News from former Councilmember Randy Corman, your Renton City Hall insider. (All views expressed in journal entries are Randy Corman's personal views, and not the official position of the City of Renton or other city employees. Views expressed in reader comments are those of the commenter)

Search results for priority 1

Renton City Council gives preliminary approval to proposed safety improvements on Cedar River Trail

May25
2010 Written by Randy Corman


Approximately two miles of the Cedar River trail will be getting a center stripe to separate direction-of-travel lanes, new 10 MPH speed limits, and other improvements in an effort to improve safety for all users.

At last night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, the Renton Council received a briefing from a cross-divisional “trail safety” team that the Mayor had commissioned here. The team included specialists from recreation, transportation, police, and other departments. The briefing was also attended by many citizens from the community, including relatives of the hiker who was killed by a bicycle on the trail last month, representatives of the Cascade Bicycle Club, the editor of the Renton Reporter, and other interested parties.

The council largely agreed with the recommendation of the Mayor’s trail-safety team, and gave the administration support to move forward.

There are several items proposed for the trail as well as a public awareness campaign. Here are some of the most significant items in the proposal:

The two-mile section of the Cedar River Trail, from the library to the Railroad Trestle Park on Maple Valley Highway, will receive a dashed center-stripe to separate the two directions of travel. Walkers, joggers, skaters, horseback riders, an bike riders will all be asked to walk on the right hand side of the trail except when passing slower travelers; then, they can use the left side as needed to pass, but they must be wary of on-coming traffic. The pavement is 12 feet wide in this section, so it will be divided into two six foot lanes.

That section of the trail mentioned above will be marked for a lower maximum speed. A new maximum speed limit of 10 miles per hour will replace the existing speed limit of 15 miles per hour. (While this may be disappointing to some bicyclists, I calculate that this change only adds a maximum of three minutes of travel over the entire two mile stretch for the fastest riders, and has less impact for everyone else)

Solid center striping will be added to sections where passing is considered dangerous due to visibility obstructions (just as in the case of roads). Solid stripes will also be added to direct trail users away from bollards and other obstructions in the trail.

There will be a dismount zone (where any bikes must be walked) in the lower section of the trail between the Library and the Senior Center. This is a narrower section of trail, with poor visibility at the bridges. It was judged to be too unsafe for continued bike commuting. Bikes have the option to stay on the streets above this stretch.

There will be new trail etiquette signs posted, and brochures made available at the trail, to remind users about safe practices for enjoying the trail. This will include awareness for bicyclists that they must not exceed a safe speed, regardless of the maximum speed posted. Overtaking pedestrians requires care, and groups with children or animals will require special care as they can not always be expected to reliably stay on their side of the trail.

Additional enforcement will be employed to stress the new trail rules and give warnings or citations (as appropriate) to violators. Some of the enforcement will be from volunteers, and some will be from commissioned police officers. In addition, trail users will be reminded to contact 911 if they feel anyone is obviously violating rules or is otherwise a menace on the trail.

Council members had a few suggestions, potentially including extending the lane markings and lower speed limit to the east further and investigating the feasibility of interactive speed signs that would tell riders their speed. These suggestions were taken under review by the team. Since they are additive to the staff suggestions (not in conflict), staff could probably move forward with their plan while further studying the council suggestions. We’ll get another status on this soon.

In closing, I want to emphasize that it is important to our physical and mental well-being that we all get out and move as much as we can. I have great respect for all the trail users–walkers, joggers, skaters, bikers, etc– for making it a priority to exercise. Even with the inherent risks of getting out on a multi-use trail, the collective gains to our health, longevity, and state of mind make it worth it.

Posted in Bike Trails

The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe wants additional protections in Renton’s Shoreline Master Plan

May24
2010 Written by Randy Corman


Coulon Park over-water trail; the Muckleshoot Tribe has sent a letter saying they would like Renton to reduce these

In the audience comment section of tonight’s council meeting we heard from several speakers with property on Lake Washington. The three speakers, and an attorney representing others, all spoke to their concerns that the Shoreline Master Plan is too restrictive. This was similar to inputs we received at earlier council meetings, as I described here.

