HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-08 Committee of the Whole MinutesMinutes of June 8, 1998 Page 1 of 13
CALL TO ORDER: Council President Linder called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order and led the
audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Council President Pamela Linder, Councilmembers Joe Duffie, Joan
Hernandez, Dave Fenton, Pam Carter, Steve Mullet, and Jim Haggerton.
OFFICIALS: John Rants, Mayor; John McFarland, City Administrator; Steve Lancaster, Director Community
Development; Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner; Michael Cairres, Department of Community Development;
Duane Griffin, Building Official; Doug Micheau, Public Works Coordinator; Brian Shelton, City Engineer; and
Lucy Lauterbach, Council Analyst.
SPECIAL ISSUES:
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
June 8, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
Suburban Cities Questionnaire on Regional Governance and Finance Plan: Mayor Rants indicated he was
seeking Council consensus and direction on the issue to insure that as Chair of the Suburban Cities Steering
Committee he was properly representing the views of the Council. The Committee is attempting to gain a 60%
percent plurality of suburban cities; recognizing some cities will not accept anything that is proposed. One of
the key issues discussed at the last Steering Committee was that the plan should be revenue neutral. Mayor
Rants indicated it's impossible to develop a revenue neutral plan. He asked City Council what it would take
them to approve the five issues for regional governance and finance.
Councilmembers reviewed each survey question of the Suburban Cities Questionnaire on Regional Governance
and Finance Plan. Councilmember consensus follows each question.
1. Do you believe your city would ratify the RFG Plan as it is proposed today? If no, what are the key
changes that if made, would make it acceptable to your city?
I. Answer: No.
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
III. Councilmembers added: Urban subsidy and include greater city involvement at end of item b.
2. From your city's perspective, are there key elements of the plan that are missing?
I. Answer: Yes
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
3. Lets look at the flip side for a minute. What are the key features in the plan that you would most like
to see stay the way that they are?
I. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
II. Councilmembers added: Add police information services.
III. Councilmembers support paying regionally for a zoo.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 2 of 13
4. If the "Urban Subsidy" (those sales tax dollars currently collected by the County that are being used
to provide "local" services in the unincorporated urban portion of King County) were to be re-
directed to "regional services," how would your city like to see those dollars spent?
I. Councilmembers agreed with priority 1 selection Transition fund to finance infrastructure
improvements in propose annexation areas.
II. Councilmembers agreed with number 2 selection Region -wide human services with the County
matching funding 3 to 1.
III. Discussion on item 3: Councilmember Carter indicated she heard cities could not charge different pool
admission prices based on the user's home location. Administrator McFarland said cities might have to
accept the prerequisites of the bond when a pool is turned over to a jurisdiction until such time the bond
has been paid in full. Councilmember Duffie said he would not support pools as priority number 3 and
would select emergency medical services as the number 3 priority. Councilmember Haggerton
suggested adding the details concerning the issue of pools under question 2. Councilmembers concurred
to add pool concerns to question number 2. Councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember
Duffie, agreed with priority 3 selection Transition fund to finance capital and operating costs of
King County pools moving to city ownership.
IV. Councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Duffie, who preferred to select Animal Control
as priority 4, agreed to priority 4 selection Emergency Medical Services at the end of the current
three -year levy.
Discussion continued on the issue of transferring pools to city ownership effective January 1, 1999. Mayor
Rants provided a brief overview of the Steering Committee's progress concerning the pool issue. A sub-
committee representing the nine cities that have pools has been established to determine what is acceptable to
each city. The issue includes the age of the pools and the need to invest major capital to improve and sustain
them for a reasonable period. One of the questions the sub committee is addressing is what will be the aquatic
needs for the region in the next 15 years. The nine cities along with their respective parks directors are meeting
to determine what the needs will be and how the cities should plan with the possibility of sharing costs between
the cities and the county.
4b. If the major components of the service delivery changes in the RFG Plan were going to be phased
in, how would you most like to see them phased? Mark the option you would most like to see.
