Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-12-10 Special Minutes - LID #18 Final Assessment Roll Public HearingDecember 10, 1973 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Discussion OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Council Discussion December 10, 1973 7:36 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION Milo G. Casey PUBLIC HEARING Amending the Comprehensive Land -Use Plan of the City of Tukwila to include that portion of land generally described as located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interstate Freeway #5. Tukwila City Hall City Council Chambers Mayor Todd called the Public Hearing to order at 7:02 P.M. spa CRAIN, TRAYNOR, STERLING, HILL, GARDNER. COUNCILMEN STEVENS AND JOHANSON WERE ABSENT AND NEITHER EXCUSED NOR UNEXCUSED. Mayor Todd announced the Planning Commission has held a Public Hearing on the change in the Comprehensive Plan requirement and a Public Hearing on the Land -Use Plan change and have recommended to the City Council to "modify the Comprehensive Land -Use Plan to include that area of land outlined in the drawings and designate the land for Multiple Family and Commercial as depicted on the same drawings." Mayor Todd then called for comments. Councilman Crain asked what area of land is involved in the rezone and what road goes in- between the two pieces marked in green. City Clerk pointed out the area in green on the map and Councilman Hill stated the street is 151st Ave. Councilman Sterling asked if this would change any restrictions for planning the barrier (area in yellow). Councilman Traynor stated the Council is not zoning this piece, just changing the Comprehensive Plan to include it and to indicate intention. Councilman Gardner stated the Council is deciding on the green area since a Public Hearing has already been held on the zoning. Mayor Todd opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. There were no comments from the audience. Mayor Todd closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Councilman Hill stated due to freeway noise this property could not be considered a first -class residential site. Councilman Gardner stated the future of the freeway may be more quiet. Councilman Traynor stated the property is across the street from business and according to the Comprehensive Plan is also zoned for business. Councilman Crain stated he felt this land has no use as a residential area. MOVED BY CRAIN, SECONDED BY STERLING, TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND -USE PLAN.* Councilman Gardner asked if this matter should go before the Boundary Review Board since it borders King County. Mayor Todd stated this property we are considering is in the City limits. Councilman Hill stated if the annexation goes through, the bordering property will be in the City anyway. *CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING Tukwila City Hall LID #18 City Council Chambers FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Mayor Todd called the Public Hearing to order and opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. CRAIN, TRAYNOR, STEVENS, STERLING, HILL, GARDNER. COUNCILMAN JOHANSON WAS ABSENT AND NEITHER EXCUSED NOR UNEXCUSED. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read the Notice of Hearing on Final Assessment Roll. The City Clerk then read into the record those letters of protest which she had received from citizens. Each letter was reviewed separately. A letter from Mr. Milo G. Casey, 14025 55th South, stated since his property fronted on 55th Avenue and the sewer was installed and paid for, he received no benefit from the sewer on 53rd. He had attended a previous LID meeting, explained his problem to one of the Councilmen who had agreed his assessment was in error. Mr. John Stack, Engineer for Harstad Associates, Inc., explained gener- ally the area of LID #18 and the method of computing assessments to PUBLIC HEARING Page 2, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. Milo G. Casey Cont. the property owners at the blackboard. He stated there are three types of mathematical formulas for figuring these assessments: zone termini charge, assessed area charge or general facilities charge, and side sewer stub charge. Zone termini charges are computed on the zones 1 through 5 I. ree,e4 o a pal, 315 Eder 3016 h IA tv■ Cr; c a. Weil'Ite f ,J Area charges are computed by multiply- Otte the number of square feet in a lot by 11/20 per square foot. ,sal. Gc ,i� Ova reas:nq J And a side sewer stub charge is $250 for each connection from the main sewer to the property line and the charge is the same for everyone. The total of these three equals the total a "4 Gne.4; T depr►,,i:01 On i4•5 forox; m41 40 'rkt, weighted zone front footage 604 varies with the depth of each lot. 4 e. ins properties along the back o6 55th Avenue and that the sewer on tft frO Vt LV1. 