HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/05/1994city of_Kent
city Council meetm
Agenda
CITY OF M04T
M
CITY OF ZQ��:IV
I
=17TJ"-3'
MAYOR: Jim White
Jim Bennett
Jon Johnson
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 5, 1994
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tim Clark
Paul Mann
Judy Woods, President
Christi Houser
Leona Orr
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. State Representative Julia Patterson
B. Proclamation - Earthquake Awareness Week
C. Proclamation - Drug Free Washington Month
D. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
E. Employee of the Month
F. Regional Justice Center Update
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. St. Anthony's Alley Vacation (STV -94-1)
B. The Woods Short Plat (SP -94-3) - Appeal of Administrative
Decision
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills - Ordinance
C. Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4)
D. Appointment - Planning Commission
E. Left Turn Lane Improvements - 104th and 256th -
complete
F. Acheson Sewer Extension - Bill of Sale
G. Hardship Case - Charge in Lieu of Assessment
H. Watershed Fencing Project - Accept as Complete
I. Van Doren's Landing Way - Street Vacation Funds
J. Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant - Kent Lagoon
Riverview Park
K. Capital Facilities Plan - Budget Change
L. Out of State Trip - Approval
M. Green River Trail - Acceptance
N. Garrison Creek Condemnation - Ordinance
O. Council Chamber Remodel - Budget Change
P. Appointment - Arts Commission
NESS
Accept as
and
OTHER BUSI
- Requests for Proposals
A. Recycling/Yard Waste
B. Convenience Stores/Gasoline Sales Sign Code Amendment
(ZCA-94-1) - Ordinance
C. Manganese Treatment Plant - Budget Change
D. Suburban Cities Association Appointments to King County
Regional Committees - Resolution
BIDS
A. Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation, Phase I
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
REPORTS
*** EXECUTIVE SESSION ***
A. Labor Negotiations
B. Litigation
8. ADJOURNMENT
ilable for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library.
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is ava
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 will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) State Representative Julia Patterson
B) Proclamation - Earthquake Awareness Week
E) Employee of the Month
F) Regional Justice Center Update
C)
Proclamation
- Drug
Free Washington Month
D)
Introduction
of Mayor's
Appointees
E) Employee of the Month
F) Regional Justice Center Update
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5, 1994
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: ST. ANTHONY'S CHURCH ALLEY VACATION (STV -94-2)
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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. 4MF:L=6 Crowley, 1301 5th Avenue, Suite
Patrick
3500 , Seattle, attorney representing the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop
of Seattle, acknowledged 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.,
SOURCE OF
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING
7. CITY COUN
Councilmember _ &L( l move, Councilmember seconds
to approve the Planning Depa tment's recom-
mendation 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.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION• V v v" ` clic
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
. KENT
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 1994
MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO
VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY EXTENDING NORTHWARD
FROM SAAR STREET AT ST. ANTHONY CHURCH - #STV -94-2
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
I. Name of Applicant
Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
910 Marion Street
Seattle, WA. 98104
II. Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "In order to complete King County
recording showing removal of lot lines in block 9 of Yesler's
First Addition to the City of Kent, in connection with
proposed new church building, the Corporation of the Catholic
Archbishop of Seattle petitions the City of Kent to vacate the
strip of land described above and in return the corporation
will put on record the formal conveyance of a ten foot wide
easement for sanitary sewer as outlined in the attached site
plan (survey).
III. Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comments from the following departments and
agencies:
Public Works
The Public Works Department states that, "This is
an unimproved right-of-way which would be
designated as a class C right-of-way under City
code. Class C rights-of-way may require
compensation therefore. The City does have a
sanitary sewer line which lies within this right-
of-way. Said sewer runs from Saar Street to Titus
#STV -94-2
April 51 1994
Page 2
Street for which no easement other than
prescriptive rights exists for same."
Fire
Parks
Washington Natural Gas
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate a portion of an unopened
alley south of Saar Street between Second and Third Avenues
as mentioned in Resolution 1385 and shown on the accompanying
map, be APPROVED with the following conditions: .
1. Retain a utility easement over, upon, and under the
proposed vacated right-of-way.
2. Require, as compensation for the right-of-way, that the
Church grant to.the City a 15 foot wide sewer easement
centered, as reasonably as practical, along the existing
sewer alignment for that portion thereof, lying
within
the Church property for which no City easement exits.
JPH/mp:a:STV94.2
J i
J � ST ANTHONY CHURCH VACATION
L
STV -94-2
96257er 1_I
�Tus
t —J
s7-
7777 ; -fin
5721375
�I
7 ea7 6 T A W T H
I
Or-! `(
CHURCH
6257 7 c5
Q
L J
___----
?6257P�75E�
Z
I
;25730?.55 I
Q
U
w
Un
257egrsa
I
i
:zs7ea745
,-
186257;0
I >
�98257aaa2 Cc
� 96257ezlO-'5
ES; 62 73e 5i!`
s62s7e.�sE � ..
j 9s?-=-? 45'
3T.
3625
I 96257H�65 562574 c
I
68257P.07!5 � I
i
96zs7aeo6s -
I9zz572as72
96257e0Eo5
W I LL 15
_:5,_A IQ ST.
96257�2a
75 1962S7E0?25
� �95257a2iE�! S
196257a2a3C
96257EP.e'5
'�6257ea0as
i�
96257E0a4a
X422
2 2204BE;
4
o
5
7 422
6
6e26
zze49
K422e�4SOS I
1 1
!2422 49a2�
I
�422Q4922s
Eo900e3$ Zee-, 2 0660
�BazzS tae ' 5 .
o0e0' 1 W 6 00660aLJ?F
206
�39E�'22E .
aOOGSe3e5S ' d eeossa0a 0
Z eeesS�334
..r:. �a06 D e02YI G. D
0206632211 u 6Eae I
'9P�1z 10 W
308o900H32
co
4220-43P-2
4221D:9:2
422j-5 I I
_._ 2<22E
422dSSa2'
51E:
6
62a�
926E
3828E
Ld y,..::
}
CC 2 0
RESOLUTION N0.
A onregrding the acationof the City f oferian
Washington, , g,a
unopened alley south of SaarStreet ween
e
Second and Third Avenues, as petitioned f
or by
Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of
Seattle, the owner of at least two-thirds of
the property abutting the portion of the
unopened alley sought to be vacated, oan
setting the public hearing on the proposed
street vacation for April 5, 1994.
WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed by the
Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, owner of at
least two-thirds of the property abutting an unopened alley south
of Saar Street between Second and Third Avenues in the City of Ye
Kent, King County, Washington; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, PiASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing on the street vacation
petition submitted by the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of
Seattle (attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
this reference) shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City
Council at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 5, 1994 in the Council
Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent,
Washington, 98032.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of
the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law.
Section 3. The Planning director shall obtain the
necessary approval or rejection or other information from the
Public Works Department and other appropriate departments and shall
transmit information to the Council so that the Council may
consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on
April 5, 1994.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _� day of 1994.
Concur ed in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1994.
ATTEST:
BRENDA jACOBER, CI CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C
ROC`,FR A. LUB VICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. 13f-5 , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the / day cf 1,4a/ -LGA 1994_
strtvac3.crd
2
�� (SEAL)
BRENDA JA L�E , CITY CLERK
14AIL TO:
Gerald D. McCaughan
CITY OF KENT
220 So. 4th Ave.
K,Vt, WA 99032
APPLICANT: Corporation o` the CcthO"c
Archbishop as Seattle
Naine: ,7TIJ-776rion qtr. 3eutllev Wa. 98104
Address:
,
Phone:
382-4370
Ci1Y OF KEt�i
STREET MINOR ALLGY VACATION APPLICATION A1iD
PETITION
1= E f3 9 139 }
NUINEEI lNca UEP i
o and Kent City Council: a.
Dear Hay r pectfully request
Ne, the undersigned abutting prce vac owners hereby res,
certain R'x1�0 �trjp- -
hereby he vacated. lGeneral Location)
Legal Doscription
o the
The East eight feet of lot 12� Volume 5 oblock 9 OF f s t
Plats,page 64j King County.
town of Kent, as recorded
Note : See attached copy of Deed.
G SCUGIIT
R(ttF.F STAlE14ENT idNY VACATION 1, pEIN
In order to complete King County recording showing removin c= lot lines
in block 9 of Yesler's First Addit1Othe°Copperatione city ofof the Cathc iceArchbishopt
proposed new church building,
he corporation will put on record the fc�r-d1 conveyance
°{ Seattle petitions the Citypof Kent to vacate the strip of lar.:: described
above and in return
of a ten foot wide easement for sanitary sewer as outlined inr're attache
site plan (survey).
of deed contract etc• suDCcrted by King County
for verification of signatures. Lithcut
Sufficient proof, copy required blhen Corporatier.s,
Tax Rnll, �hnll he suhnitteort shall be F .individual's
these a "CURRENT" title report
red for, then proo 0
Partnerships etc. are being 9 me shall also be submitted•
authority to sign for sa
p " = 200' of t`er^ra:-- _ ---
-- _
Attach a Color coded mlii(TF1ald�nam8iaafrnerrPfnnnit less t4ith11nnn1. lncrri.n_.
snnnht_`nr_vratinn.
ST. ANTHONY CHURCH,
310 Third Avenue South,
Kent, Wa. 98032
TEL. 859-0444
by:_Lj VPastcr
Rev. Peter Duggan,
EXHIBIT
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5. 1994
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: THE WOODS SHORT PLAT (SP -94-3) - APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing has been set to
consider an appeal by the applicant, Thomas N. Sharp of S.D.M.
Properties, of the Woods Short Plat (SP -94-3) Findings issued
on March 18, 1994, by the Short Subdivision Committee.
3. EXHIBITS• Appeal letter by applicant, Findings, staff report,
letter to applicant 3/23/94, Letter from Department of Fish and
Wildlife dated 3/18/941 and verbatim transcription of Short
Plat meetings held on March 10 and 17, 1994
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Appeal of Short Subdivision Committee Findings
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO
YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended
Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember
moves, Councilmember seconds
to concur with the Short Subdivision Committee's approval,
Findings and Conditions.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
3 �,, jel�3
gogogwolo
1984
C, Ty OF KENT
CITY CLERK
F02 SP 9G1-3 (Tl/�cuoups)
7-lorllz- TD 7
CITY OF L"L122 Mr
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
SHORT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
March 18, 1994
MEMO TO: SDM PROPERTIES
NAME OF SHORT PLAT: THE WOOD APPLICATION NO: #SP -94-3
ACTION OF SHORT PLAT COMMITTEE:
ACTION DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
March 16, 1994
September 16, 1994
A. Prior to recordation of the short plat:
1. The existing drainage culvert system which crosses the
property was constructed without City approval. It
enclosed a perennial creek, which is designated in the
Zoning Code as being significant. As such, the
subdivider shall remove the culvert system and
reconstruct the stream system. Said reconstructed stream
system shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with all appropriate requirements of the City's
construction standards. The alignment shall be such as
to fit with the development needs of this short plat and
that portion within the access easement shall be
culverted. Provide a drainage utility easement to the
City for the stream system. The exact width and extent
of the easement shall be subject to the approval of the
Public Works Department.
The subdivider shall submit a detailed stream restoration
plan for the tributary of Big Soos Creek to the Planning
Department and Department of Public Works for review and
approval. Restoration of the stream, stream bed, and
banks shall be completed in accordance with Zoning Code
Section 15.08.224. Excavation, reconstruction of the
creek, and stream bank plantings must be complete,
inspected on site, and approved before the plat mylar may
be signed by the Planning Director.
The above condition is subject to recommendation and
approval by the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
1
Short Subdivision Approval
The Wood
#SP -94-3
2. The subdivider shall comply with the solar access setback
and view requirements of Zoning code section 15.08.230.
3. The subdivider shall install a fire hydrant close to the
proposed access road on 116th Avenue SE to meet the 600
foot maximum distance to a single family residence, or
install a residential sprinkler system.
4. The subdivider shall execute an environmental mitigation
agreement to participate in and pay a fair share of the
construction costs of the City's South 272nd/277th Street
Corridor Project. The minimum benefit to the subdivider
is estimated at $3204, based upon 3 new PM peak hour
trips entering and exiting the site, and the capacity of
the South 272nd/277th Street Corridor.
5. The subdivider shall execute a "no protest" LID covenant
for the future improvement of 116th Avenue SE to City
standards for a Minor Arterial (augmented with bicycle
lanes) roadway.
6. The subdivider shall provide engineering drawings for
review and approval by the City, for the common access
private roadway and all storm drainage facilities which
will serve all lots in this plat; including a 20 foot
wide paved roadway across the entire distance between
116th Avenue SE and Lot 1.
7. The improvements to this private roadway shall
incorporate 20 feet of asphaltic concrete paving,
including a 25 foot radius at the edge of pavement at the
intersection with 116th Avenue SE; and all-weather
crossing of the open drainage course which crosses the
subject property; and a turnaround, if required by the
Fire Marshal, at a location, and designed, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8. The required engineered drawings shall show clearly how
stormwater runoff will be controlled from all properties
in a manner that will not adversely impact off-site
properties, and will convey stormwater to the drainage
course which crosses the subject property.
9. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for
all utilities -sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage,
public and private, and for the entire plat street
2
Short Subdivision Approval
The Wood
#SP -94-3
itself, including the turnaround referenced in Condition
#7, if required.
10. The subdivider shall deed all necessary right-of-way
required for the full construction of 116th Avenue SE to
City standards for a Minor Arterial roadway, augmented
with an additional 5 feet of right-of-way for a bike lane
(116th Avenue is a designated bicycle facility) across
the entire property frontage (both on 116th Avenue SE),
to the City of Kent. The total "half -street" -right-of-
way for this construction is 44 feet. In addition, the
subdivider shall acquire and deed to the City of Kent,
any and all right of way necessary to construct a curb
return and sidewalk, curb radius 35 feet, at the
subdivision street intersection with 116th Avenue SE.
11. The subdivider shall acquire and grant an easement, for
walkway/pedestrian access, along the entire length of the
subdivision street. This easement shall be a minimum of
8 feet wide.
12. The subdivider shall grant to the City a 20 foot wide
easement for street purposes over, upon and under the
full 305± feet length of the "panhandle" portion of "The
Wood" plat. The language of the easement document shall
denote that said easement shall remain a private access
easement for the benefit of the parcels within this short
plat until such time as the City asserts otherwise. The
exact language of the document shall be subject to the
City's Public Works Department review and approval.
13. The subdivider shall grant sufficient property, at the
westerly terminus of the subdivision street, for the
construction of a turnaround. This turnaround shall be
designed to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal and
Director of Public Works.
14. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for
all utilities -public and private.
15. The subdivider shall provide a public gravity sanitary
sewer system capable of serving all lots. If the
existing private system serving the Colonial Square
Apartment complex to the north is to be used to serve the
proposed development the following will need to be
completed. As -built engineering plans shall be prepared
and submitted for review and approval in accordance with
3
Short Subdivision Approval
The wood
#SP -94-3
City construction standard requirements. The system
shall be inspected and tested in accordance with City
requirements and a Bill of Sale as well as necessary
public easements shall be provided to the City.
16. The existing residence located on proposed lot #2 shall
be connected to the above sanitary sewer system. The
existing septic system shall be abandoned in accordance
with City of Kent and State and local Health Department
requirements.
17. Public water shall be available to provide domestic
service as well as fire protection for all proposed lots.
The Fire Marshal will determine whether a fire line
extension is required from the existing water main in
116th Avenue SE.
B. Prior to or in conjunction with any application for a buildinq
permits on any lot created by this plat:
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed tree plan to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The plan
must identify all trees with a caliper of 6 -inch or
greater, marked to show which trees are proposed to be
preserved. Tree protection measures set forth in Zoning
Code section 15.08.240 must be observed during excavation
and construction.
2. Each lot shall be serviced by sanitary sewers as required
in Conditions #15 and #16, above.
3. The applicant shall construct the improvements noted in
Condition #6 and #7 above, for the plat street and
116th Avenue SE; including the temporary turnaround at
the easterly terminus of the plat street.
4. The applicant shall construct the storm drainage system
denoted in condition #6 and #8 above.
RECORDING:
The above conditions must be met before the short plat can be
finalized and recorded. The short plat does not become effective
until such time it is recorded with the King County Auditor's
Office. You have six months in which to do this. If the short
plat is not recorded within six months of the above date of
approval, it shall become null and void. At the written request of
4
Short Subdivision Approval
The Wood
#SP -94-3
the applicant, the Planning Department may grant one extension of
not more than six months.
When the final map is complete and all conditions have been
complied with, bring the map to the Planning Department and we will
send it through King County for recording (the applicant must pay
the recording fee to the Planning Department). The Planning
Department must receive the map in its office at least two weeks
prior to the six-month expiration date in order to allow time for
proper checking.
APPEAL OF SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE DECISION (KCC 12.04.250)
The decision of the short subdivision committee shall be final,
unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the City Council
within fourteen (14) days after the short subdivision committee's
decision. The appeal shall be in writing to the City Council and
filed with the City Clerk and the Planning Department. The City
Council shall act on the appeal within twenty-one (21) days unless
an extension is agreed to, in writing, by the applicant.
Copies mailed to:
Jerry McCaughan, Property Management
Carol Storm, Property Management
Development Services
Fire Prevention
Seattle -King County Health Department
5
CITY OF �r2q
Jim White, Mayor
March 23, 1994
Mr. Paul Morford
SDM Properties
11126 SE 256th Street
Kent, WA 98031
RE: CULVERT REMOVAL
THE WOOD SHORT PLAT #SP -94-3
Dear Mr. Morford:
The Planning Department received the enclosed letter from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The letter supports
the daylighting of streams and specifically daylighting of streams
in the Soos Creek system. Approval of The Wood Short Plat is
contingent upon completion of the requirements stated in condition
A.1 as well as all other conditions stated in the notice of
approval. Restoration and revegetation of the stream on the
subject property, as noted in condition A.1 must be completed as
recommended by the Department of Fish and 'wildlife prior to
recordation of the short plat.
JPH/cw:A:SDM321.LET
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Ja s P. Harris
anning Director
o a m
CURT SMITCH Y°
3y p
� ieey
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Blvd.. Mill Creek. WA 98012 Tel. (206) 775-1311
March 18, 1994
Ms. Linda Phillips =�
City of Kent Planning Department
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
RE: COMMENTS FOR CULVERT REMOVAL ON TRIBUTARIES TO SOOSETTE
CREEK IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST
Dear Ms. Phillips:
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 Department 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.
Although fish may not get up to the headwater streams that have been culverted, they
are still considered to be environmentally sensitive 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 ;,ildlife. 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.
If you have any questions, please call me at 206-775-1311, ext. 107.
Sincerely,
Philip Schneider
Habitat Biologist
CITY OF ��ZSV�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REVISED STAFF REPORT FOR
CITY OF KENT SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
V&TT7EC'Tk- MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1994 (10:00 AM)
FILE NO: THE WOOD, #SP -94-3
APPLICANT: SDM Properties
REQUEST: A request to create four (4) lots from a
1.46 acre parcel located directly south
of 25843 116th Avenue SE
PLANNER: Linda Phillips
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. General Information
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is to subdivide a 1.46 acre parcel into four
(4) lots. The proposed area of Lot 1 is 14,355 square
feet, Lot 2 is 11,550 square feet, Lot 3 is 11,550 square
feet, and Lot 4 is 21,445 square feet.
B. Location
The subject property is located in the East Hill
neighborhood, west of 116th Avenue SE. The access road
proposed for the short plat is an existing private
driveway which intersects with 116th Avenue SE.
C. zoning
The current zoning of the subject property is R1-7.2,
Single Family Residential, with a seventy-two hundred
(7,200) square foot minimum lot size. Property directly
south is also zoned R1=7.2 and properties located east
and directly north are zoned MRM, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential, and further north, MRG, Garden
Density Multifamily Residential. n - -1 leeated
Property east of 116th
Ave SE is in King County, and is zoned S -R (7200) P.
1
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
D. Land Use
The property is presently undeveloped with one residence
located on proposed Lot 2. It is accessed by a private
gravel driveway.
E. Site HistorY
m-� �ssite history ` - -rre
n-�y relevant to this
application may be found in Planning Department Filea
25801 116th Avenue, SDM Properties. In December 19,3-Y,
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 where it crosses the subject
property. A copy 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 property from the Colonial
Square property show the fill and grading of the subject
property. (See Attachment 2)
F. Environmental Concerns
1. Topography and Vegetation
The access road to the subject property slopes from
116th Avenue SE west to the east property line of
proposed Lot 4. The property west of the access
road is flat. The vegetation on the site consists
of grass, meadow plants and small trees.
G. Departments and Agencies advised in review of this short
plat application include Code Enforcement, Fire, Parks
and Recreation, Public Works, and Seattle -King County
Health Department.
H. Utilities Services and Public Improvements
1. Water and Sewer
A twelve -inch (12") water main is available to the
site on 116th Avenue SE. There is no sanitary
sewer available to serve the lot.
VO
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
2. Streets/Roads/Public Ways
The subject property has existing access to. the
site from 116th Avenue SE via a 35 foot wide
right-of-way which extends west from 116th Avenue.
One Hundred Sixteenth Avenue SE is classified as a
minor arterial. The street has a public right-of-
way width of 60 feet. The existing paving width is
30 feet. The street is improved with 2 lanes of
asphalt paving, with street lighting. A widening
strip will be required to be deeded to the City.
New left turn lanes will not be required. The
average daily traffic count on the street is 7,500
vehicle trips per day.
3. Stormwater System
M
5.
C:
There is no stormwater
property. As required by
owner should construct a
which would collect and
from all lots within
stormwater system.
Transit Stops
system presently on the
the City, the applicant/
private drainage system
convey stormwater runoff
the short plat to the
METRO transit service is provided north of the
subject property on SE 256th Street. Available bus
routes are 159 and 168 to East Hill commercial
areas, downtown Kent, and Seattle.
Fire Prevention
The proposed short plat is required to comply with
current fire protection standards. A fire hydrant
must be installed close to the driveway on
116th Avenue SE to meet the 600 foot maximum
distance to a single family residence or .install
residential sprinkler systems.
Street Addresses
Any driveway having three (3) or more lots
accessing off that driveway will be designated a
private street. Upon any improvements to the lots
a street number will be assigned and the owner must
3
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
place a sign at the point designated by the
addressing specialist. This would mean that any
present address would change. The street name
assigned to the private street proposed as access
to The Wood short plat is SE 259th Street.
7. Parks and Open Space
The proposed short plat is served by Seven Oaks
Park, located south of the Kent-Kangley Road and a
neighborhood tot lot east of 116th Avenue SE on
SE 258th Street.
II. Subdivision Ordinance
A. The purpose of the City.of Kent Subdivision regulations,
which includes the requirement for short subdivision
approval, is to: ... Provide rules, regulations,
requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the
city of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality
in subdivision will be attained; that the public health,
safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of
Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly
growth, development, and the conservation, protection and
proper use of land shall be insured; that proper
provisions for all public facilities ... shall be made;
that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be
taken into consideration; that conformance with
provisions set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and
Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
B. Principles of Acceptability
Section 12.04.160, of the City of Kent Subdivision code,
provides the following relevant principles of
acceptability:
1. Create legal building sites which comply with all
provisions of title 15, zoning, and health
regulations;
2. Establish access to a public road for each
segregated parcel;
3. Have suitable physical characteristics; a proposed
short plat may be denied because of flood,
inundation or swamp conditions or construction of
4
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
protective improvements may be required as a
condition of approval;
4. Make adequate provision for drainageways, streets,
alleys, other public ways, water supplies and
sanitary wastes, as deemed necessary.
III. Zoning Code Requirements
A. Section 15.04.180 states that the minimum lot size for
the R1-7.2, Single Family Residential District, is 7,200
square feet.
B. Section 15.02.092 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.
C. Section 15.08.240, Preservation of Trees, states that
retention of significant trees is necessary to maintain
and protect property values, enhance the visual character
of the City, preserve the natural wooded character of the
area, promote utilization of natural systems and reduce
the impacts of development on the storm drainage system.
Sections 15.08.240.B.2., 3., 4., and 5. state that where
it is not feasible to retain all trees on the site due
to proposed development, a site specific tree plan, drawn
to scale shall be submitted, subject to review by the
Planning Department. Section 15.08.240.B.2. sets forth
requirements for protection of trees to be retained.
Section 15.08.240.0 provides regulations for replacement
of damaged or destroyed trees. There are significant
trees on site.
5
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
D. Section 15.08.230 sets forth solar access setback and
view requirements of Zoning code section 15.08.230.
Iv. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
A. The East Hill Plan Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the subject property is single family
residential, four to six units per acre.
B. The East Hill Plan contains goals, policies, and
objectives to assure safe, orderly housing development
patterns. Goals promote diverse housing opportunities,
and protection of the natural qualities present in the
area.
v. Correspondence
A letter was received by the Planning Department on
February 18, 1994 from Dudley, Laura, and Tom Myers, and
Catherine P. and Charles H. Gatter, neighbors of the subject
property, regarding dust and mud caused by construction
activity. They requested that the Planning Department monitor
the construction to see that dust and mud control measures are
implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of
seventy two hundred (7,200) square feet for the R1-7.2, Single
Family Residential, zoning district. The location, zoning, present
land use, and surrounding land use of the subject property do not
present constraints to the proposed short plat. The development
history places constraints regarding the culverted tributary of Big
Soos Creek discussed in section III.B of this report. The stream
should be restored and the creekbank should be planted with
appropriate native plant species. A stream plan should be
submitted for the purpose of review and approval by the City.
Since the stream appears to be a minor tributary, a twenty-five
(25) foot setback should be required in accordance with the
requirements of Zoning Code section 15.08.224.
The requirements of the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Code
Enforcement should be followed to provide the necessary safety,
utilities, services, and public improvements.
ri
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed short plat is
generally consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Zoning Code, and with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions discussed above, and
recommendations of City Departments, Staff recommends conditional
approval of The Wood Short Plat, #SP -94-3, subject to the following
recommended conditions:
A. Prior to recordation of the short plat:
1. The existing drainage culvert system which crosses the
property was constructed without City approval. It
enclosed a perennial creek, which is designated in the
Zoning Code as being significant. As such, the
subdivider shall remove the culvert system and
reconstruct the stream system. Said reconstructed stream
system shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with all appropriate requirements of the City's
construction standards. The alignment shall be such as
to fit with the development needs of this short plat and
that portion within the access easement shall be
culverted. Provide a drainage utility easement to the
City for the stream system. The exact width and extent
of the easement shall be subject to the approval of the
Public Works Department.
The subdivider shall submit a detailed stream restoration
plan for the tributary of Big Soos Creek to the Planning
Department and Department of Public Works for review and
approval. Restoration of the stream, stream bed, and
banks shall be completed in accordance with Zoning Code
Section 15.08.224. Excavation, reconstruction of the
creek, and stream bank plantings must be complete,
inspected on site, and approved before the plat mylar may
be signed by the Planning Director.
The above condition is subject to recommendation and
approval by the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
2. The subdivider shall comply with the solar access setback
and view requirements of Zoning code section 15.08.230.
7
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
3. The subdivider shall install a fire hydrant close to the
proposed access road on 116th Avenue SE to meet the 600
foot maximum distance to a single family residence, or
install a residential sprinkler system.
4. The subdivider shall execute an environmental mitigation
agreement to participate in and pay a fair share of the
construction costs of the City's South 272nd/277th Street
Corridor Project. The minimum benefit to the subdivider
is estimated at $3204, based upon 3 new PM peak hour
trips entering and exiting the site, and the capacity of
the South 272nd/277th Street Corridor.
5. The subdivider shall execute a "no protest" LID covenant
for the future improvement of 116th Avenue SE to City
standards for a Minor Arterial (augmented with bicycle
lanes) roadway.
6. The subdivider shall provide engineering drawings for
review and approval by the City, for the common access
private roadway and all storm drainage facilities which
will serve all lots in this plat; including a 20 foot
wide paved roadway across the entire distance between
116th Avenue SE and Lot 1.
7. The improvements to this private roadway shall
incorporate 20 feet of asphaltic concrete paving,
including a 25 foot radius at the edge of pavement at the
intersection with 116th Avenue SE; and all-weather
crossing of the open drainage course which crosses the
subject property; and a turnaround, if required by the
Fire Marshal, at a location, and designed, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
8. The required engineered drawings shall show clearly how
stormwater runoff will be controlled from all properties
in a manner that will not adversely impact off-site
properties, and will convey stormwater to the drainage
course which crosses the subject property.
9. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for
all utilities -sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage,
public and private, and for the entire plat street
itself, including the turnaround referenced in Condition
#7, if required.
9
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
1o. The subdivider shall deed all necessary right-of-way
required for the full construction of 116th Avenue SE to
City standards for a Minor Arterial roadway, augmented
with an additional 5 feet of right-of-way for a bike lane
(116th Avenue is a designated bicycle facility) across
the entire property frontage (both on 116th Avenue SE),
to the City of Kent. The total "half -street" right-of-
way for this construction is 44 feet. In addition, the
subdivider shall acquire and deed to the City of Kent,
any and all right of way necessary to construct a curb
return and sidewalk, curb radius 35 feet, at the
subdivision street intersection with 116th Avenue SE.
11. The subdivider shall acquire and grant an easement, for
walkway/pedestrian access, along the entire length of the
subdivision street. This easement shall be a minimum of
8 feet wide.
12. The subdivider shall grant to the City a 20 foot wide
easement for street purposes over, upon and under the
full 305± feet length of the "panhandle" portion of "The
Wood" plat. The language of the easement document shall
denote that said easement shall remain a private access
easement for the benefit of the parcels within this short
plat until such time as the City asserts otherwise. The
exact language of the document shall be subject to the
City's Public Works Department review and approval.
13. The subdivider shall grant sufficient property, at the
westerly terminus of the subdivision street, for the
construction of a turnaround. This turnaround shall be
designed to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal and
Director of Public Works.
14. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for
all utilities -public and private.
15. The subdivider shall provide a public gravity sanitary
sewer system capable of serving all lots. If the
existing private system serving the Colonial Square
Apartment complex to the north is to be used to serve the
proposed development the following will need to be
completed. As -built engineering plans shall be prepared
and submitted for review and approval in accordance with
City construction standard requirements. The system
shall be inspected and tested in accordance with City
E
Staff Report
The Wood
#SP -94-3
requirements and a Bill of Sale as well as necessary
public easements shall be provided to the City.
16. The existing residence located on proposed lot #2 shall
be connected to the above sanitary sewer system. The
existing septic system shall be abandoned in accordance
with City of Kent and State and local Health Department
requirements.
17. Public water shall be available to provide domestic
service as well as fire protection for all proposed lots.
The Fire Marshal will determine whether a fire line
extension is required from the existing water main in
116th Avenue SE.
B. Prior to or in conjunction with any application for a building
permits on any lot created by this plat:
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed tree plan to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The plan
must identify all trees with a caliper of 6 -inch or
greater, marked to show which trees are proposed to be
preserved. Tree protection measures set forth in Zoning
Code section 15.08.240 must be observed during excavation
and construction.
2. Each lot shall be serviced by sanitary sewers as required
in Conditions #15 and #16, above.
3. The applicant shall construct the improvements noted in
Condition #6 and #7 above, for the plat street and
116th Avenue SE; including the temporary turnaround at
the easterly terminus of the plat street.
4. The applicant shall construct the storm drainage system
denoted in condition #6 and #8 above.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 18, 1994
c:sp943rpc. rev
10
CITY OF L�LSV�
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
a� (206) 859-3390
SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
®acaA THE WOODS #SP -94-3
Meetings: 3/10/94 and 3/16/94
Approved: 3/16/94
Applicant Appealed
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting:
Harris: This is continuation of The Woods Short Plat SP -94-3
continued from last week which was March 10, 1994 at the request of
the applicant. At that meeting we had gone through the proposed
conditions of the plat and the applicant conferred on certain
numbers of the conditions and also had indicated an o.k. for other
conditions. So, by opening this up I am going to ask the applicant
or applicants to continue on from last week and just open on what
conditions you would like to discuss and maybe just for the record
we could go over quickly and my records show that we had an o.k. on
number 4, and an o.k. on number 9 and number 10 and 12, 13, 14, 15,
17, and an o.k. on B., 1-4, where we have check marks on all the
others. And on number three I don't have anything. I don't know
what we did on number three. It says here we discussed number 3,
but we had discussed that condition 4 was o.k. and 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, everything from 12 to the end of A and everything under B
and then we have check marks by all the other conditions meaning
there may be some questions about them. And 3 is ... I'd say I think
we've talked about number three.
Phillips: Someone made a comment that there was already an
existing hydrant.
Sharp: I did.
Harris: O.k., So maybe that was just a question... maybe I can put
an O.k. on that. O.k. so, applicants, you're on.
Sharp: O.k., lets start with item number one which has to do with
the drainage ditch. I'd like to have made part of the record the
official map, the City's adopted hazard ordinance 2451, City code
12.08.224, well, 224 is the item that we talked about. And then
also, we have a drawing from the Engineering Department... this was
approved 1980, and has to do with the routing of the storm system
in that area at the corner of 116th and Kent Kangley Road. This
was in 1980. Since then the State has widened Kent-Kangley Road
and extended the underground system even farther east and we think
it's in a 36 inch pipe but, I see Don has a drawing here ... is that?
1
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Phil ps: That's from the Planning Department. It came from
Public Works.
_ m: That's the system that exists there, plotted on our GIS
Wick
system.
Shah • Oh, O.k.
Morford: I guess the main point
that, that drawing that we got
extended farther to the east.
is that as near as we could tell
from you, Don, is a change,
or
Sharp: But, we walked that system, and following it from where we
can determine where it outflows and it is undergrounded 500 feet
upstream from that point until where it comes out into a grate on
116th Avenue SE, which I think is right here.
Harris: Five hundred (500) feet upstream.
Sharp: Upstream, right. And that's catch basin 29 or something,
trash rack 29 or something. It has some kind of a rack over it and
then it is open for about 300 feet along which is a road ditch and
then it is covered again in a 12 inch pipe about another 500 feet.
Morford: Approximately.
Sharp: And then it goes open, some kindof an opena Sea right
behind the property to the south of the subj? propertytroperty , orassed in
contending that according to that ordinance that was permit with
1984, that section 15.08.224. B. paragraph 1 and 2 p
additional information, updated information, to the map for the
Planning Director and the Public Works Department to update the map
tion and I can read this into the
based on the more recent informa
record which I think I should do. This is part B., this is on page
5 of the ordinance that I have (reads referenced
e gin of
ordinance). And our position is that this map,
as ly
adopted was not accurate and since then has become less accurate
because of what's gone on, on Highway 18 and the neighbors tothe
south of the subject property undergrounding things and us,
yeah and Ken are.
I'm talking about all the areas downstream
from where we are. So, we're saying that this map should be
corrected to reflect change, to reflect such information and in
d be deleted. Then and also the
that light that item A.1 shoul
requirement for 25 foot each side set back requirement and
according to this finding the Planning and the Public Works
Department can do that.
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Phillips: May I answer the claim that the map is in error?
Harris: Let's let them go through first and finish and then we can
go back and pick up on these items. O.k., do you have anything
more on that condition?
Shar : No.
Harris: O.k. Do you want to discuss any of the other conditions?
Sharp: Yes. I guess I can't comment on the solar access setback,
because that is an issue that was dealt with.
Morford: On that one, Tom, the trees back there, there isn't any
sun back there.
Sharp: How do we resolve that? I guess that's an issue. Lot
number 1? With the large trees, first of all we have a tree
ordinance that you can't cut down the trees, then we have an
ordinance that says we have to have solar access.