I. Councilmembers agreed to reword Other to read: "Set up accountability measures for all sides.
When the accountability standard was met then we would move on to the next phase with
different phases of various programs ranging from 1 -10 years."
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA's)
1. What do you believe are the key issues between the County and the Cities that need to be
addressed in order to reach an agreement related to Potential Annexation Areas?
I. Councilmembers reviewed staff responses to the questions and debated intensely about infrastructure
standards in PAA's prior to annexation and who should be responsible. Councilmember Carter's
position was infrastructure should be brought up to King County standards before an annexation. Mayor
Rants cautioned that if infrastructure was maintained the request for annexations would not materialize
as PAA's would be receiving optimal service levels from the county and there would be no incentive to
annex to the City.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 3 of 13
Mayor Rants said the focus of the regional governance is to require the county to continue supplying the
governance required by rural areas. He cited the example of Federal Way when they discontinued their
contract with King County for police support. King County took back the officers and hired more which
raised doubts by Suburban Cities regarding the efficiency of King County services. He stressed that
Regional Governance and Financing is the most major and important project that Suburban Cities has
ever instigated and that these are the issues Suburban Cities is trying to address in the plan.
In response to a question from Council President Linder, Administrator McFarland said as soon as an
area has indicated a desire to annex or incorporate the county immediately imposes a moratorium on
capital plans for that area.
Council President Linder said the concern is that the county needs to continue to provide necessary
services to those areas that have been identified as PAA's. Mayor Rants said Suburban Cities recognizes
the issue and continues to review ways to address this concern.
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
2. Are you generally comfortable with the Potential Annexation Areas section of the plans as it
stands now?
I. Answer: No.
11. Councilmember concurred with staff recommendation.
3. Does your city have a Potential Annexation Area?
I. Answer: Yes
II. Items a through g were reviewed. Councilmembers concurred with staff responses for items a, b, c, e, f,
and discussed items d (population of PAA) and g (controlling annexation). Councilmembers
recommended staff determine the approximate population of the PAA for item d. Item g (Other) was
reworded to read: "wait until citizens /property owners ask for annexations."
h. Please prioritize the infrastructure in your PAA from one (needing the most improvement)
to 10 (need no improvements).
I. After discussion and review, Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
Pools
1. Do you have a county or city pool in your City.
I. Answer: Yes.
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
Nine Categories of Regional Human Services
1. Are you generally comfortable with this section of the plan?
I. Answer: No.
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendation.
1B. If you are not comfortable with this part of the plan, what key change(s) would make it more
acceptable?
I. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendations and added an additional sentence to read,
"Ensure services are accessible to City residents."
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 4 of 13
II. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendations for items 2, 3, 4, and 5.
6. If human services are transferred to the County, are there accountability measures of types of
city or community involvement that would make you more confident in the quality, quantity
and effectiveness of the services being delivered through the County in your community?
I. Councilmembers concurred with staff recommendations.
Police Specialty Services, Animal Control, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and Zoo.
1. Are you generally comfortable with these sections of the plan?
I. Councilmembers concurred that all answers should be "yes
Councilmember Haggerton requested that under Pools, question c 2, the following be included: "Clarification
of legal requirements is required." Councilmembers concurred with the addition.
Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: Planner Bradshaw referred to Council's review on May 11
regarding the table of 20 strategies, of which 17 were approved. Two outstanding issues remain. Staff requests
Council review the two unresolved issues concerning the aggregation of redevelopment sites and residential
densities and provide feedback regarding the preferred direction and concept that will be developed further
through public hearing and Planning Commission processes.
Planner Bradshaw said staff reviewed Council's concerns on aggregation of redevelopment sites and considered
additional conditions that should be included in the concept as it moves through the legislative process. Staff
has modified the information and is presenting a new packet for Council's review.
Site 3 was dropped from consideration, with a total of four sites proposed as potential redevelopment sites. The
major sites are expanding current existing commercial areas, so the uses are not necessarily new uses to the area.
