HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 11/04/2013 (3) I
Public Works Committee Agenda
�� Councilmembers: Dana Ralph+Dennis Higgins+Elizabeth Albertson, Chair
`� KENT
WASHINGTON
November 4, 2013
4:00 P.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of Minutes Dated October 21, 2013 YES None 03 03
2. Washington State Dept. of Ecology YES Gina Hungerford 05 7
Coordinated Prevention Grant
3. Withdrawal of Membership in South King YES Kevin Swinford 05 25
County Regional Water Association
4. Clean Water Act Municipal Stormwater Permit- YES Todd Hunsdorfer 10 27
Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program
5. Information Only/Snow & Ice Response NO Bill Thomas 15 31
6. Information Only/Vancouver WA Quiet Zones NO Mark Howlett 10 41
Local Improvement District
7. Information Only/Briscoe-Desimone Consultant NO Ken Langholz 10 43
Contract for Constructability Review
Unless otherwise noted, the Public Works Committee meets at 4:00 p.m. on the 1"& 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) 856-5725in advance.
For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
z
This page intentionally left blank.
3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 21 ...2013....
Committee Members Present:
Committee Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Committee members Dana Ralph and Dennis
Higgins were present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:09 PM.
Item 1 — Approval of Meeting Minutes Dated October 7, 2013:
Committee member Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of October 7, 2013.
The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Ralph and PASSED 3-0.
Item 2 — Joint Funding Agreement for the Cooperative Data-Collection Program
with the U.S. Geological Survey:
Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager noted that this grant is in the amount
of $37,836 and the city will contribute $62,787. Mactutis stated that this is an on-going
program with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for stream data collection.
Mactutis stated that being able to measure the stream flow on the Green River has been
extremely valuable for levee certification.
The City receives valuable information regarding stream and weather conditions, water
surface elevations flow levels and amounts of precipitation. Mactutis stated that stream
flow will be measured at six gauges. Real-time gauge information is available to the
public at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current?tvpe=flow.
Committee member Higgins 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 Committee member Ralph and PASSED 3-0.
Item 3 — Information Only/Storm Drainage Issues — October Rain Event,
Impact, Response & Repairs:
Utilities Superintendent, Greg Reed briefed the committee on issues crews experience
during the record rain event in late September.
Reed noted:
Crews worked in 12 hour shifts in order to keep catch basins and culverts clear of
leaves and debris
Storm Vegetation crews cleared leaves and trash from the trash racks
Cleared a blocked culvert on 38th Ave S, West Hill
4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 21,...2013....
Cleared out 4" curb drains
Hot spot was the west side of South Central
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item 4 —Valley Channel Re-establishment Proiect:
AICP, Environmental Conservation Supervisor Kelly Peterson provided the committee with
background information regarding problems that we have in regards to:
• Sediment in valley channels
• Urban flooding
• Water quality
• Fish passage
• Habitat
Peterson gave an informative PowerPoint presentation regarding localized flooding in the
valley that occurs in part, due to sediment that has built up in creek channels. Peterson
noted that accumulation of sediment is a natural process and that it has been several
decades since sediment has been removed from the channels, except for culvert cleaning
projects completed in 2010 and 2011. Over 5-feet of sediment has been deposited in
some areas allowing invasive plant species to grow. The sediment has reduced flow
capacity and flood storage, impacted water quality and impedes fish passage.
Removing sediment in portions of the valley creek channels will reduce localized urban
flooding and removing sediment from Mill Creek and Springbrook Creek will improve
water quality and habitat. Removal of sediment is beneficial, however; permits and
regulatory requirements will result in a project that will most likely take a number of
years to complete.
Peterson stated that King County Drainage District #1 has jurisdiction over much of the
valley channels, and a partnership could be beneficial to an efficient and successful
project.
Committee member Ralph MOVED to authorize staff to explore a potential
partnership with King County Drainage District #1 to reestablish channels in the
valley to reduce localized flooding and improve water quality and habitat. The
motion was SECONDED by Committee Member Higgins and PASSED 3-0.
Note: Item 7 was moved to Item 5 and Item 5 was moved to Item 7.
5
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 21 ...2013....
Item 8 7 - Washington State Department of Ecology 2013-2015 Biennial
Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant:
Environmental Supervisor, Shawn Gilbertson gave an informative PowerPoint
presentation regarding a no-match grant being offered to municipal stormwater permit
holders, to implement programs to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Gilbertson noted that the funds will be used to improve Clean Water Act compliance
programs National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to maximize
efficiency and ensure continued compliance with increasing permit requirements. The
Department of Ecology is offering $120,000 of appropriated capital funds to municipal
stormwater permit holders to plan and design capital improvement projects.
Committee member Ralph MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to
accept a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount
of $170,000 for activities related to Clean Water Act Permit compliance, subject
to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Higgins and
PASSED 3-0, with Committee Chair, Albertson's concurrence.
Item 6 - Information Only/Grant Status:
Design Engineering Manager, Mark Howlett together with Environmental Engineering
Manager, Mike Mactutis presented two grant lists with a brief description of each. Below
is a list of grants:
Miscellaneous Grants, sources include
3 - (WSDOT) Washington State Department of Transportation
3 - (PSRC) Puget Sound Regional Council
1 - State
Transportation Board Grants, sources include
3 - (TIB)Transportation Improvement Board
Other Grade Separation Project Grants, sources include
1 - (PSRC) Puget Sound Regional Council
5 - (FMSIB) Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
2 - Appropriation, Federal
Levee Grants, sources include
1 - (DOE) Department of Ecology
3 - (KCFCD) & (DOE) King County Flood Control District and Department of Ecology
3 - (KCFG) King Conservation Future Grant
Other Grants, sources include
1 - (SRFB) Salmon Recovery Funding Board
3 - (KCFG) King Conservation Futures Grant
6
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 21,...2013....
1 — (RCO-SRB) Recreation & Conservation Office, Salmon Recovery Board
4 - (DOE) Department of Ecology
1 - King County Solid Waste
1 — (DOH) Department of Health
3 — Pending Grant Applications
3 — (TIB) Transportation Improvement Board
The second list included 46 - Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants that have
been awarded to the City since 1981.
The committee was informed that the city missed out on an opportunity to use grant
funds awarded to the city in the amount of $341,958 for the Panther Lake Signal System
Integration. These funds were not obligated fast enough to meet grant agency deadlines.
Information Only/No Motion Required
Item -7 5 — Information Only/Local Improvement District 363 — SE 2241h Street:
Design Engineering Manager, Mark Howlett gave a brief PowerPoint presentation outlining
the three phases of (LID) Local Improvement District 363 as well as; the project costs,
existing conditions on S 218th Street at Garrison Creek and an artist rendition of what the
proposed 3-lane bridge at Garrison Creek may look like. Howlett briefly went over the
project funding. The first payment notice to the property owners is scheduled to go out
shortly.
Howlett noted the following as key issue for this project:
LID bonds
Phase II, we should know in November of 2013 about additional grant funding from
the Transportation Improvement Board.
Information Only/No Motion Required
The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth
Council Committee Recorder
7
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: October 15, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Gina Hungerford, Conservation Specialist
Through: Kelly Peterson, AICP, Environmental Conservation Supervisor
Mike Mactutis, P.E. Environmental Engineering Manager
Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Washington State Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention
Grant (CPG)
Item - 2
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to accept the Coordinated
Prevention Grant in the amount of $213,063 for 2013/15, and establish a
budget accordingly, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the
City Attorney and Public Works Director.
Summary:
The Coordinated Prevention Grant is a two year grant funded by the Washington State
Department of Ecology. The CPG funds Residential and Commercial Waste Reduction
and Recycling Programs including events for collection of materials hard-to-recycle at
the curb: appliances, electronic equipment, mattresses, Styrofoam, bulky yard debris,
concrete, and tires. In addition, it pays for event staffing and printing and mailing costs.
The grant pays 75% of eligible costs, the last 25% will be provided by the King County
Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant.
Budget Impact:
The City will receive up to $213,063, from the Washington State Department of Ecology
which is reimbursed as tasks are completed. The required 25% match of $71,021 will
come from the King County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant.
8
This page intentionally left blank.
9
\m�
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT (CPG) AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND
THE CITY OF KENT
Grant No. G1400199
10
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 2 of 16
This is a binding agreement entered into by and between the State of Washington Department of Ecology,
hereinafter referred to as the`DEPARTMENT"or as "ECOLOGY", and the City of Kent, hereinafter
referred to as the RECIPIENT, to carry out the activities described herein.
JURISDICTION: City of Kent
MAILING ADDRESS: 2204th Ave. South
CITY, STATE,ZIP: Kent,WA 98032
RECIPIENT GRANT COORDINATOR: Gina Hungerford
TELEPHONE 253-85 6-55 49
E-MAIL: ghungerford@ci.kent.wa.us
RECIPIENT BB LING/INVOICE Paul Devine
COORDINATOR: 206-93 8-8900
TELEPHONE
pauldevme@msn.com
E-MAIL:
ECOLOGY FINANCIAI/PROJECT MANAGER: Taisa Welhasch
TELEPHONE: 425-649-7266
E-MAIL: taisa.welhasch@ecy.wa.gov
FUNDING SOURCE Local Tomes Control Account
MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST $284,084
STATE GRANT SHARE $213,063
LOCAL SHARE $71,021
STATE MAXIMUM GRANT PERCENT 75%
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 91-6001254
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT: 07-01-2013
EXPIRATION DATE OF THE AGREEMENT: 06-30-2015
11
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 3 of 16
PART I: SCOPEOE WORK
The task(s)set forth below summarize the RECIPIENT'S activities to be performed under this agreement.
Costs are limited to those approved by ECOLOGY as outlined in the current scope of work and budget.
The RECIPIENT must complete all deliverables by the expiration date of this agreement, including
delivery of purchases, unless otherwise stated in thescope of work or approved by ECOLOGY in writing.
Note: The term"task"as used in this agreement is interchangeable with the tern "project"as used on the
online Solid Waste Information Clearinghouse and"element" as used on payment request forms.
The "Maximum Eligible Cost"is the maximum amount of eligible costs incurred by a RECIPIENT that
ECOLOGY can reimburse at a rate of 75 percent under this grant.
RECIPIENT shall identify the work plan and activities by "Quarter." A quarter is defined by calendar
year and begins with the first three months of the grant period. The RECIPIENT may negotiate changes
to thew ork plan with the ECOLOGY grant officer. ECOLOGY shall document mutually agreed changes
to the plan in writing.
The RECIPIENT is permitted to submit payment requests and progress reports to ECOLOGY coinciding
with the Work Plan(instead of quarterly), but no more often than once per month
Expenses relating to the collection and recycling of mercury containing lights shall be eligible for CPG
reimbursement until such time that the Mercury Light Recycling program is fully implemented or the
grant agreement expires,whichever is the earliest date.
