HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2007-03-05 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Tukwila City Council Agenda R DE i 1
REGULAR MEETING
4c:
s
rot Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez
•.....r''_ Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Pam Carter Jim Haggerton
188 Verna Griffin, Council President Pamela Linder Dennis Robertson
MONDAY, March 5, 2007; 7 :00 PM Ord 2153 Res #1626
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL
2. SPECIAL a. Introduction of Dave Hauntz, Senior Fiscal Coordinator, Finance.
PRESENTA- b. Introduction of Steve Batz, Administrative Assistant, P &R.
TIONS c. Youth related activities; Police Chief Dave Haynes and
Dave Johnson, Recreation Superintendent, P &R.
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included
COMMENT on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes).
To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your
comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. CONSENT a. Approval of minutes: 2/20/07 (Regular).
AGENDA b. Approval of vouchers.
5. PUBLIC An ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development of Pg. 5
HEARING substandard lots within the City (see Item 6.a. below).
6. UNFINISHED a. An ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development Pg. 5
BUSINESS of substandard lots within the City (see Item 5 above).
b. An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2142, which established a Pg.23
six -month moratorium on development of lots not meeting the
City's minimum lot size.
c. Authorize the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with the cities of Pg.29
SeaTac and Des Moines for Minor Home Repair Program utilizing
Community Development Block Grant Funds in the amount of $65,000
(see 2/26/07 C.O.
d. A resolution waiving the bidding requirements and authorizing the Pg.31
purchase of a computerized irrigation control system in the amount of
$32,018.43.
e. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be conducted in Public Pg.35
Meeting format. Please bring your notebooks from the 2/12/07 C.O.W.
f. Concurrency Test Fee and Traffic Impact Fees. Pg.37
1) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2110, regarding concurrency
test fees.
2) A resolution adopting a Public Works Fee Schedule.
3) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2111, to update the Traffic
Impact Fee Schedule.
g. A motion to amend the scope of work for the Tukwila International Pg.49
Boulevard Phases 2 and 3 construction project due to cost increases.
h. Authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment to the interlocal agreement Pg.61
with King County for animal control services in the amount of $35,000.
i. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with M. J. Durkan for 2007 Pg.73
lobbying services in the amount of $4,000 per month, plus expenses
(see 2/26/07 C.O.W.).
Tukwila City Council Agenda
REGULAR MEETING
March 5, 2007
Page 2
7. NEW
BUSINESS
8. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
9. MISCELLANEOUS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending litigation; pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); (15 minutes)
11. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the
City Clerk's Office 206 433- 1800/TDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us,
and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
COUNCIL AGENDA Sivosis
o: z Initials ITEM No.
Q Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review I Council review
usi f 01/22/07 1 BM
03/05/07 I BM /'S I
1905 I 1 Y
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-009 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 1/22/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Substandard Lots
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 1/22/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIP'
SPONSOR'S Clarification of zoning code language regarding development of "substandard lots" within
SUMMARY the City.
REVIEWED BY COW Mt CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. ['Parks Comm. Planning Comm. 1/25/07
DATE: 01/09/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPoNsoR /ADMIN. Hold public hearing and adopt ordinance as presented.
COMMrI rEE Hold public hearing and adopt ordinance as presented.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N /A $N /A $N /A
Fund Source: N/A
Comments: N/A
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1/22/07 J Briefing by Planning Staff, issue referred to Planning Commission and Regular Meeting
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
01/22/07 1 Information memo dated 1/10/07
Minutes from Community Affairs Parks Committee meeting of 1/9/07
03/05/07 Information memo dated 2/27/07
Ordinance in Final Form
Minutes from Committee of the Whole meeting of 1/22/07
Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of 1/25/07
-I i t, y I
o s G Ity
of Tukwila
M.
f Steven Mullet Mayor
an i de Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908
TO: Mayor
City Council_
FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director
Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner
RE: Substandard Lot
DATE: February 27, 2007
ISSUE
Clarification of code language regarding development of substandard lots found in TMC
18.70.030 adopted via Ordinance 2097.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2007, Planning Staff briefed the COW on a proposed code clarification
regarding how the City regulates the construction of homes on substandard lots which is
found in TMC 18.70.030 and was adopted via Ordinance 2097.
The intent of TMC 18.70.030 is as follows:
1. In order to be developable, a lot must meet all basic development standards with
the exception of average lot width.
2. If a lot cannot meet basic development standards it must be combined with
adjacent lots.
3. In rare situations an individual may seek a variance to basic development
standards.
As the Council may recall, the language of TMC 18.70.030 has been called into question.
It has been alleged that the language is contradictory and unclear. In order to erase any
doubt regarding the intent and effect of this language, staff recommended and the City
Council approved a temporary moratorium on the development of substandard lots, to
allow the City to reaffirm its intention and clarify the code language.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COW referred the matter to the Planning Commission and on January 25, 2007 the
Planning Commission held a public hearing.
Created by B. Miles
H:\Lots \CC\2007.03.05\Memo (Fix Ord)..doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
Planning Staff presented the Planning Commission the following language modification
for the language found in TMC 18.70.030 (presented in ctrikethrough underline format).
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum
dimensional standards standard for average lot width for the zone in which it is
located may still be developed as a separate lot if the proposed use is one which is
permitted in the zone and the proposed development can comply with the remaining
requirements of this title regarding basic development standards for the applicable
zone and other applicable land use and environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards (other than lot width) for the applicable zone and other applicable land
use and environmental requirements may be developed only if it is combined with
adjacent lot(s) in a manner which allows the combined lots to be developed in a
manner which does comply with the basic development standards for the applicable
zone and other applicable land use and environmental requirements. In the event
lots are combined in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection, a
boundary line adjustment shall occur so that the combined lots are henceforth
considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a sub-
standard lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC
Chapter 18.72.
Planning Commission recommended that the proposed language be forwarded to the City
Council for adoption.
ANALYSIS
The effect of this amendment would be to reconfirm and make clear the Council's intent
with the adoption of Ordinance 2097 was as follows:
1. A lot meeting all Zoning Code requirements except for the minimum width
standard may be developed.
2. A lot not able to meet other Zoning Code requirements (e.g., lot area, setbacks)
may be developed if combined with other property so that it will meet these
requirements, or if the owner is able to obtain a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance as presented.
Created by B. Miles
H:\Lots \CC\2007.03.05\Memo (Fix Ord)..doc
..1.
1908
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2097, AS CODnFIED AT
TMC 8.70.030, TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS WITHIN THE CITY OF
TUKWILA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABLITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2142,
which established a six-month moratorium on the development of lots that do not meet
the City's minimum lot area requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify language found in TMC 18.70.030,
resolving any uncertainty as to Council intent when adopting Ordinance No. 2097; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the Tukwila Planning Commission, following
adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning clarifying
the language found in TMC 18.70.030; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public
t3' g q p
notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of
the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at TMC 18.70.030, "Substandard Lots," is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum standard
for average lot width for the zone in which it is located, may still be developed as a
separate lot if the proposed use is one which is permitted in the zone, and the proposed
development can comply with the remaining requirements of this title regarding basic
development standards for the applicable zone and other applicable land use and
environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards (other than lot width) for the applicable zone and other applicable land use
and environmental requirements, may be developed only if it is combined with
adjacent lot(s) in a manner which allows the combined lots to be developed in a manner
which does comply with the basic development standards for the applicable zone and
other applicable land use and environmental requirements. In the event lots are
combined in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection, a boundary line
adjustment shall occur so that the combined lots are henceforth considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a sub-
standard lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC
Chapter 18.72.
C: \Documents and Settings\ All Users Desktop Kelly\ MSDATA\ Ordinances\ Clarifying Substandard Lots.doc
BM:kn 3/1/2007 Page 1 of 2
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after
passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Fffective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C: Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly MSDATA Ordinances Clarifying Substandard Lots.doc
BM :Sm 311/2007 Page 2 of 2
City of Tukwila Page 4 of 8
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes January 22. 2007
Gas Stations. Should they be required to have backup power generation and emergency tanks in
order to serve the public.
Where does one establish the difference between what is a private responsibility and a public
responsibility in times of a disaster.
What outreach services will the City provide versus educating our citizens as to what responsibilities
they are required to perform.
The Councilmembers asked clarifying questions of Mr. Morrow and expressed appreciation at the
thoroughness of the report.
Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th Avenue South, inquired as to why the City would have to provide generators
to Assisted Care facilities when hospitals have to care for their patients in an emergency.
Councilmember Carter conveyed that the legislature is looking into this issue and requirements may be
increased for these types of facilities.
Mr. Morrow relayed there will be Chipper Days on February 17 and 18, 2007 at Foster High School for
those needing to dispose of storm debris (not lumber or trash).
CITIZEN COMMENT
Eugene Sodano, 16053 48th Avenue South, commented on increased burglaries in his neighborhood.
This type of problem was not typical in this area until recently, and he is asking for increased support for
the Police Department to combat these issues. He also indicated there is a lack of communication to
other people in the area when their neighbors have been burglarized.
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, relayed there have been no cuts in the Police budget. She encouraged
participation in the Block Watch Program and working with the Crime Prevention Office.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development of substandard lots within
)he City.
s t i Steve Lancaster, Community Development Director, provided background information on this issue. He
utilized Powerpoint slides to provide a visual representation of plat maps from 1908. These plats were
established before zoning and subdivision laws as a convenient means of describing real estate as well
as for buying and selling purposes. Prior to land use laws, areas were platted into very small lots; smaller
than what was ordinarily developed at the time. Those who wished to construct a home would typically
purchase 2 -5 parcels and build one home on them.
In 1995 the City Council established the minimum lot size for the Low Density Residential (LDR) district at
6,500 square feet. For several years thereafter, the City allowed any legally created LDR lot to be
developed with one single family dwelling even if the lot was smaller than 6,500 square feet. This led to
concern regarding a proliferation of new residences on lots as small as 2,500 -3,000 square feet.
In 2005 the City Council adopted Ordinance #2097 which modified the development requirements for
building on such substandard lots. Modified language was added in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
18.70.030. The intent and effect of the language was as follows:
1. In order to be developable, a lot must meet all basic development standards with the exception of
average lot width.
2. If a lot cannot meet basic development standards, it must be combined with adjacent lots.
3. In rare situations an individual may seek a variance to basic development standards.
City of Tukwila Page 5 of 8
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes January 22. 2007
Recently the language in Ordinance #2097 to accomplish this intent has been called into question. It has
been alleged the language is contradictory and unclear. In order to eliminate any doubt regarding the
intent and effect of this language, staff recommended the Council approve a temporary moratorium on the
development of substandard Tots to allow the City to reaffirm its intent and clarify the code language. A
public hearing on the moratorium was held at the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting. A public
hearing on the proposed clarifying amendment is scheduled for the January 25, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
Councilmember Duffie asked if the City has the right to disallow owners from building on their lots. Mr.
Lancaster responded that from a legal perspective, the City Council can establish this requirement. This
clarifying amendment would prohibit an owner from tearing down 1 home (residing on 2 -3 lots) and
building 2 or even 3 homes in its place. Councilmember Duffie also asked if the Councilmembers could
attend the Planning Commission public hearing on January 25, 2007. Peter Beckwith, Assistant City
Attorney, indicated the Councilmembers could attend the Planning Commission public hearing but should
refrain from discussing the issue at the hearing.
Councilmember Hernandez inquired as to the standard average lot width, and Mr. Lancaster indicated the
width is 50 feet in the LDR zone. Ms. Hernandez also asked about the criteria for requesting a variance.
Mr. Lancaster indicated the guidelines are established in State law and the TMC restates the criteria.
There would have to be something unusual in the size, shape or topography of the property. If the
standards were strictly applied, the owner would be deprived of rights similar to those of neighboring
property owners. The hardship cannot be one that was created by the property owner. A Hearing
Examiner would determine if the criteria has been met, and the decision is appealable to Superior Court.
Councilmember Carter asked what the size of the Tots would be at 4 dwelling units per acre. Mr.
Lancaster responded the size would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Ms. Carter relayed that
density is not always as important as to how the design is handled. Townhomes and cottage houses
could possibly be done very well, but standards would have to be in place.
Mr. Lancaster indicated that if the Council is in favor of greater density, there are various considerations,
such as building design and development standards to include sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street trees.
If that becomes the case, he would suggest the Council proceed with the proposed clarifying amendment
and removal of the moratorium. The staff would then have a significant amount of work to do to prepare a
program that would facilitate the development of quality neighborhoods.
Councilmember Robertson stated that land use decisions rarely result in a win -win situation. Those
property owners who will lose money if the City retains the 6,500 square foot requirement will suffer an
adverse financial impact. If the City lowers the square foot amount, those citizens living in the area on
larger single family Tots will be negatively effected by the increased density in their neighborhoods.
Council President Griffin inquired if notices were sent out regarding this issue. Mr. Lancaster indicated
notices were posted on the website, sent to the newspaper, and mailed to attendees of the last meeting.
Mayor Mullet suggested the possibility of adopting language that would permit a variance to allow the
building of a home to occur on a 6,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Lancaster explained that if there is an existing house on a lot that is smaller than 6,500 square feet
that ends up destroyed, the code is extremely flexible in allowing the owner to rebuild on that lot. The
non conforming use rights in the single family zone are very generous. Consideration is being given to
allowing 6,000 square foot lots in the Allentown area to allow owners more opportunities for development.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 25, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION AND THE
FEBRUARY 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2007
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair Allan Ekberg, Vice -Chair George Malina, Commissioners Margaret Bratcher, Bill
Arthur, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Minnie Dhaliwal, Nora Gierloff, and Wynetta Bivens
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 14, 2006. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
X CASE NUMBER: L06 -092
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Review and provide a recommendation to the City Council to clarify language
found in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70.030 regarding the development of
substandard lots.
