Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 09/01/1998 September 1, 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Council President Orr. Present: Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Woods and Yingling, Director of Operations/Chief of Staff McFall, Assistant City Attorney Brubaker, Finance Director Miller, Employee Services Director Viseth, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Parks Director Hodgson, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Government Affairs Manager Laurent, Linda Johnson of the Kent Downtown Partnership, Consultant Tom Bradley from CTE Engineers, and Council Secretary Bicknell. Approval of Minutes WOODS MOVED to approve the minutes of the August 4, 1998 committee meeting. Clark seconded and the motion carried. Downtown Identity Project Government Affairs Manager Laurent noted that the continued implementation of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan has been discussed with Council. She also noted that a draft Downtown Marketing Plan has been completed to assist with the next project for the development of a downtown identity for Kent. Laurent noted that funding has been provided through the Capital Plan and the Business Development Budget to promote the downtown area and develop an identity or concept for the City. She noted that developing an identity concept that would work for marketing materials, advertising, public communication, inspire development of public arts , signage, landscaping and other things in the right-of-ways would be better. She informed the committee that the City has been working with a design firm from Seattle who is very well acquainted with Kent, has marketed the Polygon Project at the Lakes, knows the development market, and knows how folks who own land, develop land, and make business happen in Kent can be reached through the marketing plan. She noted that a public artist and a landscape architect have been brought in who are well acquainted with what's already in place, and that some of the themes have already ,� been developed. She noted that someone from almost every department Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Downtown Identity Project (continued) within the City has been included in addressing such issues as public safety and public works. Laurent explained that this item is before the committee in midstream to show where it's been, the progress made up to this point, and if there are any ideas, concerns, or additions that need to be made they can be done before the finish line is crossed. Laurent introduced Caroline Scull of Effective Design Studio who is working with the City to develop a theme that identifies Kent. Laurent noted that Effective Design has completed one set of designs and came up with 4 themes as follows: 1) the arts; 2) Civics and culture; 3) commerce; and 4) City Center Transportation Destination. She explained that Effective Design was given these four themes along with some feedback from the group's last discussion and were asked to come back with another set of designs. She noted that Effective Design has shown some applications on signage, street poles, potential banners but that nothing has been decided, and she cautioned the committee not to get attached to the ways these are used but to look at the themes, the images, the font, the colors, and other ideas that will make it better. Upon Orr's comment, Laurent noted that pulling the history through and looking at the future are the two ideas they wanted to convey. Caroline Scull of Effective Design noted that in the beginning three themes were developed based on different design looks and then the group went back into developing those four areas. She explained that the main goal was to develop an identity for Downtown Kent that is consistent, and that a bold San serif font has been used along with a Weiss serif font to give a modern feel to downtown. She noted that the images shown identify the four areas and that the group can get back to some of the proposed applications to make sure that whatever is designed will work on an on- going basis. Scull explained that the hop vine and blossom graphics tie into some of the environmental arts in place like some of the tree grates, and it also relates to some of Kent's historical past. She noted that the train icon deals with 2 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Downtown Identity Project (continued) history (present) and commerce, and that today's discussions determined that the train should look like the former Kent Interurban with a more rounded bullet train theme which becomes a really unique Kent icon. She noted that the arts and civics are depicted as one image of the conductor hand with the notes. She explained that Kent has a broad arts background with visual and music in the parks, and that this graphic would bring the cultural and civic issues into one image. She noted that an adaptation of the design concept is just a beginning point and asked for Council feedback about the best way to illustrate that idea. She noted that the fourth idea, commerce, can be shown in some different ways with possibly integrating a human figure or people to bring back the human element into the downtown core. She also noted that the three studies show various pallets which relate to some historic colors that are bright and vivid. She noted that the lighter pallet relates to some park signage that the City has in place now. Scull noted that different ideas were explored just to see the adaptations and what they might be such as: 1) a marker on a light pole; 2) a directional sign; 3) the street sign with some wrought iron bringing back in the hop leaf and vine from the tree grate; and 4) another type of directional sign that brings back in the background which was integrated into a modern view of the mountain, the wave of the Green River, and a wave that goes through the park signage. Upon Brotherton's question, Ms. Scull noted that from the very beginning of the project it was decided that the marketing identity be done and the corporate identity left alone. Laurent explained that the logo for the City of Seattle is completely different than the Seattle Chamber of Commerce marketing materials because the City's logo is about the institution and City government, and the Chamber of Commerce logo is about the community. Scull noted for Amodt that the leaf represents a hop leaf, and Laurent explained that the hop leaf has a strong historical tie to Kent with tons of hop farms located in the valley during the 1800's which was the foundation of the agricultural economy for a