. Wickstrom said we
summarized these and tried to compare basic rates excluding any
recycling costs, utility tax and toter fee rentals.
Mann stated he had some concerns in that a vendor would submit a
bid and it would become the low bid; be accepted by the City and
then in a short time (within a few months) ask for an increase.
Mann said it appears that the vendor knew that there would be an
increase coming up shortly and submitted a low bid intentionally.
Mann also stated that he is concerned with the fact that a contract
was put together so that it could be interpreted ambiguously and
there would be loopholes within that contract. Wickstrom stated
that attorneys interpret contracts in different ways. He said this
would be something that the courts would have to determine as to
what is right. He said that this corresponds to Option 1. Mann
said the Committee is encouraged in whatever option we take, to
make sure that the new contract doesn't afford any loopholes that
are evident in this particular contract. He than said we would be
looking at a different contract, worded differently. Wickstrom
said that we could go with option 11 subject to them taking it to
court and subject to our attorneys sustaining our opinion of it.
Wickstrom said that with option 1, they will get an automatic cost
of living increase, which is in the contract and the only thing
that we could justify, based on all the information we saw, and how
we interpret the contract, is the 3.26% increase attributed to our
instituting
recycling
n
ldowlto
entive rate, which essentially would
pushtheircustom the small container and would be less
profitable.
Mann stated that according to Wickstrom's memo of March 28 which
references the auditor's report,.. .."the first option basically
follows the contract as we interpret and it should be noted that
the contract language is basically not clear so with this option,
comes a high potential for litigation." Mann stated that the
auditor points out that the request by the service rate is an
honest one and that this was a good audit. He further said that
because of the ambiguity in the language, that we are put into a
2
position of accepting option 21 which is debatable for the
committee.
Lubovich referenced the contract stating that basically, this
contract was negotiated as the result of the settlement we had a
few years ago and all parties agreed to the starting rate. He said
there was adjustment to rate in order to have the same similar rate
throughout the city. Lubovich said this contract allows for
adjustments in three or four areas only; one is a change in dump
fees and there hasn't been any change in dump fees so there is no
area for adjustment there. He said the second is unusual cost such
as changes in law; Public Works has determined that the impact of
the recycling is such a change that would allow for a certain
factor to be put into the rate and accordingly has provided a
figure for that in that option. He said the third area for
adjustment is change in C.P.I. which is also included and is very
clear. He said the last item is, a petition may be made to reflect
justified increases and operating expenses not associated with the
other changes. Lubovich stated that as he understands it, the
audit did not show any significant changes such as that which would
justify an increase. As such, based on the interpretation of this
contract from the legal department, there are no significant
changes other than those provided in that one option to allow the
rate increase. Lubovich stated that whether or not they made a
good decision when they entered into this agreement to begin with
and came in with a low figure, is not the issue. He said from the
legal department's point of view from this contract, unless there
is a justified increase or some other factor that meets one of
these four just described, there is no basis for an increase.
Lubovich said we have identified two of those; C.P.I. and the
recycling factor, which we computed. Lubovich said anything beyond
that, is beyond the contract. Lubovich said that their
interpretation of the contract is that it covers anything and we do
not agree with that.
Bennett said that based on what Lubovich said and what he has read,
what bothers him is the inconsistency of the information provided
to the Committee as decision makers from the staff. Bennett again
referred to the letter of March 28th and referenced the "high
potential for litigation." Lubovich reiterated the fact that
anytime there is a dispute on a contract, there is a potential for
litigation. Wickstrom stated he merely pointed that out so when
Committee makes their decision, that is a fact that Committee would
have to consider.
Clark questioned if we change the contract, are we liable to suits
from other bidders for services? Wickstrom responded saying we
negotiate the contract and there never was an option of bidding
involved.
Bennett stated that this all began last July and there should be
some consideration, no matter who the vendor is, to capture that
3
gap in time. Bennett further stated that he felt this is a bigger
issue than this committee can discuss so rather than choosing an
Option, he suggested recommending this entire packet (all three
Options) go to the full Council.
Clark recommended making a decision on an Option, however also
agreed to Bennett's recommendation of taking the entire packet to
the full Council.
Committee voted 2-1 that the three options go before the full
Council with Clark's amendment that Option 2 be recommended.
