Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/16/1982 Kent, Washington August 16, 1982 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, Biteman, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Kelleher, Leahy and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, Citv Attorney DiJulio, Plan- ning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: City Treasurer Drotz, Administra- tive Assistant Webby, Assistant Fire Chief LaBore, Associate Planner Hansen and URS representative Ramsey. Approximately 25 people were in attendance at the meeting. CITY The Mayor and Council welcomed new City Attorney j ATTORNEY Stephen DiJulio to the Citv. CONSENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through J 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 August 2 , 1982. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) SANITATION LID 285 Charge in Lieu of Assessment in West Hill Area. AUTHORIZATION to levy charge in lieu of assessment in the amount of $4, 244 . 98 on those lands described as denoted in Exhibit A, a copy of which has been filed for the record. In 1981, as part of LID 285, the City installed a sewer line which serviced land adjacent to South 43rd Street. Said lands were not within the city limits . They were, therefore, not included in the LID. In order for the City to recoup it' s costs from these lands at the time they connect, Council must authorize the levying of the charge and then it must be recorded. . LID 305 - 113th Avenue S. E. Sewers . Bids were # opened on this project on August 12 . Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that the low bidder, Rental Marts, had claimed an error in their bid for the j project and requested withdrawal. He noted that after review of supporting documentation the claim appeared to be valid and accordingly recommended that the contract be awarded to the new low bidder_ , - 1 - I i August 16, 1982 HEALTH & Ford Construction, in the amount of $53, 969 . 94. SANITATION MOONEY MOVED to acceot the bid of Ford Construc- tion in the amount of $53, 969 . 94 for LID 305, Bailey seconded. Biteman noted that an error in the bidding procedure seemed to have come up several times recently and questioned whether there was any fee in connection with the bidding. Wickstrom explained that a bid bond was filed but that a bidder did have the option of claim- ing error within 24 hours of the bid opening and providing the necessary proof of such error. Wick- strom indicated that Rental Marts had in fact pro- vided the necessary oroof. The motion carried. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) Resolution Water Quality Study. ADOPTION of Reso- lution No. 970 adopting the eight recommendations endorsed by the Planning Commission as stated in the Water Quality Management Executive Summary of the Water Quality Study. (CONSENT CALENI.R ITEM 5J) Transfer of Water District 87 to Kent and Auburn. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2364 transferring Water District 87 to Kent and Au urn. EAST HILL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) PLAN East Hill Plan Resolution. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 969 amending the East Hill Plan which is an 0 element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. F-� DOWNTOWN (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I) UJ IMPROVEMENT Kent Downtown Improvement Project. APPROVAL of Ui PROJECT funds for the Downtown Improvement Project to in- clude printinq costs of $3 , 000 for the report and a promotional brochure from the KDA Fund. 1.I.. O PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) t W j RECREATION Kent Municipal Golf Course Parking Lot Paving. LAJ = AUTHORIZATION to have bid documents prepared for Z asphalting the gravel parking lot and access road p at the Kent Muncipal Golf Course with an alternate C.1 for black topping the maintenance dike area around the qolf course and riverfront park. The project costs will come from excess revenue in the Golf Course Budget and Federal Revenue Sharing budgeted in 1983 for the dike top paving. 2 - i August 16 , 1982 PARKS & Kent Memorial Park Asphalt Paving of Field No. 1. r RECREATION alsphaltParkworkpunderntheableacherearearof Kente eMemorial Park Field #1 as follows: 1) Lakeridge Paving $ 7, 971. 53 including tax 2) M. A. Segale , Inc. 9 , 751. 14 including tax 3) Hi-Line Asphalt 10 , 373 . 10 including tax The Parks Department requests authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with Lakeridge Paving in the amount of $7 ,971. 53 including sales tax for asphalt work at Kent Memorial Park. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the contract be awarded as recommended, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. KENT (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) COMMONS Kent Commons Gymnasium. AUTHORIZATION to add electri- cal circuits at the Kent Commons Gymnasium as outlined to the Council in a memo at the August 9 workshop. Estimated cost is $3 , 800 with the project cost to come from Commons budget. PRELIMINARY Delta Cal Preliminary Plat (SU-82-1) . On August 2 , PLAT 1982 , the City Council set August 16, 1982 for a public meeting to accept, deny, or modify the recom- mendations as set forth by the Hearing Examiner on the Delta Cal Preliminary Plat request for a subdivision of an existing two-lot plat into three lots in an M-2, Limited Industrial District. The Hearing Examiner recommendation is for approval with conditions. LEAHY MOVED to adopt the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation for approval with conditions of the Delta Cal Prelimi- nary Plat, Bailey seconded. notion carried. ARTS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) COMMISSION Appointment to Arts Commission. CONFIRMATION of the appointment of Lori A. Severeid to replace Laurel Whitehurst on the Arts Commission. The Mayor noted that there was still one opening on the Arts Commis- sion which needed to be filled. 