long, long time. Scull clarified for Woods that only one scheme will be proposed and not all of the options but if different ideas were explored then all of the options could be tweaked to be perfected. Scull noted for Brotherton that downtown Kent is a distinct area and that isolating a certain core, civic center, area of Kent is important. She noted 3 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 10 Downtown Identity Project (continued) that Downtown Kent and Kent have very different perimeters. Brotherton expressed that many businesses and citizens are being left out by this project because the concept is that the downtown area is different than the rest of the city. Yingling noted that the intent is to show the downtown area as a separate, inherent difference. Laurent noted that if the City wants to do a scheme for the manufacturing area it can also be done. Woods noted that Council has discussed, in times past, the possibility of identifying neighborhood areas and that this is the first of several similar projects that would be done over time. She also noted that this project has been identified and that money has been budgeted for it. She noted for Amodt that the City can do the East and West Hills at some point, but that this project should proceed forward. Ms. Scull noted for Yingling that the City is trying to pick up some of those themes that were introduced at the Regional Justice Center but not necessarily copy the same art style. She noted that Kent is diverse with many unknown pieces and that they are respecting everything that's in place because it should be integrated. She explained for Yingling that they are trying to bring modern and future Kent into the design elements possibly through these illustrations and something that represents what is being done. She noted that the overall look has a good feel, modern look, and color using good designs with great illustrations. Epperly noted that most towns have a focal point which is usually their core or downtown area. She noted that the East Hill is completely different from the West Hill but that the downtown area has always been the same as 100 years ago. Orr noted that many people identify with the downtown area and that the plan is to help others identify with it causing some good things to happen as a result. Amodt expressed the importance of communicating that the downtown area focus is just the beginning so that others don't feel left out and that citizens understand what's happening. She agreed with Epperly that the East and West Hills have their own identities. Epperly noted that downtown Kent is the focal point. 4 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 . Downtown Identity Project (continued) Clark explained that the City went through a year long process of developing the Downtown Strategic Plan. He noted that the Plan took a number of resources, time, many hearings, broke down the Valley floor in different segments, and put objectives for each district out there. He further noted that one of the parts was to rejuvenate the downtown economic area with a specific design that would create a focal point and also bring greater conformity to the business community as new things came on line. He noted that the reason for having a common design was to create a common theme and not be exclusive of other areas or create a different neighborhood identity. He noted that it was to create a sense that downtown had various entry points, and ties in a number of different arenas which have already committed a tremendous amount of money and certain things that had to occur such as certain streets had to become more pedestrian friendly and certain roadways had to be widened. He noted that a guarantee was for this to become an inviting environment specifically to invite new entrepreneurs into the Valley floor and the downtown area. He explained that this plan has been a long-term investment for the City and a belief that it's building a more secure future. Orr suggested that the committee members take the documents home for review, get any suggestions or ideas for changes back to Dena Laurent so she can work with Carolyn Scull to incorporate them into the next round of discussions and the City can get closer to the final design for marketing the downtown area. Local IMRrovement District Presentation Assistant City Attorney Brubaker briefed the Committee on Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). He noted that Council is sometimes cast in to a very unique and unusual role from the typical one of a legislative policymaker, at least during part of the LID process. He explained what LID's are, how they operate, what some of the technicalities are, and the Council's role as a quasi-judicial decision maker during the assessment stage of the hearing. Brubaker explained that a local improvement district is a funding mechanism created by statute which assists with public project development. He noted that LID's allow for the development of a public 5 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) facility which serves an individual private property, and that private property owners can contribute to the cost of construction for the project but that the contribution must be in proportion to the special benefits that accrue to their property. He noted that a residential neighborhood with a septic system that begins to fail and the homeowners come to Council requesting construction of a sewer system that serves their neighborhood is an example of a public project that would have private benefit. He explained that the homeowner then becomes part of the public utility system but that there is a definite, ascertainable benefit to each individual property which raises the fair market value of their homes. He noted that in the State of Washington a statutory process has been created for LID's that allow people to get a public project built but to also carry their fair share of the burden. Brubaker explained that the funding for an LID occurs through the instruments of municipal bonds which allow the property owners to amortize the cost of the development over a period of years rather than to pay for it all up front. He noted that a municipal bond is issued with a very low interest rate giving another advantage to the individual property owner. He explained the two-step general process as follows: (1) The City or the property owner decides what project needs to be built, and then the LID is formed. He noted that the formation of an LID is a legislative decision where the Council acts in its normal capacity of making a decision as to whether a street should be built, a sewer be constructed, should it be done now or should it be done through an LID. He noted that when the legislative decision is arrived at it is done through a public hearing and that Council can welcome input from any parties with perspectives on the LID formation. 