On the other side of this issue, we heard today from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, which feels our Shoreline Master Plan allows docks which are too large, does not do enough to restore the shoreline and vegetation around the lake, and comes up short in other areas.

You can read their letter by clicking here . This letter is an important one, because old treaties and recent case law give the Muckleshoot Tribe a co-trustee role when managing our fish and waterways.

The controversy is really brewing on this topic. The Muckleshoot Letter arrived the same day that we received a hand-delivered letter from David Halinen Law Offices, who is representing AnMarCo, the owner of the old Stoneway Concrete and Gravel site on Cedar River (Next to the Henry Moses Pool). Mr. Halinen expressed concern that the Shoreline Master Plan could force his client to remove the concrete Cedar River bulkhead on this site, opening the door to river erosion and loss of some –or even most– of the old Stoneway property.

Mr. Halinen also attached a copy of a five-page listing of concerns from a group called the “Renton Shoreline Coalition,” dated May 11. This list captured many of the concerns we had heard in chambers from citizens attending our council meetings.

In many areas of this plan, I feel a little like a referee. The city of Renton is trying to find some common ground between the interests of State Department of Ecology and the Muckleshoots on the one hand, versus Renton property owners on the other. And note that property owners are not all private; property owners include all of us, the Renton public, as we own Coulon Park, Kennydale Beach Park, the Airport, and much property along the Cedar River.

Photobucket
A privately-owned, publicly accessible waterfront trail graces the entire frontage of Southport, from Coulon Park to the Boeing factory. Here, Renton residents are queued for a Waterways Cruise, which departs from Southport’s dock.

While normally we referee, I found myself feeling disagreement with both the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Renton Shoreline Coalition on one point this evening. The Muckleshoot Tribe says in their letter that we need to work to reduce our over-water trails (like we have at Coulon Park). But these trails are used by tens of thousands of residents each year to get their best views and enjoyment of the lake. Trail users include members of the community who often don’t have access to boats or private docks, and yet deserve access to Lake Washington. Some visitors also have mobility issues, making our ADA accessible water walks extremely valuable for ensuring all members of society can enjoy the lake. Meanwhile, the Renton Shoreline Coalition has taken issue with the Shoreline Master Plan giving priority to lakefront development projects which create more public access (like Southport did). In their issue paper they state “the shoreline Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221(4) do not require that new private shoreline development provide physical and/or visual public access for the general public.” So, on this point it feels like both the Muckleshoots and the Renton Shoreline Coalition are unreasonably lowering the importance of public access. And I disagree with both their positions on this. And while they have property rights (in the case of private property owners) and treaties (in the case of the Muckleshoots) dating back to the nineteenth century on their side, we in the general public have something dating back to the Magna Carta on our side– the Public Trust Doctrine.

In short, the Public Trust Doctrine comes from ancient English law, and dictates that certain resources (including waterways) belong to all the people. Every state in our nation recognizes the Public Trust Doctrine, and courts across the county have been increasing public access under it’s provisions. I’ll discuss it in greater detail in another blog. But in the meantime, suffice it to say that I understand the right of the inhabitants of our region to have good access to Lake Washington is of greater importance and is more-strongly rooted in older laws than any private property rights bestowed by our state, or any treaties between the federal government and the Muckleshoot Tribe.

Keep checking back for more blogs about the Shoreline Master Plan.

Posted in Shoreline Master Program - Tagged

We have a chance to get funding for a new cross-Renton trail connection!

Dec02
2008 Written by Randy Corman

This is really exciting for trail and bicycle enthusiasts. There is a fair chance of getting funding soon for a trail connection from Cedar River to Green River Trails. I wrote about this desired trail in this earlier blog, and it appears we might have a shot at getting money much sooner than I anticipated. Even though money is scarce, there is money earmarked from voter approved bonds for Open Space which could provide hundreds of thousands of dollars for this connection!

I am attending a press conference on this topic on December 9 to help push this along. the even will be down by the library.

Here is an email I received with some additional background.
READ MORE »

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Sheriff Sue Rahr says public safety is in peril; meeting in Skyway tonight

Oct22
2008 Written by Randy Corman

Sheriff Sue Rahr has been sounding the alarm that proposed King County budget cuts are putting public safety “in peril”. City council received a notice, sent to a wide range of city officials, on this topic last week.

