HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 10/05/2009Public Works Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Ron Harmon♦Les Thomas♦Debbie Raplee, Chair
Unless otherwise noted, the Public Works Committee meets at 4:00 p.m. on the 1st & 3rd Mondays of each
month. Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895.
For information please contact Public Works Administration (253) 856-5500.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at
(253) 856-5725 in advance.
For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
U:\PublicWorks\Agendas\2009\10 05 09.doc
October 5, 2009
4:00 p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
01. Approval of Minutes Dated September 21, 2009 YES None 03 01
02. Proposed Amendment to Residential Susan Jensen/
Traffic Calming Program Standard/ Chad Bieren &
Meadow Ridge Neighborhood YES Rob Knutsen 10 05
03. Flood Fight NO Tim LaPorte 10 15
04. Snow & Ice Removal NO Bill Thomas 15 17
This page intentionally left blank.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Thursday, September 21, 2009
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Debbie Raplee and Committee Members Ron
Harmon and Les Thomas were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m.
ITEM 1 – Approval of Minutes Dated September 10, 2009:
Committee Member Thomas moved to approve the minutes of September 10, 2009. The
motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0.
ITEM 2 – Joint Funding Agreement for the Cooperative Data-Collection Program with the
U.S. Geological Survey:
Environmental Engineering Manager, Mike Mactutis explained that this is an on-going program with
the City of Kent and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for stream data collection. The City of Kent
will contribute $48,020 to the annual program costs of $91,360 with the USGS providing the
remainder.
Peterson presented a map of the 5 gage sites and explaining that this contract will provide for
operation, maintenance and data collection at five gages. Two are located on Mill Creek, one on
Springbrook Creek and two on Rock Creek.
Harmon moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Joint Funding
Agreement for Water Resources Investigations between the City of Kent and the U.S.
Geological Survey, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and
Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Thomas and passed 3-0.
ITEM 3 – LID 355 SE 216th Street & 104th Place SE Sanitary Sewer Charge In-Lieu of
Assessment:
Deputy Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte, Design Engineering Manager introduced Mark Howlett,
Design Engineering Manager who gave a brief history and showed a vicinity map of the area. He
explained that in 2004, the City constructed sanitary sewer mains in the vicinity of 104th Place SE as
part of Local Improvement District 355. There were five property owners that opted not to hook up
at that time.
The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to establish a charge in-lieu of assessment
for five properties that someday may need to connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system. If the
properties connect to the sanitary sewer, the City will receive reimbursement for previous
expenditures.
Thomas moved to authorize the Public Works Department to establish a sewer charge in
lieu of assessment for five properties along 104th Place SE. The motion was seconded by
Harmon and passed 3-0.
ITEM 4 – Request from Clark Lake Homeowners Association:
Public Works Director, Larry Blanchard explained that Clark Lake Estates or Sub-division is 33 lot
sub-division constructed at the southwest corner of 240th Street and 120th Avenue just west of Clark
Lake Park. The developer was unable to complete the improvements to this sub-division and the
City was forced to obtain the proceeds from the bond that was used to secure the infrastructure
improvements.
1
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Thursday, September 21, 2009
Since the majority of infrastructure improvements had been made to the sub-division, the City as a
normal course of action estimated the amount of work that was necessary to complete the
infrastructure improvements and reduced the bond from $150,000 to $50,000. Due to the slow-
down in the economy the developer was unable to complete the repairs and gave up the bond.
The City met several times with the Clark Lake Homeowners Association (HOA), and informed them
that the City could complete as much work as we can with the $50,000 bond proceeds. To date the
work has been constructed; however, the HOA is not satisfied with the work and would like to see
additional items completed.
Staff stated that in order to complete the work it would cost an additional $65,000. The Street Fund
does not have the additional monies. The work that was completed met the standards of the City,
and much of the damage to sidewalks occurred during the construction of the homes after the bond
had been lowered.
Dana Uyeta, Treasurer for Clark Lake Estates spoke on behalf of the Association.