Harris: Solar access has nothing to do with the trees. We took
trees out of solar access, the Council did. You'll still have to
provide solar access, and do whatever you need to do with trees
also.
Morford: So, in other words we need to cut down the trees to
provide solar access?
Harris: No, doesn't say that ... you have to make sure that a house
over here doesn't block another house to a certain height that is
part of the formula, it doesn't say anything about trees.
Sharp: O.k. Item number 5 says that we will execute a no -protest
LID covenant for the improvement of 116th Avenue and I said that we
would do that, based on the formulas that the Engineering
Department had and that it was for the 20 foot access to the
subject proposed short plat.
Harris: O.k., is that o.k. on that one?
Sharp: Well, except that it's not the entire area, it's just that
20 foot access area that we are providing the No Protest LID
covenant and I think Don said that the engineers had some formulas.
Don Wickstrom: Essentially it would be that once the project is
formed and an LID is put together, no matter how the LID costs are
F3
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The ,Woods
#SP -94-3
distributed, it may be subject to whether your property would
benefit. You have the right to protest out of there if there
aren't any benefits to your property. other than that I can't tell
you anything different. There are apartments. You've got
apartments to the north that go all the way back to the property
depth. They will probably involve all the way back, they will be
using that road, they have different frontage requirements.
Sharp: So, is there a formula that sets them...
Wickstrom: The normal formula is the zone termini or the 100 foot
zone and each zone is weighted. Based on, it goes all the way back
to the property's depth that fronts on the road and it is generally
weighted... the first zone is weighted... there are seven zones, the
first zone is weighted seven times higher than the last zone. And
that's typical ... that assessment method's actually spelled out by
the State law, the whole zone termini method...
Sharp: So we may...
Wickstrom: All I am saying is that your whole property may still
be involved!
Sharp: Right.
Wickstrom: And it's a question of whether the property is being
benefitted or not with the assessment. You still have the right to
do that, to protest the amount of the assessment. You guys will
probably sell and it won't be a problem anyway by the time that LID
is done.
Sharp: Maybe not ... we'll be dead.
Wickstrom: Pardon.
Sharp: Maybe we'll be dead.
Harris: Remember this stuff is being recorded you guys, so...
Wickstrom: I don't foresee that in the near term, in the five year
picture.
Sharp: Well, why don't you just hold that. I guess we can't agree
to that since we don't what we are agreeing to.
Paul Morford: Number ten is in the same category.
n
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Sharp: Is ten in the same category? I though that we were taking
ten as just this little strip here.
Morford: Yeah, but I ... we're only talking 20 foot on that also.
Sharp: Right, yeah, right, o.k., and then six, "...subdivider
shall provide engineering drawings for review and approval... common
access private roadway and all storm drainage facilities which will
serve all lots in the plat; including a 20 foot wide paved
roadway..." access.
Since these are engineering things we have to do we really don't
have any choice.
And agreements, "...private roadway shall incorporate a 20...",
item number seven, "...concrete...", I am going to start again.
"The improvements to this private roadway shall incorporate 20 feet
of asphaltic concrete paving, including a 25 foot radius at the
edge of pavement at the intersection with 116th Avenue SE; and all
weather crossing of the open drainage course which crosses the
subject property..."
I take it we are talking about the open ditch at 116th?
Wickstrom: I think they are referring to the Reeves, is that now
closed? It goes all through your property where you have tighten
it?
Sharp: Yeah, but we're talking about here, I believe, in item
seven, the ... up here in 116th... we're... come out to 116th, because
we have to...
Morford: The 25 foot radius.
Sharp: ...then we have to go 25 foot radius up there. And then we
have to put a pipe, we have to extend that pipe to this open
ditch... this open ditch that runs along the edge of the road, and
we're not talking about the other open ditch.
Wickstrom: This is closed now.
Sharp: Oh, o.k., so that we understand that this is 116th.
Morford: It goes into the same...
Sharp: Right, this runs down this way, it runs down that hill.
5
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Phillips: I guess we'll need some clarification on this. There's
a requirement, requirement number having to do with the stream
restoration. And so, with a culvert over that open stream, so I
think that was what, I don't know if that...
Sharp: No, I am referring to 116th, I believe item number seven
has to do with the access to the property from 116th. And the
undergrounded ditch is the thing that is a separate issue.
Wickstrom: If that original condition stands, all we're saying is
they'll have to culvert, to culvert that...
Sharp: Yeah, that's reasonable.
Wickstrom: That's all we're saying.
Harris: O.k., is there anything more on seven?
Sharp: Oh, yeah, in the Fire Marshal...
Dinsdale: Before we leave that item. What happens up there right
now at 116th, remember ... we started improving that area to the
north, and including the culverts and so forth and everything was
in a temporary condition because there really isn't any ditch
there. The water basically runs off onto the property. And then
it finds it's way and basically runs ... and so we're going to try to
put a culvert in to meet the potential Engineering requirements
later. That could be pretty tough to do...
Wickstrom: I don't think we are talking about those. I think if
there is a ditch there you have to culvert it, culvert it now it
will remain, because a road is crossing it... that's all we're
talking about.
Morford: There is no ditch.
Dinsdale: At 116th there is no ditch there, there is no culvert
there.
Wickstrom: We are talking about...
Sharp: That's not going to be... yeah, there's no question this has
to stay.
Wickstrom: Down here in order to get a road, a paved road.
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Sharp: Then, the other issue is the Fire Department's requirement
for a turnaround. Paul obtained drawings from the Fire Department
and we think we can make the shunt work on the back lot or lot
number two here.
Morford: Well, I guess we can, I think it will be better...
Sharp: Here?
Morford: Yeah.
Larry Webb: What's going to happen to the property to the south?
Sharp: Here?
Webb• Yeah.
VOICES ALL TALKING AT ONCE.
Webb: O.k. This hydrant you said was 625 feet from the lot line
to 116th?
Voice: Over to the north.
Webb: Opposite side of the street, right?
Dinsdale: It's from... to the street that comes back into Colonial
Square from the north.
Webb: O.k. To far away to make 600 foot.
Dinsdale: I know some...
Morford: Could it be left to 600 foot right to the property?
Webb: That says 625 feet here ... end to end, right?
Sharp: Right.
Webb: So the house is on lot one it's going to be 580 or
something.
Sharp: Paul will have to answer where the hydrant is.
Morford: This is a field measure, but, this 320 feet to the back
of the property. The fire hydrant is probably right here.
7
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Webb: Aren't you out here on 116th?
Morford: Pardon.
Webb: What do you mean over here?
VOICES ALL TALKING AT ONCE.
Webb: can a fire engine... to that?
Morford: Yes, the road is right here.
Webb: The fire... if I get this address here, is the fire engine
going to get this hydrant or is it going to want one from out here?
Morford: All I know is there is a fire hydrant here.
Webb: O.k., that is not as the fire engine would lay hose.
There's going to be cyclone fences here isn't there and trees,
brush and neighbors yards.
Morford• Yeah.
Webb: The fire hydrant has to be usable by the fire hydrant... by
the Fire Department which will be out at 116th. Probably right at
that driveway across the street because I think the main is...
Morford:
There is a
fire
hydrant out there also.
Webb: I
think it's
more
than a little ways. I think it is too
far. Its
got to be
right
there.
Morford: It wouldn't be within the 600 feet.
Webb: O.k., the hydrant has to be on 116th, probably right at that
driveway.
Morford: And that would work then?
Webb: That will work. The Fire Code says whenever you go 150 foot
you got to supply a turnaround. We're interpreting a private
residence is then everybody should have a cul-de-sac. So we, if
you have a fire hydrant at this driveway, we'll let you go 600 foot
with no turnaround. That means 600 foot because the hose bed is
empty. We won't go 605 feet or anything else. If we can pull up
to lot number one, engine in front of the house, and the hydrant's
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
r#'SP-94-3
out here, that's good. If it is more than 600 feet, you're going
to sprinkler.
If I can place 625 feet right here, I think you're going to make
it.
Morford: Yeah, that's...
Webb: The hydrant's got to be...
Morford: Right there.
Webb: ...right there. Might have to be on the wrong side of the
street. Because I think the main is right over here.
Morford: Yeah, the main is on that side... is there's anyway to
determine right now if we can have it on that side of the street?
Webb: I don't know with these drawings.
Harris: I would say no, this meeting is not set up to do that,
we've got a condition here; you need to work with the Fire
Department to consummate the condition and we need to move on.
Webb: And we'll say a hydrant in the neighbor's yard is no good
for our use.
Sharp: Yes. We understand the 600 feet. Hope we never have to
use it.
Harris: Number eight.
Sharp: O. K., number eight..., "Required engineered drawings
shall show clearly how stormwater runoff will not adversely impact
off site properties, and will convey stormwater to the drainage
course which crosses the subject property."
That's something we can work with. We understand we are not going
to dump water on the neighbors property.
O. K., the next one was eleven. "The subdivider shall acquire and
grant an easement, for walkway/pedestrian access, along entire
length of the subdivision street. This easement shall be a minimum
of eight feet..."
We don't understand what that is.
9
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Wickstrom: Did we resolve ... you resolve whether they had thirty
feet, thirty five or twenty foot?
Sharp: Twenty foot. It'g going to be twenty.
VOICES ALL TALKING AT ONCE
Wickstrom: Is there a lot line adjustment...
Sharp: We'll do a lot lime adjustment there. I didn't know that
at the a lot line
adjustment.
So th i will�now be, instead of135 feetng to , 20 feet.
Wickstrom: That's when ''7e were...
ere..25to ause walk, of that long
panhandle, to get a place for pedestrians
Shar • Does that mean itis paved. A car only takes up a ten foot
lane.
Wickstrom: You can delete eleven.
Sharp: O. K., so then the next one is B?
Harris: I thought we got, done all that.
Sharp: Yea. So I guess the unresolved issue is one.
Harris: We need to come back to A-1.
Morford: General information, item 1, C, zoning there is some...
Harris: Let's finish the conditions and go back to that later,
otherwise we are going to be flitting all over the place. O. K.,
we're back to A-1. Linda you had a problem.
Phillips: Yeah. In support of the City's keeping this as a
stream, you were saying that there was some authority of the
departments to be able to revise the map. But I spoke at length
with the Fisheries Department and they still require a hydraulics
permit on this tributary and their map that classifies this stream
is, their definition does not include the fact that it is culverted
or not.
Fisheries doesn't care ... it's potential apparently that they judge
on. And so their map matches the City's stream map as far as where
those tributaries are. It's a classified stream and the fact that
it has been heavily culverted makes no difference to the State.
Fu
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
So that's where we stand in support of ... I mean, probably we don't
have any choice that it's a stream.
Morford: We have had the same dealings... The Fisheries people
came out and said it's not a stream. We've got a letter to that
effect.
Phillips: Well at this point this is a stream. And so our Code
applies.
Dinsdale: Is this the Fisheries map?
Phillips: This is the Fisheries classification map, right.
Dinsdale: You're saying that map is the same...
Phillips: Yeah. It matches the map that we have here in the
report.
Morford: It's not a...
Phillips: No, they didn't use the city map at all.
Sharp: Yes, that is the same map that we have here, right?
Phillips: Yeah. Then there is another map, he sent me the wrong,
he sent me 29, he didn't send me 28 and there also is another that
Fisheries uses that shows...
Dinsdale: Well, apparently this isn't an up-to-date Fisheries map,
because...
Phillips: Well, you're talking about it's not correct because it's
been culverted.
Dinsdale: No, it's not correct because the stream does not follow
the... in there... the channel is not shown.
Phillips: So how are you establishing that? That would have to be
established by the Fisheries Department.
Dinsdale: When the widening of Kent-Kangley was done and the
Fisheries permit was given to, and when the City did the storm
system in 1980 and later, when it was revised again, apparently a
stake was found in there ... where is the current information from
the Fisheries Department?
11
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Phillips: Yeah, the issue is that even though the stream's been
diverted or culverted or changed in various ways, impacted by
development, it's still a stream. The fact, the definition of it
being a stream is true, maybe the course has changed slightly, but
it's still, you're not going to be at issue at all with the fact
that the stream crosses the subject property and Fisheries and the
City still have a definition that makes it a stream.
Morford: What is that definition?
Phillips: Fisheries... the only time when Fisheries would say that
a stream is not a stream, well the City definition is in the
ordinance. It's in the very front of the ordinance.
Harris: I think that the issue before us is, do we leave this
condition in or do we take this condition out. That is evidently
what the applicants are wanting. Then the applicants position is
that it is not a stream, it's not a tributary of anything, it's a
ditch. The staff at this time... position is that it is a tributary
to a stream. That it was covered over a number of years ago and we
sent a letter saying that wasn't... shouldn't have been done, and it
was done.
Maybe some other things have been done to that creek or stream.
And I guess the way we are going to determine this is when we vote
on this ... how we as a committee vote, whether this to stay in or
not.
Sharp: Jim, if we thought we could make this thing a stream we'd
do it. I don't think that it makes one bit of difference, I am not
a Fisheries biologist, but from what I can see, it makes not one
bit of difference opening this thing up. Right down the street
it's covered; there's not going to be ever any fish coming up this
thing. You know I went through it today, again, and it runs along
the ditch here, there's culverting. I mean it's a matter of
reasonableness I think.
Dinsdale: The fish are not going to jump out of a culvert, through
a grate up into the ditch.
Harris: It's not necessarily a matter of fish being in there.
It's the head waters of a creek and stream that has fisheries.
Dinsdale: I would say from that standpoint one of the most
important things the Fisheries Department is concerned about is the
warming of the water here. To open the ditch up would actually be
negative from that standpoint from the Fisheries Department.
12
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Phillips: Fisheries is not the only issue. There is water
quality, habitat of other kinds and so, in backing up the
definition of a stream, for instance, the Fisheries Department
still calls it a stream, but there are other issues besides
Fisheries, there are other habitats and the department of wildlife
and other...
Morford: Have any of you walked this?
Phillips: I walked part of it, I didn't get to the...
Morford: If we vote on it, hopefully the people that vote on it
would walk it before you vote. You may need to continue it again.
But the other thing is, I think Don knows this, if you walk part of
this, you're talking about habitat, I think there are all kinds of
issues here, but before the last section for about 3 or 400 feet,
or maybe longer, it is the shoulder of the road where the grease
from the road runs off which... we tried to demonstrate that it's
a ditch not a stream.
But in fact the City has made it a ditch shoulder of the road, and
there is no way that the City, if they had environmental concerns
would have ever done that. I know the engineering office... from
116th, from Kent-Kangley north, it is the shoulder of the road. I
have never ever seen any stream or tributary that's got the oil
from the strip coming off it.
Phillips: Well, those issues are issues that may remain to be
corrected as far as water quality concerns.
Morford: But anyway, Tom read the, your ordinance and, I've been
following these things too, and that was basically our ordinance
look's at that hearing. You've done a map from aerials, and
whatever. The map now there is no where near the same as what is
actually out there.
And so, therefore, it really needs to be addressed by the City and
we're pointing out, give me the—their data to make their
correction. Or maybe you go out there and do your survey separate
from us and include something different. But until the Engineering
Department and the ... whoever needs to physically, I guess verify
what we are saying.
Phillips: Of course the issue is on this subject property...
Harris: I think that we got to move this on. We've heard you and
you have heard us. We've got the condition in here. Is there ... is
13
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
there anyone on the committee got any discussion they would like to
have on this.
Wickstrom: I do have some concerns about that being classified as
an open stream based on physical characteristics of it now. I know
if it is on Fisheries' designation then they usurp all of our
designation and even our drainage requirements. They have taken
over our authority to do anything in that area, so I guess we have
a problem in terms of ... I can see the applicants' point that it is
not really what you call a stream. Doesn't have the
characteristics of a stream at this point.
I also want known that Fisheries can overrule us. In requiring, if
you need a Fisheries permit, if they say you need a Fisheries
permit, they can, will require you to retrofit your site. If it's
water quality facilities and detention facilities we get into a
whole other concern.
Morford: And we don't have a concern with Fisheries Department
because they have been out there before. They were out there years
ago. Today there's a different individual. When we did Colonial
Square and they said, "hey, you know..."
Wickstrom: I know in the last...
Morford: And we don't have any problem dealing with them on this
issue...
Wickstrom: ...over the last two years, they have taken total
jurisdiction control, they claim total jurisdictional control over
drainage facilities within our jurisdiction. An theoretically they
say we should be getting approvals on all drainage plans... As for
a Fisheries permit they are going to, and Fisheries phase, they're
going ... you're going to be faced with some pretty stringent
requirements.
Harris: One thing that might be in this condition is to have it
contingent upon Fisheries. And you getting a Fisheries permit,
contacting them, having them contact us and work out what you may
have to do with this.
Morford: I guess I don't, I personally don't have any problem with
that.
Harris: But with leaving this here and with a caveat that this
hinges on, as much as anything, Fisheries.
14
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Dinsdale: Approval of Fisheries...
Harris: And if they, now, if they renege on this and say that no,
they have changed their mind, they don't care, then we have to come
back and Don and I and staff have to sit down and figure out what
the status of that creek or stream is as per ordinance.
Wickstrom: If Fisheries doesn't care, then, as Jim said, and it
remains culverted, then we have other conditions relating to
asbuilt plans, design capacity of the system, easement
requirements, that would have to be complied with.
Harris: Let's put that, add that on there and we'll leave this as
it is contingent upon Fisheries; whatever Fisheries gives.
Wickstrom: That would be a permit contingent upon Fisheries
approving an existing system or continuation of your existing
system. If Fisheries says no...
Harris: Then, if they say no, they may make you restore or do
whatever. We would work together on that. If they say ... I mean if
they say, no you can't continue on like you are. If they say go
ahead, we don't care, we're not going to give you a permit or
anything, then we have to come back and reclassify the creek
someway.
Wickstrom: I guess it would be subject to them getting the
necessary approval from Fisheries for the existing systems that is
there. If you can't secure that, then we've got to go back to this
condition and if you can secure that then you have to come back to
the committee for a modification of this condition.
Morford: I think it will benefit everybody because they say that
probably want you to culvert the shoulder of the road and stuff.
Harris: Well, see, here's what's going to happen and it is coming
very soon. The whole basin here is in a big muddle about water
quality and what's happened to creeks and streams and even the
tiniest little tributaries that only flow six months out of the
year. If things continue as they are, the Federal Government will
step in here and take over the whole scheme. Everything in Pierce
County that flows into the Green, everything in the Enumclaw
Plateau that flows into the Green and everything in King County
that flows into the Green.
If we can work these problems out ahead of time and the Corps of
Engineers and the Feds, and I am not sure which Federal Department
15
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#sP-94-3
would be in charge, could see that we are making some progress.
Because the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is involved in this. Their
fisheries have been diminished to almost nothing which is part of
their livelihood and they can chronicle that and make a statement
on that.
I think what we've got to do is work diligently up front to
protect, where we can, and, however we do it, every little trickle
that starts upstream that becomes a thickercl ekhat becomes a
true stream, becomes then part of the Big Soos
Creek and on into the Green.
And so, in a statement, does everyone kind of understand the
modification of the condition.
Morford: We fully, I mean ... you know we like streams.
Harris: Let's...
Phillips: I have one question and that is if, if the applicant
asks for approval of the stream as presently culverted, I don't
know, what the Fisheries process for doing that is. If they ask
for Fisheries determination of whether this strathat's ma different
should be
daylighted as required by the City of Kent,
process. So I am a little concerned about the fact that, from...I
discussed with the Fisheries Department, the culverting was illegal
in 1989 when it was culverted because they would have required a
hydraulics permit at that time to do it. There have been permits
from the City or from the State.
And so, therefore, I just wanted a little bit more discussion
about, is that the best way to proceed, is that still...
Harris: Well, we've got to tie in with Fisheries someplace,
someway, there's an actor in this.
Phillips: Were ... the City, in any case, wants this stream restored
because of our City Code...
Harris: Well, I think we need guidance on that from others, so...
Phillips: Well, the City's asking the applicant to ask for
approval for a culverted stream is counter to the City Codes saying
that the stream should be restored.
is one
you
ere
hat
Wickstrom: I t as has the re are twoissuerighth to prove tupdated
the a
have to have, pp
16
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
information and when it is supposedly classified as a stream in the
first place. That's the one issue.
The second issue is whether or not the Fisheries would approve or
allow to continue the culverted system (unclear) if they don't
approve that, it's practically a ditch, to allow it to continue as
presently a ditch (unclear) they say well ... then it's an issue
of whether there is enough information to provide (unclear) it
may not be classified as a stream.
Phillips: The City has told them it should be daylighted. We
really are contesting our Code to this application, but that would
mean that if they do ask them to unculvert it, then does that mean,
I mean that they will not approve it in culvert.
Morford: Well, Linda, the whole issue here is that Code says if we
show, if anybody shows that the map's wrong, not correct, there's
Code allowance for that and that's the issue we're raising, we're
discussing.
Phillips: The issue we're discussing is whether it's o.k. for you
leave the stream in the culvert, and I think that's what a
different issue. That's ... if that's the way we want to approach
it.
Harris: I think we need a ... to tie in with the Fisheries
Department now and find out what's going on in that area. Are
there any other...
Webb: Maybe what you should write... what's... what are your
requirements for the request. And have Fisheries answer it. And,
then, maybe you should agree what you think it is.
Phillips: Well, I...
Webb: Sounds like we are going after two separate things.
Harris: Well what I want to make sure is that ... yeah, I want to
make sure that Fisheries isn't ask the question, can I do this
culvert here and yeah, we don't care. That isn't what the question
is. The question is there a creek or stream or a tributary to one
and how do you feel about what's going on there. That's the
question that has to be asked of Fisheries.
Phillips: Actually answered that...
17
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Harris: And, I think we need to get a letter from them then, and
some correspondence and then you also need to talk with them so
that both parties are talking to them. But, if you are talking to
them about this culvert here and I want to continue culverting this
and you talk to somebody other than to who we talked to, you may
get cross answers.
Morford: Well, it's obvious that Linda's bent on having the thing
opened up.
MANY VOICES ALL TOGETHER.
Harris: If that's what it is, we'll close this meeting right now
and you can appeal this to... this City Council...
Morford: I can't speak candidly here.
Harris: You can't speak by putting someone down.
Morford: I didn't think I put her down.
Harris: You certainly did.
Morford: That's your opinion. (end of side A) The real point
here, I think we're getting off of ... I think Don's made some good
points there, that the Code very specifically acknowledges when you
do these maps ... that there are ... they even say in the preamble
there ... that they are the maps with best data that they have and
you know they probably didn't walk every inch of the stream or what
not. And so, I think the Code is well written, its read there that
says if there is other data that leads...
Harris: But, Paul, that's a catch 22. You guys filled up part of
this. When we did that map that creek was open on your property
and you filled it up.
Morford: O.k., that's the same stream that the City filled
in ... the neighbor's filled in ... the State filled in... the County
filled in.
Harris: But, you filled it in.
Morford: That's correct.
Harris: Without a permit.
"U.
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
- The Woods
#SP -94-3
Morford: That's correct.
Harris: And wrecked part of the creek.
Wickstrom: The issue is whether he can go back and get a ... go back
and get a ... have Fisheries essentially approve a hydraulic permit
as if it were received in 189.
Phillips: Well, I would like to propose a counter to that and that
is, if Fisheries... if they closure... Fisheries permit that opens
the stream as required by the City of Kent Zoning Code, and
Fisheries says no, you don't need a hydraulics permit, that's not
a stream we're concerned about, then the City would say you need
not open it. Because that would be ... I mean, our first
recommendation ... since our Code says it is a stream, and we have
every indication that it is a stream, then if they don't require a
hydraulics permit, for the work that the City is requiring, then
the City would accept that as proof that, that it is no longer a
stream; Fisheries doesn't care about it, Wildlife doesn't care
about it, and that it, the (unclear) State would apply, the way it
is now...
Harris: That's something that we have to find out.
Phillips: That's right, so, I would like to see it based on
opening the stream rather than on leaving it closed. That's where
my concern is. Because Fisheries may have other, other policies
that say, in five years we're not going to preserve this (unclear)
opening of the stream which is a different thing than saying
working in this stream requires a hydraulics permit.
Harris: Well, that's what we will have to find out from Fisheries.
We will ... this Department will propose that question to them.
Morford: We don't need to talk to them?
Harris: You can talk to them. But we're going to find out and get
a letter from them about how ... what they think about this system
here.
Sharp: Who ... who have you been talking to in Fisheries, Linda?
Wickstrom: Do we have a modification for this condition? (an
aside)
Harris: Well, I think they will ... they'll have to find out from
Fisheries. (an aside)
19
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Shar • Are we going to continue this?
Harris: No, we can't continue this any longer.
Morford: Again, I urge the members of this Committee to walk that
thing before you vote.
Wickstrom: I think we are looking for a modification of the
condition that would...
Harris: And I would suggest...
Wickstrom: ....that would address the Fisheries permit and the
need for the condition.
Harris: I would suggest that that modification is on the record
here and we will do diligently contact Fisheries and get back to
you on what the status of that is.
Morford: You're not going to vote on it.
Harris: We're going to vote on it and with that change to
condition one.
Morford: O.k., now, there's a couple of things coming back on the
history is that appropriate to address now?
Harris: Yes.
Morford: One is C zoning ... is an error.
Harris: What page is that on.
Morford: It is on the first page.
Harris: Page one, I.C.
Morford: The fourth line down. It says ... the third line
down... the last... first sentence on the third line down; it says:
"Property directly south...", should be scratched. Also, south is
perties located"... strike east and
zoned RM ... MRM and 7200, "and pro
put west ... "and north are zoned MRM, Medium Dens G rdenity
Density
Residential" and after its comma, and MRG,
Multifamily Residential," all should be struck. There is no
multifamily there... it's higher density adjacent.
20
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
And then we read on through, "property located directly north is
zoned R1-12." And it's MRM. That's directly north of the Colonial
Square property.
And I thought ... had I been writing this, I would have made those
corrections and I would have said property adjacent on three sides
is zoned MRM, north, west and south.
Harris: Do you have any other comments on the staff report?
Morford: Yes, I have. On the history ... oh...and on land use D.
"The property is presently undeveloped". And it's not correct. It
should be said developed with one house.
Phillips: One house, that's right.
Morford: And under Site History. The whole Site History only
deals with the violation and there is more to the site history than
that. It seems ... it doesn't seem right only to relate the site
history to the violation. Such as that site was MRM until the East
Hill or the downzone here about three years ago and then it was
downzoned. Those types of things which we want to be in the
history, we ... the history should consist of something other than
one letter that was already addressed. History should be property
was zoned MRM say 20 years ago... taxed... you don't want to deal
with that ... but due to unknown circumstances, even though the site
is surrounded on three sides by MRM, was downzoned to single
family.
But, anyway, I think we need some history on that it was MRM.
Phillips: We can put that in. We usually put in what is relevant
and I wasn't there when it was downzoned and I didn't have any
files.
Harris: Did you have any other comments.
ll
O.k. , it's time to
dmodify orsome otdenyhere on the shortss. plat 'for entertain
Woods,
motion to app
#SP -94-3.
Wickstrom• I recommend approval with the conditions as modified
and recognize that modification to Condition A-1 as part of it is
recorded. The intent there is on the tape.
Harris: Recommended approval with changes as noted.
21
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/16/94 Meeting
The Woods
#SP -94-3
Thorell: Second.
Harris: O.k. Is there any discussion? All in favor? AYES.
O.k., the motion carries. so your plat is approved with these
caveats, specially on I -A, and I'll try to get some of this stuff
off the tape here so we can get it written up for you.
O.k., that concludes the meeting on The Woods #SP -94-3.
Kent Planning Department
c:sp943min.326
22
HTCITY OF ) MW2
d1�7S4IICC9[A�
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
THE WOODS #SP -94-3
Meetings: 3/10/94 and 3/16/94
Approved: 3/16/94
Applicant appealed
Verbatim Minutes of the 3/10/94 Meeting:
Jim Harris: Short Subdivision Meeting for March 10, 1994.
The first short plat on the agenda today is The Woods, #SP -94-03,
and before we get into that short plat what I would like to do is
go around the room and introduce ourselves and I'll start with
myself.
I am Jim Harris, Planning Director and Chairman of the Short
Subdivision Committee.
Don Wickstrom: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director and member of
the Short Plat Committee.
Shupe Holmberg: Shupe Holmberg, Baima & Holmberg.
Keith Benson: Keith Benson, Benson Short Plat.
Nick Bucaheit: I am interested in this short plat for Mr. Benson
here.
Fran Nelson: Fran Nelson.
Bob Nelson: Bob Nelson.
Gary Wagner: Gary Wagner, real estate broker.
Noelle Rogerson: Noelle Rogerson.
Bill Dinsdale: Bill Dinsdale.
Tom Sharp: Tom Sharp, SDM Properties.
Linda Phillips: Linda Phillips with the Planning Department.
Fred Satterstrom: Fred Satterstrom with the Planning Department.
Patrice Thorell: Patrice Thorell, Parks Department.
1
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
Harris: And Patrice is a member of the Short Subdivision
committee.
I' 11 read a little bit out of the Kent Subdivision Code, get it
into the record. A little bit on how we operate. We do generally
make a decision at this meeting. I'll read a little bit out of the
Code.
It says the Decision of the Short Subdivision Committee shall be
made at the Short Subdivision Committee meeting. An additional
meeting may be called if no decision is reached at the first
meeting. The second shall be no later than seven (7) days after
the first meeting. An applicant may request that an application,
on which the Short Subdivision Committee has taken affirmative
action, be reopened by the Committee if it is found by the Planning
Director and the applicant that new information has come to light
that might affect the action taken by the Short Subdivision
Committee. In case of a denial by the Short Subdivision Committee,
any appeal shall be made to the City Council as per Section
12.04.250 of this Subdivision Code.
Let me turn the page and then read about the appeal.
Titled, Appeal of Short Subdivision Committee Decision and this is
Section 12.04.250 of the Subdivision Code. The decision of the
Short Subdivision Committee shall be final unless an appeal by any
aggrieved party is made to the City Council within fourteen (14)
days after the Short Subdivision Committee's decision. The appeal
shall be in writing to the City Council and filed with the City
Clerk and Planning Department. The City Council shall act on the
appeal within twenty-one (21) days unless an extension is agreed
to, in writing, by the applicant.
So, I'll open up the meeting for The Woods Short Plat #SP -94-03.
Linda Phillips, from the Planning Department, will give us an
overview of what the applicant is intending to do here. Linda?
Linda Phillips: The Woods short plat #SP -94-03 is a proposal by
SDM Properties to subdivide approximately an acre and a half parcel
into four lots. They are large lots; they range from around 11,000
square feet to 21,000 square feet. So they all comply with the
zoning of R1-7.2.
The property is located just south of 25843 116th Avenue. It is
reached by a panhandle type access road and which is on steep
grande and then the lots are all fairly flat.
2
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
- The W000ds
#SP -94-3
There were a couple of issues in the review of this short plat that
were probably a little beyond the average one.
The site history shows that there was, in the past, a letter
written by the Planning Department regarding the filling and
culverting of a stream that ran across the property. And this was
in conjunction with culverting a stream on a property that is just
north.
And so, at this time as a condition of the short plat, the City is
asking that the stream will be opened and restored with stream
banks and stream beds that are subject to approval by both Public
Works Department and Planning Department.
Another issue was the panhandle road and the possibility of
property developing to the east of this property that might also
use that roadway.
So there is an easement asked for over what now will be proposed to
be a private road, so that, at some time, that may become a public
road which serves more lots.
So, generally, the conditions reflect the issues that were
reviewed. And all of the departments, reviewed this short plat and
presented the Planning Department their conditions of approval with
the problems that are now found in the conditions.
Harris: O.k. Thank you, Linda. The way we operate here is that
we ... Linda has given an overview and talked a little bit about some
things that are in the staff report.
What we would like to do now is turn to page 7 of the staff report
and have the applicant turn to 7, and the Committee members and
where it talks about recommendations and potential conditions and
have the applicant review with us those conditions, starting with
A-11 2, 3 and going right down the list, page by page. So that we
are open for discussion. The applicant can ask questions about a
condition, ask that a condition be modified or ask why the
condition is there or whatever you wish to do. So the ball is in
your court.
Tom Sharp: O.k., my name is Tom Sharp, I am one of the partners
with SDM Properties and I can start with, first of all I will go
through our concerns and questions and then I will ask for a
continuance of this hearing, meeting.
3
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
Harris: O.k., so you want to start with A-1, then.
Sharp: Yeah, that's.... that's fine.
Harris: If it's o.k. just say it's o.k., but if it's got some
wording you don't like...
Sharp: For one thing we have, we see this as a program stopper,
and in 19....
Harris: Is that condition 1 you are talking about?
Sharp: Right.
Harris• O.k.
Sharp: The entire condition 1.
Harris• O.k.
Sharp: In 1989, when we culverted this area, we were faced with
some lawsuits concerning this open ditch, that bred mosquitos, that
had mud in it. Kids had gotten stuck 'in it. And it was just --
prior to our buying the property, this property was kind of a horse
farm, so this whole thing kind of got made into a big cess pool
from horses, and we didn't see any real alternative but to culvert
it. It was never, we, as far as we could tell there never was any
fish or anything in this thing since it had been dead because of
the horse... the horses were all padding around there.
And the State has undergrounded the ditch downstream. The
neighbors have undergrounded the ditch downstream too with a 12
inch culvert. It runs along the road as a drainage ditch and we
think the designation of a significant stream is a ... probably a
wrong one to make ... a culvert section to this requirement and it's
beyond our comprehension how this can be considered a significant
stream.
Harris: Mr. Sharp, would you own up to have received a letter in
1989 talking about this and not doing anything about it, responding
back.
Sharp: We had a meeting with, first of all, we think this, let's
go back a little bit. concerning history, to place the whole
history of this site on one letter we think ... that the history
should be expanded from the staff report.
4
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
We had a meeting, which I didn't attend, but Paul Morford and
Gary Gill and Randy Blake, who is no longer with the City, had a
meeting out there concerning this in 189 after our receiving the
letter. And, we showed them where this thing had been
undergrounded prior to our doing anything with it.
And we thought that the whole issue was resolved five years ago and
then here it crops up again. And, you know, it's beyond us why
this thing keeps rearing its head.
Harris: O.k., so your saying you don't like the condition A-1?
Sharp: Right. I am hoping there is a way around this.
Harris: o.k. Did you have any comment on any of the other
conditions?
Sharp: Yeah.
Harris: O.k.
Sharp: We think there could be a conflict with the tree ordinance
and the solar ordinance.
Harris: We're on....
Sharp: Item 2.
Harris: Two, o.k.
Phillips: The tree ordinance and solar ordinance are standard
conditions and solar states that whether or not compliance is
required and is established by the applicant at the time of an
application.
Sharp: What does that mean?
Phillips: That means that ... there's a test in the Zoning Code,
and, so, measurements, so the applicant uses that formula to tell
the City whether or not building plans have to be revised or built
in accordance....
Sharp: So, you're talking about the application for a building
permit.
Phillips: That's right.
k,
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
Sharb• o.k.
Phillips: The condition is standard.
Sharp: O.k.... all right ... so we have a (unclear) that we
think could be a condition because there are significant trees
there and it could be a condition. There could be a problem for
future growth.
Harris: O.k. I don't see trees on number 2, would you...
Sharp: No, but I am saying there are some things here that are in
the tree ordinance.
Harris: O.k., continuing on then sequentially here.
Sharp: There is an existing hydrant within 600 feet of this
property and I would confirm this with the Engineering Department.
Harris: O.k.
Sharp: O.k., number 5 is...
Harris: How about 4?
Sharp: I don't have any comments.
