HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 5/21/2019
KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Chambers
Mayor, Dana Ralph
Council President, Bill Boyce
Councilmember Brenda Fincher Councilmember Dennis Higgins
Councilmember Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Marli Larimer
Councilmember Les Thomas Councilmember Toni Troutner
**************************************************************
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - 7 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA APPROVAL
Changes from Council, Administration, or Staff.
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition
1. Appointment to Public Facilities District Board
2. Proclamation for National Public Works Week
3. Proclamation for Relay for Life - Kent Days
4. Recognition of Flower Court Neighborhood Council
B. Community Events
5. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, COUNCIL, AND STAFF
A. Chief Administrative Officer Report
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program - Resolution
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Public Comment period is your opportunity to speak to the Council and
Mayor on issues that relate to the business of the city of Kent. Comments
that do not relate to the business of the city of Kent are not permitted.
Additionally, the state of Washington prohibits people from using this Public
Comment period to support or oppose a ballot measurement or candidate for
office. If you wish to speak to the Mayor or Council, please sign up at the
City Clerk’s table adjacent to the podium. When called to speak, please state
your name and address for the record. You will have up to three minutes to
City Council Meeting City Council Regular Meeting May 21, 2019
provide comment. Please address all comments to the Mayor or the Council
as a whole. The Mayor and Council may not be in a position to answer
questions during the meeting.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
1. Council Workshop - Workshop Regular Meeting - May 7, 2019 5:00
PM
2. City Council Meeting - City Council Regular Meeting - May 7, 2019
7:00 PM
B. Payment of Bills
C. Appoint Greg Haffner to the Public Facilities District Board
D. Kent Airport Levee Grant - King County Flood Control District
Subregional Opportunity Fund - Authorize
E. Lake Fenwick Aerator Retrofit Grant – King County Subregional
Opportunity Fund - Authorize
F. Ordinance Clarifying the Mayor’s Authority to Accept Dedications of
Property Related to Development Permits - Adopt
G. First Quarter Supplemental Budget Ordinance - Adopt
H. Lunar Rover Landmark Nomination - Approve
I. Memorandum of Understanding with Kent Downtown Partnership for
the Lunar Rover Replica Capital Campaign - Authorize
J. Resolution Recognizing the Flower Court Neighborhood Council - Adopt
K. 2018 Traffic Signal Replacement - Accept as Complete
L. 2018 Guardrail Repairs Project - Accept as Complete
M. Set June 4, 2019 as the Public Hearing on the Transit Operations and
Maintenance Facilities Zoning Code Amendment
9. OTHER BUSINESS
10. BIDS
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda is available in the City Clerk's Office and at
KentWA.gov.
City Council Meeting City Council Regular Meeting May 21, 2019
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's
Office in advance at 253-856-5725. For TDD relay service, call the Washington
Telecommunications Relay Service 7-1-1.
PROCLAMATION
Public Works - First Responders for Infrastructure
Whereas, the City of Kent recognizes the men and women in Kent who
provide and maintain public works infrastructure, facilities and
services are of vital importance to sustainable communities and
to the health, safety and well-being of the people; and,
Whereas,such facilities and services could not be provided without the
dedicated efforts of public works professionals, engineers,
managers and employees from State and local government and
the private sector, who are responsible for and who plan, design,
build, operate, and maintain the transportation, water,
wastewater, drainage infrastructure and facilities, and who
deliver solid waste services, transit, and fleet services which are
essential to serve our citizens; and,
Whereas, it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders and
children in the United States of America to gain knowledge of
and to maintain an interest and understanding of the importance
of public works programs in their respective communities; and
Whereas, the year 2018 marks the s8th annual National Public Works
Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association; and
NOW. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Dana Ralph, do hereby proclaim the week of
Vay 20-26, 2019 as
National Public Works Week
and urge all our citizens to pay tribute to our public works professionals,
engineers, managers and employees and to recognize the substantial
contributions they have made to our national health, safety, welfare and
quality of life.
IN WITNESS WHEREQF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be
affixed I of the city of Kent this 2lst day of May 2019.
KENT
WASHtNGToN
Mayor Dana Ral h
4.A.2
Packet Pg. 4
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
W
e
e
k
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
)
PROCLAMATION
wHEREASI the American Cancer Society is the nationwide,
community-based voluntary health organization
dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health
problem through research, education, advocacy and
service; and
WHEREAS, Relay For Life is the nationwide signature activity for the
American Cancer Society funding over $150 million in
cancer research each year; and
WHEREAS,Relay For Life is an l8-hour community event that
celebrates survivors, remembers those who have lost
their battle with cancer and unites our city to fight
against a disease that has taken too much from too
many; and
wHEREAS,the Relay for Life of Kent raises money to fight cancer,
greatly increases community awareness of cancer, and
stimulates a real sense of relationship and camaraderie
among the participants; and
NOW. THEREFORE, I, Dana Ralph, Mayor of the City of Kent, do
hereby declare June 7-8,20L9 as
"RELAY FOR LIFE - KENT DAYS''
in the city of Kent and encourage citizens to join me by participating in
this year's Relay for Life event. There is no finish line until we find a
cure!
Date this 21st day of May, 2019.
KENT
WAsHrNcroN
Mayor Da
4.A.3
Packet Pg. 5
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
P
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
R
e
l
a
y
f
o
r
L
i
f
e
-
K
e
n
t
D
a
y
s
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
)
Page 1 of 7
• The Kent City Council and Kent School
District Board of Directors will have a
joint meeting on June 24, at 6 p.m. at
the district office. Agenda topics are
likely to include the Meet Me on Meeker
project, the Kent Phoenix Academy and
Kent Mountain View Academy projects,
elementary school traffic, and
communications.
• The Association of Washington Cities’
annual conference is at the end of
June. Councilmembers who want to
attend should contact Cathie Everett as
soon as possible.
• We will honor our 33rd and 47th district
legislators and lobbyist at a small
ceremony at the June 4 City Council
meeting.
• Director applications are due this week.
• The City Clerk’s Office is exclusively
utilizing Laserfiche, the City’s newly
launched records management system,
for contracts. City staff and the general
public can now access City contracts
through the Laserfiche public portal at
https://documents.kentwa.gov/WebLin
k/.
• Since May 1, the Clerk’s Office has
responded to 170 public records
requests. The majority of requests are
for police incident case reports and
property records.
• The City Clerk’s Office is working with
the Police Department on the body worn
camera pilot program. In preparation
for the full deployment of body worn
cameras, the Clerk’s Office is compiling
data on how reviewing and redacting
video in response to public records
requests may impact staffing needs.
Communications
• The Vision Team, co-led by Dana Neuts
and Michael Mage, held Vision Café for
staff at Kent Commons and Kent Senior
Center.
• Neuts is preparing for the May 21
workshop on communications, and she
and her team are working on three of
the Mayor’s new initiatives including
Kent Walks (Kent’s version of Find It, Fix
It), community engagement
improvements and town halls.
• Community Engagement Coordinator
Uriel Varela attended a South King
County Mobility Coalition workshop, and
is attending meetings and connecting
with others in King County regarding
Census 2020. Varela is researching
possible technology solutions for the
community engagement project.
• Flower Court neighborhood will be the
44th neighborhood to be formally
recognized by Mayor Ralph and Kent
City Council on Tuesday, May 21. The
neighborhood consists of 31 households
and is located on Kent’s East Hill.
• Program Coordinator Toni Azzola is
attending the annual Neighborhoods
USA conference this week.
ADMINISTRATION
5.A
Packet Pg. 6
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 2 of 7
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Administration
• In an effort to more efficiently serve the
Kent Community, we have implemented
a new customer service model. As of
May 15, the Permit Center will be closed
to the public each Wednesday and
planning and development engineering
staff will only be available by
appointment.
Rental Housing Inspection Program
• On May 15, staff attended a South
Seattle community forum on how to
prevent and address renter
displacement.
• On May 17, staff attended a networking
event with the South King Housing &
Homelessness Partners.
• Staff are collaborating with Living Well
Kent to host a public event on June 25
from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at the Kent
Masonic Hall. This event is intended to
educate tenants in NE Hill about our
program and provide them with helpful
resources related to tenant rights and
public health.
• Several landlords have submitted their
inspection results already. One property
passed and three have failed due to
minor items relating to fire alarms and
improperly installed water heaters.
RHIP staff are working with inspectors
and landlords to correct the deficient
items.
Economic Development
• The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Spring application cycle is closed. Eight
proposals were submitted for the
Committee’s consideration, and six of
the eight received funding for this cycle,
five of those at 100% of their requested
amount, and the sixth at 50%. Four of
those six represent totally new events
bringing new organizations and unique
visitor profiles to our city.
Long Range Planning
• Long Range Planning Manager Hayley
Bonsteel attended the annual Planning
Association of Washington (PAW)
Conference in Chelan on the topic of
Housing. This well-timed conference
included sessions on policy trends and
analysis, housing market data, and
affordability. Presentations by
counterparts from neighboring
communities Olympia, Redmond,
Bellevue, and Tacoma yielded insights
into proactive planning on a local level.
With increasing attention to these issues
from the state, region, and our own
Kent community, these resources and
contacts will be invaluable as the city
addresses housing in upcoming policy
discussions and plan updates.
• Permit Center Office Technician Michelle
Blubagh started May 16 and will replace
Kristin King, greeting the public and
providing administrative support to the
Permit Center and Building Services
staff.
Labor, Class & Compensation
• Two re-classes Finance Department
appeals
• KPOA MOU’s standby leave/bank for
AC/Commanders is being negotiated.
The MOU for Officers/Sergeants is
signed.
Risk Management
• Our property insurance is currently
being marketed for the July 1 renewal.
It is likely our property insurance rates
will increase for the 7/1/2019 –
7/1/2020 policy period. Currently, the
property insurance market is hardening
and the two major insurers of US
properties are seeking to limit their risk
in coming years, thus limiting capacity.
We have had rate decreases in four of
the past five years, so this is not an
unexpected development. Since we also
had a substantial property loss in 2018
(Lake Meridian restroom arson fire), I
expect we will see an increase, though
at this time, I am unsure of the extent.
I will report more as discussions with
our Broker continue.
HUMAN RESOURCES
5.A
Packet Pg. 7
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 3 of 7
• The configuration and citywide rollout of
Office 365 will unify the City under one
version of the Microsoft Platform
thereby reducing the Cities risk with
older software versions no longer being
supported within the Cities IT operating
system infrastructure.
• Working to migrate processing for Utility
Bill payments from the current online
CLASS payment portal to a new custom
developed payment portal to enable the
City to add functionality.
• Operational support for April 30 to May
14 includes 358 tickets opened and 342
tickets closed.
• Represented the city in a mitigated code
enforcement hearing where a local
business was in violation of the
International Fire Code. They were cited
for two violations. Both were found
committed and fines were assessed.
• Provided training on the Open Public
Meetings Act to the City’s Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee.
• Completed the claim process for the
Sears bankruptcy, which resulted in the
City recovering $10,000+ in delinquent
utility payments.
• Assisted ECD and Parks staff with an
MOU between the City and the Kent
Downtown Partnership to raise funds to
acquire a Lunar Rover replica for future
installation in Kherson Park in
downtown Kent.
• Responded to inquiries from attorneys
for local businesses impacted by the
interim zoning ordinance related to
trucking-intensive land uses in the Kent
Valley.
• Revised the City’s ethics policy and
delivered it to various departments for
review.
Recreation
• The Parks Department partnered with
Meeker Middle School and the
Afterschool All-Stars program to host a
highly successful Multi-Cultural Night on
April 24. Families came together to
celebrate the wide diversity that makes
the Kent community a place where the
world comes home. Over 200 youth,
teens and parents were treated to
activities, entertainment and food from
around the world. The Kent Meridian
Pacific Islander and Latino Clubs
performed along with the Kentridge
Vietnamese and Irish Clubs. Evening
entertainment also included the Gatka
Martial Arts Group and a traditional
Punjabi Dance group. The Parks
Department After School Cooking
program prepared traditional foods from
Vietnam, China, Ethiopia, Somalia and
Thailand. This was Meeker Middle
School’s first Multi-Cultural Night in five
years and based on event success and
feedback from Principal Nash and
participating families, it will become an
annual event.
• Staff at Kent Parks Teen Center hosted,
in partnership with G.E.M. (Glover
Empowerment Mentoring), a King
County listening session for teens and
community to give feedback concerning
the Puget Sound Taxpayer
Accountability Account and how funds
will be used/dispersed.
• Twenty-one Kent Parks Adaptive track
athletes took home 6 gold, 18 silver and
10 bronze medals along with nine
honorable mention ribbons at the
Special Olympic Regional Track and
Field meet in Shoreline. This was the
qualifying meet to move on to the
Special Olympic Spring Games in June.
Six Kent Parks athletes qualified for the
Spring Games at Joint Base Lewis-
McCord. Twenty-one adaptive
recreation cyclists perfected their skills
LAW
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARKS, RECREATION, AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES
5.A
Packet Pg. 8
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 4 of 7
in preparation for the State Games in
June by participating in the Annual
Auburn Cycling Invitational on May 4.
• The Elementary Track Program ended
May 11 with the 56th Annual Junior
Olympics at French Field. The Junior
Olympics is the culmination of a five-
week, 20 track meet program, featuring
27 elementary schools, over 1,000
athletes in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades
and supported by 45 seasonal track
officials. Saturday’s event split the 27
participating elementary schools into
two separate track meets which
included 162 athletes competing in each
of four individual events and 648
athletes in the relays. Placement
ribbons were awarded to 240 athletes,
inspirational awards went to 54
inspirational athletes, four participants
received the prestigious athlete of the
meet award, and ten schools won team
trophies. Over 1,000 cheering family
and friends filled the stadium to cheer
for their teams. This program is an
excellent representation of all of the city
values including Achievement,
Teamwork, Communication, Caring,
Integrity and Innovation.
• The jury for the 2019 Kent Summer Art
Exhibit was comprised of professional
artists – Mary McInnis and Nichole
DeMent. They reviewed nearly 500
artworks from 47 artists. The jurors
selected 65 pieces from 36 artists to be
part of the show during June, July, and
August. An opening reception will be
held on Wednesday, June 5.
• A new Kent Creates exhibit,
“Awakening,” is accepting submissions
through June 30. People are encouraged
to use the spring season as inspiration
and to submit photographs, recipes,
videos of dances, short films, poems,
paintings, drawings, or work in any
creative medium.
Significant crime
activities/arrests/investigations
• On April 30, officers were dispatched to
a theft at the Starbucks at 10234 SE
256th St. A customer's purse was stolen
by two juveniles who fled on foot.
Officers located the suspects nearby and
arrested them.
• On May 1, officers chased seven
suspects from Red Hill Pines
Apartments. They were on top of
carports and trying to enter apartments
from the balconies. Four suspects were
caught; two of them had pistols on
them. One was confirmed stolen, the
other was not confirmed stolen, as of
yet.
• On May 2, officers were dispatched to
an armed robbery of a developmentally
delayed foreign exchange student on
the East Hill McDonalds located on
256th. Three juveniles surrounded him
and stole his headphones. When the
victim followed them, the suspects
pulled a knife, threatened to slash him,
and then repeatedly kicked and
punched him. Officers flooded the area
and spotted all three suspects walking
into the Row Apartments. All three
suspects were booked for robbery 1st
degree.
• On May 2, KPD K9 Team with Drogo had
their first team capture: a well-known
HIO.
• On May 3, officers found an occupied
stolen vehicle on Smith St at the BNSF
tracks. The occupants were arrested
and are the crew that was doing purse
snatches in Federal Way 2-3 weeks prior
where a victim female's shoulder was
broken.
• On May 3, a subject was arrested after
breaking into the garage and vehicles of
an occupied residence. The victim
reviewed video of the burglary, which
had occurred within the past 30
minutes, and conducted his own area
check and saw the suspect near 132nd
and Kent Kangley. Officers were able to
locate the suspect hiding in the
bathroom of the ARCO. The subject was
POLICE
5.A
Packet Pg. 9
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 5 of 7
arrested, and the victim's stolen items
were recovered.
Major emphasis patrol
• A John Sting on May 6 yielded 10
arrests.
Other
• Officer Brom made a positive impact on
a family who resides at Hometowne
Suites that has been going through hard
times. Officer Brom took it upon
himself, with assistance from his wife,
to purchase clothing, provide their
daughters used clothing and purchased
a doll for the little girl. Officer Brom
makes it a point to patrol Hometowne
Suites multiple times a day and makes
it a point to stop and talk with the family
and it’s the highlight of the little girl’s
day. The family felt extremely blessed in
receiving the items from Officer Brom.
They expressed their gratitude and told
Officer Brom that his actions were a
great sense of community and the
children need to see that the police are
not bad people. On Mother’s Day the
family told Officer Brom they had to
move out. However, as the result of a
Facebook posting of Officer Brom
playing with the children, an
anonymous person took it upon
themselves to purchase three additional
night stays for the family. Another
person then purchased two additional
night stays for the family.
Land Survey and GIS
• Chase Tomjack and Cody Warren
continue design topography mapping
for Meridian Glen Park, water system
upgrades on State Ave. and providing
construction staking on the 228th grade
separation. Katherine Midkiff is field
mapping water valve and transmission
main locations and getting the data into
GIS. Joe Fraumeni and Mike Neira
continue providing construction staking
for the 224th St. corridor phase II joint
utility trenches and walls. Steve Shafer
is busy with reviewing upcoming project
plans, plan revisions for projects
currently underway and quality control
checks on field staking data for field
staff. Toby Mollett has been writing
easement legal descriptions for the 76th
Ave. road raising, KOA campground
boundary line adjustment and
easements for the red-light cameras.
Toby has also been working with the
Law Department regarding Naden Ave.
access.
• Dana Son completed final edits to the
Kent GIS Viewer through the Connect
Explorer Esri widget & has helped
implement the Ditch Inventory Phase II
mapping project to collect new ditches
and culverts. Dana is also working with
PW Water on backflow assembly data
inventory and providing resource
assistance to the PW Signs Department
for the 2811 signs inventoried since
March. Jim Cordova is working on
upgrading shapefile data into the newer
geodatabase technology and filling
public records requests. Heath Bracket
continues working as part of the City-
Works implementation team at PW
Operations. Catherine Crook and Eric
Knowles have met with Esri GIS Local
Project Management Experts regarding
a contemporary GIS enterprise
implementation plan for the city. This
plan will address geospatial data and
how this data is key to a thriving,
inclusive, innovative and sustainable
city for our size. Zahra Aljammoor and
Fawad Noori continue entering
infrastructure as-builts as received for
private development.
Construction
• LID 363: S 224th St Improvements –
84th Ave S to 88th Ave S (Ph 1):
o 84th to SR 167 – Ramada Inn
parking lot restoration began this
week.
o SR 167 Bridge – Pedestrian
barrier placement is scheduled
for May 16. Removal of overhang
brackets and spraying pigmented
sealer underway. Curb & gutter
PUBLIC WORKS
5.A
Packet Pg. 10
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 6 of 7
and sidewalk concrete placement
is complete. Rebar placement for
the median barrier will begin on
May 14, with concrete scheduled
for the evening of May 16.
• LID 363: S 224th St
Improvements – 88th Ave S / S
218th St Improvements – S 222nd
St to 94th Pl S (Ph 2):
o Sewer pipe installation on
88th Ave continues.
o Utility trench excavation
and conduit placement is
ongoing.
Soil-nail wall shotcrete face work continues on LID
• Cambridge Reservoir Recoating and
Fall Protection Improvements
o The tank will be washed,
sanitized, tested, filled and
placed back into service by the
end of this month.
o Exterior scaffolding and
containment envelope scheduled
to be complete June 3 with sand
blasting to follow.
Cambridge Reservoir Recoating
• 228th St. Union Pacific Railroad Grade
Separation Ground Improvements and
Embankments (Ph 4 of 5)
o Bridge pier shaft installation
began last week and will continue
for the following 3 weeks.
o FloForm revised driveway
construction began on May 9.
o The full closure of S 228th St from
72nd Ave S to 76th Ave S (4th Ave
N) with detour will be in place for
approximately two years. The
Interurban trail closure was
implemented on April 15. Trail
notifications will be updated as
construction progresses with
public safety being the #1
priority.
• 228th St. Union Pacific Railroad Grade
Separation Bridge and Roadway (Ph 5 of
5)
• City Council has authorized the award of
this contract to Scarsella Bros. Inc. and
they have received a limited Notice to
Proceed for the submittal period and
material procurement.
• East Valley Highway Pavement
Preservation – S 180th St to S 190th St
o Final channelization striping is
scheduled to proceed on the night
of May 13 (weather permitting).
o WSDOT Local Programs Office is
conducting a Project
Management Review Audit of our
construction files on June 12.
Streets
• Street Maintenance crews will be repairing
shoulders on Military Rd S, replacing
sidewalks on S 253rd St. and grinding down
sidewalks on Madison Ave. Concrete crews
will be pouring a new curb, gutter and
sidewalk, 38th Ave S. The Street Signs and
Markings team continue to install new
bases and signs for the retro reflectivity
program. Solid Waste crews will be
removing debris and illegal signs
throughout the City. Vegetation and
Wetland Maintenance crews will be
performing maintenance at Kent water,
wetland and drainage sites and sidearm
mowers will be out at various locations
throughout the City.
Utilities
• Storm crews will be cleaning lines and
performing outfall assessments, cleaning
out culverts, and pond maintenance.
Sewer crews will be vactor cleaning on the
East Hill and performing manhole
inspections.
5.A
Packet Pg. 11
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
Page 7 of 7
Water
• Water staff are working on May wellhead
protection monitoring and have begun the
annual meter calibration with Tacoma
Water at point of delivery sites. Start-up
and commissioning of the VFD drives at
Kent Springs has begun with the contractor
and staff continue the easement cleanup
work with Survey and GIS on Kent Springs
transmission mains. Chlorine injections and
purities are being done for the Breimer
Bluff development as well as work with a
Covington homeowner who is building near
a Kent Springs transmission main.
Fleet/Warehouse
• Fleet and Warehouse staff continue to
provide forklift and CDL training, will be
working on four new Parks vehicles and
installing a new engine in a K9 vehicle. All
new 22 Ford Interceptors in are now in
service.
# # #
5.A
Packet Pg. 12
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
C
h
i
e
f
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
,
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
a
n
d
S
t
a
f
f
)
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program -
Resolution
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. , adopting the 2020-2025 Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
SUMMARY: The 2020-2025 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
represents the City’s proposed transportation improvement work program for the
next six years. Per RCW 35.77.010, the six-year plan for each city must specifically
set forth projects and programs of regional significance for inclusion in the
transportation improvement program within that region. The program is also
required to be consistent with the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
Including projects in the TIP allows the City to search for funding partners and
apply for grants. Most State and Federal agencies require that projects being
submitted for grants be included in the City’s adopted TIP. State law requires that
the City hold a public hearing before adopting the TIP.
The 2020-2025 TIP was presented to the Public Works Committee on April 15, 2019
and May 6, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the City Council set May 21, 2019 as the public
hearing date for the TIP. At the close of the public hearing, Council may adopt a
resolution that approves the 2020-2025 TIP.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative
Government, Sustainable Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Adopting 2020-2025 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan
(PDF)
6.A
Packet Pg. 13
1 2020-2025 Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting the 2020
through 2025 Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program.
RECITALS
A. Following notice, at its regularly-scheduled meeting on
May 21, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to consider public
testimony on the City’s proposed 2020 through 2025 Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
B. Per RCW 35.77.010, the six-year program for each city must
specifically set forth projects and programs of regional significance for
inclusion in the transportation improvement program within that region.
C. Having considered public testimony, the Council voted to adopt
the 2020 through 2025 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2 2020-2025 Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. – Adoption. The 2020 through 2025, Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program, set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is
attached and filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution
and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk. Upon approval of the city
attorney, the City Clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this
resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or
subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be
in force immediately upon its passage.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
3 2020-2025 Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT
WASHINGTON
SIX-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2020 – 2025
Mayor Dana Ralph
Timothy J. LaPorte, PE,
Director of Public Works
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents:
Resolution ............................................................................................ i
Introduction ........................................................................................ iii
Project List ......................................................................................... vi
2020 – 2025 Six-Year TIP Cost Estimates ............................................... ix
Map of Projects .................................................................................. xii
Project Descriptions .............................................................................. 1
Contact Information ............................................................................ 43
On the Cover: Intersection Improvements at Meeker Street and 4th Avenue
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT iii
Introduction
Overview
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a short-range planning
document that is updated annually based on needs and policies identified in the
City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TIP
represents Kent’s current list of needed projects that are anticipated to begin
preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition or construction within the next six
years. The TIP also includes ongoing citywide transportation programs. Projects and
programs are included in the plan for a variety of reasons. These projects and
programs encompass all transportation modes as well as both capital improvements
and operations and maintenance.
The document identifies secured or reasonably expected revenue sources for each
project or program. The TIP serves as a draft work plan for the development of the
local transportation network. Once adopted, the TIP will guide funding and
implementation priorities during the development of the transportation portion of
the Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP shows the City-funded
portion of projects and is constrained by current budget forecasts, whereas the TIP
shows a complete project list with the variety of funding sources and partners
involved.
Historically, the largest sources of funding for TIP projects have been grants.
Funding for transportation projects is available from federal, state and local
resources. Each funding source has specific rules and guidelines about what types
of projects it will fund, how much of a project will be funded and timelines for
expenditure of funds. Additionally, most grant programs require a funding match,
which means that the City must also contribute funding to the cost of a project.
The City of Kent funds transportation projects using the General Fund, Street Fund,
Local Improvement Districts, Transportation Impact Fees, Business and Occupation
Tax, Solid Waste Utility Tax, and grant revenue from local, state and federal
governments. One reason the TIP is updated annually is that many revenue sources
are closely tied to the health of the economy and can therefore be unpredictable. In
addition, grant criteria can change from the previous cycle necessitating a re-
evaluation of the TIP projects.
Document Structure
Each project or program listed in the TIP includes an estimated cost, the amount of
funding secured or unsecured and the funding source(s). If grant funding has been
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT iv
secured from a specific source, it is identified. Projects listed that are necessary to
accommodate growth and allow the City to maintain its adopted Levels of Service
may be funded in part by transportation impact fees. The costs for projects
programmed in the first three years of the TIP have been developed with a higher
level of certainty whereas those in the latter three years have been developed with
less specificity, as those projects are generally less defined.
Requirements
State law requires that each city develop a local TIP and that it be updated annually
(RCW 35.77.010). It represents an important planning component under the State’s
Growth Management Act. The TIP must be consistent with the transportation
element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TIP may be revised at any time
during the year by a majority of the Council, after a Public Hearing. In order to
compete for transportation funding grants from federal and state sources, granting
agencies require projects to be included in the TIP.
Changes to the TIP
The City updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2015. The first six years of the
Comprehensive Plan are financially constrained, meaning that secured funding is
demonstrated within an approved budget or similarly approved funding action.
Subsequently, the 2020-2025 TIP has been revised to reflect projects that will likely
be constructed using existing funding sources as well as the City’s historical record
of average grant disbursements. Tables 1 and 2 below detail projects added and
removed from the TIP. Table 3 details changes to existing project limits.