CATEGORY: Waste Reduction and Recycling
1. TASK TITLE: Recycling Collection Events —Residential
Task Coordinator—Paul Devine, 206-938-826Z pauldevine@msncom
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $284,084
Task Description: The RECIPIENT, in conjunction a consultant,will continue to host six
recycling collection events for City residents. The events will provide residents with the
opportunity to divert hard-to-recycle items from thew aste stream by collecting them for
recycling in a convenient City location. Materials residents can bring to the event for reuse and
/or recycling include used tires, used anti-freeze, used petroleum-based products, used oil
filters, used motor oil, bulky yard waste(large material only), scrap wood, appliances,ferrous
metals, nonferrous metals, electronic equipment,computer equipment/TV sets, mattresses,
paper shredding,Styrofoam, car seats, cellular phones,porcelain toilets and sinks,propane
tanks, and other materials whenever practical The RECIPIENT may charge user fees for some
items or may drop user fees to increase the volume of material collected. The eventwill also
serve as an opportunity to distribute educational materials on how to reduce waste and recycle
using City sponsored or private sector recycling programs. At the bin sales, the RECIPIENT
will provide information about bin use and on-site education on home composting and
vermicomposting.
The RECIPIENT, in conjunction with a consultant,will organize and implement two to four
Compost/Worm Bin Sales over a two-year period. CPG funds will be used to pay for contractor
time for arranging events, part of the bin costs, event publicity, event equipment and rentals,
12
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 4 of 16
event staffing, and supplies. The sales will be held in conjunction with City Residential
Collection Events.The RECIPIENT will charge a user fee for each bin.
Participants may pay some or all of the fees associated with handling, hauling or recycling
various materials. The RECIPIENT will credit the grant for any revenue received from the
collection of fees or commodity sales on items the grant is supporting.
Costs for disposal of non-recyclable components are not eligible unless they are a direct and
unavoidable byproduct of a recycling activity (e.g. emptied jugs used for waste motor oil or
antifreeze).
Goal Statement: The goal of this task is to decrease the amount of organic waste, moderate
risk waste(MRW), and other hard-to-recycle items being landfilled or illegally dumped by
holding collection events in aconvenient City location for residents.
Outcome Statement: Over the two-year grant period, the RECIPIENT expects to recycle
between 625-720 tons of material from the residential waste stream and serve 6,500-7,500
households.
Estimated outcomes produced with available budget:
MRW Diversion: 60-70 tons
Recycling/Reuse: 365-400 tons
Organics Diversion: 200-250
Residential Contacts: 293,100
Residential Participants: 6,500-7,500
Work Plan,Deliverables and Timeline:
GRANT- YEAR 1 GRANT- YEAR 2
Oct-Dec Arrange date and sAe for event Oct-Dec Arrange date and sAe for event
Arrange event vendors. Event Arrange event vendors. Event
publicity—develop, print, sort publicity—develop, print, sort
and mail event flyer. Hold and mail event flyer. Hold
recycling collection event recycling collection event
Recycle materials collected at Recycle materials collected at
event. Prepare project progress event. Prepare project progress
report and payment request for report and payment request for
grant reimbursement. grant reimbursement.
Jan-Mar Arrange date and site for event Jan-Mar Arrange date and site for event
Arrange event vendors. Event Arrange event vendors. Event
publicity—develop, print, sort publicity—develop, print, sort
and mail event flyer. Hold and mail event flyer. Hold
recycling collection event and recycling collection event and
bin sales. Recycle materials bin sales. Recycle materials
13
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 5 of 16
collected at event. Prepare collected at event. Prepare
project progress report and project progress report and
payment request for grant payment request for grant
reimbursement. reimbursement
Apr-Jun Arrange date and site for event Apr-Jun Arrange date and site for event
Arrange event vendors. Arrange event vendors. Develop
Develop event publicity, print, event publicity, print, sort, and
sort, and mail event flyer. Hold mail event flyer. Hold recycling
recycling collection event and collection event and bin sales.
bin sales. Recycle materials Recycle materials collected.
collected. Prepare project Prepare project progress report
progress report and payment and payment request for grant
request for grant reimburs ement reimbursement
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will trackthe number of events held, the tvne and quantity
of materials collected and the number of participants. The RECIPIENT will track compost and worm
bin sales andwill calculate organics diversion resulting from the use of the bins. It is estimated that
each compost bin sold will divert 585 pounds of organic material annually and eachworm bin will
divert 2,372.5 pounds of food waste annually.
PART2: BUDGET
Budget Information by CATEGORYfrA$K - Maximuin.El Bible State Grant
Cpst 8�are
CATEGORY: Waste Reduction and Recycling $284,084 $213,063
1. Recycling Collection Events —Residential $284,084 $ 213,063
TOTAL GRANT BUDGET,
TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST $284,084
STATE GRANT SHARE(75%) $213,063
LOCAL CASH MATCH(25%) $ 71,021
INTERLOCAL COSTS (0%) $ - 0-
14
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 6 of 16
PART 3: BUDGET CONDITIONS
A. ECOLOGY requires the RECIPIENT to provide a match of 25 percent of the maximum eligible cost
with cash or interlocal costs. Interlocal costs are the only type of in-kind contributions the
RECIPIENT may use as match.
B. If parties are contributing to the local share of taskcosts (match)through interlocal-in kind
contributions, the RECIPIENT shall negotiate a memorandum of understanding or other written
agreement confirming the contribution between the parties. These agreements shall specify the exact
work to be accomplished and be signed by all parties contributing to the local match of this task.
Copies of these agreements shall be made part of the RECIPIENT'S grant file and submitted to
ECOLOGY.
C. Overhead is eligible at a rate up to 25 percent of staff salaries and benefits for actual time spent on
tasks outlined in this agreement. Salaries and benefits to administer the grant agreement are eligible
(excluding time spent to write a CPG grant application).
D. RECIPIENT must submit awritten request to ECOLOGY to amend budgets between grant tasks, to
modify a scope of work or for a budget increase or decrease. To increase or decrease the
agreement's total maximum eligible cost or change the scope of work for any tasks as outlined in this
grant agreement. ECOLOGY requires a formal amendment.
E. RECIPIENT must provide ECOLOGY with an updated Spending Plan when requested by
ECOLOGY.
F. Any work performed or costs incurred prior to the effective date or after the expiration date of this
agreement will beat the sole expense of the RECIPIENT.
PART 4: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. BILLING
1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by ECOLOGY, the RECIPIENT shall submit a payment
request to ECOLOGY at least quarterly (by calendar year),but no more often than once per
month.
2. RECIPIENT must submit payment requests on approved State Invoice Voucher forms: A19-1A,
131/132, Cl/C2. Until there is a change in agency policy,the recipient must submit an A-194A
with an original signature in blue ink, signed by an authorized person. The B2 and C2 forms are
acceptable in electronic format The RECIPIENT must also include all backup documentation to
support costs itemized on Form Cl/C2 The budget is organized by task and therefore, the
RECIPIENT shall itemize costs by task on Form CVC2 and Form 131/132. Forms Bl and Cl are
used only when interlocal costs are used towards the 25%match.
3. Any income directly generated as a result of the activities funded by this grant shall be reported
as a credit against the expenses of that activity, as defined by ECOLOGY'S Administrative
Requirementsfor Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans, Ecology Publication #91-18.
4. RECIPIENT shall submit supporting documents with each payment request This includes copies
of invoices, purchase receipts,payroll records, time and attendance records,contract award
15
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 7 of 16
documents, and any document deemed relevant by ECOLOGY to establish the approval of an
expense listed on Form CVC2. Documentation shall be clear and legible and organized by task
in the order in which it is itemized on Form CVC2
5. RECIPIENT shall maintain grant related material and supporting documents including invoice
vouchers sent to ECOLOGY in a common file. The RECIPIENT shall keep all supporting
documents for audit purposes for at least three years from the date the agreement is closed by
ECOLOGY.
B. REPORTI NG
1. Progress reports and Final Performanc e Analys es mus t be submitted through the w eb-bas ed
database,the Solid Waste Information Clearinghouse. The RECIPIENT must submit a progress
reportwith each payment request. If a quarterly payment request is not submitted,the
RECIPIENT is still required to submit a progress report for that quarter. These reports shall
include information that supports incurred costs identified on the corresponding C1 or C2 of the
payment request, and provide a brief update in support of the outcomes and or method of
evaluation in the grant agreement
a) AFinal Performance Analysis (FPA) report must be submitted for each task in a Planning and
Implementation grant before ECOLOGY can process a final payment request
C. COMPENSATION
Payment to RECIPIENT will be issued through Washington State's Department of Enterprise
Services (DES). DES maintains a central vendor file for Washington state agency use to process
vendor payments. This allows vendors to receive payments from all participating state agencies.
RECIPIENTS must register as a state-wide vendor(SWV) by submitting a state-wide vendor
registration form and an IRS W-9 form httpJ/www.ofm.wa.gov/isd/vendors/payee_registration.doc to
DES. If you have questions about the vendor registration process you can contact DES at the Payee
Help Desk at(360) 664-7779 or email to payeehelpdesk(i4otin.wa.gov.
D. TRAINING
RECIPIENT is expected to participate in any ECOLOGY recommended trainings related to
managing a CPG agreementwhen feasible unless exempted by ECOLOGY in writing.
E PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS
1. RECIPIENT must follow local procurement procedures or current state procurement
procedures,whichever is stricter. A RECIPIENT with no formal procurement procedures
must certify that they have complied with the "Standards for Competitive Solicitation"found
in Part V of the Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Lochs—
Yellow Book, Ecology Publication #91-18.
2. Upon issuance,the RECIPIENT may submit a copy of all requests for qualifications (RFQs),
requests for proposals (RFPs), and bid documents relating to this grant agreement to
ECOLOGY'S grant officer to be placed in the file.
3. Prior to contract execution, the RECIPIENT may submit all draft documents and a copy of the
draft proposed contract to ECOLOGY'S grant officer for review. The RECIPIENT assumes
any risks associated with the failure to consult with the regional grant officer. Following the
16
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 8 of 16
contract execution, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the final contract to ECOLOGY's
assigned grant officer to be placed in the file.
4. Unless a specific purchase of equipment or real property is already written into a task's scope
of work,the RECIPIENT must submit a written request to ECOLOGY to purchase any
equipment or real property(Property)with a single unit purchase price of$5,000 or more. The
request must include the justification for the purchase of the property,the total cost, the
intended use, and the anticipated useful life of the property. The request must be approved in
writing by ECOLOGY prior to the purchase.
F. USE OF EXISTING CONTRACTS
RECIPIENT may use existing contracts that conform to local adopted procurement procedures
and applicable state laws. The RECIPIENT shall notify ECOLOGY if intending to use contracts
entered into prior to the execution of the grant agreement for performance of grant-funded
activities. The RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the contract to its assigned ECOLOGY grant
officer to be placed in the file. The grant eligibility of products or services secured by the
RECIPIENT under existing contracts used to perform the scope of work in this agreement must
be deemed allowable and reasonable by ECOLOGY prior to cost reimbursement
G. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION
For equipment or property purchasedwith a cost of at least $5,000 per unit or functional system,
the RECIPIENT must utilize an inventory control system, including physical inventory to
document the ongoing use, a description of the item(including serial or vehicle identification
number(NIN when possible) and location. The information shall be submitted to ECOLOGY
upon request until final disposition is made. The RECIPIENT shall investigate, document, and
report to ECOLOGY any loss,theft or damage upon discovery of such conditions. The
RECIPIENT will follow manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures to keep the
property in good operating condition.