Harris: Four is o.k.?
Sharp: It probably has to do with paying money.
Harris: O.k. - 5.
Sharp: The subdivide shall execute a no protest LID covenant for
the future improvement of 116th. We think that we should execute
such LID covenant for a width of 20 feet alone.
What we're talking about is, since this property abuts 116th for 20
feet that we should, we'll become a party to that no protest LID
for the 20 feet to the applied lot and not from the entire 160...
Don Wickstrom: Let me read this. The issue would be how the
property would be assessed and whether or not there would be
benefits construed. That would be part of the LID probably.
This just says you would participate in the LID.
9
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
Sharp: And we say that's fine ... I know, Don, there are some things
we go back... that's pretty much standard written down language
isn't it?
Wickstrom: Right.
Harris: Six, then.
Sharp: O.k., six, we say that we will provide engineering drawings
for review for any stormwater to run to a ditch and in general draw
all this probably for residential structures that could be built in
the area.
Bill Dinsdale: Is that what you were getting at there, Don?
Wickstrom: No, we're just looking...
Dinsdale: We're not talking about a water retention and storm
drainage system for the short plat?
Wickstrom: No. We're talking about how you are going to handle
the run off ... the roads ... not to cause problems...
Dinsdale: Right.
Harris: O.k. Anything more on six?
Sharp: No.
Harris: O.k., seven then.
Sharp: On seven we don't understand why a turnaround is a
requirement for the Fire Department. There are instances all over
the...
Harris: The Fire Department back bind; you can come, actually come
to the table if you want because... we have and their
meeting...we'll be back for the next...
Phillips: I think we had a discussion with you after the
conditions were already in the report and you said that there was
some variations on turnarounds because of the distance of the
driveway.
Sharp: We don't have any problem with doing something with the
Fire Department. We want to know what it is before we say we'll
agree to it.
7
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
Mike Evans: What are you proposing.
Shar • We don't have any proposal. We don't ... what the
requirements are.
Wickstrom: Why don't you give him a copy of that.
Evans: ..45 feet outside, 23.2 inside, minimum 20 foot wide;
surface approved per all weather to support apparatus of current
size...
Sharp: O.k., why don't we get back to you... and we can take a
look...a look at it and see where we are.
Evans: You can go ahead and propose something for me to look at
and I can say whether it's adequate or not.
Dinsdale: Our proposal is that we do not provide a turnaround;
trucks can back out that short distance.
Sharp: It's only 305 feet to this first lot here.
Dinsdale: And there are short plats all around that area that have
been done that way, so I am sure it's something that could be
acceptable for the Fire Department.
Sharp: Maybe we have a widened driveway or something for you to
pull into or something, this lot right here; on lot number 2.
Evans: Because there are existing lots not necessarily the
criteria for all future. Because those don't conform doesn't mean
that we eliminate them altogether.
Dinsdale: There was one just done over here by the City just a
short time ago I am familiar with because I bought one of the lots.
Evans: Where was this at?
Dinsdale: Over on 100th Avenue, just about a mile north of 240th
on 100th Avenue. It was one of those... it was a drug seizure
property that was short platted by the City...
Harris: Let me tell you the way the committee is probably going to
deal with a condition like that, like this. This condition will
probably stay as it is stated, and, you, the Fire Department and
the applicants will have to work it out, work the details out,
because we can't sit here and work the details out. You don't have
E.
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
a proposal for them to see and that is what they're going to have
to have. So what we have in here is, "and a turnaround at a
location, and designed, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal."
That means getting to the middle of the table and talking about
your needs and their needs and coming to some agreement. And we do
this consistently, and if you found one some place where one wasn't
done it may have been that something was worked out with the Fire
Marshal where they came to an agreement that something didn't need
to be done there.
So could we move on then to the next one then.
Sharp: O.k., eight, before we could do any engineering drawings
for storm run off, concerning this property, someone has to tell us
how we're going to handle the restrictions downstream with 12 foot
culverts and so forth, 12 inch culverts, that have been installed.
So I think that is an engineering thing that we have to work out.
We want to bring up the issue, in that there are some significant
restrictions downstream. When we put in this culvert, we put in
24 -inch culverts where eighteens, two eighteens that were required,
and designed based on that previous design of colonial Square.
O.k., number nine, I don't have any problems there.
Number ten, we don!t have any problems with deeding the property
along the 20 foot section of the flag lot to the City for the
eventual; probably widening of 116th.
Harris• Eleven.
Shar : On number eleven, the issue of bike access, we take it that
this bike access would be within the 20 foot, and not an additional
right of way.
Wickstrom: What is the width of that panhandle? Our Assessor Map
shows 35. Is it 35 or...
Sharp: It's 20.
Wickstrom: What we reserve there is that there is the provisions
within that 20 foot ... what we are talking about is a long panhandle
that—did you do a lot line adjustment?
Sharp: I don't think so. I think our deed says 20 feet. I'll
have to check that out. We were always under the impression
because our deed said 20. Maybe we had 35.
E
Verbatim Minutes 3/10/94 Meeting
The W000ds
#SP -94-3
That's it. All of the rest of these are minor questions.
Harris: O.k., then you earlier, at the beginning of the meeting
said that you were requesting a continuance?
Sharp: Yeah, one week.
Harris: O.k., so I would then move that we continue The Woods
short subdivision #SP -94-3 until 10:00 next Thursday, which is the
17th, I think, yes seven days from today and here in this room.
Wickstrom: So move.
Harris: It has been so moved. Is there a second.
Patrice Thorell: Second.
Harris: All in favor.
Wickstrom, Thorell, Harris: Aye.
c:sp943.min
10
J CONSENT CALENDAR
rV1J^r 3. City Council Action:
CCouncilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Con t Calendar Items A through P be approved.
Discussion/}
Action
Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
March 15, 1994.
Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the 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
3-1-94/3-15-94
Check Numbers
140719-141187
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers
3-18-94 Checks 193318-193652
Advice 13736-14080
Amount
$1,089,281.94
Amount
$ 412,257.60
261.106.71
$ 673,364.31
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A -B
Kent, Washington
March 15, 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, 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 and Public Information & Government
Affairs Division Manager Martin. Mayor White arrived at the
meeting at 7:20 p.m. Approximately 45 people were at the
meeting.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor
COMMUNICATION Pro Tem Woods introduced Bob Beavers who is the
Mayor's appointee to serve as a member of the
Saturday Market Advisory Board.
Regional Justice Center Update. Wendy Keller,
Project Manager, noted that the demolition plan
has been completed, the SEPA checklist was
turned in to the City on March 4th for review,
the RFP's are now being developed for the
demolition and asbestos removal to go along
with the plan, and that the demolition and
asbestos removal is scheduled for May. She
explained that the first phase of the remedia-
tion to remove tanks outside of the building
will occur on March 24th, and that they are
working on developing the removal of the Penta
tank on the Howard site which is Phase II.
Keller noted that the Community and Business
Advisory Group (CBAG) along with the 1%
Committee will be touring the site tomorrow to
see where the tanks are located, where Penta
is, and what happens after the building is
demolished, and get a general idea of how the
site is laid out. She also informed the
Council that CBAG will meet again on April 20th
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to
discuss mitigation issues.
Keller explained that all the issues have been
divided into two large groups in which each
issue is being worked through during the design
and submission of the demolition and remedia-
tion plans. She noted that the first group
consists of design, technical and environmental
issues related to the permit and building
process with careful attention given from the
1
March 15, 1994
PUBLIC buildings orientation to landscaping, lighting,
COMMUNICATION and meeting with the neighbors surrounding the
site. she explained that concentration on the
traffic and transportation issues will continue
for the next couple of months, and that they
are testing out various alternatives and
costing them. She noted that the second large
category consists of operational issues or
future potential issues, and that they are
proposing a process to resolve these issues by
creating a memorandum of understanding. She
explained how the process will work, and that
they hope to have all the memorandum of under-
standing issues resolved before applying for a
construction permit with technical and environ-
mental issues completed before the construction
documents are completed. She noted that the
design development documents are completed, and
that they have met with the technical and
permit departments to thoroughly review all of
the issues.
Upon Clark's question, Keller noted that a
special presentation could be done either at a
Council meeting or in small sessions to discuss
such things as each type or group of people who
would be on the site at what hour, and on what
basis they would be on for the number of hours
they would stay or leave. Keller explained for
Clark that the staffing will go through five
different stages of review, and that the number
of employees given to the Council at this point
are at the second stage of review with three
more to go. She noted that at full build out,
approximately 8-10 years after the opening, the
staff will be slightly over 700 total, but that
not all of them would be on site because some
would be fill-ins or relief staff. She
explained that the number of new jobs will be
between 480 and 520 with some being transfers.
Upon Clark's question, she noted that they
would be interested in perhaps conducting
tours, letting the press through, and/or
arranging events to allow people to see how it
operates before the official opening date.
Keller stated that she would be back the first
meeting in April to give another update.
2
March 15, 1994
CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR N, excluding Item O, be approved. Mann
seconded and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes
of the regular Council meeting of March 1,
1994, and correcting the date at the top of
pages 2-10 in the February 15, 1994, minutes
from February 15, 1993, to February 15, 1994.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
SANITATION Cambridge Short Plat. AUTHORIZATION to accept
the bill of sale and warranty agreement sub-
mitted by Altier Acquisition & Development for
continuous operation and maintenance of 384
feet of watermain, 192 feet of storm sewer and
740 feet of street improvements and release of
bonds after expiration of the maintenance
period, as recommended by the Public Works
Director. The project is in the vicinity of S.
270th Street and 43rd Place South.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
James Court Townhouses. AUTHORIZATION to
accept the bill of sale and warranty agreement
submitted by March Development for continuous
operation and maintenance of 56 feet of storm
sewer and 190 feet of street improvements and
release of bonds after expiration of the
maintenance period, as recommended by the
Public Works Director. The project is in the
vicinity of 23829 102nd Avenue SE.
SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement.
AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the
contract with R. L. Alia Company for the 5th
Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement project, and
release of retainage after receipt of State
releases, as recommended by the Public Works
Director.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
116th Avenue Road Improvements (264th -266th).
AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the con-
tract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. for the
116th Avenue SE Road Improvements from SE 264th
3
March 15, 1994
STREETS St. to SE 266th St. project, and release of,
retainage after receipt of State releases, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
SIDEWALKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks.
AUTHORIZATION to set May 3, 1994, as the public
hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for
LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks.
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
L_ID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks, Washington
Avenue to 64th Avenue. The bid opening for
this project was held on February 15th with 10
bids received. The low bid was submitted by
Mer -Con, Inc. in the amount of $83,731.70. The
engineer's estimate was $87,798.50. The pro-
ject consists of installing concrete sidewalks
on the north and south sides of West Smith
Street from Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue
South. The Public Works Committee has recom-
mended that this bid be accepted.
Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that
there is an amendment to the award for LID 342
in that the low bid of $83,731.10 should be
changed to $82,931.70. He explained that the
difference of $800 is the cost for removing a
sign in City right-of-way, and that the owner
feels this is too costly so he will remove the
sign himself. MANN MOVED that the contract for
LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks, Schedule I,
be awarded to Mer -Con, Inc. in the amount of
$82,931.70. Bennett seconded and the motion
carried.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
CONTROL LID 344 - 108th SE & SE 240th Traffic Signal.
AUTHORIZATION to set May 3, 1994, as the public
hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for
LID 344 - Traffic Signal at 108th Ave. SE & SE
240th St.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
LID 344 - 108th Avenue SE & SE 240th Traffic
Signal. The bid opening for this project was
held on March 2nd with 6 bids received. The
low bid was submitted by Breaker Construction,
4
March 15, 1994
TRAFFIC Inc. in the amount of $84,724.00. The engi-
CONTROL neer's estimate was $100,000. The project
consists of installing a new traffic signal and
modifications to the existing street lighting
at the intersection of 108th Avenue SE & SE
240th Street. It is the recommendation of the
Public Works Director that this bid be
accepted.
MANN MOVED that the contract for LID 344,
Traffic Signal at 108th Avenue SE & SE 240th
Street, be awarded to Breaker Construction,
Inc. for the bid amount of $84,724.00. Bennett
seconded and the motion carried.
ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - 4B)
Sharp Annexation (AN -94-2). This date has been
set for a meeting with the initiators of the
Sharp Annexation (AN -94-2), an area of approxi-
mately 80 acres located adjacent to Kent's
easterly boundary, lying easterly and adjacent
to 116th Avenue, south of S.E. 240th Street,
westerly of 120th Avenue S.E., and north of
S.E. 248th Street. Staff recommends that the
Council accept the 10% annexation petition and
geographically modify the proposed boundaries
by extending them to include all of the rights-
of-way for 120th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 248th
Street where they are adjacent to the proposed
annexation. In addition, staff recommends that
the Council authorize circulation of the 60%
petition subject to the City's existing
indebtedness.
Planning Director Harris briefed the Council on
the State Statutes regarding the type of
meeting being conducted tonight. He emphasized
that the meeting tonight is really with the
initiating parties, but that others may want to
speak on the issue. He went over the location
of the Sharp Annexation for the Council, and
explained that the size of the annexation is
approximately 80 acres, 24 parcels with approx-
imately 12 residential units, and a population
of about 28.
5
March 15, 1994
ANNEXATION Harris explained that the County's recently
adopted Soos Creek Plan designates the Sharp
Annexation area as single-family residential
with 1-8 dwelling units per acre, and that the
Soos Creek Implementing zoning designates this
area as GR -5 (Growth Reserve) with a minimum of
1 dwelling unit per five acres. He noted that
the zoning is temporary and will automatically
revert to two different zoning districts on
December 31, 1994. He stated that the area
adjacent to SE 240th Street will become RN2400P
which is a medium density multi -family dwelling
district with 1 unit per 2,400 sq. ft., and
that the East Hill Plan covers this area with
anticipation for development of 4-6 dwelling
units per acre.
Harris stated that the Sharp Annexation will
have an interim zoning of R1-20 which is 1
dwelling unit per 20,000 sq. ft. upon annexa-
tion with the final zoning applied within six
months of the annexation. He explained the
impacts the annexation will have on City
operations with the immediate impact on the
shifting of related revenues and responsibility
for funding the area's current level of service
in the Fire District. He noted that the Sharp
Annexation satisfies the City's policies which
were adopted in 1987 by Resolution No. 1150.
He clarified for Woods that approximately 10
acres of this land will be designated multi-
family by December 31, 1994, if not annexed to
the City.
Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th, Kent, representing
SDM Properties, stated that Kent City Code
Section 15.09.055 allows for the Hearing
Examiner to rule on the initial zoning since
the City currently has a comprehensive plan in
place for this area. He noted that then the
ordinance adopting the initial zoning may
become effective upon annexation of the area,
according to the law, and not after annexation.
He noted that since the proposed annexation
area is a part of the comprehensive plan, the
zoning should be in effect prior to the final
annexation adoption by the City. Bob
Richardson, representing the First Christian
E
March 15, 1994
DOWNTOWN revenue from the citizens and businesses.
PARTNERSHP $32,000 is already included in the 1994 Budget.
The letter of agreement details the agreement
with the City and the KDP, which includes
progress reports on the matching revenue,
activities and programs and the payment
schedule.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENTCALENDAR
NMarketl
TEM 3N)
KentAdvisory Board.
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Bob
Beavers to serve as a member of the Saturday
Market Advisory Board. Mr. Beavers is a Kent
business owner, is active in the Kent Downtown
Partnership, and is a long-time Kent resident.
He will replace Linda Johnson, who resigned,
and his term will continue to 10/95.
PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
COMMISSION REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR
Planning Commission - Dismissal of Member.
Authorization to set April 5, 1994, as the date
for a public hearing on the dismissal of a
Planning Commission member for unexcused
absences.
Councilmember Orr explained that the Planning
Commission member has resigned and that no
further action is needed.
REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4).
(Mayor White arrived at the meeting just prior
to discussion of this item.)
This date has been set to consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of approval of an
application by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. to rezone
7.25 acres from R1-7.21 Single Family Residen-
tial, to R1-5.01 Single Family Residential.
The property is located at 10050 S.E. 244th
Street.
Woods expressed concern regarding an article in
today's newspaper suggesting that the rezone
might have been discussed out -of -order at the
recent Council retreat. She stated for the
public record that during the discussion on
Growth Management and Affordable Housing, this
9
March 15, 1994
REZONE item did come up in passing, but certainly
wasn't the focus of the Council's discussion at
that time. She noted that it would not have
been appropriate to do so, and that if there
has been some misunderstanding, the Council
would like to extend its apology and assure all
participating parties that that was not the
case.
Matt Jackson from the Planning Department gave
a brief overview, and noted that the rezone was
requested in order to build a 42 -lot sub-
division on four existing lots. He explained
that the site was annexed to the City in 1987
as part of the East Hill Well Annexation with
land uses varied as is the zoning. He noted
that the site is generally flat with slopes of
less than 5%, and City services available. He
stated that a designation of non -significance
was issued on September 17, 1993 (NV -93-36)
with 15 conditions, and that on February 1,
1994, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval
of the rezone. ORR MOVED to accept the find-
ings of the.Hearing Examiner, and to adopt the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval
to
of the Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4),
and direct the City Attorney to prepare the neces-
sary ordinance. Bennett seconded.
Orr stated that the comments made at the
retreat may have been taken out of context and
misinterpreted because this particular piece of
property was not the topic of their discussion.
She noted that in the past she has not favored
this type of rezoning, but that the site is
unusual based upon its location and surrounding
uses, so this is probably an appropriate use
which she supports. She opined that this type
of zoning should be used sparingly and not as
an opportunity for single-family zoning land to
be suddenly turned into 5,000 square foot lots
because it may not be appropriate in every
location. The motion then carried.
Paul Morford noted that some people in the
audience would like to speak to this issue.
Mayor White explained that since the motion was
made and passed nothing would change, but that
10
March 15, 1994
REZONE they would be happy to hear from those in the
audience. Operations Director McFall commented
that the Hearing Examiner conducts the public
hearing on rezones, and that this hearing has
already been held. There were no further
comments from the audience.
ECONOMIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
DEVELOPMENT Cascade Development Company - Resolution
CORPORATION Approving Second Supplemental Indenture. In
1985, the City of Kent Economic Development
Corporation issued bonds on behalf of Cascade
Development Company, the obligors on the bonds.
(City of Kent Economic Development Corporation
Floating/Fixed Rate Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1985.) Cascade Develop-
ment Company now wishes to refinance these
bonds. In the process of doing so, Cascade
Development Company is asking the Economic
Development Corporation and City Council to
approve a second supplemental indenture to
amend notice requirements for the refinancing.
The Economic Development Corporation is ex-
pected to consider this request prior to the
Council meeting.
JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1386
approving a second supplemental indenture for
Cascade Development Company as obligor on bonds
issued through the City of Kent Economic
Development Corporation. Woods seconded.
Lubovich noted that the Economic Development
Corporation did hear the matter at 4:45 p.m.
this afternoon and passed a resolution sup-
porting the amendment to the indenture. The
motion then carried.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of a request for an
excused absence from the March 15, 1994, City
Council meeting from Councilmember Christi
Houser. She will be unable to attend.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
DEPARTMENT Investigative Buy Account - Ordinance
Amendment. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3159
creating an investigative buy account for the
City of Kent Police Department.
11
March 15, 1994
POLICE Authorization is requested to amend Kent City
DEPARTMENT Code Section 3.41 to add an investigative buy
account for the Kent Police Department. This
account shall not exceed $10,000 and will be
used for investigative enforcement of acti-
vities not related to drugs or gambling which
are already authorized in the original part of
this ordinance.
The additional sections of the ordinance:
1) create the investigative buy account;
2) allow transfer of funds; and 3) allow the
lawful spending for investigation related to
such items as stolen property or prostitution.
Funds are already included in the 1994 Budget,
however, the ordinance needs to be approved to
allow lawful investigative spending.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through February 16, 1994 and
paid on February 28, after auditing by the
Operations Committee on March 9, 1994.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
2/16-2/28 140284-140718 $1,4001407.42
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/4/94 Checks 192959-193317 $ 254,315.82
Advice 13396-13735 387,992.48
$ 642,308.30
REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that Kent will
be hosting the April meeting of the Suburban
Cities Association, and that more details will
be forthcoming. She also noted that the
Suburban Cities Board will hold a special
meeting, with representatives of all 32 cities
in the County, on March 23rd to consider Growth
Management proposals including affordable
housing. She explained that the issues will be
12
March 15, 1994
REPORTS acted upon in early April so it may be neces-
sary to call a special meeting of the City
Council and/or a workshop to give direction to
our representative, the Mayor, as to how our
Growth Management representatives from Suburban
Cities should vote at those upcoming meetings.
Operations Committee. Johnson noted that the
next Operations Committee meeting will be at
9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 23, 1994.
Planning Committee. Orr announced that a
briefing on the Growth Management Act was given
today at the Planning Committee meeting, and
that she requested Council be kept apprised of
the proposals coming from staff regarding the
EIS and Comprehensive Plan. She explained that
information only packets will be coming to the
Council simultaneously as they are submitted to
the Planning Commission, but stressed that the
packets are not for input into the Planning
Commission process.
- Public Safety. Bennett noted that an issue
regarding parental responsibility/curfew
ordinance was discussed today at 5:00 p.m. by
the Public Safety Committee. He explained that
a special meeting has been proposed for the
last week in March, but that he needs to con-
firm it with Committeemember Houser, who was
unable to attend the meeting, before notifi-
cation is sent out.
ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNED at 8:02 p.m.
Donna Swaw
Deputy City Clerk
13
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TOP OF THE HILL REZONE w^Dnrrra�r^� -
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3l�tO for the
Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4)� as approved by the City
Council on March 15, 1994.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and City Council minutes of 3/15/94
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Cit Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
W
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, to rezone
approximately 7.25 acres of property from R1-
7.2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet) to R1-5.0, Single
Family Residential (minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet).
WHEREAS, on December 3, 1993, an application for a
rezone was filed by Baima & Holmberg, Inc., seeking to rezone
approximately 7.25 acres of property from R1-7.2, Single Family
Residential (minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet) to R1-5.0,
Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet); and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 1993, an environmental
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), with fifteen
conditions, was issued by the Kent Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the rezone request was
held before the Hearing Examiner on February 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued findings that the
proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, that
the proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would
be compatible with development in the vicinity, that the proposed
rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the
vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which
cannot be mitigated, that circumstances have substantially
changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will
not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, these findings are consistent with the
standards for a rezone set forth in Section 15.09.050(A)(3) of
the Kent City Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 1994, the Kent City Council held
a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation that the application to rezone approximately 7.25
acres of property from R1-7.2 (attached as Exhibit A), Single
Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet) to R1- ...
5.0, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council moved to accept the findings
of the Hearing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for approval of rezone RZ-93-4, also known as the
Top of the Hill rezone; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The subject property located at 10050 SE
244th Street and depicted in Exhibit A, attached, consisting of
approximately 7.25 acres of property which is presently zoned Rl-
7.2, Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7,200 square
2
feet) be rezoned to R1-5.0, Single Family Residential (minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet).
Section 2. Severability• If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
3
y
PASSED da of 1994.
day y of 1994.
day y of 1994.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. Passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
topohl.ord
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4
(SEAL)
City of Kent - Planning Department EXHIBIT A
tit
APPLICATION NAME: Top of the Hill
NUMBER: #RZ-93-4
REQUEST: Rezone
Zoning / Topography
DATE: February 2, 1994
LEGEND
s, Application site
® Zoning boundary
Kent City Limits
March 15, 1994
DOWNTOWN revenue from the citizens and businesses.
PARTNERSHP $32,000 is already included in the 1994 Budget.
The letter of agreement details the agreement
with the City and the KDP, which includes
progress reports on the matching revenue,
activities and programs and the payment
schedule.
APPOINTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
Kent Saturday Market Advisory Board
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Bob
Beavers to serve as a member of the Saturday
Market Advisory Board. Mr. Beavers is a Kent
business owner, is active in the Kent Downtown
Partnership, and is a long-time Kent resident.
He will replace Linda Johnson, who resigned,
and his term will continue to 10/95.
PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
COMMISSION REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR
Planning Commission - Dismissal of Member.
Authorization to set April 5, 1994, as the date
for a public hearing on the dismissal of a
Planning Commission member for unexcused
absences.
Councilmember Orr explained that the Planning
Commission member has resigned and that no
further action is needed.
REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4)
(Mayor White arrived at the meeting just prior
to discussion of this item.)
This date has been set to consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of approval of an
application by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. to rezone
7.25 acres from R1-7.2, Single Family Residen-
tial, to R1-5.0, Single Family Residential.
The property is located at 10050 S.E. 244th
Street.
Woods expressed concern regarding an article in
today's newspaper suggesting that the rezone
might have been discussed out -of -order at the
recent Council retreat. She stated for the
public record that during the discussion on
Growth Management and Affordable Housing, this
N
March 15, 1994
REZONE item did come up in passing, but certainly
wasn't the focus of the Council's discussion at
that time. She noted that it would not have
been appropriate to do so, and that if there
has been some misunderstanding, the Council
would like to extend its apology and assure all
participating parties that that was not the
case.
Matt Jackson from the Planning Department gave
a brief overview, and noted that the rezone was
requested in order to build a 42 -lot sub-
division on four existing lots. He explained
that the site was annexed to the City in 1987
as part of the East Hill Well Annexation with
land uses varied as is the zoning. He noted
that the site is generally flat with slopes of
less than 5%, and City services available. He
stated that -a designation of non -significance
was issued on September 171 1993 (NV -93-36)
with 15 conditions, and that on February 11
1994, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval
of the rezone. ORR MOVED to accept the find-
ings of the, -Hearing Examiner, and to adopt the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval
to
of the Top of the Hill Rezone (RZ-93-4),
and direct the City Attorney to prepare the neces-
sary ordinance. Bennett seconded.
Orr stated that the comments made at the
retreat may have been taken out of context and
misinterpreted because this particular piece of
property was not the topic of their discussion.
She noted that in the past she has not favored
this type of rezoning, but that the site is
unusual based upon its location and surrounding
uses, so this is probably an appropriate use
which she supports. She opined that this type
of zoning should be used sparingly and not as
an opportunity for single-family zoning land to
be suddenly turned into 51000 square foot lots
because it may not be appropriate in every
location. The motion then carried.
Paul Morford noted that some people in the
audience would like to speak to this issue.
Mayor White explained that since the motion was
made and passed nothing would change, but that
10
March 15, 1994
REZONE they would be happy to hear from those in the
audience. Operations Director McFall commented
that the Hearing Examiner conducts the public
hearing on rezones, and that this hearing has
already been held. There were no further
comments from the audience.
ECONOMIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
DEVELOPMENT Cascade Development Company - Resolution
CORPORATION Approving Second Supplemental Indenture. In
1985, the City of Kent Economic Development
Corporation issued bonds on behalf of Cascade
Development Company, the obligors on the bonds.
(City of Kent Economic Development Corporation
Floating/Fixed Rate Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1985.) Cascade Develop-
ment Company now wishes to refinance these
bonds. In the process of doing so, Cascade
Development Company is asking the Economic
Development Corporation and City Council to
approve a second supplemental indenture to
amend notice requirements for the refinancing.
The Economic Development Corporation is ex-
pected to consider this request prior to the
Council meeting.
JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1386
approving a second supplemental indenture for
Cascade Development Company as obligor on bonds
issued through the City of Kent Economic
Development Corporation. Woods seconded.
Lubovich noted that the Economic Development
Corporation did hear the matter at 4:45 p.m.
this afternoon and passed a resolution sup-
porting the amendment to the indenture. The
motion then carried.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of a request for an
excused absence from the March 15, 1994, City
Council meeting from Councilmember Christi
Houser. She will be unable to attend.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
DEPARTMENT Investigative Buy Account - Ordinance
Amendment. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3159
creating an investigative buy account for the
City of Kent Police Department.
11
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ April 5, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1ARROIN,TMENm - PLANNING COMMISSION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
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
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEM
ERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: APRIL 5, 1994
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
I have recently appointed Connie Epperly to serve as a 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.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
1. SUBJECT:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5. 1994
Category Consent Calendar
LEFT TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS - 104TH & 256TH
2. SUMMARY ST TEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, fAuthorization to accept as complete the contract 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
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum and vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
RM
7.
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 5, 1994
TO: Mayor & City Co
upcil
FROM: Don Wickstrom� \/1
RE: 104th & 256th Left Turn Lane Improvement
Accept as Complete
This project consisted of furnishing and placing asphalt concrete
pavement, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, signal system
relocation, storm sewer pipe and various related appurtenances.
The project was awarded to Gaston Bros Excavating, Inc. for the bid
amount of $398,951.44. The final construction cost is $414,054.88.
The difference in cost is due to the removal of contaminated
material and the addition of a rock retaining wall along with other
miscellaneous changes in the field.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director to accept
this project, and release of retainage after receipt of State
releases.
KEN INOTON AVE PO" S ' �• -' +
• / `i`i' q
2 S -VAN ANTER AVE
1y `
0
.a
err G � �
MARIO �y rIALEXA DER ca - 4t0'.,
PL
i S CREST AVE' !!n�
JLANEF
_S NE r 1... S (iA FlELD > m '1 nw r > F > VIEW
P� S ELLIS w w 1r ��ar'. .mac
y y Pt.6 m
1 1 REITEN RD w w `C'1 0
1 m r w y It `�1: O �r m
S MAf'LEWOOD AVC ,{a _>
S KIMEtER�< OOtE' \/^ 1/M` �al�� 1. -wi = r
AVE _
•i�
ro �. 94TH AVE S
Z: L/M/TS �;m �_ - la,''-}�'��a N 96TH
OZn �P p•�\1..f,t��i �-te .�Y�./yw =0 96TH AVE S
01 r''i ' ` V2�. n C:. �'•O2d _7 AVE S
97 - x
Mr
so.
•/. Etc'![ ; �r. �C �` i ^t�' O�
98TH P� S �j t,<<' ('; 98TH AVE S t
N L}�•' 1�D y yJ
PLS
_T ,
w Tl—
ca f IWA as
..100TH PL SEWx
&i N
JOIST A Z
Yk
AVE SE
= m
NC `' N o m
AV SE w� $ I m m w
y OE N m 103RD
.. rD CAN AVE SE
104TH AVE SE Z v 104TH AVE SE
_s r
r N
• m nn n
Amol m
106TH AVE SE rn rn Z
o m m 2 m
' r -
r
N y
w N
1108TH AVE SE - -i 109TH AVE SE
Nw 109TH = a N
w�m AVE j' S w y= w _
nim y v 109TH
JC PL SE
O
PL SE _'Ld
O11
r• OX> 111TH AVE SE -H CT SEH AVE SE z
m m i r y ^p y
v� a' a - < - 113TH AVE SE
Z _ zr SE ,00 (A 114TH A E SSE --�'
7U 11 T N
�I A
VE a
..•-
tp O = 116TH AVE SE
N
IMITIV
yy N . -
iii 2 00, �..1W
7
T a 104th AVE SE & SE 256th
m INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
M
1. SUBJECT: ACHESON SEWER EXTENSION
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
2. SUMMARY ST TEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, uthorization to accept the bill of sale and warranty
agreement submitted by David Acheson for continuous operation
and maintenance of 277 feet of sanitary sewer line and release
of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period The
project is in the vicinity of 112th Avenue SE & SE 232n
Street.
3. EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(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. 3F
S SE 21 TH SI
S 210TH PL rril N > SE !10 PL. PL W 21
O a ^
SE 211TH ST - a
K r"
< 2 2TH ST SE`• 212TH ST 'I G'Cpr2,
Q W W 5E 212TH ST SE 212TH PL SE 211LN •o56t�''
Z ICOT• SE SE< 213TH p, m >y (Pv[) p,3t� q,13�t
ST 3TH 1� S x ST E$s� SE 21 TH < SE1 st m n
ST !� S
1111�213TH = SE 213TH PL J d 2STSN 72`� ST < w w N SE 214
PL a ^ ,N SE • x 15 aTa
1 O» 214SE
11fF- T•.��"�11• 2 STH F C
to m ST N
W O N
< SE 216TH ST W ^
1 x H SE 217TH ST m Water SE
a � SE a F uj m f m Reservoir
a
m x 5T 8 L SE 218TH "^' ' - a
< W
♦♦ l
1 O N O ST SE 218TH PL _<
SE 219TH SE 218TH PL
ST /
\ x H ♦ JL/-
x
� r
\0 220TH SE m 219TH PL ;° ^
W ^ ST W ^
a \ a SE 220TH PL
a
N W r N
cry O
m -_
ST SE 222ND SE 222 NO PL '
ST 515
a W
x F rn g SE 223RD ST
h x W 2 W x W (�
< O O W '� S y.<rr/ F N H N H 7
SE 224TH ST ^ < R� o
18 17 _ d sE Pi TH W �,.. dry^ S -- - 223pp
t�� n m rA <224TH SE 225TH
o 0� SE 225TH �. m m W rn
Sr < a E 5TH W W W
SE Pltx x SE 22 �'m ^ <�',•+ x H SE
SE 226TH ST t- m., "< ! �J� .~. n 226 H
._�•, o y ~ '� SE 227TH PL _
WW
' o
SE 229 PL ^ 227TH ST g
SE 228TH ST < SE 228TH . Q SE 2287N PL
I ST W
SE 229TH %'� `�@,. S29TH8 W I SE -229 -
o W q PL Q�" g4, Sy ST 1� �,
I (Pvt) (pvt) y'��4. SE 230 H -
\ SE 231 < ,10 � Z ST
SE 231ST ST x SE �,� SE 231ST W EL NT mai
S 231ST PW ST \ W n 230TH 0� ST FN ■SCH L .�iW SE 231 T
I ST < O^ PL.. '� '4F i!32ND ST ^� ti` PL
S 232ND SE 232ND STuj
SE < E232N�
ST '•L -i,. SE 232ND PL 232ND Q - F 233RD
I d ' �' :, Y. 1. I' F < PL I O N OJ. f N 5T _. •
'• t• tiuh a J! SE 233RD p '.°
Nt^ S.�(a r ^ a SE 234TH ST MERIDIAN SE y,A m ! .. _ JR. HL •
SCHOOL
J SE 235 TH 234TH pV Athletico
y ,, SF 236TH ST
AV ST BQricode SE 23e6TH ST N ld "Awt
S 236TH
ST 'A 017Y �
o xH SE 236TH PL yl
W 90 f J SE 237TH ST < W Heseryservoi,
. ,o \
JE 238TH $ .
W (1,1817
(pvt) 41 SE 239TH ST
< C y ST N - N ..
x H W v_ J 17 16
._ SE TH ST _ dPed-OxAST HILL
LEMENTARYCHOOL ACHESON SEWER EXTENSION
a
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: f CHARGE IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT
2.VUMMEARY STATEMENT:As recommended by the Public Works and in a a ce with Resolution 975
orization for the Finance Manager to execute a necessary
documents allowing Mr. & Mrs. David Temby ;cute
20 Kent Kangley
Road to make monthly payments against a $2,
6.21 Charge in
Lieu of Assessment fee for water service Mr. & Mrs. Temby
have claimed that paying the full amount at this time would
create a hardship.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director
Memorandum, Resolution #975, and Mr. & Mrs. Temby letter
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. 3G
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
JIM BENNETT
TIM CLARK
DON WICKSTROM
GARY GILL
MARCH 14, 1994
TIM HEYDON
LAURIE EVEZICH
ARTHUR MARTIN
MR & MRS DAVID TEMBY
MR & MRS RUST
Hardshi Case Mr & Mrs David Temb Char e in Lieu of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that we installed a watermain in Kent Kangley
Road many years ago and the City financed the project and as a
result, anyone connecting to that main reimburses the City for a
portion of expenses we incurred; this is called Charge in Lieu of
Assessment. Wickstrom said that under Resolution #975, Council can
authorize a deferred payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment.
