Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 08/08/1989
- (67/ w rt� PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTIN NIZLEK STEVE DOWELL TIM HEYDON DON WICKSTROM JACK SPENCER GARY GILL JOHN MhRCHIONE JIM HANSEN MIMI CASTILLO SANDRA DRISCOLL TED KNAPP KEN MILLER CHARLES PARSONS LYLE PRICE Construction Activities - Charles Parsons Mr. Parsons commented he lives 6 miles east of Kent and uses 84th every morning on his commute to work. He referred to the incident detailed in his letter of June 19 regarding work being performed by a construction company in the area prior to the work hours specified in his permit with no traffic control thus creating worse traffic congestion than the normal a.m. commute. Johnson asked what we could do to assure the contractors work within the limits of their permits. Wickstrom and Miller both responded that it is important for the City to be notified when these instances do occur so that we can send inspectors out at the time the violation is occurring. We are currently revising the street cut permits to specify working hours. Mr. Parsons urged that some sort of fine be levied against the contractors when they violate their permit. Miller responded the ordinance does address penalties as a misdemeanor. Driscoll clarified a misdemeanor could mean a $1, 000 fine or 1 year in jail. The procedures followed now when we receive such complaints were detailed for the Committee being that when we receive such a call, we will send an inspector out immediately and verify if there is a valid permit. It was suggested the permit also reference the penalties for violation of the conditions of the permit. Traffic Mitigation Task Force Report Ted Knapp, chair of the Traffic Mitigation Task Force, reviewed for the Committee the direction and activities of the Task Force which are detailed in the agenda packet (material mace a part of these minutes) . Dowell asked Knapp to explain the funding sources anticipated. Knapp explained the basis of the Task Force recommendations is the implementation of the provisions of the Local Transportation Act of 1988 . Also continued involvement in attempt to form a Transportation Benefit District is encouraged. Other sources of income could come from, possible State 0 u Public Works Committe August 8 , 1989 Page 2 participation (gas tax; etc. ) , impact fees, LIDs, and voter approved bond issue. Development of an environmental mitigation agreement took some time to reach agreement of all parties. Involved in the process was a local land use law firm, CPI 's legal representatives, Mel Kleweno, Boeing attorneys and Union Pacific attorneys as well as Sandra Driscoll. The proposed environmental mitigation agreement developed as a result of this process is included as part of these minutes. It was clarified the agreement has a fixed time period and a fixed maximum amount of commitment. Knapp added that an additional recommendation of the Task Force not shown on the attached material is to include the development of the Transportation System Management (TSK) program as a component in the Local Transportation Act (LTA) .` Wickstrom added that one of the key elements in implementation of these recommendations is funding of the update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in the 1990 budget. Johnson asked what the next step would be on implementation if Council approves the recommendation. Wickstrom indicated that some of the recommendations can be implemented immediately, such as the Environmental Mitigation Agreement. Next would be modification of the SEPA ordinance to include the 10 peak hour trip threshold. Third would be approval of the funding for the update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to implement the studies necessary to implement the LTA program. Driscoll added that the recommendation is that these studies be completed and the LTA program ready for implementation in one year. Dowell asked what happens to the agreements already in effect. Knapp responded there is a recommendation allowing renegotiation and execution of the new agreement to the extent legally allowable. However, the old agreements are probably better for the developers than the new so there will probably be very few wanting to renegotiate. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Task Force recommendations and that City staff be directed to take steps necessary to implement these recommendations. Hansen commended Ted Knapp for the time he has contributed to this program. Surplus Vehiclei The list of vehicles for surplus was reviewed and the Committee unanimously recommended approval to surplus the vehicles as included in the memorandum from the Fleet Manager, Public Works Committe August 8, 1989 ~ I Page 3 Agreement with State - R212catign of S 5 220th - S.E. 196th) Wickstrom explained that in conjunction with the State' s rebuild of SR 515 (which is on hold until the State gets gas tax approval) a City of Kent sanitary sewer main will need to be relocated. The State will pay the costs involved. The agreement authorizes the , State to proceed with this work. The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the agreement. Pavementor Pedestrian Access - Wickstrom explained this is in the vicinity of Sequoia Jr. High responding to the request from the Kent School District. The pavement is wide enough to place a 4-inch white stripe providing a 4-foot walkway on the easterly side of 111th. The cost is estimated to be $900 which could be funded from the Asphalt Overlay funds. Johnson asked about the additional 20 MPH sign requested by the School District. Wickstrom stated the proposed cost did not include the sign which would be an additional' $200. IBC has indicated this would not need to go to Council as it can be funded from existing funds. The Committee directed staff to proceed with placement of the white stripe and the additional 20 MPH sign. Pavement Management Program Wickstrom explained that the Pavement Management, Program is a sophisticated computerized program which provido-p analysis of the City's street system resulting in a detailed report for maintenance purposes. We currently have the old version of the program on line which is difficult to run. The software has recently been upgraded making it more "user friendly" and we are reque4ti',ng purchase of this upgrade, temporary data entry personnel and Vehicle rental and fuel for data collection. IBC has recommended approval since the costs will be funded from existing Operating budget. ' The Committee unanimously approved the request. Purchase of Microfilm ReadgX/Printer Wickstrom explained IBC concurred with request for purchase of this equipment as long as it could be purchased from our operating budget. Gill explained the 1989 Operating budget included $7,000 to microfilm all our as-built construction plant and purchase a reader. After the microfilming is completed, we anticipate having approximately $2, 000 remaining to purchase equiptaent. A reader would only allow us to look at the microfilm but ,,not make a copy. � n ,y L Public Works Committe August 8, 1989 Page 4 In researching equipment, we have found equipment which would meet the needs not only of the design section but also of the other divisions in Public Works using microfilm. The, existing reader printer used in Property Management is about t,en years old, unreliable, and emits obnoxious odors due to the chemical process used. An upgraded version of that piece of equipment would cost approximately $4,000; however another type of equipment utilizing bond paper, thus saving money in copy costs, and no chemicals would cost approximately $6, 000. It is anticipated we would be able to meet the additional costs through reduction of our operating expenditures. The Committee unanimously approved the request. RECOMMENDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TASK FORCE COMMITTEE The Committee recommends the following: 1 . The City of Kent should use the attached environmental mitigation agreement which conforms with the requirements of ESHB 1817. 2. Environmental Mitigation Agreements should not be the sole source of funding from the private sector. The City should explore other sources for funding. 3. The Environmental Mitigation Agreements should apply to, all new develop with significant traffic impacts as applicable under the State Environmental Policy Act and Kent City Code. 4. The Kent Environmental Policy Ordinances should be amended to establish a minimum trip generation threshold that would ensure that all new developments with significant traffic impacts under the scope of the State and Kent Environmental Policy Acts participate in transportation improvements. It is recommended that ten (10) be established as the minimum threshold. 5. The City should immediately commence a study of establishing a transportation improvement program as permitted by ES'HB 1817 for the purpose of mitigating the impacts of development. (The attached memorandum summarizes this law. ) The City will seek related information from other agencies. This study should be completed Withiin one year and should include involvement of the private sector in development of the program. 