Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 01/07/1992 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1992 PRESENT: JIM WHITE ROGER LUBOVICH LEONA ORR ED WHITE DON WICKSTROM TONY MCCARTHY TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST GARY GILL CONNIE EPPERLY CLOUDY STREET Wickstrom stated this item was referred to the Committee by Council at their last meeting. Jim White stated that this issue keeps coming up and perhaps it should be discussed for the record. He stated he has been assured by staff at different times that there are no plans to open Cloudy Street. He stated he didn't know what more could be done except to continue to say that. Ms. Epperly stated she would to get the residents together so they won't call anymore. Jim White added that it probably came up because of the new construction at the end of 3rd. That's where they are building homes so residents think they are obviously going to open the street. There was never any discussion of that. He stated that the easiest thing to say is that we are flat out not considering opening Cloudy Street. He suggested we do some type of mailer to the neighborhood to assure them of this fact. Ms. Epperly stated that Ms. Newcomer would be coming to the meeting tonight and perhaps it could be explained to her at that time. FINANCIAL PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM FOR STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY Don Wickstrom stated that when this was last discussed at the Committee meeting, you instructed us to look at the more immediate flooding areas. Doing that resulted in a revised capital improvement program which is up to $6.5 million. Essentially we looked at what was left to be built 92 and what was left to be done in 91 and did some shifting along with looking at existing funded projects. We are not proposing any additional rate changes but proposing to fund from existing capital or unencumbered funds that we already had. We were proposing originally to use $1,085, 000 in unencumbered sewer funds which we are now proposing to increase to 2 million and reallocate $700, 000 we had funded in the Upper Mill Public Works Committee January 7, 1992 Page 2 Creek, Lower Garrison Creek and James Street storm projects into these project funds. Wickstrom reviewed the revised capital improvement program. On the valley detention project, originally 3 .4 million was budgeted in 91 which was moved to 92 and the balance was reshifted. On the Lower Mill Creek the 91-93 funds were essentially put into the 92 program and moved the rest forward so we could try to address the flooding sooner. Jim White asked how does that translated to what the public sees. Wickstrom responded for Mill Creek, it would mean we would be able to do hard improvements besides just figuring out what solutions are. Same thing with Garrison Creek. originally we were looking at $586, 000. Now we are looking at $1.6 million which is not quite enough to do what we really wanted to do but it's enough to resolve the flooding up in the East Hill Shopping Center area and the apartment complex area on 108th and, hopefully, also put in the upper detention basin. Jim White asked if there would be any, actual construction this year. Wickstrom stated that possibly some trunk lines in the Upper Garrison Creek. Construction in Mill Creek would possibly be in 93 . Permits and right of way acquisitions will take that long to acquire. But the money will be there to do the project. Jim White stated he felt this program was better. Jim White asked why are we considering an East Hill maintenance shop. Wickstrom stated that we don't have room left at the existing shop facility. We well need additional room in the future and that is why it is out in 94. White suggested that if the shops expanded at its present location using some of the park property perhaps the money budgeted to purchase land for shops on the east hill could be used for additional parks on the east hill or something. Wickstrom stated that we've looked at building a maintenance building on the adjacent park property, parks maintenance would move out of the east end of the building into the new one and we would take -over that whole side. Wickstrom continued a review of the material concluding that while the total costs are higher the difference could be made up by existing funds and not require any additional rate increase. He clarified that this CIP is based upon implementing the purposed rate modifications. Wickstrom stated that the hearings on both the street utility and drainage rate modifications would be at one hearing. Jim White suggested that the issues be separated. He stated he had real concerns with the street utility charge, coupled with increase in Public Works Committee January 7, 1992 Page 3 drainage, plus impact fees. He stated that by the time we implement all these fees we will in effect shut down any development of any land. Wickstrom replied that impact fees could be a separate issue but the drainage needs are obvious. The Council has seen the flooding and have had the people talk to you about the drainage. The street needs are equally significant and that gets into the street utility. If we do not implement the utility, we can not build the corridors. Our local funding for the corridors is coming from the street utility. There are also ramifications on meeting the concurrency which then shuts down development. Under the state law concurrency specifically addresses transportation systems. If you don't have that you can't issue the building permit. If you violate the state law they withhold your taxes. This is a significant issue which is why we tried to couple this with all the rate reductions that we could. The single- family residence is not being affected too badly. If they are using 1600 cubic feet per month, meaning there is an irrigation system or at least the lawn is watered during the summer, there is a savings of up to 3 .00 or as low as $1.35 a month, depending on which basin, after we implement the drainage rates and the street utility. Wickstrom reviewed the proposed schedule for both which starts out with the next work shop reviewing the rate increase and formation of the street utility along with modification of the billing. Wickstrom stated that they plan to present at the work shop a draft letter which would be sent to all of the customers at the end of the month in their billing notifying them of a hearing in February on both of these actions. We are proposing to implement both of these to become effective the 1st of March. Responding to White's question as to the timing, Wickstrom responded that the timing on the drainage utility is such that if we want to do