He said that we have received a request for water service
connection and the owners have indicated that this additional
charge would incur a hardship on them. He said they are asking for
deferred payment, which takes full Council approval.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom confirmed that this has been done
in the past.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for deferred
payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment, in accordance with
Resolution #975.
Watershed Fencing Project - Accept as Complete
Mann expressed his appreciation that this project is now complete.
Wickstrom stated that East Hill Well and Soos Creek Well were
included in the fencing project, and that was the reason for the
additional cost. He explained that the bid was a good one and we
took advantage of it and added the last two sources on. He said
that Clark Springs is not 100% fenced but everything that is
accessible is fenced.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 14, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don WickstromN
RE: Hardship Case - Charge in Lieu of Assessment Fee
The Public Works Department has received a request from Mr. & Mrs.
David Temby of 12220 Kent Kangley Road, to make monthly payments
against a Charge in Lieu of Assessment fee for .water connection.
The fee is $2,456.21 and as explained in the attached letter, the
Temby's has claimed this would create a hardship for them in
connecting to City water.
By Resolution #975, Council can authorize deferred payment in lieu
of assessments. Attached for your convenience is a copy of the
resolution denoting the steps to be taken for installment payments.
ACTION: Recommend that in accordance with Resolution #975,
Council authorize that installment payments be made to the City of
Kent by Mr. & Mrs. David Temby for the $2,456.21 Charge in Lieu of
Assessment fee.
Resolution NO. �_
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
authorizing deferred payment in lieu of
assessment.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has a number of water mains
and sewer lines which were constructed with financing which did
not include adjacent property participation; and
I
WHEREAS, when such property applies for service, the
applicant is required to pay the proportionate share for the
property to be served; and
WHEREAS, when the payment is for a line installed at a
developer's expense, it is called a "latecomers payment' and is
refunded to the developer; and
WHEREAS, when the financing was with City of Kent funds,
it is called a "payment in lieu of assessment" and the payment
goes into the appropriate City fund; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 35.91 RCW sets forth the authority and
standards which allow a payment in lieu of assessment to be spread
over time rather than paid in its entirety at the time of
application;
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Installment payments must be authorized by the City
Council.
2. A promissory note providing for such payments are to
be executed and recorded with King County.
3. $10.00 is added to the amount of the charge in lieu
of assessment to cover the cost of the note filing, the filing of
the release, and other costs.
4. The note shall not include permit charges or water
service charges.
5. The note shall be for not less than S300-
6. The note shall be for a period of five years, or
less.
7. The interest rate shall be 75 percent of Peoples
ate, but not to exceed the maximum amount of
National Bank prime r
interest to be charged by a governmental agency according
statute.
g. Installment payments are only applicable to
are zoned for single family or duplex use and
properties which
properties ed are not included iyearsaprecedingrtheminary
such sery
plat or in a final plat filed within two y
application. This requirements isintended to restrict the
installment payment program to non-commercial and non -developer
use.
9. Eligible property must be located within a ten (10)
mile radius of the corporate limits of the City of Kent.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, at its regular meeting this lz� day of �—
19�.
/k`�GAN r , AYOR
ATTEST: ISABEL
MARIE JENSENr U111 CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-9-.STEPHEN DiJULIOr ITY ATTORNEY
3219-94A
2 -
February 28, 1994
12220 Kent Kangley Rd.
Kent, Wa. 98031
Don Wickstrom
Department of Public Works
220 4th Ave. So.
Kent, Wa 98032
Deas Sir:
On February 26, 1994 when applying for a water permit for Tax Lot
number 282205-9079-04, we we were informed that there was a late comer
fee in the amount of $2456.21. Since this was in addition to the fees
and costs we had expected, we are requesting to have a monthly payment
plan. These fees payable now would create a hardship on us hooking
up to city water. If you need any additional financial information
to be supplied please inform us.
sincerely,
In
71
David & Anitra Temby
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5. 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WATERSHED FENCING PROJECT
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, uthorization to accept as complete the contract
with Guyline Construction, Inc. for the Watershed Fencing
Project, and release of retainage after receipt of State
releases.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes and Public Works Director
Memorandum
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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 14, 1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN TIM HEYDON
JIM BENNETT LAURIE EVEZICH
TIM CLARK ARTHUR MARTIN
DON WICKSTROM MR & MRS DAVID TEMBY
GARY GILL MR & MRS RUST
Hardship Case (Mr & Mrs David Temby) Charge in Lieu of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that we.installed a watermain in Kent Kangley
Road many years ago and the City financed the project and as a
result, anyone connecting to that main reimburses the City for a
portion of expenses we incurred; this is called Charge in Lieu of
Assessment. Wickstrom said that under Resolution #975, Council can
authorize a deferred payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment.
He said that we have received a request for water service
connection and the owners have indicated that this additional
charge would incur a hardship on them. He said they are asking for
deferred payment, which takes full Council approval.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom confirmed that this has been done
in the past.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for deferred
payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment, in accordance with
Resolution #975.
Watershed Fencing Project - Accept as Complete
Mann expressed his appreciation that this project is now complete.
Wickstrom stated that East Hill Well and Soos Creek Well were
included in the fencing project, and that was the reason for the
additional cost. He explained that the bid was a good one and we
took advantage of it and added the last two sources on. He said
that Clark Springs is not 100% fenced but everything that is
accessible is fenced.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 14, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom c.J
RE: Watershed Fencing Project - Accept as Complete
This project consisted of the construction of a chain fence of
approximately 17,051 feet around City water supply sites at Clark
Springs, Kent Springs & Armstrong Springs.
The project was awarded to Guyline Construction, Inc. on July 6,
1993 for the bid amount of $148,268.22 for which the Engineer's
estimate was $302,092.23. The final construction cost is
$183,670.85. The difference relates to adding two other sites
(East Hill Well and Soos Creek Well) to the fencing contract. We
did both because of the good bid and the need to fence all of our
active water supply sites. Thus, they are now all fenced.
ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete and release of
retainage after receipt of State releases.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING WAY +=8Ts�N'r'.X.A.QaT FHND51
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee uthorization to establish a new fund for the
receipt o vacation and tha
the monies associated with the Van Doren's Landing
Way Stree t the monies therein be utilized for
pedestria walkway improvements related to school travel
patterns 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.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes and Public Works Director
Memorandum
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. 3I
which we are still trying to address. Wickstrom said the rest of
it should have been covered under his contract and our attorneys do
not want to use the retainage or the funds that we still have
because they want to reserve that money to resolve liens the subs
will have and also, to resolve any other legal issues which may
arise. Wickstrom said the things that we are trying to accomplish
is, to get the plant back operational and get the project to a
point where we can accept it so these subs can file their claims
and liens.
Bennett asked if the 6.8% change orders were the ones authorized or
the ones the contractor requested. Heydon said the contractor
requested many more than we authorized. Bennett agreed that in
terms of the contract, 6.8% is small and is hardly worth spending
time worrying about. Bennett said because of the need to finish
the project, he is willing to support it however, he stated that it
should not go under Council Consent calendar. Bennett said this
shows the need for a Capital Facilities Manager or Projects Manager
that works for the City to do the contracts. Wickstrom stated that
in his 25 years with the City, this is the first contractor that we
actually told to get off the job, essentially because he didn't
complete his work. Wickstrom said that we have spent millions and
millions of dollars over those 25 years. He said this is a
complicated project to begin with and we followed the correct steps
as far as having qualified engineers who were involved in the
design however, we had a contractor that was apparently short on
money.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the transfer of
$154,000 from the unencumbered water funds to the 212th/SR167-Water
Supply & Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48) and that this item
not be placed on Council Consent Calendar.
Van Doren's Landing Way Street Vacation Funds
Wickstrom said that in conjunction with the approval of the street
vacation for Van Doren's Landing Way, we should receive about
$148,000. He said we have several sidewalk problems and recently
with an accident on 112th, pedestrian issues came up, therefore we
are proposing to widen the east half of the street to 18 feet. He
explained that this would create a 6' paved -walking path from the
school at 232nd to 240th. Wickstrom said the Mayor met with the
principal, PTA members and neighborhood representatives and they
were all receptive to the proposal. He said there is enough money
in the sidewalk fund to do this. We have a project out to bid for
approximately $200,000 with the commitment on 111th and over on
Smith Street; this leaves us about $160,000 however, we have at
least $300,000 - 400,000 of needs in the downtown area. .He said if
we had this money for sidewalks, specifically for sidewalk
pedestrian improvements in the travelled areas towards schools, we
could do both. He said the project on 112th is about $65,000 but
this would give us more money to spend on other sidewalks.
ii
shed
Committee
recei toofl the ntoniedeassociatednew
withn the Van aDoren's
for the Pes
Landing Way Street vacation
and
erelated ttore
school utilized
for pedestrian walkway improvements
patterns.
In response toaBnnofttheWickstrom said Transportation thatthethe Heesaidrian thatComP
the
Plan will be p p
ve
tree plan is being worked on by a subcommittee and tree
selected a landscape architect to help select the appropriate
for planting.
Wickstrom said that in the first phase of the
Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation eed this Project
lanthere are e issue reral trees
in
that plan which is why
Metro Shoreline Im rovement Grant (Kent Laaoons)
the acquisition of Union
$1 million dollar grant;
n King County Conservation
; grant is our agreement to
requesting authorization to
Wickstrom said when we were pursuing
Pacific Property, we were to get a
$500,000 from Metro and $500,000 fro,
Futures Funds. He explained that thi:
$500 000 from Metro and we are
get the ,
execute the agreement.
Committee unanimously recommended approval of Council to execute
the agreement.
id that we actually purchased 282
In response to Clark, Wickstrom sa
acres and about 65 acres was not encumbered by the grant which
allows other optional uses thereof.
I Wickstrom said we hope to have design of
In response to Bennet
1994 and be under construction in 1995
this project complete in
with a one year construction time.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.m -
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 14, 1994
TO: Public WorksCo�ittee
FROM: Don Wickstroz
RE: Van Doren's Landing Way Street Vacation Funds
When funds are received from a street vacation they are deposited
in the Street Division's operating budget as revenue. With respect
to the Van Doren's Landing Way Street vacation, we anticipate
receiving about $148,738.50. Instead of accepting these funds into
the Street Division's operating budget, we propose that this
windfall, so to speak, be set aside specifically for pedestrian
walkway improvements around schools. What raised this issue is the
recent car/child accident on 112th Avenue, north of 240th Street.
While we have a solution therefore, and are proceeding ahead with
it (widening existing pavement on east side of 112th Avenue from
240th Street to 232nd Street to create a 6 foot wide walk area),
the rehab of our existing downtown sidewalks is equally significant
in terms of safety and liability to the City. As such, by using
this windfall in this manner, we can address both.
ACTION; Recommend that a new fund be established 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.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: METRO.
GRANTS NENT BAS
S ^'r
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committeeo horization to execute an agreement with Metro, to
receive a $500, rant from the Metro Shoreline Improvement
Program for the Lagoon nversi roject and to adjust said
project budget accordingl , 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.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director
Memorandum, Parks Committee Minutes (12/14/93) and Grant
Agreement (draft)
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES—Z
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended --'
rim
7.
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 14, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom ►`,I )
RE: Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant
The City of Kent has been selected to receive a grant of $500,000
from the Metro Shoreline Improvement Program. The funds will be
applied to the purchase price of the property recently obtained for
the Lagoon project.
ACTION: Recommend approval of Council to execute the agreement.
Committee unanimously recommended that a new fund be established
for the receipt of the monies associated with the Van Doren's
monies
Landing estrianeewalkwayloimprovements n and that erelated therein
utilized
Way Strt school trave
for p
patterns.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said that the Pedestrian Comp
Plan will be part of the Transportation Plan. He said that the
tree plan is being worked on by a subcommittee and they have
selected a landscape architect to help select the appropriate tree
for planting. Wickstrom said that in the first phase of the
Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project there are several trees in
that plan which is why we need this landscape issue resolved.
Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant(Kent Laaoonsl
Wickstrom said when we were pursuing the acquisition of Union
Pacific Property, we were to get a $1 million dollar grant;
$500,000 from Metro and $500,000 from King County Conservation
Futures Funds. He explained that this grant is our agreement to
get the $500,000 from Metro and we are requesting authorization to
execute the agreement.
Committee unanimously recommended approval of Council to execute
the agreement.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that we actually purchased 282
acres and about 65 acres was not encumbered by the grant which
allows other optional uses thereof.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom
this project complete in 1994 and
with a one year construction time.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m -
4
said we hope to have design of
be under construction in 1995
ROUGH DRAFT
1/24/94 lase Pm AGREEMENT BETWEEN
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN SERVICES
AND
CITY OF KENT
FOR
PROJECT GRANT FROM SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT
Project Title REGIONAL SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT FUND: Kent Lagoons
Project Number
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
1994, between King County Department of Metropolitan Services and the City of Kent,
a governmental entity eligible to receive funding as described below ("Public Agency"),
collectively referred to as the "parties."
1. RECITALS
1..1 The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("Metro") was a municipal
metropolitan corporation of the State of Washington duly created pursuant to RCW
35.58, and was authorized by public vote to perform the function of metropolitan water
pollution abatement pursuant to RCW 35.58.050(1); and
1..2 Effective January 1, 1994, by operation of law Metro was consolidated into
King County, a home rule charter county of the State of Washington. Thereafter, the
functions formerly performed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle shall be
performed by King County, through the Department of Metropolitan Services ("KCDMS").
1..3 The Public Agency is a municipal corporation of the state of Washington;
and
1..4 By Resolution No. 4780, adopted July 17, 1986, the Metro Council
established a Shoreline Improvement Fund to provide alternative recreational resources
as mitigation for impacts resulting from the upgrade of its Puget Sound facilities to
secondary treatment; and
1..5 By Resolution No. 5449, adopted July 21, 1988, the Metro Council
determined that the provision of $30 million of Shoreline Improvement Funds was
reasonable to provide replacement recreation resources for sewerage facilities located
within shorelines of the City of Seattle and the region that would otherwise be used for
recreation and that such level of funding constitutes proportional mitigation; and
-1-
ry
1..6 The Shoreline Improvement Fund ghat ent. datelion w Ilanuaav 28, 1991
between the City of Seattle and Metro specifies
e forarea dof
the
regional projects in the Metroopolita be vicemadat suchthme expenditures
pd ndlnsu h m neeforosuch
regional projects subprogram
purposes as the Municipality shall determine; and
incorporates
ons
1.7 The Shore In emepeund g
reemen
set forth in items 10.Aad0 ctively, in the documententitled M t gation
plan
mits
est
Conditions: West Point and Alki, with respect to theCouncil ell per 11 f r the
1 Item10 A
and Alki projects, as adopted by the oint
Seattle City
provides t part that the Sof the West Point Plant by replacing, nhannc enhall be used for ancing, providing
ne improvement Fund sh
compensate for the impact .
substitute resources or environments.
1..8 The Metro Water Quality Committee by motion on January 28, 1993,
approved a process and criteria, based on recommendations of the Technical Evaluation
Committee ("TEC'), for deciding shoreline improvement project funding. Of primary
importance to the TEC, projects should provide controlled public access and/or dedicated
undisturbed habitat for wildlife; and
1..9 The Metro Water Quality Committee, by motion on April 8, 1993, approved
a list of projects eligible to apply for regional shoreline improvement funds, based on
recommendations of the TEC; and
1..10 By Resolution No. 6624, adopted on October 7, 1993 the Metro Council
adopted a list of projects with specified funding levels and thereby authorized the
Executive Director or his designee to negotiate contracts with project sponsors,
including
ons under
the Public Agency idbetified herein, setting out made from the RegionaltShorrel Shoreline Improhe terms and v
ement ent Fund in aid 'cof
monetary grants will
the identified projects.
2. DEFINITIONS
3. GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.1 Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the
terms and conditions under which the monetary grant described below is made from the
Regional Shoreline Improvement Fund in aid of the project of the Public Agency.
-2-
3..2 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by
both parties and shall terminate only upon mutual agreement of the parties, except as
may be otherwise provided elsewhere in this Agreement.
3..3 Performance by Public Agency
3..3.1 The Public Agency shall develop and complete the project as it is
described in section 4 below, in the Public Agency's application, and in accordance with
the Public Agency's proposed goals and objectives described in documents submitted
pursuant to the solicitation for project proposals process and required deliverables
(collectively referred to as Project Documents"), all as finally approved by KCDMS. The
Project Documents are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth for the
purposes of determining the project description and project goals and objectives.
3..3.2 No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, by the Public Agency
prior to the effective date of this Agreement shall be eligible for grant funds, in whole or
in part, unless specifically approved by KCDMS. The amounts set out in section 5 below
shall be reduced as necessary to exclude any such expenditure from participation.
3.3.3 KCDMS shall determine eligible costs, consistent with guidelines
established by the TEC. KCDMS shall not be responsible for project cost increases.
3.3.4 The project, if it consists of acquisition only, shall be completed no
later than December 1995. If the project includes development and/or construction in
addition to acquisition, the project shall be completed no later than December 1996.
KCDMS may, in its sole discretion, extend these completion dates if the acquisition
and/or completion is delayed by circumstances beyond the control of the public agency
and said circumstances could not, in KCDMS's judgement, have reasonably been
foreseen at the time this Agreement was executed.
3..3.5 No expenditure made, or obligation incurred, following the applicable
completion date shall be eligible, in whole or in part, for grant funds hereunder unless
specifically approved by KCDMS. In addition to any remedy KCDMS may have under
this Agreement, the amounts set out in section 5 below shall be reduced to exclude any
such expenditure from participation.
3..3.6 Time of project performance by the Public Agency is of the essence
of this Agreement. Failure to timely complete the project as set out in subsection 3.3.4
above is a material breach of the Agreement. The Public Agency shall submit proper
billing documentation to KCDMS within ninety (90) days of the applicable date stated in
subsection 3.3.4, or any extension thereof approved by KCDMS.
3..4 Performance Necessary to Receiving Payment. The Public Agency shall
accomplish the following in order to receive payment, which will be made on a
reimbursable basis. The Public Agency proceeds with incurring project costs at its own
risk. KCDMS will reimburse for no expenditures until:
-3-
3..4.1 The Agency has complied with all information required,
including those in the "Project Documents." These include, but are not limited to: title
reports, hazardous substances certification, and documentation of type of ownership
interest. (See Exhibit A).
3..4.2 This Agreement is signed by both parties; and
3..4.3 A written notice to proceed has been given by KCDMS; and
3..4.4 With respect to acquisition projects, KCDMS has received an
executed Purchase and Sale Agreement and has approved the title policy, boundary
map, and appraisals.
3..5 With respect to restoration and improvement projects, the Agency
has demonstrated that plans, specification and construction are completed in a manner
that meets the project's goals and objectives.
3..6 Final payment may be retained until all contract requirements are
met. KCDMS may conduct inspections of the project site to confirm compliance.
3..7 Installment Payments. Financial assistance provided by this
Agreement for development may be remitted to the Public Agency in installments, after
receipt of billings, and upon satisfactory evidence of completion of each stage of
construction, development, or acquisition. Installment payments shall in no event be
made more frequently than monthly.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project of the Public Agency which is the subject of this Agreement is
described in summary as follows:
Acquisition of a 214.5 acre site located in Kent, to be used as a nature
preserve, as described in Exhibits B and C attached hereto. The project
is part of a 214 acre site along the Green River in Kent to be used as high-
quality wildlife habitat, including uplands and wetlands wildlife habitat. The
site will be used for passive public recreation including wildlife viewing and
nature interpretation.
SPECIAL CONDITION
The Public Agency will submit a site and preservation plan for approval by
KCDMS.
-4-
5. PROJECT FUNDING
5..1 The total cost of the project for the purposes of this Agreement is
One Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand & no/100($1,750,000.00_j; PROVIDED,
that if the total cost of the project when completed, or when this Agreement is
terminated, is actually different, that actual cost shall be substituted herein. The Public
Agency shall provide written documentation of such actual total cost within ninety (90)
days of project completion or Agreement termination.
5..2 The Public Agency shall provide matching funds in the amount of
Five Hundred Thousand & no/100 ($ 500,000.00 ). The total
amount of the KCDMS grant shall in no event exceed Five Hundred Thousand and
no/100 Dollars ($500,000.00), PROVIDED that if the total cost of the project when
completed, or when this Agreement is terminated, is actually different, that actual cost
shall be substituted herein. The Public Agency shall provide written documentation of
such actual total cost within ninety (90) days of project completion or Agreement
termination. -
5..3 KCDMS shall not be obligated to pay any amount beyond the amounts set
out in subsection 5.2.
5..4 Disbursement of grant monies by KCDMS to the Public Agency under this
Agreement shall be made in accordance with all conditions upon proof of compliance
with the terms of this Agreement by the Public Agency. KCDMS reserves the right to
withhold the disbursement of the final ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the grant
to the Public Agency, until the project has been timely completed and approved by the
Executive Director.
5..5 The obligation of KCDMS to pay any amount(s) .under this Agreement is
expressly conditioned upon strict compliance wift the terms of this Agreement by the
Public Agency.
6. TERMINATION AND OTHER REMEDIES
6..1 KCDMS may require strict compliance by the Public Agency with the terms
of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirements of applicable statutes,
regulations, rules, KCDMS policies, or other applicable governing documents,
incorporated in this Agreement, and with the representations of the Public Agency in its
application for a grant as finally approved by KCDMS.
6..2 KCDMS may suspend, or may terminate, its obligation to provide funding
to the Public Agency under this Agreement:
6..2.1 In the event of any breach by the Public Agency of any of the Public
Agency's obligations under this Agreement; or
-5-
6.22 If the Public Agency fails to make progress satisfactory to KCDMS
toward completion of the project by the completion date set out in subsection 3.3.4
above.
6..3 In the event this Agreement is terminated by KCDMS, under o t'he Pubion
lic
or any other section after any portion of the grant amount has been p
Agency under this Agreement, KCDMS may require that any amount paid be repaid to
KCDMS for redeposit into the Regional Shoreline Improvement Account.
6..4 The Public Agency understands and agrees that KCDMS may enforce this
Agreement by the remedy of specific performance, which usually will mean completion
of the project as described in section 4 above. However, the remedy of specific
shall not be the sole or exclusive remedy available to KCDMS. No remedy
performance
available KCDMS shall be deemed exclusive. KCDMS may elect to exercise any
edies available to it under this Agreement, or under any
combination, or all of the rem
provision of law, common law, or equity.
7. NO WAIVER BY KCDMSIREMEDIES
Waiver by KCDMS of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any other or subsequent default or breach and should not be construed to be a
modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such in writing by the
Executive Director of KCDMS, or his or her designee. KCDMS does not waive any of its
rights or remedies under this Agreement should it: (a) fail to insist on strict performance
of any of the terms of this Agreement, or (b) fail to exercise any right based upon a
breach of this Agreement.
8. PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIONS -- MISREPRESENTATION OR
INACCURACY A BREACH
KCDMS relies upon the Public Agency's Project Documents in making its
determinations as to eligibility for, selection for, and scope of, funding grants. Any
misrepresentation, error or inaccuracy in any part of the Project Documents shall be
deemed a breach of this Agreement.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES, RULES AND KCDMS
POLICIES
9..1 The subject grant shall be governed by, and the Public Agency shall comply
with, KCDMS policies and guidelines, which are incorporated herein by this reference as
if fully set forth.
it is the responsibility of the Public Agency to comply with, and KCDMS is
not responsible for determining compliance with, all applicable laws, regulations, and
policies, including, but not limited to: SEPA (under which the Public Agency shall serve
as lead agency); Americans with Disabilities Act; Architectural Barriers Act (Restoration
-6-
and Improvement projects only); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act (PL91-646, RCW 8.26.010); Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices; permits (shoreline, HPA, demolition); land use regulations
(comprehensive plans, zoning, sensitive areas ordinances); and federal and state safety
and health regulations (OSHA/WISHA).
10. USE AND MAINTENANCE OF ASSISTED PROJECTS
The Public Agency shall operate and maintain, or cause to be operated and
maintained, the property or facilities which are the subject matter of this Agreement as
follows:
10..1 The property or facilities shall be maintained so as to appear attractive and
inviting to the public.
10..2 All facilities shall be built and maintained in accordance with applicable
state and local public health standards and building codes.
10..3 The property or facilities shall be kept reasonably safe for public use.
10..4 Buildings, roads, trails, and other structures and improvements shall be
kept in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime, so as to prevent undue
deterioration that would discourage or prevent public use.
10..5 The facility shall be kept open for public use at reasonable hours and times
of the year, according to the type of area or facility.
10..6 The property or facility shall be open to everyone without restriction
because of race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or residence of the
user.
10.7 The Public Agency agrees to operate and maintain the facility in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
10..8 The Public Agency agrees to take all reasonable measures to maintain the
natural character of the project site for passive public use and habitat protection,
consistent with criteria established by the TEC, and project use and stewardship plans
as described in the Project Documents.
11. RESTRICTION ON CONVERSION OF LAND AND FACILITIES TO OTHER
USES.
Any project acquired, developed, constructed, or improved by the Public Agency
in whole or in part from disbursements made pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
transferred or conveyed except by agreement providing that such lands and facilities
shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by this Agreement. Said project
-7-
fferent use
ess
lands
ties, of as
y as
shall not be converted to ae Is a d location, shalltberreceived and
dn exchange therefor. The
feasible equivalent usefulness licable to such project shall be used for the
proceeds of any award in condemnation app
acquisition or provision of other grant easements or fds dranchi es or�the making tof joint use
Agreement shall prevent the g ect for the purposes of this
agreements not incompatible with the use of the prof of
Agreement. The Public Agency ursuannt to Section 5 above, a restrictive record lcovenant onthe
reimbursement from KCDMS p
property acquired under this Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D an
ion fuse of the lands and facilities
incorporated herein restricting the convers of the recordedrestri restrictive covenant must be executed
manner provided above. A copy the Public Agency prior to
prior to reimbursement and shall be forwarded to KCDMS by
receipt of reimbursement from KCDMS pursuant to Section 5 above.
11..1 Nondiscrimination Clause. As a condition of receipt of funds from KCDMS,
the Public Agency shall award and administer any contracts fCounty
O di ancprojectn the
Coue No.
under this Agreement consistent with the provisions of King tY
rprise
11032, Section 19, or withtwel Public Aency's achieve substant substantially the�ame paomen rusinessasewould
programs, if such programs
have been achieved under Section 19 of Ordinance No. 11032.
If this project includes construction, the Public Agency shall insert the following
nondiscrimination clause in each contract for construction:
During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, creed,
religion,
sexual orientation, sex, nationality or the presence of any sensory,
mental, or physical disability (provided that such disability does not
hinder the performance of the job). The contractor will take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that
employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to
their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff
or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor
agrees to put in a conspicuous place, available to employees and
applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting
isions of this nondiscrimination clause.
officer, setting forth the prov
(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment
without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, sex,
-8-
nationality or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical
disability (provided that such disability does not hinder the
performance of the job).
(3) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative or
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or
other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the
agency contracting officer, advising the said labor union or workers'
representative of the contractor's commitments under this section
and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available
to employees and applicants for employment.
(4) The contractor will include the provisions of the foregoing
paragraphs in every subcontract exceeding $10,000, so that such
provisions will be binding upon each such subcontractor or vendor.
The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract
or purchase order as KCDMS may direct as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; PROVIDED,
however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is
threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result
of such direction by the contracting agency, the contractor may
request the State of Washington to enter into such litigation to
protect its interests.
12. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROJECT
12..1 While KCDMS undertakes to assist the Public Agency with the project by
providing a grant pursuant to this Agreement, the project itself remains the sole
responsibility of the Public Agency. KCDMS undertakes no responsibilities to the Public
Agency, or to any third party, other than as is expressly set out in this Agreement. The
responsibility for the design, development, construction, implementation, operation and
maintenance of the project, as those phases are applicable to this project, is solely that
of the Public Agency, as is responsibility for any claim or suit of any nature by any third
party related in any way to the project.
12..2 The Public Agency shall defend at its own cost any and all claims or suits
at law or in equity which may be brought against the Public Agency in connection with
the project. The Public Agency shall not look to KCDMS, or to any of KCDMS's
employees or agents, for any performance, assistance, or any payment or indemnity,
including but not limited to cost of defense and/or attorneys' fees, in connection with any
claim or lawsuit brought by any third party related in any way to the project, including but
not limited to, its design, development, construction, implementation, operation and/or
maintenance.
-9-
13. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
13..1 The Public Agency shall conduct, or retain an environmental consulting firm
to conduct, a thorough environmental assessment of the property to be acquired prior
to its acquisition and provide to KCDMS a copy of the resulting environmental
assessment report(s). The environmental assessment shall involve the systematic
review of the environmental conditions at the property, including the presence on-site of
any hazardous substances, and shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing
industry standards for such assessments.
13..2 No disbursements made pursuant to this Agreement may be used for the
remediation or cleanup of any hazardous substances that may be present on the
property acquired under this Agreement. Prior to receiving any disbursements for
property acquisition, the Public Agency agrees to execute and deliver to KCDMS an
instrument certifying that: (1) it has fully disclosed to KCDMS the results of its
environmental assessment and all other knowledge the Public Agency has to the
presence of any hazardous substances on the property being acquired; (2) it will use no
disbursement made pursuant to this Agreement for the remediation or cleanup of any
hazardous substances that may be present on the property being acquired; and (3) it will
defend, protect and hold harmless KCDMS and any and all of its employees and/or
agents, from and against any and all liability, cost (including but not limited to all costs
of defense and attorneys' fees) and any and all loss of any nature from any and all
claims or suits resulting from the presence of, or the release or threatened release of,
hazardous substances on the property being acquired.
13.:3 "Hazardous Substances" shall be interpreted broadly to include, but not be
limited to, any hazardous, toxic or.dangerous waste, substance, material, pollutant or
contaminant, as defined in or regulated now or in the future by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCR"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et
seg., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1252 et seq., the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 300(f) et seg., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et sec..,
the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act, RCW Ch. 70.105D, the Washington
State Hazardous Waste Management Act, RCW Ch. 70.105, any so-called "superfund"
or itsuperlien" law, and any other federal, state, or local law, regulation, ordinance, or
order or common law decision, including without limitation, asbestos, polycholorinated
biphenyls (PCB's), petroleum and petroleum-based derivatives, and urea formaldehyde.
14. INDEMNITY
The Public Agency agrees to, and shall defend, protect and hold harmless
KCDMS and any and all of its employees and/or agents, from and against any and all
liability, cost (including but not limited to all cost of defense and attorneys' fees) and any
and all loss of any nature from any and all claims or demands or suits at law or equity,
arising from the project, including but not limited to, those arising from the Public
Agency's acts, or failures to act, which result in any loss of any kind to any third party.
Such claims or suits include, but are not limited to:
14..1 Claims or suits by any person or firm furnishing services in connection with
the Public Agency's performance under this Agreement; or
14..2 Claims or suits by any person or firm who or which may allege injury by the
Public Agency or its agents arising from the Public Agency's performance of this
Agreement or arising from or related to the project to which a grant is furnished
hereunder; or
14..3 Any claim or suit resulting from the failure of the Public Agency to comply
with any applicable law, regulation, or policy; or.
14..4 Any claim or suit resulting from the use of any facilities and/or programs
assisted by a grant under this Agreement; or
14..5 Any claim or suit resulting from the presence of, or the release or
threatened release of Hazardous Substances brought by any federal, state or local
agency or any individual.
15. RECORDS AND REPORTS
15..1 The Public Agency agrees to maintain all books, records, documents,
receipts, invoices and all other electronic or written records necessary to sufficiently and
properly reflect the Public Agency's contracts, contract administration, and payments,
including all direct and indirect charges, and expenditures in the development and
implementation of the project.
15..2 The Public Agency's records related to this Agreement and the project
receiving grant funds hereunder may be inspected by KCDMS or by designees of the
State Auditor or by federal officials authorized by law, for the purposes of determining
compliance by the Public Agency with the terms of this Agreement, and to determine the
appropriate level of funding to be paid under the subject gant.
15..3 The records shall be made available by the Public Agency together with
suitable space for such inspection at any and all times during the Public Agency's normal
working day.
15..4 The Public Agency shall retain all records related to this Agreement and
the project funded hereunder for a period of at least six (6) years following completion
of payment of the grant-in-aid under this Agreement.
15..5 The Public Agency shall promptly submit to the Executive Director any
report or reports required by the Executive Director, including, but not limited to progress
reports where required by KCDMS.
-il-
15..6 The Public Agency shall submit progress reports and a final report when
the project is completed, prematurely terminated, or project assistance is terminated.
The report shall include a final accounting of all expenditures and a description of the
work accomplished. If the project is not completed, the report shall contain an estimate
of the percentage of completion, and shall indicate the degree of usefulness of the
completed project. The report shall account for all expenditures not previously reported
and shall include a summary for the entire project.
16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
The Public Agency shall include language which acknowledges the funding
contribution of KCDMS to this project in any release or other publication developed or
modified for, or referring to, the project. The Public Agency also shall post signs or other
appropriate media at project entrances and other locations on the project which
acknowledge KCDMS's funding contribution. The Public Agency shall consult with
KCDMS as to the form, content, and location of such signs or other appropriate media.
17. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS OF PUBLIC AGENCY
The Public Agency and the Public Agency's officers, employees and agents shall
perform all obligations under this Agreement as an independent contractor and not in
any manner as officers or employees or agents of KCDMS. Herein all references to the
Public Agency shall include its officers, employees and agents. KCDMS shall not
withhold or pay taxes or insurance deductions of any kind.
18. RESTRICTION ON ASSIGNMENT
The Public Agency shall not assign this Agreement, or the performance of any
obligations to KCDMS under this Agreement, or any claim against KCDMS it may have
under this Agreement, without the express written consent of the Executive Director of
KCDMS.
19. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
19..1 The Public Agency shall not participate in the performance of any duty in
whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement to the extent participation is prohibited by
chapter 42.18 RCW, the Executive Conflict of Interest Act, or any other federal, state or
local similar conflict act which may apply to the Public Agency. KCDMS may, by written
notice to the Public Agency, terminate this Agreement if it is found after due notice and
examination by KCDMS that there is a violation of the Executive Conflict of Interest Act,
chapter 42.18 RCW; Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, chapter 42.22
RCW; or any similar statute or ordinance involving the Public Agency in the procurement
of, or performance under, this Agreement.
19..2 The existence of facts upon which KCDMS, or the Executive Director of
KCDMS, makes any determination under this section may be an issue under, and may
-12-
be reviewed as is provided in, the disputes section of this Agreement, section 20 below,
upon agreement of the parties.
20. DISPUTES
20..1 When a bona fide dispute arises between KCDMS and the Public Agency
which cannot be resolved between those parties, the parties may agree that the disputes
process set out in this section shall be used prior to any action being brought in court.
Either party may request a disputes hearing hereunder. The request for a disputes
hearing must be in writing and clearly state: (a) the disputed issues; (b) the relative
positions of the parties regarding those issues as then understood by the requesting
party; (c) the Public Agency's name, address, project title, and KCDMS's project number.
In order for this section to apply to the resolution of any specific dispute, or disputes the
other party must agree in writing that the procedure under this section shall be used to
resolve those specific issues.
20..2 The dispute shall be heard by a panel of three persons consisting of one
person chosen by the Public Agency, one person chosen by the Executive Director of
KCDMS (WPCD) and a third person chosen by the two persons initially appointed.
