HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/15/1996 (3) ` CITY OF LEI
Jim White, Mayor
MEETING
AGENDA
OCTOBER 15, 1996
THE CITYCO UNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE IS.HOLDING A MEETING ONOCTOBER
15, 1996 AT 4:00 P.M: IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST ROOM OF KENT. CITY
1 A AT 220 S. FOURTH AVENUE.
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Hearing Examiner Decision Appeal Process ACTION ITEM - 15 Minutes
- Draft Ordinance - (L. Evezich)
2. Update on human services mitigation for INFORMATION ITEM - 5 Minutes
Regional Justice Center - (L. Houston)
3. Policy for Agricultural Preservation INFORMATION ITEM - 10 Minutes
- (L. Orr/J. Harris)
4. Allowance of Mother-in-Law Apartments ACTION ITEM - 10 Minutes
(whether to send to Land Use&Planning Board) — (L. Orr)
Added Items:
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN
ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993
OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)854-6587.
mp:c:pc101595.agn
220 4th AVE.SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300 1 FAX#859-3334
10/7/96
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, relating to judicial appeals of the Hearing
Examiner's decisions amending section 1.04.050(F), and
section 2.32.160(C), of the Kent City Code for consistency
with RCW 36.70C.040(3).
WHEREAS, a new, exclusive procedure for judicial appeals of the land use
decisions of City's Hearing Examiner has been adopted by the Washington State
Legislature as codified in Chapter 36.70C RCW; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Code must be amended to conform to this new
procedure, and therefore the City Council desires to change the period for seeking judicial
review of all appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions to twenty-one days as provided in
RCW 36.70C.040(3); NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Hearing Examiner
SECTION 1. Section 1.04.050 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 1.04.050. Hearing before the hearing examiner.
A. Notice. A person to whom a notice of civil violation is issued will be scheduled
to appear before the hearing examiner not less than ten (10) calendar days but no more
than forty-five (45) days after the notice of civil violation is issued. Extensions may be
granted at the discretion of the applicable department director.
B. Prior correction of violation. The hearing will be canceled and no monetary
penalty will be assessed if the applicable department director approves the completed
required corrective action at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled hearing.
C. Procedure. The hearing examiner shall conduct a hearing on the civil violation
pursuant to the rules of procedure of the hearing examiner. The applicable department
director and the person to whom the notice of civil violation was directed may participate
as parties in the hearing and each party may call witnesses. The city shall have the burden
of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred
and that the required corrective action will correct the violation. The determination of the
applicable department director as to the need for the required corrective action shall be
accorded substantial weight by the hearing examiner in determining the reasonableness of
the required corrective action.
D. Decision of the hearing examiner.
1. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the city has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred and that the
required correction will correct the violation and shall affirm, vacate, or
modify the city's decisions regarding the alleged violation and/or the
required corrective action, with or without written conditions.
2. The hearing examiner shall issue an order to the person responsible for the
violation which contains the following information:
a. The decision regarding the alleged violation including findings of fact
and conclusions based thereon in support of the decision;
b. The required corrective action;
2
C. The date and time by which the correction must be completed;
d. The monetary penalties assessed based on the criteria in section
1.04.050 D.3.;
e. The date and time after which the city may proceed with abatement
of the unlawful condition if the required correction is not completed.
3. Assessment of monetary penalty. Monetary penalties assessed by the hearing
examiner shall be in accordance with the monetary penalty in section
1.04.040 E.
a. The hearing examiner shall have the following options in assessing
monetary penalties:
(1) Assess monetary penalties beginning on the date the notice of
civil violation was issued and thereafter; or
(2) Assess monetary penalties beginning on the correction date set
by the applicable department director or an alternate
correction date set by the hearing examiner and thereafter; or
(3) Assess less than the established monetary penalty set forth in
section 1.04.040 E. based on the criteria of section 1.04.050
D.3.b.
(4) Assess no monetary penalties.
b. In determining the monetary penalty assessment, the hearing
examiner shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the person responded to staff attempts to contact the
person and cooperated with efforts to correct the violation;
(2) Whether the person failed to appear at the hearing;
(3) Whether the violation was a repeat violation;
3
(4) Whether the person showed due diligence and/or substantial
progress in correcting the violation;
(5) Whether a genuine code interpretation issue exists; and
(6) Any other relevant factors.
