Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 04/20/1981 i Kent, Washington April 20, 1981 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council- persons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, Administrative Assistant Webby, and Finance Director McCarthy. EXECUTIVE MOONEY MOVED that the meeting be adjourned to execu- SESSION tive session at 7: 05 p.m. , B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. The regular meeting reconvened at 8: 10 p.m. Also present: Hearing Examiner Burke, Parks Director Wilson and URS representative Abed. Approximately 20 people were in attendance at the meeting. PROCLAMATION National Music Week. A proclamation was read by the Mayor declaring the week of May 3 - 10, 1981 as National Music Week. RAILROAD Union Pacific/James Street Railroad Crossing. Mayor CROSSINGS Hogan noted receipt of petitions containing approxi- mately 938 signatures and submitted by students from Tahoma High School seeking improvements of the Union Pacific James Street crossing. HAMILTON MOVED that the petitions be made a part of the record, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. VISITORS Chamber of Commerce. New Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Suzette Allen Cooke was introduced to the meeting. CONSENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that the Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through 0 be approved. J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 6, 1981. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) SANITATION S. 212th Industrial Center Division #2 (SPC-77-36) Bill of Sale. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for continuous operation and main- tenance for approximately 1355 feet of water main improvements, 1293 feet of sanitary sewer improvements and 1355 feet of street improvements constructed in the vicinity of S. 216th Street and East Valley High- - 1 - April 20, 1981 HEALTH & way for the S. 212th Industrial Center Division #2 SANITATION Short Plat and RELEASE of the cash bond after expir- ation of the one-year guaranty period and payment of any outstanding charges against the project. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 51) Bill of Sale - FGDJ Industrial Park Short Plat (SPC-80-8) . ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approximately 819 feet of sanitary sewer improvements constructed in the vicin- ity of East Valley Highway and So. 192nd Street for the FGDJ Industrial Park Short Plat for contin- uous operation and maintenance and RELEASE of the cash bond after expiration of the one year guaranty period and payment of any outstanding bills against the project. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J) City of Kent Utility Rate Ordinance. SETTING of May 4, 1981 as the date for a public hearing on the proposed utility rate ordinance. Brown & Caldwell have completed the Water and Sewer Financial Study which the Council reviewed at their workshop on April 13, 1981. An informational meeting will be held by staff for the citizens on the proposed rate ordinance on April 23 , 1981 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Library Conference Room. Kent Highlands Landfill Site. Questions were raised by the Council as to the term of the contract for the Kent Highlands Landfill Site and it was deter- mined that the contract covered a five-year period from June of 1979 . It was also noted that the contract has been the subject of discussion between the City Attorney and the City of Seattle. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5L) Maple Street Asphalt Overlay and Storm Drainage Im- provements. ACCEPTANCE of the contract of Robison Construction for the Maple Street Asphalt Overlay and Storm Drainage Improvements project which con- sisted of asphalt overlay and storm drainage im- provements for Reiten Road to Woodland Way and asphalt overlay of Prospect, Cedar and Hazel Streets, and RELEASE of the retainage after receipt of the necessary State releases . In response to questions from McCaughan, Wickstrom stated that the condition of the Maple Street grading would be checked. - 2 - April 20, 1981 DRAINAGE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) Kin s Place Final Plat (SU-80-1) . ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale and Warranty Agreement for approx- imately 60 feet of storm drain improvements con- structed for the Kings Place Plat in the vicinity of 108th S .E. and S.E. 240th for continuous opera- tion and maintenance. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) LID 306 West Valle Drainage - Final Environmental Impact Statement. ACCEPTANCE of the Final Environ- mental Impact Statement for LID 306 as recommended by the Engineering Department. The review period for the Draft EIS on this project expired on March 23, 1981 and responses to the comments received have been prepared and incorporated in the Final EIS and distributed to all reviewing agencies, those making comments on the Draft EIS, property owners within the LID, City of Kent Department Heads and members of the Council. FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5M) Kings Place Final Plat (SU-80-1) . SETTING of a public meeting date of May 4 , 1981 to consider the Kings Place Final Plat which has been received by the Planning Department and which is in compliance with the Subdivision Code. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) . Hill-Raaum Final Plat (SU-80-4) . SETTING of a public meeting date for May 4, 1981 to consider the Hill-Raaum Final Plat which has been received by the Planning Department and which is in compli- ance with the Subdivision Code. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5N) Southcenter Corporate Park Final Plat (SU-78i981 SETTING of a public meeting date for May 4, to review Condition No. 25 of the Southcenter Corporate Park Final Plat as requested by Upland Industries. VACATIONS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) APPROVAL Rosauer Short Plat Vacation (SPC-78-21) . of the vacation of the Rosauer Short Plat for which a public hearing was conducted on April 6 , 1981, in accordance with Resolution No. 919 . 3 - April 20 , 1981 VACATIONS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) Alley Vacation - Lying South of Morton Street Bet- ween -South Railroad Avenue and South Bridges Street. DIRECTING the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a public hearing date for June 1, 1981 to consider the vacation of the alley lying south of Morton Street between S. Railroad Avenue and S. Bridges Street. A petition has been received to vacate the said alley, the fees have been paid and the application validated. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K) Helen Street Vacation - Release of Portion of Ease- ments. RELEASE of those certain easements as re- served within Ordinance No. 2232 for the easterly 110 feet of vacated Helen Street. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2232 on June 16 , 1980 vacating a portion of Helen Street, a public street in the City of Kent and reserved easements for utilities, storm drainage and vehicular access . The Public Works Department is not utilizing the entire ease- ment and it is their recommendation for the release of certain portions. ANNEXATION East Hill Well Site. On June 16, 1980 the Council adopted Resolution No. 807 which authorized the annexation of the East Hill Well property. The King County Boundary Review Board has not invoked jurisdiction and as of March 10, 1981 has approved this annexation. The City Attorney has advised that annexations for municipal purposes may be accomplished by Council motion. Accordingly, MOONEY MOVED that the annexation of the East Hill Well site for municipal purposes be approved. McCaughan seconded. It was determined that the site was the location of Kent' s East Hill Well. Motion carried. REZONES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 50) Oakhurst Development Rezone (RZ-80-4) . ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2289 approving the Oakhurst Development Rezone in accordance with the Council action of Janu- ary 5, 1981. Sea-Tac Transmission Rezone (RZ-80-9) . The Sea Tac Transmission Rezone application for a reclassifica- tion of approximately . 7 acres from GC, General Com- - 4 - April 20, 1981 REZONES mercial, and MRH, Multi-family Residential High Density, to HC, Highway Commercial, with the in- tent to develop a retail/wholesale parts house on property now zoned MRH , was heard by the Hear- ing Examiner on February 18 , 1981. The Hearing Examiner has recommended that the application be approved with the following conditions : 1) Landscaping on Lot 1 shall be brought into compliance with all applicable city regulations. 2) There shall be no outdoor storage on Lot 3. MOONEY MOVED that the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner be approved and the City Attorney be in- structed to draft the necessary ordinance. Masters seconded. Motion carried. VALLEY Rail Served Development. On February 17, 1981 the STUDIES Council set the date of April 6, 1981 to reopen the public hearing on Item 15 as shown on page 31 of the revised Green Book, reading as follows: 1115. There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 250 feet of the river and all rail facilities shall be adequately bermed and landscaped, including spurs, boxcars, and switches, in accordance with the recom- mendations of the Planning Department. " This item relates to restrictions on rail-served development adjacent to the Green River. At the request of Upland Industries, the April 6 hearing was postponed to this date. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. Harris noted that he was going to present a slide presentation showing development of the River area as well as the Uplands property which is the subject of discussion, present the Planning Department pro- posal, and explain the model which was set up for the Council to consider. Harris reminded the Council that the Green River Corridor was set up as a Special Interest District on both sides of the Green River with approximately 25 conditions intended to make a transition from the River back toward the more dense industrial/residential development along the River. 5 - April 20, 1981 VALLEY During the course of the Valley Studies hearings, STUDIES Harris noted that the Council had approved rail setbacks from the Green River 250 feet within the 1000 foot Corridor; however, the staff' s feeling was that by allowing the rail service within 250 feet of the river a large portion of the idea of the Corridor was negated. The Council then gave the Planning Department staff the opportunity to come back and give another presentation in this regard. Harris explained that there were concerns about preserving the Green River, noting that this has been the intent of the Shoreline Master Program which covered the first 200 ' along the river and the additional 800 ' covered in the Valley Studies . Harris explained the various slides that were shown, noting that some depicted the area as it is now, ready for development . He also showed slides of the Tukwila area , pointing out the large warehouse- type buildings that exist in that locale. In re- sponse to questions from McCaughan, he noted that the building setbacks from the river in that area were no more than 75 feet. Referring to the slides depicting the rail-served operations, Harris pointed out that they presented a very sterile-type atmos- phere and are not geared to pedestrians walking along the river. With regard to business park type development, Harris showed slides of recent develop- ment to the north Kent boundary, pointing out the landscaping, sidewalk design and pedestrian walkways, as well as different building facades. He noted that business parks were becoming more popular in the Kent area and that this type of development next to the river was conducive to maintaining the river atmosphere. Harris emphasized that they were not. asking that. the Uplands development have no rail service -- only that it be kept from the riverfront area. Harris then presented the Planning Department Proposal entitled "Rail Setback from the Green River" reading as follows: "I . BACKGROUND 1 . The Green River and an area 1, 000 feet on each side is a unique environment. - 6 April 20, 1981 VALLEY 2 . Many changes from the original natural en- STUDIES vironment have taken place over the years in this corridor. - Agricultural development - Flood Control programs - Industrial and residential development 3 . There are still some natural environments along the river. These should, where pos- sible, be protected. 4. The 1 , 000 foot corridor is an ideal area for creating a pedestrian scale. 5. The pedestrian scale, when carried out in development design, will tend to protect and enhance the natural environment. 6 . The pedestrian scale is compatible with smaller industrial/commercial buildings of the Business Park nature. 7. Rail served buildings, by their very nature (geared toward truck service on one side and rail service on the other side) are not conducive to creating a pedestrian scale. 8 . Rail served development is not flexible enough to allow for building off sets - innovative sidewalk design - interesting landscaping - greater open space - special facade treatment - open vistas. 9 . The large bulky warehouse type buildings served by rail negate the stated reasons for the Special Interest District: - Sensitivity to the River - Pedestrian oriented - Transition area between the river and intensive uses II. PROPOSAL 1 . Generally, rail- Lines should not penetrate bevond the l , 0oo foot Special District boundary . 7 - i April 20, 1981 VALLEY 2. Where, due to design constraints, rail is STUDIES deemed necessary within the 1 , 000 foot corri- dor, it shall in no case be closer to the river than 500 feet. 3 . Where rail, by necessity, penetrates the outer boundary of the special district boundary, it shall have but one such penetration every 2, 000 feet. This requirement not only limits rail intrusion into the river corridor, but also limits rail crossing across the new Russell Road arterial. 4 . Rail shall not run parallel to the river at any point. 5. Where rail is planned to penetrate, the special corridor boundary, its precise siting shall be part of a preliminary plat and be approved by the hearing examiner as part of the plat. If a short plat is to be served by rail, the rail shall be part of the approval of the short plat. " Harris noted that this was a problem with subdivisions and that they were not now part of a subdivision plan as is the case with streets . Harris then referred to his display model, depicting how the area is now undeveloped, how it would look with rail served warehouses as suggested by Uplands, and how it could look with business park development. In response to questions from Masters, Harris noted that the railroad cars placed on the model tracks were 500 feet from the railroad. He also clarified that the Planning Department proposal was that the railroad spurs would be approximately 2000 feet apart and Hamilton pointed out that this would mean separat- ing the rail.