Coordinated Prevent Grant
Wickstrom stated that we have been selected to receive a $72,052
grant from the state for which these funds will help pay for our
Recycling Coordinator position. He said these funds are good until
December of 195 and this will be the last time we will be getting
a grant to offset the cost of that position.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the execution of the
agreement for the receipt of grant funds.
Downtown Water & Storm Drainage Improvement - Accept as Complete
Wickstrom stated that this project was contracted with Robison
Construction. He said there is about $50,000 over the contract
amount, specifically because we replaced three additional lines for
$15,000; two of them were on the infrastructure study; one on Third
Ave between Saar & Titus. Wickstrom said by doing this, we saved
money because we did not have to do a re -design and we did more of
the infrastructure program.
Committee unanimously recommended the project be accepted as
complete and release of retainage after receipt of state releases.
SR167 HOV Lanes
Wickstrom said that the state is planning to advertise the project
of adding the HOV lanes and essentially carrying on their existing
project starting at 84th Avenue (Central Avenue) and continuing
down to W. Main Street in Auburn. He said the contract is for 460
working days. Wickstrom said that in that project, they will be
redoing bridges at Green River, Willis, Meeker, James, both
railroad bridges and at Central Avenue, and that this will all
result in some lane narrowing on various city streets. He also
stated that there will be detours in our city streets as well as
detours on the interurban trail. He stated that part of the
agreement packet enclosed, is the detour plan for that trail.
Wickstrom said there will also be some on-ramp closings. He said
4
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMM
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITT
D. PLANNING COMMITTE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTE
F. PARKS COMMITTE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
February 23, 1994
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson, Christi Houser, Leona Orr
STAFF PRESENT: Arthur Martin, Brent McFall, May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Patrice Thorell
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Jean Parietti
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson.
Approval of Vouchers
All claims for the period ending February 15, 1994, in the amount of $1,205,622.57 were
approved for payment.
Briefing on Status of Community Development/Development Services
Director of Operations Brent McFall informed the Committee that there was a question of reporting
and integration of the above function; not fixing something that is broken. McFall noted that the
concept being considered is a core group as the Office of Development Services with plan checkers
and plan inspectors; and, looking at intake and customer service. Other departments will have a
designated representative assigned. Public Works, Planning and Fire will have a key contact to
coordinate between the permit center and their department.
In periods of peak demand more resources would be brought in. Committeemember Houser asked
how this would fit in with the one stop permit center and half hour permits discussed previously.
McFall responded that the consumer would go to one area for all aspects and basic permits would be
issued within a half hour. McFall noted that the framework is just being developed and the next step
is to pull in the people in the trenches for their input. Houser stated that it was her understanding a
consultant had been hired to accomplish this. McFall replied that the consultant had prepared a
written report and this follow-up is not inconsistent. Houser asked if it would still be one stop with
everyone able to issue permits. McFall stated that it was the same concept. People doing permits and
interaction will be configured so it really works. McFall explained that customer service/problem
solvers versus regulators is being looked at. In other words, if the answer is no on a permit, explaining
the options to help the costumer get to yes. McFall noted that this is more time consuming and will
require training.
During further discussion McFall added that the remaining component is adding the code enforcement
position that is in the budget to enforce the nuisance ordinances. This function will probably snowball
when the community see areas being cleaned up but is important to set the tone of how the City is
perceived. Orr added that the safety implications are also important with arson being a concern.
Committee Chair Johnson stated his concern that there was too much to deal with for the Director of
Operations. A Department of Community Development is important from an organizational
standpoint. The Council Target Issues and economic issues need a Department of Community
Development. Johnson noted that the Growth Management Act, permit area, and human services
would fit in this area. As well as needing an individual to specifically address recruitment and
retaining business. Johnson stated that as a Councilmember he would be willing to do a budget
adjustment.
During further discussion McFall stated that the Tacoma/Pierce County Development Board provides
service assistance on how to walk through the system as an independent organization. There are
different ways that this service can be provided. Houser stated that the Chamber could provide that
service. McFall agreed adding that the City could work hand in hand with the Chamber. With the
Chamber the City could coordinate an outreach into business.
Johnson moved to direct the Director of Operations to come back with ideas on the Department of
Community Development with a proposed organization chart with the component by the first meeting
in April. Houser seconded the motion. Orr asked to include a division of economic development as
a friendly amendment. Johnson accepted the amendment and the motion passed 3-0.