Table 1
Projects Added
PROJECT NAME
Willis Street Shared Use Paths – Union Pacific Railroad to the 4th Avenue South
Roundabout
S 212th Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
Meeker Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
132nd Avenue South Pedestrian Improvements (Phase III)
South 212th Street - West Valley Highway (State Route 181) to Orillia Road
Midway Subarea TOD Street – S. 244th Street and 32nd Avenue South)
Meeker Street and 64th Avenue South – Intersection Improvements
Table 2
Projects Removed
PROJECT NAME COMMENTS
Meet Me on Meeker – Intersection Improvements on 4th Ave S Completed
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT v
Table 3
Projects Limit Changes
PROJECT NAME COMMENTS
Naden Avenue Improvements Limits shifted from Naden site to
Meeker Street
Meeker Frontage Improvements at the
Driving Range
Added a new midblock crossing
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) Railroad
Quiet Zone
Previously BNSF and UP Railroad were
a single project
Union Pacific (UP) Railroad Quiet Zone
Meeker Frontage Improvement (Phase I) Phase I and II were previously a
single project Meeker Frontage Improvement (Phase II)
76th Avenue South (South Section) South, Middle and North phases were
previously a single project 76th Avenue South (Middle Section)
76th Avenue South (North Section)
SE 248th Street Improvements – 104th
Ave Southeast to 116th Avenue Southeast
The three projects were previously a
single project (SE 248th Street
Improvements – 104th Avenue
Southeast to 116th Avenue
Southeast)
SE 248th Street Improvements – 109th
Ave Southeast to 116th Avenue Southeast
SE 248th Street at 116th Avenue
Southeast Roundabout
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT vi
Project List
Project # Project Name, Location and Extent
1. South 224th Street Extension (Phase I) - 84th Avenue South to 88th
Avenue South
2. Naden Avenue and Willis Street Intersection Improvements
3. Naden Avenue Improvements - Willis Street to Meeker Street
4. Kent Valley Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows
5. South 228th Street/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation
6. Transportation Master Plan
7. South 224th Street Extension (Phase II) - 88th Avenue South to
94th Place South
8. BNSF Railway Company Railroad Quiet Zone
9. Union Pacific Railroad Quiet Zone
10. Willis Street at 4th Avenue South Roundabout
11. Willis Street Shared Use Paths – Union Pacific Railroad to the 4th
Avenue South Roundabout
12. 132nd Avenue South Pedestrian Improvements (Phase III) –
Kent-Kangley Road S to SE 278th Street
13. Auburn to Renton Rapid Ride - Access Improvements
14. Meeker Frontage Improvements and Midblock Crossing at the
Driving Range - Driving range from Colony Park apartments driveway
to Russell Road
15. W James Street/W Smith Street Pedestrian Improvement
16. W James Street at 2nd Avenue N Pedestrian Crossing
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT vii
17. 76th Avenue South (South Phase) - 22400 Block to 21700 Block
18. 76th Avenue South (Middle Phase) - 21700 Block to 21400 Block
19. 76th Avenue South (North Phase) - 21400 Block to 21100 Block
20. S 212th Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
21. Meeker Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
22. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meridian Elementary -
Southeast 256th Street and 140th Avenue Southeast
23. E Willis Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvements
24. Southeast 248th Street Improvements - 104th Avenue Southeast to
109th Avenue Southeast
25. Southeast 248th Street Improvements - 109th Avenue Southeast to
116th Avenue Southeast
26. Southeast 248th Street at 116th Ave Southeast Roundabout
27. Panther Lake Signal System Integration
28. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Neeley-O’Brien
Elementary - 64th Avenue South and South 236th Street
29. Kent Transit Center – Access, Mobility and Safety Improvements
30. Central Avenue - Traffic Signal Communication
31. Veterans Drive Extension - Military Road to I-5 Southbound Off-
ramp
32. Meeker Frontage Improvements at the Riverview Apartments -
Riverview Apartments Homes from Russell Road east to the western
edge of private development property
33. South 212th Street - East Valley Highway (State Route 181) to 72nd
Avenue South
34. East Valley Highway - South 196th Street to South 212th Street
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF KENT viii
35.South 212th Street - West Valley Highway (State Route 181) to
Orillia Road
36.Meeker Street and 64th Avenue South – Intersection
Improvements
37.South 224th Street Extension (Phase III) - 94th Place South to
108th Avenue Southeast (State Route 515/Benson Highway)
38.Midway Subarea TOD Street – S. 244th Street and 32nd Avenue
South
ONGOING CITYWIDE PROGRAMS
39.Street and Sidewalk Preservation and Repair Program
40.Traffic Signal Management Program
41.Channelization and Pavement Markings Maintenance Program
42.Guardrail Safety Improvement Program
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
No.Project Start
Year
Project Costs
Total Secured Unsecured Phases Total Other Preliminary
Engineering Right of Way Construction
1 South 224th Street Extension
(Phase I)2020 $ 22,646,000 22,646,000$ -$ 22,646,000$ -$ 3,526,000$ 1,451,000$ 17,669,000$
2
Naden Avenue and Willis
Street Intersection
Improvements
2020 $ 830,000 300,000$ 530,000$ 830,000$ -$ 75,000$ 175,000$ 580,000$
3 Naden Avenue Improvements 2020 $ 1,900,000 -$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ -$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 1,600,000$
4 Flashing Yellow Left Turn
Arrows 2020 $ 869,000 869,000$ -$ 869,000$ -$ 56,000$ -$ 813,000$
5
South 228th Street/Union
Pacific Railroad Grade
Separation
2020 $ 43,100,000 38,644,000$ 4,456,000$ 43,100,000$ -$ 5,280,000$ 5,060,000$ 32,760,000$
6 Transportation Master Plan 2020 $ 890,000 890,000$ -$ 890,000$ 890,000$ -$ -$ -$
7 South 224th Street Extension
(Phase II)2020 $ 13,543,000 13,543,000$ -$ 13,543,000$ -$ 1,137,000$ 1,557,000$ 10,849,000$
8 BNSF Railway Company
Railroad Quiet Zone 2020 $ 1,938,000 57,000$ -$ 1,938,000$ -$ 135,000$ 49,000$ 1,754,000$
9 Union Pacific Railroad Quiet
Zone 2020 $ 1,212,000 57,000$ -$ 1,212,000$ -$ 85,000$ 31,000$ 1,096,000$
10 Willis Street at 4th Ave South
Roundabout 2020 $ 3,000,000 3,000,000$ -$ 3,000,000$ -$ 350,000$ -$ 2,650,000$
11 Willis Street Shared Use
Paths 2020 $ 600,000 -$ 600,000$ 600,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ 500,000$
12 132nd Avenue S Pedestrian
Improvements (Phase III)2020 $ 276,900 -$ 276,900$ 276,900$ -$ 31,950$ -$ 244,950$
13 Auburn to Renton Rapid Ride 2020 $ 10,680,000 10,680,000$ -$ 10,680,000$ 1,520,000$ 1,650,000$ -$ 7,510,000$
14
Meeker Frontage
Improvements and Midblock
Crossing at the Driving Range
2020 $ 3,450,000 -$ 3,450,000$ 3,450,000$ -$ 515,000$ 110,000$ 2,825,000$
15
W James Street/W Smith
Street Pedestrian
Improvement
2020 $ 805,000 -$ 805,000$ 805,000$ -$ 115,000$ -$ 690,000$
16 W James Street at 2nd
Avenue N Pedestrian Crossing 2020 $ 245,000 -$ 245,000$ 245,000$ -$ 35,000$ -$ 210,000$
17 76th Avenue South (South
Section) 2020 $ 3,300,000 -$ 3,300,000$ 3,300,000$ -$ 500,000$ -$ 2,800,000$
18 76th Avenue South (Middle
Section) 2020 $ 4,100,000 -$ 4,100,000$ 4,100,000$ -$ 500,000$ -$ 3,600,000$
19 76th Avenue South (North
Section) 2020 $ 3,700,000 -$ 3,700,000$ 3,700,000$ -$ 500,000$ -$ 3,200,000$
20 S 212th Street Green River
Bridge Rehabilitation 2020 $ 5,980,800 -$ 5,980,800$ 5,980,800$ -$ 840,000$ -$ 5,140,800$
21 Meeker Street Green River
Bridge Rehabilitation 2020 $ 3,450,000 -$ 3,450,000$ 3,450,000$ -$ 515,000$ 110,000$ 2,825,000$
22
Safe Routes to Schools
Improvements at Meridian
Elementary
2021 $ 961,000 -$ 961,000$ 961,000$ -$ 111,000$ -$ 850,000$
PROJECT COSTS PHASES
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
CITY OF KENT IX
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
No.Project Start
Year
Project Costs
Total Secured Unsecured Phases Total Other Preliminary
Engineering Right of Way Construction
PROJECT COSTS PHASES
23
E Willis Street and Central
Avenue South Intersection
Improvements
2021 $ 500,000 168,000$ 332,000$ 500,000$ -$ 44,000$ 166,000$ 290,000$
24
South 248th Street
Improvements - 104th
Avenue South to 109th
Avenue South
2021 $ 5,000,000 -$ 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ -$ 500,000$ 250,000$ 4,250,000$
25
South 248th Street
Improvements - 109th
Avenue South to 116th
Avenue South
2021 $ 7,000,000 -$ 7,000,000$ 7,000,000$ -$ 500,000$ 250,000$ 6,250,000$
26 Southeast 248th Street at
116th Ave SE Roundabout 2021 $ 3,000,000 -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ 300,000$ 500,000$ 2,200,000$
27 Panther Lake Signal System
Integration 2021 $ 400,000 -$ 400,000$ 400,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ 350,000$
28
Safe Routes to Schools
Improvements at Neeley-
O’Brien Elementary
2021 $ 961,000 -$ 961,000$ 961,000$ 92,000$ 100,000$ 769,000$
29 Kent Transit Center 2021 $ 3,000,000 -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 150,000$ 713,000$ -$ 2,137,000$
30 Central Avenue 2021 $ 5,000,000 -$ 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 250,000$ 1,188,000$ -$ 3,562,000$
31 Veterans Drive Extension 2021 $ 51,620,000 45,374,000$ 6,246,000$ 51,620,000$ -$ 2,765,000$ 10,270,000$ 38,585,000$
32
Meeker Frontage
Improvements at the
Riverview Apartments
2021 $ 2,447,000 -$ 2,447,000$ 2,447,000$ -$ 391,000$ 100,000$ 1,956,000$
33
South 212th Street - East
Valley Highway to 72nd
Avenue South
2021 $ 2,900,000 2,900,000$ -$ 3,000,000$ -$ 200,000$ 240,000$ 2,560,000$
34
East Valley Highway - South
196th Street to South 212th
Street
2023 $ 3,000,000 -$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ 225,000$ 175,000$ 2,600,000$
35
South 212th Street - West
Valley Highway to Orillia Road
S
2023 $ 5,210,000 -$ 5,210,000$ 5,210,000$ -$ 800,000$ 10,000$ 4,400,000$
36 Meeker Street and 64th
Avenue South 2023 $ 600,000 -$ 600,000$ 600,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ 500,000$
37 South 224th Street Extension
(Phase III)2024 $ 15,500,000 100,000$ 15,400,000$ 15,500,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 13,000,000$
38
Midway Subarea TOD Street –
S. 244th Street and 32nd
Avenue South
2025 $ 5,900,000 -$ 5,900,000$ 5,900,000$ -$ 600,000$ 1,400,000$ 3,900,000$
$ 239,514,700 $ 139,228,000 $ 97,250,700 $ 239,614,700 $ 2,810,000 $ 26,224,950 $ 23,104,000 $ 187,475,750 Total Projects
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
CITY OF KENT X
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
No.Project Start
Year
Project Costs
Total Secured Unsecured Phases Total Other Preliminary
Engineering Right of Way Construction
PROJECT COSTS PHASES
39 Street and Sidewalk
Preservation and Repair $ 106,200,000 $ 38,400,000 $ 67,800,000 106,200,000$ -$ 14,868,000$ 1,062,000$ 90,270,000$
40 Traffic Signal Management $ 4,200,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 450,000 4,200,000$ -$ 600,000$ -$ 3,600,000$
41 Channelization and Pavement
Markings Maintenance $ 4,800,000 $ 2,575,000 $ 2,225,000 4,800,000$ -$ 720,000$ -$ 4,080,000$
42 Guardrail Safety
Improvements $ 660,000 $ 660,000 $ - 660,000$ -$ 66,000$ -$ 600,000$
$ 115,860,000 $ 45,385,000 $ 70,475,000 115,866,000$ -$ 16,254,000$ 1,062,000$ 98,550,000$
355,374,700$ 184,613,000$ 167,725,700$ 355,480,700$ 2,810,000$ 42,478,950$ 24,166,000$ 286,025,750$
PR
O
G
R
A
M
S
Total Programs
Grand Total
CITY OF KENT XI
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
RentonSeaTac
Auburn
Legend
Interstate
State Ro ute
Ro ads
Rivers and Lakes
0 0.5 1
Mile
®
Revised April 24, 2019
City of Kent2020 - 2025 Transportation Improvement Program Projects
The City of Kent ("City") reasonably believes that making this information available for your inspection is not an infringement or other violation of any intellectual property rights. To the extent copyright in saidinformation is held by the City you are hereby permitted by the City to copy, distribute, and otherwise use the information with one exception. No oneis permitted to sell this information except in accordance with a written agreement with the City.
Citywide Projects are not depicted on this map.
TIP Projects
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 1
PROJECT #1: South 224th Street Extension (Phase I)
84th Avenue South to 88th Avenue South
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct a three-lane road from 84th Avenue South to 88th
Avenue South, including a new bridge over State Route 167.
The project will include full-width paving; concrete curbs,
gutters and sidewalks; five-foot paved shoulders; street
lighting; storm drainage; landscaping; utilities and
appurtenances. Construction began in 2017 and will be
completed in 2019. PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $3,526,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $1,451,000
Construction ................ $17,669,000
TOTAL ........................ $22,646,000
Secured Funding ............ $22,646,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Drainage Fund, Local Improvement District,
Special Assessments), Developer Mitigation, Transportation Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing roadway system cannot accommodate
the current or forecast east-west traffic volumes between Kent’s East Hill and the
Green River Valley floor. To meet transportation concurrency requirements of the
Growth Management Act, additional east-west vehicle capacity is required.
Intersections along South 208th/212th Street and James/Southeast 240th Streets
are at or over capacity. Because of existing development and topographic
constraints, it is not feasible to widen the James/Southeast 240th Street and South
208th/212th Street ‘corridors’ enough to to provide the additional east-west
capacity needed to accommodate forecast traffic volumes.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 2
PROJECT #2: Naden Avenue and Willis Street Intersection
Improvements
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Build right-in/right-out intersection on Willis Street (State Route
516) at Naden Avenue consistent with Washington State
Department of Transportation approval.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering……….$75,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $175,000
Construction ..................... $580,000
TOTAL ............................. $830,000
Secured Funding ................. $300,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Local Improvement District, Transportation
Capital Fund)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will provide access to the City’s Naden site.
The Naden site is placed strategically at the entrance to Kent’s Downtown. It is highly
approachable and visible from State Route 167 and State Route 516. The Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan describes this area as critical to projecting a good
image of the City.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 3
PROJECT #3: Naden Avenue Improvements
Willis Street to Meeker Street
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Build the new Naden Avenue connecting Willis Street and Meeker
Street to prepare the site for development.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $200,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $100,000
Construction .................. $1,600,000
TOTAL .......................... $1,900,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Developer Mitigation, General Fund, Local
Improvement District, Economic and Community Development Placemaking Fund)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will build upon the Naden Avenue and Willis
Street intersection improvements, allowing for greater development potential for the
Naden site. This area is adjacent to State Route 167 and State Route 516 and serves as
a gateway to visitors. The Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan describes this area as
critical to projecting a good image of the City. Landscaping will buffer development from
Puget Sound Energy overhead distribution power lines. Additionally, this project will
provide on-street parking, which will improve access to the Interurban Trail.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 4
PROJECT #4: Kent Valley Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Purchase and install five traffic signal cabinets, 34 controllers
and applicable communications capable of supporting flashing
yellow left turn arrow (FYLTA) operation for permissive left turns
at 14 intersections in the north Kent Valley.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $56,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $813,000
TOTAL ............................. $869,000
Secured Funding ................. $869,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax) Federal
Highway Safety Improvement Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project builds upon a previous Federal Highway
Safety Improvement Program funded project that included replacement of the master
signal controller unit and installation of the FYLTAs in the downtown area. This type
of signal display has been demonstrated to be much more readily understood by
motorists and has resulted in reduced collision rates involving vehicles turning left
during permissive left turn signal phases. The upgrade to the legacy central traffic
signal control system and more advanced intersection traffic signal controllers will
allow greater operation flexibility and improved transportation system efficiency.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 5
PROJECT #5: South 228th Street/Union Pacific Railroad Grade
Separation
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct a grade separation of the Union Pacific Railroad
mainline tracks and Interurban Trail at South 228th Street. The
project will include the construction of a bridge for four-lane
vehicle crossing; full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and
sidewalks; bicycle facilities; street lighting; utilities and
appurtenances. Construction is underway, utilities are being
relocated. This project has also been added to the Washington
State Freight Plan. Construction began in 2016.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $5,280,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $5,060,000
Construction ................ $32,760,000
TOTAL ........................ $43,100,000
Secured Funding ............ $38,644,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Drainage Fund,
Street Fund, and Water Fund), Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), Connecting
Washington (Washington State), Freight Action Strategy for Everett-Seattle-Tacoma
Corridor (FAST), Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), Port of Seattle,
Union Pacific Railroad
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The project will lead to a seamless connection
between major freight handlers and their primary destinations. It will support freight
moving through Kent to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, SeaTac Airport and the
freeway system. Grade separating this arterial will increase roadway capacity,
decrease congestion, enhance safety and improve freight mobility in this corridor and
throughout the region. This project will provide regional connections for thousands
of businesses, employers, and the 40 million square feet of warehouse/industrial
space in the valley. Construction is underway.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 6
PROJECT #6: Transportation Master Plan
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Major update to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) including
near-term and long-range planning for the City’s transportation
network needs. The project will require assistance from
consultants. Project elements include transportation
priorities/goals development; an outreach strategy; evaluation of
multimodal level of service; transportation model development;
public and stakeholder outreach; the base, near-term and
forecast transportation model; transportation policies/goals
performance metrics; project development and prioritization;
financial plan development; and the draft TMP. The updated TMP
will include all transportation modes including non-motorized and
transit. The current TMP was completed in 2008 and needs to be
updated.
PROJECT COST: Consultant ......................... $600,000
TOTAL ............................. $890,000
Secured Funding ................. $890,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (General Fund)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The Kent Transportation Master Plan (TMP), as
incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan, is the City’s blueprint for long-range
transportation planning in Kent. The City’s Comprehensive Plan was approved by the
Puget Sound Regional Council in 2015. Efforts to update the TMP began in 2018. This
update will include a multi-year transportation financing plan. The plan will also
consider subarea and functional plans adopted since 2008 and newly-funded major
corridors serving Kent:
Midway Subarea Plan
Downtown Subarea Action Plan
Federal Way Link Extension
State Route 509 extension
State Route 167 improvements
Let’s Go Kent
Park & Open Space Plan 2016
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 7
PROJECT #7: South 224th Street Extension (Phase II)
88th Avenue South to 94th Place South
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct a three-lane road from 88th Avenue South to 94th Place
South, including a new bridge over Garrison Creek. The project
will include full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and
sidewalks; five-foot paved shoulders; street lighting; storm
drainage; landscaping; utilities and appurtenances. Construction
began in 2019.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $1,137,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $1,557,000
Construction ................ $10,849,000
TOTAL ........................ $13,543,000
Secured Funding ............ $13,543,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Drainage Fund, Local Improvement District,
Special Assessments, Transportation Impact Fee), Developer Mitigation,
Transportation Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing roadway system cannot accommodate
the current or forecast east-west traffic volumes between Kent’s East Hill and the
Green River Valley floor. In order to meet transportation concurrency requirements
of the Growth Management Act, additional east-west vehicle capacity is required.
Intersections along South 208th/212th Street and James/Southeast 240th Streets are
also at or over capacity. Because of existing development and topographic
constraints, it is not feasible to widen the James/Southeast 240th Street and South
208th/212th Street ‘corridors’ enough to provide the additional east-west capacity
needed to accommodate forecast traffic volumes. Construction is underway.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 8
PROJECT #8: BNSF Railway Company Railroad Quiet Zone
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Establish a railroad quiet zone for the BNSF Railway Company
mainline tracks through the City. The grade crossings to be
included in the quiet zone are: South 259th Street, East Willis
Street (State Route 516), East Titus Street, East Gowe Street,
East Meeker Street, East Smith Street, East James Street, and
South 212th Street.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $135,000
Right of Way Acquisition ........ $49,000
Construction .................. $1,754,000
TOTAL .......................... $1,938,000
Secured Funding .............. $1,938,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax), Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Locomotive engineers begin sounding the train-
mounted horn approximately one quarter mile from an at-grade highway/railroad
crossing. Train horns are an effective warning of a train approaching grade crossings,
but they expose the local community to significant noise. Reducing that noise through
a quiet zone will improve the quality of life for those living and working closest to the
railroad facilities and could eliminate a barrier to attracting new businesses and
residents.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 9
PROJECT #9: Union Pacific Railroad Quiet Zone
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Establish a railroad quiet zone for the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) mainline tracks through the City. The grade crossings
included in the quiet zone are: Willis Street (State Route 516),
West Meeker Street, West Smith Street, West James Street and
South 212th Street.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $85,000
Right of Way Acquisition ........ $31,000
Construction .................. $1,096,000
TOTAL .......................... $1,212,000
Secured Funding .............. $1,212,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax), Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Locomotive engineers begin sounding the train-
mounted horn approximately one quarter mile from an at-grade highway/railroad
crossing. Train horns are an effective warning of a train approaching grade crossings,
but they expose the local community to significant noise. Reducing that noise through
a quiet zone will improve the quality of life for those living and working closest to the
railroad facilities and could eliminate a barrier to attracting new businesses and
residents.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 10
PROJECT #10: Willis Street at 4th Ave South Roundabout
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct a roundabout on Willis Street (State Route 516) at 4th
Avenue South. The project will include the construction of the
roundabout, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting,
storm drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances. The
roundabout will accommodate bicycle riders, consistent with the
Transportation Master Plan which calls for a shared travel lane
(sharrows) on 4th Avenue South. This project must be assessed
with respect to the complete streets requirements.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...... $350,000
Right of Way Acquisition ............... $0
Construction ................. $2,650,000
TOTAL ........................ $3,000,000
Secured Funding………….…. $3,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Transportation
Impact Fees), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Washington State Department of
Transportation Local Programs
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This gateway project will provide an aesthetically
pleasing welcome into the heart of Kent and provide the typical benefits of a
roundabout including: improved safety, improved traffic flow and decreased lifecycle
maintenance costs.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 11
PROJECT #11: Willis Street Shared Use Paths
Union Pacific Railroad to the 4th Avenue South Roundabout
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct a shared use path from the Union Pacific Railroad to the
roundabout at 4th Avenue South in the existing right-of-way on
the north and south sides of Willis Street.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ...... $100,000
Right of Way Acquisition ............... $0
Construction .................... $500,000
TOTAL ........................... $600,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Transportation
Impact Fees), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Washington State Department of
Transportation Local Programs
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will provide a shared use path on the
north and south sides of Willis Street between the Union Pacific Railroad and the 4th
Avenue South roundabout, a gateway to Kent project. This project will better connect
the Interurban Trail to downtown Kent and serve as a gateway into the City’s urban
core.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 12
PROJECT #12: 132nd Avenue Southeast Pedestrian Improvements
(Phase III)
Kent-Kangley Road Southeast to Southeast 278th Street
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct an asphalt walking path along the west side of 132nd
Avenue Southeast where sidewalk does not currently exist.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $31,950
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $244,950
TOTAL ............................ $276,900
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Transportation
Impact Fees), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Washington State Department of
Transportation Local Programs
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 132nd Avenue Southeast is designated as a minor
arterial roadway, with 5 vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and landscaping
planned at build-out. This roadway has been widened at various locations based on
development of adjacent parcels. Due to budgetary constraints this roadway will not
be completed in the near term; however, the desire to improve pedestrian access
necessitates moving ahead with the walking path.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 13
PROJECT #13: Auburn to Renton Rapid Ride
Access Improvements
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: This project is to upgrade passenger facilities and increase access
to transit within Kent along the new King County Metro Rapid Ride
I corridor expected to open in 2023. Improved pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, shelter improvements, real time arrival
information, lighting, off-board payment kiosks, and other transit
facility improvements will increase safety and comfort for transit
users, induce transit ridership, and improve transit speeds
throughout the City and other jurisdictions along the route. The
new Rapid Ride corridor will run north-south along Central Avenue
from Auburn to the Kent Transit Center, connect to the East Hill
area, and then north-south along the Benson Highway (State
Route 515) corridor to Renton. Over seven miles of the corridor
are within the City.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $1,650,000
Equipment ...................... $1,520,000
Construction ................... $7,510,000
TOTAL ........................ $10,680,000
Regional Mobility Grant ..... $8,000,000
King County Metro ........... $2,280,000
Secured Funding ........ $10,680,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): King County METRO, Washington State Department of
Transportation Regional Mobility Grant
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION:Current frequent service along this corridor includes route
180 (Southeast Auburn to Kent Station to Sea-Tac Airport to Burien
Transit Center) and route 169 (Kent Station to Renton Transit
Center). The corridor currently has 31 northbound and 29
southbound transit stops serving these two routes. This corridor
currently has deficiencies in bus stop facilities as well as areas with
poor pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. All bus zones identified
for Rapid Ride service will require upgraded facilities (e.g., new
RapidRide shelters and amenities) to align with King County Metro’s
Rapid Ride branding and standards. The City will work with King
County Metro to identify bus zone locations for improvements.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 14
PROJECT #14: Meeker Frontage Improvements and Midblock
Crossing at the Driving Range
Driving range frontage from the Colony Park Apartments
driveway to Russell Road
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Complete a missing link in Meet Me on Meeker improvements by
constructing new sidewalk and multimodal pathway along city-
owned driving range frontage on the south side of Meeker Street.
The project will also install a raised crosswalk and median islands
at the midblock pedestrian crossing between the driving range
and golf course, remove the existing pedestrian traffic signal and
install a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) consistent with
the Meet Me on Meeker standards. The project will include
construction of concrete curbs, gutters, multimodal path, a
sidewalk, street lighting, median islands, storm drainage,
landscaping, utilities and appurtenances.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $515,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $110,000
Construction .................. $2,825,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,450,000
Secured Funding ................. $250,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Economic and Community Development
Placemaking Fund, Business and Occupation Tax), Puget Sound Regional Council
Grants (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality /Non-Motorized Set Aside),
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Complete Streets Award
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Private development on the former Par-3 property
(“Marquee on Meeker”) has constructed the Meet Me on Meeker promenade along
approximately 1,200 feet of frontage west of the city-owned driving range. This
project provides approximately 700 feet of promenade connection between Russell
Road and the eastern edge of the Marquee on Meeker project. This will improve
non-motorized travelers’ comfort, aesthetics, and economic development along
this important commercial corridor. This project will remove the existing traffic
signal and install a raised crosswalk with median islands which improves drivers’
view of crossing pedestrian traffic. A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB)
will be installed to improve drivers’ awareness of crossing pedestrians.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 15
PROJECT #15: W James Street/W Smith Street Pedestrian
Improvement
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: The proposed project will improve the pedestrian and bicycling
experience between the underutilized Kent/James Street Park &
Ride and Kent Sounder Station. Improvements include pedestrian
wayfinding, pedestrian lighting, and related safety
improvements.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $115,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $690,000
TOTAL ............................. $805,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), Sound Transit System Access Funds
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The pedestrian environment between the
Kent/James Street Park & Ride and Kent Sounder Station lacks pedestrian wayfinding
and lighting. Parking at Kent Station has a high utilization, while the Park & Ride is
underutilized. The project will increase utilization of the Park & Ride, provide an
alternative to congested parking areas near Kent Station, and improve the safety and
pedestrian experience along the pedestrian route.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 16
PROJECT #16: W James Street at 2nd Avenue N Pedestrian Crossing
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Install a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB), high visibility
crosswalk and ADA ramps crossing W James Street at 2nd Avenue
N.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $35,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $210,000
TOTAL ............................. $245,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), Sound Transit System Access Funds
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: W James Street between 4th Avenue N and
Central Avenue N is 0.3 miles long. The distance between pedestrian crossings is a
barrier to multiple neighborhoods north of W James Street. This project will
enhance pedestrian connectivity between those neighborhoods and destinations
south of W James Street.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 17
PROJECT #17: 76th Avenue South (South Phase)
22400 block to 21700 block
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct drainage and road improvements on 76th Avenue South
from the 22400 block to the 21700 block. The project will raise
the existing road to 1.5 feet above FEMA flood elevation and
include a full width overlay, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
street lighting, storm drainage, and channelization. This project
must be assessed with respect to the complete streets
requirements. The Transportation Master Plan calls for “possible
re-striping” for bicycle lanes on this segment of 76th Avenue
South.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $2,800,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,300,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Storm
Drainage Utility Fund), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program, Developer Mitigation, Surface Transportation Program, Transportation
Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 76th Avenue South floods several times per year,
resulting in road closures. The roadway is located in the heart of the City’s
Industrial zoning area and has significant heavy truck traffic. Large industrial and
manufacturing companies and a large solid waste company that serves several
adjacent jurisdictions are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. Road
closures negatively impact these businesses and create congestion in other parts of
the City as a result of traffic detours around the closure. Improving the road to
current standards will also improve traffic flow on 76th Avenue South.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 18
PROJECT #18: 76th Avenue South (Middle Phase)
21700 block to 21400 block
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct drainage and road improvements on 76th Avenue South
from the 21700 block to the 21400 block. The project will raise
the existing road to 1.5 feet above FEMA flood elevation and
include a full width overlay, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
street lighting, storm drainage, and channelization. This project
must be assessed with respect to the complete streets’
requirements. The Transportation Master Plan calls for “possible
re-striping” for bicycle lanes on this segment of 76th Avenue
South.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $3,600,000
TOTAL .......................... $4,100,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Storm
Drainage Utility Fund), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program, Developer Mitigation, Surface Transportation Program, Transportation
Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 76th Avenue South floods several times per year,
resulting in road closures. The roadway is located in the heart of the City’s Industrial
zoning area and has heavy truck traffic. Large industrial and manufacturing
companies and a large solid waste company that serves several adjacent jurisdictions
are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. Road closures negatively impact
these businesses and create congestion in other parts of the City as a result of traffic
detours around the closure. Improving the road to current standards will also improve
traffic flow on 76th Avenue South.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 19
PROJECT #19: 76th Avenue South (North Phase)
21400 block to 21100 block
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Construct drainage and road improvements on 76th Avenue South
from the 21400 block to the 21100 block. The project will raise
the existing road to 1.5 feet above FEMA flood elevation and
include a full width overlay, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
street lighting, storm drainage, and channelization. This project
must be assessed with respect to the complete streets
requirements. The Transportation Master Plan calls for “possible
re-striping” for bicycle lanes on this segment of 76th Avenue
South.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $3,200,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,700,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Storm
Drainage Utility Fund), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program, Developer Mitigation, Surface Transportation Program, Transportation
Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 76th Avenue South floods several times per year,
resulting in road closures. The roadway is located in the heart of the City’s Industrial
zoning area and has significant heavy truck traffic. Large industrial and
manufacturing companies and a large solid waste company that serves several
adjacent jurisdictions are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. Road
closures negatively impact these businesses and create congestion in other parts of
the City as a result of traffic detours around the closure. Improving the road to
current standards will also improve traffic flow on 76th Avenue South.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 20
PROJECT #20: S 212th Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Replace the existing finger expansion joints. The improvements
would remove and replace the aged compression seals, steel
sliding plate, and steel fingers, with a modern expansion joint on
the west end of the bridge and remove and repair the flexible
joint seals on the east end of the bridge.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $117,500
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $719,100
TOTAL ............................. $836,600
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), WSDOT Local Bridge Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The S 212th Street is a major corridor connecting
I-5 to State Route 167 and State Route 515. S 212th Street travels directly through
the Manufacturing and Industrial Center connecting businesses and communities
throughout the Puget Sound. This corridor is heavily used by commuters and
commercial trucks that are destined to the distribution centers and businesses
within the Manufacturing and Industrial Center of the City of Kent.
The S 212th Street Bridge spans the Green River in the City of Kent, within King
County. A bridge has been located at this location since before 1936. The current
bridge is a three span steel plate girder with a weathering steel and concrete deck,
and steel finger expansion joints. No major repairs have been performed on the
bridge since its construction in 1966. Recent repairs include the filling of missing
sections of poured flexible seal with crack sealant in several locations. In 2006,
repairs were made to the concrete parapet and deck surface. Joint and steel rail
repairs were made in 2010. Due to heavy truck traffic, the deck surface has
substantially delaminated and spalled to where repairs are scheduled for the summer
of 2019. The S 212th Street Bridge has stringer supports with attached existing city
utilities (8" sanitary sewer force main and 8" water main), and private utilities below
the roadway decking that services businesses and residents on either side of the
Green River in the City of Kent.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 21
PROJECT #21: Meeker Street Green River Bridge Rehabilitation
YEAR: 2020
DESCRIPTION: Replace the existing finger expansion joints, including the reinsert
and glue bearing pads.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $840,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $5,140,800
TOTAL .......................... $5,980,800
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), WSDOT Local Bridge Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The Meeker Street bridge over the Green River is a
steel stringer (Warren Truss Frame) bridge located in the City of Kent's boundary
limits within King County. Meeker Street is part of the old State Route 516, a
major connecting corridor linking I-5 and State Route 167. The Meeker Street
Bridge has stringer supports with attached existing city utilities (METRO 24"
sanitary sewer trunk line and a City of Kent 12" water main and other outside
utilities) below the roadway decking that services the residents on the west hill of
the City of Kent. This route is heavily used by commercial trucks that service
downtown Kent, industrial and distribution centers, and commuters.
