HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 01/16/2001 KENT C
WASH I N G T O N OUNCIL WORKSHOP
January 16, 2001
The Council Workshop will be held in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:30 PM
on Tuesday,January 16, 2001.
Council Members: President Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton,
Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling
Speaker Time
1. Neighborhood Street Standards Gary Gill 20 min.
Steve Mullen
2. Downtown Redevelopment Developer Jacki Skaught 30 min.
Selection Process Geoff Graham
3. Legislative Update Dena Laurent 10 min.
The Council Workshop meets each month on the first Tuesday at 5:OOPM and the third
Tuesday at 5:30 PM in Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information
please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712.
`- ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD
CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE.
FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL THE WASHINGTON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
Street Design Standards
History:
The City Council directed staff to consider changes to the roadway design standards.
An Advisory Group, consisting of citizens, developers, consultants, engineers, and
representatives from the Kent school district and City staff from the Public Works and
Planning departments, was formed, facilitated by Paul Lansperry from CH2M-Hill
Consulting Engineers.
A literature search was conducted to see what standards are in use by various
jurisdictions and to assess what features of various standards would be applicable to
Kent. There are many guides available. Most of the guides have some common themes:
1. Generally, narrower roads (or roads that seem narrower) tend to have lower
speeds. Narrower roads can cause some larger vehicles difficulty in
maneuvering.
2. Generally, tighter radii at intersections result in lower entry speeds.
3. Generally, streets that have a noticeable grade experience higher operating
speeds, both uphill and downhill.
4. A classification of roadways is necessary to address the intended use of the
roadway.
5. An arterial inventory that has sufficient capacity to satisfy the travel demand
is essential to reducing traffic using local access streets.
6. Having a variety of routes available to serve motorists helps spread the traffic
over several routes, diluting the impact on any one route, and providing some
relief during periods when a route is congested due to high demand or
restriction related to construction activity in or near the roadway.
7. Separation of the pedestrian path from the vehicle path helps make the facility
more attractive to a variety of users.
8. Inclusion of landscaping and illumination helps make the facility more
attractive to a variety of users and improves safety and the sense of security.
With these principles in mind, the Advisory Group set out to review the existing City
design standards with the following goals:
1. Encourage slower traffic on residential streets.
2. Make neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly, and connect neighborhoods
with vehicle circulation elements, and pedestrian connection elements.
3. Discourage "cut-through" traffic from the neighborhoods. Keep the pass
through traffic on the arterial street system.
4. Reduce the overall pavement area.
5. Include aesthetic treatments that make the neighborhoods more livable and
discourage high volume and high-speed vehicular traffic.
6. Include traffic calming devices, not only as a retrofit to address documented
speed/volume problems,but also as a standard to discourage the problems from
developing. (Be pro-active AND reactive)
Ift-
The advisory group met several times to discuss what standards needed refinement,
which needed significant overhaul, and which, if any, were satisfactory as they existed.
The group quickly focused on the local residential streets, and lower classification streets.
Kent, like many jurisdictions, has a functional classification system for its streets. There
are the following arterial classifications:
1. Freeway (under the jurisdiction of WSDOT),
2. Principal Arterial,
3. Minor Arterial,
4. Industrial Collector Arterial,
5. Residential Collector Arterial, and
6. Residential Collector.
The strong consensus of the group was that the City was doing a good job on the arterial
street system standards and little was needed there. They endorsed separating the
roadway from the sidewalk with a planting strip that should contain appropriate street
trees.
The remaining streets are "unclassified" and serve the primary purpose of providing
access to the adjacent parcels. These are frequently called Local Access streets and
further are subdivided by the nature of the adjacent land use, residential or
industriaUcommercial. The advisory group rather quickly focused on the local residential
access streets and below.
There was considerable discussion about cul-de-sacs. While the Council has expressed
some dislike for dead end streets and cul-de-sacs due to issues of connectivity and
circulation, the development community felt that this type of street was very desirable,
and that lots/homes on the cul-de-sac streets are commonly among the most sought after
and the first to sell. The committee also recognized that this type of roadway does not
provide adequate circulation and limits connectivity of neighborhoods, and, in balance, is
not necessarily a desirable development pattern from the overall community perspective.
There was much discussion and debate over the appropriate roadway width and the
allocation of that roadway to parking. The consensus was to narrow the existing
residential street standard from 32 feet to 28 feet and to allow parking on both sides.