-served warehouses. Bailey contended that in fact they were suggesting selective zoning so far as Upland Industries was concerned. Harris determined that Union Pacific Railroad is the only railroad that has land adjacent to the river in this area and Mirk pointed out that this was not zoning but merely setting development standards. In response to McCaughan' s question, Harris clarified that they were seeking more pedestrian access to the river and that in fact the idea of the Green River Corridor was that the 8 - April 20, 1981 VALLEY river would be within easy walking distance. He STUDIES also noted that the business park type of develop- ment would mean that there would be many more per- sons employed in the area. He also pointed out that some of the special conditions imposed in the area deal with having access from the area in ques- tion to the river. He also clarified for McCaughan that they were referring to a pedestrian/bicycle scenic drive and means of providing easier access to the river to utilize this scenic route. In response to further questions from the Council, he noted that the likelihood of large warehouses being close to the river if non-rail served was remote but also noted that the 200 ' facade facing the river still applied. Dave Uhrich of Upland Industries addressed the Coun- cil, noting that they were not trying to suggest to the Council the type of development that has occurred in Tukwila,. He also pointed out that in any residential or industrial development an attempt was made to utilize the land to the greatest extent possible. Uhrich also referred to the amount of asphalting which occurs around the smaller buildings depicted by Harris and suggested that the total percent of the site covered by impervious surface was approxi- mately the same as that in areas where large ware- houses are constructed, due to additional parking facilities and walkways . Uhrich then referred to a letter dated April 20 , 1981 and quoted Condition No. 15 of the Green River Cor- ridor Special Interest District regulations previously adopted by the Council, reading as follows: "There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 250 feet of the river, and all rail facilities shall be ade- quately bermed and landscaped, including spurs, box- cars and switches, in accordance with the recommenda- tions of the Planning Department. " He noted that the Planning Department had subsequently asked for a reconsideration of the Council decision regarding the rail facilities. Uhrich then reviewed the requirements which the Council has already imposed on riverfront developments as a part of the Valley Studies program, reading from his letter as follows: 9 - April 20, 1981 VALLEY "l. The maximum size of buildings on riverfront STUDIES lots is limited to 1. 5 acres. " Uhrich expressed disagreement with Harris ' s conten- tion that all large buildings are rail served and referred specifically to large buildings on North 4th Avenue in the Kent Valley Industrial Park which are not rail served. He suggested that small build- ings could be rail served. "2 . Buildings on riverfront lots are limited to a maximum facade of 200 feet facing the Green River. 3 . Every dwelling, building or lot shall have an access to the Green River by a sidewalk or com- mon trail system connecting to the riverside public trail or scenic drive at 1000 foot or less intervals in industrially zoned areas . " Uhrich pointed out that while it had not been de- picted on their plans they were in fact proposing extensive sidewalk systems and public access through- out a planned industrial park to get people to the River. He also suggested that in the years he had been working in Kent every industrial plat they have brought to the City has depicted the rail spurs, showed the streets which would be crossed, and Council permission sought for such crossings . "4 . Public parking facilities for access to the Green River shall be located as near as possible to riverfront parks and/or historic sites and shall be clustered in lots not exceeding 30 cars . Every public parking area shall be visible from a street, accessible to the public and be situated so that the public can clearly see riverfront open space and how to access the public portion of that open space. 5. Loading docks shall not be located on river facing sides of buildings. 6 . Buildings beyond the 200 foot Shoreline Manage- ment Zone but within the Special Interest District shall not exceed 35 feet in height. " 10 - I April 20, 1981 VALLEY , 7. In order to avoid development which creates STUDIES a wall of buildings on riverfront lots, build- ing lengths are limited to 200 feet. 8 . On industrial and commercial zoned land, the upland boundary furthest from the river shall be no less than 500 feet from the ordinary high water line of the river for lots used for such industrial and commercial purposes . 