Tonight, she is hosting a meeting in Skyway to discuss what these proposed cuts could mean to the Sheriff’s office, and to citizens who rely on King County for local police protection (unincorporated areas). This is one of four “town-meeting” style forums she is planning on this topic.

The politics are interesting, since Sheriff is an elected position– just like King County Council and King County Executive. Hence, Sheriff Rahr is on solid ground making a pitch to constituents that she needs more money or else they will see a cut in services. How this will play to the King County Council budget writers remains to be seen.

Renton City Council and Mayor Law continue to make local public safety our highest priority, and we do not anticipate any police policy shifts or noticeable service shifts as a result of the current economic downturn. Bad guys in Renton won’t be getting any slack. But the county police issues can still affect us when we travel/work/shop/etc in unincorporated areas.

Tonight’s meeting details are as follows:

October 22nd
7:00 – 8:30 pm
Skyway United
Methodist Church
11800 Renton Ave S
Seattle, WA 98178

Here is a King 5 Story with more information about the proposed cuts

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Renton faces some exciting but confusing choices regarding our library services

Oct09
2008 Written by Randy Corman

The council and mayor had a two-and-a-half hour meeting yesterday to discuss future options and opportunities for our library system.

While we don’t have a lot of money to throw around right now, we recognize that we need to create a long-term plan very soon for two reasons:

(1) Our current downtown library and highlands library are both getting lots of use, and have not seen major updates in decades. Meanwhile, our infill population has been growing fast (in places like the Landing), and we have annexed many new neighborhoods like Benson Hill. Furthermore, a rough economy historically increases library use.

(2) Perhaps even more pressing (planning wise), we are seeing incorporation drives in Fairwood and on the West Hill. Both of these areas currently get library service from the King County Library System. Furthermore, both of the areas are actually paying extra taxes, on voter approved bonds, for the King County Library System to remodel and update the libraries in their areas (Fairwood and Skyway). Residents in both areas are asking what annexation would mean to their future libaray service, and we would like to know the answer to the question.

So, with these pressures in mind, we looked at volumes of data yesterday, including citizen suggestions, a consultants study, staff recommendations, a library board recommendation, and many other items, and had a rip-roaring talk about what we want to do with our libraries.

After hours of discussion, we arrived at four basic options (some council members would say it was three, with two variants on one option, but I will call it four options.)

Option A: Do nothing.

Keep buying some new books each year, and maintaining existing buildings, out of our general fund for a cost of about 18 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. ($18 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation). With this option, residents can continue to use King County libraries under a reciprocal agreement (which my lovely wife Cathy helped put in place while she was on Library Board…yay!). The reciprocal agreement requires a fee to King County, to keep things fair, which amounts to about $250,000 per year–also paid out of general fund.

All 82,000 residents of Renton get a Renton library card and are eligible to receive free King County Library cards.

Option B: Remodel existing downtown and highlands libraries, with burst of new books and new equipment

This option includes the elements of Option A, but would ask voters to additionally approve a bond for significant updating of the buildings and equipment in both libraries, as well as a one-time burst of new books for both facilities. The bond value and total work scope could be further refined, but I estimate that a bond of 5 to 10 cents per thousand (five to ten dollars for $100,000 of home value), for ten years, would give us a pretty nice remodel.

Option C: Build larger, new-generation Renton Libraries under our own Renton Library system (while maintaining a reciprocal agreement)

We would build all-new buildings in downtown and the highlands, to house a significantly expanded book collection, other new print materials, and technology. The buildings would also include other elements requested by citizens such as meeting rooms, class rooms, coffee bars, etc.

With our growing population, the downtown library could be roughly the size of the Bellevue King County Library (the largest branch of the king County System).

This option would cost us the existing $18 per $100,000 asseses valuation that we currently pay for library service, plus an additional $21 per $100,000 for the capital expenses of building, plus an additional $17 per $100,000 for the extra staff and maintenance costs of the larger libraries, for a total of $56 per $100,000 in home value.