RECIPIENT shall submit a written request to the ECOLOGY for any intent to change the use of
the equipment as outlined in this grant agreement, including uses past the expiration date of this
agreement. Disposition of the equipment shall be determined by ECOLOGY and documented in
writing. A copy of the determination will be provided to the RECIPIENT upon ECOLOGY's
closure of the grant agreement unless already identified in the task's scope of work.
o If the equipment is necessary for the continued operation of the project or other projects
administered through ECOLOGY, the grant officer may instruct the recipient to retain the
equipment with no further compensation to ECOLOGY.
o If the project has no further significant use for the equipment, the grant offic er may instruct
the recipient to retain or sell the equipment and pay ECOLOGY an amount equal to
ECOLOGY's share of the current fair market value, sale proceeds or other price agreed upon
by the grant officer.
o The grant officer may instruct the recipient to transfer title to ECOLOGY or to a third party
named by ECOLOGY who is eligible under existing statutes.
H ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
This agreement, including the appended "General Terms and Conditions,"current cycle Program
Guidelines —Coordinated Prevention Grants found at
17
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 9 of 16
https://fortress.wa.2ov/ecy/publications/sumtnarypa2es/1107008.html, and ECOLOGY'S
Administrative Requirementsfor Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans, Ecology Publication
#91-18, contain the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no other
understandings or representations except as those set forth or incorporated by reference herein.
No subsequent modifications) or amendment(s)of this grant agreement shall be of any force or
effect unless in writing, signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY
and made part of this agreement
L ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECIPIENT shall take reasonable action to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the
archeological or cultural resources. RECIPIENT shall immediately ceasework and notify
ECOLOGY if any archeological or cultural resources are foundwhile conducting work under this
agreement. In the event that historical or cultural artifacts are discovered at the projectsite, the
RECIPIENT shall also notify the state historic preservation officer at the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation at(360) 586-3065. Applicability of the National Historic
Preservation Act(NHPA) may require the RECIPIENT to obtain a permit pursuant to Chapter
27.53 RCW prior to conducting on-site activity with the potential to impacthistoric properties
(such as invasive sampling, dredging, orcleanup actions).
J. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING
In a joint effort to save costs, produce energy savings and prevent waste, the RECIPIENT agrees
to use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing when feasible. The RECIPIENT also
agrees to purchase paper products with a high level of post consumer recycled contentwhen they
are comparable in quality, available, and cost effective.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties sign this Agreement:
STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Laurie G. Davies Date Signatory Date
Program Manager
Waste 2 Resources Program
Printed Name and Title of Signatory
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY As s is tant Attorney General
18
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX A
PART 5: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements of the Department of Ecology, SS-010 Rev. 04/04
A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE
All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and
RECIPIENT's employees. The RECIPIENT shall only use contractor/consultant assistance if that has
been included in the agreement's final scope of work and budget
B. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE
The RECIPIENT must ensure that all subgrantecs and contractors comply with the terns and
conditions of this agreement.
C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this
agreement,the state of Washington is named as an express third-party beneficiary of such
subcontracts with full rights as such.
D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING)
Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering
services shall be awarded through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall
retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded,for inspection and use by the
DEPARTMENT.
E ASSIGNMENTS
No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreementshall be transferred or assigned by
the RECIPIENT.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
1. RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders,
regulations and permits.
Prior to commencement of any construction,the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary
approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide
assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits have been secured, and make
copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request
2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and
State laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to
affirmatively support the program of the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to
the maximum extent possible. If the agreement is federally-funded,the RECIPIENT shall report
to the DEPARTMENT the percent of grant/loan funds available to women or minority owned
businesses.
3. Wages and Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws,regulations,
and policies of the United States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety.
19
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 11 of 16
4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial
insurance requirements. If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT
shall have the right to immediately terminate this agreement for cause as provided in Section K 1,
herein.
G. KICKBACKS
The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise
involved in this project to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled
or,receive any fee, commission or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder.
1- AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
1. RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this agreement
Such records shall clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and task or
object
All grant/loan records shall be kept in a mannerwhich provides an audit trail for all expenditures.
All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections.
Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished
under this agreement shall be maintained by the RECIPIENT.
2. All grant/loan records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly
authorized audit representative of the State of Washington for a period of at least three years after
the final grant payment/loan repayment or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits
identify discrepancies in the financial records,the RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and/or
make adjustments accordingly.
3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available
to the DEPARTMENT and to any authorized state,federal or local representative for inspection
at any time during the course of this agreement and for at least three years following grant/loan
termination or dispute resolution hereunder.
4. RECIPIENT shall meet the provisions in OMB Circular A-133 (Audits of States, Local
Governments & Non Profit Organizations), including the compliance Supplement to OMB
Circular A 133, if the RECIPIENT expends $500,000 or more in a year in Federal funds. The
$500,000 threshold for each year is a cumulative total of all federal funding from all sources. The
RECIPIENT must forw and a copy of the audit along with the RECIPIENT'S respons e and the
final corrective action plan to the DEPARTMENT within ninety (90) days of the date of the audit
report
L PERFORMANCEREPORTING
RECIPIENT shall submit progress reports to the DEPARTMENT with each payment request or such
other schedule as set forth in the Special Conditions. The RECIPIENT shall also report in writing to
the DEPARTMENT any problems, delays or adverse conditions whichwill materially affect their
ability to meet project objectives or time schedules. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a
statement of the action taken or proposed and any assistance needed from the DEPARTMENT to
resolve the situation. Payments may bewithheld if required progress reports are notsubmitted.
Quarterly reports shall cover the periods January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1
through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be due within thirty(30)
days following the end of the quarter being reported.
20
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 12 of 16
J. COMPENSATION
1. Method of compensation. Payment shall normally be made on a reimbursable basis as specified
in the grant agreement and no more often than once per month. Each request for payment will be
submitted by the RECIPIENT on State voucher request forms provided by the DEPARTMENT
along with documentation of the expenses. Payments shall be made for each task/phase of the
project, or portion thereof, asset out in the Scope of Work when completed by the RECIPIENT
and approved as satisfactory by the Project Officer.
The payment request form and supportive documents must itemize all allowable costs by major
elements as described in the Scope of Work Instructions for submitting the payment requests are
found in "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans",part IV,
published by the DEPARTMENT. A copy of this document shall be furnished to the
RECIPIENT. When payment requests are approved by the DEPARTMENT, payments will be
made to the mutually agreed upon designee.
Payment requests shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT and directed to the Project Officer
assigned to administer this agreement
2. Period of Compensation. Payments shall only be made for actions of the RECIPIENT pursuant to
the grant/loan agreement and performed after the effective date and prior to the expiration date of
this agreement,unless those dates are specifically modified in writing as provided herein.
3. Final Request(s)for Payment The RECIPIENT should submit final requests for compensation
within forty-five (45) days after the expiration date of this agreement andwithin fifteen (15)days
after the end of a fiscal biennium. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement
4. Performance Guarantee. The DEPARTMENT maywithhold an amount not to exceed ten percent
(10%) of each reimbursement payment as securityfor the RECIPIENT's performance. Monies
withheld by the DEPARTMENT may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the project(s) described
herein, or a portion thereof, have been completed if, in the DEPARTMENT's sole discretion,such
payment is reasonable and approved according to this agreement and, as appropriate,upon
completion of an audit as specified under section J.5 herein.
5. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT maybe subject to final audit by the
DEPARTMENT and any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grant/loan shall be refunded
to the DEPARTMENT by the RECIPIENT.
6. Mileage and Per Diem. If mileage and per diem are paid to the employees of the RECIPIENT or
other public entities, it shall not exceed the amount allowed under state law for state employees.
7. Overhead Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in
the Scope of Work hereunder.
K TERMINATION
1. For Cause. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon
satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this agreement. In the
event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT, to perform any
obligation required of it by this agreement, the DEPARTMENT may refuse to pay any further
funds thereunder and/or terminate this agreement by giving written notice of termination.
A written notice of termination shall be given at least five working days prior to the effective date
of termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys,
21
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 13 of 16
drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT
under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, shall become Department property
and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials.
Despite the above,the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to the DEPARTMENT
for damages sustained by the DEPARTMENT and/or the State of Washington because of any
breach of agreement by the RECIPIENT. The DEPARTMENT may withhold payments for the
purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the DEPARTMENT from
the RECIPIENT is determined.
2. Insufficient Funds. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make payments is contingent on the
availability of state and federal funds through legislative appropriation and state allotment. When
this agreement cross es over state fiscal years the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent
upon the appropriation of funds during the next fiscal year. The failure to appropriate or allot
such funds shall be good cause to terminate this agreement as provided in paragraph K 1 above.
When this agreement cros ses the RECIPIENT's fiscal year, the obligation of the RECIPIENT to
continue or complete the project described herein shall be contingent upon appropriation of funds
by the RECIPIENT's governing body, provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall
preclude the DEPARTMENT from demanding repayment of ALL funds paid to the RECIPIENT
in accordancewith Section O herein.
3. Failure to Commence Work In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project
funded herein within four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date
mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work the DEPARTMENT reserves the
right to terminate this agreement.
L. WAIVER
Waiver of any RECIPIENT default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of
any provision of this agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will not be construed as
a modification of the terms of this agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized
representative of the DEPARTMENT.
NL PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents
any patentable property, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the
DEPARTMENT retains a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce,
publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or properly and to authorize others to use the
same for federal, state or local government purposes.
Where federal funding is involved, the federal government may have a proprietary interest in
patent rights to any inventions that are developed by the RECIPIENT as provided in 35 U.S.C.
200-212
2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish
information of the DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information
supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos, reports, maps or other data, in printed reports,signs,
brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the DEPARTMENT.
3. Tangible Property Rights. The DEPARTMENT's current edition of"Administrative
Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans",Part V, shall control the use and
zz
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 14 of 16
disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds furnished by
the DEPARTMENT in the absence of state,federal statute(s),regulation(s), or policy(s)to the
contrary or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in the Scope of Work.
4. Personal Property Furnished by the DEPARTMENT. When the DEPARTMENT provides
personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be
returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to final payment by the DEPARTMENT. Ifs aid property
is lost, stolen or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, the DEPARTMENT shall be
reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair marketvalue of such property.
5. Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this
agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities:
a. Prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this agreement,the RECIPIENT shall establish
that the cost of land/or facilities is fair and reasonable.
b. The RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each
parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this agreement Such evidence may
include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions
establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim whichwould impair the
uses contemplated by this agreement.
6. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the
RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or
developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for which assistancewas originally
approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval maybe
conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale,
lease or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear
to the total acquisition, purchase or construction costs of such property.
N. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS
In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to
implement sustainable practices where andwhen possible. These practices include use of clean
energy, and purchase and use of sustainably produced products (e.g. recycled paper). For more
information, seewww.ecy.wa.gov/sustainability.
O. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT
The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies paid to it as reimbursement payments is contingent
upon satisfactory performance of this agreement including the satisfactory completion of the project
described in the Scope of Work In the event the RECIPIENT fails, for any reason, to perform
obligations required of it by this agreement the RECIPIENT may, at the DEPARTMENT's sole
discretion, be required to repay to the DEPARTMENT all grant/loan funds disbursed to the
RECIPIENT for those parts of the project that are rendered worthless in the opinion of the
DEPARTMENT by such failure to perform.
Interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve percent(12%) per year from the time the DEPARTMENT
demands repayment of funds. If payments have been discontinued by the DEPARTMENT due to
insufficient funds as in Section K2 above,the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies
which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. Any property acquired under this
agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT,may become the DEPARTMENT'S property and the
23
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 15 of 16
RECIPIENT'S liability to repay monies shall be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of
such property.
P. PROJEC T APPROVAL
The extent and character of all work and services to be performed under this agreement by the
RECIPIENT shall be subject to the review and approval of the DEPARTMENT through the Project
Officer or other designated official to whom the RECIPIENT shall report and be responsible. In the
event there is a disputewith regard to the extent and character of theworkto be done,the
determination of the Project Officer or other designated official as to the extent and character of the
work to be done shall govern The RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided
for below.
Q. DISPUTES
Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising
under this agreement whi h is not disposed of in writing shall be decided by the Project
Officer or other designated official who shall provide a written statement of decision to the
RECIPIENT. The decision of the Project Officer or other designated official shall be final and
conclusive unless,within thirty days from the date of receipt of such statement the RECIPIENT
mails or otherwise furnishes to the Director of the DEPARTMENT a written appeal.
In connection with appeal of any proceeding under this clause, the RECIPIENT shall have the
opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of this appeal The decision of the Director
or duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive.
Appeals from the Director's determination shall be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County.
Review of the decision of the Director will not be sought before either the Pollution Control Hearings
Board or the Shoreline Hearings Board. Pending final decision of dispute hereunder,the RECIPIENT
shall proceed diligently with the performance of this agreement and in acc ordanc e w ith the decision
rendered.
R. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No officer, member, agent, or employee of either party to this agreement who exercises any function
or responsibility in the review, approval, or carrying out of this agreement, shall participate in any
decision which affects his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or
association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested;nor shall he/she have any personal or
pecuniary interest, direct or indirect in this agreement or the proceeds thereof.
S. INDEMNIFICATION
1. The DEPARTMENT shall in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's
fees, and other costs related to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of
Work.
2. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party shall
indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to
persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents
or employees arising out of this agreement.
T. GOVERNINGLAW
This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
24
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G1400199
City of Kent
Page 16 of 16
U. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall
be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this agreementwhich can be
given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this agreement are
declared to be severable.
V. PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistency in this agreement, unless otherwise provided herein,the inconsistency
shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) applicable Federal and State
statutes and regulations; (b) Scope of Work;(c) Special Terms and Conditions;(d) Any terms
incorporated herein by reference including the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of
Ecology Grants and Loans"; and(e)the General Terms and Conditions.
25
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: October 1, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Kevin Swinford, Interim Water Superintendent
Through: Dave Brock, P.E., Interim Operations Manager
Subject: Withdrawal of Membership in South King County
Regional Water Association
Item - 3
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to end City participation
in the South King County Regional Water Association effective December
31, 2013.
Summary:
The South King County Regional Water Association was formed more than 30 years
ago. Membership consisted of cities and water districts serving the public water
supply needs for much of King County south of Seattle. The association was
established to explore additional water sources to meet growing demand in the 80s
and 90s and to establish service boundaries.
Regional water supply demands have since changed, resulting in increased
availability. In Kent this has been primarily because of the final approval of the
Habitat Conservation Plan for Clark Springs and our participation with the Tacoma
Second Supply Project. The original goals and objectives of the association have
been met and the necessity for Kent's participation is no longer needed. A number of
adjacent jurisdictions have dropped out, including the City of Auburn this past
summer.
The City will continue to collaborate with neighboring purveyors on supply and
demand needs and will remain engaged with tracking legislative and other common
issues that affect our water resources.
Budget Impact:
Some additional staff time will be needed to track legislative issues; however,
existing staff will be able to take on that work.
26
This page intentionally left blank.
27
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: October 28, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Todd Hunsdorfer, Conservation Coordinator - NPDES
Through: Mike Mactutis P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager
Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Clean Water Act Municipal Stormwater Permit —
Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program
Item - 4
Motion — Move to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of intent to commit
$77,402 per year for four years starting August 15, 2014 to participate in
the Washington State Department of Ecology Regional Stormwater
Monitoring program as required by the 2013 — 2018 Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit.
Summary:
The Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSWMP) is a required component of
the 2013 - 2018 Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit. The RSWMP includes the
following elements:
1. Status and Trends Monitoring
2. Effectiveness Studies Monitoring
3. Source Identification and Diagnostic Monitoring
Kent can accomplish elements 1 and 2 above by either buying into the RSWMP
funding pool or by conducting a city-wide monitoring program consistent with the
RSWMP Guidelines outlined in section S8 of the Phase II Municipal Stormwater permit.
The buy in option (RSWMP funding pool), at an annual cost of $77,402 per year for
four years starting August 15, 2014, has been determined by city staff to be the more
affordable option. Analysis of costs associated with conducting a city-wide monitoring
program in-house have been determined to be in the range of $350,000-$450,000
annually; including equipment, lab, and staff expenses. Utilizing consultants for
portions of the program result in costs at the upper end of the estimated annual
range.
Budget Impact:
The funding has been budgeted in the Surface Water Utility
2s
This page intentionally left blank.
29
w �miWumioo°„.... nuoentyk, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
"m,�„�,00l KENT Suzette Cooke, Mayor
WA° N°TVN 2204th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6700
Phone: 253-856-5700
October 28, 2013
Ms. Anne Dettelbach
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
Municipal Stormwater Permits
3190 1601h Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
RE: City of Kent
Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSWMP) Participation
Dear Ms. Dettelbach,
The City of Kent is writing to notify the Department of Ecology that it will be participating in the
Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program by choosing:
• Status and Trends Monitoring Option #1 (buy-in) $27,441 annually
• Effectiveness Studies Option #1 (buy-in) $45,721 annually
Kent also acknowledges that it will participate in the required Source Identification and
Diagnostic Monitoring element of the Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program at a cost of
$4,240 annually.
Total buy-in cost is $77,402 annually for four years beginning August 15, 2014. It is understood
that by participating in the RSWMP as indicated above, condition S8 (Monitoring and
Assessment) of the 2013 - 2018 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit will
be fully satisfied.
Sincerely,
Suzette Cooke
Mayor
City of Kent
cc: Mr. Tom Brubaker, Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Mr. Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director
Mr. Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager
Mr. Shawn Gilbertson, Environmental Supervisor
m
s
c
v
u
s
y
...........................................................................................................................................................................................„
30
This page intentionally left blank.
31
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: October 28, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Bill Thomas, Street Superintendent
Through: Dave Brock P.E., Interim Operations Manager
Subject: Snow and Ice Preparations
Item — 5
Move to recommend Council authorize staff to begin negotiations with King
County or a private contractor to remove snow from Kent Kangley Road in
the Clark Springs watershed and to authorize staff to begin negotiations
with King County for maintenance of the Green River Bridge on East Valley
Road and to bring such agreements back to the Public Works Committee for
approval.
Summary: The City of Kent has a published snow and ice removal plan that has been
maintained on our website (attached). In addition our anti-icing maintained routes are also
shown on the website (attached). The city has over 725 lane miles of roads to maintain and only
8 dump trucks that can be outfitted with plows.
Because of the hilly terrain and the difficulties with continuously maintaining the arterials that
ascend these hills during snow storms, the priority has always been to maintain these arterials
first as noted on the map. Staff is not proposing any change to our work or prioritization of the
routes to be kept open.
King County has recently announced that they would not be plowing a significant number of
streets that they have traditionally kept open because of severe budget cuts. Informally, King
County staff have asked if Kent would be willing to take over clearing of streets such as East
Valley Road between the Green River and Auburn Way North.
Because of our already limited resources and budget we do not recommend doing so at this
time. Because of the departure from past practice by King County we do recommend that the
City enter into a contractual agreement with King County for the Green River bridge
maintenance at East Valley Road. We also recommend that we enter into an agreement with
King County or a private contractor to plow Kent Kangley Road in the Clark Springs watershed
during severe snow storms.
Budget Impact: No budget impact is anticipated at this time. Clearing snow in the Clark
Springs watershed on Kent Kangley Road would be paid for by the water utility.
32
This page intentionally left blank.
33
1 �
o d
C N r J(
"w
y : n
O ¢`
✓�w 1 3 yu •Vl
Il ou
w�
If
WO
r
w�
I
y e
1 f1II�
� f
0 � r
P e
0
a
M-
k u<wNl bdn '
w
yy��yy 4
1j^5 J
b[
'I", If a ra
S wrb'
a
w
s
F
W � 4ka,,
V
m
w
34
This page intentionally left blank.
35
_ .....__
N �
Etz
m /
`ydY 11 ,R'Y/
IP £'A�
� �npi Cerro oroaruiwo„p 0
'm &
l
d' Gfir,�w Ft�
ff
U i �,
� �
Jj
d ''f
I
(!
f P�dY i Ffj � P r T ii�a iii i f
s 9s�N'Mi7?d) i Wd ,'� iv
4 r
A � r
` 4 loll„ i �i,mr i io7ii «ii i >& i v.�K�� �
4 yp 11 0Rw(
J /s
OII d+�C D �/ io,/e ��/l i/n✓?%/✓v IAd 6LL .,. /
t I�, 99�IwaZ) r n n>«mii i qi
l
v f tom!////
€
r�R ✓� J .
1 ..
g
S 9 OV o C , )PAS.{
i L�r2/m/
(Iw64 I
wY�q I w i�l'✓ail
i
�.-j ��fso��wg�b➢ /l� im o�n�p
i f�
p
36
This page intentionally left blank.
37
•e� 16th Ava
g '
. CD D
U) f
fiC/ � .. na
OD
e �
CID 8
co
4 na �s
�__
e..p 18Ieu
� ' ? Military Rd darn
42ndCD
4 y Hwy 68th Ave.S...,,..a 68th Ave S w.. co ._. ..
v tJ?
^J! risrim
St2 167 � j
.a
t a 76th Ave S
any u� �
Central Ave S „qpq,
ure�Nl�timreNunrc�rr�Rr�k,:,.......... ............,m.. .: _,.�... �.V" .„..„ "�u.. N
cs m ,.. ,4th Ave S N
"Ti 3 �
, ....... 96t
cn h Av S
m N
. .• '�, _. �� ueiP°Ord' � 1 4th Ave SE
I �
c✓s cra "�
,��°� - _._�.... th Ave SE egg
en
116th ve SE � I....__ ...,_...,.,�
_... .'I® 124th Ave m SE I�
...,i.._., N
m
i to s
132ndAveA m
ve SE c
m
rn � rt
cn �,n� x� - __. .14
38
This page intentionally left blank.
ico
m cn
N
1144th Aye SE `" ' 3cn
1`
�% .
14 hAveSE
1 8th
4
Ave
61g
_.......,
�64t r Ave»u,
y
SE
co
N I
1 m
P' N
5 180 h Ave SE
J <4 yy C11
s�a
� N Fri
m ,
.... ....m
cn
o
c Ja cs
I N Fa
Q f.^
f,.