C. The hearing examiner may double the monetary penalty schedule if
the violation was a repeat violation. In determining the amount of the
monetary penalty for repeat violations the hearing examiner shall
consider the factors set forth in section 1.04.050 D.31.
4. Notice of decision. The hearing examiner shall mail a copy of the decision
to the person to whom the notice of a civil violation was issued and to the
applicable department director within ten (10) working days of the hearing.
E. Failure to appear. If the person to whom the notice of civil violation was issued
fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the examiner will enter an order with findings
pursuant to section 1.04.050 D.2. and assess the appropriate monetary penalty pursuant to
section 1.04.050 D.3. The city will enforce the hearing examiner's order and recover all
related expenses, plus the cost of the hearing and any monetary penalty from that person.
F. Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the hearing examiner
must be filed with the Superior Court within thirty 8) twenty-one (21) calendar days of
the issuance of the decision.
direeteel, of is thereafter barred.
SECT/ON 2. Section 2.32.160 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as
follows
Sec. 2.32.160. City council action.
A. Any application requiring action by the city council shall be taken by the
adoption of a motion, resolution or ordinance by the city council. When taking any such
final action, the city council shall make and enter findings of fact from the record and
conclusions therefrom which support its action. The city council may adopt all or portions
of the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions.
4
B. In the case of an ordinance for rezone of property, the ordinance shall not be
placed on the city council's agenda until all conditions, restrictions or modifications which
may have been stipulated by the city council have been accomplished or provisions for
compliance made to the satisfaction of the legal department.
C. The action of the city council, approving, modifying, or rejecting a
recommendation or decision of the hearing examiner, shall be final and conclusive, unless
within twenty on (z621 calendar days `rem the date of the city council action, an appeal
is filed with the Superior Court. b
T SECTION 3. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this
Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 11996.
APPROVED day of 1996.
PUBLISHED day of 1996.
1 hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(S EA L)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
hearex.ORD
6
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER
HUMAN SERVICES IMPACT STUDY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
I. REQUEST
The City of Kent is seeking consulting services from a qualified and experienced firm to study the
human services impacts from the Regional Justice Center (RJC), located at 401 North 4th Avenue,
Kent, Washington. The study of the human service impacts will be conducted in two phases. Phase
One, to be completed before the RJC opens, will set up a data collection process and methodology to
provide the information necessary to assess the impact on South King County human services so that
the level of funding for impacts to human service agencies can be determined. Phase Two, to be
completed after the RJC opens, will gather additional relevant data, through surveys and other tools,
and use this new data, plus the data gathered in Phase One to assess the impacts created by the RJC.
The proposal should address both phases. However, the City may only hire for Phase One at this
time.
The impacts that the Regional Justice Center will have on human services is a complex and broad-
ranging issue. However, as with traffic and other items the RJC affects, human services impacts can
be determined. The scope of the study must include all the potential human services that could be
impacted.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Kent actively pursued the Regional Justice Center's siting in the community. The RJC
is currently under construction and is estimated to open in March, 1997. While the City welcomes
the RJC, it also desires to mitigate the negative impacts. One of the impacts will be on human
services. Adequately assessing and addressing the RJC's impact on human services will ameliorate
the RJC's success and acceptance in the community. King County acknowledged this by providing
funding to: 1) Study the impacts of the RJC on human services and, 2) To directly compensate for
impacts. Before the RJC opens, the City wants a process in place to measure the impacts on human
services. In addition, after the RJC has been operating for a year, the City wants to assess what the
impacts have been during that time and again in three years.
As far as the City is aware, an empirical study of the impact of a jail, much less a jail and court
system, on human services has never been done. This will be a seminal study which could affect
future criminal justice facility mitigations agreements. The model used in this project will be useful
to other jurisdictions in studying and mitigating the impact on human services created by a criminal
justice complex.
Page 1
r
i
r
Type and Scope of Data
There may be various types of data collection that could adequately assess the RJC's impact on
South King County human services. The type of data collection outlined in this RFP would be the
development of common RJC related intake questions for all potentially affected agencies.
Consistent intake questions would need to be established to capture people who are using services
solely because of the RJC's 1pcation in Kent. If the consultant has a different idea for data
collection, staff will consider.it. Whatever type and scope of data is ultimately decided upon, it
should be sufficient to adequately measure the full impacts of the RJC on human services in South
King County. What is critical is that the method developed has to result in a vehicle by which the
agencies can come to the City to request funding for services provided to users of the RJC.