Hence, if you live in a $300,000 house, your total library cost would be $168 per year; $54 of which is already coming out of our general fund (you wouldn’t see a change in this part); plus a bond that costs $63 per year for 20 years for the new buildings; plus an operations levy of $51 per year to cover the additional new service.

Put another way, this option would cost you $114 more per year, until the new-building bonds were paid off–at which time the increase would drop to $51 more per year than today. (In today’s dollars)

Option D: Build a new downtown library, and join the King County Library System

In this option, we would work with King County to get agreement that we would build a new library downtown, probably close the highlands branch (which is only 6800 square feet and not big enough for them to efficiently manage), and then join the King County Library System to manage our library. All residents in the city would be assessed the $39 per $100,000 fee that King County charges for library service. Hence, the owner of a $300,000 home would pay $107 per year for operation of the library under this plan.

The new library would most likely have to be paid for by our residents, to “buy into” the King County System. We feel we could devote the current $18 dollars per $100,000 we have budgeted for library in our general fund for this purpose, so the new library bonds would be taken care of by our exisiting budget.

Hence, this option is almost the exact same cost as Option C. It integrates us fully with the King County library, but gets us a slightly smaller library downtown and probably eliminates the branch in the highlands. On the plus side, it makes it simple to understand our relationship with KCLS–we are one and the same, which makes annexations easier. On the negative side, we are stuck with whatever cost increases KCLS might pass along in the future, and we can not be as personal about our choices of services, books, and policies.

As a final note, we would work hard with this option to ensure that our personnel would get picked up by King County, so that we could enjoy familiar faces at the library and our employees would be taken care of.

COUNCIL DISCUSSED all these options and more, and considered all facets of each option; questions like what about existing library bonds in Fairwood and Skyway (residents still have to pay them…about $20 per year on a $300,000 house), what about King County’s shortfalls in revenues, what would be the timing and priority, etc.)

In the end, just about everyone of us flip-flopped back and forth on whether we should remain independant, or join King County. Data shows that you, the residents, have very mixed feelings about this as well. Many of you like the larger print collection of the Renton system, and the shorter wait times, but many of you also like the expansive collection of the total King County System. Then there is the argument that the reciprocal agreement can give us both…at least as long as it can be kept in place, and nothing seems to be threatening to change it.

The Library board and staff have both looked at this puzzle already, and both gave the recommendation to remaining independent…but with a deep understanding of those who want to join King County.

I have to say that at the time of this writing I am leaning towards remaining independent, and starting to do the early planning on two new buildings to be brought forward for citizen vote when the economy improves. But that is how I feel tonight.

My wife Cathy will be getting all this info for the first time when she reads this blog. She has been asking me for the data, but I said it was too complicated to explain, and she would have to wait until I wrote it down. So Cathy, let me know what you think in the comment section below 🙂

And all the rest of you, if you made it through this….Tell me what you would prefer for the future of our library system!

Thanks,

Randy

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Open letter from the King County Sheriff

Jul10
2008 Written by Randy Corman

 As a reminder, the city of Renton does not have policing issues…. this letter from the Sheriff affects those crimes that are under the jurisdiction of King County Sheriff –primarily in the unincorporated parts of King County–

–So don’t even THINK about committing these crimes here 🙂

 

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Public Safety
in Peril

In March of this year the King County Executive told me that the Sheriff’s Office would need to take an 8.6% budget cut, roughly equaling $7.5 million for 2009. I have been working closely with my command staff and all of our employees for several months to identify potential areas for reductions. We have carefully evaluated every possible scenario to minimize the impact to the level of service provided by the Sheriff’s Office.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to take such a hit without affecting the way we do business. If the budget situation is not resolved, it is clear that we will have to make drastic cuts to our existing service levels. This will significantly impact service levels in the following areas:

  • Domestic Violence
  • Narcotics & Organized Crime
  • Cold case Investigations
  • Neighborhood Storefront Centers
  • Victim Outreach

I will also have to raise the threshold for investigating property crimes. Although we will respond to the scene and take a case report, any property crime with a loss of $10,000 or less will not be investigated. I was forced to choose between investigating property crimes and investigating person-related crimes such as rape, robbery, assault and homicide.

