Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 06/12/1995 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JUNE 12,1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Jim Huntington Tim Clark John Hillman Jim Bennett Robyn Bartelt Don Wickstrom Barbara Ivanof Tom Brubaker Eddy Chu Credit - One Site Detention System Wickstrom explained that when Council adopted the rates for the Drainage Utility System, Jon Johnson asked us to look into a credit for on-site detentionl. He stated that we presently have a credit system for retention. He said that there are.tom types of systems noting that it is the developer's option as to which one he wants to install. Retention replicates nature and the water is either percolated back into the grounds or it evaporates, or a combination of both. A detention system is a temporary store ,and then releases the water at a slower rate which will hopefully, not cause any c"Icts downstream. He said that when the ordinance was adopted in 1984 - 1985, the was a preference incentive for retention systems and that's why there is a credit in the ordinance. Retention systems are not something developers,prefer because there is no positive assurance that the water will be gone. Most developers have chosen a detention system: Wickstrom said there are approximately 195 facilities on-site which were dftwoped under various standards -many of the systems maintenance have been questionable of these privately owned, operating systems. He said this brings up a lot of questiws of when should we give credit. The Dept of Fisheries has usurped our authority and dvey do require on-site detention/retention in the Puget Sound,Basin. Dept of Ecology is alsairequiring us to have it in our design standards - we are just in the process of getter*c wtif'rcation of design standards for D.O.E., which then the Dept of Fisheries would allow-us to do all the review versus having the review go thru them (Fisheries). Wickstrom again stated that we have 195 detention systems all in various states of operation - all designed to various standards. If we were to imploment a program, we would have to re-review those engineering designs and calculations field review them to see if they are being operated and maintained correctly; inspect ',brlre yearly basis to insure the credit and to justify yearly renewal of that credit. Also, w6 need to ask what that credit would go against? We have about 5 or 6 different rates wing our 17 different basins. That charge is made up of a basic M&O cost where everybody,,no matter which 1 k l basin they're in, the same M&O cost is paid which is the cost to operate the City's entire system. On top of that are capital costs which are related to projects within the particular basin. For example, in Mill Creek Basin there is the Valley Detention Project. In the other basins there are water quality issues that are being addressed so not all charges relate to detention. So, what do we give the credit to? Wickstrom said that this will involve additional staff to operate and maintain an accounting and credit system as well as inspections to make sure that these systems are operating yearly in order to be eligible for credit. He said it will be a cumbersome process and another issue is, there is no new money to give this credit - it would all come from utility revenue which means that if you give credit the money would have to come from the other customers. (Rate adjustment) Because of all this, we do not support adding a credit for detention particularly since we presently have one for retention and that's strictly a developer option. Tim Clark stated that if we have customers who have made the effort to basically make the system work better by actually having invested in a significant detention system, then we raise the utility rate, it seems unfair to simply-not acknowledge that some people made an effort to actually do something to make the system work a little better. He stated that he does concur with the need to constantly assess the 195 sites. He then asked Brubaker if we were to select a standard, for example, someone with a detention facility capable of handling a large amount of water; would that be considered a fair standard and still meet a sense of parody in terms of people having to pay a rate versus those who would be given a credit? Brubaker said this could be a problem. Clark asked Wickstrom, how many of the 195 sites are "significant"facilities? Wickstrom stated that all the facilities are being built to handle their own runoff-they are not being built to handle more than just their own contribution to the system. It's much the same as mitigating traffic impact- creating a water.problem by releasing a much greater volume than the land originally had. He said it is hard to say what's "significant". The committee recommended that Wickstrorn took into what it would cost to implement a program for operation and maintenance for further discussion. Wickstrom noted that another issue we are concerned about is; the National Marine Fisheries will make a determination by the end of July, whether Coho is an endangered species - Coho lives in all the streams - so that's another significant issue we need to be concerned about. Recycling Programs - Consultant Agreemia Wickstrom explained that this consultant will be working with Robyn Bartelt in enhancing our volunteer recycling program in the multi-family area where we do not have the authority to require recycling so we present program to them. Similarly in the commercial end where we are trying to promote recycling in order for us to get to that 50% reduction in our 2 . � 0 waste stream by the end of this year and 65% by '96 and '97. Also,;#�#Vvolves enhancing our yardwaste program and supply materials to the public about what they can do with the yardwaste versus composting and hauling. He noted that the money,is coming from the King County grant of$116,000. In response to Clark, Bartelt stated that the containers are provided by the disposal companies. She stated that this is basically an educational program. The consultant will be doing site visits and taking audits Committee unanimously recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Consultant Services Agreement with Pacific Energy Institute. Titus Street Storm Rebuild - Bid Wickstrom stated that the bids received on this project were all within. 