6. The City should work to establish one or more transportation benefit districts with other local jurisdictions. The transportation improvement program ,may be a funding element of such a district, • 7. The City should, at the earliest possible election, seO voter approval of a bond issue, the proceeds of which would be used scifically to fund a portion of the public sector's cost of the 277th, 196th, and 228th projects. The City is encouraged to pursue such bond issues in conjunction with other local governments. The City is near to securing sufficient private sector participation to build the wgst link of the 196th and 228th corridors and could proceed if local . ggvernment was able to fund its share of the projects. B. The City should establish a policy that, upon„the form4tion and determination of assessments and special benefits for ,sny local improvement district, it shall be in accordance with the statutory requirements. 9. Those individuals and entities that have entered into traffic-related environmental mitigation agreements prior to the City`s authorization of the attached environmental mitigation agreement, should such occur, should be allowed to renegotiate their existing agreemnts at the request of the parties, to the extent law allows such renegotip�tfons. 10. The City should develop and make materials available that describe the City's traffic mitigation program. 11 . This task force should meet periodically to review progress on these recommendations. 428OL-19L i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS August 1, 1989 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Traffic Mitigation In November of 1987, Council recommended the Chamber of Commerce form a, Task Force to review the City's traffic mitigation procedure and agreements. The Task Force was co-chaired by' Ted Knapp of Union Pacific Realty and Brent McFall, City Administrator. Members of the Task Force included Elmira Forner; John McCullough of Foster, Pepper & Riviera; Jack Bennett of CPI; Su4ptte Cooke, Kent Chamber of Commerce; Tim Schottman, CFS Continant6lj Mel Kleweno, attorney; Terry McAleer, Trammell Crow; Larry # ayzier, Seattle Master Builders; J. Terry Lewis, Boeing; Colin Quinn, Centron; Art Kleppen, CPK Systematics and Don Bogard, architect'. City staff participating on the Task Force were Sandra Drioc011, Jim Hansen, Don Wickstrom and Ken Morris. During 1988, the Task Force reviewed the City's SSPA process, the budget and bonding capacity, the street capital financing, the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan, t1tie: City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, the County's mitigation program and the State's Local Transportation Action of 19#C (a summary of which is included in your packet) . The recommendations and proposed Environmental Mitaion Agreement developed by the Task Force were presented - to ,'tht Chamber of Commerce in June of 1989 who recommended approval« , � These recommendations and Mitigation Agreement v4pe, resented to you at this time for your concurrence and further, r0opmmendation to Council. M CITY OF KENT TRAFFIC MITIGATION TASK FORCZ DUNE 2, 1989 PRESENT: Ted Knapp Suzette Cooke Don Wickstrom Jack Ber ett Sandra Driscoll Don Bogm;ed Jim Hansen Terry M1eer Marty Nizlek Larry 'X. ,P:i�azier Fred Satterstrom Mel Rana Ted Knapp reviewed the past experiences 'of the "Task Force which resulted in the development of some eleven recommendations (copy of which is attached to these minutes) . Furthe# action has been delayed until agreement could be reached on the wording of the environmental mitigation agreement. Over the last several months an agreement has been developed which has met the approval of the City Attorney and Director of Public Works and wid h several members of the Task Force. Copies of this agreement were 'distributed to those present. Jack Bennett inquired about the lump sum payment due if the LID were not formed within the tenjyeW period and what happens to that money. Wickstrom and Driscoll cohf ,rmed the money would be deposited in a fund to be used only for those specific improvements. Responding to Jack Bennett's question regarding the traffic study, Driscoll indicated that ,opportuAity specifically relates to the LID assessment. Driscoll resVieWed the latest revisions to the agreement. After discussion, of the question raised by Larry Frazier, it was determined the term "public hearing" used on pages 13 and 15 should be chAngod, to "hearing" . Kleweno wanted to go on record he is opposed to the whole idea of mitigation agreements as he does not think it :is a fair and equitable method of dealing with the impact ofj traffic. He continued he felt the burden should be spread fUttOer than to the people coming in and developing now. Knapp responded that while probably no one likes the process it is an attempt to develop a fair and equitable treatment of the costs. Ben(neitf responded that this provides an alternative to the standard SZP ' process which is time consuming and expensive and could reelt in the same conclusion so as an alternative could be better. jge continued that part of their comfort with it is the hope the C#y' will implement the LID process in a fair and equitable manner'. ,,, Knapp explained that since this is a Chambep ',;af Commerce Task Force, these recommendations will be presented io ; them for their concurrence. From there it will be presented tq the Public Works Committee and then to full Council. Cooks, raised a question as to the rates. It was explained that the rates ,dj,ff;er according to the applicable corridor and would not be any higher ,than the amount designated in the agreement but could be leas. : Bogard expressed c 4 Traffic Mitigation Task Force June 2, 1989 Page 2 some concern regarding' the process of dete aihing the trip generation for projects. Knapp added he felt the premise of the Local Transportation Act (LTA) was to get awak !from arbitrary negotiations dealing with the trips and this prpppsed mitigation agreement offers three scenarios all of which are consistent with the criteria established in the LTA. Cooke asked about the threshold level of 10 peaX hour trips that is being recommended. It was explained that if this recommendation is accepted by Council the new threshold would„ included in the SEPA review process. The 10 peak hour trips corresponds to the County's recommendations as well as that of ITS,; Knapp reviewed the eleven recommendations for discussion. Bennett felt the level of 10 peak hour trips should The changed. He commented he felt that allows a lot of trips to escape the process and if there are concerns about particular typais of development, i.e. residential, they should be addressed as specific exceptions. There was a question raised as what was realistic �adtinistratively. Satterstrom stated that four years ago Counci'il raised the thresholds to eliminate the need for the smaller developments to go through the SEPA process. It was clarified ;that lowering the threshold would mean each development would haveitq go through the SEPA checklist process. After lengthy discussion, it was determined the recommendation of 10 peak hour trips should remain. The words "peak hour trips" should be added aftorthe number 1110" to the last sentence of this recommendation. ,Fra' zier suggested that Recommendation #5 include the language that Oeyelopment refers to existing as well as new. It was determined t'It, the LID process would address existing development and that the 1A11,process doesn't allow you to go back to existing development. After discussion, it was decided the recommendation would stand•!,a* written. Knapp brought up the issue of the TSM ordinoc* and suggested it be folded into the LTA study and that it becovka. WI component of this program. The LTA includes a criteria tq a0dr,ess how public transportation and ridesharing can be used toy", improve off-site transportation impacts of development. The Ta klForce concurred with Knapp's recommendation. Bennett moved and the Task Force unanimously approved that the recommendations as listed be accepted and that they be taken back to the Chamber for review and approval before. going to City of Kent Public Works Committee and City Council. ... ,... .d a W+•1 n c a o 4 t d 41 J d w o, �"IW � 1'p1 I f L t b d RECOMMENDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL XtTIGATION TASK FORCE COMMITTEE ' The Committee recommends the following: 1. The City of Kent should use the attaohqd 'environmental mitigation agreement which conforms With the requirements of ESHB 1817 . 2, Environmental Mitigation Agreements sshquld not be the sole source of funding from the pri,vats sector. The city should explore ether sources for funding. 3. The Environmental Mitigation Agreement$ should apply to all new development with significant tratfio impacts as applicable under the state Environmental Policy Act and Kent city Code. • 4. The Kent: Envi.rumneiiLtil Policy Ordinatwoo should be amended to establish a minimum trip gonoration threshold that would ensure that all ,new developments with significant traffic impacts under ;the scope of the State and Kant Environmental Policy A-c-* participate in transportation improvements. It is roOoMmandsed that tan (10)be es-tablished as the minimt)m -t.brRAhn1 d - o�- 5. The City should immediately commence a ;study of establishing a transportation improVem nt program as permitted by ESHB 1817 for the purpos iof mitigating the impacts of development. (The et"taohod memorandum summarizes this law) . The city will soak related information from other agencies. Thio ; st,.udy should be completed within one year and shouldl .ioc7 ude involvement of the private sector in dmvelopment of the program. 