December Financial Report
Finance Manager Miller distributed the December Financial Report. Miller stated that the report
indicates the City is $55,000 ahead of budget as a preliminary report. This is primarily because of a
one time sales tax with some growth. She noted property taxes are under budget as well as parks fees,
plan check fees and building permit fees while vacant positions have added to the balance.
January Financial Report
Miller noted the new format with more narrative and less graphs and reviewed the general fund with
the Committee. Miller stated that January sales taxes were 6% higher than expected; on the expense
side the 1993 police contract has not been settled which is estimated will be an expense of $150,000.
Other outstanding expenses include the settlement of remaining union contracts, the cost of the loss
of federal prisoners from corrections and the lower than projected cable TV revenues. Miller reviewed
the report with the committee noting the emphasis on types of business reporting revenue on page 8.
Committee Chair Johnson asked if reports showed any bio chemical companies or technical. Miller
responded that the business licenses don't track in those categories.
McFall noted that the changes made in the report were intended to make them more understandable
and asked for any ideas or feedback from the Committee. Committeemember Houser noted that she
liked graphs.
Annual Accounts Receivable Writeoff
Miller noted that although the requested action would remove the accounts from the books, they
would still be collectable. Miller stated that the $24,079.83 amount was considerably down from
previous years. After further discussion Miller recommended that the proposed writeoffs be removed
from the books. Orr so moved, Houser seconded and the motion passed 3-0.
Added Item: EMS Contract
McFall asked to add an item. Johnson approved. McFall stated that the annual EMS contract needs
Council approval. McFall noted the proposed 1994 contract amount for basic life support services
is $636,405. This is up from the 1993 contract of $604,719. McFall recommended that this be
forwarded onto Council on the Consent Calendar for amendment of the contract for EMS Levy. Orr
so moved, Houser seconded and the motion passed 3-0.
Added Item• Operations Reorganization
Committee Chair Johnson stated that he had some questions on the Operations Reorganization. He
noted that the two positions he was concerned with the salary classification of were the Director of
ON
Parks and Recreation and the Public Information/Governmental Affairs Manager. Johnson stated that
when the reorganization of Operations he did not realize that the salary had been set for the Public
Information/Governmental Affairs position along with the others. Johnson noted his concern that the
salary range is too high for that position. Johnson asked the Director of Operations to come back to
the Committee in two weeks with an appropriate range of salary for the Parks Director and the Public
Information/Governmental Affairs Manager. During further discussion Johnson noted that Police,
Fire and City Attorney are lower than the Parks Director. Houser and Orr agreed that the Parks and
Recreation Department is fairly well established and may not warrant such a high salary. McFall
noted that the range is wide enough to accommodate a number of situations. Johnson stated that it
seemed appropriate to look at the salary ranges now before the positions were filled. McFall agreed
to bring salary survey information to the next meeting.
Added Information Item: Liability Insurance Program
Johnson stated that he would like to compliment Ken Chatwin on changing the City's liability
insurance program. McFall concurred noting that this is one area that the City can effect savings when
attention is paid to it.
Committee Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:32 a.m.
3
Parks Committee Minutes
April 5, 1994
Councilmembers Present: Christi Houser, Chair; Jim Bennett and Paul Mann.
Staff Present: Arthur Martin, Tom Brubaker, May Miller, Patrice Thorell, Helen
Wickstrom, Jack Ball, Karen Ford, and Pam Rumer.
Others Present: Jean Parietti, Valley Daily News; Linda Johnson and Jennifer
Stoner, Kent Saturday Market; Richard Lomsdale, Argus Systems
Security; Dawn D. Turnham, 23830 98th Ave. South, Kent; and Douq
Schwab, Golf Advisory Board.