A lengthy discussion ensued with staff answering questions from committee members.
This item was tabled and will be heard at a later date.
ITEM 5 - Request for Additional Funding Advanced Measures/Green River Levee
Protection:
Public Works Director, Larry Blanchard explained that in August 2009 the City Council authorized
the Public Works Director to execute contracts up to a maximum amount of $1,500,000 for the
purchase of flood protection structures and all necessary equipment as well as contracts to install
and protect said structures.
The Public Works Department recommends allocating an additional $1,500,000 for a total of
$3,000,000 for Public Works Director or Interim Public Works Director to execute the above.
Discussion ensued regarding the protection of the levee, Blanchard feels that $3M may not even be
enough. Thomas stated that he is not sure that the cost is justified at this time. Blanchard further
explained that in order to have the preventative measures in place we must prepare in advance, we
can’t do it after the fact.
Raplee stated that by the time Council gets called to the Emergency Coordination Center it will be
too late. Thomas said that he would vote but he would like to see it go on the Council Agenda
under “Other Business”. Harmon commented that if we need to fight the fight at the levee we must
protect our own. Bottom line is, prevention is far less costly than clean-up.
An accounting of the project will be given to committee members on a regular basis.
Harmon moved to amend the August 18, 2009 authorization for the Public Works Director
or Interim Public Works Director to execute contracts for purchase of other types of flood
protection structures and all necessary equipment and contracts to install and protect
said structures from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000. The motion was seconded by
and passed 3-0. It was agreed that this item would be taken to Council as “Other
Business” at the October 6, 2009 agenda.
2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Thursday, September 21, 2009
ITEM 6 – Supplemental Transportation Project List:
Public Works Director, Larry Blanchard noted that to help reduce the impact of proliferation of a
patch-work street system by requiring transportation improvements on each development or project
adjacent to underdeveloped streets in Kent staff proposes that a supplemental list of Street Projects
be identified so that a developer can defer the improvements as described in Kent City Code
Chapter 06.02.080. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how to assure that the third or fourth
owners can pay for the improvements. It was explained that if there are a number of developers
that sign the No Protest Agreement they would have to pay off the amount. This includes new or
re-development.
Mel Roberts, Kent Bicycle Board member spoke on behalf of cyclists. Roberts stated that the
patchwork is an issue for bikers. He would like to see that the money is paid up front.
Thomas moved to authorize the inclusion for Public Improvements under Kent City Code
Section 6.02.080 and to secure said deferred improvements as described in section
6.02.060 OR through a No Protest Agreement or through a No Protest Agreement to the
Formation of a Local Improvement District, upon concurrence of the language therein by
the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Harmon
and passed 3-0.
ITEM 7 – Information Only/Mowing Program:
Public Works Operations Manager, Don Millett and Storm Maintenance Vegetation Supervisor, Scott
Schroeder presented an informative PowerPoint Presentation showing various mowing and litter
statistics and photos.
No Motion Required/Information Only
Adjourned:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
Next Scheduled Meeting:
Monday, October 5, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth
Public Works Committee Secretary
3
This page intentionally left blank.
4
U:PWCommittee\2009\10 05 09\Proposed Amendments to Traffic Calming Standards.doc
LAW DEPARTMENT
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
Phone: 253-856-5770
Fax: 253-856-6770
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA. 98032-5895
Date: October 1, 2009
To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2009
From: Susan Jensen, Assistant City Attorney
Through: Tim LaPorte, Deputy Director Public Works
CC: Chad Bieren, Rob Knutsen, Steve Mullen, Cheryl Viseth
Regarding: Proposed Amendments to Traffic Calming Standards
SUMMARY:
Twenty-two out of thirty-four residents in the Erin Glade subdivision have signed a
petition to the City asking for speed bumps to slow down traffic on SE 272nd Place
and 111th Place SE. The speed and volume of traffic measured on these streets do
not presently meet the standards to justify the placement of Phase 2 traffic
measures. Council member Harmon and the petitioners do not believe that Phase 1
measures are adequate. The Committee directed Staff to offer an amendment that
would enable Phase 2 measures in the Erin Glade subdivision. The resolution
proposed would preserve existing standards and, in addition, vest in the Director
the authority to deviate from the standards if circumstances so warrant. The Public
Works Committee has stated concerns that the 10 MPH over speed limit standard
for 25 MPH neighborhoods previously adopted is likely too high as a general rule.
