Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 03/04/1993 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1993 PRESENT: DON WICKSTROM DAVID HAENEL ED WHITE ARNOLD EVANS TOM VETCH BILL DOOLITTLE SCOTT WOODS MR. & MRS. RUST MAY MILLER PAUL MANN TOM BRUBAKER JIM BENNETT ROGER LUBOVICH Arnold Evans Water Meter Issue Evans stated that he had received an exceedingly high water bill from the City of Kent during the winter months. After investigating his outdoor plumbing, he discovered that one of his facets had leaked and felt that it was a direct result of the winter storm we experienced in January. Customer Services Staff were then notified to recheck the meter for any potential leaks; however, no leaks were established nor was there any movement on the meter. After a phone conversation with Councilman Jim White, Evans was then directed to come before the Public Works Committee and discuss the possibility of an adjustment against the $116 water bill that he previously paid. Vetch explained that the City policy is that a leak has to be established. He said the City was sympathetic to Mr. Evans' situation and that it was a freak of nature that it happened, but went on to say that after rechecking the meter, is was verified that there was not a leak. After two readings had been taken since the potential leak was first brought to the City Is attention, there was no doubt that a considerable amount of water had been used. Vetch also stated that for the 2-month time period, approximately 2, 600 cubic feet of water had registered and that Evans normally uses about 700 cubic feet. Vetch said Evans' entire utility bill was $116.61, but the water consumption totaled $93.96. Vetch said that Evans normally pays for water in the $5 to $10 range and admitted that the bill was quite high. He said that the adjustment under the policy would be i 50% of the adjusted amount, providing that a leak had been I 1 , I r identified. Vetch went on to say that the adjustment amount is figured by taking the leak amount of the water usage amount and then they go back and look at the same 2 months of the 2-year history; then you take 50% of that amount and that would be the leak adjustment, which in this case, would be $42.40. Vetch explained that under the City's ordinance, this situation would be considered an "act of nature" or some "other" cause and would not come under the guidelines of the policy as it is written. He said that the only other possible alternative would be for Mr. Evans to look at his Homeowners' Policy and see, if due to the storm, he might be covered in this way. Vetch reiterated that at this time the City still could not substantiate a Water leak. However, he said that everything seemed to be back to normal and that Evans' water problem definitely happened the day of the storm. Mann felt that this problem would be an exception to the policy and Vetch concurred. May Miller stated that the Council has the ability to go beyond a policy and make those kind of adjustments, but that the City has to make sure that if they acknowledge such an adjustment, that the City clearly identifies "why" and not set a precedence for maybe someone else whose water got turned on in the summer while they were on vacation and possibly ran for 2 weeks. She said that the City has to make sure that this is really the kind of situation that would be acceptable to the City of Kent in order to make the adjustment. Vetch brought up the fact that under the City policy, you are allowed one leak adjustment per residence. If Mr. Evans is granted the leak adjustment at this time and he experiences a major leak down the road, living in the same residence, Vetch said Evans would not be allowed another leak adjustment. Bennett stated that he had two concerns: 1) The fact that we have a policy and 2) that he believed Mr. Evans' story to be factual. Bennett expressed the desire to help Mr. Evans along, but was concerned about setting a precedence. Wickstrom stated that the water did go through the meter and the City is in the business of selling water. He said that the City has to be concerned that the water was used, whether it was with Evans' knowledge or not and the fact that the City would be granting or giving a gift of City funds, essentially. Bennett pointed out that on Page 2, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2732 that a "credit on a one time or single basis does not constitute a gift beyond the powers granted. . . ". Brubaker stated that he felt this was a situation that was going to be more a CouncilmembersI decision, but the statement from the 2 ordinance that "Council finds that accidental leaks to or failure of private water systems. . .adversely impact the City's ability to provide adequate water resources. . . " . Brubaker said under the words, if the Council wanted to go forward it was fine and Evans could be given a one time credit on his system, but arguably under the phrase "failure of a private water system" due to the storm, the Council might be able to find grounds to support the one time