Steve Lancaster, Director, Community Development, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the development of
substandard lots. He stated that Ordinance 2142, which was adopted by the City Council on November 20,
2006, declared an emergency and established a six month moratorium. The moratorium is on the
development of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size requirements in the zone that the lot is located.
Staff briefed the City Council on January 22, 2006, on a proposed Zoning Code clarification, which
addressed concerns, raised by City Council, on development of substandard lots. City Council referred the
proposal to the Planning Commission for public hearing for them to provide a recommendation back to the
City Council.
Mr. Lancaster explained that the specific issue before the Planning Commission is whether to consider a
clarification of the way the City's Zoning Code treats the development of substandard lots. In order to
provide some understanding of the current situation, he gave some background on plats that are still in
existence from a hundred years ago. He used Allentown as an example, depicting how lots and
ownership patterns have shifted over time in the area.
In order to provide a clearer overview of the concerns staff is trying to address, Mr. Lancaster gave some
background on an illustration of a plat that was approved in approximately 1908. He explained that the
plats were generally made up of 25 to 35 sq. ft. wide lots by 100 sq. ft. deep and it was typical for people
to purchase 2 to 4 lots for them to build a home on. Plats at that time had no subdivision statute, or
zoning enabling statute in the state. Subdivision plats were largely recorded in order to provide a
convenient means of describing, conveying, buying, and selling property.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 2 of 9
In 1995, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. At which time 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes for all single
family residential neighborhoods were established. The Zoning Code also included a definition of a lot,
which is a separate parcel of property that was created by plat or binding plat plan. When the state
subdivision law was established it became a requirement that any new lots created must be 6,500 sq. ft.
However, the City did allow pre existing lots of smaller sizes to be developed as single family homes, as
long as it could be demonstrated that they were created through a plat, binding site plan, or there was a
history of it being an independent building prior to the subdivision law.
After improved sewer was put in by the City, smaller lots started being developed in Allentown, which
prompted concerned residents to notify the City regarding the type of development. In 2005, in response
to these concerns, staff brought forth a Code Amendment that reinforced the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot
sizes. The Amendment requires that lots that do not meet the requirement, either have to be combined
with adjacent property (more than one platted lot) or the property owner could seek a variance. The
variance would be judged by the criteria in the Zoning Code, which reflects State criteria 4, variance
application. Mr. Lancaster stated that the fact that the substandard lots are isolated and cannot be
enlarged by its owner is not the owners' fault. Mr. Lancaster said confusion and conflicts have arisen
because some of the code language that was adopted in 2005 was not as clear as it should have been.
Staff has recommended to the City Council that the language in the existing code is clarified and adopted.
In the event that the City Council takes the same position they took in 2005, this will ensure that
everybody understands the code the same. Mr. Lancaster addressed several questions, some of which
were not specifically related to the issue before the Planning Commission for consideration. In response
to one particular question, the reply was that staff would like to get the code clarified and have the
moratorium lifted, as soon as possible, and then go back and address some of the other issues.
Chair Ekberg stated for clarification, the issue before the Planning Commission is the changes to the
language in the code so the moratorium can be lifted by the City Council. He asked those in attendance
of the Public Hearing if they understood that the Planning Commission was not holding a Public Hearing
to deliberate lot sizes. He asked Mr. Lancaster if someone read the code on substandard lot widths and
didn't understand what standard for average lot width means, where they would go to figure it out. Mr.
Lancaster replied to the specific zoning district where the lot is located, which has a table with the
standards listed. Chair Ekberg inquired of staff what would be the process to debate lot sizes in the
future.
Its staffs' hope that the Planning Commission will provide them with some direction on whether they are
interested in taking the next step, which staff will convey to the City Council. However, if the process
goes forward, staff does not anticipate its completion for three or four months.
Chair Ekberg allowed citizens to give comments on the lot sizes. He asked that the results of the
comments are included in the minutes and are distributed to the City Council, since the Planning
Commission cannot deliberate on the issue.
Public comments:
Darryl Doak, Owner, Doak Homes Inc. stated that in 1996 he started development in Allentown and has
built 17 new homes on one street. He stated he has taken down four dilapidated trailers, old junkie
buildings and he has cleaned up the street nicely. He said he has also done that on several other streets
and taken out the trash, cleaning up Allentown. He is currently building nine new houses on the
Duwamish site and he has just completed two houses on 46 Ave. SW.
Mr. Doak stated that since last year the City has changed the minimum lot sizes. He said prior to the
change he was able to split lots in half and have 3,700 sq. ft. lots, which is well below the 6,500 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 3 of 9
minimum. Mr. Doak pointed out on the plat illustration that block one, lots 23 -26, were 5,000 sq. ft. that
was created through a Boundary Line Adjustment with the City, after the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size
went into effect. Mr. Doak commented that he has submitted 17 permit applications, all on substandard
lots with the City. He stated, "Phase II of Allentown has just been completed and the City has been,
"expeditiously keeping me out of improvements over there." Mr. Doak said he met with DCD staff many
times over the summer on improvements and he also met with PW staff. Mr. Doak said that the PW staff
said, "We are not going to let you do that Mr. Doak commented he was not supplied with adequate
sewer and water improvements to build houses. Mr. Doak also commented that he has received six denial
letters from the City on his applications and it looks like all 17 applications will be denied and that his
application fees will not be refunded. He said this is going to end up in Superior Court because last year
the City agreed to let him build on the 17 lots and is now saying they don't recall the conversation. Mr.
Doak commented that the process on his 17 applications is being held up, now that the City has put the
moratorium in effect to change the verbiage to prevent him from doing his job. In conclusion, he said he
is getting aced out of the deal.
Estrella Doak (Telly Doak), Doak Homes, Inc. stated she would like to make an appeal to the Planning
Commission to leave the language of the Ordinance as is, which will allow substandard lots that meet the
minimum setback requirements to be recognized as buildable lots. She said her justification is that
substandard lots will make affordable housing available to low income people, seniors, and first time
home buyers. Mrs. Doak stated that the City had addressed a need for affordable housing in a City
Council meeting she attended. She said increasing the minimum lot size to 6,500 sq. ft. would defeat the
purpose, lot costs will be much higher, the houses will be bigger, and the price less affordable. Mrs. Doak
said potential buyers may not buy the higher priced houses in this Allentown location. She reiterated her
appeal asking for Allentown to be excluded from the 6,500 sq. ft. requirement and that substandard lots
that meet the minimum setback requirements are made available as affordable housing to seniors and first
time home buyers. She said, "We need to continue the progress and development needs of the Allentown
community, and Doak Homes Inc. has contributed to this growth for the past eight years
Commissioner Peterson asked Mrs. Doak to comment on what her company thinks about the impact
their type of development has on the existing homes and their value.
Mrs. Doak replied that the values have gone up and that Allentown has only done something really good
for the Allentown community.
Betty Brooks, property owner of lots 39-42 in Allentown. The lots combined equal a total of 12,000 sq.
ft., which she can only build one house on. She asked why the extra sewer systems
were installed if she can't use them. She said, "I think the lot should stay the same as they have been, I
don't think they should change. "I was told in 1994, when I purchased the lots that I had four lots."
"Now I don't have four lots, I have one lot." "That's not fair to me or anyone else She said she should
be able to build more than one house and she is stuck with a 12,000 sq. ft. lot.
Gerald Robinson, Attorney for Doak Homes Inc. stated when Doak Homes Inc. invested in the 17 lots it
was with the understanding that they would be able to build 17 houses. He said in less than two years it
has been ripped out from under them at a substantial cost to them. Mr. Robinson stated that he was going
to speak primarily on the clarification issue. Prior to the 2005 in the Zoning Code, the City had a code
that allowed you to build on previously created lots. He said that you should be able to build on a lot that
was legally created. Mr. Robinson stated that the ordinance says, if the lot does not meet the minimum
lot size standards or minimum dimension standards, then you can still build on it if you can meet the other
requirements. He commented that the current ordinance is not ambiguous or vague. He said the only way
you get to the interpretation that has been put forth by staff is by ignoring completely one of the
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 4 of 9
paragraphs of the Ordinance. He said, "It doesn't make any sense to have an ordinance that says that you
have to meet the minimum setback requirements for lots that are too small, if you are saying you just
can't build on lots that are too small Mr. Robinson said that the clarification that is being requested is
a major modification of the Zoning Code. He said that the current language will change to say, if you
own adjacent lots you have to combine them to in order to meet the minimum required lot size. Mr.
Robinson said that's a radical departure from what the code was before 2005 and it's a radical departure
from what the code was after the 2005 adoption. He said it's not a minor clarification, and will
completely change the way land is going to be used in the area and it's a particular hardship on people
who have property in Allentown with the narrow lots. Mr. Robinson concluded by saying this is a matter
of being able to use these lots that were legally created and are legal lots.
Randy Kinsley, property owner in Allentown, stated he is not a fan of the narrow houses being
developed in Allentown, but it has cleaned up the neighborhood. He said the damage has already been
done as far as changing the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kinsley said his real problem is, "The
City seems to be breaking a promise to a contractor's commitment to work with you guys." "He had the
understanding that these lots were buildable and now the City seems to be reneging, denying that they
ever agreed to it." "I have a problem with that and I have also experienced that myself." Mr. Kinsley
commented that he owns a piece of property that he cannot build a home on and he thinks that is
improper. He said that the City went to the trouble of installing sewer and that was a great move that
needed to be done, but now there are sewer connections to property that can't be used. He said the City
loses because they don't get the fees on their connections and the property owner loses because they had
to have the connections installed, so it was a waste of time and effort. Mr. Kinsley said his main concern
is to see lot sizes at 6,000 sq. ft. However, because the City has already made promises to Doak Homes
Inc, for the smaller lots, the City should allow them to build because Doak Homes Inc. may lose money.
Commissioner Peterson asked Mr. Robinson if he was personally aware of the promises he says that the
City made to Doak Homes Inc. Mr. Robinson said no he did not have first hand knowledge of the
promises.
Commissioner Arthur asked Mr. Robinson to identify his property for clarification. He also asked for
clarification from Mrs. Brooks.
Darryl Doak gave additional comments. He stated that he attended a pre application meeting with the
City regarding 11 of his sites. He said after the moratorium went into effect that he received a letter from
the City stating that his applications were not complete. He said the letter indicated the radius to the
approach going in was at 15 sq. ft. instead of 20 sq. ft. and it threw him into the moratorium, which holds
up his 11 sites. Mr. Doak stated that the City neglected to give him sewer for three houses. He indicated
that he met with PW four years ago regarding his intent and was told he would receive hook -up, which
did not happen. He said he has had several meetings with DCD since and has not received a satisfactory
answer on why he is not getting sewer hook -up. Mr. Doak said the night that the moratorium went into
effect he provided public comment at the City Council meeting and explained he was not getting sewer
and water.
Commissioner Parrish told Mr. Doak he was sensitive to the fact that sometimes regulations can have
unintended consequences and officers do not want that to happen. Commissioner Parrish questioned
whether Mr. Doak chose to interpret the code in the manner in which it would be more beneficial to him.
He asked Mr. Doak what was his thinking regarding the 6,500 sq. ft. and did he think that maybe it just
wasn't applicable at all because of the term minimum dimensional standard.
Mr. Doak replied he is putting in 9 houses on the Duwamish side since the code changed with staff's
approval, as well as, an approval for a Boundary Line Adjustment with lot sizes well under 6,500 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 5 of 9
Upon further questioning, Mr. Doak explained how he thinks the 6,500 sq. ft. requirement would apply
since the adoption of the code in 1995.
Mr. Robinson made additional comments. In response to questions that were raised, he said this is not
an issue of zoning, but how you treat people with lots that were previously subdivided.
Georgina Kerr, property owner in the community, commented that she hopes the Planning Commission
understands that 6,500 sq. ft. is a reasonable size. She said the impact that people are facing in terms of
impervious surfaces and having that contribute to storm water run off and other problems facing the
Duwamish River impacts all their lives. Mrs. Kerr said she would hope that the lot size does not go
down. She said the houses that Doak Homes Inc. is constructing are unattractive, do not fit in, and are not
conducive to a good future to the City. Mrs. Kerr said she hopes the City notifies other citizens that
would like to know there is a public meeting on this issue, so they can provide comment.
Chair Ekberg reiterated that the Planning Commission is not deliberating on lot sizes.
Donna Anderson, property owner in the community, commented that she is in support of the 6,500 sq. ft.
minimum lot sizes. She said smaller houses would create drain water run off and traffic impacts.
Mr. Lancaster's response to questions raised by the Planning Commission.
(1) The moratorium expires on May 20, 2007. It could expire earlier if the City Council adopts
regulations or for some other reason believes it is no longer necessary, or it could be extended in the
event they are not satisfied with the progress when the six months is up.
(2) Doak Homes Inc. is a developer that has submitted 17 building permit applications for
development. Staff's position is that they do not believe that neither the moratorium, nor the code
changes /clarification recommendations proposed by staff, changes Mr. Doak's situation in regards
to his applications. As amended in 2005, the code requires that new houses are built on 6,500 sq. ft.
lots, if that's possible.
(3) The narrower houses are believed to be built on 3,000 sq. ft. lots.