Source(s) of Data
We considered gathering human service data that already exists and then comparing that data to the
same data sources after the RJ1C has been in operation. Unfortunately, existing data collected by
agencies and reported to cities',and other entities is fragmented. Agencies only report data on
specific programs for which they receive money. The format and scope of this data varies with the
requirements of each grantor a0d is not necessarily useful as an assessment of the RJC impacts.
Also, isolating the change in pyre-RJC and post-RJC data that is directly related to the RJC, would be
somewhat inexact. There are too many factors that could impact the use of services other than the
existence of the RJC. Although, a comprehensive and coordinated data collection would be a
wonderful resource for a regioW study of the human service system, it wouldn't isolate the direct
impact of the RJC on that system.
However, to fully address the impacts, some further data collection via surveys or comparative data
or other means will also be needled in Phase Two.
III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PHASE ONE:
The tasks listed below need to bo accomplished BEFORE the RJC opens in March, 1997:
Task 1.1. Identify a broad spectrum of services that may be impacted by a full range of RJC
related persons (i.e., RJC employees and their families, people participating in the
court system, individuals using court-mandated services, inmate families, and released
inmates).
Task 1.2. Work with cities and agencies to identify the geographic boundaries of the data
collection. The geiographic boundaries should include areas that are likely to be
impacted by the RJC.
Task 1.3. Coordinate with ageencies that offer potentially affected services, to establish
consensus on intakQ inquiries that could be used to measure the impact of the RJC.
Task 1.4 Develop intake questions and any other tools used for data collection, for use by
agencies.
Page 2
i
u
A
Task 1.5. Determine the best method to collect and report the new data resulting from the intake
questions, and to apply for funding of services provided to users of the RJC.
Coordinate with agencies in developing the data collection methodology.
Task 1.6. Develop a process and methodology to assess the impact of a broad range of potential
RJC associated impacts on a wide range of human services.
Task 1.7 Provide to the City written documentation of the data collection method for each
impact that is identified.
Task 1.8. Report impact models and recommended data collections strategy to the City of Kent
for approval before proceeding to Task 1.9.
Task 1.9. Train all agencies on data collection system, collect data, review data for
completeness and accuracy, and troubleshoot problems with agencies. Ensure that
agencies begin reporting this data at the time the RJC opens.
Task 1.10. Develop an application form for agencies to request funding for delivery of services
that are related to the RJC.
Task 1.11. Write a report summarizing how the process and methodology was developed and
what the next steps would be in the assessment process. Present the report to Kent
City Council, Kent Human Service Commission, and Metropolitan King County
Council.
NOTE: The process for data collection and assessment should be sensitive to workload impacts on
agencies. Significant impacts due to data collection on the already strained workload of agencies
should be avoided.
PHASE Two:
The tasks listed below need to be accomplished AFTER the RJC opens:
Task 2.1. Train all agencies and ensure that they are using the RJC related intake questions
when the RJC begins operation. Troubleshoot any problems.
Task 2.2. Conduct a survey, or another agreed upon instrument, to determine how effectively
the human services system is serving users from the RJC. For example: are there any
locational problems with services, how adequately are regional services meeting needs
and, if there are any needs that are not being served.
This should encompass all identified RJC-related users of human services: RJC staff,
court users and visitors of the court system, as well as prisoners and their visitors, so
that mitigation can better serve these populations. This survey would occur at year
one and year three of RJC operations.
Page 3
Task 2.3. Collect and analyze additional data after the RJC is open for one year and then again
after three yeat.
Task 2.4. Write a minimum of two (2) reports. The first report is due at the end of year one
and the second;report is due at year three. The reports should address the following:
a. The impacts of the RJC on human services (e.g., agencies, human service
deliver} system) isolated from other impacts on services such as growth.
b. Gaps io services.
C. Locatio4al problems with services.
d. How will the RJC is addressing the human services needs of its population.
e. Recommendations of actions based on these findings.
Recommendations should address how to remedy the locational problems, gaps
in services, and how to mitigate the RJC's impact on human services.
Task 2.5. Report each year's findings to the Citizen Advisory Committee, the Metropolitan
King County Council, Kent City Council, Kent Human Services Commission, and the
South King Council of Human Services.
NOTE: The process for data;collection and assessment should be sensitive to workload impacts on
agencies. Significant impacts due to data collection on the already strained workload of agencies
should be avoided.
