The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 09/20/2005 KENT WASHINGTON SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Deborah Ranniger, President; Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Julie Peterson, Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas, Bruce White SEPTEMBER 20,2005f�/L/y2�7iJ COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 P.M. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan Review Public Works Staff 20 min 2. Railroad Quiet Zones Public Works Staff 10 min 3. Aquatic/Facility Recreation Study Update Parks Staff 20 min COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION,OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC—Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2006 Annual Budget(First Hearing) B. 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Plan(First Hearing) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting —Approve B. Payment of Bills—Approve C. S. 277th Street Trail,Block Wall Project—Accept as Complete D. Washington State Department of Transportation Revised Temporary Easement Agreement for Riverview Park— Authorize E. West Valley Highway at 212th Rezone Ordinance—Adopt F. Daljit Cove Rezone Ordinance—Adopt G. 228th Street Corridor Qwest and Puget Sound Energy Agreements—Authorize H. Lease Agreement for Cell Tower at Pump Station#5—Accept and Amend Budget 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Municipal Lot Block Development Agreements and Resolution—Authorize and Adopt 8. BIDS A. LID 353: S. 228th Street Extension Wetland Mitigation Planting 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES,STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES < v n (n m -u -0 w O -a v ; n Y a O � w 3 : nn sQsc rD c (D rD C, n w n o rD ��n m � <°a moo . . CD -0o M M W o � � Cn v� (D p CJQ ()q " Q �C "" fCCD " (D n UQ 00 N0 ^. ro -o = o <ZD ¢ < s o� -� „ n � Z � c = � s n o � o o ° min Ga O v + p _ * < n < c < o • n c r rD p N � � � � Q � S � N cw (D < -CD � 3 (� - Q = 0A • n w Sv _. 0 O C OCD p BCD � � sv o ass � 3 (D r. r. o• rD -- F7' -.am m O onQa rD �.oaa o c o c r) rD n c 5' O - r O m M rD CD n M c m w _ � - O m -Z 7 T -0 ^ Co m T7 T7 N T <� .i l ) c _ � p O c CD O O < O �. W. c rD - (D n y M <n (D Q- O Ln _ cps O cn n p ^ c— OOa � � O n W (D O l t CD NN (nD Q Van O, 6 _�' N ('DA O W n •• O' OOn(D (D OD O c � N g CD c D c O Z m N < O z 0 S y CD O Z r--f -• r-' w � o c � C � o � � p � 3c O c o 3 rD s< n n (D o 0-o o n 2. r° CDcr3 o s sv n = n �� N = - 2. no Hsu 3 n � I 3 n ,=r - n nLA n p c W w a) 3 _ C-D = * � o n0 w O p -(D (D n N n N O W a� sv �377 rD � (D 3 s� 0 < ADO °- ^ (DCD fD c S� .« �et � C� � S � � _ O y = c w,Q c crD CD <D a n Q s" �� p ...� c �n • u; c ;< O C c G y r*..- o-p. p (D s c• =_:Oc ID fD -~ w Q Q W �. m in S W cn n O S n rD G 7 .'�"-r C�• '< .� T "'� ' m (D O q (D A� 1� 3 a c G �D c � O (D m A N 4 � S� p c � rD �r - (D � n c �D c n , (�D CD O i O w o a OZTn O cD O ; < f7 (D . m � O "m n 7 O (D n (D l l (D o O �i O rD O rD CD CD p O 5-n. < < S O Cu Q m (D < rD 3 c ..�1 _ - O -p O rD c (D c (A O < O 1 (D CDCD - c _ < O m - c tjM rD �* (D O O City of [dent +NEIG448OR"ooi> TRAFFIC MANAGEM04T PROGRAM V, IT r� NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MAHAGEMEI`IT PROGRAM *"Traffic" is #1 concern of residents •Neighborhood Traffic Control Program adopted in 1999 ♦Program needs to be revised NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMEINT PROGRAM ♦Existing Program is a two year process -First Year- public awareness, education and passive devices -Second Year- physical devices -Myth of"NO safety measures for AT LEAST 2 years"is not accurate 1 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦Identify the problem ♦Identify the"cause"of the problem ♦Consider potential remedies ♦Team with neighborhood residents to implement solution ♦Measure effectiveness of solution, adjust as necessary NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦Proposal: Simplify and streamline the program -Phase I, 6 months,focus on education and awareness -Phase II,(if needed), more restrictive measures -Follow up after one year to insure effectiveness NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦ Milestones for NTMP 1. Receive request for assistance-traffic issue 2. Clarify nature of concern,mail information packet,including CitizenActin Request (CAR)` 3. Complete intial traffic study 4. Determine Neighborhood support to proceed' 2 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦ Milestones for NTMP (continued) 5.Neighborhood meeting 6.Implement Education and Awareness campaign 7. Traffic study to measure effectiveness of phase I plan 8.If results are satisfactory,schedule follow up 9.If results not satisfactory, Phase 2 plan NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦ Milestones for NTMP (continued) 9. Neighborhood meeting for Phase 2 10. Petition to validate support for installation of physical devices 11.Traffic study to measure effectiveness 10.If results not satisfactory, return to step 9 11.If plan effective,schedule annual follow-up NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ♦Update construction details and criteria for installation ♦Program to be re-evaluated during . A +- -4: n—nF �inM—t— upu � v 1w . -- Plan, may need further revisions 3 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Questions? Suggestions? NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SPEED 1' LIMIT • 25 SAKE M.P.H. !14 .