The bridge has severe paint scaling with 70% of top chords of trusses peeled to the
primer, as well as bottom truss and vertical hangers. Pack rust is visible. The bridge
deck has severe exposed short transverse rebar with spalls concentrated in both east
bound and westbound lanes. The worst area is in the southern lane. The lanes have
about 50-55% exposed transverse re-bar on the bridge decking. Due to aging of
the bridge, the existing finger expansion joints need to be replaced, including the
reinsert and glue bearing pads.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 22
PROJECT #22: Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Meridian
Elementary
Southeast 256th Street and 140th Avenue Southeast
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Install a traffic signal at Southeast 256th Street and 140th Avenue
Southeast and construct an asphalt pavement walkway along
Southeast 256th Street from approximately 134th Avenue
Southeast to 140th Avenue Southeast. The traffic signal will
include a traffic surveillance camera and interconnect cable to
connect this signal to the City’s traffic control system. This project
must be assessed with respect to the complete streets
requirements. The Transportation Master Plan calls for bicycle
lanes on Southeast 256th Street and shared travel lanes on 140th
Avenue Southeast.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $111,000
Construction ...................... $850,000
TOTAL ............................. $961,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, Washington State Department of
Transportation’s Safe Routes to Schools Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Meridian Elementary School is located near the
intersection of Southeast 256th Street and 140th Avenue Southeast. The school
provides adult crossing guards to help students cross Southeast 256th Street. Traffic
in that neighborhood and in the communities to the east of the school has become
especially heavy at the afternoon bell times. Intersection control improvements would
assist pedestrians and motorists to maneuver in an orderly way during times of heavy
conflict. Currently students must walk or bike along a wide shoulder on Southeast
256th Street.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 23
PROJECT #23: E Willis Street and Central Avenue South
Intersection Improvements
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Improve the intersection of E Willis Street and Central Avenue
South to provide a right turn lane from southbound on Central
Avenue South to westbound E Willis Street. Project includes
sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement and improvements to
traffic signal system. Although there are no bicycle facilities
planned at the E Willis Street and Central Avenue South
intersection, this project must be assessed with respect to the
complete streets requirements.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $44,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $166,000
Construction ..................... $290,000
TOTAL ............................. $500,000
Secured Funding ................. $168,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Developer Mitigation, Transportation Impact
Fee)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is a traffic mitigation requirement for
additional trips generated by the Kent Station Development. The City will be
implementing this project for which money was contributed by the Kent Station
developer. The transportation analysis prepared for the ShoWare project assumed
construction of this project would be complete.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 24
PROJECT #24: Southeast 248th Street Improvements
104th Avenue South to 109th Avenue South
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Improvements on Southeast 248th Street between 104th Avenue
Southeast and 109th Avenue Southeast. This project must be
assessed with respect to the complete streets requirements. The
2008 Transportation Master Plan calls for bicycle lanes on this
segment of Southeast 248th Street. This segment will include a
five-foot landscape buffer between each sidewalk and bicycle
lane.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $250,000
Construction .................. $4,250,000
TOTAL .......................... $5,000,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), Economic Incentive Grants
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: In support of future development, this area will be
connected to the bicycle and pedestrian networks. Nearby pedestrian generators
include Morrill Meadows Park, East Hill Park, Daniel Elementary School, the YMCA and
the project will include improved turning operations into these attractors.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 25
PROJECT #25: Southeast 248th Street Improvements
109th Avenue Southeast to 116th Avenue Southeast
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Improvements on Southeast 248th Street between 109th Avenue
Southeast and 116th Avenue Southeast. This project must be
assessed with respect to the complete streets requirements. The
2008 Transportation Master Plan calls for bicycle lanes on this
segment of Southeast 248th Street. This segment will include a
five-foot landscape buffer between each sidewalk and bicycle
lane.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $250,000
Construction .................. $6,250,000
TOTAL .......................... $7,000,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), Economic Incentive Grants
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: In support of future development, this area will be
connected to the bicycle and pedestrian networks. Nearby pedestrian destinations
include Morrill Meadows Park, East Hill Park, Daniel Elementary School, the YMCA and
the project will include improved turning operations into these attractors.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 26
PROJECT #26: Southeast 248th Street at 116th Avenue Southeast
Roundabout
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Construct a roundabout at Southeast 248th Street and 116th
Avenue Southeast for capacity and traffic safety improvements.
This project must be assessed with respect to the complete
streets requirements. The 2008 Transportation Master Plan calls
for bicycle lanes on this segment of Southeast 248th Street.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $300,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $500,000
Construction .................. $2,200,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,000,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, General Fund,
Local Improvement District), Economic Incentive Grants
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will improve the operation and safety of
this busy intersection and support future growth in the area. In addition, lifecycle
costs will be lower than a traffic signal.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 27
PROJECT #27: Panther Lake Signal System Integration
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: This project includes extension of the fiber optic communications
network to traffic signals in the Panther Lake area to allow remote
monitoring, management and coordination. The project also
includes replacement of the existing traffic signal controllers to
allow integration with the new central traffic signal control
system and operating Flashing Yellow Left Turn Arrows (FYLTA).
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $50,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $350,000
TOTAL ............................. $400,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The traffic signals in the Panther Lake area are not
connected to the City’s new central traffic signal control system; hence, they cannot
be remotely monitored or managed from the City’s Traffic Management Center. The
existing traffic signal controllers are not capable of operating FYLTA for permissive
left turn movements. It has been demonstrated that this type of signal display is
much more readily understood by motorists and results in reduced collision rates
involving vehicles turning left during permissive left turn signal phases. The
integration of these signals into the City’s signal system will allow operation flexibility
and improved transportation system efficiency.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 28
PROJECT #28: Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Neely-
O’Brien Elementary
64th Avenue South and South 236th Street
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Install a traffic signal with pedestrian crosswalk at 64th Avenue
South and South 236th Street. The traffic signal will include a
traffic camera and a connection to the City’s central traffic control
system.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $92,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $100,000
Construction ...................... $769,000
TOTAL ............................. $961,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent, Washington State Department of
Transportation’s Safe Routes to Schools Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Neely O’Brien Elementary School is located near the
intersection of 64th Avenue South and South 236th Street. This signal project will
provide an alternative walking route for those students that live to the east of 64th
Avenue South.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 29
PROJECT #29: Kent Transit Center
Access, Mobility and Safety Improvements
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: This project will create an eastbound right-turn lane on East
James Street to Railroad Avenue North extending from 1st Avenue
North to Railroad Avenue North. This project will also extend the
eastbound bicycle facility on James Street that currently
terminates approaching the 1st Avenue North intersection. In
addition, improved pedestrian facilities are planned along the
north and south sides of East James Street, improving mobility
and safety for these users.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $713,000
Equipment ......................... $150,000
Construction ................... $2,137,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,000,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): King County METRO, Washington State Department of
Transportation Regional Mobility Grant
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will improve mobility for transit vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians accessing the Kent Transit Center (Kent Station) via East
James Street. Kent Station serves as a vital transportation hub for the south King
County. In addition to Sound Transit (ST) Sounder service, a King County METRO or
ST bus accesses the transit center once per minute during the peak periods. By 2040,
a bus will access the transit center every 30 seconds during peak periods. In addition,
voter approved ST 3 will increase Sounder service. East James Street in the vicinity
of Kent Station has high congestion and low mobility during peak periods. Eastbound
James Street approaching Central Avenue has large queues and poor level of service.
East James Street has two eastbound travel lanes through the BNSF rail crossing. A
short eastbound left and right turn lane approaching Central Avenue starts at Railroad
Avenue North. Existing geometrics on East James Street west of Railroad Avenue
North are constrained by the close proximity of the Washington Cold Storage Inc.
building. Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this area are needed.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 30
PROJECT #30: Central Avenue
Traffic Signal Communication
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: The project will implement the communication connection
between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) rail
corridor and the traffic signals along Central Avenue to allow area
signals the ability to adjust signal timing in anticipation of, during,
and after train events. In addition, signals along the Central
Avenue corridor, from South 259th Street through South 212th
Street, will be upgraded to use this interconnection. Signal
upgrades may utilize newer technology such as adaptive signal
control systems, transit signal priority, and other intelligent
transportation systems applications in traffic signal control.
Additional signals adjacent to at-grade rail crossings may also be
upgraded to take advantage of the new communication
connections.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $1,188,000
Equipment ......................... $250,000
Construction ................... $3,562,000
TOTAL .......................... $5,000,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): King County METRO, Washington State Department of
Transportation’s Regional Mobility Grant
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will improve mobility for transit vehicles
and motorists in the vicinity of the Kent Transit Center along the Central Avenue
corridor, from South 259th Street through South 212th Street. A King County METRO
or Sound Transit bus accesses the transit center once per minute during the peak
periods. By 2040, a bus will access this regional transit center every 30 seconds
during peak periods. Downtown Kent, along the Central Avenue corridor, experiences
poor level of service due to heavy congestion affecting movements from multiple
directions. There are more than 60 daily trains on the BNSF corridor adjacent to
Central Avenue. With no downtown grade-separated rail crossings, the volume of
daily rail crossing events contributes to the congested conditions. Today, the traffic
signal system cannot communicate signal timing modifications to manage changes in
traffic patterns during or after a train event.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 31
PROJECT #31: Veterans Drive Extension
Military Road to I-5 Southbound Off-ramp
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Complete a missing link by constructing a new roadway from
Military Road to the I-5 Southbound off-ramp, including an
intersection with the northbound on-ramp to I-5 and an
undercrossing of I-5. The project will include the construction of
full-width paving; concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pedestrian
pathway, street lighting, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities
and appurtenances.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering………$2,800,000
Right of Way Acquisition……$10,200,000
Construction……………………… $33,800,000
TOTAL……………………… $51,600,000
Secured Funding………………..$47,104,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Connecting Washington Account (State), City of Kent,
Transportation Improvement Board Grant, Federal Surface Transportation Program
Grant
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will improve the connection between the
Sea-Tac International Airport, the Port of Seattle and the Kent
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). This project reduces traffic congestion on
local roads and highways by completing a direct connection between Seattle and
the Kent Valley. The project will redistribute traffic away from State Route 516,
improving operations of the interchange.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 32
PROJECT #32: Meeker Frontage Improvement at the Riverview
Apartments
Riverview Apartments Homes frontage from Russell Road to the
private development at 64th Avenue South and Meeker Street
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: Complete a missing link of Meet Me on Meeker by constructing
new sidewalk and multimodal pathway from Russell Road to the
east limit of the private development at 64th Avenue South and
Meeker Street. The project will include construction of concrete
curbs, gutters, multimodal path, a sidewalk, street lighting, storm
drainage, landscaping, utilities and appurtenances.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $391,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $100,000
Construction .................. $1,956,000
TOTAL .......................... $2,447,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Economic and Community Development
Placemaking Fund, Business and Occupation Tax) Puget Sound Regional Council
Grants (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality /Non-Motorized Set Aside)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Private development at 64th Avenue South and
Meeker Street will construct the Meet Me on Meeker promenade along approximately
1,000 feet of property frontage. This project provides approximately 700 feet of
promenade connection between Russell Road and the western edge of the 64th
Avenue South and Meeker Street project. The project is the second phase to connect
the two privately developed segments for a total promenade length of approximately
3,500 feet. This will improve the comfort of non-motorized users as well as aesthetics
and economic development along this important commercial corridor.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 33
PROJECT #33: South 212th Street
East Valley Highway (State Route 181) to 72nd Avenue South
YEAR: 2021
DESCRIPTION: The South 212th Street project includes grinding, replacement of
failing pavement sections and a full-width asphalt concrete
pavement overlay of the entire roadway from East Valley Highway
to 72nd Avenue South. Curb ramps will be upgraded as required
to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $200,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $240,000
Construction .................. $2,460,000
TOTAL .......................... $2,900,000
Secured Funding……………… $2,900,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Federal Surface Transportation Program, City of Kent
Business and Occupation Tax
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is located within the Kent
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The Kent MIC, located between the ports of
Seattle and Tacoma supports significant regional growth and development, with one
of the highest concentrations of jobs in the region. The asphalt pavement on South
212th Street has reached a critical level of degradation, rated at 50 on the Pavement
Condition Index--data collected in April of 2016. The road surface is heavily impacted
by the high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic in the valley. An overlay is necessary
to prevent further costly damage that may require more extensive reconstruction of
the roadway to this critical multimodal freight, bus, pedestrian and commuter
corridor.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 34
PROJECT #34: East Valley Highway
South 196th Street to South 212th Street
YEAR: 2023
DESCRIPTION: The East Valley Highway project includes grinding, replacement
of failing pavement sections and a full-width asphalt concrete
pavement overlay of the entire roadway from South 196th Street
to South 212th Street. Curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons
will be upgraded as required to meet Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $225,000
Right of Way Acquisition ...... $175,000
Construction .................. $2,600,000
TOTAL .......................... $3,000,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): STP, City of Kent Business and Occupation Tax
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is located within the Kent
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The asphalt pavement on East Valley
Highway has reached a critical level of degradation, rated at 42 on the Pavement
Condition Index--data collected in April of 2016. The road surface is heavily impacted
by the high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic. Overlay is necessary to prevent
further costly damage that may require more extensive reconstruction of the
roadway to this critical multimodal freight, bus, pedestrian and commuter corridor.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 35
PROJECT #35: South 212th Street
West Valley Highway (State Route 181) to Orillia Road S
YEAR: 2023
DESCRIPTION: The South 212th Street project includes grinding, replacement of
failing pavement sections and a full-width asphalt concrete
pavement overlay of the entire roadway from West Valley
Highway to Orillia Road S. Curb ramps will be upgraded as
required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $800,000
Right of Way Acquisition ........ $10,000
Construction .................. $4,400,000
TOTAL .......................... $5,210,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Federal Surface Transportation Program, City of Kent
Business and Occupation Tax
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is located within the Kent
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The Kent MIC, located between the ports of
Seattle and Tacoma supports significant regional growth and development, with one
of the highest concentrations of jobs in the region. The asphalt pavement on South
212th Street has reached a critical level of degradation, rated at 50 on the Pavement
Condition Index--data collected in April of 2016. The road surface is heavily impacted
by the high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic. Based on 2018 data, South 212th
Street from West Valley Highway to Riverview Blvd S is a T-1 in the WSDOT Freight
and Goods Transportation System carrying more the 10 million tons of freight each
year and South 212th Street from Riverview Blvd S to Orillia Rd S is a T-2. An overlay
is necessary to prevent further costly damage that may require more extensive
reconstruction of the roadway to this critical multimodal freight, bus, pedestrian and
commuter corridor.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 36
PROJECT #36: Meeker Street and 64th Avenue South
Intersection Improvements
YEAR: 2023
DESCRIPTION: Construct a new curb bulb on the northwest corner of the
intersection, convert the westbound approach to one left turn
lane, one westbound through lane, and one westbound right-turn
lane, and add a westbound transit cue jump.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $100,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $500,000
TOTAL ............................. $600,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Federal Surface Transportation Program, City of Kent
Business and Occupation Tax
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The project is intended to make the intersection safer
for westbound vehicles that must merge quickly after moving through the
intersection, causing speeding and unsafe behavior. The curb bulb will also help make
a more comfortable experience for pedestrians crossing in the west leg of the
intersection, which fits the overall Meet Me on Meeker vision for the corridor. The
project supports visitors to local businesses, as well as residents, seniors and
commuters. The project supports and originates from the Economic Development
Plan, adopted by City Council—particularly the strategies to beautify Kent
streetscapes and strengthen sense of place by designating and improving key
gateways into Kent.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 37
PROJECT #37: South 224th Street Extension (Phase III)
94th Place South to 108th Avenue Southeast (State Route
515/Benson Highway)
YEAR: 2024
DESCRIPTION: Construct a three-lane roadway from 94th Place South to 108th
Avenue Southeast (State Route 515/Benson Highway). This
project widens South 224th Street to three lanes and include full-
width paving; concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks; five-foot
paved shoulders; street lighting; storm drainage; landscaping;
utilities and channelization. This project must be assessed with
respect to the complete streets requirements.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .... $1,500,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $1,000,000
Construction ................ $13,000,000
TOTAL ........................ $15,500,000
Secured Funding ................. $100,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Drainage Fund,
Local Improvement District, Special Assessments, Transportation Impact Fee),
Developer Mitigation, Transportation Improvement Board
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The existing roadway system cannot accommodate
the current or forecast east-west traffic volumes between Kent’s East Hill and the
Green River Valley floor. In order to meet transportation concurrency requirements
of the Growth Management Act, additional east-west vehicle capacity is required.
Intersections along South 208th/212th Street and James/Southeast 240th Streets are
at or over capacity. Because of existing development and topographic constraints, it
is not feasible to widen the James/Southeast 240th Street and South 208th/212th
Street corridors enough to provide the additional east-west capacity needed to
accommodate forecast traffic volumes.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 38
PROJECT #38: Midway Subarea TOD Street – S. 244th Street and
32nd Avenue South
YEAR: 2025
DESCRIPTION: Construct two new streets including sidewalks and bike lanes in
the Midway area near the future Kent-Des Moines Link Light Rail
Station. The project includes the new 32nd Avenue South and a
new segment of S. 244th Street from S. 240th Street to Pacific
Highway South (SR99). These will be complete streets
supportive of transit-oriented development envisioned in the
Midway Subarea Plan adopted in 2011.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $600,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $1,400,000
Construction .................. $3,900,000
TOTAL .......................... $5,900,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): Federal Surface Transportation Program, City of Kent
(Business and Occupation Tax, Transportation Impact Fees), Congestion Mitigation
Air Quality, Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs,
Transportation Improvement Board, Washington State Department of Transportation
Local Programs, City of Kent Drainage Funds
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project will support the vision of the Midway
Subarea Plan including Transit Oriented Development near the future Link Light Rail
Station at 30th Avenue South and S. 36th Street, anticipated to open in 2024.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 39
PROJECT #39: Street and Sidewalk Preservation and Repair
Program
Ongoing Citywide Program
YEAR: 2020 - 2025
DESCRIPTION: Preserve the existing transportation system by resurfacing the
existing asphalt and concrete streets throughout the City.
Reconstruct sidewalks as related to curb ramps upgrades
consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
project limits must be assessed in accordance with the complete
streets requirements
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering .. $14,868,000
Right of Way Acquisition ... $1,062,000
Construction ................ $90,270,000
TOTAL ...................... $106,200,000
Secured Funding ............ $38,400,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax, Solid Waste
Utility Tax), Surface Transportation Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The City assessed the condition of its street network
in 2016. Many of the streets exhibit deficiencies that reflect they are beyond their
expected performance life and are in need of a maintenance or rehabilitation overlay,
or some amount of reconstruction. This preservation work also requires curb ramps
and sidewalks be made accessible to persons with disabilities, according to the ADA.
This program constructs and repairs the City’s sidewalks and begins to address the
pedestrian improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 40
PROJECT #40: Traffic Signal Management Program
Ongoing Citywide Program
YEAR: 2020 - 2025
DESCRIPTION: Preserve the existing traffic control signal and intelligent
transportation systems through preventative maintenance and
lifecycle hardware replacement. Review and adjust traffic signal
timing to optimize intersection efficiency.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $600,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $3,600,000
TOTAL .......................... $4,200,000
Secured Funding .............. $3,750,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: The City maintains an extensive traffic control
system that includes 119 traffic signals, one pedestrian hybrid beacon, five
pedestrian activated crosswalk beacons, 17 traffic cameras, and a large traffic signal
communications system. These systems require routine preventative maintenance
to operate safely and efficiently.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 41
PROJECT #41: Channelization and Pavement Markings Maintenance
Program
Ongoing Citywide Program
YEAR: 2020 - 2025
DESCRIPTION: Refresh and replace pavement markings including paint,
thermoplastic, and raised pavement markers throughout the City
to separate and regulate conflicting traffic movements, define
paths of travel, and facilitate safe and orderly movement on City
streets.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ....... $720,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction .................. $4,080,000
TOTAL .......................... $4,800,000
Secured Funding .............. $2,575,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax)
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This ongoing program maintains roadway
channelization throughout the City. The City has approximately 1,700,000 linear feet
(LF) of channelization striping, 450,000 raised pavement markers, 22,012 LF of
access control curb and 7,200 LF of painted access control curb. Roadway
channelization helps to reduce conflict points and direct motorists through areas of
complexity. This project preserves the capacity and efficiency of the existing roadway
system.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2020-2025 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Descriptions
CITY OF KENT 42
PROJECT #42: Guardrail Safety Improvements Program
Ongoing Citywide Program
YEAR: 2020 - 2025
DESCRIPTION: Make miscellaneous guardrail improvements each year to
enhance motorist safety. Upgrade existing guardrail end-
treatments as mandated by State and Federal regulations.
PROJECT COST: Preliminary Engineering ......... $66,000
Right of Way Acquisition ................ $0
Construction ..................... $600,000
TOTAL ............................. $666,000
Secured Funding ........................... $0
FUNDING SOURCE(S): City of Kent (Business and Occupation Tax), Highway
Safety Improvement Program and Hazard Elimination Program
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is mandated for compliance with Federal
and State regulations and the requirement to mitigate potentially hazardous roadway
conditions.
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
43
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
2020 – 2025
For more information or additional copies of this document contact:
April Delchamps, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Kent, Public Works, Engineering
400 West Gowe Street
Kent, WA 98032-5895
253-856-5564
adelchamps@kentwa.gov
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
1
7
8
1
:
2
0
2
0
-
2
0
2
5
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pending Approval
City Council Workshop
Workshop Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Date: May 7, 2019
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers
I. PRESENTATIONS
1. 2018 Financial Wrap
Barbara Lopez, Interim Finance Director, expressed her appreciation of the
following Finance Department staff for their contributions in preparing the
2018 Year-End Financial Report: Michelle Ferguson, Senior Financial Analyst,
Kathleen McConnell, Senior Financial Analyst, and Shane Sorenson, Senior
Financial Analyst.
Lopez provided details on the Sustainable Services performance measure of
credit worthiness, financial management and financial condition.
Lopez reviewed the City’s cash and investments by month and by type from
2015-2018, and annual debt service by debt type and by debt service fund -
2018 through 2040.
2018 Year-End Financial Report included information on the:
· General Fund Revenue Variance - budget vs. actual. Came in at 3.5 million
over budget - due to construction.
· Sales Tax Share by Industry - compared 2009-2013 and 2014-2018
· Utility Tax Share by Type - compared 2009-2013 and 2014-2018
o Telephone tax revenue has consistently decreased
· Permit and Plans Review - compared 2009-2013 and 2014 - 2018
o Construction boom contributed to increased revenues
o Permit Center has moved to 100% cost recovery
· General Fund Revenue Comparison
o Compared 2016-2018 actuals
o Banked property tax capacity affected 2018 tax revenue
· General Fund Spending by classification
o Underspending by departments allowed for transfers out
· General Fund Ending Fund Balance
o Provided details regarding general fund reserves, strategic
opportunities fund, contingency for unanticipated costs and funds
restricted for annexation
· All other Fund Revenue Variance and Comparison
· Other Fund spending by classification and comparison
· Lopez reviewed the Capital Spending by Classification for 2016, 2017, 2018
actuals and 2019 budget
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 72
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 3
o Street, sewer/drainage, parks, water, IT and other projects were
reviewed
Takeaways
· 2018 was another strong year due to development and construction activity
· Departments are doing a great job of staying within budget
· Still work left to do for 2020 mid-biennium budget
o Fiscal cliff resolved
o Structural imbalance continues
o Invest SST mitigation in capital
Reviewed 2020 Mid-Biennium draft timelines for the:
· Operating budget
· 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
· Review and Balance budget
· Proposed Mid-Biennium Update
· Public Hearings
· Council Actions
2. Transportation Sustainability
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director, presented the 2019 Transportation
Sustainability report.
LaPorte provided details regarding:
· Pavement preservation, overlays, concrete streets, and intersection
improvements.
· Completed street improvements funded by B&O and garbage tax
· 2018 Average daily traffic with local roadway classifications
· Life Cycles for arterial, minor arterial and residential collector and residential
streets
· Pavement condition index, summary map and Valley floor pavement
condition summary map
· 2018 Pothole repairs and how potholes form
· Overall pavement condition index projections with current funding level
· Vehicle load comparisons (cars, semi and garbage trucks)
· 2019-2023 Pavement Preservation with current funding level
· 2019 Roads to transition to concrete
· Sidewalks in need of repair, missing sidewalks, ADA ramp improvements,
and the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan
· Crosswalk safety improvements
· Crack sealing
· Line striping, raised pavement and plastic pavement markers
· Guardrails
· Signs and markings
o Reviewed Signs & Pavement Markings 2019 work plan overhead sign
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 73
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular
Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 3
replacement
· Bridges and Overpasses
· Right-of-way vegetation
· Street trees
· Traffic Islands
· 2019 Snow Event
· Increased congestion on 167, I-5 and arterials
· Traffic signals, controllers, cabinets and street lights
· Traffic cameras, including proposed camera locations
· Traffic loops
· Uninterrupted Power Supply cabinet installation
· Copper wire theft
· Residential Traffic Calming Program
· Quiet Zone
· 2019 transportation needs
Meeting ended at 6:33 p.m.
Kimberley A. Komoto
City Clerk
8.A.1
Packet Pg. 74
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
5
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Pending Approval
Kent City Council
City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Date: May 7, 2019
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Toni Troutner Councilmember Present
Marli Larimer Councilmember Present
Bill Boyce Council President Present
Dana Ralph Mayor Present
Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present
Dennis Higgins Councilmember Present
Les Thomas Councilmember Present
Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present
3. AGENDA APPROVAL
A. Approve the Agenda as Presented
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Boyce, Council President
SECONDER: Les Thomas, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition
1. Employee of the Month
Mayor Ralph recognized Kara Moore, Administrative Assistant II in the Public
Works Operations Department, as the City's May Employee of the Month.
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director, expressed his appreciation of Moore
and the tremendous amount of work she does.
Dave Brock, Deputy Director of Public Works Operations, indicated Moore
does a wonderful job and he is fortunate to have her in the Operations
Division of Public Works. Brock expressed that Moore is being recognized
by her peers - the highest form of recognition that an employee can
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 75
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 2 of 14
receive, and that she supports over 135 Public Works Operations
employees.
2. Proclamation for Music4Life Month
Mayor Ralph presented Linda MacIntosh, from the Kent Arts Commission and
Marge and Harry Williams and Hira Singh Bhueller from the Kent Rotary with
the Music4Life Proclamation. McIntosh provided details regarding the
program.
3. Proclamation for Affordable Housing Week
Mayor Ralph read the Proclamation for Affordable Housing Week.
4. Proclamation for National Police Week
Mayor Ralph presented Chief Rafael Padilla with the Proclamation for National
Police Week. Chief Padilla expressed his appreciation of the proclamation and
indicated that next week is a week set aside by the nation for law
enforcement offices to gather and participate in planned events which honor
those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Chief Padilla indicated a group
from the Kent Police Department will attend events that will honor Officer
Moreno and Detective Focht.
Chief Padilla expressed his appreciation of the public’s support of the Kent
Police Department. Chief Padilla thanked his officers for putting people first,
valuing people and valuing the mission. Chief Padilla indicated that he is
proud of the Kent Police Officers and that they are the finest officers in the
country.
Mayor Ralph indicated how important it is to recognize the sacrifices our
officers make to protect the community.
B. Community Events
Boyce advised of past and upcoming events at the accesso ShoWare Center,
including upcoming graduations.
Councilmember Kaur invited the public to attend the Kent International
Festival on May 18th at the accesso ShoWare Center. The Festival is a
celebration of cultural diversity. The event is free.
Kaur expressed her appreciation of the Kent Police Department’s work to
make the Khalsa Day celebration and parade on May 4th a safe and fun
event for the public.
Councilmember Fincher invited the public to attend the Fishing
Experience, hosted by the rotary Club of Kent and City of Kent Parks
Department that will be held on May 18th at the Old Fishing Hole near
Riverbend Golf Course.
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 76
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 3 of 14
5. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, COUNCIL, AND STAFF
Mayor Ralph advised that Sound Transit is in the process of selecting a site
for the Operations and Maintenance Facility. One of the six sites is the Kent
transit-oriented-development site, commonly known as the Lowe’s/Dick’s
site. Kent does not believe the Operations and Maintenance Facility fits in
Kent or in Sound Transit’s plan. The City has been working with the Sound
Transit Board and public to have the Lowe’s/Dick’s site removed from the list.
Sound Transit’s board will make their final decision on May 23rd.
Council President Boyce provided a review of the two workshop presentations
from tonight that included the 2018 Financial Wrap up and 2019 Traffic
Sustainability.
Boyce serves on the Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee that
will meet on May 8th.
Councilmember Larimer serves on the Sound Cities Association Advisory
Council on Aging and Disability Services that will meet on May 10th.
Councilmember Troutner serves on the Sound Cities Association Regional
Law, Safety and Justice Committee that will meet on May 23rd.
Councilmember Troutner chairs the City’s Public Safety Committee that will
meet on June 11th.
Councilmember Fincher serves on the Sound Cities Association King
Conservation District Advisory Committee. that will meet on May 15th.
Councilmember Fincher serves on the Sound Cities Association Mental Illness
and Drug Dependency Oversight Committee. During the last meeting there
was a presentation on mental health care for older adults.
Councilmember Fincher serves on the City’s Arts Commission and invited the
public to visit the art gallery in the City’s Centennial Center. Fincher provided
details on the newly installed wraps on traffic controller boxes. Fincher
invited the public to participate in the latest Kent Creates contest
“Awakenings.” The deadline to submit art is June 30th.
Councilmember Higgins serves on the Sound Cities Association Regional
Transit Committee that met on April 2nd and heard presentations on equity
and mobility. Higgins indicated Metro is moving towards electrification of the
bus fleet. Metro is looking for a new bus base in Kent.
Councilmember Higgins chairs the City’s Public Works Committee that met
yesterday. Staff will present a timeline for quiet zone infrastructure during
the May 20th meeting.
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 77
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 4 of 14
Councilmember Kaur serves on the Sound Cities Association Domestic
Violence Initiative Regional Task Force. During the May 2nd meeting, there
was a presentation on how to stop violence before it starts. The presentation
focused on teen dating. The committee is drafting a Proclamation for
Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Councilmember Kaur chairs on the Sound Cities Association Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency Advisory Council that will meet May 8th.
Councilmember Thomas serves on the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
Governance Board that will meet on May 15th at 5:30 at station 78 in
Covington.
Councilmember Thomas chairs the City’s Operations Committee and directed
the public to the minutes of the meeting for details.
A. Chief Administrative Officer Report
Chief Administrative Officer, Derek Matheson conveyed that the City of Kent
will receive an award from the Association of Washington Cities for the DUI
therapeutic court.
Matheson indicated Kent will honor legislators for a successful 2019
legislative session. The City had five primary goals, and all were
accomplished with the support of legislators.
The Chief Administrative Officer’s report is in today’s agenda packet and
there is no executive session in tonight’s meeting.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Trucking-Intensive Land Uses Interim Zoning Ordinance -
Public Hearing
Mayor Ralph provided a brief background of the interim zoning ordinance No.
4320 that was passed on April 2, 2019.
• This interim zoning ordinance limits the size of new construction in the
M1 and M1-C zoning districts, and regulates development in those zones via
a “dock-high door” ratio to preclude the development of the most trucking-
intensive building types.
• The ordinance also directs staff to conduct a work plan which includes
the study and completion of a comprehensive subarea plan for the
manufacturing and industrial area of the valley.
• The ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote of the Council as an
emergency ordinance and became effective immediately.
• In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held regarding
an interim zoning ordinance within 60 days of its passage.
• At the last Council meeting, the Council set today as the day for the
public hearing.
• This is a public hearing. There will be a presentation by staff, and
afterwards, the public will be permitted to provide comment and testimony.
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 78
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 5 of 14
If any member of the public wishes to testify on this matter, please sign up
with the Clerk at the front table.
Mayor Ralph opened the public hearing for the Trucking-Intensive Land Uses
Interim Zoning Ordinance and called for the staff presentation.
• Hayley Bonsteel, Senior Long-Range Planner from the Economic and
Community Development Department gave brief presentation.
Bonsteel provided a review of the same presentation from the April 2, 2019
City Council meeting.
What we know:
• Trucking-intensive land uses such as warehousing and distribution
have significant impacts to city infrastructure
• Costs borne by city post-SST
• The Kent Industrial Valley is highly desirable for this type of land use
What we don’t know:
• Best way to regulate trucking-intensive land uses - that’s what work
plan is for. Need more information to properly assess.
General principles that we know:
• Diversification is good
• Overspecialized buildings types can become a problem if the market or
the sales tax structure changes
Details Ordinance No. 4320:
• M1, M1C
• Dock high doors - as proxy for trucking activity
• Square footage - as combo of trucking and size is the real issue
• This amendment is in place for one year and is related to the Rally the
Valley Subarea Plan
Why M1/M1C?
• City has assets in M1 and M1C zones - Existing office buildings. Want
to protect assets during planning process.