Standards were reviewed and compared against the MDR primarily as opposed to the NCC and/or the RC and
what was discovered was the major difference was primarily in the front yard setbacks and staff recommends
that in those conditions special attention to the front yard streetscapes is warranted at the time a redevelopment
proposal is submitted.
The Task Force has recommended approval of the aggregation redevelopment concept with some conditions and
the community has approved the concept with some concerns regarding buffering and maintaining an MDR
buffer. Planner Bradshaw said Council's approval of the concept would begin the legislative process involving
public hearings and Planning Commission review and recommendation. The proposed recommendation would
be represented to City Council for final approval or disapproval.
Councilmembers reviewed each of the four sites to determine Council direction:
Site 1
Councilmember Duffle said he approves of the sites for aggregation redevelopment and indicated the
community is backing the concept. Councilmember Carter expressed concerns regarding setback requirements
and adequate buffers and indicated more emphasis is needed on landscaping buffers and setback requirements
when commercial abuts residential.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 5 of 13
Councilmembers concurred with concept for aggregation redevelopment.
Site 2
Planner Bradshaw explained that the proposed redevelopment area is fronted by LDR to the north and to the east
and MDR to the south. There are two sites included in the proposal with the idea that there might be an
opportunity to use some of the right -of -way and allow redevelopment to occur on the south side as well as to the
north side of the street. Redevelopment conditions are also very sensitive to the surrounding development to the
east and north along 42 in that, 42 is a residential street which does not allow commercial traffic until you
reach 160 That exception should be preserved. However, it's important to insure to an applicant investing in
this area that they would have an option of doing what they could with the site in terms of designing and laying
it out so that it works effectively for them.
Planner Bradshaw noted there are several different redevelopment scenarios for the proposed area.
Councilmembers discussed the different property configurations and limitations for properties if standalone
redevelopment were to occur. Councilmember Carter expressed concerns with the narrow dimensions of one of
the properties and the likelihood that it might be conducive to strip mall redevelopment, which is something the
City is opposed to. Planner Bradshaw said there are a number of redevelopment avenues that can be applied to
this site. Councilmembers discussed vacating the street and expressed varying opinions if that option would be
viable. Councilmember Carter expressed concern with having the smaller piece of property developing
independently from the others.
Councilmember Mullet said he did not have any problem with a street vacation but expressed concerns that
vacating the street would force traffic to move to other streets, which would need to be improved to
accommodate increased use.
Discussion continued on the lots, related traffic, redevelopment issues and which pieces should or should not be
aggregated.
Council consensus was reached to approve three options for aggregated development (1) aggregate the L-
shape configuration, (2) aggregate all four properties together, or (3) include smaller property with larger
property for aggregation.
Site 4
Council President Linder indicated the Task Force recommended approval with no additional modification.
Council concurred with proposed concept recommended by staff.
Site 5
Planner Bradshaw said a comment was received regarding a preference for maintaining a MDR district between
the commercial and residential. However, staff believes this site is a strong candidate for redevelopment due to
the current uses and vacant properties. Planner Bradshaw noted the six residential properties were developed
with single family dwellings. Property owners within 300 of the proposed redevelopment site would receive
notification of public hearings. Councilmember Carter expressed some concern with insuring buffering
between commercial and single family is maintained.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 6 of 13
Councilmembers reviewed abutting businesses and surrounding lots. Councilmembers concurred with staff
recommendation.
Residential Densities:
Planner Bradshaw said the issue relates to market expansion and that market expansion is an important element
in the strategic plan. Concerns have been expressed regarding the viability of current mixed use zones and the
mixed use development option because of the 14 units per acre density standard. Additionally, along with
market expansion and density, staff is recommending Council consider allowing residential uses above or
behind, with specific conditions, in the RC zone. She emphasized that the concept of residential development
along Highway 99 would require a Planning Commission process that would include a detailed legislative
proposal, subject to public hearings.
Planner Bradshaw referred to Council's concerns regarding density and indicated staff has prepared a slide show
that provides examples of different levels of density involving local development projects.