216th Arse SE
.,.,... _ ,.... Witte Rd SE
df
yl ----,.__...
N �^
� S � Cl) E P
s6SZn e�3
� � ao
a�a
�b
244th
c� oeSE
J
d m ��` (/)
0
cn o
"s m
co
°qj�Bp�pB% '^..� p'N� ...
co
dL it I
l jj
dw v lilp, V�n�ud P ��Ililomuumwwuumuwuwuuuuuuuuuuummu?mi i6mtwhuwuuAIMIR
40
This page intentionally left blank.
41
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: November 1, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Ken Langholz, Design Engineering Supervisor
Through: Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Information Only - Briscoe/Des imone Levee Consultant Contract
for Constructability Review
Item — 6
Information Only/No Motion Required
Summary:
The Public Works Department has completed design of Reaches 2 and 3 for the
Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project. This project includes the installation of over 3,100
feet of steel sheet pile walls, excavation of the existing levee and installation of
plantings. The project is ready to go to bid which will allow it to be underway at the
best time of the construction season in 2014.
Because of the complexity of this project we are pursuing the services of outside
experts in the field of sheet pile installation to perform a constructability review of
the project.
At this time we expect that the consultant services agreements will be within the
approval authority of the Public Works Director or Mayor. Should any of the
contracts exceed this amount, they will be brought before this committee on
November 18, 2013 for consideration.
Budget Impact:
Funding for this work is included in the grant from the Washington State Legislature.
42
This page intentionally left blank.
43
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: September 30, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: November 4, 2013
From: Mark Howlett, P.E., Design Engineering Manager
Through: Chad Bieren, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Information Only/Vancouver Washington Quiet Zones Local
Improvement District (LID)
Item - 7
No Motion Required/Information Only
Summary:
The City is researching alternatives for funding our proposed railroad quiet zone.
State Law was changed in 2009 to allow the use of an LID to fund a quiet zone. The
City of Vancouver Washington is the only known City to form an LID for this
purpose. Staff will provide information regarding Vancouver's use of an LID to fund
their project.
Budget Impact:
None
44
This page intentionally left blank.
45
Y "v
City of Vancouver • P.O. Box 1995 • Vancouver,WA 98668-1995
www.citycrNancouver.us
January 18, 2013
Train Horn Noise Quiet Zone ® East Side Rail Corridor
Local Improvement District (LID) Survey
Dear Neighbor,
The City of Vancouver has been working with residents on the east side of Vancouver to help quiet train horns.
Like other communities across the country,the City has received complaints about train horn noise for some
time. Working with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), interested neighbors and others, the City has
been investigating the feasibility of forming a train horn quiet zone that would span the crossings from SE 139th
Avenue to SE 164th Avenue.
In response to resident concerns about train horn noise associated with mandatory horn use at three public
crossings within this span, extensive evaluation and analysis was completed to study possible solutions to the
railroad crossings at:
. SE 139th Avenue SE 147th Avenue e SE 164th Avenue
The City does not have funding available to install the necessary safety measures which are required to quiet
train horns. A Local Improvement District(LID) has been suggested to serve as the funding mechanism. An LID
is a method provided for under RCW 35.43,042 that allows property owners to fund a public improvement. LIDS
are commonly used to finance roadway improvements, street lights and related utility installations where those
who benefit pay for the improvement.
In 2009, the City sent neighbors a similar packet of INFORMATIONAL GATHERING
seeking opinions about forming an
LID. Since that time, there has been a change in Train Horn Noise Quiet Zone
approach using alternative safety measures instead Wednesday, February 6, 2013
of the measures originally proposed in response to 7 to 8:30 p.m.
some challenges encountered with the original Water Resources Education Center
proposal. Details of those changes are discussed in Bruce E. Hagensen Community Room, 2nd Floor
the attached materials. The alternative approach,
recently approved by FRA, also significantly 4600 SE Columbia Way, Vancouver, WA 98661
reduces the overall cost to residents from that
proposed in 2009.
The City is again seeking your input. Please use the informal yellow postcard survey, included with this letter, to
indicate your view (yes or no) about creating a Local Improvement District to quiet the train horns in your area.
Please clearly indicate whether you support or do not support a proposed LID. You may access additional
information at the City's Train Horn website: www.cityofvancouver.us/trainhorns.
East Vancouver neighbors and the City of Vancouver will jointly host an informational meeting on Feb. 6 where
you will have the opportunity to learn more about Local Improvement Districts and the updated proposal. We
value your time. Other than some brief introductory remarks at the beginning of the meeting, to make it easier
for you to attend and get your questions answered quickly, this is planned as an informational gathering with no
formal presentation. We will have knowledgeable people familiar with the Quiet Zone and LID process available
to answer your questions throughout the evening. Please see additional enclosed materials for general
estimates about overall cost and benefits,
Sincerely,
Brian K. Carlson, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Vancouver
46
January 18, 2013
East Vancouver Train Horn Quiet Zone History/Overview
Dear Neighbors:
2009-2012 Recap:
It is approaching four long years since the City of Vancouver (City) and your East Vancouver
Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee (Committee)jointly proposed the creation of an East
Vancouver Train IIorn Quiet Zone (THQZ) and sent you an informational mailer and survey
similar to the one you are now receiving. In late summer 2009, 80% of the survey respondents
indicated they were in favor of the creation of the Quiet Zone and were willing to pay for the
safety improvements at the crossings via the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID).
So why, over three years later do we still not have the Quiet Zone in place? Certainly this is a
fair and logical question.
These past three plus years have been as frustrating to your neighbors that make up the
Committee as it has been to you. There have been a multitude of reasons for the delay, some
unavoidable, some not, not the least of which has been an uncooperative Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF)Railway Company. Here is a short version of the numerous delay causing
actions:
® In late 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)reviewed the private crossing
(SE 144th Ave.) located between the SE 139th Ave. and SE 147th Ave.public crossings
as a result of questions raised concerning the status of this crossing. FRA subsequently
categorized it as a "private crossing with limited public access" due to one resident with
rights to use the private crossing having a Home Occupation Permit from the City,
allowing a limited business to be run from their home. This required an on-site
evaluation and technical review conducted in early 2010 by interested public entities
with standing, such as the City of Vancouver,FRA, Washington State DOT, and BNSF
in an attempt to reach consensus on how to address this crossing. Views as to what, if
anything, needed to be done at this crossing were at both ends of the spectrum and as a
result, no consensus was reached. Months later the FRA conducted another technical
review hoping for a reasonable solution, but again no consensus.
® With no progress made on a technical review team consensus, the Quiet Zone could not
go forward. In November 2010 the City, with the support of the Committee and
numerous neighborhood organizations, applied for a waiver from the FRA allowing for
reasonable improvements at the private crossing to allow the THQZ process to continue.
The waiver was approved in April 2011, despite written objections submitted by BNSF.
The FRA ruled that this private crossing must be improved by installing lighted stops
signs on both sides of the crossing and removing any obstacles to the line of sight from
the crossing along the tracks in both directions.
® In 2009 BNSF provided a cost estimate of$1,076,386 for the purchase and installation
of the 4-quadrants gates that would replace the 2-quadrants gates as the planned
mandatory safety improvements at the three public crossings to allow the formation of
47
the THQZ. This figure was used as part of the 2009 LID cost estimate in the 2009
mailer. In 2010 the City received an updated figure from BNSF of$1,156,498, a 7.4%
increase from the previous year. In April 2011,the week before the City received the
FRA approved waiver to allow the THQZ process to continue,BNSF indicated the cost
to the City to now be$1,834,098. That represented a 58.6% increase from the previous
year and an over 70% increase from the 2009 estimates used in the previous survey.
Further adding to this monetary roadblock was BNSF's insistence that the City assume
full financial responsibility for replacing and maintaining the 4-quadrants gates in f
perpetuity that was now BNSF's responsibility with the 2-quadrants gates. The only
response from BNSF to all concerned, including our Congressional delegation of
Senators Cantwell and Murray and Representative Herrera Beutler, who have been
supporting this project, was "we blew it on the other cost estimates". You can imagine
the feeling the City and Committee had with this unexpected revelation from BNSF that
virtually killed the THQZ as originally proposed.
During the March through November 2011 time period the City and Committee worked
closely with the FRA's local manager, Christine Adams, who had been helping with the
THQZ project from day one, seeking ways to keep the process alive. It was discovered
that it might be possible to use Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) that the FRA might
approve at the public crossings in lieu of the previously approved Supplemental Safety
Measures (SSMs) in the form of the 4-quadrants gates. Median and channelization
barrier device systems are approved safety measures at crossings, but installing them at
their optimal length on the north side of the SE 139th Ave. and SE 147th Ave. crossings
was not possible due to the close proximity of the crossing to the Evergreen Highway.
In order to allow for train horns to be silenced as part of the Quiet Zone you must reduce
the train crossing risk index sufficiently by the addition of approved safety treasures.
While full crossing risk index credit was not available for the medians/chamnelization
devices on the north side for these two crossings due to their reduced length, when the
total credit available for these devices was added together for all three crossings Ave
appeared to have sufficient credit to allow for a THQZ. The FRA ran the numbers and
gave a verbal that they appeared to be sufficient.
® At the December 15, 2011 meeting between the City leadership/staff and the Committee
it was agreed to go forward with the median/channelization devices and approach the
City Council with the new plan. Please review the following web site for a further
description of this system: Qwick Kurb Company http://ivww.gwickkurb.cotn. The
Qwick Kurb site has an excellent 5 minute video on their product made for Train Horn
Quiet Zones.
At the December 19, 2011 City Council workshop, City staff gave a status update with
regard to the THQZ and the revised safety measures now contemplated. The Council
approved the expenditure of$80,000 to pay for the necessary engineering/cost studies
for construction and installation of the safety measures. Although there are other costs
involved in establishing a THQZ, the bulk of the costs are for crossing site preparation,
purchase and installation of the safety measures. The median and chattnelization safety
measures will be enhanced with new street lighting at the SE 139th Ave. and SE 147th
Ave. crossings and widening of approximately 100' of SE 164th Ave. north and south of
the crossing to allow for two way traffic with a center median installed. The total
engineering, construction and LID estimated costs for the safety measures at all three
public crossings and the private crossing totals $818,000 compared to the BNSF
estimated costs for the 4-quadrants gates at the three public crossings of$1,076,386 in
2
48
2009 when the first mailer/survey was sent out to their latest estimate in 2011 of
$1,834,098.
I
® During the first six months of 2012 City leadership and staff met to work out details of
the process as we proceeded towards having the East Vancouver Train Horn Quiet Zone
in place by 2013. A traffic study was done and the sound study was updated with new
readings taken to update the noise benefit tiers. A new plan using medians and
channelization supplemental and alternative safety measures was sent to the FRA for
review and possible approval in June 2012.
® On December 27, 2012 the City received a letter from the FRA approving the plans to
use median and ehannelization devices at the three public crossings along with
confirming per their earlier waiver the requirement to install lighted stop signs at the
private crossing contained within the proposed Quiet Zone. This was the positive news
we had all been waiting for to proceed with establishment of the long anticipated THQZ.
Why A Train Horn Quiet Zone?