20..3 Any hearing under this section shall be informal, with the specific processes
to be determined by the disputes panel according to the nature and complexity of the
issues involved. The process may be solely based upon written material if the parties
so agree. The disputes panel shall be governed by the provisions of this Agreement in
deciding the disputes.
20..4 The parties shall be bound by the decision of the disputes panel, unless
the remedy directed by the panel shall be without the authority of either or both parties
to perform, as necessary, or is otherwise unlawful.
20..5 Request for a disputes hearing under this section by either party shall be
delivered or mailed to the other party at the address set out in section 28 below. The
request shall be delivered or mailed within thirty (30) days of the date the requesting
party has received notice of the action or position of the other party which it wishes to
dispute. The written agreement to use the process under this section for resolution of
those issues shall be delivered or mailed by the receiving party to the requesting party
within thirty (30) days of receipt by the receiving party of the request.
20..6 All costs associated with the implementation of this process shall be shared
equally by the parties.
21. GOVERNING LAWNENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington. In the
event of a lawsuit involving this Agreement, venue shall be proper only in the Superior
Court in and for King County.
-13-
22. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any law, rule or document
incorporated by reference into this Agreement, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall
not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which legally can be given effect without
the invalid provision. To this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be
severable.
23. HEADINGS NOT CONTROLLING
Headings used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not
be considered a substantive part of this Agreement.
24. NOTICES
24..1 All written communications which are to be given to the Public Agency
under this Agreement will be addressed and delivered to:
Name: William Wolinski, P.E.
Title: Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Mailing Address: City of Kent, 220 4th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032
24..2 All written communications which are to be given to KCDMS under this
Agreement will be address and delivered to Judy Bevington, or her designated
successor, King County Department of Metropolitan Services, 821 Second Avenue, MS
81, Seattle, Washington 98104-1598.
24..3 The above shall be effective until receipt by one party from the other of a
written notice of any change.
24..4 The date of notice shall be the date notice is delivered in person or by
facsimile copy or three days after notice is mailed, whichever is earlier.
25. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may not be amended except by written agreement signed by the
parties.
26. STATUS OF THE PARTIES
Nothing in this agreement is intended to create a partnership or constitute a joint
venture between the Public Agency or KCDMS.
27. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective
successors, permitted assignees, administrators, and trustees of KCDMS and the Public
Agency.
28. EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
This Agreement shall be executed in any number of duplicate originals, any of
which shall be regarded for all purposes as an original and all of which shall constitute
but one and the same instrument.
29. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
In promising performance to one another under this Agreement the parties intend
to create binding legal obligations to and rights of enforcement in (a) one another; and
(b) one another's permitted assignees or successors in interest. The parties expressly
do not intend to create any obligation or liability, or promise any performance to, any
third party. The parties have not created for any third party any right to enforce this
Agreement.
30. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect
to the subject matter hereof. Commitments, warranties, representations and
understandings or agreements not contained, or referred to, in this Agreement or written
amendment hereto shall not be binding on either party. Except as may be expressly
provided herein, no alteration of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement will be
effective without the written consent of both parties.
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF METROPOLITAN SERVICES
By:
Date:
CITY OF KENT
By:
Date:
-15-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date:
By:
Chief Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date:
By:
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT DOCUMENTS
(Due Before Reimbursement)
All Projects
• Invoice Voucher
• Progress reports
• Final report, including
Documentation of signage
Amount of matching funds used to complete the project
Total Project Cost
• Phase I Hazardous Substance Information
• Hazardous Substance Certification (See Section 13.2)
• Documentation that special conditions are met
• Recorded Restrictive Covenant for Public Recreation and Habitat
Conservation
Acquisition Projects
• Appraisal with appraiser certification (review appraisal desirable) or substitite
report with market data and comparable sale documentation
• Boundary map that accurately shows boundary, acreage,
easements, exclusion, structures, adjoining ownership
(boundary survey desirable)
• Hazardous Substances Certification
• Title policy/legal description
• Escrow closing statement
• Purchase and Sales Agreement
• Statement of Difference
(if appraisal is substantially different than sale price)
• Relocation eligibility information (if relocation is required)
• Recorded Statutory Warranty Deed
Restoration/Improvement Projects
• Title or documentation of adequate control and tenure; list outstanding
rights/interests, include legal description
• Support documentation for expenditures
For Contracts
• Final construction plans and specifications (A&E)
(Due at least 2 weeks prior to seeking bids)
• Signed contract and bid tab sheet
• Any Contract Change Orders
• Contractor Invoices
For Force Accounts
• Construction plans and specifications (A&E)
(Due 1 month before construction)
• Sponsor salary/equipment rates
0 As-Builts (Due before final payment)
EXHIBIT B
B2c) Site Plan description: (see also attached map.)
The METRO grant acquisition area encompasses approximately 71.5
acres of land. Based on a recent _wetland delineation (Raedeke;
March, 1993), this area is comprised of mostly upland with a small
amount of palustrine, scrub -shrub wetland.
Because the wetland enhancement plan for the Kent Lagoon Project
and the area to the west has not yet been developed, the location
of trails and habitat components is not known at this time.
B2d) Project Description.
The goal of creating the Green River Natural Resources Enhancement
Area will be met through several project objectives, including the
following:
1. Design and construct the combined stcrmwater
detention/ enhanced wetland facility at the Kent Lagoon site as
a multi-purpose facility, incorporating "state of the art"
techniaues of wetland creation and enhancement, urban wildlife
management and stormwater treatment, as well as innovative
ideas for limited, but effective public access and education.
2. Enhance habitat to provide food, cover and nesting areas for
wildlife, specifically waterfowl.
3. Design public access to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife.
4. Improve water auality in the system.
5. Incorporate input from involved nart1es (Kent Environmental
Task Force, Ci tv of Kent Planning and Parks and Recreation;
METRO, Washington State Departments of Eccicgy, Fisheries, and
Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp cz
Engineers, etc).
if these objectives are achieved, the project will be a success and
provide numerous benefits, including:
1. Greater visitor access to natural shoreline and wetland areas
for passive recreational opportunities.
2. Increased appreciation and understanding of the natural
resources. of the Green River Valley.
3. Habitat creation and preservation for a diverse array of birds
and animals.
4. Improved water quality.
Specifically, this project will have several attributes that will
make it unique to the region and a positive addition to the
existing Green River corridor.
1, At least two viewing towers will be constructedprovide
better opportunities for bird watching, public educat
on and
appreciation of the natural surroundings. They will also
serve a function in the maintenance, evaluation and wildlife
management aspects of the project.
2. Interpretive trails shall be designed as part of the Kent
Lagoons Project that allow interested groups and citizens to
take an informative "nature walk" through various habitats.
an
vironm
ntally-
3. Future plans ding th t woulduction house a1 Green River eNatural
.correct building
Resources Center, which would be a focal point for citizen
involvement and education on environmental issues, such as the
Green River fishery, stormwater management and urban wildlife
management.
4. Design of created and enhanced we habitat at the new Kent
Lagoon site and the area to the west will incorporate
as snags, nest boxes,
structures, and components, such
buffers, and selected, sizeable plantings to enhance the
viability of hundreds of species of birds and mammals.
In terms of project liabilities, we do not envision this project
having any outstanding deficiencies in terms of the environment,
health and safety, transportation, permitting or displacement or
current uses.
B.1c) implementation Plan:
t will be managed by Mr. Bill Wolinski, P.E. ,
Staffing: This pro] ec, rs. The - prime consultant for the
with assistance from two enginee
Kent Lagoons Project and associated lands is CH2M-Hill.
Budget: The total budget for this project is approximately 9.4
million dollars.
Tasks and Schedule: (see also attached implementation schedule.)
The City is currently negotiating for the
1. Land acquisition- the west of the existing
purchase of the entire 290 acres to
lagoon site (summer -fall, 1993).
2. Permitting/ Pro i ect meetings. Permitting will start in.August,
and run until September, 1994. Meetings with agencies
19193 hout the
and the public shall take place periodically throug
ts completion in 1996.
project until iu
3. Pre -design. A pre -design report shall be completed and
city and anpropriate agencies prior to
reviewed by the (1093-1994)
initiating final design drawings. I
4. Final design- Final design of all including
enhancement of the METRO grant acquisition area, shall occur
in 1994-
5. Bid/Award/Cont--acts. 1994-1995.
Anticipated time of mobilization and
6. Construction. ments is February, 1995- The
construction of improve
ment of the METRO grant accuisition
restoration and enhanceT
area may not take place until 1996.
Bid) Long term stewardshilo Plan:
The Environmental Engineering section of the Public Works
� and fund the adminisZration, operation and
Department will staff tly done with similar
maintenance of this project as curren
projects. City Departments will work together to coordinate
activities. Also, the City is current. ly developing a Wetlands and
component of the program
Shoreline Preservation Program. A ma]or dship activity to involve
will be the development of strong stewar
citizens, groups -and neighborhoods in the maintenance and
protection of natural resource areas.
EXHIBIT C
AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO:
Attn:
EXHIBIT D
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Notice is hereby given that the property legally described in Exhibit A hereto (the
Property) is subject to use restrictions and other obligations. These use restrictions and other
obligations are described in the Project Contract entered into between the King County
Department of Metropolitan Services (KCDMS) and
Agency on the
of
file with the Pu
(the Public Agency) entitled
Project Number signed by the Public
_ day of and by KCDMS on the day
and the application and supporting materials which are on
lic Agency and KCDMS in connection with the Project Contract.
Pursuant to the Project Contract, the owner of the Property shall not make or permit
to be made any use of the Property, or any part of it, which is inconsistent with the
shoreline public use and recreation purposes and habitat conservation as described in the
Project Contract, unless KCDMS, or its successor, consents to the inconsistent use, which
consent shall be granted only upon conditions which will ensure that other lands and
facilities of at least equal fair market value at the time of change of use and of as nearly as
feasible equivalent usefulness and location for the shoreline public use and recreation
purposes for which KCDMS assistance from the Shoreline Improvement Fund was originally
granted will be substituted in the manner provided for in the Project Contract.
The restrictions and obligations described above shall run with the land and shall be
binding on any and all persons who acquire an interest in the Property.
DATED this day of
By:
Its:
Public Agency
199
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 199_, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and
sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the
of the the- public agency that
executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be
the free and voluntary act and deed of said Public Agency, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that is authorized to execute the said instrument
and that the seal affixed (if any) is the seal of said Public Agency.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate
above written
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
My commission expires
Parks Committee Minutes
December 14, 1993
Councilmembers Present: Jim Bennett, Chair; and Christi Houser.
Jack Ball, Tom Brubaker, Cheryl Fraser, Lori Hogan, Alana
McIalwain, Pam Rumer, and Helen Wickstrom.
Bill Doolittle, 412 N Washington, #31; Connie Ep eQrly, 639 5th
Ave.
IS; Keith Sanden, Riverbend Golf Director; and Dou
Schwab, Golf Advisory Board.
Staff Present:
Others Present:
—� ACCEPTANCE OF METRO AND KING COUNTY
PARK and ACCEPTANCE OF KING COUNTY
PROPERTY IN UPPER MILL CREEK CANYON
CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANTS FOR RIVERVIEW
CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT FOR PURCHASE OF
Staff has received notice that the City will receive Metro and
Conservation Futures grant to purchase River few Park, ll Creek Canyon.
Conservation Futures grants to purchase Upper
County and Metro will be sending interlocal agreements which will
taken to Council for action.
matching King
grant for the
reserve those
King County
King County
Both King
need to be
The funding source for Riverview Park is 100% grants, as Metro is
County's funds. Public Works will match the $71,000 King County
acquisition of Upper Mill Creek Canyon. Public Works would like to
properties for drainage.
Councilmember Houser moved to accept the Metro and King County Conservation
Futures grants. Councilmember seconded. The motion passed 2-0. Staff will
contact Councilmember Johnson by phone to obtain a unanimous vote for the consent
calendar. (Johnson later agreed.)
SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT MIDWAY RESERVOIR PROPERTY
Staff received a letter from the Seattle Water Department which needs to be
returned by December 23 indicating e Parkser the Commiitteeyof Kent has an interest in
has indicated an interest in
the Midway Reservoir property. Th
the past, and Helen Wickstrom requested direction from the Committee.
Wickstrom explained that the assessed value
ref the
prop time ,rty l $20 ,800. property
The
city of Seattle is having the property appi
will be for sale at the first of the year for the appraised value. Seattle is
willing to accept 20% down, with 7% interest for a ten year -term, with one
payment per year.
The National Guard is also interested in a portion of the property. Wickstrom
pointed out that returning the letter does not obligate the City of Kent to
purchase the property.
The Parks Committee directed staff to return the letter to the Seattle Water
1. SUBJECT: CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 additional services
will allow a wider range of alternatives to be considered
during the deliberations on the Capital Facilities Plan. See -
3. EXHIBITS: Memo, GMA Work Plan, Scope of Work
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES /
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $21,500
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1994 CIP Fund
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 1994
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN - BUDGET CHANGE AND CONTRACT
ADDENDUM FOR SCOPE OF WORK FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
In August 1993, the City contracted with Henderson, Young &
Company, capital facilities planning consultants, for professional
services to assist the City's implementation of the Growth
Management Act. The consultant's work program is specifically
related to the capital facilities element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement.
The original scope of work was drafted under the direction of the
former City Administration. It included professional and staff
services to identify the present levels of facility services (LOS)
in Kent, an initial Alternative LOS, and a Council Preferred LOS.
After reviewing the "Capital Facility Requirements" and "Revenue
Sources for Capital Facilities" reports and other products of the
capital facilities planning process, the present administration
identified a need to analyze a wider range of LOS options and
present five LOS/Revenue scenarios to Council members for your
consideration rather than two, as provided by the original
contract.
The fee to expand the original Henderson, Young & Company contract
is $21,500. A copy of the scope of work and work plan is attached
to this memo for your review. Your concurrence on this proposed
expanded contract will permit the City to meet internal time lines
for completing the Capital Facilities element of the Growth
Management Plan.
JPH/mp:lp:c:CFPADD.MEM
cc: Linda Phillips, Planner
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
DRAFT
For Discussion Purposes Only
ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT
Henderson, Young & Company (HYCO) will perform the following
services to assist the City of Kent develop additional scenario
information for the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of the City's
comprehensive plan. The phrases in italics at the end of each task
description indicate the primary participants in the task:
Planning, Finance, and or "providers" (the departments, agencies
and districts that provide public facilities).
At the end of each subtask is a line that summarizes HYCO's role
and the estimated number of hours of consulting services. The cost
of this Addendum is based on the average of all estimates.
This Addendum involves 5 tasks, listed below. The cost of each
task is also shown. Following the task list are detailed
descriptions of each task and subtask.
TASK COST (S)
1. Develop Additional Scenario Alternatives $ 5,500
2. Develop maintenance & Operating Costs 41000
3. Analyze Revenue that is Currently Available 31000
4. Prepare Report to Council and Mayor's Recommendation 2,000
000
5. Present Report to Council
TOTAL $21,500
The range of hours and costs estimated for each task and subtask
are for contract estimating purposes only. HYCO may spend less or
more time/costs on individual tasks and subtasks without prior
notification to or approval by the City, but in no instance may the
total amount of all payments to HYCO for all services pursuant to
this Addendum exceed $21,500.
TASK 1: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL SCENARIO ALTERNATIVES
1.1 Develop "no additional capacity" scenario by reviewing
and refining the "non -capacity" projects proposed in the
"Capital Facilities Requirements" prepared by HYCO.
HYCO: No services 0 hours
City to prepare priorities
1.2 Revise the Current LOS scenario in the "Capital
Facilities Requirements" report by consolidating the
"actual" and "transition" lines.
HYCO: Make changes
1-2 hours
1.3 Revise the "Department Recommended" LOS scenario in the
"Capital Facilities Requirements" report by (1)
ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT CONTRACT
consolidating the "actual" and "transition" lines and (2)
changing the "recommendation" to the "Initial Alternative
LOS"
HYCO: Make changes
2-4 hours
1.4 Develop an alternative scenario based on national or
regional standards for levels of service.
HYCO: Assist departments to select
national or regional standard:
Hyco prepares scenarios. 14-18 hours
1.5 Develop an alternative scenario which represents the
provider's estimate of the "minimum level of service that
would be acceptable for the City.
HYCO: City departments will identify
"minimum" LOS; HYCO prepares
20-28 hours
scenarios.
TASK 2: DEVELOP MAINTENANCE & OPERATING COSTS
2.1 Develop estimates of "average" maintenance and operating
costs per unit of facility capacity.
HYCO: Advise City on which costs to 6-10 hours
include
2.2 Apply the results of task 2.1 to each scenario's required
facility capacity and forecast future maintenance and
operating costs of new capital facilities
HYCO: Prepare forecasts 20-28 hours
TASK 3: ANALYZE REVENUE THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
3.1 Forecast the amounts of revenue that will be available
from sources of revenue that are currently used by the
City for capital improvements.
HYCO: No services --City to prepare 0 hours
forecasts.
3.2 Forecast the maximum amount of revenue that the City
could obtain for capital improvements.
HYCO: Completed during earlier work 0 hours
ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT CONTRACT
3.3 Assign or allocate the forecasts from 3.1 and 3.2 to each
type of public facility.
HYCO: Assign or allocate revenues among
types of facilities 20-28 hours
TASK 4: PREPARE REPORT TO COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Prepare draft compilation of summary format for each type
of public facility
HYCO: Prepare draft report 20-28 hours
4.2 Mayor prepares recommendations
HYCO: Assist and advise Mayor and staff 14-18 hours
TASK 5: PRESENT REPORT TO COUNCIL
5.1 Present report to City Council
HYCO: Assist Mayor and staff 14-18 hours
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement o the
day and year first above written.
HENDERSON, YOUNG & COMPANY, INC.
BY:
Randall L. Young
President
Notices to be sent to:
Mr. Randall L. Young
President
Henderson, Young & Company
17202 N.E. 85th P1., N228
Redmond, Washington 98052
3
BY:
BY:
THE CITY OF KENT
James P. Harris
Planning Director
Jim White, Mayor
Mr. James P. Harris
Planning Director
The City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue
Kent, Washington 98032
ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT CONTRACT
LP:a:hycocont.add
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Roger A. Lubovich
Kent City Attorney
ATTEST:
Brenda Jacober
Kent City Clerk
Kent City Council Meeting
n A ril 5 1994
1 Date
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: OUT OF STATE
Jai DR
f
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: " Mayor White5w�ii=c- t request t�ity
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 is requesting 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.
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 %
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves,
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Councilmember seconds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
aeovn
DATE: MARCH 28, 1994
SUBJECT: COUNCIL APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRIP
I would like to request City Council approval of my trip to China
and Taiwan. While my travel, hotels and meal expenses will be paid
by myself and through the Chamber of Commerce, I am requesting
Council approval of unbudgeted incidental expenses that may arise
such as the use of my telephone calling card. I expect to
telephone the City periodically while I am traveling.
Thank you for your consideration.
JW: jb
al
C/ Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER TRAIL -rr eE+TANeL
2. UMMARY STATEMENT: s recommended by the Parks Committee,
uthorization to accept the Green River Trail project as
complete, and to release etainage to Merlino Construction upon
receipt of State releases The project was completed within
budget.
3. EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hough Beck & Baird Landscape Architect Parks_
Department Parks Committee (2/8/94)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5.
RP
7.
UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended i
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember,
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
econds
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
1. SUBJECT:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5, 1994
Category Consent Calendar
UPPER GARRISON CREEK CONDEMNATION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public WorDand
Committee, option of Ordinance No. I ( authorizing
condemnation for easements for the Upper Garrison Creek
Stormwater Conveyance project which services the area i
around the Benson Center (104th Ave. SE & SE 240th St).
Negotiations will be on-going to secure all easements,
?�
in the interest of reducing proiect_ilementation time, pt
--
par-�asle-laction is requested
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, Public Works Director
Memorandum, ordinance and vicinity maps
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCALJPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 28, 1994
PRESENT: TIM CLARK ARTHUR MARTIN
JIM BENNETT JIM HUNTINGTON
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
ROGER LUBOVICH STEVE CAPUTO
GARY GILL MR & MRS RUST
ABSENT: PAUL MANN - CHAIR
Garrison Creek Stormwater Control Project
Wickstrom stated there are two sections of this project where we
will need to proceed with condemnation while simultaneously
proceeding with negotiations. He said the shopping center and
apartment complexes in and around the S.240th and 104th Ave SE
intersection flood out during heavy storms. He noted that this was
one of the projects in our Capital Improvement Program which is to
relieve that area of flooding problems. Wickstrom said that our
goal is to provide a new conveyance system and a major detention
system at the headworks of Garrison Creek. He said we have all the
easements for the conveyance system within the shopping center; we
have two pieces one on the north end of the system and one on the
southerly end of the system which are part of the open channel
portion that we still need to negotiate easements for. He
explained that the normal process has been sequential where we
negotiate and then condemn; we want to do both (negotiate and
condemn) simultaneously which speeds up the process and shaves
months off the schedule. Wickstrom said we would like to build it
all at once rather than having two contracts.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom stated that the properties in
question are easements only. He also stated that everyone has
been, or will be, contacted prior to any condemnation.
Committee unanimously recommended proceeding with the necessary
steps for condemnation, while continuing negotiations.
Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
Because of the absence of Paul Mann at this meeting, the committee
recommended postponing this issue until the next Public Works
meeting, April 11th.
(continued)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 28, 1994
TO: Public Works committee
FROM: Don WickstromVAU
RE: Garrison Creek Stormwater Control Project
As part of the solution to resolve the flooding in and around
apartment complexes in the vicinity of 108th Ave SE and SE 240th
st., at the Benson Shopping.Center (northeast corner of 104th Ave
SE & SE 240th St.) and adjacent to the Upper Garrison Creek
tributary between 104th Ave SE and 98th Ave SE, construction of a
new drainage trunk line and widening and improving the open
drainage courses is required.
To date we have secured all easements necessary to construct the
trunk system with only those related to the open channel portion
yet to be acquired. The attached maps denote the areas and the
specific parcels yet to be acquired and it should be noted that we
have just started the appraisal negotiation process thereon.
However in order to expedite the acquisition process, we are
requesting authorization to proceed with condemnation. This
simultaneous approach (negotiation and condemnation) will
literally save months versus the sequential approach of negotiation
then condemnation. It is highly likely that most of these
easements will be acquired through negotiation with only a limited
few ending up involved in condemnation. While we will continue to
negotiate, we are requesting authorization to proceed with
condemnation.
ACTION: Authorization to proceed with condemnation.
NORTH
LEGEND
cnnJECT LOCATION
UPPER GARRISON CREEK CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
VICINITY MAP
I r
I m
I n
I m
I
I z
m
a
h
R
.a
A
�
i
F
�
m
z
y
n
-]
r
O
N
-i
Z
1
� I
—
a
1�
—
Ir
1
1;
I:
I
I;
I.
r,
I�
I`
1;
1
1
I �
I
1
I
I
�
�
IJ-,
I l
�I
I
Sym
L
—
I
I
—
I
I E-A
i E_
I riC
I —
—
L)
I
7JTH Av_E_SE
NORTH
LEGEND
-. PROJECT LOCATION
EASEMENT ACq UISITION AREA
;v
p
MENTS
UPPER GARRISON CREEK CONVEYANCE IMPROVE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
MAP 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
providing for the acquisition of a permanent
easement for storm drainage purposes over certain
property in order to improve, alter, install,
operate and maintain a storm drainage system for
e
Upper Garrison Creek, which property is generally
located along Upper Garrison Creek in the area
northwest of the intersection of South 236th Street
and 100th Avenue SE and also along Upper Garrison
Creek between 112th Avenue SE and 104th Avenue SE;
providing for the payment thereof from the City's
Safeway Storm Drainage Fund (Project # 91-3018/D-
37); and providing for the condemnation of such
property rights as necessary therefor; all of said
properties located within King County, Washington.
THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Kent ("City") authorizes the
acquisition by condemnation of all or a portion of several parcels
of real property, all located in King County, Washington for the
City's Upper Garrison Creek storm drainage system. The properties
designated for condemnation are located generally along Upper
Garrison Creek in the area northwest of the intersection of South
236th Street and 100th Avenue SE and also along Upper Garrison
Creek between 112th Avenue SE and 104th Avenue SE and are legally
described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (hereinafter, the "Properties").
1
Sect 2. The public convenience, use and necessity deman
that the City condemn the Properties in order to acquire an
easement for storm drainage purposes, which purposes shall include
all acts necessary or that may, from time to time, become necessary
to complete the improvement, alteration, installation, operation
and maintenance of said storm drainage system.
Sect_ 3• The City shall condemn the Properties only after
just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the
owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law.
Section 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the
acquisition by condemnation provided for in this Ordinance through
the City's Safeway Storm Drainage Fund (Project No. 91-3018/D-37),
or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be
provided by law.
Section 5. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorne,
to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to
condemn the Properties. In conducting the condemnation
proceedings, the City authorizes the City Attorney to enter into
stipulations in order to minimize damages, which stipulations may
include, but not be limited to, size and dimensions of the Property
condemned, construction easements and other property interests.
Section 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior
to the effective date of this Ordinance are ratified and confirmed.
Section 7. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to
be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or
the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons
or circumstances.
2
Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of
APPROVED the day of
PUBLISHED the day of
19
19
, 19_
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent
hereon indicated.
CONDEMN9.pwk
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
3
V 111 / 7" I
The north 40.00 feet of the east 208.21 feet of the following
described property:
The south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 5
East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
C1 EXCEPT the east 121 feet of the west 436 feet of the south 130 feet
thereof;
(� AND EXCEPT the west 315 feet thereof;
vV AND EXCEPT the south 30 feet as conveyed to King County for road
purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 6085509;
AND EXCEPT the west 10 feet of the east 30 feet as conveyed to King
County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number
5036381;
AND EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within 100th Avenue Southeast.
TEMPORARYTOGETHER WITH A CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
adjacent to the west and south lines of the above described property
RNP
A strip of land 30.00 feet in width lying within a portion of the
following described property.
The east half of the north half of the north half of the southeast
quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section
18, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington; EXCEPT that portion deeded to King County under
c� Recording Number 5036366 for 100th Avenue S.E. which centerline of
�J said strip is described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of the above described parcel;
thence east along the south line thereof a distance of 105.00 feet
to the True Point of Beginning of centerline herein described;
thence North 36017112" West a distance of 74.12 feet; thence North
21043108" West a distance of 113.33 feet to a point on the north line
of said parcel and the terminus of centerline herein described.
FIND Al- SO
That portion of the east half of the south half of the south half of
the north half of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 5
East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 30 feet for
road described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of the above described property;
thence east along the south line thereof a distance of 90.00 feet to
the True Point of Beginning of property herein described; thence
North 08°04102" East a distance of 82.76 feet to a point on the north
line thereof; thence east along said north line a distance of 30.00
feet; thence South 01004102" West a distance of 72.75 feet; thence
South 44039120" East a distance of 13.98 feet to a point on the south
line thereof; thence west along said south line a distance of 40
feet to the True Point of Beginning.
AND P\L SO
The east 30.00 feet of the west 120 feet of the following described
property.
The east half of the north half of the south half of the north half
\� of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 18, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in
King County, Washington; EXCEPT the West 15 feet; AND EXCEPT the
west 10 feet of the east 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for
road purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 5036365; AND
EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within 100th Avenue Southeast.
R� D HL S 0 ( corer.)
1/4
Beginning at the southwest corner of the following described
property being the True Point of Beginning of property herein
described.
The south half of the south 6 acres of the southeast quarter of the
northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township
* 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the
`\ east 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County by deed recorded under
Recording Number 1136226 for 104th Avenue Southeast; EXCEPT that
portion conveyed to the City of Kent by deed recorded under
Recording Number 79121030503 (re-recording of 7806140119) for
Southeast 236th Place. Thence north along the west line thereof a
\ distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 81022116" East a distance of
y, 172.45 feet; thence east parallel with the south line of above
}� described property a distance of 388.06 feet to a point on the west
line of 104th Avenue Southeast; thence south along said west line a
distance of 70.00 feet to a point on the north line of Southeast
236th Street; thence west along the north line thereof a distance of
558.09 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
AND AL S0
l The north 20.00 feet of Tract 9 R.O. Smiths Orchard Tracts to Kent
Vol. 12 page 27 King County, WA.
RNQ ALSO
The north 20.00 feet of Tract 10 R.O. Smiths Orchard Tracts to Kent
hVol. 12 page 27 King County, WA EXCEPT the west 186.00 feet thereof.
F0 ALSO
The north 20.00 feet of the west 66.00 feet of Tract 10 R.O. Smiths
l� Orchard Tracts to Kent Vol. 12 page 27 King County, WA.
RN D ALSO
The north 20.00 feet of the east 120.00 feet of the west 186.00 feet
of Tract 10 R.O. Smiths Orchard Tracts to Kent Vol. 12 page 27 King
County, WA.
N
l4N D /\L50 CCVNT
2-14
2� Kin Countyt WA.
The north 20.00 feet of the east 2 feet of Trac11 R'O' Smiths
Orchard Tracts to Kent Vol. 12 pageq
RU ALSO
The north 5.00 feet of the west half of the west half of the
\ southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter
of Section 20 Township 22 North Range 4 E, W.M. King County WA.
i
Rip ALSO
The north 5.00 feet of
the southeast quarter
quarter of Section 20,
County WA.
RN q AL SO
the west 128.00 feet of the west 2 acres of
of the northwest quarter of the northeast
Township 22 N, Range 5 East, W.M., King
The north 5.00 feet of the southeast quarter of the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 22 N, Range
5 East, W.M., King County WA;
EXCEPT the west 128.00 feet;
AND EXCEPT the east 384 feet thereof.
pKIU AL S 0
The north 5.00 feet of Lot 2 King County Short Plat No. 881086
recorded under Auditors File No. 8112110601 being a portion of the
southeast quarter of northwest quarter of northeast quarter in
Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, WA.
AND ALSO
The north 5.00 feet of of the following:
The east 128 feet of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East,
W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT the west 98 feet of the east 128 feet of the south 215 feet
of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast
quarter .of Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in
King County, Washington;
EXCEPT the south 30 feet conveyed to King County for road by deed
`v recorded under Recording Number 2569132;
(ALSO KNOWN AS a portion of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No. LL -89-32
recorded under Recording Number 8912010532).
RNA ALSO(
3�4
The north 20.00 feet of the east 25.00 feet of Tract 11 R.O. Smiths
Orchard Tracts to Kent Vol. 12 page 27 King County, WA.
TOGETHER WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT over the west 20.00
\ feet of the east 45.00 feet of the north 45.00 feet and over the
south 25.00 feet of the north 45.00 feet of the east 25.00 feet of
said Tract 11. Said TEMPORARY EASEMENT shall remain in full force
and affect until the storm drainage system is constructed and
accepted by the Kent City Council. Any construction shall be
accomplished in such a manner that the existing improvements and
N land contours existing in the easements shall not be disturbed or
destroyed, or in the event that they are disturbed or destroyed,
Y\!r they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were
immediately before the property was entered upon by the Grantee.
4/1,
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL CHAMBER REMODEL
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
2. SUMMARY STATEMEN/ish
s recommended by the Operations
Committee at the23, 1994 meeting# Authorization inw
-rte to estbudget not to exceed $20,000 to
replace the Counand provide improved background for
Council filming.chitect estimates the costs will not
exceed $20,000. The plan anticipates building a new dais to
allow Council more room and a wheelchair ramp.
Authorization i-9-reqVes-te4 to establish the budget and si.gnrm*-
+erf the change order.
3. EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY: O erations Committee 3-23-94
(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
DISCUSSION:
seconds
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
MEMO
DATE: March 16, 1994
TO: Brent McFall, Director of Operations
FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Support Services Ma ge
SUBJECT :COUNCIL CHAMBER DIAZ REMODEL UPDATE
The architect has provided us a rough sketch of the Council diaz
based on our discussions at the last Operations Committee meeting.
I do not have updated costs yet but all indications are that they
may be as much as before or more. Also the last time I neglected
to include the cost for the architects time to do the design work.
The cost for the architect up through the first design presented
at the last meeting were $2,819 plus the construction costs of
$11,871 and the estimate for the covering behind the council for
filming of $2,500 for a total estimate now of $17,190 plus
additional architect fees and whatever the additional construction
costs might be.
MPR is '94 ss: r,E:
P. 2
J
- +k
2,
�a��7�i1 chatr,�P.r- -r�ro.
�` 1-o 15 Mar
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT ARTS COMMISSION
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Ma or White
(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. 3P
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: MARCH 31, 1994
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION
I have recently appointed 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 continue to 10/31/95.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW.jb
cc: Patrice Thorell, Acting Parks and Recreation Director
Robb Dreblow, Arts Commission Chair
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5, 1994
Category other Business
1. SUBJECT: RECYCLING/YARD WASTE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This issue was discussed at the
March 8th Council Workshop. At the meeting, the three pro-
posals for curbside recycling and yard waste collection were
reviewed along with staff's recommendation thereon. Copies of
the materials presented are included in the packet herein. The
Public Works Director will give a brief review of this matter
for Council.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes (2/14/94) and memorandum from
Public Works Director
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves,
Councilmember rnayy"�/ seconds
to authorize and direct staff to pursue contract negotiations
f r cur side recycling and yard waste collection with �- D
, and that if said negotiations are unsuc-
cessful, t at the matter be referr.e back to Council for
further direction., V�1 Cwt
Councilmember
_moves Councilmembery seconds
to fund implemental o�n of curbside rreecycling��Y waste
collection » Ao,k Q na �
DISCUSSION •y t 3-f-� nog re�en ups • u
ACTION:
�/y17f n C� CY
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 14, 1994
SPECIAL MEETING 4:30 P.M.
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
TOM BRUBAKER
LEONA ORR
BRENT McFALL
JIM BENNETT
ARTHUR MARTIN
DON WICKSTROM
MAY MILLER
GARY GILL
ROBYN BARTELT
Recycling Yard Waste - Proposals
Wickstrom stated that in answer to our Request for Proposal, we
received three yard waste proposals. He presented the Committee
with a summary of the comparison of services between Kent Disposal,
Tri-Star and Waste Management. Wickstrom said that our present
recycling contract with Kent Disposal, actually expired in October
of 1993 and has been given several extensions with the last
extension expiring at the end of March. Wickstrom said we are in
the yard waste program because we need to reach our 50% goal of
reducing our garbage waste stream and a yardwaste program would
accomplish that, by eliminating yardwaste from our garbage waste
stream and also, King County is planning to eliminate yardwaste
from entering the landfill. Wickstrom further explained the
differences in service and dollars between the three proposals
submitted. He said that our plan is to continue with subsidizing
the recycling program and also institute the yard waste program, on
a fee basis by the user.
Wickstrom requested authorization to renegotiate with Waste
Management. In response to Orr, Wickstrom said that because this
is a Request for Proposal, there is no law stating that we are
required to accept the lowest bidder.
Committee unanimously recommended moving this item to Council
Workshop.
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 5, 1994
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Don Wickstromt�lA1
RE: Curbside Recycling & Yard Waste Collection Contract
As you will recall this issue was discussed at the March 8th
Workshop. Copies of the material presented thereat are attached.
Basically we have three proposals; one from Kent Disposal, one from
Tri Star Disposal and one from Waste Management -Rainier. The
proposals were requested on the basis of one contractor doing all.
As such, Council selection needs to follow accordingly. A detailed
comparison of the respective proposals is attached to the enclosed
February 24th memo.
With respect to recycling, Kent Disposal submitted a commingle
system using toters while Tri Star and Waste Management submitted
a source separation system using bins. Waste Management is
offering weekly service while the others are offering every other
week service.