-77 ,:' 4 .. . ... a _ ..•tee �, .. a -. - r 'ublic Involvement Results Feasibility Study Aquatic/Recreation Center BARKER RIPJ�iEF� SEAC.AT •• IARCHI ?ECTUftE �" � -mod . Today's - Presentation Process What We've Heard So Far Next Steps ni Questions & Answers LeadingThe d• Park, Recreation Open Space Process 5 rGat�°n sty "`p Meeting emographics The • Public Involvement Process • Findings • Recommended Amenities & Square Footage �us Groups Meetings Interests represented: UpS Aquatics programs • Recreation programs �'ItlzeriS Pool facility • Senior programs • Children,Youth &Teen programs •�� 1�2 110UPS ' Exercise &therapy programs feedback per Arts programs • Athletic programs Illeetlrig • Concerts,Festivals • Family services • Trails,Golf,Parks,Playgrounds Leadingd• - in Park, Open Space GreenPlay, LLC Survey Results 1 of the respondents door recreation, sports, fitness r --uatics facilities t-- those,4 Of 11 use private fitness clubs; i l l use City 1 and 1 1 use facilities in • neighboring communities Q1. Respondent Households That Are Currently Using Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness & Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents Q1b. How Indoor Recreation,Sports, Fitness,and Aquatic Facilities That Respondent Households Are Currently Using Are Meeting Their Needs --------------- Meets all needs No Yes 31% 57% #43% Meets some needs 65% - -------------- -- ��%No response 2% Does not meet any needs ,iuce: Leimue 119onETC Inc'titite Se ember 20051 The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 3 r Issues/Values Huge from • Prepare to meet the hies and traffic needs of the future annexation area Bing the munity in the • Need to provide rocess physical activity with a health and wellness Family activities focus riorities - Next 10 Years `pool (58% listed this as #1) �'t ignore existing facilities (10%) � e facilities (8%) reclusive, diverse facilities with multiple amenities (8%) • Plan for the future, encompass the whole cu aspect & the community (8%►) LeadingThe d• Park, Recreation Open Space Consulting 4 GreenPlay, LLC Q2. Importance of New Aquatic/Recreation Center Programming Spaces Serving Various Groups of Residents by percentage of respondents Families 21% Adults 38% °a Grade school age children 26% Disabled participants 6% Senior adults 6% Teenagers Preschool age children 6% College students 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% every Important ®Somewhat Important ONot Important ODon't Know ,UIce Leisme Vision ETC Im4ituteS per' OS Q8. How Often Respondent Household Members Would Visit a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Several times per week 36% Once per week 15% Never 11% A few times per month 22% Less than once a month Monthly 9% 7% Sotuce Lefsi .Cfc ('histiffite(SerAenibei20 9' The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting GreenPlay, LLC tine Facility Priorities ridian Pool iorating critical shape, • - • pool" rker&air temperatureinconsistent ipment failure Jping walls \ ivy growsthrough J c.E• bad,lacksadequate •• air quality showers \ you can't adjust the temperature chlorine inconsistently . hand cleanliness,better - 0 lacks seating poor customer Q4. Aquatic Features Respondent Households Would be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents(three choices could be made, Lap lanes for exercise swimming 31% Area for water exercise 31% Lazy river that allows you to float on a raft 274/o Hot tub area 26% Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 25% Area for swim lessons 20% Dry sauna and steam room 19% Water slides 179/6 Leisure pool with gentle slope entry 179% Water sprays with interactive spray features 15% Outdoor spray pads/playgrounds in parks 10% 25-yard or 50 meter competition pool B% Diving boards 5% Other 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Most Likely to Use 132nd Most Likely to Use ❑3rd Most Likely to Use Soi ce. i�nre VvionET(-hi-lilute i Se Nember'00;1 The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 6 GreenPlay, LLC • would you spend $100 on r° r �. • • • ' isure Pool - 1 depth features)y,. interactive water r 1waterWarm11 ® 1 1 - Lap lanes i 11Senior i 1 1 competition p11 Q5. Purposes for Which Respondent Households Would Use an Indoor Aquatic Facility by percentage of respondents(bvo choices could be made) Exercise b5% Year round recreation or leisure activities 53% Therapeutic purposes 32% For instructional classes 24% Competition 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% Source: Leisure Vikoiv=Institute i Se xember 2005 The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 7 GreenPlay, LLC Q7. Recreation Features Respondent Households Are Most Likely to Use if Included in the New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents(four choices could be made) Indoor running/walking track 49% Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area �'_ .