You have received this letter and accompanying information because you have been identified as
one of 467 property owners that are most adversely affected by the train horn noise at the three
public railway crossings in East Vancouver. The crossings are at SE 139th Ave., SE 147th Ave.
and SE 164th Ave. along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)tracks between the
Evergreen Highway and the Columbia River.
Just how much of a problem is the train horn noise? The answer is certainly subjective, but
according to the Federal Railroad Administration Rules,the train horn decibel level must be
between 96 and 110 decibels. To give you some idea of what those values equate to,the sound
of a chain saw from 3' away is approximately 110 decibels. Obviously the train horn has to be
loud enough for people near the crossings in vehicles to hear it, and this means it is loud enough
for people in houses to hear it as well, This combined with the fact that the train engineer is
required to sound the horn approximately '/4 mile prior to the crossing and until through it, and
that these three crossings are separated by less than one mile from each other,results in
prolonged exposure to this noise. Multiply the effects by 64 trains per day that use this corridor
and a forecast of more to come and you have a significant noise problem that will only get worse
with time.
Now that we have identified the problem, how do we silence the train horn noise? We all know
the railroad is not going away, nor should they have to as they bring needed commerce to our
area and were here long before any current residents. The answer lies in the FRA's Train Horn
Rule that became effective in 2005. It allowed for the creation of quiet zones. With the
installation of approved enhanced safety measures at crossings, the train horns could remain
silent, except in obvious emergencies. So now there is a solution available.
In 2005, after receiving ongoing complaints from residents regarding the train horn noise,the
City of Vancouver hired a consultant and commissioned a Sound Study to see what could be
done to create train horn noise quiet zones. This study along with an update to the Sound Study
conducted in 2009 provided for several ways to create the quiet zones. The City did not have the
funding to purchase the crAianced safety measures to allow the creation of the quiet zones and
quickly realized that if these train horn quiet zones were going to come to fruition, it would have
3
49
to be through the efforts of the residents of the affected areas. The City concluded they could
best help by acting as the facilitator between BNSF and the affected communities.
In 2008 a number of your neighbors decided that this was a project worthy of our advocacy and
began the process of finding out what we needed to do to create safer crossings that would allow
the train horns to be silent and improve our quality of life. Getting input from neighbors from all
along the Evergreen Highway corridor, we concluded that replacing the 2-quadrants systems
with 4-quadrants systems was the best approved solution for creating the much-desired East
Vancouver Train Horn Quiet Zone. Purchasing and installing these electronically sophisticated
devices is not inexpensive and as we are now painfully aware, is subject to the pricing whims of
BNSF who has sole authority to contract for the installation of the approved safety measures
when it comes to crossing gates. Not so for the approved safety devices in the form of median
and channelization barriers that prevent the impatient driver from crossing over to the other lane
and going around the lowered crossing arms. With the talk of increased train lengths, thus longer
crossing waiting times,the temptation to do this is even greater.
The City proposed that with no public funding or grants available to install these systems that the
only feasible way to do it would be through the creation of a Local Improvement District(LID),
wherein all 467 affected properties would pay their fair share of the cost. Before we address how
one's fair share was determined, we encountered another problem. The State of Washington has
a law that is very specific as to what projects can be funded by a LID, and paying for safety
improvements at railroad crossings was not on the list. It is now,thanks to the concerted efforts
of our local Vancouver area State Representatives who co-sponsored legislation adding railroad
crossing safety improvements to the approved list and lobbied it through to eventual signing by
the Governor in July of 2009.
Now let's move on to the fair share issue. The City used the Sound Study to see what properties
suffered the greatest adverse effect from the train horn noise and thus would get the most benefit
from their silencing. This became the Tier 1 benefit zone, second most adversely affected, Tier 2
and least adversely affected, Tier 3. You will see from the enclosed Per-Lot-Costs chart that
property owners will pay based on how much noise abatement they receive. In any case, the
City was well aware of the need to make these costs workable to the 467 properties in the
proposed LID. They did this by agreeing to finance the cost over 20 years,thus malting the
yearly cost between $177 and $53 per property depending on the benefit tier you are in. Doing-
the math, depending on your benefit tier, this works out to between about a penny per train to
quiet the train horns. You will have the option of paying your entire bill up front if you desire,
thus avoiding the finance charges that are included in the annual billing amount.
The latest detailed information and project history on Train Horn noise mitigation in Vancouver
is located on the City's web site at ww,w.cityofvancouver.us/trainhorns.
Please thoroughly review the enclosed material so you can make an intelligent decision. How
many times have you said to yourself how much you love this area along the Columbia River if it
just wasn't for those darn train hours blaring 24 hours per day? is getting rid ofthe train horn
noise on a 24/7 basis worth a penny/train to you? We feel it is and hope you do as well.
4
50
Acknowledgements:
We want to extend Our appreciation to Mayor Tim Leavitt, City Manager Eric Holmes and City
Council Member Larry Smith who have all continued to support ourjoint efforts to establish this
long desired East Vancouver Train Horn Quiet Zone. Former City Manager Pat McDonnell and
now retired City Transportation Director Thayer Rorabaugh as well as former Traffic Engineer
John Manix were also integral supporters of the project early on.
We would be remiss if we did not tell you of the work that City Public Works Director Brian
Carlson and City Engineering and Construction Services Manager Dan Swensen continue to do
to move this long delayed project along. Of special note is the work that has been done since
2008 with the Connnittec and neighborhoods by City Project Development& Policy Manager
Matt Ransom and Community Outreach Coordinator Brooke Porter. While the City
acknowledges that the parcel owners will be paying for the safety treasures that will be installed
to create the Quiet Zone, they have generously supplied all of the staff time over the past four
years without charge to the LID.
This project would have died long ago without the support and guidance of FRA's local area
Manager, Christine Adams, along with her now retired colleague, Darryl Morrow. "Their work
and that of the FRA's Ronald Ries in Washington,D.C., who oversees Train Horn Quiet Zones
across the United States, has been invaluable to get us where we are today.
As previously mentioned, we have solicited and received support from our entire Washington
State Congressional delegation and wanted to thank the following previous and current local
office Directors/Representatives who have attended our meetings and attempted to make sure we
were given the best opportunity to push this project through: Kimberly Blake Pincheira(Sen.
Cantwell), Page Phillips and Kate Whittier (Sen. Murray), and Pam Peiper(Rep.Herrera
Beutler).
We would not have the option to use a LTD for funding safety improvements at a train crossing
unless Washington State Law was changed to allow this as one of the projects covered by LID
funding. This was pushed through the state legislature in 2009 by former State Representative
Deb Wallace with lobbying by the Identity Clark County organization through their then
Executive Director, Ginger Metcalf,who has been advising our Committee since we formed it.
Finally your neighbors listed below are members of your East Vancouver Train Horn Noise
Advisory Committee who have represented the interests of the thousands of people along the
East Evergreen Highway corridor that will have a better place to live with the creation of an East
Vancouver Train Horn Quiet Zone. I guess it does take a village.
Committee Members:
Bob Byrd, Dick Hannah, Serena Lacey, Jim Naughton, Dave Nelson, Jim Rulli, Carol Terrell,
Vi Towne and Titan Tran.
Sincerely,
Roger Parsons
Spokesperson
East Vancouver Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee
5
51
East Train Horn Quiet Zone
Vancouver, Washington - January 2013
I
Comments, Questions and Answers
(Prepared by the P,asl Vancouver Train horn Noise Advismy Committee,with consuttalioa firm Me City)
1. What is a Train Horn Noise Qttiet Zane?
It is a section of the train corridor where locomotives do not regularly sound their train horns
at public railway crossings.
2. What is required at these crossings so that the train horn does not have to be sounded?
A ruling from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that went into effect in June 2005
approved Supplemental Safety Measures (SSAfs), such as equipping these crossings with
approved 4-quadrant gate systems or 2-quadrant(dual)gates with medians or channelization
devices that would allow the train horn to remain quiet. A 4-quadrant gates system, unlike a
dual-gates system,provides,lbr two gates on each side of the crossing thereby preventing any
vehicle from getting around the crossing gates when in a down position. Likewise, dual gales
with medians/channelizalion device barriers prevent vehicles waiting at the crossingfrom
lane jumping and going around the down gates.
3. Will the trains ever sound their horns at these crossings?
Only in an emergency, when the engineer sees an obstacle, be it a vehicle or person on the
tracks, otherwise they are directed not to sound their horns at these crossings on a 24/7 basis.
4. What public crossings constitute the proposed East Vancouver Quiet Zone?
The crossings are between the Evergreen highway and the Colombia River at SE 139th Ave.,
SE 147th Ave., and SE 164th Ave.
5. There is a private crossing between the SE 139th Ave. and SE 147th Ave. crossings.
Does that crossing affect the Train horn Quiet Zone (THQZ)?
Private crossings do not require active warning systems (lighted gates, train horns) like
public crossings, only a stop sign and markings as a railroad crossing. In this case, one of
the residents with authorized use of the private crossing maintains an approved home
occupation permit allowing a business to be run fr•orn the home. For this reason, the FRA has
classified this crossing as a private crossing with limited public access crud has required
improvements in the form of lighted stop signs and removal of any obstructions to the site
lines at this crossing for this Quiet Zone to be established
6. Who will naav for these approved Safety Measures and how notch will they cost?
All available resources, includinggovernment andgrantfarnding, have been explored. Since
there are no public funds available due to current and foreseeable budget constraints, the
City of'Vancou ver is recommending that the property owners living near this proposed Fast
Vancouver Quiet Zone Corridor, who would gain the most by the silencing of these train
horns,pay jor these improvements. It is now estimated that putting in approved FRA safety
measures in the form of median/channelization device barriers on both sides of each of the
three public crossings along with other costs associated with forming a Local Improvement
District(LTD)would total approximately $818,000. This option was recently approved by the
FRA for this Quiet Zone and represents a significant reduction in the lolal cost of the project.
52
7. Didn't the City propose using 4-quadrant gates as the approved safety measures in
2009 when they surveyed the parcel owners livingin i the proposed LID area?
In 2009, using figures provided by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad(BNSF) it was
estimated that installation of a 4-quadrant gates system at the three public crossings along
with other costs associated with funding a Local Improvement District would total$1I7
million. Unfortunately in 2011 BNSF later informed the City that they had erred in their
original 2009 estimates and raised their estimates for installation of the three 4-quadrant
systems frrorn $1,076,386 to $1,834,098, an increase of over 70%. In addition they then
stipulated that the City would be fully responsible for maintenance and replacement of these
crossing gates that BNSF is currently responsible far. This is why the median/channelization
devices are now the safety devices of choice for the Quiet Zone.
8. While silencing these train horns will have a significant positive effect on my quality
of life and increase my properV value,how will the project be paid for?
The City proposes to create a Local Improvement District(LID) consisting of the 467
properties closest to the corridor and broken down into three tiered benefit areas based on
noise overlays with each tier paying their share of the cost. To minimize the impact on each
property owner, these costs are to be amorilzed over 20 years. This works out to be roughly
$1771year for each of the 218 properties in Per 1, $124/year for each of the 95 properties in
Per 2, and$53/year,for each of the 154 properties in Tier 3. These estimates using
median/channelization device salty measures represent a roughly 40% cost reduction fi•orn
those listed in the 2009 mailer using 4-quadrant gate devices (the 2009 cost estimates were
$295/year for Tier 1 properties, $206/year for Tier 2 properties and$89/year for Tier 3
properties). Property owners will be billed annually.for this LID assessment much as they
are for their properly taxes.