RIVERBEND GREEN FEES INCREASE/FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Patrice Thorell presented a proposed list of 1994 projects and improvements for
Riverbend Golf Complex. Staff, with input from the Golf Advisory Board, prioritized
and itemized the cost for each project. The City started out with $160,000 in
buyout funds; staff is requesting approval to do more needed projects at the complex
in 1994 with the remaining $81,204. Those projects include:
1. Golf Complex Master Plan
2. Kirby Yardage Markers
3. Yardage Markers Located on Tees
4. Driving Range Repairs - Netting and Gate Repairs
5. Trim/Surrounds Mower
6. Replace Greens Mowers - Out of Budget Costs
7. Increase Width of Cart Paths in High Traffic Areas
8. Installation of Extruded Curbing
9. Temporary Driving Range Field/Turf Repairs
10. Cab of Jacobsen Utility Vehicle
11. Tee Mats
12. Garbage Cans
13. Sod Nursery
14. Score Board
15. Golf Complex Maintenance/Repair Fund
A component of the proposal for expenditure of the 1994 buyout fund is a Five Year
Capital Improvement Projects Master Plan. Components of the Master Plan include:
1. Golf Complex Facility Analysis
2. Market Analysis
3. Goals and Objectives
4. Selection of Design Team Members
5. Development of'the Master Plan
a. Mini Putt Design and Renovation Plan
b. Driving Range Facility Redesign and Renovation Plan
C. Par 3 Golf Course Renovation Plan
d. 18 Hole Golf Course Improvement Plan
e. Maintenance Facility
f. Golf Complex Preventative Maintenance/Repair Fund
Parks Committee Minutes - April 5, 1994 Page 1 of 3
Councilmember Bennett commended Pete Petersen,
outstanding work in developing the master plan
proposal for the golf complex.
Mann moved to approve expenditure of $81,204
improvements at the golf complex. Councilmember
motion passed 3-0.
Golf Complex Superintendent, for his
and 1994 projects and improvements
Councilmember
projects and
motion. The
in buyout funds for
Bennett seconded the
1994 Greens Fee Schedule
e at Riverbend Golf Complex to help fund the
Staff proposed a greens fees increas
proposed capital improvement projects. Pete Petersen abput together
as summary
o f fees
charged by like facilities (similar in quality, p Y Y)
nd
calculated the average fee for those facilities. Proposed fee increases for the
prime season include:
From: $11.00 to $13.00 for 9 holes standard rate
$ 9.00 to $10.00 for 9 holes jr./sr. discount
$16.50 to $19.00 for 18 holes standard rate
$13.00 to $15.00 for 18 holes jr./sr. discount
$13.00 to $15.00 for 9 holes (weekend rate)
$19.50 to $23.00 for 18 holes (weekend rate)
Proposed rate increases for the winter season include:
From: $11.00 to $12.00 for 9 holes standard rate
$ 9.00 to $10.00 for 9 holes jr./sr. discount
$16.50 to $17.00 for 18 holes standard rate
$13.00 to $15.00 for 18 holes jr./sr. discount
$13.00 to $14.00 for 9 holes (weekend rate)
$19.50 to $20 00 for 18 holes (weekend rate)
Patrice Thorell said that the proposed increased rate is just under the average rate
calculated
from
hasthe
beendata
to the Golf Advisorylike
Board.courses. She added that a version of
this
proposal
Doug Schwab reported that the Golf Advisory Board at its January meeting recommended
that there be a reduced rate for City of Kent residents. The Board also recommended
that the proposed rate increase be tied to a facilities improvement plan.
Councilmember Bennett said a reduced rate would give back to the taxpayers rather
than take from them. He felt Administration's view is that the golf complex is an
enterprise facility and purchased through revenue bonds, and therefore it was not
paid for by the taxpayers. Councilmember Bennett suggested that there are portions
of the complex which were paid for by the taxpayers.
Thorell suggested that the rate increase proposal
eitaken takbacen
formatto inistrapresention
if the Parks Committee does not want to app
rove Councilmember Bennett did not feel that was necessary, and made a motion to utilize
this package (Proposed 1994 Greens Fees Schedule) with an adjustment to the $19-50
and $16.50 rates Councilmember Mann for
seconded rthe motients IonsubThetmotion review
passed 3 pe Legal Department.
Patrice Thorell mentioned that there are some practical issues associated with this
Parks committee Minutes - April 5, 1994 Page 2 of 3
which will need to be addressed.
PARK SECURITY/CLOSURES
Parks Department staff suggested five options for park security:
1) Continue with current practices.
2) Hire Park Security Officers to patrol parks from 10:00 PM to 6:30 AM
(estimated $44,227 cost)
3) Hire Park Security Officers to patrol parks from 2:00 to 10:30 PM a>
from 10:00 PM to 6:30 AM (estimated 88,454 cost)
4) Police Department Assistance
5) Police Department Respond on a Citizen Complaint Basis Only.