34,000 -$378,000 (7 bids submitted) - our estimate was $265,000. The low biddw was Shoreline Construction who is presently doing the work on 4th & James (near the Justice Center). He said that because of the grouping of,the bids, we feel we have a lair bid because of the number we received and where they all stood with respect to each other. !Wickstrom said we have the money in the various project funds so we are asking,tola grd this contract to Shoreline Construction. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said the power lines are overhead in this area. Committee unanimously recommended that Shoreline Construction be awarded the contract for the Titus Street Storm Rebuild project. 71 st Avenue South Street Vacation Wickstrom stated that this is a vacation request at 180th near WesA411ey Highway. The petitioner is asking that a small piece from 181 st and 72nd Avejb$4acated. We are asking that a hearing date be set for this proposed vacation. Committee unanimously recommended adopting a Resolution sip I-s htearing date for the 71 st Ave South Street Vacation. Utility Service to Naden Ave RV Parking Area a Wickstrom stated that the RV club has asked, thru Councilman fltt,,that we install a utility service (a sewer dump station) and a water service. In order' 6,41b this, it would cost about $20,000 - the big cost would be the sewer because we have-to connect it to the Auburn Sewer Interceptor. The money is available in the miscellaneo,s sewer and water improvement funds, if Council wants to earmark it for that. Bennett sbgge'6ted making this 3 a coin-operated facility. Wickstrom said we could deck into that and see if we could make it an option. In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said this is a small enough project that we could solicit proposals rather than going out to bid. He said hopefully, we will have it completed by September. Committee unanimously recommended installing utility service at Naden Avenue R.V. parking area. FEMA Flood laip n Maw Wickstrom explained that the Ordinance which originally adopted the new maps needs to be amended in accordance with FEMNs recent review. FEMA has made some minor changes - one was related to manufactured homes requiring that they cannot be built within the 100 year floodplain unless they are brought up to the 100 year floodplain elevation. FEMA also wanted a different date for the adoption of the maps. Committee unanimously recommended arnding Ordinance#3328 deleting a portion of Para. 190(D) associated with Manufactured Homes and adopting June 16, 1995 as the effective date of the new digitized maps. ADDED ITEMS - BRUBAKER Metricom, Inc. Brubaker explained that Metricom has a device which straps to utility poles and draws power from the poles and works on a radio frequency band; provides a radio frequency link-up from a portable computer into their device and from there it goes into all the internet services. Brubaker said Metricom has obtained approval from Puget Power to use their poles however, they will still need a street franchise agreement if they come into Kent. Brubaker said the City's Info Services persep has looked at their product. He further said this is unlike TCI in that there is no undergrounding. This is a self-contained unit. Brubaker said he recommends that the, City enter into a franchise agreement with Metricom, Inc. This would be a 5 year franchise; no franchise fee other than the initial signature fee. We could also include a paragraph which says that if you enter into an agreement in another city in the State of,WA where a franchise fee is imposed, we will receive the same fee. He said we would charge them a monthly fee which would be fairly small. Brubaker suggested that, if the Committee were amenable to this, he would draft a franchise ordinance for introduction at the next meeting for a first reading and it could be negotiated and modified after that point. Clark suggested that Brubaker discuss this with Parks Dept. to see if there is any use to 4 enhance services from Parks. Wickstrom suggested the possibility►= meter-reading from this service. Committee unanimously recommended that Brubaker begin the ;preliminary work on a franchise agreement with Metricom, Inc. 196th Corridor Brubaker stated that this project calls for the construction of a bridge over both railroads. He said there is a statute that allows the city to petition to the WUTC for the railroad to fund a portion of our cost in constructing the bridge. The first step in doing that is to pass a resolution stating that it is a determination of the City Council that a bridge over the railroad is the most appropriate method of crossing the tracks ratter than an at-grade crossing. Committee unanimously recommended that a resolution be adopted to petition to the WUTC for a portion of the funding to construct a bridge over the railroad in the 196th St Corridor project. Signature Point Area deft turn lane) - Bennett Bennett asked about the design of the left turn lane on WA Ave in front of Signature Point stating that you need to actually go into the oncoming traffic lane in order to make a left turn. Wickstrom said that the State did not want the Signature Point people to make a left turn there -the traffic would get backed up. However, they did allow the office complex in the area to come out and turn left. Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m. 5