(4) The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and considers it a clarification.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Arthur requested that a slide showing a house on a 30 ft. wide lot, which Mr. Lancaster
showed during his PowerPoint presentation be displayed on the screen while the Planning Commissioners
deliberated. Commissioner Arthur used the photo to point out the differences between the illustration and
the Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan), vision, design criteria, and the efforts of those that worked on the
development of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Citizens Committee, Planning Commission, and
City Council went through the process to come up with the criteria to put into the Comp. Plan. He also
said that the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size that was adopted in 1995 was a very clear and easy thing to
understand. Commissioner Arthur pointed out that the Comp. Plan addresses a quality residential
development, consisting of such things as trees, front lawns, and fences. He said there seems to be an
absence of all three as shown on the slide. He also read excerpts from the Comp. Plan that addressed
garages, front porches and sidewalks that shall allow interaction of neighbors.
Commissioner Arthur said the point is that a lot of time and effort went into the development of the
Comp. Plan over a number of years and that the issue he sees before him is not in compliance and he finds
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 6 of 9
that disturbing. There was a total of seven City Council Members and seven Planning Commissioners that
worked on the development of the 1995 Comp. Plan; of those 14 positions, 9 of the same individuals who
previously worked on the plan will be part of the current review process. He said if there is a problem it
seems to be with the interpretation. If clarifying the code is needed in order to be in compliance with the
Comp. Plan, he is in favor of staff's recommendations. He stated that he does not think that the Planning
Commission is in the position to lift moratoriums, settle disputes between property owners and the City,
or deal with minimum lot size changes. Their position is to make decisions on language changes. He
expressed concern regarding Mr. Kinsley's and Mrs. Brooks's comments and suggested that the Planning
Commission request that the City Council take a look at the other issues commented on to determine the
best long term solutions for areas like Allentown. It is his hope that the City Council takes the same care
and deliberation with this matter as they did when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS FORWARDING THE PROPOSED CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
Based on public comments and concerns, the Planning Commission would like staff to provide the City
Council with the following information and request these issues be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner Ekberg raised the question whether the Planning Commission is interested in looking at
areas like Allentown and other areas that have small lots. Then have a discussion with the public
regarding what the vision should look like for the future in comparison to what the Comp. Plans looks
like now. The Planning Commissioners had the following comments:
Commissioner Malina said that the Planning Commission has the desire for the substandard issue to
come back to them at a future date. He would like to see some discussion on infrastructure, lot sizes of
6,000 sq. ft., sewer and water hook -up timeframes, and a balance between infrastructure when it comes to
sewers, water, and sidewalks. He also suggested that the Council could give these types of areas special
consideration.
Commissioner Parrish stated that if the vision is not spelled out clearly in the Comp. Plan then a
developer cannot be blamed for not meeting the code. Affordable housing is important to a community,
which is something that should be discussed. He also said that visions change. He fully supports the idea
that the Planning Commission encourages the City Council to take this up in a very Comprehensive
manner, which he is looking forward to participating in. In the future, there is a need to explore what the
process is, concerning what city staff and city board members are allowed to say to citizens and what is
considered binding.
Commissioner Peterson stated that from listening to hardships raised, he can see how citizens can see
their future being affected. He concurs with Commissioner Arthur's comments regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Peterson said there may be a need to take a look at the densi ty in
Allentown because the affect could be much higher than the LDR. He said the kind of things that
provide quality of life, not just affordable housing, should also be addressed.
Chair Ekberg asked Mr. Lancaster, without formal commitment of process, what he thinks would be the
next step if the City Council is interested in moving forward.
Mr. Lancaster said when staff takes the Code recommendation to the City Council, they will also present
the comments and the ideas raised and seek Council's guidance. He said he would assume what could
happen is that the City Council will refer the matter to the Community Affairs and Park Committee (a
sub committee of the City Council) for further discussion and that they would make a request for staff to
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 7 of 9
do an evaluation of options and bring them back to the Council for discussion. It would then be referred
to the Planning Commission for their input on the specific options that are described, and then go back to
the City Council for a decision. However, before anything could be finalized, it would probably be next
year, since the City is only allowed to amend the Comp. Plan once a year, and the timeframe for 2007 is
approaching very quickly. If City Council moves forward and there was potential for significant changes
to occur to the Comp. Plan or the Zoning Code staff would have the opportunity to provide notice
and get the information out to the public. This would allow a lot more input from the public on the issue.
Chair Ekberg called a 5 minute recess.
The public hearing reconvened at 8:48 PM.
Chair Ekberg opened the Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing and swore in those providing
testimony.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L06 -064, L06 -066
APPLICANT: Donahou Design Group
REQUEST: Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing True Value hardware store and
construction of a new 9975 sq. ft. freestanding drug store with a drive -thru. The
applicant is also requesting a sign code variance to reduce the minimum required
setback of the proposed sign from the property line.
LOCATION: 3716 S. 144 Street, Tukwila WA.
Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. She gave an overview of the project. She talked about the
criteria used to review the project, grade differences between the site and the adjoining streets and it's impact
on site design. At staff's request, the applicant is working with the adjacent property owner to resolve the
issue of the retaining wall on the east side of the property to provide a better transition. A potential solution
may be landscaping. The Police Depaitment suggested better surveillance of the trash enclosure/loading
dock area. Staff recommended installing cameras to provide better surveillance in the area. Ms. Dhaliwal
provided some additional description of the project. Ms. Dhaliwal answered several questions. She deferred
a question to the applicant regarding the easement between the applicant's property and the adjacent property
owner. She stated that the applicant has not documented that their request for a Sign Code Variance meets
any of the variance criteria. Staff is recommending denial of the Sign Code Variance request and approval of
the Design Review application, with five conditions as listed in the January 17, 2007 staff report.
David Thompson, Managing Member of Tukwila Holdings LLC, gave the presentation for the applicant.
His company is under contract to build the proposed Walgreens. He talked about the type of store Walgreens
builds and their type of clientele. Mr. Thompson said staff compelled them to design a radically different site
plan to provide a pedestrian friendly shopping experience of an urban store front. He stated that Walgreens
may not be happy with the end product, but that personally he believes a better site plan than the typical
prototype store was produced. An overview was given of what Mr. Thompson said the City was endorsing.
Tom Keyes, Donahou Design Group, for the applicant, addressed questions that were raised regarding the
signage. He also addressed the easement issue.
Frank Carlson, Law Firm of Buck and Gordon, also addressed the easement issue. He stated there is no
recorded easement, but that it is a verbal easement that is valid and has been in place for 28 years. Mr.
Carlson offered to talk with the City Attorney about the issue.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Arthur asked that the specific location of the easement be pointed out on the site plan.
There was intensive discussion regarding the easement. Chair Ekberg expressed concem that there would be
a mass of red across the face of the north side of the building facade was too blank. He asked what could be
done to break up the mass. There was also several other questions raised and addressed.
Commissioner Arthur revisited the issue regarding the easement. He stated he was very uncomfortable
with some things he sees and some things he doesn't see. Steve Lancaster commented that the issue has been
discussed and staff was assured that the right exists. Staff intends to request verification that the legal right to
access exists for the property, which must satisfy the City Attorney.
Rune Harkestad, the adjacent property owner, acknowledges that the easement between the properties is for
the benefit of customers of both properties. Mr. Harkestad had no objections to Walgreen using his site to
access 37 Ave. S.
David Thompson went over the applicant's goals for the project and confirmed they are in agreement with
staff's recommendations.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearin g was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS, WITH ONE ADDITIONAL
CONDITION, #6 "LEGAL RIGHT FOR ACCESS THAT WILL SATISFY THE CITY
ATTORNEY FOR CASE NUMBER L06 -064 A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION ON L06 -066 TO DENY THE SIGN CODE
VARIANCE REQUEST. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL
WERE IN FAVOR.
CASE NUMBER: L06 -069 (L07 -003 Special Permission Landscape Deviations)
APPLICANT: Cascade Development Co.
REQUEST: Design Review approval for conversion of an existing office /warehouse building into retail
stores.
LOCATION: 406 Baker Blvd.
Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development gave an overview of the
remodel to the existing building. Staff has determined that within the constraints of the existing building
the applicant has done as much as they can to further the Comprehensive Plan goals. The goals are to
have a hospitable pedestrian environment, an active street scape, and a mixed use. Staff is
recommending approval with the following two conditions:
1. The street trees are changed to Red Maples to match the CBD tree plan.
2. Add screening for the garbage /recycling area in the rear of the building.
An overview was also given on the two landscape issues. (1) Permission to substitute sidewalk in front
yard landscape requirement. (2) relief from the requirement to provide landscape islands at the ends of a
row of parking stalls.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 9 of 9
Todd Bertellotti, Architect, for the applicant, gave the presentation. He named a list of proposed
changes that he said could transform the building into a very viable, dynamic, and appropriate building
for the area. He stated that the corridor between the proposed Sounder Station and the Westfield
Shopping Mall is very important. He expressed excitement and the interest to do whatever they can to
improve pedestrian access. Mr. Bertellotti stated that they understand the limitations and are willing to
address issues that were raised. He specifically addressed comments made by Commissioner Peterson.
He addressed the landscape issue and said they are open to suggestions. The original site plan was more
complex. However, after removing some parking stalls the Fire Department considered the site easier to
navigate. The applicant is also willing to accommodate any additional changes. Mr. Bertellotti also
provided information on the material used for the project.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TWO CONDITIONS FOR CASE NUMBER
L06 -069 A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. COMMISSIONER PARRISH SECONDED THE
MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CASE NUMBER L07 -003, A SPECIAL
PERMISSION LANDSCAPE DEVIATIONS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER PARRISH
SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Commissioner Arthur made a motion to nominate Commissioner Malina for 2007 Planning
Commission Chair.
Commissioner Ekberg made a friendly amendment to nominate Commissioner Parrish for 2007
Planning Commission Vice Chair. All were in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
Adopted: 2/22/07
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
i
I7�'M No.
o r �ti
I Q
I" kip Meeting Date 1 Prepared 1 Mayor's review 1 J final review
ust 03/05/07 1 BM %Y'' 1 1/1W
r
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-028 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 03/05/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE An ordinance repealing Ordinance #2142 which declared an emergency and
established a six month moratorium on the development of any lot not meeting the
minimum lot size.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 03/05/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&'R Police PTV
SPONSOR'S On November 20, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance 2142 which declared an
SUMMARY emergency and established a six month moratorium on the development of any lot which
does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of the zone where the lot is located.
The attached ordinance will repeal the moratorium.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Adopt the Ordinance as presented
COMMI U1'EE
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N /A $N /A $N /A
Fund Source: N/A
Comments: N/A
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
3/05/07 Memo from Steve Lancaster dated 2/27/07
Ordinance in Final Form
-16411 City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
ar_: Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908
TO: Mayor
City Council
Vs
FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director
Brandon Miles, Assistant Plann
RE: Substandard Lot Moratorium
DATE: February 27, 2007
ISSUE
Repealing Ordinance 2142 which enacted a six -month moratorium on the development of
substandard lots.
BACKGROUND
On November 11, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2142 which declared an
emergency and established a six month moratorium on the development of lots which do
not meet the City's minimum lot area requirements.
As required by Washington State law, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the
adopted ordinance on January 16, 2007. The City Council reaffuiued its adoption of
Ordinance 2142 at the January 16 meeting.
Also on tonight's agenda a proposed ordinance to clarify the substandard lot issue. If the
proposed clarifying ordinance is adopted by the City Council the moratorium is no longer
needed.
ALTERNATIVES
If the City Council chooses not to repeal Ordinance 2124, the moratorium will continue
until May 11, 2007.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council adopted the Ordinance found in agenda item 6a, Planning Staff
recommends that the moratorium be repealed.
Created by B. Miles
H:\Lots \CC\2007.03.05\Memo (Mort).doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206- 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LAND USE AND ZONING,
TERMINATING AN EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 2142, ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY ON LOTS THAT DO NOT
MEET THE CITY'S MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2006, the Tukwila City Council passed Ordinance
No. 2142, imposing an emergency moratorium on the acceptance of non exempt
applications for new development within the City of Tukwila on lots that do not meet
the minimum lot area for the applicable zoning; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the emergency moratorium was to allow the City to
clarify the language found in Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at TMC 18.70.030,
regarding the development of substandard lots; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2007, the City Council, following adequate public
notice, held a public hearing on the moratorium, and adopted additional findings and
conclusions supporting the moratorium, which was currently in effect; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice,
held a public hearing on January 25, 2007, and proposed draft language to clarify the
City's intent in the adoption of the language found in Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at
TMC 18.70.030; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, the City Council, following adequate public notice,
held a public hearing on the proposed draft language to clarify the City's intent in the
adoption of the language found in Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at TMC 18.70.030;
and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
amending Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at TMC 18.70.030; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 2142 requires formal City
Council termination;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby terminates the moratorium imposed by
Ordinance No. 2142.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
C:\Documents and Settings Wl Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA\ Ordinances \Terminating Moratorium.doc
CK:ksn 3/1/2007 Page 1 of 2
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
Monuments and Settings \Al Users\Desktop\Kelly1MSDATA \Ordinances \Terminating Moratorium.doc
CK:ksn 3/1/2007 Page 2 of 2
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Q 4. Initialr ITEM No.
��t kt;{w !g 1 Meeting Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review Council review
i :1 r 1 02/26/07 I EB I A..."-t' I /11/
•._..r 03/05/07 I EB 1 /44) 1
I I I I
ITEM= INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-024 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 2/26/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interlocal agreement between City of SeaTac, Des Moines and Tukwila for Joint
Minor Home Repair program.