Several other widths of streets and parking allocations were discussed. The Fire
Department made a strong argument for maintaining a 20-foot wide travelway available
at all times. There was discussion of parking on only one side of the road versus both
sides. These two elements were considered but the consensus was that restricting parking
to only one side was virtually unenforceable, and.if parking is allowed on both sides of
the street is allowed AND a 20 foot wide fire lane is provided, the roadway grows to at
least 34 feet in width, contrary to the Council's desire to narrow the paved surface.
There was discussion of prohibiting all on-street parking. In most modern developments,
most houses provide at least a two-car garage. The required setback and driveway
standard results in at least two parking spaces in the driveway. In most cases, this
`. parking is adequate for most residents. But there would be no additional parking
available for visitors, guests, and service/delivery vehicles. The consensus was that
providing a 28 foot wide street and allowing parking on both sides was the best
compromise between the need to provide two-way traffic and accommodate reasonable
parking. This design assumes that it is unlikely to result in cars parking simultaneously
directly opposite one another on the street (a frequently erroneous assumption, based on
experience from other jurisdictions). This would result in only 12-14 feet available for
travel paths,nand would not accommodate safe two-way travel. Many streets in older
cities tolerate this condition. This street design relies on the presence of parked vehicles
to effectively narrow the travelway and slow traffic. As discussed earlier, with most
modern developments, most of the time, there are few cars parked on the street. The
result is a 28-foot wide travelway, approximately 14-foot lanes available to each lane of
travel. The might result in higher speeds. The concept of including street trees in the
planter strip which lies between the curb and the sidewalk would introduce a traffic
calming element by making the street seem narrower as the vegetation matures.
When the proposed changes were presented at a recent Council workshop, some
members of the Council expressed dismay that there weren't any strong policy statements
or ordinance changes that mandated implementation of the concepts of connectivity or
circulation. There are existing policy statements and City Code requirements related to
development of public roadways. Excerpts from these ordinances are included as an
attachment. The principles of acceptability for subdivisions contain language that
mandates implementation of these concepts unless the engineering department finds
otherwise. This language is a fairly recent strengthening of the language that had been in
place a year ago. It was felt that no additional language was required.
Some members of the Council have also expressed a desire to mandate inclusion of
traffic calming devices as elements of the Street Design Standards. The Advisory Group
recommended leaving the decision to implement traffic calming techniques or devices to
traffic engineering professionals in the circumstances where there is a clear need for
devices. The Council, in previous actions, has established the Neighborhood Traffic
Control Program, and adopted a series of policies that deal with neighborhood traffic
issues. Included in the overall program are criteria for application of various traffic
calming strategies and devices, as well as a process for deciding where to apply them.
Staff is understanding that the Council desires to include some of these techniques as
mandatory design elements and we have determined some potential features that would
influence drivers behaviors and likely result in lower speeds and potentially lower
volumes on residential streets. The design elements include tighter corner radii, curb
bulb-outs at the intersection and chokers midblock. Each of these devices has some
advantages and disadvantages that we can illustrate during the following discussion.
L General principles
1. Narrower streets (or streets that seem narrower) result in lower travel speeds.
2. Elements that produce "friction" influence traffic to lower speeds.
3. Streets should be designed to at least accommodate the legal speed limit. (designing
facilities that do not safely accommodate a prudent driver operating within the legal
speed limit introduces significant legal liability)
4. Our ability to control traffic speeds is limited. In reality we have only the ability to
influence speeds, and the tools available to us are limited.
5. To solve a problem, one should first identify the problem, consider available
solutions, and then select the appropriate action to address the problem. Applying a
particular device where there has been no problem identified may reduce the
effectiveness of devices where there has been a problem, and may result in a
conclusion that the device is ineffective, because it did not improve the traffic speeds
or safety.
6. Regardless of the success of the NTCP, neighborhoods will ALWAYS continue to
express concern about the speed and volume of traffic on their road, except for those
living on short dead end streets (and we have received several concerns even then).
7. All traffic "solutions" to speed/volume have a down side to them; hence they should
be used when there is a net benefit.Emergency response vehicles are also delayed,
and this can sometimes mean the difference between a good result and a tragic one.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Kent City Code excerpts related to connectivity and traffic circulation.
Road Design Standards
Connectivity:
12.04.125 Principles of acceptability.
No short subdivision shall be approved unless the following principles of acceptability
are met; the short subdivision shall:
6. Where feasible, make adequate provision for the connectivity of streets,
alleys, pedestrian accessways and other public ways.