With respect to the yard waste program, all are offering 90 - 96
gallon toters with weekly service except Kent Disposal which is
offering every other week service. As noted in the following Table
(For more detail, see Table of Cost attached to February 24th memo)
with respect to total cost, Waste Management is the least costly.
K.D. (Recy.Cust.Base) K.D. (Garbage Cust.Base) Tri Star
(32 gal) (90 gal) (32 gal) (90 gal)
Wst.Mgmt.
Rcyl. $527,339 $576,631 $533,500 $594,851 $524,875 $505,777
Yard -
waste
With respect to financing the entire package, the options range
from full subsidy to full user service charge. As Council is
aware, presently we are fully subsidizing our existing curbside
recycling program. It is thus staff recoommendatiotl vel we continue
nto
do so in order to maintain the high participating
have.
With respect to the yard waste program, we are recommending that
the customer be charged for the service. Additionally I want to
remind the Council that we are not requiring mandatory service,
only that there be a ban on disposing of yard waste into the
garbage.
Since the March 8 Council Workshop, Tri Star submitted a revised
proposal which they say deletes the costs they originally included
per providing neighborhood recycling collection sites. Under this
revised proposal, their total cost would be $496,783 thus making
them the least cost provider. It should be noted that this re-
submittal should not be considered due to the legal ambiguities it
would instill into the whole process. It is only noted herein
because it was included in the financial comparison analysis
incorporated in Brent McFall's memo of March 29th, which is also
part of the packet herein.
Since one contract will provide all, a critical distinction relates
to the recycling program per toter versus bin service. As Council
is aware, we are recommending that the Waste Management program
provides the best overall service for the combined recycling/yard
waste programs at the least cost to the City and residents. If
however, toter recycling service is paramount, then Kent Disposal
should be selected. Were they selected, then financially we would
recommend that the City fully subsidize the 32 gallon and 90 gallon
toter program with the exception that the customer pick up the
toter rental rate ($1.o0/month) for the 90 gallon toter service. By
re
doing so, the existing revenues within the environmenbta lfund
adequate and no increase in the utility tax on g g
would be required.
Per the yard waste collection program we still recommend that it be
a customer service charge.
In summary, the contractor selected per Council motion, should
either be Waste Management or Kent Disposal, depending on what type
of recycling service Council perceives as important. Per Council
motion on funding, it should be to fully subsidize the Recycling
Program up to the cost of 32 gallon toter system with the balance
of the costs for the entire Recycling/Yard Waste Program via
customer service charges.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
FEBRUARY 24, 1994
TO: Mayor White &Cit Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Curbside Recycling and Yard Waste Collection Contract
The -City of Kent's residential curbside recycling contract expires
March 31, 1994 (this includes two extensions with Kent Disposal).
The Public Works Department asked for RFP's for residential
curbside collection of recyclables and a yard waste collection
program. On February 11th three proposals were received; one from
Kent Disposal Company, current contractor for residential curbside
recycling, one from Tri Star Disposal and one from Waste
Management -Rainier. Detailed comparison of the proposals is given
in the attached table. Also included on a separate table is a
financial comparison.
Council will recall in order to meet the 50% reduction in our waste
stream by 1995 as stipulated in our adopted Comprehensive Solid
Waste Plan, continuing on with our recycling program and
implementing a yard waste program is crucial thereto. Also, as
added incentive it is our understanding the County plans to ban the
acceptance of yard waste at Cedar Hills by 1995, so implementation
of the yard waste program needs to go forward. To maintain the
high participating level in our recycling program we are
recommending that we continue on with subsidizing it. As for the
yard waste program, we recommend that the customer be charged for
the service. The service however would not be mandatory but there
would be a ban on disposal of yard waste into the garbage, thus
hopefully encouraging backyard composting.
Based on the proposals submitted, the Waste Management program
provides the best overall service level per the combined
recycling/yard waste programs at the least cost to the City (no
utility tax increase required) and residents. As such, our
recommendation is to pursue a negotiated contract with Waste
Management for the City's residential curbside recycling and yard
waste collection program.
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING &
YARD WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM - PROPOSALS
if company provides
Implementation Schedule
Within 30 days 90 days from 55 days from
from signing signing contract signing contract
contract
Additional Services
Develop several
neighborhood recycling
collection sites
Recycling Customer Base - 4,107
Garbage Customer Base - 5,113
RECYC
Kent Disposal
Tri Star
Waste Mcrmt
Curbside Recycling
Type of Container
90 gal toter/
3 basket system
3-14 gal bins
one lid
20 gal glass
with
(or) 32 gal toter/
18 gal glass
Level of Service
Every other week
Every other week
Every week
Type of Service
co -mingled
Source separated
Source separated
Cost of Service
90 gal - $3.95*/mo
$3.78 each
$2.55 each
32 gal - $2.95/mo
Eligible house-
Eligible house -
per participating
hold; no rental
hold; no rental
customer (or)
on bins
on bins
90 gal - $3.47*/mo
32 gal - $2.47/mo per
garbage base customer
Includes $1.00/mo
rental on toter
Yard Waste Collection
Type of Container
own or company
96 gal toter
96 gal toter
provided 90 gal
provided by
provided by
toter
company
company
Level of Service
Every other week
Weekly Mar -Nov
Weekly Mar -Nov
Once/mo Dec -Feb
Mar -Nov
Once/mo Dec -Feb
Once/mo Dec -Feb
Cost of Service
$7.75/mo Mar -Nov
$6.87/mo
$9.55/mo Mar -Nov
$220 mo Dec -Feb
$1.00
$3.75 mo Dec -Feb
No toter rental
No
toter rental
if company provides
Implementation Schedule
Within 30 days 90 days from 55 days from
from signing signing contract signing contract
contract
Additional Services
Develop several
neighborhood recycling
collection sites
Recycling Customer Base - 4,107
Garbage Customer Base - 5,113
RECYC
-IV
z()
c
zo
d
x�
N
U
o
O\
O
ON
cr\
�c
w
w
O
O
VNi
C
A
o
r*
w
7�
w
o
-C,
C„
O
n
fin"
w
r7
O
�s
0
<D
w
y
G
`<
C
c�
n
m
CCD °
°�'
o.. `C
A.
I
°
N
0
ti'
=
Cr1
N
�
O.
G
O
oo
��-+
�'
w
`O
�]
x
t-+
N
N
n
O
CD ^vv
°�°
C/)
C
CDw
o
n
cz 0<
d
N
c
o
y
c�ii
a
p
O
o
vCD
N
CD
0.
x
^
.�O
ll
�
`
0
1-000
A
a
N
G
On
�'
fD �j-
CD
�
C)
o
0 z
y
O'
w
z C7
CD
m
J
U
C
Vi
O
N
Q\
O
O\
00
00
O
�
�
0
Ci
N
W
Vii
O
V
L
rW
C
W
Cro
'1
bCID
N
CD
w
W
O
CD
CL
W
w
::
as
C O A
O N
CD 00
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
7s' �
00
N
C)
CDCD
4 O
t:;- "
CDCD
�
CCD T
CD
wCD
O
00 .�
CD
CD
CD
CD o
�. 00 V7
Oji N
N
J
W
W
Ch
C,
N
W
O
O
w �
00
C\ O\ O N
c -A 00 O �
w 00
00 C\ --A D\ O W I w
0000 � ON O U J J
O U
J O --A
�
d
N
U
O\
O\
O
ON
cr\
�c
w
w
O
O
VNi
C
A
00
J
��'
Vii
IS
C„
O
�
fin"
N
O
N
N
n
m
�0
W
I
N
N
0
v'Ai
w
vii
N
�
111
_C
O
oo
��-+
w
w
Cq
�]
W
t-+
N
N
n
O
00"A
C/)
z
mrn
o
w
d
N
>
c�ii
.gyp.
�p
O
N
N
oOOJ
L
.�O
ll
�
`
10
1-000
A
N
N
pal
pQ
�'
�
C)
0 z
w
z C7
N
J
U
C
Vi
O
N
Q\
O
O\
00
00
O
�
�
0
w 00
00 C\ --A D\ O W I w
0000 � ON O U J J
O U
J O --A
R
�
d
N
U
O\
O\
O
ON
cr\
�c
w
w
O
O
VNi
C
A
C%
J
��'
Vii
IS
C„
O
.
N
N
+�
n
m
�0
W
n
x
0
v'Ai
w
vii
N
�
111
_C
O
oo
��-+
w
w
Cq
�]
O
00
N
N
n
O
C/)
z
mrn
w
N
>
oOOJ
CD
A
N
N
N
�'
C)
0 z
w
z C7
C
N
N
EA
O
�
�
0
Ci
N
W
Vii
O
V
rW
O
W
Cro
'1
N
CD
R
N
U
O\
O\
O
ON
cr\
�c
WLA
O
O
VNi
-00
?
A
W
J
��'
W
IS
ON
R
�p
O
O
CN
O
N
69
69
n
O
N
w.
H
C
w
IEA
�
Lv
469
N
vii
069 0
O
69
Vii
O
O
n
pq
CD
ON1
O
CD
x
rn
6r9
G6
s9
69
a
z
46S
�'
69
69
69
E/jtj
O
IEA
�
Lv
469
N
vii
069 0
O
69
Vii
O
64
O
<
w
0
G
ID
�
46S
�'
69
69
69
E/jtj
o
�
O
O
A
ON1
O
x
rn
6r9
G6
s9
69
o
z
LA
N
4EA
00
,_..
W
:_l
w
bo
N
00
J
Cli
C�
W
O�
69
4609
br9
yg
69
O
Y
69
W
V1
N
00
o
�
b�R
69
b9
h-�
64
69
Ln
N
Oo
00
Q
a
69
A
69
O
cn
N
00
(.AW
V,
w
LnCA
N
CA
69
6�9
69
69
,
LA
N
00
�'
J
L
L
0
0
vN
a
o
c S _d Ctn N.v 337C —I -+7c Cl O G) <
rt m o Hwmm�-•. ro m 0
d n w rt v Z
c in 3 s w ad0n grt n w -1 Q c
w o n w z c�nw m
'< m w w c z in o m
o_ m x
< o m e
w a (o m n in v, m n rt
x 0 0_ m 0 > > o nw > ><<< rt -
0. w_ o_ o_ w m
lc m o o
n 7 w 3 C n C Z7 C D d <
-s o n
w w n m o w io w w
n w c (n o o n c x
� n c
O
W W N N N
N N V �--• .A W N V � W �--• O
O m 1O
V O N O l O 0 f T N r-• W O O N Q 1 W
V A OD O OD W O .P N O 01 01 W N
W W N
N N V r A W co
N N U1 N co A l0 r-• W
o _
N 0) N coO1 O
m N
O W O O Ol Vt N (Ji
A coW V A coOJ O co co O A
N W W N
N N VI N pi A 1p `-• N
� o wolou,
V V1 to O Cn W N W
coN W A v A m OJ m N O W
W W N
N CO -+ A W co
O -
O O O 1D 0] 01 O A
N V O N T
OJ m co N �-•
N O V7
N W W N
V (o N V A S A W V1
O A to O 01 A� --• O
W V - W W co m O V
O co N O co M (T N V
m Vt O A V V OJ CO O �-•
e
O -
V W V V W Ql O �--
Ol V W O V O 01 U1 N Ol
Ol A ✓ A A T OD OJ 0 0
of v
W W N h-•
cn A N tJ1 �-• A W Ql
O1
O
CO CO O co 01 O cn
N A 111 O A 01 to N A
m
at co N O O
N N
V r+ W �--• O
C n 0� 01 A W
iD OHO CO �D
W O O N O t W
N 001 Ol OJN
N N
t)f 0�01A W
10 o. -o mlo
W O O N 01 W
N O Ol Ol 07N
N N
to O �01A W
D O O W O
W O O N Ol W
N 001 OI OJN
0
0
3
w
z
m
n
vbz�
d
J
CT
a
w
w
o
xCD
00
00pq
�p
O
pq
CT
m
W
�zC)
CT
N
r
N
C
w
C
Ln
LA
n
iD
G
G
ACD
H
u
d
O0
�
0C
CD
O
N
CL
'c
�p
�
r
J
CT
C�
CD
--j
N
�O
N
m
b
<
G
000
av
5
�CD
w
.y
N
(9
v
N
N
N
C
O
O
0
v
El
CD
C)
y
CCD
rGy
OC
r
`C
n
Q
L
w
�
W
w
CD
W.y
oC,.0,
h
o
�r
A
N
N
N
C
o
Ln
�
><
z d
Uri
W
ITI
.NSA
la
m
CD.
CL
�
vCd
C/)
N
wo
CD
CD
`)
a
00
N
0
rA
J
00�
O.Nw
a�
�
C37
^ID
CD <
N
O C 00
O
C�
CD
CDP;r
7G' ^
N
O v
<q CD
,!� O
t r
(D
CD
LW41
cn N w 00
r- N -P� 00
J vA 00 L N
W � (.A �
CD
n J N O 00 N
< O N (A O (A
00 � ---a
`C P CT J O --jCT N J W -P
d
J
CT
O
w
w
Lil
Crl7
00
00pq
�p
O
pq
CT
m
cn N w 00
r- N -P� 00
J vA 00 L N
W � (.A �
CD
n J N O 00 N
< O N (A O (A
00 � ---a
`C P CT J O --jCT N J W -P
d
J
CT
O
w
w
Lil
W
jJ
CT
N
r
N
C
w
C
LA
Ln
F-+
T
Jc
H
u
d
O0
�
0C
N
O
N
N
'c
�p
�
r
J
CT
C�
--j
N
�O
N
m
z
000
00
��W
OC
N
mCD �z
w
N
N
N
C
El
z
�
w
�
W
w
�1
v,
oC,.0,
W
o
�r
A
N
N
N
o
Ln
�
�
z d
Uri
W
.NSA
la
�
vCd
C/)
N
y0
`)
00
N
0
(/]
J
00�
O.Nw
a�
�
C37
!--`
O
(IQ
o
00
a
C:)
v
u
u,
-R
cn N w 00
r- N -P� 00
J vA 00 L N
W � (.A �
CD
n J N O 00 N
< O N (A O (A
00 � ---a
`C P CT J O --jCT N J W -P
C� C� O O\
O O
la la
d
J
CT
O
w
w
Lil
C� C� O O\
O O
la la
d
�
rn w
Lil
W
jJ
CT
N
r
N
C
w
C
LA
Ln
C
T
Jc
H
W
N
d
�
0C
N
'c
�p
v, w
�
O
C�
--j
N
�
N
m
NLIJ
C
��W
OC
N
mCD �z
w
00
NEn
N
C
El
z
oo?
W
w
�1
v,
oC,.0,
W
�r
A
N
N
N
O
�
�
z d
Uri
W
.NSA
�
vCd
N
N
y0
`)
0
(/]
O.Nw
a�
�
C37
!--`
O
(IQ
00
rn w
Lil
W
jJ
CT
N
N
C
'c
�p
v, w
�
O
C�
--j
N
�
N
o � �
W L7
o_ �c
N w
�• O_ T \T -fiT
m
�
co A
N
rtO T 1] N N
W
lt O T m fD
W
M T
C
D Q
O A W�
N <rt
in
WNA
O W -
O m
A V l 0Co
O �
O
3
w
A W Oi
a in
W L7
o_ �c
N w
N n
c
co A
N
N W
W
V �O
rt C
V O
J w O
D Q
O A W�
W ON
D.
WNA
O W -
O m
A V l 0Co
V N✓
O
n.�
W L7
W fD
N w
N n
T
co
LO0 7C
W Ut
V �O
w
w
V O
J w O
�
N A W W
co O
Vl W N CO
O CO
CO O N
A V lD N
V N✓
O
0 CO
to
A W Oi
N O N
C N
N
,f* O
N N
'f
W lD
N
tG T
N A
V 0
w
� W
A W O
W O N
v w
w
W W N V
O W
co
l0
19
W L7
N w
T
0
V O
J w O
�
N
N
A
A W lJ�
CO O N
v (p trt
W N A
0 CO
to
A W Oi
N O N
�
N N
'f
— 0 O O
omw
l)1
N
l0
O
N
V 1p
w W
y
V
A W l D
C O O N
v N
V
W N O
O CO E -'
N
T
N
_
N
03
N
N
A
m
V
w
w
_
A W N
COON
T
m
WNL
O W �--
E
w
N
m
�
N
N
W
�n
V lD
3
to
A W Oi
N O N
�
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: BRENT McFALL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
DATE: MARCH 29, 1994
SUBJECT: RECYCLING CONTRACT AND RATES
Councilmember Christi Houser requested that I do some research in
providing Council with options as to how to fund the City's
contract for recycling services. Attached to this memorandum are
spreadsheets which show the status of the Environmental Fund taking
into account the various proposals submitted by potential
contractors. The difference between the two spreadsheets is that
Attachment B includes the cost of the yard waste program in the
City's cost. For purposes of this memorandum, I am recommending
for all options that the yard waste program be paid from fees
levied by the contractor against the yard waste customers, and not
paid for by the City of Kent.
With respect to options as to how the increased cost of the
recycling contract can be paid for, I recommend that Council
consider the following:
Option 1 Increase the utility tax rate on garbage collection
sufficient to cover the added costs of the
recycling option chosen.
Option 2 Absorb the increased costs in the Environmental
Fund. The Environmental Fund has a balance of over
$300,000 which could be partially utilized to pay
the increased costs of recycling. However, this
should be viewed as only a short term solution.
Increasing garbage rates would result in increased
income into the Environmental Fund in future years
which would help offset some of the impacts on the
Environmental Fund.
Option 3 Reallocate the split between the General Fund and
the Environmental Fund. Fewer dollars from utility
taxes would be available to the General Fund.
Rather, they would be retained in the Environmental
Fund for purposes of paying the recycling contract.
The amount diverted from the General Fund would
depend upon the recycling option selected. In that
we continue to struggle to rebuild the General
Fund, this option has a direct impact on our
ability to restore the General Fund's health.
Option 4 Reallocate a portion of the budget from seasonal
clean-up to recycling. From 1991 to 1993 only
about $3,500 per year has been expended on seasonal
clean-up. However our budget for this program is
approximately $31,000. Therefore, it would appear
that fairly significant dollars are available in
the Environmental Fund from this source.
The four options listed above provide you with some opportunities
to enter into a new recycling contract with the type of service
desired by Council. Depending upon the recycling contract option
selected, staff can "mix and match" among the various options to
come up with a funding solution if Council chooses not to increase
the utility tax to pay for the recycling contract. We will await
your direction as to how you wish to proceed.
JBM:jb
CC: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Robyn Bartelt, Conservation Specialist
May Miller, Finance Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL FUND ANALYSIS
(Recycling Only)
1994 Budget
Adjusted
Kent Disposal
Recycling Base
(32 Gal) (90 Gal)
Kent Disposal Tristar Waste Mgmt
Garbage Base
(32 Gal) (90 Gal)
Tristar
Resubmit
Revenues :
Garbage Utility Tax
Oil Collection Grant
C.P.G.
King County Grant
Interest income
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
203,932
14,868
36,026
11,106
10,000
Total Revenue
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
Expenditures by Program
Recycling
Salaries
Benefits
Operating Supplies
Recycling Contract
Training
Liability Insurance
29,211
7,082
807
143,148
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
145,388
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
194,672
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
151,549
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
212,905
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
186,294
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
125,674
329
437
29,211
7,082
807
158,202
329
437
181,014
183,254
232,538
189,415
250,771
224,160
163,540
196,068
Seas Cleanup
Sara wtle #
Used Oil Collection
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
31,020
49,658
14,868
Total Expenditures
276,560
278,800
328,084
284,961
346,317
319,706
259,086
291,614
'et Change in Fund Balance
(628)
(2,868)
(52,152)
(9,029)
(70,385)
(43,774)
16,846
(15,682)
ieginning Fund Balance
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
"_nding fund Balance
324,476
322,236
272,952
316,075
254,719
281,330
341,950
309,422
Required Additional Funding 628
2,868
52,152
9,029
70,385
43,774
(16,846)
15,682
utility Tax Increase
0.01%
0.047
0.77'/.
0.13%
1.04% 0.64%
-0.25%
0.23%
"'otal Utility Tax Rate
6.51%.
6.54%
7.27%
6.63%
7.54% 7.14%
6.25%
6.73%
:ustomer Base
Rate per Month
4,107
2.95
4,107
3.95
5,113
2.47
5,113
3.47
4,107
3.78
4,107
2.55
4,107
3.21
ENVIRONMENTAL FUND ANALYSIS (Recycling and Yard Waste)
1994 Budget Kent Disposal
Adjusted Recycling Base
(32 Gal) (90 Gal)
Kent Disposal Tristar Waste Mgmt Tristar
Garbage Base Resubmit
(32 Gal) (90 Gal)
Revenues :
Garbage Utility Tax
203,932
203,932
203,932
203,932
203,932
203,932
203,932
203,932
Oil Collection Grant
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
C.P.G.
36,026
36,026
36,026
36,026
36,026
36,026
36,026
36,026
King County Grant
11,106
11,106
11,106
11,106
11,106
11,106
11,106
11,106
Interest Income
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Total Revenue
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
275,932
Expenditures by Program
Recycling :
Salaries
29,211
29,211
29,211
29,211
29;211
29,211
29,211
29,211
Benefits
7,082
7,082
7,082
7,082
7,082
7,082
7,082
7,082
Operating Supplies
807
807
807
807
807
807
807
807
Recycling Contract
143,148
145,388
194,672
151,549
212,905
186,294
125,674
158,202
Yard Waste
381,951
381,951
381,951
381,951
338,581
380,103
338,581
Training
329
329
329
329
329
329
329
329
Liability insurance
437
437
437
437
437
437
437
437
181,014
565,205
614,489
571,366
632,722
562,741
543,643
534,649
Seasonal Cleanup
31,020
31,020
31,020
31,020
31,020
31,020
31,020
31,020
Sara Title #
49,658
49,658
49,658
49,658
49,658
49,658
49,658
49,658
Used Oil Collection
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
14,868
Total Expenditures
276,560
660,751
710,035
666,912
728,268
658,287
639,189
630,195
Net Change in Fund Balance
(628)
(384,819)
(434,103)
(390,980)
(452,336)(382,355)
(363,257)
(354,263)
Beginning Fund Balance
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
325,104
Ending fund Balance
324,476
(59,715)
(108,999)
(65,876)
(127,232)
(57,251)
(38,153)
(29,159)
Required Additional Funding
628
384,819
434,103
390,980
452,336
382,355
363,257
354,263
.;tility Tax Increase
0.01%
5.66%
6.39%.
5.75%
6.65%
5.62%
5.34%
5.21%
6.51%
12.16%
12.89%
12.25%
13.15%
12.12%
11.84%
11.71%
ustomer Base
4,107
4,107
5,113
5,113
4,107
4,107
4,107
Recycling Rate per Month
2.95
3.95
2.47
3.47
3.78
2.55
3.21
Yard Waste Rates
Mar - Nov
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
6.87
9.55
6.87
Dec - Feb
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
6.87
2.20
6.87
Tater Rental
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. SUBJECT:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Other Business
CONVENIENCE STORES/GASOLINE SALES SIGN CODE
AMENDMENT (ZCA-94-1)•
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended
adoption of an ordinance which clarifies sign code requirements
related to automobile service station signs in Section
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.
3. EXHIBITS: Ordi�ance and minutes of Planning Commission 2/28/94
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staf , Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P SONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_ _moved/ Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. 3110 amending the City's sign regula-
tions pertaining to convenience stores with gasoline sales.
DISCUSSION• //W
ACTION • nt*n C/�
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington, relating to land
use and zoning, amending Section
15.06.050(B) of the Kent City Code
to allow greater sign area for
convenience stores with gasoline
sales; and to eliminate the thirty
square foot restriction on fuel
price signs.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent maintains a regulatory review
process wherein citizens may petition, and the City Council may
endorse, amendments to the City's Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, a regulatory review request was filed by an
applicant in 1993 which proposed certain amendments to the City's
sign regulations pertaining to convenience stores with gasoline
sales; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the
regulatory change and found that the proposed sign code changes
were consistent with the regulations applicable to other
commercial businesses; and
WHEREAS, in September of 1993, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City
Council on the proposed sign code changes; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1993, the City Council endorsed
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and passed
Ordinance No. 3142 to implement the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 1994, it came to the attention
of the Planning Department that the ordinance did not conform to
the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, any change to the ordinance, as approved,
required an additional public hearing and recommendation to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1994, the Planning Commission
held an additional public hearing to request an amendment to
Section 15.06.050(B) in the Kent Zoning Code regarding
convenience stores and gasoline sales; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again reviewed the
proposed regulatory change and clarified their recommendation to -
be consistent with the applicant's proposed amendment and the
recommendation of the planning staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning
Commission's recommendation on April 5, 1994 and concurred with
the proposed modifications to the City's sign regulations; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code Section 15.06.050 (as
previously amended by Ord. No. 3142; Ord. No. 2810 §1; Ord. No.
3050 §§ 6, 7), is hereby amended as follows:
V,
Sec. 15.06.050. Regulations for specific districts.
In all districts the planning director shall have the
option to waive sign type requirements in unique and special
cases where due to building design or other special circumstance
the development is unable to conform to stated standards.
A. Signs permitted in residential districts.
1. Identification signs for single-family
dwellings and duplexes. One (1) identification sign shall be
permitted for each occupancy. The sign shall not exceed an area
of three (3) square feet, shall not exceed a height of six (6)
feet above the surface of the street, shall be attached directly
to a building, fence, standard or mailbox, and shall be unlighted
or provided with indirect illumination. Home occupations shall
not be allowed additional sign area.
2. Identification signs for multifamily
dwellings. One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for
each development, except that multiple -family dwellings with more
than one (1) street frontage may be allowed an additional sign
for each street frontage of such lot. Each sign shall not exceed
an area of twenty-five (25) square feet, may be a wall or
freestanding sign, shall be unlighted or indirectly lighted, and
shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above the ground if
freestanding.
3. Farm product identification signs. No permit
is required, but such signs may not be located in the public
right-of-way.
B. Signs permitted in neighborhood convenience
commercial, community commercial, general commercial and
commercial manufacturing districts. The aggregate sign area for
3
any lot shall not exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) feet for each
foot of street frontage. Aggregate sign area for corner lots
shall not exceed one square foot for each foot of street
frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall
be subject to the total aggregate sign area.
1. Identification signs for occupancies. Each
business establishment may have one (1) freestanding sign for
each street frontage if not located in a shopping center, and
three (3) additional signs.
a. Freestanding sign. The freestanding sign
shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. The maximum sign
area permitted is two hundred (200) square feet for the total of
all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed one hundred (100) square
feet. The sign may be illuminated.
b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional
signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions:
(1) The total area of all signs,
graphics or other advertising shall not be more than ten (10)
percent of the building facade to which they are attached or on
which they are displayed.
(2) On properties where a pole sign
cannot be erected due to setback requirements or building
placement, a projecting sign may be allowed in lieu of the
permitted freestanding sign. The projecting sign may not exceed
fifteen (15) square feet in outside dimension.
2. Identification signs for shopping centers.
One (1) freestanding identification sign, which may list the
names of the occupants of the shopping center, shall be permitted
for each street frontage of each shopping center. The maximum
sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two hundred (200)
square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall
M
exceed one hundred (100) square feet. A freestanding sign shall
not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet, and may be illuminated.
3. Automobile service station signs. The
aggregate sign area for any corner lot shall not exceed one a-nd
ene—half— r3±1�jT (1) square feet foot for each foot of lot
frontage, and the aggrectate sign area for any interior lot shall
not exceed one and one-half square feet for each foot of lot
frontage; and the permitted signs enumerated in this subsection
shall be subject to the total aggregate sign area.
a. Freestanding signs. One (1) freestanding
lighted double-faced identification sign, not exceeding two
hundred square feet for the total of all faces, with no such face
exceeding one hundred (100) square feet, is permitted. Such sign
shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. If on a corner
lot, two (2) monument signs not exceeding one hundred (100)
square feet per sign for the total of all faces are permitted.
Such monument signs shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15)
feet. Freestanding signs shall be lighted during business hours
only.
b. Additional signs. Three (3) additional
signs shall be permitted subject to the following restrictions:
the total area of all signs, graphics or other advertising shall
not be more than ten (10) percent of the building facade to which
they are attached or on which they are displayed.
C. Fuel price signs. Fuel price signs shall
be included in the aggregate sign area, and shall he lifRited to
thin-tyHG) square feet tetaz.
4. Farm product identification signs. No permit
is required, but such signs may not be located in the public
right-of-way.
5
C. Signs permitted in downtown commercial and
downtown commercial enterprise districts. The aggregate sign area
for any lot shall not exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet
for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign area for
corner lots shall not exceed one (1) foot for each foot of street
frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall
be subject to the total aggregate sign area.
1. Identification signs for multitenant
buildings.
a. wall sign. Each multitenant building may
have one (1) identification wall sign for the building's
identification for each street frontage. The sign shall not
exceed a total of five (5) percent of the facade to which it is
attached. The sign shall not name or advertise the individual
tenants of the building. Aggregate sign area shall apply. A
multitenant building will have the option of the sign described
in this subsection a. or the identification sign described in
subsection c.i.b. of this section.
b. Freestanding sign. Each building may
have one (1) freestanding sign on each street frontage. The sign
may not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. The maximum sign area
permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred (100) square
feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed
fifty (50) square feet. multitenant freestanding signs shall not
name or advertise the individual tenants of the building.
2. Identification signs for occupancies. Each
occupant of a multitenant building shall be permitted two (2)
wall signs. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
facade of the individual business unit. Aggregate sign area shall
not apply.
11
3. Identification signs for single -tenant
building.
a. Each building may have one (1)
freestanding sign for each street frontage. The sign may not
exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. The maximum sign area
permitted for the freestanding sign is one hundred (100) square
feet for the total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed
fifty (50) square feet.
b. Three (3) additional signs shall be
permitted. All signs are subject to the aggregate sign area
allowed. The total area of all signs, graphics or other types of
signs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the facade to which
they are attached or on which they are displayed.
D. Signs permitted in office district.
1. Generally. One (1) freestanding double-faced
identification sign shall be permitted for each lot. The sign
shall not exceed a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet for the
total of all faces. No one (1) face shall exceed twenty-five (25)
square feet. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of
fifteen (15) feet and shall be unlighted or provided with
indirect illumination.
2. Identification signs for buildings. One (1)
identification sign shall be permitted for each principal
building. The sign shall not exceed an area of five (5) percent
of the facade to which it is attached, shall be attached flat
against the building, shall not project above the eave of the
roof or the top of the parapet, and shall be unlighted or
iillumination. Such signs shall not
provided with indirect
advertise or name individual tenants of the building.
7
3. Identification signs for occupancies. Signs
not exceeding a total of five (5) percent of the facade of the
business unit to which they are attached shall be permitted for
each occupancy in a multitenant building when the occupancy has
outside frontage.
E. Signs permitted in industrial districts.
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area
for lots in the MA and M1 districts shall not exceed one-half
square foot for each foot of street frontage. The aggregate sign
area for lots in the M2 and DLM districts shall not exceed
three-fourths square foot for each foot of street frontage. The
aggregate sign area for lots in the M3 district shall not exceed
one (1) square foot for each foot of street frontage. In no case
shall the aggregate sign area exceed one-half square foot for _.
each foot of street frontage on a corner lot. The permitted signs
enumerated in this subsection shall be subject to the total
aggregate sign area.
a. Identification signs for buildings. One
(1) identification sign shall be permitted for each lot on each
street frontage, which may be a freestanding sign or a wall sign.
The maximum sign area permitted for a freestanding sign is two
hundred (200) square feet for the total of all faces. No one (1)
face shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet. If the sign is a
wall sign its size shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the
building facade. A freestanding sign shall not exceed a height of
twenty (20) feet. The sign may be illuminated.
b. Identification signs for occupancies.
One (1) identification sign shall be permitted for each occupancy
on each street frontage and shall be a wall sign. The maximum
size of the sign shall be ten (10) percent of the building
facade. This sign may be illuminated. If the identification sign
permitted under subsection E.1.a. of this section is a wall sign,
an additional wall sign may be permitted on a building facade not
facing a street frontage.
2. Farm product identification signs. No permit
is required, but the sign may not be located in the public
right-of-way.
F. Signs permitted in planned unit developments,
special use combining districts and mobile home park districts
and for conditional uses. All signs in planned unit developments,
special use combining districts and mobile home parks and for
conditional uses shall be incorporated as part of the
developmental plan and approved with the developmental plan.
Subsequent changes which conform to the adopted signing program
may be granted by the planning director.
G. Signs permitted in shopping centers. The aggregate
sign area for each occupant of a shopping center shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the front facade of the unit. Wall signs
are permitted on each exterior wall of the individual business
unit. A minimum of thirty (30) square feet shall be permitted for
any occupancy. No combination of signs shall exceed ten (10)
percent of the facade to which they are attached. If there is an
attached canopy or overhang, a ten -square -foot sign may be
attached to the canopy or overhang in addition to the other
permitted signs. Such sign shall be at least eight (8) feet above
any pedestrian walkway.
0
Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this
ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of
any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion
of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof
to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of
its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its
final passage as provided by law.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of
APPROVED the day of
PUBLISHED the day of
10
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
I 61*xv
1994.
1994.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of
Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of
Kent as hereon indicated.
comsi gn. ord
11
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 28, 1994
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Heineman at 7:00 PM on February 28, 1994 in the Kent City
Hall, Chambers West.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Gwen Dahle
Bob MacIssac
Janette Nuss
Russ Stringham
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
Kenneth Dozier, excused (vacation)
Christopher Grant
Kent Morrill
Raymond Ward
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Chris Holden, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8. 1993 MINUTES
The MOTION and SECONDED was made to accept the November 8, 1993
minutes as presented. Motion CARRIED.
OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Harris submitted two letters to Chair Heineman. The elections
for Planning Commission Chair and Vice -Chair will be held after the
public hearing.
Mr. Harris informed the Commissioners that there is a City Council
retreat planned for March 5 and March 6.
Commissioner Dahle asked if a Commissioner's retreat will be held.
Mr. Harris commented one could be planned. He asked if the
Commissioners would like to have a representative from the Law
Department come to a workshop and talk about quasi-judicial
hearings and the conducting of meetings. The Commissioners
requested Mr. Harris to arrange to have the Law Department come to
a workshop.
1
Planning Commission
Minutes
February 28, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: #ZCA-94-1 CONVENIENCE STORES/GASOLINE SALES SIGN
CODE AMENDMENT (SECTION 15 06 050 B)
Mr. Satterstrom, Planning Department, presented the staff report.
He briefly reiterated the requested amendment. The Planning
Commission previously heard this item in September 1993, and the
sign code amendment was approved by the City Council under
Ordinance #3142. Subsequently, the applicant, Barghausen
Consulting Engineers, in a letter to the Planning Department,
pointed out that the ordinance did not conform to their
understanding of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Law
Department determined that the record is unclear and stated the
sign code amendment would need to go back to the Planning
Commission for action and recommendation to the City Council.
The proposed changes to the sign code were attached as Exhibit A to
the staff report. In addition a copy of Ordinance #3142 was
attached to the staff report as Exhibit B. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve the requested sign code amendments
as shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Satterstrom read into the record the
two requested changes:
1. Section 15.06.050(B)(3)
The aggregate sign area for any corner lot shall not exceed
one (1) square foot for each foot of lot frontage and the
aggregate sign area for any interior lot shall not exceed one
and one-half square feet for each foot of lot frontage; and
the permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be
subject to the total aggregate sign area.