CA FEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 2/26/07 Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD El Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S City Council must authorize the Mayor's signature on the interlocal agreement between
SUMMARY the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines and Tukwila for planning, funding and implementing a
joint minor home repair program in 2007.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 2/13/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Authorize Mayor to sign agreement
COMMITITEE Unanimous approval; forward to COW
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Cc mments:
MTG.. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
2/26/07 I Puna rd R tI1 o r et
MTG DATE ATTACHMENTS
2/26/07 Interlocal agreement
Draft Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 2/13/07
3/05/07 No attachments
COUNCIL AGENDA Svzs.ropsis
J.�itit�►, h%9s
2 Initials ITEM No.
1 4 orA t C+) Meeting Date j Prepared by I Mayor's review CAncil review
us .iii f 2 1 02/26/07 1 RS
I 03/05/07 1 I i i4;i 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-025 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 02/26/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Sole Source Golf Irrigation Central Control System Purchase
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 02/26/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 03/05/07 Mtg Date Mfg Date IvItg Date Mtg Date
!SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police (-I PW/
SPJNSOR'S Foster Golf Links currently uses an automated irrigation system. A Central Control System
SUMMARY uses a computer to read the weather station data and to operate the automated system,
applying the correct amount of water needed for the turf for that particular day. The Rain
Bird Nimbus II Central Control System is the only system that is compatible with the
current irrigation system and there is only one vendor who can provide the System,
thereby making this a sole source purchase.
RI VIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA"1"P;: CA &P 02/13/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve sole source Central Control System purchase.
COMMI'1TEE Approve sole source Central Control System purchase.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$32,018.43 $35,000.00 $N /A
Fund Source: BUDGET NUMBER 411.00.594.760.64.05
Comments:
MTG DATE -1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
I 2/26/07 1 Forward to Rpm 11 ar ,,n
MTG. DATE --ATTACHMENTS
02/26/07 Memo from R. Still, dated 02/05/07
Draft Sole Source Resolution
1 Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes date 02/13/07 (Draft) 11
I 03/05/07 1 Resolution in, tina1. form
I I
a '44f
1908
Cit y of Tukwila
Washington
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, WAIVING THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A COMPUTERIZED IRRIGATION
CENTRAL CONTROL SYSTEM THE RAIN BIRD NIMBUS II, FROM
HORIZON IRRIGATION, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila owns and operates the Foster Golf Links; and
WHEREAS, Foster Golf Links utilizes an automated irrigation system to water the
golf course; and
WHEREAS, a computerized irrigation central control system is budgeted in the
2007 Capital Improvement Program for Foster Golf Links, and is needed to utilize the
existing weather station, controller hardware and valves; to irrigate more efficiently;
conserve water and staff time; and reduce wear on the pump system; and
WHEREAS, the Rain Bird Nimbus II is the only central control system that will
operate with the Foster Golf Links' current automated irrigation system, and the only
distributor of the Rain Bird Nimbus II Central Control System is Horizon Irrigation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The bidding requirement for the purchase of the Rain Bird Nimbus II
Central Control System is hereby waived.
Section 2. The Parks and Recreation Department is authorized to purchase the Rain
Bird Nimbus II Central Control System from Horizon Irrigation, as a sole source
purchase, in the amount of $32,018.43.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Verna Griffin, Council President
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Office of the City Attorney Resolution Number:
C: \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly MSDATA Resolutions Irrigation System sole source.doc
RS:ksn 31/2007 Page 1 of 1
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
4 0 Initials ITEM NO.
Q' 40. ,4( 4 Meeting Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review Council revievr
02/12/07 SL
03/05/07 SL I /flit% I vw:
e
JTEIV -INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-020 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 02/12/2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
CAI EGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award
®Public Meeting ❑Other
Mtg Date 2 /12/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 03/05/07 A4tg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Briefing on review process for two proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Item will
SUMMARY be forwarded to Regular Meeting for public meeting on 3/5/07. After public meeting,
Council will decide which items to forward to Planning Commission for public hearing and
recommendation.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 1/23/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN.
COMMITTEE Forward to City Council for briefing
COST IMPACT FUND
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N /A $N /A $N /A
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG._DATE RECORD -OF COUNCIL ACTION
2/12/07 Forward to 3/5/07 Regular Meeting
NITG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
2/12/07 I Memo with staff reports (in notebook)
Minutes from Community Affairs Parks Committee Meeting of 1/23/07
03/05/07 Please remember to bring the blue notebooks distributed on 2/12/07
I J
I J
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
ti. Tnitialr ITEM NO.
or z
Q Y 1 Meeting Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review
2/26/07 1 CK
fir: 3/5/07 1 1 744 1 �NtiY\
7908 1 1 1 l.0
1 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-026 'ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Concurrency Test Fee and Traffic Impact Fees
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinances Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 2/26/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Ordinances 2110 and 2111 were passed in December 2005 establishing a concurrency
SUMMARY standard and traffic impact fees. Ordinance 2110 needs to be amended for ease of setting
the Concurrency Test fees. The resolution modifies the Public Work Fee Schedule to
include Concurrency Test Fee Schedule. An additional ordinance will amend Ordinance
2111 to update the Traffic Impact Fees.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 2/12/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward to COW for discussion and then adoption.
COM IITrEE Unanimous approval; forward to COW.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
2/26/07 1 Forward to next Regular Meeting
3/5/07 1
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
2/26/07 Information Memo dated February 7, 2007 Concurrency Test Fee Table
Information Memo dated February 7, 2007 Transportation Impact Fees Tables
Ordinance
Resolution Public Works Fee Schedule
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from February 12,. 2007
3/5/07 1 Ordinance Establishing Concurrency Test Fees
Resolution Updating Public Works Fee Schedule
Ordinance Annual update of Traffic Impact Fees
TUK2\ VOLI\PUBWORKS \Cyndy\Concurrency Impact Fees \CAS Concurrency Test Fee Impact Fee Update 3- 07.doc
-r) alit;:: a
_1 9O8
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2110, AS CODIFIED AT
TMC 9.50.030, TO ADDRESS CONCURRENCY TEST FEES; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works desires all of its fees to be referenced
in its Public Works Fee Schedule, as adopted periodically by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2110 did not address the Concurrency Test Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to annually update its Concurrency Test Fees to reflect
current costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2110, as codified at TMC 9.50.030, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
9.50.030 Concurrency Test
A. Timing. All applicants must apply for the concurrency test and receive notice
of passing the test before the City will consider an application for any development
permit or building permit to be complete.
S. Procedures.
1. Applications for concurrency shall be submitted on forms provided by the
Public Works Department. The concurrency test shall be done in order of "first in, first
out," once the Public Works Department determines the application is complete.
2. The applicant shall be responsible to provide to the Public Works
Department a certificate of availability for water and sewer with the concurrency
application submittal if the property is serviced by a non -City managed utility.
3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project description of the
development, including location, vehicular circulation, and gross floor area by use, as
part of the concurrency application and concurrency test fee as adopted by motion or
resolution of the Tukwila City Council.
4. A concurrency test shall be performed only for specific property, uses,
densities and intensities based on the information provided by the applicant. The
applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are consistent with the uses allowed
for the property. If the concurrency test is being requested in conjunction with an
application for rezone, the applicant shall specify densities and intensities that are
consistent with the proposed zoning for the property. Changes to the uses, densities
and intensities that create additional impacts on concurrency facilities shall be subject to
an additional concurrency test.
C:\Documents and Settings\A11 Users\Desktop\Ke11y1MSDATA Ordinances \Concurtency Test Fees.doc
CK:kstt 3/112007 Page 1 of 3
5. The Public Works Director or his designee shall perform the concurrency
test. The project must receive a passing grade prior to approval of the development
permit or building permit.
6. The Public Works Director or his designees shall notify the applicant of the
test results in writing and shall notify other City departments of the test results. The
date of written notification to the applicant shall be the date of issuance of the
concurrency test notice.
7. The concurrency test notice shall expire within 90 calendar days of its
issuance unless the applicant submits a SEPA environmental checklist and all required
documentation pursuant to TMC 21.04, together with the site plan, the traffic impact
analysis prepared in accordance with the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines and
containing the traffic information derived from the concurrency test outcome, and the
SEPA review fee. No extensions may be granted for submittal of a complete SEPA
environmental checklist and all required documentation.
8. If the deadline for submittal of a complete SEPA environmental checklist
and all required documentation is met as described in TMC 9.50.030.B.7, the
concurrency test notice shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance of the
concurrency test notice.
9. The concurrency test notice shall expire unless a certificate of concurrency
is issued or an extension of the notice is granted within one year from the date of
issuance of the concurrency test notice.
10. An applicant must apply for a new concurrency test if the notice expires or
an extension is not granted.
11. The Public Works Director may approve an extension of up to one year if:
a. The applicant submits a letter in writing requesting the extension
before the expiration date. The applicant must show that he /she is not responsible for
the delay in issuing the certificate of concurrency, and has acted in good faith to obtain
a certificate; and
b. If the property is serviced by a non -City managed utility, then the
applicant must submit a letter from the utility approving the extension before the
expiration date.
12. Once the associated development permit or building permit is approved,
the Public Works Department shall issue a final certificate of concurrency. The
concurrency certificate is valid for a period of 2 years or as long as the developer
possesses a valid building permit for the development.
13. The Public Works Department shall be responsible for accumulating the
impacts created by each application and removing any impacts from the City's
concurrency records for an expired concurrency test notice, an expired development
permit or building permit, a discontinued certificate or other action resulting in an
applicant no longer causing impacts which have been accounted for in the City records.
14. The Public Works Department shall be responsible to coordinate with
applicable non -City managed utility operators for maintenance and monitoring of
available and planned capacity for these utilities.
15. A certificate of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land use,
density and intensity described in the application for a development permit or building
permit. No development shall be required to obtain more than one certificate of
concurrency for each building, unless the applicant or subsequent owner proposes
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Concurrency Test Fees.doc
CK:ksn 3/12007 Page 2 of 3
changes or modifications to the property location, density, intensity, or land use that
creates additional impacts on concurrency facilities.
16. A certificate of concurrency is not transferable to other land, but may be
transferred to new owners of the original land.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C:\Documents and SettingsWl Users \Desktop\KelIy1MSDATA \Ordinances \Concurrency Test Fees.doc
CKksn 3112007 Page 3 of 3
O� s �aI
"I_ V4
rsoa
City of Tukwila
Washington
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW PUBLIC WORKS FEE SCHEDULE.
