AN ORDINANCE relating to commute trip reduction; amending Ordinance 10733, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.010, Ordinance 10733, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.020, Ordinance 10733, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.030, Ordinance 10733, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.040, Ordinance 10733, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.050, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.060, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.070, Ordinance 10733, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.080 and Ordinance 10733, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.100, recodifying K.C.C. 14.60.010, K.C.C. 14.60.020, K.C.C. 14.60.030, K.C.C. 14.60.040, K.C.C. 14.60.050, K.C.C. 14.60.060, K.C.C. 14.60.070, K.C.C. 14.60.080, K.C.C. 14.60.100 and K.C.C. 28.94.110 and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 28.
Thank you. And we will see you before next year because we have a lot of questions. And I. I love my TEDTalks, but there are some books I'd like to hear, too. All right. So now we're going to move on to three items that are our roads department. So we will be looking at proposed ordinance 2016, 404 11 and 401. So this cable you come up and then also our roads, people, if you want to come on up too, that would be great. All three of you can come on up this case. Please take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try not to contact you. I'm afraid I have a call today. I'm Lisa K Council staff. Today I'm talking about item 8/1, which is proposed ordinance 2016 zero 400, which is an update of Title 14 of the King County Code. I'm joined today with by the services director, Brenda Bauer, Deputy Director Jay Osborne and the county road engineer Rick Braider. My staff report begins on page 249 of your packet. There's also additional information that the executive provided, additional background information beginning on page 425 of your packet. Today's update is going to include or that I'm sorry, the update that will be brought to the course of at least two meetings is going to cover most policy and technical changes. Today, I'll be going over the policy changes as described on tables one and two on pages 252. 252 of your packet staff analysis is ongoing with respect to some of the changes to the road vacation provisions in Table two. And I'll be bringing you some of that information back to you at your November 7th meeting. Also at November 7th, I'll describe changes to the road design and construction standards that will be adopted by this ordinance and a striking amendment that has been developed by legal counsel. Your legal counsel in consultation with the panel. There are a couple of other things that are relevant to those Title 14 update that you'll be other types of legislation that you'll be seeing over the next weeks and months. Specifically early next year, you'll be seeing updates on chapters of Title 14 that deal with rights of way, the permit system for county property utilities on county right away, wireless communication facilities and utilities on county properties. Also you have legislation before you now. And as an update to King County Chapter 14 or Code Chapter 1470, which is the Transportation Concurrency Management Program that's been referred to this committee of the hall. You also have an update to County Code Chapter 1456, which is the NON-MOTORIZED program, and that will be before council in the context of the comprehensive plan. UPDATE Finally today, as item ten, you have proposed Ordinance 2016 0401, which moves a section of Title 14 to Title 28 having to do with. The commute trip reduction. So with all that, I'll come back now to table one on page 250 of your packet. These markets, these modifications would make policy changes. I said, as I said, to Title 14, and they're grouped in your staff in the staff report in four categories. Just for ease of review. There are two administrative changes. Three changes having to do with repealing provisions. Two provisions that establish new authority and four that modify regulations. Are we good to go on this? No, not really. So I'm the first one. So it's going to delete the requirement for the directors annual report. But the WEC says we have to have annual bridge reports. So if we have to do a bridge report, it seems to me that we should have a comprehensive report. So why are we deleting the annual report? If I can say that we will be what? I will be walking through each one of these with you, each one of the proposed changes. So when next time, as we speak. Now. Okay. All right. I will turn to Director Bauer to speak to the deletion of the annual report, as you said, which is the first administrative change. We've always submitted an annual bridge report to the council. And what were one of the things we were trying to do was to get rid of conflicts or repetition with state law. So where there is a state law that requires us to do something, then we you often get out of sync over time if you have a separate and close provision in county code. So is there something we can put in the county code that says that when you submit the state report that you submitted to us on the council so that that's what the state report does. Yes. Okay. All right. So if that's what we're doing, why are we changing this? Then what? Over time, a lot of what happened was that the provisions of state law were written also in county code. And to clean up the code because they get out of sync just even by a few words over time. You know, a good practice is not to repeat what's already in state law. In county code. And so I'm in the process of being in Title 14 right now. So I will have some other questions besides what's in here. But I'm not all the way done yet, so I'll say that. Go ahead. Okay, then the next administrative change is shifting responsibility for assessing the cost of sidewalk repair and reconstruction from the council to the King County DOT. Director, the the theory here the concept here was that you have all of the subject matter expertize contained at the at the departmental level and it provides an efficient way of centralizing that authorization. And I would ask Director Bower if she has anything to add to that. No. I think that the best practice for that sort of technical assessment is at the