IV. BUDGET
There is approximately $75,OW for both Phases. A separate budget for each phase of the project
must be submitted. It is up tb the consultant to determine how to split the money between the two
phases.
V. MEETING
Regular status/review meetings with the Review Team and agencies and other groups, as
appropriate. Presentations td the various councils and commissions will also be required.
For BOTH phases the consultant will meet with the review team a minimum of bi-monthly and at
critical junctures (e.g., after Interviewing the agencies) when the methodology may need to be
reviewed or further directions from the review team is needed.
VI. AVAH ABLE INFORMATION
The City has produced several papers on the potential impacts on human services from the RJC. It
also has several studies that¢valuate the impact of jails on the range of services and issues. Not
much has been written specifically on the impact on human services. What is written tends to be
anecdotal and/or not empirichlly-based.
Page 4
i
I
C
VII. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
In preparing responses, submit the following information:
1. Explain your approach and methodology for this study. Address each task outlined in Phase
One and Two. Include a timeline for each task and specify how it will be accomplished and
by whom. Your approach can be different from the one outlined in this RFP. If it is
different, explain how this approach will result in useful assessment of the human service
impacts of the RJC.
2. An explanation of experience and knowledge of the human services system, the criminal
justice system, and developing needs assessments and impact studies along with demonstrated
ability to meet project deadlines.
3. A description of the relevant experience and qualification of each person who will be
involved in the project.
4. Submit at least one example of relevant work.
5. An estimation of the project budget including hourly billing rate. Do a separate budget for
each phase of the project.
6. A list of professional references, including telephone numbers, for each proposed participant.
VIII. Schedule
Notice of RFP September 22, 1996
Deadline for Receipt of RFP October 18, 1996
Consultant Interviews October 28 & 29, 1996
Project Begins December 2, 1996
Project (Phase One) ends February 29, 1997
IX. SUBMITTAL DATE
Proposals must be received in the City of Kent Planning Department by 4:00 P.M. on October 18,
1996. Proposals received after October 18, 1996 and faxed proposals will not be accepted. Submit
ten copies of the proposal to:
MAIL TO: DELIVER TO:
Kent Planning Department Kent Planning Department
220 Fourth Avenue South Centennial Building
Kent, WA 98032. 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA
Attention: Carolyn Sundvall Attention: Carolyn Sundvall
For further information, contact Carolyn Sundvall at 859-6100 or Lin Houston at 850-4787.
U:dcWpAl
Page 5
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER UPDATE
In March of 1995 King County and the City of Kent entered into a mitigation agreement
regarding the impacts of the Regional Justice Center(RJC). Appendix C of that Agreement
provides for Human Services Mitigation.
As part of the mitigation the County has given money to the City of Kent to study the impacts on
the nonprofit human services delivery system, and to develop a standardized data collection
system for agencies.
A Request for Proposals for a consultant to conduct the RJC human services study was issued
on September 20th. The study will be done in two phases. Phase One, which will be completed
before the RJC opens will set up a data collection process and methodology to enable agencies to
measure the impact of the RIC on human services delivery.
< Identifying the types of services that would be impacted and determine the geographic
boundaries of the study.
< Collaborating with agencies to determine the best method to collect and report the needed
data to assess any impacts.
< Developing an application for agencies to seek compensation for services.
Agencies will have an opportunity to request funding for any impacts they have experienced in
delivering services to RJC related clients. The County has agreed to give the City of Kent
funding to reimburse agencies for services related to the RJC. Funding is from King County's
Inmates Benefit Fund. The annual dollar amount available is calculated on the RJC's Average
Daily Population and will range from a minimum of$38,000 to a maximum of$75,600 total.
Phase Two, begins one year after the RJC opens and will include:
< Conducting a survey or similar tool to determine how effectively the human services
system is serving users from the RJC and identifying any gaps in services.
< This will be done after the RJC is open for one year, and again in three years; and will
assess how well the RJC is addressing the human services needs of its population.
The deadline for receiving RFP's is October 18th. Consultant interviews will be held on October
29th.
After a consultant has been selected, our plan is to bring a draft contract before the Planning
Committee on November 19th, with a request that it be forwarded that same night
to the full City Council for consideration.
We are on a tight timeline.
Phase One is scheduled to start on December 2nd and conclude February 29, 1997. M�
bc:\rjc\coexec.mem