We have been moving aggressively to scrub the budget and to ‘tighten our belts’. The following are some of the immediate measures we have taken to save money:

  • Reducing overtime by 15% in each Division
  • Reducing the number of pool vehicles available at each Precinct
  • Purchasing gas at pre-selected low cost stations
  • Developing a virtual block watch through the use of email groups
  • Developing online incident reporting

My commitment is to keep you informed and engaged in the budget process and any ensuing decisions. I intend to be out in the community with my criminal justice colleagues from now until November, talking to you about the budget crisis. As your elected Sheriff, it is my responsibility to protect your safety. That is my highest priority.

Your ongoing participation and communication with your elected officials is critical. To find out more about how these cuts could impact services and what you can do to help, please visit my website at:

www.kingcounty.gov/safety/sheriff

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

A letter to Renton Police Employees expressing our gratitude and encouragement

May30
2008 Written by Randy Corman

Those of us in elected office in Renton are very aware of the extra effort Renton’s police are making to add officers and patrol districts for Benson Hill, and to knock down some chronic problems we have had in our city.

Denis Law summarized our collective feeling in this letter today: READ MORE »

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Two injured in shooting at Renton Highlands Jack in the Box :-(

Mar23
2008 Written by Randy Corman

We must bring the criminal activity under control in this area. We are already doing emphasis patrols (we budgeted an extra $150,000 in 2007 for Highlands police overtime, and revised our police patrol districts in 2008). Obviously, this threat will be a priority for our police department, given the shooting we had last month on Index.

(I don’t know if the perpetrators were motivated by drug or gang ties, but I would not be surprised. Much of the violence our community suffers is a result of offenders wanting money for drugs, or being impaired by drugs, or both.)

Here is the press release: READ MORE »

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

New Leasing policy at Airport has been developed by Renton Transportation Committee

Feb17
2008 Written by Randy Corman

Councilmembers Rich Zwicker, Don Persson, and I put the final touches on a new Renton Airport Leasing policy at last Thursday’s Transportation Committee Meeting. Huge credit also goes to Marcie Palmer, who chaired this committee last year when the lion’s share of the work was done. We put many, many hours of committee time into this policy, and received much input from residents and the aviation community during the past year.

The new leasing policy, which comprises about a dozen pages of text, makes some important improvements to the process of leasing airport property in the future. Some of the changes are:

(1) A clear application process for people who wish to lease airport property. Up until now, individuals have sent letters or made phone calls with proposals, but it is not always clear whether they are “applying” for lease consideration. A new application process fixes that for future applicants, and makes it clear who is “first in line” on future applications. (Unfortunately, this does not fix the confusion regarding who is first in line for current applicants. The mayor’s office, airport manager, and city attorney will be working with those individuals who believe they have an outstanding commitment from the city… they will try to resolve these situations as fairly as possible)

(2) City ownership of new airport buildings. Applicants who want a ground lease in order to build a hanger, office, or other facility, will now be directed to construct the building in coordination with the city. If they are proposing an appropriate improvement, the city will finance it, own it, and lease it back to the airport tenant. This will be better for all parties. Under the old policy, tenants have to give their buildings to the city at the end of their lease, resulting in an incentive for some to delay/forgo maintenance near the end of the lease period. In addition, the new policy will enable the city to shorten lease periods since new leaseholders will not need 30-50 years to amortize the cost of a building. The shorter lease periods will give the city more options if a tenant is not working out, or if the city wants the land or building for another aviation purpose.

(3) The new lease policy does not give priority to a jet center….instead, it encourages a wide range of aviation uses.

(4) The new lease policy REDUCES the priority placed on the airport fully paying for itself under all circumstances. The old policy made financial return, and self-sustainment a factor above all other considerations. Under our new policy, it is seen as desirable for the airport to pay for itself, but it is recognized that that there may be occasions when the city-as-a-whole would prefer to provide a small subsidy to the the airport to maintain a more peaceful aviation use (i.e. to prevent loud fly-overs.) The highest revenues is not always going to be considered the best use.