• High opportunity as compared to M2 and M3, which are generally
already built out with warehouse.
Why this approach?
• Trying to cast just the right size net to pause large footprint
warehouses without impacting manufacturing
How it applies
• New construction and expansions (but new expansion is counted on its
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 79
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 6 of 14
own, not including existing square footage)
• If uses need to be rebuilt, that is grandfathered
• Does not regulate the use out of the zone - so existing uses are
unaffected
Rally the Valley work plan
· More than land use
· Programs, policies, partnerships, financial tools and fee structures
• Maximizing economic potential of the Kent Industrial Valley
• Unlikely to prohibit these types of uses, but need to figure out how to
regulate them
• Policy changes based on true understanding of the costs of different
use types
• More nuanced and thoughtful regulation - taking into account different
classifications within industrial real estate products and their ability to meet
different demands
• Making it a great place for industrial workers. Industrial jobs are a part
of our past, present and future and we need to support our existing uses by
this pause that helps preserve our ability to plan.
Until Rally the Valley is complete, we cannot allow business as usual to
continue in our highest opportunity industrial land that is so in demand right
now. These large footprint uses that basically pass boxes through from one
truck to another could continue developing at a pace that makes policy work
moot.
Bonsteel confirmed that this Ordinance is only about new construction for the
next year.
Bonsteel provided details regarding the impact of the change from origin-
based to destination-based streamlined sales tax distribution. Kent is
currently losing approximately $13 million per year.
Fincher pointed out that the loss of streamline sales tax has impacted the
funds used used to pay for police response, roads, emergency services and
utilities.
Public Hearing Speakers:
Commissioner Peter Steinbrueck, Seattle Port Commissioner, Managing
partner member of the Northwest Seaport Alliance and member of the
Growth Management Planning Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council
representing five regional ports. Steinbrueck appreciates the short and long
term financial concerns of the City of Kent that have resulted from the
streamline sales tax changes. The Northwest Seaport Alliance and both ports
have lobbied hard to maintain existing sales tax backfill funds from the
legislature.
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 80
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 7 of 14
Steinbrueck is concerned that the interim land use restrictions on industrial
lands run contrary to meeting the region's long-term lands needs. The Port is
open to finding constructive approaches to addressing City's long-term
sustainable revenue needs with all available revenues. Concerns were
expressed regarding the one-year restriction - it could hamper near-term
options for importers. Steinbrueck is also concerned this ordinance sets
potential poor precinct for other jurisdictions to follow.
Steinbrueck detailed the Port of Seattle's investment to improve freight
mobility in Kent. The Northwest Seaport Alliance appreciates the City's
concerns over ongoing revenues. The land use changes in curtailing
warehouse logistics uses in the Kent Industrial Valley are not the only or the
best way to address this challenge. Steinbrueck suggested revenue options
that included LIDs and a Transportation Benefit District.
Steinbrueck looks forward to robust dialogue with the Mayor and Council.
Mike Pruett, a Renton resident with Segale Properties spoke in opposition to
the ordinance. Pruett indicated Segale is the most impacted property owner
by the interim land use ordinance. Pruett provided details regarding Segale's
Pacific Gateway properties. There are two properties left to develop - one is a
10.25-acre site that has a complete set of plans ready to submit to the City.
Segale has been in discussion with multiple developers on the second parcel,
a 38-acre site. Segale has millions invested in the properties.
Pruett has met with the Mayor, Council President Boyce and City staff to
discuss this ordinance and were invited to Rally the Valley advisory
committee. During that first meeting, the planners and consultants presented
three potential visions introducing mixed use development into the industrial
area. The advisory committee did not give a lot of positive feedback to
visions. There was no support of introducing multi-family potential uses into
the industrial area.
Pruett believes the interim ordinance should be lifted. He wants the Rally the
Valley process to continue, but believes it needs to be focused where mixed
use development is more appropriate and has a better chance of occurring.
This is a very important industrial distribution area - a huge economic engine
for the region. Kent should look at a user fee to address impacts.
Pruett (Segale Properties) submitted a letter dated May 7, 2019 RE: Interim
Zoning Ordinance No 4320 and "Rally the Valley" Planning Process to be
made a part of the record.
Bonsteel indicated that Kent does not currently have a specific vision of
mixed uses in the industrial valley. Rally the Valley will address identifying
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 81
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 8 of 14
mixed uses in the industrial valley.
Nancy Rogers, a Mercer Island resident, is a land use attorney with
Cairncross & Hempelmann and is speaking on behalf of Segale Properties.
Rogers requested Council take action to repeal the interim ordinance. The
Rally the Valley planning process is a good idea and should continue, but
sees no reason for the ordinance to stay in effect. It is effectively a
moratorium on industrial distribution warehouses. Removing the moratorium
will allow the City to continue to plan without any major negative impacts on
industrial lands.
Rogers indicated the vast majority of industrial lands are already developed.
Kent serves an important role in providing industrial distribution. The
buildout of Segale's two parcels, which are negatively impacted by the zoning
ordinance, would represent less than 1% of the existing Kent Valley total.
Kent should repeal the ordinance and continue planning on the process to
help encourage as redevelopment occurs.
The moratorium is legally vulnerable, the way that it is being adopted, it
targets Segale and REI and is effectively leading towards a "spot zone" that
is illegal in the State of Washington. The ordinance was adopted for an
entire year, rather than a six month period. You are entitled to do that
under state law if you have a work plan. Rogers indicated the Rally the
Valley process, that is stated to be a work plan, does not meet the
requirement.
Rogers requested the Council repeal the interim zoning regulations tonight,
continue the Rally the Valley process, and continue to work with the
community, local government, industrial owners/operators to address
revenue issues.
Rogers (Cairncross & Hempelmann) submitted a letter dated May 7, 2019
RE: Request to Repeal Ord. No. 4320, Interim Zoning and Moratorium to be
made a part of the record.
Andera Reay, a resident of Burien, and president and CEO of the Seattle
Southside Chamber of Commerce, expressed hope that as Kent continues to
examine and study land goals, issues and constraints, that it consider the
Chamber a partner in finding complex solutions.
John Naylor, President of Western Distribution Services and current chairman
of the Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce, spoke as the CEO of
Western Distribution. Naylor indicated he has reduced his presence in Kent
due to increased B&O taxes and will be moving out of Kent.
John Pietromoraco, a resident of Mercer Island and owner of Pietromoraco
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 82
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 9 of 14
Properties, indicated he owns property in Kent. Pietromoraco spoke on behalf
of NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association.
Pietromoraco requested Council Repeal the interim zoning regulations of
Ordinance No. 4320, Continue the Rally the Valley planning process, and
work with industry and land owners to explore direct solutions to fund road
maintenance in the City's industrial areas.
Pietromoraco submitted a letter dated May 7, 2019 from NAIOP Commercial
Real Estate Development Association to be made a part of the record.
Mayor Ralph indicated that no industrial jobs will be going away in the valley
as a result of the planning process.
Virginia Micholson, a Seattle resident and land use attorney representing a
land owner in the Kent valley, indicated her client will be negatively impacted
by this ordinance. Micholson requested the Council repeal the moratorium
and to continue to work with industry, the community and individual land
owners to come up with a better solution.
Mayor Ralph indicated there is not a moratorium in place, this is an interim
zoning ordinance that will allow the City to continue with the planning
process.
Timothy Peterson, a Kent resident, indicated wages have not kept up with
the price of housing and the tax revenue from the state is not taking care of
our City. Kent can't afford to pay for police to protect property. Petersen
expressed appreciation of the Council for continuing to take care of the
residents of Kent. Everyone needs to work together to come up with
solutions to find ways to pay for services.
Boyce indicated he chairs the City's Economic and Community Development
Committee and has served on it for eight years. Boyce indicated that revenue
is generated through business and he is pro-business. Boyce indicated the
City needed to introduce B&O taxes and then increase them. Boyce indicated
the City must be run like a business. Warehouses have been very good to the
City of Kent, but since the state changed the distribution of sales tax, the
City has had to make changes to its business model.
Boyce provided details regarding current and future streamlined sales tax
mitigation funds that will be received by the City.
Boyce indicated we will not lose warehouse jobs and need to plan what the
new warehouses will look like and make adjustments. Boyce asked the public
to be patient and work with us as we move forward.
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 83
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 10 of 14
Larimer indicated this ordinance is about Kent's future and residents. The
City needs to take the time to make the right decisions on development.
Thomas expressed his desire to have the businesses and staff work together.
Mayor Ralph summed up action taken and expressed her support for Council
action. Mayor Ralph reiterated that this ordinance only affects the M1 and
M1C zones and it is not changing underlying zoning of existing buildings. The
City needs to figure out how to support infrastructure.
Mayor Ralph agrees that time is an issue. This conversation should have
taken place 10 years ago. There is no plan to make the Kent valley a Kent
Station or Auburn Supermall - there will not be radical changes. The City
needs to consider introducing retail or commercial uses in various locations
that will help double the revenue to Kent which will allow us to provide parks,
road infrastructure and police services.
This interim zoning ordinance will push the pause button to allow for a
planning process.
Mayor Ralph is willing to meet with anyone who wishes to be a part of the
conversation. We need to take care of the city of Kent. Kent has lost $13 - 14
million per year in streamlined sales tax.
Mayor Ralph hopes to have a high-level recommendation by September for
comment.
Council President Boyce requested the committee to be efficient, but move
fast.
MOTION: (no action required)
B. Accept the documents submitted during the public hearing to be made
a part of the record
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Boyce, Council President
SECONDER: Les Thomas, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
C. Close the Public Hearing
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 84
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 11 of 14
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Boyce, Council President
SECONDER: Les Thomas, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Cheryl DeBruler, a resident of the Shadow Run neighborhood spoke in
opposition of the residential parking zone in their neighborhood. There are
exisiting no parking zones in neighborhood. DeBruler requested the City not
move forward with residential parking zone in Shadow Run
Kristine Dillon, a resident of Shadow Run development for 18 years.
Safety is an issue in the Shadow Run and Glencarin n eighborhoods. She
was unaware that the no parking signs were not enforceable. Dillon
requested the City enforce the no parking signs.
Russ Hanscom, a Kent resident, expressed his appreciation of the past
work of Councilmember Fincher. Hanscom also expressed his appreciation
of the council members serving the residents of Kent. Hanscom requested
the City program the traffic signals near the railroad crossing gates to
have a red light when the crossing gates are down, and then a green light
for a couple of cycles when the crossing gates are up.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Higgins spoke regarding Consent item D "Ordinance
Amending Chapter 9.38 of the Kent City Code - Mill Creek and Kentridge
Residential Parking, and indicated that passing this ordinance, after many
months of debate, does not mean we can't continue to improve what is
passed. Higgins will look into addressing concerns raised tonight.
Mayor Ralph indicated that the public should continue to communicate
with the Council and Public Works Committee. She wants this program to
work for the neighborhoods.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bill Boyce, Council President
SECONDER: Les Thomas, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
A. Approval of Minutes
1. Council Workshop - Workshop Regular Meeting - Apr 16, 2019 5:00 PM
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 85
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 12 of 14
2. City Council Meeting - City Council Regular Meeting - Apr 16, 2019
7:00 PM
B. Consultant Services Agreement with Otak, Inc. for Summit
Landsburg Road and Rock Creek Culvert Replacement Project -
Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services
Agreement with Otak, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $63,450
for preliminary design of the Summit Landsburg Road Culvert
Replacement at Rock Creek, subject to final terms and
conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Director.
C. Consultant Services Agreement with Natural Systems Design,
Inc. for Mitigation Design for the Mill Creek - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services
Agreement with Natural Systems Design, Inc. in an amount not
to exceed $92,495.00, for the design of Mill Creek
Reestablishment Project mitigation plans subject to final terms
and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public
Works Director.
D. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.38 of the Kent City Code - Mill
Creek and Kentridge Residential Parking Zones - Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 4322, which amends chapter
9.38 of the Kent City Code to add additional parking restrictions
in specified locations and to establish residential parking zones
in the Mill Creek Neighborhood and in the north sections of the
Glencarin Division 1, Shadow Run, and Jason Lane
neighborhoods.
E. Set May 21, 2019 for the Public Hearing on the 2020-2025
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) - Authorize
MOTION: Set May 21, 2019 as the public hearing date to
consider adoption of the 2020-2025 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program.
F. 2014 Third Quarter Fee In Lieu Funds Re-allocation - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the reallocation of $20,550.00 of fee-in-lieu
funds dedicated to Springwood Park and Lake Meridian Park,
amend the Community Parks Reinvestment Program budget,
and authorize the future expenditure of these same funds for
capital improvements at Meridian Glen Park.
G. Terreno Valley Corporate Ground Lease - Authorize
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 86
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 13 of 14
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Ground Lease with
Terreno Valley Corporate in the amount of $30,577.27 per year
for five years, for parking and storage, subject to final terms
and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Parks
Director.
H. Tenant Name Change for Restaurant Space at Riverbend Golf
Complex – Authorize
MOTION: Ratify the execution of the Riverbend Golf Complex
Restaurant Lease Agreement with Half Lion Public House LLC
signed by the Mayor on February 22, 2019, and any subsequent
actions taken to date in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Lease Agreement.
I. 4th Avenue and Meeker Street Complete Streets Project-
Accept as Complete - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the 4th Avenue and
Meeker Street Complete Streets Project as complete and
release retainage to R.W. Scott Construction Co., upon receipt
of standard releases from the State and the release of any
liens.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
None
10. BIDS
A. 2019 Crack Sealing - Award
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director provided details regarding the 2019 Crack
Sealing Bid.
MOTION: Award the 2019 Crack Sealing Project to Huizenga
Enterprises, LLC in the amount of $168,736.66 and authorize
the Mayor to sign all necessary documents, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public
Works Director.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dennis Higgins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Brenda Fincher, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
B. Downey Farmstead Restoration Phase 2 – Frager Road
Realignment and Contaminated Soil Removal - Award
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 87
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
Kent City Council City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes
May 7, 2019
Kent, Washington
Page 14 of 14
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director provided details regarding the Downey
Farmstead Restoration Phase 2 - Frager Road Realignment and Contaminated
Soil Removal Bid.
MOTION: Award the Downey Farmstead Restoration Phase 2 -
Frager Road Realignment and Contaminated Soil Removal
Project to Scarsella Bros., Inc. in the amount of $691,311.50
and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City
Attorney and Public Works Director.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dennis Higgins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Toni Troutner, Councilmember
AYES: Troutner, Larimer, Boyce, Kaur, Higgins, Thomas, Fincher
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting ended at 8:33 p.m.
Kimberley A. Komoto
City Clerk
8.A.2
Packet Pg. 88
Mi
n
u
t
e
s
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
M
a
y
7
,
2
0
1
9
7
:
0
0
P
M
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Payment of Bills
MOTION: Approve the payment of bills received through March 31, 2019
and paid on March 31, 2019, and bills received through April 15, 2019 and
paid on April 15, 2019, approve the checks issued for payroll March 16,
2019 through March 31, 2019 and April 1, 2019 through April 15, 2019,
and audited by the Operations Committee on May 7, 2019.
8.B
Packet Pg. 89
Audited by the Operations Committee on -- 5/7/2019
Approval of payment of the bills received through-----03/31/19
and paid 03/31/19
Approval of checks issued for Vouchers:
Date Amount
03/31/19 Wire Transfers 7845 7859 $1,912,166.34
03/31/19 Regular Checks 733319 733821 $5,727,968.72
03/31/19 Payment Plus 101313 101335 $77,167.41
Void Checks ($12,800.00)
03/31/19 Use Tax Payable $607.51
$7,705,109.98
Approval of payment of the bills received through-----04/15/19
and paid 04/15/19 .
Approval of checks issued for Vouchers:
Date Amount
04/15/19 Wire Transfers 7860 7877 $2,259,825.68
04/15/19 Regular Checks 733822 734272 $3,540,670.88
04/15/19 Payment +101336 101357 $87,443.29
Void Checks ($6,310.93)
04/15/19 Use Tax Payable $5,692.32
$5,887,321.24
Approval of checks issued for Payroll:3/16/19-3/31/19
and paid 4/5/2019
Date Amount
4/5/2019 Checks 0
Voids and Reissues
4/5/2019 Advices 426937 427824 $1,824,437.68
$1,824,437.68
Approval of checks issued for Payroll:4/1/19-4/15/19
and paid 4/19/2019
Date Amount
4/19/2019 Checks $0.00
Voids and Reissues
4/19/2019 Advices 427825 428725 $1,814,953.66
$1,814,953.66
Document Numbers
Document Numbers
Document Numbers
Document Numbers
8.B
Packet Pg. 90
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Appoint Greg Haffner to the Public Facilities District Board
MOTION: Authorize the appointment of Greg Haffner to fill the recently
vacated Position Number 2 of the Public Facilities District Board, for the
remainder of the 4-year term that will expire on August 31, 2021.
SUMMARY:
On March 15, 2019, Chair Mike Miller resigned his position No. 2 on the Public
Facilities District Board. Section 6.3 of the board’s bylaws requires vacancies to be
filled by appointment of the City Council.
Mayor Ralph and staff worked with Council President Boyce to find a qualified
candidate to fill the vacancy.
Greg Haffner is a long-time resident of Kent and supporter of City activities. Greg is
an attorney at the Curran Law firm, is a past president of the Kent Downtown
Partnership, and is a current member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. Greg and
his wife Debbie are avid Thunderbird fans and attend more events at Showare
Center than almost anyone else. Greg will be a welcome addition to the Public
Facilities District Board.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Innovative Government
05/13/19 Economic and Community Development Committee
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES: Bill Boyce, Satwinder Kaur, Marli Larimer
8.C
Packet Pg. 91
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Kent Airport Levee Grant - King County Flood Control
District Subregional Opportunity Fund - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept funds from the King County Flood
Control District Subregional Opportunity Fund in the amount of $188,090
for the Kent Airport Levee project, to establish a budget, and authorize
expenditure of funds in accordance with the grant terms and conditions,
acceptable to the Public Works Director and City Attorney.
SUMMARY: The King County Flood Control District collects an annual levy from
properties within King County. Ten percent of the levy collected within each
jurisdiction is granted back to the jurisdiction to be used for stormwater or habitat
projects through the District’s Subregional Opportunity Fund.
The Kent Airport Levee is a levee on the left bank (south side) of the Green River,
located between SR 167 to the west, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the
east. The levee protects large businesses in manufacturing, warehouse distribution,
transportation, freight, auto, and railroad industries. The levee needs to be repaired
as it currently does not meet FEMA accreditation standards for flood protection.
In late 2018, the City requested its allocation of the District Opportunity Fund to be
directed to the Kent Airport Levee, in the amount of $188,090. This project was
chosen for this grant program following internal review by City staff.
The funds will be used to secure property along the river to construct the levee, and
to prepare preliminary designs. Approval is needed by the City Council to accept
these funds for the project and establish a budget.
BUDGET IMPACT: Budget will be established.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City
ATTACHMENTS:
1. King Co 2019 Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Project Application (PDF)
8.D
Packet Pg. 92
05/06/19 Public Works Committee RECOMMENDED TO
COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Brenda Fincher, Councilmember
SECONDER: Toni Troutner, Councilmember
AYES: Dennis Higgins, Brenda Fincher, Toni Troutner
8.D
Packet Pg. 93
1
King County Flood Control District
2019 Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Application Packet
The King County Flood Control District (District) has allocated a portion of the Flood District's levy
proceeds for a Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund. This fund is made available to jurisdictions throughout
the District on a proportional basis, based on assessed valuation. Eligible activities include flood control
and stormwater improvements, as well as watershed management activities such as habitat
conservation.
I.Opportunity Fund Allocation
The Opportunity Fund for 2018 is estimated to be $5,941,000; however, the final amount of funding
will be determined when the District’s Board of Supervisors approves the 2019 levy amount for the
District in November of this year. Table 1 shows the allocation of these funds among the 40
jurisdictions in King County as of July 25, 2018. These allocations will be revised when the Board of
Supervisors approves the 2019 Work Plan, also in November 2018.
A jurisdiction can apply for one or more projects up to its allocated amount including any unused
balance from prior years.
II.Criteria for Eligible Projects and Activities
The Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund can be used for flood control, stormwater control, and
cooperative watershed management projects. Salmon habitat protection projects must be linked to
the construction of a flood or stormwater project as follows:
1.Flood control improvements may be extended, enlarged, acquired or constructed, provided a
comprehensive plan of development for flood control has been developed and the improvement
contributes to the objectives of that plan and the plan has been submitted to and approved by
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
2.Stormwater control improvements may be extended, enlarged, acquired or constructed,
provided a comprehensive plan for stormwater control has been prepared for the area and the
improvement is consistent with the stormwater plan.
3.Watershed management projects identified in watershed management partnerships or other
intergovernmental agreements for the purposes of water supply, water quality, and water
resource and habitat protection and management. Projects in this category that consist of
salmon habitat protection must demonstrate a link to flooding or stormwater projects. This third
category includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a.Watershed plans developed under chapter 90.82 RCW;
b.Salmon recovery plans developed under chapter 77.85 RCW;
c.Watershed management elements of comprehensive land use plans developed under the
Growth Management Act under chapter 36.70A RCW;
d.Watershed management elements of shoreline master programs developed under the
Shoreline Management Act, chapter 90.58 RCW;
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
2
e.Nonpoint pollution action plans developed under the Puget Sound water quality
management planning authorities of chapter 90.71 RCW and chapter 400-12 WAC;
f.Other comprehensive management plans addressing watershed health at a Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) level or sub-WRIA basin level;
g.Coordinated water system plans under chapter 70.116 RCW and similar regional plans for
water supply; and
h.Any combination of the foregoing plans in an integrated watershed management plan.
In Categories 1 and 2 above, construction improvements require the development of preliminary
engineering studies and plans, and such studies and plans must be on file with the King County
River and Floodplain Management Section, serving as a service provider to the District. For all
projects, cost estimates and underlying data must be provided, and the benefit provided by the
improvement must be described.
III.Approval Process
Upon timely submittal of an application it will be reviewed for completeness and for meeting the
eligibility criteria. Eligible projects will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval in
November 2018.
IV.Timeline
All projects must be completed within two years after their commencement date which is the
starting date entered in the application. If a project will not be completed within the allowable
timeframe, the jurisdiction can request an amendment for unforeseen reasons. Any remaining
balance will be added to any unspent balance.
V.Advances, reimbursement and reporting
A jurisdiction can request a 10 percent advance from its Opportunity Fund allocation. The request
should be in the form of a letter that explicitly states the amount of funds being requested, which
cannot exceed 10 percent of the jurisdiction’s annual allocation. All remaining funds shall be issued
on a reimbursement basis following a jurisdiction’s submittal of an invoice.
Jurisdictions are required to provide the District with semiannual progress reports updating the
status of projects, as well as a final report, which shall be provided within 90 days of project
completion. Semiannual progress reports are due by June 30 and December 31 of each year.
VI.Options for Leveraging Opportunity Fund Dollars
A jurisdiction has the option of accumulating funds over more than one year, allocating its
Opportunity Fund balances to an existing project on the District’s six-year Capital Improvement
Project list, or using the Opportunity Fund as a match for either multi-jurisdictional projects or for
grant opportunities pursued by that jurisdictions as long as the funds will be expended within two
years after the commencement date of any project.
Multi-Jurisdictional Projects
As many flooding and drainage problems cross jurisdictional boundaries, jurisdictions are
encouraged to consider partnering with each other to address shared stormwater and drainage
problems. Doing so offers the opportunity to accomplish a larger scale project than may be possible
if operating independently. For example, lakefront jurisdictions may consider combining funds to
pursue a common objective, such as reducing the amount of stormwater runoff into urban lakes.
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
3
Grant Matching Opportunities
The Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund can also serve as a match for other grants compatible with the
criteria for eligible projects. Below are some statewide and local funding sources. Note that some
programs may not be available in a given year. The links will access current information concerning
these grant opportunities.
The Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
www.rco.wa.gov/grants/esrp.shtml
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
www.rco.wa.gov/grants/salmon.shtml
The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
www.rco.wa.gov/grants/wwrp.shtml
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
www.rco.wa.gov/grants/alea.shtml
Ecology Water Quality Grants
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/funding.html
VII. Application Procedure and Instructions
Each jurisdiction must complete the accompanying application form and return it no later than
October 8, 2018. The application will expand beyond one page as text is entered into the response
fields, but the fields do contain word limits.
Save the document to your computer and fill out the form electronically, returning the electronic
version of the completed application via email to the address listed below. Also, you are
encouraged to contact King County to discuss project ideas prior to submitting your application.
Should you have interest in discussing possible projects or if you have other questions or concerns
about this application, please contact Kim Harper at 206-477-6079 or
Kim.harper@kingcounty.gov.
If you are not proposing a new project for this year, complete the upper portion of page 1 of
the application and return it as instructed above.
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
4
Table 1.
Draft 2019 Allocations for the King County Flood Control District
Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund
This allocation will be revised when the King County Flood Control District
Board of Supervisors approves the 2019 Work Plan in November 2018.
Jurisdiction Opportunity Fund
Allocation
Algona $10,000
Auburn $97,372
Beaux Arts $10,000
Bellevue $625,049
Black Diamond $10,000
Bothell $60,834
Burien $71,741
Carnation $10,000
Clyde Hill $29,661
Covington $28,144
Des Moines $40,760
Duvall $13,443
Enumclaw $15,567
Federal Way $119,947
Hunts Point $13,563
Issaquah $113,590
Kenmore $49,676
Kent $197,147
King County $505,054
Kirkland $286,089
Lake Forest Park $34,271
Maple Valley $42,231
Medina $47,326
Mercer Island $157,668
Milton $10,000
Newcastle $34,487
Normandy Park $18,749
North Bend $14,871
Pacific $10,000
Redmond $219,107
Renton $184,301
Sammamish $188,228
SeaTac $39,998
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
5
Jurisdiction Opportunity Fund
Allocation
Seattle $2,359,843
Shoreline $114,966
Skykomish $10,000
Snoqualmie $30,883
Tukwila $62,215
Woodinville $39,964
Yarrow Point $14,272
City Totals $5,941,017
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
1
ATTACHMENT A
King County Water and Land Resources Division
River and Floodplain Management
2019 Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Project Application
Application Due Date: October 8, 2018
Jurisdiction:
Do you wish to forego the receipt of your Opportunity Fund allocation this year, allowing it to accrue for
a future year? Yes No
Would you prefer to apply your Opportunity Funds toward an existing project on the District’s 6-year
CIP? No Yes Project name
Location
If you are deferring use of these funds for a future year, do you have a specific project that you are
saving up for? Yes No
If yes, give the project name and estimated cost and timeline:
APPLICANT NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE: E-MAIL:
If you answered “Yes” to either of the first two questions above, stop here and submit this form.
SCOPE OF WORK
(Please complete only one application per project.)
PROJECT TITLE: SROF REQUEST: $
1) Short description of proposed project:
Project start date Project end date
2) Type of
Activity:
Feasibility
Study
Project
Design
Project
Construction
Property Acquisition
Programmatic – identify:
Other – identify:
3) Proposed project location and related body of water:
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
7
4)Description of the flooding, stormwater, or linked watershed management problem that this project or
activity will address (300 words maximum):
5)Description of how the proposed activity will address the problem outlined in Question #4, above
(300 words maximum):
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
8
6) Describe how the proposed project or activity satisfies the eligibility criteria for at least one of the
three categories listed in Section II of the Application Packet (Criteria for Eligible Projects and Activities)
(300 words maximum):
7)Identify the management plan (i.e. flood control, stormwater control, or watershed management) that
includes, recommends, supports, or is consistent with implementation of the project or activity (see
Application Packet for more information):
8. SCOPE ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE
TASK TITLE RELATED ACTIVITY OUTCOME OR DELIVERABLES TIMELINE
Describe the products and means that will
acknowledge the District for its financial contribution
to this project:
9. PROJECT BUDGET
ITEM TOTAL
COST
How was this cost
calculated?
REQUEST
(Amount to be
paid by this
fund)
MATCH SOURCE
OF MATCH
TOTAL
Please disregard below if you are applying for more than one project this year. The figures will be
tabulated separately.
ALLOCATION (from Table 1 in the Application Packet):
Difference between Allocation and Request (Note: This amount may not exceed the balance of allocated funds
that you have selected to defer in prior years):
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
9
For Informational Purposes Only: If you plan to partner with other jurisdictions to conduct a project or
otherwise intend to use your Opportunity Fund allocation to leverage grant funds or other surface water
management funds, please provide us with this information (300 words only):
SIGNATURE
When signed below and adopted by the King County Flood Control District (District) Board of Supervisors, this
Scope of Work is to be added to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and (applicant jurisdiction full name –
e.g. the City of… --Please enter name) the
and incorporated therein and made a part thereof according to the terms and conditions of this Interlocal
Agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGED,
SIGNATURE ________________________________ DATE OF SIGNATURE____________________________
For Internal Use Only
Project eligible and accepted Date:
Project ineligible REASON:
8.D.a
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
2
0
1
9
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
5
9
:
K
e
n
t
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
L
e
v
e
e
G
r
a
n
t
-
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Lake Fenwick Aerator Retrofit Grant – King County
Subregional Opportunity Fund - Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the King County Flood Control
District Subregional Opportunity Fund, in the amount of $190,352, to help
fund a retrofit of the Lake Fenwick Aerator, amend the budget, and
authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms and
conditions acceptable to the Public Works Director and City Attorney.
SUMMARY: The King County Flood Control District collects an annual levy from
properties within King County. Through the District’s Subregional Opportunity Fund,
ten percent of the levy collected within each jurisdiction is granted back to the
jurisdiction to be used for stormwater or habitat projects.
Lake Fenwick is listed on the “303d list” – the nation’s list of impaired waterbodies,
for phosphorus pollution. This excess phosphorus comes from stormwater inputs
from the surrounding Lake Fenwick watershed. A “hypolimnetic aerator” – basically
similar to a large fish-tank bubbler, was installed in the lake in 1994 to help
sequester this phosphorus pollution and reduce the potential for harmful algae
blooms in the lake. This aerator has helped improve Lake Fenwick water quality
conditions for the past 24 years. However, the amount of phosphorus pollution in
the lake has now exceeded the aerator’s capacity.
Staff identified retrofit of the existing aerator as a good fit for the grant allocation.
BUDGET IMPACT: Budget will be established. This grant, along with other grant
funding from the King County Wastewater Treatment Division ($89,000) and in-
kind funds provided by the City of Kent Drainage Utility will fund the full permitting,
design and construction of an upgraded aeration system.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
1. King County 2018 Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Project Application (PDF)
8.E
Packet Pg. 103
05/06/19 Public Works Committee RECOMMENDED TO
COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Toni Troutner, Councilmember
SECONDER: Brenda Fincher, Councilmember
AYES: Dennis Higgins, Brenda Fincher, Toni Troutner
8.E
Packet Pg. 104
KINC COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROLDISTRICT
King County Water and Land Resources Division
River and Floodplain Management
2018 Sub-Regional Opportunity Fund Project Application
Application Due Date: October 19,2()17
Jurisdiction: Kent
Do you wish to forego the recei
a future vear? n Yes
ptx of your Opportunity Fund allocation this year, allowing it to accrue for
No
Would you prefer to
CIP?
apply your Opportunity Funds toward an existing project on the District's 6-year
I Yes Project name Location
Xruo
ATTACHMENT A
APPLICANT CONTACT NAME: Matt Knox
ADDRESS: Engineering Dept., 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032-5895
PHONE: 253-856-5551 E-MAIL: mknox@kentwa.qov
lf you answered "Yes" to either question above, stop here and submit this form.
