Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 10/16/2001 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: President Leona Orr, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Greg Worthing, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Mike Martin, Dena Laurent, John Hodgson, Jacki Skaught, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Doug Levy, Julie Peterson, Jeff Barker The workshop began at 5:00 PM. Draft 2002 Legislative Agenda Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Dena Laurent --Just today we were talking about some news that casts a certain pallor over the legislature. The Governor has asked seven of the major state agencies to look for 15% cuts, and over the next biennium we're looking at a $1.2 billion shortfall at the current level of service delivery for the state. Legislative Consultant Doug Levy—The numbers range anywhere from $200 million to a $1.2 billion shortfall. Dena Laurent—Normally, several of our agenda items are looking for the golden egg. We still have some of those but it's always worth asking. We had this agenda divided into three sections. The first section is the action issues list and that's the one I'd like to review with you. Economic Development ♦ Continue to look for funding sources and tools for Kent Station. You may remember last year we worked on tax increment financing. A property tax based version of that was adopted. Actually a sales tax based format would be more useful to us and so we'd like to continue to pursue that along with community development financing,planning environmental fund money, and other tools that may come out of the Governor's competitiveness council. Financial Issues ♦ Unfunded mandates. This continues to be a problem this year for the state in relation to what the Feds may choose to do, so we had that position listed here. ♦ Placeholder for One-Stop Business Licensing or the expedited business licensing. I think we've talked with you about this, where you can come to the City of Kent and meet both your state business license needs and your local business license needs. I'm talking about the technical issues for making that happen. Previously, department licensing has been working with their AG staffer and they have figured out that they can do this through executive order and that we are not going to need legislation. There are two pilot projects where this is achieved, in Bellevue and Richland, and May has been pushing Department of Licensing to bring this service here because we think it's an asset for the business community. The second reason is that it may help us identify businesses who go through the state licensing process but don't bother to get licensed here locally. So we may learn about some businesses that are in Kent that we didn't know were here. ♦ LEOFFIPension Funds. This was an issue even four or five months ago, when there was a large surplus in the LEOFF I Fund. Because of the market's recent drops, that$1.2 billion surplus is now a$200 million surplus. Doug Levy—They invested their pension monies and they had built up a very large surplus in the pension fund, in excess of what it takes to pay for the LEOFF I system. So, the idea was to set up a fund for some of those medical expenses for LEOFF I and Council Workshop Minutes, 10/16/01 2 help offset some of our costs. The fact is, the surplus that existed on December 31s`is now 1/6 of . what it used to be. For a variety of reasons—the market and September 11`h—it just isn't there any more. This may be more of a policy issue than a funding issue now. Dena Laurent—The city is responsible for the medical costs for LEOFF I employees until they die and so the opportunity to use a huge surplus to help fund long-term care coverage for these folks was very attractive at a $1.2 billion surplus. At $200 million there is much less potential for that, so we may not see new legislation on this issue. Green River Community College ♦ We have included an issue about Green River Community College and their effort to co-locate with Kent Station. While we don't plan to approach the legislature with them until 2003, it's not too soon to start talking this year about them as part of our project. The purpose of having this item in here is simply to raise the awareness of our delegation about their potential for being part of our project and our future interest in seeking some state funding for that facility. Land Use ♦ Placeholder. This is one of those experimental ideas. We had a discussion among the attorney's office and the Planning Department about the way we used to do SEPA and we used to have this pre-application SEPA process where you could come in and find out what your deal would be before you actually submitted your plans. We were discussing asking for a change in state regulations about the timelines for issuing permits that would allow us to do that again. The more we explored it, the more complicated we found it would be for developers and the public. Charlene and Fred gathered a group of developers to ask them what they thought about this idea and there was a lot of receptivity to the idea. They acknowledged that it meant public involvement and that it could be confusing. What they have decided to do is offer this service at the pre-application meetings. We are going to take that out,but I wanted to show you how departments are starting to think creatively about how can we change things through legislative action to improve our processes. ♦ Timeline extensions for legal requirements to update comp plans and critical area ordinances. The current deadline is 2002 for these changes and I know that we're on track to complete work in 2002 but I'm not certain that it'll be by September. When the state asked us to do these, they didn't provide additional