9. Will 1 have the option of paving my portion of the LTD cost up front instead of
amortizing it over 20-years and is there any advantage in doing so?
You have the option of paying your LID bill up front as this will avoid the finance charges
associated with the financing the cost over 20 years. See attached Payment Options table fbr•
details.
10. Why aren't all 467 lots in the proposed Quiet Zone charged the same amount?
A sound study and appraisal was used to develop a recommendation for a fair and equitable
zonal system for the possible LID assessment. The sound study indicated that lots benefited
differently based on their proximity to the train horn noise. Lots closer to the railroad tracks
are thus impacted/benefited more, and should pay more than lots further away.
1 1. Why is the assessment done on a per lot charge and not by assessed value?
The LID stalu[e provides a couple of different methods to calculate a LID assessment. The
`per lot" method was chosen because it was determined that the "benefit" irould generally
accrue at the same rare to properties within each zone, independent of the assessed value of
each parcel. This also allowed for LID assessment of parcels that have yet to be built on that
would sanely benefrtfrom the train horn noise abatement.
i
53
12. flow many trains pass this corridor each day and is the train traffic forecast to
increase?
According to BNSF figures, there are approximately 64 trains that cross this section of track
each dory and that number is forecast to increase steadily over the next decade. This
represents a current rate of over 23,000 trains per year on a 2417 basis. The 2009 mailer
listed a 40 trains/day average. The current 64 trains/clay rate represents a 60% increase
from the 2009 number. There are proposals to f rrther increase these numbers, making the
needfor establishing a Quiet Zone more critical than ever.
13.I have heard about the coal train controversy. Is the proposed Quiet Zone related in
any wav to this issue?
No. The neighborhoods affected by the East Vancouver train corridor have worked with the
City of Vancouver over several years considering multiple issues to get us to the point we are
at today. Ihis has been solely to stop the train horn noise. Ifyou have concerns about the
coal trains there are several organizations that are working through the issues specific to this
issue.
14.How loud is the train horn and how long do they blow A?
The FRA mandates the train horn to be 96 to 110 decibels and to sound itfor a minimum of
15 seconds prior the crossing until through the crossing. This equates to starting to sound the
horn about'/ mile prior to the crossings in this corridor. With 23,000 trains per year,
assuming you only heard the train horn noise from the crossing closest to you for 15 seconds,
this equates to having to listen to this sound for over 97 hoursIvear. According to OSHA,
examples of 110-decibel sound levels are those produced by a chainsaw,pneumatic drill,
typical rock concert, steel mill, riveting, and auto horn at 3'. They caution against
unprotected, extended exposure to noise at this level.
15. I had heard that LIDS in Washington State could only be used for very pecific
proiects. Is a safety improvement for railway crossings one of them?
Il is now. Your local Vancouver area State Legislators proposed and were successful in
passing legislation that now allows there improvements in Washington State. The Governor
signed the legislation and it became effective in July 2009. The law also requires that there
must be an increase in property value greater than the cost oj'the LID.
16. Will there be any meetings conducted by City officials to discuss this Rurt'her and is
there anv source available for me to get more details of the proposed Quiet Zone.
The City of Vancouver is the public authority that will act as the liaison for this project with
the FRA, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the East Vancouver neighborhoods and
along with the citizens East Vancouver Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee will be
conducting an open meeting to discuss the project. The most currem information is available
at: wiviv.cityofvancouver.us/trainhorns.
17. Who approves the creation of the LID to fund installation of these Supplemental
Safety Measures at these three railway crossings?
If the majority of the 467 parcel owners that constitute the three tiers closest to the proposed
Train horn Quiet Zone Corridor provide written indication a support, City leadership and
staff is prepared to advance the LID formation to City Council. The Council then must
approve the LID formation.
54
18.Assuming that there is a majority support of these parcel owners to create the LID, is it
a done deal?
No. Cite Staff will make a recommendation to the City Council, based on the post-card
survey results. At that time the City Council will choose whether to hold formal public
hearings on the LID proposal. If a formal public hearing is authorized, each resident will be
mailed notice of the public hearing and will have an opportunity to comment. The Vancouver
City Council will make the final decision to approve or deny the formation of the LID.
19. If significant changes are made to either the LID process or cost estimates after I
signed the petition to create the LID is there anv recourse to then stop it fi-om moving
ahead if the City Council approves it.
The creation of a LID process allows ftrr a protest process once the formation "public
hearing" has been completed. If the City Council adopts the `LID Ordinance" at a public
hearing, then individuals can still proles[the establishment of the LID. The LID statute
provides that over 60% of the affected properties would need to protestformation of the LID,
within 30-days after the public hearing Ordinance has approved otherwise the firrmalion of
the LID would stand.
20. if the LID is approved and once work begins on installing the safety measures, how
long before I can expect the new system to be in place and the Train Horn Noise Quiet
Zone for East Vancouver to be operational?
It is estimated that once funding is secured and contracts are let, the installation and testing
will take approximately 6 months to complete. �
21 . Besides the FRA approved medians and channelization devices on each side of the
three public crossings will there be any other changes made as part of the
establishment of the Train Horn Quiet Zone?
Street lighting will be put in at each of the crossings that border Evergreen Highway for
better visibility and additional signage will be installed to remind drivers of the changes at
the crossings The City feels strongly that since the medians/channelization devices would be
adjacent to Evergreen highway at both the SE 139th Ave. and SE 147th Ave crossings, that
some type of traffic advisory and or calming is needed to ensure motorists are aware of these
changes and drive accordingly. The current plan is to install electronic advisory signs on
both sides of these crossings along Evergreen Highway that will inform the motorists a
suggested speed in these areas and provide a display of their actual speed. There is no plan
to change the speed limit in these areas. The Cio plans to monitor this plan and ilrnotorists
exhibit ongoing excessive speed in these areas the backup plan is to install, at City expense,
t affic cahning devices in the form of speed pillows or speed bumps in this area. The speed
advisory/display signs are supported by the citizens'East Vancouver Train Horn Noise
Advisory Committee as the bestplan to avoid traffic calming devices beingploced in the
roadway.
22, Fin not familiar with medians and channelization devices at railroad crossings. Is
there any source to let me know what they look lilac and how they work?
A good description of what these approved medians and channelization devices look like and
what they accomplish can be./band on one of the company web sites Mal produce them:
QwickKurb, Inc. htrp:1Avww.gwickkurb.com/the QivickKurb.site has an excellent S rrrinute
video showing the product al railroad crossings. In addition, the rail crossing in Washougal
and the one at the entrance to Winder park in Vancouver use these types ofproducts and are
designated Train Horn Quiet Zones.
55
East Side Train Horn Quiet Zone
LID Assessment Per-Lot-Preliminary*""
Total Project Cost Estimate=$818,001
Lot Inventory=467*"
nt
Payment Options - Per Lot
20-Year Term tatrhp'Suti]
Annual Total: 20-year Tots{ SIl "=ILU
Payment Payments PyYne>� "
F ,�l
Tier 1 $177 $3,540 � ��47 .1
Tier 2 $124 $2,480 $1731
Tier 3 $53 $1,060
L
MOO
NOTES:
Residents will have the option to pay the ASSESSMENT in a one-time lump-sum payment if desired. The PRELIMINARY one-
time costs are estimated as follows(rounded):
-Tier 1 =$2,475 '..
-Tier 2 =$1,733
-Tier 3 =$743
General References:
" -This is a rounded figure. Refer to LID-Detail of Costs outline for detailed cost breakdown.
'-Lots include all units and lots;based on January 2013 County Assessor inventory
Tier allocation based on 2012 Sound Study
'-Annual Cost based on a 20-yearamortization schedule forfinancing of project costs(ESTIMATES are ROUNDED UP). This figure includes finance
interest costs which are subject to change based on market conditions at the time.
'"" "-Any LID Assessment will be subject to Vancouver City Council approval and neighborhood support
Disclosures:
Costs and assumptions subject to refinement/quality review,preparation of final LID Assessment Roll and approval at Vancouver City Council public hearing.
The PRLLIMINARY per lot assessment represents a roughly40%cast reduction from those listed in the 2009 mailer using4-quadrant gale devices.
56
LID ® Detail of Costs
PRELIMINARY Estimates as of. 1/10/2013
The purpose of this outline of project costs is to estimate the full cost that will be calculated upon establishment of an assessment
roll and corresponding fee for the implementation of the proposed train horn quiet zone in East Vancouver. A final"per-lot cost"
and corresponding"LID Assessment"will be based on actual costs incurred and will be established and subject to a
public hearing upon completion of hard construction activities.
Assumed Costs
Construction Costs
-139th Avenue $82,000
-144th Avenue $20,000
-147th Avenue $106,000
-164th Avenue $290 000
-Contract PE During Construction $20,000
-COV Survey/CN Admin $50 000
Special Benefit Analysis(supportive studies)
-Appraiser
-Study 1 $12 870
-Study 2 $13,750
-Sound Study
-Study 1 $3,720
-Study 2 $9,000 LU
-Other Technical Studies(traffic, other) $12,00D
-Design Engineering
-Engineering Contract $110 000
Administrative Costs '..
-Legal Counsel $10,000 '....
-Guarantee Fund $80,000
Sub Total of BASE Costs $818,340
Finance I Interest Costs
-Finance Interest(total) $ 346,118 '.
Total of BASE Costs and Finance Costs $1,164,458
General Notes:
Some Costs are estimates only and are subject to revision based on actual costs incurred and the conditions of the financial
marketplace.
-ALL Costs are PRELIMINARY. This is a rounded figure. FINAL Costs to be included in LID Assessment will be actual Costs
Incurred for materials and labor and all indirect expenses outlined above.
- Individual Cost Estimates Per Location per City of Vancouver December 2012(95% PE)cost estimate for ASM/SSM devices.
- 139"Avenue: $82,000
- 144th Avenue:$20,000
- 147'nAvenue: $105,000
- 164`"Avenue: $290,000 !
- Total: $497,000
-Special Benefit Analysis are those studies that may need to be updated or completed to support the LID method and
preparation of final assessment roll. Final costs to be included in LID Assessment will be actual costs incurred for labor and
materials in preparation of the special studies.
-Guarantee Fund is established for the statutory purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the LID fund's local improvement
warrants or other short terms obligations which are issued to pay for any local improvement order by the LID ordinance.
-Finance/Interest Costs: This is a DRAFT figure. Estimated at a 20-year repayment term at a 3.75%average coupon rate. '..
Rates and terms subject to change based on market pricing Each parcel owner will be assessed a finance cost at the rate
of interest and will be applied annually to the unpaid balance, assuming a 20-year amortization period if the"assessment"is not
paid-in-full at origination. If parcel owner pays off per-lot cost before 20 years, then their"finance"costs will be lower, in the
same manner as a personal mortgage loan amortization schedule.
57
r
_ s
u+w
a »s 'I
1, �P s• 1�.