12.04.235 Standards for the subdivision of land and any dedications.
C. The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the city
engineering department. The following standards shall apply unless otherwise
approved by the engineering department:
1. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure less
than two hundred(200) feet from the centerline to centerline.
2. Residential cul-de-sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred (600) feet.
3. No street grades shall exceed fifteen (15) percent. A grading permit shall be
required as per Appendix 70 of the Uniform Building Code as adopted in KCC
14.01.010 prior to any grading.
4. A tangent of at least two hundred (200) feet in length shall be provided between
reverse curves for community or major arterials, one hundred fifty (150) feet for
neighborhood collector streets, and one hundred (100) feet for residential access
streets.
5. Where a deflection angle of more than ten (10) degrees in the alignment of a
street occurs, a curve of reasonably long radius shall be introduced. On streets
sixty (60) feet or more in width, the centerline radius of curvature shall be not less
than three hundred (300) feet and on other streets it shall be not less than one
hundred (100) feet.
6. All changes in grade shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum length
of two hundred (200) feet unless specified otherwise by the engineering
department.
7. All streets shall be platted at full width. All street improvements shall be of
full-width improvement. Full-width improvement shall consist of the following:
a. All streets, roads, and alleys shall be graded to their full width and the
pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed to standard cross-sections.
b. All street and alley surfaces shall be of asphalt concrete according to city
specifications.
c. All streets may have permanent concrete curbs and gutters according to city
specifications.
d. All streets shall have storm drains consisting of the proper size pipe and catch
basins or open ditch which is to be determined at the time of the public hearing
for the preliminary plat. Whenever open ditch is allowed, no closed drains may be
installed except across an authorized driveway.
e. All primary/major arterials, secondary arterials and collector streets shall have
sidewalks, with a minimum of five (5) feet width on at least one (1) side.
f. All streets shall have street lighting located and installed in accordance with the
determinations and standards of the engineering department. Street light spacing
shall consider the dimensions of adjacent full-grown trees.
g. Streets which maybe extended in the event of future adjacent platting maybe
required to be dedicated to the boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an
average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-
width boundary street may be required in certain instances to facilitate future
development.
h. Any planting strips in residential subdivisions shall be not less than four (4)
feet in width.
i. Street widths vary according to function and traffic generated. The following
minimum widths for the types of streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan,
must be adhered to if full pavement is required:
Right-of- Pavement
way width width
(feet) (feet)
Major Arterial 80 60
Secondary Arterial 70 44
Collector 60 36
Local Street 60 32
Cul-de-Sac 50 28 — 32
Where full pavement is not required, the right-of-way widths shall remain the
same for the type of street defined in the comprehensive plan. The improvement
may consist of two (2) eleven (11) foot driving lanes and two (2) eight (8) foot
shoulders and two (2) six (6) foot drainage sections and two (2) five (5) foot
potential sidewalk sections.
j. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions
may be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the city for
trail purposes.
12.04.435 Principles of acceptability.
No short subdivision shall be approved unless the following principles of acceptability
are met. The short subdivision shall:
6. Where feasible, make adequate provision for the connectivity of streets,
alleys, pedestrian accessways and other public ways.
12.04.685 Approval criteria.
A. A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city finds that:
1. Appropriate provisions have been made for:
i. Sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for residents and students who walk to and
from school, parks, transit stops and other neighborhood services;
j. Connectivity of streets or roads, alleys, pedestrian accessways, and
other public ways within and between subdivisions and neighborhoods;
12.04.745 Standards for the subdivision of land and any dedications.
C. The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the city
engineering department. The following standards shall apply unless otherwise
approved by the engineering department:
1. Where street intersections must be offset, such offsets shall not measure
less than two hundred (200) feet from the centerline to centerline.
2. Residential cul-de-sacs shall not exceed a length of six hundred (600) feet.
3. No street grades shall exceed fifteen (15) percent. A grading permit shall be
required as per Appendix 70 of the Uniform Building Code as adopted in
KCC 14.01.010 prior to any grading.
4. A tangent of at least two hundred (200) feet in length shall be provided
between reverse curves for community or major arterials, one hundred fifty
(150) feet for neighborhood collector streets, and one hundred (100) feet for
residential access streets.