funding, and so we're having to carefully budget for that work and trying to complete it as quickly as we can, but we won't meet those deadlines. And we're not alone. We will be asking for an extension of those timelines. Doug Levy—This is one of those issues going back to unfunded mandates. An issue of I-601 says if you're requiring local governments to do these things, you'll help fund it. So, we'll be saying where's the dollars? Charlene, for example, put together a list of all the things we have to do for comp plan and critical area updates and its pretty significant dollars. We talked about how bad the state's budget mess is. I think it's really unlikely the legislature will hand out money. It does give us an opportunity to say- if there's not going to be funding available, you really ought to move back those timelines because you're asking us to do something by September 2002 and not providing any dollars. Dena Laurent— Parks and Recreation ♦ Capital Funding for Clark Lake. We were successful in this past session in obtaining a special earmark to help fund some of that acquisition. We believe that this project is so significant that Council Workshop Minutes, 10/16/01 3 we want to address it again with our legislative delegation and ask them for some additional • support for the program. Public Safety ♦ Regional Law Enforcement Services Study. Chief Crawford has done an excellent job of representing Kent. This was a study that was requested by the King County Sheriff to identify services that ought to be regional or things that the sheriff should get funding from cities to do, if I read between the lines. Chief Crawford has been there to say, there's a lot of ways to define regional and it doesn't always mean county. In South County we're already doing it. He's had really good results. The report says that local jurisdictions should carefully consider regionalizing certain services, but it also emphasizes local control and decision making, and notes that there are many different ways to define what is regional. It seems silly that we would exert so much effort to get a line like that in a report,but that's really where recommendations for drafting legislation come from. As those results are reported back to the legislature this next spring,we will continue to track any legislation that comes out of the study to ensure that it supports our position of doing things on a sub-regional/south county area in a way that meets our local needs in the most efficient way. Doug Levy—The Chief has also cautioned that one thing we need to be on the lookout for is if the legislature gets this kind of a report on specialized services and says, this is so important we ought to take existing streams of funding and redirect it into funding specialized services. Obviously we're going to have to raise our hand and say that's inappropriate. I think that's another thing we need to be on the watch for. Dena—Those decisions should not be made in Olympia. They should be made in King County. . Public Works ♦ Additional Funding for the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. That's been a source of financing for our participation in the Tacoma Pipeline Extension Project. Doug Levy—The city has done really well obtaining very low interest loans. In the Public Works Trust Fund, the state sells bonds to front-end finance and then they get paid back. They've actually built up a reserve in the program over time. There are going to be some envious eyes cast on Public Works Trust Fund excess reserve. We have seen three sessions in a row where some people have said- what if we took some money from the Public Works Trust Fund and moved it over here or there? The cities, counties and also the builders and the realtors who see the value of this fund have traditionally banded together and said, no, bad idea. But I think we'll see that in spades in 2002 and we'll have to protect the integrity of this fund,because it's really one of the few infrastructure sources we have. Dena Laurent— Transit ♦ Placeholder—Anticipated report to legislature in December on transit services study. This is the notion of- what do you do when folks come here on the train and need to get out to the industrial floor to work? We're having difficulty getting authority or funding from Metro to help us do that and we think that there needs to be some other options. The legislative transportation committee has actually initiated the study and we're sort of exchanging viewpoints on potential problems and solutions that the legislators might discuss. This is just keeping our position. Transportation ♦ Transportation Funding, Overall Needs—Asking the legislature to adopt a comprehensive transportation package to address the needs of both our residents and our local economy. Council Workshop Minutes, 10/16/01 4 ♦ Funding for transportation projects. This speaks to specific projects that we strongly support. None on the list will be a surprise to you. They are ones we continue to talk about over and over again. ♦ Transportation Funding—Regionalism. One of the things that cities have been talking about, in the absence of a legislative package during the last session, is that maybe portions of the Puget Sound need to propose their own bill for their own problems. Drafts of principles that would inspire legislation are being discussed now. We are actively at the table in those discussions and a couple of key points that we are advocating, on that list of principles, are that local arterials (non-state highways)be eligible for funding. It can't just be supplanting state work but also that those dollars, if we adopt some kind of Puget Sound area package, need not necessarily to go to all one project. That we need to be able to look at the needs of the entire region