department level, rather than asking the council to assess costs on a repair project. Yes. Since that's not in our bailiwick, that would be good. Go ahead. Okay. Moving on to the repealed provisions. The first one is a provision that directs. It's an entire section speaking to install installation of public benches in the county right away. Actually, there are no public benches or any benches in the public rights of way, and this provision runs contrary to the desire to keep a clear zone area. So this would be stricken in the proposed update. So why do we ever think we were going to have benches in the right away? What was the thinking behind that? What was the year that that was from J. So I'm Jay Osborne, deputy director at ROADS. That legislation was from 1945, and there were issues with benches asking people to stop here, warning that there were concerns in the road going ahead. We no longer have benches and have not had benches in the right away for quite a while. So this is the first code clean up since 1994 at the Metro merger. So we're also going through and getting rid of some unused provisions like that one. Okay. So the horse and buggy time is a little different. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Moving to the next one is actually deleting Section 14.38 of the King County Code, which allows for road closures and openings by petition. And this action would then repeal that section. As I said, the according to the road service staff, the provisions have never been used and that closing a road doesn't absolve the county of any of the maintenance responsibilities or toward liability. Moving to the next item. This would delete the mitigation payment system. The system right now is not generating significant revenue due to low development activity of the small. This the direct impacts would still be addressed through the super process and it repealing the system wouldn't affect the concurrency program or intersection standards. Okay. Questions. Keep going. Okay. The next to deal with or to establish new authority on page 251 emergency permits. This would be providing authority for the county road engineer to issue special use permit during disasters. When you close some of the roads, you're still going to need to be able to get emergency provisions and some emergency vehicles , possibly school busses across the roads. And this would allow the county road engineer specifically to do that. So being that we have some bridges that are at their weight bearing capacity, I'm really wanting to make sure that you have enough authority for any emergency. So as we go forward, maybe you and I are flying can talk about are there any other emergency powers that you need? And I had a conversation with somebody the other day about an emergency issue and a bridge, so we can talk about that offline. And I'd also like to know, Brenda, what your emergency powers are, too. Are they all the road engineer? My emergency powers are to tell the county road engineer what to do. All right, that's good. Okay. So should he be on a vacation? Which probably won't happen. But if you were on a vacation out of the country, do you have the ability to do everything that he has to do? And if you're on a vacation, does he have the ability to share back and forth that? So whenever the county road engineer is unavailable, we have an acting county road engineer, so he takes vacation, he's ill, whatever. We have another someone who has an engineering degree, a P license that I do not have who can help us make those technical decisions. But as is true with all of our organizations, we have the ability to act in the absence of one person. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll move now on to the regulations that have been. I'm sorry, one more of the new authority again. This is enforcement entitled 14. It's on page 251. And it authorizes the county road engineer to enforce specific sections and subsections of this. Previously, the existing language gave this authority to the King County D.A., director and to the sheriff. And so this would give the authority to the county road engineer, the sheriff subsections relating to road closures, road restrictions, load limiting bridges, standards, road vacations and road variances. Okay. So the sheriff still has the same authority had before to. Yes. Okay. So offline on those two subsections, load limiting bridges. I'm very concerned about that and also road vacations. So those two are ones I'd like to know more about later. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the modified regulations. This is on page 251 of your staff report. Standards for utility for poles have been broadened to apply to every utility pole and other utility structure, not to just every new placement and every planned replacement. Okay. So that's a big deal. And so I think the companies and I think this is the one that there was a recent court ruling on, this is something that allows us to address the issues with clear zone that we did our presentation to you recently. Okay. So everybody that a law degree up here needs to know about that. So if you don't, we can be briefed anyway. Okay. So that's a big deal. All right. Go ahead. Okay, then the next modified regulation is for sidewalk repair and responsibility. This define this is section 14.50 2.020 of the county code and the new. The proposed changes would define the procedures to the floor. Notice to property owners. It again provides provisions for appeal and for the director to assess the cost of the repair or the reconstruction on a sidewalk that's been damaged or not maintained against. And so the costs would be assessed against the abutting property owner there is. And as with the existing language, the lean would be capped at 25% of the assessed value of the abutting property. So one of the things I'd like to know about is how do you repair site? I mean, how do you maintain a sidewalk? I sweep it. I have no idea how else to do. And over time, the cement begins to become what it powdery. So do you want me to get out with my. No. This really has to do with where the essentially property owners have damaged the sidewalk as a result of their tree roots. Or. Other instrumentality on their property that resulted in damage to public infrastructure. Okay. And that's another thing I want to talk about is trees in the sidewalks, because they plant