53rd Avenue does benefit these properties in that when the street is opened, this is the only means by which these people will be able to receive service. To reply to Mr. Casey, Mr. Stack stated his property does receive benefit and the sewer is sized to handle it. Mr. Casey should expect to pay some reasonable share of the cost therefore. Mr. Casey asked by what means could he have ser- vice by gravity to 53rd Avenue only by an easement across some- one else's property or by the new sewer to be built on 54th in the future. If the street does go through, then it will be a whole new ballgame with a new assessment again. Mr. Stack stated it will be a complete new assessment only for the collective sewer. He stated Mr. Casey is not being assessed the full assessment because he does not receive full benefit. This sewer offers the only means to this property when someday this property in the back will be valuable enough to develop. Mr. Casey then asked if there were any plans for a main trunk line on 54th Avenue. Mr. Stack replied that yes, adequate depth had been provided. 4" 53ret 4 l '44 tl' fdr -HAL co a n et. +ton, City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read the letter of protest from Caroline B. and Louis Bentler, 13905 55th Ave. So., and Mr. Bentler pointed out the property on the map. Mr. Stack asked if the pro- perty is more than 65 feet wide. Mr. Bentler replied that part of the lot is in LID #5 so they paid $1,289 which covers 147 feet, but we were charged for 190 feet on the other property and all but 35 feet of it slopes away. "Now we are being assessed on the whole damn thing." Mr. Stack suggested a review on the status of LID #5 assessments on the property to see if LID #18 does provide benefit as presently stated. Mayor Todd asked if now we might not be sure. Mr. Stack stated this could be checked into since he doesn't know how the property was assessed; that it might have been assessed in LID #5 and in Mr. Bentler's position, it could go either way. Councilman Sterling asked if Mr. Bentler is presently connected to LID #5. Mr. Stack replied he is not. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Bentler if he has a septic tank. Mr. Bentler answered yes. Councilman Traynor asked if the whole piece of land was assessed on LID #5. Mr. Stack replied no. Councilman Crain stated part was in LID #5 and part in LID #18 the property is on the assessment rolls both ways. Councilman Sterling asked if the house could be served by LID #5. Mr. Stack answered yes. Councilman Crain asked if its legal to hook into LID #5. i' -K answered no. Attorney Parker stated Mr. Bentler would have to pay a special connection charge in that case, but actually he could connect to either one for about the same charge. Councilman Sterling stated it may be cheaper for Mr. Bentler to connect to LID #5. Mr. Stack suggested the property is benefitted by LID #18. Councilman Crain asked how big the piece of property is that is in LID #18 is it smaller than 64 feet by 147 feet? Mr. Bentler stated the charge is for 190 feet on 55th to take care of the depth of the property. Now the property is separ- ated and charged again on LID #18. Mayor Todd suggested this matter be set aside until the assessments on LID #5 can be checked. Caroline B. and Louis Bentler William Tyyska Mc'. lac ke r December 10, 1973 SV3 An area charge, or general facilities charge, was levied on these City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read Mr. Tyyska's reason for protest. Mr. Tyyska stated the sewer should have been on 54th it would have been cheaper and then put the drain down in the hole. It cost us more to put the side pipe in and now we are being charged on 55th. Mr. Stack stated Mr. Tyyska had to dig a very deep and long side sewer to get into 54th. Mr. Tyyska added this was 24 feet deep. Mr. Stack stated at the time that was the only sewer avail- able. The reason they are now being assessed is that they were beyond any point of gravity service or any point of benefit on the PUBLIC HEARING Page 3, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. William Tyyska Cont. J. P. Larson S. E. Radnich December 10, 1973 544, back of the lot. Now they are benefitting from the gravity line below them which eventually will serve them. Mayor Todd offered for information that in Tukwila, any lot that does not have sewer service, the minimum buildable size is 9,600 sq. feet; with sewer, you have 7,200 sq. feet. So some of this back lot property could very easily be developed with available sewer service where it can- not be now. If you have a deep lot, you can split it and develop two lots instead of one. Mayor Todd then asked Mr. Tyyska if he was satisfied with the answer he had been given. Mr. Tyyska replied he didn't know if he was satisfied. Councilman Crain asked how big Mr. Tyyska's property is. Mr. Stack answered approximately 75 feet by 75 feet. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Tyyska for the total size of his lot in depth. Mr. Tyyska replied 75 feet by 276 feet. Mayor Todd then stated Mr. Tyyska has two buildable lots with sewer service. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read two letters of protest from Mr. Larson -one letter covers the property at 13622 51st Ave. and the other covers 13401 Interurban Ave. Mr. Larson stated his mailing address is 27015 Seventh Place So., Kent. Mr. Larson pointed out on the map that too many feet are being charged. Mr. Stack stated he used the County Assessor's records and if there is a problem with the property description, it should be straightened out with the County. Mr. Larson asked if the zone termini would come again and another stub fee of $250. Mr. Stack answered no. Mr. Larson stated this was done on the other three lots. Mr. Stack answered yes, then pointed out the property on the map and the fact that his access was cut off by the freeway fence. He asked Mr. Larson how many houses are on the property. Mr. Larson replied there is a house and a shed or shack. The property is really not divided into lots; its just one piece of property. Mr. Stack stated the County carries them as three separate tax lots. Mr. Larson stated he did not know why, but he did not see the three stub outs there. Mr. Stack explained they came out there with a "Y -out" for each piece of ground. Mr. Larson objected, saying there is not a stub out on his property that he saw only one line. Mr. Stack explained the way service was provided was by running a 6 -inch line out and then stubbed it out to each lot. A piece of property was pointed out on the map. Mr. Larson stated that was the County's, but they did not want to claim it they don't have a right -of -way for it. Mr. Larson stated he had access to his property on 51st Street which is more of a cow path. Mayor Todd asked if each lot is big enough to build on. Mr. Stack answered yes, each was. Mr. Larson stated $5,000 assessment was way too high since it would be diffi- cult to build on such muddy ground. Mr. Stack stated other proper- ty in the area is being developed, and then asked if the new ser- vice station was built on pilings. Mr. Larson stated no, that a lot of dirt was hauled in for the new service station. The Council decided to hold this matter for further consideration. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read Mr. Radnich's letter of protest which listed six items for clarification. Mr. Radnich added that he assumed the front footage is one charge plus the sq. footage of the property. He was asking about the front footage charge is it equal in all cases. Mr. Stack replied that charges for front foot- age are equal only if everyone's depth is the same. Mr. Radnich stated he could not understand that if you figure the difference in sq. footage on a different basis than you do the sq. footage. He stated he understood that the total would come out different be- cause of the land depth. Mr. Stack started to explain the zone termini method. Mr. Radnich stated Mr. Stack must have a front footage charge for that sewer, and then, as his next question, what portion of the assessment is charged for paving and other road work. Mr. Stack explained it is important to know that the deeper the lot, the zone termini assessment is more. Mr. Radnich stated there must be a basic charge for front footage. Mr. Stack replied no, that each lot is computed differently. Steve Hall, Public Works Director, stated that each zone termini unit cost is the same, but front footage varies according to depth. Mr. Radnich stated it was his impression that we on 53rd Ave. are going to pay for a full paving job. Mr. Stack stated this was not so, that LID #18 included everything on one construction charge and was install- ed and charged equally and is reflected in the assessment rate. PUBLIC HEARING Page 4, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. S. E. Radnich Cont. Jerry Erskine December 10, 1973 The total cost of construction was $304,159.20. The City was able to obtain a grant of $87,262.75 from the Dept. of Housing Urban Development, which reduced the amount required to pay to $217,899.97. The grant money was spread equally just as the costs were. Councilman Hill stated if this would have been within the City of Tukwila, the street need not have had a 2 -inch overlay that it could have been patched. Mr. Stack agreed. Mr. Radnich stated if he lived in the other part of town and had to pay for the paving, he'd be mad as hell because he's mad now and its paved in front of his place. He stated he felt it was an injustice to those who don't live on that street. He then withdrew the question and moved on to the third question. Mr. Stack stated in answer to what lots of the A. G. Berg Addition are included in LID #18 and being assessed, that all lots in the Addition are being assessed. Mr. Jerry Erskine, 5316 So. 144th, stated he owned Lots 19 20 in the Addition and 8 feet of Lot 18 and the property has been hooked up to LID #5 for nine years. Mr. Stack stated he had asked the City to research their records as to what hook up and assessment charges had been paid for in this area to prevent such problems. Apparently there was no record or the City was not able to come up with one at the time. Mr. Erskine explained this was previous to when he bought the property. Councilman Hill asked if the property was hooked up to LID #5 now and Councilman Stevens answered yes. Mr. Erskine stated the line ran down 144th and then ran into a deal with the FHA which required 200 yards of sewer before the property was sold. When Mr. Erskine talked to the former owner, the owner stated he paid a hook up fee and an assessment of $1,400. Mr. Erskine stated this is just verbal say -so and he has not been able to find out anything about it because there was supposed to have been a letter sent out a few months previous evidently to the mortgage company and he never received a copy of it. Mr. Stack suggested the City research the records. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Erskine if he had a written letter of protest. Mr. Erskine replied he did not. Councilman Stevens stated Mr. Erskine had protested to him personally. S.E. Radnich Mr. Radnich stated under this system Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 cannot be drained. Mr. Stack stated Mr. Radnich's lots were assess ed back 150 feet from 53rd Ave. Mr. Radnich replied his schedule shows Lots 9 through 12 are being assessed. Mr. Stack stated the Zova. w ltrACC assessment was carried back into Lots 11 and 12 150 feet and not beyond. Mr. Radnich stated there was no indication of that on the John A. Radnich schedule. Mr. John A. Radnich, 14218 53rd Ave. So., asked that if in the future the new line comes down 54th, then would we receive a new assessment. Mr. Stack stated they would not receive a gener- al facilities assessment, but would pay their share of that line or 100 feet of depth on the back line. John Radnich stated that line would not benefit him. Mr. Stack'stated if indeed he received abso- lutely no benefit, then he would have a good argument and shouldn't have to pay for it. John Radnich stated his assessment shows Lots 7, 8, 13 and 14. Mr. Stack stated yes, because they all have an area assessment because LID #18 line is low enough to serve his lots by gravity. John Radnich stated he may well have to pour dirt over it in order to do that. He stated he did not understand why in the future sometime he should be assessed for that other line. Mr. Stack replied now he is paying for all of the general facili- ties charge. John Radnich asked why the line was stopped arbitrar- ily at 150 feet of depth. Mr. Stack stated this was as far back as they could show true benefit. 150 feet is a reasonable point S. E. Radnich used to cut off zone termini charges. S. E. Radnich stated the point is if a sewer line put in on 54th couldn't gravity it up to 53rd and still pick up those properties on the back end. Mr. Stack asked Mr. Radnich if he were suggesting he would build back on that property. Mr. Radnich stated no, but that they could be divided into lots and the possibility is there someday. Mr. Stack stated when and if 54th is developed, you will be looking at a frontage on 54th and this will provide the access for those lots. Referring to the fifth question, Mr. Stack stated in most cases side sewer stubs were installed to vacant lots. S. E. Radnich stated any place along 53rd, his was the only connection, and he had caught the crew going around the corner without putting one in. There isn't even a "T" in that line. Mr. Stack asked if Mr. PUBLIC HEARING Page 5, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. S. E. Radnich Cont. J. P. Larson Dorothy Ford December 10, 1973 54 Radnich had a stub to his property. Mr. Radnich answered yes. Mr. Stack stated if he had ordered one stub, then he was only charged for one stub at $250. John Radnich asked how the one stub would benefit the property if it were later subdivided would you knock a hole in the pipe? Mr. Stack stated the connections could be made other ways. He stated Mr. Radnich has a "T" at the lower end of his lot and his son has one stub, and there is an extra "T" to Lot 4. Mayor Todd asked if one stub can be used for two differ- ent houses. Mr. Stack answered yes, it is possible to run a "Y" branch. S. E. Radnich stated this is not legal anymore; he knows some people in the sewer business and in general a side sewer stub is put out at the low end of the sewer and at every building lot that is located on the LID. And I wonder how many people know that in this LID what it would cost them to put in an extra stub now if they get the road fixed as they plan to someday. For a $250 stub that ought to have been included in the LID, the cost would be at least $1,500 after the paving is put in. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Radnich if he had asked for more than one stub he got. Mr. Radnich stated he didn't think he'd have to, he thought someone would have sense enough to put all the ties under the railroad when they built the track. Mr. Stack stated as for the point of legality, it probably would depend on the governing municipality installing the sewers. He felt the reaction from the people would have been "Why did we spend extra money to put in the extra stubs when no one will ever use them" if extra stubs had been put in along the way. Mr. Radnich stated he ordered a stub and paid for it but if he had not been home that day, the crew would have gone by without putting it in. Mayor Todd stated there is no partici- pating member of this LID who is paying for a stub he did not get. Mr. J. P. Larson stated he did not see a stub for his property. Mr. Stack stated he would review this on the map after the Hearing with Mr. Larson. To answer question 6, Mr. Stack stated the firm of Harstad Associates, Inc. and their inspector are responsible for the paving and drainage for LID #18 and were retained by the City. As far as the drainage, these people are not paying for a drainage LID and they would have been upset if we had gone in with the drainage its going to take on 53rd Ave. and the cost of it. Mr. Radnich stated the County had brought some pipe out and the City put it in. Mr. Stack pointed out the drainage on 53rd was of great concern to the City and himself and we discussed the problem with the