in addressing and allocating transportation dollars. Water ♦ Water rights. We understand that this year will be a major water policy legislation session and there is a lot of work going on at the behest of the Governor to address water issues. Doug is actively at the table in those meetings for us and there are a number of principles that we're communicating in that forum. We have ample time to perfect our rights. More protection for existing rights. That when we're looking at conservation requirements, that we get credit for work we've already done,because you have directed millions of dollars in the past ten years to habitat restoration and hundreds of other projects—Green River Natural Resource Area, flexibility and performance based solutions,rather than one size fits all requirements, assurances that in-stream flows achieved through habitat conservation plans are recognized and respected. This is a critical issue for the City of Kent and so we have directed Doug to spend a lot of time on this issue during the next session, which is why this is in our action agenda. I have a couple of additional comments. The note about available funds for TOD development, which I think, folds easily into our economic development funding for Kent Station. I have the comment about not splitting us into two different metropolitan regions as part of transportation funding. Those are easy adds. So I would be happy to make those adds and forward the agenda for council action if you think that's appropriate. Third Ouarter Strateeic Plan Update Dena Laurent—There is a two page summary of third quarter progress and there is a multi page report on every goal and action. This is what department heads are completing and then you get my lens to develop this two page document. If there's something that I'm not reporting on that's really important to you,just flip back to the other pages. I can't tell you enough about the flurry of activity that is occurring in the Mayor's office, around Mike and his team on Kent Station, but it's huge. We're actively negotiating with our finalist and we're working on the public process that goes into that. We're continuing to look for revenue. Chief Administrative Officer Mike Martin—Integrated parking studies, traffic studies, supplemental SEPA process, defining park space, public space, and type of infrastructure. It's well in progress. We're working on draft, developer agreements, some of its getting pretty integrated and they're asking for a lot. They always do in the beginning, it's ok. They seem to understand what a partnership is. I hope that's really the case when things get really tough. Dena Laurent—That's not to say that there isn't a lot of other economic development activity taking place. Council Workshop Minutes, 10/16/01 5 Safe Community ♦ The most significant thing I pulled out of safe community was completion of the Fire Department Strategic Plan and the presentation of that plan to the council workshop. I know that we have a lot of work to do in that area before we make additional service decisions, but it was good information and good progress. Effective Transportation System ♦ Ongoing work on the signal study. The continued work on 277`h and, however painful, Meeker and Washington. We knew that we had a lot of things on the plate and they are really happening and they are very visible. ♦ Enhancing Utilization of Non-SOV Alternatives. We were talking earlier about the vanpools from the station out to the valley floor. Renton thinks they invented this. They have one shuttle and we have five. It's working and we're demonstrating that that tool does help. Strong Local Economy ♦ We've done, in the last quarter, some very important work on the permit code. Those folks in the permit center have not only had the grand opening for that center,but are meeting their timelines an average of 85% of the time and that's up from 49% in January. So that's a real significant measurable change, which is really exciting. They feel good about it. Valued Government Services ♦ The eGovernment initiative is 100% complete. That was a really important time of study to identify what some of the potential next steps are for moving into that area of service. . ♦ We received another unqualified audit report from the state auditor. Also an important accomplishment. Councilmember Rico Yingling—I think we'll all remember that valued government services stem from reduced taxes,which is kind of where that started and we wanted to give it a more full bodied position in this instead of just reduced taxes and I don't see anything on here that represents that aspect of this. Not the reduced taxes thing but the fact that what we're looking of this is efficiency and more bang for the buck stuff. I know they're in there because when looked back at the details you've got your performance measures and got some benchmarking stuff and that kind of thing it would be nice in the summary two pages that there was something on that perspective of this in particular. I know you've got performance measure work that is going on that you're still trying to implement. I think you're thinking about some benchmarking issues. It would be good to get updated continually on those efficient government aspects of that component. The workshop adjourned at 5:45 PM. • s COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: President Leona Orr, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Greg Worthing,Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Mike Martin, Dena Laurent, John Hodgson, Jacki Skaught, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Doug Levy, Julie Peterson, Jeff Barker The workshop began at 5:00 p.m. Draft 2002 Leeislative Aeenda Dena Laurent - Just today we were talking about some new news that casts a