6. The City should work to establish one 6r 'more transportation benefit districts with other local Jurisdictions. The transportation iapros ement program may be a funding element of such a 44 atr4ct. 7 . The City should, at the earliest posai)010 election, sleek voter approval of a bond issasueo , the 'procseedsa of which would be used specifically tO; fU'Ad ,a portion of the publics seector'se cost of the 22Ttt#, ;t 146th, and 228th projects. The City is encouraged to,pArouse such bond issues in conjunction with other local g6vernments. The city is near to securing suffi4i.sens , Vrivate sector participation to build the went link of the 196th and 228th corridors and could proceed if local government was able to fund its share of the prolootse. S. The City should establish a poliory ;lph�, upon the formation and determination of assop0monts and special benefits for any local improvement #,st)�ict, it €hall be in accordanoe with the statutory iraqUirements. 9. Those individuals and entities that hav* entered into traffic-related environmental miti.g4tion agreements prior to the City's authorization of thA attached environmental ,mitigation agreement, sh*pla such occur, should be allowed to renegotiate their ;existing agreements at the request of the partiaso to the extend law allows such renegotiations. 10. The City should develop and make ma,tarlse available that describe the City's traffic mit4qd�tion program. , 11. This tank force should meet periodically to review progress on these recommendations. 12. Public transportation and ride sseharing ;improvements and services (Transportation System Manage ,nt plans) should be evaluated and if praatic alpIt be' incorporated into the overall transportation imprpv4ftent program, Wllfl AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Carol Storm, Property Management City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave, S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AGREE,` This Agreement entered into by and between the City of Kent, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existipgi under the laws of the State of Washington, its succeaebra and assigns, (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and by corporation, its heirs successors and aesi,gps, (hereinafter referred to as ("The Developer") . WITNESS THAT: 1. PURPOSES AN1 RECITALS. 1. 1 This agreement is enacted pursuant to Chapter 43 .21 RCW, y the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , and Kgtnt City Ordinance 2494 , to provide for the mitigation of ox,�+sti.ng, known and anticipated environmental impacts at this tins which are associated with the development hereinafter, described. Thili Agreement is not, and shall not be construed as, a voluntary agreement pursuant to RCW 82. 02. 020, • and the provisions of RCW 82.�O2.q20 shall not be applied hereto. This Agreement is in ' ,Igo�pliance with - the provisions of RCW This Agreemen , does not preclude any evaluation and determination by the City of Kent that later actions or proposals undertaken by the Deveklop4'r may require a determination of significance and environmental ireview under SEPA. • - 1 - 1.2 The Developer is seeking permits ' to construct in the vicinity ' of The legal description for the site is attached hereto as, ,3ti.bit A. 1.3 The occupation and use of will create significant impacts on the City's streets, r+oa4e, and traffic system. The occupation and use will generate trAffic which will result in increased volumes reducing the available capacity at the intersections of during the, ,P.M, pikak hour further below the level identified as acceptable in toe City of Kent Transportation Master Plan (Resolution 1014) . Tht*- mitigation measurss * set forth herein are based on the Tranopprtation Master Plan and, if implemented, will allow said intersocttion to operate at a level of service equivalent to that level ofiservice existing prior to the occupation and use of the above-refereAced facility. 2. MITIGATION MEASURES 2 . 1 The Developer shall pay its proporti»onat;e share of all costs associated with the construction of the following improvements if said improvements are encompsasq4 ,within a Local Improvement District (L.I.D. ) or one or morn ( Transportation Improvement Program(s) : a. Installation of a four-lane brida, crossing of the Green River at the westerly projected al4roeot of S. 228th. Said bridge shall be widened sufficion#ly !to accommodate turning movements at the intersection with , upsell Road. 77 2 - i b. S. to the bridge noted in pa:p4 aph 2 . 1.a above. Said construction skull be sufficient. -to ;,,accommodate four through lanes plus left turn lanes as ,necossary to provide access to adjacent properties and turning movements at street intersections. C. The construction/extension of S. 228th Street from the bridge noted in paragraph 2 . 1.a above*' Westerly of the Green River shall be in a meandering' aliqm�ent to eventually connect with Military Road at approximately the 224th block. The exact alignment of this section shall be;adgtermined at the time when preliminary engineering design reports are prepared �a by the, City. Said roadway section shall accommodate a minimum of four through lanes plus necessary turn , lanes to provide access to adjacent properties and adequate; ,turning lanes at street intersections as well as any bridges or structures necessary for the crossing of Garrison Creek. d. The reconstruction of Military Road From 224th block to SR 516. Said roadway section shall ,' accommodate four 1 through lanes plus left turn lanes as necessary to provide access to adjacent properties and to alIpw"tutning movements at street intersections. The total estimated cost thereof, calculated by tl%,e 'City and agreed to by the Developer, in 1986 dollars is $7,834,iOb,. The final cost shall be based "on actual expenses incurred ' 4tlithe time said improvements are constructed. 3 - 2 FORMATION - pARTICIPATI� . 2 ? T Assessment and payment of the proportion0 'Ah�are of the improvements described in section 2 . 1 above by th* 'D*Vgloper shall P s• be made pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 30A43 relating to Local Improvement Districts (hereinafter L.I. .') • 2 .2 . 1 At the time of executing this ,agreement, the City has not initiated the formation of an L.I.D. nqr has the City adopted boundaries or a schedule for L.I.D. formation. 2 . 2 .2 The Developer hereby agrees and Covrenants, such agreement and covenant to run with the land fore, period of ten (10) years from date of execution hereof, to pa #1pate in and not protest the -formation of any L.I.D. which i41colrporates the improvements identified in section 2 . 1' and properi;y (described in Exhibit A which may be contained within said L.X.D 2 . 2 . 3 The Developer further agrees and covenants that the lapse of the ten (10) year period without the L.I.D. being formed does not release the Developer from-the financi1 1 obligation described in section 2 .2.5 as such obligation is to provide for partial mitigation of existing and known enviroaGa tb l impacts at this time associated with this development. 2 .2 .4 The Developer agrees that onal p4rpose of the L.I.D. described herein is to provide the oppO*! pity for the Developer to satisfy the obligation reflected ix% ations 2.1 and 2.2 .5 through the L.I.D. payment plan as o pt*te or partial mitigation of existing and known traffic envirQnnal impacts at 4 - this time associated with this development. The,Vsk#fes recognize that, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 35A.413-:��Wlrelating to Local Improvement Districts, the assessment for t*e Developer's proportionate share are the costs and expenses , allocated in accordance with the special benefits conferred on the Developer's property by such improvements. The parties agree t4at should the L.I.D. encompass all improvements set forth in Seotion 2 .1 above and the Developer pays its proportionate ,share of", the costs and expenses in accordance with the special benefits opn:Cerred on. the Developer' s property for the L.I.D. improvements, , the Developer is deemed to have met its obligation herein in full.. Should the L.I.D. not encompass all improvements in Septi 2 . 1 and the Developer is assessed for the costs and ex penses 'i,ot any special benefit to it by the L.I.D. as referenced herein, the parties further agree that shall not relieve the Developer of its obligation to pay its proportionate share of improvoioelnts described under Section 2 .1 that are not included in the ,. ,, ?. as set out in this Agreement for purposes of mitigating ex4 ipg, known and anticipated environmental impacts at this time abs4ciated with the v development described herein. However, any asoesisment. of the Developer for the L.I.D. described herein , oh�l. reduce the Developer Is payment obligation set out herein by th! amount of that assessment. The Developer covenants and concurs that;'any remaining amount which has not been further reduced throgfgh payments of Transportation Impact Fees through a Transporta 4on Improvement 5 - Program as set forth in Section 2.2 . 8 below or by, k%,# ,amount agreed to by the City at the sole discretion of the Oity for other ,f transportation improvements constructed by Developer with the 74 city's approval which mitigate traffic impacts !which are the subject of this agreement is due and payable -in, cash (U.S. currency) to the City within thirty (30) days 1of demand for payment, which demand may be made no sooner than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the ordinance confining the final assessment role,, nor later than ten (10) years aft,pr ' execution of this Agreement:• ; Notwithstanding any other provision, contained herein,.'the' failure of the City to make demand for, payment within said ten (10) year period shall not constitute a waiver of the City' s right "to require said payment or of thm Developer's obligation to pay. Such remaining amount shall bo determined as set forth in Section 2 .2.10 below. 