Jack Ball pointed out that the estimated costs do not include vehicle, uniform or
equipment costs. The previous park security program consisted of unarmed, patrol
officers equipped with radios with direct links to the Police Department. The
purpose of the security officers was for presence and to help identify vandalism
which resulted in a quicker response to repair vandalism since some parks are not
maintained on a daily basis.
Richard Lomsdale of Argus Security explained his company's operation and said that
he could submit a bid for providing park security which is lower than the estimated
costs for those park security options proposed by staff.
Staff will contact Mr. Lomsdale and do more research with the Police Department as
well.
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT PROPERTY STATUS REPORT
Helen Wickstrom reported that the Seattle Water Department is still evaluating their
needs for the site as an intertie property for a holding tank for City of Federal
Way water. If Seattle keeps the property, the City of Kent may still be able to
work out an interlocal agreement to use the rest of the property as a park site.
The City of Seattle will know in May if the property will be surplused. If it does,
Seattle will meet with the three interested agencies and decide the best use for the
site. Wickstrom said they are in favor of a park.
The City of Seattle will contact staff when they know if the property will be
surplused.
KENT SATURDAY MARKET REPORT
Jennifer Stoner reported that of the possible 106 spaces, 50 have been sold for
opening day. Twenty of those vendors have asked to be included in the Cornucopia
Days celebration. Including the Arts Commission Grant, the Market is scheduled to
spend approximately $800 for entertainment, $500 of which is forentertainment for
opening day. Of 23 possible days, ten days have been scheduled for entertainment.
The Market is working on a banner as outlined in the management contract. $853 in
revenue has been brought in.
ADDED ITEM: GOLF ADVISORY REPORT
Doug Schwab reported that the Golf Advisory Board would like to give an overview of
Golf Advisory Board meetings at each Parks Committee meeting. The Committee
responded favorably. Schwab distributed and covered the highlights of March 23,
1994 minutes.
Parks Crnmittee Minutes - April 5, 1994 Page 3 of 3
. KENT
BRENDA JACOBER
(please put in
Council agenda
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
March 15, 1994 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
Planning Staff
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom
Betsy Czark
City Attorney's Office
Other City Staff
Arthur Martin
Other Quests
Bob McIssac
packet)
INTERIM POTENTIAL GROWTH AREA Q. Harris) (Corrections at the request
of King County
Planning Director Jim Harris went over some modifications submitted by
King County on the potential interim growth boundaries. Chair Orr said
it was her understanding that when the City of Kent passed the
resolution on the interim growth boundaries that King County probably
would be responding with some minor changes. Jim said he agreed. King
County now has reviewed the growth area boundaries and has made minor
corrections. Mr. Harris suggested the map be redrawn to show these
corrections and to not amend the resolution. The three Committee
members agreed. Mr. Harris said he would see that the map is redrawn
indicating these corrections.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom informed the Committee that the City
of Kent does not have six more months to complete the Comprehensive
Plan as indicated in recent newspaper articles in the Valley Daily News
and Seattle times. The Legislature gave an additional six month period
to the end of the year for cities and counties who did not finish their
comprehensive plan by July 1st the ability to continue to collect
impact fees until December 31, 1994, as long as their plan is adopted
by the end of the year.
Mr. Satterstrom said the one thing that has an impact directly to the
Comprehensive Plan is the progress on the Capital Facilities Plan.
There is a lot of transition on this project. A lot of people who were
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1994
PAGE 2
working on this months ago are no longer working on it right now nor
directing the project. Over the next eight weeks, the Mayor and Brent
McFall have devised an extensive work program where they will be
intensively working with Henderson, Young & Company to come up with
alternatives for the Council's consideration on the Capital Facilities
Plan.
Also, it was reported that the Transportation element is expected to be
partially completed so it can be put into the Comprehensive Plan around
April 1st. The Parks consultant, Beckwith Consulting Group, is also
not finished with their work at the present time.
Fred said the Planning Department will not be able to make the April
hearing schedule with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
hearing dates cannot be reliably set with all the lose ends. The issue
is over how to control things that are outside the Planning Department
and the interdependence on all of these contracts and decisions that
are being made. The Planning Commission hearings could begin no sooner
than the end of May 1994 or later.