5. Where a deflection angle of more than ten (10) degrees in the alignment of
a street occurs, a curve of reasonably long radius shall be introduced. On
streets sixty (60) feet or more in width, the centerline radius of curvature shall
be not less than three hundred (300) feet and on other streets it shall be not
less than one hundred (100) feet.
6. All changes in grade shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum
length of two hundred (200) feet unless specified otherwise by the engineering
department.
7. All streets shall be platted at full width. All street improvements shall be of
full-width improvement. Full-width improvement shall consist of the
following:
a. All streets, roads, and alleys shall be graded to their full width and the
pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed to standard cross-sections.
b. All street and alley surfaces shall be of asphalt concrete according to city
specifications.
c. All streets may have permanent concrete curbs and gutters according to city
specifications.
d. All streets shall have storm drains consisting of the proper size pipe and
catch basins or open ditch which is to be determined at the time of the public
hearing for the preliminary plat. Whenever open ditch is allowed, no closed
drains may be installed except across an authorized driveway.
e. All primary/major arterials, secondary arterials and collector streets shall
`,,. have sidewalks, with a minimum of five (5) feet width on at least one (1) side.
f. All streets shall have street lighting located and installed in accordance with
the determinations and standards of the engineering department. Street light
spacing shall consider the dimensions of adjacent full-grown trees.
g. Streets which may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting may
be required to be dedicated to the boundary line. Extensions of greater depth
than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication
of a full-width boundary street may be required in certain instances to
facilitate future development.
h. Any planting strips in residential subdivisions shall be not less than four(4)
feet in width.
i. Street widths vary according to function and traffic generated. The
following minimum widths for the types of streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan, must be adhered to if full pavement is required:
Right-of- Pavement
way width width
(feet) (feet)
Major Arterial 80 60
Secondary Arterial 70 44
Collector 60 36
Local Street 60 32
Cul-de-Sac 50 28 —32
Where full pavement is not required, the right-of-way widths shall remain the
same for the type of street defined in the comprehensive plan. The
improvement may consist of two (2) eleven(11) foot driving lanes and two
(2) eight (8) foot shoulders and two (2) six (6) foot drainage sections and two
(2) five (5) foot potential sidewalk sections.
j. If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail,
provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements
to the city for trail purposes.
4
R
REPORT ON WEEK 1 OF 2001 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
CITY OF KENT
Doug Levy,1/15/01
TRANSPORTATION—The pace will pick up this week as both the House and Senate Transportation
Committees hold hearings on 1)the Blue Ribbon Commission report;and 2)the Governor's 2001-03 and
2001-07 transportation budget packages. I have had several meetings with individual legislators to discuss
our issues from both a big-picture(revenue,freight mobility, local distribution, corridor program, etc.)and
project(1--5, 41", etc.)perspective. These first several weeks likely will focus more on what the state has in
its WSDOT budget("current law"),current financial limitations,etc.,than it will on development of new
packages just yet.
As previously noted, I have also met with Sen.Haugen,Chair of Senate Transportation,who called the
Governor's package of proposed$5.8 billion state and$3.8 billion`regional' revenues over the next six
years"the high-water mark." She also is of the belief that the Corridor Congestign Relief program is the
only place where money will be provided for local distribution,so we will have our work cut out for us.
She said the idea of`regional governance'will have to wait a year,and believes a`regional equity return'
component would never fly with Eastern Washington members. She also seems resigned to the fact that
any transportation package put together by the 2001 Legislature would need to go to the ballot.
Another item to add: In what is an unusual departure from past practice, Governor Locke is going to
develop a six-year transportation project list,underscoring his seriousness regarding the negotiating of a
solution this year.
Finally,on a Kent project front,I'm going to be working on draft letters on both 228`h and 272°d that would
be sent by our area legislators.
"BACKFILL": As we've previously discussed,the effort to ensure ongoing distribution of state funds for
local law enforcement and criminal justice in the wake of Initiative 695 will be a challenge. The 2000
Legislature did so and adopted a budget provision that,four times,used the word"ongoing"to signal
legislative intent that funds would be distributed on an ongoing basis. However,with the voter initiatives
adding significant costs,the economy showing signs of slowing and/or flattening,and the heavy cuts
proposed for DSHS, legislators of both parties are at least raising the question of whether`ongoing' really
means `ongoing.' I have met with several legislators to underscore the importance of this issue and of the
state playing a role in assisting local law enforcement and criminal justice. And I've shown them the
Governor's commitment—which,for Kent, is$731,995 over two years.