2) This step is unique for Council which occurs during the individual property assessments that are made against each property benefitted by the creation of the LID. Brubaker noted that the assessment hearing is a trial and comments should only be received from people actually affected by the LID (property owners or their agents). He explained that Council acts as a judge in a quasi-judicial hearing which allows the property owner his day in court. He noted that Council determines whether or not the 6 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) assessment amounts developed by the Public Works Department are appropriate, proportionate and fair for those property owners. Brubaker explained that after the assessment hearing an LID may be formed and the project is constructed. He noted, however, that other cities may form and finalize an LID after the project is constructed. Upon Brotherton's question, Brubaker noted that it is the City's obligation to determine how much of the benefit from a project is general to the public and how much of it is special to the individual property owners. He also noted for Brotherton that 1/2 of the project could be funded out of capital improvement funds and the other half funded through an LID but the City makes that determination. Brubaker noted that an amount cannot be assessed for more than the actual benefit that accrues to that property and that the benefit usually is measured by the increase in the fair market value. He explained that if property is worth more after the improvement is done, and the house or business along a 3-lane road with curbs, gutters • and sidewalks is worth more on the market or can get greater rents than it did previously, than that factor is used to measure the amount of the assessment. Tom Bradley, Consultant from CTE Engineers, explained the difference between a general benefit and a special benefit. He noted that when an individual lives two or three blocks away from a street that is paved in a neighborhood, it is of a general benefit every time they drive on that street. He noted, however, that in a residential area it would be difficult to measure if an appraiser were to ask if the property value increased because the street some distance away was paved. He also noted that if the value cannot be measured, then it becomes a general benefit. He noted that properties closer to the improvement would experience an increase in value and that the difference in market value could be measured by an appraiser and that is a special benefit. He noted that the limits of an LID should encompass those properties that are specially benefitted but how the assessments are portioned to those properties within the area is sometimes a difficult task even though the law gives • reasons as to how it's done. He reiterated that local improvement districts are a financing process cities can use to make public improvements. He Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) noted that sanitary sewers and streets are the most common types of local improvement districts. He explained that the financing is done through the sale of local improvement district bonds which can be issued for 5, 10, 15, 20 years and the bonds are paid by the yearly collection of LID property assessments. Bradley noted that there are advantages with the bond type of financing for the property owners and the City. He explained that a property owner is financed at a government bond rate which is generally less than the prime rate, and the bonds do not affect the debt capacity of the City. He noted that the assurance to the LID bond purchasers is done through a guarantee fund which can include, as part of the LID assessment, necessary monies for that guarantee fund. Bradley noted that LID's have a two-step process which requires a public hearing and a council decision in each of the two steps. He noted that the first step is the creation of the LID and the second step is the confirmation of the assessment roll. He noted, however, that the City of Kent actually . takes a preliminary step that is not required by State Law where the Public Works Department actually identifies the property owners within the assessment area, mail the notice with a description of the project and the amount of estimated assessment. He noted that an informal, informational meeting is held so property owners can get questions answered by staff and receive an explanation on how the assessments are calculated. He noted that a great deal of information is exchanged between the public and the Public Works Department before the process proceeds. He explained that the information from that meeting is taken before the Public Works Committee and a decision is made whether or not to begin with the formal process. He explained that the public hearing date is then set on the next Council Consent Agenda and notices are mailed out to the property owners giving them the time and place of the hearing along with an estimated amount of assessment for the property owners. He noted that the purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not the LID should be formed and that the assessment amount should not be considered at this time because it's just an estimated amount of assessment. He explained that if property owners want to stop the LID process, the law protects their rights . and all the property owner has to do is say that he protests this local improvement district which should be done in writing. Bradley explained 8 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) that if 60% of the property assessments are protesting the improvement the property owners have up to 30 days after the passage of the ordinance to protest the formation of the district, then the State law divests the City of any authority to proceed. He noted that if it is less than 60% then the Council can decide whether or not to proceed. He noted that there is nothing in the law that compels a City to create a local improvement district so it is totally a legislative decision on the Council's part. He noted for the committee that it's important to understand that property owners who are in favor of the local improvement district are not required to do anything and most the time don't so at the creation hearings only the property owners in opposition to the improvement show up. He noted that it creates a