certain pallor over the legislature. The Governor has asked 7 of the major state agencies to look for 15% cuts and over the next biennium we're looking at a 1.2 billion shortfall at the current level of service delivery for the state. Doug Levy-The numbers range its anywhere from 200 million to the 1.2 billion shortfall. Dena-Normally, several of our agenda items are looking for the golden egg. We still have some of those but its always worth asking. We had this agenda divided into 3 sections. The first section is the action issues list and that's the one I'd like to review with you. Economic Development ♦ Continue to look for funding sources and tools for Kent Station. You may remember last year we worked on tax increment financing. A property tax based version of that was adopted. Actually a sales tax based format would be more useful to us and so we'd like to continue to pursue that along with community development financing, planning environmental fund money, and other tools that may come out of the Governor's competitiveness council. Tom Brotheron-A couple of years ago I was at the National League of Cities meeting and went to a seminar by HUD where they indicated a great interest in downtown development. I don't know if the city's pursued that any further or not. They indicated they had money, they simply needed applicants and they wanted people to come. I've been mentioning this every now and then but so far no one has said anything. Mike Martin-We have a meeting set up Thursday with HUD representatives to talk about that. Dena-We think we've landed on the right key contacts. Sometimes its finding the right person. Tim-The PSRC continues to hunt money for transit oriented development which this would qualify. That raises the issue of what the federal government will do and how they will allot money in that particular caravan. What I am asking for is if that does get brought up that we make sure that we're right up front in terms of projects that actually get named because we do fit that particular category and if that becomes matching money from the state and it starts getting earmarked then let's talk. • Dena- Financial Issues Operations Committee Minutes, I I/16/99 2 ♦ Unfunded mandates. Continues to be a problem and will be a specific problem this year for the state in relation to what the Feds may choose to so we had that position listed here. ♦ Placeholder for One-Stop Business Licensing or the expedited business licensing. I think we've talked with you about this where you can come to the City of Kent and meet both your state business license needs and your local business license needs and I'm talking out the technical issues for making that happen. Previously department licensing has been working with their AG staffer and have figured out they can do this through executive order and we are not going to need legislation. There are two pilot projects where this is achieved in Bellevue and Richland now and May has been pushing Department of Licensing to bring this service here because we think its an asset for the business community. The second reason is that it may help us identify businesses who go through the state licensing process but don't bother to get licensed here locally. So we may learn about some businesses that are in Kent that we didn't know were here. ♦ LEOFF I Pension Funds. This was an issue even 4 or 5 months ago when there was a large surplus in the LEOFF I Fund. Because of the market's recent drops that 1.2 billion dollar surplus is now a 200 million dollar surplus and so there's less of a reason. Rico—So LEOFF I was invested in stocks? Tom—They were heavy into tech it sounds like to. Doug Levy — They invested their pension monies and they had built up a very large surplus in the pension fund in excess of what it takes to pay for the LEOFF I system and so the idea was to set up a fund for some of those medical expenses for LEOFF I and help offset some of our costs. The fact that the surplus that used to exist December 31" is now 1/6 of what it used to be for a variety of • reasons the market and the September I I1h it just isn't there any more. This may be more of a policy issue than a funding issue now. Dena— We've included it if it emerges. Rico—Who is the manager of that fund? Is it the city manages? Doug Levy—The State Investment Board. Dena—The city is responsible for the medical costs for LEOFF I employees until they die and so the opportunity to use a huge surplus to help fund long tern care coverage for these folks was very attractive at a 1.2 billion dollar surplus. 200 million there is much less potential for that so we may not see new legislation on this issue. Green River Community College ♦ We have included an issue about Green River Community College and their effort to co locate with Kent Station. While we don't plan to approaching the legislature with them until 2003 this year its not too soon to start talking about them as a part of our project. The purpose of having this item in here is simply to raise the awareness of our delegation about their potential for being part of our project and our future interest in seeking some state funding for that facility. Land Use ♦ Placeholder. This is one of those experimental ideas. We had a discussion among the attorney's office and the planning department about the way we used to do SEPA and we used to have kind of this pre-application SEPA process where you could kind of come in and find out what your deal would be before you actually submitted your plans and we were discussing asking a change in state regulations about the timelines for issuing permits that would allow us to that again. The Operations Committee Minutes, 11/16/99 3 more we explored it the more complicated we found it would be for developers and the