9 . Development shall maintain or establish a per- manent vegetated buffer of trees and shrubs between the development and the river. Such buffering shall have an average width of 25 feet along the length of the shoreline, and a minimum width of 15 feet." Uhrich commented that the model presented by Harris was excellent in that it did depict the 200 foot shoreline zone and that it did create a very visible buffer. He suggested that these requirements were almost unprecedented with regard to building develop- ment and had been the subject of considerable discus- sion when Jones & Jones were doing the River of Green Study, as well as during the Valley Studies hearings . " 10. The minimum building setback from the Green River in industrially zoned areas is 200 feet. " Quoting further from the letter, Uhrich continued: "Establishing a mandatory 200 foot setback from the Green River for industrial development in effect establishes a "conservancy zone" between industrial development and the Green River. As set forth in the Valley Studies Program, the "conservancy environ- ment is for those areas which are intended to main- tain their existing character. The preferred uses are those which are not comsumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area. " Very few other areas of the City are limited from developing adjacent to the Green River to the extent of proper- ties zoned for industrial.. or commercial purposes . It is evident the City has already provided for suf- ficient protection of the riverfront environment to the greatest reasonable extent possible. Further restrictions would serve only as an arbitrary limit - 11 - April 20, 1981 VALLEY upon the economic viability of properties which STUDIES happen to be located in the Green River Special Interest District . "We see many inconsistencies , inadequacies and un- supported recommendations in the Planning Depart- ment' s proposal; the most significant of which are summarized as follows: 1 . The Kent. Planning Department's February 17, 1981 memorandum states the Staf.f' s main con- cerns are with " the types of buildings that are inevitably built along rail spurs. Evi- dence existing in. the Valley today indicates that .rail-served buildings are generally of the same monotonous design with few or no offsets, little in the way of landscaping (beyond a minimum required by the City) and by a necessity, must all be oriented directly to rail service. " It appears the Planning Department' s concerns are not so much with the construction of rail- road facilities, but rather with the types of buildings which would orient to the Green River. We have pr.(_�viously reviewed the numerous conditions placed on building development adja- cent to the Green River which would preclude an unreasonable intrusion on the riverfront environment. If in fact the Planning Department' s concerns relate to the aesthetic appearance of buildings , then those particular items should be addressed in detail . We would be most happy to retain the services of an architectural firm in order to devel'. p specific guidelines for those portions of bui_ i . ngs which would orient to the riverfront environment. We are confident that the proper apl:w_i cati ::>n of building construction material and roc hniques to provide an appropri- ate appearance r-ono ,riverfront areas is not in- consistent with providing rail. service to those buildings . 2 . The recommendation of the Planning Department to generally limit all Nail and rail spurs within 1000 feet of the river is entirely arbitrary and unsupported . CTpland Industries Corporation - 12 - April. 20, 1981 VALLEY has already agreed to provide sufficient STUDIES screening in the form of berming and land- scaping which would entirely obscure any railroad facilities from the riverfront. With appropriate building facade treatment, rail-served development will not have an adverse impact on the riverfront environment. 3. It appears as though the Planning Department is suggesting that all buildings be limited to 1. 5 acres in size within the entire Special Interest District, and not riverfront lots, as previously approved by the Council. Again, we believe this requirement to be arbitrary and unsupported. We have been able to show the Council that it is only the first tier of buildings along the riverfront which create the riverfront. environment. Buildings beyond those constructed on riverfront lots in most instances would not be visible from the Green River; therefore, we see no appropriate reason to limit the size of buildings except on riverfront lots .'' Uhrich then presented a map to the Council showing the scope of their proposed development. He pointed out areas which would be rail served and those which would not. In response to question, he noted that the rail spurs would be approximately 650 to 700 feet apart and that four were contemplated in the area at this time. He also clarified that there were several factors which had to be considered with regard to the rail served properties. (evOn though Uplands does try to maximize the amount of rail-served properties in their parks )including the proposed drainage LID and other physical constraints. With reference to the condition which the Planning Department is proposing, Uhrich contended that this would take away a vast area of potential_ rail.