WATER: The climate is, as it always seems to be,quite uncertain with respect to what will happen with
water legislation. AWC and a number of us representing utilities are planning to work on the existing
`Growing Communities' legislation and see what water-conservation language could be added to beef it up:
Word is that Seattle and Tacoma may not be particularly enamored with the idea of any bill,unless perhaps
strong environmental protection measures are added. On the other end of the spectrum is word that some
renegade water districts will introduce their own package of water rights bills.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Senate Energy,Environment and Water Committee Chair Karen Fraser,D-
Olympia, is introducing two of her own bills: 1)a`levels of service'bill that calls upon DOE to establish
standards and take systematic steps to reduce permit application backlogs;2)the `two-lines' bill to put
water rights `change' applications in a separate line,presumably ahead of new water rights applications.
Both bills were at one time listed for hearing this week—neither is going to be heard,as it turns out.
Meanwhile,the Governor is reportedly working on a water legislative initiative and devoted several
paragraphs of his 1/10/00 `State of the State' speech to water,but beyond the `two lines' remedy, it's
unclear what he has in mind. The long-awaited meeting between he and DOE Director Tom Fitzsimmons
was to have occurred Friday,Jan. 12,and attorney Jim Waldo—who is being hired on for this session as
something akin to a Water Czar—was in attendance.
BUDGETS: A lot of questions and skepticism flowing Monday as the House Appropriations Committee
heard a briefing/overview of Governor's 2001-03 budget package by Budget Director Marty Brown. It's
clear that there will be major debate over some revenue assumptions in the Governor's budget package and
of course his proposal to `bust' the I-601 spending cap to finance initiatives—and many legislators are
quite concerned about DSHS program cuts. Disappointingly,the `backfill' issue for local governments was
never mentioned,and wasn't touted by Marty Brown.
As if the budget hole facing the state weren't bad enough, it has gotten worse and could worsen further in
March,to wit: 1)the initiative for teacher pay(COLA increases)will cost$80 million beyond what's in
the Governor's budget proposal,because Bureau of Labor revisions to the CPI drove the percentage up just
a bit;2)the state's revenue forecast for late February/March is expected to reveal flattening or downward
revenue collection for the state. Some highlights of Q&A and comments from Monday:
*"The Governor will spend more time on transportation than he ever has in the past"—Marty Brown,
encouraging.
*Brown underscored that budget had no new taxes,$270 million in cuts of a possible$453 million offered
up by agencies through a"6%reduction' directive the Governor had issued.
*Budget package would use$500 million in state reserves, leave$600 million still in.
*Marty questioned on Governor assuming a busting of the I-601 cap(Rep. Mastin—GOP). Marty said
Governor will propose legislation to do it.
*GOP members question Department of Revenue assumption of$108 million in new revenue through
better tax-collection enforcement. Also question assumption of 7.5%growth in pension fund.Marty
Brown said on DOR issue,$88 million will come from beefed-up auditing efforts—state DOR is confident
it can deliver that number. He said state is confident of growth in pension fund,too—sees it as
conservative, and that%has been met or exceeded by Washington and most other states.
*Marty asked about wisdom of DSHS cuts and what will happen with them in"out years."
*Rep. Karen Keiser, D-33`d, said with various I-601 cap`busting' and other assumptions, she tallies$604
million in revenue assumptions that might not be there without legislative action. What options would the
`.- Governor's office suggest instead?
--Marty said a few clear options:
*Take more cuts—if you go with the full$453 million offered by
agencies,there's an additional$183 million;
*Dip deeper into reserves
*Adjust 601 limit
*Raise revenues
KENT 2001 AGENDA BILLS: I have spent considerable time last week either walking around bills for
signature that address items on our 2001 agenda;or meeting with members about key items on our agenda;
or talking to other lobbyists about strategy/signers on bills that address our 2001 Legislative Agenda.
Among these are:
*'Desi,gn-build': Two Senators already have addressed SB 5060,allowing all cities to use the
alternative `design-build' and`GCCM' contracting methods for public works projects in excess of$10
million—and exempting all cities over 70,000 population from having to go through any state"Oversight
Board"review;
*DWI—Ignition interlock device orders posted on driver's record instead of driver's license: We
have a bipartisan sponsor list in Senate and bill has just been`dropped.' In House, still need to gather
signatures—Rep. Chris Hurst has agreed to prime sponsor.