credit. Brubaker asked Mr. Evans if he understood that under the City policy this credit is only extended one time per residence, so if he had a bonafide leak next month and it cost him $200, he would be out the full $200. Evans said he understood. Brubaker told Bennett and Mann that he felt there was probably a little room to move under the phrase "accidental leak. . .or failure of. . . " but he agreed with Miller that under these particular circumstances, under this storm, they could consider it to be a failure of a private water system. Wickstrom stated that if the Councilmembers were agreeable to the interpretation, a 50% credit/reduction of approximately $43 could be given. Mann asked Evans if this would be acceptable to him; Evans replied that the adjustment was satisfactory. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the Arnold Evans Water Bill Adjustment. Restricted Parking Ordinance Wickstrom stated that as far as Public Works was concerned, the cost of implementing this ordinance was approximately $6,000 for time and materials. Bennett asked Wickstrom if this was where the City would go to stickers versus the parking signs. Wickstrom confirmed that it would. Haenel submitted a slightly updated draft of the ordinance incorporating the suggestions of the Public Works Director. Haenel said the only changes being that anytime that the City Engineer is referenced, they changed it all to the Director of Public Works and/or his designee, just so it is consistent throughout. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt an ordinance on Restricted Parking. Further discussion was made by Bill Doolittle who inquired whether the City was having a problem with people parking along 6th Street in the vicinity of Kent Commons and questioned why the Commons was even mentioned. Brubaker said there had been an on-going problem around the Commons. 3 i Haenel stated the ordinance itself was a general, ordinance that gives Council power to pass and create certain restricted parking zones. He said this was merely an umbrella ordinance and the subsequent ordinance would be passed to incorporate various certain areas throughout the town. Mann suggested scratching the phrase "to the Kent Commons and other high traffic areas . . . " and making the sentence complete in the ordinance without any reference to Kent Commons. Doolittle was in agreement. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Restricted Ordinance with the above corrections. LID 333 - Sianalization at 72nd/180th Street Committee unanimously agreed to accept this contract as complete. 104th Avenue SE & SE 256th Street Left Turn Lane Improvement Wickstrom stated that bids were opened on March 4th and we received the low bid of $398,951.44. This is within the budgeted funds we have allocated for this project and we would like to move it forward for Council award at the March 16th City Council meeting. Wickstrom also stated that the awarding of this contract was subject to TIB concurrence. Committee unanimously agree to recommend Council acceptance of the bid of $398,951.44. Kent School Administration Remodel Bill Sale Committee unanimously agreed to accept this bill of sale. Under further discussion, Mrs. Rust inquired whether O'Brien School was going to be used for a teen center. Mann stated that accommodations would have to be made in order to make this a reality in order to reopen the school and follow the codes. He said it would cost the School District, approximately $1,002,000 and they would like the City to give consideration to the fact that certain codes came into existence after the school was built originally. Mann stated that the City should be concerned with the immediate needs, but continued to say that the Council Committee is at least looking at the situation over the long term as to the best location for a youth facility. He expressed a desire for the City to work with the School District and various other agencies. Bicycle Lockers Bennett brought up bicycle lockers at the Park and Ride for discussion and noted that he felt it was part of the Metro Transit 4 r n scheme of things. In the short term, he said J;im,='White said that there may be ISTEA Money available to do such a thing. Ed White stated there were two issues: 1) There was a program called the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that has an enhancement program where juridictions can apply for grant funds to do projects relating to non-motorized facilities, and 2) A grant application would be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for evaluation. The criteria that they look for is the regional significance, cost effectiveness and the ability to implement the project within a fairly short period of time. White said we 'could certainly apply for funding, but the likelihood of getting actual funding is probably unlikely since the project may not be as competitive as others in the regional significance sense. Wickstrom stated that staff could prepare an application to be sent along with the other applications already