2. Section 15.06.050(B)(3)(c)
Fuel price signs. Fuel price signs shall be included in the
aggregate sign area.
No public testimony was given. Chair Heineman closed the public
hearing.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept the recommended changes as
shown in Exhibit A of the staff report. MOTION passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Heineman presented the Certificate
Russ Stringham.
2
of Appointment to
Planning Commission
Minutes
February 28, 1994
Chair Heineman read into the record the two memos regarding:
A) Alcoholic Establishments
B) Request to remove Commissioner Grant from Planning Commission
ELECTIONS
Chair Heineman stated that the election for Planning Commission
Chair is now open. Commissioner Stringham felt elections should
wait until more commissioners were present. However, Chair
Heineman stated that he did not want to serve as Chair any longer
and he wanted to have the elections held immediately. Chair
Heineman called for nominations.
There were two nominations: Gwen Dahle and Russ Stringham.
A roll call vote was taken and Gwen Dahle was elected as Chair.
Elections for Vice -Chair were called. Janette Nuss was nominated.
There were no other nominations made. Janette Nuss was elected as
Vice -Chair. Elections were closed.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the public hearing at 7:35 PM.
MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
es r. Barris,
ording secretary
3
C
a:pcmin3.28
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5 1994
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MANGANESE TREATMENT PLANT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: It is the recommendation 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.,
3. EXHIBITS: Public Woks Minutes (3/14/94), excerpt from Public
Works Minutes (6/2/9 ) and Public Works Director Memorandums
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Publ worxs t,Uiuu.L�1 ==
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.)
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE ONNEL IMPACT: NO
YES �
vrclra T./p F.RRONNEL NOTE• Recommended Not Recommended
RE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: V
Councilmember
Q,yVh% move, Councilmemberseconds
that $154,000 be transferred from the Unencumbered Water Funds
to the 212th/SR167 Water Supply & Treatment Facility Project
Budget (W48) for the completion of the project.
AAX wo�Ao
DISCUSSION:
yr A
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
Manganese Treatment Plant
Wickstrom said there was a budget change in July of 1993 on this
project because of our difficulties with the contractor. He -said
we had the plant up and operating; the contractor still had
punchlist items to complete and in so doing, the pump facilities is
not operational at the moment, which we are trying to get
operational for this summer. Wickstrom said that back in November
we gave the contractor an ultimatum to finish it or get off the
project, and finally it got to the point where we just had to get
him off the job. Wickstrom said there are potential claims and
liens from the subcontractors. He said in order to be in a
position where they can file a claim and it can actually be
addressed, we have to accept the project as complete. He said to
do that, we have to finish off about $150,000 worth of work. He
said we still have $114,000 in cash unincumbered funds but our
attorneys are concerned that they will need that money for
litigation in resolving the issues with the subcontractors.
Wickstrom said the general contractor has said he is going to file
a claim; he filed one and now he has new attorneys and we haven't
seen anything happening yet. Wickstrom said at this point we just
want to get the facility totally operational so we can get these
claims from the subcontractors resolved.
_Bennett said, going back to last July, his position at the time was
that he felt it was too easy to take $300,000 out of an
unincumbered fund to pay for something that should have been dealt
with previous to that. Bennett wanted to know where we are today
in terms of dollars. Wickstrom said we have $114,000 left of that
$300,000 and we are holding $167,000 in retainage. Bennett said he
has some concerns, one being that there was a flaw in either the
specs or'selection of the contractor. Bennett said he is not one
that believes just -because we have money somewhere, it should be
used. He said he understands that most of the contracts come in
within or below the engineers budget so. as a general rule of thumb,
Public Works does a good job in managing contracts, however this
one was probably a little more sophisticated than usual.
Heydon discussed the change orders that have been approved on this
project and stated they amount to 6.8% of the contract amount. He
said from a change order standpoint, we are still less than 10%
and the problem we have is with the contractor being very slow in
completing the work.
Bennett said the other issue is, because the general contractor has
a problem, the subs are getting raked over the coals. Wickstrom
said that in order for them to file their claim and take their
legal action, we have to have the contract complete and take it to
Council for acceptance. Wickstrom said there is $154,000 estimated
work not completed and the bulk of that should have been covered
under the contract, with the exception of about $54,000 related to
the one well where we have the seal problem and sandy problem,
2
which we are still trying to address. Wickstrom said the rest of
it should have been covered under his contract and our attorneys do
not want to use the retainage or the funds that we still have
because they want to reserve that money to resolve liens the subs
will have and also, to resolve any other legal issues which may
arise. Wickstrom said the things that we are trying to accomplish
to a
is, ttiona
anet the
roject
pointo
owhere wee cannt acceptkitpsoatheselsubs can file P their claims
and liens.
Bennett asked if the 6.8% change orders were the ones authorized or
the ones the contractor requested. Heydon said the contractor
requested many more than we authorized. Bennett agreed that in
terms of the contract, 6.8% is small and is hardly worth spending
time worrying about. Bennett said because of the need to finish
the project, he is willing to support it however, he stated that it
should not go under Council Consent calendar. Bennett said this
shows the need for a Capital Facilities Manager or Projects Manager
that works for the City to do the contracts. Wickstrom stated that
in his 25 years with the City, this is the first contractor that we
actually told to get off the job, essentially because he didn't
complete his work. Wickstrom said that we have spent millions and
millions of dollars over those 25 years. He said this is a
complicated project to begin with and we followed the correct steps
as far as having qualified engineers who were involved in the
design however, we had a contractor that was apparently short on
money.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the transfer of
$154,000 from the unencumbered water funds to the 212th/SR167 Water
Supply & Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48) and that this item
not be placed on Council Consent Calendar.
Van Doren's Landing Way Street Vacation Funds
Wickstrom said that in conjunction with the approval of the street
vacation for Van Doren's Landing Way, we should receive about
ly
$148,000. He said we have several
pedestrian sidewalk issues camel ups and thereforetwe
with an accident on 112th, p
He
are proposing to widen the east half of the street to athffrom the
explained that this would create a 6 paved"walking p
school at 232nd to 240th. Wickstrom said the Mayor met with the
principal, PTA members and neighborhood representatives and they
were all receptive to the proposal. He said there is enough money
in the sidewalk fund to do this. We have a project out to bid for
approximately $200,000 with the commitment on 111th and over on
Smith Street; this leaves us about $160,000 however, we have at
least $300,000 - 400,000 of needs in the downtown area. He said if
we had this money for sidewalks, specifically for sidewalk
pedestrian improvements in the travelled areas towards schools, we
could do both. He said the project on 112th is about $651Ooo but
this would give us more money to spend on other sidewalks.
3
Excerpt from June 2 1993
Public Works Minutes
Wickstrom said that this property is owned by the City in
conjunction with developing Upper Garrison Creek Detention facility
and lies adjacent to the City limits in the area of Valley
Communication, north of James St. Wickstrom said this property
lies outside the city limits and we want to annex it for municipal
purposes to speed up the permit process.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend annexation of the 2.56
acres at 98th Ave & S. 231st. Street, upon completion of the SEPA
process and with the assumption that a DNS would be issued.
Barrier at James St & 94th Ave S.
Jim White stated that per Wickstrom's memorandum advising that
staff received a detailed presentation from the barrier company
representative, he has no problem with the installation of the
Dragnet Vehicle Arresting System, as requested.
Committee unanimously recommended installation of the Dragnet
Vehicle Arresting System at James St & 94th St.
212th St /SR 167 Wells & Treatment Facilit
Wickstrom stated that this is our new wells and treatment facility
and the project is anticipated to overrun its budget by
approximately $300,000. Wickstrom said this is a $5,400,000
project; we went into it with only a 4% contingency when we started
the project and up to this last couple of months we thought we
would be within budget, but we are finding that there are three
primary problems contributing to the overrun. First, we had to
redevelop the wells; we developed them back in the early '80s.
They were ready to go into operation but when the contractor
installed the pumps and motors we started pumping a lot of sand and
we had to pull the pumps and motors out and redevelop the wells.
This involved a lot of down-time on the contract which meant more
engineering time, plus more contractor work. Wickstrom stated that
another reason is that the contractor has been very slow in
completing this job; spending over a year since it was originally
has resulted in more engineering
scheduled for completion. This
expense per overseeing the work. The third issue is that we are in
litigation with the contractor. Wickstrom said that this could be
a result of some financial problems that he is experiencing; we
have received several Change Orders in the last couple of months
and he has brought his lawyers into the project. As a result,
we
had to hire an outside lawyer which involves more money than we
anticipated. Wickstrom said we have outside engineers on this job
and now an outside -attorney. He noted we need to keep them aboard
to insure that what we end up with is a good product and not spend
Wickstrom stated that the next move is Uto
mthan we ore
ve as to to.
he wants to pursue littion.
tion. We do
thecontractor
3
have punchlist items that the contractor is completing but we have
had to use our attorney to get him to respond to get the plant in
operation.
Wickstrom stated that these dollar amounts do not indicate what the
contractor is willing to settle for. Bennett said that he is
uncomfortable with this. Wickstrom said that if we don't get into
litigation, then this is probably what it would cost us were we to
settle on equitable terms. In litigation, we would have expert
witnesses and our attorney would have to go thru all the documents
to bring himself up to speed on all the issues. Bennett again said
he is uncomfortable with this because we have the $300,000 there.
Bennett noted that from a citizens point of view it might be better
served to reduce the water rates or allocate the money back to the
citizens. Wickstrom explained that this money would cover some of
the expenses that are yet to be incurred and we still have one well
left to develop and we are looking at hiring another contractor to
finish developing that well. This would cover those expenses, plus
some money for contingency funds. Wickstrom explained that this
would really just cover the ongoing costs until the contractor
decides whether he is going to push full litigation. Brubaker
stated that this is a very sophisticated and complicated project;
we had a real problem with the sand in these wells and the biggest
problem with the sand is that it was not a fault of the contractor.
That gave the contractor a right to make a claim that every delay
and every problem he had was due to the sand. Brubaker stated that
he feels we will be sued and end up paying additional money.
In response to Jim White's question, Wickstrom stated that the
original contract for this project was $3.4 million. The $5
million is the total project cost which includes the engineering
and prior development costs of the system.
After further discussion, Wickstrom stated that we are trying to
close this job and protect our investment.
Committee voted 2-1 to authorize the transfer to $300,400.00 from
the Uncumbered Water Funds to the 212th/SR167 Water supply and
Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48).
Interlocal Agreement - Flood Control Plan
Wickstrom stated that one year ago we executed an agreement with
Auburn and King County to develop a Flood Control Plan for the
Auburn Mill Creek Basin. This agreement expires the end of this
month and there is anticipated work yet to be done. This agreement
is an addendum to the original agreement, essentially extending it
for 18 months, and includes work associated with the 194 work plan.
The cost to complete the existing work plus the 194 work program is
approximately $140,000. All the money is presently available
within that particular project fund which means there is no budget
change. Wickstrom explained that the interest here is that we need
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 14, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom Obi
RE: Manganese Treatment Plant
As requested by the Committee on February 28th, this item is being
brought forward for further discussion and review. The issue here
is the need to complete the project and have the facility
operational. To do so will cost approximately $154,000 and our
attorney's recommend that we not use remaining fund balance
($114,000) for same as that will be necessary to cover legal,
engineering and contingencies costs associated with subcontractors
and suppliers claims. Funding thereof would come from the
unencumbered funds of the water fund.
It should be noted that this is the second increase in the budget.
Public Works Committee minutes and the supporting memo therefore
are attached.
ACTION: Authorize the transfer of $154,000 from the unencumbered
water funds to the 212th/SR167 Water Supply & Treatment Facility
Project Budget (W48)
MEMORANDUM 1
DATE: February 25th, 1994 /
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager ✓%�`
THRU: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Status of the Kent Manganese Treatment Plant
While the Water Treatment Plant construction project is not complete, the plant did successfully
operate last summer using two of the three wells. Water utility personnel are working diligently
on trying to complete the project before this summer, especially given how dry this winter has been.
The City of Kent is the first water utility in Western Washington to build a Manganese Treatment
Plant on this scale. This plant enables us to meet new Federal requirements and even more
important, to continue to provide our customers with high quality water while adding new wells
to the system to keep up with the expanding demand: The design is a conservative one which is
similar to what has been used successfully in other parts of the country. There are a number of
other utilities in this region that also have problems with Manganese in their water, so there has
been a great deal of interest in our plant, and, in fact, there are a number of other plants now in
design or construction. The City of Kent can truly be proud of the lead we have taken in water
quality.
While the plant has been a success from an operational standpoint, it has not been a success from
a construction contract point of view. The project started off with the contractor, Will Construction,
asking to install equipment which we felt was inferior to the item specified. This was followed by
the contractor asking for very high lling behindh markups on change orders, refusal to submit the specified
bonding, and work faschedule.
The project got more complex when it was found that the three existing wells that we assumed
were fully developed turned out to have a lot of sand in the water. This slowed down portions of
the project to some degree as well redevelopment took place. Even with this unexpected addition,
change orders are still only 6.8% of the original contract amount of $3,132,961.94.
Even before the construction was significantly complete,'the contractor was asking for large sures
of money to cover 'office overhead" costs due to the fact that the project was not completed on
time. Due to the fact that the City felt that most of the delays were due to the contractor's actions,
we did not agree to the amount requested. The contractor then brought in an attorney. As a result,
the City has had to hire an attorney who specializes in construction litigation in order to represent
us.
After much legal debate, the contractor finally completed the required plant operation test in mid-
May of 1993. The City provided the contractor with a lengthy final punch list in early June (earlier
deficiency lists to help reduce the size of the final punch list were largely ignored). As the work
continued to slowly drag on, the City gave the contractor until November 5th, 1993 to complete
all work. There were still over one hundred punch list items remaining after this date.
Even though the City has paid the contractor for almost all the work, with the exception of the five
percent retainage, I have gotten calls from six of the contractor's subs and suppliers indicating that
they are due money, in some cases significant amounts. While I have a great deal of sympathy for
their plight, the City is not legally in a position to help them until the project is closed out.
DATE: February 25th, 1994
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager
THRU: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Status of the Kent Manganese Treatment Plant
Page 2 of 2
Two hurdles remain to completing the project The first is that the punch list items and repairs to
the 212th -1 well need to be completed. City Water employees have gotten quotes from contractors
to complete the work. The amounts are approximately $50,000 for pump and well repairs (about
one-half of this amount is non -contract City cost) and $92,000 for the remainder of the punch list
items (most of this work is instrumentation, electrical, and painting). With tax, this adds up to
approximately $154,000 which is very close to the $167,000 amount which the City is holding in
retainage. The legal staff is working on the best approach for getting this work done as soon as
possible so that the plant will be fully operational before the summer peak demand period.
The second item which we are waiting for is the claim that the contractor has told us that he is
going to submit. Without this claim, we have no way of knowing how much he feels he is due nor
the reason for his damage request. Given the fact that the project has been significantly complete
since May and the contractor has been off the project since early November, we had expected to
hear from them on this claim long ago. The fact that the contractor changed attorneys in December
of 1993 will undoubtedly slow this process down. We have no idea as to why they would change
attorneys so late in the process. All we can do, at this point, is to wait for their claim.
The total amount budgeted to the Manganese Plant Project to date is $5,357,521 of which there
is a remaining unencumbered balance of $114,241. This amount is expected to be needed for legal
and engineering costs associated with the expected Contractor's legal action, and for contingency
funding. The City Attorney's office is recommending that the $154,000 of close out work be funded
separately at this time, rather than out of the contingency account. This is due to the large number
of existing and expected liens on the project from subcontractors and suppliers. It is expected that
most of the close out work cost will eventually come out of retainage.
Even with all the construction problems, I feel that the City will end up with an excellent facility
that we can be proud of and which will provide many years of high quality water to the customers
on the valley floor.
TH/map
A:ADM063
212TH STREET TREATMENT PLANT
PUNCH LIST QUOTES
INSTRUMENTATION:
systems Interface Inc.
Casne Engineering Inc -
ELECTRICAL:
Peak Electrical Services
Omega Contractors
INTRAC TRAINING•
Ratelco Communication Services, Inc.
MECHANICAL•
Omega Contractors
Pacific Crest construction Inc.
Pilchuck Mechanical Inc.
PAINTING•
$ 53,646.44
$ 28,003.00*
$ 20,300.00
$ 19,800.00*
$ 450.00*
$ 11,743.00
$ 18,855.00
$ 8,097.00*
$ 26,267.00*
Dunkin & Bush Inc. 35,730.00
Cascade Industries Northwest, Inc. $ 43,370.00
Atlas Applicators Co.
LANDSCAPE:.
West Coast Landscape & Development, Inc. $
7,852.56*
Rainbow's End Landscape Design & Maintenance $ 15,360.93
The Highridge Corporation 24,125.93 or
Washington Grounds Management, Inc. $ 17,356.00
FENCING•
Porter Fence & Automated Gates
Bailey Fencing
Quality Fence Builders
*Recommended Contractor
DC/clv/map
A:WTR086
2/25/94
$ 1,490.00*
$ 1,509.39
$ 1,950.00
$ 91,959.56
Tax 7,540.68
Total $ 99,500.24
212th Street Treatment Plant
Repairs to the Pump and
Well Redevelopment for 212th -1
Well Redevelopment $10,000
(100% City cost as this work was not part of the contract)
Repair and Replace Pump and Motor $40,000
(Approximately 50% City cost for work not a part of the contract)
S50,000
Tax 4,100
Total $54,100
TH/map
A:ADM067
2/25/94
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 21 1993
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
DON WICKSTROM lU V
212TH/SR167 WELLS & TREATMENT FACILITY
The City's new water treatment plant is now in service and will be
providing high quality water during the peak summer months.
However, the facility is not at a stage where the contract can be
formally accepted as complete and there have been a number of
unexpected problems which have added to the cost thereof. The
final costs are estimated to be $5,357,521.12 or about $300,400.12
over the existing budget. While a budget change was approved when
the contract was awarded, the contingency funds therein was only
4%.
There are three primary reasons for the overrun. The first reason
is that the three existing wells that feed this plant needed to be
redeveloped due to a high amount of sand production. As a result,
the pumps had to be pulled and the wells jetted. This process has
been successful on two of the wells. The third well has a little
additional work before it is ready for production. While the wells
were developed at the time of their initial drilling (early 1980's)
deterioration apparently occurred between then and now. As a
result additional costs were incurred for work done by the
contractor, additional Engineering and for project delay.
The second reason is that the contractor has been slow in
completing the project. This has resulted in higher Construction
Engineering costs in order to watch after the work.
The third reason is that the contractor has threatened legal action
in order to get additional payment for the project. Since we do
not feel that these requests are justified, we have retained
outside legal counsel in order to help resolve this issue. At this
point in time, the projected expense is only an estimate. The
final cost will depend on actions taken by the contractor.
1
The additional $300,400.12 which is requested is projected to be
spent as follows (rounded to the nearest $10,000):
$100,000 Contractor services to redevelop the wells to
minimize sand.
$100,000 Engineering services for well redevelopment, over
contract time, and legal support.
$40,000 Outside legal counsel.
$60,000 Contingency for remaining unknowns.
I want to reiderate should litigation be the only means to close
this project, than our final costs will be substantially higher
than estimated herein.
ACTION: Authorize the transfer of $300,400.00 from the
Uncumbered Water Funds to the 212th/SR167 Water
Supply and Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48).
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5, 1994
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SUBURBAN CITIES SSOCIATION APPOINTMENTS TO KING
COUNTY
ONAL
OMMITTEES
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Suburban Cities Association Board
recommends adoption of a resolution relating to committee
appointments by the Suburban Cities Association to the Regional
Committees of the Metropolitan King County Council. I t'(len
U) o s e �P (a� n e d �a.t Cow�*c Cew� „-64X4100'""
dao O b -4o"L f �-10
a,d� a -P P
Swbu{ba.n C��t c S
(des V� Qai 3Z
i -k -k Q.w� 5�uc OL fC$O Wim'o�'
C0MCA
v1ne-5 la .
hog VVIR -t L""-�
3. EXHIBITS: Resolution and attachments, letter and ma al from
Suburban Cities Association
4.
5.
RE
RECOMMENDED By:
—
(Committee, Staff,
Examiner, Commission, 5�ec.)
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE:
EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
NO YES__
Not Recommended /
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: V0'
rr Councilmember seconds
Councilmember n5 move 9f,
�-adoption of Reso tion No./ig-11 relating to Suburban Cities
Association appointments to Regional Committees of the
Metropolitan King County Council.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to
Suburban Cities Association appointments to
the Regional Committees of the Metropolitan
King County Council.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent (the "City") is a member of
the Suburban Cities Association ("SCA"), and has fully paid dues
owing thereto for the year 1994; and
WHEREAS, the SCA is a separate nonprofit corporation
formed under the laws of the State of Washington, and is governed
by its Articles of Incorporation and bylaws; and
WHEREAS, all the cities and towns within King County,
excluding Seattle and the newly incorporated city known as
"Newport Hills" are currently members of SCA; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary goals of the SCA, as set
forth in the bylaws of the SCA, is to assist suburban cities by
coordinating their activities in King County, including making
appointments to intergovernmental committees on behalf of the SCA
members; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan King County Charter calls for
the creation of three "regional committees," on which shall sit
representatives of the suburban cities, the City of Seattle and
the King County Council; and
WHEREAS, these three regional committees are an
integral part of the new regional government formed by the merger
of King County and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the suburban cities,
designated by the SCA, worked for over one year to negotiate the
form of the new regional government that was ultimately submitted
to, and approved by, the voters of King County; and
WHEREAS, Section 270.20 of the Metropolitan King County
Charter states that the membership on these three regional
committees from suburban cities "shall be appointed in a manner
agreed to by and among those cities and towns representing a
majority of the population of such cities and towns"; and
WHEREAS, the SCA Board, in a manner described by, and
consistent with the bylaws of the SCA, has heretofore appointed
the suburban cities representative to sit on the regional policy
committees; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to the success of a
truly regional government following the merger of King County and
METRO; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that
the regional committees meet to address the policy issues before
Metropolitan King County as envisioned by the voters of King
County, that a truly regional government begin to operate within
King County, that the SCA appointees to the regional committees
be accepted without question, and that further delay in
E
conducting the business of the regional committees be avoided;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ratification of Appointments to Regional
Committees. The City hereby ratifies and affirms the
appointments to the regional committees set forth in Attachment
"A" hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Ratification of Appointment Method. The
City hereby ratifies and affirms the manner by which these
appointments were previously made, specifically, by nomination of
the SCA Board President and confirmation of the SCA Board, as
prescribed in ARTICLE VII, Section 4 of the SCA Bylaws, all as
confirmed by the correspondence from SCA set forth as Attachment
B hereto and incorporated herein by reference. By this
resolution, the City means and intends to agree to the manner of
appointment of the suburban city representatives to the regional
committees. The City further agrees that the representatives can
be later changed by the SCA Board in a manner consistent with the
Bylaws, as they may be amended. The City does not by this
ratification suggest that any SCA appointments need be ratified
by individual city resolution.
Section 3. Ratification of SCA Bylaws. The City
hereby ratifies and affirms the SCA Bylaws, previously approved
by a vote of the general membership of the SCA, a copy of which
Bylaws are attached to this resolution as Attachment C and
incorporated herein by reference.
3
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council Ofthed
City of Kent, Washington this Y of
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1994.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, the
day of , 1994.
SCA. res
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4
ATTACHMENT A
SCA Appointments to the Metropolitan King County
Regional Committees
Regional Transit Committee
Margot Blacker (Bellevue)
Nona Ganz (Kirkland)
Mary Gates (Federal Way)
Rowan Hinds (Issaquah)
Arun Jhaveri (Burien)
Wally Rants (Tukwila)
Clair Drosdick (Alternate, Normandy Park)
Jon Johnson (Alternate, Kent)
Regional Water Quality Committee
Lucy DeYoung (Woodinville)
Elliot Newman (Mercer Island)
Tim Schlitzer (Renton)
Shirley Thompson (SeaTac)
Bob Davis (Alternate, Bothell)
Georgia Zumdieck (Alternate, Bellevue)
Regional Policy Committee
Betty Aman (Algona)
Pat Burns (Auburn)
Chris Heaton (Bellevue)
Rosemarie Ives (Redmond)
Fred Jarrett (Mercer Island)
Bob Stead (Federal Way)
Earl Clymer (Alternate, Renton)
Alan Kiest (Alternate, Lake Forest Park)
ATTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Mayors, Suburban Cities Association
FM: Lynda Ring, Executive Director
RE: SCA Board Approval of Regional Committee Appointments
DATE: March 25, 1994
Attached to this memorandum is a true and correct copy of
the approved minutes of the November 17, 1993 SCA Board Meeting
at which SCA Board President Judy Woods moved approval of the
slate of appointees.to represent the suburban cities on the three
Metropolitan King County Regional Committees. This appointment
and approval was made in the manner described by the SCA Bylaws,
Article VII, Section 4. The Bylaws were approved at a meeting of
the general membership of the SCA held September 11, 1991. The
Bylaws, in the form attached hereto, are on file with the
Secretary of State, as required by state law.
Suburban Cities Association
Board of Directors
I'vlinures, November 17, 1993
Members Attending:
Member Absent:
Bob Koegner
Dennis Scholl
Fred Jarrett
Rosemaries Ives
Erselle Fade
Betty Aman
Judy Woods
Earl Clymer
Terry Lukens
Elliot Newman
Chris Heaton
Bob Stead
I. Tile meetng was called to order by President Judy Woods at 5:15 pm, Tree ruin jtes of the
previous meeting were approved as written.
2. The Sub -Committee to review appointment to the Metropolitan King County CQtxnCil Regional
Committces presented its report. Alternates will be considered tixll members of our caucL:s. The
only difference is that the alternate will not vote unless asked to reri,A another- „qtr by z
caucus chair. Gender, city si7r anri city loca-6-on Aram Cv� d-�-td -n yy EPr0:= ilii
1:i VKSs.
Discussion followed. T- p---s;b y appointments:sera tin lOo,aj at in the '.--CCA- wniCn`t Of
appoinfi..n""S to the PERC, RTA, and d; e ti1:I^C. it wi' OC nL,�ces5 rJ
++ LV SGIne members LO
wi':C �1 �wV2ic l po'i-it0rl 5v t`..8.. "-Lh-':C is flow of ialiOa�aiiOA,
A Morion was made and seconded to confirmed the appointments made by President Woods,
The Motion passed unanimously,
3. League of Women Voters le ter was discussed. The Board decided to draft a letter expressing
our understanding of the League's concern: the changing: the chanrping 1-01. of the .ern; Lhe
SCA's desire to be responsive: and a chance in Board policy which will author« the Bo? u to
anprove to post the agenda gq that interested ri'�' i J ':.te
officials before the meeting date. _
4. Toe Legislative Priorities were approved. They will be preserved to ldeaslators at our
December 8, 193 meeting.
Next Board Meeting
5:00 pm, December 3, 1993
Meydenbauer Center
Jarmary Meeting
January 19, 1993
i_ocation to be announced
Attachment 'C'
SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCL-.TION
BY-LAi�'S
The SUBURBA-N C iir.S ?.SSOCLATION OF '"1N `G COUN 7', as constituted by is
articles OI incorpora ion and by-laws, exists Ior Lie benefit of all rntmoer cities and towns.
Accordingiy, the .Association will endeavor to achieve its or2Lriiza ia::ai eoals, as outlined iiri
Section II OI its by-laws, by a"der' n° the fOilowLZg acLicrs. The- •'SSociaiion will:
work t0 acnieVe I S goals L}iroUQll COnS'nSL•S DLilding
empliaSiZe t"1' S::__,:tg of Iesearcn a:id !.n.IOiiva.on be'-r'een member Cares ar:C
towns to Lnprove u:e qualiry OI decision-:uakimg Ior IS esC d: 0II1C121S
eP.COLrage ur0ader pc cioa:lon In �e deveiGo ent OI SSCC22C On ISS OS.
SolllCOns, and u__0!O IlenL"-T_OII
E e lsu_re u1aC L`ie A_ssociation'S decision-m?hing auLho--.v is vestp-Q with i .e
Ori=ni7-,,ic.n as a whole
ensu [h Lne Associa_on's Board OI Directory s IeDreC' '?tive OI Lie Qilere::L
Sized cites and to,- S wit C 1
COM
iDP.se AssociaUOn rues ?rSiiD
provide Liar Lhe .=SSCCiaiiOn's Boa -rd OI DD rectors C? comb=.S,'Q OI b0 1 mayors c_ Q
councEmam..0-ars
provide t :aL L -ie Board OI DirecLcr's cotnpositOn reC!eCt a 2e0=rat)ric?i oL,ance for
iLs men%e.- Cites 2-nd [Owns arid, to Lie exi nC rossioie, —at zfe repreSen_'i0n
from a s;: -isle city or :own to one DL-ec:or.
it is antBcipaCed L of aL me.:_czr cites and tow -is wL receive nC^__cadon oI ASso•C:atOn
mee(11_�S; however, only Cies and towns which have paid their Association dues will be
a- owed to vote. Orily officials Isom memxr Cities and towns which have paid L.nie`.-
Association dues wit be apoointed to serve as Suburban CtLeS Assc{ia'ion represenLantives Lo
duasi-government and inter-gove=ent committees.
ARTICLE I - N.LME
Tne name of the orsarnizaion shall be the SU -3i- L-19,3AN C1iIES ASSOCLAiION OF KR G
COUN-7f. The re C1 off ce of the association sha i b� the 2dc ess of file individual
who annually is eleced President of Che Association or, if Lhe Association proves the stiff
proposal, the registered office of C -ie Association shall be Line s=.ffice.
ARTICLE H - PURPOSE
Secdcn 1. The purposv of the SUBL)-R.BA.,N CF—HES ASSOCLAiION OF KDG
COUN-TY shall be: to discuss common problems and conc--:7s among member cines
and towns and related jurisdictions; to cbca;n Lyreater underst_:di,-ig and coordination o
efforts among Cities and towns; to inc eisz i` e knowledge of rnu iicipal, county, and
ASsOCiaLOn OL Washin°(or, C'ties a_'I SLS prggla Ta :q
COrC'L'ic'.^.C' Of a l )0' Oi V (ie ,Tierncl'-r C:I'1es cr10 tc%vnS, �C: =S S '0\�S'=1 iGi L:'_
Suburban Ci -_Cs SSOC:=i1C(1 :Il re�:Onal Lfta_-S and 01'C ; �:5 SS:O^S _1 { C g
County and/or other zffecied regional agencies.
Secilnn 2. The Suburban Cites ASSOCiaCion Still 'Ce cons-:cted as a n0n-D70:7
corporation In accordance wiLn Chapter 2"--..03 RCW (`vaSnLngtOn �'On PrOi:t
CorporationAct).
ARTICLE M - v1EN BERSHIP
SZCt;nn I - Mernher.s. Men bership in the Suburb`s Citizs A sSCti:aC'On Si:a!1 Oe Open i
all circles and towns in King County having a populaLOn less l �O,u00. tie-_be:S
Shat be those qual;r=ed ciEiEs and towns `:ii'Ch have paid' a-c:u?1 U—S a_:d SpeCi '
assessments. tiiembersiiip shail be in the na : e Of isle c:r-f Oi
Sen -inn 2 -Other Parici :` _`. 0i116a1S from other-207EMi 7�e-'ts Or aHencitS nav Ge
invii.ed to anend meeCin4S, but dnese goVtrLT:enC_l a2?nCies saV1 nio: be CLa ; fed fCi
membersii p and shz not havz a vote.
.'RTICLE IV - DT-=,
ne `n^ICai dues Oi dne Suburban CiLeS
.A SSOC:- I Siiail def_'. ='Lied vv tie Oaf Oi
or•
Dir :ors w'it1 approval of
l.t n-1
the enri-e.ship.
T r I'n 'It ;'?
The d_ s wL _
a �rj n �'
b � o:. !e o:_:c:-i
poouiauco figure Or eaCh
CTEV and EOWrl c5 viOVi�td pV Che J_'
C' C2 GC -:an -:a1
'ianastr enc (0F.-lyi). c'Or
pL' Dc-sZS 0:
Lie dues, Lr,-- o0pi1a-10r_
_tints"^il"v
'RTICLE V - NfEETLNGS
Seciion I - Re°ula- McLi0U- ine SUbLRBati C=S .A.SSOCI.=. LON OP
COU i1Y shat meet monthly at a time and location with -L i�ng.Cou-nry as desisnaEzd
by the President of the Associa-lon.
Sectinn o - S,necial Vteetinc . Special meetings of the Assoc -,tion may to held on tine
tali of the President, or byrequests from three (3) member cites. W ir?n notice of a
special meeting shall '-N-provided to member cities at least (3) days pnpr o sly
SUCK meet ne. However, in an extraordinary or emergent•: sit, -alien. Ile Presideni
snail have d -re option of notifying cities of a special meeting by tzleohor,e ant/or
facsimile L=srlliision.
Section 3 - Rules of (Iden. Robert's Rules of Order shall apply at any rneedng of dne
'ssociation where parii mentaq rules or prC•ceciures a -:e involved.
ARTICLE VI - VOTIr`iG/QUORUiIS
Stctinn 1 - Vntimi. Only elected officials from member cities or towns whose dues
a-nd assess menLs have beta paid may vote on issues. :v City or elected oitici t
°hL'd
representing a cualii,eq r%ember city' Or [own. may rell quest a roCall OC V.'ei VO 'S.
CiiV%C'i iG',;'ii _I is C'�':. C i.... ,'G:_'. C. fC .•��n :�
J__sCj r C;:S
chan 1,000 p0oUl2LO1 "v:11e2C1 n2','e one vct'--. voi2s Croimi 2 im,ernp2r C:iV
�
e iS-•ta
::rust be �•e caSi On ane s�:. sie:
Gd
Seciinn 2 - nunrum. To constitute a quorum, .or une C=2.^.S�'.L
Cort Qi business aC -s2
u C:
or regular meeting Ot trle ASSOC?anon, it s%moi be nzCzSSaly to have a vote cast by
f- r Ieast forty (°0) percznL of the ?.SSoc ali i'S CU' it ed
elecL.d repre�.ntadvzs from a. .
member cities and towns.
ARTICLE VII - OFFICERS AND TERMS
S'^rinn I Off cere and `lectin%C. Tine ff.cefs of Cne Suburt -1 Ciuil-s ?SS. ::'_r'G':
Shell CORSisi Cf Lne PreSidenC, Vice President,^.d S'C: `?�}'/ lie s Ier. Teri'':s or ofi±ce
Sh211 be 1--r Give (l) Vea_. lfie O..iczrs S-;.il be elzC"-ed 2t i.ine VIaV meerins Gi C':z
?SS0C1aC Oi: d will CG='menCz S irip..2 Lhe'_ ?r S or OLi'_Ce elieCL Ve 1UP.e 1. O v
elec d ofi=ciais or oualif!ed member titles and towns of the ?ssccaagn s :. �l be
eligible CO hold Cfiice, and Lnere Shall b? not :=Ora L -i t.-1 One OiL'Ce: irCC cry Ocie C:ry Cr
Sec lOn LniT:'nai OnS for nf.1Cz. Not IzSS urian Oae nOn
Lri prior to Cine May i=ezLL.,2,
:e 1 eSldenC Si: Li aooOli:L 2 0 vL'2CLZ4 Co=�liC?e or CR ez (3) Cali presidents L O-
Member Cities or Co-t;nS. !nz NOmiriau-12 COr In!C_'e Si:Z Dreend D12Cz L:
nomination aC Lnz �IaY l,:eei n=, 2 512-? OI c :C!CaL---s .Or o%ice i01'
A d.itiCnall r:G:_SiaCiOnS may C ;_,2Cz iiQ= c:z C!OOr 2t Ci'ie IVSaY C='ezur:g.