�_1 42% Aerobicstfiitness/dance space 35°/i Interactive playground area for young children 24%i Gymnasium for baseketball,volleyball,etc. 20% Arts and crafts studios 17% Racquetbalbhandballhvallyball courts 17% Childcare area for children of parents using fac 16% Rock climbing wall 16�10 Multipurpose space(with kitchen)for classes.etc 14W Indoor turf field for indoor field activities 14% Teaching kitchen 11% Indoor stage/performing arts 10% Preschool program space 9% Space for teens 71/10 Small youMeen satellite facilities at schools 6% Space for developmentally disabled 3% Other 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% t■Most Likely to Use 21111112nd Most Likely to Use 03rd Most Likely to Use n4th Most Likely to Use Vision EIV bl,4itWe Se rteiuber'_OO;i Q9. How Respondents Would Prefer to Use New Recreation and Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents One large aquatic/recreation center 40% with the recreation and aquatic features most preferred One aquatic center and individual facilities such as gyms, meeting rooms,etc. 12% Don't know 1% Neither 15% Either 32% jmc - Se it er ber 200S The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 8 GreenPlay, LLC led to ring Time !O P' 111,105 I!w far are you willing to f' �Ive for your recreation experiences? Average of 10-15 minutes Average Q10. Maximum Distance in Miles Respondent Would Be Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents 5-7 miles 34% More than 7 miles 14% None,would not use 12% 2 -5 miles Less than 2 miles 33% 7% �otace_Le tue%-LioniETC In4itute(September 2005' The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 9 GreenPlay, LLC Q11. Maximum Distance in Minutes Respondent Would Be Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents 10-15 minutes 50% More than 15 minutes 13% None,would not use 12% Less than 5 minutes 3% 5-10 minutes 22% Sotnce L eicizre Visim ETC InAitute . Q12. Likelihood of Respondents Traveling to Various Locations to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Kent Valley ', 34% 8% East Hill of Kent 8% West Hill of Kent 11% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Likely ®Somewhat Likely MNot Likely ONot Sure Source, Leisure VigonETC InAitwe Se ember 2005 The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 10 GreenPlay, LLC Q13. Support for Potential Sources of Funding a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Fees from users of the aquatic/recreation center Grants 8 Private fund-raising revenues 8% Partnership w/local hospital/health care provider 11°i Partnership with private recreation provider 11% Property taxes/bond issue 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% every Supportive MSomewhat Supportive I■Not Supportive ONot Sure Sowce Levine Vislimi ETC InAitiit SeiAembel'_005' erational Costs Recovered • • • • • the facilities for _� r __n` - • • pay forbenefits the community or • • value & i/ri e • -® Taxes •• said cover 100% 0% 0`/o perational cost • �®� , , , 61 ®® ver ��® subsidy by ,said •0 r r or 1 ® 38% ®® The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 11 GreenPlay, LLC Q14. How Respondents Believe the Cost for Operating a New Aquatic/Recreation Should Be Paid For by percentage of respondents 60%user fee/40%taxes 80% user fee/20%taxes 13% 35% V is 50% user fee/50%taxes 18% a 40% user fee/60%taxes Don't know 7% 21% 20%userfee/80%taxes 6% Source Leisure Vision=Hu titute Se ember 2005 WA' - .. ._. Commun _n OverwhelmingCrpnfi Aquaticss/Re consensus 1 focusgroups, • we • moreraMities 1 one said • 1 build anything dr' The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting I GreenPlay, LLC Q15. How Respondents Would Vote in an Election to Fund the Development and Operations of a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Vote in Favor 48% _Vote against 9% Might Vote in Favor 24% Not Sure 19% iuce I.ei=met"i,,intCETCbLvtitnte Se ember2005' Q15a. Major Reason Respondents Are Not Sure or Would Vote Against Funding the Development and Operations of a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents who indicated"not sure"or"vote against'to Ouestion#15 1 need additional information 48% No response 9% 26% I do not think there is a need Other for any additional indoor 17% recreation facilities Some: Lei�ue ViticuVETC bLctihte Se ember 2005 The Leading Edge in Park, Recreation and Open Space Consulting 13 �fu Next Steps nue Public Involvement Tour Slide Presentation anent Card Game - Consensus Building Program •mRecommended Amenities & Square Footage • Construction and Operating Budgets hank you for your time and onsideration! - Comments? Questions? �� . o AM Versaxy