Fred explained the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is contingent
upon the land use and transportation elements; the land use and
transportation elements cannot be considered separately from the
Capital Fcilities
Capital
in order to call it truly ae Comprehensi ve Plan because that's has the
donethe
whole thrust of GMA.
A video will be coming out soon explaining the alternatives to the
Comprehensive Plan. Community Forums will be held like those which
were done two years ago. Fred stated that if anyone is interested
in
forming a group with their co-workers, people at school, people
their neighborhoods, or other employees are welcome to contact the
Planning Department and Planning Department will train whoever would
like to convene a meeting and Survey forms will be provided.
With much discussion, it was agreed information needs to be given to the
Council members of whatever the Planning Commission will be receiving.
This will keep the Council informed before the Comprehensive Plan is
brought to the Council. The information packets would have a memo
attached stating, "you are getting this information so that you can
follow where the Planning Commission is going but it is inappropriate to
try to contact Planning Commissioners and influence their decision-making
process". Also, additional information will be given to the Council when
the Planning Commissioners receive any clarification information.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1994
PAGE 3
1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND
ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS - (B. Ozark)
Planner Betsy Czark explained the 1995 Local Program Policies and the
City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass-through" funds for its 1995 CDBG
program. She mentioned the City has not yet received its exact estimate
for the 1995 funds from King County. However, the County predicts that
the 1995 funding will be at approximately the same level as 1994. The
1994 CDBG funds totaled $373,101. In addition, we are recapturing
$38,83of our 1993 CDBG funds of that did not get
groundo Staff request d that the following ngacti ns be approved off the
1. Approval to accept 1995 Pass -Through funds.
2. Approval to accept the $38,830 in 1993 recaptured funds for the 1995
program year.
3. Allocate the maximum available of 1995 Pass -Through funds for Public
(Human) Services for the City of Kent.
4. Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1995 Pass -Through funds to
Planning and Administration.
5. Approval of the proposed 1995 Local Program Policies.
6. Forward these recommendations to the full City Council for
consideration at its April 19, 1994 meeting.
Planner Czark explained three(3) changes to the 1994 Local Program
Policies. The first one is a revision to Part IV - "Public (Human)
Services", to include special populations that CDBG regards as groups
with a presumed benefit. It also adds a line regarding projects that are
encouraged: "Preventative and subsistence programs are encouraged,
especially those that leverage other services and financial resources."
The second revision is the addition of Part V - "Funding Priorities",
which is to make explicit the funding priorities that the Human Services
Commission has always implicitly used in its application review process.
The third revision is in Part VI - "Additional Evaluation Criteria",
which is to reduce redundancies with other sections of the policies. The
items that were deleted are now covered in either Part VI or Part V.
Councilmember Clark MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the
aforementioned six(6) actions. Motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1994
PAGE 4
ADDED ITEMS
Mr. Harris explained there is a potential problem occurring because of a
person has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezone. With
the Planning Department already involved with Comprehensive Plan project
for GMA, it is difficult to handle these requests with the GMA. Mr.
Satterstrom stated there very few comprehensive plan amendments in the
history of the Planning Department. City Attorney Lubovich said to Fred
that a person who submits an application for a rezone has the right to
have the rezone application processed, even though it may be in conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan. This doesn't mean staff would recommend
approval; it would go to the Hearing Examiner with an obvious conflict
between the request and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is asking the
Council committee members how to proceed on these kinds of issues
particularly since we're so close to finishing the overall Comprehensive
Plan. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Clark SECONDED a
motion to recommend to putting these Comprehensive Plan actions on hold
and to fold them into the current Comprehensive Plan process until the
Comprehensive Plan is done.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
PC0315.MIN
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
APRIL 11, 1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
ARTHUR MARTIN
TIM CLARK
GARY GILL
JIM BENNETT
MAY MILLER
DON WICKSTROM
JIM HUNTINGTON
ROGER LUBOVICH
JEAN PARIETTI
TOM BRUBAKER
STEVE CAPUTO
BRENT McFALL
MR & MRS RUST
Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
Wickstrom submitted an updated memo dated April 11th, from the
City's auditor, and stated that it reflected some percentage
changes on Option 2 and also some changes on Option 3. Wickstrom
stated that sometime ago, Rabanco requested a rate increase and
after much discussion it was decided that our auditor would review
their books. He stated that the results of the audit was in the
Committee's packet. He said with respect to the contract, we were
able to determine that there was some justification in January 1993
in implementing a rate incentive program on our garbage utility,
which we were able to do. Wickstrom said there was some transfer
of the larger container (90 gallon toter) going down to the 60
gallon toters. He said that reflected in a 3.26% change; on April
1st there was a cost of living increase automatically as
incorporated in the contract. Wickstrom explained that the Option
1 reflects the cost of living increase, plus instituting a rate
incentive for recycling. Wickstrom said we believe that there is
some justification under the existing contract for an increase. He
said that results in a total of about 5.86% (on the service portion
of their rate or 2.91% on the total rate - added for clarity).