2.2 .5 At the time that this Agr"m4pnt is being entered into,, the City of Kent has not adopted or dofi;ned a benefit area or boundaries for L.I.D. assessment purposso,, vurrsuant to RCW Chapter 35A. 43 . However, for the purposes of x4tj,, Ling impacts to the environment caused by the Developer and ; to pjrovide notice to all new developers of their possible future qb ,e �of any L.I. D. assessment, the City has estimated peak hour 'rsi for specific uses. To calculate the Developer's possible fu#** share of the L.I.D. assessment or its financial obligation �, se ribed herein, I the peak hour trips of each individual use will bo,;Icpmpared to the 6 - total available peak hour trips that the iZp3F "ents would provide. The parties agree that the develop%*A4,' described in Section 1.2 is anticipated to generate no morel peak hour trips. The improvements described in Section ;.3; will reduce the impact to Kent's East-West corridor ( ) , which includes the intersections referred to in Section 1.3 , by providing an additional 3, 600 peak hour trip capability to Int's East-West system. The parties also agree that the improvemens described in Section 2 . 1 will mitigate the existing and known environmental impacts at this time which are associated with t#e development. Any special benefit to the properties for L.%.D. assessment purposes will be determined by the City of Kant pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A. 43 utilizing the criteria, values, and project costs contained in the City of Kent's Comprehensive Trans�plortation Plan of May 7, 1984 , now or as hereinafter amended, and,;,the Puget Sound Council of Governments Green River Valley Wranoportation Action Plan of January, 1987, now or as hereinafter aMeodod, which are incorporated herein by reference. For purpo$' es of this computation, the Developer's proportionate share iris estimated in 1986 dollars at $980 per peak hour trip. Notwithst nding any other provision of this Agreement, for the devell'"0 ti described in paragraph 1. 2 above, the Developer shall pays *ore than the i currently estimated total of , "a�� Dollars ($ } in' 1986 U.S. Currency ($98o per p�hdur trip times peak hour trip equals $ ) or �;_1�at amount as 7 - calculated in Section 2.2 . 10 below (whichever is �69s) . In the event no L.I.D. is created and the property is n assessed under any method other than that set out herein, the Devi .rapier shall pay the lesser of Dollars ($ ) in 1986 U.S. Currency within ten years after execution oaf this Agreement subject also to Section 2.2 .9 or that amount , as, calculated in Section 2 . 2 .10 below. 2 . 2 . 6 Pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A,.,43 in developing any L.I.D. , the City shall evaluate all prope les within the proposed L. I.D. boundaries and determine whether they are specially benefited. All properties specially benefited wall be included within the boundaries of the L.I.D. and shall be am#aased in a fair and equitable manner as provided by law. All own,e s o,f properties within those boundaries, including the Develop r; may pursue objection to the assessment pursuant to State X^wI. '. ,The City shall set forth its basis for assessing all properties within the boundaries of any L. I.D. anticipated by this Agro4ptant. If peak hour trip generation is utilized in the assesai��t process as a method of determining special benefits and asse4s,$.Og the property described in Exhibit A, the City shall notify iel Developer at least 180 calendar days prior to the publ .-h,,hearing on the formation of the L.I.D. Upon said notificati.60' ,the Developer shall have 120 days to submit to the City a traffic study, where applicable, depicting actual peak hour trip gen ration for the developer described in Section 1.2 and shall have; the opportunity 8 ♦ • ' yet I�F��,� ` 4} . to submit peak hour trip generation informatioh, d,, data of other properties specially benefited within the bou of the L.T.D. Any traffic study submitted to the City must b+i -cattified as to its validity and accuracy by a Washington State lidond ,civil engineer generally. recognized as ' having expertise in, !transportation engineering. Where the City concurs with tho findings of said study, the peak hour trips established therein shall take precedence over that established under Section 21.,Z.5. The terms of this section shall, however, only be appElCa;,ble for those developments in which the buildings) therein are entirely utilized at thd- time of the study and the occupant(s) tiereof have been established therein for at least six (6) months, or as otherwise agreed to by the City. Failure to submit a certified traffic study in accordance with these provisions shall coast*tu�te a waiver of the right to alter, change, reduce, or modify-,airy peak hour trip generation. 2 . 2 .7 With respect to the final ;pro, ebt costs, it is the City' s intent to share with the Developer my grants or other agency financial participation the City may Vejceive on this project. The City shall make its best effort to * auxin such grants or other agencies financial participation. Tl ;split thereof, however, shall• be* such that the City's share np�. ''Jpesi less than that of the Developer. The City shall share with; ei Developer all final project coats of the project on a 50/50,hOvtit. 9 - 4x ' ; s r d 1! 2 . 2 . 8 If the City implements 4 ;'!; ransportation Improvement Program, as provided in Chapter, ,17 , Of the 1988 Legislature, within ten (10) years of execution, of ;this Agreement that includes within its boundaries the improvements identified in Section 2 . 1 and the property described in Exhibit, 4,,# the Developer may meet its financial obligation herein for thosolmprovements in full through payment of those transportation impaot,,,teies that apply to those improvements provided for in the Transportation Improvement Program. Should the Transportation ImptoVement Program not encompass all improvements in Section 2.1 an,* the Developer pays the fees through the Program for theportion of the improvements covered by the Program, the parties f%Vtber agree that shall not relieve the Developer of its obligat*oh to pay its proportionate share of the costs of improvements ,;4pscribed under Section 2 . 1 not included in the Program for purposopiof mitigating existing, known and anticipated environmental mp*co z at the time associated with the development described herein,. However, any assessment of the Developer under the Program for ,A portion of the improvements described herein shall reduce the Devol?per's payment obligation set out herein by the amount of the fella The Developer covenants and concurs that any remaining amount' WO*ch has not been 71 further reduced through payments of L.I.D. assasis h" as set forth in Section 2 .2 .4 above or by an amount agreed to bf the City at the sole discretion of the City for other transportit' on improvements constructed by Developer with the City's approval- which mitigate 10 - traffic impacts which are the subject of this agro�*,p ti ,is due and payable in cash (U.S. currency) to the City with,,M thirty (30) days of demand "for payment, which demand may be made no sooner than thirty (30) days after the effective date of ', ,hef ordinance confirming the final assessment role, nor later than ,ten (10) years after execution of this Agreement. Notwithstaikd +ncJ any other provision contained herein, the failure of the City toimake demand for payment within said ten (10) year period shall not constitute a waiver of the - City Is right to require said pant or of the Developer's obligation to pay. Such remaining aw4iin;'ts shall be determined as set forth in Section 2.2.10 below. 2 .2 .9 The Developer's currently esti4ted total of ($ _ $980 per peak hour. t:r#. ,times peak hour trips) identified in Section 2 .2.5 shall increased in the proportion to the increase in the Consumer PriQe�' Index (United States City Average for All Urban Consumers) , all.,,items, or the substituted index, as prepared by the United Sta,too,;, Department of .t Labor for the year preceding the year in which Oithor the final assessment roll is approved pursuant to the c l ! Improvement District or ten years after execution of this Agreq*op#, whichever I is sooner over this Index for 1986 in order tb'; 4�lust for any inflation in the value of the dollar. 2 . 2 . 10 Should the Developer's part� tion in the i L.I.D. and/or the Transportation Improvement P3:6401m not fully encompass all improvements set forth in section 1 above, the - 11 - Qi^ ;,�t�•� Developer shall meet its remaining obligation by R' '' the amount to be calculated as set forth below. If said is greater than that amount calculated as set forth in S**ti0z% ! 2 .2 .5, the Developer shall pay the lesser amount. To determine,7;,,tl�e remaining amount due and owing to the City by Developer, thq� Otty shall: 1. identify the geographic boun4a(r ,' s, of the area generally benefited by the remaining improvements not covered by L.I.D. or Local Transportation Program; , 2 . calculate the costs of,; ,#hq remaining improvements based on an adopted, long term trans ortation plan identifying, among other things, the remaining impr$6voments, which plan shall include any necessary acquisition of ;,right of way, construction and reconstruction of all minor and'Agajpr, arterial and intersection improvements, and identify design pt4ndards, levels of service and capabilities; 3. calculate the developer's proportionate share of costs of improvements described undo-r Sectlon 2 . 