negative atmosphere in which the Council has to make a difficult decision. He noted that the second step, the final assessment roll hearing, is the big one when the amount of the assessment is discussed and determined by the Council. i Bradley explained that there is two methods of spreading LID costs; 1) a mathematical cost distribution; or 2) Use of a benefit study. He noted that the mathematical application in the State statute is the "zoning termini" which are simply the limits of the local improvement district assessment area. He noted that the zones are generally drawn 30 ft in depth with a coefficient assigned to the square footage in each zone. He also noted that the effect of the coefficients is that it weights the assessment so as an individual gets further back from the improvement the assessment rate on a per square foot basis is actually less. He noted that other mathematical methods which could be used are square footage, front footage, and simply divide the number of parcels in the improvement area if all of the parcels are approximately the same size. He noted that the mathematical method is quicker and generally the cheapest way to do a local improvement district, and that a special benefit study is the very best way to spread LID costs. He explained that the City hires a qualified appraiser who looks at each parcel within the assessment district and determines the special benefits for those parcels. He noted that a special benefit is the value that the improvement adds to the property which is measured by the • market value to that property immediately before the improvement and measured again immediately after the improvement. He noted that the 9 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) difference in market value is attributable to and attaches to the property resulting from the local improvement district. He noted that the benefits to a property are extremely important because State law requires that the City inform the property owners that there is a limit on the LID assessments. He noted that the assessments cannot exceed the benefits to the property and that means that the property owner can never pay more through an LID assessment than the value he receives for his property. He noted that most of the time when assessments are done through a benefit study, the benefits exceed the amount of assessments. Bradley noted that the Council may find it necessary to make adjustments in assessments after the information is presented. He noted that if assessments are raised then a re-hearing has to be held that results in time lost and opens the record for further protests so generally raising assessments is probably not a good idea. He noted that if Council wants to reduce assessments or make adjustments, it should probably indicate what the City funds are that would make up the difference. He noted that, if Council uses recent judgments and the hearing is fair, when the process is completed the City should have a record that should stand any judicial review if it does end up with a lawsuit in court. Bradley noted for Clark that it is really critical to hire an appraiser for any improvement which is of an important nature because the appraiser will look at the surrounding parcels, identify the limits because it may get to a point where an increase in property value cannot be measured, so the appraiser testifies that limits do encompass property that is benefitted. He noted that the appraisers have to determine and include in their assessments several market factors such as size of parcels, the location, whether a property abuts arterial streets, whether the property has been previously developed, affect the market value of properties in the proposed improvement area that is being considered. He noted that having an appraiser gives a thorough and analytical study of all of the market data in the area. . Bradley noted that the City of Kent has one of the biggest and active LID programs in the State. 10 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) Wickstrom explained for Epperly that over time State law has changed regarding LID's and no protest agreements. He noted that originally covenants were just addressed with frontage improvements and then Council passed an ordinance (2224) that when development comes in and the roads are substandard, the City would prefer an LID covenant which is a commitment to do the improvement through a local improvement district. He noted that as new developments came to the City, they had to do their frontage or, in most cases, execute an LID covenant. He noted that this ran in perpetuity until an LID was formed. He noted that in 1988 a law was changed limiting LID covenants for a ten year period and after the ten years, the intent was that the covenant would disappear, but the City of Kent's covenants say that after ten years the improvement that was deferred for those ten years has to be done. He noted that the issue now is that many of those 1988 boom years are over and July was when that law was implemented, so as of July,1998 the City has many covenants that have expired. He noted that many of the covenant property owners were • notified regarding this expiration date and they are saying that they prefer an LID versus the improvements. He noted that the City has the simple frontage improvement covenants, the mitigation agreements which are also expiring which began in 1986. He noted that in 1982 Council adopted a Transportation Comprehensive Plan that identified service levels and if those service levels weren't met and under SEPA developments were required to mitigate their impact on the City's Transportation System. He noted that most of the simple, easy improvements were done. He noted that in 1988 Council adopted a generic mitigation agreement which developments were offered to sign. He noted that Council gave them a choice to address their off-site improvements to do the traffic studies and the hard improvements up front or execute this agreement and participate in the corridor improvements. He noted that now that the agreements and covenants are expired (July, 1998), it requires payment, in today's dollar, for the improvements. He noted that it is important for the City to follow through with these agreements and make sure the improvements are implemented because if the City doesn't follow through it will establish a history and the courts will throw out all of the improvements. 