improvements we need to get going, plus the fact that since we are talking about a rate reduction for a winter rate and a higher summer rate, the earlier we implemente that take advantage of the lesser water rate otherwise if you waited till summer there won't be any rate change until September and the customer will not see any benefit. As far as the street utility is concerned, on January 17th we will be at the Transportation Improvement Board hopefully getting a grant for the middle section of the 196th corridor which is ultimately an $11 million grant. We already got the west leg of that corridor plus preliminary cost evaluations of about $400 thousand which means about a quarter million dollars worth of grants on the 277th. If the City doesn't provide the match, which is the street utility, to finance these projects then Public Works Committee January 7, 1992 Page 4 we won't be able to do the projects and will have to drop the grants. The street utility is $1.90 for single family residential unit or employee and will generate about $1,273,000 per year. A full time equivalent employee is defined as 1920 hours which is the same as Renton and Bellevue use for their B&O Tax. White inquired about staff monitoring the quarterly reports of all the businesses. Wickstrom stated that we are proposing to send out a letter to all the businesses in the business license system stating that their business license indicates they have "x" number of employees and that is what we are proposing to use as a basis for the street utility charge. If there is a discrepancy, they can provide us with documentation otherwise. Jim White stated that even though he has supported the concept of the street utility from the time he was a legislative committee member of the Association of Washington Cities, he has had to completely rethink the situation from a business owner's stand point. Businesses have paperwork coming out of their ears right now. Every agency wants this, every agency wants that - the bottom line is the profit margins get slimmer and slimmer and slimmer. Now we have one more government agency that wants us to prove something to them and he stated he just can't buy off of that. Wickstrom responded that we will be using the numbers that they have already supplied on their business license and asking them if that is correct or not . If it isn't correct then they have the opportunity to correct it. McCarthy explained a program in information services to recap data from the business license system to utility billing so that we would not need anything directly from the property. The City has the authority to audit if necessary. McCarthy continued that we will just look at the information and if the number appears reasonable that's what we will be billing them. So there shouldn't be any extra paperwork. White commented that while we may be requiring anything now, what about the next finance director and the next council and on down the line. Businesses are so over regulated now; as business people, we report to everybody and he commented he felt it was just one more piece of overkill. Lubovich commented that the current proposal of business license ordinance takes away the reporting function of reporting hours. Wickstrom explained that we are taking the number of employees of the business license system. If the business license system has a Public Works Committee January 7, 1992 Page 5 larger number of employees than what they actually have, they can provide proof to that fact. If there is an understatement of employees and it is brought to our attention, then we can investigate. Wickstrom continued that we are proposing to exempt public properties, non-profit, sectarian, and low-income senior or disabled housing units from the street utility charges. Tom Brubaker added that the State law only allows two kinds of charges, one for residential and one for commercial or business. The only way it allows business charges is to charge per employee so the City's hands are tied if a street utility is implemented. Jim White asked about the 272nd/277th corridor. Wickstrom stated that the draft EIS has been published. The comment period extends to February 15. After that, we will review and address the comments received and publish the final EIS, hopefully, by the end of March. There is a 15 day period for appeals which will go to the Hearing Examiner. Any appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision would go to the Council and any appeals to the council's decisions would be to the Superior Court. Jim White asked how long it would take to get to the Superior Court from the Council decision. Brubaker commented it would depend upon the Court Is calendar. Jim White asked what happens to the street utility if the 272nd/277th corridor is delayed for years. Wickstrom responded the street utility funds would be used to finance the 192nd/196th Corridor. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1992 PRESENT: JIM WHITE CAROL MORRIS LEONA ORR MR. & MRS. RUST GARY GILL Emkay Development - Release of Easements Gary Gill reviewed that the City had approved a street vacation in 1966 and had reserved rights for utility easements. The owner is now asking that the City release the easement conditions. They have agreed to pay the City half the appraised value of the property. Jim White asked if this complies with State law. Carol Morris indicated that the City's ordinance on street vacations does not comply with State law. She is currently amending that. State law says that if we pay full value for a piece of property when vacated we have to receive full value. This situation is to release a reservation for easements. We are not releasing easements. Jim White stated he wondered if 50% of fair market value was enough. Morris responded that State law does not set a value. State law does set the price you ask for vacation of property but not for reservations. The vacation statute states we can vacate on whatever terms we want including reimbursement of the fair market value and we have the option to reserve easements for any future utilities. Carol Morris continued that in 1989 we had agreed to half the appraised value as recommended by the Property Manager in this instance. That is apparently consistent with past practices. Morris stated she had indicated to the attorney for the current owners that we would use a current appraisal to determine fair market value. Jim White asked who the principals of Emkay are. He felt it was important to know to avoid any possible conflict of interest for the Council members. That information was not available but will be provided. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the release of the reservations.