WHEREAS, each year the City analyzes the rate model for the three utility
enterprise funds water, sewer and surface water; updates the traffic model; and
analyzes the transportation network to ensure continued compliance with the Growth
Management Act and the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to impose fees that are similar to charges for
services rendered; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that the City adopt and enforce
ordinances "which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of
service on a locally -owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted
in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); and
WHEREAS, the City uses the traffic model updates to issue Certificates of
Concurrency for new development, in lieu of requiring independent traffic impact
analysis reports; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to annually update its impact fees to reflect current
project costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public Works fees will be charged according to the following schedule,
which shall supercede any previously adopted Public Works Fee Schedule:
PUBLIC WORKS FEE SCHEDULE
PERMIT DESCRIPTION FEE
Type A (Short -Term Nonprofit) I $50
Type B (Short -Term Profit) $100
$250 application base fee, plus four components
based on construction value:
Type C 1) Plan Review
(Disturbance of City Right -of -Way) 2) Construction Inspection
3) Pavement Mitigation
4) Grading Plan Review
Type D (Long -Term) I $100
Type E (Potential Disturbance of $100
City Right -of -Way)
Type F (Blanket Permits) $250 processing fee, plus $5,000 cash deposit,
withdraw $100 /instance for inspection
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA1Resolutions\PW Fee Schedule.doc
GL:ksn 3/12007 Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS FEE SCHEDULE (Continued)
PERMIT DESCRIPTION FEE
Additional Inspections $47 per inspection
Franchise Telecommunications 1 $5,000 administrative fee
1 Franchise Cable 1 $5,000 plus 5% of total revenue
1 Street Vacation 1 $1,200
Latecomer's Agreements $500 processing fee, plus 17% administrative fee,
plus $500 segregation fee
Flood Zone Control 1 $50
Water Meter Installation
.75" $600
1" $1,100
1.5" $2,400
2" $2,800
3" $4,400
4" $7,800
6" $12,500
1 Water Meter Deduct 1 $25 1
Copy of City of Tukwila s $50
Infrastructure Design and
Construction Standards
Residential Sewer Service Flat rate of $8.80 per month
(single dwelling unit) (TMC 14.16.030, No. 1)
Residential Sewer Service (multiple Flat rate of $8.80 per month for each dwelling
dwelling unit, permanent type) unit (TMC 14.16.030, No. 2)
Commercial and Industrial Sewage Flat rate of $15.40 per month and, in addition,
Service any usage over 750 cubic feet of water per
month shall be at the rate of $15.40 per 750 cubic
feet (TMC 14.16.030, No. 4)
Sewer Late Charge $5 per month on sewer accounts more than
30 days in arrears (TMC 14.16.030, No. 5)
Surface Water Utility Rates Per Year Service Charge Per Service Charge Per
Category: Acre 4,356 Sauare Feet
1. Natural $77.00 $7.70
2. 0 -20% Developed Surface $167.30 $16.73
3. 21 -50% Developed Surface $306.70 $30.67
4. 51 -70% Developed Surface $457.70 $45.77
5. 71-85% Developed Surface $551.30 $55.13
6. 86 -100% Developed Surface $643.20 $64.32
7. Single- Family Residential Parcels $62.00 per parcel N/A
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY TEST FEE SCHEDULE
FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
UNIT ALL TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL
Between 1 and 3 $300
Between 4 and 5 $600
Between 6 and 10 $1,200
Between 11 and 15 $2,000
Between 16 and 20 $3,500
1 Between 21 and 25 $5,000
Between 26 and 30 $6,500
Between 31 and 40 $8,000
Between 41 and 60 $10,000
Greater than 60 $12,000
'All residential uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 200 -299, including single family,
multi- family, mobile home parks, and shared housing
C:\Documents and Settings1A11 Users Desk top\Kelly\MSDATA\Resolutions\PW Fee Schedule.doc
GL:ksn 3/1/2007 Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS FEE SCHEDULE (Continued)
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY TEST FEE SCHEDULE (CONTINUED)
FEES FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL USE
INSTITU- ALL
GROSS FLOOR AREA INDUS- TIONAL OTHER
TRIAL OFFICE RETAIL 4 EATERY 5 Sr PORT 6 USES
Less than 5,000 I $1,000 I $1,800 $2,700 $5,400 $500 $1,500 I
Between 5,001 and 10,000 I $1,500 I $2,700 $4,050 $8,100 81,000 $2,000
Between 10,001 and 20,000 I $2,000 I $3,600 $5,400 I $10,800 $1,500 $2,500
Between 20,001 and 30,000 $3,000 I $5,400 $8,100 I $10,800 $2,000 $2,500
Between 30,001 and 40,000 $4,000 $7,200 $10,800 I $10,800 $2,500 $2,500
Between 40,001 and 50,000 I $5,000 $9,000 $13,500 I $10,800 $3,000 $2,500
Between 50,001 and 70,000 $6,000 I $10,800 $16,200 1 $10,800 $4,000 $2,500
Between 70,001 and 90,000 I $7,000 I $12,600 $18,900 $10,800 $5,000 $2,500
Between 90,001 and 150,000 I $8,000 1 $14,400 $21,600 1 $10,800 $6,000 $2,500
Between 150,001 and 200,000 I $9,000 1 $16,200 $24,300 I $10,800 $7,000 $2,500
Greater than 200,000 I $10,000 I $18,000 $24,300 I $10,800 $8,000 $2,500
2 Alt industrial/agricultural uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 100 -199, including light
and heavy industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing
3 All office, medical, and service related uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 600 -699,
700 -799, and 900 -999, including general office, medical facilities, and banks
All retail and recreation uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 400 -499, 800 -830 and
837 -899, including retail sales, rental sales, athletic clubs, and theaters
5 All food service uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 831 -836, excluding accessory
(stand alone) drive through espresso stands (or similar) under 250 sq. ft. which are assessed $300
6 Alt institutional and transportation uses defined by the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use Codes 000 -099 and
500 -599, including schools, places of worship, day care, terminals, and transit
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Verna Griffin, Council President
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Office of the City Attorney Resolution Number:
C:'Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop Kelly \MSDATA\ Resolutions \PW Fee Schedule.doc
GL:ksn 3/1/2007 Page 3 of 3
1908_
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2111, AS CODIFIED AT
TMC CHAPTER 9.48, TO UPDATE THE CITY'S TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the
Growth Management Act of the State of Washington and RCW 36.70A, which includes
elements relating to traffic impacts and necessary mitigation as part of its Transportation
Element and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development
activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council has adopted a transportation element of its
Comprehensive PIan, including transportation facilities, and desires to provide funding for
said plan through the imposition of development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2111, as codified at TMC Chapter 9.48, set forth a schedule
of traffic impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to annually update these impact fees to reflect current
project costs as defined in the City of Tukwila's annually updated Financial Planning Model
and Capital Improvement Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2111, as codified at TMC Chapter 9.48, is hereby amended by
updating the schedule of Traffic Impact Fees, to read as shown in Attachment A to this
ordinance.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after
passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
Attachment Attachment A, Traffic Impact Fee Schedule 2007
C:\Documents and Settings\A11 Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA Ordinances \Traffic Impact Fees.doc
CK:ksn 3/1/2007 Page 1 of 1
Attachment A
Traffic Impact Fee Schedule 2007
Land Uses Unit of Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Measure
Cost per Trip All Other Uses 1 1 $1,736.801 $1,357.771 $1,061.201 $819.38
Residential
Single Family dwelling 1 $1,659.351 $1,297.221 $1,013.881 $782.84
Multi Family 1 dwelling 1 $712.091 $556.691 $435.091 $335.95
Retirement Community 1 dwelling 1 $722.891 $565.131 $441.691 $341.04
Nursing Home /Convalescent Center bed 1 $289.151 $226.051 $176.681 $136.42
Assisted Living 1 dwelling $289.151 $226.051 $176.681 $136.42
Commercial Services
Drive -in Bank sq ft/GFA $23.14 $18.09 $14.14 $10.92
Walk -in Bank sq ft/GFA $18.67 $14.60 $11.41 $8.81
Day Care Center sq ft/GFA $9.28 $7.25 $5.67 $4.38
Library sq ft/GFA $4.24 $3.32 $2.59 $2.00
Post Office sq ft/GFA $6.46 $5.05 $3.95 $3.05
Hotel/Motel room $1,107.80 $866.04 $676.87 $522.63
Service Station VFP $3,203.13 $2,504.10 $1,957.14 $1,511.17
Service Station /Minimart VFP $3,203.13 $2,504.10 $1,957.14 $1,511.17
Service Station /Minimart/Car Wash VFP $3,203.13 $2,504.10 $1,957.14 $1,511.17
Carwash (Self Serve) stall $2,826.58 $2,209.72 $1,727.06 $1,333.51
Movie Theater screen $64.24 $50.22 $39.25 $30.31
Health Club sq ft/GFA $4.421 $3.46 $2.70 $2.09
Racquet Club sq ft/GFA $1.991 $1.56 $1.22 $0.94
Marina berth $247.381 $193.39 $151.15 $116.71
Commercial Institutional
Elementary School /Jr. High School student $195.271 $152.66 $119.31 $92.13
High School student $131.43( $102.75 $80.31 $62.01
University/College student $267.561 $209.17 $163.48 $126.23
Church sq ft/GFA $1.151 $0.90 $0.70 $0.54
Hospital sq ft/GFA $2.221 $1.73 $1.35 $1.05
Commercial Restaurant
Restaurant sq ft/GFA $9.561 $7.48 $5.84 $4.51
Fast Food Restaurant w/o drive through sq ft/GFA $12.271 $9.60 $7.50 $5.79
Fast Food Restaurant w /drive- through sq ft/GFA $16.261 $12.71 $9.94 $7.67
industrial
Light Industry/High Technology sq ft/GFA $2.06 $1.61 $1.26 $0.97
Industrial Park sq ft/GFA $2.06 $1.61 $1.26 $0.97
Warehousing /Storage sq ft/GFA $1.151 $0.90 $0.70 $0.54
Mini Warehouse sq ft/GFA $0.501 $0.39 $0.31 $0.24
GLA= Gross Leasable Area
GFA= Gross Floor Area
VFP= Vehicle Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously)
1
Attachment A
Traffic Impact Fee Schedule 2007
Land Uses Unit of Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Measure
Cost per Trip All Other Uses 1 1 $1,736.801 $1,357.771 $1,061.201 $819.38
Commercial Retail
Shopping Center:
up to 9,999 sq ftl sq ft/GLA 1 $4.181 $3.27 $2.55 $1.97
10,000 sq ft- 49.999 sq ftl sq ft/GLA 1 $3.511 $2.75 $2.15 $1.66
50,000 sq ft- 99.999 sq ftI sq ft/GLA 1 $3.031 $2.37 $1.85 $1.43
100,000 sq ft- 199.999 sq ftl sq ft/GLA 1 $2.611 $2.04 $1.59 $1.23
200,000 sq ft- 299.999 sq ftl sq ft/GLA 1 $2.381 $1.86 $1.45 $1.12
300,000 sq ft- 399.999 sq ftI sq ft/GFA 1 $2.821 $2.21 $1.72 $1.33
over 400,000 sq ftI sq ft/GLA $3.171 $2.48 $1.94 $1.49
Miscellaneous Retail Sales 1 sq ft/GFA $3.171 $2.48 $1.94 $1.49
Supermarket 1 sq ft/GFA $7.731 $6.04 $4.72 $3.64
Convenience Market 1 sq ft/GFA $14.391 $11.25 $8.79 $6.79
Nursery/Garden Center sq ft/GFA $2.621 $2.05 $1.60 $1.24
Furniture Store sq ft/GFA $0.221 $0.17 $0.13 $0.10
Car Sales New /Used sq ft/GFA $4.561 $3.57 $2.79 $2.15
Auto Care Center sq ft/GFA $2.62 $2.05 $1.60 $1.24
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Bay $2,899.10 $2,266.42 $1,771.37 $1,367.73
Auto Parts Sales sq ft/GFA $3.341 $2.611 $2.04 $1.58
Pharmacy (with drive through) sq ft/GFA $3.441 $2.691 $2.10 $1.62
Pharmacy (without drive through) sq ft/GFA $3.361 $2.631 $2.05 $1.58
Free Standing Discount Store sq ft/GFA $3.131 $2.441 $1.91 $1.47
Hardware /Paint Store sq ft/GFA $2.661 $2.081 $1.62 $1.25
Discount Club sq ft/GFA $3.131 $2.441 $1.91 $1.47
Video Rental sq ft/GFA $4.881 $3.821 $2.98 $2.30
Home Improvement Superstore 1 sq ft/GFA $1.331 $1.041 $0.81 $0.63
Tire Store 1 Service Bay $1,938.321 $1,515.311 $1,184.33 $914.45
Electronics Superstore 1 sq ft/GFA $3.111 $2.431 $1.90 $1.46
Commercial Office
Administrative Office:
up to 9,999 sq ftI sq ft/GFA 1 $8.101 $6.331 $4.951 $3.82
10,000 sq ft- 49.999 sq ftI sq ft/GFA 1 $8.101 $6.331 $4.951 $3.82
50,000 sq ft- 99.999 sq ft) sq ft/GFA 1 $4.701 $3.671 $2.871 $2.22
100,000 sq ft- 199.999 sq ftl sq ft/GFA 1 $3.561 $2.781 $2.171 $1.68
200,000 sq ft- 299.999 sq ftI sq ft/GFA 1 $3.101 $2.431 $1.901 $1.46
over 300,000 sq ftl sq ft/GFA 1 $2.911 $2.271 $1.781 $1.37
Medical Office /Clinic 1 sq ft/GFA 1 $6.291 $4.911 $3.841 $2.97
GLA= Gross Leasable Area
GFA= Gross Floor Area
VFP= Vehicle Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously)
2
w; COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
0/ 2' Initials ITEM NO,
l; P� t,le 1 G Meeting Date I Prepared by Mayor's review I Council review 1
S N k �'s_ 11/ 13/06 1 RT 1
iso''_ 11/20/06 Removed from agenda
3/5/07 7M h/ 1 ,vw-
a_i
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 06-130 07-029 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2006
AGENDA ITEM TrnE Tukwila International Boulevard Phase II III Construction Costs
CATEGORY Discussion Motion p Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 11/13/06 Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PI/
SPONSOR'S Tukwila IntI Blvd Phase II and III will require a motion by Council to reduce the scope.
SUMMARY Three areas have been identified; eliminate undergrounding of overhead utilities,
eliminate some improvements within the WSDOT limited access area and redesign the
retaining walls to a less expensive type. An additive alternate to the base bid would
include undergrounding of the overhead utilities in front of the Intergate West and
Homeland Security buildings.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 10/23/06 2/26/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve recommended scope changes
COMMITTEE Majority approval; forward to Council
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
11/13/06 Forward to next Regular Meeting
11/20/06 1 Removed from agenda at this time to investigate grant possibilities. Motion carried 7 -0.
3/5/07 1
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
3/5/07 1 Information Memo dated February 21, 2007
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from February 26, 2007
Information Memo dated October 19, 2006 Construction Cost Comparison
Council Meeting Minutes from November 13, 2006
Council Meeting Minutes from November 20, 2006
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from October 23, 2006
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Directo
Date: February 21, 2007
Subject: Tukwila International Blvd Phases 2 and 3 (S 116 to St to S 138 St)
Project Scope Changes and Proposed Bidding Alternatives
Project No. 95 -RWO3
ISSUE
Discuss and finalize the scope of work for bidding and construction purposes.
BACKGROUND
This project was presented to the City Council in November 2004 to discuss the project budget and
design alternatives in order to proceed into final design of the project. At that time, the selected
alternative was estimated to cost approximately $16.15 million with a budget of $16.2 million. Since
that time, the design has progressed to 90% completion and the estimated construction costs have
escalated to $20.2 million. The increased cost estimate and possible cost saving measures were
presented to the Council in November 2006. Cost saving measures included eliminating the
conversion of overhead utilities to underground facilities, using different cost effective retaining
walls, and eliminating some of the proposed improvements within the WSDOT limited access right
of -way. These cost reductions were estimated to bring the construction project back within the
available budget of $16.2 million.
During the discussion at the November 2006 Council meeting, there were concerns regarding the
elimination of the undergrounding of overhead utilities. Subsequent inquiries since November into
additional funding sources to close the funding gap have been unsuccessful.