-served property. In response .to Mayor Hogan 's question, Uhrich concurred that since small buildings could be rail-served theoretically a lot of the area could be even though not depicted on. the map. McCaughan questioned whether the concern was about the impact of rail service in the area or about the size of the buildings t,., be placed on rail-served 13 - April 20, 1981 VALLEY properties. Uhrich agreed that there should be STUDIES concerns about the types of buildings and also that careful consideration should be given to development that is oriented to the river. He also agreed with Harris that building facades, land- scaping and setbacks were important factors to be considered. Uhrich further noted that in these dis- cussions they were essentially geared toward the Uplands property since there is no property to the south zoned for industrial use and the property immediately to the north which is zoned for indus- trial use and owned by Pacific Industrial Concepts is not intended to be developed as a rail-served industrial park. Uhrich then suggested that Item 1.5 be rewritten and approved in the following form: "There shall be no rail-served buildings within 250 feet of the river. There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 300 feet of the river, and all rail facilities shall be adequately bermed and landscaped, including spurs , boxcars and switches , in accordance with the recommendations of the Plan- ning Department; which will. be reviewed and approved by the City Council . " and reading from the letter: "In addition, Upland Industries Corporation would retain the services of a building architect and develop specific proposals with the assistance of the Planning Department relating to the construction techniques , materials , colors and dimensions of all building facades facing the Green River on riverfront lots . The proposals would be submitted to the City Council for approval. Adopted building requirements would serve to mitigate the visual impact of buildings on riverfront lots . " Uhrich closed by noting that a person walking along the river would still be seeing only the first tier of buildings and that the visual impact of large warehouse type buildings would be minimal . MOONEY MOVED that the letter of Upland Industries be made a part of the record . Bailey seconded. motion carried. 14 April 20, 1981 VALLEY Laurie Johnsen spoke in favor of the Planning De- STUDIES partment recommendation and the advantage offered from an aesthetic standpoint. She also questioned whether anyone had considered the noise impact from switching operations and suggested that this should be further addressed by Mr. Uhrich. She also ex- pressed concern over the visual impact of development for pedestrians walking along the river edge, as well as for those residents living on the hillsides of Kent. Barney Wilson spoke about the history of riverfront and waterfront property throughout the country and the mistakes which have been made in the past and which are now being corrected. He emphasized the fact that Kent is not faced with this problem but has the ability to insure the kind of development that will protect the river area and the Valley area, making it a place where people will want to work and live. In response to questions from McCaughan, Wilson clarified that the concern was over the size of the buildings along the riverfront and rail spurs being allowed within 500 feet of the river, and that large warehouse type buildings are what the rail spurs attract. It was noted that no correspondence has been received and MOONEY MOVED that the hearing be closed, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED that the recommendation of the Plan- ning Department be adopted, B. Johnson seconded. Bailey noted that while he concurred with the philo- sophy of the setback, the action as contemplated by the motion was in fact punitive since it implied select zoning. He referred to the fact that the blacktop, roads and traffic generated which Uhrich had made reference to had not been portrayed in the display presented by the Planning Department. Bailey also commented on the fact that Uplands has demon- strated an ability and desire to work with the com- munity and suggested that they be given an opportunity to present to the Council , with the help of their architects, what they