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.