these trees and I know we have a list of trees, but they plant these trees with these huge roots and then they all come up and they try to walk around. And it's very dangerous, especially for seniors or people trying to use canes or crutches. So. Okay, we'll talk about that later, too. All right. Okay. Okay. The next one is planning street maintenance. And this language just specifies that plants are prohibited in the temperate clear zone unless there is a curb present. Okay. The next item on page 251 also is intersection standards. And this language makes clear that there will be no administrative fee charged to review intersection standards and that any traffic study that is required would be paid for by the owner of the proposed development and the county staff would be reviewing those studies as they came in . Okay. So that completes the policy issues with respect. With the exception of the Road Vacation Authority section, we're still working with legal staff and roads in our analysis on that. The one issue I would bring to your attention is that the proposed changes would enable the County Council to proactively initiate a proposed road vacation. Currently, those need to be done via petition. That petition authority would remain, but the Council would also be able to initiate it and would be able to initiate on behalf of the executive. Yes. As you're working on that, I believe state law has been updated recently, but at least under our old system, a fluke could occur in terms of the valuation of our big kid and right away where you'd have your classes, I think three class era, but then you'd look to the assessed value of the parcels on either side . So say you had a 60 foot ride away and you were going to vacate it by 30 feet, going to each of the abutting property owners. If you had low valued land, say on one side, it could be rural or could be underdeveloped or for whatever reason could be low by land. And so you had a subdivision on the other side which is higher valued land. You would bless you, Councilmember Lambert, if you could result in paying a multiple for the very same property on one side of the market and right away of what you would require the money to pay on the other side. And it was it just made no sense. I word you can be paid $100 a square foot for land that was next to $5 a square foot. And I hope that we can in these reforms, if the state law doesn't do it, get to a spot. I see it's adding more flexibility to get to a spot where we have some consistency of coherency in that little fluke of our population that. That part of the code is completely gone in the revised version. And we do have a lot more flexibility in state law and we are taking advantage of that in our proposal to allow the county to essentially right size its right of way to the right of way that. Is actually used by the public and. Valuable to the public and kind of. Remove some of the. Liability that the county carries. Most of this right away we're vacating by virtue of the vacation requirements is not a value to us and is of limited value to the adjacent property owners. Typically we carry tremendous liability for it, but we don't get property tax, we don't get and we're often doing work to keep it from being dangerous to the public. So trees grow in impacted trees, what have you. But we've got a system where it might cost about one issue of diverge of. Article. One. And the second issue is just I think it's in here to the extent we can incentivize an adjoining property to pick it up, even though they may not want truly they wouldn't want to pay a lot of value for it, but they might pay something. It gets on the tax rolls, it takes it off of our books. But if there's a burden, not a burden, but a barrier because of the high price that doesn't match the added value, they just won't do it. And it stays on our books in something more useful. I'm interested in the work there to get values correct. Thank you. Okay. That completes my report on the Title 14 update. As I said next, I believe at your November 7th meeting, I would be coming back with additional analysis of the road vacation section of the road standards updates, and a striking amendment that your legal counsel has prepared with appeal. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you for all this. And I want to move on to the next one, number nine, which is 2016 411. Thank you, Madam Chair. Item nine on your list, Coastal Counsel Staff. Item nine on your agenda is approval of the quarterly report from the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. My staff report begins on page 435 of your packet. This is the sixth of seven quarterly reports required by a budget proviso that the proviso had two objectives. First, to provide closure, policy oversight of road services expenditures in light of a budgeting shift from specific project investments, i.e. individual capital projects to a program based capital project or capital budget that pooled funds for common purposes. And second, to help monitor whether expenditures from this pool of funds track with Council's policy objectives set forth in the strategic plan update. This the pardon me? There are two minor amend or two transfers. The quick response transferred $580,000 for two projects. And the. Pardon me. Let me just get to my page here. The first was $500,000 transferred to the Doctrine Road Southwest Erosion Project, and the second was $80,000 to the Bredell Over Crossing Repair Project on the Kent Black Diamond Road. Emergent need transfer was just a $21 transfer to close out the Southwest Roxbury Project. For a budget record reconciliation. And that completes my staff report manager. So on the quick response, how are we doing on making sure that we are able to go out when there's an emergency and do a quick response? Jay Osborne, Deputy Director. So with the quick response program we've been funding, as you've seen in these quarterly reports that have come before you, things that have arisen or damage to the road system that needs to be fixed. The Doctor and seawall is one that's underway currently, as is the very day over crossing, which is almost complete. You'll see in the next quarterly report there was a lot of landslides on Vachon. So you'll see a number of transfers for additional projects on based on the amount of money that we have in the budget. We at this point aren't