The legal department has advised that an ordinance would be the most appropriate
manner for adopting new standards which can then be codified. The amended
resolution will serve until the ordinance can be drafted and implemented.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The estimate for four speed humps to serve the Erin Glade subdivision and adjacent
114th Avenue SE would be approximately $20,000. The speed humps may be
constructed by the City during the 2010 construction season if Residential Traffic
Calming Program funding is included in the 2010 budget.
MOTION: Move to recommend that Council adopt a resolution repealing
Resolution No. 1804 and readopting the same language along with the addition of
a provision that would allow the Director of Public Works to exercise discretion
under special circumstances that would allow deviation from the adopted
standards for the implementation of Phase 2 traffic calming measures.
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
1 Residential Traffic Calming Program
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, repealing Resolution No.
1804 and adopting a new Residential Traffic
Calming Program to authorize the public works
director to deviate from established standards for
phase 2 traffic calming measures.
RECITALS
A. Residential streets within the City of Kent have measurable
safety and community character impacts due to the speed and volume of
through traffic. Such impacts have been addressed by the Neighborhood
Traffic Control Program, previously adopted on April 7, 2009, Resolution
No. 1804.
B. The Mayor and City Council recognize the need to update and
otherwise revise the means by which residential traffic impacts are
addressed, and have directed the City’s Public Works Department to
consider proven solutions that include resident involvement. In response,
the Department conducted research on residential traffic calming efforts
throughout the United States and developed a new program called the
“Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP).”
C. Since adoption, 60% of the residents of the Erin Glen
neighborhood have advised a member of the public works committee that
7
2 Residential Traffic Calming Program
speed bumps are needed on certain streets even though the documented
speeds on those streets do not meet the standards required for Phase 2
measures.
D. On October 5, 2009, the Public Works Committee heard a
presentation by the Public Works Engineering Department regarding the
RTCP, and considered an amendment to the RTPC that would vest in the
public works director the authority to deviate from the standards under
special circumstances.
E. An amended version of the RTPC is hereto attached as
“Exhibit A” and its adoption by resolution has been recommended by the
Public Works Committee.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. – Repealer. Resolution No. 1804 which adopted the
City’s Neighborhood Traffic Control Program is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
SECTION 2. Program Adopted. There is hereby adopted the
Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP) attached and incorporated as
EXHIBIT A. The RTCP is general in nature, establishing overall policies and
approaches, but leaves the specific details of implementation to the public
works director, in order to adapt program implementation to meet
neighborhood needs on a more flexible case-by-case basis. This program is
designed to focus on traffic speeds and volumes to the extent that they
negatively impact residential environments. This is a phased program that
will allow residents to identify problems and solutions specific to their
8
3 Residential Traffic Calming Program
neighborhoods. Initially, problems will be addressed by education efforts,
driver alerts, and City notification to identified speeders. If necessary,
potential solutions may involve traffic calming devices, which could include
the construction of physical structures to reduce volumes and speeds.
Installation of physical structures will be considered after less intrusive
means fail to yield acceptable results and shall be based upon sound
engineering and transportation planning principles and with regard to
neighborhood aesthetics. The RTCP will provide for periodic evaluation of
the solutions as implemented and will include follow-up surveys to
determine the resident satisfaction.
SECTION 3. –Public Works Director Authorized. The Public Works
Director is hereby authorized to implement the RTCP and to adopt
procedures and standard construction plans consistent with the principles
set forth in this resolution and to deviate from specific standards for Phase
2 measures when special circumstances so warrant.
SECTION 4. –Availability of Program Details. A copy of the
Residential Traffic Calming Program is appended to this resolution and shall
be kept on file with the City Clerk and the Public Works Department.