ANALYSIS
This project must move forward into construction to avoid the possibility of losing grant funding and
the entire 2007 construction season. The implementation of cost saving measures is necessary. A
compromise to allow the project to move forward is to implement the cost saving measures listed
above and to use that design as the base bid. An additive alternate to the base bid would include
undergrounding of the overhead utilities in front of the Intergate West and Homeland Security
buildings, which could be included in the bid package for award if favorable bids were received and
there is adequate existing budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Proceed with a final design for bidding that implements all cost saving measures, but includes the
undergrounding of utilities in front of the Intergate West and Homeland Security buildings as an
additive alternate to the base bid.
(P:ProjectslA- RW RS Projects195RW03 TIB21Memo Additive Alt)
Transportation Committee
February 26, 2007 5:00 p.m.
Present: Pam Carter, Chair; Joe Duffle, Council members. Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Pat Brodin;
Bob Giberson, Gail Labanara, Cyndy Knighton; and Chuck Parrish
Business Agenda
A.Tukwila Int'l Blvd Phases II III Proiect Scone and Bidding Alternatives
Jim reviewed the cost saving measures that included eliminating the conversion of overhead utilities, different
retaining walls and eliminating some improvements in WSDOT' s limited access area. Despite a four -month
effort, no additional funding is available. We will be including an additive alternate to the bid package that will
request a bid on a portion of the overhead power lines from just south of Homeland Security to north of
Inter ate West (this section of undergrounding has a cost estimate of $1.7 million). Joe commented that he
g g
would like to see the project with undergrounding if the budget allows. Jim is in contact with SCL regarding the
undergrounding. If SCL does not underground now, any future work by SCL would have to be underground
and SCL would have to pay 100 Pam Carter was in contact with Sabey Corp and was told that there was a
possibility of funding. Pam also requested the SCL timeline for the TIB Phase I undergrounding with all of the
delays. The current estimate for this project is to go out for bids in April with a bid opening in May and a
Notice to Proceed in Sept. (if there are no other delays). Pam Carter will report this item at tonight's COW
meeting and ask if Council would like to review the information presented to this committee. Majority
approval, seek guidance at tonight's COW.
B.I -405 Widening Proiect
Cyndy Knighton stated that this issue is a review of the MOU that was presented to the Committee in
November 2006. The delay has been due to WSDOT. The MOU mainly covers communication guidelines for
the design -build project. Pam asked for some additional definition of "design- build" that will be included in the
revised information memo. The State Attorney General and our City Attorney have both reviewed and
approved the cooperative agreement. WSDOT hopes to have completed the selection of the Design -Build team
this month. Consensus by the committee thought it would be better for WSDOT to give a presentation to full
Council once the team has been selected. Majority approval; forward to March 12 COW.
C. Sound Transit 2 RTID
Pam Carter requested that the proposed ballot measures be presented. Jim reviewed the highlights of both
packages and that voters must approve both packages or neither one passes. Jim stressed that the increase on
MVET is $80 per year for each $10,000 of vehicle value. If a household owns two vehicles each worth
$20,000, the MVET cost will be $320, plus the sales tax increase of $125 for Sound Transit 2 and the $25 sales
tax for RTID for a grand total of $470 for a typical household. These additional taxes would continue for 20 -30
years. Pam explained that the MID is a local tax that would cover state roads but would not fmancially impact
Eastern Washington. However, some cities in this area are not endorsing the initiatives, as they are not directly
receiving any improvements. The RTID package does not include the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Sound Transit
2 package does include the Longacres Station. The City of Tukwila did agree to support additional funding for
the Southpark Bridge when it was transferred and the bridge replacement is included in the RTID package. Pam
Carter informed the Committee that there would be a RTID Open House on March 20 at Highline Community
College. Joe asked if Sound Transit is going to the airport in this phase and Jim responded that ST does have
the funds and should be at the airport by 2010. There was a discussion on all of the agencies that currently
oversee transportation issues in the State and how there is legislature to change the process. Information Only.
Other
Jim reported on active projects along with the levee certification and the NPDES permit.
Adjournment: 6:05 p.m.
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by GL, Reviewed by JM, BG
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Directo
Date: October 19, 2006
Subject: Tukwila International Blvd Phases 2 and 3 (S 116 th St to S 138 St)
Construction Cost Increases vs. Budget
Project Nos. 95 -RWO3 and 95 -RWO4
ISSUE
Present current construction cost estimates as compared to the cost estimates used at the start
of final design. Discuss available options to reduce construction costs to fit within the
established budget.
BACKGROUND
This project was presented to the City Council in November 2004 to discuss the project budget
and design alternatives in order to proceed into final design of the project. See attached table.
At that time, the selected alternative was estimated to cost approximately $16.15 million with a
budget of $16.2 million. Since that time, the design has progressed to 90% completion, the
environmental phase has been completed, and state funding in the amount of $2.851 million
was eliminated and reinstituted in the spring of 2006.
The 90% construction cost estimate has increased to $20.2 million (a 25% increase over two
years). This increase is due to several factors, primarily from industry -wide inflation of labor
and material costs. Tukwila and other agencies have recently seen bids submitted that range
between 10% 30% over the engineer's estimate and costs are continuing to rise.
In order to construct this project within the available budget, cost savings and reduction
measures are necessary. Any significant changes to the scope of work need approval from the
City Council as well as the funding agencies.
ANALYSIS
City staff has met with the design consultant to discuss options to reduce the estimated
construction costs for the project. Three general areas have been identified that may produce
enough savings and /or reductions to bring the project within budget. They include:
1. Eliminate the undergrounding of overhead utilities and have existing poles and
facilities relocated as necessary.
2. Eliminate some of the proposed improvements within the WSDOT limited access
area at the north end of the project.
3. Redesign some of the retaining walls from cast -in -place concrete retaining walls to
a less expensive wall type.
Mayor Mullet
Page 2
October 19, 2006
A construction cost comparison is attached that shows the estimated cost savings by
implementing the revisions listed above. A plan will be presented to the City Council showing
the impacts and changes of redesigning the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the alternatives presented and provide direction to staff on desired scope changes in
order to bring the estimated construction costs within budget. Forward to the Committee of
the Whole for presentation to the full City Council.
Funding Sources for Construction Only
State Transportation Improvement Board 4,200,000.00
Federal Hwy. TEA -21 Grant 7,111,609.00
State "Nickel Package" Funds 2,706,000.00
Tukwila City Revenue (104 412 Funds) 2,051,000.00
Total 16,068,609.00
Estimate for Construction Costs
Construction Contract 13,484,800.00
Contingency (7.3%) 983,809.00
Construction Engineering (11.8 1,600,000.00
Total 16,068,609.00
attachments: Construction Cost Comparison
Scope and Budget Alternatives Table (from November 2004)
(P:Projects\A. RW RS Project\95RWO3 TIB2\Memo Phase 2 Alts Round 3)
CITY OF TUKWILA 10/19/2006
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Tukwila International Boulevard, Phase 2 3
S 139th St to S 116th Way
CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON
(All costs based on recent 2006 bid results.)
ORIGINAL REVISED
SCOPE SCOPE
General Conditions 2,404,700 1,659,000
Roadway 3,559,400 2,769,200
Sidewalk 485,400 420,900
Retaining Walls 6,591,700 4,947,300
Storm Drainage 1,978,200 1,926,300
Utility Adjustments 93,300 70,500
Traffic Signals 529,200 555,200
Illumination System 731,900 475,700
Electrical Undergrounding 2,557,900 0.00
Telecommunications Undergrounding 627,000 0.00
Resolve Aerial Utility Conflicts 0.00 210,000
Traffic Control Devices 64,500 44,300
Roadside Development 605,200 406,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $20,228,400 $13,484,800
Changes
1) No undergrounding of overhead utilities; pole relocations by utility owners.
2) No roadway improvements (except trench restoration) north of existing
signalized Department of Homeland Security's driveway.
3) Install MSE walls on east side of roadway in lieu of cast in place /soldier pile walls.
TIB Constr Cost comparison.xls
City of Tukwila Page 2 of 6
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 13, 2006
Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, conveyed that she has spoken with Mr. Virk regarding this matter. While
boundary line adjustments are not currently permitted in the moratorium area, there could be an
exemption based on certain criteria. The ordinance could be amended to reflect that a boundary line
adjustment would be granted if a development fell within a currently permitted use.
Councilmember Hernandez asked if the amendment could be reflected in the ordinance prior to the
November 20, 2006 regular meeting, and Ms. Miranda answered in the affirmative.
Councilmember Carter expressed concern about owners of larger parcels requesting similar boundary
line adjustments to create multiple smaller developments that may not adhere to the vision for the area.
Mayor Mullet clarified that boundary line adjustments would only shift lot sizes and would not create new
parcels that could be used for that purpose.
Councilmember Haggerton inquired, if since the moratorium was established in 2002, has anyone come
forward that would have been impacted by this proposed amendment, and Ms. Miranda responded in the
negative.
Council President Robertson asked if this would be the last occasion for the Council to pass a moratorium
ordinance for this area. Steve Lancaster, Community Development Director, relayed that the Tukwila
Urban Center Plan is anticipated to be finished in early 2007. Until all aspects of the plan and potential
changes by the Council are complete, the moratorium may need to be extended in the future.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ORDINANCE, WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT, TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. A resolution approving a land use fee schedule.
Councilmember Carter indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting
on November 6, 2006. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval.
Staff is proposing all planning fees be increased by approximately 4 similar to the other citywide
budgetary increases proposed for 2007. Three additional permit applications were created by the new
Wireless Communications Chapter, and fees need to be provided for those permits.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
b. Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 and 3 construction costs increases vs budget.
F
Councilmember Duffie indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on
October 23, 2006. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval.
Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, provided background information on this issue. This project was
presented to the Council in November 2004 to discuss the project budget and design alternatives in order
to proceed into final design of the project. At that time, the selected alternative was estimated to cost
approximately $16.15 million with a budget of $16.2 million. Since that time, the design has progressed
to 90% completion; the environmental phase has been completed; and state funding in the amount of
$2.851 million was eliminated and reinstituted in the spring of 2006.
The 90% construction cost estimate has increased to $20.2 million representing a 25% increase over two
years. This is primarily due to industry -wide inflation of labor and material costs. In order to construct this
project within the available budget, cost savings and reduction measures are necessary. Three general
areas have been identified that may produce enough savings and/or reductions to bring the project within
budget. They include:
City of Tukwila Page 3 of 6
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 13. 2006
1. Eliminate the undergrounding of overhead utilities and have existing poles and facilities relocated
as necessary.
2. Eliminate some of the proposed improvements within the WSDOT limited access area at the
north end of the project. (a pedestrian walkway had been proposed and has since been
disallowed by the Washington State Department of Transportation).
3. Redesign some of the retaining walls from cast -in -place concrete retaining walls to a less
expensive wall type.
Robin Tischmak, Senior Engineer, utilized a large four -panel photomontage to explain various aspects of
the project. Mr. Morrow conveyed that major pedestrian traffic is coming from the Homeland Security
Building and area bus routes by way of current sidewalks and a signal crossing.
Councilmember Haggerton commented on the importance of utilizing a broad vision in assuring that
Tukwila builds for the future. He also inquired as to whether there were any restrictions regarding grant
funding and timelines for expenditure. Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, stated the City is on the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) late list for obligating the funds, and the Transportation Improvement
Board would like Tukwila to move forward on the project.
Councilmember Carter indicated it would be beneficial to have a sidewalk run the length of the Sabey
Development. Mr. Morrow stated he would review the costs associated with extending the sidewalk the
full length.
Councilmember Linder asked for clarification regarding the difference between the $13.49 million "revised
scope" figures and the $16.2 million budgeted amount. Mr. Morrow indicated the variance is for
contingency and construction management.
Council President Robertson inquired about the items that fall under the "General Conditions" category on
page 29 of the agenda packet regarding construction cost comparisons. Mr. Morrow responded this
would include channelization, mobilization, water pollution erosion control, traffic control, and surveying.
Council President Robertson also asked about the "Roadway" category savings of $800,000 and an
explanation of "Roadside Development." Mr. Morrow explained that "Roadway" entails clearing, grubbing,
asphalt pavement work and repair, shoring, and roadway /curb /gutter construction. "Roadway
Development" involves planting, property restoration, and irrigation systems.
The Councilmembers recognized the necessity of completing the work within the budgeted amount and
expressed regret at the need to scale down the scope of the project.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
c. Bid award for Tukwila Urban Center Signal Interconnect ITS Traffic Signal Uninterruptible
Power Supply.
Councilmember Duffie indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on
October 23, 2006. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval.
Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, provided information regarding this issue. The uninterruptible power
supply units were advertised in September, 2006. One bid was received on October 2, 2006. The bid of
$4,650.00 per unit was from Cascade Signal Corporation, and 24 units are required. Cascade Signal
Corporation is a regular supplier to the Public Works Department, and they produce a reliable and high
quality product. The majority of other equipment needed for the signal project can be acquired from the
Washington State bid list.
Council President Robertson inquired about the cost for annual maintenance on this product. Mr. Morrow
stated the cost is minimal and would involve battery replacement. The batteries should last
approximately 5 years, and the controller itself has a life expectancy of 10 -15 years. The units are
instrumental in saving the City crews' time in hooking up generators in emergency situations.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
November 20, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers City Hall
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Steven M. Mullet called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order at 7:03 pm and led the audience
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Christy O'Flaherty, Deputy City Clerk, called the roll of the Council. Present were Dennis Robertson,
Council President; Councilmembers Joe Duffie, Joan Hernandez, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, Pam
Linder, and Verna Griffin.
