HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 10/05/1998 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 5, 1998
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Clark, Chair, Tom Brotherton, Rico
Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Hams, Leona Orr, Don Wickstrom, Barbara Ekstrom, Fred
Satterstrom, Ed White, Gary Gill, Laurie Evezich, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Les Curren, Jim and Elsy Rust
The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tim Clark, at 3:40PM. There was one added
item: Chestnut Ridge.
Approval of Minutes of September 21, 1998
Committee Member, Tom Brotherton, moved to approve the minutes of the September
21, 1998 Public Works/Planning Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded and
passed.
Topsoil—Regulation of Sales
Council President, Leona Orr, presented the problem of a consumer purchasing topsoil
and receiving 1/3 of the product anticipated. Ms. Orr said she learned that topsoil is
"Ruff' before it's sold, so the volume may be slightly or considerably more before it
settles. The consumer had asked if the Council would be willing to look at the possibility
of regulating sales, at least to the point of letting the consumer know what the fluffing
does and how much difference that makes in the amount of soil a person should order.
Citizen, Les Curren, 21029 SE 272n, St., Maple Valley, related that when you buy and
pay for one cubic yard, you may receive anything up to one cubic yard, but from the
majority of places you would receive 20-33% of a cubic yard. He said the word"fluff' is
an industry word, which is used to describe the air in the topsoil. When you purchase
topsoil, you are not informed that you are receiving approximately 1/3 cubic yard. If
consumers complain, the business tells them that what they are measuring is compacted
soil and what they were sold was fluff. They do not give the consumer this information
when purchasing. Mr. Curren said that when the consumer pays $10 per cubic yard and
but only gets what fills 1/3 cubic yard,then that person is actually paying $30 per cubic
yard.
Mr. Curren told the Committee that he had measured the 35 cubic yard topsoil purchase
of a friend and the order amounted to 11.6 cubic yards. He contacted a friend that works
at the Seattle Department of Weights and Measures who also measured the order at 11.6
cubic yards. Mr. Curren then contacted the State Weights and Measures who measured
12.8 cubic yards. Mr. Curren is asking for a requirement for topsoil companies to post on
their walls, to verbally tell purchasers, and to put into their purchase agreement the
information that the customer will only receive about 1/3 cubic yard of soil after
• compaction.
R
r
Tom Brotherton asked Mr. Curren if he thought that companies intentionally added air to
• the soil. Mr. Curren said he did not think so because it would be too costly. He clarified
that it is not the amount the companies are selling that is the problem, but that people are
not told they will receive less than what they think they have ordered.
Mr. Brotherton asked if Mr. Curren was aware of any requirements on neighboring cities
or jurisdictions. Mr. Curren said that Seattle allows around 20% for compaction. If a
person orders 8 yards, companies have to deliver 10 to make up for the fluff. Leona Orr
said that she was told there is a blowing machine used to mix the soil that could add air to
the soil. Mr. Curren said the soil is a blend of 1/3 sand, 1/3 loam, and 1/3 cow manure
and must be thoroughly mixed with a machine.
Public Works Director, Don Wickstrom, said he felt it was unusual to receive only 66%
of what was ordered. He said that topsoil should not be heavily compacted and that 25%-
30% less was more typical. Committee Member Rico Yingling asked if Mr. Wickstrom
was familiar with any aeration devices. Mr. Wickstrom said he thought the problem was
just in the mixing of the topsoil.
Gary Gill, City Engineer, said that when topsoil is purchased by the City for road
projects, it is purchased by the cubic yard. It can be measured from a volume standpoint
in the truck or after it has been dumped. He said it is always assumed that it will be 25%
less volume than if it was compacted in place. Mr. Gill said that it was unrealistic to
receive only 1/3 of what was ordered after compaction.
Mr. Brotherton moved to direct administration to investigate the problem and come back
to the committee with a solution to protect the consumer. The motion was seconded and
passed 3-0.
Annexation Policy and Strategy
Planning Director, Jim Harris, showed the Committee a map of the City outlining the
principle annexation area which goes from about 180th on the north of the City, to south
of Renton all the way to 2771h on the south of the City,just north of Auburn and all the
way from Pacific Highway South on the west, and to Soos Creek on the east. There are
about 30 sq. miles in the City, and this annexation would extend the City's boundaries by
another 4-5 sq. miles. Tom Brotherton asked what the population of the annexation area
was. Mr. Harris responded that it was estimated at approximately 15,000 people.