11 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) Wickstrom noted that the City will receive many complaints from residents as to why they have to pay for an LID improvement but the improvements have to be done. He noted that staff recommends that the Council support or adopt these LID improvements. Upon Epperly's question, Wickstrom explained that the City is trying to get away from the covenant and mitigation agreements, as they expire, and pay the mitigation impact fee up front which is much easier all the way around. Brubaker explained that it is important for Council to understand that LID's are contentious, and the bigger the LID the more likely some property owners won't be pleased with the assessments when it comes to the assessment roll hearing stage. He also noted that there may be 5 or 10 people present at the hearing who are protesting the LID but there are many who aren't present who are in favor of forming it. He noted that during the hearings the position of those objecting either to the formation or assessment gets magnified because those who are not objecting are not . present at the meeting to cast their votes in favor of the LID. He noted that there is a sense now that somehow the government should step forward and pay for everything, but historically the idea has been that if a property is developed the developer or property owner should step forward and provide the public amenities necessary to serve that development. He noted that this is the core from which the LID's and no protest agreements grow. He noted that the LID process gives the property owner or developer an opportunity to amortize the costs over a period of years, defer the initial payment for a while and get it at a low interest rate. He noted that the basic premise is that if a property owner is going to improve or develop his property, there is a concurrent or concomitant obligation for the City to widen the street, add a stop light, or make the necessary public improvements to serve that development. Brubaker noted that the final assessment roll hearing is a trial and Council appears as a "board of equalization" which is a quasi-judicial capacity. He explained that the quasi-judicial capacity relates to the proportionality of the assessments, to equalize them if the City has not done a good enough 12 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 . Local improvement District Presentation (continued) job of equalizing them. He noted that the final assessment roll hearing is the property owner's day in court but the property owner must provide a written objection, information, evidence, and documentation to support their objection. He noted that the Council should, at this point, be looking at the fair market value before and after the improvements. He explained that if the City presents evidence about why the value has increased a certain amount then the property owner must carry the same burden and do an adequate job of convincing the Council that the City's position is in error or needs to be adjusted. He noted that essentially this hearing is a trial and the property owner can even cross-examine the City's position which should be allowed. He noted that there are, however, many aspects of an LID hearing that do favor the Council because the courts do not want to tread on the toes of a legislative body like a City Council and even though you are appearing in a quasi-judicial capacity you have a Council or legislative body that is making a decision that a court does not want to step on unless there is a real serious problem. He noted that, for that • reason, the decision the Council makes is reviewed, if taken to Superior Court, strictly on the record presented to the Council which would be any written documentation and spoken testimony of any person at the hearing, nothing else. The second thing is that your decision will only be overturned by a court if it is arbitrary and capricious. He noted that the Council's decision has to be so blindingly obvious from the facts that the Council's decision was wrong before the court will overturn the decision made by the Council. Brubaker noted that the second basis or standard where a court might overturn a Council decision on an LID assessment is if the Council made it on a fundamentally wrong basis, something wrong with the methodology, the way the assessment was computed that the court feels was just fundamentally in error. He noted that there are also five presumptions in favor of the Council's decision which are: 1) all the actions taken were legal; 2) that the assessed property is specially benefitted; 3) that the assessment is no greater than the benefit; 4) that the assessments are equitable and proportionate; and 5) that the assessments are fair. He noted that even though the Council appears in a different capacity, the law has created protection to help the Council with their decision and to favor . their decision. He noted that the two real big concerns that the Council should have is that the assessments should never exceed the benefits 13 Committee of the Whole September 1, 1998 Local Improvement District Presentation (continued) shown to the property and they must always be proportionate. Brubaker noted that there is a doctrine in Washington State known as "the appearance of fairness doctrine" and the basis for that doctrine is that even if the Council's action are fair, they must also appear to the public and everyone to be fair so if the Council has a situation where they have had a conversation the day of the hearing with someone who shows up and objects to the assessment, there is an appearance that the Councilmember, a neutral decision maker, may have been jaded by that conversation. He cautioned the Council to not have a conversation with people about their assessments because they will be serving in the capacity of a judge during the hearing but if it does happen the Councilmember can, in certain circumstances, disclose the nature of the discussion, the content of the discussion, the time that it occurred and who it occurred with, and most the time this is sufficient to quell any concerns about the violation of the "appearance of fairness doctrine". He noted that as we move forward with LID's, from this point forward, if someone wants to . address the Council about their particular assessment, the Council should be well advised to say at this point in time that it is really inappropriate for me to have this discussion because of serving as a quasi-judicial decision maker at the assessment roll hearing. Target Issues Update Orr noted that Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall has so graciously agreed to delay the presentation on the Target Issues Update until the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Q Donna Swaw Deputy City Clerk 14