SCOPE OF WORK
(Please complete only one application per project.)
4) Description of the flooding, stormwater, or linked watershed management problem that this project or
activity will address (300 words maximum):
Phosphorus pollution in stormwater has entered Lake Fenwick from the 563-acre surrounding
urbanized watershed in the past and has tipped this lake towards eutrophic (nutrient-rich) conditions.
Nutrient cycling within the lake now routinely stirs-up phosphorus-rich sediments from the bottom of the
lake causing unsightly and potentially toxic algae blooms. Lake Fenwick was listed on the "303d list",
the nation's list of impaired waterbodies, for phosphorus pollution in 1993. A number of source control
measures have now been enacted and a hypolimnetic aerator (basically a large fish\ank bubbler) was
installed in 1994 to oxygenate the lake and seguesfer excess nutrients. However, seasonal high
phosphorus /evels and algae blooms continue, and the 'TMDL", or total maximum daily load limit for
phosphorus fhaf was established in 1993 is routinely exceeded.
6
PROJECT TITLE: Lake Fenwick Aerator Upgrade SROF REQUEST: $190,255
1) Short description of proposed project:
Upgrade existing hypolimnetic aerator at Lake Fenwick to sequester three times as much phosphorus
pollution and improve lake water quality conditions.
Project start date 21112018 Project end date 1213112019
I Feasibility
Studv
X Project
Desiqn
I Project
Construction
ll Property Acquisition
fl Prosrammatic - identify:
2) Type of
Activity:
l-l otner - identify:
3) Proposed project location and related body of water:
Lake Fenwick Park, Lake Fenwick
8.E.a
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
0
1
8
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
6
0
:
L
a
k
e
F
e
n
w
i
c
k
A
e
r
a
t
o
r
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
G
r
a
n
t
–
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
5) Description of how the proposed activity will address the problem outlined in Question #4, above
(300 words maximum):
Regional lake and water quality experts from Tetra Tech, lnc., under contract with the City of Kent,
have studied this lake and its water quality issues for nearly two decades. They have determined that
the existing hypolimnetic aerator is undersized providing only one third of the oxygen that is needed to
keep the phosphorus pollution from entering Lake Fenwick's water column. Funding from this program
will help complete design and construction of an upgraded hypolimnetic aerator designed to meet
current and future oxygen demand in the lake. Operation of this upgraded aerator will reduce available
phosphorus in the lake and, in-turn, reduce unsightlv and potentiallv hazardous algae blooms.
6) Describe how the proposed project or activity satisfies the eligibility criteria for at least one of the
three categories listed in Section ll of the Application Packet (Criteria for Eligible Projects and Activities)
(300 words maximum):
The Lake Fenwick Aerator Retrofit project saflsfles the "Stormwater control improvements" (criteria #2)
criteria for eligible projects. The City completed a Drainage Master Plan (DMP) in 2008 that
recommended 42 projects needed to reduce flooding and improve the city's drainage and stormwater
system. The upgrade of the Lake Fenwick aerator was identified as one of these projects (Project L-3).
This projecf is consisfent with the goals of the 2017 City of Kent Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP) and the Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.05 and 7.07). Specifically, this project will:
a) Preserue and enhance the suitability of waters for contact recreation and fishing; and b) Preserue
and enhance the aesthetic qualitv of the waters.
7) ldentify the management plan (i.e. flood control, stormwater control, or watershed management) that
includes, recommends, supports, or is consistent with implementation of the project or activity (see
Application Packet for more information):
See fhe citations above from the DMP, SWMP and KCC. ln addition, Lake Fenwick was identified as a
Shoreline of State-wide Significance in the 2009 City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This
water quality improvement projectis consisfent with the goals of the SMP and the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.020). Also, see fhe enclosed Lake Fenwick Hypolimnetic Aerator
Retrofit Conceptual Desiqn Report ffetra Tech 2010.
8. SCOPE ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE
TASK TITLE RELATED ACTIVITY OUTCOME OR DELIVERABLES TIMELINE
60% & 100%
Aerator
Desiqn
Plans and specifications to
construct new aerator
2/1 -
B/31/17
Aerator
permittinq
SEPA, HPA and SMP Permits 4/30/17 -
3/31/18
Construction
bidding
Lowest responsible bidder chosen
for co n struction contract
4/15/18
Aerator
Construction
Completed upgraded hypolimnetic
aeration sysfem
Describe the products and means that will
acknowledge the District for its financial contribution
to this proiect:
Construction sign at site, press
release acknowledging project
and partners
6/30/18
1
8.E.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
0
1
8
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
6
0
:
L
a
k
e
F
e
n
w
i
c
k
A
e
r
a
t
o
r
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
G
r
a
n
t
–
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
9. PROJECT BUDGET
ITEM TOTAL
COST
How was this cost
calculated?
REQUEST
(Amount to be
paid by this
fund)
MATCH SOURCE
OF MATCH
60% & 100% Aerator Design &
Project monitoring
$29,255 Lk Fenwick Design Report
+ CPI & experience
$29,255 KC WTD
Council
Allocated
Funds
Project permitting $5,000 Staff time & permit fees $5,000 Kent Utility
Funds
Construction supervision &
admin
$1 1,500 Lk Fenwick Design Report
+ CPI & experience
$11,500 Kent Utility
Funds
Project Construction $250,000 Lk Fenwick Design Report
+ cPl $190,255 $59,745 KC WTD Council
Allocated Funds
& this fund
TOTAL $190.255 $105.500 .,, Ir.1:l) '','li',
Please disregard below if you are applying for more than one project this year. The figures will be
tabulated separately
ALLOCATION (from Table 1 in the Application Packet):
Difference between Allocation and Requ€St (Note: This amount may not exceed the batance of altocated funds
that you have selected to defer in prior years)l $0
For lnformational Purposes Only: lf you plan to partner with other jurisdictions to conduct a project or
otheruvise intend to use your Opportunity Fund allocation to leverage grant funds or other surface water
management funds, please provide us with this information (300 words only):
Received notice of $89,000 in King County Council Allocated Waterworks Funding for the Lake
Fenwick Aerator Upgrade project in June, 2017. This fund will be used to leverage fhese Waterworks
funds.
SIGNATURE
When signed below and adopted by the King County Flood Control District (District) Board of Supervisors, this
Scope of Work is to be added to th
e.g. the City of... -Please enter name)
e lnterlocal
thereof according to the terms and conditions of this lnterlocal Agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGED,
SIGNATURE DATE OF SIGNATUR
For lnternal Use
District and (applicant jurisdiction full name -
and incorporated therein and made a part
between the
8
190
ll Project eligible and accepted Date
! Project ineligible REASON
8.E.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
0
1
8
S
u
b
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
6
0
:
L
a
k
e
F
e
n
w
i
c
k
A
e
r
a
t
o
r
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
G
r
a
n
t
–
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Ordinance Clarifying the Mayor’s Authority to Accept
Dedications of Property Related to Development Permits -
Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , clarifying the Mayor’s authority
to accept dedications of property related to development permits.
SUMMARY: As a condition of permit approval, the development of private property
often requires the owner to build public infrastructure to ensure adequate facilities
exist to accommodate growth and impacts resulting from the development. Such
infrastructure generally includes new streets, sewers, watermains, stormwater
facilities, and frontage improvements. Typical construction involves building curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks, installing streetlights, manholes, pipes, and valves, as well
as planting street trees and other landscaping. Once a project is completed,
ownership of the infrastructure is generally transferred or dedicated to the City for
it to control and maintain.
As early as 2000, the City Council delegated authority to the Mayor to accept some
types of property interests dedicated to the City as part of development approval.
However, the current language of the Mayor’s authority in KCC 3.70.230(E)(3) can
make it difficult to determine whether the Mayor is authorized to accept a particular
infrastructure improvement. Due to the many individual parts that make up public
infrastructure and the different character of each type of improvement, it can be
challenging in some instances to label or characterize the legal status of the
property that is to be transferred. Depending on the circumstances, infrastructure
may include, or be considered, personal property, real property, a fixture, an
appurtenance, or simply an improvement to real property.
Under the current code language, many dedications of public infrastructure are
brought before Council for acceptance through a Bill of Sale, which provides a
summary of the infrastructure pieces to be transferred, as well as some boilerplate
legal language effectuating the transfer.
Approval of the Bills of Sale is a mostly ministerial act that requires little or no
substantive review, and in order to streamline the process, it is necessary to clarify
and expand the Mayor’s authority to accept the dedication of all types of property
8.F
Packet Pg. 108
interests commonly associated with the construction of public infrastructure as part
of a private development’s permit or regulatory approval.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Clarifying the Mayor’s Authority to Accept Dedications of Property
Related to Development Permits (PDF)
05/07/19 Operations Committee RECOMMENDED TO
COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Dennis Higgins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Bill Boyce, Councilmember
AYES: Les Thomas, Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins
8.F
Packet Pg. 109
1 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending section
3.70.230 of the Kent City Code to clarify and
expand the Mayor’s authority to accept dedications
to the City of all property interests commonly
related to public infrastructure improvements made
as part of private development permit approvals.
RECITALS
A. As a condition of permit approval, the development of private
property often requires the owner to build public infrastructure to ensure
adequate facilities exist to accommodate growth and impacts resulting
from the development.
B. Such public infrastructure generally includes new streets,
sewers, watermains, stormwater facilities, and frontage improvements.
Typical construction involves building curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,
installing streetlights, manholes, pipes, and valves, as well as planting
street trees and other landscaping. Once a project is completed, ownership
of the infrastructure is generally transferred or dedicated to the City for it
to control and maintain.
C. As early as 2000, the City Council delegated authority to the
Mayor to accept some types of property interests dedicated to the City as
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
2 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
part of development approval. However, the current language of the
Mayor’s authority in KCC 3.70.230(E)(3) can make it difficult to determine
whether the Mayor is authorized to accept a particular infrastructure
improvement. Due to the many individual parts that make up public
infrastructure and the different character of each type of improvement, it
can be challenging in some instances to label or characterize the legal
status of the property that is to be transferred. Depending on the
circumstances, infrastructure may include, or be considered, personal
property, real property, a fixture, an appurtenance, or simply an
improvement to real property.
D. Under the current language of KCC 3.70.230, many
dedications of public infrastructure must be brought before Council for
acceptance, a mostly ministerial act requiring little or no substantive
review. In order to streamline the process, it is necessary to clarify and
expand the Mayor’s authority to accept the dedication of all types of
property interests commonly associated with the construction of public
infrastructure as part of a private development’s permit or regulatory
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 3.70.230 of the Kent City Code
entitled “Mayor approval,” is amended as follows:
Sec. 3.70.230. Mayor approval. The mayor has signatory
authority and may approve the following:
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
A. Contracts – Over $20,000. All purchases or work valued at an
amount in excess of $20,000 must be memorialized in a written contract
and signed by the mayor. Any contract valued at an amount of $65,000 or
less may be signed by the mayor without city council approval if funds are
available within the existing budget to pay the associated contract costs.
B. Change orders or contract amendments. The mayor is authorized to
approve and sign change orders or contract amendments that collectively
are within 20 percent or $130,000 of the original contract amount,
including any applicable taxes, whichever amount is greater, if sufficient
funds remain within the existing project or city budget.
C. Grant acceptance, award agreements, bequests, donations, or other
gifts. The mayor is authorized to approve and sign any application
requesting grant funds for various city purposes if the grant application
requires. The mayor may also accept any grant, bequest, donation, or
other gift in the amount of $65,000 or less, and is authorized to sign all
documents necessary to receive the grant, bequest, donation, or other
gift. In determining the total grant, bequest, donation, or gift amount for
application of this section, the cost of any matching funds and the cost of
fulfilling all conditions placed on the city’s acceptance of the grant,
bequest, donation, or gift must be included in the calculation. In order for
the mayor to have the authority granted by this section, any matching
funds required to obtain the grant, bequest, donation, or gift must be
available within the existing budget. Upon the city’s receipt of the grant,
bequest, donation, or other gift funds as provided in this section, the
finance director is authorized to amend the budget and authorize
expenditure of the funds. The finance director may then include these
funds in the budget adjustment ordinance. All reimbursement requests,
vouchers, reports, or certification statements are to be signed by the
director or designee in accordance with KCC 3.70.220(C)(1).
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
4 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
D. Interlocal agreements. The mayor may approve and sign any
agreement between the city and another public agency, including those
entered into under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW,
without council approval, so long as any money that may be paid or
received by the city under the terms of the agreement, or any resources
dedicated by the city to the cooperative effort, does not exceed $65,000,
and any payment or dedicated resource obligation under the agreement
may be paid through the existing budget.
E. Real property interests. The mayor is specifically authorized to do
the following:
1. To acquire and convey rights-of-way and other property
interests by lease or purchase when the city council has dedicated
sufficient funds for the lease or purchase within the existing annual budget
or project budget.
2. To enter into any lease or other agreement conveying an
interest in real property where the total annual amount paid or received
under the agreement, or the total annual fair market value of the real
property interest conferred, is $25,000 or less. However, no authority
delegated under this section shall authorize approval of a lease or other
agreement conveying an interest in real property for a term greater than
two years, including all options to renew, without express approval of the
city council.
3. To accept land, attachments, fixtures, improvements,
appurtenances, and other real or personal property interests that are
dedicated to the city as a condition of a private developer’s development
permit or regulatory approval, or to release the same as part of such
development approval, subject to prior review and approval by the city
attorney.
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
5 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
F. Surplus. Except for real property, or utility equipment and property
as provided for in RCW 35.94.040, as the same may be later amended, or
property that is sold to another governmental entity that is valued over
$50,000 as provided for in RCW 39.33.020, as the same may be later
amended, the mayor, upon a director’s recommendation, is authorized to
surplus equipment or property the mayor determines is surplus to the
city’s needs, and the mayor may sell or otherwise dispose of such
surplused equipment or property for fair market value or as otherwise
allowed by law.
G. Pass-through fee contracts. Service contracts entered into at no or
a nominal cost to the city, but that result in any associated fee or charge
being passed through to a party other than the city, such as an agreement
with a collection company, may be approved and signed by the mayor,
subject to prior review by the city attorney.
H. Emergency. If an emergency exists as provided for in KCC
3.70.110(B), the mayor may sign all documents and take all actions
necessary to address the emergency. If council approval would have been
required by KCC 3.70.240, the city council shall be subsequently notified,
but formal ratification is not required.
I. Collective bargaining agreements. Unless the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement provide otherwise, the mayor is authorized to sign
all agreements, or subsequent amendments to those agreements, with the
city’s bargaining units if the financial impact of the agreement or
amendment is valued at $130,000 or less, and sufficient funds remain in
the city’s budget to cover that financial impact. If the financial impact is
greater than $130,000, or if sufficient funds do not exist within the budget
to cover the financial impact, council authorization must first be obtained
before the mayor is authorized to sign the agreement or amendment.
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
6 Amend KCC 3.70.230 -
Re: Dedication of Infrastructure to City
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
8.F.a
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
a
y
o
r
’
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
o
A
c
c
e
p
t
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
(
1
7
6
6
:
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: First Quarter Supplemental Budget Ordinance - Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , approving the consolidating
budget adjustments made between January 1, 2019 and March 31, 2019,
reflecting an overall budget increase of $12,932,103.
SUMMARY: Authorization is requested to approve the technical gross budget
adjustment ordinance reflecting an overall budget increase of $12,932,103.
Adjustments totaling $6,389,257 have previously been approved by Council and are
summarized as follows:
A total of $5,883,790 in grants:
▪ $3,500,000 TIB Grant for work on the South 228th Street Corridor
▪ $5,240 Criminal Justice WASPC Grant for traffic safety equipment
▪ $2,378,550 from King County for drainage-related watershed projects,
including Downey Farmstead and the Lower Russel Road Levee
$285,867 in carryforward budgets for Parks that were previously authorized in
2018:
▪ $120,500 to complete in-progress contracts for the recreation plan
($93,000) and marketing plan ($27,500).
▪ $165,367 of remaining unspent Human Services Agencies funding, which
will be awarded to qualifying agencies.
Increase the Lodging Tax Fund budget by $219,600 to reflect the 2019 tourism
promotion grants approved by Council on 1/15/2019.
The remaining adjustments totaling $6,542,846 have not been previously
approved by Council. Highlights include:
• $4,573,464 for the use of previously collected Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) monies to help fund the 224th-228th (88th-94th) and LID 363-224th-
228th Corridor (EVH-88th) projects. The first $2,286,732 budgets the
transfer to move the monies out of the TIF fund to the project. The
8.G
Packet Pg. 116
remaining $2,286,732 budgets the expense in the projects
• $1,162,252 use of mitigation contributions for 196th Street-East-
Mitigation, LID 363-224th-228th (EVH-88th), and the 272nd Extension
(KK to 256th) projects
• $765,490 for renovation of the Lake Meridian Restroom using insurance
reimbursements
• $38,920 for 2019 Principal & Interest payments on the City’s new
Excavator lease
• $2,720 true-up on the Housing & Community Development Fund’s 2019
Community Development Block Grants to match the actual amount
awarded.
BUDGET IMPACT: These expenditures are funded by grants, existing fund
balance, or other new revenues.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Consolidating Budget Adjustment Ordinance - First Quarter 2019 (PDF)
05/07/19 Operations Committee RECOMMENDED TO
COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Bill Boyce, Councilmember
SECONDER: Dennis Higgins, Councilmember
AYES: Les Thomas, Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins
8.G
Packet Pg. 117
1 2019-2020 Budget Adjustment
First Quarter 2019
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, approving the
consolidating budget adjustments made between
January 1, 2019 and March 31, 2019, reflecting an
overall budget increase of $12,932,103.
RECITALS
A. Expenditures as classified in the final, adopted budget
constitute the city’s appropriations for that year. After adoption, there are
a variety of events that will precipitate the need to amend the adopted
budget, such as grant awards, bonds issuance, collective bargaining
agreements and additional budget requests coming through Council
committees. These modifications are periodically consolidated into a
supplemental budget adjustment ordinance amending the original adopted
budget.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Budget Adjustments. The 2019-2020 biennial
budget is amended to include budget fund adjustments for the first quarter
of 2019 from January 1 to March 31, 2019, as summarized and set forth in
Exhibit “A,” which is attached and incorporated into this ordinance. Except
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
-
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
9
(
1
7
6
7
:
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
2 2019-2020 Budget Adjustment
First Quarter 2019
as amended by this ordinance, all terms and provisions of the 2019-2020
biennial budget Ordinance No. 4296 shall remain unchanged.
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force five days after publication, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
-
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
9
(
1
7
6
7
:
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
Fund Title Previously
Approved
Approval
Requested
Total
Adjustment
Ordinance
General Fund 285,867 - 285,867
Street Fund - 2,286,732 2,286,732
Lodging Tax Fund 219,600 - 219,600
Criminal Justice Fund 5,240 - 5,240
Housing & Community Development Fund - 2,720 2,720
Non-Voted Debt Service Fund - 38,920 38,920
Street Capital Projects 3,500,000 3,448,984 6,948,984
Drainage Operating Fund 2,378,550 - 2,378,550
Insurance Funds - 765,490 765,490
Total 6,389,257 6,542,846 12,932,103
- - -
Exhibit A
City of Kent
Budget Adjustment Ordinance
Adjustments January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2019
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
-
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
9
(
1
7
6
7
:
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
Approval
Date or
Other Fund
Previously
Approved by
Council
Not Previously
Approved by
Council
Total
Adjustment
Ordinance
General Fund
Carryover Budget -Parks 2018 285,867 285,867
Total General Fund 285,867 - 285,867
Street Fund
Transfer TIF monies to 224th-228th Corridor project 2,286,732 2,286,732
Total Street Fund - 2,286,732 2,286,732
Lodging Tax Fund
2019 Tourism Promotion Grant Awards 1/15/19 219,600 219,600
Total Lodging Tax Fund 219,600 - 219,600
Criminal Justice Fund
Establish WASPC Grant KCC 3.70 5,240 5,240
Total Criminal Justice Fund 5,240 - 5,240
Housing & Community Development Fund
2019 CDBG True-up 2,720 2,720
Total Housing & Community Development Fund - 2,720 2,720
Non-Voted Debt Service Fund
Excavator Lease 2019 Principal & Interest Payments 38,920 38,920
Total Non-Voted Debt Service Fund - 38,920 38,920
Street Capital Projects
TIB Grant for South 228th Street Corridor 1/15/19 3,500,000 3,500,000
Budget for mitigation contributions received SEPA 2494 1,162,252 1,162,252
224th-228th Corridor for TIFs transferred in 2,286,732 2,286,732
Total Street Capital Projects Fund 3,500,000 3,448,984 6,948,984
Drainage Operating Fund
Establish KC CWM Grant - Downy Farmstead 9/18/18 780,000 780,000
Adjust KC Grant - Watershed 12/11/18 (125,000) (125,000)
KC Flood Control Grant - Lower Russell Road Levee-S231st 3/6/18 1,723,550 1,723,550
Total Drainage Operating Fund 2,378,550 - 2,378,550
Insurance Funds
Lake Meridian Restrooms 765,490 765,490
Total Insurance Funds - 765,490 765,490
Grand Total All Funds 6,389,257 6,542,846 12,932,103
Budget Adjustment Detail for Budget Changes
January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2019
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
n
g
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
-
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
9
(
1
7
6
7
:
F
i
r
s
t
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Lunar Rover Landmark Nomination - Approve
MOTION: Approve the nomination of the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 Lunar Roving
Vehicles as Kent Community Landmarks.
SUMMARY:
The Lunar Roving Vehicle, commonly known as the lunar rover or Moon buggy, is
history’s first and only manned surface transportation system designed to operate
on the Moon. At its Kent, Washington-based Space Center, the Boeing Company
designed, tested, and built the four-wheeled vehicle for NASA to use in its Apollo J-
class missions of 1971-72. Designed for the transport of two astronauts, their life
support systems, and scientific equipment, the Lunar Roving Vehicle allowed the
astronauts to spend more time and travel greater distances on the lunar surface
and to collect more scientific samples than in previous missions. All three Lunar
Roving Vehicles are currently stationed on the lunar surface.
The Kent Downtown Partnership funded a consultant contract to draft the landmark
registration form, which is included in the meeting packet. City Council must
approve the application prior to its being forwarded to the King County Landmarks
Commission, authorized by KCC 14.12.020 to act as the landmarks commission for
the City of Kent.
The Lunar Roving Vehicle represent a significant contribution to Kent’s history as a
center for space technology development, and are unique examples of the
innovation and ingenuity of the Apollo period. A landmark designation would help to
recognize this contribution, and highlight Kent’s influential role in human space
exploration. Staff recommends approval of the community landmark nomination.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Innovative Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Landmark Registration Form (PDF)
8.H
Packet Pg. 122
05/13/19 Economic and Community Development Committee
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
SECONDER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
AYES: Bill Boyce, Satwinder Kaur, Marli Larimer
8.H
Packet Pg. 123
CITY OF KENT LANDMARKS COMMISSION
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA WA 98032
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 1 of 74
LANDMARK REGISTRATION FORM DRAFT 4/11/19
PART I: PROPERTY INFORMATION
1. Name of Property
historic name: LUNAR ROVING VEHICLES
other names/site number: Lunar Rovers; LRVs; Moon Buggies
2. Location
street address: Lunar Surface
parcel no(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1
legal description(s): See Physical Description & Figure 1
3. Classification
Ownership of Property: Category of Property: Name of related multiple property listing:
private building(s) (Enter “N/A” if property is not part of a
public-local district multiple property listing.)
public-State site N/A
public-Federal structure
object
4. Property Owner(s)
name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
street: 300 E Street NW
city: Washington state: DC zip: 20024
5. Form Prepared By
name/title: Sarah J. Martin / SJM Cultural Resource Services (3901 2nd Ave NE #202, Seattle, WA 98105)
organization: Contracted consultant on behalf of the Kent Downtown
Partnership (KDP)
date: April 11, 2019
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Property Information (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 2 of 74
6. Nomination Checklist
Site Map (REQUIRED) Continuation Sheets
Photographs (REQUIRED): please label or
caption photographs and include an index Other (please indicate):
Last Deed of Title: this document can usually be obtained for little or no cost from
a title company
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 3 of 74
PART II: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
7. Alterations
Check the appropriate box if there have been changes to plan, cladding, windows, interior features or other
significant elements. These changes should be described specifically in the narrative section below.
Yes No Plan (i.e. no additions to footprint,
relocation of walls, or roof plan)
Yes No Interior features (woodwork,
finishes, flooring, fixtures) N/A
Yes No Cladding N/A Yes No Other elements
Yes No Windows N/A
Narrative Description
Use the space below to describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance, condition, architectural
characteristics, and the above-noted alterations (use continuation sheet if necessary).
The following narratives draw upon a rich assortment of archival and web-based primary and
secondary sources, including historic photographs, drawings, first-hand accounts, government reports,
press releases, newspaper accounts, film footage, and carefully selected published histories. The author
wishes to thank John Little, assistant curator at the Museum of Flight, and Michael Lombardi, corporate
historian at The Boeing Co., for their assistance.
It should be noted that this application builds on the precedent set by California and New Mexico, the
first two states to include lunar objects and structures in their state historic registers. Both efforts
involved the Apollo 11 Tranquility Base, where more than 100 objects and structures remain from the
first manned exploration of the lunar surface. In 2010, the California State Historical Resources
Commission and the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee voted unanimously to add the
many features at Tranquility Base to their respective state registers.1
Introduction
The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), commonly known as the lunar rover or Moon buggy, is history’s first
and only manned surface transportation system designed to operate on the Moon. At its Kent,
Washington-based Space Center, the Boeing Company designed, tested, and built the four-wheeled
vehicle for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to use in its Apollo J -class
missions of 1971-72. Boeing, with its major subcontractor General Motors’ Delco Electronics Division,
delivered three assembled flight vehicles, one unassembled flight vehicle, and eight test units as part
of its contract with NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. Designed for the transport of two astronauts,
their life support systems, and scientific equipment, the LRV allowed the astronauts to spend more
time and travel greater distances on the lunar surface and to collect more scientific samples than in
previous missions.
1 Lucas Laursen, “The Moon Belongs to No One, but What About Its Artifacts?” Smithsonian.com, Dec ember 13,
2013, accessed Feb. 22, 2019, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-moon-belongs-to-no-one-but-what-
about-its-artifacts-180948062/
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 4 of 74
Locations and Settings
The three rovers used in Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17 remain on the lunar surface and have gone
untouched since they were last used during their respective assignments. The vehicles are situated on
the visible side of the Moon, an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth, in a harsh environment
that lacks atmosphere and has extreme temperatures ranging from 260 to -280 degrees Fahrenheit
(figure 1). The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth, and a thin layer of fine, electrically charged
dust covers the lunar surface.
The first LRV, Rover 1, is situated near the Apollo 15 landing site (26.13° N, 3.63° E) on the plains of
Palus Putredinis adjacent to Hadley Rille near the Apennine Mountains (figures 1 through 8). This
region is in the northeast quadrant of the visible face of the Moon. Hadley Rille is a dist inctive and
winding channel thought to have been created by ancient lava flow. The mountain closest to the
landing site is Hadley Delta. NASA selected this landing site for its geological diversity, with the
mountains, rille, hilly plains, and nearby crate r clusters providing an area rich for scientific study.2
Rover 1 traversed this area during three extravehicular activities (EVAs) between July 31 and August 2,
1971.
The second LRV, Rover 2, is located in the Descartes Highlands near the Apollo 16 landi ng site (-8.97°
N, 15.50° E) on the Cayley Plains (figures 1, 9 through 14). This grooved, hilly region is in the southeast
quadrant of the visible face of the Moon and includes several young craters that NASA considered
ideal for exploration. The landing site is approximately 500 meters east of the rim of Spook Crater,
with several other notable craters in proximity. The Descartes Mountains are south and east of the
landing site.3 Rover 2 traversed this area during three EVAs between April 21 and 23, 1972.
The third LRV, Rover 3, resides near the Apollo 17 landing site (20.19° N, 30.77° E) in the Taurus-
Littrow Highlands, a mountainous region in the northeast quadrant of the visible face of the Moon
(figures 1, 15 through 24). The site is named for the Tauru s Mountains and the Littrow Crater, located
on the southeastern rim of the Serenitatis Basin. Three prominent rounded hills bound the landing site
– South Massif, North Massif, and East Massif – with smaller “sculptured” hills to the northeast. The
site afforded the opportunity to explore mountainous highlands, valley lowlands, craters, and a fault
scarp.4 Rover 3 traversed this area during three EVAs between December 11 and 14, 1972.
2 James R. Zimbelman, “The Apollo Landing Sites – Slide Set,” Lunar and Planetary Institute website, accessed
December 28, 2018, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/. Also, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K, July 1971, p. 59, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
3 Zimbelman. Also, NASA, Apollo 16 Press Kit, Release no. 72-64K, April 1972, p. 2, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf.
4 Zimbelman. Also, NASA, Apollo 17 Press Kit, Release no. 72-220K, November 1972, p. 2, accessed December 28,
2018, https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_PressKit.pdf.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 5 of 74
The planned fourth LRV flight vehicle was not used since missions after Apollo 17 were canceled.
Ultimately, the materials designated for this vehicle were assembled by NASA for display purposes as a
model. It is now in the collection of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (NASM).5
Several mockups and test units were built as part of the contract between NASA and Boeing to inform
the development and construction of the three flight vehicles. These included:
• An engineering mock-up, now in the collection of Seattle’s Museu m of Flight;6
• A mass unit to test the effects of the rover on the Lunar Module structure, balance, and
handling;
• Two one-sixth gravity units for testing the deployment mechanism;
• A mobility unit to test the mobility system, which was then converted into the one-gravity
trainer unit; the one-gravity trainer is now in the collection of the NASM;7
• A vibration unit to study the LRV's durability and handling of launch stresses, now in the
collection of the NASM;8 and
• A qualification unit to study integration of all LRV subsystems, now in the collection of the
NASM.9
Physical Characteristics of the LRV10
NASA required the LRV to be lightweight, easily stowable for transport in the lunar module (LM), and
durable enough to withstand a harsh environment. The t hree flight vehicles were identical to one
other with only slight variations in payload weight (figures 25 through 28).
Each LRV flight vehicle weighs about 462 pounds on Earth (or 77 pounds on the Moon; all subsequent
figures reflect Earth weights) and can carry a total payload of 1,080 pounds.11 The payload included
5 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, #4,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed December 6, 2018,
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-4. At the time of this writing, the Lunar Roving Vehicle,
#4 is on loan to the Kennedy Space Center.
6 “Boeing Lunar Roving Vehicle Engineering Mock-up,” Museum of Flight website, accessed October 15, 2018,
http://www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/boeing-lunar-roving-vehicle-engineering-mock
7 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, 1-G Trainer,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed December 6,
2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-1-g-trainer. At the time of this writing, the 1-G
Trainer is on loan to Space Center Houston.
8 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, Vibration Test Unit,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed
December 6, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-roving-vehicle-vibration-test-unit At the time of this
writing, the Vibration Test Unit is on loan to the Davidson Saturn V Center at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville,
AL.
9 “Lunar Roving Vehicle, Qualification Test Unit,” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum website, accessed
December 6, 2018, https://www.si.edu/object/nasm_A19760746000.