Mr. Harris said other areas in the potential annexation area include the Smith Brothers
Farm area, 277`h and West Valley Highway which is a large wetland area, an area south
of the river along Central Avenue down to the area north of Auburn along the Green
River/Minkler Road, and an island at Military Road and Kent/Des Moines Road, still in
the County but surrounded completely by the City. There are also other small areas that
are still in the county. What the policies are intended to do, Mr. Harris explained, is to
state in a very general way how to deal with the areas that are left.
•
r
Mr. Harris went over the changes from the policies that were adopted last year. He said
that the policies were almost precisely what was approved last year except for 10 and 11
which are brand new. The first policy puts the annexation in the perspective of being
related to the general population plan, the GMC Plan. The second policy, which states
the City should assist citizens who express the desire to annex to the City, remains
unchanged. Mr. Harris related that he had two parties negotiating and talking with him
about annexation who have a very positive attitude about Kent. The third policy, with
some additions and deletions, says that to the extent possible, operating impacts from
previous annexations need to be absorbed prior to initiating annexation of additional
areas. Last year, the Del Mar Area and the Meridian Valley Country Club brought in
approximately 8,000 more people. The City is absorbing the costs in City services that
those annexations brought.
Policies Four and Five were deleted. Policy Six (new Four) states that the City shall
identify to the extent possible the revenue and expenses associated with each annexation.
The City shall identify the capital facilities impact associated with each annexation and
shall determine costs and the time-line to accomplish it. Mr. Harris clarified that these
policies say the City should know what's happening now with the existing annexations
and what the impacts are. Policy Seven was incorporated back into number one. The old
Policy Eight(new Five) stays the same. Policy Nine was deleted. Policy Ten is now the
new Six and stays the same.
Policy Eleven, which is now the new Seven,was updated with a couple of words. The
City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment hearings
for an annexation area until the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance. Mr. Harris
said this is so the City is not doing pre-zoning prior to annexation only to never have the
annexation happen.
The new Policy Eight is an update of the old Policy Twelve. After the City Council
adopts an annexation ordinance the actual date the annexation takes place shall coincide
with the availability of revenue to be received by the City for the annexed area. Tom
Brotherton made the point that the City did not start receiving property taxes from the
annexed area for a year after the annexation, and that the new Policy Eight was in conflict
with the law. Mr. Harris said that only property taxes lag, and some revenue would
coincide. This policy would make the money immediately available as the City needs to
make sure that services provided do not drain the funds. Mr. Brotherton suggested
changing the wording to say `to the maximum extent possible' as property taxes would
not fit with the policy as worded with `shall'.
Policy Nine is an update from the old Thirteen. The preferred method of annexation is
through the property owner petition method. However,no-protest annexation agreements
as well as the election method may from time to time be in the citizen's and City's best
interest. Mr. Harris said that one of the Strategies deals with a no-protest annexation.
He said it is very important when people want the City's services such as sewer and water
that they sign a no-protest annexation so they will not later have these services and then
• say they don't want to be in the City. Chair, Tim Clark, stated his feelings that the no-
protest policy was an aggressive assertion. Jim Harris agreed that the City has been very
aggressive on getting no-protest annexation agreements and that there are a number of
no-protest annexation agreements in areas north and east of the existing City boundaries.
He said that the whole western chunk of the Meridian annexation was a no-protest, LID
annexation.
Policy 10, which is a new policy, states that the highly developed urban areas within
Kent's PAA shall have the highest priority for annexation to the City of Kent. Mr. Harris
said this was because those areas bring a return to the City. It costs a lot of money to deal
with an annexation only to have it go away or to have a very rural area which does not do
anything for the City. The new Policy 11 states that if the urban-rural line, as adopted by
King County adjacent to Kent's PAA, is moved beyond the current line, the City will
reexamine the PAA boundary in light of fixture annexation impacts.
Mr. Harris said that his Department had come up with five Strategy statements. They are
now meeting with Renton to finalize the potential annexation lines for Renton and Kent.