3 - August 16, 1982 GARBAGE General Disposal Constract. It has been recommended CONTRACT that the Mayor be authorized to sign a Garbage Con- tract with General Disposal for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services. Mayor Hogan noted that the matter had been discussed at the workshop and in re- sponse to her questions about the problems which had to be resolved, Cushing noted that there was one change which the City wished to make in the con- tract, namely with reference to breach of contract, Section 5 of the contract. He noted that until this time , the contract has indicated that at such time there is a determination that there is in fact a breach of contract, the City has had the right to take over the service. However, the contractor has pointed out that this makes it difficult to get a bond unless reference is made to the surety ' s right to step in at that point. Cushing indicated that the City' s primary interest is having something to say about who takes over when and if such a breach of contract is determined. He noted that some suggested language has been discussed with the contractor and the City Attorney reauested that a motion be made to include the following language after the first sentence of paragraph 5, Breach of Contract: "5. Breach of Contract (V) Upon receipt of such notice, contractor agrees that it will promptly discontinue the work, whereupon the surety may at its option, to be exercised within ten days from such written notice, assume the work which the City has ordered discontinued and proceed to perform same with a firm or contractor acceptable to the City at its sole cost and expense in compliance with the terms and conditions of this contract and all documents incorporated herein. Pending consideration by the surety of said option to assume the work, the City may take possession of all contractor' s equip- ment, vehicles and facilities and employ such force as it may deem advisable, to continue the work and the cost of all labor and materials necessary for such work shall be paid by the Citv out of the monies due or to become due the contractor , if any, or otherwise charge same to the contractor in full. " - 4 - i August 16, 1982 GARBAGE BAILEY MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign CONTRACT the Garbage Contract with General Disposal for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services as presented with the modifications added by the City Administrator, B. Johnson seconded. Barry Miller of Northwest Metal Products , manufacturers of galvanized garbage cans, addressed the Council, and pointed out the possible problems which might arise by changing to plastic containers, such as the con- tainer not being fireproof or fire retardant as well as not being rodent proof. He referred to King County Board of Health Rules which require that garbage containers shall be "rodent proof" not merely "rodent resistant" . He suggested that plastic containers were not "rodent proof" . He also referred to possible fire hazards involved in plastic containers because of location or materials deposited in them. Bailey reported that a representative of the Fire Department had been present at the workshop and had expressed no serious reservations about possible fire hazards. Mike Torre of General Disposal noted that they had discussed the matter of the plastic containers with several manufacturers with regard to the fire hazards. He suggested that while plastic containers would melt the same kind of problem could exist with both types of containers with regard to the materials deposited therein. Biteman stated that the City had been trying to close the Kent Highlands and Midway land- fill sites for several years and since these were to be used as dumping sites he could not vote in favor of the motion. Mooney stated that he would vote against the motion based on what he had heard with regard to plastic and metal containers and hazards involved. In response to questions from Leahy, Mike Torre noted that the alternatives to dumping at the Highlands or Midway landfill site were using King County facilities and that this could result in an approximate 42% cost increase. Leahy suggested that citizens should not be asked to bear such an additional cost. The motion carried, with Mooney and Biteman voting nay. I 5 - August 16, 1982 AGRICULTURAL The Agricultural Land Study was heard by the City LAND STUDY Council on Julv 19 , 1982. The matter was continued until the County ' s Farmlands Implementation Task Force made its proposal for funding the County Agricultural Preservation Program. The Council discussed the County' s funding program at the Council workshop on August 9. KELLEHER MOVED that the Planning staff and Planning Commission move forward with alternative number 4 and the six additional actions outlined on page ii of the Agricultural Study Summary. In addition, the Planning staff is directed to develop for Plan- ning Commission consideration proposals for compen- sating property owners as follows: 1) Staff shall develop proposals for providing financial compensation to landowners whose property values may be adversely affected as a result of the implementation of alter- native number 4 . 