CITY OFFICIALS
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney; Frank Iriarte,
Public Works Deputy Director; Kevin Fuhrer, Finance Director; Derek Speck, Economic Development
Administrator; Katherine Kertzman, Tourism Program Manager; Viki Jessop, Administrative Services
Director; Mary Miotke, IT Manager; David Haynes, Police Chief; Steve Lancaster, Community
Development Director; Rick Still, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director; Nick Olives, Fire Chief; Diane
Jenkins, Council Assistant; Jane Cantu, City Clerk; Christy O'Flaherty, Deputy City Clerk.
AMEND AGENDA
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE TO HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 8F
"CONTINUED REVIEW OF 2007 PROPOSED BUDGET" CONSIDERED AFTER NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 9C. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0.
t 1
BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ TO REMOVE ITEM 8E "A MOTION TO
AMEND THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD PHASES 2
AND 3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DUE TO COST INCREASES" FROM THE AGENDA AT THIS
TIME TO INVESTIGATE GRANT POSSIBILITIES. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Treasure of Tukwila Award Norma Lewin
Mayor Mullet explained the Treasure of Tukwila award. Each year the City chooses one citizen who has
made a positive difference in the City to be a "Treasure of Tukwila" recipient. This award recognizes
those special individuals who make an extra effort to enhance the lives of others or to improve the health
and vitality of the community.
This year's recipient is Norma Lewin. For many years, Ms. Lewin has provided new clothing and
beautifully handcrafted garments to children in need. This year she provided 75 hand -sewn garments
and delivered them in person to schools in Tukwila.
Mayor Mullet presented Ms. Lewin with a crystal vase filled with packaged assortments of Tukwila
Hazelnuts and a ThinkTukwila shopping bag. A variety of Ms. Lewin's handcrafted items were displayed,
and members of her family were introduced. Mayor Mullet thanked Ms. Lewin for her selfless contribution
to the Tukwila community, and she was given a standing ovation by the City Council and audience.
Transportation Committee
October 23, 2006 5:00 p.m.
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Pam Carter, and Joan Hernandez, Council members.
Kevin Fuhrer, Director of Finance; Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator;
Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works; Frank Iriarte, Deputy Director; Bob Giberson,
Acting City Engineer; Pat Brodin, Operations Manager; Gail Labanara, Public Works
Analyst; Robin Tischmak, Senior Engineer; Diane Jenkins, Administrative Assistant to
the Council; and Chuck Parrish, community member.
Business Aeenda
A. Tukwila Urban Center Signal Interconnect and ITS Traffic Signal Uninterruptible Power
Supply (UPS) Units Bid Award
Mr. Giberson reported that it is being recommended to award a contract for the Tukwila Urban
Center Signal Interconnect and ITS project to Cascade Signal Corporation for traffic signal
uninterruptible power supply units (UPS). On page 4 is a listing of items to be supplied by the
City. The UPS units are not available on the State bid. Only one bid was received. Ms. Carter
questioned why there was only one vendor. Mr. Giberson replied that this is very specialized
traffic signal controller that has back -up power. Unanimous approval. Forward to COW.
B. Construction Contract Price Increases
Mr. Morrow presented information on construction contract prices which have steadily increased
over the last couple of years and continue to rise. Mr. Giberson noted that last year there was a
dramatic increase in supplies and materials. Many agencies are scrambling to amend their
construction budgets due to the price increases. Mr. Giberson noted that every year a project is
delayed, it impacts the budget. Mr. Morrow expects that the increases will continue to rise as
much as 10 -30% per year. This is occurring in both the private and public sectors.
Mr. Giberson referred to page 15 which provided a summary of the number of bidders per
project over the last six years; it has been steadily decreasing. Competition is keeping the
numbers down. Ms. Hernandez noted that if this trend continues, it would impact the City's CIP
and proposed LIDs. Mr. Morrow cautioned that it is difficult to put cost estimates on projects
with costs escalating like this. Ms. Carter asked if inflation and materials can be estimated when
developing estimates for LIDs. Mr. Morrow replied that detailed cost estimates are provided
using the best information available and that information can be figured into the costs. He
pointed out that it is better to reduce the cost than to increase it at a later time. It was requested
that this information be shared with the entire council at a future meeting. Discussion only.
C. Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 and 3 Construction Cost Increases vs. Budget
Mr. Morrow conveyed that the scope of work on the Tukwila International Blvd, Phases 2 and 3,
had to be reduced because of funding and increased construction costs. Mr. Tischmak reviewed
the funding of this project. The options to bring this project within budget were: eliminate
undergrounding of utilities; eliminate some proposed improvements within DOT limited access
area at the north end of the project; and redesign some retaining walls from cast -in -place to a less
expensive wall type. Mr. Tischmak reviewed the location of the sidewalk and indicated that
there is not much pedestrian traffic north of Homeland Security but noted that there would be an
8 foot asphalt shoulder. So, the sidewalk will stop at that new intersection. He highlighted the
changes in the type of retaining wall to be installed. Mr. Duffle noted that others are asked to
underground utilities and yet the City isn't doing that. Mr. Morrow conveyed it was due to
budget restraints. The City has granted waivers due to prohibitive costs of undergrounding.
Ms. Carter noted that this is also zoned an industrial area. Ms. Carter asked if decorated blocks
would be used on the retaining wall. Mr. Morrow related that a decorative finish would be used.
Unanimous approval. Move to Committee of the Whole and then to regular council.
COUNCIL AGENDA S YNOPSIS
J. ivgsy' Initials NO.
P� �1 j 1 M it Date Pwpaial by 1 Ma}nr's vziety Coil riezv
,W` 02/26/07 RAB 1 f lYr�
f 4 '0 1 03/05/07 1 pAp 1 (1111} 1 1
1 1 u 1 1 f Ciii
I I I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER 07-023 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
AGENDAITEM Interlocal Agreement with King County regarding Animal Services and Programs
CATEGORY Discussion g Motion Resolution Orzlina xe BidAyard Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date MtgDatP3 /5/07 MtgDate Mtg Date MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate
I SPONSOR Council Mayor AdmSzrs 111 DCD Finance Fire Legal P& R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Proposed Amendment to Interlocal Agreement with King County regarding Animal Services
SUMMARY and Programs
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 2/20/07
RE COMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Review and forward to Regular meeting
COMMII1hE Unanimous approval: Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$Not to exceed $35,000 /yr
Fund Source: 000.50
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
I 02/26/07 I Forward to Regular Meeting
I
i
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS 11
2/26/07 I Memo from Mayor's Office to Council 1
Interlocal Services Agreement
Pertinent sections of RCW, King Co Animal Control Regulations, and the TMC
Finance Safety Committee minutes of 2/20/07
03/05/07 Amendment try Tntarlma1 Am-pa
_•r -au- et wi th Ki na C'.n,�t \7 and si m
ihsacinant apannanta
I I
INTERLOCAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Between the City of Tukwila and
King County Regarding Animal Services and Programs
This is an Amendment to the standing Interlocal Agreement between the City of Tukwila and
King County. The Amendment is for supplemental animal control services between the City of
Tukwila, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the
"City" and King County, a home -rule charter county, a political subdivision of the State of
Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County
WHEREAS, the City and County entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated December 15,
1993 "Interlocal Agreement relating to the provision of animal control services within the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to amend the Interlocal Agreement to enable the County
to provide the City with additional animal control services;
NOW, in consideration of mutual covenants, the City and County hereby agree to amend the
Interlocal Agreement as follows:
Section 1. Service Obligation.
A. The County shall provide supplemental animal control services in the form of an
additional animal control officer dedicated to the City for special emphasis on, but
not limited to, off -leash violations, barking dog complaints, potentially dangerous
dogs, and to provide special presentations at community events such as the
Backyard Wildlife Habitat Fair and Tukwila Days. The scheduling of these
supplemental services will be determined by mutual agreement of the contract
administrators of this Amendment.
B. The additional animal control officer will be stationed within the City limits to
respond to specific calls for service, perform routine patrols, communicate with
the contract administrator, and handle other related tasks as agreed to by the
contract administrators of this Amendment.
C. The County shall provide the City, in advance, with a general monthly calendar of
scheduled services in Tukwila, and a quarterly report of the supplemental hours
worked and services performed.
Section 2. Compensation. In consideration for the supplemental services provided by
the County as set forth herein, the City agrees to pay the County for the hours of animal control
officer work at the rate of $30/hour, not to exceed $35,000 a year.
D
Section 3. Contract Administrators. For purposes of these supplemental services, the
contract administrators shall be the City Administrator or a designee and the King County
Animal Services and Programs Manager or designee.
Section 4. Other Portions of the Agreement Unaffected. Except as specifically stated
herein, all other portions of the Interlocal Agreement shall remain in place and are unaffected by
this Amendment.
Section 5. Previous Amendments. All previous amendments to the Interlocal
Agreement are terminated.
Section 6. Termination of Supplemental Services. With or without cause, the County
or City may revert back to the original terms of the December 15, 1993 Interlocal Agreement, by
providing thirty days written notice to the other party of termination of these supplemental
services.
Section 7. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Interlocal Agreement and this
Amendment have been entered into for the sole benefit of the City and County. Nothing in the
Interlocal Agreement or this Amendment is intended to create any rights for or obligations owing
to third parties.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective upon the date last signed
below.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement.
CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY
Steven M. Mullet Date: Ron Sims Date:
Mayor King County Executive
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
City Attorney Date: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date:
W wpadmin/ mayorsofficecontracts /2007animatcontrolv2
0 9 j
Interlocal Agreement Between
Ring County and the City of Tukwila
Relating to Animal Control
t/c
,This AGREEMENT. entered into this 5 day of
i 1993 between KING COUNTY, State of
Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County and the
municipal corporation of Tukwila, hereinafter referred to as
the "City."
WITNESSTH;
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to RCW 39.34.010 and
39.34.080, is authorized to and desirous of contracting
with the County for the performance of Animal Control
Services; and,
WHEREAS, the County is authorized by Section 120 of the
King County Charter and King County Code 11.02.030 to
render such services and is agreeable to rendering such
services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth and in consideration of payments, mutual
covenants and agreements herein contained.
IT IS, THEREFORE, covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. Obligations: In consideration of the promise of the
City and payment of the sum hereinafter set forth, the
County promises to:
1.1 Perform consistent with available resources all
services relating to licensing and enforcement of
City ordinances pertaining to Animal Contras
set forth in the City Ordinance Number
1.2 Provide the same degree, type, and level of
service as is customarily provided to residents of
unincorporated King County;
1.3 Furnish licenses and application forms for said
licenses to the City for sale to the public at the
City Hall;
1.4 Except as set forth in section 7.1 below, services
to be provided by the County pursuant to this
agreement do not include legal services, which
shall be provided by the City at its own expense.
In consideration of the promises of the County herein
before set forth, the City promises to:
1.5 Enact an ordinance or resolution which is
substantially similar to Title 11 King County Code
as now or hereafter amended. For the purpose of
this subsection, "substantially similar" shall be
defined to include, at a minimum, identical
license, late penalty, and
impound /redemption /sheltering fees with those
provided in Title 11 King County Code;
1.6 Delegate to the County the following:
1.6.1 The power to determine eligibility for
licenses issued under the terms of the City
ordinance, subject to the conditions set
forth in said ordinance and subject to the
review power of King County Board of
Appeals;
1.6.2 The power to enforce terms of the City
ordinance, including the power to deny,
suspend or revoke licenses issued
thereunder, and subject to the review power
of the King County Board of Appeals.
1.7 Nothing in this agreement is intended to divest
the City of authority to issue notices of
violations and court citations for alleged
violations of City ordinances. The authority to
issue notices of violations and court citations
may be exercised by either the County or the City.
2. Compensation an. Method of Payment: The City shall
reimburse the County for the services as delineated in
this contract in the following manner:
2.1 The County shall receive all fines and fees
collected by the County pursuant to the licensing
of dogs, cats, kennels, hobby kennels,pet shops,
animal shelters, and grooming businesses subject
to a $1.00 rebate for each valid pet license sold
by the City.
2.2 The County shall receive all impound and
redemption fees charged against animals.
3. Time of Performance: This agreement shall be effective
the first of January, 1994, and shall automatically
renew from year to year unless otherwise modified or
terminated as provided hereinafter. The County
reserves the right to increase fees or modify the
rebate provisions of Section 2.1 of this agreement.
4. Modifications: The parties agree that this agreement
is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any
oral representation or understanding not incorporated
herein is excluded. The parties reserve the right to
modify this agreement. Any modifications of this
2
agreement shall be in writing, signed by both parties,
and affixed to this original agreement.
5. Termination: This agreement may be terminated without
cause only after thirty (30) days written notice
received by one party given by the other. Failure to
comply with any of the provisions stated herein shall
constitute material breach of contract and cause for
immediate termination upon notice received by one party
given by the other. Any termination of this agreement
shall not terminate any obligation of either party
incurred prior to such termination, nor shall it affect
the validity of any license issued pursuant to the City
ordinance.
6. Mutual Covenants: Both parties understand and agree
that the County is acting hereunder as an independent
contractor, with the intended following results:
6.1 Control of personnel, standards of performance,
discipline, and all other aspects of performance
shall be governed entirely by the County;
6.2 All persons rendering services hereunder shall be
for all.turposes employees of the County, although
they may from time to time act as commissioned
officers of the City;
6.3 The .contact person for the City regarding citizen
complaints, service requests and general
information on animal control services is the
Chief of King County Animal Control;
6.4 In the event of a dispute between parties as to
the extent of the service to be rendered
hereunder, or the minimum level or manner of
performances of such service, the determination of
the Director of the King County Department of
Executive Admnistration shall be the final and
conclusive in all respects between parties hereto.