Wickstrom said that based on how we interpret the language, that's
what we see the contract allows for. He said however the language
is somewhat unclear and may leave room for legal interpretation
from different attorneys.
Wickstrom further stated that the Option 2 in the audit report
is a result of our auditor going to Rabanco and looking at what
items he thought were justifiable. He said that the audit did show
that there wasn't a profit on the project; they were actually
losing money based on their analysis. Wickstrom said that our
auditor looked at the appropriate costs that should be included in
calculating the actual costs for service and that's what Option 2
does. He said if the Committee went with Option 2, we would want
1
to rewrite the contract to clear up any ambiguities in the contract
so the situation could not reoccur.
l the
tor
Wickstrom explained hehetion 3 as contractor)cofeltatwerealappropriateacand
costs that he
incorporating them into the proposed rate increase.
n a 22% increase in the service portion
a
ionof
that Option 2 resulted i
the rate which essentially is 11.4% in the total cost. Wickstrom
said there are two parts to the contract; a dump fee and a service
cost. He said that these costs affect all service related so if
22% is added onto the service cost than over all it really
is3only
an 11.44% increase. Wickstrom said that similarly in op
tion it
is really a 39-1/4% increase in the service cost which would relate
to a 19-1/2% increase in the overall rate. Wickstrom refeiered to
by
a table of comparable rates in the packet; some being p
the contractor and some provided by staff. Wickstrom said we
recydcthesostse utility tax andd to ompare basic rattoter fee re talc excluding any
cling
Mann stated he had some concerns in that a vendor would ld submit a
bid and it would become the low bid; be accepted by Y
then in a short time (within a few months) ask for an increase.
Mann said it appears that the vendor knew that there would be an
increase coming up shortly and submitted a low bid intentionally.
Mann also stated that he is concerned with the fact that a contract
was put together so that it could be interpreted ambiguously and
there would be loopholes within that contract. Wickstrom stated
that attorneys interpret contracts in different ways. He said this
would be something that the courts would have to determine as to
what is right. He said that this corresponds to option 1. Mann
said the committee is encouraged in whatever option we take, to
make sure that the new contract doesn't afford any loopholes that
are evident in this particular contract. He than said we ickstrom
ould be
looking at a different contract, worded differently.
said that we could go with Option 1, subject to them taking it to
court and subject to our attorneys sustaining our opinion of it.
Wickstrom said that with option It they will get automatic cost
thing
of living increase, which is in the contract andd the only d how
that we could justify, based on all the information we saw,
we interpret the contract, is the 3.26% increase attributed to our
insta recycling incentive rate, which essentially would
push ltheir gcustomers down to the small container and would be less
profitable.
Mann stated that according to Wickstr m's memo the first of Marchtion basically
28 which
references the auditor's report,....
follows the contract as we interpret and it should be noted that
the contract language is basically not clear so with this option,
comes a high potential for litigation."theann service statedthat
ais tan
auditor points out that the r
equest by
honest one and that this was a good audit. He further said
nthat
because of the ambiguity in the language, that we are p
ut
r
position of accepting Option 2, which is debatable for the
committee.