public. Charlene and Fred gathered a group of developers to ask them what they thought about this idea • and there was a lot receptivity to the idea and acknowledge that it meant public involvement and that it could be confusing. What they have decided to do is offer this service at the pre- application meetings. We are going to take that out but I wanted to show you how departments are actually starting to think creatively about how can we change things through legislative action to improve our processes. Doug — It's a difference between the pre-application let's you sort of informally get with the developer and say here's what we think you might have to do and what our guys was exploring was whether you could make that a formal pre project process. The other side of the coin is you would have introduced a second round of appeals. So what Charlene, Fred, and Roger and others ultimately thought was at one time this was a pretty good brainstorm, now we're not so sure it doesn't add another element of complexity. Dena— ♦ Timeline extensions for legal requirements to update comp plans and critical area ordinances. The current deadline is 2002 for these changes and I know that we're on track to complete work in 2002 but I'm not certain that it'll be by September. As well when the state asked us to do these they didn't provide additional funding and so we're kind of having to carefully budget for that work and trying to complete it as quickly as we can but we won't meet those deadlines. And we're not alone. We will be asking for an extension of those timelines. Doug — This is one of those issues going back to unfunded mandates. An issue of 601 says if you're • requiring local governments to do these things you'll help fund it and so we'll be saying where's the dollars because Charlene for example put together a list of all the things we have to do for comp plan and critical area updates and its pretty significant dollars and we talked about how bad the state's budget mess is. I think its really unlikely the legislature will hand out money. So it does give us an opportunity to say if there's not going to be funding available you really ought to move back those timeless because you're asking us to do something by September 2002 and not providing any dollars. Tom—There will be support from other cities for this? Doug—Absolutely. This will bean important issue for a number of jurisdictions, particularly smaller ones. Dena— Parks and Recreation ♦ Capital Funding for Clark Lake. We were successful in this past session in obtaining a special earmark to help fund some of that acquisition and we believe that this project is so significant that we want to address it again with our legislative delegation asking them for some additional support for the program. Public Safety ♦ Regional Law Enforcement Services Study. Chief Crawford has done an excellent job of representing Kent. This was a study that was requested by the King County Sheriff to identify services that ought to be regional or things that the sheriff should get funding from cities to do, if I read between the lines. Chief Crawford has been there to say, there a lot of ways to define regional and it doesn't always mean county. In South County we're already doing. He's had really good results. The report says that local jurisdictions should carefully consider Operations Committee Minutes, 1 V 16/99 4 regionalizing certain services but it also emphasizes local control and decesion making and notes that there are many different ways to define what is regional. It seems silly that we would exert . so much effort to get a line like that in a report but that's really where recommendations for drafting legislation come from. As those results are reported back to the legislature this next spring we will continue to track any legislation that comes out of the study and ensure that it supports our position of doing things on a sub regional/south county area in a way that best meets our local needs in the most efficient way. Doug — The Chief has also cautioned that one thing we need to be on the lookout for is if the legislature gets this kind of a report on specialized services and says, this is so important we ought to take existing streams of funding and redirect it into funding specialized services obviously we're going to have to raise our hand and say that's inappropriate. I think that's another thing we need to be on the watch for. Dena—Those decisions should not be made in Olympia. They should be made in King County. Tom—Is there anything going on similar to this in the fire services area or is it just police? Doug — It was the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs worked on getting this study directed but it was primarily at the behest of the King County Sheriff's Office. Dena— Public Works ♦ Additional Funding for the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. That's been a source of financing for • our participation in the Tacoma Pipeline Extension Project. Doug — The city has done really well obtaining very low interest loans. In the Public Works Trust Fund the state sells bonds to front end finance and then they get paid back and they've actually built up a reserve in the program over time and there's going to be some envious eyes cast on Public Works Trust Fund excess reserve and we've seen 3 sessions in a row where some people have said, what if we took some money from the Public Works Trust Fund and moved it over here or there and so cities and counties and also the builders and the realtors who see the value of this fund have traditionally banded together and said, no, bad idea. But I think again we'll see that in spades in 2002 and we'll have to protect the integrity of this fund because its really one of the few infrastructure sources