Michael Cairres, DCD displayed numerous examples of different housing developments in and around Tukwila.
The following projects were reviewed:
Slide 1 Mixed used zoning consisting of the Alliance Gate Project in Redmond. Two restaurants
are located on each side of the building. Density is 35 units per acre (zoned for 55) with
two assigned parking spaces per unit. Director Lancaster noted that often developments
develop at lower density levels than the maximum due to market conditions:
Slide 2 Located in the 5400 block of 5th NE Seattle, an 18,000 square foot parcel with 15 units.
Density is 35 units per acre. Total parking is 8 or 1.2 spaces per unit. Retail is located on
the first floor with residential on the upper three floors.
Slide 3 8300 Block of 5 Ave NE, Seattle. Located on a 6,300 square feet lot with 5 units above
and some retail. Density is zoned at 36 dwelling units per acre with seven street parking
spaces, or 1.4 spaces per unit.
Slide 4 6000 Block California Ave in West Seattle. A ,9400 square foot parcel with 8 units,
zoned at 36 units per acre with 13 parking spaces or 1.4 spaces per unit.
Slide 5 1600 Block of Queen Anne. With 7,300 a square foot consisting of 12 units at 72 units
density per acre. There are 22 parking spaces or 1.8 space per unit.
Slide 6 6500 Block of California Ave in West Seattle. Located on a 15,000 square foot parcel
with 33 units. Density is 87 units per acre and parking spaces number 46 or 1.4 per
parking spaces per unit.
Slide 7 1400 West Nickerson, Seattle, 82 residential units located on 36,000 square foot parcel
with density at 93 units per acre. There are 107 parking spaces or 1.3 per unit.
Slide 8 7400 Block of Greenwood Ave in North Seattle on a 12,000 square foot parcel with 36
units. Density is 126 units per acre and the development includes 48 off street parking
spaces.
Slide 9 400 Block of Valley Road, Seattle on a 11,000 square foot parcel consisting of 36 units,
at 135 units per acre density with 46 off street parking spaces or 1.3 per unit.
Slide 10 Residential Tukwila: Located on 40 Ave South, a 145,000 square foot parcel with 72
units or 23 units per acre density with 2 parking spaces per unit.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 7 of 13
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Grant Harris Apartments located on 39 Place consists of 103,000 square foot parcel with
57 units at 24 units per acre density with 2 parking spots per unit. Some of which is
garage space.
Colony Square Condos in the 13,000 Block of 37 with a 96,000 square foot parcel with
62 units and 28 units per acre density with 2 parking spaces per unit.
Located in the 9000 Block of 13 Ave NW, a 54,000 square foot parcel with 7 units, with
54 units per acre density with 8 off street parking spaces.
Located in the 8300 Block of Lake City Way NE, a 14,000 square foot parcel consisting
of 36 units, with 86 units per acre density allowed with 37 spaces of off street parking.
Located in the 3900 block of California Ave, West Seattle a 58,000 square foot parcel
with 12 units, at 89 units per acre density. There are 12 parking spaces.
1312 32 Ave NE, 6600 square foot parcel with 16 units with 105 units per acre density
and 36 off street parking spaces.
Councilmember Mullet noted that a 6,120 square foot apartment complex is smaller than a single family
residential and at five units, there is not enough space for setbacks or landscaping. Staff responded and said that
is one of the issues of increasing density. If modifications are not made to development standards regarding
setback, landscaping and other standards, higher levels of density will be difficult to achieve.
Councilmember Carter said she could see allowing higher density along the river but not in the NCC districts.
Council President Linder said the goal is to allow redevelopment at a higher density level to encourage property
owners to redevelop and transition out the older rundown developments. She indicated she does not want
anything that would dramatically change, but said if density levels are not increased, developers will not
develop, which mean conditions will not improve. She asked staff what the minimum density level would be to
encourage development.