(5) The leasing policy gives clear expectations for the financial capability/stability of new applicants for airport space. This addition, strongly promoted by Councilman Don Persson, makes good financial sense and is in line with good leasing practices for other types of real estate.

There are many other improvements in this document as well. As Transportation Chair, I have the honor of presenting the new document to the full council a week from tomorrow.

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Mid-session report from our city’s shared lobbiest in Olympia

Feb11
2008 Written by Randy Corman

WEEK 4 REPORT ON THE 2008 SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE
FOR MAYOR, COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT HEADS, SENIOR STAFF
Doug Levy – 2/10/08

The budget cloud hanging over Olympia: There will be more than rain clouds hovering over Olympia this week. On Thursday, the Governor’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) will forward an updated revenue forecast for the state that is expected to be very gloomy.

READ MORE »

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

An Online-Interview with Rich Zwicker.

Feb01
2008 Written by Randy Corman

Rich Zwicker provided the following responses to my questions about his history and his plans.  I think he has a great background,  good ideas, and much to offer city government.

Randy: When did you first decide you wanted to join city council?

Rich: Four years ago I decided that I was interested in being more involved in Renton.  Because of an open seat, I thought that running for council would be a start.  As it turned out, I was right.  While getting soundly trounced in the primary by current Council President Marcie Palmer, I got up, dusted myself off, and joined her campaign!!  The contacts I made were invaluable and it allowed me to become active in my community and to join various boards and commissions to get more experience.  Still having an interest in council, I was tempted by Denis’ and Toni’s open seats to run again.  However, I wanted to focus my time on my service to the Renton Technical College, so I chose to participate in some of the campaigns instead of actually running.

Randy: What experiences prepared you for this role?

My service with the State Attorney General’s Office has prepared me for the basics of public service: open public meetings, public records, etc.  This was further honed by my service as a Trustee at the Renton Technical College.
Rich: Now that you are on council, what improvements would you like to try to make in (your neighborhood of) North Renton?

I think that North Renton faces most of the issues that Renton faces on a whole.  Being an older neighborhood, it is getting a little rough around the edges and can use an influx of new development.  It faces significant traffic issues because it is in between Downtown and The Landing and is used to get from the east Renton to the West Hill.  It is being impacted by growth at The Landing and it faces an uncertain, but very optimistic, future.  Like I said, a lot like the City as a whole.

Randy: What would you like to see go into the second phase of the Landing, on the remaining 21 acres?

Rich: Ideally, I would like to see the developers transition our neighborhood into The Landing.  I have discussed this with representatives of Harvest Partners and they are intrigued by that idea.  My fear is that we will be looking at the loading docks of a bunch of big-box stores, which would be a real shame for North Renton.

Randy: What other major priorities will you have, and how will you achieve them?

Rich: My priority right now is to learn the job and to assist council and administration in their efforts to make Renton a great place to Live, LEARN, Work and Play.  I’ll accomplish this by being accountable and a team player and continuing my communication with my great neighbors.

Randy: Where did you attend grade school, middle school, high school, and college/technical training?

Rich:
Sartori, Highlands and Earlington (and we never moved–they just kept moving us!)
Dimmitt
Renton
Renton Voc-Tech (now Renton Technical College).

Randy: Do you have family in the area?

Rich: Until six months ago, all of my family lived in Renton.  Recently, by brother Don and his wife Marcey moved to San Francisco which is the first time me or any of my sibs moved away from Renton.  My sister and brother-in-law, Cheri and Ken Taylor, and my other sister and brother-in-law, Donna and Terry Rydberg, all live in Renton.  And we have cats–they’re family–and they too live in Renton.
Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Bellevue council member/former mayor Connie Marshall resigns

Jan15
2008 Written by Randy Corman

I was surprised to read this news in today’s Seattle Times.

I’ve enjoyed working with Connie Marshall in many regional transportation planning efforts. Among her many contributions, she once helped me convince the rest of the I-405 Executive Committee that the I-405/I-167 interchange deserved priority over almost everything else on I-405. She’ll be missed by many.

(Bellevue will now be engaged in filling a council vacancy similarly to Renton)

Here is the story from the Times:

Former Bellevue Mayor Connie Marshall resigned from the City Council Monday night, saying she had “accomplished what I came here to do.”