we have. Dena— Transit ♦ Placeholder—Anticipated report to legislature in December on transit services study. This is the notion of what do yu do when folks come here on the train and need to get out to the industrial floor to work and having difficulty getting authority or funding from Metro to help us do that we think that there need to be some other options. The study has actually been initiated by the legislative transportation committee and we're sort of exchanging viewpoints on potential problems and solutions that the legislators might discuss. This is just keeping our position. Transportation ♦ Transportation Funding — Overall Needs. Asking the legislature to adopt a comprehensive . transportation package to address the needs of both our residents and our local economy ♦ Funding for transportation projects. This speaks to specific projects that we strongly support. None on the list will be a surprise to you. They are ones we continue to talk about over and over. Operations Committee Minutes, 11/16/99 5 Tom — You're going to support these when they come up? I haven't seen the numbers but I believe • that the economic center down in the Kent Valley here is not just key for Kent. It is also key for many other cities around here in South King County and it seems like this has a very good chance for a regional argument. Dena— ♦ Transportation Funding — Regionalism. One of the things that cities have been talking about in the absence of a legislative package during the last session is maybe portions of the Puget Sound need to propose their own bill for their own problems. Drafts of principles that would inspire legislation are being discussed now. We are actively at the table in those discussions and a couple of key points that we are advocating on that list of principles are that local arterials (non state highways) be eligible for funding. Can't just be supplanting state work but also that those dollars if we adopt some kind of Puget Sound area package need not necessarily to go to all one project. That we need to be able to look at the needs of the entire region in addressing and allocating transportation dollars. Tim — I would like to confirm although I'm relatively certain we're all there that we will firmly oppose any splitting of the Puget Sound metropolitan area. Would that be accurate, Mike? Doug—That's my understanding of our position. Tom—What does that mean, splitting of the areas for our purpose? • Tim—The Feds drive in money into a metropolitan area as defined by and so the problem with it is is there was a suggestion in last years go round that the suburban areas particularly the east and south could split out and become their own separate taxing district and therefore begin to gain control of their own roads. What it would have done is meant (1)the Federal government has never recognized two metropolitan areas in the same area which would mean that potentially they would send the federal money into a conduit controlled by PSRC and we'd never see any of it. But far worse than that all it does is pit us versus King County and Seattle for whatever funds come into the greater metropolitan area and we are clearly much better served by a true regional approach where the priorities and the principles applied to the listing are clear and then whatever money we get that's where it comes out as opposed to trying to go our own way. Making a mess of it. Finding ourselves without the money and then not even getting the state legislature to carry through on what we might have started. Doug — The other thing last year when there were amendments to split the Puget Sound Regional Council the awful irony of one of the proposals was it would have created a new east and south metropolitan planning area governed by county council members only. You could have the situation where you're in a metropolitan planning area governed by county council members and still paying your dues. So you're paying the money without any authority to govern it. I think its easy in concept and the details are awfully tough and when Dena was talking about the local road needs the tricky thing is that the state can't ever put enough money and commitment into the Puget Sound. That's where the premise starts to do you own regional thing and get your own authority but you also don't want to set that up and become the piggybank for all the state's highways. So what we've been trying to say is, yes, in order to supplement what you can't do on the state level we can talk about that but we're not going to be just paying for your state highways and taking you off the hook for your responsibility. Operations Cornnnttee Minutes, 11/16/99 6 Dena— Water ♦ Water rights. We understand that this year will be a major water policy legislation session and there is a lot of work going on at the behest of the Governor to address water issues. Doug is actively at the table in those meetings for us and there are a number of principles that we're communicating in that forum that we have ample time to perfect our rights. More protection and in certainly for existing rights that when we're looking at conservation requirements that we get credit for work we've already done because you have directed millions of dollars in the past 10 years to habitat restoration and hundreds of other projects, Green River Natural Resource Area. Flexibility and performance based solutions rather than one size fits all requirements. Assurances that instream flows achieved through habitat conservation plans are recognized and respected. This is a critical issue for the City of Kent and so we have directed Doug to spend a lot of time on this issue during the next session which is why this is in our action agenda. Doug—I was going back through conservation too seeing some of what