Councilmember Carter stressed that parking needs have to be considered and if density were increased,
underground parking would be necessary for builders to meet the required parking, landscaping, and setback
requirements.
Councilmembers continued discussing density, parking, design standards, setback requirements, and
landscaping.
Director Lancaster said there are several things the Council can consider in assisting them in determining if
increasing densities in Tukwila is the appropriate action. First, if the Council's main focus and objective is how
a complex looks and interacts within the neighborhood, that can be attained by development standards and
design review. Second, if the Council's concern is more towards limiting school enrollment or lessening impact
to community services and infrastructure, then controlling density is the objective.
Planner Bradshaw said the obstacle is the current density maximum of 14 units per acre in mixed use zones.
Director Lancaster noted that its important to not include high density in established single family residential
neighborhoods. Planner Bradshaw indicated the issue relates to NCC and RC zones which is surrounded by
MDR and HDR.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 8 of 13
Councilmember Mullet suggested one way of controlling parking spaces is by dictating how many bedrooms a
unit has or number of low income housing units. Director Lancaster cautioned that those types of limitations
could be accomplished if the project involves public financing, and that generally, those limitations are difficult
to enforce or control.
Director Lancaster said the City has been successful in using design standards to preclude development from
becoming slums. However, they also have not been in existence long enough to know if that is a given.
Councilmembers continued reviewing their concerns regarding density levels. Council President Linder and
Councilmember Fenton expressed acceptance of increasing density to promote development. Council President
Linder indicated increasing the density level to 30 might not be sufficient to cause any interest in building based
on comments from the Real Estate Forum.
Director Lancaster said there may be confusion on the issue and clarified that one issue relates to increasing
interest in developing mixed use in the NCC district and the other relates to existing multifamily development in
MDR and LDR districts that currently allow up to 20 to 30 units per acre.
Councilmember Hernandez remarked that most of the developments depicted on the slides are being built below
allowable density and that developers do not necessarily build out to maximum density to realize a profit.
Mayor Rants said the goal is to use the City's development standards to achieve what the City desires along
Highway 99 and other areas in the City. If a unit or a development has enough units to be economically viable,
it will be maintained. He indicated most of the rental units that are below standard are the result of bad
management.
Councilmembers concurred and recommended staff proceed with "eliminating the "unit per acre" density
standard for mixed use developments in the NCC district, instead relying on the existing setback, height,
landscaping and parking standards to establish project density" concept.
Planner Bradshaw said another issue staff needs direction on concerns allowing residential in the RC zone.
Comments from the last review indicated Council concurred with allowing residential along Military Road but
not on Highway 99. Staff recommends that Council consider the overall package of allowing residential not
only along Military Road but also above and behind commercial development along Highway 99. Planner
Bradshaw pointed out the two RC sections that would allow residential.
Council President Linder said the Task Force concurs that residential should be allowed in the RC zone.
Councilmember Mullet said he had concerns with allowing anymore high density residential, regardless of what
the City's standards are, until the current housing blights are eliminated. Unless they are removed, developers
are not going to develop a quality site unless the surrounding area is of the same quality.
Councilmembers Hernandez, Duffie, Haggerton, and Council President Linder concurred with staff's
recommendation. Councilmembers Mullet and Carter were opposed to the concept.
With a majority, Council President Linder concurred that residential should be allowed in the RC zone but only
above and behind development and not directly on Pacific Highway.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 9 of 13
Director Lancaster concluded his comments and said staff would (1) finalize a Council draft of the
Revitalization Plan for pending adoption, and (2) with the annual review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments
coming due, staff has direction on several areas to proceed to the Planning Commission for potential
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Staff will prepare those items for Council review and approval to the
Planning Commission.
An ordinance adopting the 1997 State Building Code: Director Lancaster said every three years the State
Building Code Council adopts new codes. This year they adopted the 1997 State Building Code and mandated
that jurisdictions administer and implement the codes.