Marshall said her resignation would take effect after the Jan. 22 council meeting. She did not offer other reasons for her departure but said the city had become the center of culture, medicine and business on the Eastside in her 10 years on the council.

Read the complete story here

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged

Seattle Sidewalk Price Tag: two million dollars per mile

Aug21
2007 Written by Randy Corman

Sidewalks are costing up to two million dollars per mile in Seattle. This is a daunting pricetag, and we are seeing sidewalk prices heading this direction in Renton as well. The reason for this is that new ADA provisions, along with stormwater, curbing, and other road design requirements prevent us from simply using the old four-inch-thick-slab-of-concrete-at-grade mentality. Each sidewalk now has to be architecturally designed and engineered to meet the latest standards. This truley is for the public benefit, and really helps those who are mobility challenged; I support this improved design, but boy is it ever expensive. I hope we can find ways to slow these cost increases, or even reverse them (maybe?), in the future.


ready for the next pour…:-)

When I was a kid, I remember when I and a group of school classmates were informed by a city engineer that new freeways cost over one-million dollars per mile! “No way” we all said, in disbelief that a freeway could cost so much. Who would have guessed we would be paying twice this amount for a sidewalk in 2007!

Click here for the story

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged ,

Latest news on the Airport Development Plan

Apr27
2007 Written by Randy Corman

We’ve had two extremely long Transportation committee meetings on the last two Wednesdays, and there appears to be no end in sight. The committee has realized that in addition to public backlash about the jet center langage that came out of the Airport Study, there is also much confusion about who is first in line at the airport for new rental space. We will need more meetings in the near future to review the airport leasing policy, the queue for new space, and to solicit the input of a certain large airplane manufacturer that we wish to keep building planes in our little hamlet.

I recieved this good input from Mark Hancock, a citizen airport-activist in Renton. He summarizes our conversation and his input pretty well, and I suspect many in our city would agree with him.

I would love to get some reader comments on this issue.

Thanks,

Randy

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Randy –
Attached is my initial (very rough) thoughts on the airport policies etc. from the other day. I’m sure that brainstorming with others, and looking over the 2002 and 2005 airport plans would help add to these lists. Maybe the context to put them in to others is: “here’s some initial thoughts, what do you have to add?”

I hope I wasn’t too strident in my pitch at the end of the committee meeting on Wednesday. While I’m obviously happy that the jet center is not longer in there by name, the now absence of any decision criteria other than “good quality” makes me very nervous (how could you make a decision, and have a basis to select one use over another – or to turn one down?). I’m going with the comparison in the meeting – the Airport policies are the “comp plan”, while the Layout Plan is the “zoning”. It was interesting that Jay Covington said there were policies elsewhere – I need to ask him where that is. (maybe the real Comp Plan?)…

Thanks again so much for all your help,
Mark

AIRPORT POLICY OVERVIEW

The big decision is will the Renton Airport:
1) Remain a manufacturing facility, that also includes recreational light aircraft General Aviaton users ?
or
2) Become the new Boeing Field – a regional commercial facility with scheduled and charter passenger carriers ?

Will the City of Renton:
1) Grow the airport to maximize the economic engine ?
or
2) Put quality of life in Renton as the main priority?

Which is more important:
1) Neighborhood needs, with the airport uses designed to preserve them ?
or
2) The airport uses and users, with neighborhoods told to “get used to it” ?

Will Renton (and Mercer Island, Newcastle, etc.) neighborhoods:
1) Remain the peaceful quality neighborhoods they are now ?
or
2) Become the next SeaTac and Georgetowns ?

It is important to recognize:
1) This is an urban airport, inside the Urban Growth Area boundary, in a growing area
not
2) Not an airport out in the country where there are few homes in the flight path

The Renton Airport could likely change incrementally over time (not all at once):
1) Encouraging jets and letting in commercial carriers starts down that slippery slope…
and combined with the Port of Seattle takeover of Boeing Field pushing commercial users to Renton…
2) Ultimately reduces the City of Renton’s future options, and ability to control/change their airport

The FAA can tell Renton to make the airport available to aviation users,
but they cannot specify what those uses and who those users must be.