10 The following information is gleaned from NASA’s Apollo 15, 16, and 17 Press Kits and Mission Reports; and
“Lunar Rover Operations Handbook,” April 19, 1971, revision July 7, 1971, The Boeing Company, accessed January 31, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html; and “Lunar Roving Vehicle [25-page booklet],” undated [ca. 1972], The Boeing
Company, Corporate Archives, Bellevue, WA.
11 Payload weights differ slightly depending on the mission and publication author. These numbers r eflect Apollo 15
and 16 mission data according to the NASA mission press kits, while Apollo 17 had a slightly heavier payload capacity of
1,190.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 6 of 74
two astronauts and their portable life support systems (approx. 800 pounds); communications
equipment (150 pounds); scientific equipment and photography gear (150 pounds); and lunar samples
(90 pounds). The payload was stored in stowage quadrant three of the LM’s descent stage.
The four-wheeled LRV has a box-type chassis that folds for compact storage in the tight, pie -shaped
confines of stowage quadrant one of the LM’s descent stage. Fully deployed, the vehicle measures 122
inches long, 72 inches wide, and 44.8 inches high, and sits 17 inches above the ground (or 14 inches
when loaded). The crewmen sit side-by-side with the front wheels visible to them during normal
driving. Two 36-volt batteries power the vehicle for a top speed of about 10 miles per hour, although
it averaged about five miles per hour during the three missions. The LRV can climb and descend a 25 -
degree slope, negotiate 12-inch obstacles and 28-inch crevices, and has 45-degree pitch-and-roll
stability. Rover 1 had an assigned range of 40 miles from the LM, while Rovers 2 and 3 had a range of
57 miles, but all three were limited to a radius of six miles, the distance the crew could walk back in
the event of a total LRV failure. The vehicle has five major systems: mobility, crew station, navigation,
power, and thermal control.
The mobility system includes several subsystems: the chassis, wheels, traction drive, suspension,
steering, and drive control electronics.
• The aluminum-frame chassis is composed of a forward section that holds both batteries, the
navigation system, and the drive control electronics. The center section includes the crew
station where both astronauts sit side by side, the control and display console, and the hand
controller used by the crew to operate the vehicle. The floor of this section is made of
aluminum panels. The aft section is largely reserved for stowing the crew’s scientific
equipment. The forward and aft sections are designed to fold over the c enter section and lock
in place for transport in the LM.
• Each wheel weighs 12 pounds and measures 32 inches in diameter and nine inches wide. The
wheel has a spun aluminum hub, an inner frame or “bump” stop, and an outer layer of a
woven mesh zinc-coated piano wire with titanium treads riveted in a chevron pattern.
• The traction drive attached to each wheel has a motor harmonic drive gear unit that allows for
continuous operation without gear shifting and also a brake assembly. Each wheel can be
uncoupled from the traction drive and brake.
• Two parallel arms connect the chassis with the traction drive of each wheel forming the
suspension system. The system was rotated approximately 135 degrees for compact stowage
in the LM.
• The front and rear wheels operate on independent steering systems, allowing for a turning
radius of 122 inches. The T-shaped hand controller is located between the two crewmen and it
maneuvers the vehicle speed and direction. Tilting the controller forward of the neutral
position increases forward speed, while pulling it backwards brakes the vehicle. The parking
brake is initiated as the controller is pulled backwards three-inches. The brake is released by a
“turn left” command. Reversing the vehicle requires tilting the controller backw ards and
throwing the reverse inhibit switch on the controller. Moving the controller left or right
initiates steering.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 7 of 74
The crew station consists of the control and display console, seats, footrests, handholds, toeholds,
floor panels, and fenders.
• The control and display console gives readings for pitch and roll (attitude indicator), vehicle
direction with respect to lunar north (heading indicator), distance traveled (distance indicator),
and bearing and distance to the LM (bearing and range indicators ). There is a sun shadow
device that detects the LRV’s heading with respect to the sun. An odometer in the right rear
wheel measures the vehicle’s speed, which is displayed by the speed indicator. The console
includes switches for the four drive motor s, two steering motors, and a system reset that
allows the bearing, distance, and range displays to be reset. The console monitors vehicle
power and temperature and triggers an alarm indicator at the top of the console , which lights
up if the battery and temperature readings are of concern.
• The two seats are made of tubular aluminum framing spanned by strips of nylon and are
designed to fold flat onto the chassis while stowed and to be unfolded by the astronauts after
deployment. Each crewman has a nylon strap seatbelt that fits over their lap and attaches to
the outboard handhold.12
• There is one armrest located behind the LRV hand controller to support the arm of the
crewman who is driving the vehicle.
• There is one footrest for each crewman situated on th e center floor section. The footrests,
which fold flat against the chassis during transport, are adjusted to fit the crewmen before
launch.
• A handhold on each side of the center console assists the crewmen getting in and out of the
vehicle. These inboard handholds contain receptacles for camera and communication
equipment.
• A toehold on each side of the vehicle is used to assist the crew in getting in and out of the
vehicle. The astronauts assemble the toeholds after deployment on the lunar surface by
dismantling the tripods that linked the LRV to the LM and inserting a piece of the tripod into
either side of the chassis. This piece also doubles as a tool, if needed.
• The crew station floor is beaded aluminum panels.
• Fiberglass fenders extend over each wheel to contain the fine lunar dust while the LRV is in
motion. A section of the fenders was retracted during stowage and extended for use after
deployment. During the second EVA of the Apollo 16 mission, astronaut John Young bumped
into and broke off the right rear fender extension. The issue was not mission-critical, and no
repair was made. A similar incident occurred during the first EVA of the Apollo 17 mission when
Eugene Cernan inadvertently broke off the right rear fender extension. The break caused the
crew to be covered with lunar dust when the vehicle was in motion. At the beginning of the
second EVA, the crew fashioned a replacement fender extension using used duct tape, four
maps, and clasps. It lasted the remaining duration of the mission but wa s undone so that the
clasps could be used during the return trip in the LM.
The LRV has a dead reckoning navigation system, meaning it uses a pre-determined fixed position
with known speed and course to calculate the vehicle’s current position. This sys tem includes a
12 The Apollo 15 crew reported that the seatbelts were difficult to fasten and were too short. NASA, Apollo 15
Mission Report, MSC-05161, p. 86.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 8 of 74
directional gyroscope mounted on t he forward chassis, a sun shadow device mounted on the control
console, odometers on each wheel to record speed and distance, and a small computer or processing
unit. The readings are displayed on the contro l console.
Two 36-volt batteries, distribution wiring, connectors, switches, circuit breakers, and meters make up
the LRV’s power system. The non-rechargeable batteries, each weighing 59 pounds, are housed in
magnesium cases located in the forward sectio n. Both batteries were used simultaneously, although
each battery could individually power the vehicle, if needed. The batteries were installed in the vehicle
and activated on the launch pad five days prior to launch. An auxiliary connector powered the lun ar
communications relay unit.
A thermal control system protects temperature-sensitive instruments throughout the mission with
insulation, radiative surfaces, thermal mirrors, thermal straps, and special finishes. A multi -layer
thermal blanket protects the batteries and equipment stored in the forward chassis. The batteries
have thermal control units where heat is stored and dust -protector covers that are manually opened
after vehicle use to expose thermal mirrors (or space radiators) to cool the batteries. The covers
automatically close when the temperature stabilizes. Display console instruments are protected by
radiation shields, the console external surfaces have a layer of thermal control paint, and handholds,
footrests, and floor panels are anodized.
Stowage, Deployment, and Post-Deployment
The LRV folds and was stowed in the LM’s descent stage with the aft end pointing up. When folded,
the LRV measures 59.5 inches wide, 66 inches long, and 48.48 inches tall (figure 29). Space support
equipment holds the folded LRV in place during transit at three points. The astronauts manually
deployed the LRV onto the lunar surface following these steps, which take no more than 15 minutes
(figure 30):
• While standing on the lunar surface, astronauts sequentiall y pull two nylon straps, located on
either side of the storage bay.
• One crewman ascends the LM ladder and pulls the D -handle to release the folded LRV. A
spring-loaded rod pushes the LRV away from the top of the LM, about five inches, until it is
stopped by two steel cables. The lower end rotates on two points formed by tripods attached
to the chassis.
• Descending the ladder and returning to the two nylon straps, the astronaut pulls the tape on
the right side of the storage bay causing a cable storage drum to rotate and releasing two
support cables that swivel the LRV outward from the top. Gravity causes the LRV to rotate
outward. Two support arms and two telescoping tubes begin to extend to a point just outside
the LM. A cable then pulls pins that unlock the forward and aft chassis sections. At 50 degrees
of deployment, the aft (top) section, which is under spring pressure, unfolds and locks into
position. The wheels release and lock into place.
• As the astronaut continues to pull the nylon strap, the cente r and aft sections rotate until the
rear wheels touch the lunar surface. At this time, the forward section is able to unfold and lock
into position.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 9 of 74
• The astronaut pulls the second (left) nylon strap, which lowers the forward section to the lunar
surface.
• The astronauts then disconnect the deployment hardware from the LRV by pulling a series of
release pins, also known as pip pins.13 They deploy the fender extensions, set up the control
and display console, unfold the seats, and check and prepare other equi pment.
• One astronaut boards the LRV, checks the systems, backs the vehicle away from the LM and
drives to stowage quadrant three that holds the payload. The vehicle is powered down while
both astronauts install the equipment in the LRV.
• A battery-powered lunar communications relay unit (LCRU) is mounted on the forward chassis.
It facilitates voice, television, and telemetry communication between the astronauts and
Houston’s Mission Control Center. It includes a television camera and a high -gain antenna
resembling an umbrella that allowed for optimal television transmission. The camera,
manufactured by RCA, could be aimed and controlled by the astronauts or remotely controlled
by Mission Control Center personnel. A low-gain antenna was for relaying voice and data when
the LRV was in motion. The LCRU was designed to operate in different modes – fixed for when
the LRV was parked, mobile as the LRV was moving, or hand -carried.
Boeing’s major subcontractor, GM Delco Electronics, produced the vehicle’s mobili ty system and built
the 1-G trainer. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., of Joplin, Missouri, built the batteries, and the United
Shoe Machinery Corp., of Wakefield, Massachusetts, built the harmonic drive unit.14
LRV Integrity
The three LRVs are structures, defined by the landmark ordinance as “any functional construction
made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter.” Other examples of structures include
boats and ships, railroad locomotives and cars, roads, and bridges. To be eligible for landmark status, a
structure, or any type of historic resource, must retain integrity sufficient to convey its historic
character.
The three flight vehicles remain on the lunar surface and have gone untouched since they were last
used during their respective missions in 1971-72. The LRVs and other Apollo mission-related items that
remain on the Moon can be seen in high-resolution imagery produced by NASA’s Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which launched in 2009.15 The LRO imagery confirms that the vehicles
are extant and remain in their last-known locations but does not reveal their conditions, although
nearly 50 years of exposure to extreme environmental conditions have likely aged the vehicles (figures
4, 11, 17, and 18).
13 Apollo Lunar Rover Vehicle exhibit, Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA, October 17, 2018. According to the exhibit,
Apollo 15 mission commander David Scott presented two of the LRV pip pins to Oliver C. “Ollie” Boileau, vice-president of
Boeing’s Aerospace Group, and to Harold J. McClellan, former general manager of Boeing’s Space Division, during a post -
mission visit to the Boeing Space Center in Kent.
14 NASA, Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K, p. 96, accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
15 LRO imagery of Apollo landing sites is archived jointly by NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Arizona State
University at: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Physical Description (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 10 of 74
The LRVs clearly retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, as they remain in the
lunar environment for which they were designed. The vehicles’ design, materials, and workmanship
have gone unchanged since their last use. The major unknown is how the extreme environ mental
conditions have altered the vehicles.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 11 of 74
PART III: HISTORICAL / ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
8. Evaluation Criteria
Historical Data (if known)
Date(s) of Construction: 1969-1971
Other Date(s) of Significance: 1971 and 1972
Architect: N/A
Builder: Boeing & General Motors Engineer: NASA & Boeing
Statement of Significance
Describe in detail the chronological history of the property and how it meets the landmark designation criteria.
Please provide a summary in the first paragraph (use continuation sheets if necessary). If using a Multiple
Property Nomination that is already on record, or another historical context narrative, please reference it by name
and source.
See below:
Designation Criteria: Criteria Considerations:
A1 Property is associated with events that Property is
have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of national, state, or
local history.
a cemetery, birthplace, or grave or property owned owned by a religious institution/used for
religious purposes
A2 Property is associated with the lives of
persons significant in national, state, or
local history.
moved from its original location
A3 Property embodies the distinctive a reconstructed historic building
characteristics of a type, period, style,or
method of design or construction or
represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinction.
a commemorative property
less than 40 years old or achieving significance
within the last 40 years
A4 Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history.
A5 Property is an outstanding work of a
designer or builder who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 12 of 74
Introduction
To help get man to the moon, we’re bringing the moon to Kent. -- The Boeing Co., on the construction
of an advanced space-research facility in Kent, Washington16
The Lunar Rover proved to be the reliable, safe and flexible lunar exploration vehicle we expected it to
be. Without it, the major scientific discoveries of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 would not have been possible;
and our current understanding of lunar evolution would not have been possible. -- Apollo 17 Lunar
Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt17
Just three lunar rovers were built, and only six me n have driven them. Never had so much imagination,
research, and public investment gone into the production of a wheeled vehicle. The rover, known
officially as the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), made possible the greatest manned explorations of the
Moon in 1971-72, and it came from Kent, Washington.
Kent was home to The Boeing Company’s new Space Center, private industry’s most advanced
research and testing facility aimed at space flight and exploration programs, and it positioned the firm
as a leading competitor for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) most
ambitious projects. It was NASA’s selection of Boeing for the design, testing, and assembly of the LRV
that took Kent to the Moon, and it all happened in just three years, from 1 969 to 1972. Ultimately, the
three rovers performed as specified on the Moon, a remarkable testament to those in private industry
and in government research agencies who contributed to the program.
The three lunar-based rovers meet City of Kent Landmark criterion A1, through their association with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national
history, in the following ways:
• The LRV is history’s first and only manned lunar surface vehicle, and it made po ssible the most
ambitious scientific missions of NASA’s Moon landings. The rover was an instrumental part of
the final three missions of the Apollo program in 1971 -72. The vehicles enabled astronauts to
travel much greater distances on the Moon and to cond uct more surface experiments,
contributing to our current understanding of lunar evolutionary history.
• The imagination and knowledge that resulted in the LRV was transferred to solving other
technological challenges on Earth for years to come. The rover would be of interest to research
organizations and government agencies studying mobility, navigation, and robotics.
• Boeing’s contract to produce the LRV was largely executed by the company’s aerospace
division at its Space Center in Kent. Perhaps more than any other Space Center project, the
rover captured the interest and imagination of the Kent community, even as the rising
unemployment of the Boeing Bust gripped the Puget Sound region.
The rovers also meet City of Kent Landmark criterion A3, through their distinct design and
construction, in the following ways:
16 Boeing advertisement, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 5. See figure 31.
17 Bettye B. Burkhalter and Mitchell R. Sharpe, “Lunar Roving Vehicle: Historical Origins, Development and
Deployment,” Journal of The British Interplanetary Society 48 (1995): 212.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 13 of 74
• The LRV represents an ambitious experiment to overcome the many challenges – both known
and unknown – of traversing the lunar landscape for which there was no precedent.
• The LRV is both simple and complex. It is simple in form and materials, with four wire-mesh
wheels supporting an aluminum chassis with two nylon-strap seats. It is complex in design,
with five major inter-connected systems built with redundancies throughout to ensure that a
single failure did not end the mission or endanger the crew.
Elaboration
“Space Age City”18 – Postwar Change Comes to Kent
Its central location in the Green River Valley made Kent a hub of activity for business related to
agricultural processing, packing, and shipping in the early- and mid-20th century. Farming had long
been a productive way of life for valley residents, including many Japanese Americans.19 For many, this
way of life was upended in 1942 when President Franklin Roosevelt or dered the removal of first- and
second-generation Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. Their farmland was
redistributed to other farmers and most never returned.20 Their absence strained the workforce as the
demand for the valley’s agricultural products remained strong during and after the war.
Kent emerged from World War II a changed community. Post-war growth during the Baby Boom years
further strained area farmers and dairymen. As land values and taxes increased, planting acreage
became too costly for small-scale producers pushing many to sell their land for development. The City
annexed large tracts north and south of Kent to bring the areas being developed under local control.
Industrial firms began relocating from Seattle and elsewhere in King County to Kent by the mid-1950s,
including the Lynch Manufacturing Co., the Heath Manufacturing Co., and the Borden Co. Chemical
Division.21
But it was the major infrastructure projects in the mid-1950s and early 1960s that would sustain and
attract development in and around Ken t for years to come. The Valley Freeway (WA-167) was under
construction by 1957 and would ultimately connect Kent with Auburn to the south and Renton to the
north via a four-lane highway. Construction of Interstates 5 and 405 was also underway during this
period, and they would provide important regional connections for Kent. The completion of the
Howard Hanson Dam in 1962 brought relief to valley residents, farmers, and business owners alike,
who had long been plagued by flooding. These transportation impr ovements and flood control
measures further enticed industry to Kent, most notably The Boeing Company .22
18 “Kent…Space Age City,” Kent News-Journal, August 19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 1.
19 For more on Kent’s early history agricultural past, see Florence K. Lentz, Kent: Valley of Opportunity, (Chatsworth,
CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1990).
20 Lentz, 55-65. And, Alan J. Stein, “Kent – A Thumbnail History,” HistoryLink.org Essay #3587, 2001. Accessed March
1, 2019, http://www.historylink.org/File/3587.
21 Lucile McDonald, “Farmers Take Steps to Speed Kent’s Industrialization,” The Seattle Times, July 8, 1956, magazine
section, p. 2.
22 Lentz, 54, 66-67.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 14 of 74
Boeing first expanded into the valley in 1944 when it opened a plant in Renton. The post -war success
of its commercial, military, and emerging space d ivisions pushed the company to expand into Kent and
Auburn by the 1960s. In early 1964, Boeing announced plans to develop a state -of-the-art Space
Center on 320 acres it had recently purchased in Kent. With the announcement, Boeing vice president
Lysle Wood said, “Past experience has taught us the value of having our own research and
development laboratories, and we are continuing this approach with our space work.”23 The advanced
facility would include four laboratories – one to simulate space, another to simulate space flight
navigation, a third to research and test microelectronics, and a fourth to test new materials. The space
simulation chamber measured approximately 40 feet in diameter by 40 feet high and was the largest
such private commercial facility in the United States.24 This new facility would position the company as
a leading competitor for civilian and military space contracts for years to come.25
With the announcement, Kent Mayor Alexander Thornton welcomed Boeing to Kent and credited the
city council and the planning commission in their foresight to annex large areas around Kent.26
Construction was underway and proceeding quickly during the summer of 1964 as the community
celebrated its diamond jubilee with events and retrospectives. The Kent News-Journal was full of
articles showing the community’s evolution, with emphasis on the recent change. In the previous
decade, Kent’s population had grown from about 3,000 to more than 11,000, and building permit
numbers jumped considerably, from 44 building permits totaling $1,494,485 to 155 permits totaling
$4.14 million in 1963.27 A Seattle Times columnist said of the change, “The Boeing move triggered a
land-buying stampede…Where cabbages once were king, glittering new industrial plants – many
space-oriented – are taking shape.28
Construction of the Boeing Space Center, located along West Valley Highway between South 196th
and 212th streets in North Kent, proceeded quickly. The first areas were complete by March 1965. The
first group to move into the new facility “were four research engineers, headed by John Van
Brokhorst, manager of the space-environment-simulator laboratory, and a secretary, Mrs. Tod [Judy]
Williams.”29 Another 400 employees would gradually move in through October when construction was
completed (figure 32). Kent Chamber of Commerce members were invited to a special tour of the
Space Center in advance of the official dedication on October 29. Boeing celebrated its new $20
million facility in a ceremony with 4,000 guests, including NASA ad ministrator James Webb, who stood
in for Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who was scheduled to attend but had to cancel. In his remarks
23 “New Space Laboratories Planned at Kent Site,” Boeing News, February 6, 1964, p. 1.
24 Eugene E. Bauer, Boeing: The First Century, (Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, Inc., 2000), 196; “Space Labs to be
Built This Year,” Kent News-Journal, February 5, 1964, p. 1.
25 William Clothier, “New Space Center Sharpens the Forward Edge of Research,” Boeing Magazine 30, No. 10
(October 1965): 3-5.
26 “Mayor Welcomes Boeing to Kent,” The Seattle Times, February 4, 1964, p. 27.
27 “Kent Growth Is ‘Most Dramatic,’” and “Building Permits Reflect Growth,” Kent News-Journal, August 19, 1964,
Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 2.
28 Robert Twiss, “Now It’s Green (back) River Valley,” The Seattle Times, October 24, 1965, p. 24.
29 “Kent Center Gets First Employes [sic],” The Seattle Times, March 11, 1965, p. 20.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 15 of 74
Webb said, “it is clear from the outstanding new research facility which has been built here that the
Boeing team has thought about the future and is prepared to do something about it.”30
The Space Center was Kent’s first large-scale commercial plant, and “for a time it remained physically
isolated in a sea of farmland.”31 Boeing had room to expand and other firms with aerospace industry
ties could locate nearby. For example, Aero Structures, Inc., a firm that manufactured materials for the
aircraft industry, relocated to Kent from Seattle in 1965. In response to the move, industrial park
manager Jim Rice said, “I believe the Kent Valley has shown great foresight in its planning and zoning
which allows these industries to come in to complement one another.”32 Further enticement was
Kent’s strategic location between Tacoma and Seattle, just a few miles east of Sea-Tac International
Airport and within a network of regional highways. All of these factors – location, strong public
infrastructure, partner firms nearby, and the opportunity to expand facilities – benefited the Space
Center as Boeing sought to bring major space contracts to Kent.
NASA and Project Apollo
In October 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched th e Sputnik I satellite into Earth’s orbit,
jumpstarting the Cold War-era Space Race with the United States. The following July, the U.S.
established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a civilian government
agency dedicated to the peaceful advancement of space science and technology. Among the nine
agency objectives outlined in the establishing legislation were “t he improvement of the usefulness,
performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles,” and “the development
and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms
through space.”33 The subsequent development of the lunar rover fit squarely within the agency’s
primary and founding objectives.
Still in its infancy, NASA’s manned spaceflight program was challenged by President John F. Kennedy
during a special message to Congress on May 25, 1961. His remarks came just weeks after the Soviet
Union put the first human, Yuri Gagarin, into Earth’s orbit. In the speech, Kennedy acknowledged the
Space Race and challenged the nation to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to earth
before the end of the decade. He said, “No single space project in this period will be more impressive
to mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space and not be so difficult or
expensive to accomplish…But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon…it will be
an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.”34 NASA’s Project Apollo team and its many
partners in private industry would respond to this challenge.
30 Robert Twiss, “4,000 at Dedication of Boeing Space Center,” The Seattle Times, October 30, 1965, p. 1.
31 Lentz, 75.
32 “Aero Structures to Bring 100+ Employes [sic] to Kent,” Kent News-Journal, September 15, 1965, p. 1.
33 Section 102 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, As Amended. NASA, 2008, accessed March 1,
2019, https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf.
34 Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Speech Files. Special message to Congress
on urgent national needs, May 25, 1961, accessed February 22, 2019, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-
viewer/archives/JFKPOF/034/JFKPOF-034-030.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 16 of 74
Project Apollo was NASA’s third manned spaceflight program, succeeding the Mercury and Gemini
programs of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Each program and mission built on th e technologies and
successes of earlier ones. NASA’s objective with Project Mercury was to put a person into Earth’s orbit
and return them safely to Earth. To achieve this, NASA used a one -man, cone-shaped space capsule to
launch Alan Shepherd into low orbit in May 1961 and then John Glenn into full orbit in February 1962.
The goal of the succeeding Gemini program was to advance space travel techniques and capabilities
that would support the lunar missions of the Apollo program. For these missions, NASA used a larger
cone-shaped space capsule that carried two astronauts.
The primary objective of the Apollo program was exactly what Kennedy had called for – that
astronauts land on the Moon and ret urn safely to Earth by the close of the 1960s. The twelve -year
program resulted in thirty-three flights, eleven of which were manned. The final seven missions –
Apollo 11 through 17 – involved manned exploration of the lunar surface, and the final three fl ights
carried a lunar roving vehicle. The unmanned flights were missions to qualify the launch and
spacecraft vehicles.35
The Apollo program used a new type of spacecraft for its three -crew missions – a three-part vehicle
consisting of a combined two-part command and service module (CSM) and a lunar module (LM).36
Once in lunar orbit, the LM and two astronauts separated from the CSM and its one crewman. The
CSM remained in lunar orbit while the LM landed on the Moon. The two spacecraft were modified for
missions 15, 16, and 17 to accommodate the transport of a l unar roving vehicle.
NASA defined its Apollo missions by type, each with specific tasks, tests, and benchmarks that needed
to be completed before moving to the next mission type. The J -class, or J-series, missions were those
capable of a longer stay on the Moon and greater surface mobility due to the lunar rover, allowing for
more surface experiments. Missions 15, 16, and 17 were classified as J-class and included new types of
equipment such as the Metric and Panoramic camera systems, a lunar communication s relay unit
(LCRU), and a ground-controlled television assembly (GCTA) to aid in improved real-time visual and
audio communication with Earth. To accommodate the change in mission type, NASA not only
modified the spacecraft vehicles, it also upgraded the spacesuit and portable life support system
(PLSS) to function in coordination with the rover.
The Lunar Rover
In July 1969, just five days prior to the launch of Apollo 11 that took the first hu mans to the Moon,
NASA issued a detailed scope of work and request for proposals for development of the Lunar Roving
Vehicle. Only weeks earlier, the agency elected to move forward with a rover program, selecting its
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, to manage the effort. Saverio F. Morea, a
rocket engine specialist, led MSFC’s Lunar Roving Vehicle Project Office that reviewed the proposals.
35 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-09423). Houston,
TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, April 1975, accessed February 22, 2019, https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR-JSC-
09423.pdf.
36 Hexcel, a firm with Kent ties, produced the landing gear struts of the Apollo 11 lunar landing module. Hexcel is a
manufacturer of composite materials for aerospace and industrial markets and opened its Kent plant in 1996.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 17 of 74
They closely reviewed four proposals, from Grumman Aerospace, Chrysler Space Division, Bend ix
Corporation, and The Boeing Company, ultimately awarding Boeing its $19 million contract on October
29.37 The cost grew to $38 million by the end of the project.
The vehicle that NASA specified was the result of years of imagination, research, and deve lopment.
Throughout the early twentieth century science fic tion writers provided the first fantastical renderings
of lunar rovers. Writers Jerszy Zulawski, Hugo Gernsback, and Homer Eon Flint, for example, imagined
vehicles that ranged from a pressurized wheeled vehicle to a tank-like unit with continuous-track
treads to a two-legged walking rover.38 The mid-century writings of scientists, such as German-born
rocket scientist and aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun, brought science fiction closer to reality .
In 1952, the popular Collier’s magazine published the first of a series of eight issues about outer space
“that persuasively made the case for manned space exploration to the Moon and Mars in the
foreseeable future.”39 Von Braun and his colleagues produced the Collier’s content that influenced a
generation of engineers and physicists, including those who worked on Project Apollo.
Beginning in 1962, NASA sponsored studies to define and design a lunar -surface vehicle. Several
leading military and aerospace manufacturing companies produced designs and models of veh icles
that ranged significantly in size and weight. Boeing’s first prototype, a mobile laboratory known as
MOLAB, featured six wheels, a pressurized cabin, and it weighed nearly 8,000 pounds (figur e 33). In
June 1965, Boeing introduced the vehicle as a
mobile lunar laboratory [that] could be folded into a compact package, cradled atop a lunar
excursion module (LEM) landing craft and shipped to the moon aboard a Saturn 5 rocket…Later,
another Saturn 5 would streak moonward from Cape Kennedy with a three-man crew in an Apollo
cabin – two of them destined to land by LEM, take over MOLAB and begin their exploration. The
MOLAB could be controlled from Earth and is designed to carry stereoscopic driving ca meras
mounted on top of the vehicle.40
Within a week of MOLAB’s unveiling in June 1965, NASA extended its contracts with both Boeing and
Bendix to include a stripped -down version of the MOLAB, called a Mobility Test Unit, and a second
smaller rover called a Local Scientific Survey Module (LSSM). Importantly, the LSSM would not have an
enclosed cabin and would only weigh between 800 and 1,500 pounds.41
As these studies proceeded, Boeing was working on NASA’s Saturn V rocket and Lunar Orbiter
programs while constructing its Space Center in Kent. Within weeks of off icially opening, Boeing tested
37 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 204. “Boeing Receives $19 Million Contract for Moon Vehicles,” Kent News-Journal,
October 31, 1969, p. 1.
38 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 199-200; Saverio F. Morea, “The Lunar Roving Vehicle, A Historical Perspective,” The
Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Centu ry NASA Conference Publication 3166, vol. 2 (1992):
619, accessed October 15, 2018, https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/lunar/LRV_Historical_Perspective.pdf.
39 David M. Scott and Richard Jurek, Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program (Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 2014), 5-7.
40 “Compact Car for Moon Tourists Also Their Home on Wheels,” Boeing News, June 3, 1965, p. 1.
41 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 201; “Stripped-Down Moon Buggy for Scientific Survey Studied,” Boeing News, July 15,
1965, p. 1.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 18 of 74
its first Lunar Orbiter spacecraft in the vacuum chamber at the Space Center. Boeing and Eastman
Kodak were under contract with NASA to build eight orbiters – three test units and five flight models –
designed to circle the Moon and take close-up photographs of the lunar surface to help scientists
prepare for the Apollo missions. The program launched five unmanned orbiters in 1966 and 1967
resulting in the first photographs from lunar orbit of the Moon and Earth. Additionally, by mid-1967,
just six months after the Apollo 1 disaster, Boeing was under contract with NASA to provide technical
integration and evaluation (TIE) tasks for the Apollo program, meaning it would s upport NASA in
integrating the Saturn V launch vehicles with the command and service modules, the lunar module,
and later the lunar rover.42
Boeing’s depth of expertise and experience as well as its advanced facilities favored the company
going into NASA’s bid process for the lunar rover in the summer of 1969. Inf ormed by its earlier
studies of lunar-surface vehicles, NASA specified a light-weight, four-wheeled, battery-powered
vehicle that could be folded and stowed in the Apollo Lunar Module. Deployment a nd navigation were
to be simple enough for one astronaut to maneuver while wearing a cumbersome spacesuit. The
specifications required that there be no single -point failures in the vehicle that could abort the
mission. This ultimately resulted in the use o f redundant or double systems throughout the rover,
ensuring that, in the event of a failure, another system could take over.43
NASA announced its selection of Boeing for the LRV project on October 29, 1969. Boeing’s major
subcontractor for the project was General Motors’ Delco Electronics Division based in Santa Barbara,
California. A tight timeline called for delivery of the first vehicle by April 1971, giving Boeing just
eighteen months to design, test, and build the vehicle. A preliminary design was d ue to NASA just ten
weeks into the contract. At Boeing, the rover project was overseen by Oliver C. Boileau and his Kent-
based team in the aerospace division. They also had a team in Huntsville managed by engineer Henry
Kudish, who was succeeded by Earl Houtz in 1970, and all worked closely with Saverio F. Morea and
his group at NASA-MSFC, also based in Huntsville. Of note is the fact no women appear in professional
positions on the organizational charts of Boeing’s LRV program, where white men dominated th e
ranks during this era. Women worked primarily in secret arial roles and often were product models in
photographs.44 LRV program secretaries Sharron Scott and Judy Williams are examples of this trend
(figures 34 and 35).