He said it was very important to get an interlocal agreement and that Kent has one with
Federal Way, Auburn, and Renton. In explaining the second strategy, Mr. Harris said the
rural areas within Kent's PAA would have priority,just not as much as the urbanized area
lying to the northeast of the City.
The third strategy, which details Kent's next proposed annexation and incorporates the
urbanized area lying westerly of 108t'Ave. SE and between SE 200a` ST. and SE 225"
Pl., is a no-protest annexation. Mr. Harris said the City has enough no-protest annexation
agreements for annexation to occur there. That area is not in the City but the City already
serves sewer and water there. The next step, Strategy Four,would be to explore
annexing the urbanized area easterly of 108''Ave. SE, including Park Orchard. Then,
the possible annexation of the area lying north of SE 240'h and extending to
approximately 224 h, and lying between 116'' SE and Soos Creek should be explored.
Mr. Harris said there is presently a group of people very interested in that annexation.
Tom Brotherton questioned why only half of the intersection at 108''and 208'h, a major
business area, was included in the proposed annexation. Jim Harris said it is important to
retain a modem of commercial components for fixture annexations because that's what
pays for the new police officers and the new planners. If all of the commercial
components are taken in now, then two-five years later when it's time to annex the
adjoining area, that area won't pay for itself because it's strictly a residential annexation.
The money from the commercial area that was annexed earlier would have already been
spent. If that eastside area in question is saved to go with the annexation of the area
towards Kentridge High School and Soos Creek,there will be a modem of commercial
income that will help defray the costs that are going to occur from taking in the
residential area.
Mr. Brotherton said he would like to see a financial analysis comparing annexing all of
the commercial area and bringing in tax dollars now or of leaving a modem of
. commercial to go with the residential for future annexation. Rico Yingling asked why
the long-term plans could not be tailored to bring in the money early and a mechanism
• structured for saving. Mr. Harris felt that would not work as the money would be in the
general fund and would be spent.
Tim Clark took exception to the no-protest annexation agreements and said that people
should not be forced into a position where they no longer have a choice. He said that as
time passes and citizens become more isolated in a County with declining services, the
City will look better to them and they will choose to come into the City. What the no-
protest policy does is force people to come into the City because they are inside the pre-
annexation area. Jim Harris reminded the Committee that there was no date put on the
annexations and that they could take place 5 or 10 years from now, but that the policies
prioritize the urban areas for annexation.
Rico Yingling asked what the downside of waiting would be. Mr. Harris responded that
there would be increasing frustration for the citizens, and the possibility that land use
issues could become a detriment to the neighborhood and the City would have no control
over them. He said the City does have some control wherever there are City utilities.
The City also controls Fire, but not Police action. Mr. Yingling asked about density to
which Mr. Harris replied that the density differences in the County and the City are about
the same. He said that the City has incorporated much of the County's zoning code
density factors into City code and the two are similar in their densification goals and their
infrastructure designs.
Tom Brotherton suggested informing the citizens of service levels in all areas by
• collecting information on taxes, Police, Fire, and other services. He said getting
information and letting people make an informed decision would be the preferred method
of annexation.
Tim Clark felt that Policy 10 was too aggressive. He took exception to the words `shall
have the highest priority for annexation'. He said that there are other areas including the
rural areas that should have priority. Rico Yingling suggested changing the wording to
say `high priority' rather than `highest priority'.
Tom Brotherton moved that the Committee recommend approval of the modified
annexation policy& strategy. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 3-0.
Chestnut Ridge
Public Works Director, Don Wickstrom, said that the Department is trying to get more
feedback, and some of the response to the Chestnut Ridge problem may be different from
what was proposed. The other issue is to develop standards that are acceptable to
everyone and to get Council concurrence.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:52PM.
16
•
Kent's
Annexation Policy and Strategy
•
Proposed Motion:
Recommend approval of the modified
annexation policies and strategies.
CITY OF L"11!SV Js
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P.Harris,Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
TO: PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
TIM CLAW CHAIR, TOM BROTHERTON AND RICO
YINGLING
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY AND STRATEGY
• The staff revised Annexation Policies and Strategy is being presented to the Committee as
a result of the Council's designation of the existing Annexation Policy and Strategy as a
High Priority Target issue for 1998.