AIRPORT POLICIES, PRIORITIES and GOALS CONSIDERATIONS

1a Support of Boeing is main priority – now
Need to promote current activities
(e.g. no conflicting uses, keep space available)

1b Support of Boeing is main priority – future
Need to support future activities – keep airport flexible
(e.g. keep space available through short term leases)
(e.g. do not bring in conflicting uses)

2 Preservation of neighborhoods is prime
“Good neighbor” tenants at airport (uses, behavior)
Discourage noise (esp. at night) – don’t just talk about it
Consider adjacent residences, and under/by flight paths

3 Support private light aircraft General Aviation users
Construct T-hangers for indoor aircraft storage
Avoid uses that will conflict, dominate, limit or detract from them

4 Financial return is important, but not driving force
City/neighborhood integrity comes first
Airport should strive to break even; but people before profit

5 Short term leases shall be the norm
Allows flexibility of airport, and control of tenants
Need to do what’s right for the City (not cater to tenants)
6 Keep the current mix of airport uses

7 Discourage night flights, and frequent flights
Careful selection of uses, users, facilities (& mgt of same)

8 Seek to attract new compatible uses:
aircraft and aviation related production
aircraft retrofitting
maintenance/repair services
These will not conflict with existing uses
and will have good paying jobs

9 Responsive noise complaint procedure
Need to be on top of it (not “we don’t know”)
Professional and responsive, like other airports do it
Followup management of users based on public complaints

TENANT LEASING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Proposed use must meet City’s airport Policies/Goals, and Airport Layout Plan

Proposal must include all details of proposed use, and detailed layout of any proposed structure (inc. employees, # flights and their times, type of aircraft, etc.)

User must fill out & sign a SEPA checklist – listing, quantifying, and addressing all uses and their impacts

What is the user’s previous history, and their relationship with cities and neighborhoods elsewhere ? (owner financial information, corp. history, experience, etc.)

Council shall receive copies of all proposal letters and RFP responses

Council shall have an aviation lawyer review the use, user, risks, terms and conditions, etc. (can also deal with tenant lawyers, lease terms, and the FAA)

Council shall have the last word on contracts, including approval of final contract language (not staff, mayor, or airport manager)

City to own all buildings from the start
May build it, or buy it at completion of construction
Building to be adaptable for future uses/users
Allows for short term leases, and control of tenant

Short term leases are a requirement (allows airport flexibility; control of tenants)

Lease rates should be competitive
Do not give the property away
Give consideration for desireable/compatible/nonintrusive uses.
Consider one use against others before selection is made (pros & cons).

How could tenant expand/change over time?
Will there be new/different uses?
Can they get FAA to force Renton to accept new activities once they get a
lease and presence on the airport property ?

What does the use contribute (or not) to City/citizens/neighborhoods ?
Statements must be supported (esp. business spinoff claims, # jobs, etc.)

Posted in Uncategorized - Tagged
Newer Entries »

About the author

Hi, I’m Randy Corman. Welcome to my blog!  I served on Renton City Council for 28 years, 1994-2021, with six years as Renton Council President.  I’m also a mechanical engineer and manager, and worked for the Boeing Company for 33 years, from 1984- 2017.  My wife and I have five kids and five grandkids, and we all live in Renton.  I’ve kept this blog for 17 years, and get thousands of readers each month. Please share your feedback, ideas, and opinions in the comments.

Subscribe for updates

Enter your email below to receive notice of new blog entries

Renton Community Calendar

Rules for Commenting

Your comments are very appreciated and they add value to this blog.   Please keep your comments civil and respectful; policy discussions are encouraged but avoid personal attacks.  No threats of violence against anyone, or inciting violence in any form.  No racist, sexist, or hateful comments of any kind. Be truthful. Do not make allegations of criminal, unethical, or other personal wrongdoing that you do not have proof to back up.  Avoid profane, obscene, vulgar, lewd, discriminatory, or sexually-oriented language.  Honest, respectful, good-faith discussion of public officials’ actions and their results are protected speech. Private persons deserve more discretion, so avoid any unfair criticism of them.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Meta

Back to Top