envision could transpire in that particular area. Accordingly, BAILEY MOVED to table the matter for 30 days, McCaughan seconded. B. Johnson pointed out that the Planning Department recommendation No. 2 states "where this design con- straint is deemed necessary within the 1000 ' corridor, 15 - I i April 20 , 1981 VALLEY it shall in no case be closer to the river than 500 STUDIES feet. " and suggested this should be kept in mind. In response to McCaughan ' s question, Harris noted that the Planning Department recommendation would call for only two spur crossings of the new Russell Road, rather than four, of a major arterial. street. The motion to table CARRIED, with Mooney, Bailey, Masters and McCaughan voting in favor and Hamilton, B. Johnson and J. Johnson voting against. After further discussion, it was agreed that 60 days would be a more reasonable time frame for Uplands to come back with a specific proposal and the motion to table was amended accordingly. At the close of the meeting, Uhrich announced that he was being transferred to Denver and would be leaving the area shortly. He stated that Ted Knapp would be representing Upland Industries here in the future. COUNCIL Public Works . Mooney reported that the Public Works COMMITTEES Committee would meet on Wednesday morning, April 1981 at 8 : 15 a.m. Public Safety. It was determined that the ordinance proposed by the Fire Department would be discussed further with the Police Deprtm27tfordfbrthertthe workshop on Monday, April dis- cussion . It was also noted thatla24eeting would be held with KVYS on Thursday, Ap Administrative Report. Cushing reported on the status of. Senate Bill 635 currently under discussion during the legislative session in Olympia. He noted the bill proposed would have precluded cities from enacting ordinances such as the environmental excise tax ordinance and would instead assess a 4 of 1% real estate excise tax. Cushing reported that Senate Bill 635 appeared to be dead but that the promoters of the bill, namely Seattle Master Builders and other developers, were supporting a bill advocated by the Association of Washington Cities that dealt with the addition of 2 of 1� sales tax and which had now been introduced as House Bill 749 . If enacted, the bill would allow cities and counties to .levy another 2 cent sales tax but would at the same time preclude any development fees . Cushing noted that unlike any other tax in - 16 - i April 20, 1981 COUNCIL this State, the proposed tax would be subject to COMMITTEES initiative. The result could be that if it went to initiative and was lost, the cities and counties could find themselves without revenue from either development fees or the additional sales tax. Cushing reported further that he had been notified this afternoon that the bill had been modified so that if the initiative should overturn the sales tax the cities would no longer be prohibited from levying the development fees . He noted that the bill also has a provision in it which reallocates a portion of a city ' s motor vehicle excise tax and that the effect on Kent would be that about $90, 000 would be lost in the motor vehicle excise tax but based on current projections for sales, should the sales tax be levied, would result in about 2. 8 million dollars revenue instead. FINANCE Elimination of Inactive 'Trust Funds . The Finance Department is proposing the elimination of the Civic Improvement Trust Fund and the Repair/Demolition Trust Fund. These funds , established in 1970 and 1971 respectively, have had very limited activity over their course of operation. With the exception of funds transferred from the General Fund, the funds have received over their. 10-year life approxi- mately $1 , 500 in total. All of this receipt is re- lated to reimbursements , contributions and interest. No activity, except interest, has occurred in either fund since 1976 . The original intent of these two funds can be carried out through the normal budget process within the operation of the General Fund. The proposal involves the transfer of cash in these two funds , approximately $887 . 00 and $5, 000 respect- ively, to the .general Fund for unrestricted use per Council establ.ishe:d budget. This proposal has been brought to the attenti .)n of the Finance Committee and they are in concurrence. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the elimination of these two funds be approved and that the City Attorney draft an ordinance to repeal Ordinance No. 1662 (Civic Improvement Fund) and Ordinance No. 1710 (Repair/Demolition Fund) . B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Payment of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through April 20 , 1981 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. April 30 , 1981 . - 17 - April 20 , 1981 ADJOURNMENT MOONEY MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 10: 00 ' o`clock p.m. , J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy City Clerk 18 I