7. Indemnification:
7.1 The county shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its officers, agents and employees or any
of them from any and all claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of
any nature•whatsoever, by reason of or arising out
of any negligent action or omission of the County,
its officers, agents, and employees, or any of
them, in performing services pursuant to this
agreement. In the event that any suit based upon
such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought
against the City, the County shall defend the same
3
at its sole cost and expense; provided, that, the
City retains the right to participate in said suit
if any principal of governmental or public law is
involved; and if final judgment be rendered
against the City and its officers, agents,
employees, or any of them, or jointly against the
City and County and their respective officers,
agents, and employees, or any of them, the County
shall satisfy the same.
7.2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the
County and its officers, agents, and employees, or
any of them from any and all claims, actions,
suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and
damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or
arising out of any negligent act or omission of
the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or
any of them. In the event that any suit based
upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is
brought against the County, the City shall defend
the same at its sole cost and expense; provided
that the County retains the right to participate
in said suit if any principle of governmental or
public laws is involved; and if final judgment be
rendered4against the County, and its offices,
agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly
against= the County and City and their respective
officers, agents and employees, or any of them,
the City shall satisfy the same.
7.3 In executing this agreement, the County does not
assume liability or responsibility for or in any
way release the City from any liability or
responsibility which arises in whole or in part
from the existence or effect of city ordinances,
rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit,
action or administrative proceeding is commenced
in which the enforceability and /or validity of any
such City ordinance, rule or regulation is at
issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole
expense and if judgment is entered or damages are
awarded against the City, the County, or both, the
City shall satisfy the same, including all
chargeable costs and attorney's fees.
8. Audits and Inspections: The records and documents with
respect to all matters covered by this contract shall
be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County
or City during the term of this contract and six (6)
years after termination hereof.
9. N n- Discrimination: The County certifies that it is an
Equal Opportunity Employer and has developed and
implemented an Affirmative Action Program in accordance
4
with the guidelines in Revised Ordinance 4 of the
United State Department of Labor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed the day and year first herein above
written.
I
King County City of Tukwila
.:J -fr 6 (41/(_ t 44/Z-
King C unty xecut ive /y% rLAJ
/7'6/2. /c9
Date Date
Approved as to Form Approved as to Form
AID 4
f
l 14g County City Attorney
epu y Pro County Attorney
X 31/9 i /_29?
Date Date 7
interac.doc (interl)
5
4G
INTERLOCAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
City of Tukwila and King County
Animal Control Services
This is an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement entered into in 1994 for
supplemental animal control services between the City of Tukwila, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and King
County, a home -rule charter county, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as the "County."
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila (City) and Metropolitan King County (County)
entered into an Interlocal agreement relating to animal control in late 1993; and
WHEREAS, Tukwila has received supplemental service for animal control patrol
since 1994; and
WHEREAS, a change in the compensation level in 2003 has resulted in the City
adding some accountability requirements;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants, the City and County
hereby agree to amend the Interlocal Agreement as follows:
Section 1. Service Obligations.
A. The County shall provide supplemental animal control service in the form of
an additional 625 hours annually of animal control officer work. These hours will be
provided on an average of 12 hours per calendar week. Scheduling of the hours will be
determined by mutual agreement of the contract administrators for this supplemental
service.
B. The animal control officer will be stationed within the City limits to respond
to specific calls for service, perform routine patrol, keep in touch with Tukwila City Hall
officials and other tasks as agreed to by the contract administrators of this supplemental
service.
C. The City requests a general monthly calendar of scheduled service (morning,
afternoon or evening) in Tukwila, and a quarterly report of the types of services
offered /performed, including Tukwila areas or neighborhoods where dogs have bitten,
or have been removed as dogs prohibited by animal control from being kept in the City.
D. Animal control will provide animal control officers' pager numbers in order
for the City to be able to easily contact the animal control officers in Tukwila when they
are on duty in the City. When the officers are not on duty, City officials should be given
a method of reaching animal control officers without difficulty.
Animal Control Services Agreement Amendment 8/15/03 G
Q
J
Section 2. Compensation In consideration for the supplemental services
provided by the County as set forth herein, the City promises to pay the County for the
hours of animal control officer work $28.75 /hour between January 1, 2003 and June 30,
2003; after that date the City of Tukwila agrees to pay $60.00 /hour, provided that the
rates per hour may be reviewed /updated each budget year. The hourly rate includes all
operations and maintenance costs required to support the animal control officer.
Section 3. Contract Administrators. For purposes of these supplemental services,
the contract administrators shall be the City Administrator or a designee and the
Director of King County Animal Control or a designee.
Section 4. Effective Date. This amendment shall supercede the amendment
passed and made effective June 15, 1994 and shall be effective July 1, 2003 upon
approval by signatures below.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement.
C OF T'UKWILA METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY
t1)v 8 20 03 --a1A 7.- 1 A 7 /26/04
Mayor Date l it°. King County Executi e y: C. Date'
I.o� i, Dizectar, F eocctios
Licensing Services
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
.47,4„... Gil ow \/D7764
City Attorney Date Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date
Animal Control Services Agreement Amendment 8/15/03
A G 1* -6 Li/ y o o
AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL AGREEMENT KI.1 Z 7
BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KING COUNT
This is an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Tukwila,
a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as
the "City and King County, a home -rule charter county, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the
"County
WHEREAS the City and County have entered into an Interlocal Agreement relating
to animal control effective January 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS the City and County have negotiated certain amendments to the
Agreement effective June 15, 1994; and
WHEREAS the parties have the authority to proceed with these amendments to the
Interlocal Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Chapter 39.34
RCW;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, the City and County
hereby agree to amend the Interlocal agreement as follows:
1. Services. The County shall provide supplemental animal control services in
the form of an additional six hundred twenty -five (625) hours annually of
animal control officer work. These hours will be provided on an average of
twelve (12) hours per calendar week. Scheduling of the hours will be
determined by mutual agreement of the contract administrators for this
supplemental service.
The animal control officer will be stationed with in the city limits to
respond to specific calls for service, perform routine patrol and other tasks
as agreed to by the contract administrators for this supplemental service.
2. Compensation_ In consideration for the supplemental services provided by
the County as set forth herein, the City promises to pay the County for the
hours of animal control officer work in the amount of twenty eight dollars and
seventy -five cents ($28.75) per hour, provided that the rate per hour will be
updated each budget year. The hourly rate includes all operations and
maintenance costs required to support the animal control officer.
The County will invoice the City quarterly. Payments are due within 30 days
after invoicing by the County.
3. Contract Administrators_ For purposes of these supplemental services the
contract administrators shall be the City Administrator or a designee and the
Chief of King County Animal Control or a designee. Each party shall inform
the other of its contract administrator by June 17, 1994.
4. Effective date_ This amendment shall be effective June 15, 1994. All
other terms and conditions in the Interlocal Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement.
ITY F TUKWIL KING COiJNTY
'K d orri
yor King County E 3 utive
proved as to form: Approve as t ormf
City Attorney Deputy Pro8e Attorney
foacagr2,.doc (int) 1
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
o J �sy' Initials ITEM NO.
Q p�11, M Date I Prepare by 1 Mayor's reziezv 1 C.grl reziew 1
is) .oi 02/26/07 RAB 1, 1 h,i)
03/05/07 RAB I [A)
1908 I
1 L
w
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER 07-027 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Professional Services Contract, M.3. Durkan, Inc.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinarxe Bid Azaurd Public Hearin g Other
MtgDate 2/26/0 MtgDate.3 /5 /0VitgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate
SPONSOR Council Mayor AdmSus 111 DCD Finance Fire Legal P& R Nix PW
SPONSOR'S Proposed contract with M7 Durkan for lobbying services in 2007
SUMMARY
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 2/20/07
RE COMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Review and forward to Regular meeting
COMMITTEE Unanimous approval; Forward to Comittee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$4,000 /month expenses
Fund Source: 000.20
Comments:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
02/26/07 1 Forward to Regular Meeting
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
2/26/07 I Memo from Mayor's Office to City Council 1
Contract
Finance Safety Committee minutes of 2/20/07
r'l n 9 m I No attachments
1
Tentative Agenda Schedule
tCiNT 1 1 ET G 3 iV EETING 3
MEETING 4
REGULAR tom.
Marc 5 12 19 26
Special Presentation: Special Presentation:
See agenda packet Update on COPCAB recognition
cover sheet for this King County Inter- of City employee
week's agenda national Airport and City volunteer
(March 5, 2007 Roundtable who exemplify the
Regular meeting). (Kathleen Crabtree) community policing
Introduction of new model
employee
State of the
Municipal Court
(Judge Kimberly
Walden)
Special Issues:
Jail alternative
program
Southcenter Square
street naming
Disposition of
surplus property
to Habitat for
Humanity
Electrical Code
I-405 widening
project
Ap 2 9 16 23
Special Issues: Unfinished Business:
30th 2007 Comprehensive 2007 Comprehensive Co, vtVI I1 EE OF THE
Fifth Monday of the Plan amendments Plan amendments WHOLE MEETING TO BE
month no Council FOLLOWED BY A SPECIAL
meeting scheduled MI±I IN'G
May 7 14 21 29 (Tuesday)
Proclamation:
28" National Aquatics
Memorial Day Month
(City offices closed)
IJ ing M eetings Events
MARCH 2007
5th (Monday) 6th (Tuesday) 71h (Wednesday) 1 8th (Thursday) 9th (Friday) 1 10th (Saturday)
Finance Safety Chamber of Sister City Lodging Tax
Cmte, Commerce Gov't. Cmte, Advisory Cmte,
5:00 PM Community 5:30 PM 12:00 NOON
(CR #3) Affairs Cmte., (CR #3) (Homewood
12:00 NOON Suites —in the
City Council (Chamber Office) Mallard Room; Sunday, March 11
Regular Mtg., 6955 Ft. Dent (at 2:00 AM)
7:00 PM Arts Commission, Way) Daylight Saving.
(Council 4:30 PM Time Begins
Chambers) (Community
Center)
PLEASE NOTE
SPECIALMEETLNG 12
TLME THIS MONTH. 11
10
Utilities Cmte,
5:00 PM
(CR #1)
12th (Monday): ::13th (TSresday) 14th`(Wednesday) 15th (Thursday) 1 16th (Friday) 1 17th fSaturdav)
Transportation Community Domestic I Human Services
Cmte, Affairs Parks Violence Task Providers,
5:00 PM Cmte, Force, 11:30 Am
(CR #1) 5: 00 PM 12:00 NOON (Tukwila
(CR #3) (CR #5) Community
Civil Service Center)
Commission, Highway 99 Tukwila
5:00 PM Action Cmte, Historical
(CR #3) 7:00 PM Society,
(Community 7:00 PM
City Council Center) (Foster Tukwila
Committee of the Presbyterian
Whole Mtg., Church)
7:00 PM
(Council
Chambers)
Apartment Managers' Networking Lunch: Periodically as scheduled. Contact Robbie Burns at 206 431 -2197.
Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Kimberly Matej at 206 767 -2342.
Chamber of Commerce's Tukwila Government and Community Affairs Committee: 1st Tues., 12:00 Noon, Chamber Offices.
Contact Nancy Damon at 206 -575 -1633.
City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
City Council Regular Meeting: 1st 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
Civil Service Commission: 2nd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. Contact Bev Willison at 206 433 -1844.
Community Affairs Parks Committee: 2nd 4th Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 63.
COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 4th Wed., 6:30 PM, Conf Rm 45. Police Dept. at 206 433 -7175.
Crime Hot Spots Task Force: 3rd Wed., 10:00 AM, Conf. Room 65. Contact Police Department at 206 433 -7175.
Domestic Violence Task Force: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon, Conf. Room 65. Contact Evie Boykan or Stacy Hansen at 206 433 -7180
Equity Diversity Commission: 1st Thurs., 5:00 PM, Showalter Middle School Library.
Finance Safety Committee: 1st 3rd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. Agenda item for 3/5/07 meeting: (A) Resolution
supporting employee Wellness Program.
➢Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7 :00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Chief Dave Haynes at 206 -433 -1812.
Human Services Advisory Brd: 2nd Fri. of even months, 10:00 AM, Human Services Office. Contact Evie Boykan at 206-433-7180.
Human Services Providers: Quarterly, 11:30 AM, TCC (2007 3/16, 6/21, 9/21, and 12/7). Contact Stacy Hansen at 206 433 -7181.
Library Advisory Board: 3rd Wed., 7:00 PM, Foster Library. Contact Bruce Fletcher at 206 767 -2343
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: Every other month (or as scheduled), 12:00 NOON. Contact Katherine Kerttman at 206-575-2489.
>Parks Commission: 3rd Wed., 5:30 PM, Senior Game Room at Community Center. Contact Kimberly Matej at 206 767 -2342.
>Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4th Thurs., except 2nd Thursday in Nov. Dec., 7:00 PM,
Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta Bivens at 206 -431 -3670.
Sister City Committee: 1st Wed., 5:30 PM, Conf. Room #3. Contact Bev Willison at 206 433 -1844.
Transportation Committee: 2nd 4th Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #1.
>Utilities Committee: 1st 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #1. Agenda items for 3/6/07 meeting: (A) Westfield Shoppingtown
North Sewer Repair bid award. (B) 35th Ave. S. Emergency Pipe Repair Project completion and acceptance.
Court Busy Court and/or Jury Calendar (noted to alert employees and citizens of potential parking difficulty).