prepared for grant funding. I 5 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MARCH 4, 1993 PRESENT: DON WICKSTROM DAVID HAENEL ED WHITE ARNOLD EVANS TOM VETCH BILL DOOLITTLE SCOTT WOODS MR. & MRS. RUST MAY MILLER PAUL MANN TOM BRUBAKER JIM BENNETT ROGER LUBOVICH Arnold Evans Water Meter Issue Evans stated that he had received an exceedingly high water bill from the City of Kent during the winter months. After investigating his outdoor plumbing, he discovered that one of his facets had leaked and felt that it was a direct result of the winter storm we experienced in January. Customer Services Staff were then notified to recheck the meter for any potential leaks; however, no leaks were established nor was there any movement on the meter. After a phone conversation with Councilman Jim White, Evans was then directed to come before the Public Works Committee and discuss the possibility of an adjustment against the $116 water bill that he previously paid. Vetch explained that the City policy is that a leak has to be established. He said the City was sympathetic to Mr. Evans' situation and that it was a freak of nature that it happened, but went on to say that after rechecking the meter, is was verified that there was not a leak. After two readings had been taken since the potential leak was first brought to the City's attention, there was no doubt that a considerable amount of water had been used. Vetch also stated that for the 2-month time period, approximately 2, 600 cubic feet of water had registered and that Evans normally uses about 700 cubic feet. Vetch said Evans' entire utility bill was $116. 61, but the water consumption totaled $93 .96. Vetch said that Evans normally pays for water in the $5 to $10 range and admitted that the bill was quite high. He said that the adjustment under the policy would be 50% of the adjusted amount, providing that a leak had been 1 identified. Vetch went on to say that the adjustment amount is figured by taking the leak amount of the water usage amount and then they go back and look at the same 2 months of the 2-year history; then you take 50% of that amount and that would be the leak adjustment, which in this case, would be $42 .40. Vetch explained that under the City's ordinance, this situation would be considered an "act of nature" or some "other" cause and would not come under the guidelines of the policy as it is written. He said that the only other possible alternative would be for Mr. Evans to look at his Homeowners ' Policy and see, if due to the storm, he might be covered in this way. Vetch reiterated that at this time the City still could not substantiate a water leak. However, he said that everything seemed to be back to normal and that Evans' water problem definitely happened the day of the storm. Mann felt that this problem would be an exception to the policy and Vetch concurred. May Miller stated that the Council has the ability to go beyond a policy and make those kind of adjustments, but that the City has to make sure that if they acknowledge such an adjustment, that the City clearly identifies "why" and not set a precedence for maybe someone else whose water got turned on in the summer while they were on vacation and possibly ran for 2 weeks. She said that the City has to make sure that this is really the kind of situation that would be acceptable to the City of Kent in order to make the adjustment. Vetch brought up the fact that under the City policy, you are allowed one leak adjustment per residence. If Mr. Evans is granted the leak adjustment at this time and he experiences a major leak down the road, living in the same residence, Vetch said Evans would not be allowed another leak adjustment. Bennett stated that he had two concerns: 1) The fact that we have a policy and 2) that he believed Mr. Evans' story to be factual. Bennett expressed the desire to help Mr. Evans along, but was concerned about setting a precedence. Wickstrom stated that the water did go through the meter and the City is in the business of selling water. He said that the City has to be concerned that the water was used, whether it was with Evans' knowledge or not and the fact that the City would be granting or giving a gift of City funds, essentially. Bennett pointed out that on Page 2, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2732 that a "credit on a one time or single basis does not constitute a gift beyond the powers granted. . . ". Brubaker stated that he felt this was a situation that was going to be more a Councilmembers ' decision, but the statement from the 2 ,.r ordinance that "Council finds that accidental leaks to or failure of private water systems. . .adversely impact the City's ability to provide adequate water resources. . . " . Brubaker said under the words, if the Council wanted to go forward it was fine and Evans could be given a one time credit on his system, but arguably under the- phrase "failure of a private water system" due to the storm, the Council might be able to find grounds to support the one time credit. Brubaker asked