The City has some flexibility in terms of the administrative requirements of the code, but in terms of substantive
requirements they are minimum codes adopted by the state that does not provide for local jurisdiction flexibility
in how they are adopted. Tukwila's code does have specific provisions such as relocation of buildings and the
demolition of buildings. He indicated he wanted to review some proposed changes that would refine some
aspects of the codes pertaining to demolition and relocation of buildings that would make it more efficient to
administer and easier for property owners.
The proposed state code does include a moderate increase in fees based on the Consumer Price Index for
construction over the past three years. These increases are also reflected in the proposed changes to the code.
Two provisions in the draft ordinances include some incorrect references and should be corrected to read:
(Page 3 of proposed ordinance) Section 16.04.120 A. "If the building or structure to be moved fails to
meet any of the standards set forth in TMC 16.04.100, but it appears to the Building Official that the
deficiencies can be corrected, the permits shall be issued only on condition that all deficiencies be corrected
prior to the building being used or occupied."
(Page 4 of proposed ordinance) Section 16.04.150 A. "It shall be the duty of any person to whom any
permit is issued for the demolition or removal of any building or any section or portion of any building pursuant
to the provisions of this chapter, and of any person leasing, owning, or occupying or controlling any lot or parcel
of ground from which a building is remove or demolished, to remove all demolition rubble and loose
miscellaneous material from such lot or parcel of ground, to properly cap the sanitary sewer connections, and to
properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells and other excavations."
The codes become effective July 1, 1998 and staff is requesting formal adoption by Council prior to the
effective date.
Councilmember Duffie said the Community and Parks Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance and has
recommended adoption of the ordinance.
Councilmember Mullet asked what specific changes the state adopted relative to the relocation permit. Director
Lancaster said specific changes are not being requested on the relocation section but on the section pertaining to
demolition. Currently, the provision requires that all concrete has to be removed from the demolition site.
There have been cases where remaining concrete was going to be reused by the property owner and the removal
wasn't necessary. In addition, a requirement pertaining to bonding for demolitions had created some problems
in that some property owners who had been contacted about demolishing an unsafe site then discovered they
were required to post a $25,000 bond. Upon learning of the bonding requirements, many owners elected not to
have the unsafe site demolished. Director Lancaster said however, a bond is still required to relocate a structure.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 10 of 13
Councilmembers concurred to move staff's request for approval of the ordinance adopting the 1997 State
Building Code to the regular meeting of the City Council for action.
Council President Linder recessed the meeting for a five minute break.
A resolution establishing procedures for the naming of city property: Councilmember Duffie said the
Community Affairs Parks Committee recommends Council approval of the resolution. The new resolution
includes naming of streets in addition to naming of property. Councilmember Haggerton said a couple of
changes includes the option of naming property after living persons, as well as deceased individuals as currently
allowed in Resolution 981 and the previous 120 -day waiting period has been reduced to a 30 -day waiting
period.
Administrator McFarland said the revised resolution is almost identical in many respects to the present
resolution, however he noted that under Section 1 C, since the Fire Marshal actually approves the names of
numbered streets, the reference to the City's Building Official should be changed to the City's Fire Marshal to
more accurately reflect what actually occurs.
Councilmember Carter said the previous policy of refraining from naming of property after living individuals is
more consistent with her beliefs, however she said she doesn't want to outright prohibit the practice in special
circumstances.
The proposed resolution will be forwarded for action at the Council's Regular meeting.
An agreement extending the date for completion of TCI franchise obligations. Public Works Coordinator
Micheau said the franchise ordinance entered into between the City and TCI in 1994 stipulated some obligations
that TCI needed to fulfill to contract for a 15 -year franchise with the City. The time period for fulfilling those
obligations expired on March 18, 1998. TCI has since requested an extension due to some extenuating
circumstances within their organization. Staff has indicated the City is willing to agree to an extension of the
terms in return for other provisions to the City.
Negotiations between the City and TCI have been intense and prolonged and staff recommends the proposed
agreement to extend franchise obligations be moved forward for approval by Council.