expecting to carry over a huge sum into the next biennium. We have about 3 million left unexpended going into this stormy weekend, which turned out to not need huge amounts of money. Thank goodness. In that in that. So. Okay. I'm also looking at our preservation money and it's greatly concerning that there's 9 million in 2013, but only 7 million in 2015. So we've had a $2 million, 17% reduction. And so that's that's an issue. Where do we where does that put us. In the budget? That's before you. You'll see, we just finished how high? Our high accident location safety report. So there are a number of safety projects that are funded in there. There is a slight uptick in the amount of preservation we're able to do because our revenues have increased slightly going into the coming biennium. But there are no bridge projects or any standalone preservation projects. We're concentrating primarily on pavement preservation and drainage work came the budget proposal. So the idea you don't have a stand on preservation and also there's no money going into bridges is of great concern to me. And we asked the Federal Government to go back to separating their roads money from their bridge money. Do you know in the latest, did they do that or is bridge money now still in with the roads money? There is a separate amount of bridge money that comes down through the state. But part of what you're referencing in the Federal Highway Trust, this House of Representatives has not acted on that legislation at this point. Okay. So when we go back early next year, hopefully they'll have acted on it, but not having it. For me, it's a lack of transparency. We know how many bridges we have. We have 181, is that correct? Under 81 bridges, we know what state of repair disrepair they're in. And the federal government should be giving us a proportional share of that each year. And the fact that they're not is really disconcerting. So then on table two, Miller Bridge replacement, 2.5 million. That was taken up in the 2013 a.S.A.P. Where's that now? Is it just non-existent or is it still being tracked that that was taken out so that if we ever had money, we can go back to that. That project that was in there initially was scheduled to be funded by FEMA. Right. But as you know, FEMA had declined to fund the repair work of that bridge in there. We do have some road end proposals and some of the FEMA adjustments in that area that have been offered up. But we still do not have funding to reconnect that bridge. So just for everybody to know what he said is absolutely correct. But the problem that has been exacerbated is that that is a train stop. And there used to be three ways in and out of Skye Comet, and the train usually covers two of them. And that was fine because you always had the third, but because this is out, there is no third. And so we have had four times now where skirmish has been cut off and one time it was cut off for four and a half hours. Nobody could get in, nobody could get up. And that is not acceptable and is very dangerous. So I am working with our federal legislators on dealing with FEMA on this. So I just want you to flag it that it is still very much in my mind and something that I'm not happy about the federal government not stepping up. I think they should have. So. Okay, so that's an issue we need to still keep working with. Okay. Anything else? Madam Chair, would you like to take action on that today? I would, so let's see. Council member would you be willing to put number nine? This is four for eight, is that correct? I mean, this is 4041121201110. That is number nine. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Look at the wrong number for one one. Just looking at the page number. Sorry. That doesn't mean you can remove it. I mean, if we give it. You passed recommendation to motion 2016 for 11. Great question. Okay. Clerk, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member. Banducci Council Member Dumbass I Council Member Done. By. Council Member Gossett II. Councilmember Colwell IV Council Member McDermott. But. Council Member of the Grove Council member run right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is ADA is no nos and council member van right there. Excuse. Okay. I think that we really don't need to talk about this probably at the full council unless you want to. I was thinking consent. Okay. Okay. With consent for this. Okay. Does it need to be expedited or not? No. Okay. So regular and concert calendar. And we will continue to work on all the many issues that all of that contains. It's heartbreaking. Okay. So that takes us on to the next ordinance. Thousand 16 0401. This one will be very quick. Madam Chair, this is item ten list Lisa K Council Staff. Item ten on your agenda is proposed ordinance 2a160401. My staff report begins on page 449 of your packet. This ordinance would simply move to consolidate sections of the county code that address the Commute Troop Reduction Act into Title 28, which is metropolitan functions. So the existing county code, Chapter 14.60 on computer production would go into a new chapter in Title 28. Okay. And there are no structural changes or policy changes. I just feel really moving it so that it will be more consistent. Yes, ma'am. And because we haven't done since 1994 and it's about time. All right. So that sounds like an interesting thing. Any questions? It is. Would you like to do that? Do pass recommendation on proposed ordinance 1016 0401. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, quick, could you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member. Belushi I council member themselves. Council member done by Council Member Gossett II Councilmember Caldwell I. Councilmember McDermott. Grove. House Member of the Grove Councilmember run right down. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is either none of the members on right are excused. Thank you. I think we can also put that on consent on regular calendar. So that will be good and we will continue to work on the other off line as we prepare for more things. And hopefully we will not end up with needing a pogo stick to get over our roads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Okay. Our last item is a great item also, and this is a ordinance 2016 0431 is an ordinance establishing a task force on labor trafficking and economic exploitation and requiring a report