2) The Planning Commission may consider such compensation proposals only if: a) the King County Council rejects the County' s Farmlands Implementation Task Force recommendation on the Farmland ' s Preservation Bonds Proqram or b) the Planning Commission determines that the County ' s Farmlands Implementation Task Force recommendation on the Farm- land' s Preservation Bonds Program provide an inadequate level of compensation to property owners. In addition the staff will be directed to develop the Planning Commission Consideration Proposals for enhancing the commercial feasibility of agri- culture within the studv area. Biteman seconded. Bailey noted that when the farmlands preservation issue was placed before the voters in the past, - 6 - i i August 16, 1982 i AGRICULTURAL that the citizens of Kent had not voted in favor LAND STUDY of it. He suggested that the motion did not ad- dress the problem of how the funds would now be raised in the event County money was not forthcoming if in fact land owners were reimbursed for amounts over an appraised value they felt was too low. He also expressed opposition to imposing a general obligation bond issue on the citizens of Kent to purchase the lands in question or supplement their purchase when in fact they were not in favor of it before. He stated that this issue was something which the citizens should have the opportunity to vote on before anv, action is taken by the Council. Kelleher noted that the language of his motion pro- vided for two contingencies for consideration of compensation and that he did not have any specific proposals on the matter of funding. In response to his questions, Satterstrom of the Planning Department noted that since they were only in the preliminary stages of the study only possible solu- tions had been discussed. Kelleher referred to the possibility of a bond issue and referred to a recent parks and recreation survey which showed that approximately 670 of those persons responding felt that preservation of open space and green belts and natural areas rated "Important" or "Very Important" . He expressed the opinion that there might be a different reaction from the public if the bond issue was put to a vote at this time. BAILEY suggested that the County itself did not seem to have any funding alternatives for commun- ities such as Kent and because of this , MOVED to table the matter. B. Johnson seconded. Motion FAILED, with only B. Johnson, Bailey and Mooney voting in favor. Leahy noted that he shared some of the concerns of Mr. Bailey and also felt that the express consent of the citizens of Kent was necessary before any kind of bond issue was imposed. He stated, however, by adopting Kelleher ' s motion, the matter would be reviewed and the Council given an opportunity to look at the issue again. Mooney expressed the opinion that farmers such as Dan Smith were more cognizant of the economics of farming, the problems connected with it and the result of down-zoning this land. For this reason 7 - August 16, 1982 AGRICULTURAL he stated that he would vote against the motion. LAND STUDY J. Johnson suggested Kelleher ' s motion was merely referring the matter to the Planning Commission and staff for some alternatives for the Council to consider if and when additional funding should be needed. He added that the funding aspect should be considered at a later time when the concepts had been developed. Biteman stated that it was his understanding of the motion that no decision on the agricultural study itself was being made but rather the Council was asking for a recommend- ation from staff. He suggested that having these recommendations would be an asset at such time as it was necessary for the Council to make a decision. B. Johnson expressed concern over the present deliberations by the King County Council on the funding aspect and suggested that action by Kent at this time could be interpreted to mean that we would supplement any funding coming from the County. She also expressed concern over the use of land for open space and the possible invest- ment loss to the property owners holding such land. There were no further comments and Kelleher ' s motior CARRIED, with B. Johnson, Bailey and Mooney voting against and J. Johnson, Leahy, Biteman and Kelleher voting in favor. COUNCIL Public Works. Mooney reported that the Public COMMITTEES Works Committee would meet at 8 : 15 a.m. on Wednesday, August 18, 1982 . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 18 after auditing by the Finance Committee at the 4 : 00 p.m. meeting on August 31 , 1982 . EXECUTIVE The meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 7 : 40 SESSION p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8: 05 p.m. LITIGATION Swan vs. Union Pacific Railroad and City of Kent. Upon the advice of City Attorney DiJulio, B. JOHNSON MOVED that the Mayor be authorized on behalf of the - 8 - August 16 , 1982 LITIGATION City of Kent to sign a Settlement and Release con- cerning Swan vs . the named defendants as concerns the claimant, Mr. Swan. J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT MOONEY MOVED to adjourn the meeting, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy Citv Clerk 9 _