3
1
Y i
< a lykl .ts
R+• Syr { { 1: t It $
x 1 i
fit + I
k✓t '3' .� s x t
wK h{
4 t l d
af
CD
r -` r
� t
S }ih t
t
1
a
a Iii
{{ I t
I I'
t
58
i
• • • • • • •
Parcel Serial Number: [SERIAL_NUM]
Owner Name: [OWNER]
Owner Mailing Address: [OWNER ADDRS]
[OWNCITY], [OWNSTATE] [OWNZIP]
Benefit Tier: [TIER]
Parcel Site Address: [SITADDRS]
Do you support establishing a LID to create a train horn quiet zone? El Yes M No
Signature of Property Owner(s)
Print:
Sign: Date:
E-mail Address (optional):
Comments (optional): This is a non-binding statement. Please submit at ',
Train Horn Informational Meeting or return by mail
no later than February 11, 2013. Thank you.
59
i
I�. I Np MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
vanimmmmummm
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLAS6 MAIL PERMIT NO 183 VANCOUVER WA
PO5TAGl WILL 6E PAIO E3y ADURCSSUL
CITY OF VANCOUVER
PO BOX 1996
VANCOUVER WA 98668-9922
mommummumumm
ll�L�I,rL�ti���IIr,9��L6t�d,I���J,L,I�I>>J!I
HB 1081 - 2009-10 Paged®I'0
I
eh Hein Momle
Bill Information > HB 1081 -2009-10
Inside tho Legislature
a, Find Your Legislator
A Visiting the Legislature [Search by Bill Number �� � �aa �o
x Agendas, Schedules and 1081 Seareh_� {;,]
Calendars -.
4f Bill Information Search the full text of a bill '
�a. Laws and Agency Rules °--• ------ - -m--- ----• — �a�
Legislative Committees 7
Legislative Agencies HB 1081 - 2009 1® fV na s th s9i
Legislative Information Center Authorizing local improvement district financing of railroad crossing
8, E-mail Notifications protection devices.' '..
•a Civic Education
iz History of the State Go to documents._
Legislature Go to videos...
Outside the Legislature
A Congress-the Other History of the Bill
Washington as of Friday, September 27, 2013 10:02 AM
4s TVW
Washington Courts Sponsors: Representatives Wallace, Erickson, Clibborn,Armstrong, Moeller,
a OFM Fiscal Note Website -� Jacks
,access
kfa0ttngt0n4' 2009 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 7 Prefiled for introduction.
Jan 12 First reading, referred to Local Government&
Pl Housing. (veworiginai 3tiD
Jan 15 Public hearing in the House Committee on Local Government&
Urn,uroc, =
Housing at 10:00 AM.(Gcnnmt = to aip)
Jan 22 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Local
Government & Housing at 10:00 AM.&rnn it�atacedalJ
LGH- Executive action taken by committee.
LGH -Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do
pass. vi Mo or: e on)
Minority; do not pass. (,,Lich e o,t)
Jan 27 Referred to Transportation.
Feb 10 Public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation at 3:30
PM.(Cammitt@g-t.1s_rrlals)
Feb 18 Executive action taken in the House Committee on
Transportation at 3:30 PM.(committee Materials)
TR-Executive action taken by committee.
TR-Majority; 2nd substitute bill be substituted, do
Pass.(Yew)nd Substitute)(Maionty Report)
Minority; do not pass. m:npnty report)
Feb 23 Passed to Rules Committee for second—
reading.
---
...- ----- ----- ----.._. -----------
--
Mar 6 Placed on second reading.
Mar 9 2nd substitute bill substituted (TR 09).(vow 2nd Subsbwte)
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 69; nays, 26; absent, 0; excused,
2.(vicY Rcn_c iIS)
IN THE SENATE
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinCo/stunmai-y.aspx?bill=1081&year=2009 9/27/2013
61
1 station, parking, and related facilities and properties, together with
2 all lands, rights-of-way, property, equipment, and accessories
3 necessary for such systems and facilities;
4 (17) Convention center facilities or structures in cities
5 incorporated before January 1, 1982, with a population over sixty
6 thousand located in a county with a population over one million, other
7 than the city of Seattle. Assessments for purposes of convention
8 center facilities or structures may be levied only to the extent
9 necessary to cover a funding shortfall that occurs when funds received
10 from special excise taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 67 .28 RCW are
11 insufficient to fund the annual debt service for such facilities or
12 structures, and may not be levied on property exclusively maintained as
13 single-family or multifamily permanent residences whether they are
14 rented, leased, or owner occupied; ( (ate&) )
15 (18) Programs of aquatic plant control, lake or river restoration,
16 or water quality enhancement . Such programs shall identify all the
17 area of any lake or river which will be improved and shall include the
18 adjacent waterfront property specially benefited by such programs of
19 improvements . Assessments may be levied only on waterfront property
20 including any waterfront property owned by the department of natural
21 resources or any other state agency. Notice of an assessment on a
22 private leasehold in public property shall comply with provisions of
23 chapter 79 .44 RCW. Programs under this subsection shall extend for a
24 term of not more than five years ; and
25 (19) Railroad crossing protection devices , including maintenance
26 and repair. Assessments for purposes of railroad crossing protection
27 devices may not be levied on property owned or maintained by a
28 railroad railroad company, street railroad, or street railroad
29 company, as defined in RCW 81 . 04 . 010, or a regional transit authority
30 as defined in RCW 81 . 112 . 020 .
--- END ---
p. 3 2SHB 1081 . PL
HB 1081 -2009-10 Page 2 of 3
62
Mar 11 First reading, referred to Transportation.
Mar 31 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Transportation at 1:30
PM.
Apr 1 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on
Transportation at 1:30 PM.
Apr 3 TRAN- Majority; do pass with amendment(s).( aionlye or)
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Apr 6 Placed on second reading by-Rules Committee.
Apr 9 Committee amendment adopted with no other amendments.
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed, yeas, 39, nays, 7; absent, 0; excused,
3. (View Roll Calls)
IN THE HOUSE
Apr 20 House refuses to concur in Senate amendments.Asks Senate to
recede from amendments.
IN THE SENATE
Apr 22 Senate receded from amendments.
Passed final passage; yeas, 45; nays, 4; absent, 0; excused,
0.(Vievr Roll Call;)
IN THE HOUSE
Apr 24 Speaker signed.
IN THE SENATE
Apr 25 President signed.
OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Delivered to Governor. (Y v soi ass Fassea Lealsleture
May 11 Governor signed.
'3Oo 4) Chapter 435, 2009 Laws.(View Session Law)
Effective date 7126/2009.
Go to history
Available
Documents
BillDocuments Bi..........._ __... ...._....__..._.._ __------.-. _------------- -----------------------------------
Original
pill Bill Digest I House Bill Analysis 2009
Substitute Bill (LGH Substitute Bill Digest House Bill Resort
Second Substitute pill Second Substitute Senate Bill
Second Substitute JR j Digest Report (Oriq.)
(e 1 Second Substitute Senate Bill
Bill as Passed i Repo t
Le islg ature Second Substitute House Bill
Session Law I Report
! j Final Bill Report
Amendments
Amendment Name NumSponsorTypeDescriptionAction
1081-S2 AMH HERR MUNN "152 244 Herrera FloorPg 3 Ln 26 FAILED 03/09/2009
1081-82 AMS TIFF\N 92861 A TRAN CmteStriker ADOPTED 04/09/2009
Fiscal Note (Not Available)
Go to history...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/surmnary.aspx?bill-1081&year-2009 9/27/2013
63
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1081
61st Legislature
2009 Regular Session
i
Passed by the House March 9, 2009 CERTIFICATE
Yeas 69 Nays 26
I, Barbara Baker, Chief Clerk of
the House of Representatives of the
State of. Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is SECOND
Speaker of the House of Representatives SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1081 as
passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on
Passed by the Senate April 22, 2009 the dates hereon set forth.
Yeas 45 Nays 4
Chief Clerk
President of the Senate
Approved FILED
Secretary of State '..
State of Washington
Governor of the State of Washington
64
SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1081
Passed Legislature - 2009 Regular Session
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By House Transportation (originally sponsored by Representatives
Wallace, Ericksen, Clibborn, Armstrong, Moeller, and Jacks)
READ FIRST TIME 02/23/09 .
1 AN ACT Relating to local improvement district financing of railroad
2 crossing protection devices; and amending RCW 35 . 43 . 040 .
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 35 .43 . 040 and 1997 c 452 s 16 are each amended to read
5 as follows :
6 Whenever the public interest or convenience may require, the
7 legislative authority of any city or town may order the whole or any
i
8 part of any local improvement including but not restricted to those, or
9 any combination thereof, listed below to be constructed, reconstructed,
10 repaired, or renewed and landscaping including but not restricted to
11 the planting, setting out, cultivating, maintaining, and renewing of
12 shade or ornamental trees and shrubbery thereon; may order any and all
13 work to be done necessary for completion thereof; and may levy and
14 collect special assessments on property specially benefited thereby to
15 pay the whole or any part of the expense thereof, viz :
16 (1) Alleys, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park drives, parkways,
17 parking facilities, public places, public squares, public streets,
18 their grading, regrading, planking, replanking, paving, repaving,
19 macadamizing, remacadamizing, graveling, regraveling, piling, repiling,
P. 1 2SHB 1081 . PL
65
1 capping, recapping, or other improvement; if the management and control
2 of park drives, parkways, and boulevards is vested in a board of park
3 commissioners, the plans and specifications for their improvement must
4 be approved by the board of park commissioners before their adoption,-
5 (2) Auxiliary water systems;
6 (3 ) Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums, swimming pools, or other
7 recreational, playground, museum, cultural, or arts facilities or
8 structures;
9 (4) Bridges, culverts, and trestles and approaches thereto;
10 (5) Bulkheads and retaining walls ;
11 (6) Dikes and embankments;
12 (7) Drains, sewers, and sewer appurtenances which as to trunk
13 sewers shall include as nearly as possible all the territory which can
14 be drained through the trunk sewer and subsewers connected thereto;
15 (8) Escalators or moving sidewalks together with the expense of
16 operation and maintenance;
17 (9) Parks and playgrounds;
18 (10) Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks;
19 (11) Street lighting systems together with the expense of
20 furnishing electrical energy, maintenance, and operation;
21 (12) Underground utilities transmission lines;
22 (13) Water mains, hydrants, and appurtenances which as to trunk
23 water mains shall include as nearly as possible all the territory in
24 the zone or district to which water may be distributed from the trunk
25 water mains through lateral service and distribution mains and
26 services;
27 (14) Fences, culverts, syphons, or coverings or any other feasible
28 safeguards along, in place of, or over open canals or ditches to
29 protect the public from the hazards thereof;
30 (15) Roadbeds, trackage, signalization, storage facilities for
31 rolling stock, overhead and underground wiring, and any other
32 stationary equipment reasonably necessary for the operation of an
33 electrified public streetcar line;
34 (16) Systems of surface, underground, or overhead railways,
35 tramways, buses, or any other means of local transportation except
36 taxis, and including passenger, terminal, station parking, and related
37 facilities and properties, and such other facilities as may be
38 necessary for passenger and vehicular access to and from such terminal ,
2SHB 1081 .PL p. 2