1 of this .t Agreement. 4 . give credit to the Develop, ; , 40;�I partiOipation I in public transportation and City adopted progrom ,tfor ride-sharing improvements and services; i 5.• give' credit to the Deve1ppl1 !,' for an amount 'i agreed to by the City at the sole discretion o,t jCity for other transportation improvements constructed by ©erl ; with the ,, City approvalwhich mitigate traffic impeoat , (which are the 12 - i subject of this Agreement; 5. the remaining amount due a ct -wing shall not exceed the amount that the City can demonstrat',� i$ reasonably necessary as a result of the proposed developmewnt. The Developer may appeal the City' s specific cOLlculation of the remaining amount due and owing to the City- Iq the Developer under Section 2.2.10. Such appeal shall be in ! writing and submitted to the Public Works Director seeking a, +c termination by the City Hearing Examiner. Such appeal must beF're Ceived by the Public Works Director no later than thirty (30) 4ays !of receipt by the Developer of the notice from the City of spogitio amount owing by the Developer. The appeal shall set forth the sOpocific item or items being appealed and the specific reason(s) ;goer the appeal. The Developer shall have the opportunity to preqont information to the Hearing Examiner supporting such appeal. Ths,,. City shall have the opportunity to present information to ,the , OAu ipg Examiner on appeal. The Examiner' s consideration and decision';s"ll be limited to the specific appeal items. The public hea3�iAq ;on the appeal shall be held :within fourteen (14) days of the ,,pj of the appeal with the Public Works Director. A Hearing ExaAnz* shall issue a written decision within ten (10) days of cqOcXU ion of pub is hearing on the appeal. The Examiner's depj.$ ,ination m be appealed to the City Council within ten (16) d4y' " ;, (Receipt of the • i Examiner' s final determination. The appeal ;0 1 ( -set forth the specific, item or items being appealed and the ;s egific reason(s) 13 - . I for the appeal. The City Council' s considera -j*4 And decision shall be limited to the specific appeal items. T,4e, City Council ' s determination shall be final and binding. 3. aSATISSFAQTION Qf CONDITIONS - -� REMEDIES 3 . 1 The mitigation measures identified in, Part !2 constitute those conditions necessary to completely or partia4p mitigate the environmental impacts on traffic and the City'a 'syetam of streets and roads as a result of the identified developr;ant. The City shall not deny or otherwise condition approval of, the identified development on the basis of traffic or vehicles trip generation except,as required by the Environmental Checklist Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the City of Kent on , 3 . 2 Failure to comply with the mitigation,,conditions and measures set forth herein shall result in revocatia"n pf permits and forfeiture of all rights to occupy or otherwise use the identified development. Should the City determine that th, e liDeveloper has failed to so comply, the City shall provide , thq Developer with written notice of such failure, setting forth the„jspecific item or items of failure, and provide the Developer an q, rtunity to cure the defect or defects. All permits and rights, .;all be null and void if not cured within thirty (30) calendar: ,!"'' of receipt of the notice from the City by the Developer. The iDtirpctor of Public Works shall determine if Developer has cured such #o, ect or defects I and so notify the Developer in writing within' : ;.;dirty (30) day opportunity to cure. The Developer may appeal ',,*he determination 14 - Nq of the Director of Public Works in writing to city Hearing F Examiner within ten (10) days of receipt of such de �,zination from the Director of Public Works and that any actiay the City to revoke development permits under this section sh?,l; be stayed pending such 'appealas. The Developer shall set forth the specific item or items being appealed, and. the specific 'toason for the appeal and shall have the opportunity to present information to the Hearing Examiner supporting such appeal. the C,ity,,'Shall have the opportunity to present information to the Examinor, op the appeal. The Examiner's consideration and decision shall, ' b* ,limited to the specific appeal items. The ub14 hearing on th6 .!app'eal shall, be held within fourteen (14) days of the filing of•thee appeal with the :Public Works- Director. A Hearing Examiner shall ,;issue a written decision within ten (10) days of conclusion o „ lei hearing on the appeal. The Examiner's determination may be, ,appealed to the City Council within ten (10) days of receipt ,oi# the Examiner's final determination. The appeal shall set forth 'lei specific item or items being appealed and the specific reasop(g) for the appeal. The City Council's consideration and decision ,sh ll' be limited to the specific appeal items: The City Council's ,determination shall be final and binding. Nothing in this paragr;*p4, iip intended as a waiver of either party's right to seek judieia� rayriew, as may be permitted by law, with regard to interpretatIp enforcement of this Agreement after exhaustion of these admi;t .grtive remedies. il - 15 - M 3 . 3 If, by any reason of any default or 'bt, h 'on the part of either party in the performance of any of the ,p pvisions of this Agreement, a legal action is instituted, the jpo ies shall be responsible for their respective attorney's fpesx, 1104 costs in connection therewith. It is agreed that the venuo ,, cif any legal action brought under the terms of this Agreement is1 be in King County, Washington. Thir, Aareement shall be tc +a ned by the applicable laws. rules and ragillations of t � r , and the City of Kent. 3 .4 - This Agreement shall be binding Ups the heirs, successors, assigns and all other parties legaljy,,;sppowered with signatory rights of any or all of the parties here *. 3 .5 Any notice or demand required or permitd to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient to be giv' i�a writing and if sent by registered or certified mail, return r#goipt requested, to the address of the parties set forth below, M ;;:party may give notice in the manner provided in 'thiseparagr, po the other parties of a change of address. Any notice shall lb `,,;dpemed to have been given on the date it is deposited in the 1U.8,' F�stal Service mail with postage prepaid. Names/Addresses I' 3 . 6 Should the term, provision, condition, father portion 16 - .r a of the Agreement be held to be inoperative, inval,id,!`,!� or void, the same shall not affect any other term, provision, cdon or other portion of this Agreement; and the remainder of ,tojo Agreement shall be effective as if such term, provision, condjt�on or portion had not been contained herein. 3 .7 Upon execution, this Agreement shall be ; rded With the King County Auditor's office. CITY Op I RENT Developer By: D rector � ;,� 1 c Works (Address) 220 4th AvenueSotuGth Kent, WA 9$032 ' UPRC\A05229.jmg I i 17 - # A Ji I OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: March 23, 1988 TO: Transportation Mitigation Task Force ROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ACT SUMMARY The Local Transportation Act states that it is the legislative, intent to "enable local governments to develop and adopt programs forIlthie purpose of jointly funding, from public and private sources, transpbrUtibn improvements necessitated in whole or in part by economic development, ano growth ." Basically, the Act (1 ) permits local governments to establish ,transportation improvement programs; and (2) revises the laws related to �, al or road , improvement districts and transportation benefit districts. , The Legislature declared that local transportation progr $ that are established ". should provide a fair and equitable meethoid for allocating the cost of necessary transportation improvements between tit public and private sectors. The programs should include considerationri!Ojpublic transportation as a method of reducing off-site transportatilpn impacts from the development." The Act also provides that the authority';to'Icreate local transportation programs through the Local Transportation Ac,t, i intended to be supplemental to existing authority and responsibilities of 'titles to regulate development and provide public facilities., LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Local governments are authorized, but not required, to devel1vp; and adopt i programs called local transportation programs (LTPs). This;Au$t be done by ordinance after giving notice and holding public hearings,. a,,Ea6h program must have the following elements: I 1 .' Identify the geographic boundaries of the entire 'Onera1ly benefited k... by the proposed off-site transportation improvemen ,� i 2. The UP applies to off-site transportation improvers not on-site improvements., 3. The program must be based on a comprehensive, long-tuft transportation plan adopted by the city. 4. The comprehensive long-term plan must: a. identify proposed off-site transportation impro ments that are 1 . reasonable; 2. necessary to meet the future growth needs o ' tlle designated plan area; 3. intended to be covered by the joint funding orggram; b. plan must include acquisition of right-of-way, Oonstruction and reconstruction of all major and minor arterfals,,4nd intersection improvements; C. identify design standards; d. identify levels of service; e. identify capacities; f. identify costs applicable to the program; g. indicate how the transportation plan is coordinoted with applicable transportation plans for the region and adjacen 4risdiction; h. indicate how public transportation and ride sh,01114 improvements and services will be, used to reduce off-site'1rnsportation impacts I., from the development. 