*DWD—failure to have blood record can be admissible in court—Senate bill by Adam Kline,
have a few signatures and looking for a few more. House bill, Rep.Chris Hurst will prime sponsor and
need to walk around for signatures.
*Alcohol Violations—Sen. Jeri Costa has already introduced SB 5120,which allows localities the
option of making certain open-container alcohol violations a criminal misdemeanor. Rep.John Lovick will
introduce the House version,and we have a bipartisan list of co-sponsors including one co-chair and
possibly a second
*'TIF' Bill: Rep.Aaron Reardon will again introduce legislation to authorize sales-tax-based tax-
increment financing and provide some$44 million a biennium in state funding to help implement`TIF'
projects around the state. The Governor has a less ambitious proposal with$3 million a biennium,
achieved via state sales tax credits. Rep. Reardon is gathering signatures on his bill and is expected to
introduce it this week. Our understanding is that Sen. Betti Sheldon,D-Bremerton, likely will introduce the
Governor's version in the Senate.
GMA BILLS: At a hearing in House Local Government Monday,committee staff went over several bills
that had been drafted for Co-Chair Rep. Joyce Mulliken. They include procedures for rural counties to opt
out of GMA; a changing of the standard of review for the Hearings Boards from `clearly erroneous' to
arbitrary and capricious';providing more time for critical area updates and changing from 5 years to 10
years the periodic update period;and re-establishing a 120-day time limit for local governments to process
permits—but WITHOUT the liability waiver that used to be in place for us under prior statute.
Also on the GMA front,there are a few `Smart Growth' bills that will be sponsored by Sen. Julia Patterson,
chair of Senate State/Local Government. And,Rep.Aaron Reardon is working on a bill to encourage
residential `infill' development.
COURT REFORM: Two items of note: 1)Retired Supreme Court Justice Richard Guy and a few other
reps of a `Project 2001' task force went before House/Senate Judiciary Committees last week to unveil the
major Project 2001 recommendations. They alerted committees that due to `almost violent' objection from
cities,cost issues,etc.,no consolidation of courts is recommended but rather `cooperation, collaboration,
coordination.' They have draft legislation that would appropriate$500,000 from the Public Safety and
Education Account(PSEA)that could be available to help local groups undertake court coordination and
reform efforts;2)Item 2 of note is a reminder—9-11 a.m. Tuesday,Jan.23, is a meeting with Supreme
Court justices on the `ARLJ 5' rule dealing with authority of Presiding Judges in courts of limited
jurisdiction.
PIPELINE SAFETY: Sen. Harriet Spanel is sponsoring SB 5182,the bill that provides fee-based funding
L for an ongoing pipeline safety inspection and monitoring program. It has a hearing 8:30 a.m. Friday.
REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES STUDY: I attended a meeting Jan. 10 of the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs(WASPC)group that is undertaking the legislatively-
directed$200,000 study of whether more law enforcement services ought to be `regionalized.' The group
has until Oct. 1 to complete the study—a three-month extension from prior date. At this point,the
discussion is more over definitions—what really merits being called a`regional service' that's even up for
debate. The list includes SWAT units,bomb disposal units,hostage negotiation units,drug units, canine
units, arson units, DV units,gang and youth violence units. City representatives on the Steering Committee
include Chief Jim Scharf of Everett and Chief Crawford. Crawford in particular is doing a good job asking
a lot of questions,observing that`bigger is not necessarily better' on these services. Will keep you posted
as this one progresses.
`2392' LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING TASK FORCE: The Task Force meets again Jan.25,
7-9 p.m., and had asked for cities and counties to provide 6 items each of proposed cost-saving and/or
revenue items. The city list is as follows:
1. Address current financial crises—ensure ongoing `backfill,';maintain current tax and fee
authority,funding for shorelines,any tax relief should be from state revenues only.
2. Cost savings and other—tort reform,probation services liability immunity,change
`comparables' and`final best offer' provisions of binding arbitration;use excess balances in
LEOFF 1 to cover extraordinary health care costs;expand allowable use of dedicated
revenues—such as REET; support tax-increment financing/economic development incentives.
3. Long Term—look at minimum level of service definition for local government and
corresponding funding to go with it.
4. Long-Term-Infrastructure funding.
5. Long-Tenn-Jail capital costs and criminal justice costs—"revenue to address
6. Long-Term-ESA funding