S'Ct1On - V"cC=�C1eS- VcC nCiZS t.1 Lh- DOSi''-.On S OI OiliCerS Q LZ ? SSOC'?LOIl may
filled by 2 vote OI Lhe 3Garo of DuecCOrs. .-. Con-=-a'_On v0iz 'r'L r2D'?'uz0 at L:z
IOLOwu-1Q SLI* -i Ci-- ?SSC =a'_C❑ CLOeC':=.
_
MCC.
:i1:zS2uC:D" ies Ciues OI Lne 0
Snail �:
Pre.sideni - ! ne PizS:dznC, 20nQ wiLn ice Board of DL, czors, wL1 enst_-e Lnz
imolement. tion of DOi!Ches adODL. d Dy the Suburban Cities Association; w'!i
preside at regular c_nid Sp?Ci21 mezLngS Of Ifie A so-ciaC•on and Cyte Bo—aid Ci
Directors; will detnrraLne L`:e location and agenda for each meztL-ig; will Cre2('
sDecia1 CommiC.eeS as neCes&ax-y; will appoint represent -eves t0 S[�nCing, CL2Si-
gove=ental and ince-rgoveciiriierltal comraicteeS and special comminees, with
aooroval of the Board of DLnLctors; will approve and sign resoiuLions passed by
the Asscriation; will L_re such actions on behalf of the ?sscciatlon as may t?
dSec'tzd by a Vote OI LRB mEmDershiD at regLiar or special meztLngs.
Ln the event OI a tie, Lne PreSident may Cast the deChdLrlg voUr. Up'Gn corn C'le" —
0f llis 0r her terra 0f 0-.: , he President will automatically s.�rve a second year
on the Board of Direczm as Past -President. In the event of the President's
resignation, the Vice -President will fail Llne. balance of the President's t`Fn.
Vice-Fre.sident - The Vice-Fresident will act L -i the absence of the President.,
pe!for-nLng the dudes of fiat office, grid will serve as the chair of the Legislarive
Committee.
D'iiC'JS is :i: _-_hcs
regular a^d S^2CiLi ^.2 _S a _
V
e rt• D,
a L•nelV nLni',2r i'J ,;:..rS, 2rt�: ii:?i rc: 4::-�'cL'0':_ _tai S:'Cil 2��C ...__
2Cei.�'ed; '.gill overS'e genen. s t•',': Cine ":Osi c:.... _Ji suc r:2eL'n�S:
overs -2e annl al b.iili .a for dues artd a.':y Speci2l a-SSz.Ss -2niS to Lie M=.D2rs
Lne .A.ssocia(IOn; +ill D2 reSDOnsible for use deposi[ Of Mcii 2s into a C':eCi
account establis ,ed for tie Suburban CL2s SSCC12LOn; wl c f Sc2
disbursements for -Assocl LiOtl eXpend;[ures; ar c will n :e ani an, nLt2 r20Oi 2-S iD
the st2tus of Lhe treasury of the Associnion at Ch.- Ma :ileeLncy. 1 I- rinanc
duces of the Secretary/—Ireasurer shat be subiecl [o audi[ annu2lly by
C ..n!•n •i i�.'.2 WnOC', aUdi[ Si:'!1 De at�Cned [0
Corer
:.. _ _1 l
annual r --Don to r:e AssOChar!On-
c S-Ltl sz.-,'
q'Ct'nn > Connenc2[ICn. Officers CLL: S_OCia_='1 -:C'-:
en _C•r:.
CO:�D S2
ARTICLE = - BOARD OF DUU-7CT0RS
s"'rion 1 - Nfe-TDers%:n. Tne B02 d Or D_2CiOIS sn`il be CC-'DiiS2d Gf Lne rOLOw_
L•ir'?en recres2ntariveS.
�r �' "reSiCeni, V1Ce-PreSiC2rh
I, li_2.. OffiC...S:
2. Lranedia�' Psi-Presid2n[ -
T nree P:zsidz. -i a000_,Les selec:zd nor D
TILe2 C2arzc n a_ve(s) _rO A a sn aii Clij aIId [Own, Se!eC d Dy C2uCl S OI .2
snail cites a:- d towns for a Dae y22r ie
�. FOL r2DreS�nt LV2S T"O l ZeClu n C:_'_S S2iec:2d �v CauCL'S irOrII _,e -eG'L'
si=ed Ci-:eS for or:2-ye2r L:-=-- s
_. l tree 20.20 n a veS iib large C:�2S S21eC"'d Dy ca-CIIS iCG:_ lire iL
T'e Of-cerS .''C1id;rl� :2 P° [ P.2Sld2r-I[ Cf SLSl1tZZ5.-� Cii=S .=.SSCCL�1!O\ �'_
�''G COlJ' lY w'� 'ue COun zC 11 e pODul° _.On C'r .2'r Ciiy' =^•C Ce:C:2
L:2 CallCL'S S'12CS 1'. "2n=i^- ° reorzs2 =i ! ne L r22 �.SSCC:aLOri s Dr2SiCe --
aDDoLnEees Snail not be conn[ -d L CC e r pODu12L0n ca'?g0i r.
?: SnaJl C: -,.v Or (own Si: ll be a Ci[y or tOw'ii with a DOpulaLic. undzr 0,000 c:ri GS- •�
nediura city shall be a city with a pooulaticn of 20,000 to ^9,999 chdzens. A i`ge c: ;
shL-Ll be a City wltl a pODulaiion OI 50,000 Or more Cidzns. PODu!aUor, figures i0r,
each CTCV u d (Own w'll �e derived a unuaTly f:o �'3'? O==:Ce of FL1arCi21
'_anaQPMen[ (01 M) cz^sus da''-
S'ctlnn 2 _ Caucns yrnnincmenLS. Srilall, nediun, and large Cii_'2s shall Se1eCC
Own representatives to die-Boa_d of DuectOrs. Sucil SelecdOnS S.^.a'i be' comnplet--d D"',
2--ld becorue effectve, lune i. Each Board nenbership s"11 be for a ane -year .».
Vacancies which occur during a Board ne.uber's tern Of OF c. shall b-2 tilled br e
caucus Lon which the Board nenber was originally seleC'_'..d. T LI
CPree Officers and
L?2 Iffinedia�? Pasf-Pneslden.( Si1?11 be llncluded Lrl rhelr respacLVe p00ular on C2t'gC �.
Tile President's apeointees are not included in -the population: catzgories.
C�rti�n - Cnnnencat�n. �fe Lbers of tine Bo2.rd of Directors of Lhe �scciaion s`:� i
,�zr'i e w1 ROL'C COnp?nS_LOn.
ARTICLE IZ �IEETL�GS OF Ti E 5O Or D CTO RS
n, c d C one 'c[ cr B ,cines. Tne BC`d of Directors, 1U
µjijl tf:e �reSidenC, �+'lli ensure t -1e iC%plemenLtiOn C'i D011C1eS auODteG DV i:,e Sl'.OurO:=:
CIC eS rSSCCi2fi0n. Tne Board Oi' Directors wtil CO":iu , all a�pOL]L :enS
recommended by the President. The L�uee Presidential appointees shall be cont} : ed
by the balance of [he Board of DLrectors. To the extent possible, all matters of business
Co be considered by the Association shal fine be brought to LRe Board of Directors for
discussion and recommendation to the=ssoc:ztion. Board of Directcr 's meetings w;-],
be held on a :::ontrlly Cr- as -needed basis.
'Ci+n1 CV0. -r 2CC1 , emo-er Ot [ne Board of DSemrs s:i2!i have one vo[2. T:ie
P SldenC shy YO[e Oitly LR Cam' Oi a tie. - l i1 cl acr_ions t: -k n Dy trna Boa O Ci
][=eCCOrS '1 C 1 Gua [0 Lie COnSuau-!LS C?f1110C be DrOuSnC CZ:Ore [P.0 .'SSOC,2'_''On IC:
ILSi✓ 210%iy VC e OI BOa o.
LCO�2
S�Ct on i - n ,0 C 1. OrCz-r i0r 'u`!e BOaSd OC D�2CtOrs t0 I_'- aCLCEl O 1 :SSue,
S 1211 be neCeSS�y IO h2ve 2 OLor-Lrn Of Che Board oI Directors. A quoru n OI t1e BOL:
Oi DLreCiOrS S .� Ge a majo-: Oi L e tOi a) BO"u0 ,uempersnlp.
ARTICLE X - EXECti ITV E CO�L`fI i I`E
I t e E.;eCuwe CDmm! to Sha it CpnSISC oI Lie c'u:_erii Subaban C:[';ASSCCia :011 Oi:ic°fs 2:d
wi l De e11p0'wered, LR re e:'enC OI �R e,uergency, CO [Zt"e aC[.ion G'iL1.oL the apprOVL Ofi �:e
BOad oI DliecCors Or t^e fu+� :tee DerS""�' emergency action 1_s detLRed as a- �.�[_"^ ice
.here, beC2L'Se Of t ne COnS '—I 1-, Lie BOa=d Or D'u`eCCOrS C1:11 -101C? CO'!v'-neoe cagy
OC DLeCiOrS -:d use ASSOCia10n
s-nil'Ce n0['-I'_�'n— ZS Scor). as pC SiDIe OI Cn L :_-..C''
arnOP..
RTICLE XI - APPROVAL AtiD NEN�D-NIEN`*T OF BY-LAiYS
Tne By-laws of i,e SUBL---�BAN CITIES ASSOCLkiION OF :CSG COU-,+iY may c'e
a --ended uooa a ajority vote ei the r,em�r c:,_+es end towns whose a -'ua1 dyes ant
S eCi?1 oe nnderiC Sia
o. y pop
aSL'Ss�nCS navebLie Asso-ciai_11 �e
maiied to Cie member cities Re [owns at least twency ('_'0) days piLr:cr to e F–' e, at whlc::
[;:e vote on such oroposzd arnendment(s) is to be ta'sen. In [he 'nstar'ce or aay c DUfor a
�e giber city or town, or an elec ed Official from a member city or cow:.,
w'e:ahted voce s out ned LR r. icle Vi, Section 1 of tide By-laws.
ARTICLE XII - DISSOLUTION
Tae SLT3LR3AN C IItS ASSOCLkT!ON OF kLN-G COU -IY tmay dissolve and conciude
its affain in the Ioliowi.ng m -::'ler:
L, a regular or special meeting, the Board of Directors shall adopt a resolution in accord-Rce
With. Chapter 2Y.03 RCW (Washington Mon-proflt Corporation Ac') recommending that the
ssociation be dissolved and directing Chat the euestion of dissolution be put to a vote of dze
en+ire votLRg membership. Advance written no of such a mee'�R° shz�l be provided for
all memoer cit es and towns. A resolution t0 disscive the Asscci2Eon sn.._:_ b,, adoeL-d upon
rZCC;vLr12 at leasi nvc-L`LLr OI LRe �'OC Rg r7e(lC r C1C eS nd i0 µ'RS.
Snould OSSOIULc•i: CCc I'.i, L`:e 'SSeS cf the SRL'1 be d;S-:jLL2d CO f]e Ti DCr C;LeS
zrd COw'f S L1 2 07"21a ;Ge ! c21 f0 if ci !R �'I 1C:1 .SSS :aC C ^U?S a:, ?SSZSS C.
r 1:91.
P:.SSED ? N -D . pPROVED ti:is day Ot
SUbUP,F�N CITIES �SSOCLATION OF IMNTG COUNTY
Preside l
Secret-y�re:surer
10
.�rbail Q�-es.
`4sso is a W'�'
Suburban Cities Association
of King County, Washington
Dr. Lynda Ring
Executive Director
To: All Mayors
City Clerks
ALGONA
Intergovernmental Managers
AUBURN
From: Linda Ring
BEAUX ARTS
suburban Cities Association Executive
BELLEVUE
Director
BLACK DIAMOND
Subject: King County Councilmember Kent Pullen's
BOTHELL
Letter on Suburban Cities Association
Appointments
BL'RIEN
CARNATION
Date: March 24, 1994
CLYDE HILL
By now your City should have received a copy
DES MOINES
of Suburban Cities Association President Judy
Woods letter to Council Chairman Kent Pullen which
DU.%ALL
describes the Association's response.
ENUMCLAW
In this packet is information we hope will be
9FDERALAGAY
helpful to your City in preparing its response.
HUNTS POINT
Included is (a) SCA Press Release (b) Sample
ISSAQUAH
Resolution for your City to adopt (c) Sample cover
letter (d) Copy of By-laws (e) Copy of newspaper
EENT
coverage.
KIRKLAND
It would be helpful if cities could adopt the
LAKE FOREST PARI;
resolution as soon as possible so that the
MEDINA
Regional Committees can schedule their meetings.
If you would like an SCA representative at your
MERCER ISLAND
council meeting please call the office at 236-7676
MILTON
and we will make the necessary arrangements.
NORMANDY PARK
NORTH BEND
PACIFIC
REDMOND
RENTON
SEA TAC
SKYKO�IISH
SNOQCALMIE
TUKW1LA
)ODINVILLE
YARROW POINT
9611 S.E. 36t1i Street • Mercer Island. NVA q8()40-3-32
1-800-266-1418 • (206) 236-766 • FAX (206) 236-3588 • SCAN 4-0--6-6
�btrbanCues
Suburban Cities Association
of king Counn-, \Washington
`1Ssocia iolti
Dr. Lynda Ring
Exccutice Dirccwr
ALGO`A
March 24, 1994
AUBURN
ISFAUX ARTS
BEi.LE%TE
n1_aCK DI.01OND
Kent Pullen, Chair
BOTHELL
Metropolitan King County Council
Room 1200, King County Courthouse
BI:RIEN
516 Third Avenue
`AR.'� TIION
Seattle, WA 98104-3272
CLYDE HILL
Re: Regional Committees of Metropolitan King County Council
DFS WINES
Ul.'VALL
Dear Chair Pullen:
E\L?ICLAW
FEDER+L \NAY
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1994 that raises two "technical
housekeeping" issues with regard to the implementation of the regional
HINT, POINT
ISSAQLAH
Committees.
KENT
to ensure that the regional committees are fully operational as
KIRKL .ND
We too are eager
soon as possible; however, we do not understand the substantive basis for the
have raised regarding the Suburban Cities Association's appointment
L\KE FOREST PARI:
concerns you
of its committee members. We trust that the following explanation of the
MEDINA
Association's authority to make appointments and the manner in which those
MERCER IM\.\U
were made will provide a satisfactory response tothose concerns.
appointments
MILTON
PARK
1. Alternate members. The use of alternate members is a generally recognized and
NORMANDY
time-honored necessity to government committees, whether those committees be
NORTH BUND
policy-making or purely advisory. The concern you raise is that alternates are not
P:�c.11 ".
specifically authorized in the charter. We believe that the absence of specific
REDNIOND
authorization does not act as a prohibition to the use of alternates. We would
impliedly authorizes the use of
contend that the authorization for the committees
RENTON
that unless specifically prohibited, alternates are, through general
se\ Tac.
alternates and
custom and usage, permissible.
SKYKI NW,1I
SN001 AI.?IIE
-
The charter provisions dictate who may make appointments to the Council
but do not dictate the manner in which those appointments must be
TI:K%%IL\
committees
made. The Suburban Cities Association has chosen to provide for alternates to the
\v()oDI\%II, E
Y:\IIPOINT
9611 S.E. 36th Street • Mercer Island. AWA 95010-;-3-'
1-300-266-1-i15 • (2o6) 2;&-6-6 • F. -LC (2O6) 236-3555 • SCAN -i-o--6-6
Kent Pullen, Chair
March 24, 1994
Page 2
committees in order to facilitate to the greatest extent that the committees will truly engage in
participatory government. This is particularly important to facilitate full participation by part-time
elected officials who hold other full-time jobs. The absence of the Association's primary
appointment should not act to defeat the regional representation approved and required by the
electorate in creating the Metropolitan King County Council. Suburban Cities Association would
have no objection to the County also appointing alternate members to these committees.
We believe that the manner of making committee appointments is solely within the discretion of
the Association and that the use of alternates is the best way of assuring that the committees are
viable forums for discussing and resolving regional issues.
2. Appointments by Suburban Cities Association. Suburban Cities Association is a separate non-
profit corporation. All cities and towns within King County, except Seattle, are members of the
Association. All members of the Association are current in their dues and are eligible to vote on
all matters of general concern to the Association. The Association is governed through its articles
of incorporation and by-laws. The Association's by-laws were approved by the general
membership at a meeting held on September 11, 1991, pursuant to proper notice to all members.
Section 4 of Article VII of the Association's by-laws authorizes the President of the Association
to "appoint representatives to standing, quasi -governmental and intergovernmental committees
and special committees, with approval of the Board of Directors." Consistent with this authority,
the President of the Association made the Association's appointments to the Council committees
and those appointments were approved by the Association's Board of Directors at a board
meeting held November 17, 1993.
We believe that the procedure followed by the Association in making its appointments fully
complies with the letter and intent of the applicable County charter provision and with the
County's implementing ordinance. Ratification by the general membership or individually by
members representing fifty percent (50%) of the membership by population is neither required nor
necessary to validate the appointments. We can find nothing in your letter which dissuades us
from this view.
Further, we question the County's authority to unilaterally cancel meetings of any of the three (3)
regional committees. We believe meetings should be cancelled only after consultation with and
agreement by the Suburban Cities Association and City of Seattle representatives.
Although we disagree with your conclusions concerning the propriety of the Association's
committee appointments, we do not believe the interests of our members or the interests of the
general public will be best served by taking an adversarial position on this issue. The
Kent Pullen, Chair
March 24, 1994
Page 3
Association's only objective at this point is to get the committees up and operating in the manner
envisioned by all participants in the Metro/King County governance summit process. We trust
that is also the Council's objective. In furtherance of this goal, subject to approval of the
Association's Board of Directors, we are preparing model resolutions ratifying the Association's
committee appointments for suburban cities and towns to adopt.
Suburban Cities Association accepts your invitation to discuss these issues with you further and
will be contacting your office to set up a meeting date. If you have any questions, please contact
our Executive Director, Lynda Ring, at 236-7676.
Very truly yours, -Q ,
udy Woods, President
Board of Directors
Suburban Cities Association
cc: Honorable Norm Rice, Mayor, City of Seattle
Seattle City Councilmembers
S.C.A. Mayors and Councilmembers
S.C.A. Officers and Boardmembers
SAMPLE COVER LETTER
The Honorable Kent Pullen
Chair, King County Council
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA
Dear Councilman Pullen:
The pupose of this correspondence is to transmit resolution from the City of
, relating to appointments of the Suburban Cities Association.
However, we would like to express our concern that this process was even necessary. We are
also disappointed that Regional Policy Committee meetings were canceled and ask that they be
rescheduled immediately.
Sincerely,
Mayor
City
i
Suburban,
O 1CialS Fickle W(
com lain of
p bemg
keptoff olip cybody
Seattle
�� Times East STEPHEN East bureau CLUTTER - "Anything we do, and we're
"Anything
some fairly sensitive stuff,
"In
'a
move that has irked subur- could be legally challenged in the
bap leaders from Bellevue to Kent,,courts," Hague said. "It may sound
Jo
the Metropolitan ng County supercautious, but we have to take
{ .Council has blocked suburban offi this step."
j
j.:.rials from sitting on three commit- . Lukens, an attorney, doesn't
tees designed to give them a voice think so.
in regional issues. "All we do is'make recommen-
"It's a question of power," corn- dations to the council: They take
plairred Bellevue City `Council the votes, Lukens said. "To sug-
,:._member Terry Lukens yesterday. ' .gest somehow that the. a
:7'o have the process derailed like ments to the regional comm tttt es
this is a disservice to the people and are invalid boggles the mind."
to good government." Jim Brewer, the council's attor-
The cornu ttees, which include ney, sees it differently. The region-
representatives- named by the city al committees, Brewer contends,
......Of Seattle and the suburban cities, are not merely advisory panels but
were a majorfactorin an agreement are "part of the legislative process
j( that led to.the voter -approved King . for adopting ordinances and region
County -Metro merger.
The three panels — transit� Policies and plans.„ It takes a vote
; of eight of the 13 County Council
water -quality . and other regional members to reject or amend poli -
issues —were to give city leaders a cies recommended by the panels.
measure of clout. So far, though, the committees
,� •,� But Kent Pullen, who
chairs the have had little to do with policy or
j :,,County Council, recently chal-
lenged the members' eligibility as The new government has been
representatives. There's no proof;in place nearly four months, and so
Pullen said, the committee mem- far the regional -policy committee
bers are acting on behalf of their: has met only twice. The water -
"The
cities. quality committee canceled both of
"The cities do not; appear to its scheduled meetings. The tran-
have formally ratified. the appoint-
sit -committee has held two meet-
ments,” he noted in a letter to the ings but has not been allowed in on The Seattle slQ+line, v.
suturban association. discussions about the controversy the area iiiamatterof
Pullen suggested : the cities over revisiting the oid Metro Coun- .
:could resolve the issue quickly by. cil's.. decision to buy a fleet of
passing resolutions ratifying and natural-gas buses.
confirming the appointments:
"That's horse ' � Lynda �8, executive director
.v„ _Fred Jarrett, a Merc& Islynd tea. said the -Suburban Cities Association, Turf
thinks the county is trying
Oman named to the rekional-is- to stall the regional committees so es
sues committee. "I leaves
delaying it's. a, it can exert its own control.
Ying tactic, he said, adding that "If they can find some way to '
the method of .a
Ppointment had keep us away from the table, they
been y� m
been "clear for three years" and will act in our absence," Ring said. u 11160
that the county, had never raised Jarrett said the 1 -
concerns before.
:Jane Hague, who chairs the
su urbanassoc>-
ation's executives would meet soon
Juanita: aI
re.-
^gional-issues committee, canceled
"Al;,a meeting set for
.. to discuss the matter. It's likely
they'll do what Pullen suggested
tomorrow.
Hague, a former Bellevue City
and have each'city officially ratify its
committee
Errr
Seams
;Council member elected to the
County Council last
representatives.
"We'll go through the process
est bureau
Year, defended
the county's stance. Unless the
appointment issue
just so we can get off the dime,"
Jarrett said. "But this is just
JUANITA — Turning
lakefront
of t Prop
is resolved, she
,said, policy is vulnerable to legal
challenges.
an-
other classic example about how
the county likes to
loVeded
andpossd
hangout wasn't what d
play these sill Y
games."
Denny family had in mind
......., _ ,
,
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 5. 1994
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK REHABILITATION, PHASE I
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this project was held on
March 24th with four bids received. The low bid was submitted
by R. E. Bailey Construction in the amount of $157,632.90. The
engineer's estimate was $202,306.11. The project consists of
replacing 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.
3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission,
5.
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommend
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
NO YES
Not Recommended 1�
7. CITY COUNCIL ACI-IUN
move, Councilmember seconds
Counc i lmember
that the Downtown Rehabilitation Phase I contract be awarded to
R. E. Bailey Construction for the bid amount of $157,632.90.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Yw
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
APRIL 5, 1994
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Don WickstromD)
RE: Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I
Bid opening was March 24th with four bids received. The low bid
was submitted by R. E. Bailey Construction in the amount of
$157,632.90.
It is recommended that this bid be accepted and the contract
awarded to R. E. Bailey Construction.
BID SUMMARY
R. E. Bailey Construction $157,632.90
Merlino Construction Co. $188,008.00
R. W. Scott Construction Co. $203,530.00
West Coast Construction Co. $226,755.00
Engineer's Estimate $202,306.11
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESID
B. OPERATIONS
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMI
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMI
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 14, 1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN TIM HEYDON
JIM BENNETT LAURIE EVEZICH
TIM CLARK ARTHUR MARTIN
DON WICKSTROM MR & MRS DAVID TEMBY
GARY GILL MR & MRS RUST
Hardship Case (Mr & Mrs David Temby) Charge in Lieu of Assessment
Wickstrom explained that we installed a watermain in Kent Kangley
Road many years ago and the City financed the project and as a
result, anyone connecting to that main reimburses the City for a
portion of expenses we incurred; this is called Charge in Lieu of
Assessment. Wickstrom said that under Resolution #975, Council can
authorize a deferred payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment.
He said that we have received a request for water service
connection and the owners have indicated that this additional
charge would incur a hardship on them. He said they are asking for
deferred payment, which takes full Council approval.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom confirmed that this has been done
in the past.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for deferred
payment on the Charge in Lieu of Assessment, in accordance with
Resolution #975.
Watershed Fencing Project - Accept as Complete
Mann expressed his appreciation that this project is now complete.
Wickstrom stated that East Hill Well and Soos Creek Well were
included in the fencing project, and that was the reason for the
additional cost. He explained that the bid was a good one and we
took advantage of it and added the last two sources on. He said
that Clark Springs is not 100% fenced but everything that is
accessible is fenced.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
1
Manganese Treatment Plant
Wickstrom said there was a budget change in July of 1993 on this
project because of our difficulties with
tlthe
contractorcontractor.
still said
had
we had the plant up and operating;
punchlist items to complete and in so doing, the pump facilities is
not operational at the moment, which we are to get
trying
oveber
operational for this summer. Wickstrom said that back et Noff mthe
we gave the contractor an ultimatum to finish it or g
project, and finally it got to the point where we just had to get
him off the job. Wickstrom said there are potential claims and
liens from the subcontractors. He said in order to be in a
position where they can file a claim and it can actually be
addressed, we have to accept the project as complete. He said to
do that, we have to finish off about $150,000 worth of work. He
said we still have $114,000 in cash unincumbered funds but our
attorneys are concerned that they will need that money for
litigation in resolving the issues with the subcontractors.
Wickstrom said the general contractor has said he is going to file
a claim; he filed one and now he has new attorneys and we haven't
seen anything happening yet. Wickstrom said at this point wetjust
want to get the facility totally operational so we can g
claims from the subcontractors resolved.
Bennett said, going back to last July, his position at the time was
that he felt it was too easy to take $300,000 out of an
' hould have been dealt
"unincumbered fund to pay for something that s
with previous to that. Bennett wanted to know where we are today
in terms of dollars. Wickstrom said we have $114,000 left of that
$300,000 and we are holding $167,000 in retainage. Bennett said he
has some concerns, one being that there was a flaw in either the
specs or selection of the contractor. Bennett said he is not one
that believes just because we have money somewhere, it should be
used. He said he understands that most of the contracts come in
within or below the engineers budget so as a general rule of thumb,
Public Works does a good job in managing contracts, however this
one was probably a little more sophisticated than usual.
Heydon discussed the change orders that have been approved on this
project and stated they amount to 6.8% of the contract amount. He
said from a change order standpoint, we are still less than 10%
and the problem we have is with the contractor being very slow in
completing the work.
Bennett said the other issue is, because the general contractor has
a problem, the subs are getting raked over the coals. Wickstrom
said that in order for them to file their claim and take their
legal action, we have to have the contract complete and take it to
council for acceptance. Wickstrom said there is $154,000 estimated
work not completed and the bulk of that should have been covered
under the contract, with the exception of about $54,000 related to
the one well where we have the seal problem and sandy problem,
2
which we are still trying to address. Wickstrom said the rest of
it should have been covered under his contract and our attorneys do
not want to use the retainage or the funds that we still have
because they want to reserve that money to resolve liens the subs
will have and also, to resolve any other legal issues which may
arise. Wickstrom said the things that we are trying to accomplish
is, to get the plant back operational and get the project to a
point where we can accept it so these subs can file their claims
and liens.
Bennett asked if the 6.8% change orders were the ones authorized or
the ones the contractor requested. Heydon said the contractor
requested many more than we authorized. Bennett agreed that in
terms of the contract, 6.8% is small and is hardly worth spending
time worrying about. Bennett said because of the need to finish
the project, he is willing to support it however, he stated that it
should not go under Council Consent calendar. Bennett said this
shows the need for a Capital Facilities Manager or Projects Manager
that works for the City to do the contracts. Wickstrom stated that
in his 25 years with the City, this is the first contractor that we
actually told to get off the job, essentially because he didn't
complete his work. Wickstrom said that we have spent millions and
millions of dollars over those 25 years. He said this is a
complicated project to begin with and we followed the correct steps
as far as having qualified engineers who were involved in the
design however, we had a contractor that was apparently short on
money.
Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the transfer of
$154,000 from the unencumbered water funds to the 212th/SR167 Water
Supply & Treatment Facility Project Budget (W48) and that this item
not be placed on Council Consent Calendar.
Van Doren's Landing Way Street Vacation Funds
Wickstrom said that in conjunction with the approval of the street
vacation for Van Doren's Landing Way, we should receive about
$148,000. He said we have several sidewalk problems and recently
with an accident on 112th, pedestrian issues came up, therefore we
are proposing to widen the east half of the street to 18 feet. He
explained that this would create a 6' paved walking path from the
school at 232nd to 240th. Wickstrom said the Mayor met with the
principal, PTA members and neighborhood representatives and they
were all receptive to the proposal. He said there is enough money
in the sidewalk fund to do this. We have a project out to bid for
approximately $200,000 with the commitment on 111th and over on
Smith Street; this leaves us about $160,000 however, we have at
least $300,000 - 400,000 of needs in the downtown area. He said if
we had this money for sidewalks, specifically for sidewalk
pedestrian improvements in the travelled areas towards schools, we
could do both. He said the project on 112th is about $65,000 but
this would give us more money to spend on other sidewalks.
Committee unanimously recommended that a new fund be established;
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.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said that the Pedestrian Comp -
Plan will be part of the Transportation Plan. He said that the
tree plan is being worked on by a subcommittee and they have
selected a landscape architect to help select the appropriate tree -
for planting. Wickstrom said that in the first phase of the
Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project there are several trees in
that plan which is why we need this landscape issue resolved.
Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant (Kent Lagoons)
Wickstrom said when we were pursuing
Pacific Property, we were to get a
$500,000 from Metro and $500,000 froi
Futures Funds. He explained that thi:
get the $500,000 from Metro and we are
execute the agreement.
the acquisition of Union
$1 million dollar grant;
n King County Conservation
; grant is our agreement to
requesting authorization to
Committee unanimously recommended approval of Council to execute
the agreement.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that we actually purchased 282
acres and about 65 acres was not encumbered by the grant which
allows other optional uses thereof.
In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said we hope to have design of
this project complete in 1994 and be under construction in 1995
with a one year construction time.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m -
4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 28, 1994
PRESENT: TIM CLARK ARTHUR MARTIN
JIM BENNETT JIM HUNTINGTON
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
ROGER LUBOVICH STEVE CAPUTO
GARY GILL MR & MRS RUST
ABSENT: PAUL MANN - CHAIR
Garrison Creek Stormwater Control Proiect
Wickstrom stated there are two sections of this project where we
will need to proceed with condemnation while simultaneously
proceeding with negotiations. He said the shopping center and
apartment complexes in and around the S.240th and 104th Ave SE
intersection flood out during heavy storms. He noted that this was
one of the projects in our Capital Improvement Program which is to
relieve that area of flooding problems. Wickstrom said that our
goal is to provide a new conveyance system and a major detention
system at the headworks of Garrison Creek. He said we have all the
easements for the conveyance system within the shopping center; we
have two pieces one on the north end of the system and one on the
southerly end of the system which are part of the open channel
portion that we still need to negotiate easements for. He
explained that the normal process has been sequential where we
negotiate and then condemn; we want to do both (negotiate and
condemn) simultaneously which speeds up the process and shaves
months off the schedule. Wickstrom said we would like to build it
all at once rather than having two contracts.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom stated that the properties in
question are easements only. He also stated that everyone has
been, or will be, contacted prior to any condemnation.
Committee unanimously recommended proceeding with the necessary
steps for condemnation, while continuing negotiations.
Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
Because of the absence of Paul Mann at this meeting, the committee
recommended postponing this issue until the next Public Works
meeting, April 11th.
(continued)
Added Item: Transit AdvisorV Board Issue
Wickstrom circulated copies as aHenews
said the Transit Advisory Board
Locke's decision on liquid g
would like the City to consider going on record as :supporting
Locke's decisions. Arthur Martin said that ou and at a tinRTAg scheduled
for March 31st with the Transit Advisorygroup
a resolution in support
be discussing whether the City will propose riupp al
of Mr. Locke's decision. Clark pointed out that his principal
concern on this issue is air quality.
Added Item• Intra City Transit
Bennett stated that the Transit Advisory Board had received a bid
on Intra City Transit. Wickstrom said that he had met with Bob
Whelan and told him to submit a proposal to Public
olWorkstOf hat would
show the routes and what we could expect to get
Added Item: Tree Removal Process
e was
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said the Street Tree Commiererees
looking for a landscape architect to help select the prop
to be planted. Clark said, when we tear up sidewalks downtown, he
would like some form of conduitnc dedWickstrom said this uringu f
l
the sidewalks to allow for laying of a memo to
be very costly. Wickstrom said he will forward a copy which covers
Clark, he had written to Raul Ramos some months ago,
this issue (copy attached).
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.-
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 28, 1994
PRESENT: TIM CLARK ARTHUR MARTIN
JIM BENNETT JIM HUNTINGTON
DON WICKSTROM MAY MILLER
ROGER LUBOVICH STEVE CAPUTO
GARY GILL MR & MRS RUST
ABSENT: PAUL MANN - CHAIR
Garrison Creek Stormwater Control Project
Wickstrom stated there are two sections of this project where we
will need to proceed with condemnation while simultaneously
proceeding with negotiations. He said the shopping center and
apartment complexes in and around the S.240th and 104th Ave SE
intersection flood out during heavy storms. He noted that this was
one of the projects in our Capital Improvement Program which is to
relieve that area of flooding problems. Wickstrom said that our
goal is to provide a new conveyance system and a major detention
system at the headworks of Garrison Creek. He said we have all the
easements for the conveyance system within the shopping center; we
have two pieces one on the north end of the system and one on the
southerly end of the system which are part of the open channel
portion that we still need to negotiate easements for. He
explained that the normal process has been sequential where we
negotiate and then condemn; we want to do both (negotiate and
condemn) simultaneously which speeds up the process and shaves
months off the schedule. Wickstrom said we would like to build it
all at once rather than having two contracts.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom stated that the properties in
question are easements only. He also stated that everyone has
been, or will be, contacted prior to any condemnation.
Committee unanimously recommended proceeding with the necessary
steps for condemnation, while continuing negotiations.
Residential Garbage Service Rate Issue
Because of the absence of Paul Mann at this meeting, the committee
recommended postponing this issue until the next Public Works
meeting, April 11th.
(continued)
Added Item• Transit Advisory Board Issue
Wickstrom circulated copies of a news release regarding Executive
Locke's decision on liquid gas. He said the Transit Advisory Board
would like the City to consider going on record as supporting
Locke's decisions. Arthur Martin said that at a meeting scheduled
for March 31st with the Transit Advisory group and RTA, they will
be discussing whether the City will propose a resolution in support
of Mr. Locke's decision. Clark pointed out that his principal
concern on this issue is air quality.
Added Item• Intra City Transit
Bennett stated that the Transit Advisory Board had received a bid
on Intra City Transit. Wickstrom said that he had met with Bob
Whelan and told him to submit a proposal to Public Works that would
show the routes and what we could expect to get out of it.
Added Item: Tree Removal Process
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said the Street Tree Committee was
looking for a landscape architect to help select the proper trees
to be planted. Clark said, when we tear up sidewalks downtown, he
would like some form of conduit included in the restructuring of
the sidewalks to allow for laying cable. Wickstrom said this could
be very costly. Wickstrom said he will forward a copy of a memo to
Clark, he had written to Raul Ramos some months ago, which covers
this issue (copy attached).
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.