The teams brought to the project considerable knowledge from the previous six years of rover studies.
There were two important carry-overs from Boeing’s MOLAB to its LRV: the wire wheels and the
concept of independent electric motors in each wheel.45 Additionally, the ongoing Apollo missions
provided the rover team new, real-time information about the lunar surface. In an interview with The
New York Times shortly after the contract award, Kudish said the Apollo 11 astronauts who landed on
42 “Boeing Gets $20 Million Apollo Integration Job,” Roundup, June 23, 1967, p. 1. “Apollo Lunar Spacecraft:
Historical Snapshot,” The Boeing Co. website, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/apollo-lunar-spacecraft.page.
43 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 204; Robert L. Twiss, “Boeing on the Moon: Firm delighted with Rover Despite Steering
Problem,” The Seattle Times, August 1, 1971, p. F8.
44 Scott and Jurek, 41.
45 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 201.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 19 of 74
the Moon the previous July, “have been of great value in determining some answers to our problems.”
Nevertheless, he said, “We had to make many assumptions about the coefficient of friction of the
lunar soil, its ability to carry weight and the size of the obstacles that may be encountered, and their
distribution.” At this early stage in the project, Kudish said th at “the most difficult problems were
keeping the weight and volume of the rover down.”46
Throughout 1970, Boeing and NASA collaborated on the rover design using various models and mock -
ups.47 The first iteration of the rover was a static mock-up that enabled the development team to
consider human factors related to crew maneuverability, safety, and comfort, as well as how
emergencies might inform the vehicle design. An engineering model provided design ers a test unit in
the laboratory to study vacuum, therma l, and soil conditions. A training model provided the
astronauts the true feeling of what it would be like to drive the rover on the lunar surface. It also
allowed designers to study the vehicle’s steering and handling of corners. The team built a dynamic
test unit to study the LRV and the LM together to understand how they would interact during the
boost, translunar injection, and lunar landing phases. The final qualification test unit was built
identical to the mission vehicles and was subjected to test c onditions exceeding what was expected.
This ensured the rover could withstand the physical demands of the missions.48
It was during this testing period in 1970 that Boeing, in consultation with NASA , reorganized its lunar
rover program staff, resulting in the relocation of the LRV qualification vehicle and flight vehicle
assembly from Huntsville to Kent. Earl Houtz replaced Kudish as the Huntsville -based LRV program
manager, with Houtz reporting to LRV Program Executive John B. Winch and both reporting to the
LRV/Apollo Program Director Harold J. McClellan.49 The reasons for the realignments aren’t clear and
the program never lost its momentum. In fact, Houtz later received NASA’s Public Service Award for
his “outstanding contribution to the success of the A pollo 15 mission.”50
Kent: Home of the Boeing Moon Buggy
Six astronauts came to Kent in December 1970 for “a first -hand inspection” of the rover program and
to see the final test model, the qualification unit.51 The first flight vehicle emerged from production at
the Space Center in early February, ready for qualification testing.52 Six weeks later, on March 10,
46 Richard D. Lyons, “Jeep Will Introduce Traffic to Moon,” The New York Times, November 9, 1969, p. 76.
47 “Rover Program Moves Forward,” Boeing News, June 25, 1970, p. 1.
48 Henry Kudish, “The Lunar Rover,” Spaceflight: A Publication of The British Interplanetary Society 12, no. 7 (July
1970): 270.
49 The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group, “Organization Bulletin: Transfer of Lunar Roving Vehicle Qualification
Vehicle and Flight Vehicle Assembly,” September 3, 1970. Also, “Organization Bulletin: Lunar Roving Vehicle / Apollo
Program Relationships,” November 3, 1970. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
50 “Space Agency Honors Boeing Employe [sic],” The Seattle Times, October 12, 1971, p. A14.
51 “Boeing Rolls Out Version of Lunar Unit,” The Seattle Times, December 23, 1970, p. 13. Those in attendance were
James B. Irwin and David R. Scott, Apollo 15 crew and the first men slated to drive the rover on the Moon; Charles Duke,
Apollo 16; Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17; Robert Parker, support crew for Apollo 15 and 17; and Poulsbo, WA, native Richard
Gordon, Apollo 12.
52 “For Apollo 15,” Boeing News, February 4, 1971, p. 1.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 20 of 74
1971, Boeing formally delivered the first flight model of the LRV to NASA in a special cere mony held in
the shadow of the space simulation chamber at the Space Center (figure 36). NASA’s MSFC director
Eberhard Rees accepted the rover on behalf of NASA, telling the Boeing officials and staff in
attendance, “You have reason to be proud.”53
Indeed, those who worked closest to the rover were quite proud . During the lead-up to the Apollo 15
launch, Boeing electronics craftsman Paul Turcotte told the Seattle Times, “Sure, I’m nervous about
the Lunar Roving Vehicle…I’ve dreamed about it operating up th ere on the moon. In fact, I’ve lain
awake nights thinking about it. There just has to be a feeling of pride when you know something
you’ve worked on is performing on the moon.”54 His colleague Dave Hendrickson told the Times,
“There’s a lot of all of us in that vehicle…Some of the guys around here put in long ho urs building that
craft…There were several 30-hour days worked. I assembled the thermal blankets, and I know they will
do the job.”55 The Boeing vice president for aerospace, Oliver C. Boileau, echoed their nervous
enthusiasm: “I have been to a lot of first flights in 18 years with this company, but never one where so
much of the world looked over our shoulder as we pushed the ‘go button.’ I couldn’t help but be a bit
nervous, but with the confidence I have in our people who built the Lunar Roving Vehicle I ’m certain it
will operate on the moon as it should.”56 Many years later in a 2018 interview with the City of Kent,
LRV Program Executive John B. Winch recalled the biggest challenge of the p roject was the tight
timeframe in which to complete the rover, followed by the deployment system: “The rover system
was strapped to one of the legs of the lunar landing module. We didn’t know exactly what kind of
terrain the module would land on, [but] it worked like a charm, no problem whatsoever.”57
Following the ceremony, the rover was packaged and flown to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida
(figure 29).58 Boeing finished the second rover in late March and the third by late June, more than
three months ahead of schedule. Rovers 2 and 3 were stored at the Kent facility until after the Apollo
15 mission with Rover 1 was complete, in case the vehicles would need modification after the first
lunar rover mission in late July 1971. No major modifications were needed and Rovers 2 and 3 shipped
closer to their respective launch dates.
As the launch of Apollo 15 neared, excitement in Kent grew as the world’s attention turned to the
valley-made rover. Fournier Newspapers, which published the Kent News-Journal, Renton Record-
Chronicle, and Auburn Globe-News, sent reporters Bill and Wini Carter to cover the launch in Florida.
Wini Carter reported that Boeing had set up a press room in one of the area motels and had a model
of the rover in the motel lobby that was “th e center of attention.” They toured the Kennedy Space
53 “NASA receives First Lunar Rover Vehicle,” Boeing News, March 18, 1971, p. 1.
54 Robert L. Twiss, “Boeing on the Moon,” The Seattle Times, August 1, 1971, p. F8.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 John Winch, (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing), “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent,” Interview by Michelle
Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 14, 2018, accessed October 15, 2018, https://vimeo.com/272473790.
58 NASA, “LRV Flight Model Delivery,” Kennedy Space Center News Release, KSC-41-71, March 10, 1971. Accessed
November 8, 2018. [p. 13 of PDF] https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/744322main_1971.pdf.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 21 of 74
Center with other members of the press and attended events and parties in the days leading up to the
launch. She wrote that “seeing the launch from Cape Kennedy was an awe -inspiring experience.”59
The Kent-News Journal featured rover-related highlights with a local angle not found in the major
newspapers of the day, and they provide a wonderful window into the excitement and pride for the
hometown rover. Mayor Isabell Hogan used the opportunity to pro mote Kent and mailed a City of
Kent decal to Kurt H. Debus, director of the Kennedy Space Center in hopes of getting it affixed to the
rover’s fender. The decal did not end up on the rover.60 She tried again with Rover 2, also without
success. At the unveiling ceremony for Rover 2 (figure 37), Boeing presented Hogan a plaque
displaying the special Apollo 15 stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service and an engraved message
denoting Kent as “Hometown of the Lunar Roving Vehicle.”
The enthusiasm touched all ages and interests, from children and parents to elected officials and
boosters. The Kent Meeker Days parade, which took place just two days before the Apollo 15 launch
and featured ten-year-old Kendall Brookbank, who manned a tin -foil rover replica on a parade float
(figure 38). The Kent Jaycees, a junior Chamber of Comme rce organization, rode the wave of
enthusiasm unveiling a fundraising project selling blue and white buttons with a picture of the lunar
rover with text reading Kent, Washington – Home of the Boeing Moon Buggy (figure 39). The buttons
went on sale just in time for the Apollo 15 astronauts visit to Kent in mid-October 1971.61 The News-
Journal’s Wini Carter reported that newspaper executive Don N. Crew had “slipped” souvenir buttons
to astronauts Alfred M. Worden, David R. Scott, and James Irwin during their visit.62 The paper also
pictured R. H. Nelson, general manager of the Saturn/Apollo Skylab Division of Boeing, wearing a
button (figure 40). Proceeds from the sale of the buttons went to commu nity betterment projects.63
Local pride in the rover continued through the final Apollo mission in December 1972, but the
outward display of enthusiasm was less evident. Perhaps the Boeing Bust, which involved tens of
thousands of layoffs in the Puget S ound region between 1969 and 1971, tempered enthusiasm.
However, the rounds of layoffs didn’t impact the Space Center as much as other Boeing locations.64 In
all, Boeing laid off more than 86,000 employees, hitting King County so hard that county executive
John Spellman sought federal assistance to ease the burden.65 The muted enthusiasm mirrored the
declining interest of the nation, which had peaked with the first moonwalk during Apollo 11. As
further evidence of this trend, the Apollo 15 moonwalks were the last to be shown live and in their
entirety by the three major television networks.66
59 “Astronauts Blastoff with Moon Buggy: Valley-made Lunar Rover Center of Attention,” Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28,
1971, p. 1-2. Canaveral was known as Cape Kennedy from 1963 to 1973.
60 Ibid. “Moon Riders Return Home,” Kent News-Journal, August 11, 1971, p. 1.
61 “Moon Buggy Buttons Go Over Big, Say Jaycees,” Kent News-Journal, October 13, 1971, p. 6.
62 Wini Carter, “3 Astronauts Tour Center,” Kent News-Journal, October 15, 1971, p. 1.
63 “He’s Stuck on the Moon Buggy,” Kent News-Journal, October 15, 1971, p. 4.
64 “Kent Space Center Employment ‘Stable,’” Kent News-Journal, August 11, 1971, p. 12.
65 Eugene E. Bauer, Boeing: The First Century, (Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, Inc., 2000), 215. “County to Seek
U.S. Cash, Cities to Act on Layoffs,” Kent News-Journal, January 16, 1970, p. 1-2.
66 Scott and Jurek, 74.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 22 of 74
Apollo J-class Missions & Rover Performance
The lunar roving vehicle was the centerpiece technology of the Apollo J-class missions. It enabled a
longer stay on the Moon and greater surface mobility, allowing for more surface experiments. NASA
produced reports on each Apollo mission and on the entire Apollo program, and these reports inform
the following summaries of missions 15, 16, and 17 and the use and performance of the rovers. Upon
the completion of the program, NASA reported that “the mission performance of the lunar roving
vehicles used on the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions was excellent,” and “the vehicles significantly
increased the capability to explore and enhanced data return.”67 The report presented final
performance data collected on each rover during their respective missions (figure 41).
Apollo 15
Launch: July 26, 1971, 9:34 AM EDT, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: August 7, 1971, 4:45 PM EDT, North Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 12 days, 7 hours, 11 minutes
Lunar landing site: near Hadley Rille, Apennine Mountains (26.13° N, 3.63° E)
Lunar surface duration: 2 days, 18 hours, and 54 minutes.
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-510)
Payload: Endeavor (CM-112); Falcon (LM-10); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Colonel David R. Scott, Commander; seventh person to walk on the Moon
Lt. Colonel James B. Irwin, Lunar Module Pilot; eighth person to walk on the Moon
Major Alfred M. Worden, Command Module Pilot
As Al Worden piloted the CM in lunar orbit, Jim Irwin and Dave Scott guided the LM Falcon to a
landing site on the plains of Palus Putredinis adjacent to Hadley Rille near the Apennine Mountains. It
was the one of the fastest and har dest lunar landings of the Apollo missions, coming in at 6.8 feet per
second. The crew had four primary objectives: to explore the Hadley-Apennine region, set up and
activate lunar surface scientific experiments, make engineering evaluations of new Apollo equipment,
and conduct lunar orbital experiments and photographic tasks.
The rover allowed the crew to venture a cumulative 17.3 miles, considerably farther from the LM than
astronauts of previous missions who traveled on foot. The vehicle averaged 5.7 m iles per hour and
reached a top speed of 7 miles per hour. Scott and Irwin traversed the lunar surface in the LRV during
three extravehicular activities (EVAs) totaling 18 hours, 35 minutes between July 31 and August 2.
They collected 170 pounds of lunar samples, set up the Apollo Lunar Surface Scientific Experiments
Package (ALSEP) array, obtained a core sample from about 10 feet beneath the lunar surface, and
provided descriptions and photographic documentation of the area around the landing site (figures 2
through 8).
67 NASA, Apollo Program Summary Report, JSC-09423, sec. 4, p. 101.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 23 of 74
Scott and Irwin were the first to pilot the rover on the lunar surface, an d they were “very pleased with
the vehicle’s performance, particularly, the speed and hill -climbing capacity.”68 In a post-flight visit to
the Boeing Space Center, Scott called the rover a “truly remarkable vehicle.”69 Of the vehicle’s
performance on the lunar surface, they reported that the rover deployment technique, vehicle
maneuverability during motion, and the wheel t raction as things that worked very well. Conversely,
they reported that the rover’s front steering system malfunctioned, but only during the first
extravehicular activity (EVA), and that excessive time was needed to secure the rover seatbelts.
Additionally, the video signal was lost from the lunar surf ace camera mounted on the rover.70
Once back in lunar orbit, the crew launched the Particles and Fields Subsatellite from the service
module. It studied the magnetic field environment of the Moon and map ped the lunar gravity field
until it failed in early 1973.
In addition to being the first mission to feature the rover, this mission set several new records for
crewed spaceflight. Apollo 15 was the longest Apollo mission ; it featured the heaviest payload in a
lunar orbit, the most EVAs with the longest t otal duration, the longest time in lunar orbit, and the first
satellite to be placed in lunar orbit by a crewed spacecraft.
The post-mission report concluded that the 1-g trainer had provided the crew “adequate training,”
and that they rapidly adapted to the lunar environment.71 In response to the problems reported
during Apollo 15, Rovers 2 and 3 were modified in the following ways: 1) the auxiliary circuit breaker
capacity was increased; 2) Velcro was added to the battery covers to provide increased prot ection
against dust, and reflective tape was added to provide more radiative cooling; 3) new under-seat
stowage bags with dust covers and modification to stowage bag straps; 4) and stiffened seatbelts with
over-center tightening mechanisms were added.72
Despite the many achievements, the legacy of Apollo 15 was marred by controversy. The first problem
involved the Fallen Astronaut, a small aluminum figurine created by Belgian artist Paul Van Hoeydonck.
During the second EVA on August 1, Scott secretly place d the figurine and a plaque bearing the names
of fallen American astronauts and Soviet cosm onauts on the lunar surface. Upon public disclosure of
the memorial in the year following the mission, it became clear Hoeydonck had a different view of the
pre-arranged agreement with the astronauts, which left him feeling slighted. He had not been
consulted on the name of the piece, and he was not being credited for the artwork.73 What was largely
68 NASA, Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161, December 1971, p. 83, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf.
69 “Astronauts Praise Rover,” The Seattle Times, October 14, 1971, p. D1.
70 NASA, Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161, p. 101-05
71 Ibid.
72 NASA, Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230, August 1972, Appendix A, p. 5-6, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_MissionReport.pdf.
73 Corey S. Powell and Laurie Gwen Shapiro, “The Sculpture on the Moon,” Slate, December 16, 2013, accessed
January 31, 2019,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sculpture_on_the_moon_paul_van_hoeydonck_s_fall
en_astronaut.html.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 24 of 74
a dispute between Scott and Hoeydonck was quickly overshadowed by a bi gger controversy
discovered following the mission. Scott, Irwin, and Worden had secretly carried with them to the
Moon unauthorized postmarked postal covers (mailing envelopes) that they sold to a German stamp
dealer upon their return.74 NASA officials and elected officials weighed in as the controversy received
considerable press attention. The three astronauts were reprimanded and never flew again.
Apollo 16
Launch: April 16, 1972, 12:54 PM EST, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: April 27, 1972, 2:45 PM EST, South Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 11 days, 1 hour, 51 minutes
Lunar landing site: Descartes Highlands (-8.97° N, 15.50° E)
Lunar surface duration: 2 days, 23 hours
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-511)
Payload: Casper (CM-113) and Orion (LM-11); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Captain John W. Young, Commander; tenth person to walk o n the Moon
Lt. Colonel Charles M. Duke, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot; ninth person to walk on the Moon
Lt. Commander Thomas K. (Ken) Mattingly, II, Command Module Pilot
In January 1972, NASA announced a 30 -day delay in the launch of Apollo 16 due to technical concerns
involving an explosive device used to separate the CM from the LM. After modification and additional
testing, the subsequent launch on April 16 went without incident. Once in lunar orbit, Thomas
Mattingly remained in the CM while John Young and Charles Duke piloted the LM Orion to a landing
site on the Descartes Highlands. The crew had three primary objectives: to inspect, survey, and sample
materials and surface features near the la nding site, emplace and activate surface experiments, and
conduct in-flight experiments and photographic tasks from lunar orbit.
Young and Duke traversed the lunar surface in the LRV during three EVAs totaling 20 hours, 14
minutes between April 21 and 23 . The vehicle traveled a cumulative 16.59 miles and reached a top
speed of 8.7 miles per hour. They collected 209 pounds of lunar samples, set up the Apollo Lunar
Surface Scientific Experiments Package (ALSEP) array, obtained core and trench samples, collected
measurements with the lunar portable magnetometer, and provided descriptions and both panoramic
and 500 mm photography of the region around the landing site. The findings of the mission disproved
the pre-mission hypothesis that the geologic formations in this lunar region were volcanic in origin.
During the first EVA, Duke retrieved the largest rock returned by an Apollo mission. Lunar sample
61016, nicknamed Big Muley after the mission’s geology team leader William Muehlberger, weighed
26 pounds and was collected from the east rim of Plum Crater. Also , during the first EVA, Young
discovered that the LRV’s rear steering was not working, but it began working n ormally later in the
EVA. During the second EVA, Young bumped into and broke off the right re ar fender extension, an
incident that happened in training and during the later Apollo 17 mission. The issue was not mission -
critical, and no repair was made. At t he end of the third EVA, Duke left a photograph of his family and
74 Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (New York: Penguin Books, 2007),
496-97.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 25 of 74
a U.S. Air Force medallion on the lunar surface (figures 9 through 14). Once back in lunar orbit, the
crew launched NASA’s second Particles and Fields Subsatellite from the service module, but it failed
after 35 days.
The post-mission report said, “Performance of the lunar roving vehicle was good.” Duke and Young
reported that vehicle “control was excellent,” and that it “ran in and out of the smaller secondaries
with ease.”75 In addition to the loss of the rear fender extension and the temporary loss of rear
steering, they reported elevated battery temperatures and multiple failures of instrumentation
hardware.76
Following the second rover’s performance, the third rover went “essentially u nchanged.” Only the
following minor modifications were reported: 1) fender extension stops were added to each fender to
prevent their loss; 2) a signal cable was added to provide navigation information from the rover
navigation system; 3) and a decal was added to the aft chassis to aid the crew in locating the proper
hole in which to place the pallet stop tether.77
Apollo 17
Launch: December 7, 1972, 12:33 AM EST, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Return: December 19, 1972, 2:24 PM EST, South Pacific Ocean
Mission duration: 12 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes
Lunar landing site: Taurus-Littrow Highlands (20.19° N, 30.77° E)
Lunar surface duration: 3 days, 2 hours
Launch vehicle: Saturn V (SA-512)
Payload: America (CM-114) and Challenger (LM-12); Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
Crew: Captain Eugene A. Cernan, Commander; eleventh person to walk on the Moon
Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module Pilot; twelfth person to walk on the Moon
Commander Ronald E. Evans, Command Module Pilot
Apollo 17 was the first night launch in NASA’s human spaceflight program. LM pilot and geologist
Harrison Schmitt was the first scientist-astronaut to land on the Moon. Schmitt and Eugene Cernan
guided the LM Challenger to a landing site in the mountainous region of the Taurus -Littrow Highlands.
The site was chosen as a location where both older and younger rocks than those found in pr evious
missions might be found. Like the previous J-class missions, objectives for the crew of Apollo 17 were
to explore and sample the materials and surface features near the landing site, to set up and activate
ALSEP experiments on the lunar surface for long-term relay of data, and to conduct inflight
experiments and photography.
Cernan and Schmitt traversed the lunar surface in the rover during three EVAs totalin g 22 hours, four
minutes between December 11 and 14. They traveled in the rover a cumulative di stance of 22.37
75 NASA, Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230, sec. 9, p. 39-40.
76 Ibid., sec. 8, p. 1.
77 NASA, Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904, March 1973, Appendix A, p. 3, accessed February 21, 2019,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 26 of 74
miles, which remains the greatest distance humans have traveled on the lunar surface, collecting a
record 243 pounds of lunar samples. During the first EVA, Cernan inadvertently broke off the right rear
fender extension, causing the crew to be covered with lunar dust when the vehicle was in motion. At
the beginning of the second EVA, the crew fashioned a replacement fender extension that lasted the
remaining duration of the mission (figure 22). It was undone after the third EVA so the materials could
be used during the return trip in the LM. The second EVA was the longest, at seven hours, 37 minutes.
At the end of the third EVA, the crew unveiled a plaque acknowledging the achievements of the Apollo
program (figures 15 through 24).
The post-mission report indicated that Rover 3’s deployment was “smooth,” its “controllability was
good, and no problems were experienced with steering, braking, or obst acle negotiation.”78 Cernan
and Schmitt reported similar problems with the battery temperature a nd rear fender as those noted
by the Apollo 16 crew, as well as minor slippage while the vehicle was in motion. Importantly, the
problems never threatened the completion of the mission. The mission report summarized the rover
this way: “The rover is an outstanding device which increased the capability of the crew to explore the
Taurus-Littrow region and enhanced the lunar surface data return by an order of magnitu de and
maybe more.”79
Apollo 17 was the only lunar surface mission to include the Traverse Gravimeter Experiment (TGE), the
Surface Electrical Properties (SEP) experiment, and a Biological Cosmic Ray Experiment (BIOCORE). The
TGE was carried on the LRV and measured relative gravity at various locations. Using a transmitting
device at the LM, the SEP sent electrical signals to an antenna on the LRV to measure electrical
properties in the lunar soil. The BIOCORE studied five mice for possible cosmic ray damage. The crew
nicknamed the mice Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey, and four of the five survived the mission.80
As the crew spent their final moments on the lunar surface, Cernan said:
I'd just like to say that any part of Apollo 17 – or any part of Apollo – that has been a success thus
far is probably, for the most part, due to the thousands of peo ple in the aerospace industry who
have given a great deal – besides dedication and besides effort and besides professionalism – to
make it all a reality. And I would just like to thank them. Because what we've done here and what
has been done in the past – as a matter of fact, what has been done for 200 years – you've got to
contribute [means "attribute"] to the spirit of the group of people who form the aerospace
industry. And I say, "God bless you" and "thank you.”81
Schmitt re-entered the LM first, and as Cernan prepared to ascend the LM ladder, he said:
I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to
come – but we believe not too long into the future – I'd like to just say what I believe history will
record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave
78 Ibid., sec. 9, p. 1.
79 Ibid., sec. 10, p. 20
80 Colin Burgess and Chris Dubbs, Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle (New York: Springer
Publishing, 2007), 320. NASA, Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904, Appendix A, p. 25-6.
81 Eric M. Jones and Ken Glover, eds, Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal, 1995, accessed November 1, 2018,
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.html.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 27 of 74
the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace
and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17.82
Cernan remains the last man to have walked on the Moon.
Legacy of the Rover
In his many media interviews about the rover Boeing LRV program manager Henry Kudish always
stressed the sophistication of the vehicle. He bristled at those who compared the rover to a golf cart,
dune buggy, or a lunar Jeep, noting it had to withstand the vibrations of a launch, the extreme
temperatures during flight, the shock of landing, and t he harsh lunar landscape.83 Years later in 1988,
at a conference on 21st century space activity, his NASA counterpart Saverio F. Morea echoed Kudish
in arguing that the rover “truly embodied the sophistication of a spacecraft.” He hoped that the design
and construction of the rover would inform contemporary space planners as they revisited the topics
of lunar bases and exploring other planets.84 It would be another nine years, and a quarter century
after Apollo 17, before NASA landed a rover on another celest ial body – the Sojourner, a remotely
operated robot designed for scientific experiments on Mars .
The imagination and knowledge that resulted in the LRV was transferred to solving other technological
challenges on Earth. Scientists and researchers in pr ivate industry and government research agencies
advanced the rover’s pioneering vehicle concepts in their studies of mobility, navigation, and robotics.
For example, Mieczyslaw G. Bekker, a leading expert in the design and locomotion of military and off -
road vehicles who had consulted with NASA, Boeing, and others during the rover studies of the 196 0s,
published a seminal work in 1969 advancing the latest vehicle mobility theories in Introduction to
Terrain-Vehicle Systems.85 The U.S. Bureau of Mines was particularly interested in the rover’s robotics
and mobility technologies for adaptation in mines. The rover technology informed 1970s-era
researchers studying mobility aids for disabled persons. In particular, the joystick hand -controller
concept proved useful for both wheelchairs and aut omobiles.86
The experiences and discoveries of the Apollo missions continue to inform all these years later. On
March 11, 2019, NASA announced the selection of nine teams to study pieces of the Moon that have
been stored and gone untouched for nearly 50 years. The samples, collected during the Apollo 15, 16,
and 17 missions from 1971 and 1972, were stored for study at a later date when technology would be
more advanced.87
82 Ibid.
83 Kudish, 270. Roger Koch, “Sophisticated Lunar Rover Vehicle More than A ‘Tough Jeep,’” Boeing News, December
4, 1969, p. 4. “Lunar Rover Features Electric Drive Wheels, Swivel Seats,” Boeing News, December 11, 1969, p. 4.
84 Morea, 631.
85 Burkhalter and Sharpe, 212.
86 E. Peizer, “Technical Aids,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2 (1978): 107.
87 NASA, “NASA Selects Teams to Study Untouched Moon Samples,” March 11, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019,
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-teams-to-study-untouched-moon-samples.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 28 of 74
Today, the Apollo missions are back in the news as half-century anniversary dates come and go and as
space exploration receives renewed attention . 88 Although Boeing’s presence in Kent is considerably
less than it was during the Space Race, other aerospace firms such as Blue Origin have filled the void.89
Kent remains poised to again play a central role in a return to the Moon.
88 NASA, “NASA Unveils Sustainable Campaign to Return to the Moon, on to Mars,” September 18, 2018, accessed
March 15, 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-unveils-sustainable-campaign-to-return-to-moon-on-to-mars.
89 Marc Stiles, “Boeing Selling 72 Acres in Kent to IDS for Warehouses,” Puget Sound Business Journal, December 11,
2012, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/12/11/california-company-plans-
large.html.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 29 of 74
INDEX OF IMAGES
Figure 1 Map of the Moon, with Apollo J-mission landing sites highlighted
Figure 2 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, in the Hadley-Apennine region, 1971
Figure 3 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Hadley-Apennine region, 1971
Figure 4 Apollo 15 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 5 Apollo 15 astronaut David R. Scott, seated in the LRV, Jul. 31, 1971
Figure 6 Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin, near the LRV, Jul. 31, 1971
Figure 7 Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin salutes flag, Aug. 1, 1971
Figure 8 Apollo 15 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 9 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, in the Descartes Highlands region, 1972
Figure 10 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Descartes Highlands region, 1972
Figure 11 Apollo 16 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 12 Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young, with LRV behind him, Apr. 23, 1972
Figure 13 Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young drives the LRV, Apr. 21, 1972
Figure 14 Apollo 16 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 15 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, in the Taurus-Littrow Highlands and valley area, 1972
Figure 16 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, vertical view of the Taurus-Littrow Highlands and valley area, 1972
Figure 17 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, close-in view showing visible remnants of the mission, 2011
Figure 18 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, extreme close-in view of LRV in final parking spot, 2011
Figure 19 Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan driving the LRV, Dec. 11, 1972
Figure 20 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, LRV sits parked, Dec. 1972
Figure 21 Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan next to the LRV, Dec. 13, 1972
Figure 22 Apollo 17 close-up of LRV with makeshift repair to fender, Dec. 12, 1972
Figure 23 Apollo 17 Lunar Site, LRV shown in final parking spot, Dec. 13, 1972
Figure 24 Apollo 17 traverse map noting location of LM and paths pf LRV during three EVAs
Figure 25 “Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft on Wheels [2-page flyer].” Boeing, ca. 1971
Figure 26 “LRV Detail Drawing.” Boeing News, July 8, 1971, p. 3
Figure 27 “LRV Components and Dimensions.” NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15
Figure 28 LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload Installation, NASA-MSFC News Release, 1971
Figure 29 LRV shown folded for stowage on spacecraft, at Boeing Space Center, Mar. 1971
Figure 30 Illustration of LRV Deployment Sequence
Figure 31 Boeing advertisement about Kent Space Center, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 19, 1964
Figure 32 Boeing’s new Space Center, Boeing News, Aug. 5, 1965
Figure 33 Illustrations of Boeing’s MOLAB, Boeing News, Jun. 3, 1965.
Figure 34 Boeing LRV Program secretary Sharron Scott, sitting in an LRV, 1971
Figure 35 Boeing LRV Program secretary Judy William, 1965
Figure 36 News clipping and photo of the first LRV, Mar. 10, 1971
Figure 37 Mayor Isabel Hogan examines Rover 2, Kent News-Journal, Aug. 18, 1971
Figure 38 Kendall Brookbank, age 10, with a tin-foil replica rover, Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28, 1971
Figure 39 Kent Jaycees “moon buggy” button
Figure 40 Boeing’s R. H. Nelson, wearing a “moon buggy” button
Figure 41 Table showing LRV performance during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 30 of 74
Figure 1: This map of the Moon shows the Apollo J-mission landing sites in green. The arrows point to
missions 15 (left), 16 (center), and 17 (right). Digital image archived by NASA at
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/moon_landing_map.jpg
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 153
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 31 of 74
Figure 2: Apollo 15 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the Hadley-Apennine landing site, adjacent to the
Apennine mountain range. NASA photograph AS15-M-1537, taken Aug. 1, 1971. Digital image archived
by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS15-M-
1537
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 32 of 74
Figure 3: Apollo 15 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the Hadley-Apennine landing site,
adjacent to the Apennine mountain range. NASA photograph AS15-M-1135, taken Aug. 1, 1971. Digital
image archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS15-M-1135
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 33 of 74
Figure 4: Apollo 15 Lunar Site – 2011. The white arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission,
and the small black arrows point to LRV tracks. This image was taken fro m an altitude of 25 km by the
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University,
M175252641L. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 34 of 74
Figure 5: Apollo 15 astronaut David R. Scott is seated in the LRV during the first EVA at the Hadley-
Apennine landing site. Astronau t James B. Irwin took the photograph. NASA photograph AS15-85-
11471, taken Jul. 31, 1971. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-85-11471.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 35 of 74
Figure 6: Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin works near the LRV during the first EVA at the Hadley-
Apennine landing site. Mount Hadley is in the background. Astronaut David R. Scott took the
photograph. NASA photograph AS15-86-11603, taken Jul. 31, 1971. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-86-11603.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 36 of 74
Figure 7: Apollo 15 astronaut James B. Irwin gives a military salute while standing beside the deployed
United States flag during the mission’s second EVA at the Hadley -Apennine landing site. The Falcon
Lunar Module is in the center, and the LRV is to the right. Hadley Delta rises in the background.
