HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 07/20/1998 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
July 20, 1998
Present: Rico Yingling Tom Brotherton
Leona Orr Don Wickstrom
Jim Harris
Absent: Tim Clark
Annexation Policy & Strategv
Referring to a city map, Harris explained the boundaries of the annexations within
the City noting the areas in King County that are potential city annexation areas.
Harris explained that the one potential annexation area which is important to the city
is approximately 3.5 sq. miles with a population of about 20,000. This would be the
last bid annexation for Kent. Hams stated that we have 13 policy statements that
Council adopted in April of 1998; prior to our annexing Del Mar or Meridian Valley
County Club. The question for the Council would be, do you feel that these policies
are current enough to handle what's left in the city; where and how should we modify
them. Harris stated that at the next Committee meeting he would like to present a
proposal of potential changes to these policy statements. He noted that Rico
Yingling had submitted some questions to the staff. Upon Rico's concurrence,
Harris read the questions and answers to the Committee, which were included in
their packets.
Hams suggested that this issue be brought back to the first meeting in September
with the idea of taldng action on this. He said we have had two "informational"
meetings on this.
Leona Orr suggested that it may be helpful to meet with the Finance Dept and other
appropriate departments to get a report from them as to how we are doing with our
level of service within these annexations; what impacts did the last two annexations
have. She noted that before we push to annex another area with an approximate
population of as much as 20,000 people, we have a clear understanding of exactly
where we stand, based on the annexations we have just completed; also, the need for
new employees, and look at the revenue potential for that area. Harris said we might
have some additional information at the second Committee meeting in August.
• Leona Orr noted that a look at the overtime budget prior to the annexations as well
as since the annexations, would be helpful. Leona asked if we are any closer to
getting numbers from the County that talk about their numbers of potential
population growth. Harris stated that we have been working with the County and
have had to adjust our own numbers because of our annexations. Leona stated it
would be helpful to have that information as well. In response to Leona, Harris said
the next annexation would come into the city in sections.
32"d Avenue South Street Vacation
Wickstrom said we have received a petition to vacate a portion of 32"d Avenue which
is unopened right-of-way and by law, we have to act on that request and Council
needs to set a date for a public hearing by resolution.
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of a resolution setting a hearing
date for the 32"d Avenue South Street Vacation.
Water District #I I I Easement Agreement
Wickstrom explained that this is on the East Hill at 124't'Ave SE in a small
. subdivision adjacent to Seven Oaks East, north of Kent Kangley. There is a portion
of a tract which was deeded to us as part of the short plat which services our
detention basin and now the district believes they need an easement to run a
waterline down that tract.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the
Easement Agreement with Water District #111 situated within the plat of Seven
Oaks Addition.
Added item: LID Covenants
Wickstrom - We have mitigation/LID agreements, which are expiring. In 1988 the
legislature passed a law stating that LID agreements and commitments to LID
agreements could only run for a period of 10 ,years. Prior to that, we had executed
LID covenants for improvements of property owner frontage, and those covenants
have run in perpetuity essentially. Some of those are still outstanding. We also
have executed agreements regarding participation in the Corridor projects through
SEPA where the property owner can either execute an agreement or do a traffic study
and do all the improvements. Nearly 100% of them have chosen to execute a
mitigation agreement and part of that agreement is the participation in an LID. That
• portion lapses since 1988. Right now we have mailed approximately 10 notices
affecting 9 different developments; one has two streets. We are required to notify
them that the time period is u ; in case of an LID covenant the now have to
P P Y
improve the frontage they were hoping would be done by an LID. Where we have
mitigation agreements, their 10 years are up and now they have to pay that cash plus
inflation since the 1986 dollar. These 10 different developments which we sent
notices to are due the end of August. In August we will send out another group
which will be two months in advance of their due date.
WicRstrom stated he wanted to advise Council since thev will probably be getting
phone calls on this issue. He said we are obligated to carry through with them
because we need to be able to show a track record that when we executed these
agreements we expected them to be followed through. Wickstrom gave a couple of
scenarios to Rico Yingling for a clearer understanding of the process.
Meeting adjourned: 4:10 p.m.
•