the council directed as I was working with Robyn and the Association of Washington Cities is actually putting together a survey showing what all the cities are doing on conservation partly to shape the debate and say before we ask for new things on conservation lets look at what's already occurring. This city's record is pretty phenomenal. Going back to some council directives in 91 and 93 and some of the percentage savings from this year alone so I think it helps paint the picture but there's a lot of work going on. We're really going to chafe at the legislature requiring a whole series of new things without recognizing what we've already done. Leona—I know when growth management hit us between the eyes we had had phenomenal growth in . Kent and we were given no consideration or recognition for any that growth and the impacts and they just said you have to take what we tell you you have to take regardless of what's happened in the last few years and it was absolutely unfair. I think that's very important because if they come down with a whole bunch of new things that we have to do with no consideration for what we've already done and are doing it can be a tremendous burden. Mike — Its obviously another problem we had with the Tacoma Pipeline when are executed will require us to have a certain percentage of reduction on an annual basis year after year after year. My concern is if they're gonna overlook the 33rd percent savings and conservation that we've had over the last 10 years not including the 15% we achieved over the summer and just say that's where you start so you're gonna start 38%behind where you were 10 years ago and good luck. Doug — This is going to be a spirited debate overall because for us, as a city, and other utilities will look at it and say, if you would just let us perfect the water rights we have, protect them, we need to do all these things to serve the growth we have and that we know is coming and we need certainty to finance all the improvements and we're going to have environmental groups and others say, yeah, but you need more instream flows, more conservation, so whenever you get into water resource issues there's just clash of ideologies and we'll see it again. So we're going to have our work cut out for us to get something that is helpful to us without any harmful provisions being added at the same time. Dena — I have a couple of add comments. The note about available funds for TOD development which I think folds easily into our economic development funding for Kent Station. I have the comment about not splitting us into two different metropolitan regions as part of transportation funding. Those are easy adds. So I would be happy to make those adds and forward the agenda for council action if you think that's appropriate. Operations Committee Minutes, 11/16/99 7 Leona—This is a very nice report. Doug— In front of all of you I want to compliment the department heads and the senior staff because we had meetings with almost all of them and great exchange of ideas and I think the number of them we met with didn't even restrict it to their own department but were thinking about the city. I could think of May as an example saying, have we thought about Green River Community College and what they may need in the capital budget. As Dena said while that may be more suited to 2003 just struck with us why not be in conversations right now. Third Quarter Stratedc Plan Update Dena— There is a 2 page summary of 3ra quarter progress and there is a multi page report on every goal and action. This is what department heads are completing and then you get my lens to develop this 2 page document. So if there's something that I'm not reporting out on that's really important to you just flip back to the other pages. I can't tell you the flurry of activity that is occurring in the Mayor's office around Mike and his team on Kent Station but its huge. We're actively negotiating with our finalist and we're working on the public process that goes into that. We're continuing to look for revenue. Mike — Integrated parking studies, traffic studies, supplemental SEPA process, defining park space, public space, type of infrastructure. Its well in progress. We're working on draft, developer agreements, some of its getting pretty integrated and they're asking for a lot. They always do in the beginning, its ok. They seem to understand what a partnership is. I hope that's really the case when things get really tough. . Dena—That's not to say that there isn't a lot of other economic development activity taking place. Safe Community ♦ The most significant thing I pulled out of safe community was completion of the Fire Department Strategic Plan and the presentation of that plan made to the council workshop. Tom—What is the RV park assessment? Mike — That was an item that we've discussed dealing whether we want to pursue buying, condemning, acquiring an RV Shafran's. The notion was to use that park as an RV facility. Dena— ♦ I was picking out the Fire Strategic Plan and its presentation to council. I know that we have a lot of work to do in that area before we make additional service decisions but it was good information and good progress. Tom—Now that we have the Strategic Plan is that going to impact the budget this year at all? Mike —There was one major budgetary issue implicit in that study and it had to do with whether we wanted our folks to do transport and frankly its such a huge issue I'm not sure we're ready to bring that back to you at this point. We're actively discussing it but it would probably be a good idea to have your new Chief who we expect to see early part of winter involved in that because it is so huge. . We have not by any means put that aside. Tom—Will be there something on the budget for that