Mr. Evans if he understood that under the City policy this credit is only extended one time per residence, so if he had a bonafide leak next month and it cost him $200, he would be out the full $200. Evans said he understood. Brubaker told Bennett and Mann that he felt there was probably a little room to move under the phrase "accidental leak. . .or failure of. . . " but he agreed with Miller that under these particular circumstances, under this storm, they could consider it to be a failure of a private water system. Wickstrom stated that if the Councilmembers were agreeable to the interpretation, a 50% credit/reduction of approximately $43 could be given. Mann asked Evans if this would be acceptable to him; Evans replied that the adjustment was satisfactory. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the Arnold Evans Water Bill Adjustment. Restricted Parking Ordinance Wickstrom stated that as far as Public Works was concerned, the cost of implementing this ordinance was approximately $6,000 for time and materials. Bennett asked Wickstrom if this was where the City would go to stickers versus the parking signs. Wickstrom confirmed that it would. Haenel submitted a slightly updated draft of the ordinance incorporating the suggestions of the Public Works,Director. Haenel said the only changes being that anytime that the City Engineer is referenced, they changed it all to the Director of Public Works and/or his designee, just so it is consistent throughout. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt an ordinance on Restricted Parking. Further discussion was made by Bill Doolittle who inquired whether the City was having a problem with people parking along 6th Street in the vicinity of Kent Commons and questioned why the Commons was even mentioned. Brubaker said there had been an on-going problem around the Commons. 3 Haenel stated the ordinance itself was a general ordinance that gives Council power to pass and create certain restricted parking zones. He said this was merely an umbrella ordinance and the subsequent ordinance would be passed to incorporate various certain areas throughout the town. Mann suggested scratching the phrase "to the Kent Commons and other high traffic areas . . . " and making the sentence complete in the ordinance without any reference to Kent Commons. Doolittle was in agreement. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Restricted Ordinance with the above corrections. LID 333 - Sianalization at 72nd/180th Street Committee unanimously agreed to accept this contract as complete. 104th Avenue SE & SE 256th Street Left Turn Lane Improvement Wickstrom stated that bids were opened on March 4th and we received the low bid of $398,951.44. This is within the budgeted funds we have allocated for this project and we would like to move it forward for Council award at the March 16th City Council meeting. Wickstrom also stated that the awarding of this contract was subject to TIB concurrence. Committee unanimously agree to recommend Council acceptance of the bid of $398,951.44. Kent School Administration Remodel Bill Sale Committee unanimously agreed to accept this bill of sale. Under further discussion, Mrs. Rust inquired whether O'Brien School was going to be used for a teen center. Mann stated that accommodations would have to be made in order to make this a reality in order to reopen the school and follow the codes. He said it would cost the School District, approximately $1, 002 ,000 and they would like the City to give consideration to the fact that certain codes came into existence after the school was built originally. Mann stated that the City should be concerned with the immediate needs, but continued to say that the Council Committee is at least looking at the situation over the long term as to the best location for a youth facility. He expressed a desire for the City to work with the School District and various other agencies. Bicycle Lockers Bennett brought up bicycle lockers at the Park and Ride for discussion and noted that he felt it was part of the Metro Transit 4 '7 t � rt scheme of things. In the short term, he said Jim White said that there may be ISTEA Money available to do such a thing. Ed White stated there were two issues: 1) There was a program called the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that has an enhancement program where juridictions can apply for grant funds to do projects relating to non-motorized facilities, and 2) A grant application would be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for evaluation. The criteria that they look for is the regional significance, cost effectiveness and the ability to implement the project within a fairly short period of time. White said we 'could certainly apply for funding, but the likelihood of getting actual funding is probably unlikely since the project may not be as competitive as others in the regional significance sense. Wickstrom stated that staff could prepare an application to be sent along with the other applications already prepared for grant funding. 5