Coordinator Micheau said the agreement includes provisions for inspecting and permitting costs that were not
included in the draft agreement reviewed by the Utilities Committee. In addition, Station 52 was added for fiber
optic connectivity to City Hall and maintenance of the Pacific Highway surveillance camera system will be
maintained for the next five years by TCI. Additionally, a provision to provide services to homes not currently
receiving service has been included at no additional cost.
Coordinator Micheau responded to Councilmembers questions concerning cable service to specific areas and
assured the Council TCI will provide access to cable service at no additional costs for line extension and service
above and beyond what is associated with "normal" service initiation.
The proposed resolution was referred to the Regular Council meeting for approval.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 11 of 13
Fort Dent irrigation with reclaimed water final tri -Harty agreement: Councilmember Mullet said the
issue evolved around the fact of using reclaimed water to replace potable water that the City is already selling.
If the city sells reclaimed water at a lower cost than potable water, than the City loses revenue. Even with the
20% cost reduction from the treatment plant for potable costs, the City had to charge 85% to Parks to recoup
overhead revenue.
REPORTS:
Mayor Rants shared a letter from County Executive Ron Sims to Representative Vance regarding Vance's
support of Tukwila's preferred light rail alignment alternatives.
Sims' letter went on to say that he met with Mayor Rants who expressed concerns about the proposed
Highway 99 alignment and the City's preference for an alignment serving Southcenter. Analyzing all four
alternatives will provide the other Sound Transit boardmembers and me the pros and cons of each alignment.
Sims anticipates selecting a "locally preferred alternative" alignment early next year.
Discussion between Councilmembers followed concerning what "locally preferred alternative" really meant in
relation to Tukwila. Councilmember Carter said the definition is tied to federal funding and whatever RTA
determines is what becomes the "locally preferred alternative."
Rants informed the Council that private construction through May of 1998 is approximately $19.6 million
compared to $9 million last year. In May, construction permits were issued for an approximately $12.5 million.
Rants said the City of Shoreline has proposed three resolutions to AWC concerning utility taxes. Shoreline has
requested information regarding Tukwila's position on the resolutions. The first resolution concerns the Utility
Tax Authority and whether Shoreline has the right to non taxation by Seattle City Light and do they have the
right to tax themselves within their own city on Seattle City Light services. Councilmembers concurred that
they support the resolution.
The second resolution regards electricity restructuring equal representation which supports regulations insuring
that all residential electrical service customers are represented in the ratemaking process by officials they elect
or by a government agency with a statutory requirement to protect their interests. In other words, can Seattle
impose whatever rate the market will bear on Shoreline or must Shoreline be represented in the rate structuring
or the WTUC? Councilmember concurred that they support the resolution.
The third resolution pertains to duty to serve. The resolution is to support the establishment of specific service
areas for electrical service providers and duty to serve. In other words, can Seattle cut electrical service to cities
if they do not agree with Seattle City Light?
Rants shared a letter from the Seattle City Mayor and Councilmember to the City of Shoreline stating Seattle is
willing to provide street lighting and wire undergrounding on terms adopted by Shoreline with the
understanding the costs will be borne by the Shoreline community. Seattle will not constrain its rate setting
authority beyond the requirements of state law. Seattle indicated in the letter they are willing to provide cities
they serve an opportunity to review and comment on proposals affecting constituents. Seattle also indicated a
willingness to split the 6% percent utility tax revenues they receive from suburban customers with respective
jurisdictions, but only on the proceeds of the tax they collect on the power revenues (3 not the transmission
line revenue (3
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 12 of 13
Rants asked for Council's direction on pursuing the potential tax revenue share. Councilmembers advised Rants
to track and pursue the issue but not too aggressively.
Rants said the Suburban Cities Steering Subcommittee is working on pools and will be meeting at the
Community Center on Tuesday, May 16 at 9:00 with officials from nine cities, city park directors, and the
county park director. Another subcommittee established consists of officials representing six cities to review
PAA's. Both subcommittees will provide recommendations to the Steering Committee on finance, timelines,
and other issues relating to PAA's.