41 S. This UP must include a six-year capital funding Pr'� �iamithat is updated annually. The capital funding program must: a. identify the specific public sources of rev+p4eI,'! b. identify the specific amounts of revenue necossirylito, pay for that portion of the cost of all off-site transpbrtwo;on! improvements .in the plan that will not foreseeably be funded , impact fees; C. propose a schedule for construction; � . d. propose a schedule for expenditure of funds; I - 2 - e. consider additional local tax revenue estimitedjto be generated by new development within the plan area if all' er o portion of the revenue is proposed to be earmarked as future appropriations for such off-site transportation improvements. 6. The program must authorize transportation impact fees'!to;be imposed on new developments within the plan area. The purpose As to provide a portion of the funding for reasonable and necessary off-site transportation improvements to solve cumulative impacis of planned growth and development in •the plan area. 7. The off-site transportation impacts must be measured 4s a pro rata share I'' i of the capacity of off-site transportation improvements being funded uhder the program,. 8. The impact fees cannot exceed the amount that the city, .can demonstrate is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. �.. 9. The program must provide that the funds collected .frod al particular developer shall be used in substantial part to pay for, improvements mitigating the 1mpacts' of the development. If they .are riot, they must be refunded to the property owners of record. , 10. Fees paid to more than one improvement may be pooled d ,expended by the city on any one of the improvements mitigating the, ir ,ct of the development. 11 . The funds must be spent within six years of collectfog; by the city. The unspent monies must be refunded. 12. The program must describe the formula, timing, securi ,. icredits and other terms and conditions affecting the amount and, vethdd of payment of the fees. 13. The city must give credit for the developer's participtijan in public �- transportation and ride sharing improvements and servi�jes',. - 3 - 14. An administrative element of the program must be devel;�pgd. It is 1 required to: a, include an opportunity for administrative Appeaj,; before an independent examiner on the amount of the fee; b. establish a designated account for the publI,C,.ad private funds appropriated or collected for the improvements -fdehtified in the plan; , c, set forth methods to enforce collection of th' public and private funds identified in the program; d. designate the departments or entities;respons7ible for administrating the program; and e. provide for future amendments of the progradt ip10yding the addition of other off-site transportation improvements. ,, 15. The program cannot be amended to relieve the city of„any contractual obligations made to prior developers. I 16. The program must provide that the fees cannot be collected from the 1 developers for any off-site improvement that is not 54pable of being reasonably carried out because of-lack of public fun s or ". other foreseeable impediment." 17. The program must provide that no fee may be imposed ''+ A a development when mitigation of the same impacts for the devel opmept, i,o,b�' i ng required 'by any government agency pursuant to any other local,,, stotle or federal law.. The legislation also sets forth specific requirements ;rel*tqd to the transportation impact fees authorized under the trans ,or*�,tfon improvement program. These requirements must be set out in the prr99jitself. They are as follows: 1 . The program must describe the formula for calculattgq the amount of the fees to be imposed on the new development. - 4 _ V t 1 2. There may be a requirement in the LTP that the dev010 'r Ipay a transportation fee for improvements not yet constru;tsd and those Jointly-funded improvements constructed since the begi0ning of the program. 3. The program must define that moment in the develoentapproval process that triggers a determination of the amount of the feq,. ;The program must define the event in the process of approving, a deve.1o*ent that triggers the obligation to make actual payment of the fees, 4. The program must provide that a payment obligation cannot begin before the date the developer obtains a building permit. 1n •thq, case of residential subdivisions or' short plats, the payment tli'Igation cannot commence either before the date the developer obtains ,o building permit or at the time of final plat approval , at the develop 'sl option. 5. If the developer of a residential subdivision or short; pliat elects to pay at the 'date the permit is obtained, the option to pqy ; hel fee by installments is waived by the developer. ; 6. The developer must be given the option to pay the fee jn a lump sum without interest or by installment with reasonable lnt#pest over a five-year period. This period may be extended by the pity through the program. 7. The city must require security for the obligation tq pa y the fee. This is in the form of a recorded agreement, deed of trust, ,'le;tter of credit, or other instrument designated by the city. I 8. The developer must be given credit against its ob1to{ t 3on� for fees for the fair market value of any off-site land or imprqv d' ,trOsportation facilities dedicated to the city. 9. If the value of the dedication exceeds the amount oft fee obligation, the developer is entitled to reimbursement from thei' fe Ottributable to � -- the dedicated facilities and paid by subsequent develloper$ within the plan area. { - 5 - 10. The program must define the criteria for establishi",periodic fee �. increases 'attributable to construction and related cos. increases for the improvements designated in the program. 11 . The developer must be entitled to a credit against oib °, fees, LID assessments, or other monetary impositions made spedffi;ally for the designated off-site improvements intended to be coveredh;;bY the fee. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION The Act encourages cooperation through interlocal agreements,: between the local governments to accomplish regional transportation planning 4pd ,development. The municipalities are also required to seek, within the ,ar of practicality, consistency between jurisdictions and the terms and conditiefi,s 'of the program. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS The legislation also adds language to existing RCW 82.02.,026,, that allows for voluntary agreements or payment in lieu of dedication. The'new language provides that a city cannot use the voluntary agreements ,foi off-site transportation improvements within the boundaries or area ,ca ++er�ed by the adopted transportation improvement program. TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICTS The laws related to transportation benefit districts were ,aqWed to provide that the district may impose a fee for the construction 'or+ i ,ca,nstructi on of certain buildings, but only if done in accordance with a ;l!o1 Itransportation program. LID/RID The laws related to local improvement districts and road,,impr^ovipment districts were substantially amended. If an owner enters into an agre'mOnt with a city waiving the owner's right to protest the formation of a 1t43 ioprovement district, that agreement must specify the improvements toib ;;i,fil�nanced and must . I - 6 - set forth the term of the agreement, which cannot excee4, teA years. The -. agreement must be recorded in the county in which the 'rpp rty', is located. It also provides that an owner cannot, by agreement, as,,& condition imposed in connection with proposed property development, waive his or ;'her rights to object to the owner's individual assessment, including a determination of special benefits, or the right to appeal to a superior copr't.the decision of the city affirming the final assessment roll . i The Act authorizes a city to contract with property owners t4 provide for payment by the owners of the cost of preparing the engineerfngjplans, surveys, studies, appraisals, legal services and other expenses assodiaied with the improvements that will be financed by a local improvementAfstrict. The owners"and the city may contract for reimbursement to the'.owner of those costs from the proceeds of the bonds issued by the district after formation from assessments paid to the district, as appropriate, or by credit in the amount of such costs against future assessments assessed againstthe Property, under the local improvement district. The reimbursement must be *ado to the owner ��- of the property at the time of the reimbursement. It mu$ Orovide that the cost cannot be reimbursed to the owner•if the district is, no,t formed within six years of the date of the contract. Any preformation wark, that is conducted must be done only under the direction of a city'. A city is authorized to provide, as part of the ordinance 04,eating the district, that monies paid or the cost of the facilities cone-trructed by the property owner in satisfaction of obligations under a traosprtation improvement program shall be credited against assessments1 . from the owner of such property at the time the credit is made if the moaioa,; p�aid or facilities constructed directly defray the costs of the :sPeoffled improvements under the district and if credit for such amounts ,is re•Fl ; jin a final roll confirmed for the district. Cities are authorized to provide through their ordinance creatfng the local improvement district that payment of an assessment on undgr*v4loped properties may be made by owners of other properties wi thGiln i the' district if those owners so choose. This is subject to the terms of ve 0orsement that - 7 - are set forth in the ordinance. Those terms must requftro :owners of the �'--- underdeveloped property. to reimburse the assessment p tj#„ � o the party who made them when the Properties are developed or redevel 61p04,;,,�c gether with interest at a rate specified in the ordinance. The ordi'"er ee 'pay provide, but is not required to 'provide, that reimbursement is made ,on ,� pile-time lump sum basis or over a period not to exceed five years. It m a, p ''provide that the reimbursement shall be made no later than the time of dissp)ution of the district or that no reimbursement is due if the underdeveloPol properties are not developed. These reimbursement amounts are consider0 ,1i'ns upon the . a underdeveloped property. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION This Local Transportation Act specifically states that it ts, intended to be prospective, not retroactive, in its application. i' I 3812L-05L - 8 - 1V\j yy !-kv KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES June 20, 1989 1 CITY OF KENT President Dee Eklund opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the�kfan*,Library. BOARD JUN 2 8 1989 PRESENT: Dee Eklund, John Lindseth, Jerry Oppliger, Gerry An e;rigonj, ENGINEERING pEpT ' Ted Knapp, Bill Dawson, Paul Morford, Ron,Ricketts, Mark McKay '! BOARD ABSENT WITH NOTICE: MaryAnne Kendall, Steve Mariotti, ' =i,e King, Terry Lewis, Claudia Otey, Joyce Rawley, Larry Schreiter, Dee XQ$ch els Jack Meredith 4 BOARD ABSENT WITHOUT NOTICE: Lorraine Glen, Bill Denney, Sr, Livtr,el Whitehurst OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gilmer, Steve Burpee, Jim Torina, Bill Kra r" Doug & Stephanie Klapenbaugh, Don Wiokstrom, Jim Hansen, Suzette'Copke, and Barbara Simpson - MINUTES: Approved. (M. McKay, J. Lindseth) * Motion to drop February and March past dues, as well as thooe businesses who've requested to drop. (G. Anderson, T. Knapp). Approved. Barbara Simpson reported that 1988-89 year-to-date shows: + 203 new members at $30,095.84 148 drops at $20,535.00 Ellen MacDonald brought in 156 of the new members for $23,609.00 in, dues. Her commission to date is $9,610.54. .a Vie• . •-r•` 'O-r a `u3 t..T,. .,, va•..r k! 1' ONMENTAL`3 iTr"of f ci' M TIGATION'T�kt Force•'Report: (Ted-Kni rp Ted Knapp summarized the makeup, methodology and position of the task force. Kent should commence the study (to be completed in one year) 4,t establishing a transportation improvement program pursuant to the Local 'T44sPortation Act' of 1988. • Kent should work with other Jurisdictions to establish onw*r,!',xo;e TBD's. • Kent should seek voter approval of a bond issue for transpoF*Ot'i�n improvements. • Impact fees should not be the only source of private, sector f Ading. The threshold for minimum trips for SEPA determination shdUld ;be' reduced to 10. ' • Informational packets should be developed and made availably *0 �'Xplain the program. • Public transit and ride sharing programs should be considglvodl;l', +n{thi program. In the interim, the Mitigation Agreement should be used. * Motion to accept recommendations of Economic Development•Ce t®o. Approved. (J. Lindseth, M. McKay) APRIL FINANCE REPORT: (J. Oppliger) Membership dues strong in April and May. - s * Motion to accept financial statement. Approved. (R. Rickey s* Q. Anderson) . * Motion to change Kent Chamber of Commerce checking account' froo ,Fi;:st ' Interstate to SeaFirst Bank. Passed. (G. Anderson, M. MOK&y) VOLUB N0. 1 10 •AUGUST 1988 r c e Comm .et nras PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER URGES NEW TRANSPORTATION FUNDING nu King County 1 Proposed Mth tea, Extension . Proleot Ted Knapp, Union Pacific Realty _....._._ 277th Extension Project, one of t"prpposed cross-valley corridors. Major Transportation Mitigation Agreement Proposed by Chamber The Kent Chamber's traffic mitigation' transportation from the public sector to the devel"nt is paying its own way," task force hammered out a landmark private. "Federal dollars aren't there The llaterim agreement worked out by agreement with City Hall in June to deal anymore for transportation projects,"said the Ctlidr task force assigns developers with the Kent Valley's traffic problems. ' Knapp. "We've worked for more predict- a pro raft s4are of jitigation,in particular The agreement calls for major new fund- able and equitable funding for co�tlon of a portion of a cross-valley ing mechanisms and a more even split bet- everybody." corridor.It also states that developers will ween developers and the public sector to'• The task force, in a yearlong negotia- riot pit;formation of a LID for lm- pay for new roads and transit services.;`,� ' tion process with the•City Public Works pro and will pay their pro rasa The task force,comprised of both public department and the City•attorney, exam- share.'bther facets of the agreement set aW private interests, recommended the ined the transportation corridors proposed foob ptximum fees for projects and City of Kent begin a one-yeai.study by Kent,their costs,and all potential fund- authors a developers to perform their own leading to a Local Transportation Program • ing sources. In addition to formation of a traffic',ptudies to determine actual peak (LTP) , as authorized . by.' the,,.?state LTP, the task force proposed Kent work hour trip 6eneration. legislature's Local Transportation Act of with other jurisdictions to establish one or The, gic',force's recor uhendations will 1988. The task force also recommended more Transportation Benefit Districts be reviewed by the City Council Public that the City move on construction of three which allow application for state funding Work's pornmittee, and if approved, will cross-valley corridors, which, aril and the opportunity to raise taxes for Please see Me 6. estimated to cost in excess of$50 million",' regional transportation projects. The task "The task force's report puts Kent in the force also urged Kent seek voter approval forefront• of local jurisdictions in, ' of a bond issue for transportation Z*VB THIS ISSUE. . . . . .Washington,"said Ted Knapp,director of improvements. Union Pacific Realty and traffic mitigation ' "This is a big step in the right direction Chamber Events.............Pg.2 task force chair.Knapp also co-chaired the ., for Kent," said Knapp. "The decision to BegtWication Winners......,.Pg,3 Seattle-King County BDC committee,,. ,adopt a standard interim transportation Business Briefs..............Pg.4 which Initiated the original Transportation mitigation agreement for all new develop- :N v Member List ........... Pg.5 Act legislation and lobbied for its passage'.".* merit is significant. It means a more level yy�Teachers Breakfast: I�. t1it In Olympia. playing Meld for all developers when it The Impetus for the study grew out of a comes to paying for street improvements. Business Conference....Insert �, strong 1980's trend shifting payment for ; It also assures the taxpayer that new _ New Member] the News• YO COM OMEES . • IN ACTION Frozen Lightning Products We Avelve standing committees and usHous task forces of your Chamber proWe the source of our plans, policies Science and serendipity have met in the ; attdctivlties. They are open for all formation of Frozen Lightning Products. mwoOerf to attend. For Informadon, call For nine and a half years Chuck Kalkwarf, tie,coanmittee chair, or the Chamber owner of Frozen Lightning, battled an office at 854-1770. unlooked-for result of manufacturing 00, D-OF DIRECTORS leaded shielding windows. He was, and . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 854-4600 remains, partner in a business which pro- Dee;Bklnd duces shielding windows that protect per- 4: Accepted proposed changes in sonnel working with radioactive materials. newsletter format to be included in "It was difficult to obtain uniform and 109-00 printers' bid. Newsletter will consistent results with our manufacturing rt�a only the banner masthead in two process," said Kalkwarf. At any time a oolor:, all other copy will run in black dielectrical discharge could run a fracture If k Paper will change from 70 to 60 through the structure of the glass itself, perm weight.These changes alone will leaving a permanent impression of a light- r"dt in projected annual savings of ning bolt. By 1982, Kalkwarf was con- $5,42 1 .80 of hard costs. sidering creating a gift item out of his * Accepted interim operating budget for lightning bolts from leaded glass, but the po'iod of July 1 to October 1, 1989. technology necessary to assure a consis- tent result lagged, a Please see page 7 Meanwhile, the U.S. government, for reasons of its own, was experimenting with the same process. In order to learn how to prevent random dielectrical Transportation agreement... discharges, government scientists tried appeal to students, Frozen lightning is Continued from page 1. learning how to produce the `flaw' on created by bombarding a piece of acrylic command. with over 10 million electron volts. The be brought before the Kent City Council in "When they'd achieved control over the electrons become trapped within the acry- August• process," related Kalkwarf, "it occurred lic, creating an electrical field. A con- The traffic mitigation task force included: to the U,.S. government that people might trolled discharge of the electrical field pro- Char Ted Knapp, Union Pacific Realty be interested in it as a gift item, They ap- duces a loud bang that sounds like a rifle, Tay Lewis, Boeing plied for a patent and published notices in followed by a series of lightning flashes Ddn Minot, Centron a federal register." within the acrylic. This produces a unique Jack Bennett, CPI Kalkwarf, aware of the work being piece of 'frozen lightning' permanently Dqn Bogard, Architect done, was definitely interested. He began captured in time." Mol Ktweno, Curran, Kleweno& start-up on a new company, and called it The product will be in distribution in Johnson, P.S. Frozen Lightning, mid-August on the West Coast. Frozen Art, appen, Dairy Queen After test marketing an acrylic piece of lightning products, which will retail for D�h Wickstrom, City of Kent 'frozen lightning' backlit in various col- under$50, are available by contacting: Jo Hansen, City of Kent ors, Kalkwarf decided to market two Frozen Lightning Products S*ra Driscoll, City of Kent types: streak and sheet lightning. 