The Committee has reviewed the policies at the June 10`h and July 151h meetings.
Questions raised at these meetings will be addressed.
The changes from the 1997 adopted policies are noted by a '�s (crossed out) and
additions (underlined).
JPH:pm ANNEXMDOC
•
220 4th AVENUE SOUTH I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
KENT'S ANNEXATION POLICY AND STRATEGY
POLICIES
1. The City's annexation goal is to annex be consistent with growth mana eg ment
requirements which include annexations of the remainder of Kent's Potential
Annexation Area(PAA). willing •tiz F a «a within the ability
aa-vv-rmir cicrz.c£rscrnn�a�aa�v>'i cz.rin c.cn .... ....J
C the City to ...• ide a Mgh level e f service
2. The City should assist citizens who have expressed a desire to annex to the City.
3. To the extent possible, operating I impacts to Cityser�from rep vious
annexations need to be absorbed prior to we>fpting initiating additional
annexations.
All areas of the PAA shall ha--a an equal «r-:er-ty f r-a e_ g to the City,but
The City J shall i e«t:F.,these ae f e pitel :l:ty i r ♦ asseeiated with an aftneiwAie
and shall deter-mine their eests and the time line te aeeemplish them well before
the a ,et:e« takes «lave
4.6-. The City shall identify, to the extent posssible, the gene{al f6nd eests revenue and
• expenses associated with each annexations. The City shall identify the capital
facility impacts associated with each annexation and shall determine costs and a
timeline to accomplish such improvements.
Plan shall he followed as they«eftµin to anne.etfe (NOTE: 7 has been placed
in policy 1)
5.5- Levels of service in the existing City shall not be diminished because of new
annexations.
9- Annexations shall,
to the exte..t « ..efiea1 their- ...n
> Y"J "J
6.40, The City shall require all development within the PAA that desires City utilities to
sign no protest agreements and agreements to develop in conformance with
Kent's Comprehensive Plan designation and to Kent Public Works standards.
7.44-. The City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning
amendment hearings, for an annexation area, until the City Council adopts an
annexation ordinance.
•
r
8.4-2: After the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance,the actual date the
annexation takes place sheald shall coincide with the availability of revenue to be
received by the City for the annexed area.
9.4-3-. The preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition
method. However, no protest annexation agreements as well as the election
method may from time to time be in the citizen's and City's best interest.
10. The highly developed urban areas within Kent's PAA shall have the highest
priories for annexation to the City.
11. If the urban - rural line as adopted by King County adjacent to Kent's PAA is
moved beyond the current line. the City will reexamine the PAA boundary in light
of future annexation impacts.
ANNEXATION STRATEGIES
1. Kent should finalize the proposed interlocal agreement between Kent and Renton
before any annexations are attempted in the PAA lying to the northeast of Kent.
2. The rural areas within Kent's PAA shoud have a lower annexation priority than
the urbanized area lying to the north east of the City.
3. Kent's next annexation should be the urbanized area lying westerly of 108a'
Avenue S.E. and between S. E. 200t' Street and S.E. 2250, Place.
4. Following the annexation mentioned in strategy 3, the City should explore the
possiblity of annexing the urbanized area easterly of 10e Avenue S.E., including
the Park Orchard area.
5. While strategy number 3 is being carried out, a possible annexation lying north of
S.E. 240a` Street and extending to approximately S.E. 224`" Street and lying
between 116t' Avenue S.E. and Soos Creek shoud be explored.
•
CITY OF � JS
• Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
November 5, 1998
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: FINAL COPY OF THE ANNEXATION POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
Attached is a final copy of the Annexation Policies and Strategy adopted by the City Council on
November 3, 1998.
JPH:mw:P:\JIM-H\annexm3.doc•
cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations
Department Heads
•
2204th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98W2-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
_., ��eMe��1W,IN �i�iei,.
IN SOA
:� .n ��e�eay.►e�e���ee���aye�.
a , Me-Qe-e-eM�-e-,►,
MR,NO—
II,- ►�_pM ��*rye►� s_►�y►�►�
!�ea►:s*�! a�.�:�►���������
-■nn 1
T7& 11
mean
;nun unu•Wr _ ,� rM -
►ANO . . • . •
IIIIII • • • • s , � • • • • • •