Councilmember Duffie reminded everyone of Chief Waldner's retirement luncheon on Friday, June 12 at the
Community Center. Duffie attended a levy celebration at Vern Meryhew's residence celebrating the passage of
the school bond.
Duffie met with Community Affairs and Parks Committee earlier in the evening and reviewed agenda items
pertaining to the RTA station area planning. RTA's planning schedule was distributed to committee members
listing RTA's schedule through August 1998. Additionally, a tenants union was discussed. No action on a
tenants union is anticipated for Tukwila.
Councilmember Hernandez said she would like to receive a recommendation from staff regarding a tenants
union. She stated it is an effective tool for apartment managers to evict people quickly who cause problems.
Hernandez indicated a Tukwila resident who felt she had been unjustly evicted with only a 20 -day notice raised
the issue. The resident has asked Tukwila to consider a tenants union to protect from unjust evictions.
Councilmember Fenton said he is not in favor of changing the policy relating to tenant evictions. Staff
concurred.
Hernandez attended the Equity and Diversity meeting on June 4. Two guests, Albert Alveria, a
diversity management consultant and Jane Rae, Regional Program Manager for Department of Social and
Health Services attended the meeting. In addition, a video on adult illiteracy was shown.
Van service for Tukwila days was also reviewed. Metro has been contacted and they have indicated they can
provide an 18- passenger shuttle van. Pickup sites include the three elementary schools Tukwila, Cascade, and
Thorndyke, and Foster High School. It is recommended that notices be sent home with students regarding the
shuttle service. The shuttle will run every 20 minutes.
Hernandez said she also received a request for a central info number for people with hearing disabilities.
Administrator McFarland said the number has been in existence for six years and has received two calls. The
number is published in Tukwila's Hazelnut newsletter and in all public hearing notices of the City.
Hernandez said she is pleased with the Mayor's appointments to the Equity and Diversity Commission. The
Commission however has voted not to meet in July due to vacations and has requested the appointments be
postponed until the August meeting. She noted that there might be a conflict with the Sister City visitation.
McFarland provided an update on the Ikawa delegation visitation dates. The delegation will be arriving in
Tukwila on July 30, 1998.
Minutes of June 8, 1998 Page 13 of 13
Mayor Rants and Councilmember Hernandez discussed the appointment date of the Equity and Diversity
Commission members and agreed to set a date of notification after schedules are confirmed.
Hernandez requested the City allocate funding for the purchase of books for Commission members on
"Governing Diverse Communities."
Hernandez attended an open house for a housing development. The site is a former missile base and consists of
27 units. It is an incentive program for people who are working or going to school. Residents are eligible for a
three -year stay that assists them in transitioning into the workforce. The open house was held on Friday, June 5.
The development is located near Valley Medical Center.
Council President Linder said she would be unable to attend the Highway 99 Action Committee on Tuesday,
June 9. The first meeting for the homeless shelter meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 11.
Councilmember Carter attended Tukwila Appreciation Night on June 2, 1998. On June 4, Carter attended a
scoping meeting on King County 2000. The next meeting is scheduled for June 23.
Carter referred to the letter that Suburban Cities is proposing to send regarding a gas tax and asked
Councilmembers concurrence of the letters intent.
Carter will attend the Transportation Committee on Tuesday, June 9. Two agenda items include an agreement
on the Highway 99 redevelopment project and the T.I.P.
Councilmember Haggerton attended the ACC meeting on Wednesday, June 3. He said one item of interest
from the ACC meeting concerned a discussion on how to review the basics of developing a Comp Plan and how
important the terms may, shall, and will are in the plan. He indicated those words are often misinterpreted and
can lead to lawsuits. Haggerton will also be attending a Juvenile Justice meeting on Wednesday, June 10 from
8 -12.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Moved by Duffie, seconded by Hernandez, to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Motion
carried 7 -0.
Pamela Linder, Council President
eicAL
'�a�erie Gow, Recording Secretarj