Astronaut David R. Scott took the photograph. NASA photograph AS15-88-11866, taken Aug. 1, 1971.
Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-88-11866.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 37 of 74
Figure 8: Apollo 15 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Fa lcon Lunar Module. The dark lines
indicate the paths taken by the astronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers reference
scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute website:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 38 of 74
Figure 9: Apollo 16 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the landing site in the Descartes Highlands. NASA
photograph AS16-M-2464, taken Apr. 23, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State
University at http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS16-M-2464
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 39 of 74
Figure 10: Apollo 16 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the landing site in the Descartes
Highlands. NASA photograph AS16-M-0161, taken Apr. 21, 1972. Digital image archived by
NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS16-M-0161
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 40 of 74
Figure 11: Apollo 16 Lunar Site – 2011. The arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission and the
LRV tracks. The Lunar Portable Magnetometer (LPM) is closest to the LRV. This image was taken from
an altitude of 23 km by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona
State University, M175179080. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSite s
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 41 of 74
Figure 12: Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young collects samples at the North Ray Crater geol ogical site
on the mission’s third and final EVA. The LRV is parked behind him. NASA photograph AS16-117-18825,
taken Apr. 23, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-117-18825.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 42 of 74
Figure 13: Apollo 16 astronaut John W. Young drives the LRV near the Descartes Highlands landing site
on the mission’s first EVA. This view is a frame fro m motion picture film camera held by astronaut
Charles M. Duke, Jr. NASA photograph S72-37002, taken Apr. 21, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA
at: https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/s72-37002.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 43 of 74
Figure 14: Apollo 16 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Orion Lunar Module. The dark lines
indicate the paths taken by the astronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers reference
scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute website:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 44 of 74
Figure 15: Apollo 17 Lunar Site. The arrow points to the landing site in the Taurus-Littrow Highlands
and valley area. NASA photograph AS17-M-0939, taken Dec. 12, 1972. Digital image archived by
NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS17-M-
0939
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 167
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 45 of 74
Figure 16: Apollo 17 Lunar Site – Vertical View. The arrow points to the landing site in the Taurus-
Littrow Highlands and valley area. NASA photograph AS17-M-0447, taken Dec. 11, 1972. Digital image
archived by NASA/JSC/Arizona State University at:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_name=AS17 -M-0447
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 46 of 74
Figure 17: Apollo 17 Lunar Site – 2011. The arrows point to the visible remnants of the mission and
LRV tracks. This image was taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit:
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University, M168000580R. This and other LRO imagery at:
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandin gSites
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 47 of 74
Figure 18: Extreme Enlargement of Apollo 17 LRV – 2011. The graphic shows an enlargement of the
LRV (left), an image of the LRV in its final parking spot (bottom right), and a schematic of the LRV
(upper right). The enlarged image was taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Image Credit:
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University, M168000580R. This and other LRO digital images are archived by
NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University at: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/#ApolloLandingSites
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 48 of 74
Figure 19: Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan checks the LRV at the start of the mission’s fi rst EVA
at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The Challenger Lunar Module is in the background. The photograph
was taken by scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt. NASA photograph AS17-147-22527, taken Dec.
11, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-147-22527.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 49 of 74
Figure 20: Apollo 17 mission. The LRV sits parked on the lunar surface near the Taurus-Littrow landing
site. NASA photograph AS17-146-22367, taken Dec. 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17 -146-22367.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 50 of 74
Figure 21: Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene A. Cernan approaches the parked LRV during the mission’s third
and final EVA. South Massif can be seen in the background. The photograph was taken by scientist-
astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt. NASA photograph AS17-134-20476, taken Dec. 13, 1972. Digital image
archived by NASA at: https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-134-
20476.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 51 of 74
Figure 22: Apollo 17 – A close-up view of the LRV at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. Note the
makeshift repair arrangement on the right rear fender of the LRV. Following a suggestion from
astronaut John W. Young in the Mission Control Center at Houston the crewmen repaired the fender
early in EVA-2 using lunar maps and clamps from the optical alignment telescope lamp. Schmitt is
seated in the rover. Cernan took this picture. NASA photograph AS17-137-20979, taken Dec. 12, 1972.
Digital image archived by NASA at
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17 -137-20979.html
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 52 of 74
Figure 23: Apollo 17 – the LRV is shown in its final parking spot, with the LM in the background. By the
time Eugene Cernan took this photograph, he had already removed the replacement fender at the
right rear and, also, had removed the left rear fender extension. NASA photograph AS17-143-21931,
taken Dec. 13, 1972. Digital image archived by NASA at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21036715824
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 53 of 74
Figure 24: Apollo 17 Traverse Map. The X marks the location of the Challenger Lunar Module. The dark
lines indicate the paths taken by the a stronauts in the LRV during the three EVAs. The numbers
reference scientific sampling stations. Source: James R. Zimbelman, Lunar and Planetary Institute
website: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 54 of 74
Figure 25: “Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft on Wheels [2-page flyer].” The Boeing Company,
Industrial Relations, ca. 1971. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 55 of 74
Figure 26: “LRV Detail Drawing.” Boeing News, July 8, 1971, p. 3. A similar version of this detail drawing
appeared on page 79 of NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15, Release no. 71 -119K. Archived by NASA at:
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 56 of 74
Figure 27: “LRV Components and Dimensions.” NASA Press Kit for Apollo 15, Release no. 71-119K, p.
80. Archived by NASA at: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 57 of 74
Figure 28: NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. News release of LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload
Installation. Photo 0-10844. Release date March 1, 1971. The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives.
Bellevue, WA.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 58 of 74
Figure 29: Lunar Roving Vehicle Shown Folded for Stowage on Spacecraft. Mar. 1971. 2A302135. The
Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 59 of 74
Figure 30: “LRV Deployment Sequence.” The LRV was a collapsible, open-space vehicle measuring
about 10 feet long with large mesh wheels, antenna, appendages, tool caddies, and cameras. NASA
Press Kit for Apollo 16, Release no.72-64K, p. 117. Archived by NASA at:
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 60 of 74
Figure 31: Boeing advertisement about the forthcoming Kent Space Center. Kent News-Journal, Aug.
19, 1964, Diamond Jubilee Edition, p. 5.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 61 of 74
Figure 32: Boeing’s new Space Center. Boeing News, Aug. 5, 1965, p. 1.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 62 of 74
Figure 33: Illustration of Boeing’s MOLAB, a precursor to the lunar roving vehicle. It featured six
wheels, a pressurized cabin, and it weighed nearly 8,000 pounds. Boeing News, Jun. 3, 1965, p. 4.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 63 of 74
Figure 34: Sharron Scott, a secretary in Boeing’s Kent-based LRV program, is shown in this promotional
photograph for the rover. The accompanying action memo was signed by Boeing public relations staff
Jim Grafton and Jack Wecker with the instruction not to release the photo until July 31, 1971 – after
the launch of Apollo 15. Subsequent publication of the p hoto in newspapers has not been found.
Photograph P47742, The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
Figure 35: LRV program secretary Judy Williams is shown below. Boeing News, Mar. 11, 1965, p. 1
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 64 of 74
Figure 36: The first complete LRV, seen in the bottom photo on March 10, 1971, the day Boeing
officially transferred it to NASA. Photograph 2A302169, The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives.
Bellevue, WA. The newspaper article is from Boeing News, March 18, 1971, p. 1.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 65 of 74
Figure 37: Mayor Isabel Hogan examines Boeing’s Rover 2 during the unveiling ceremony at the Kent
Space Center. Kent News-Journal, Aug. 18, 1971, p. 1.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 66 of 74
Figure 38: Kendall Brookbank, age 10, stands beside a tinfoil re plica rover. Kent News-Journal, Jul. 28,
1971, p. 3.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 67 of 74
Figure 39: The Kent Jaycees sold these blue and white buttons reading Kent, Washington – Home of
the Boeing Moon Buggy as a fundraising project in the fall of 1971.
Figure 40: Boeing’s R. H. Nelson receives one of the Jaycee’s buttons from Kent Chamber
representative Hal Barrentine. Kent News-Journal, Oct. 15, 1971, p. 8.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Historical/Architectural Significance (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 68 of 74
Figure 41: Table showing Lunar Roving Vehicle performance during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-
09423). Houston, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, April 1975, p. 4-101. Accessed Feb. 22, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR-JSC-09423.pdf
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 69 of 74
PART IV: MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
9. Previous Documentation
Atkins, Harris (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing). “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent.”
Interview by Michelle Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 9, 2018. Accessed October 15.
2018. https://vimeo.com/272473790.
Bauer, E. E. Boeing: The First Century. Enumclaw, WA: TABA Publishing, 2000.
The Boeing Company website. “Apollo Lunar Spacecraft: Historical Snapshot.” Accessed January 25,
2019. https://www.boeing.com/history/products/apollo-lunar-spacecraft.page.
The Boeing Company, Corporate Archives. Bellevue, WA.
The Boeing Company. “Lunar Roving Vehicle [25-page booklet].” Undated [ca. 1972].
The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group. “Organization Bulletin: Transfer of Lunar Roving Vehicle
Qualification Vehicle and Flight Vehicle Assembly.” September 3, 1970.
The Boeing Company, Aerospace Group. “Organization Bulletin: Lunar Roving Vehicle / Apollo
Program Relationships.” November 3, 1970.
The Boeing Company, Industrial Relations. Lunar Roving Vehicle – Spacecraft On Wheels [2-page
flyer]. Undated.
The Boeing Company, LRV Systems Engineering. Lunar Roving Vehicle Familiarization. June 3, 1971.
NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center. News release of LRV Line Drawing: LRV Stowed Payload
Installation. Photo 0-10844. Release date March 1, 1971.
Photograph Collection
Lunar Roving Vehcile Shown Folded For Stowage on Spacecraft. Mar. 1971. 2A302135.
Use the space below to cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form (use continuation
sheet if necessary).
Previous documentation on file: Primary location of additional data:
included in King County Historic Resource Inventory #
Multiple
State Historic Preservation Office
previously designated a King County Landmark #47 Other State agency
previously designated a Community Landmark Federal agency
listed in Washington State Register of Historic Places King County Historic Preservation Program
preliminary determination of individual listing Local government
(36 CFR 67) has been requested University
previously listed in the National Register Other (specify repository)
previously determined eligible by the National Register The Boeing Co., Bellevue, WA
designated a National Historic Landmark NASA libraries (online)
recorded by Historic American Buildings, Survey #: Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA
recorded by Historic American Engineering, Rec. #:
Bibliography
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 70 of 74
Lunar Roving Vehicle Ready for Moon Journey. Mar. 1971. 2A302169.
Sharron Scott, Boeing Secretary, Poses In LRV. No date. P47742.
The Boeing Company. Lunar Roving Vehicle Engineering Mock-up. Constructed 1971. Museum of Flight
Museum Collections, Seattle, WA. Personal visit and online. Accessed Oct ober 15, 2018.
http://www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/boeing-lunar-roving-vehicle-engineering-mock.
[No Author] “Boeing Gets $20 Million Apollo Integration Job.” Roundup 6, no. 8 (June 23, 1967): 1.
[Publication of NASA’s Manned Space Center, Houston, TX]
[No Author] “The Boeing Lunar Rover will be the First Car on the Moon.” Boeing Magazine 40: No. 2
(February 1970): 12-14.
Boeing News.
“New Space Laboratories Planned at Kent Site.” February 6, 1964.
“First Unit Moves into Kent Center; Tests by Autumn.” March 11, 1965.
“Compact Car for Moon Tourists Also Their Home on Wheels.” June 3, 1965.
“Stripped-Down Moon Buggy for Scientific Survey Studied.” July 15, 1965.
“New Kent Headquarters for Space Division Announced.” August 5, 1965.
Koch, Roger. “Sophisticated Lunar Rover Vehicle More Than A ‘Tough Jeep.’” December 4, 1969.
“Lunar Rover Features Electric Drive Wheels, Swivel Seats.” December 11, 1969.
“Rover Program Moves Forward.” June 25, 1970.
“For Apollo 15.” February 4, 1971.
“NASA Receives First Lunar Rover Vehicle.” March 18, 1971.
“LRV Detail Drawing.” July 8, 1971.
“Astronauts Praise Near Perfect Show by Lunar Vehicle.” August 5, 1971.
Naucler, Cindy. “Boeing Engineers Rebuild a Piece of Apollo History.” May 5, 1995.
Burgess, Colin, and Chris Dubbs. Animals in Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle. New
York: Springer Publishing, 2007.
Burkhalter, Bettye B., and Mitchell R. Sharpe. “Lunar Roving Vehicle: Historical Origins, Development
and Deployment.” Journal of The British Interplanetary Society 48 (1995): 199-212.
Clothier, William. “New Space Center Sharpens the Forward Edge of Research.” Boeing Magazine 30,
No. 10 (October 1965): 3-5.
Cernan, Eugene, and Don Davis. The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America’s
Race in Space. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. [Cernan was part of Apollo 17]
Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. New York: Penguin
Books, 2007.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 71 of 74
Kent News-Journal
“Space Labs to be Built This Year.” February 5, 1964.
“Kent…Space Age City.” [Diamond Jubilee Edition, multiple articles] August 19, 1964.
“Aero Structures to Bring 100+ Employes [sic] to Kent.” September 15, 1965.
“Boeing Receives $19 Million Contract for Moon Vehicles.” October 31, 1969.
“County to Seek U.S. Cash, Cities to Act on Layoffs.” January 16, 1970.
Carter, Wini. “Astronauts Blastoff with Moon Buggy.” July 28, 1971.
“No Ordinary Car.” July 28, 1971.
“Kent Space Center Employment ‘Stable.’” August 11, 1971.
“Moon Riders Return Home.” August 11, 1971.
“Apollo 16 Lunar Roving Vehicle Unveiled at Kent Space Center .” August 18, 1971.
“Moon Buggy Buttons Go Over Big, Say Jaycees.” October 13, 1971.
Carter, Wini. “3 Astronauts Tour Center.” October 15, 1971.
“He’s Stuck on the Moon Buggy.” October 15, 1971.
“Boeing Opens Kent Lab Service to Industries.” April 19, 1972 .
Jones, Eric M., and Ken Glover, eds. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals. [An online journal hosted by
NASA that features original transcripts, video clips, photographs, subsequent reports, etc.]
Accessed Nov. 1, 2018: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/main.h tml.
Kennedy, John F. Special message to Congress on urgent national needs, 25 May 1961. Papers of John
F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Speech Files. Accessed November 9,
2018. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/034/JFKPOF-034-030.
Kershner, Jim. “Boeing and Washington’s Aerospace Industry, 1934-2015.” HistoryLink.org Online
Encyclopedia of Washington State History, Essay #11111, 2015. Accessed Oct. 15, 2018:
http://www.historylink.org/File/11111.
Kudish, Henry. “The Lunar Rover.” Spaceflight: A Publication of The British Interplanetary Society 12,
no. 7 (July 1970): 270-274. [Kudish was Boeing’s LRV Program Manager.]
Laursen, Lucas. “The Moon Belongs to No One, but What About Its Artifacts?” Smithsonian.c om.
December 13, 2013. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-
nature/the-moon-belongs-to-no-one-but-what-about-its-artifacts-180948062/.
Lentz, Florence K. Kent: Valley of Opportunity. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1990.
Lombardi, Michael. Corporate Historian, The Boeing Company. Personal Communication, Fall 2018.
Lyons, Richard D. “Jeep Will Introduce Traffic to Moon.” The New York Times. November 9, 1969.
Morea, Saverio F. “The Lunar Roving Vehicle, A Historical Perspective.” The Second Conference on
Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century NASA Conference Publication 3166, vol. 2
(1992): 619-632. Accessed October 15, 2018.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 72 of 74
https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/lunar/LRV_Historical_Perspective.pdf [Morea was NASA’s LRV
Program Manager.]
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, As Amended. Accessed M arch 1, 2019.
https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Apollo 15 Mission Report, MSC-05161.
December 1971. Accessed February 21, 2019. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf.
________. Apollo 15 Press Kit, Release no. 71-119K. July 1971. Accessed December 28, 2018,
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/A15_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo 16 Mission Report, MSC-07230. August 1972. Accessed February 21, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_MissionReport.pdf.
________. Apollo 16 Press Kit, Release no. 72-64K. April 1972. Accessed December 28, 2018.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo 17 Mission Report, JSC-07904. March 1973. Accessed February 21, 2019.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf.
________. Apollo 17 Press Kit, Release no. 72-220K. November 1972. Accessed December 28, 2018.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_PressKit.pdf.
________. Apollo Program Summary Report (JSC-09423). Houston, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, April 1975. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/APSR -JSC-
09423.pdf.
________. “The Apollo Missions.” Accessed November 1, 2018.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html.
________. “LRV Flight Model Delivery.” Kennedy Space Center News Release, KSC-41-71, March 10,
1971. Accessed Nov ember 8, 2018. [Page 13 of PDF]
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/744322main_1971.pdf.
________. “NASA Image and Video Library.” Accessed November 1, 2018. https://images.nasa.gov/
[Pre-mission artists’ renderings and NASA images before and during each mission.]
________. “NASA Selects Teams to Study Untouched Moon Samples,” March 11, 2019. Accessed
March 15, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-teams-to-study-untouched-moon-
samples.
________. “NASA Unveils Sustainable Campaign to Return to the Moon, on to Mars.” September 18,
2018. Accessed March 15, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-unveils-sustainable-
campaign-to-return-to-moon-on-to-mars.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 73 of 74
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Arizona State University. Lunar Reconnaissance Oribter:
Apollo Landing Sites imagery. 2009-present. Accessed January 18, 2019.
https://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites#ApolloLandingSites.
NASA Space Science and Data Center. “The Apollo Program (1963 -1972).” Accessed December 28,
2018. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html.
Peizer, E. “Technical Aids.” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2 (1978): 105-110. Accessed January
21, 2019. http://www.oandplibrary.org/poi/pdf/1978_02_105.pdf.
Powell, Corey S., and Laurie Gwen Shapiro. “The Sculpture on the Moon.” Slate. December 16, 2013.
Accessed January 31, 2019.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sculpture_on_the_moon_p
aul_van_hoeydonck_s_fallen_astronaut.html.
Scott, David M., and Richard Jurek. Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.
The Seattle Times
McDonald, Lucile. “Farmers Take Steps to Speed Kent’s Industrialization.” July 8, 1956.
“Mayor Welcomes Boeing To Kent.” February 4, 1964.
“Kent Center Gets First Employes [sic].” March 11, 1965.
Twiss, Robert L. “Now It’s Green (back) River Valley.” October 24, 1965.
Twiss, Robert L. “4,000 at Dedication of Boeing Space Center.” October 30, 1965.
“Boeing Rolls Out Version of Lunar Unit.” December 23, 1970.
“Boeing On The Moon.” [multiple articles] August 1, 1971.
“Space Agency Honors Boeing Employe [sic].” October 12, 1971.
Stein, Alan J. “Kent – A Thumbnail History.” HistoryLink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington State
History, Essay #3587, 2001. Accessed November 28, 2018. http://historylink.org/File/3587.
Stiles, Marc. “Boeing Selling 72 Acres in Kent to IDS for Wareh ouses.” Puget Sound Business Journal,
December 11, 2012. Accessed March 15, 2019.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/12/11/california-company-plans-large.html.
von Braun, Wernher. “Crossing the Last Frontier.” Collier’s Weekly, March 22, 1952, pp. 24-29.
________. “How We’ll Travel on the Moon.” Popular Science 184, No. 2 (February 1964): 18-26.
Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://books.google.com/books?id=qS0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false.
________ and Fred L. Whipple. “Man on the Moon: The Exploration.” Collier’s Weekly, October 25,
1952, pp. 38-45.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Bibliography (continued)
Lunar Roving Vehicles Landmark Registration Form
Page 74 of 74
________. “Man on the Moon: The Journey.” Collier’s Weekly, October 18, 1952, pp. 52-55.
Winch, John (Retired Engineer, LRV Program, Boeing). “Bring the Moon to Downtown Kent.” Interview
by Michelle Wilmot and Edgar Riebe, City of Kent, May 14, 2018. Accessed October 15, 2018.
https://vimeo.com/272473790.
Zimbelman, James R. “The Apollo Landing Sites – Slide Set.” Lunar and Planetary Institute website.
Accessed December 28, 2018. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/.
8.H.a
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
(
1
7
7
4
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with Kent Downtown
Partnership for the Lunar Rover Replica Capital Campaign -
Authorize
MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Kent and the Kent Downtown Partnership to conduct a
capital campaign to purchase and install an interactive lunar rover replica
as part of the planned redevelopment of Kherson Park in the heart of
Kent’s historic downtown, subject to terms and conditions acceptable to
the Economic and Community Development Department Director and City
Attorney.
SUMMARY: The plan for redevelopment of Kherson Park with a theme of space
exploration is already well underway. An interactive replica of the suits worn on the
first moon walks has already been commissioned and is currently on display at
accessoShoWare Center to raise awareness of the vital role Kent’s preeminent
companies played in the early days of space exploration.
Kent is home to the Boeing-built Apollo Lunar Rovers. The city greatly appreciates
the support of the Kent Downtown Partnership in the planned redevelopment of
Kherson Park to include an interactive Lunar Rover Replica as a perfect companion
to the astronaut. This meaningful project provides an opportunity to celebrate an
historic, national feat; one that is closely connected to the City’s local history, its
present and future.
To raise the funds necessary to create an inspiring, educational and historically
significant public space, worthy of the major innovations Kent should be recognized
for, a capital campaign consultant is needed to develop an appropriately broad and
deep campaign to achieve the goal.
As a tax exempt 501c3 non-profit, the Kent Downtown Partnership can receive tax
deductible donations to help fund the campaign, including access to critically
important corporate matching dollars, which will be instrumental in achieving the
campaign’s goals. As a long-time supporter of public and private efforts to revitalize
Kent’s historic downtown, our partnership with Kent Downtown Partnership on this
project creates a special opportunity to celebrate our past and create an exciting
new public space for our community.
8.I
Packet Pg. 198
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure, Innovative Government
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum of Understanding (PDF)
2. Mayor and Astronaut (PDF)
3. Lunar Rover Design (PDF)
05/13/19 Economic and Community Development Committee
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS] Next:
5/21/2019 7:00 PM
MOVER: Marli Larimer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Satwinder Kaur, Councilmember
AYES: Bill Boyce, Satwinder Kaur, Marli Larimer
8.I
Packet Pg. 199
KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kuft Hanson, Director
220 4tn Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6454
PHONE: 253-856-5454
WasHtNcloN
From:
Date:
¡o Barb Smith, Executive Director, Kent Downtown partnership
Jeff Middleton, President, Kent Downtown partnership
Bill Ellis, Chief Economic Development Officer, City of Kent
April 19, 2019
Subject:Memorandum of understanding (Mou) between the city of Kent (city) and
Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) for the Lunar Rover capital campaign
(Campaign)
With Kent being home to the Boeing-built Apollo Lunar Rovers, the City greatly appreciates the
support of the KDP of the City's efforts in its Kherson Park redevelopment project and the
placement of an interactive Lunar Rover replica at the park.
This meaningful project provides an opportunity to celebrate an historic, national feat; one that
is so closely connected to the city's local history, present, and future.
To raise the funds necessary to create an inspiring, educational and historically significant
public space, a capital campaign consultant (Consultant) is needed to develop the Campaign to
achieve the fundraising goal,
As a tax exempt 501c3 non-profit, the KDP can receive tax deductible donations to help fund
the Campaign (Campaign Donations), including access to critically important corporate
matching dollars, helping the Campaign reach its financial goal.
TERMS:
This MOU will be for the length of the Campaign, until such time as the park is
dedicated, ideally by December 2020, but no later than August 202L, marking
the 50th anniversary of the Lunar Rover's use during Rpollo f S
The KDP will receive Campaign Donations and deposit and hold those Campaign
Donations in a separate bank account exclusively for the campaign,
Any expenses for the Campaign, including, but not limited to, reimbursement to
the city for its purchase of the lunar rover replica, anticipated city park
improvements, campaign consultant fees, and campaign event fees, will be paid
exclusively from Campaign Donations.
The KDP will not be responsible for any campaign expenses beyond the
Campaign Donations.
The KDP will not commingle the Campaign Donations with any other money
donated to or earned by the KDP.
The KDP will contract with the Consultant, chosen by the City, which contract
will be paid with Campaign Donations.
Staff from the City will manage the Consultant and serve as liaison between the
Consultant and the KDP.
a
a
a
a
O
a
aoI
3
cqJY
a Mayor Dana Ra¡ph
City of Kent Economic & Community Development
8.I.a
Packet Pg. 200
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
The KDP logo, along with the City of Kent logo, will be featured on all Campaign
promotional media as the campaign's tax-exempt non-profit partner.
Accepted and agreed to:
ith, Executive rector Kent D owntown Partnership Date
d Presi t Downtown Partnership Date
a
/
Dana Ralph, Mayor, City of Kent Date
8.I.a
Packet Pg. 201
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
8.I.b
Packet Pg. 202
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
a
y
o
r
a
n
d
A
s
t
r
o
n
a
u
t
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Page 1 of 1
5/2/2019https://128dagwixzkuuk9y3guyf7fd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-con...
8.I.c
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
7
7
0
:
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
K
e
n
t
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
L
u
n
a
r
R
o
v
e
r
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing the Flower Court Neighborhood
Council - Adopt
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. , recognizing the Flower Court
Neighborhood Council supporting its community building efforts, and
conferring on it all opportunities offered by the City’s neighborhood
program.
SUMMARY: The Flower Court neighborhood consists of 31 households and is
located on Kent’s East Hill. The neighborhood has completed the process to be
recognized as a neighborhood council.
The City’s Neighborhood Program is an initiative designed to foster better
communication among residents in a geographic area and city government. The
underlying objective of the program is to provide an avenue for residents to work
together to enhance the livability of their neighborhoods.
The program encourages organization of neighborhood councils, which serve as
independent, non-profit organizations promoting resident-based efforts for
neighborhood improvements while also establishing a partnership between City
government and the neighborhoods they serve.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Flower Court Neighborhood Council Resolution (PDF)
8.J
Packet Pg. 204
1 Flower Court
Neighborhood Council Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, recognizing Flower Court
Neighborhood Council.
RECITALS
A. The City of Kent has developed a Neighborhood Program to
promote and sustain an environment that responds to residents by building
partnerships between the City and its residents. In addition, the City of Kent
encourages residents to work together to form geographically distinct
neighborhood councils as a means to foster communication among residents
and to enhance their sense of community.
B. The City of Kent recognizes and supports neighborhood councils
by endorsing a process to establish neighborhood boundaries, approve
neighborhood councils, and provide neighborhood grant matching program
opportunities to make improvements in defined neighborhoods.
C. The Flower Court neighborhood consists of 31 households.
D. The Flower Court neighborhood is located on Kent’s East Hill and
is generally situated on SE 237th Street, to the east of 102nd Avenue SE, to the
south of SE 236th Street and to the west of 102nd Court SE. The Neighborhood
is shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference.
8.J.a
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
8
6
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
A
d
o
p
t
)
2 Flower Court
Neighborhood Council Resolution
E. On May 8, 2019, the Flower Court neighborhood submitted an
official registration form to request that the City recognize the Flower Court
Neighborhood Council and to allow the neighborhood to take part in the City’s
Neighborhood Program.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. – Recognition of Neighborhood Council. – The City Council
for the City of Kent hereby acknowledges the effort and commitment of the
Flower Court neighborhood and all those who participated in forming the Flower
Court Neighborhood Council. The Kent City Council hereby recognizes Flower
Court Neighborhood Council as an official Neighborhood Council of the City of
Kent, supports Flower Court Neighborhood Council community building efforts,
and confers on the Flower Court Neighborhood Council all opportunities offered
by the City’s Neighborhood Program.
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 3. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon its passage.
8.J.a
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
8
6
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
A
d
o
p
t
)
3 Flower Court
Neighborhood Council Resolution
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
P:\Civil\Resolution\Neighborhoodcouncilflowercourtresolution.Docx
8.J.a
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
8
6
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
A
d
o
p
t
)
EXHIBIT A
8.J.a
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
7
8
6
:
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
o
u
r
t
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
A
d
o
p
t
)
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: 2018 Traffic Signal Replacement - Accept as Complete
MOTION: Accept the 2018 Traffic Signal Replacement Project as complete
and release retainage to Apply-A-Line, Inc., upon receipt of standard
releases from the State and the release of any liens.
SUMMARY: This project replaced existing traffic control signs, posts and bases in
defined areas of the City.
The final contract total paid was $284,251.26 which is $49,848.74 under the
original contract amount of $334,100.
BUDGET IMPACT: The project was paid for using Business and Occupation funds.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Evolving Infrastructure
8.K
Packet Pg. 209
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: 2018 Guardrail Repairs Project - Accept as Complete
MOTION: Accept the 2018 Guardrail Repairs Project as complete and
release retainage to Dirt and Aggregate Interchange, Inc. upon receipt of
standard releases from the State and the release of any liens.
SUMMARY: This project removed damaged guardrail and installed new guardrail in
various locations around the city.
The final contract total paid was $135,330 which is $550 over the original contra ct
amount of $134,780.
BUDGET IMPACT: The project was paid for using Business and Occupation funds.
Whenever possible, drivers causing guardrail damage were charged for repairs.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Evolving Infrastructure, Sustainable Services
8.L
Packet Pg. 210
DATE: May 21, 2019
TO: Kent City Council
SUBJECT: Set June 4, 2019 as the Public Hearing on the Transit
Operations and Maintenance Facilities Zoning Code
Amendment
MOTION: Set June 4, 2019 as the date for the Public Hearing on the Transit
Operations and Maintenance Facilities Zoning Code Amendment.
SUMMARY: On January 15, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4305, an
interim zoning ordinance addressing transit operations and maintenance facilities
and where they may be located. The interim ordinance amended Title 15 of the
Kent City Code by adding definitions of “transit operations and maintenance
facilities” and “transportation and transit facilities including high capacity transit
facilities,” and specified that transit operations and maintenance facilities are
permitted in the CM-2 District, but not in the MCR District or the MTC-1 and MTC-2
Districts.
This hearing will be held to take public comment on a draft ordinance that would
make the interim zoning regulations from Ordinance No. 4305 permanent.
SUPPORTS STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Inclusive Community, Thriving City, Evolving Infrastructure
8.M
Packet Pg. 211