8628 So.'228th L*q Fnsier,Seattle Mstr. BIdrs. "Each one is unique," said the owner. Kent, WA 98031 'I"M+OM KcCleer,Trammell Crow "And the product itself has great kcientific (206) 854-6560 KWrt Morris, City of Kent Ftvd Satterstrom, City of Kent BON'E/V .fCA WwWF dM VOZ'Vo 1157 North Central Kent,WA 88032 ,� _ SHE'iRMAN BROWN I. $'FY F igRGEANT STA*0N COMMANDER SALES•XFAI V/CE a, PPAAV E-A907V/rEONZAAF 852.1480 852.3340 - 852.1050 U. S. ARMY RKqRUITING STATION 25847 104TH AVE.,SK OFFICE PHONE(206)854.7003 RAY MAZZONI KENT,WA 88031 HOME PHONE(206)854,7504 FLEET LEASE AND 852.1480 HEAVY TRUCK MANAGER Seattle 622.5240 I'm available any"Io usoe"Oker,Exhibits and Displays, Chamber of Commoft Meow.' s PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AUGUST 8, 1989 PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTIN NIZK STEVE DOWELL TIN HEYAON ' DON WICKSTROM JACK SP CZR GARY GILL JOHN MAACRIONE JIM HANSEN MIMI CASTILLO SANDRA DRISCOLL TED KNAPP KEN MILLER CHARLES PAONS LYLE PRICE Construction Activities - Charles P ra sons Mr. Parsons commented he lives 6 miles east of Rent and uses 84th every morning on his commute to work. He referred to the incident detailed in his letter of June 19 regarding work being performed by a construction company in the area prior to the work hours specified in his permit with no traffic control thus creating worse traffic congestion than the normal a.m. commute. Johnson asked what we could do to assure the contractors work within the limits of their permits. Wickstrom and Miller both responded that it is important for the City to be notified when these instances do occur so that we can send inspectors out at the time the violation is occurring. We are currently revising the street cut permits to specify working hours. Mr. Parsons urged that some sort of fine be levied against the contractors when they violate their permit. Miller responded the ordinance does address penalties as a misdemeanor. Driscoll clarified a misdemeanor could mean a $1,000 fine or 1 year in jail. The procedures foliovod now when we receive such complaints were detailed for the Comma ttee being that when we receive such a call, we will send an, inspector out immediately and verify if there is a valid permit. It was suggested the permit also reference the penalties for violation of the conditions of the permit. Traffic Mitigation Task FoXge Report Ted Knapp, chair of the Traffic Mitigation Task Force, reviewed for the Committee the direction and activities of the Task Force which are detailed in the agenda packet (material made a part of these minutes) . Dowell asked Knapp to explain the funding sources anticipated. Knapp explained the basis of the Task Force recommendations is the implementation of the provisions of the Local Transportation Act of 1988. Also continued involvement in attempt to form a Transportation Benefit District is encouraged. Other sources of income could come from possible State K 1 err Public Works Committe August 8, 1989 Page 2 participation (gas tax, etc. ) , impact fees, LIDs,, and voter approved bond issue. Development of an environmental mitigation agreement took some time to reach agreement , of,, all parties. Involved in the process was a local land use law fia, CPI 's legal representatives, Mel Kleweno# Boeing attorneys ,and- Union Pacific attorneys as well as Sandra Driscoll. The proposed. eovironmental mitigation agreement developed as a result of this process is included as part of these minutes. It was clarified the agreement has a fixed time period and a fixed maximum amount ,of commitment. Knapp added that an additional recommendation of the Task Force not shown on the attached material is to include the development of the Transportation System Management (TSM)—program as a component in the Local Transportation Act (LTA) . Wickstrom added that one of the key elements in implementation of these recommendations is funding of the update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in the 1990 budget. Johnson asked what the next step would be on implementation if Council' approves the recommendation. Wickstrom indicated that pwpme of the recommendations can be implemented immediately, , such as the Environmental Mitigation Agreement. Next would be modification of the SEPA ordinance to include the 10 peak hour trip threshold. Third would be approval of the funding for the ,update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to implement the studies necessary to implement the LTA program. Driscoll added that the recommendation is that these studies be completed and the LTA program ready for implementation in one year. Dowell asked what happens to the agreements already in effect. iiapp responded there is a recommendation allowing renegotiation and execution of the new agreement to the extent legally allowable. ' However, the old agreements are probably better for the developeis than the new so there will probably be vary few wanting to rer otiate. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of ' the ' Task Force recommendations and that City staff be directed .to take steps necessary to implement these recommendations. Hansen commended Ted Knapp for the time he has contributed to this program. VehiclesSuKplus The list of vehicles for surplus was reviewed and .the Committee unanimously recommended approval to surplus the vehicles as included in the memorandum from the Fleet Manager. ti ,• !?' Public Works Committe August 8, 1989 Page 3 Agreement 220th - S.E. 19§th) Wickstrom explained that in conjunction with the S' te's rebuild of SR 515 (which is on hold until the State gets ga4 tax approval) a City of Kent sanitary sewer main will need to be, Zal9cated. The State will pay the costs involved. The agreement authorizes the State to proceed with this work. The Committ ► ' unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign the agre ,ment. v t c s - Wickstrom explained this is in the vicinity of $e'qu oia Jr. High responding to the request from the Kent School, Vistrict. The pavement is wide enough to place a 4-inch white stripe providing a 4-foot walkway on the easterly side of 111th. '' The cost is estimated to be $900 which could be funded from the 4pphalt Overlay funds. Johnson asked about the additional 20 MPH ; qn requested by the School District. Wickstrom stated the propps4A Icost did not include the sign which would be an additional' $909. IBC has indicated this would not need to go to Council as it can be funded from existing funds. The Committee directed staff to, proceed with placement of the white stripe and the additional 20 MPH sign. Pavement M agement Program Wickstrom explained that the Pavement Management ' Program is a sophisticated computerized program which provides -analysis of the City's street system resulting in a detailed report tok .maintenance purposes. We currently have the old version of thtilp ogram on line which is difficult to run. The software has recently been upgraded making it more "user friendly" and we are requesting, purchase of this upgrade, temporary data entry personnel and veh*c a rental and fuel for data collection. IBC has recommended appval since the costs will be funded from existing Operating budget.,, The Committee unanimously approved the request. Purchage og Microfilm ReaderZPrinter Wickstrom explained IBC concurred with request for poohase of this equipment as long as it could be purchased frgm ; our operating budget. Gill explained the 1989 Operating budget, X; c',luded $7,000 to microfilm all our as-built construction plans and purchase a reader. After the microfilming is completed, we a,n4c'ipate having approximately $2,000 remaining to purchase equt"nt. A reader would only allow us to look at the microfilm but not make a copy. Public Works Committe August 8, 1989 Page 4 I„ In researching equipment, we have found equipment, which would meet the needs not only of the design section but a190 of the other divisions in Public Works using microfilm. The exioting reader printer used in Property Management is about tonIyears old, unreliable, and emits obnoxious odors due to they 0�a�.cal process used. An upgraded version of that piece of egpi t, would cost approximately $4,000; however another type of e i �t utilizing bond paper, thus saving money in copy costs, and no exicals would cost approximately $6,000. It is anticipated wO would, be able to meet the additional costs through reduction ofjour operating expenditures. The Committee unanimously approvod,, ' a,e'' request. I' I ,I+f