Lubovich referenced the contract stating that basically, this
contract was negotiated as the result of the settlement we had a
few years ago and all parties agreed to the starting rate. He said
there was adjustment to rate in order to have the same similar rate
throughout the city. Lubovich said this contract allows for
adjustments in three or four areas only; one is a change in dump
fees and there hasn't been any change in dump fees so there is no
area for adjustment there. He said the second is unusual cost such
as changes in law; Public Works has determined that the impact of
the recycling is such a change that would allow for a certain
factor to be put into the rate and accordingly has provided a
figure for that in that Option. He said the third area for
adjustment is change in C.P.I. which is also included and is very
clear. He said the last item is, a petition may be made to reflect
justified increases and operating expenses not associated with the
other changes. Lubovich stated that as he understands it, the
audit did not show any significant changes such as that which would
justify an increase. As such, based on the interpretation of this
contract from the legal department, there are no significant
changes other than those provided in that one option to allow the
rate increase. Lubovich stated that whether or not they made a
good decision when they entered into this agreement to begin with
and came in with a low figure, is not the issue. He said from the
legal department's point of view from this contract, unless there
is a justified increase or some other factor that meets one of
these four just described, there is no basis for an increase.
Lubovich said we have identified two of those; C.P.I. and the
recycling factor, which we computed. Lubovich said anything beyond
that, is beyond the contract. Lubovich said that their
interpretation of the contract is that it covers anything and we do
not agree with that.
Bennett said that based on what Lubovich said and what he has read,
what bothers him is the inconsistency of the information provided
to the Committee as decision makers from the staff. Bennett again
referred to the letter of March 28th and referenced the "high
potential for litigation." Lubovich reiterated the fact that
anytime there is a dispute on a contract, there is a potential for
litigation. Wickstrom stated he merely pointed that out so when
Committee makes their decision, that is a fact that Committee would
have to consider.
Clark questioned if we change the contract, are we liable to suits
from other bidders for services? Wickstrom responded saying we
negotiate the contract and there never was an option of bidding
involved.
Bennett stated that this all began last July and there should be
some consideration, no matter who the vendor is, to capture that
3
gap in time. Bennett further stated that he felt this is a bigger
issue than this committee can discuss so rather than
choosing
all an
option, he suggested recommending this entire packet
ee
options) go to the full Council.
Clark recommended making a decision on an Option, however also
agreed to Bennett's recommendation of taking the entire packet to
the full Council. otions go before
d 2-1 that the thr
CouneCl
cilwith ark's amendment thateop tion 2 be recommendede full
Coordinated Prevent Grant
052
Wickstrom stated that we have been selected to receiveaa for'our
grant from the state for which these funds will help p hod until
Recycling Coordinator position. He said these funds are g
December of 195 and this will be the last time we will be getting
a grant to offset the cost of that position.
Committee unanimously recommend authorizing the execution of the
agreement for the receipt of grant
Wickstrom stated that this project was contracted with Robison
Construction. He said there is about $50,000 over the contract
amount, specifically because we replaced three additional lines for
one$15,000; two of them were on the infrastructure study;
y doing Wickstrom said b
money because we did not .have to do a re design and weldid more
vof
Y
the infrastructure program.
Committee unanimously recommended the project be accepted as
complete and release of retainage after receipt of state releases.
SR167 HOV Lanes
Wickstrom said that the state is planning to advertise the project
of adding the HOV lanes and essentially carrying on their existing
project starting at 84th Avenue (Central Avenue) and continuing
down to W. Main Street in Auburn. He said the contrac hes for
460 be
Y
working days. Wickstrom said that in that project, James, both
redoing bridges at Green River, Willis, Meeker,
railroad bridges and at Central Avenue, and that this will all
result in some lane narrowing on various city streets. He also
stated that there will be detours in our city streets as well as
detours on the interurban trail. He stated that part of the
agreement packet enclosed, is the detour plan for that trail.
Wickstrom said there will also be some on-ramp closings. He said
4
there is significant work involved that Council should be fully
aware of. In response to Bennett's question on the downside of not
signing the agreements, Wickstrom said that under various
overpasses some of the streets are on their limited access. He
said we do want the HOV lanes because this stretch is heavily
conjested during peak hour traffic. He said this was that
"windfall" money that the state reallocated back to the highways so
we need to go for it if we want to see the HOV lanes on that
system. Wickstrom said we have some minor modifications related to
time, such as James Street. He said we are overlaying James this
year and we won't let them in before we have finished the overlay.
He said there is also some additional signing we want for detours.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing
agreement subject to some minor changes and
Attorney's review and approval.
Meeting Adjourned: 5:10 P.M.
5
the signing of the
subject to the City