Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 07/03/1990 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE J U L 19 1990 Lu JULY 3, 1990 CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK PRESENT: Jim White Ed Chow Leona Orr Tony McCarthy Steve Dowell Scott Williams Don Wickstrom Jack Roberts Gary Gill Mr. & Mrs. Rust Bill Williamson Tim Heydon OVERLOOK ANNEXATION Jack Roberts explained to the Committee that he currently owns approximately 13 acres in the vicinity of the proposed annexation, half of which is in Kent, half in King County. At this time there are no definitive plans for development but would prefer not to deal with two municipalities. Thus, that is the primary reason for requesting annexation. They plan to do feasibility studies on development this winter. Their current project, Overlook Apartments, is not affected by this proposed annexation. Wickstrom added he has calculated an annexation takes approximately 60 hours of staff time. Gill added that a good portion of this time depends upon whether the City prepares the staff report and notice of intent or requires the developer to do same. After discussion, the Committee approved the reduced annexation subject to the petitioner preparing the Boundary Review Board staff report and notice of intent for review by our staff before submittal. It was noted that this will fit into an already heavy workload for Public Works staff. PROJECT AND STAFFING REPORT Wickstrom presented a report to the Committee for their review and information prior to their review of the 1991 Public Works Budget. Wickstrom explained he has developed a potential funding package for Public Works capital improvement projects. The funding means a commitment to these projects of all the additional gas tax money generated from the gas tax increase, commitment of the revenue generated by the County's vehicle registration fee (if passed) , instituting the LID's for the projects and instituting a street utility which could generate a net of approximately $800, 000 per year. Wickstrom explained there are five grants and four jurisdictions involved in the 192nd/196th Corridor. The Transportation Improvement Board would like to have all the grant applications simultaneously. Thus, the jurisdictions have to agree on terminus points, develop their applications and submit at the same time. After funding is approved, we would have one year to certify that our matching funds are available. Additionally, TIB has over obligated their funds by 3 :1; thus, there could be a negative cash flow by 1992 . If construction grants for our y PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 3 , 1990 PAGE 2 projects are not approved by that time, we may not receive funding. Wickstrom clarified that a street utility would not affect the proposed TBD but a voter approved bond issue would. The money generated by a street utility can only be used for street maintenance and operation and can not divert any funds already budgeted for maintenance and operation. White asked if a street utility were formed how much longer would we need to continue to budget for maintenance. Wickstrom referred to one of the tables in the Committee's packet which assumed everything in place in 1990, he estimated having to budget for maintenance through 1995. Wickstrom explained that the street utility revenue, however, could be a disappearing revenue. If the regional government (Metro) institutes an employer tax, the City would only receive the difference between Metro's charge and the City revenue. If the street utility is not formed, there would be no revenue to credit toward Metro's fee. White stated he has been supportive of a street utility for several years and he would continue to be supportive of it. White continued that it is one of the many funding mechanisms we will have to use to address the traffic situation. Wickstrom explained this funding scenario is the first decision that has to be made. If the growth initiative passes, it repeals the legislation that has been passed recently and would mean the gas tax increase is repealed. But for now, we will get the gas tax, the County appears receptive to the vehicle registration fee, the City has sold $2, 000,000 in Councilmanic bonds and another $3 , 000, 000 is scheduled and there is $800, 000 in cash. White asked about the personnel issue. Wickstrom stated that first a decision needs to be made on the utility. If that is affirmative, then the personnel issues will have to be addressed. Wickstrom added we will review this again in budget meetings. Wickstrom indicated these are the only two alternatives - either a street utility or a voter approved GO issue which would be detrimental to the TBD. Dowell asked on whom a street utility is imposed. Wickstrom responded it is imposed on businesses in terms of number of employees and on residents in terms of single family residences or equivalent. Addressing the personnel issues, Wickstrom stated he had provided information in the packet showing our workload. Approximately 11 full time equivalents (FTE) are required to handle those projects already under contract. White inquired if we were looking for consultants to assist. Wickstrom replied that we were but we would still need staff to manage the consultants. In addition, we would need an attorney to address the complex legal issues of the corridor projects. For example, 272nd/277th Corridor is totally outside the City; the west leg of the 196th Corridor is primarily 1 a PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 3 , 1990 PAGE 3 outside the City; the middle portion of the 196th Corridor is in the City but it goes through a Superfund site. Williamson added that will require a great deal of legal time just addressing the closure issues. White asked Administration to provide an analysis of the Public Works Director's proposal and to have it back to them within a couple of weeks. CITY LIMITS SIGNS Tim Heydon stated that three objectives had been identified in studying the issue. One is identifying the city limits for police, city crews, and citizens; another is notifying drivers that Kent's speed limit is 25 MPH unless otherwise posted and the third is welcoming them to the City. It didn't seem possible to meet these objectives with one sign. Heydon proposed placing a regular City limit sign with the 1125 MPH unless otherwise posted" message at the actual boundary of the City , then a sign indicating the actual speed of the street if different than 25 MPH, and then place the "Welcome to Kent" sign a little further in. Heydon displayed a sample plan for the Committee. On those residential streets that are also a City boundary, rather than a greeting sign, the City limit sign would be more appropriate. Conversely, when entering the City from the freeway, while not going across the city boundary, there should be a "Welcome to Kent" sign. Heydon displayed a map indicating the proposed locations of the greeting signs. Mrs. Rust asked about the Kent sign on West Valley Highway and 228th. Wickstrom explained that sign was a SEPA requirement as part of the mitigation for the project as required by the City's Image Committee which is no longer an existing Committee. Heydon continued that the actual design and locations will be brought back before the Committee at their meeting in Kent.