then this year? Operations Committee Minutes, 11/16/99 8 Mike — I don't anticipate putting anything in the budget this year that would execute transport. Which is not to say we can't work on things associated with it. Dena— Effective Transportation System ♦ Ongoing work on the signal study. The continued work on 2771h and however painful Meeker and Washington. We knew that we had a lot of things on the plate and they are really happening and they are very visible. ♦ Enhancing Utilization of Non-SOV Alternatives. We were talking earlier about the van pools from the station out to the valley floor. Renton thinks they invented this. They have one shuttle and we have 5. Its working and we're demonstrating that that tool does help. Strong Local Economy ♦ We've done in the last quarter some very important work on the permit code and those folks in the permit center not only having had the grand opening for that center but are meeting their timelines an average of 85% of the time and that's up from 49% in January. So that's a real significant measurable change which is really exciting. They feel good about it. Valued Government Services ♦ The eGovernment initiative is 100% complete. That was a really important time of study to identify what are some potential next steps for moving into that area of service. ♦ We received another unqualified audit report from the state auditor. Also an important accomplishment. Tom — You note the DeMarco annexation is 60% complete. You need to update that one. We've annexed them. There's a cross correlation here that I think is important that you haven't mentioned that the Human Services Center Study ties really nicely into basically the economic development. If we get the people who need services together, get them serviced more effectively. They are a key constituent to our economy in terms of providing employees from the many businesses in our valley. It seems like you have to connect those a little bit better. Mike — I met recently with Katherin Johnson and talked about that whole center. Its moving along very nicely. There is still a lot of loose ends and there's a lot of uncertainty of how that's all going to be put together but they're actually drafting and the attorney's are involved are drafting a memorandum of understanding about how the participation will occur. We have to look at it in terms of how its going to fit into everything else that is going on. Tom — There's so much synergy here. A lot of the people there who need those services are employed. They have a lot of trouble with getting to work. The shuttle and the van pool from the Station maybe should include that also. Its going to be a central location. People getting to services, handling problems when their kid gets sick and currently they have to take off work or not as the case may be. There is a lot of issues there that we could help the economy by organizing our services around this. Dena—How is this working for you? What else can we do to be more responsive? Rico — I think we'll all remember that valued government services stem from reduced taxes which is kind of where that started and we wanted to give it a more full bodied position in this instead of just reduced taxes and I don't see anything on here that represents that aspect of this. Not the reduced taxes thing but the fact that what we're looking for part of this is efficiency and more bang for the Operations Committee Minutes, 11/16/99 9 buck stuff. I know they're in there because when looked back at the details you've got your performance measures and got some benchmarking stuff and that kind of thing it would be nice in the summary two pages that there was something on that perspective of this particular Dena— So pulling out more of the real value Rico —The value part as opposed to just Dena—We did this, we did that. Rico —Because I know you've got performance measure work that is going on that you're still trying to implement. I think you're thinking about some benchmarking issues. Be good to continually get updated on those efficient government aspects of that component. Tom — I like how you put in the percent complete on a lot of these things. Whenever you get to something that is essentially complete, what's next is always a question. Now that we've done this, now we'll start working on something else is always the question that comes to my mind anyway. Rico —Maybe or maybe not. Generally the way I'm used to this working is as you get projects done that means you're reaching your goal and then when you go through your cycle again, happen next year that's the time when you start Tom — Could be. Look at the bottom of the page where it says Human Services. That's the one where they've completed the study. Rico—This is just a summary. Tom— I know but when they completed the study are we going on with the study this year or are we going to wait. Dena— Like I did up on eGov where I said eGov is implementation to be considered as part of Tech II. Tom—A little closure if there is closure. If this is the end of it ok. Rico — One of the way I like it is that in our Public Works Meeting yesterday, don't know who made the statement, but someone said there were 52 projects that were developed or created in response to the achievement of that objective and I'm not sure here in this planning process how many projects are being initiated in order to achieve different goals. I don't know if its open ended or the 5 projects you picked are the ones that are going to get us there or what. Is there some way that you are going to be able to link the stuff that is going on with budget. The workshop adjourned at 5:45 p.m. i Council Office 2❑d Floor, City Hall 220 4d'Ave. South,Kent, 98032 PLEASE SIGN IN v DATE: /0 Z16 Lo Name Address Phone Number Joo-')-14t>e'--eek)