County, but the County had no funds to provide drainage for 53rd Ave. Then they did finally manage to come up with the pipe which the City installed. Mayor Todd asked if the LID was charged for this pipe. Public Works Director Steve Hall answered no. Mr. Stack stated the drainage pipe is not at all permanent and will not be adequate. The reason it was installed was to hold the blacktop for a few years. S. E. Radnich stated even hours after a rainfall, water is running over the road. If we have a freeze this winter, there's going to be problems. They only went through the motions with this pipe. Mr. Stack stated they went through the motions to keep what was already there. Mayor Todd stated the previous storm drainage consisted of end to end hot water tanks welded together. Mr. Radnich stated they had worked better than what is there now. Mr. Vern Phifer stated they never did have as much water running over the road until the improvements were made. Orville S. Gusa City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read Mr. Gusa's co�iuuents of protest. Mr. Gusa was not present for further comments. City Clerk Shirlee Kinney read Ms. Ford's comments of protest. Ms. Dorothy Ford, 2600 So. Grant Street, stated her residence is on the lot. Mr. Stack stated the sq. footage is 9,549. Mayor Todd stated she could get by with a septic tank with that size lot, but that she's within 200 feet of the sewer and can no longer do that. Ms. Ford stated the line was within 5 feet of the house. She stat- ed the way the house is situated, it would not be possible to divide or sub divide the property to increase its value. Its on a steep hillside, small and irregular and she feels its overtaxed for the value of the property. She stated she does have access to the property. Mr. Stack stated she has a side sewer stub which benefit: the property; it is not possible to charge different assessments for different values of property. The property receives benefit from the line being installed. If the lot were one that physically PUBLIC HEARING Page 6, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. Dorothy Ford Cont. H. S. Huson Della Sawyer Vern Phifer Roy Schmaltz Victor Pound December 10, 1973 $/7 could not be considered buildable and could not receive benefit from the LID, then she would have room for adjustment or no assess- ment. Ms. Ford stated when she purchased the property, it did not have much value and the rent was low. With these improvements and assessment, she is now in a position of charging more than the average person is able to pay. Mr. Stack stated the assessment is $1,593.12. Ms. Ford stated she understood this amount can be bro- ken down into payments of about $20 plus $8 for the City and Metro. Mr. H. S. Huson, 4046 So. 144th, stated his Lots 17 and 18 are on 54th Ave. if there was a 54th. There is no street or sewer up there and the property is vacant and will continue to be vacant for a long time. He stated he has not heard when the street will be going in. But he indicates there is $382.86 on the notice, correc- tion rather $343.19, and generally charged on 12¢ per sq. foot. And according to that there should be $166.25, because there is 17,750 sq. feet at 12¢ which equals $166.25. Mr. Stack stated if it were 1¢ per sq. foot, it would be $170. Mr. Huson stated if that were doubled, it would be $332 and that would be at 2¢. Mr. Stack stated his figures indicate 17,468. Mr. Huson stated it is 17,750 which should be 125 feet by 142 feet for the two lots, but only one building lot. Its not 150 feet wide there's 8 feet off of it. Mr. Stack stated its very possible this is an arith- metic error. The figures were re- calculated on the board. As a result, $80 had been overcharged to Mr. Huson. Ms. Della Sawyer, 14015 55th Ave. So., stated she had received a bill for LID #5 that is for the back of her lot. She had called the City Treasurer to check this. She asked if she were going to be billed for the same thing under LID #18. She explained she could not use the back of her lot because it is too low. She stated the back of her lot is in LID #5 so why is she being billed now; she had paid $143 under LID #5 and does not want to be billed again for the same piece of ground. Mayor Todd suggested this be set aside and checked to prevent a double payment. Mr. Stack stat- ed there may be an error in billing for this under LID #5. Mr. Vern Phifer, 14038 53rd Ave. So., stated he had already been hooked up and has not received a bill. Mayor Todd stated the bill- ing will go out when the Final Assessment Roll is closed. Mr. Phifer asked if he would be billed back from the time he was hooked on. Mayor Todd stated he would be billed beginning from the time the LID is finally accepted, and stated there is a limited amount of time for those who are not hooked up to do so. Mr. Roy Schmaltz, 13912 51st So., stated it was not possible to go back over 150 feet as Mr. Stack had mentioned and the only way he could use that back portion to hook up is through an easement. Mr. Stack stated this property is assessed on an area charge the same situation as those property owners on 53rd Ave. They referred to the map and Mr. Schmaltz pointed out that the house and building are on the lot line, that there are no side sewers and the assess- ment is in the amount of $198.05. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Schmaltz if he ever planned to develop that property. Mr. Schmaltz replied he did and planned to use a septic tank. Mayor Todd stated a septic tank cannot be allowed in LID #18 and suggested that for $198 Mr. Schmaltz should not cut himself off from building and developing that lot. Mr. Schmaltz asked how he was to hook up if he can't go back over 150 feet. Mr. Stack stated that it was possible to go back over 150 feet but admitted it would be difficult. Mr. Schmaltz was not assessed for over 150 feet on that line because with a side sewer, the slope must be steeper. So if Mr. Schmaltz has to go much further than 150 feet, then the pipe will be coming out of the ground and will not be of much benefit to the slope. Mr. Victor Pound, 5328 So. 140th, stated he was happy with the sewer, but his driveway comes in at a slope and has problems with the new drain field. Mayor Todd stated the City will take a look at it. Mr. Stack stated if there is a problem with the construc- tion, the Harstad people will take a look at it also. Mr. Pound thought this problem might be due to an overrunning storm drain. PUBLIC HEARING Page 7, LID #18 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Cont. John Radnich CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTE APPROVAL December 10, 19735i# Mr. Radnich asked if a person's property was fronted on a street on two sides, how would the zone termini charge be figured? Mr. Stack replied the charge is related to the sewer improvement and not to the street in most cases. Mr. Radnich stated the depth has been limited to 150 feet, and in his case, a new line may come in two or three years on the back of his property, then would he start over at Zone 1 at the back? Those lots now will be benefit ted by the present sewer, but will he get a high assessment from the other side and will he be receiving benefit from the new sewer as well? Mr. Stack stated the only fair way to have done it would have been to install the other sewer first, then the lots would have been assessed back halfway from each street. Mr. Radnich stated he wished to state in the record he understood Mr. Stack to indicate that the existing sewer will service his back lots. Mayor Todd indicated this is the sewer on 53rd Ave. Mr. Radnich is referring to. Mr. Stack stated he was suggesting that Mr. Radnich assessment is based on a benefit to the sewer on 53rd to a depth of 150 feet, yes. Mayor Todd closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 P.M. Mayor Todd thei asked Mr. Stack what action on the complaints is necessary now. Mr. Stack replied that the ordinance be held for one week and the protests would be reviewed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall December 10, 1973 9:26 P.M. Council Chambers M I N U T E S FLAG SALUTE AND CALL Mayor Todd led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting of TO ORDER the Tukwila City Council to order. CRAIN, TRAYNOR, STEVENS, STERLING, JOHANSON, HILL, GARDNER. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY STERLING, THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 1973 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED* Councilman Gardner questioned the sentence under PUBLIC HEARING City Council which stated "Councilman Gardner pointed out that State law allows no limit to the maximum number of meetings." Councilman Gardner referred to the section of the new law which became effective in July, 1973 stating removal of the limit of compensation, but not to exceed $20 per meeting for not more than two meetings per month. Council. man Stevens stated this was true according to that law, but the City ordinance states differently. Mayor Todd asked Councilman Gardner for further explanation as to the change he wished to make in the Minutes. Councilman Gardner stated he wished to point out there is no limit to Councilmen's wages. Mayor Todd stated Counci man Gardner had made reference to meetings in the Minutes although he may have meant to refer to compensation. Then he asked Council. man Gardner if he wished to make a Motion to amend the Minutes. Councilman Gardner replied yes, "I make a Motion that instead of saying 'State law allows no limit to the maximum number of meeting; -that the new State law places the compensation up to the Council by ordinance." SECONDED BY STERLING. Councilman Traynor asked if the sentence in the Minutes was actually stated so in the tapes, City Clerk Shirlee Kinney answered yes. Councilman Traynor then asked Councilman Gardner if he wanted to change this because it isn't worded the way he had wanted to say it. And pointed out the amendment wasn't stated so on the tape. Councilman Gardner stated he did not know what the tape said, but that he was not referring to the number of meetings. Councilman Crain stated, as a point of order, Councilman Gardner has now clarified his statement in the Minutes, but feels the Minutes should reflect what the tape says. Now he has clarified his statement and this will be reflected in the Minutes of this meeting. Mayor Todd called for the question. *GRAIN NO, TRAYNOR NO, STEVENS NO, STERLING NO, JOHANSON NO, HILL NO, GARDNER NO. MOTION DEFEATED TO AMEND THE MINUTES Mayor Todd then called for the question on Minute Approval. *CARRIED.