Brochures summarizing the RTCP will be made available to the public.
SECTION 5. – Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 6. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
9
4 Residential Traffic Calming Program
SECTION 7. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this _______ day of _________________, 2009.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this ______ day of
__________________, 2009.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
______ passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the
________ day of _________________, 2009.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Resolution\ResidentialTrafficCalming.docx
10
EXHIBIT “A”
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
The Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP) deals with problems
common to many cities; cut-through and speeding traffic on residential
streets. Sometimes, the problems are related. Drivers attempting to save
time may cut-through a residential area to avoid congestion on certain
arterials or to avoid inconvenient traffic control devices. They may also
drive at speeds that exceed the posted limits in order to make it through
the residential area quickly. Consequently, some of the traffic control
devices employed to address volume control are very similar to those that
address speed control. They are designed to either force drivers to slow
down (thereby eliminating the time saving incentive for using the street as
a cut-through), or to prevent them from entering a particular street section
altogether. Much of the time, the greatest single cause of neighborhood
speeding problems rests with the neighbors themselves. As drivers
become comfortable with their everyday driving routes, speeds tend to
increase. This is particularly true of the roadways nearest the home, which
are travelled most often. Part of the RTCP is to educate drivers about their
own practices to ensure the neighbors are doing their part to keep
neighborhood speeds down.
The RTCP is comprised of two phases:
• Phase I employs a variety of passive control devices.
• Phase II involves physical alterations to the street section.
Criteria have been developed to delineate the threshold conditions that
warrant the use of various traffic calming devices. The criteria were
designed to support and maintain safety for pedestrians, bicycles and
automobiles traveling on residential streets as determined by the
transportation element of the city’s comprehensive plan.
Typically, speed limits are determined by the design of the roadway, the
behavior of reasonable and prudent drivers on that roadway, and statutory
requirements. The speed limits for Washington state roadways are
determined by RCW 46.61.400. They are 25 miles per hour on city and
town streets, 50 miles per hour on county roads, and 60 miles per hour on
state highways. RCW 46.61.415 gives local jurisdictions the authority to
increase or decrease the speed limit based on an engineering and traffic
investigation which determines that it is reasonable to do so. Local
jurisdictions cannot increase the speed limit to more than 60 miles per
hour, or decrease it to less than 20 miles per hour.
11
Speed limit enforcement can be an effective traffic calming measure;
however, it is neither realistic nor practical to rely on the constant presence
of law enforcement officers to ensure that drivers rigidly adhere to speed
limits. Problem areas in neighborhoods are to be identified through a
combination of traffic speed studies conducted by neighborhood volunteers
and City staff. If a speeding problem is confirmed by these traffic studies,
Phase 1 traffic calming measures will be discussed with the neighborhood.
Once a consensus has been reached with the neighborhood, Phase 1
measures will be implemented. Speeds will be assessed following
placement of these measures and after sufficient time has elapsed for
behavior modification to occur. If speeds continue to exceed the following
levels, the neighborhood will be eligible to move to Phase 2 of the
program:
Speed Limit: 85% Speed:
25 mph 35 mph or greater
30 mph 40 mph or greater
If neighborhood speeds do not exceed these levels, City staff is available to
continue implementing Phase 1 measures, but Phase 2 measures will not
be implemented unless the director of public works determines that such
are warranted by special circumstances.
Phase 2 of the RTCP involves formation of a Residential Traffic Committee
and selection of traffic calming devices to be constructed within the
neighborhood to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. The Residential Traffic
Committee will work with City staff to select the preferred measures and
locations that will most effectively lower traffic speeds and volumes. The
attached flow chart describes the process.
12
13
This page intentionally left blank.
14
ITEM 3
INFORMATION ONLY
Flood Fight
Tim LaPorte, Interim
15
This page intentionally left blank.
16
ITEM 4
INFORMATION ONLY
Snow & Ice Removal
Bill Thomas, Street Superintendent
17